Interdisciplinary Design as an Instructional Discip line Final Report on the NSF Design Workshop Series Fall   Fall  Panos Papalambros and Richard Gonzalez Design Science Program University of Michig

Interdisciplinary Design as an Instructional Discip line Final Report on the NSF Design Workshop Series Fall Fall Panos Papalambros and Richard Gonzalez Design Science Program University of Michig - Description

Simpson NSF 2009 CMMI Grantees Conference Workshop 22 June 2009 Bernard Roth and Larry Leifer The Design School Stanford University 2829 August 2009 All workshop materials are available online at httpwwwdesignpsueduworkshops This workshop was funded ID: 25098 Download Pdf

315K - views

Interdisciplinary Design as an Instructional Discip line Final Report on the NSF Design Workshop Series Fall Fall Panos Papalambros and Richard Gonzalez Design Science Program University of Michig

Simpson NSF 2009 CMMI Grantees Conference Workshop 22 June 2009 Bernard Roth and Larry Leifer The Design School Stanford University 2829 August 2009 All workshop materials are available online at httpwwwdesignpsueduworkshops This workshop was funded

Similar presentations


Tags : Simpson NSF 2009 CMMI
Download Pdf

Interdisciplinary Design as an Instructional Discip line Final Report on the NSF Design Workshop Series Fall Fall Panos Papalambros and Richard Gonzalez Design Science Program University of Michig




Download Pdf - The PPT/PDF document "Interdisciplinary Design as an Instructi..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.



Presentation on theme: "Interdisciplinary Design as an Instructional Discip line Final Report on the NSF Design Workshop Series Fall Fall Panos Papalambros and Richard Gonzalez Design Science Program University of Michig"— Presentation transcript:


Page 1
Interdisciplinary Design as an Instructional Discip line: Final Report on the NSF Design Workshop Series Fall 2008 – Fall 2009 Panos Papalambros and Richard Gonzalez Design Science Program, University of Michigan 6-7 November 2008 Wei Chen, Ed Colgate, Ann McKenna, and Don Norman Segal Design Institute, Northwestern University 16-17 April 2009 Matt Parkinson, Dave Celento, and Timothy W. Simpson* NSF 2009 CMMI Grantees Conference Workshop 22 June 2009 Bernard Roth and Larry Leifer The Design School, Stanford University 28-29 August 2009 All workshop materials are available

online at: http://www.design.psu.edu/workshops/ This workshop was funded by the National Science Fo undation through Collaborative Research Grants CMMI-0847181, CMMI-0847460, CMMI-0847694, an d CMMI-0847104. * Please direct all correspondences to this author at tws8@psu.edu
Page 2
Interdisciplinary Design as an Instructional Discip line: Final Report on the NSF Design Workshop Series Executive Summary Evidence suggests that transformational innovations often occur at the intersection of multiple disciplines rather than isolated within them. Desi gn—being both pervasive and inherently

interdisciplinary—has the power to transcend multip le disciplines and help break down the departmental “silos” that hinder many collaborative efforts in industry. Universities are now facing similar challenges, and many are struggling to embrace the curricular innovations that are necessary for interdisciplinary education. Given t he already packed undergraduate curricula in engineering, many universities have started to offe r design curricula that span several disciplines at the masters and doctoral levels. Following the successful NSF workshop on interdisci plinary graduate design

education in May 2008, we launched the Design Workshop Series to capture, codify, share, and propagate instructional experiences and philosophies for teac hing interdisciplinary design. Hosting responsibilities rotated between three partner univ ersities (University of Michigan, Northwestern University, and Stanford University) and were coord inated by a faculty team at Penn State University along with a fourth workshop at the 2009 NSF CMMI Grantees Conference . Invitations to apply for participation in the works hops were widely publicized, and NSF funding was used to provide travel support

for selected par ticipants with the goal of engaging the larger design community (e.g., engineering, architecture, industrial design, psychology, business). A total of 265 people attended one or more of these f ive workshops, and there were 172 unique participants, of which 49 people attended two or mo re workshops. The Design Workshop Series catalyzed an interdisciplinary research community t hat shares a passion for design. Collectively, we reached a muc h clearer understanding of the barriers and challenges in creating (and sustaining) interdiscip linary graduate design programs. The five

programs offered by the three host universities pro vide “solutions” to successfully navigate these hurdles as outlined in this report. Despite differences in how these programs emerged, there is a large consensus that interdisciplinary d esign programs should emphasize: project- based (active) learning, co-taught lectures and stu dios, teamwork, interdisciplinarity, and systems thinking to name a few. The workshops led to the establishment of a new online community (DesignWIKI) and posted course materials, and several participants have since initiated proposals for new interdisciplinary gradu

ate design programs at their home institutions. Finally, we all agree that design provides unique o pportunities to engage, impassion, and ultimately transform students’ educational experien ces. While significant strides have been made in the pas t year through the Design Workshop Series , considerable work remains. The following recommend ations are offered to NSF to continue providing support and serving as a catalyst to: 1. Improve administrative buy-in through future interd isciplinary design workshops 2. Identify lessons learned among a broader set of int erdisciplinary graduate design

programs 3. Characterize the knowledge, skills, and attitudes o f students in these design programs 4. Expand involvement of business and other design-rel ated disciplines (e.g. industrial design, architecture, human computer interaction design, la w, journalism) in these discussions 5. Identify best practices among international interdi sciplinary design programs 6. Study the role of design in innovation 7. Improve funding opportunities for interdisciplinary design research and educational efforts
Page 3
1. Motivation for the Design Workshop Series Innovation has been the key to

America’s success fo r more than a century. Evidence suggests that transformational innovations often occur at th e intersection of multiple disciplines rather than isolated within them, and they require input f rom individuals with varying backgrounds, talents, and expertise [1]. Design—being both perv asive and inherently interdisciplinary—has the power to transcend multiple disciplines and hel p break down the departmental “silos” that hinder many collaborative efforts in industry. Uni versities are now facing similar challenges, and many are struggling to embrace the curricular innov

ations that are necessary for interdisciplinary education, particularly in engine ering classrooms that must accommodate numerous requirements to receive ABET Accreditation [2]. In engineering undergraduate curricula, due in larg e part to ABET requirements, one or more courses with a design “experience” (e.g., a capston e course) are required [2]. In graduate curricula this approach is less successful since st ructuring design courses to be “instruction in a discipline” rather than a “guided experience” is a major challenge. Issues arise in terms of both course content and instructor training

due to the i nherent trans-, multi-, or inter-disciplinary nature of most design activities. Nevertheless, ma ny universities have started to offer design curricula that span several disciplines at the mast ers and doctoral levels. Courses tend to be oriented towards a narrow topic in design, followin g the instructors’ research interests whereas a successful graduate program in design would natur ally follow a deeper appreciation of design as a discipline rather than as a mere collection of disciplines. The recently launched Singapore University of Technology and Design , a partnership

between MIT and the Singapore Government, presents clear evidence of global recog nition for the importance of design as a discipline that drives innovation and economic pros perity. Following the success of the NSF workshop on interd isciplinary graduate design education held in May 2008 [3, 4], we initiated the Design Workshop Series seeking to capture, codify, share, and propagate instructional experiences and philoso phies for teaching interdisciplinary design. The overarching goals of the workshop were to: (1) strengthen existing and emerging interdisciplinary graduate design programs

across t he country, thus improving our innovation output at the workforce level and increasing our co mpetitive economic advantage; (2) establish a repository of knowledge that can provide substant ive guidance for other design programs to follow; (3) provide a moderated forum for the desig n community to discuss the challenges, successes, practices, and future directions of thes e programs, leading to broader exposure at professional society meetings and archival publicat ions. The long-term outcome will be the training of design instructors who approach design research and teaching—as a

discipline. The remainder of this report is organized as follow s. Section 2 outlines the overall organization of the Design Workshop Series . Section 3 discusses the most pervasive theme at these workshops, namely, the barriers and challenges in c reating (and sustaining) interdisciplinary graduate design programs. Section 4 provides appro aches for overcoming these barriers and challenges, using the programs offered by the three partner universities (University of Michigan, Northwestern University, and Stanford University) a s exemplary programs that have successfully navigated these

hurdles. Interdiscipl inary research topics that arose from the workshops are summarized in Section 5. Finally, Se ction 6 provides closing remarks and a summary of the outcomes of the Design Workshop Series . http://www.su.edu.sg/
Page 4
2. Organization of the Design Workshop Series The Design Workshop Series spanned one year (Fall 2008 – Fall 2009) and focus ed explicitly on interdisciplinary graduate design education. Ho sting and organizing responsibilities rotated between our four partner universities as shown in T able 1, with the faculty team at Penn State providing

coordination across the four workshops. Each university hosted a one-and-a-half day workshop. The first half day was typically spent d iscussing the host’s design program(s) and touring its facilities. The second full day provid ed an opportunity for open discussion on specific graduate-design instructional topics chosen to matc h the strengths and experience of the host program (see Table 1). Meanwhile, a fourth half-da y workshop that focused specifically on design research was organized in conjunction with t he 2009 NSF CMMI Grantees Conference . All of these workshop activities were open

to anyon e to attend, and NSF funding was used to provide travel support for interested participants with the goal of broadening involvement in the larger design community (e.g., arts, architecture, business, engineering, industrial design, journalism, psychology). Since each workshop had a pplicants far in excess of available slots, participants were selected to balance the represent ation of the different disciplines. Table 1. Schedule and Discussion Topics for the Design Workshop Series The d etailed agendas, list of participants, and presenta tions for each workshop can be found at: The

Design Science Program , University of Michigan: http://designscience.umich.edu/designworkshop.html Segal Design Institute , Northwestern University: http://www.segal.northwestern.edu/designworkshop/ 2009 NSF CMMI Grantees Conference Workshop: http://www.design.psu.edu/workshops/june09.php Hasso Plattner Institute of Design (d.school) at Stanford University http://www.stanford.edu/group/dschool/nsfdesignwork shop/ A total of 265 people attended one or more of the D esign Series Workshops, including the initial workshop held at NSF in May 2008 [3, 4]. This tota l includes 172 unique

participants, of which 49 people (28.5%) attended two or more workshops . A brief overview of the specific objectives for each workshop follow along with a description o f how each workshop was organized. 2.1 Design Science Program, University of Michigan The objectives for the Michigan workshop were to (a ) explore the paradigms and methods used by the new discipline of Design Science, (b) begin to accumulate the body of knowledge that already exists in Design Science, and (c) discuss t he nature of a Ph.D. curriculum for future Design Science researchers and educators. The work shop began

with examples of research in Design Science through undergraduate and doctoral s tudent presentations. This provided a common set of research examples, as well as curricu lum and training examples from the Design Science Program at the University of Michigan, that facilitated the subsequent discussion on Of these 49 people, 22 attended two of the worksho ps, 16 attended three workshops, 5 attended four wo rkshops, and 6 people attended all 5 workshops. Program/Meeting Host/Organizer Date(s) Discussion T opic Design Science Program University of Michigan 6-7 N ov 2008 The Design Discipline

Segal Design Institute Northwestern University 16-17 April 2009 Spanning Design Boundaries NSF CMMI Grantees Conference Workshop Penn State University 22 June 2009 Design Research Design School (d.school) Stanford University 27-28 Aug 2009 Design Instruction
Page 5
designing the Ph.D. -level curriculum. The second day of the workshop consisted of three panel discussions: (1) “Design Knowledge Creation: What i s Design Research?”, (2) “Design Knowledge Dissemination: What Constitutes Design Sc ience Education,” and (3) “What are the Barriers to Formal Design Programs?”. The workshop

concluded with a presentation from Moray Callum (see Figure 1), Design Director, Ford Motor Co., entitled “Designer’s View of Product Development.” Participants also attended a presentation by internationally known designer Theo Jansen entitled “The Great Pretender , which coincided with the workshop and reinforced our workshop’s objectives. The workshop drew 50 participants from academia and industry with representation from the international community and multiple areas of design (e.g., engineering, architecture, industrial design, commu nications, business, psychology). Figure 1.

Participants Listen to Moray Callum’s Vi ews on Product Development 2.2 Segal Design Institute, Northwestern University The Northwestern workshop was themed around the top ic of “Spanning Design Boundaries”, and it was organized to (a) explore different theme s of design and their interconnections, (b) provide a forum for the design community to discuss an ideal interdisciplinary graduate design curriculum and therefore to derive some common them es at the heart of design, and (c) provide a forum to discuss how to overcome the real world b arriers. The workshop began with a panel session that

included four invited speakers represe nting four major themes of design, namely, Human Factors and Ergonomics, Engineering Design, I ndustrial Design, and Human Centered Design. Workshop participants were then divided in to four breakout groups and tasked with “Rapid Prototyping a Graduate Level Design Program (see Figure 2a). Since the breakout groups assumed no institutional or financial barrie rs when devising their programs, their reports back to the workshop participants were aptly follow ed by a discussion on “Overcoming Real World Barriers”. Participants shared views on the challenges

faced in implementing an interdisciplinary graduate design program, needed s upport, and strategies for overcoming these barriers. They also received an overview of the in terdisciplinary graduate design programs at Northwestern along with a tour of the new Ford Engi neering Design Center (see Figure 2b). The workshop was timed to coincide with Design:Chic ago, wherein four design professionals from Bruce Mau Design, Herbst LaZar Bell, Jerome Ca ruso Design, Northwestern University, and Arc World-wide/Leo Burnett gave invited talks a bout design in practice. More than 120

http://www.designchicago.northwestern.edu/
Page 6
people applied for the workshop, of which 71 people were invited to attend based on seating capacity and funding availability. The audience in cluded large contingencies from engineering design, human computer interface, human-centered de sign, architecture, industrial design, art, social science, education research, as well as indu stry. (a) Groups of participants brainstorming the “ideal ” interdisciplinary graduate design program (b) Participants pose for a photo while touring the Ford Engineering Design Center Figure 2. Scenes

from the Northwestern Workshop 2.3 NSF CMMI Grantees Conference Workshop Given its co-location with the 2009 NSF CMMI Grantees Conference , the focus in this workshop was primarily on design research rather than design education or pedagogy. The workshop began with a panel of practitioners from four dispa rate fields of design, namely, aerospace, architecture, consumer products, and information te chnology (IT). The panelists included: Rebecca Henn, Celento Henn Architects + Designers Sree Sundaram, Sr. Director, Enterprise Architectu re, Siemens IT Solutions & Services Kelly Simpson, Product

Designer, PetSmart Keith Zobott, Corporate Director of Engineering In formation Technology, Honeywell The panelists described design activities in their design domains and highlighted opportunities for growth and change. Specifically, panelists fir st introduced themselves and their company. They then discussed a favorite project, including h ow it was initiated, how the "problem" or "opportunity" was identified, who worked on the pro ject, what the design process was like, why it was a favorite project, the success of the project, and the lessons learned. They then outlined opportunities and

research questions that were most pressing or interesting. Participants and panelists were able to identify patterns and simila rities and differences across the disciplines.
Page 7
This provided rich stimulus to the breakout groups which worked to identify specific research questions. This half-day workshop drew 38 attendee s (see Figure 3) from a variety of fields involved with design that spanned industry as well as academia. Figure 3. Participants Dressed Casually to Help Th em Think “Outside the Box 2.4 Hasso Plattner Institute of Design (d.school), Stanford University The

purpose of the Stanford workshop was (a) to giv e participants a direct experience of the innovative methods developed at the Stanford d.scho ol to bring design thinking to graduate students from all disciplines, (b) to advance the c onversation as to how interdisciplinary design programs can be incorporated into research oriented universities and (c) to advance the notion that design thinking is an ideal vehicle to bring e mpowerment into the lives of students. The workshop began with a reflective presentation by Da vid Kelley, the founder of IDEO, one of the world’s most successful design

consultancies. The workshop emphasized the instructional aspects of design education and provided participan ts with opportunities to experience the interdisciplinary educational methods developed ove r the last five years at the d.school and in several other design programs at Stanford. Specifi cally, participants engaged in design thinking exercises (see Figure 4a and Figure 4b) and were ex posed to the methodology used in Stanford d.school classes such as Entrepreneurial Design for Extreme Affordability, introductory Design Boot Camp, Design for Sustainability, Design for Or ganizations,

and skills involving improvisational exercises used in theater and rapid prototyping studies. Participants engaged in organized discussions on the issues involved in imp lementing design teaching and design thinking in universities. This was done in small g roups and also with the group as a whole. The methods at Stanford were contrasted to local circum stance at the home universities of the participants. The workshop drew 64 attendees (see Figure 4c), mostly from academia. This diverse group represented various aspects of engine ering design, architecture, industrial design, business, and the

social sciences. The div ersity contributed to lively discussions and a productive exchange of viewpoints.
Page 8
(a) Participants engaged in design thinking exercis es and group activities that the d.school uses (b) Groups reporting their solutions (c) Participa nts pose for a photo Figure 4. Scenes from the Stanford Workshop 3. Challenges and Barriers to Interdisciplinary Gr aduate Design Programs Regardless of the workshop location or the particip ants involved, one pervasive theme was evident in every discussion: the barriers and challenges in creating (and sustai ning) graduate

interdisciplinary design programs . To help synthesize the discussions that occurred at the workshops, we have grouped these challenges around four central issues: (1) resources, (2) faculty, (3) students, and (4) curriculum/pedagogy. Each of these is discussed in the remainder of this section. Key topics are highlighted in bold italics and consolidated at the start of Section 4 to facilitate a discussion of ways to overcome th ese barriers and challenges as demonstrated by the three host universities. 3.1 Resource Issues Obtaining the resources to initiate—and ultimately sustain—a new

interdisciplinary graduate design program was the first and foremost topic on everyone’s mind. The timing of the workshops could not have made this issue more appar ent, as they coincided with one of the worst economic downturns of the century forcing man y universities to tighten their budgets. Finding program funding (e.g., the faculty involved, classroom space, labs ) as well as student support had stifled many participants’ attempts at their h ome institutions, and they were anxious to hear how existing programs had succeeded . Secondary to funding was the issue of space. Participants had

a litany of question relat ed to space, e.g.: Are faculty in the program co-located? Are the students? Where are classes tau ght? Where do students meet for labs and to conduct research? While these questions may see m intuitively obvious, how they are
Page 9
addressed will have serious implications on the cul ture of the resulting program, on the cross- fertilization among students, on the collaboration among the faculty, etc. The issues surrounding resources were exacerbated b y the fact that design (in the broadest sense) does not fit well into the rigid structure t hat currently

defines most University—it spans many disciplines and cuts across departmental “silo s”. There were many different perspectives on design’s place within the university, and each v iew manifested different challenges with getting administrative “buy in for interdisciplinary graduate design programs. P articipants were encouraged by the support shown from the senio r administrators at the host institutions, especially the Dean of Engineering, Dr. Julio Ottin o, at Northwestern University, an accomplished artist and engineer who was recently c haracterized in Forbes as the “prima facie example”

of the “new leader America needs more of [5]. All agreed that design must gain the blessings of administrators in leadership positions to navigate around the red tape and establish design education as a recognized and highly regarde d program. To help gain the attention of senior administrators, the consensus was that exemp lary programs need to be identified, compiled, and displayed to strengthen the case for design’s place in academia. The Design Workshop Series is our first attempt, leveraging the findings from our initial workshop [4], which are complemented by a recent review of

interdiscipl inary programs in product development [6]. 3.2 Faculty Issues Assuming resources have been provided or obtained t o initiate a new graduate interdisciplinary design program, the next question is: who are the f aculty involved? Design (in the broad sense) is not its own discipline and does not fit in a sin gle department; therefore, where is the home department for faculty involved with such programs? Adjunct, affiliate, and joint appointments provide some means to accommodate faculty interests across a wide range of disciplines; however, this can be very dangerous to new, untenur

ed faculty as many warned. Therefore, what are the realities for “tenure-ability” of faculty involved with such programs? For instance, where do they publish given the trans-, m ulti-, and inter-disciplinary nature of their work? How is publishing outside of one’s disciplin e perceived by colleagues in that faculty’s department? Many raised the question of whether th ese faculty should even be tenured versus be clinical appointments of industrial practitioner s. The idea that faculty working in design were “misfits” received a good deal of attention (as a p ositive attribute) even though it

was offered rather jokingly at the start of one dialogue. The ensuing discussion among the participants felt that they had no true home in one field or another and had struggled to find a place within the confines of the system. The consensus was that it was important for faculty to work within their own academic institution to resolve challenges surr ounding interdisciplinary research and corresponding graduate program. Although it did not receive as much attention, many agreed that faculty’s roles in such design programs differ as well. These workshops reinforce d the notion of the power of

interdisciplinary teaching teams, which echoed many comments in the o riginal NSF Workshop [4]. Participants were exposed to this notion at the Michigan and Nor thwestern workshops, and the Stanford workshop put added weight and additional precision as to what this means in actual practice. The Stanford workshops also brought to the fore the importance of including skilled industrial practitioners as both teachers and resources for st udent guidance and inspiration. Finally, participants agreed the nature of the training in t his type of program requires a lot of coaching and mentoring, and

individualized project work. The refore, the faculty would serve as “champions” for students in supporting their indivi dual endeavors. Also, many felt that this mentoring should occur at several levels, not just among the faculty. For instance, Ph.D. students could help mentor master’s students, and m asters’ students could serve as mentors to undergraduates or students in K-12 settings.
Page 10
10 3.3 Student Issues Once the program is established, where do the stude nts come from and what will they leave with when they graduate? Also, it was not clear if the goal of such programs

was to produce the next big name in design or a larger number of compe tent students. Consequently, there were many discussions regarding the types of students to attract and skills to teach, where design might best fit into the current arrangement of high er learning, and the type of graduates to produce. Identifying the target audience and deter mining the corresponding degree(s) granted would be important considerations when developing s uch a program. Many agreed that the type of degree offered (e.g., M.Des. vs. M.S. vs. M BA vs. Ph.D.) will heavily influence the employment opportunities

available for graduates, p articularly when it comes to design [4]. Another significant challenge is how to attract div erse graduate students considering large funding disparities between arts and engineering in graduate education. Pertinent to the type of degree being granted is th e issue involving breath versus depth. The concept of the T-shaped student arose on several oc casions, particularly at Stanford’s d.school. This concept represents students’ abilities in the form of the letter T. The vertical shaft represents the students’ depth areas. These could be in any area, including the

design of objects; however, we usually think of these in term s of disciplines such as engineering, architecture, law, medicine, business or any subspe cialty thereof. The vertical leg is what traditional university education purveys. The hori zontal bar represents the ability to work in groups with people outside one’s discipline and to think in a more holistic way than the traditional specialist. It is the horizontal bar t hat a good interdisciplinary design program can bring into a student’s development while enabling t hem to gain a healthy respect for other disciplines involved with

design. For instance, co urses in Michigan’s Design Science Program are structured so that students build the horizonta l bar upon the vertical shaft they acquired in their undergraduate and master’s studies. Many par ticipants felt this gave them a broader perspective on their roles and the possibilities of supporting students to make strong social important contributions by directly using the empow erment afforded by student participation in interdisciplinary design teams. Finally, for Ph.D. programs in particular, the advisor structure was cited as an important issue, making sure to

represent the individual disciplines involved in the students’ research (e.g., engineering and psychology and business). Candidac y (qualifying) exams for such projects also present unique challenges of their own given t he interdisciplinary nature of the work. This was particularly relevant to the discussions at Mic higan and its Ph.D. in Design Science, which requires two co-advisors from two different discipl ines (schools) for each PhD student. The consensus was that there is no single way to guide the discipline, neither in research direction nor in doctoral-level training, except for

very bro ad strokes that entail any scientific discipline. Design Science draws from multiple disciplines, but ultimately, it should also develop its own paradigms, its own body of knowledge, and its own t raining mechanisms to produce successful researchers and future (design) faculty. As differ ent Ph.D. programs in design emerge, there will be different research and training models. Th is was seen as a positive direction by most participants regardless of whether they agreed with the notion of “design as a science” (vs. an art vs. some combination thereof). 3.4 Curriculum/Pedagogy Issues In

all of the workshops, it was apparent that inter disciplinary design is a very broad subject area, and it includes many different perspectives. As a result, the curriculum architecture and core course areas vary significantly by program, depending on the di sciplines involved within the university. Many argued the tradeoffs between trai ning in formal quantitative models, qualitative approaches, and other less-formal aspects of design such as sketching and prototyping.
Page 11
11 Striking an appropriate balance between science and art in design was also discussed extensively, as were

the connotations of Design Sci ence and Design Thinking [7]. As indicated in Table 1, the Stanford workshop was an opportunit y to look at instruction as an activity in its own right outside of the usual association with res earch, and many attendees were very positive about the opportunity to participate in actual Desi gn Thinking exercises. These provided valuable experiences, in terms of learning new inst ructional techniques and also as a point of departure to reflect on one’s own methodologies, po ints of view, and course objectives. The experiences invoked heated but friendly and open di

scussion among the many participants with their different viewpoints about design. On the positive side, there was overwhelming agreem ent among the participants that an interdisciplinary graduate design program should em phasize project-based (active) learning, teamwork, collaboration, creativity, interdisciplin arity, and systems thinking. The experience of learning-by-doing is also proving to be much more p owerful than traditional learning by passive listening and artificial problem sets. In learning -by-doing a student not only learns problem solving skills, teamwork, prototyping and

presentat ions skills, but, most importantly, the students learn how to use the world as a place to learn from , and realize that what goes on in the classroom is just the tip of the iceberg as far as learning is concerned. Design students should be taught less and mentored more, either by their t eachers, senior students, or both. This fostering of individual growth was regarded to be e xtremely important without exception. Consequently, there was consensus that the design o f such programs should take a user- centered approach and allow for customization depen ding on the individual. The

programs should be structured to enable students to explore interests through individualized studio work or independent studies in order to develop skills p articular to their areas of interest. Finally, the “Rapid Prototyping a Graduate Level De sign Program” exercise at the Northwestern Workshop provided participants with first-hand expe rience in navigating the challenges inherent in creating interdisciplinary graduate design progr ams. Each breakout group had to address three main components of student training and devel opment: 1) target knowledge and skills, 2) structure of the program,

and 3) characteristics of faculty and appropriate teaching approaches. While each group developed a very unique program an d curricular structure, there was consensus that programs do need to cater to many di fferent career paths. For example, a multi- tiered structure such as that shown in Figure 5 pro vides a means to support students preparing for a career in industry as well as those pursing a n academic or research-oriented career. The idea of leveraging core courses and discipline-spec ific courses (for depth) and applying these in a project-based course (for breadth) would serve th e

needs of the T-shaped student (see Figure 6). Another challenge was including opportunities for customization of the program by providing on-line courses to accommodate various demographics such as working parents—some noted that on-line courses had the benefit of generating additional revenue to help fund the program. M.Design (1 year) M.S. in X (2 years) Ph.D. in X (4-5 years) Doctoral research informs program practice Design “doers Industry + Practitioners) Design “thinkers Academia + R&D) M.S. B.S. B.A. etc. Figure 5. A Possible Multi-Tiered Structure for an Interdisciplinary Grad Design

Program
Page 12
12 1 year (semesters/terms) Project (Applied) Cross-cutting Core Courses Discipline-specific Courses (Skills) Figure 6. Combining Depth and Breadth in an Interd isciplinary Grad Design Program 4. Overcoming Interdisciplinary Barriers and Chall enges While the preceding discussions may appear pessimis tic, they are the reality, and for many, an excuse not to proceed. Fortunately, we have exampl es of programs that have managed to navigate their institutional barriers and overcome the challenges of obtaining resources and administrative buy-in, finding and hiring

suitable faculty, meeting the needs of students, and developing a suitable interdisciplinary curriculum. The three host universities are leading the way, in fact, and provide robust examples for other s to follow as we illustrate in this section. To facilitate the discussion and enable cross-progr am comparisons, we offer the “morphological matrix” [8] shown in Table 2 to help design interdi sciplinary graduate design programs. As shown in the table, each row begins with one “issue ” highlighted in Section 3, and the remaining columns summarize the “solutions” that successful p rograms have

used (e.g., RA/TA support for Funding students). We assert that each new int erdisciplinary graduate design program will employ one (or more) of the solutions listed in the table in order to overcome the barriers and challenges that are commonly associated with their launch (and sustainment). While this list is not meant to be exhaustive, it captures the wide ra nge of solutions that were offered by the host universities and the 172 participants that were inv olved with the Design Workshop Series .
Page 13
13 Table 2. Morphological Matrix for Designing Interd isciplinary Graduate

Design Programs Barriers/Challenges: Solution 1 Solution 2 Solution 3 Solution 4 Solutio n 5 Solution 6 Getting admin buy-in Industry letters Other univ. letters/models Admin mandate Faculty advocacy Student advocacy Prior activity Funding program Lump sum allocation On-line courses Exec Ed Masters program Angel funding Industry Funding students RA/TA Company supported University/Dept fellowships NSF Fellowships/IGERT Self-funded Resources Space Departmental space Co-located space New building Re nt building Buy building No space Home department for faculty Affiliated faculty from other depts

Dedicated lines Adjunct faculty Joint appointments Faculty Tenure-ability of faculty Tenure in home dept. Tenure in design dept. No tenure track Prof. of the Practice Clinical Faculty Other Advisor structure Individual advisor from a design department Co-advisor design & other dept Non-Design dept advisor Two co-advisors from different depts Stude nts Degree(s) granted PhD MEng MS MFA MBA Other Curriculum architecture Use existing courses Cross-list design course Dedicated design courses Core course areas Engineering (ME, IE, etc.) Business (Finance, Mktg, Mngmt) Industrial Design Psychology

Media Other Curriculum Instructional delivery Studios Lectures Case studies Problem-based Project -based Co-taught The following sections provide a brief overview of the five programs offered by the three host univers ities. Websites have been included for more detailed information on each prog ram. Following each overview, we instantiate Table 2 to illustrate how each program “solved” its own barriers/challenges. Thes e tables were developed by faculty involved with th e creation and current administration of each program at the host universi ties. 4.1 Design Science Program, University of

Michigan http://designscience.umich.edu/ Approved in 2006, the interdisciplinary graduate de sign program at the University of Michigan offers a Ph.D. in Design Science with 8 students enrolled for the fall semester of 2009. T he program graduated its first Ph.D. (an African-Am erican woman) in December 2009. Described as the study of “the creation of ar tifacts and their embedding in our physical, psycho logical, economic, and social environment” by Dr. Papalambros, the program is hou sed within the University of Michigan’s Rackham Gra duate School and is supported by faculty from several

different departm ents in the Schools of Art and Design, Business Adm inistration, Psychology, and Engineering. Since faculty are not hired directly as Design Science professors, this program exhibits many of the challenges described in Section 3.2 in that faculty interest d rives any affiliation with the Design Science progr am and time spent with the program must be delicately balanced with the promot ion and tenure requirements of a faculty’s home dep artment. However, some of the interdisciplinary barriers are mitigated by the unique structure of the university, where the Rack ham Graduate

School—not a
Page 14
14 department—houses the graduate degrees offered by t he university. The program, now in its third year, requires a student to have a Master’s degree prior to becoming a Ph.D. candidate and to have two dissertation advisors from two dis tinctly different disciplines (i.e., advisors from two different engineering depa rtments would not be acceptable). Funding graduate students is another common challenge, and students are required to have secure d funding for two years prior to being admitted int o the Design Science program. The corresponding morphological

matrix for the Desi gn Science Program is given in Table 3. Table 3. Morphological Matrix for University of Mi chigan’s Design Science Program Barriers/Challenges: Solution 1 Solution 2 Solution 3 Solution 4 Solutio n 5 Solution 6 Getting admin buy-in Industry letters Other univ. letters/models Admin mandate Faculty advocacy Student advocacy Prior activity Funding program Lump sum allocation On-line courses Exec Ed Masters program Angel fundi ng Industry Funding students RA/TA Company supported University/Dept fellowships NSF Fellowships/IGERT Self-funded Resources Space Departmental space

Co-located space New building Rent building Buy bui lding No space Home department for faculty Affiliated faculty from other depts Dedicated lines Adjunct faculty Joint appointments Faculty Tenure-ability of faculty Tenure in home dept . Tenure in design dept. No tenure track Prof. of the Practice Clinical Faculty Other Advisor structure Individual advisor from a design department Co-advisor design & other dept Non-Design dept advisor Two co-advisors from different depts Stude nts Degree(s) granted PhD MEng MS MFA MBA Other Curriculum architecture Use existing courses Cross-list design course

Dedicated design courses Core course areas Engineering (ME, IE, etc.) Business (Finance, Mktg) Industrial Design Psychology Media Other Curriculum Instructional delivery Studios Lectures Case studies Problem-based Project- based Co-taught 4.2 Segal Design Institute, Northwestern University ( http://www.segal.northwestern.edu/ The Segal Design Institute at Northwestern Universi ty offers undergraduate courses and certificates in engineering design but does not grant undergraduate degrees. The institute is affiliated with three full-time graduate-level degr ee programs: (1) a management program

in design and operations (MMM) that offers a combined Master of Business Administration (MBA) degree with a Master of Engineering Management (MEM) degree, (2) a Masters of Product Development (MPD) for professionals stil l working in industry, and (3) a Master of Science in Engineering Design & Inn ovation (EDI), a one-year program focusing on a hum an-centered approach to engineering design. Housed within the Robert R. Mc Cormick School of Engineering and Applied Science, the institute, supported by a $5 million private donation and stands independen t of all engineering departments.

Classroom, meeti ng, and studio space for these programs is available in the new Ford Enginee ring Design Center where the center resides. Dr. D on Norman discussed some practical issues that limit the effectiveness of th e institute’s mission to train students in the proc ess of design from conception through
Page 15
15 production, largely focusing on issues stemming fro m the dependency on faculty affiliations with the i nstitute to support teaching and research related to design. Since all faculty affi liated with the institute must first be hired withi n a traditional engineering

department, exceptional candidates for the institute are often dismissed because their proposed research is viewed as too “soft” to match the goals of the department. If a new professor with a design focus is hired, there is often concern that the goals outlined for the tenure process do not reward the new faculty for the time commitment required to also support the institute’s goals. The inability to hire faculty directly and the reliance on affiliations m ostly from tenured faculty again emphasizes a theme from the workshop that success in these programs is often fueled solely by the ded

ication and energy of the faculty supporting them. Dr. Norman stated, “What we are trying to do as practical designers does not fi t within a university,” and later highlighted the n eed to better recognize work in design. Other challenges raised include problems f aced with balancing the teaching expectations of en gineering and business students and the necessity of developing quantitati ve views of the general principles being applied in order to create the academic depth required for a new discipline and to receive greater funding. The corresponding morphological m atrices for the MMM,

MPD, and EDI graduate programs at Northwestern are shown in Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, respectively. Table 4. Morphological Matrix for Northwestern Uni versity’s MMM Program Barriers/Challenges: Solution 1 Solution 2 Solution 3 Solution 4 Solutio n 5 Solution 6 Getting admin buy-in Industry letters Other univ. letters/models Admin mandate Faculty advocacy Student advocacy Prior activity Funding program Tuition recovery/allocation On-line courses Exec Ed Masters program Angel funding Industry Funding students RA/TA Company supported University/Dept fellowships NSF Fellowships/IGERT Self-funded

Resources Space Departmental space Co-located space New building Rent building Buy building Home department for faculty Affiliated faculty from other depts Dedicated lines Adjunct faculty Joint appointments Faculty Tenure-ability of faculty Tenure in home dept. Tenure in design dept. No tenure track Prof. of the Practice Clinical Faculty Other Advisor structure Individual advisor from a design department Co-advisor design & other dept Non-Design dept advisor Two co-advisors from different depts Students Degree(s) granted Ph.D. MEng MS MFA MBA Other (MEngr- Mgmt) Curriculum architecture Use

existing courses Cross-list design course Dedicated design courses Core course areas Engineering (ME, IE, etc.) Business (Finance, Mktg, Mngmt) Industrial Design Psychology Media Other (Human- Centered Design) Curriculum Instructional delivery Studios Lectures Case studies Problem-based Project- based Co-taught
Page 16
16 Table 5. Morphological Matrix for Northwestern Uni versity’s MPD Program Barriers/Challenges: Solution 1 Solution 2 Solution 3 Solution 4 Solutio n 5 Solution 6 Getting admin buy-in Industry letters Other univ. letters/models Admin mandate Faculty advocacy Student

advocacy Prior activity Funding program Tuition recovery/allocation On-line courses Exec Ed Masters program Angel funding Industry Funding students RA/TA Company supported University/Dept fellowships NSF Fellowships/IGERT Self-funded Resources Space Departmental space Co-located space New building Re nt building Buy building No needed Home department for faculty Affiliated faculty from other depts Dedicated lines Adjunct faculty Joint appointments Faculty Tenure-ability of faculty Tenure in home dept. Tenure in design dept. No tenure track Prof. of the Practice Clinical Faculty Other Advisor

structure Individual advisor from a design department Co-advisor design & other dept Non-Design dept advisor Two co-advisors from different depts Students Degree(s) granted Ph.D. MEng MS MFA MBA Other (MPD) Curriculum architecture Use existing courses Cross-list design course Dedicated design courses Core course areas Engineering (ME, IE, etc.) Business (Finance, Mkt, Mngt) Industrial Design Psychology Media Other (Product Management ) Curriculum Instructional delivery Studios Lectures Case studies Problem-based Project- based Co-taught
Page 17
17 Table 6. Morphological Matrix for

Northwestern Uni versity’s EDI Program Barriers/Challenges: Solution 1 Solution 2 Solution 3 Solution 4 Solutio n 5 Solution 6 Getting admin buy-in Industry letters Other univ. letters/models Admin mandate Faculty advocacy Student advocacy Prior activity Funding program Tuition recovery/allocation On-line courses Exec Ed Masters program Angel funding Industry Funding students RA/TA Company supported University/Dept fellowships NSF Fellowships/IGERT Self-funded Resources Space Departmental space Co-located space New building Rent building Buy building Home department for faculty Affiliated

faculty from other depts Dedicated lines Adjunct faculty Joint appointments Faculty Tenure-ability of faculty Tenure in home dept. Tenure in design dept. No tenure track Prof. of the Practice Clinical Faculty Other (Lecturers) Advisor structure Individual advisor from a design department Co-advisor design & other dept Non-Design dept advisor Two co-advisors from different depts Sole advisor from the program Students Degree(s) granted Ph.D. MEng MS MFA MBA Other Curriculum architecture Use existing courses Cross-list design course Dedicated design courses Core course areas Engineering (ME, IE,

etc.) Business (Finance, Mktg, Mngmt) Industrial Design Psychology Media Other (Human- Centered Design) Curriculum Instructional delivery Studios Lectures Case studies Seminar Project- based Co-taught 4.3 Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford http://www.stanford.edu/group/dschool/ The Stanford d.school, officially The Hasso Plattne r Institute of Design at Stanford, was created five years ago by an interdisciplinary group of faculty. The hallmark of the d.school is interdisciplinary collaboration by both faculty and students. It uses project-based education in order to actively engage

students in t he process of learning and creating. The main stre ngth of the program is the dedication of the entire community (students, facul ty and staff) to the development of a culture that thrives on defining and solving meaningful design problems, and to producing workin g solutions to real problems using a group of proce sses known as “Design Thinking”. The concepts that define design thinkin g are different from the usual thrusts of engineeri ng education. The greatest emphasis is on interdisciplinary teaching teams and student teams learning by doing. The courses use little formal

lecturing or textbook learning; instead, students are encouraged to move to a state of complete immersion in a prob lem, with the goal of quickly creating empathy for the user and moving rapidly in to the ideation phase by use of sketches, lists, an d prototypes. The d.school offers course that are taken by mainly graduate stu dents. Students come from all of Stanford’s school s (Business, Earth Sciences,
Page 18
18 Engineering, Humanities and Science, Law and Medici ne). The d.school courses are taken as electives i n students’ normal degree programs. Consequently, the d.school does

not offe r a degree; students obtain their degrees from thei r home departments. Table 7. Morphological Matrix for Stanford Univers ity’s d.school Barriers/Challenges: Solution 1 Solution 2 Solution 3 Solution 4 Solutio n 5 Solution 6 Getting admin buy-in Industry letters Other univ. letters/models Admin mandate Faculty advocacy Student advocacy Prior activity Funding program Tuition recovery/allocation On-line courses Exec Ed Masters program Angel funding Industry Funding students RA/TA Company supported University/Dept fellowships NSF Fellowships/IGERT Self-funded Angel Resources Space

Departmental space Co-located space New building Rent building Buy building Home department for faculty Affiliated faculty from other depts Dedicated lines Adjunct faculty Joint appointments Faculty Tenure-ability of faculty Tenure in home dept. Tenure in design dept. No tenure track Prof. of the Practice Clinical Faculty Advisor structure Individual advisor from a design department Co-advisor design & other dept Non-Design dept advisor Two co-advisors from different depts Students Degree(s) granted Ph.D. MEng MS MFA MBA Other (None) Curriculum architecture Use existing courses Cross-list

design course Dedicated design courses Core course areas Engineering (ME, IE, etc.) Business (Finance, Marketing, Management) Industrial Design Psychology Media Other (Journalism, Medicine, Comp Sci, Poli Sci, Performing Arts) Curriculum Instructional delivery Studios Lectures Case studies Problem-based Project- based Co-taught The d.school’s courses often turn out to be the tra nsformative experience of a student’s life at Stanf ord—it is not uncommon for students to change their career trajectory after a d.school experience, and there have been many succe ssful project outcomes. For example,

the Entrepreneurial Design for Extreme Affordability student teams have designed products that have imp roved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in Myanmar, India, Nepal, and Ethiopia. The student teams in the Creating Infectious Action course have influenced policy at Walmart, Disney, Jet Blue and several financial institutions. Teams from th e Boot Camp class and the Media class have changed programming at New York Public Radio. There are also ongoing projects (called lab s) that are not tied to courses. The two largest ones are the K-12 Lab and the Space Lab. The teams in the K-12

Lab have des igned classroom spaces and curricula for teaching design thinking and crea tive problem solving to students in elementary scho ols. The d.school has a strong
Page 19
19 presence in three elementary schools in the San Fra ncisco Bay Area, in the Henry Ford Museum in Dearbo rn Michigan, and in some elementary schools in Bhutan and in India. The Spa ce Lab devises ways to use physical spaces to run m ultiple design classes, and designs and builds special furniture to support d.s chool unique teaching and project activities. The d.school’s web page

http://d.school.stanford.edu ) is a good source for more complete information. 4.4 Similarities and Differences across Programs As we can see from these tables, there is clearly n o single solution that suits everyone—the launch (a nd sustainment) of interdisciplinary graduate design programs depends on a variety of factors, many of which are specific to the university and its surrounding environment. The degrees offered by th ese five programs range from a Ph.D. (in Design Sci ence) to M.S. and professional Master’s degrees (MBA, MPD) to no degr ee (in the d.school). Programs have been

successfu lly driven from the top down (administrative mandates at Northwestern) as w ell as from the bottom up (faculty advocacy resulti ng from previous collaboration at Michigan). It is no surprise that alumni and Angel investors can play a key role in program formation (Plattner’s contributions formalized the d.school at Stanford, Segal’s contributions formalized the Segal Design I nstitute at Northwestern); however, other programs (e.g., Design Science) have found ways to accomplish their goals with some uni versity support. Faculty affiliations and tenure concerns exist across all t hese

programs, and the best solution depends heavil y on the university structure (e.g., department vs. institute affiliation). Desp ite these differences, there is a large consensus t hat interdisciplinary design programs should emphasize: project-based (active) learning, co-taught lectures and studios, teamwork, interdisc iplinarity, and systems thinking to name a few. Finally, while the monikers we use may differ (Interdisciplinary Design vs. Design Sci ence vs. Design Thinking), we all agree that design—in the broadest sense—provide s unique opportunities to engage, impassion, and ul timately

transform students’ educational experiences. 5. Interdisciplinary Research Once these obstacles are overcome, then faculty and students can focus on the reason we all attended t he workshops, i.e., the wide array of interdisciplinary research topics in desig n. Compelling research topics emerged at all of th e workshops, and the University of Michigan specifically showcased several examples of interdisciplinary work that their Design Scienc e students are doing [9, 10, 11]. Meanwhile, at the 2009 NSF CMMI Grantees Conf erence Workshop, the panelists and participants spe cifically identified a

list of important research questions in the field of design . From a list of nearly a hundred questions, a sub set that represented the breadth of issues, from assessment to instruction and pract ice, were identified. The following summarize thes e research questions. How is knowledge captured and reused across discipl ines involved with design? Successful design, whether a painting or consumer product, informs future work. Different d isciplines participate in this process in different ways. Some methods might include pattern recognition, design language, abstr action, education, and

numbers/words/pictures. Thi s question considers the value of this exercise and the methods by which it is achieved. What is the relationship between the product and se rvice design? A successful integration of product/artifact and t he experience of owning it are becoming hallmarks of s uccessful designs. This might include topics such as sustainability, interaction, and re-use. This interface provides an exciting opportunity for innovation.
Page 20
20 What are effective methods to enhance interdiscipli nary communication and collaboration? “Interdisciplinary” does not mean “two

fields of e ngineering” or “graphical and artistic design”. Truly interdisciplinary proj ects often require broad teams with diverse skills—and aesthetics and values. Even broad-minde d teammates with similar goals can encounter communication difficulties rooted in the very attributes that makes interdisciplinary teams valuable. How can collaboration in these sit uations be improved? Is there a meta-structure of design process (if so, what is it and how do we teach it)? Different design disciplines teach design in differ ent ways, rooted in the culture of that field. While there is value in

recognizing these distincti ons, it is possible that teaching a specific way of doing design creates some of the barriers to successful interdisciplinary design. Research into different successful processes across disciplines might identify similarities, differences, and perhaps even taxonomies that could be used to contextualize different approaches to design, which could facilitate collab oration across disciplines. How do we balance quantitative and qualitative meth ods in design? Different disciplines might emphasize or deemphasize qualitat ive and quantitative approaches to design. A

better understanding of the different te chniques and their strengths and weaknesses might lead to improved acceptance and us e. How do we evaluate (grade) design? In practice, a design might be assessed by its commercial success, by the imitations it inspires, or by the notice of critics. While some of these responses could be immediate, the full value of some design achievements is not recognized for years or longer. As design is incre asingly embedded in the curricula, what are helpful and moral methods for assessing design? How to measure innovation (particularly in academia )?

“Innovation” is increasingly discussed, but even its definition is disputed. Ac ademia feels a need or obligation or recognizes an opportunity to play a role in teachin g innovation, but how? Are the design processes taught in our different disciplines effec tive for innovation? Just as the merits of an individual design are difficult to quantify or a ssess, so is its “innovativeness”. This further complicates the issues facing academia in this area . How do we balance coherence and dissonance during d esign? Creative tension is generally considered necessary to produce good desi gn, but how

do we teach this? Dissonance provides opportunities for innovation, b ut can distract designers or projects. How do we change the culture of engineering schools so that technology is perceived as a tool? It is possible that undergraduate engineers could be distracted by technology and feel that it is the end, rather than the means, to their education. Some have suggested that interdisciplinary training would provide the n ecessary opportunities to help students to learn this on their own. Does early introduction of hardware/physical design s increase engineering interest? Research and practice

have shown that the early and systematic use of prototypes can improve design outcomes. Similarly, hands-on activi ties have been shown to be particularly effective in some teaching scenarios and appeal to non-traditional learners. Integrating these two efforts might both improve design educati on and the diversity of the student population. A related question is: Do creative projects lead to higher quality educati on and more interest in science/math? How to develop an appreciation of the intangible (s ubjective) aspect of designs? In addition to balancing the quantitative and qualitat ive

aspects of design, it is likely that individuals traditionally inclined towards one of t hese approaches would benefit from an understanding of and appreciation for the other. T his research question looks at how this can best be achieved in an academic setting.
Page 21
21 Given the breadth and depth of these topics, few ar e concerned whether or not interdisciplinary design research could sustain critical inquiry—ther e are plenty of questions to keep researchers occupied. Instead, the more important question is: how will this work be funded? While some existing programs and

solicitations at NSF lend the mselves well to this type of interdisciplinary research (e.g., Engineering Design and Innovation P rogram, CreativeIT, IGERT), we need to be more cognizant of new opportunities at NSF such as the Directorate for Engineering’s new panel review procedure for interdisciplinary resear ch while also targeting solicitations for new topics for NSF’s Emerging Frontiers in Research and Innovation (EFRI) program. In fact, as an outcome of the Design Workshop Series , we submitted a topic on design innovation in resp onse to the NSF Dear Colleague Letter, requesting ideas

for the 2010 EFRI Solicitation. 5. Closing Remarks, Outcomes, and Recommendations In an often-cited quote, The Economist claimed that “Innovation is now recognized as the single most important ingredient in any modern economy” [1 5]. Meanwhile, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke declared that our nation’s innovation sy stem is “broken” and stated that “the United States has not adjusted to a new global marketplace where foreign countries and foreign companies have the ability to outpace their America n counterparts. It's not tenable for the United States to continue with the status quo. In a world

where innovation is critical to U.S. competitiveness, we must do everything in our power to optimize commercialization that stems from our nation's vast research investment . There has never been a clearer imperative to improve the creativity and innovative mindset of U. S. graduates from all disciplines. We assert that design lies at the heart of innovati on, and interdisciplinary graduate design programs such as those involved with these workshop s are uniquely positioned to provide the educational opportunities to revitalize the nation s innovation ecosystem. The Design Workshop Series

sought to arrive at a clearer understanding of who these new graduate programs should serve and what they should entail. Participants were very positi ve about the friendly and open discussions at the workshops among a well-balanced group representing many different disciplines involved in design. They found the tal ks from both the “thinkers” (academic leaders representing different design themes in the panels) as well as the “doers” (award-winning design practitioners who spoke in, for example, “De sign:Chicago”) were stimulating. The barriers and challenges to creating (and sustaining )

these programs were discussed at length, and many feel that now is the time for action. The Design Workshop Series catalyzed an interdisciplinary research community that shares a passion for design. An online design community, De signWIKI , was recently established by participants to share and disseminate work, and des criptions of innovative design courses have been posted by workshop participants and are availa ble online along with additional teaching material developed by the d.school . Several participants reported that their involve ment in the Design Workshop Series led to the

development of new interdisciplinary gr aduate design programs at Iowa State, University of Illinois Urba na-Champaign, and Sheffield Hallam University in the UK, which created a new Design Le adership programming that united Engineering, Computing, Art and Design and Media Ar ts. Faculty at the University of Michigan are also considering a M.S. in Design Science now, and faculty at Penn State have started to offer cross-disciplinary design courses in preparat ion for establishing a new interdisciplinary http://nsf.gov/eng/general/IDR/index.jsp

http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2008/nsf08071/nsf08071.jsp? org=NSF Secretary Locke's speech is online at: http://www.commerce.gov/NewsRoom/SecretarySpeeches/ PROD01_008812 http://designnetwork.wetpaint.com/ http://www.stanford.edu/group/dschool/nsfdesignwork shop/
Page 22
22 graduate design program modeled after Figure 5. Fi nally, one participant shared his workshop experiences with Vanessa Wong at BusinessWeek and was subsequently included as one of the panelists in their assessment of the “World’s Best Design Sc hools”. 10 While significant strides have been made in the pas t year

through the Design Workshop Series , considerable work remains. The following recommend ations are offered to NSF to continue providing support and serving as a catalyst to: 1. Improve administrative buy-in through future interd isciplinary design workshops – in order to capitalize on this new-found momentum and interest in design, we need to get department heads, deans, and senior-level administrators invol ved with these workshops in order to share our passion and help us identify ways to over come the barriers and challenges outlined in Section 3. Having them participate in Design Thinking

activities like we did at the Stanford workshop would also be a valuable experien ce for many of them. 2. Identify lessons learned among a broader set of int erdisciplinary graduate design programs – the morphological matrix introduced in Table 2 pr ovides a clear and concise way to compare and contrast how different interdisciplinar y graduate design programs “solved” the barriers and challenges at their respective univers ities; as such, this matrix should be used to characterize a broader set of interdisciplinary graduate design programs that exist and identify “lessons learned”, which can

be shared wit h other faculty and universities to help them avoid the same pitfalls. 3. Characterize the knowledge, skills, and attitudes o f students in these design programs while there is some consensus on how courses in these interdisciplinary design programs should be taught (e.g., project-based learning, tea mwork, co-taught, etc.), there is little agreement on what should be taught; programmatic content will vary, but more work is needed to understand the knowledge, skills, and att itudes that T-shaped students need when they graduate from these programs. 4. Expand involvement of

business and other design-rel ated disciplines (e.g. industrial design, architecture, human computer interaction design, la w, journalism) in these discussions while each workshop had representation from a varie ty of disciplines involved with design, we should continue to grow and expand the community to identify best practices in other fields and find synergies with other disciplines. For instance, significant benefits would be gained if core participants were able to benefit fr om discussions with a variety of innovative business leaders to both assess their needs and to better understand

novel approaches used to facilitate proven innovation. 5. Identify best practices among international interdi sciplinary design programs – several international programs were represented and discuss ed at our workshops; several schools in Europe (particularly in the UK, Netherlands, and France) have created strong design programs, some with Ph.D. programs; in Asia, there is a very strong coordinated effort to build design research and education as a cornerston e of their economic engine, with efforts in China, Korea, Taiwan, and Malaysia—the recently launched Singapore University of Technology

and Design (joint effort by MIT and the Singapore Government) has a very ambitious agenda, closely attending to the issues p resented in this report, and it plans to enroll several thousand students. We need to work more with these schools and understand their modes of operation better, as they seem more eager to hire our students as design faculty than many of our U.S.-based insti tutions. http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/sep200 9/id20090930_821020.htm?chan= innovation_special+report+--+design+thinking_specia l+report+--+design+thinking 10

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/09/0930_worlds _best_design_schools/index.htm?chan= innovation_special+report+--+design+thinking_specia l+report+--+design+thinking
Page 23
23 6. Study the role of design in innovation – while there are many definitions for innovation (e.g., reduction of creativity to practice), design plays a key role in all of them; therefore, it is in our community’s best interest to understand the role th at design plays in innovation so that we can respond to the challenges facing our nation and help “fix” our innovation ecosystem. 7. Improve funding

opportunities for interdisciplinary design research and educational efforts while NSF programs like Engineering Design and Inno vation and CreativeIT and IGERT solicitations are supportive, the community could l everage large grant support through programs such as EFRI and creating ERCs to strength en connections with non-engineering disciplines that are involved with design; expandin g CCLI-type grants to support graduate course development and dissemination would also adv ance these efforts. While any interdisciplinary graduate program will face many of the obstacles outlined in Section 3,

programs centered around design may be the best suited to navigate these hurdles since design pervades every discipline, and therefore, ev eryone is a stakeholder. Until there is a Whitaker Foundation 11 for interdisciplinary design, we must rely on NSF and the generosity of the Plattners, the Segals, and the Fords of the wor ld to help us establish such novel programs and infrastructures. In the meantime, we need to u se design to help us make this happen—if design can transform companies and organizations ar ound the world, then so too can it help us transform the university environment

wherein we are educating the workforce of tomorrow. Acknowledgments We would like to thank NSF’s Program Directors Judy Vance, Sally Wood, and Christina Bloebaum for their support of the Design Workshop Series , which was funded by NSF Collaborative Research Grants CMMI-0847181, CMMI-08 47460, CMMI-0847694, and CMMI- 0847104. We would like to thank Professor Kemper L ewis (University at Buffalo-SUNY) for his assistance with the morphological matrix offered in this report. Finally, we would like to thank Shanna Daly (University of Michigan), Liz Gerber (N orthwestern University), and Micah

Lande (Stanford University) for their help organizing the workshops and activities at their institutions. References [1] Council on Competitiveness, 2004, Innovate America – Thriving in a World of Challenge and Change: National Innovation Initiative Report , Washington, D.C. [2] Engineering Accreditation Commission, 1999, Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs , Baltimore, MD, ABET, http://www.abet.org/ . [3] Simpson, T. W., Barton, R. R. and Celento, D., 2008, "Interdisciplinary by Design," ASME Magazine - Special Design Issue , 130(9), 30-33. [4] Simpson, T. W., Hunter, S. T.,

Bryant-Arnold, C ., Parkinson, M., Barton, R. R., Celento, D. and Messner, J., 2009, "Interdisciplinary Gradua te Design Programs: Results and Recommendations from a NSF Workshop", 2009 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences , San Diego, CA, ASME, DETC2009/DEC-86699. [5] Mills, M. P., 2009, "C.P. Snow Was Wrong", Forbes , 6 November 2009, http://www. forbes.com/2009/11/06/cp-snow-cultures-personal-fin ance-investing-ideas-thomas- edison.html . [6] Fixson, S. K., 2009, "Teaching Innovation throu gh Interdisciplinary Courses and Programmes in Product Design and Development: An An alysis

at 16 US Schools," Creativity and Innovation Management , 18(3), 199-208. [7] Brown, T., 2008, "Design Thinking," Harvard Business Review , 86(6), 84-92. 11 In the 1990’s, the Whitaker Foundation granted mil lions of dollars to help universities institutional ize biomedical engineering programs, see: http://bmes.seas.wustl.edu/WhitakerArchives/glance/ history.html
Page 24
24 [8] Pahl, G. and Beitz, W., 1996, Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach , New York, Springer-Verlag. [9] Frischknecht, B., Gonzalez, R., Papalambros, P. and Reid, T., 2009, "A Design Science Approach to

Analytic Product Design", International Conference on Engineering Design , Stanford, CA, Paper No. 148. [10] Yilmaz, S., Seifert, C. and Gonzalez, R., 2009 , "Cognitive Heuristics in Design: Instructional Strategies to Increase Creativity in Idea Generation," Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing , in press. [11] Daly, S., Yilmaz, S., Seifert, C. and Gonzalez , R., 2010, "Cognitive Heuristics Use in Engineering Design Ideation", Proceedings for the American Society of Engineering Education Conference , Louisville, KY, ASEE, under review. [12] Frischknecht,

B., Whitefoot, K., and Papalambr os, P. Y., 2009, "Methods for Evaluating Suitability of Econometric Demand Models in Design for Market Systems", 2009 ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferen ces , San Diego, CA, ASME, Paper No. DETC2009-87165. [13] Reid, T., Gonzalez, R., and Papalambros, P. Y. , 2009, "A Methodology for Quantifying the Perceived Environmental Friendliness of Vehicle Silhouettes in Engineering Design", 2009 ASME International Design Engineering Technica l Conferences , San Diego, CA, ASME, Paper No. DETC2009-87095. [14] MacDonald, E., Gonzalez, R., and

Papalambros, P. Y., 2009, "Preference Inconsistency in Multidisciplinary Design Decision Making", ASME Journal of Mechanical Design , 131(3), 031009 (13pgs). [15] Kelley, T., and Littman, J., 2005, T he Ten Faces of Innovation: IDEO's Strategies for Beating the Devil's Advocate & Driving Creativity t hroughout Your Organization , New York, Currency/Doubleday.