Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Technology Supported Active Learning pp 13–30Cite as

Agile and Lean Methods with Design Thinking

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Educational Technology ((LNET))

Abstract

Approaches and methodologies that promote and trigger twenty-first century skills such as critical thinking, creativity, from self-employment to entrepreneurship, sustainability and responsibility of climate have been current topics in media, in funding resources and scientific research. One of the approaches which has been provided as partial solution is design thinking combined with agile and lean methodologies. This chapter provides an overview of the background of agile and lean methods and design thinking in educational institutes inspired by industries’ practices. The chapter starts by discussing the reasons for engineering practices need to be renewed after which brief background on evolvement of agile and lean methodologies in higher education institutions are presented. The chapter then focusses on the background and needs of design and highlights good practices and risks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://abet.org.

  2. 2.

    https://feani.org.

  3. 3.

    https://itil-docs.com, https://prince2.com/eur.

  4. 4.

    https://www.scrumalliance.org/.

  5. 5.

    https://stateofagile.versionone.com/.

  6. 6.

    https://dschool.stanford.edu/.

  7. 7.

    https://web.stanford.edu/group/cilab/cgi-bin/redesigningtheater/the-design-thinking-process/.

  8. 8.

    https://www.ideo.com/post/design-kit.

References

  • Accenture. (2019). https://www.accenture.com/us-en.

  • Agile Manifesto. 2001. https://agilemanifesto.org/principles.html.

  • Bradner, E., Iorio, F., & Davis, M. (2014). Parametres tell the design story: Ideation and abstraction in design optimization. Symposium on Simulation for Architecture and Urban Design 2014, Tampa, FL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandt, E. (2006). Designing exploratory design games: A framework for participation in participatory design? In Proceedings of the Ninth Participatory Design Conference 2006. ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. (2009). Change by Design. HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, H.-S., & Thompson, L. (2005). Old wine in a new bottle: Impact of membership change on group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98(2), 121–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christiaans, H., & Dorst, C. (1992). Cognitive models in industrial design engineering: A protocol study. In D. Taylor & D. Stauer (Eds.), Design theory and methodology—DTM92. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R., Junginger, S., & Lockwood, T. (2009). Design thinking and design management: A research and practice perspective. Design Management Review, 20(2), 46–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25, 427–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dam, R., & Siang, T. (2018). Design thinking: Get a quick overview of the history. Interaction Design Foundation. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/design-thinking-get-aquick-overview-of-the-history.

  • Dew, N. (2007). Abduction: A pre-condition for the intelligent design of strategy. Journal of Business Strategy, 28(4), 38–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies, 22, 425–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drews, C. (2009). Unleashing the full potential of design thinking as a business method. Design Management Review, 20(3), 39–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94, 103–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Encyclopedia of software engineering. (2002). Wiley Online Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D. (2002). Analogy in scientific discovery: The case of Johannes Kepler. In L. Magnani & N. J. Nersessian (Eds.), Model-based reasoning. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0605-8_2.

  • Gero, J. S. (1996). Creativity, emergence and evolution in design. Knowledge-Based Systems, 9(7), 435–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(83)90002-6.

  • Hakio, K., & Mattelmäki, T. (2011, June). Design adventures in public sector. In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces (p. 60). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2347504.2347570.

  • Hardy, D., Myers, T., & Sankupellay, M. (2018). Cohorts and cultures: Developing future design thinkers. In Proceedings of ACE 2018, Association for Computing Machinery (pp. 9–16).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassi, L., & Laakso, M. (2011a). Conceptions of design thinking in the design and management discourses. In Proceedings of IASDR2011, the 4th World Conference on Design Research, Delft (pp. 1–10).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassi, L., & Laakso, M. (2011b). Making sense of design thinking. In T.-M. Karjalainen, M. Koria, & M. Salimäki (Eds.), IDBM papers (Vol. 1, pp. 50–63). Helsinki: IDBM Program, Aalto University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassi, L., Paju, S., & Maila, R. (2015). Kehitä kokeillen: organisaation käsikirja. Talentum Pro.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassi, L., & Tuulenmäki, A. (2012). Experimentation-driven approach to innovation: Developing novel offerings through experiments. In ISPIM Conference Proceedings (p. 1). The International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (2009). C-K design theory: An advanced formulation. Research Engineering Design, 19, 181–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holvikivi, J., & Hjort, P. (2017). Agile development in software engineering instruction. In A. Tatnall & M. Webb (Eds.), Tomorrow’s learning: Involving everyone. Learning with and about technologies and computing. WCCE 2017. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology (Vol. 515, pp. 609–618). Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, L., & Page, S. E. (2004). Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(46), 16385–16389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hybs, I., & Gero, J. S. (1992). An evolutionary process model of design. Design Studies, 13(3), 273–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IDEO. (2013). Design thinking for educators. Accessed 2 December 2017 from https://designthinkingforeducators.com/toolkit/.

  • Jonassen, D. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koskela, L., Paavola, S., & Kroll, E. (2018). The role of abduction in production of new ideas in design. In P. E. Vermaas & S. Vial (Eds.), Advancements in the philosophy of design (pp. 153–183). Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krafchik, J. F. (1988). Triumph of the lean production system. MIT Sloan Management Review, 30(1). https://www.lean.org/downloads/MITSloan.pdf.

  • Laanti, M. (2018). https://www.nitor.com/en/news-and-blogs/nitor-surveying-state-agile-finland-together-university-helsinki.

  • Lawson, B. (1980). How designers think: The design process demystified (1st ed.). The Architectural Press Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lean service creation, Futurice. (2017). https://www.leanservicecreation.com/canvases.

  • Lee, B., Srivastava, S., Kumar, R., Brafman, R., & Klemmer, S. R. (2010). Designing with interactive example galleries. In Proceedings of CHI 2010: Perspectives on Design (pp. 2257–2266).

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, T. J. (1972, September–October). Production-line approach to service. Harvard Business Review, 41–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood, T. (2009). Transition: How to become a more design-minded organization. Design Management Review, 20(3), 29–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marjoram, T. (2010). An introduction to the organization of the profession. In Engineering: Issues, challenges and opportunities for development (pp. 135–136). UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattelmäki, T., & Battarbee, K. (2002). Empathy probes. In T. Binder, J. Gregory, & I. Wagner (Eds.), PDC 2002 Participatory Design Conference 23–25.6.2002 (pp. 266–272). Malmö, Sweden: Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKim, R. H. (1972). Experiences in visual thinking. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Microsoft. (2019). https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/learn/agile/what-is-agile.

  • Miyata, K., Nagai, Y., Yuizono, T., & Kunifuji, S. (2017). Human capital development through innovation design education. In Proceedings of SA ’17 Symposium on Education. New York, NY: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3134368.3139219.

  • Nagai, Y., & Noguchi, H. (2002). How designers transform keywords to visuals. In C&C ’02, October 14–16, 2002 (pp. 118–125). Loughborough, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. (2010). Design thinking: A useful myth. Core77 [online]. https://www.core77.com/blog/columns/design_thinking_a_useful_myth_16790.asp.

  • Paavola, S. (2014). From steps and phases to dynamically evolving abduction (Commens Working Papers no. 5). Pub. 140828-1417a. Commens: Digital Companion to C. S. Peirce. https://www.commens.org/papers/paper/paavola-sami-steps-and-phases-dynamicallyevolving-abduction.

  • Paavola, S. (2015a). Deweyan approaches to abduction? In Action, belief and inquiry (p. 230).

    Google Scholar 

  • Paavola, S. (2015b). From steps and phases to dynamically evolving abduction. University of Helsinki. Accessed, 12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2014). Trialogical approach for knowledge creation. In Knowledge creation in education (pp. 53–73). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, P. G. (1987). Design thinking. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rylander, A. (2009). Design thinking as knowledge work: Epistemological foundations and practical implications. Design Management Journal, 4(1), 7–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salehi, N., & Bernstein, M. S. (2018). Hive: Collective design through network rotation. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 2(CSCW), 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salehi N., Michael S., & Bernstein, M. S. (2018, November). Hive: Collective design through network rotation. In Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (Vol. 2, CSCW, Article 151, p. 26). New York, NY: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, E., & Dandavate, U. (1999). Design for experiencing: New tools. In C. J. Overbeeke & P. Hekkert (Eds.), Proceedings of the First International Conference on Design and Emotion (pp. 87–92). Delft, The Netherlands: TU Delft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sato, S., Lucente, S., Meyer, D., & Mrazek, D. (2010). Design thinking to make organization change and development more responsive. Design Management Review, 21(2), 44–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schleicher, A. (2018). World class: How to build a 21st-century school system. OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scrum Alliance. https://www.scrumalliance.org/.

  • Seidel, V. P., & Fixson, S. K. (2013). Adopting design thinking in novice multidisciplinary teams: The application and limits of design methods and reflexive practices. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(S1), 19–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2001). Composition and construction in experts’ and novices’ weaving design. Design Studies, 22, 47–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(99)00038-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., Huotilainen, M., Mäkelä, M., Groth, C., & Hakkarainen, K. (2014). The promise of cognitive neuroscience in design studies. In Design Research Society Conference DRS 2014. Umeå, Sweden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, T., Tiwari, N., & Kelkar, D. (2012). Study of difference between forward and backward reasoning. International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, 2(10), 271–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1976). Administrative behavior (3rd ed.). The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sivunen, A., & Nordbäck, E. (2015). Social presence as a multi-dimensional group construct in 3D virtual environments. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanford University Ideo courses. https://dschool.stanford.edu/about.

  • State of agile report 2018. https://stateofagile.versionone.com/.

  • Stempfle, J., & Badke-Schaube, P. (2002). Thinking in design teams—An analysis of team communication. Design Studies, 23, 473–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suwa, M., Gero, J., & Purcell, T. (1994). Unexpected discoveries and S-invention of design requirements-important vehicles for a design process. Design Studies, 21(6), 539–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thoring K., & Müller R.M. (2011). Understanding the creative mechanisms of design thinking. In Desire ’11 (pp. 137–147). Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varghese, E. M., & Bini, R. T. (2019). Workforce agility—The Holy Grail. International Academic Journal of Business Management, 6(1), 152–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wauck, H., Yen, Y.-C., Fu, W.-T., Gerber, E., Dow, S. P., & Bailey, B. P. (2017). From in the class or in the wild? Peers provide better design feedback than external crowds. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (1996). Lean thinking: Banish waste and create wealth in your corporation. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 48(11).

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaki, J., & Ochsner, K. N. (2012). The neuroscience of empathy: Progress, pitfalls and promise. Nature Neuroscience, 15(5), 675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Digital Technologies, Tallinn University, Narva Road 25, 10120, Tallinn, Estonia

    Kai Pata & Merja Bauters

  2. Metropolia University of Applied Sciences, Helsinki, Finland

    Merja Bauters, Petri Vesikivi & Jaana Holvikivi

Authors
  1. Kai Pata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Merja Bauters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Petri Vesikivi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jaana Holvikivi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kai Pata .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Instituto Superior de Engenharia do Porto, Porto, Portugal

    Carlos Vaz de Carvalho

  2. Tallinn University, Tallinn, Estonia

    Merja Bauters

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Pata, K., Bauters, M., Vesikivi, P., Holvikivi, J. (2021). Agile and Lean Methods with Design Thinking. In: Vaz de Carvalho, C., Bauters, M. (eds) Technology Supported Active Learning. Lecture Notes in Educational Technology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2082-9_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2082-9_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-16-2081-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-16-2082-9

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation