Authors : Wumi Ajayi; Idume-David Juliet Efemena; Labode Oluwatosin Enoabasi; Olatunji Opeyemi Titilayo

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 4 - April

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/sx3t2es7

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/2anjy3x3

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26apr851

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : The rapid evolution of digital communication technologies has intensified the need for software systems to maintain high usability, quality, and long-term relevance. However, many software products experience quality decline over time due to poor adaptability, increasing technical debt, and failure to align with evolving user expectations. This study examines how usability-centered software evolution influences product sustainability by comparing the contrasting trajectories of Skype and Microsoft Teams. The objective of this study is to analyze the evolution strategies that contributed to Skype’s decline and to evaluate how usability-centered design and development practices supported the growth and market retention of Microsoft Teams. To achieve this, the study adopts a scoping review methodology based on the Arksey and O’Malley framework, synthesizing evidence from academic literature, industry reports, and usability evaluation models such as ISO/IEC 25010 and established usability heuristics. The findings reveal that Skype’s decline was driven by usability regression, architectural limitations, and ineffective evolution strategies, while Microsoft Teams achieved sustained adoption through agile development, cloud-native architecture, and continuous user feedback integration. This study contributes to existing literature by integrating software evolution, usability, and market retention into a unified analytical perspective. The study concludes that usabilitycentered evolution is critical for maintaining software quality and long-term competitiveness. It recommends that software development teams should prioritize continuous usability evaluation, proactive technical debt management, and user-driven design to ensure sustainable software evolution.

Keywords : High-Quality Software Products, Market Retention, Microsoft Teams, Skype, Software Evolution, Usability Evaluation.

References :

1. A. P. Kimberly, T. F. Benjamin, O. Ashley, and D. Bianca, “How to prepare for rapidly evolving technology: Focus on adaptability,” Devcom Army Research Laboratory, 2022.
2. R. H. Reussner, M. Goedicke, W. Hasselbring, B. Vogel-Heuser, J. Keim, and L. Märtin, Eds., Managed Software Evolution. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2019, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-13499-0.
3. M. M. Lehman, “Laws of software evolution revisited,” Dept. Comput., Imperial College London, London, U.K., 1996.
4. Market Research Future, “Software market overview,” 2025.
5. S. T. Divyani and P. Bageshree, “Comprehensive study of software testing,” International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), vol. 9, no. 8, 2020.
6. D. P., “Skype is shutting down: What happened to Skype,” Business Model Analyst, 2025.
7. T. Warren, “What went wrong with Skype?,” The Verge, 2025.
8. T. Miller, “Microsoft brings tighter integration to Dynamics 365 and Teams,” TechCrunch, 2021.
9. Scribd, “Feasibility study in software engineering,” 2025.
10. B. Fitzgerald and K.-J. Stol, “Continuous software engineering: A roadmap and agenda,” Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 123, pp. 176–189, 2017
11. M. Marko, M. Stefica, A. Borna, S. Tomislav, and C. Marko, “User quality of experience comparison between Skype, Microsoft Teams and Zoom video conferencing tools,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering, Springer, 2021, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-78459-1_22.
12. R. F. Roland, T. P. Yogi, R. N., D. A. Irene, F. P. Satria, and C. Thanatorn, “Usability evaluation of communication tools used as remote support in machine service industry: A comparison between Microsoft Teams and Skype,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Computing and Machine Learning (ICCMB), Macau, China, Jan. 13–15, 2023, doi: 10.1145/3584816.3584834.
13. S. Clarke, J. He, and R. Harrison, “Software evolution and software evolvability,” Univ. Reading, U.K., 2000.
14. IEEE Computer Society, Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK), 2024.
15. I. Herraiz, G. Robles, D. Rodriguez, and J. M. Gonzalez-Barahona, “The evolution of the law of software evolution: A discussion based on a systematic literature review,” ACM Computing Surveys, 2013, doi: 10.1145/2543581.2543595.
16. E. W. Dijkstra, “Notes on structured programming,” in Proc. NATO Science Committee Conf., Rome, Italy, Oct. 27–31, 1969, EWD 249, 1970.
17. M. M. Lehman, J. F. Ramil, P. D. Wernick, D. E. Perry, and W. M. Turski, “Metrics and laws of software evolution: The nineties view,” in Proc. 4th Int. Software Metrics Symp. (METRICS ’97), pp. 20–32, 1997, doi: 10.1109/METRIC.1997.637156.
18. L. Yu and A. Mishra, “An empirical study of Lehman’s law on software quality evolution,” International Journal of Software and Informatics, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 469–481, 2013.
19. The Verge, “Microsoft is redesigning Skype once again and killing its Snapchat-like feature,” 2018.
20. New Wire, “Avoiding Skype’s fate: Strategies that would have saved it,” 2025.
21. Microsoft, “Transforming modern engineering at Microsoft,” Microsoft Inside Track Blog, May 15, 2023.
22. Helpware Tech, “ISO 25010: Enhancing our software quality management process,” 2025.
23. A. Adewumi, S. Misra, N. Omoregbe, B. Crawford, and R. Soto, “A systematic literature review of open source software quality assessment models,” SpringerPlus, vol. 5, p. 1936, 2016, doi: 10.1186/s40064-016-3612-4.
24. D. Sklavenitis and D. Kalles, “Measuring technical debt in AI-based competition platforms,” in Proc. SETN, Piraeus, Greece, Sep. 11–13, 2024, doi: 10.1145/1234567890.
25. ISO/IEC, ISO/IEC 25010: Systems and software engineering — Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE), 2011.
26. J. Nielsen, “10 usability heuristics for user interface design,” Nielsen Norman Group, 1995.
27. C. Ling and G. Salvendy, “Importance of usability considerations to purchase intention on e-commerce website with different user groups,” in Proc. Hum. Factors Ergonom. Soc. Annu. Meeting, vol. 50, no. 14, pp. 1457–1460, 2006, doi: 10.1177/154193120605001404.
28. A. S. Majumder, “The influence of UX design on user retention and conversion rates in mobile apps,” School of Design and Innovation, 2025, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.13407.
29. Wikipedia, “Heuristic evaluation,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. [Online]. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic_evaluation
30. R. Harrison, D. Flood, and D. Duce, “Usability of mobile applications: literature review and rationale for a new usability model,” Journal of Interaction Science, vol. 1, 2013.
31. L. F. Al-Qora’n and N. Gordon, “Heuristic evaluation of Microsoft Teams as an online teaching platform: An educators’ perspective,” Computers, vol. 11, no. 12, p. 175, 2022.
32. Microsoft, “Microsoft Teams feature roadmap and security compliance,” 2023.
33. UX Collective, “The downfall of Skype: A UX case study,” Medium, 2020.
34. N. Juristo, A. M. Moreno, and M. Sanchez-Segura, “Analysing the impact of usability on software design,” Journal of Systems and Software, Elsevier, 2007.
35. V. Zieglmeier and A. M. Lehene, “Designing trustworthy user interfaces,” 2022, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2202.12915.
36. H. Arksey and L. O’Malley, “Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework,” International Journal of Social Research Methodology, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 19–32, 2005, doi: 10.1080/1364557032000119616.
37. Statista, “Monthly active users of Skype and Microsoft Teams, 2011–2023,” 2023.
38. Microsoft, “Retirement of Skype: What you need to know,” Microsoft Newsroom, 2025.
39. Microsoft, “Microsoft 365 Blog: Teams user metrics,” 2020.
40. UX Planet, “Skype’s redesign and usability failure,” 2018.
41. TechDebt Conference, “Technical debt in modern software systems,” 2019.
42. Gartner, “Magic Quadrant for unified communications,” 2018.
43. IDC, “Market analysis: Collaboration platforms post-COVID,” 2022.
44. T. Mens and S. Demeyer, Software Evolution. Springer, 2008.
45. S. Dredge, “Skype at 10: How the voice-calling giant changed the world,” The Guardian, 2013.
46. J. Fingas, “Microsoft Teams usage climbs to 75 million daily active users,” Engadget, 2020.
47. T. Warren, “Microsoft is shutting down Skype for Business in 2021,” The Verge, 2020.
48. The Verge, “Skype’s 2017 redesign faced major user backlash,” The Verge, 2017.
49. UX Collective, “The downfall of Skype: A UX case study,” Medium, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://uxplanet.org/redesigning-skype-with-a-user-centric-approach-2b08d991b39d

50. Statista, “Zoom user growth during COVID-19,” 2020.
51. Business Insider, “Why Zoom surged while Skype stayed stagnant,” 2020.
52. TechRadar, “Is Microsoft Teams all you need, or is Zoom still necessary?,” 2025.
53. Axios, “Microsoft Teams adding new features as demand increases,” 2020.
54. Condeco, “By the numbers: A close look at Microsoft Teams adoption,” 2022.
55. A. Crudu and MoldStud Research Team, “Enhancing customer onboarding with personalized guides,” MoldStud, Mar. 28, 2024.
56. J. Nielsen and D. A. Norman, “The UX design lifecycle: Principles for improving user retention in mobile applications,” Interaction Design Foundation, 2016.
57. A. S. Majumder, “The influence of UX design on user retention and conversion rates in mobile apps,” School of Design and Innovation, 2025, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.13407.
58. Reddit, “7 strategies to boost user retention for your SaaS,” 2023.
59. Growett, “10 customer retention strategies that work for effective onboarding,” 2025.
60. M. I. Alhusban, N. Sarhan, I. N. Khatatbeh, and M. O. AlShbail, “Exploring how quality dimensions enhance videoconferencing platform benefits from an information systems success perspective,” Discover Sustainability, vol. 5, Art. no. 59, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s43621-024-00215-4.
61. Custify, “SaaS customer onboarding and retention statistics you need to know,” 2025.
62. A. Thornhill and M. Borg, “Code Red: The business impact of code quality -- A quantitative study of 39 proprietary production codebases,” 2022, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.04374.