When worlds collide: Integrated development with business and design students

Design Management Journal, Summer 2002 by Rothstein, Paul

Business student

Another paradox emerged in the area of creativity. Some students complained that the IDP had "stifled" and "constrained" their creativity (reinforcing an argument put forth by some researchers that cautions that the complexities of research-based processes can constrict creativity by overwhelming designers with too many details and variables). Nonetheless, some of these same students felt that their final business plans and design concepts had been "more creative" than in other classes. A handful of other students (from both business and design) even credited the messy IDP and the cross-functional teamwork with stimulating their creativity.

The course also prompted most students to reevaluate their notions of creativity. By the end of the course, the majority regarded cross-functional teams as a powerful creative force (in spite of the difficulties and frustrations they experienced). They recognized that teams can indeed perform better than isolated individuals, particularly when assignments are broadly defined and require multiple talents and different points of view.

Students also reconsidered their notions about the source of creativity. Prior to the course, the majority felt that intuition was the primary spark for creative ideas. They believed that creativity was a kind of unearned talent that was possessed by a few lucky, "gifted" individuals, such as Vincent Van Gogh, Albert Einstein, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Steve Jobs. By the end of the class, most had revised their opinions and came to see creativity as a universal characteristic and a capability that can be improved, a view supported by a variety of creativity researchers. They also recognized that creativity can be nurtured by a process-in this case, an IDP. Students noted, for example, that the IDP uncovered entirely unexpected opportunities that they likely would not have imagined with their intuition alone.

Finally, the course changed the way in which many students defined creative solutions (at least in a business/design context). About half began the course stating that creative solutions were "free" and "conceptual," often referring to fine art as an example. By the end, the majority measured creative solutions against a variety of constraints relating to users and business. The students' comments suggest that cross-functional interaction, along with the diverse data generated from the IDP, provided stimulation for more complex and innovative creative solutions. Paradoxically, however, it should be stressed that the majority felt this change was marginally negative. While acknowledging the quality of their final solutions, they clung to a fine-art-based notion of inspiration, worrying that an emphasis on practicality compromised their creativity, despite the evidence to the contrary.

Implications

It is highly probable that, upon graduation, these students will soon encounter development processes and teams that bear an uncanny resemblance to what they experienced in the class, since integrated processes and cross-functional teamwork have become more commonplace in contemporary business and design. Given their experience, these students may have a head start. But what about the vast majority of business and design students who graduate without ever experiencing an IDP or genuine cross-functional teamwork?