Advancing UX Practices in Industrial Machine Design: A Case Study from the Swiss Industry

Abstract

Recent technological advances in the context of Industry 4.0 (I4.0) profoundly affect machine design and the operator’s role. The machines are not only more complex to operate but must be adapted to non-specialist profiles because of the shortage of skilled labor in the industrial sector. To ensure the sustainability of their activities in a rapidly changing industrial landscape, machine manufacturers need to place greater emphasis on the user experience (UX) of their machines to offer interactions that are more intuitive, efficient, safe, and appealing. However, despite a recognized need for UX practices in I4.0 from the industry and their documented benefits in software development, the Swiss machinery industry (SMI) faces difficulties in implementing such practices. This paper uses quantitative and qualitative research methods based on action research to provide an in-depth analysis of the relationship between the SMI and UX practices. A study of the organizational structure and product development dynamics of three partner companies identified specific barriers to the effective integration and adoption of UX practices. Strategies for overcoming them were then identified and validated through field testing with practitioners of two companies. Finally, the strategies deployed have been reformulated into 28 broader recommendations for action aimed at machine manufacturers.

1. Introduction

1.1. Industry 4.0 and the Changing Nature of Human–Machine Interaction

Recent technological innovations, such as cloud, IoT, and AI, are profoundly changing the industrial sector and marking a turning point towards Industry 4.0 (I4.0). The machine tools 4.0 must now be connected and semi-autonomous [1] to be more efficient regarding resources and manufacturing capacity [2,3]. This evolution profoundly impacts machine design and the operator’s role [4,5] increasing both the complexity of the machines themselves and the way operators interact with them [6]. HMIs are becoming increasingly sophisticated and can communicate large quantities of data in real time, which tends to pose learnability and usability problems [7]. The shortage of skilled labor in the industrial sector (see, e.g., [8]) makes this transition even more challenging for manufacturers. As well as being more complex, the machines must be accessible to non-specialist profiles and minimize training requirements.

In this context, the user-centered design (UCD) approach appears to be an effective response. UCD is an iterative approach that involves users throughout the design process and focuses on their needs and objectives [9]. This approach has proven to be essential for improving the user experience (UX) and gaining a competitive edge [10] even within the specific domain of HMIs [11]. The importance of usability and user experience in I4.0 has been officially recognized at both the European policy level [12] (p. 73) and by industry leaders [13] (p. 43). By better understanding operators’ cognitive functions and activities, UCD enables the design of more intuitive interfaces, helping to increase operator efficiency, expand production capacity, and lower barriers for less-experienced users [14].

1.2. Challenges Specific to the Swiss Machinery Industry

This study focuses specifically on the Swiss machinery industry (SMI), which is particularly affected by these challenges and represents approximately 8% of the national workforce, underscoring its economic relevance [15]. These companies, highly export-oriented and deeply embedded in international value chains, are under increasing international pressure [16]. I4.0 represents a significant challenge for the long-term sustainability of their economic activities. The reliability and precision that once ensured the competitiveness of Swiss machines are no longer sufficient; customers are now demanding the integration of new digital technologies [17]. The unique configuration of these organizations, which are predominantly SMEs [18] with some facing limited resources and significant external constraints, raises specific challenges for the internal integration of UX practices. This is particularly relevant given that several studies have shown that the adoption and integration of UX practices vary significantly depending on company size and sector of activity (see, e.g., [19,20,21]).

1.3. UX Maturity in the SMI: Preliminary Observations and Hypotheses

Despite the acknowledged need for UX practices in I4.0 and their documented benefits in software development [22], preliminary observations suggest that the UX maturity within the SMI is relatively low.

In this paper, UX practices refer to activities, methods, and tools used within organizations to enable the implementation of UCD. UX maturity is defined as an organization’s ability to adopt and integrate these UX practices in a structured and sustained manner, with the goal of achieving business objectives. Throughout this paper, Integration is used to refer to the systematic and sustained incorporation of UX practices within the organization’s processes and workflows, focusing on the structural level. By contrast, the term adoption refers to the actual use of UX practices by the sector, teams, or individuals, focusing on the practical level. The broader term implementation is sometimes used to encompass both concepts.

On this basis, the hypothesis is advanced that the limited UX maturity observed in the SMI results from a combination of structural and cultural barriers specific to the sector. Both this hypothesis and the initial observation of low UX maturity are grounded in multiple collaborations between the authors and SMI companies in the fields of ergonomics and UX design in recent years. These experiences have notably revealed a deeply rooted technocentric mindset, where technical excellence and mechanical performance are prioritized over user interaction and experience. This lack of adoption and integration also appears to be linked to a low level of software maturity, defined here as an organization’s ability to develop, maintain, and evolve software using structured processes. While software maturity is not in itself an indicator of UX maturity, it may constitute a necessary condition for its effective development. Since UX practices have historically emerged from software engineering [23], they are closely tied to the development of interactive systems and the organizational structuring that such development requires. Approaches such as agile methods can facilitate the deployment of UX practices by drawing on common principles such as co-construction, rapid iteration, and acceptance of uncertainty [24]. These impressions are further supported by existing studies highlighting the sector’s historically low level of digital readiness. For example, a 2014 Deloitte report revealed that only a third of Swiss industrial companies had the IT infrastructure required for digital transformation, and just 4% had the internal expertise needed to support it [25]. The SMI’s awareness of the strategic importance of software, and by extension of usability and UX issues, has only emerged relatively recently.

1.4. Gaps in the Existing Literature

The specific characteristics of the Swiss machinery industry, combined with the well-documented influence of organizational factors and corporate culture on the implementation of UX practices, underline the need to investigate UX implementation in this particular industrial context. These observations underline the need to investigate UX practices in specific industrial contexts, such as the machinery sector. A review of the literature reveals three main gaps that currently limit a deeper understanding of UX implementation in such settings. First, although UX strategies and maturity models have been widely studied, most are based on research conducted in the IT sector. While some work addresses user integration in machine design [4,17,26,27], few studies explore the cultural and organizational factors influencing UX adoption in the machinery and manufacturing industries. Corbett [26] provides an early example by examining UCD in advanced manufacturing technologies, whereas Nielsen et al. [21] present a more recent case from the Danish robotics sector. A systematic investigation of UX maturity and its organizational drivers in the machinery industry remains lacking. Second, UX practices in Switzerland have been studied to some extent [28,29], but only within the IT sector, through surveys and interviews conducted over a decade ago. No research has examined the specific characteristics of the SMI in relation to UX, nor has it proposed or validated strategies adapted to its organizational realities. Third, few studies investigate UX practices “from the inside” of companies. As noted by Ardito et al. [30], immersive and participatory approaches remain rare, yet are essential to uncover the real-life constraints and tacit practices that often go unnoticed in declarative studies. Some works, such as Ardito et al. [30] and more recently Nielsen et al. [21], have made initial contributions in this direction, but overall, few studies have demonstrated the concrete benefits of UX through in situ interventions designed to convince practitioners with tangible outcomes.

1.5. Research Objectives

To address this research gap, this paper adopts a mixed-methods approach grounded in action research and conducted with three industrial partner companies. More specifically, the study seeks to answer the following research questions:

• RQ1. What is the current state of adoption and integration of UX practices in the Swiss machinery industry?
• RQ2. Are there any barriers to the adoption and integration of UX practices by the Swiss machinery industry, and if so, what are they?
• RQ3. What strategies can be implemented to overcome these barriers and promote both the adoption and effective integration of UX practices in the Swiss machinery industry?

To address these questions, the paper provides an in-depth analysis of the SMI relationship with UX practices, exploring the key factors contributing to its limited UX maturity and the barriers hindering the adoption and integration of these practices. The document then proposes concrete recommendations for action, which, although developed based on a study of three companies, are hypothesized to be applicable to other organizations in the sector facing similar barriers. In this paper, the terms “barriers” and “obstacles” are used interchangeably to refer to structural, cultural, or organizational factors that hinder the integration or adoption of UX practices.

2. Materials and Methods

A mixed-methods approach was used, as described by Easterbrook et al. [31], a choice justified by the project’s inclusion of empirical research questions (RQ1 and RQ2) and design questions (RQ3). This approach provided rich qualitative insights into software and UX maturity within industrial companies, the identification of barriers and enablers for UX adoption and integration, and the suggestion of actionable strategies.

The research activities followed a four-phase sequential explanatory strategy [31] (p. 303) grounded in action research to enable direct validation of findings with field practitioners. These phases included (1) an exploratory survey, (2) multiple case studies, (3) action research, and (4) synthesis of findings, as detailed in the following sections. The simultaneous triangulation strategy, which aims to confirm, cross-validate, or corroborate the results of a mixed-methods approach, was utilized [31] (p. 304).

2.1. Profile of Partner Companies

The study was conducted in collaboration with three international machine tool manufacturers based in Switzerland (hereafter referred to as partner companies C1, C2, and C3). The three companies were selected not only for their relevance within the sector but also based on their willingness to provide in-depth access to internal processes, which was essential for the qualitative nature of this study. They share the following characteristics:

• Their headquarters are based in Switzerland;
• The number of employees in Switzerland ranged from 360 to 700 (mean = 478.7, SD ≈ 191.8);
• Two of the companies are considered SMEs and are representative of the SMI sector, while the third is a larger company introducing diversity among the cases;
• All three companies demonstrated an initial level of engagement and interest in UX-related issues;
• Their UX maturity levels ranged from low to emerging, according to the definitions provided by Pernice et al. [32];
• The adoption of agile development approaches is relatively recent at all three companies and is still maturing.

These companies wish to remain anonymous. Consequently, the data presented in this paper have been anonymized and are limited to what is strictly necessary.

2.2. Stage 1: Survey on UX Practices

An exploratory, self-administered online survey was conducted among practitioners in the SMI to assess UX maturity, explore how software development is structured within organizations, and identify key barriers and drivers for the adoption and integration of UX practices. The use of an exploratory survey is justified by its ability to reach a broader range of participants early in the project, and is aligned with common practices in UX research, including prior studies using similar approaches [30].

2.2.1. Sampling and Participant Recruitment

The survey targeted anyone involved in software development across all hierarchical levels, regardless of their knowledge of UX practices. However, respondents had to be employed by companies meeting the following criteria: (1) the products developed include an operator interface, (2) development activities are based, fully or partially, in Switzerland, (3) the company employs more than one staff member, and (4) the company operates within the industrial sector.

Following an initial selection based on the previously mentioned criteria, 54 requests for participation were sent (38 nominative and 16 to generic email addresses) to 44 companies across all Swiss regions. Each company was initially contacted by telephone to explain the project’s objectives and, if agreed, to provide an email address to which the survey could be sent. Between 26 January 2024 and 21 February 2024, 21 individuals participated in the survey, resulting in a participation rate of 38%.

2.2.2. Survey Design and Content

The questionnaire included 57 closed-ended questions, combining multiple-choice formats and four-point Likert scales, and was structured into 11 thematic sections. An overview of these sections, along with sample questions, is provided in

Table A1. Survey themes and examples of questions (non-exhaustive).

Themes	Sample Questions	Type of Answer
Introduction 1
Screening questions	One or more of the products you are developing incorporates a digital operator interface	Yes/no
Participant information	What position do you hold in your organization?	Software engineer Ergonomist Product manager Project manager Graphist Designer R&D manager UX specialist Other (open answer)
Organization information	How many people are employed in your organization?	1 to 9 10 to 49 50 to 249 250 or more I don’t know
Software maturity
Software development organization	Do you use one or more of the following development methods?	Agile Lean Waterfall We do not use any specific methods I don’t know Other (open answer)
UX maturity
Participant’s UX knowledge	Do you have a specific UX training? (includes training in related fields such as psychology or ergonomics)	I have no UX training Certifying training University diploma Self-training Other (open answer)
Organization’s UX maturity	Does your organization employ UX specialist(s) (e.g., UX specialists, ergonomists)?	Yes No I don’t know
	Is there a group or entity specifically dedicated to UX practices within your organization?	Yes No I don’t know
UX practices implementation by the organization	Most projects integrate a UX approach	Likert scale (4 points)
	Your organization involves end-users in the design of its products.	Likert scale (4 points)
Barriers in implementing UX
Perceived barriers	Privacy issues are a barrier in the implementation of UX approach	Likert scale (4 points)
	It’s hard to reconcile meeting deadlines and applying a UX approach.	Likert scale (4 points)
Benefits in implementing UX
Perceived benefits of UX	Customers increasingly value the products user experience	Likert scale (4 points)
	Including users in the design process reduces development costs	Likert scale (4 points)
Methods used by the organization
Methods used	Which of the following practices are used in projects and how often? (If you are not familiar with practice, leave the line blank) (4-point likert scale)	User interviews Usability tests Observations Personas Prototyping …

¹ Color is used to highlight the main sections of the questionnaire for visual clarity. All highlights serve this same purpose.

. It was administered using Microsoft Forms and made available in both French and German to maximize accessibility and representativeness across linguistic regions. Four-point Likert scales were used to encourage participants to take a clear position by avoiding a neutral midpoint, thereby reducing social desirability bias [33].

Questions related to software practices focused on (1) the size and growth of the software department and (2) development methodologies (waterfall, agile, lean, no specific method). This gave us a global understanding of the context of the software department and its proportion of the company’s workforce. Three other questions focused on agile maturity, asking about the degree of implementation of agile principles, including (3) collaborative organization [34,35] measured by project review frequencies, (4) technical excellence [35,36] measured by testing practices, (5) and customer centricity [37] measured by business analysis activities. UX maturity was assessed using the six domains proposed by MacDonald et al. [20] (p. 1080), covering (1) People, (2) Resources, (3) Practices and processes, (4) Organizational literacy, (5) Organizational decision-making, and (6) Benefits. One question about the auto-evaluation of the UX maturity of the participant referred to the five levels of UX maturity of Pernice et al. [32]. Sample questions are provided in the appendices (Table A1).

2.2.3. UX Maturity Assessment Framework

Although several models have been developed to quantify UX maturity, this study does not aim to provide a standardized numerical assessment of SMI companies. As MacDonald et al. [20] note, many existing models tend to be too generic, particularly for small organizations operating outside the software development industry, limiting their relevance and practical applicability.

Consequently, this research adopts a qualitative assessment approach, drawing on the dimensions proposed by MacDonald et al., which are specifically designed to assess an organization’s ability to adopt and integrate UX practices in its specific context.

However, to support the interpretation of observed maturity levels, occasional reference is made to the qualitative descriptors proposed by Pernice et al. [32], which provide useful terminology for characterizing UX maturity based on observable organizational practices.

2.2.4. Data Analysis

The data were analyzed from the practitioner’s perspective and cross-referenced with the qualitative data from stage 2. To ascertain their reliability, a confidence interval (CI) was calculated for each mean or percentage that followed a normal distribution, using Equation (1) with a Z value of 1.96 corresponding to a 95% confidence level.

$$CI=\overline{x}\pm z{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{\sqrt{n}}}$$

(1)

where

• $\overline{x}=sample mean or proportion$
• $\sigma =sample standard deviation$
• $n=sample size$
• $z=confidence level value$

To calculate the confidence interval for binary data coded as “yes/no”, the Adjusted Wald method [38] was applied, using the online calculator proposed by Jess Sauro [39].

2.3. Stage 2: Case Studies

Case studies were subsequently conducted with the three partner companies (C1, C2, and C3). Twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted with practitioners, allowing a deeper exploration of certain phenomena that emerged in the survey, to understand their mechanisms [40]. A diverse range of profiles was prioritized whenever possible to cover different hierarchical levels (

Table 1. List of participants interviewed.

Acronym	Practitioner’s Role
P1	UX/UI Designer
P2	Software Development Manager
P3	Senior Developer
P4	Mechanical engineer with UX and ergonomics skills
P5	Software Development Manager
P6	Developer
P7	Developer
P8	Senior Developer
P9	Chief product officer
P10	Software Development Manager
P11	Digital product manager
P12	UX Designer

). Initial interviews with developers and lead developers highlighted the critical importance of the organizational model and decision-making processes in deploying UX practices. These findings motivated the inclusion of participants from higher hierarchical levels and departments other than development.

These data enabled the assessment of the challenges within the machine tool industry sector and, coupled with the survey results, facilitated a deeper understanding of its relationship with software technology and UX. Furthermore, these discussions also helped to identify the key elements that characterize the organizational structure and the dynamics of product development in the three partner companies.

Following these case studies, an initial list of barriers to integrating and adopting UX practices was established, along with strategies derived from practitioners’ narratives about their concrete experiences of implementing UX methods.

The interviews (approximately 12 h in total) were recorded and then transcribed for analysis using the Thematic Analysis method as presented by Braun and Clarke [41] and according to the Grounded Theory approach. TA was conducted from a “constructionist” perspective, defined here as analyzing the interview responses from an organizational rather than an individual viewpoint. Data were coded at a latent level, i.e., going beyond semantic content and involving interpretative work. The coding tool Taguette 1.4.1 was used.

Two researchers participated in the coding process. The data were coded following the six stages outlined by Richards and Hemphill [42], allowing for data triangulation and peer debriefings. Specifically, both researchers began by coding the same three interviews, each establishing their codebook. A session was held to share the coding and define a common codebook. On this basis, each interview was coded by the two researchers. Finally, three workshops were organized to share the results and identify the main themes.

2.4. Stage 3: Action Research

In the third stage, a social science research approach was utilized. Action research is a dynamic process in which the researcher and the participant (in this case, the partner company) jointly define objectives and methods, engage in data collection and analysis, and ultimately implement the outcomes to effect change [43] (p. 187). More specifically, the Cooperative Method Development (CMD) framework [44] was employed to gather data. CMD is a type of action research developed to examine user-oriented software development practices, such as industrial HMIs for machine tools. This method is particularly well-suited to validate innovative design methodologies [44] (p. 250).

The choice of such a method is also motivated by the limitations highlighted in the literature regarding the exclusive use of self-reported data, such as those derived from case studies. Indeed, there is often a gap between individuals’ perception of their behavior and their actual behavior [45]. Furthermore, conducting in situ activities that directly involve practitioners in a process of evolving their practices amounts to recognizing software development as a fundamentally social activity [44].

The research activities were conducted during interventions as part of real development projects proposed by two partner companies (C1 and C2). The researchers were directly involved in the project, thereby observing its progress “from the inside” as full members of the development team.

The CMD consists of three iterative phases as follows:

• Understanding current practices: The researcher observed internal project sessions to assess UX practices and organizational structures. This immersion provided insights into how UX is currently approached, the companies’ organizational models, and the specific barriers encountered. It also allowed the organizational model and the list of barriers identified in stage 2 to be iterated, completed, and refined;
• Deliberation on improvements: Based on the initial observations, ad hoc strategies and targeted actions were jointly developed with the practitioners in each company, with the aim of overcoming the identified barriers and improving UX maturity;
• Implementation and observation: The activities outlined in the previous stage were then implemented through interventions. Each intervention was evaluated through feedback sessions with practitioners.

Over the course of the iterations, the various interventions, past and future, were consolidated in the form of a roadmap, providing partner companies with a medium-term vision.

Throughout stage 3, qualitative data were collected using a reflective journal maintained by the researchers and observation notes taken during project sessions. In total, 10 interventions were conducted (

Table 2. List of interventions.

Interventions	Description	Company	ID
User tests and Wizard of Oz Method	Conducting user tests on the machine interface with internal and end users, simulating machine behavior using the Wizard of Oz method to simulate machine behavior.	C1	I1
Focus group	Discussions with internal users (technicians) around a low-fidelity prototype to obtain realistic feedback on interface concepts in operational contexts.	C1	I2
Design workshop	Workshop with five developers to conceptualize interface improvements based on real user scenarios, resulting in new interface wireframes.	C1	I3
Recruitment process	Support in specifying the job description for the recruitment of a UX practitioner within the organization	C1	I4
Contextual interview	Accompanied by two developers, a contextual interview was conducted with a user of the machines developed by C1 to observe the actual activity of the operators.	C1	I5
UX Training	Introductory half-day UX session for 10 employees, led by the researchers, aiming to sensitize teams to UX.	C1	I6
Audit UX	Initial UX audit to assess existing interfaces and introduce C1 to UX practices. The evaluation involved internal users and the software development manager.	C1	I7
Atomic UX Research	A structured database is established on Azure DevOps, ensuring traceability and operationalization of UX data for C2 development teams.	C2	I8
Users test	User tests were carried out and broadcast live to the development teams, promoting the visibility of UX within C2.	C2	I9
Top Task	A Top Task analysis was conducted with end-users to focus interface development on critical functions.	C2	I10

) spread over a period of 11 months, from January to November 2024. The interventions were co-designed by the researchers and company practitioners, ensuring that the activities were contextually relevant and aligned with organizational needs. Each intervention was qualitatively assessed through an intervention questionnaire or discussions with practitioners. The structure of the questionnaire was inspired by the work of Nielsen et al. [21]. It consists of 20 questions adapted according to the nature of the intervention based on a similar structure (perception of the intervention’s relevance, capitalization of outcomes, potential obstacles, and benefits). However, the questionnaire was only deployed for the first four interventions. Indeed, the response rate to the questionnaires proved low despite multiple follow-ups. Engaging practitioners through in-depth discussions, documented via observation notes, was deemed more effective.

2.5. Stage 4: Synthesizing Data into Recommendations for Action

To make the results more transferable, the strategies deployed and validated during the intervention were reformulated into broader recommendations for action. This process did not aim to reproduce the strategies as they were implemented, but rather to extract their underlying logic and express it in a form that could apply beyond the specific cases studied. The recommendations were built by combining two sources: on one hand, the strategies observed during the CMD, and on the other, narratives from the interviews describing how certain obstacles had been addressed in practice by the practitioners. Each recommendation was then linked to one or several of these obstacles, with the idea that addressing them could support the integration or adoption of UX practices in similar organizational contexts.

3. Results

3.1. General Software Maturity

Analysis of the survey and interviews revealed the following points regarding how software development is structured and managed within SMI companies:

• Increasing workforce involvement in software development: The allocation of the workforce to software development has evolved significantly over the last decade. Although 90% of respondents estimate that less than 50% of their total R&D workforce is currently dedicated to software development, and 25% place it at less than 20%, interviews indicate that this figure has increased considerably in recent years. Historically, software teams were much smaller, as illustrated by one respondent (P8) who noted that 25 years ago, they were only the fourth person involved in software development within their company.
• Evolution of developer profiles: The profiles of software developers have become more specialized, shifting from backgrounds in electronics, mechanics, and electrical engineering to more formal computing education. This shift is critical for modernizing the sector, bringing in “good practices and much more modern methodology”, as one interviewee mentioned (P5).
• Limited adoption of development methods: Regarding the use of development methods (Figure 1), over 30% (95% CI [13.56%, 50.21%]) of respondents report that no specific method is employed in their organization. A survey by Vukelja et al. [28] (p. 559) on computer development practices across all sectors revealed that 18.8% of respondents did not use any software development method. Although this comparison suggests that the industrial sector is still lagging behind, it should be interpreted with caution due to the margin of uncertainty surrounding the current estimate.
  In addition, over a quarter of participants (26.1%, 95% CI [10.23%, 45.49%]) reported not conducting systematic testing of their developments. Furthermore, 17% (95% CI [4.14%, 35.48%]) said they do not organize regular project review meetings, and 13% (95% CI [0.15%, 30.12%]) indicated that no business analysis is carried out prior to development. These findings highlight the relatively limited integration and adoption of standard development practices. However, the small sample size leads to wide confidence intervals, which calls for a cautious interpretation of these results.

• Challenges in integrating and adopting Agile practices: Interviews with developers from the three partner companies indicate that software development methods are insufficiently developed in the SMI. When structured practices like Kanban or Agile are integrated, their adoption is slow, and the benefits are not immediately visible. This situation points to a broader issue faced by this sector: transitioning from traditional, mechanical-focused approaches to more agile, software-centric methodologies requires time and cultural shifts within organizations.
• Lack of formalization of developer roles: Unlike IT companies, where roles are well-defined, SMI companies tend to have less formalized structures for software development. As one participant explained, “It is a mechanical company. The roles are not as formalized as in an IT company” (P4). This reflects the sector’s strong mechanical engineering heritage, where software development is still evolving and not yet fully integrated into the core organizational framework.

3.2. General UX Maturity

Overall, 81% (95% CI [64%, 98%]) of respondents perceive the implementation of UX practices within their organization as absent, mediocre, or even emerging (Figure 2). The maturity levels (based on the work of Pernice et al. [32]) were defined and communicated to the participants as follows:

• Absent: My organization has no UX practices in place. Users are never involved in the design process.
• Poor: My organization is aware of the existence of the UX approach, and small, often individual, efforts are being made.
• Emerging: My organization is planning to integrate a UX approach into the teams and is already allocating a certain budget to it. Users are involved in some pilot projects.
• Good: My organization has put in place a UX approach and one or more dedicated teams. Projects systematically involve users.
• Very good: The UX approach is fully integrated into the organization. All the teams are involved, and everyone is aware of the importance of users in design decisions.

The average score on a 4-point Likert scale (1 being “strongly disagree” and 4 “strongly agree”) for the statement “The majority of projects incorporate a UX approach” was only 1.94 (95% CI [1.91, 1.97]).

• People: Regarding human resources dedicated to UX practices, 78.9% of respondents reported working in organizations that do not employ UX specialists. Only 36.8% indicated that their organizations employ external expertise.
• Resource allocation: Although the questionnaire did not specify whether it referred to financial or infrastructural resources, respondents were divided on whether their management allocates sufficient resources for integrating a UX approach. When questioned on this topic, the average response on the 4-point Likert scale was 2.00 (95% CI [1.65, 2.35]). Despite this, interviews indicate that companies are generally willing to invest the necessary resources if these are justified.

  “You have the means and full latitude. If you need something, you get it (…) However, the expectations behind it are very important.”

  (P4)

• Organizational literacy: On a 4-point Likert scale (1 = “strongly disagree” and 4 = “strongly agree”), the statement “Your organization involves end-users in the design of its products” (Figure 3) scored an average of 2.42 (95% CI [2.12, 2.72]); 30% of respondents (95% CI [13%, 50%]) gave this statement a score of 3 or 4. When the question concerns the involvement of internal users, the average score increases to 3.21 (95% CI [2.90, 3.51]). At first glance, these figures indicate a relatively satisfactory consideration of users in the design process. However, data on the UX methods employed within respondent organizations contradict this perception (Figure 4). The proportion of organizations using methods that truly identify and integrate user needs, such as user testing, observations, or interviews, remains very minor. Interviews reveal that internal users are mainly technicians and trainers who visit clients and thus serve as key liaisons between R&D and end-users, facilitating information feedback.

  “We have technicians who go on-site, but also salespeople. And then, through formal and informal discussions, information comes back up (…) it creates descriptions of new features that users request.”

  (P2)

  There is indeed regular contact with users through technicians and trainers. Nevertheless, the information fed back is primarily concerned with integrating new features or bug fixes. However, it does not allow an accurate understanding of the operator’s activity as structured and tailored methods would. Although there is a willingness, none of the surveyed companies has implemented a process to truly formalize and capitalize on this field feedback.
• Practices and processes: Figure 4 illustrates the UX methods reported as used “regularly” or “systematically” by the participants, highlighting a limited adoption of fundamental UX practices (the other response options included “occasionally” and “rarely”). Furthermore, only 39% (95% CI [21%, 59%]) of respondents indicated that they had previously applied a UX approach in a professional context.
• UX for decision-makers, an emerging awareness: The average response to the question: “Does your organization consider the UX approach as a strategic issue?” (on a 4-point Likert scale, 1 = “strongly disagree” and 4 = “strongly agree”) is 2.37 (95% CI [2.12, 2.62]). When companies were asked about their organization’s tendency to integrate UX practices, the responses included the following:

  “There is a clear willingness, yes [from the management, to integrate UX practices] (…) but there is still everything to be done.”

  (P4)

  “I think it is gradually coming back into mind that now we want to do things properly [in terms of UX]. If we mess up, most of the time we must stop and start again.”

  (P6)

  It is worth noting that the three companies interviewed expressed a real desire to move towards such practices by participating in this project.
• The benefits of UX are recognized: Although the data above seems to indicate a mixed perception of UX as a strategic issue by management, it is important to highlight the benefits attributed to UX practices by respondents (Figure 5). On a 4-point Likert scale (1 = “strongly disagree” and 4 = “strongly agree”), they rate the statement “Integrating users in the design process improves the quality of products” an average of 3.68 (95% CI [3.48, 3.89]). Regarding the statement “Integrating users in the design process helps boost sales”, they assign an average score of 3.00 (95% CI [2.71, 3.26]). Furthermore, they consider that customer requirements in terms of user experience are becoming increasingly important, scoring an average of 3.42 (95% CI [3.09, 3.75]).

3.3. Structure and Dynamics of Product Development in SMI Companies

Development projects have so far involved an organic evolution of an existing product. The current product results from a long series of sub-projects stemming from specific customer demands or internal developments, predominantly driven by technology-centered decisions within R&D. At C1, C2, and C3, the average age of the main product equipping their machines is around 15 years.

As previously mentioned, advancements in technology and shifting expectations are driving companies to undergo a fundamental transformation, leading to the development of a new product. The motivation observed in the three partner companies for implementing UX practices came from a desire to establish a robust foundation for their future offering. Consequently, they view the integration of the UCD approach and the adoption of UX practices as essential for enhancing their products.

The interviews for C1, C2, and C3, and the CMD for C1 and C2, revealed the following organizational characteristics common to all three organizations:

• Strong departmental segmentation and functional organization: Departments operate in relative isolation, with limited collaboration. This segmentation results in UX being “assigned” to a specific department, which in turn limits the diffusion of UX practices across the organization. At C1 and C2, the UX practitioner is part of the software department, whereas at C3, the person informally responsible for machine ergonomics is attached to the mechanical engineering department.
  In addition, companies frequently operate under a functional project organization, where each department (mechanical, automation, software, marketing, etc.) manages its own operations and priorities. This structure, while effective in deepening technical expertise, can reduce opportunities for cross-departmental exchange. The study shows that this can make it more difficult for UX specialists to access data or skills outside their own department, particularly from applications, marketing, after-sales, or mechanical teams. This configuration can thus limit the integration of a cross-functional UX approach. Nevertheless, a “matrix” organizational structure has been observed at an emergent stage in some companies involving a project manager with cross-departmental responsibility.
• The dominance of the mechanical department: Another crucial organizational point, evident from the study, is the precedence of the mechanical department over other sectors regarding technical choices. A participant revealed during an interview that “The mechanical department designs things. Then we start doing the software.” This process means that software teams must work within constraints predefined by decisions made by the mechanical department. This leaves less freedom for software development and, ultimately, for the integration of user needs. These are rarely, if ever, considered by the mechanical engineering department, whose priority remains optimizing the machine’s technical performance and guaranteeing its reliability.
• Role of the applications department in capturing user needs: The role of internal users in development choices is also emphasized as they represent the primary contact point between R&D and the end-users. Internal users, also known as the “applications department”, are the employees tasked with training or troubleshooting clients on the machines. They are also solicited to test the machines, including interfaces, before they are launched. Although their role within the company gives them privileged daily contact with users, the user needs they identify are often raised informally and from a very “technical” angle. Even when this information is collected systematically (at C2, for example), its accessibility and usability for a UX specialist can be limited, making it more complex to integrate into the design process.
• The central role of R&D: R&D not only steers technical choices but also plays a dominant role in defining the company’s product strategy. P11 noted:

  “We haven’t focused development on the market. We have opted for development driven by R&D. This means that our R&D heads decide themselves which products to develop.”

  The data on which the company bases its strategic decisions still come primarily from internal users, as described above, as well as from discussions between R&D managers and customers. However, the customer is rarely the end-user of the machine, and although they may relay certain needs, these are never as precise or as contextualized as those obtained through direct analysis of user behavior and usage in the field. Overall, the potential of UX in shaping product strategy is still often underestimated or even overlooked. This situation stems from a still partial understanding of its impact on key issues such as innovation, competitive differentiation, and long-term customer satisfaction. Moreover, UX is sometimes perceived as being limited to visual aspects or user interfaces.

3.4. Barriers to the Integration or Adoption of UX Practices

The case studies and the CMD provided in-depth knowledge of the internal workings of the partner companies, leading to the identification of 22 major obstacles to the adoption or integration of UX practices. The obstacles identified and detailed in

Table A2. List of obstacles.

Barriers	Description	Companies Concerned
Individual 1
Individual UX skills of non-practitioners (actual and perceived)	The UX skills of non-practitioners are insufficient, leading to poor application of UX practices and a reduced perception of their added value	C1, C2, C3
The techno-centric perspective of developers	Developers tend to prioritize technical aspects over usability for users	C1, C2, C3
Cost of entry	The high cost of entry, due to business knowledge and company operations, represents a major obstacle to the retention and commitment of UX practitioners	C1, C2, C3
Representations	The simplification of interfaces is perceived by some operators, internal users or developers as limiting the functionality and depth of the tools	C1, C3
Conservatism among internal users	Internal users often show resistance to change, particularly because of the need to relearn and the fear of being destabilized in front of customers when troubleshooting.	C2, C3
Departmental
Lack of infrastructure	Difficulty in accessing machines for testing and reluctance on the part of IT departments to acquire specialist software, which is perceived as too expensive and not widely used.	C1, C2
Time constraints	Difficulties in mobilizing the human resources needed to carry out UX activities	C1, C2, C3
Incompatibility of current processes with UCD	Current processes prevent the integration of user needs and a structured approach due to disorganized practices.	C2, C3
No UX specialist hired	There is no in-house UX expertise, which considerably slows down the deployment of UX practices.	C1
Lack of strategic UX resources.	This prevents the consolidation of UX practices. UX practitioners often find themselves overwhelmed by operational tasks, preventing them from concentrating on organizational strategy.	C2
Organizational
The primacy of mechanical factors in project organization	Mechanical constraints take precedence over software development and limit the integration of user requirements	C1, C2, C3
Reactive design and lack of vision	A vision of future developments that is neither clear nor anticipatory, making it difficult to effectively integrate UX practices into development processes.	C2, C3
Non-cross-disciplinary project management and UX siloing	Organizations with limited software maturity and functional project management find it difficult to integrate UX processes effectively, leading to isolated practices.	C1, C2, C3
Organizational rigidity	Traditional, inflexible organizational processes and resistance to new methods tend to hinder the integration of UX practices.	C1, C2, C3
Poor or non-existent feedback on needs	User needs are poorly communicated, mainly orally, with few formal structures, making it difficult to use the data.	C1, C2, C3
Strategical
Lack of understanding and confidence in UX	Managers who are ill-informed about UX are holding back its adoption and integration in companies, which is perceived as costly and of little benefit, despite evidence of a positive return on investment.	C1, C2, C3
Lack of understanding of the UX practitioner’s contribution	Managers’ misperceptions about the role of UX practitioners influence their recruitment, team management, and task allocation, hindering their organizational effectiveness.	C1, C3
External
Significant variability in usage	Machine users vary significantly depending on the size of the company and the country, making it difficult to create personas or generic UX user paths.	C2, C3
Product lifespan and technological limitations	The products have a long lifespan to amortize the high development costs, limiting innovation and encouraging ingrained habits of use among users.	C1, C2, C3
Lack of suitably qualified UX profiles	The lack of qualified UX profiles is leading to the costly recruitment of non-industrial specialists, due to the lack of training courses combining technical, industrial, and UX skills in Switzerland.	C1, C2
Difficulty accessing users	User access is complex due to administrative barriers and confidentiality concerns, particularly in B2B environments.	C2, C3
Increased complexity of machines and HMI	The increasing complexity of machines and user interfaces is increasing the cognitive cost for UX practitioners and complicating the conduct of user tests.	C1, C2, C3

¹ Color is used to highlight the five dimensions in which the barriers are categorized. All highlights serve this same purpose.

are categorized into five dimensions.

• Individual: This dimension encompasses obstacles linked to personal attributes, including the skills and attitudes of individuals within the organization.
• Departmental: This dimension refers to obstacles linked to internal dynamics, processes, and challenges specific to each department.
• Organizational: This dimension focuses on obstacles to interaction, collaboration, and coordination between the organization’s various departments.
• Strategic: This dimension relates to obstacles that hinder the organization’s long-term vision, strategy, and alignment with UX objectives.
• External: This dimension encompasses external factors, such as market trends, regulatory requirements, or customer expectations, that impact the implementation of UX practices.

3.5. Practitioners’ Narratives

Table A3. List of practitioners’ narratives.

Narratives	Description	ID
Hiring a UX practitioner	For C2 and C3, hiring a UX practitioner was a crucial step towards integrating UX practices and improving the user experience of their products.	N1
Hiring developers with IT backgrounds	For C2, non-industry developers make a greater contribution to the evolution of information technology thanks to their advanced practices (e.g., Agile methodology).	N2
Hiring international UX practitioners	One of the three companies hired a foreign specialist to make up for the lack of qualified local staff.	N3
Internal observation for job-specific training	For the UX practitioners from the three companies, conducting interviews and observations in-house enabled them to learn about the specifics of the profession while gathering useful UX data.	N4
Internal technical training	C2 and C3 have set up internal training programs for new R&D staff to complement and/or strengthen their technical skills.	N5
User stories in technical specifications	For C1, the use of user stories in technical specifications encourages the integration of the user perspective into development.	N6
Wireframe used for technical specifications	C2 uses low-fidelity wireframes early in the development process to clarify technical specifications and establish a shared vision between departments.	N7
Internal UX training for new staff	For C2, in-house UX training for new employees ensures that they quickly understand the principles of UX, making it easier for them to integrate and contribute effectively to ongoing projects.	N8
Multi-disciplinary pilot projects using design thinking	C3 has deployed a design thinking approach via a multi-disciplinary pilot project, which has encouraged innovation and improved inter-departmental collaboration.	N9
Presentation of annual UX results to Executive Management	C2 notes the positive impact of communicating results to executive management, demonstrating the impact of UX initiatives and ensuring the necessary support and investment to strengthen practices.	N10
Establishing a product roadmap	C2 and C3 have created a product roadmap to plan future developments, enabling better projection and prioritization of UX activities.	N11
Internal design workshop	Internal design workshops have been conducted by C2 with stakeholders to validate interface concepts and raise UX awareness among staff.	N12
Redesign of the flagship product	At C1 and C2, the radical change represented by the development of a new flagship product acted as a trigger for the adoption of UX practices and a desire to integrate them into processes.	N13
Steering strategic decisions based on SAV data and market research	C3 has put in place a decision-making process based on after-sales service data and the results of market research to steer developments.	N14

presents 14 narratives from practitioners, selected from the interviews conducted during phase two of the study. These narratives illustrate how practitioners have successfully addressed certain obstacles in practice.

3.6. Recommandations for Actions

The full set of recommendations, along with the obstacles they target, is presented in

Table A4. List of recommendations for action.

Strategies	Barriers	Sources 1
Skills 2
Training new employees with internal users	Cost of entry	N5
Take an introductory UX course given by an external organization or an internal UX practitioner	Individual UX skills of non-practitioners (actual and perceived)	N8/I6
	The techno-centric perspective of developers
	Conservatism among internal users
	Time constraints
	Lack of understanding and confidence in UX
	Lack of understanding of the UX practitioner’s contribution
Hire developers from the IT sector	Strong organizational rigidity	N2
Hire staff remotely	Lack of suitably qualified UX profiles	N3
Hire a qualified UX practitioner	Time constraints	N1/I4
	No UX specialist hired
Encourage field observation for the purpose of training UX employees	Cost of entry	N4
Collaboration and communication
Involve internal users in UX practices	Conservatism among internal users	N4/N12/I2/I9
	Difficulty accessing users
Promote communication between UX and other departments	Primacy of mechanical factors in project organization	N8/N12/I3
	Non-cross-disciplinary project management and UX siloing
Make UX activities visible and comprehensive within the organization	Representations	I2/I9
Communicate results between departments and at different hierarchical levels	Lack of understanding and confidence in UX	N10/I9
Use a matrix project organization method	Primacy of mechanical factors in project organization	N9
	Non-cross-disciplinary project management and UX siloing
Promote communication between UX and other departments	Primacy of mechanical factors in project organization	N8/N12/I3
	Non-cross-disciplinary project management and UX siloing
Adapted UX practices
Encourage the production of low-fidelity wireframes early in the design process	Conservatism among internal users	N7/N12/I3
	Non-cross-disciplinary project management and UX siloing
	Increased complexity of machines and HMI
Use user stories in project specifications intended for technical teams	The techno-centric perspective of developers	N6
	Incompatibility of current processes with UCD
Adapt UX practices to existing tools within the organization	Lack of infrastructure	I8
Implement simple, low-cost UX activities	Time constraints	I7/I10
	Strong organizational rigidity
Use the Wizard of Oz methodology	Increased complexity of machines and HMI	I9
Data processing
Set up an interdepartmental database of operational UX insights and guidelines	Individual UX skills of non-practitioners (actual and perceived)	I8
	Incompatibility of current processes with UCD
	Poor or non-existent feedback on needs
Create a database of UX insights and feed it opportunistically	Significant variability in usage	I8
Make systematic use of feedback from the after-sales service	Poor or non-existent feedback on needs	N14
Integration methods
Implement the changes through a pilot project (POC)	Strong organizational rigidity	N9
Integrate one or more developers to act as guarantors of UX practices	The techno-centric perspective of developers	I5
	Representations
Demonstrate the benefits of UX to management through simple, low-cost UX activities.	Lack of understanding and confidence in UX	I7/I6
Commission UX specialists from outside the organization	Lack of strategic UX Resource	CMD 3
	Lack of understanding of the UX practitioner’s contribution
Produce product roadmaps based on data from the SAV and market studies	Reactive design and lack of vision	N11
Launch a project to redesign your flagship product	Product lifespan and technological limitations	N13/CMD 3
User integration
Involving end users in the design process	Poor or non-existent feedback on needs	I5/I10/I9
Build up a network of diversified partner companies	Poor or non-existent feedback on needs	I5/I10
	Difficulty accessing users

¹ Refers to the IDs of the practitioners’ narratives (Table A3) and the interventions conducted during the CMD (Table 2); ² Color is used to highlight the strategic areas in which the action recommendations are organized. All highlights serve this same purpose; ³ When the conduct of the research project itself has enabled the obstacles to be overcome.

and organized into six strategic areas detailed below.

• Skills: The skills axis refers to strategies for developing or hiring new skills within teams. This axis mainly includes recommendations for action involving internal training or hiring new staff with specific qualifications. These skills can be UX or industrial skills (aimed at UX practitioners). This obviously helps integrate UX into the organization, but also establishes a common language (UX or industrial) or facilitates exchanges between stakeholders. Several studies have shown that investing in training and qualified resources is key to developing UX maturity [20,46].
• Collaboration and communication: These are strategies designed to encourage communication and collaboration between departments. This axis mainly includes action proposals to give visibility to UX practices, or use specific organizational methods or activities to make information flow more easily. In the robotics industry, Nielsen et al. [21] also raised the essential role of communication in the effective deployment of UX practices and stakeholder alignment. MacDonald et al. [20] also cite “Communication and Visibility” as a key element in an organization’s ability to make use of UX.
• Adapted UX practices: These strategies refer to UX methods adapted to the specific characteristics of the SMI. This axis includes proposals for actions such as deploying basic UX activities (e.g., UX Audit) or mobilizing ad hoc methods. Generally speaking, UX must “prove itself” in organizations. Therefore, it makes sense to implement small-scale, targeted, and opportunistic actions that will enable the value of UX to be “quantified”. This strategy is also practiced in the IT sector [46,47].
• Data processing: These strategies refer to collecting and using user data within the organization. This axis includes proposals for specific tools to exploit data or the deployment of appropriate data collection methods.
• Integration methods: These are strategies designed to foster the integration of UX methods into existing design processes and workflows. This axis includes recommendations for actions such as the deployment of pilot projects or the creation of a product roadmap to support the deployment of a UX strategy. As Buis et al. [46] describe, some concepts regarding UX can be very abstract for the uninitiated. Integrating UX methods into a traditional organization can be facilitated by setting an example and applying such an approach in targeted projects.
• User integration: These recommendations for action focus on integrating users into development methods and decision-making processes. This axis includes proposals such as setting up a network of partner companies or initiating the integration of end-users into the design process.

4. Discussion

The results presented above offer valuable insights into the current state of adoption and integration of UX practices within the ISM sector, addressing RQ1. The three companies involved expressed a clear intention to develop their UX capabilities, a trend also reflected in the survey data. UX practices are seen as a strategic leveler and a means of sustaining activities in an extremely competitive sector.

However, UX maturity and the structuring of software development processes remain relatively limited, which tends to confirm the initial observations. Research activities revealed a certain level of concern among the participating companies, including survey respondents—52% of the 21 respondents answered “yes” to the question, “Within your company, do you need help implementing a UX approach”?

Despite a willingness to adopt such practices, the companies do not appear to be adequately equipped and require support in integrating a user-centered design (UCD) approach. Machines are first and foremost mechanical before they are digital. This tradition, deeply ingrained and institutionalized over time, shapes a culture and organizational structure specific to this sector, which creates barriers to the implementation of regular UX practices.

Interviews and the CMD uncovered the underlying causes of these barriers in the manufacturing context. This approach identified 22 additional barriers specific to this sector, which are rarely discussed in the existing literature. These findings address RQ2 and reinforce prior research suggesting that the adoption and integration of UX practices vary significantly across industry sectors [19,20,21].

Based on these findings, context-specific strategies were co-developed with partner companies through ten field interventions at C1 and C2. These efforts led to 28 actionable recommendations intended to support other SMI organizations facing similar challenges. Although some recommendations may seem obvious to UX-mature organizations, they offer a concrete starting point for change in contexts where such practices are still emerging. This process directly addresses RQ3.

4.1. Theoretical Contributions

In addition to offering a situated understanding of UX maturity within the Swiss machinery industry and highlighting the influence of cultural and structural characteristics on the adoption of user-centered practices, this study contributes to the state of the art in several ways.

Although some of the obstacles identified in this research are already documented in the literature, such as the limited involvement of users or the lack of communication and collaboration between UX and non-UX practitioners, as highlighted by Kashfi et al. [48], their presence is confirmed here in the specific context of the Swiss machinery industry, where these challenges take on a distinct form shaped by the sector’s structural features. Besides collaboration between UX practitioners and developers, which is widely explored in the literature, the study focuses on collaboration between UX practitioners beyond the software department. The three companies are composed of a few departments—software, mechanical, marketing, and applications—that work in a functional organization. The study underlines the importance of the application department in SMI companies, which brings together trainers and technicians who use the products and who are in regular contact with customers. Application is thus an important source of information for UX practitioners, often affiliated with the software department. UX practitioners in the SMI need to collaborate with other departments. This need to “break out the silos” [21] beyond the software department has been explored in the literature, but seems particularly essential for the SMI, in which final users can be less reachable because of confidentiality issues or the complexity of setting up customer visits for UX purposes. Besides underlining this important need in the SMI, the present work proposes concrete actions to facilitate inter-departmental collaboration and takes a broader look—structurally—at UX maturity, specific to the sector.

This larger vision of UX maturity is underlined by the five domains proposed. While Nielsen et al. structure their analysis around three levels of observation (individual, team, and organizational), the present study distinguishes five dimensions. It explicitly includes a strategic dimension related to leadership vision and involvement, as well as an external dimension that addresses exogenous influences such as market constraints, industry standards, or customer expectations. These external factors are only marginally addressed in Nielsen et al.’s study. This structuring enables a more detailed and nuanced analysis of the dynamics that shape the adoption of UX practices.

Several findings also align with those reported by Nielsen et al. [21], whose action research conducted in an international robotics company remains the most methodologically comparable study to date. Their work highlights internal resistance linked to a culture historically oriented toward mechanical engineering, a low rate of UX adoption in development projects, and the importance of raising awareness and building competencies among non-UX teams. These same aspects were also observed in the present study. Both works emphasize the need to extend UX practices beyond the boundaries of interface design. However, several additional contributions emerge.

New obstacles in implementing UX, not yet addressed in the literature (to our knowledge), have been identified in this study. For instance, the technical complexity of the SMI sector and its products, requiring solid mechanical knowledge and experience, complicates UX implementation. Understanding the user’s activity is a key point in the design of useful and usable products. This analysis is complex for a UX practitioner who is a novice in the SMI sector and could lead to poor design choices. Another obstacle emerging from this study that has not quite been explored [20,21,46] lies in the conservatism of internal users (applications department) and the reasons behind this low acceptability. Although this department is central for UX practitioners, as discussed before, they seem to have resistance to interface changes. Interviews and CMD allowed us to identify some reasons for this resistance, such as the fear of no longer knowing how to use the new interface in front of customers and losing legitimacy by facilitating the use of interfaces that were previously more difficult to master and less accessible. Another reason for this resistance to change of interface could be that most interfaces in the SMI last for ten to twenty years. This could reinforce habits and make changes less acceptable. To our knowledge, this issue has not been identified as a prior obstacle in implementing UX practices.

Moreover, the research led to the testing and validation of additional strategies, which were organized into generic action-oriented recommendations specifically tailored to small- and medium-sized enterprises in the Swiss machinery sector. Unlike the large and well-resourced company studied by Nielsen et al., the companies involved in this research more accurately reflect the typical structure of the Swiss industrial landscape.

Another original contribution lies in the identification of a link between the emergence of UX practices and the level of software development maturity within organizations. To date, this relationship does not appear to have been clearly formulated in prior studies. The underlying hypothesis is that a certain level of maturity in software development processes is a prerequisite for the effective and sustainable integration of UX practices. This hypothesis is supported by the observations gathered. In all three participating companies, the recent adoption of structured development methods, such as agile frameworks, coincides with an emerging level of UX maturity. The interventions implemented demonstrated that the successful integration of UX activities is highly dependent on their alignment with existing software development processes and schedules.

4.2. Methodological Insights

The use of CMD, a participatory and qualitative methodology, proved particularly effective and complementary to the initial survey and case studies. Beyond offering a deeper understanding of the mechanisms identified during the interviews, this approach made it possible to further examine the obstacles to UX adoption by observing how they unfold in real-world conditions. It helped bring to light structural and cultural barriers that are often invisible in purely declarative approaches. Moreover, the direct involvement of the authors enabled us to test and iterate the proposed strategies and actions. This adds a significant degree of validity to the results of this study, in which the effectiveness, or ineffectiveness, of the strategies was not merely observed but actively verified through field implementation.

By involving practitioners directly in experiments carried out within their own work environments, CMD also allowed the concrete value of UX practices to emerge. This methodological stance became a strong enabler for appropriation, moving beyond traditional approaches that tend to promote externally developed methods.

Rather than simply advocating for change, the project made it possible to demonstrate it in practice, leading to a noticeable shift in the way partner companies engaged with UX. This dynamic echoes the findings of Ardito et al. [30], who highlight the importance of immersive approaches in encouraging the adoption and transformation of UX practices in organizations.

The study includes a relatively representative sample of individuals working in the SMI. In phase 1, 44 companies from all Swiss regions were contacted by phone and sent the survey. A total of 21 individuals participated. The results from the qualitative phases (phases 2 and 3) were then compared to this broader sample to enhance the validity of the findings. Phase 2 involved two companies (C1, C2, and C3), and phase 3 three companies (C2 and C3) with different levels of UX maturity (although relatively low according to Pernice et al. definitions [32] (see Section 2.1)). This approach enables comparisons regarding their UX maturity level, UX practices, obstacles faced, and actions implemented in the context of CMD. Hence, it allowed better reliability of the results. Including several companies improved the reliability of the findings, which is rarely seen in prior studies on UX maturity related to CMD.

Triangulation was hence used to strengthen the credibility of the results by collecting data from different participants and companies and cross-verifying emerging themes. Most studies on UCD maturity do not use mixed methods (see, e.g., [20,29,44,46]). Those that do typically focus on a single company (see, e.g., [21,30]). To our knowledge, no prior study combines surveys, interviews, and CMD-based qualitative data across three companies to explore UX maturity in an industrial context.

4.3. Practical Implications

This research had a tangible impact on the three companies involved. The UX maturity of the two partner companies that took part in the CMD evolved positively throughout the project. One partner company hired a UX practitioner and reported having systematically integrated UX research methods that were jointly tested during the interventions. Another continued the activities initiated during the CMD, with the aim of making its UX practices sustainable. To this end, it is even considering allocating additional resources to UX. A third company, although not involved in the CMD, also expressed interest in continuing its efforts to improve UX maturity. However, some differences in progression between the companies were observed. A company that initially showed slightly more advanced UX practices compared to C1 encountered a “glass ceiling” effect when strategies required broader systemic changes, such as sharing and exploiting cross-departmental data. In practice, the interventions proved more complex to deploy in this context, as they required validation at multiple hierarchical levels and sometimes met resistance when other departments were involved. These departments often had specific operational constraints and were sometimes less receptive to UX practices, making coordination more challenging. This suggests that while early improvements in UX maturity can be achieved relatively quickly, the progression tends to slow down as initiatives begin to affect more deeply embedded organizational structures and cross-functional processes.

This significant overall progression in UX practices suggests that targeted and tailored actions can help overcome structural obstacles, even in a sector with strong mechanical traditions and limited digital maturity. By translating these strategies into more generic recommendations for actions, the impact of this research may extend beyond the partner companies and offer guidance to other organizations in the sector. These possibilities must nevertheless be considered in light of the limits of generalization discussed in the following section.

4.4. Limitations and Future Work

Despite this positive trend, the actual benefits of implementing UX practices, particularly their impact on machine usability, learning curves, and ultimately on sales, can only be assessed over the long term [49]. It is therefore essential to ensure the sustainability of these practices, both through their structural integration into organizational processes and workflows and through their consistent adoption by practitioners and development teams.

Although no studies seem to offer a quantified assessment of the abandonment rate of UX practices within companies, economic conditions could play a significant role in shaping their continuity. Given the relative novelty of UX within ISM companies, a factor that partly accounts for its fragility, such practices may be perceived as non-essential in the short term. As a result, they are likely to be among the first to face budget reductions during periods of economic uncertainty. This issue is especially relevant to the ISM sector, which is highly dependent on exports and thus “particularly exposed to global forces and uncertainties” [16].

The present study reflects the state of UX adoption and integration at a specific point in time. While the partner companies expressed encouraging perspectives regarding the progression of their UX maturity, efficient integration and the long-term adoption of such practices remain uncertain. A longitudinal study would offer valuable insights into whether UX integration evolves or regresses, while also helping to identify the factors that influence this trajectory. It would provide data to adapt, refine, and expand the recommendations for action by incorporating a temporal perspective, particularly in industrial contexts where rapid return on investment is expected, and user-centered approaches are still often perceived as secondary.

Another limitation of this study lies in the fact that the recommendations for action were developed based on obstacles identified in companies with low or emerging UX maturity levels, all operating within similarly structured organizational models. This may pose challenges when attempting to generalize the findings to companies that deviate from these characteristics. Forrest-Lawrence [50] highlight the limitations of generalizing conclusions drawn from a limited number of case studies to a broader population.

In conclusion, it might be appropriate to conduct a longitudinal study to measure the integration and the adoption of UX practices over the long term, and to consolidate the data from this study on a larger sample, including a greater diversity of organizations. The survey conducted during phase 1 of the research collected the contact details of eight additional companies that explicitly agreed to be contacted as part of the study. If the project continues, these companies could be approached as a priority. In addition, the sample could be extended beyond Switzerland’s borders to further explore the relationship between the machine industry and UX practices.

Otherwise, and given the obvious lack of tools adapted to this sector, additional instruments could be developed on the basis of this work to support the evolution of UX maturity. For example, a self-assessment tool adapted to the specificities of this sector could help companies identify their current level of UX maturity. It could also be useful to design tools specifically for UX specialists, whose role is to help companies identify and overcome these obstacles. Finally, it could be beneficial to establish an observatory dedicated to UX practices within the manufacturing industry. Such an initiative would make it possible to monitor the evolution of UX maturity levels over time, identify the factors that facilitate or hinder their progression, and gain a deeper understanding of the dynamics of integration, stabilization, or abandonment of user-centered practices in this specific context. It would also provide industrial stakeholders with a way to position themselves within the broader manufacturing landscape in terms of UX maturity, an expectation that was expressed on several occasions by the partner companies.

5. Conclusions

This study examined the relationship between the Swiss machinery industry and UX practices, revealing a relatively low level of UX maturity. It identified structural and cultural barriers to the implementation of a user-centered design (UCD) approach within development teams. Nevertheless, a genuine willingness to advance these practices and to better integrate users’ needs into design decisions was observed by the authors. Through a participatory and immersive action research methodology, context-specific strategies were co-developed with practitioners, validated through implementation, and subsequently translated into generic action recommendations aimed at extending the findings beyond the sample mobilized for this research. By creating a relationship of trust with the companies involved, this work has highlighted the importance and necessity of integrating the end users into the design process in the context of I4.0. Incorporating UX practices should make it possible to design machines that are more accessible, safer, and more user-friendly, and manufacturers seem to have realized this. However, there is still considerable potential for developing UX practices adapted to this sector of activity. Given the complexity of this research domain, involving both organizational and human factors, future work could focus on conducting longitudinal studies, extending the sample to a greater diversity of organizations, and developing dedicated tools to support the evolution of UX maturity within the industry. This study has only explored part of it, and there is still much to be done to make practices evolve.