No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Educate for Technological Innovation
Part of:
Design Education
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 July 2019
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.
At Polytechnics design & engineering students are taught about state-of-the-art technical knowledge. Students become qualified engineers and learn to innovate artifacts related to their domain.
Not taught is how to develop new engineering knowledge within a multidisciplinary context of stakeholders, companies and regulations. In short, students don't learn to innovate technology. What is taught today is the result of a technological innovation of yesterday. This is not sufficient for industry to innovatively deal with society's grand challenges.
The paper describes a project that aims to educate all TU Delft graduate students in the verb of innovating technology, that is, the development of new technologies from inventions in the labs to full- fledged application in business. Such along three dimensions: technical, human and business.
The educational portfolio consists of three modules in line with growth along Bloom's taxonomy and online materials on theoretical backbones. All modules apply the notion of technological innovation journeys (Tijo's). Tijo's are rich descriptions of the developmental journey of new technology and are based on inventions from the university's own labs.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 479 - 488
- Creative Commons
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) 2019
References
Buijs, J. (2003), “Modelling product innovation processes, from linear logic to circular chaos”. Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 76–93.Google Scholar
Buijs, J. (2012), The delft innovation method. The Hague: Eleven International Publishing.Google Scholar
Salzmann Cerda, D.J. (2010), Ampelmann. Development of access system for offshore wind turbines. (PhD thesis). Delft: Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
Chiesa, V. and Frattini, F. (2011), “Commercializing Technological Innovation: Learning from Failures in High-Tech Markets”. Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 28, pp. 437–454.Google Scholar
Crawley, E.F., Malmqvist, J., Lucas, W.A. and Brodeur, D.R. (2011), “The CDIO Syllabus v2.0. An updated statement of goals for engineering education”. Proceedings of the 7th International CDIO Conference, Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
De Groot, A.D. (1994), Methodologie. Grondslagen van onderzoek en denken in de gedragswetenschappen. Van Gorcum, Assen.Google Scholar
Dorst, K. and Cross, N. (2001), “Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem-solution”. Design Studies, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 425–437.Google Scholar
Dorst, K. (2008), “Design research: A revolution-waiting-to-behappen”. Design Studies, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 4–11.Google Scholar
Garcia, R. and Calantone, R. (2002), “A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review”. Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 19, pp. 110–132.Google Scholar
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967), The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Gunnink, J.W., Vlot, A., De Vries, T.J. and Van der Hoeven, W. (2002), “Glare technology development 1997-2000”, Applied Composite Materials, Vol. 9, pp. 201–219.Google Scholar
Hatchuel, A. (2019), “737 MAX: als een ontwerpfout een managementfout lijkt geworden”. NRC, 28/03/2019. In French: Boeing 737 MAX : le spectre de l'erreur de conception., Le Monde, 27/03/19Google Scholar
Hatchuel, A. and Weil, B. (2009), “C-K design theory: An advanced formulation”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 19, pp. 181–192.Google Scholar
Huarng, K-H, Yu, Hui-Kuang, Yu, T., Wenhsiang, L. (2015), “Innovation and diffusion of high-tech products, services, and systems”. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68, pp. 2223–2226.Google Scholar
Kamp, A. (2014), Engineering Education in a Rapidly Changing World. Rethinking the Mission and Vision on Engineering Education at TU Delft. Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
Kamp, A. and Klaassen, R. (2016), “Impact of global forces and empowering situations on engineering education in 2030”. Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku University of Applied Sciences, Turku, Finland, June.Google Scholar
Keskin, D. (2015), Product Innovation in Sustainability-Oriented New Ventures. (PhD Thesis), Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
Lorino, P. (2018), Pragmatism and organization studies. Oxford (GB): Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Markham, S. (2002), “Moving technologies from lab to market”. Research-Technology Management, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 31–42.Google Scholar
Markham, S.K., Ward, S.J, Aiman-Smith, L. and Kington, A. I. (2010), “The Valley of Death as Context for Role Theory in Product Innovation”. Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 27, pp. 402–417.Google Scholar
Muegge, S. (2012), “Business Model Discovery by Technology Entrepreneurs.” Technology Innovation Management Review, April, pp. 5–16.Google Scholar
Müller, R. M. and Thoring, K. (2012), “Design thinking vs. lean startup: A comparison of two user-driven innovation strategies”. Leading Through Design, p. 151.Google Scholar
Nielsen, S. L. and Gartner, W. B. (2017), “Am I a student and/or entrepreneur?” Multiple identities in student entrepreneurship. Education + Training, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 135–154.Google Scholar
O'Keefe, A. and Rottenberg, S. (2017), “Integrated Design Innovation: A Mindset for Designers of Tomorrow”. Design Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 10–16.Google Scholar
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y. and Tucci, C.L. (2005), “Clarifying Business Models: Origins, Present, and Future of the Concept”. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 16, pp. 1–40.Google Scholar
Ries, E. (2011), The lean startup: How today's entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses: Crown Business.Google Scholar
Rittel, H. and Webber, M. (1973), “Dilemmas in general theory of planning”, Policy Sciences, Vol. 4, pp. 155–169.Google Scholar
Robinson, K. and Aronica, L. (2016), Creative Schools. The grassroots revolution that's transforming education”. Penguin Books, New York.Google Scholar
Roebroeks, G. (1991), Towards Glare. The development of a fatigue insensitive and damage tolerant aircraft material. PhD thesis, Delft, Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
Roozenburg, N. F. and Eekels, J. (1995), Product design: fundamentals and methods, Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
Roth, M.S. (2014), Beyond the university. Why liberal education matters. Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
Simon, H.A. (1996), The sciences of the artificial, MIT Press Ltd, Cambridge Mass, USA.Google Scholar
Smulders, F. (1988), Fibre fracture mechanism in Aral laminates with aramid fibres. TU Delft, MSc-thesis.Google Scholar
Smulders, F. (2006), Get synchronized! Bridging the Gap between Design & Volume Production. (PhD thesis). Delft: Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
Smulders, F. (2011), “Get wet! Teaching innovation theories through experiential learning”. Journal of Design Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 168–184.Google Scholar
Smulders, F. (2017), “Heterogeneous engineering: Essential bridge implementing creative design”. International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED). University of British Columbia, Vancouver, pp. 539–548.Google Scholar
Smulders, F.E., Lousberg, L. and Dorst, K. (2008), “Towards different communication in collaborative design”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 1 No. 3, p. 352–367.Google Scholar
Smulders, F. and de Bont, C. (2012), “Design research: purpose, dynamics and progress” In de Bont, C., den Ouden, P., Schifferstein, H., Smulders, F. and Voort, M. v.d. (Eds.), Advanced Design Methods (pp. 213–237)Google Scholar
Smulders, F. and Bakker, H. (2012), “Modeling the inter-subjective level of innovation”. Int. Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 60 No. 3/4, p. 221–241.Google Scholar
Smulders, F. and Dunne, D. (2016), “Disciplina: A Missing Link for Cross Disciplinary Integration”. 11th Design Thinking Research Symposium, Copenhagen Business School, November 2016, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
Smulders, F., Kamp, A. and Fortin, C. (2018), “The CDIO framework and new perspectives on technological innovation”. Proceedings of the 14th International CDIO Conference, Kanazawa Institute of Technology Kanazawa (Japan), June 28 – July 2, p. 40–52.Google Scholar
Stewart, D. (1965), “A Platform with Six Degrees of Freedom”, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 180 No. 1, No. 15, p. 371–386. https://doi.org/10.1243/pime_proc_1965_180_029_02Google Scholar
Thomke, S. and Fujimoto, T. (2000), “The effect of Front-Loading on product development performance”. Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, p. 128–142.Google Scholar
Van Burg, E., Berends, H. and van Raaij, E. (2014), “Framing and interorganizational knowledge transfer: A process study of collaborative innovation in the aircraft industry Journal of Management Studies”, Vol. 51 No. 3, p. 349–378.Google Scholar
Van de Ven, A.H., Polley, D.E., Garud, R. and Venkataraman, S. (1999), The innovation journey. Oxford University Press New York.Google Scholar
Vlot, A. (2001), Glare. History of the development of a new aircraft material. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
You have
Access
Open access