This visualization explores different theoretical frameworks, existing literature and previous research around a combination of fields, from several authors and practises, for a common applied aim: implementations in collaborative research processes of Design Thinking methods, on the one hand, and of Agile frameworks on the other one. Especially in contexts and methodologies related to team science (team-based research), participatory research (action research, community-based research, action science), Industry-Academia research (mainly R&D processes) and citizen science (public participation in scientific research). According to relevant academic literature, from disciplines like knowledge management, organizational development, science and technology or systems thinking, I will try to analyze and suggest in depth how adaptations of two very different methodological frameworks (Design Thinking and Agile), which were not originally developed in research contexts, can illustrate and represent innovations in the regular tasks and dynamics of collaborative research practices. From contributing to bring more efficiency and quality of outputs, for example, to engage participants and stakeholders in an “operative openness” of research projects with common values.

Agile frameworks started to be widely applied by software development teams at the beginning of 2001, in order to improve software development processes, making them more continuous and incremental based on principles of adaptability, personal and group autonomy, modularity and self-organised collaboration, as defined in the Agile manifesto (Shuterland et al., 2001). Also representing a set of emerging practises (especially in professional areas related to product development and product management), Agile as a conceptual and methodological discipline (with Scrum, Kanban, XP and some other specific frameworks) has recently expanded to other organisational contexts (Rigby et al, 2016). This is mainly due to its potential for optimising the operative capacity of teamwork in short cycles of implementation, for visualising and sharing tasks progress and for maximizing the success possibilities of projects in complex and multidisciplinary environments (quote). As I will argue, the roots and foundational theories for such methodological framework dates back to empirical work in knowledge management, specially about lean production and sharing of explicit and tacit knowledge in industrial work processes (Takeuchi et al, 1986). 

From Wikipedia:

Chris Argyris (July 16, 1923 – November 16, 2013[1]) was an American business theorist, Professor Emeritus at Harvard Business School, and a Thought Leader at Monitor Group.[2] Argyris is next to Richard Beckhard, Edgar Schein and Warren Bennis known as co-founder of organization development, and known for seminal work of learning organizations.

Argyris' collaborative work with Robert W. Putnam,[7] (not to be confused with Robert D. Putnam), and Diana McLain Smith[8] advocates an approach to research that focuses on generating knowledge that is useful in solving practical problems. Other key concepts developed by Argyris include ladder of inference, double-loop learning (Argyris & Schön 1974), theory of action/espoused theory/theory-in-use, high advocacy/high inquiry dialogue and actionable knowledge and the study of adult personality.

Argyris' concept of Action Science begins with the study of how human beings design their actions in difficult situations. Human actions are designed to achieve intended consequences and governed by a set of environment variables. How those governing variables are treated in designing actions are the key differences between single-loop learning and double-loop learning. When actions are designed to achieve the intended consequences and to suppress conflict about the governing variables, a single-loop learning cycle usually ensues. On the other hand, when actions are taken, not only to achieve the intended consequences, but also to openly inquire about conflict and to possibly transform the governing variables, both single-loop and double-loop learning cycles usually ensue. (Argyris applies single-loop and double-loop learning concepts not only to personal behaviors but also to organizational behaviors in his models.)

Today diverse research fields and practices represent and have in common the critical aspect of research based on collaboration, when literature on research practises states the clear dominance of teamwork in knowledge production, as team-based research, both inside academic organisations or among international networks (Cooke & Hilton, 2015). From co-authoring papers to data sharing, nowadays science, engineering and social sciences disciplines have experienced a clear shift towards collective research (Wuchty, Jones et al, 2006), where higher degrees of collaboration intensity usually contribute to achieving higher levels of research quality (Liao, 2011). A shift that has been taking place in a moment of disruptive adoption of information and communication technologies (ICT) in knowledge-intensive organisations (Gibbons et al, 1994) expanding this way different possibilities for multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary collaborations (König, Diehl et al 2013). In relation to this, for the purpose of this study, we must also consider in parallel the key area of collaboration of university and research centers with commercial firms and industries, involving also public administrations or not, which is usually oriented to R&D for fostering product and service innovations (Perkmann & Walsh, 2007) or different ways of knowledge and technology transfer (Santoro & Gopalakrishnan, 2001). A field where researchers and other professionals collaborate with common goals, in a two-way exchange where basic projects usually lead to immediate scientific output, while more applied projects involve high degrees of collaboration and in turn can generate learning opportunities and other positive outcomes (Pekmann & Walsh, 2009).

Another important focus related to collaborative research practices has to do, in the specific field of social sciences, with the tradition of action research and community-based research, where participants who are not professional or academic researchers can be fully involved in several aspects of the investigation process, usually following a “set of practices that respond to people's desire to act creatively in the face of practical and often pressing issues, in their lives in organizations and communities” (Reason & Bradbury, 2008). Although composed of different subfields, applications and interpretations since the origins of action research in the decade of the 40’s, for that paradigmatic area of collective inquiry practices I will use the term “participatory research”, as a subfield for the broader concept of “collaborative research practises” in this study. In this case, according to different definitions (O’Fallon & Dearry, 2002; Ison, 2008; Gergen, 2008), participatory research is characterised among other aspects by the active collaboration of community members with the figure of the researcher, who usually operates as facilitator: refining methodological tools and adapting them to given collective situations, as well as cooperating with the rest of research participants in order to collect, analyze and present data on ongoing, cyclical basis (O’Brien, 1998).

Finally, another relevant current phenomena in the fields of collaborative research is the relative new paradigm of citizen science. Characterised by large scale public involvement in scientific discovery, in terms of volunteer citizens collaborating with researchers for gathering or analysing scientific data (Boney, Cooper et al, 2009), the field of citizen science is (the same as team science) quickly evolving in parallel to the disruptive impact of ICT (Wiggins, 2010). Although as such is a relative new field in the science and technology scenario, citizen science is starting to appear in peer reviewed journals, indicating a wider use and to some extent its academic acceptance (Follet and Strezov, 2015). Also bringing important questions to ICT “crowdsourced” research, like the potential of collaborative generation of datasets, data openness and it reuse (Newman, Graham et al 2011).

From Wikipedia:

Design methods is a broad area that focuses on:

The role of design methods is to support design work, the aims of which can be varied, though they may include gaining key insights or unique essential truths resulting in more holistic solutions in order to achieve better experiences for users with products, services, environments and systems they rely upon. Insight, in this case, is clear and deep investigation of a situation through design methods, thereby grasping the inner nature of things intuitively.

Design Thinking, connected to the tradition of Design methods (Bousbaci, 2008) is still today in the process of consolidating significant basis for theoretical support among many disciplines. For the purpose of this study we will refer to Design Thinking as an integrative discipline (Buchanan, 1992), also from the perspective of concepts and foundations of systems thinking and systems theory (Jones, 2014). In practice, Design Thinking, as we will see later on, represents a set of practical approaches for the creative definition and solving of problems, a way of working encompassing a large system of thinking and acting through interacting with temporary models (Cross, 2011). Considered for many a “third discipline” between the sciences and the humanities (Archer, 1979), is emerging broadly adopted in management for activating new products and services for the market, or responds to social challenges, just to mention a couple of examples (Manzini, 2015). It offers a great variety of visual methods, procedures and techniques for designing new projects in complex circumstances, as well as the simultaneous exploration of scenarios, user-centered and participatory approaches and the integration of many possible points of view to a given situation. In comparison to analytic approaches from the scientific method or engineering disciplines, with which it has a complex dialogue in practices and foundations, Design Thinking allows to integrate more ambiguity in relation to research parameters, as well as flexibility in the generation of outputs and even the iterative redefinition of initial contexts and problems.

From Wikipedia:

Donald Alan Schön (September 19, 1930 – September 13, 1997) was a philosopher and professor in urban planning at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who developed the concept of reflective practice and contributed to the theory of organizational learning.

Much of his later work related to reflection in practice and the concept of learning systems. He (along with Chris Argyris) maintained that organizations and individuals should be flexible and should incorporate lessons learned throughout their lifespans, known as organizational learning. His interest and involvement in jazz music inspired him to teach the concept of improvisation and 'thinking on one's feet', and that through a feedback loop of experience, learning and practice, we can continually improve our work (whether educational or not) and become a 'reflective practitioner'. Thus, the work of Schön fits with and extends to the realm of many fields of practice, key twentieth century theories of education, like experiential education and the work of many of its most important theorists, namely John Dewey, Kurt Lewin, Carl Rogers and David A. Kolb.

From Wikipedia:

Extreme programming (XP) is a software development methodology which is intended to improve software quality and responsiveness to changing customer requirements. As a type of agile software development,[1][2][3] it advocates frequent "releases" in short development cycles, which is intended to improve productivity and introduce checkpoints at which new customer requirements can be adopted.

Other elements of extreme programming include: programming in pairs or doing extensive code review, unit testing of all code, avoiding programming of features until they are actually needed, a flat management structure, simplicity and clarity in code, expecting changes in the customer's requirements as time passes and the problem is better understood, and frequent communication with the customer and among programmers.

From Wikipedia:

Frederick "Fred" Edmund Emery (27 August 1925 – 10 April 1997) was an Australian psychologist. He was one of the pioneers in the field of organizational development (OD), particularly in the development of theory around participative work design structures such as self-managing teams. He was widely regarded as one of the finest social scientists of his generation.[1] His contribution to the theory and practice of organizational life will remain important well into the 21st century, particularly amongst those who feel uncomfortable with hierarchical bureaucracy and want to replace it with something more human and democratic.

Constantly drawn towards testing social science theory in field settings, he and Eric Trist, one of his closest intellectual collaborators, and other colleagues, established "open socio-technical systems theory" as an alternative paradigm for organisational design – field-tested on a national scale in Norway, in partnership with Einar Thorsrud.

After his return to Australia, he set about designing a new method to bring in jointly optimised sociotechnical systems, one designed for diffusion of the concept rather than proof that there was an alternative to autocracy in the workplace. That method is called the Participative Design Workshop and has been used in Australia and many other countries since 1971. It totally replaces the old 9 step method used in Norway.

Sociotechnical systems is one part of a comprehensive theoretical framework called Open Systems Theory (OST). Two of Emery's and Trist's key publications were: "The Causal Texture of Organisational Environments" (1965) — which became a citation classic — and "Towards a Social Ecology" (1972). These publications are the groundwork on which Fred Emery developed OST.

From Wikipedia:

Herbert Alexander Simon (June 15, 1916 – February 9, 2001), a Nobel Prize laureate, was an American political scientist, economist, sociologist, psychologist, and computer scientist whose research ranged across the fields of cognitive psychology, cognitive science, computer science, public administration, economics, management, philosophy of science, sociology, and political science, unified by studies of decision-making.[5] With almost a thousand highly cited publications, he was one of the most influential social scientists of the twentieth century. For many years he held the post of Richard King Mellon Professor at Carnegie Mellon University[6]

Simon was among the founding fathers of several of today's important scientific domains, including artificial intelligence, information processing, decision-making, problem-solving, organization theory, complex systems, and computer simulation of scientific discovery.

He coined the terms bounded rationality and satisficing, and was among the earliest to analyze the architecture of complexity and to propose a preferential attachment mechanism to explain power law distributions.[7][8]

From Wikipedia:

Hirotaka Takeuchi (竹内 弘高 Takeuchi Hirotaka?, born October 16, 1946)[1] is a Harvard Business School professor and former dean of the Graduate School of International Corporate Strategy at Hitotsubashi University in Tokyo.

Takeuchi co-wrote several noteworthy articles with Ikujiro Nonaka, a colleague at Hitotsubashi University, including the article The New New Product Development Game, in which they emphasised speed and flexibility for new product development.[3] This article is considered to be the one of the roots of the Scrum framework, one of the most used agile software development techniques. They further co-wrote the Nonaka-Takeuchi model of accumulation of tacit knowledge.[4]

From Wikipedia:

Horst Willhelm Jakob Rittel (14 July 1930 – 9 July 1990) was a design theorist and university professor. He is best known for coining the term wicked problem,[1] but his influence on design theory and practice was much wider.[2]

His field of work is the Science of Design, or, as it also known, the area of Design Theories and Methods (DTM), with the understanding that activities like planning, engineering, policy making are included as particular forms of design.

In response to the perceived failures of early attempts at systematic design, he introduced the concept of 'second generation design methods'[3] and a planning/design method known as Issue-Based Information System (IBIS) for handling wicked problems.

From Wikipedia:

Human-centered design (HCD) is a design and management framework that develops solutions to problems by involving the human perspective in all steps of the problem-solving process. Human involvement typically takes place in observing the problem within context, brainstorming, conceptualizing, developing, and implementing the solution.

Human-centered design builds upon participatory action research by moving beyond participant's involvement and producing solutions to problems rather than solely documenting them. Initial stages usually revolve around immersion, observing, and contextual framing in which innovators immerse themselves with the problem and community. Consequent stages may then focus on community brainstorming, modeling and prototyping, and implementation in community spaces.[1] Further, human-centered design typically focuses on integrating technology or other useful tools in order to alleviate problems, especially around issues of health.[2] Once the solution is integrated, human-centered design usually employs system usability scales and community feedback in order to determine the success of the solution.

From Wikipedia:

Ikujiro Nonaka (野中 郁次郎 Nonaka Ikujirō?, born May 10, 1935) is a Japanese organizational theorist and Professor Emeritus at the Graduate School of International Corporate Strategy of the Hitotsubashi University, best known for his study of knowledge management.

Nonaka co-wrote several noteworthy articles with Hirotaka Takeuchi, a colleague at Hitotsubashi University, including:

In 2008, the Wall Street Journal listed him as one of the most influential persons on business thinking.,[4] and The Economist included him in its "Guide to Management Ideas and Gurus".[5]

From Wikipedia:

Iterative and Incremental development is any combination of both iterative design or iterative method and incremental build model for software development. The combination is of long standing [1] and has been widely suggested for large development efforts. For example, the 1985 DOD-STD-2167[2] mentions (in section 4.1.2): "During software development, more than one iteration of the software development cycle may be in progress at the same time." and "This process may be described as an 'evolutionary acquisition' or 'incremental build' approach." The relationship between iterations and increments is determined by the overall software development methodology and software development process. The exact number and nature of the particular incremental builds and what is iterated will be specific to each individual development effort.

Iterative and incremental development are essential parts of the Modified waterfall models, Rational Unified Process, Extreme Programming and generally the various agile software development frameworks.

It follows a similar process to the plan-do-check-act cycle of business process improvement.

From Wikipedia:

Kanban is a method for managing knowledge work which balances the demand for work to be done with the available capacity to start new work. Intangible work items are visualized to present all participants with a view of the progress of individual items, and the process from task definition to customer delivery. Team members "pull" work as they have capacity, rather than work being "pushed" into the process when requested.

From Wikipedia:

Kanban (看板?) (literally signboard or billboard in Japanese) is a scheduling system for lean manufacturing and just-in-time manufacturing.[2] Kanban is an inventory-control system to control the supply chain. Taiichi Ohno, an industrial engineer at Toyota, developed kanban to improve manufacturing efficiency. Kanban is one method to achieve JIT.[3]

Kanban became an effective tool to support running a production system as a whole, and an excellent way to promote improvement.

From Wikipedia:

Kanban in the context of software development provides a visual process-management system that aids decision-making concerning what to produce, when to produce it, and how much to produce. Although the method originated in software development and IT projects, the method is more general in that it can be applied to any professional service, where the outcome of the work is intangible rather than physical. The method was inspired by the Toyota Production System[1] and by Lean manufacturing.[2]

From Wikipedia:

Kurt Zadek Lewin (September 9, 1890 – February 12, 1947) was a German-American psychologist, known as one of the modern pioneers of social, organizational, and applied psychology in the United States.[2] Kurt Lewin, exiled from the land of his birth, made a new life for himself. In this new life, Lewin defined himself and his contributions within three lenses of analysis; applied research, action research, and group communication were his major offerings to the field of communication.

Lewin (/ləˈviːn/ lə-VEEN) is often recognized as the "founder of social psychology" and was one of the first to study group dynamics and organizational development. A Review of General Psychology survey, published in 2002, ranked Lewin as the 18th most cited psychologist of the 20th century.[3]

From Wikipedia:

Lean manufacturing or lean production, often simply "lean", is a systematic method for the elimination of waste ("Muda") within a manufacturing system. Lean also takes into account waste created through overburden ("Muri") and waste created through unevenness in work loads ("Mura"). Working from the perspective of the client who consumes a product or service, "value" is any action or process that a customer would be willing to pay for.

Essentially, lean is centered on making obvious what adds value by reducing everything else. Lean manufacturing is a management philosophy derived mostly from the Toyota Production System (TPS) (hence the term Toyotism is also prevalent) and identified as "lean" only in the 1990s.

From Wikipedia:

Lean software development (LSD) is a translation of lean manufacturing and lean IT principles and practices to the software development domain. Adapted from the Toyota Production System,[1] a pro-lean subculture is emerging from within the Agile community.

From Wikipedia:

Lev Manovich is an author of books on new media theory, professor of Computer Science at the City University of New York, Graduate Center, U.S. and visiting professor at European Graduate School in Saas-Fee, Switzerland. Manovich's research and teaching focuses on digital humanities, social computing, new media art and theory, and software studies.

Liz Sanders is the founder of MakeTools, a company that explores new spaces in the emerging design landscapes. She is a visionary in pre-design research, having introduced many of the tools, techniques and methods being used today to drive and/or inspire design from a human-centered perspective. Liz has practiced co-designing across all the design disciplines. Her current focus is on bringing participatory, human-centered design thinking and co-creation practices to the challenges we face for the future

From Wikipedia:

Lucy Suchman, PhD is a Professor of Anthropology of Science and Technology in the Department of Sociology at Lancaster University, in the United Kingdom.[1] She has taught several courses including Virtual Cultures, Anthropology of Cybercultures, and Gender, Sexuality and Society. These courses included instruction on new forms of information and communications media, the quality of digital artefacts, and issues concerning feminists in media research.[2] Before coming to Lancaster, she worked for 22 years at Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center, where she held the positions of Principal Scientist and Manager of the Work Practice and Technology laboratory.[1][3] Suchman is a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley, obtaining her BA in 1972, MA in 1977 and a Doctorate in Social and Cultural Anthropology in 1984.[2]

Suchman's book, Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-machine Communication (1987), provided intellectual foundations for the field of human-computer interaction (HCI). She challenged common assumptions behind the design of interactive systems with a cogent anthropological argument that human action is constantly constructed and reconstructed from dynamic interactions with the material and social worlds. The theory of situated cognition emphasises the importance of the environment as an integral part of the cognitive process. She has made fundamental contributions to ethnographic analysis, conversational analysis and Participatory Design techniques for the development of interactive computer systems.[2][4]

This design practice refers to the current development and availability via non-profit, design and academic organisations of practical sets of materials for group facilitation and product/service development. Based on logics of visualization, prototyping and constructivist group discussion, some examples are:

- IDEO toolkit
- Business Model Canvas
- Nesta DIY toolkit
- td-net’s toolbox for co-producing knowledge
- Federal Crowdsourcing and Citizen science toolkit
- Team Science toolkit
- ...

From Wikipedia:

Michel Callon (born 1945) is a Professor of Sociology at the École des mines de Paris and member of the Centre de sociologie de l'innovation. He is an influential author in the field of Science and Technology Studies and one of the leading proponents of actor–network theory (ANT) with Bruno Latour.

From Wikipedia:

Nigel Cross is a British academic, a design researcher and educator, Emeritus Professor of Design Studies at The Open University, United Kingdom,[1] and Editor-in-Chief of the journal Design Studies. He is one of the key people of the Design Research Society.

Nigel Cross began his design research in the 1960s with studies of "simulated" computer-aided design systems where the purported simulator was actually a human operator, using text and graphical communication via CCTV. Cross later referred to this as a kind of Reverse Turing test;[2] in interaction design this kind of study later became known as a Wizard of Oz experiment. He also applied early forms of protocol analysis to these experiments. His PhD on ‘Human and Machine Roles in Computer Aided Design’ was expanded into the book The Automated Architect (1977),[3] which was critical of some of the computer-aided architectural design work of that time. In 1971, Cross co-organised the first major conference of the Design Research Society (DRS), on Design Participation. He continued to play significant roles in DRS, and since 2006 has been its President.

Early interests in design methods led to an edited book of foundational papers, Developments in Design Methodology (1984)[4] and a textbook of Engineering Design Methods (1989, now in a 4th edition).[5]

Subsequently his research interests turned more to design cognition or design thinking. In 1991 Cross established, with colleagues at Delft University of Technology, the international series of Design Thinking Research Symposia (DTRS).

In 1982 Cross published a seminal journal article 'Designerly Ways of Knowing',[6] drawing on design research to show Design as having its own intellectual and practical culture as a basis for education, and contrasting it with cultures of Science and Arts and Humanities. This is based on the idea that "There are things to know, ways of knowing them and ways of finding out about them that are specific to the design area." A series of his articles and conference papers on this theme over the period 1982 – 2000 was published under the title Designerly Ways of Knowing (2006).[7]

The second DTRS meeting at Delft (1994) laid the foundations for much subsequent work on protocol studies of design activity.[8] "Understanding how designers think and work" has been a significant theme in his writings, culminating in the book Design Thinking (2011). [9]

From Wikipedia:

Organizational learning is the process of creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge within an organization. An organization improves over time as it gains experience. From this experience, it is able to create knowledge. This knowledge is broad, covering any topic that could better an organization. Examples may include ways to increase production efficiency or to develop beneficial investor relations. Knowledge is created at four different units: individual, group, organizational, and inter organizational.

From Wikipedia:

Organization development is an ongoing, systematic process of implementing effective organizational change. OD is known as both a field of science focused on understanding and managing organizational change and as a field of scientific study and inquiry. It is interdisciplinary in nature and draws on sociology, psychology, particularly industrial and organizational psychology, and theories of motivation, learning, and personality. Although behavioral science has provided the basic foundation for the study and practice of OD, new and emerging fields of study have made their presence felt. Experts in systems thinking and organizational learning, structure of intuition in decision making, and coaching (to name a few) whose perspective is not steeped in just the behavioral sciences, but a much more multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary approach, have emerged as OD catalysts or tools.

From Wikipedia:

Participatory design (originally co-operative design, now often co-design) is an approach to design attempting to actively involve all stakeholders (e.g. employees, partners, customers, citizens, end users) in the design process to help ensure the result meets their needs and is usable. Participatory design is an approach which is focused on processes and procedures of design and is not a design style. The term is used in a variety of fields e.g. software design, urban design, architecture, landscape architecture, product design, sustainability, graphic design, planning, and even medicine as a way of creating environments that are more responsive and appropriate to their inhabitants' and users' cultural, emotional, spiritual and practical needs. It is one approach to placemaking.

Recent research suggests that designers create more innovative concepts and ideas when working within a co-design environment with others than they do when creating ideas on their own.

Participatory design has been used in many settings and at various scales. For some, this approach has a political dimension of user empowerment and democratization. For others, it is seen as a way of abrogating design responsibility and innovation by designers.

In several Scandinavian countries, during the 1960s and 1970s, participatory design was rooted in work with trade unions; its ancestry also includes action research and socio-technical design.

From Wikipedia:

Peter Checkland (born 18 December 1930, in Birmingham, UK) is a British management scientist and emeritus professor of Systems at Lancaster University. He is the developer of soft systems methodology (SSM): a methodology based on a way of systems thinking.

He worked in the industry for 15 years as a manager in ICI's chemicals business. At the end of the 1960s he joined the pioneering department of Systems Engineering at Lancaster University, where he became professor of Systems. At Lancaster he led a programme of action research. This research team developed a new way of tackling problem situations faced by managers — Soft Systems Methodology. The SSM approach is now used and taught worldwide.[2] Since the 1990s he is Professor Emeritus of Systems in Lancaster University Management School.

From Wikipedia:

A prototype is an early sample, model, or release of a product built to test a concept or process or to act as a thing to be replicated or learned from. It is a term used in a variety of contexts, including semantics, design, electronics, and software programming. A prototype is designed to test and try a new design to enhance precision by system analysts and users. Prototyping serves to provide specifications for a real, working system rather than a theoretical one. In some workflow models, creating a prototype (a process sometimes called materialization) is the step between the formalization and the evaluation of an idea.

From Wikipedia:

Rapid application development (RAD) is both a general term used to refer to alternatives to the conventional waterfall model of software development as well as the name for James Martin's approach to rapid development. In general, RAD approaches to software development put less emphasis on planning tasks and more emphasis on development. In contrast to the waterfall model, which emphasizes rigorous specification and planning, RAD approaches emphasize the necessity of adjusting requirements in reaction to knowledge gained as the project progresses. This causes RAD to use prototypes in addition to or even sometimes in place of design specifications. RAD approaches also emphasize a flexible process that can adapt as the project evolves rather than rigorously defining specifications and plans correctly from the start. In addition to James Martin's RAD method, other approaches to rapid development include Agile methods and the spiral model. RAD is especially well suited (although not limited to) developing software that is driven by user interface requirements.

From Wikipedia:

In science studies, science, technology and society (STS or science and technology studies) is the study of how social, political, and cultural values affect scientific research and technological innovation, and how these, in turn, affect society, politics and culture.

From Wikipedia:

Scrum is an iterative and incremental agile software development framework for managing product development.[1][2] It defines "a flexible, holistic product development strategy where a development team works as a unit to reach a common goal",[3] challenges assumptions of the "traditional, sequential approach"[3] to product development, and enables teams to self-organize by encouraging physical co-location or close online collaboration of all team members, as well as daily face-to-face communication among all team members and disciplines involved.

A key principle of Scrum is its recognition that during product development, the customers can change their minds about what they want and need (often called requirements volatility[4]), and that unpredicted challenges cannot be easily addressed in a traditional predictive or planned manner. As such, Scrum adopts an evidence-based empirical approach—accepting that the problem cannot be fully understood or defined, focusing instead on maximizing the team's ability to deliver quickly, to respond to emerging requirements and to adapt to evolving technologies and changes in market conditions.

Sheila Jasanoff is Pforzheimer Professor of Science and Technology Studies at the Harvard Kennedy School. A pioneer in her field, she has authored more than 120 articles and chapters and is author or editor of more than 15 books, including The Fifth Branch, Science at the Bar, Designs on Nature, and The Ethics of Invention. Her work explores the role of science and technology in the law, politics, and policy of modern democracies. 

From Wikipedia

The concept of computer-mediated work was first introduced by Shoshana Zuboff in a 1981 MIT Working Paper, “Psychological and Organizational Implications of Computer-Mediated Work”,[2] elaborated in a 1982 article, “New Worlds of Computer-Mediated Work”,[3] and brought to full expression in the 1988 book In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power.[4]

Zuboff’s research consisted of in-depth multi-year studies of office, factory, professional, executive, and craft workplaces all characterized by a recent shift from traditional to computer-mediated task environments. The research demonstrated the tripartite nature of the relationship between information technology and work: 1) technology is not neutral, but embodies intrinsic characteristics that enable new human experiences and foreclose others,[5] 2) within these new “horizons of the possible” individuals and groups construct meaning and make choices, further shaping the situation, and 3) the interplay of intrinsic qualities and human choices is further shaped by social, political, and economic interests that inscribe the situation with their own intended and unintended opportunities and limitations.[6]

From Wikipedia:

Systems thinking has been defined as an approach to problem solving that attempts to balance holistic thinking and reductionistic thinking. By taking the overall system as well as its parts into account systems thinking is designed to avoid potentially contributing to further development of unintended consequences. There are many methods and approaches to systems thinking (what systems thinking researchers call a "pluralism"). For example, the Waters Foundation presents that systems thinking is not one thing but a set of habits or practices[4] within a framework that is based on the belief that the component parts of a system can best be understood in the context of relationships with each other and with other systems, rather than in isolation; and that systems thinking focuses on cyclical rather than linear cause and effect. Whereas, other models characterize systems thinking quite differently. Recent scholars, however, are focused on the "patterns that connect" this pluralism of methods, this search for universal patterns that cut across the pluralism of individual methods of systems thinking is called "universality."

From Wikipedia:

Wicked problems cannot be tackled by the traditional approach in which problems are defined, analysed and solved in sequential steps. The main reason for this is that there is no clear problem definition of wicked problems. In a paper published in 2000, Roberts identifies the following strategies to cope with wicked problems:[14]

These strategies seek to tame wicked problems by vesting the responsibility for solving the problems in the hands of a few people. The reduction in the number of stakeholders reduces problem complexity, as many competing points of view are eliminated at the start. The disadvantage is that authorities and experts charged with solving the problem may not have an appreciation of all the perspectives needed to tackle the problem.

These strategies attempt to solve wicked problems by pitting opposing points of view against each other, requiring parties that hold these views to come up with their preferred solutions. The advantage of this approach is that different solutions can be weighed up against each other and the best one chosen. The disadvantage is that this adversarial approach creates a confrontational environment in which knowledge sharing is discouraged. Consequently, the parties involved may not have an incentive to come up with their best possible solution.

These strategies aim to engage all stakeholders in order to find the best possible solution for all stakeholders. Typically these approaches involve meetings in which issues and ideas are discussed and a common, agreed approach is formulated.

In his 1972 paper,[15] Rittel hints at a collaborative approach; one which attempts "to make those people who are being affected into participants of the planning process. They are not merely asked but actively involved in the planning process". A disadvantage of this approach is that achieving a shared understanding and commitment to solving a wicked problem is a time-consuming process. Research over the last two decades has shown the value of computer-assisted argumentation techniques in improving the effectiveness of cross-stakeholder communication.[16] The technique of dialogue mapping has been used in tackling wicked problems in organizations using a collaborative approach.[17]