Editor's notes: The changing panorama in design management education

Design Management Journal, Summer 2002 by Walton, Thomas

When we last reported on design management education-in spring 1998-momentum was clearly positive. There was a growing recognition among business-school faculty that design mattered. The number of design management courses appeared to be on the rise. Content was varied and creative. And there were signs that the significance of this complex, multifaceted expertise might even be acknowledged with specialized degrees.

The surprise is that, in the intervening years, many of these trends seem to have suffered a reversal. There are still exciting courses out there, but the interest of business schools in this arena has waned. Individuals still champion and articulate the value of design management, but it has become increasingly difficult to leverage this enthusiasm into a distinctive academic discipline.

Several contributors to this volume analyze and offer reasons for this change. Others suggest new avenues for sharing design management strategies and enhancing related processes and skills. We have invited faculty members from three design schools to tell us what's happening in their programs. And, in spite of less-sanguine news overall, we are pleased to profile courses that remain promising vehicles for conveying important design management lessons. To understand the current state of affairs, I think the best path is to move from the specifics to the more global point of view.

Courses that stimulate the mind and refine talents

Product Design and Development is a course that has been jointly offered by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the Rhode Island School of Design (RISD) since 1995. In 2002, almost 100 students were enrolled with majors in engineering design, manufacturing, management, and industrial design. Team-taught by Steven Eppinger, MIT professor of management science and engineering systems, and Matthew Kressy, principal of Designturn Inc. and adjunct faculty member in RISD's department of industrial design, this elective combines the traditional format of lectures, case studies, readings, and class discussion with the development of collaborative projects. This last exercise is the heart of the course, translating theory into practice. Each project is executed by an interdisciplinary group of six to eight students who are challenged to identify and analyze a market opportunity and respond with a new product. Participants benchmark competitive products, devise alternative concepts, create working models, develop one design in detail, build a prototype, test the outcome with consumers, and evaluate the business potential of their design. The schedule is demanding, but the rewards help shape careers with hands-on insights into such areas as teamwork, communication, budgeting, project management, risk assessment, and resource allocation.

At Arizona State University, assistant professor of industrial design Paul Rothstein works with colleagues from the departments of graphic design, management, and marketing to offer an elective on a cross-functional, integrated-development process. Students come from the college of business and the school of design and, as with the MIT/RISD partnership, form interdisciplinary design teams. What makes this course particularly interesting is that, in order to understand how people from different backgrounds interact, Rothstein carefully tracks attitudes and perceptions across the semester, with enlightening results. Business students go into the class with clear expectations and self-confidence and often leave bewildered and frustrated by the complexities of working with diverse talents. They underestimate the investment and finesse required to nurture true collaboration. Almost all the students have trouble dealing with the ambiguities of problem solving. They gather lots of facts and information but find they have to think in new and unanticipated ways to distill priorities and discover a strong design direction. With respect to leadership, teams learn that the most effective tactic is to share this role rather than vest it in a single individual. Finally, when it comes to creativity, almost all students (including those frustrated by the class) conclude that cross-functional development engenders an inventive spirit and more-innovative project solutions. What is valuable about Rothstein's article is that, in documenting attitudes, as well as outcomes, it highlights the human, as well as technical, issues that have to be addressed in implementing an integrated approach to design, be in the academic or business world.

As a counterpoint to classroom learning, Naomi Gornick, a design management faculty member at Brunel University in the UK, summarizes what 10-plus years of involvement in internships have taught her about the structure and importance of this education strategy. What seems to work best is a two-part curriculum-a 4-week design audit of a selected company, followed by a 12-week position at that or another organization. Gornick stresses that schools must give credit and assign tutors to carefully monitor internships. For their part, companies must treat interns with trust, share information, facilitate access to decision-makers, and provide meaningful assignments. In this context, students balance design management theory with the hard-nosed demands of practice, and companies have the chance to probe ideas and projects that might not otherwise command their attention and resources. To reinforce these points, Gornick illustrates her discussion with lively real-world testimony from interns, teachers, administrators, and corporate executives.