Discussion Paper No. 93
Management of Design ProcessofUniversity-Industry Collaboration-A Case Study of the Collaboration
between Honda and TUADYosuke KANNO
June,2009TOHOKU MANAGEMENT & ACCOUNTING RESEARCH GROUPGRADUATE SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND

MANAGEMENT TOHOKU UNIVERSITY
KAWAUCHI, AOBA-KU, SENDAI,
980-8576 JAPANManagement of Design Process of University-Industry Collaboration-A Case Study of the Collaboration between Honda and TUADYosuke KANNO
Doctoral Course, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Tohoku University

1. Introduction
In recent years, along with the fact that design has been increasingly acknowledged asa significant management resource, there is a rise in companies working on a joint
project with students of design universities to explore the possibility of more innovative
product design and to promote the creativity of its design organization. Designs createdby students with young sensibilities and creative ideas bring about the ideas andinspirations that can not be generated internally in companies. Because students often
perform the task of design in different contexts with companies, there exist misfits
between their designs with the real problem-solving ones of companies.

In order todeal with these problems and to create good performances, students need to make somechanges in the existing framework and methodology for their actions and adapt to thedesirable designs of companies through “reflective practice”. However, because it is noteasy for students to achieve higher levels of learning by themselves, some external work
becomes necessary in the collaboration process. This research questions “How topromote “reflective practice” by students to deal with the incompatibility in thecollaboration process?” Through making a deep analysis of successful cases in Japan,
this research aims to clarify some requirements of management for promoting reflective
practice by students and generating the desirable collaboration process. In this study,“Design” mainly refers to the product design, and the collaboration between design
universities and companies is called “University-Industry Collaboration in Design
Field”.
2. Examination of existing studies
2.1 Features of the design process
Fundamental problem of design is to achieve fitness between two entities: the form inrequest and its context, and to create the ensemble comprising the form and its context
1

(Alexander, 1964). According to Alexander (1964), context defines the problem presents
a request to the form. In other words, the form in request as the solution for the problem
is determined depending on how designers define its context. Therefore, designers needto define clearly the context. In this sense, defining the context is the core task of thedesign process. However, in the modern society, multiple elements that should besatisfied interact complexly and the design problems are reaching to insoluble levels ofcomplexity. Alexander (1964) and Simon (1996) suggested that disassembling thedesign problem into semi-independent components is the effective way of dealing withthe complexity. In this way, by repeating several times the cycle of capturing the “gap”
between goal and reality as the problem, exploring acceptable alternatives, evaluating
them, and finally expressing the form, designers can reach “satisfactory solutions”. This
analytical solution is useful in clarifying the structure of complex design problems. On
the other hand, we must admit that there is a certain limitation of dealing with theunique design problems characterized by tacit knowledge features. Design act isbasically to visualize an idea, a concept, a plan into a creative form (Walsh, 1996).
When the designers perform these tasks, they interweave many kinds of knowledge andinformation complexly and internally (Dumas, 1995). Cognitive processes inside thedesigners are dynamic with many interacting factors and occur tacitly (Utterback, 2006).
This research points out the following three characteristics of the design process
based on above-mentioned existing discussions. a) utilizing the various knowledge
while using both logical and intuitive thinking, b) passing through complex cognitive
processes, c) progressing in action-oriented and by trial and error. Such design process
is the process to finally try to achieve fitness between the forms in requests and its
context.
2.2 Management of design process
One of the basic principles in the design process is to achieve “consumer-centeredproduct design” such as grasping the needs and knowledge of users efficiently, sharing
them among organization members, and reflecting them to design rapidly (Lojacono
and Zaccai, 2004). Norman (1988) also emphasized the importance of that designers
have the same image (cognition) with users through the design (product) while doing
research about the designs of tools used in daily life. The suggestion of Norman (1988)

2implies that, from the viewpoint of creating good designs much more efficiently in an
organization with several members, designers need to share not only the cognition andneeds of users but also their knowledge and cognition among members through thedesign. However, it is not easy for designers to share cognition (image) among members
because there are unique features reflected by sensitivity aspects that go beyond logicalexplanations.
Organizational design activity is strongly associated with knowledge that involves
knowledge creating and sharing among members (Boujut and Blanco, 2003). If design
is captured in terms of knowledge, we can regard design process as the problem-solving
process through combining explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge. In the design
process, tacit knowledge is particularly important (Utterback, 2006). Dumas (1995)
pointed out that, in order to create good designs, cross-functional teams involving in thedesign need to go through a complex process of, such as, interweaving their knowledge
to each other. Moreover, in order to create more creative designs, it is desirable that theknowledge interwoven is diverse and there is little relationship between pieces ofknowledge (Finke, Ward and Smith, 1992). Utterback (2006) suggested developing acommon language, face-to-face communication, and making use of visualized objects,
as ways for designers to integrate and transfer tacit knowledge as well as to create ideal
design. Bailetti, Callahan and McCluskey (1998) pointed out that the mutual
coordination among interdependent members involving in the design development does
affect the future performance of design output and that it is necessary for members toshare the work and cognition through mutual coordination. That members in the design
share the cognition of users through mutual coordination and interweave the tacitknowledge becomes the requirements in these organizational design processes. However,these existing studies have only discussed some management requirements of the design
process for creating designs in one organization and do not fully answer the
management matters in creating designs between organizations, which have different
domains such as university-industry collaboration in design field.
Interpretation, understanding and deduction about perception and sensitivity of users
are derived from self-reflection level and susceptible to individual differences such as
culture, experience, education (Norman, 2004). Since tacit knowledge is also deeply
rooted in an individual’s actions, experiences, ideals, values or emotions, and it is too

3personal to be formalized, it is difficult to communicate and share with others (Nonaka
and Takeuchi, 1995). Moreover, designers have cognitive features in generating designconcepts by combining own beliefs and aesthetic feelings to their experiences and themethodological framework they depend on (Ogawa and Tokosumi, 2000). Therefore, it
is supposed to be more difficult for students and company designers to share cognition
mutually and interweave the tacit knowledge. It is also difficult for students who usuallydesign in the context stressing on originality and individuality to accurately recognize
the context of designs in companies. As a result, there is a strong possibility thatstudents can not create precisely the form in request in the contexts of companies, whichleads to misfit between two sides. Moreover, it is supposed that existing framework andmethodologies of students with little experience are too limited to create designs forcompanies. In this situation, modifying the design output produced by students is notenough, promoting students to learn to make some changes in the existing framework
for their actions to define the context and create designs is also needed. This researchsuggests taking “reflective practice” into consideration as an important concept in orderto achieve higher learning of students.
2.3 Reflective PracticeIn this section, this research examines how students can achieve higher leaning andhow the coordination between members in the university-industry collaboration process
in design field can be achieved.
Shöne (1983) proposed “reflective practitioner” as those who finds the theory ofpractice while reflecting on unexpected experiences in the field and face the hard tasks
that go beyond his or her fields, and he also pointed out the importance of “reflectingin-action”. Reflecting-in-action refers to generating a new situation through the dialogue
with the situation that occurs in the course of activities. These reflective practice isbased on the model of “theory-in-use” called “ModelⅡ” (Argyris and Shöne, 1974) .
Theory-in-use is the “theory of action” that provides the actual practice of individual
acts, apart from the “espoused theory” that is espoused subjectively. Argyris and Shöne(1974) has emphasized that, in order to deal with the difficult situation of problemsolving in practice, it is necessary to change from theory-in-use of ModelⅠ, of single-

4loop learning that is a self-closing and one-way, to theory-in-use of ModelⅡ, of doubleloop learning that can be an open and denial to their own theories and the action.
In university-industry collaboration in design field, students who reflect in the
difficult situation of unexperienced designs for companies, are the learners having theaction world of ModelⅡ in practice. Because practical inquiry is achieved through“body-mind” activity, learning activities as an inquiry need to be achieved in theinteraction activities with others and in the appropriate commitments from outside(Dewye, 1933). In fact, the action world of ModelⅡ is characterized by the mutual
relationship based on interactivity, openness and cooperation (Argyris and Shöne, 1974).
Argyris and Shöne (1974) suggested “personally caused experience” and “examining
dilemmas” as basic requirements for moving to the action world of ModelⅡ. It is
supposed that, in order to achieve such a student’s higher learning in the collaboration
process, the following requirements need to work; a) Students can freely experience
works with the absence of the expected outcomes; b) Students directly confront the gap
between actions they thought effective and their achievements; c) Students learn
through interaction with others. University teachers and company designers who
generate a collaborative process need to manage from the viewpoint of generating
effectively situations that students achieve reflective practice based on Model Ⅱ
through creating a learning environment for above-mentioned requirements to work.
However, how should university teachers and company designers deal with these
problems? This research focuses on how university teachers and company designers canconcretely deal with some problems in the collaboration process through making a deep
analysis of a successful case in Japan. Finally, this research points out how university
teachers and company designers should generate and manage the collaboration process.
4. CaseThis case is about the university-industry collaboration activity between Powerproducts R&D Center of Honda R&D Corporation (Honda) and Tohoku University of
Art and Design (TUAD) from April to December in 2008. In this chapter, following theflow of joint projects, this research examines carefully which kind of problems arise
between members in the collaboration process and how university teacher and Honda
designers deal with these problems. The description of this case is mainly based on the5survey record of interviews by the author and secondary materials. Interviews for 4
persons involving in the collaboration activity were conducted four times from August
2008 to April 2009.
4.1 Background and purpose of the collaboration activity
Honda has been actively working on the joint project with students of design
universities in Japan. The purpose is to promote consciousness and creativity of its own
designers through participating in the joint project with students who design with freeand young sensibility. Honda also aims to create good design outputs as a result of thecollaboration activity. In this collaboration activity, Honda and TUAD worked on
developing the design of “power products” such as tillers and mowers with a Honda
small general-purpose engine, and finally aimed to complete the prototype models.
Collaboration activity progressed through the ways that students tried to propose adesign of power products, then university teacher and Honda designers provided someadvice and guidance to student.
4.2 Process of collaboration activity
In going on with the collaboration activity, the problem that university teacher andHonda designers had to deal with firstly was that students did not have the basis forthinking and generating the idea of design concept, because they had no experience ofdesigning actual products of the company and were not familiar with the power
products such as tiller and mower. Therefore, students often failed to generate ideas in
the stage of setting out the design concept. To deal with this problem, university teacher
set up the opportunity for students to practically operate existing power products of
Honda in the field constructed in the university for this project.

Through experiencing

the actual work with the products, students managed to understand the basic premises indesign, such as the operation senses and the product structure (“What is the power
products using general-purpose engines?”, “What is making work easier?”). Throughthis understanding, students became to be able to point out the specific problems ofexisting tillers and mowers. For example, “The existing products are hard to bring to thefield”, “The operating display of the existing products is not refined and hard for novice
users to understand”, “The existing products are too difficult for users who don’t have6

so much power to operate”, “The form of the existing products is less familiar”.
Through these experiences, students became to be able to start setting out the designconcept and express the form basing on the problems they found in themselves.
In this collaboration process, university teacher and Honda designers did not set thegoal of a specific output and made students design freely to make use of their superiorsensitivity and perspective. And the image of design output was ambiguous in theearliest phase because Honda designers did not know what kind of characteristics andindividuality students have. Then, Honda designers explored the concrete image ofdesign while designing with students. Since the idea of students sometimes spread,
Honda designers had to proceed the process in high ambiguous situations.
Honda designers also need to modify the design by students into the effective andpractical one without losing the good sensibility of students, because the design by
students with free-idea seemed to be physically unachievable from the viewpoint of
Honda designers. Moreover, students seemed to be unskilled in communicating theirintent, thought, materializing their ideas into concrete forms and expressing ideas into
concepts appropriately. Therefore, it became difficult for them to share the basic
concept and background of designs.
To deal with these situations, university teacher made students experience the actual
process of growing crops in the field constructed in the university from spring toautumn: seeding-weeding-harvesting. Students then became to understand deeply theuser’s actions, for example, what function is required in what specific situation throughusing the existing products in many periods, situations, and purposes. Students foundout new problems and the later focuses through these experiences. When it wasnecessary for design created by students to be modified or when students could notdesign as expected, university teacher promoted students to reflect their own premise ofdesigning. University teacher also promoted students to realize their own mistakes andnew value standards by not instructing the content concretely and directly but providing
some questions for their students by using prototypes and sketches, making students
verify the operation of products again in the field, and showing an example of reference
designs. Students then became to be able to reflect their own designs, create ideas andset concepts with real problems through external works of university teacher. Honda
designers also urged students to describe the concepts and forms designed on the basis

7

of practical experience in words as much as possible. Students became to be able toexplain the basis of concepts and forms more clearly and objectively because they
designed to meet the needs of real problems and experiences. After constructing thebasis of designing for students, Honda designers tried to find the key elements in thedesign created by students through observing carefully sketches and prototypes.
However, another problem arose when students themselves were unaware of theimportant points or elements of their own design. When Honda designers observed
carefully sketches and prototypes proposed by students, they verified empirically somepotentials of the design by creating a movable object as a prototype. And they verified
the designs that students had wished to express by explicitly conveying key elements tostudents through the prototype. Through these interactions, students knew a substantial
element of the original designs they wished to express. They also understoodempirically the important way of thinking in designing real designs in company andgradually learned how they should design with their own view through facing directly
the way of thinking and viewing of Honda designers.
Finally, in the stage of completing the actual models based on the concepts set by
students, Honda designers visited university every week and created models withstudents. In this stage, Honda designers and students gradually revised them to thecomplete state through discussing with each other through the visualized objects in frontof them. Therefore, Honda designers and students recognized directly the differences intheir ways of thinking and focuses and gradually filled the gap in their images.
3.3 Results
Students made presentations about the final design output at the final presentation,and their proposal were also praised by Honda designers. For example, through theexperience of growing crops in the field, students identified users’ problems whileworking with operating tillers, and created the design to solve the specific problems. It
was found that users need tillers with different functions suitable for each scene of thegrowing crops. For example, when students cultivated the soil of field, large tillers wereused. But when they had to cut off the weeds growing together with the crops the field,
the large tillers became impossible in this situation because they could not enter andmove between ridges and ridges. Large tillers were also difficult for students who don’t

8have strong power to operate. On the other hand, the operation of small tillers was easy
and they could enter and move between ridges and ridges. However, the rotors of small
tillers were not able to enter the deep soil due to its lack of weight. Therefore, students
were not able to mow the weeds. Thus, each type of product was required for each work,
but it was difficult for personal users to buy every products. Therefore, students
proposed designing with various functions upon finding out these problems. Students
gave the ideas of designing the tiller with high-operating handles and equipped a watertank to add the necessary weight to the tiller in case of need. Users can also cultivate thecrops comfortably by draining water from the tank when they don’t need weight for
tiller students made the work more easily and made it possible to do many works with asingle machine through these ideas. Both of the ideas and form of this design werepraised highly from all sections in Honda.
Honda also has recognized the achievement of promoting the creativity of theorganization. Honda designers often design in the realistic and severe constraints.
However, they often re-captured their own creativity through facing directly the rich andpure idea of students in the collaboration activity. Honda designers thought over the
deep and fundamental problems of design in order to share the idea with students in thecollaboration process. Therefore, the collaboration activity served as a good opportunityfor Honda designers to reflect and reaffirm the way of their routine works, and come torealize again what the design should be. As mentioned above, the collaboration activity
provided Honda designers with stimulations and promoted them to make some changes
in their way of thinking and awareness of design. Therefore, it worked as theopportunity for them not only to explore new possibilities of design but also to promote
the organization’s creativity.
4. Analysis
4.1 Generating of process of University-Industry Collaboration in Design Field
As discussed in the case above, the significant problems in the collaboration process
are: firstly, designs produced by students were physically impossible to be developed
into prototype model practically; secondly, students were not able to express theconcepts and forms accurately because the basic ideas themselves were also vague for9students, therefore they and Honda designers were not able to share a specific image
and understanding of the output.
These problems are supposed to arise due to the fact that students initially fail toaccurately define the context of design. Because students defined the context incorrectly,
the adaptive form was then created wrongly. As a result, misfit as a whole occurred.
Normally, students usually stress on individuality and originality in university, which
differed much from the real contexts of companies. Therefore, it is limited for students
to define accurately the context for the design of real companies with the existing
framework. In order to create good designs, university teachers and company designers
need to promote students to make some changes in the existing framework itself for
their action to define accurately the context. In the case above, university teacher andHonda designers observed carefully and grasped the cognitive process of students
through their design, and they provided properly some external commitments forstudents. When students failed to design, university teacher and Honda designers
committed much more actively into the cognitive process of students, figured out how
to deal with the situation and developed new some external works. Students thenbecame capable of making some changes in the design by reflecting the premise to thedesign through those some external works. After university teacher and Honda
designers also extracted what was meaningful and important in the design by students
without losing their unique and superior characteristics of students, they shared it withstudents. Thus, in the collaboration process, students need to achieve high learning to
make some changes in the existing framework so as to define contexts accurately.
University teachers and company designers also need to consider and modify repeatedly
the way of dealing with students in these situations. As mentioned above, the process of
university-industry collaboration in design field is supposed to be generated through theprocess of making efforts of changing gradually the existing situations into preferred
ones while all members reflect repeatedly.
4.2 Management requirements for promoting Reflective Practice by students
4.2.1 Acquiring knowledge about users through the direct experiences
Students don’t have the basis of designing the actual products in companies.
Therefore, before beginning to set out concept, it is important for university teachers10and company designers to promote students to acquire knowledge about users. Because
acquiring the rich knowledge about users is the central element of recognizing thecontext presenting the request to the form. In the design process, it is necessary toreflect quickly a user’s knowledge to design (Lojacono and Zaccai, 2004), and tacitknowledge is particularly important for designers to create a better design (Utterback,2006). Students can not understand about users because it is impossible for university
teachers and company designers to communicate enough tacit knowledge about users tostudents only through the means of words. Tacit knowledge can be acquired bygenerating experience actively (Polany, 1966). Therefore, the direct experience issupposed to be the best way of promoting students to acquire knowledge about users. In
the case, students acquired some knowledge about user’s cognition through operating
existing products actually in the field, and they became capable of expressing theobjective concept and form of design based on the knowledge. Students also became to
be able to reflect the premise and basis of their own design upon discovering the newproblems in their experiencing the task of growing crops. To students, experiencing
directly about the products to design means placing themselves into the context ofdesign and touching on it. Therefore, direct experience is very useful for students toacquire tacit knowledge about users efficiently. The direct experience also enables
students to establish the basis of achieving reflective practice.
4.2.2 Do not instruct and guide students to modify directly
When students cannot create desirable designs and it is necessary to modify theirdesigns, it is important not to lose the good characteristics of designs of students,
because if university teachers and company designers modify directly designs createdby students, there are dangers of losing pure elements of designs created by students andbecoming unable to achieve the original purpose to make use of good features ofstudent’s design. Therefore, in the collaboration process, it is necessary to create theopportunities that students can create and verify designs freely.
In this situation, it is particularly important for students to create ideas freely and to
confront the dilemma that the action appeared to be effective results become ineffective
ones. The arising of these unexpected or unintended results and the situation ofexperiencing surprise and confusion are essential for reflective practice (Shöne, 1987).

11However, learners need some appropriate external commitment to achieve inquiry bythemselves (Dewye, 1933). In order to promote students facing some severe problems
to reflect to make some changes by reflective practice to the existing framework fortheir actions, it is necessary for university teachers, who are familiar with thecharacteristics and personality of designs of students, to grasp accurately cognitive
process of students through observing carefully the design output produced by students.
It is also necessary for university teachers as a learning supporter to provide usefulfeedback required to reflections for students. The important point in this situation is tosupport learning based on ModelⅡ. In this case, university teachers did not give
specific instruction for students to create designs. University teachers provided somequestions to their students by using prototypes and sketches, and made students verify
the function of products again in the field, and showed an example of reference designs.
University teachers also promoted students to consider the reason why they can’t design
well by themselves and to reflect their own premise to design. Argyris and Shöne (1974)
emphasized the role of “instructors” to support the reflective practice by learners. They
pointed out the risk of the forced intervention by instructors such as transmitting
contents of learning to learners in one-way direction in the situations that learners can
not reflect effectively. Such learning is based on the way of ModelⅠ and it prevents
students from learning openly. In this situation, it is also very important to support
students psychologically. When students feel disappointed with their own incompetence,
university teachers need to regard it as a positive sign and need to consider not making
students feel guilt even if students feel sad. Because the essence of reflective practicebased on ModelⅡ is learning from the non-effective actions themselves (Argyris andShöne, 1974). Students is supposed to recognize that their premise is not useful todefine the context itself with some external works from university teachers, to reflect toreconstruct the new framework for their actions, and finally to become able to define thecontext accurately.
4.2.3 Interaction through visualized objects
The last requirement is to promote reflective practice by students more effectively by
the interaction among members through the visualized objects. Visualized objects referto the idea sketches and the prototypes such as rough models and mock-ups created in12each phases in the design process. “Visualizing” in the design process is to convert ideas
and concepts into explicit and concrete objects and to externalize tacit knowledge into
the concrete forms (Carlile, 2002). Therefore, visualized objects work as a common
language, a cognitive mediation and a communication tool, and help to share images
and cognitions among members (Star, 1989). In addition, visualized objects stimulate
creativity of members because they concentrate on the essential part and help togenerate various experiments (Schrage, 2000). Moreover, visualized objects improvethe efficiency of the design process by summarizing the idea quickly into forms(Utterback, 2006).
These functions of the visualized objects are supposed to be useful from viewpoints
of promoting reflective practice by students to make some changes to the existing
framework for defining contexts. Visualized objects are the objects externalized thecognitive process and ideas of designers (Carlile, 2002) and make the cognitive processexternalized and observable. Thus, university teachers and company designers become
able to examine the appropriate way and timing to involve in the cognitive process ofstudents by grasping the situations of cognition of students through visualized objects.
These direct feedbacks through the object can be “valid information” or “directly
observable date” needed for reflective practice. Students become able to reflect
critically on their own framework for actions and premise. University teachers andcompany designers also become able to find the important point in designs by students
unconsciously and implicitly and to extract the essential elements of the designs throughobserving carefully the intermediary and incomplete objects. Students can recognize theway of thinking and perceiving of company designers by figuring out clearly theimportant elements through visualized objects. Students are supposed to become able toreflect their own actions and way of thinking with comparing to company designer’s
one through recognizing these difference from company designers’ ones.
Visualized objects can also help to achieve fitness between the defined contexts andthe forms. When designers carry out design activity, it is useful to fill the “gap” between
the desirable output and the current situation of design through grasping the gap(Alexander, 1964; Simon, 1996). Visualized objects show the gap as an existing entity
in front of members. In this situation, it is also necessary for all members to show thegap between the both sides and modify it through discussion with using movable13visualized objects. By recognizing and modifying these gaps repeatedly, the gap ininterpretation of design for each members supposed to be decrease gradually. Finally, it
becomes to be able to increase the level of fitness between the forms and its context.
5. Conclusion
Through deeply analyzing a successful case in Japan about the process of universityindustry collaboration in design field, which has not been clarified in existing studies.
The research pointed out that there are two misfits arising in the collaboration process;a) the misfit between the context for design of real companies and the context definedby students; b) the misfit between the defined context and the forms created by students.
This research also pointed out that, in order to create good design without losing thecharacteristics of students, it is necessary not to modify the design output created by
students but to promote students to make some changes in the existing framework fortheir actions. And this research suggested taking reflective practice into consideration as
an important concept in order to achieve such higher learning and pointed out somerequirements of management to promote that. Misfits arising in the collaboration
process are a serious problem for achieving purpose. On the other hand, from theviewpoint of reflective practice, misfits also provide important opportunities forstudents to learn. Therefore, in the collaboration process, it is important how to deal
with the situation problems arising rather than how to prevent problems from arising. It
is necessary for all members not to have ModelⅠ attitude to try to eliminate or modify
the problems but to have ModelⅡ attitude being open to dilemma to regard the
problems as crucial opportunities.

14

References
・ Alexander, C. (1964) Notes on the Synthesis of form, ARCHITECTURAL RECORD
・ Argyris, C. and Shöne, D. A. (1974) Theory in Practice, Jossey Bass Classics.
・ Bailetti, A., Callahan, J. and McCluskey, S. (1998) Coordination at Different Stages of the
Product Design Process, R&D Management, vol.28, no.4, pp 237-248.
・ Boujut, J. F. and Blanco, E. (2003) Intermediary Objects as a Means to Foster Co-operation inengineering Design, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, vol.12, pp 205-219.
・ Carlile, P. R. (2002) A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in
New Product Development, Organization Science, vol.13, no.4, pp 442-455.
・ Dewye, J. (1933) How We Think: a restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to theeducative process, Boston: D.C.Heath.
・ Dumas, A. (1995) Commentary Reflections on Design and the Third Way, Graham, P (edi):
Mary Parker Follett, Prophet of Management, the President and Fellows of Harvard College, pp
205-211.
・ Eastman, C. (1970) “On the analysis of intuitive design process,” G. T. Moore(edi.): Emerging
methods in environmental design and planning, MIT Press.
・ Finke, R. A, Ward, T. B. and Smith, S. M. (1992) Creative Cognition: Theory, Research, andApplications, The MIT Press.
・ Hirasawa, T., Kweon, K. and S. Learmount. (2008) “On the dilemma of scientific rigor or
practical relevance in management: Revisiting the practice of Dr. Nishibori as a reflective
practitioner,” European Group for Organization Studies: Proceeding.
・ Ivory, C., A. Thwaites and R. Vaughan. (2003) “Shifting the Goal Posts for Design Managementin Capital Goods Projects: Design for Maintainability,” R&D Management, Vol.33, No.5,
pp.527-539.
・ Lojacono, G. and Zaccai, G. (2004) The Evolution of the Design-Inspired Enterprise, Sloan
Management Review, vol.45, no.3, pp 75-80.
・ Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company: How JapaneseCompanies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press.
・ Norman, D. A. (1988) The psychology of everyday things, Basic Books.
・ Norman, D. A. (1993) THINGS THAT MAKES US SMART: Defending Human Attributes in theAge of the Machine, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.

15

・ Norman, D. A. (2004) EMOTIONAL DESIGN: Why We Love (or Hate) Every Things, Basic
Books.
・ Ogawa, Y. and Tokosumi, A. (2000) Cognitive Process of Making Creative Design: A
Methodology for Design Activities, Based on the Designer’s Belief System, Bulletin of JSSD, pp356-357.
・ Polanyi, M. (1966) The Tacit Dimension, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
・ Schrage, M. (2000) Serious Play: how the world’s best companies Simulate to innovate, Harvard
Business School Press.
・ Shöne, D. A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Basic
Books.
・ Shöne, D. A. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner, JOSSEY-BASS.
・ Simon, H. A. (1996) The Sciences of the Artificial: Third edition, The MIT Press.
・ Star, S. L. (1989) The Structure of Ill-Structured Solutions: Heterogeneous Problem Solving,
Boundary Objects and Heterogeneous Distributed Problem Solving, M. Huhns and L. Gasser(eds): Distributed Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Metlo Park,
CA, Chap.2, pp 37-54.
・・ Utterback, J. M. (2006) DESIGN-INSPIRED-INNOVATION, World Scientific Publishing.
・ Vinck, D. and Jeantet, A. (1995) Mediating and Commissioning Objects in the Sociotechnical
Process of Product Design: A Conceptual Approach, D. MacLean, P. Saviotti and D. Vinck (eds):
Management and New Technology: Design, Networks and Strategy, COST Social Science Series,
Bruxelles, pp 111-129.

16