How background affects design output: Teaching product development to mechanical engineers, industrial designers and managers

Product design and development is a topic of academic and industrial research, with particular current interest. Emphasis on innovation and entrepreneurship, design thinking and creativity have been recently pulled together into the teaching and research on product design and development. However, the shear breadth of the topic means that there is no single way of teaching and doing research on it. The present paper looks into the similarities and differences across three very similar product development masters courses at three distinct Portuguese higher education institutions - Instituto Superior Tecnico (IST) of the University of Lisbon, Instituto Politecnico do Cavado e Ave (IPCA), and ISCTE business school (IBS) of Instituto Universitario de Lisboa. Product Development and Entrepreneurship is taught at IST mostly for students of mechanical engineering, whereas Advanced Product Development Methodologies is taught at IPCA mostly for industrial design students and New Product Development is taught at ISCTE for business students. All three courses use the same methodology of assessment and the same overall syllabus, with distributed assignments and expected outcomes. However, the nature and emphasis of specific aspects of the students' projects are fundamentally different. The reasons for these differences are analyzed by the faculty involved, in the context of the students' background and goals and examples are given. Conclusions and recommendations are provided at the end.

[1]  Colin Potts,et al.  Design of Everyday Things , 1988 .

[2]  Cliff Hooker,et al.  Designing and sciencing: Response to Galle and Kroes , 2015 .

[3]  Teresa M. Amabile,et al.  Creativity In Context: Update To The Social Psychology Of Creativity , 1996 .

[4]  Louis L. Bucciarelli,et al.  Designing Engineers , 1994 .

[5]  M. Lorenzen.  Creativity in context : Content, cost, chance and collection in the organization of the film industry , 2009 .

[6]  Maryanne M. Gobble,et al.  Design Thinking , 2010, The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible.

[7]  Jim Euchner.  Design , 2014, Catalysis from A to Z.

[8]  Arlindo Silva,et al.  Two Approaches to Design Teaching in a Mechanical Engineering Curriculum , 2012 .

[9]  Per Galle,et al.  Science and design revisited , 2015 .

[10]  Arlindo Silva,et al.  Teaching design in the first years of a traditional mechanical engineering degree: methods, issues and future perspectives , 2015 .

[11]  Crispin Hales,et al.  Engineering design: a systematic approach , 1989 .

[12]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .

[13]  Andrew Peter Wallace McCarthy.  E DITOR ’ S C OMMENTS Diversity of Design Science Research , 2022 .

[14]  G. G. Stokes.  "J." , 1890, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

[15]  Karl T. Ulrich,et al.  Product Design and Development , 1995 .

[16]  Bryan Lawson,et al.  How Designers Think , 1980 .

[17]  Cliff Hooker,et al.  Design, science and wicked problems , 2013 .

[18]  Cliff Hooker,et al.  The Simon–Kroes model of technical artifacts and the distinction between science and design , 2012 .

[19]  Isabel Duarte de Almeida,et al.  Creative Teaching of New Product Development to Operations Managers , 2013 .

[20]  Eugene S. Ferguson,et al.  Engineering and the Mind's Eye , 1994 .

[21]  Per Galle,et al.  Science and design: Identical twins? , 2014 .

[22]  Fangcheng Tang,et al.  Who Knows What in NPD Teams: Communication Context, Mode, and Task Contingencies , 2015 .

[23]  L. L. Bucciarelli,et al.  Shared Conversations Across Design , 2010, Design Issues.