Advertisement

Human-Centered Software Engineering as a Chance to Ensure Software Quality Within the Digitization of Human Workflows

  • Holger FischerEmail author
  • Björn Senft
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9856)

Abstract

Nowadays, a technological development boost can be observed within information technology and its application possibilities. This development results in a digitization of economic processes and human workflows, e.g. within the manufacturing industry. Furthermore, the discussion between digital assistance of employees vs. automation of processes leads to an ongoing change of work tasks or employees’ responsibilities. Decision-makers will have to focus on organizational, human as well as on technological aspects to ensure organizational and employee’s acceptance of digital solutions likewise. Despite all efforts, today’s software products still lack of quality with regards to missing or unused functionality and bad usability. Thus, current software engineering methods seem to be insufficient. Therefore, this paper describes an iterative approach combining software engineering paradigms like human-centered design and agility to enable decision-makers within manufacturing industry to build digital tools that are accepted by their employees and are of value for the company itself.

Keywords

Digital transformation Change Acceptance Workflows Human-centered design Agile Software engineering Work 4.0 

References

  1. 1.
    Maslow, A.H.: A theory of human motivation. Psychol. Rev. 50(4), 370–396 (1943)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) re-imagining work - green paper work 4.0 (2015). http://www.bmas.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/PDF-Publikationen/arbeiten-4-0-green-paper.pdf. Accessed April 2016
  3. 3.
    German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWi) monitoring report digital economy (2014). http://www.bmwi.de/EN/Service/publications,did=686950.html. Accessed April 2016
  4. 4.
    Bainbridge, L.: Ironies of automation. Automatica 19(6), 775–779 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buenen, M., Walgude, A.: World quality report 2015–16, 7th edn. (2015). https://www.capgemini.com/thought-leadership/world-quality-report-2015-16. Accessed April 2016
  6. 6.
    Johnson, J.: CHAOS 2014. The Standish Group (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sage software GmbH: independent study on IT investments (2014). http://goo.gl/qy0eM0. Accessed April 2016
  8. 8.
    ISO 9241–210: Ergonomics of human-system interaction - Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jokela, T.: An assessment approach for user-centred design processes. In: Proceedings of EuroSPI 2001. Limerick Institute of Technology Press, Limerick (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bevan, N.: Quality in use - meeting user needs for quality. J. Syst. Softw. 49, 89–96 (1999). Elsevier Science Inc., New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Walker, M., Takayama, L., Landay, J.A.: High-fidelity or low-fidelity, paper or computer? Choosing attributes when testing web prototypes. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 661–665 (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schwaber, K., Sutherland, J.: The Scrum Guide (2013). http://www.scrumguides.org. Accessed April 2016
  13. 13.
    Ambler, S.W.: Agile model driven development (AMDD): the key to scaling agile software development. http://agilemodeling.com/essays/amdd.htm. Accessed April 2016
  14. 14.
    da Silva, T.S., Martin, A., Maurer, F., Silveira, M.: User-centered design and agile methods: a systematic review. In: Proceedings of the AGILE Conference, pp. 77–86. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bertholdo, A.P.O., da Silva, T.S., de O. Melo, C., Kon, F., Silveira, M.S.: Agile usability patterns for UCD early stages. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU 2014, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8517, pp. 33–44. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Belchev, B., Baker, P.: Improving Obama campaign software: learning from users. In: Proceedings of the AGILE Conference, pp. 395–399. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sy, D., Miller, L.: Optimizing agile user-centred design. In: Proceedings of CHI Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3897–3900. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gothelf, J., Seiden, J.: Lean UX: Applying Lean Principles to Improve User Experience. O’Reilly, Sebastopol (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Manifesto for agile software development (2001). http://www.agilemanifesto.org. Accessed June 2016
  20. 20.
    Adolph, S.: What lessons can the agile community learn from a maverick fighter pilot. In: Proceedings of the AGILE Conference, pp. 1–6. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fischer, H., Rose, M., Yigitbas, E.: Towards a task driven approach enabling continuous user requirements engineering. In: 2nd Workshop on Continuous Requirements Engineering (CRE) (REFSQ-JP 2016), CEUR-WS.org, vol. 1564 (2016)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Martinie, C., Navarre, D., Palanque, P.: A multi-formalism approach for model-based dynamic distribution of user interfaces of critical interactive systems. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 72(1), 77–99 (2014). Academic Press, DuluthCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Interaction flow modeling language (IFML). http://www.ifml.org
  24. 24.
    Calvary, G., Coutaz, J., Thevenin, D., Limbourg, Q., Bouillon, L., Vanderdonckt, J.: A unifying reference framework for multi-target user interfaces. Interact. Comput. 15, 289–308 (2003). ElsevierCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SICPPaderborn UniversityPaderbornGermany

Personalised recommendations