Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T14:31:33.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

USAGE AND ACCEPTANCE OF MANAGEMENT TOOLS IN PROJECT-BASED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2023

Lisa Rößler  and
Kilian Gericke
Lisa Rößler*
Affiliation:
University of Rostock
Kilian Gericke
Affiliation:
University of Rostock
*
Rößler, Lisa, University of Rostock, Germany, [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 paper aims to identify the reasons for neglecting and the motivations for using management tools among three groups of students participating in a project that was carried out and followed over a period of one semester. For this purpose, a survey in the form of questionnaires and interviews was created. Particular emphasis was placed on the use of project management methods, tools and techniques and respondents were asked to rate the effectiveness of their usage. Additionally, the participants were asked to report limitations or distractions they had encountered. The results revealed five aspects that mainly influenced the students’ motivation in using management tools: the team atmosphere, determining responsibilities, performance transparency, expectations by the supervisors, feedback and performance evaluation. On that basis conclusions were drawn on what actions can be taken to motivate future students and designers.

Keywords

Project managementDesign educationOrganisation of product developmentDesign practiceDesign process
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 3: ICED23 , July 2023 , pp. 3929 - 3938
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), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Becattini, N., Škec, S., Pavković, N., & Cascini, G. (2020). E-Learning Infrastructure Prototype for Geographically Distributed Project-Based Learning. Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference, 1, 1667–1676. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsd.2020.282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bender, B. and Marion, S. (2016), “Dimensions of product development success”, Proceedings of the DESIGN 2016 14th International Design Conference, DS 84, the Design Society, Glasgow, pp. Google Scholar
Browning, T. R. (2009). The many views of a process: Toward a process architecture framework for product development processes. Systems Engineering, 12(1), 69–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.20109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cain, K., & Cocco, S. (2013). Leadership Development through Project Based Learning. Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA). https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.v0i0.4869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, C.M. and Clarkson, P.J. (2003), “The reality of design process planning”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED’03, DS 31, the Design Society, GlasgowGoogle Scholar
Eckert, C. M., & Stacey, M. K. (2010). What is a Process Model? Reflections on the Epistemology of Design Process Models. In Heisig, P., Clarkson, P. J., & Vajna, S. (Eds.), Modelling and Management of Engineering Processes (pp. 3–14). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, C. M., Wynn, D. C., Maier, J. F., Albers, A., Bursac, N., Xin Chen, H. L., Clarkson, P. J., Gericke, K., Gladysz, B., & Shapiro, D. (2017). On the integration of product and process models in engineering design. Design Science, 3, e3. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2017.2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eigner, M., & Stelzer, R. (2009). Produktdaten-Management und Product Lifecycle Management. In Product Lifecycle Management (pp. 27–45). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/b93672_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filippi, A., Suarez Madrigal, A., Eisenbart, B., & Gericke, K. (2018). An Exploratory Study on the use of New Design Methods in Design Consultancies. Proceedings of the DESIGN 2018 15th International Design Conference, DS 92, the Design Society, Glasgow 1055–1066. https://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., & Grote, K.-H. (2007). Engineering Design - A Systematic Approach (Wallace, K. & Blessing, L. T. M., Eds.; 3rd ed.). Springer London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-319-2Google Scholar
Qureshi, A. J., Gericke, K., & Blessing, L. (2013). Design process commonalities in trans-disciplinary design. Proceedings of 19th International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED’13, the Design Society, Glasgow.Google Scholar
Schlabach, Joachim. “Jank, Werner; Meyer, Hilbert: Didaktische Modelle. Frankfurt/M.: Cornelsen- Scriptor, 1992” Informationen Deutsch als Fremdsprache, vol. 21, no. 2-3, 1994, pp. 240–241. https://doi.org/10.1515/infodaf-1994-212-339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stacey, M., Eckert, C., & Hillerbrand, R. (2020). Process models: plans, predictions, proclamations or prophecies? Research in Engineering Design, 31(1), 83–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-019-00322-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vincent-Lancrin, S., González-Sancho, C., Bouckaert, M., de Luca, F., Fernández-Barrerra, M., Jacotin, G., Urgel, J., & Vidal, Q. (2019). Fostering Students’ Creativity and Critical Thinking. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/62212c37-enCrossRefGoogle Scholar