Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T16:55:46.743Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

HOW COVID-19 ENABLED A GLOBAL STUDENT DESIGN TEAM TO ACHIEVE BREAKTHROUGH INNOVATION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Jenny Victoria Elfsberg ,
Christian Johansson ,
Martin Frank ,
Andreas Larsson ,
Tobias Larsson  and
Larry Leifer
Jenny Victoria Elfsberg*
Affiliation:
Blekinge Institute of Technology
Christian Johansson
Affiliation:
Blekinge Institute of Technology
Martin Frank
Affiliation:
Blekinge Institute of Technology
Andreas Larsson
Affiliation:
Blekinge Institute of Technology
Tobias Larsson
Affiliation:
Blekinge Institute of Technology
Larry Leifer
Affiliation:
Blekinge Institute of Technology
*
Elfsberg, Jenny Victoria, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Vinnova, Sweden, [email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This is a qualitative single case study of a geographically distributed student team that experienced a quite different graduate course, compared to previous year's. This was due to the restrictions placed upon them following coronavirus lockdowns. With already ongoing research, and continuous development of the course, the authors had documented individual reflections and identified patterns and behaviours that seemingly determined the quality of the end result, as well as the students expectations and experiences. Semi-structured interviews, surveys and the author's individual reflection notes were already in place as part of the larger research scope and when the student team during the covid-19 year showed unexpected performance and results, the authors decided to pause the larger research scope and focus on this unique single case and capture those learnings. Not knowing how the Covid-19 situation evolves and leaning on insights from previous years, as well as this unique year, the aim with this paper is to describe the unique Covid-19 year amd share knowledge that can help improve and evolve the development of this longlived collaborative graduate student course, and other similar distributed team contexts.

Keywords

Design educationCase studyTeamworkUser centred designDesign learning
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 1705 - 1714
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Bushnell, T., Steber, S., Matta, A., Cutkosky, M., Leifer, L. (2013), “Using a “dark horse” prototype to manage innovative teams”, 3rd International Conference on Integration of Design, Engineering & Management for Innovation, Porto, Portugal, 4-6th September 2013. http://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.2361.7602Google Scholar
Bertoni, M., Larsson, A. (2011), “ Engineering 2.0: an approach to support cross-functional teams in overcoming knowledge-sharing barriers in PSS design”, International Journal of Product Development, Vol. 15, pp 115–134. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijpd.2011.043664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carleton, T. (2019), ME310 at Stanford University: 50 Years of REDESIGN (1967-2017), Innovation Leadership Publishing, San Carlos.Google Scholar
Carleton, T. and Leifer, L. (2014), “Stanford's ME310 Course as an Evolution of Engineering Design.”, Competitive Design, Proceedings of the 19th CIRP Design Conference, Cranfield University, 30-31 March. http://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, R. (2009). How Companies are Reinventing Their Idea-to-Launch Methodologies. Research-Technology Management., 52, 47–57. http://https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08956308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dym, C. (2005). “Engineering Design Thinking, Teaching, and Learning”, Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 94, pp. 103–120. http://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00832.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eris, O. (2003). “Asking generative design questions: a fundamental cognitive mechanism in design thinking”, Proceedings of the international conference on engineering design, Stockholm, August 19-21. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8943-7_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, N. J. and Buining, F. (2010). “Enriching Problem-based Learning through Design Thinking”, New approaches to problem-based learning: revitalizing your practice in higher education. London: Rutledge, pp. 269–293. http://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1519Google Scholar
Jung, M. F. and Leifer, L. J. (2011). “A method to study affective dynamics and performance in engineering design teams”, 18th International Conference on Engineering Design - Impacting Society Through Engineering Design, Copenhagen, 15-18 August. pp. 244-253. http://doi.org/10.1145/1015530.1015551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lande, M. and Leifer, L. (2009). “Student representations and conceptions of design and engineering”, Frontiers in Educations Conference, 39th IEEE, pp. 1–2. http://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2009.5350576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lande, M. and Leifer, L. (2010). “Incubating engineers, hatching design thinkers: Mechanical engineering students learning design through Ambidextrous Ways of Thinking”, ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings, Louisville, June 20-23. http://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--16990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsson, A., Törlind, P., Karlsson, L., Mabogunje, A., Leifer, L., Larsson, T., Elfström, B-O. (2003). “Distributed team innovation - a framework for distributed product development”, 14th international Conference on Engineering Design, ICED'03, pp. 321-322., Stockholm, August 19-21. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69820-3_33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leifer, L. and Steinert, M. (2011). “Dancing with Ambiguity: Causality Behavior, Design Thinking, and Triple-Loop-Learning”. Information-Knowledge-Systems Management, pp. 151–173. http://doi.org/10.3233/IKS-2012-0191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savioa, A. (2019). “The Right It: Why So Many Ideas Fail and How to Make Sure Yours Succeed”, HarperOne, New York.Google Scholar
Schar, M., (2012). ME310 Corporate Brochure 2012. Available at: https://web.stanford.edu/group/me310/me310_2018/ME310CorporateBrochure2012-13.pdf (accessed December 4, 2020)Google Scholar
Sheppard, Sheri., (u.d). Available at: https://labs.ece.uw.edu/seal/internal/files/BERNIE.pdf (accessed March 2021)Google Scholar
Steinert, M. and Leifer, L. (2012). “Finding One's Way': Re-Discovering a Hunter-Gatherer Model based on Wayfaring”, International Journal of Engineering Education, 28(1), pp. 251–252.Google Scholar
Törlind, P. and Larsson, A. (2002). “Support for Informal Communication in Distributed Engineering Design Teams”. Proceedings of the 2002 International CIRP Design Seminar, May 16-18, Hong Kong. doi.org/10.5585/iji.v6i2.245Google Scholar
Ulwick, T., 2017. What Is Jobs-to-be-Done? Available at: https://jobs-to-be-done.com/what-is-jobs-to-be-done-fea59c8e39eb (accessed December 4, 2020)Google Scholar
Yin, R. K. (2009). “Case study research: Design and methods”. 4th revision. Sage PublicationsGoogle Scholar