In my view it's a straw man for a thesis to aim at, because it's not intended to be a foundation - it's a process. In other words, you can "weave in" all the foundational knowledge (HCI, DT, ID, ED etc). It's also no substitute for creativity and innovation.
The point of the Lean UX process is to keep the potential user at the centre the whole time, to keep validating that the designs you build on top of your foundational knowledge actually work for your target user.
To answer your question: We (Kami) are using this. When we don't (convenience, "moving fast" etc), we tend to fail.
Once you get beyond the buzzwordiness of it, it's a wonderful thing, simply because it forces you to never move too far from the user, and get too comfortable in your own ideas. But it's not an excuse for not thinking, planning, or designing.
That said, I like the thesis area. As a practitioner, things I'd find really valuable to have some scientific research on are... - How to negotiate usability and feature trade-offs? Especially at exploratory stages of a product? - There are no good theoretical frameworks for "user persistence" - i.e. how users train themselves to understand UIs over time. So often "usable" has come to mean "intuitively usable" - which has its own limitations. But in what situations, and how much, do users train themselves on new interfaces? - The role of visual (non-functional) design in usability. In my experience, users seem to have more "patience" / forgiveness for poor UX for products that "look good". Is that actually the case? how much? for whom? implications for UX thinking?
In my view it's a straw man for a thesis to aim at, because it's not intended to be a foundation - it's a process. In other words, you can "weave in" all the foundational knowledge (HCI, DT, ID, ED etc). It's also no substitute for creativity and innovation.
The point of the Lean UX process is to keep the potential user at the centre the whole time, to keep validating that the designs you build on top of your foundational knowledge actually work for your target user.
To answer your question: We (Kami) are using this. When we don't (convenience, "moving fast" etc), we tend to fail.
Once you get beyond the buzzwordiness of it, it's a wonderful thing, simply because it forces you to never move too far from the user, and get too comfortable in your own ideas. But it's not an excuse for not thinking, planning, or designing.
That said, I like the thesis area. As a practitioner, things I'd find really valuable to have some scientific research on are... - How to negotiate usability and feature trade-offs? Especially at exploratory stages of a product? - There are no good theoretical frameworks for "user persistence" - i.e. how users train themselves to understand UIs over time. So often "usable" has come to mean "intuitively usable" - which has its own limitations. But in what situations, and how much, do users train themselves on new interfaces? - The role of visual (non-functional) design in usability. In my experience, users seem to have more "patience" / forgiveness for poor UX for products that "look good". Is that actually the case? how much? for whom? implications for UX thinking?