Introducing ‘Human-Centered Agile Workflow’ (HCAW) – An Agile Conception and Development Process Model

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 607)


Amongst today’s successful digital companies, customer-centricity is, in one way or another, at the core of their business strategies. Successful roll-outs without previous analysis of context, needs and tasks of the actual people who are supposed to use the digital product, are becoming less and less. At the same time, highly competitive industries, changing requirements and the demand for efficient and constant delivery of new software products, has led to an astonishing success of agile development methodologies. It is often claimed that they work well together with customer-centered approaches such as Design Thinking. In today’s software development reality, however, this is still far from being an established routine. In this article, the Human-Centered Agile Workflow (HCAW) is introduced as process model for true integration of customer-centered conception and agile development.


Software development process Agile Design Thinking Human-Centered Design User experience Agile UX Lean UX Interdisciplinary 


  1. 1.
    Chang, C., et al.: Time-line based model for software project scheduling with genetic algorithms. Inf. softw. Technol. 50, 1142–1154 (2008). Elsevier, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coverity: The Software Development Challenge. Coverity, San Francisco (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brown, T.: Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. HarperCollins, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nielsen Norman Group: Effective Agile UX Product Development. (2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    International Organization for Standardization: DIN EN ISO 9241-210 Human-centred design for interactive systems. (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beck, K., et al.: Manifesto for Agile Software Development. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    VersionOne: The State of Agile Report. (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brown, T.: Design thinking. In: Harvard Business Review (June 2008), pp. 87–92. Harvard Business Publishing (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Camacho, M.: David Kelley: From design to design thinking at stanford and IDEO. In: She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, vol. 2, issue 1, pp. 88–101. Tongji University Press, Shanghai (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Plattner, H. et al.: , Design Thinking. In: mi-wirtschaftsbuch. Munich (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gibbons, S.: Design Thinking 101. Retrieved 6 March 2017
  12. 12.
    Waloszek, G.: Introduction to Design Thinking. Retrieved 6 March 2017
  13. 13.
    Knapp, J., et al.: Sprint: How to Solve Big Problems and Test New Ideas in Just Five Days. Simon and Schuster, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Collier, K.: Agile Analytics: A Value-Driven Approach to Business Intelligence and Data Warehousing. Addison-Wesley, USA (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gothelf, J., et al.: Lean UX: Designing Great Products with Agile Teams. O’Reilly Media, Sebastopol (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rubin, K.: Essential Scrum: A Practical Guide to the Most Popular Agile Process. Addison-Wesley, USA (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jongerius, P., et al.: Get Agile!: Scrum for UX. Design and Development. BIS Publishers, The Netherlands (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brown, D.: Agile User Experience Design: A Practitioner’s Guide to Making It Work. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ries, E.: The lean startup: How today’s entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. Random House, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gothelf, J.: Lean vs Agile vs Design Thinking: What you really need to know to build high-performing digital product teams. Gothelf Corp, Glen Rock (2017)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jarrell, J.: Stories versus Themes versus Epics. Retrieved 6 March 2017

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LINC Interactionarchitects GmbHMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations