Advertisement

“Learning by Doing” Integrated Project Design in a Master Program on Product and Industrial Design

  • Ângela Gomes
  • Bárbara Rangel
  • Vitor Carneiro
  • Jorge Lino
Chapter

Abstract

The Master in Product and Industrial Design (MDIP) of the University of Porto, hosted by the Faculty of Fine Arts (FBAUP) and the Faculty of Engineering (FEUP), has in its genetic code the project-based learning model. Giving the students a design studio scenario, the curriculum is developed under the integrated project design thinking, taking advantage of the knowledge provided by the two scientific areas. In a straight connection with the industry, the projects are developed in a real context, for real clients thus simulating all the tasks and stages undertaken in a design company. At the end of each exercise, the best students’ concepts are developed together with the industry in response to the market need, which is a job experience opportunity in the partner company. This “formula” has been a key factor for the success of both the course and the students’ career. They have the opportunity to see their project executed and implemented in the market, as well as the chance for a job opportunity in their future. In this chapter, the methodology is presented followed by the course and one example of these projects: the development of school furniture and technologies for an education company, Nautilus; this project entailed the development of a low-cost stackable and evolutionary school chair for children between 6 and 10 years old.

Keywords

Integrated project design Industrial design Project-based learning 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge all the MDIP students that participate in this project, the funding of Project NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000022—SciTech—Science and Technology for Competitive and Sustainable Industries, co-financed by Programa Operacional Regional do Norte (NORTE2020), through Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional (FEDER) and Community Service Engineering European Project (LLP-539642-Community Service Engineering).

References

  1. 1.
    Rangel B, Alves FB (2013) Engineering as a lesson in architecture. Cadernos d’Obra 92–94Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Behrens MA (1999) A prática pedagógica e o desafio do paradigma emergente. Revista Brasileira de Estudos Pedagógicos 80:383–403Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fontoura AM (2011) A interdisciplinaridade e o ensino do design. Projética Revista Científica de Design 2:86–95Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Souto Moura E (2009) Edifício Burgo: design, construction, technologies. In: d’Obra C, Rangel B, Faria JA, Martins JPP (eds). Gequaltec, ed. PortoGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reginaldo T, Baldessar MJ (2013) O conhecimento disciplinar do Design e suas contribuições para a teoria interdisciplinar in Simpósio Internacional sobre Interdisciplinaridade no Ensino, na Pesquisa e na Extensão – Região Sul. FlorianópolisGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dym CL, Agogino AM, Eris O, Frey DD, Leifer LJ (2005) Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. J Eng Educ 94:103–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Daly SR, Adams RS, Bodner GM (2012) What does it mean to design? A qualitative investigation of design professionals experiences. J Eng Educ 101:187–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Détienne F, Martin G, Lavigne E (2005) Viewpoints in co-design: a field study in concurrent engineering. Des Stud 26:215–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Little A, Hoel A (2011) Interdisciplinary team teaching: an effective method to transform student attitudes. J Eff Teach 11:36–44Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Domik G (2008) Teaching visualization in multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary mode. http://pdf.aminer.org/000/591/607/a_multi_disciplinary_look_at_the_computing_disciplines.pdf. Accessed 30 Mar 2017
  11. 11.
    Gadotti M (2006) Interdisciplinaridade: Atitude e Método. Instituto Paulo Freire, Ed. São Paulo, p 7Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chew E (2006) Imparting knowledge and skills at the forefront of interdisciplinary research—a case study on course design at the intersection of music and engineering. In: 36th ASEE/IEEE frontiers in education conference, San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Magrab EB, Gupta SK, McCluskey FP, Sandborn PA (2009) Integrated product and process design and development: the product realization process, 2nd edn. Taylor & Francis, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Xu L, Li Z, Li S, Tang F (2007) A decision support system for product design in concurrent engineering. Decis Support Syst 42:2029–2042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goldin DS (1999) Tools of the future. J Eng Educ 88:31–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Diefes-Dux HA, Samant C, Johnson TE, O’Connor D (2004) Kirkpatrick’s level 1 evaluation of the implementation of a computer-aided process design tool in a senior-level engineering course. J Eng Educ 93:321–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shen Y, Ong SK, Nee AYC (2010) Augmented reality for collaborative product design and development. Des Stud 31:118–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zimmerman A (2006) Integrated design process guide. Ed. Ottawa: Canada Housing and Mortage Corporation, p 18Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hawken P, Lovins AB, Lovins LH (2000) Natural capitalism: creating the next industrial revolution. Little, Brown & Company, BostonGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Friel T (2000) A dramatic method to demonstrate concurrent engineering in the classroom. J Eng Educ 89:265–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Design Council (2007) Eleven lessons: managing design in eleven global brands. Ed. London, p 144Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dekkers R, Chang CM, Kreutzfeldt J (2013) The interface between “product design and engineering” and manufacturing: a review of the literature and empirical evidence. Int J Prod Econ 144:316–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thomke S, Nimgade A (2007) IDEO product development. Harvard Business School, vol. Case: 600-143Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ljungberg LY (2003) Materials selection and design for structural polymers. Mater Des 24:383–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Willaert SSA, de Graaf R, Minderhoud S (1998) Collaborative engineering: a case study of concurrent engineering in a wider context. J Eng Technol Manag 15(1):87–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mas F, Menéndez JL, Oliva M, Ríos J (2013) Collaborative engineering: an airbus case study. Procedia Eng 63:336–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Juhl J, Lindegaard H (2013) Representations and visual synthesis in engineering design. J Eng Educ 102:20–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    American Institute of Architects (2007) Integrated project delivery: a guide. Ed. CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rocha PMD, Furtado R (2013) Museu Nacional dos Coches: design, construction, technologies. In: d’Obra C, B. Rangel, Faria JA, Martins JPP (eds) Gequaltec, ed. PortoGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Smailagic A, Siewiorek DR, Anderson D, Kasabach C, Martin T, Stivoric J (1995) Benchmarking an interdisciplinary concurrent design methodology for electronic mechanical systems. In: 32nd ACM/IEEE design automation conference, San Francisco, 514–519Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Iansiti M, MacCormack AD (1997) Team New Zealand (A). Harvard Business School, vol. Case: 697-040Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Norman G (1990) Life cycle costing. Prop Manag 8:344–356Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Borrego M, Newswander LK (2008) Characteristics of successful cross-disciplinary engineering education collaborations. J Eng Educ 97:123–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cross N (2008) Engineering design methods: strategies for product design, 4th edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bürdek BE (2005) Design history, theory and practice of product design. Birkhäuser, BaselGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Charyton C, Jagacinski RJ, Merrill JA, Clifton W, DeDios S (2011) Assessing creativity specific to engineering with the revised creative engineering design assessment. J Eng Educ 100:778–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ashby M, Johnson K (2010) Materials and design: the art and science of material selection in product design, 2nd edn. Butterworth-Heinemann, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bleuzé T, Ciocci M-C, Detand J, De Baets P (2014) Engineering meets creativity: a study on a creative tool to design new connections. Int J Des Creat Innov 2:203–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Treball E, García JF, García VL, Viñes JV (2009) Ergonomía: diseño centrado en el usuario: Fundación ProdintecGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Crul MRM, Diehl JC. Netherlands. Delft University of Technology. Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Design for sustainability (D4S): a step-by-step approach. United Nations Environment Program, ParisGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Parsons T (2009) Thinking: objects—contemporary approaches to product design. AVA Publishing SA, SuiçaGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    García JF, García VL, Santacoloma S (2006) Diseño industrial: guía metodológica: Fundación ProdintecGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ullman DG (2010) The mechanical design process, 4 ed. McGraw-Hill Higher Education, BostonGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Curry T (2014) A theoretical basis for recommending the use of design methodologies as teaching strategies in the design studio. Des Stud 35:632–646MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Buckland D (2012). How physicians, engineers, and scientists approach problems differently. http://www.medgadget.com/2012/08/how-physicians-engineers-and-scientists-approach-problems-differently.html. Accessed 30 Mar 2017
  46. 46.
    Casakin H, Goldschmidt G (1999) Expertise and the use of visual analogy: implications for design education. Des Stud 20:153–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Moreno DP, Hernández AA, Yang MC, Otto KN, Hölttä-Otto K, Linsey JS et al (2014) Fundamental studies in design-by-analogy: a focus on domain-knowledge experts and applications to transactional design problems. Des Stud 35:232–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Robinson JA (1998) Engineering thinking and rhetoric. J Eng Educ 87:227–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Crilly N (2015) Fixation and creativity in concept development: the attitudes and practices of expert designers. Des Stud 38:54–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zax D (2014) How Steve Jobs’ mastery of analogies sent Apple skyrocketing. http://www.fastcompany.com/3037014/my-creative-life/how-steve-jobss-mastery-of-analogies-sent-apple-sky-rocketing. Accessed 30 Mar 2017
  51. 51.
    Evans R (2003) Design design: a theory of design. Int J Eng Educ 19:81–93Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Baldaia J (2010) Emoções, analogias e Criatividade, INTUINOVARE vol 2014, J. Baldaia, Ed.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Reigeluth CM (2009) Instructional-design theories and models: a new paradigm of instructional theory, vol 2, 1st edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Aguiar C, Lino J, Carvalho X, Marques AT (2012) Teaching industrial design at FEUP. Presented at the IDEMI 2012—II Conferência Internacional de Design, Engenharia e Gestão para a inovação, Florianópolis, SC, BrasilGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Frank M, Lavy I, Elata D (2003) Implementing the project-based learning approach in an academic engineering course. Int J Technol Des Educ 13:273–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Martinez L, Romero G, Marquez JJ, Perez JM (2010) Integrating teams in multidisciplinary project based learning in mechanical engineering. In: IEEE EDUCON 2010 conference, pp 709–715Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Zhou Z, Donaldson A (2010) Work in progress—project-based learning in manufacturing process. In: 40th IEEE frontiers in education conference (FIE)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Rangel B, Guimarães AS, Sá AV, Alves FB (2016) Integrated design concept in civil engineering education. Int J Technol Des Educ 32:1279–1288Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Carneiro V, Gomes Â, Rangel B (2017) Proposal for a universal measurement system for school chairs and desks for children from 6 to 10 years old. Appl Ergon 58:372–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Gouvali MK, Boudolos K (2006) Match between school furniture dimensions and children’s anthropometry. Appl Ergon 37:765–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Panagiotopoulou G, Christoulas K, Papanckolaou A, Mandroukas K (2004) Classroom furniture dimensions and anthropometric measures in primary school. Appl Ergon 35:121–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Parcells C, Stommel M, Hubbard RP (1999) Mismatch of classroom furniture and student body dimensions: empirical findings and health implications. J Adolesc Health 24:265–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Reis PF, Reis DCd, Moro ARP (2005) Mobiliário Escolar: Antropometria e Ergonomia da Postura Sentada. Presented at the XI Congresso Brasileiro de Biomecânica, S. João, PBGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Moro ARP (2005) Ergonomia da sala de aula: constrangimentos posturais impostos pelo mobiliário escolar. Rev Digit 10:1–6Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Castellucci HI, Arezes PM, Molenbroek JFM (2014) Applying different equations to evaluate the level of mismatch between students and school furniture. Appl Ergon 45:1123–1132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Jahan A, Ismail MY, Sapuan SM, Mustapha F (2010) Material screening and choosing methods—a review. Mater Des 31:696–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Rangel B, Alves FB (2013) Engineering as a lesson in architecture. Cadernos d’Obra, pp 92–94Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ângela Gomes
    • 1
  • Bárbara Rangel
    • 1
  • Vitor Carneiro
    • 1
  • Jorge Lino
    • 1
  1. 1.Mestrado em Design Industrial e de ProdutoDesign Studio FEUPPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations