Closing the Gap between Practice and Education : A Case Study

Managing integrated development, cross-functional teams and strategic planning are challenges that many of today’s business and design leaders face. The pressure to meet these challenges comes from a variety of sources, including: a need to connect with consumers in meaningful new ways, accelerating development cycles, and competitive global markets that require a ready supply of highly creative and innovative ideas. In response, the practice of design has changed from a relatively simple service-based model to one that offers a range of capabilities and offerings geared towards providing strategic value to corporate partners. In design education, the changes have been considerably less dramatic. In spite of a number of notable examples (such as at IIT, MIT and Carnegie Mellon), most design programs in the U.S. struggle to implement coursework that includes integrated development and crossfunctional teams of students. Without meaningful progress in this area, today’s students will graduate ill-equipped to confront tomorrow’s most challenging design projects. This paper highlights a research project that explored how this problem might be addressed. With generous corporate funding, the project was conducted at Arizona State University during the past two years and featured the development of a set of special studio-courses that involved cross-functional teams of students (from business, industrial design and graphic design) applying a user-centered, integrated development process to explore new strategies, plans, concepts and experiences. The paper includes: discussion of literature in business and design relating to the topic; a full description of the course; presentation of the students’ final strategies and concepts; and a set of implications for educators to consider. The paper also summarizes the results of a unique evaluation of the course that was conducted by a team of independent graduate research assistants. Using data generated from an ethnographic study of the students enrolled in the course, the research highlights key issues and problems the students encountered with creativity, teamwork, and leadership. Biography Paul Rothstein is an Assistant Professor of Industrial Design at Arizona State University (ASU) and the Director of DESiGNSPACE, an interdisciplinary research and design environment at ASU. In addition to teaching undergraduate and graduate coursework, Paul focuses on exploring and developing new methods and processes for sparking user-centered business and design innovation. He lectures widely, conducts corporate-sponsored research and offers professional workshops relating to experience design and the application of field research in design. Before arriving at ASU, Paul was at the Illinois Institute of Technology's Institute of Design where he was the recipient of the IDSA's Gianninoto Scholarship and the Fahnstrom/McCoy Product Design Fellowship. He was also a senior designer and program manager for Polivka Logan Design in Minneapolis where he was responsible for leading crossfunctional teams in the development of products and strategies for 3M, Cray Research, PUR, Telex, Caire and other manufacturers and corporations. Introduction Contemporary Design Practice In the past decade or so, the practice of industrial design has evolved considerably to include a variety of new activities and responsibilities. User research, strategic product planning, cross-functional teamwork, experience design -all these, and more, are central to contemporary design and clearly show how it has grown from an occupation with a narrow focus to an integrated profession with strong links to business, engineering and social science. Contrary to popular press, however, this notion of design as an integrated profession did not suddenly emerge during the 1990s. In fact, it evolved from the work and ideas of a variety of notable twentieth century designers (e.g., Henry Dreyfuss, Robert Probst and Jay Doblin), each of whom practiced and promoted design in ways that directly resonate with contemporary conditions. Given their ideas about design and methods of work, these designers would likely find themselves fully capable in dealing with contemporary product planning and user research, along with the cross-functional interaction that exists in design today. With these influential designers serving as a foundation, contemporary design has developed into a complex profession which increasingly utilizes an integrated development method (which, for this article, is defined as: a development method that involves cross-functional teams; a focus on shaping technology and business capabilities to address user needs; and a broad scope, ranging from early investigative research to the specification of new strategies/plans, experiences, products, services, media and communications). The adoption of this method or approach can be found in a growing number of articles (Cain 1998; Leonard and Rayport 1997) and books (Kelley, 2001; Hirshberg 1998) that have appeared during recent years. In The Invisible Computer, for example, Don Norman (1998) discusses the value (measured from a business point-of-view) of a human-centered product development process that integrates marketing, technology and user experience. Jonathan Cagan and Craig Vogel (2002) take this discussion a step further. In Creating Breakthrough Products, Cagan and Vogel present a highly detailed and comprehensive description of an integrated development method (iNPD) that features cross-functional teams, diverse types of research and a broad scope of responsibilities, including everything from the identification of new market opportunities to concept refinement. Their book, along with Ulrich’s and Eppinger’s (1995), clearly demonstrates that integrated processes, planning, consumer research and user experience are part of a maturing body of knowledge in design today. Introduction Contemporary Design Education In comparison to design practice, the evolution of design education during the past couple of decades has, arguably, been less dramatic. In fact, a review of current curriculums reveals that the vast majority of design programs in the U.S. continue to concentrate largely on educating students about traditional design skills, knowledge and processes. Relatively few programs include substantial components (i.e., more than a token class) relating to business, engineering or social science. Nor do they require students to interact cross-functionally on a regular, day-to-day basis. A small number of institutions are offering comprehensive alternatives. For example, the graduate program at the Institute of Design at IIT in Chicago focuses on research (highlighting user research), strategic planning, and comprehensive design solutions integrating products with communications and services. At the undergraduate level, a variety of institutions offer courses or programs that include parts of integrated development (e.g., University of Michigan, University of Cincinnati, University of California at Long Beach and Brigham Young University). All too often, however, these valuable offerings are isolated events that do not necessarily become permanent parts of a curriculum. Seemingly, there is also limited interest in integrated development among faculty teaching in design programs (though it should be noted that Cagan and Vogel are both educators from Carnegie Mellon University). This can be seen by evaluating the topics educators presented at the past three IDSA National Design Education Conferences (i.e., the premier industrial design education conference in the U.S.). As shown (see figure 1), 19 articles on topics relating to integrated development were presented during 1999, 2000 and 2001 -far behind, for example, the 39 articles presented about design pedagogy. It should be noted, however, that interest in integrated development seems to be growing, since each year the number of articles presented on the topic nearly doubled. Topic 1999 200