New product development (NPD) classes based around problem-based learning and mediated by design coaches from industry provide an effective vehicle for authentic learning and realistic design experiences within the constraints of academic settings. Little is known, however, about what students actually learn in these courses or whether the learning corresponds to what is required by industry. To address these questions, we: (1) analyzed data from a structured “lessons learned,” or self-reflection, exercise performed by NPD students in a graduate, multidisciplinary NPD class at the University of California, Berkeley each year for the past 6 years; and (2) conducted interviews with our industrial partners who coached the students’ projects. We present an analysis of over 2300 lessons learned and compare the students’ views with the reflections of the industry coaches. In the lessons learned analysis, students highlighted skills for working in multidisciplinary teams as their most important learning experience, and secondarily, within lessons about the NPD process itself, identified the gathering and analysis of customer and user needs. Students commonly referenced skills that are not part of a traditional engineering design curriculum: listening, observation, and performing research in context. The interviews with the design coaches largely confirmed the importance of both the realistic teamwork experience that accompanies NPD and user research skills. Our findings reinforce the importance of providing students with real multidisciplinary team experience for NPD projects and suggest that greater emphasis be given to the teaching and practice of “softer” skills, such as listening, negotiation, empathy, and observation. The research also indicates that more guidance, tools, and frameworks are needed to assist student product developers in the complex task of gathering, managing, and applying user needs.

1.
Malmqvist
,
J.
,
Young
,
P. W.
,
Hallström
,
S.
, and
Svensson
,
T.
, 2004, “
Lessons Learned From Design-Build-Test-Based Project Courses
,”
Proceedings of the International Design Conference - Design 2004
,
Dubrovnik
,
USSR
, May 18–21.
2.
Merrill
,
J. A.
,
Freuler
,
R. J.
,
Gustafson
,
R. J.
,
Fentiman
,
A. W.
, and
Demel
,
J. T.
, 2001, “
Assessment and Feedback for a First Year Engineering Program
,”
Proceedings American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference
, Albuquerque, New Mexico, June 24–27.
3.
Atman
,
C. J.
,
Adams
,
R. S.
, and
Turns
,
J.
, 2000, “
Using Multiple Methods to Evaluate a Freshmen Design Course
,”
Proceedings Frontiers in Education Conference
, Kansas City, Missouri, October 18–21,
Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
.
4.
Bailey
,
R.
, and
Szabo
,
Z.
, 2005, “
Assessing Design Student Process Knowledge
,”
Proceedings 5th Harvey Mudd Design Education Workshop
, Claremont, California, May 19–21.
5.
Schön
,
D. A.
, 1983,
The Reflective Practitioner - How Professionals Think in Action
,
Basic Books
, New York.
6.
Ulrich
,
K. T.
, and
Eppinger
,
S. D.
, 1995,
Product Design and Development
,
McGraw–Hill
, New York.
7.
Owen
,
C.
, 1993, “
Considering Design Fundamentally
,”
Design Processes Newsletter
,
5
(
3
), pp.
1
5
.
8.
Owen
,
C.
, 2001, “
Structured Planning in Design: Information-Age Tools for Product Development
,”
Design Issues
,
17
(
1
), pp.
27
43
.
9.
Dym
,
C. L.
, and
Little
,
P.
, 2003,
Engineering Design: A Project-Based Introduction
, 2nd ed.,
Wiley
, New York.
10.
Dym
,
C. L.
,
Agogino
,
A. M.
,
Eris
,
O.
,
Frey
,
D. D.
, and
Leifer
,
L. J.
, 2005, “
Engineering Design Thinking, Teaching and Learning
,”
J. Eng. Educ.
1069-4730,
94
(
1
), pp.
103
120
.
11.
Kolb
,
D. A.
, 1984,
Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development
,
Prentice–Hall
, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
12.
Schon
,
D. A.
, 1987,
Educating the Reflective Practitioner
,
Jossey-Bass
, San Francisco, CA.
13.
Vygotsky
,
L.
, 1986,
Thought and Language
,
MIT Press
, Cambridge, MA (original work published in 1962).
14.
Fosnot
,
C.
, 1996,
Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice
,
Teachers College Press
, New York.
15.
Adams
,
R. S.
,
Turns
,
J.
, and
Atman
,
C. J.
, 2003, “
Educating Effective Engineering Designers: the Role of Reflective Practice
,”
Des. Stud.
0142-694X,
24
(
3
), pp.
275
.
16.
Eriz
,
O.
, and
Leifer
,
L.
, 2003, “
Facilitating Product Design Knowledge Acquisition: Interaction Between the Expert and the Team
,”
Eng. Educ.
0022-0809,
19
(
1
), pp.
142
152
.
17.
Ochs
,
J. B.
, Integrated Product Development, Lehigh University, http://www.lehigh.edu/ipd/http://www.lehigh.edu/ipd/.
18.
Cardozo
,
R. N.
,
Durfee
,
W. K.
,
Ardichvili
,
A.
,
Adams
,
C.
,
Erman
,
A. G.
,
Hoey
,
M.
,
Iaizzo
,
P. A.
,
Mallick
,
D. N.
,
Bar-Cohen
,
A.
,
Beachy
,
R.
, and
Johnson
,
A.
, 2002, “
Perspective: Experiential Education in New Product Design and Business Development
,”
J. Product Innovation Management
,
19
, pp.
4
17
.
19.
Brassard
,
M.
, and
Ritter
,
D.
, 1994,
The Memory Jogger: A Pocket Guide of Tools for Continuous Improvement and Effective Planning
,
Goal/QPC
, Salem, NH.
20.
Leonard
,
D.
, and
Rayport
,
J. F.
, 1997, “
Spark Innovation Through Empathic Design
,”
Harvard Bus. Rev.
0017-8012,
75
(
6
), pp.
102
113
.
21.
Zirger
,
B. J.
, and
Modesto
,
M. A.
, 1990, “
A Model of New Product Development: An Empirical Test
,”
Manage. Sci.
0025-1909,
36
(
7
), pp.
867
888
.
22.
Rothwell
,
R.
, 1972, “
Factors for Success in Industrial Innovations
,”
Project SAPPHO - A Comparative Study of Success and Failure in Industrial Innovation
, Science Policy Research Unit,
University of Sussex
, Brighton, UK.
23.
Laurel
,
B.
, 2003,
Design Research: Methods and Perspectives
,
MIT Press
, Cambridge, MA.
24.
Beyer
,
H.
, and
Holtzblatt
,
K.
, 1998,
Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems
,
Morgan Kaufmann Inc.
, San Francisco, CA.
25.
Glesne
,
C.
, and
Peshkin
,
A.
, 1992,
Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction
,
Longman
, White Plains, NY, pp.
127
149
.
26.
MacQueen
,
K.
,
McLellan
,
E.
,
Kay
,
K.
, and
Milstein
,
B.
, 1998, “
Codebook Development for Team-Based Qualitative Analysis
,”
Cultural Anthropology Methods
,
10
(
2
), pp.
31
36
.
28.
Allen
,
T. J.
, 2007, “
Architecture and Communication Among Product Development Engineers
,”
California Manage. Rev.
0008-1256,
49
(
2
), pp.
23
41
.
29.
Patnaik
,
D.
, 2004, “
System Logics: Organizing Your Offerings to Solve People’s Big Needs
,”
Design Management Review
,
15
(
3
), pp.
50
57
.
30.
Schön
,
D. A.
, 1994,
Frame Reflection
,
Basic Books
, New York.
31.
Goffman
,
E.
, 1974,
Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience
,
Harper and Row
, London, UK.
32.
Fisher
,
K.
, 1997, “
Locating Frames in the Discursive Universe
,” Sociological Research Online,
2
(
3
), http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/2/3/4.htmlhttp://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/2/3/4.html
33.
Hey
,
J.
,
Joyce
,
C.
, and
Beckman
,
S.
, 2006, “
Framing Innovation: The Negotiation of Shared Frames During Early Phases in Design Teams
,”
Journal of Design Research
,
6
, accepted.
34.
Denzin
,
N. K.
, 1978,
The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods
,
McGraw–Hill
, New York.
35.
Agogino
,
A. M.
,
Song
,
S.
, and
Hey
,
J.
, 2006, “
Triangulation of Indicators of Successful Student Design Teams
,”
Eng. Educ.
0022-0809,
22
(
3
), pp.
617
625
.
36.
Rittel
,
H. W. J.
, 1984, “
Second Generation Design Methods
,”
Developments in Design Methodology
,
N.
Cross
, ed.,
Wiley
, Chichester, UK, pp.
317
327
.
37.
Weick
,
K. E.
, 1993, “
Organizational Redesign as Improvisation
,”
Organizational Change and Redesign: Ideas and Insights for Improving Performance
,
G. P.
Huber
and
W. H.
Glick
, eds.,
Oxford University Press
, New York, pp.
346
379
.
You do not currently have access to this content.