Enterprise Experience into the Integration of Human-Centered
Design and Kanban
Eva-Maria Schön
1,4
, Dominique Winter
2
, Jan Uhlenbrok
3
, Maria J. Escalona
1
and Jörg Thomaschewski
2
1
University of Seville, Sevilla, Spain
2
University of Applied Sciences Emden/Leer, Emden, Germany
3
Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung GmbH & Co. KG, Osnabrück, Germany
4
CGI Germany Ltd. & Co. KG, Hamburg, Germany
Keywords: Agile Software Development, Human-Computer Interaction, Case Study, User Experience, Kanban.
Abstract: The integration of Human-Centered Design (HCD) and Agile Software Development (ASD) promises the
development of competitive products comprising a good User Experience (UX). This study has investigated
the integration of HCD and Kanban with the aim to gain industrial experiences in a real world context. A
case study showed that requirements flow into the development process in a structured manner by adding a
design board. To this end, the transparency concerning recurring requirements increased. We contribute to
the body of knowledge of software development by providing practical insights into Human-Centered Agile
Development (HCAD). On one hand, it is shown that the integration of HCD and Kanban leads to a product
with a good UX and makes the development process more human-centered. On the other hand, we conclude
that a cross-functional collaboration speeds up product development.
1 INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, companies face the challenge to develop
competitive products, which fulfil user needs and
lead to a positive User Experience (UX). Therefore,
the integration of Agile Software Development
(ASD) and Human-Centered Design (HCD) is a
popular research field. In literature, there are a lot of
existing experiences and best practices investigating
Scrum as one of the important methodologies for an
agile human-centred process (Maguire, 2013; Winter
et al., 2012; Holt et al., 2012). However, if we take a
broader look on ASD, we can observe a change
when it comes to the distribution of agile
methodologies in general. In particular, the use of
Kanban in IT projects has increased during the last
years (Komus, 2012; Komus et al., 2014). Despite
this trend, little is known about the integration of
Kanban and HCD.
While Scrum specifies a process model including
a set of meetings, roles and rules; Kanban can be
implemented into an organization without changing
the whole development process. In the beginning of
agile transformation using Kanban, there is no need
to change the established, well-known development
process. The application of Kanban starts with
making a workflow visible and proceeds with
continuous improvement of the existing process
model. To this end, it is easier to change from non-
agile development to Kanban, compared to the
application of Scrum.
The evolution of Kanban for IT was mainly
influenced by Anderson in between 2004-2010
(Anderson, 2004; Anderson, 2010). There are five
core practices in Kanban (Anderson and Roock,
2011):
 Visualize the workflow (e.g. using a Kanban
board)
 Limit work in progress (WIP)
 Manage continuous flow
 Make process policies explicit
 Improve collaboratively (using models and
scientific methods)
The integration of human-centred development
activities into the development process is necessary
in order to improve human related factors (e.g.
Schön, E-M., Winter, D., Uhlenbrok, J., Escalona, M. and Thomaschewski, J.
Enterprise Experience into the Integration of Human-Centered Design and Kanban.
DOI: 10.5220/0005942601330140
In Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Software Technologies (ICSOFT 2016) - Volume 1: ICSOFT-EA, pages 133-140
ISBN: 978-989-758-194-6
Copyright
c
 2016 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
133

usability and UX). ISO 9241-210 (ISO 9241-210:
2010) entails a process model for HCD related to
interactive systems. In the beginning of a project the
HCD process must be planned. The next step is to
understand and specify the context of use. Therefore,
user, tasks, hard- and software as well as physical
and social surrounding have to be analyzed. Based
on the data gathered the user requirements can be
specified. After that, possible design solutions can
be produced. Then designs are evaluated against
user requirements and if necessary iterate single
process steps until the solution meets the user
requirements.
This article gives empirical insights into the
integration of HCD activities in Kanban with the
aim to develop a product with a good UX. To this
end, a process model to integrate HCD activities in
Kanban is evaluated through a case study. In
particular, we achieve an agile conception process
for the integration of HCD with the result:
requirements are pulled along a structured workflow
and are continuously managed through development.
The contents are aimed both at agile practitioners
who are interested in improving a cross-functional
development process with Kanban as well as at
academics, who are interested in gaining practical
insights into the integration of HCD activities in
Kanban.
The remainder of this paper is structured as
followed: In section 2 we present related work by
summarizing key aspects of Human-Centered Agile
Development (HCAD) provided by literature
reviews and the current situation of HCD and
Kanban. Section 3 gives an overview of our research
objectives and introduces the research design.
Section 4 provides a discussion on the results and
limitations of this study. Finally, Section 5
concludes this paper with an outlook on future work.
2 RELATED WORK AND
BACKGROUND
2.1 Human-Centered Agile
Development
Agile Methodologies are commonly used in our
time. With the increasing application of ASD in
practice, the research field of HCAD becomes also
very popular. Accordingly, some literature reviews
have been published during the last years (Sohaib
and Khan, 2010, Silva et al., 2011, Barksdale and
McCrickard, 2012, Salah et al., 2014, Brhel et al.,
2015). On one hand these literature reviews report
challenges regarding the integration of HCD and
ASD, on the other hand the authors identified best
practices in order to address these challenges.
Sohaib and Khan (2010) investigated the
tensions between usability engineering and agile
methods. They provide an overview of existing
approaches in order to integrate usability and agile
methods.
Silva et al., (2011) dealt with similar questions
and identified five key aspects to integrate HCD and
agile (Little Design Upfront, Prototyping, User
Stories, User testing, Inspection evaluation, one
sprint ahead).
Compared to this, Barksdale et al., (2012)
mapped their included papers into five integration
types: practices, process, technology, people and
social.
Salah et al., (2014) identified the following
challenges and practices: lack of time for upfront
activities, difficulty of chunking, difficulty of
prioritizing HCD activities, optimizing the work
dynamics between developers and HCD
practitioners, performing usability testing, HCD
practitioner workload, lack of documentation.
Brhel et al., (2015) determined also five
principles for constituting a HCAD approach:
separate product discovery and product creation,
iterative and incremental design and development,
parallel interwoven creation tracks, continuous
stakeholder involvement, and artifact-mediated
communication.
To sum it up, the key aspects for HCAD reported
by literature are:
 K1: Apply a first iteration for user research and
little design upfront
 K2: Separate product discovery and product
execution, mostly combined with one iteration
ahead
 K3: Support continuous stakeholder and user
involvement
 K4: Integrate prototyping and usability testing
activities
 K5: Use artifacts in order to achieve a shared
understanding
Most of the included studies deal with development
processes organized with Scrum or Extreme
Programming (XP). However, little is known about
the integration of HCD activities in Kanban. To the
best of our knowledge this is the first case study
concerning the integration of HCD and Kanban.
ICSOFT-EA 2016 - 11th International Conference on Software Engineering and Applications
134

2.2 Integration of Human-Centered
Design and Kanban
To reach a human-centered design process (ISO,
2010) it is important to take into account conceptual
tasks like analyzing the context of use, specifying
user requirements and producing prototypes.
Another important aspect is the evaluation of these
prototypes in order to prove whether design
solutions meet the requirements. The aim of our
approach is to make an agile development process
organized with Kanban more human-centered.
Therefore, we have to adapt the classical workflow.
Winter et al., (2013) recommend four important
elements that optimize the development process:
 Enhancement with design board
 Cross functional collaboration
 Release evaluation
 Usage of UX artifacts
On one hand they propose adaption of workflows
visualized in a Kanban board and on the other hand
they implement UX artifacts.
Enhancement with Design Board. In many cases a
Kanban board visualizes the workflow of the
development team from a technical viewpoint. In
these cases, there is often a lack of HCD activities.
Conceptual tasks (e.g. user research, specify user
requirements, usability testing) are missing. To this
purpose, we enhance the Kanban process with a
design board before the development board, without
changing the development board (see Figure 1).
Accordingly, conceptual tasks can be organized in
the same structured way like development tasks.
This constitutes the first core practices of Kanban by
providing more transparency concerning the existing
workflow.
Cross-functional Collaboration. One of the most
important values in agile development is the
interaction between individuals (Beck et al., 2001;
Schön et al., 2015). To avoid the building of
functional silos (consisting of experts from one
special domain, e.g. UX expert, QA) there must be a
strong collaboration in a cross-functional team.
Similarly to the daily scrum meeting (Schwaber,
2004), the team can organize a daily standup
meeting. The objective is to synchronize the work
between teammates (e.g. developers, UX experts,
tester, project manager).
Release Evaluation. Another significant point in
HCD is the regular evaluation of the UX. For this
purpose, we can introduce a similar limitation
according to the WIP limit for the last column
(“done”, see Figure 1) of the Kanban board.
Reaching the WIP limit implies starting the release
evaluation. This has the advantage that complexity
concerning planning will be reduced and the
evaluation is carried out continuously. Significant
findings can flow into the process as new tasks,
prioritized on the design board.
Usage of UX Artifacts. To share a common vision
among the project team, requirement artifacts are
needed. These artifacts have to be understandable
within the project team. In agile development the
artifacts Personas, Persona Stories and Prototypes
have become established (Winter et al., 2013).
Creating Personas is an effective way to
understand the needs of users, prioritize features and
functionality, and to direct the design of digital
products and services (Cooper, 1999; Holt et al.,
2011; Nielsen, 2013). Personas are deduced from
concrete profiles of potential users in order to
represent archetypal users. They help stakeholders to
receive a common understanding of user needs.
User Stories are a widespread method for
requirements engineering in ASD (Cohn, 2004).
They are used for defining the scope. In respect to
this, Persona Stories are a special type of user
stories where the role is filled by a persona
(Reichelt, 2010; Winter et al., 2012; Hudson, 2013).
Figure 1: Multiple Kanban boards, representing the workflow from design through development and delivery of a product.
One task from design board might be split to more than one task on development or operation board with the aim to obtain a
continuous flow within the board and between the boards.
Enterprise Experience into the Integration of Human-Centered Design and Kanban
135

This entails the advantage that the benefits resulting
from the usage of personas are more integrated into
the development process.
Complex connections between requirements (e.g.
interactions) can be visualized with Prototypes
(Rudd et al., 1996). Project members can learn,
discover, generate and refine ideas by means of them
(Lim et al., 2008). Moreover, it can be tested if the
conceptual model of the product fits the assumptions
regarding the mental model of the user.
3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND
STUDY DESIGN
The aim of our study is to gain empirical insights in
the integration of HCD and Kanban and to prove
whether our approach (Winter et al. 2013) covers the
key aspects of HCAD (see K1-K5, 2.1) and the
implications for practice. The study was carried out
as a case study in a company. The phenomenon
under investigation is the integration of HCD in
Kanban in a real world context.
3.1 Research Questions
We defined the following research questions which
can be mapped to K1-K5 as followed:
RQ1: Which advantages/disadvantages result from
the integration of a design board?
K1: Starting the workflow by introducing a design
board intends that conceptual tasks (e.g. user
research, UX design) are carried out in the beginning
of the development process. This approach is
comparable to the implementation of a first iteration.
K2: The application of boards for design and
development (see Figur) leads to a separation of
product discovery and product execution. Design
board tasks are related to product discovery, on the
contrary, development board tasks are related to
product execution.
RQ2: Which benefits result from a cross functional
collaboration?
K3: Continuous stakeholder and user involvement
implies a cross-functional collaboration because
there are some roles that are more involved in the
communication process and act as representatives
(e.g. UX expert to users, product manager to
stakeholder).
RQ3: How can a release evaluation be carried out?
K4: One important feature of HCD is evaluating
design solutions against user requirements.
Prototypes are often used to be able to do usability
testing. Performing a release evaluation includes the
validation of assumptions represented by the
requirements.
RQ4: How can UX artifacts be integrated in the
development process?
K5: Artifacts play an important role for building a
shared understanding. In HCAD artifacts are used
for collaboration and documentation of
requirements, therefore it is necessary to find the
right combination of artifacts that project members
are willing to use.
3.2 Study Context and Research
Setting
The case study was carried out in a medium-sized IT
company, located in Germany and specialized in e-
commerce, mobile apps and SAAS tools. They use
JIRA from Atlassian to work with Kanban and have
already gained experience with Scrum.
The case study is about a single team with twelve
members (one team leader, one project manager, two
visual designers, two UX experts and six
developers) who had to do a relaunch of an internet
newspaper portal within six months in 2013/2014.
All team members have already been working with
Kanban on different experience levels.
During the project the approach by Winter et al.
(see section 2.2) was applied. To this end, a design
board was introduced. This board was followed by
the existing development board (see Figure 1) and
visualizes the design process. Due to the size of the
project team, necessary structures for the
collaboration were created to prevent the formation
of functional silos. There was no use of persona
stories, because personas had not yet been
established for the project. Instead classical user
stories have been used. For complex tasks
prototypes were created.
3.3 Data Collection and Analysis
In order to gain qualitative insights, we conducted
semi-structured interviews with six project
members. The telephone interviews were carried out
12 months after the completion of the project by a
neutral interviewer (company extern). Important is,
that the internet portal had been established at that
time. An interview consisted of nine questions and
typically took 20 to 25 minutes. The original
interview questions (German language) can be found
ICSOFT-EA 2016 - 11th International Conference on Software Engineering and Applications
136

in the Appendix. The participants were asked to
describe their experiences with the development
process and to discuss possible advantages or
disadvantages. In the end they should point out their
personal assessment through the usability and UX of
the resulting internet portal. Before analyzing the
data, we made a transcription of the recorded
interviews.
In addition, we set up a retrospective with the
UX experts in order to gather further insights.
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of the case study provide important
information for researchers and practitioners. They
are now discussed in relationship to our research
questions. The statements from the individual
interviews are anonymized (I1-I6).
4.1 Which Advantages/Disadvantages
Result from the Integration of a
Design Board (RQ1)?
The participants stated that before implementing the
design board requirements were provided in a very
unstructured way (I1). There were many
stakeholders requesting tasks simultaneously. With
applying the design board this situation has changed.
The design board became the first contact point to
place all requests (I1). UX experts started to bundle
requirements. This led to a better communication
among project members (I5). One participant (I6)
reported that product managers and UX experts
saved developers from chaos, which had existed
before implementing the design board. In addition,
the transparency concerning recurring requirements
increased. Same requirements can be used for the
same solution (I1).
We also observed some problems with the
positioning of the design board. It was not placed
beside the development board due to organizational
conditions. Participants provided information that
they had problems with the visibility of the design
board and report that only the result of concept work
was visible (I2), (I5).
4.2 Which Benefits Result from a
Cross-Functional Collaboration
(RQ2)?
The close collaboration between developers and UX
experts resulted in a high release rate. One
participant (I3) stated that the project would have
taken 4-5 months longer if they had worked as
separate teams. Another participant reported that the
co-located work brought benefits. The previously
spatial separation resulted in more questions (I3).
Another benefit of the cross-functional collaboration
is that the developers got a better feeling for the
requirements (I2). Although there was a close
collaboration between developer and UX experts
one participant state that conceptual work was not
visible during the project, only the result (I5).
With a view to the daily standup it was a
challenge to find the balance between superficial and
detailed discussion (I3). Positive and negative
perceptions of the participants concerning daily
standups:
Daily standup positive:
 Increased transparency regarding the work of
others (I1), (I2), (I5)
 Work was better coordinated (I1)
 Good overall view : Everyone got a feeling on
progress of the project (I1)
 Promoted communication and overview (I4)
 Personal stress level was low because the
communication has been improved (I4)
 Short distances to UX experts (I4)
 Group discussions during critical periods or new
functions (I5)
 Previous experience of other developers
regarding complex tasks were shared in team (I2)
 For developers interesting to see where things
are headed (from a UX expert point of view) (I2)
Daily standup negative
 It was annoying to be torn from one’s work (I4)
 Time and regularity were a switch (I1)
 Standups took often more than 15 min. because
of team size (I1), (I6)
4.3 How Can a Release Evaluation Be
Carried out (RQ3)?
For the last column of the design board a WIP limit
was set up (see column “done” in Figure 1). Once
the limit has been reached, a release evaluation
could be done. After a few weeks the last column of
the development board was full, so that a first
release evaluation was executed. An UX expert
reviewed the recognized UX problems. Quickly
feasible adjustments (< 30 minutes) were fixed
immediately. Other tasks were interrupted for it to
Enterprise Experience into the Integration of Human-Centered Design and Kanban
137

ensure release dates. For serious UX problems a new
task was created in the design board.
All participants stated that they were happy with
the resulting product and the overall usability (I1 -
I6). We can observe a growth of unique users and
usage of the portal (I6).
4.4 How Can UX Artifacts Be
Integrated in the Development
Process (RQ4)?
User stories were provided by the UX team, not the
stakeholders (I5). One team member observed that
the high number of concepts led to good results (I3).
Moreover, a toolbox of UI elements had been
created. Included UI elements were evaluated
concerning their UX. This toolbox of UI elements
took the heat off the UX experts and increased
consistency among interaction design. The elements
were used for minor changes directly by the
developers. This resulted in three benefits: a)
developers used the right UI elements on their own,
even if they were in a hurry. b) UX team was
relieved. c) developers received a better
understanding of the HCD process and stayed in
touch with the UX experts.
4.5 Additional Findings
The implementation of the process model resulted in
high efficiency (I1) for which structure and
discipline are required (I4). To sum up, participants
felt comfortable with the process because on one
hand the number of tasks were well structured (I5)
and on the other hand they liked the fact that there
was a complete process, which had covered the
development from conception to deployment (I1)
(see Figure 1). To this end, it was easy to focus on
their work (I1).
Besides, one participant emphasised that
planning poker (Grenning, 2002; Moløkken-Østvold
et al., 2008) was funny and the results of the average
value were good (I2). The same participant
experienced the project as very organized compared
to other projects without agile process (I2). With
regard to Kanban they stated that it is more
performant than Scrum (I3) and experienced the
application as very positive because of the
transparent process flow (I4).
Overall, there was a better understanding of
HCD due to cross-functional collaboration between
UX experts and developers. In addition, the
importance of having a small UX team became more
obvious to the stakeholders. As a result of the direct
cooperation, functional silos have been avoided.
Moreover, the cross-functional cooperation raised
awareness of usability for the current und following
versions. “Good usability” is more often a common
topic of conversation among developers, now. They
also ask UX experts and visual designers to find a
common solution without being forced.
The number of user issues (“How can I find ...”
or “How does ... works?”) has declined, which
results in less user support. Till today, the internet
newsletter portal has still a high UX and usability.
This is often confirmed by users and editors of the
newsletter portal.
4.6 Limitations
The results have to be interpreted with regard to the
different experience levels of the participants. Some
of the participants had worked in many Kanban
projects before, whereas some other participants had
poor experience with Kanban. The participants who
had poor experience with Kanban might not have
been able to see all benefits of the integrated HCD
activities (e.g design board, release evaluation, UX
artifacts). Furthermore, the results might be different
due to the usage of classical user stories instead of
persona stories.
A possible weakness of our approach might be
the time on which the interviews had been carried
out. The relaunch of the internet portal was finished
more than one year ago. This may have led to the
issue that not every interviewee remembered all
details or might reflect the facts in a more positive
way.
Although we interviewed different project
members (developer, UX expert, project manager)
we might miss some findings from special
perspectives. For example there were two visual
designers working on the project, but we were not
able to interview one of them, because of limitation
in their time.
5 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE
WORK
This paper presents the results of a case study
concerning the integration of HCD in ASD. We
contribute to the body of knowledge of software
development by providing:
i. Practical insights into Human-Centered Agile
Development (HCAD) with the integration of
HCD and Kanban.
ICSOFT-EA 2016 - 11th International Conference on Software Engineering and Applications
138

ii. Empirical research with regard to the key
aspects of HCAD (see K1-K5, 2.1) in an
economic environment.
iii. A proof, that our approach covers the HCAD
key aspects.
In our process model, conceptual tasks are organized
by a design board, which visualizes the workflow
and increases transparency concering user research,
UX design and usability evaluation activities.
Requirements are continuously prioritized and flow
into the development process in a structured manner.
We can conlude that the integration of HCD
activities in Kanban leads to a product with a good
UX and makes the development process more
human-centric. The users of the developed internet
portal are satisfied and their needs are fulfilled. In
addition, project members felt comfortable with the
development process and the organization of their
work. Besides, we can conclude that cross-
functional collaboration is necessary to speed up
product development.
Future research may specifically investigate a
scaled approach of our process model. Moreover, it
might be interesting to prove whether the integration
of HCD and Kanban can face the challenges UX
experts have in ASD (e.g. feel exhausted in short
iterations, natural workflow is more orientated to a
continuous “flow”).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research has been supported by the Megus
project (TIN2013-46928-C3-3-R) and by the
SoftPLM Network (TIN2015-71938-REDT) of the
Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness.
REFERENCES
Anderson, D. J., 2004. Making the Business Case for
Agile Management - Simplifying the Complex System
of Software Engineering.
Anderson, D. J., 2010. Kanban. Successful evolutionary
change in your technology business. Blue Hole Press.
Anderson, D. J. & Roock, A., 2011. An Agile Evolution:
Why Kanban Is Catching On in Germany and Around
the World. Cutter IT Journal 2011.
Barksdale, J. T. & McCrickard, D. S., 2012. Software
product innovation in agile usability teams. An
analytical framework of social capital, network
governance, and usability knowledge management.
International Journal of Agile and Extreme Software
Development, 1 (2012), 52-77.
Beck, K., Beedle, M., van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A.,
Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., Grenning, J.,
Highsmith, J., Hunt, A., Jeffries, R., Kern, J., Marick,
B., Martin, R., Mellor, S., Schwaber, K., Sutherland,
J., & Thomas, D., 2001. Manifesto for Agile Software
Development (2001).
Brhel, M., Meth, H., Maedche, A., & Werder, K., 2015.
Exploring principles of user-centered agile software
development. A literature review. Information and
Software Technology 61 (2015), 163–181.
Cohn, M., 2004. User stories applied. For agile software
development. Addison-Wesley signature series.
Addison-Wesley, Boston.
Cooper, A. 1999. The inmates are running the asylum.
Sams, Indianapolis, IN.
Grenning, J. 2002., Planning Poker or How to avoid
analysis paralysis while release planning.
Holt, E.-M., Winter, D., & Thomaschewski, J., 2011.
Personas als Werkzeug in modernen
Softwareprojekten. Die Humanisierung des
Anwenders. In Usability Professionals 2011. German
UPA e.V., Stuttgart, 40–44.
Holt, E.-M., Winter, D., & Thomaschewski, J., 2012. Von
der Idee zum Prototypen. Werkzeuge für die agile
Welt. In Usability Professionals 2012. German UPA,
Stuttgart, 22-27.
Hudson, W., 2013. User stories don't help users.
interactions 20, 6 (2013), 50–53.
ISO 9241-210:2010. Ergonomics of human-system
interaction - Part 210: Human-centred design for
interactive systems, ISO 9241-210:2010.
Komus, A., 2012. Studie: Status Quo Agile. Verbreitung
und Nutzen agiler Methoden from http://www.status-
quo-agile.de/
Komus, A., Kuberg, M., Atinc, C., Franner, L., Friedrich,
F., Lang, T., Makarova, A., Reimer, D., & Pabst, J.,
2014. Status Quo Agile 2014. Zweite Studie zu
Verbreitung und Nutzen agiler Methoden.
Lim, Y.-K., Stolterman, E., & Tenenberg, J., 2008. The
anatomy of prototypes. ACM Transactions on
Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 15, 2 (2008),
1–27.
Maguire, M., 2013. Using Human Factors Standards to
Support User Experience and Agile Design. In
Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction.
Design Methods, Tools, and Interaction Techniques
for eInclusion, D. Hutchison, T. Kanade, J. Kittler, J.
M. Kleinberg, F. Mattern, J. C. Mitchell, M. Naor, O.
Nierstrasz, C. Pandu Rangan, B. Steffen, M. Sudan, D.
Terzopoulos, D. Tygar, M. Y. Vardi, G. Weikum, C.
Stephanidis and M. Antona, Eds. Springer Berlin
Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 185–194.
Moløkken-Østvold, K., Haugen, N. C., & Benestad, H. C.,
2008. Using planning poker for combining expert
estimates in software projects. Journal of Systems and
Software 81, 12 (2008), 2106–2117.
Nielsen, L., 2013. Personas (2013). Retrieved January 28,
2016 from www.interaction-design.org/literature/
book/the-encyclopedia-of-human-computer-
interaction-2nd-ed/personas.
Enterprise Experience into the Integration of Human-Centered Design and Kanban
139

Reichelt, L., 2010. Persona driven user stories for Agile
UX (2010). Retrieved August 28, 2015 from
www.disambiguity.com/persona-driven-user-stories-
for-agile-ux/
Rudd, J., Stern, K., & Isensee, S., 1996. Low vs. high-
fidelity prototyping debate. interactions 3, 1 (1996),
76–85.
Salah, D., Paige, R. F., & Cairns, P., 2014. A systematic
literature review for agile development processes and
user centred design integration. In Proceedings of the
18th International Conference on Evaluation and
Assessment in Software Engineering, 1–10.
Schön, E. M., Escalona, M., & Thomaschewski, J., 2015.
Agile Values and Their Implementation in Practice.
IJIMAI 3, 5 (2015), 61-66.
Schwaber, K. 2004. Agile project management with
Scrum. Microsoft Press, Redmond, Wash.
Silva da Silva, T., Martin, A., Maurer, F., & Silveira, M.,
2011. User-Centered Design and Agile Methods: A
Systematic Review. In 2011 AGILE Conference, 77–
86.
Sohaib, O. & Khan, K., 2010. Integrating usability
engineering and agile software development: A
literature review. In 2010 International Conference on
Computer Design and Applications (ICCDA 2010),
V2-32-V2-38.
Winter, D., Holt, E.-M., & Thomaschewski, J., 2012.
Persona driven agile development. Build up a vision
with personas, sketches and persona driven user stories
(Poster Article). In Information Systems and
Technologies (CISTI). Proceedings of the 7th
conference held in Madrid, Madrid.
Winter, D., Schön, E.-M., Uhlenbrok, J., &
Thomaschewski, J., 2013. User Experience in Kanban.
Die UX-Karte ausspielen. In Usability Professionals
2013. German UPA, Stuttgart, 220–224.
APPENDIX
Interview questions:
 Dann bitte ich dich als erstes mir deinen Namen
und deine Aufgaben in dem Kanban-Projekt zu
nennen und kurz zu schildern.
<< Antwort >>
 An jedem Mittag habt ihr euch zu einem Daily
Standup getroffen. Was habt ihr ungefähr
gemacht und wie empfandst du diese Daily
Standups?
<< Antwort >>
 Wenn ich es richtig verstanden habe, war dieser
Prozess dieses Mal etwas anders als sonst.
Welche Änderungen oder Besonderheiten sind
dir in Erinnerung geblieben?
<< Antwort >>
 Welche Vorteile hatte dieser Prozess für dich?
<< Antwort >>
 Welche Nachteile hatte dieser Prozess für dich?
<< Antwort >>
 Du hast aktiv am Projekt mitgearbeitet, daher
interessiert mich deine persönliche Einschätzung.
Wie findest du das Ergebnis des Projekts
bezüglich der Usability und Erleben der
Nutzung?
<< Antwort >>
 Wie ist deine Einschätzung, ob das Ergebnis des
Projekts mit dem sonst üblichen Prozess auch
gelungen wäre?
<< Antwort >>
 Wie hast du dich in diesem Prozess im Vergleich
zum sonst üblichen Prozess gefühlt?
<< Antwort >>
 Gibt es vielleicht noch etwas, dass du anmerken
willst? Irgendetwas das dir besonders wichtig
oder bemerkenswert erscheint?
<< Antwort >>
ICSOFT-EA 2016 - 11th International Conference on Software Engineering and Applications
140