Academic and Professional Articles - Part 2 of 2 - Vinai Kumar

Vinai Kumar

Academic and Professional Articles

Brief Introduction to the Papers – Vinai Kumar

A. Applying Systems Thinking for Problem Solving

In the 1980s, the design education was largely focused on the looks and styling of products and visual

artefacts. The design outcomes from the designers in that era did not relate with technology and

manufacturing engineering, and business needs in the Indian context. As a result, the businesses could

not make use of the real potential of design and designers. Over a period of 4 years (till 1985), I

researched and experimented with the issue of holistic design approach and paradigm which

appropriately drew from the fields of aesthetics and design, ergonomics, engineering and business

management so that the resulting design artefacts met the multiple stakeholders’ needs, though with a

central focus on user- and customer-experience. In view of the importance of this work, NID

Ahmedabad published my paper titled, “Applying Systems Thinking for Problem Solving” as a part of

the Faculty Paper Series in 1992. This was a seminal paper which led to the incorporation of systems

thinking for holistic design in NID’s educational process.

B. Role of Design in Product Development

This paper was presented at a seminar on Electronic Product Design which was organised by SAMEER

Chennai in 1992. The paper proposes the need for a systems framework with user-centricity combined

with a balanced blend of technology and business management for successful product development.

C. User Oriented Design of Information Technology Systems Based on Cognitive Ergonomics and

Industrial Design

This paper proposes user-centred design approach for IT-based product and interaction design with a

systems and systematic approach blending technology, ergonomics, and design.

D. Need for a New Vision – Design Education

This paper was published in Architecture + Design magazine. The paper discusses the origin of design

education in India which borrowed from the design needs and paradigms of Europe and the USA. A

case for understanding the Indian context of design and accordingly designing the design education is

argued.

E. Universal Usability of IT-based Systems

This paper reviews the approaches for universal design for the IT based systems. Universal usability is

an important design paradigm in order to make the ICT accessible to all in a given population.

F. Infrastructure for Design Management Education

Design management as a nascent discipline with growing importance in business and governance. The

paper discusses the challenges in developing design management education programmes in such a way

that the graduates from such programmes truly contribute to the customer experience and integrated

development of products and services.

Vinai Kumar

Need for a New Vision

Design Education

Vinai Kumar

Universal Usability of IT-based Systems

Universal Usability of IT-Based Systems Copyright 02 Dec 2002 © Vinai Kumar Buffalo, NY, USA 1

Universal Usability of IT-based Systems A Review of Recent Research Papers

Vinai Kumar

December 2, 2002

Introduction

The development of the concept of Universal Usability has its roots in the area of Accessible design for

persons with disabilities and the aging population. The impetus for Accessible Design itself has its genesis

in the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) guidelines [1]. Over many years, the concern for providing

persons with disabilities and aging persons access to public systems and many other products has been

strengthening. The ADA in its present form came into being in 1994. Though the first related legislation,

known as the 1965 amendment of the Rehabilitation Act formally acknowledging the architectural barriers

in public places as an issue [2], paved the path that would lead to the present day developments in the area

of Accessible Design. The awareness about the importance of making man-made environment free of

barriers to people with disabilities spread across other sectors of commercial and governmental activities.

As a result, electronics and communications also caught the attention of the Department of Justice in the

US. The interest in the larger spread of the electronics and computer-based systems is very recent. This is

reflected in the latest regulation brought about by the Access Board [3] that says:

Under standards published by the Board on December 21, 2000, the Federal government will be in the

forefront in ensuring access to electronic and information technology. These standards, the first of their

kind in the Federal sector, cover various means of disseminating information, including computers,

software, and electronic office equipment. They provide criteria that spell out what makes these products

accessible to people with disabilities, including those with vision, hearing, and mobility impairments. The

Board developed these standards under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act as amended by Congress in

1998. The law applies to all Federal agencies when they develop, procure, maintain, or use such

technology. Federal agencies must ensure that this technology is accessible to employees and members of

the public with disabilities to the extent it does not pose an "undue burden." The law directed the Board to

develop access standards that are to become part of the Federal government's procurement regulations. The

scope of section 508 and the Board's standards are limited to the Federal sector.

Although the scope of section 508 and the Board's standards are limited to the Federal sector, such

regulations and standards have generated interest and concerns among relevant professionals in the area of

design with consideration of human performance under limiting situations.

Universal usability is a concept that goes beyond designing for accessibility for people with disabilities. As

the use of IT-based products for work as well other activities continually grows and become indispensable,

there is a need to address the issue of designing systems that are usable by all. Shneiderman [7] argues:

Designers of older technologies such as postal services, telephones, and television have reached the goal of

universal usability, but computing technology is still too hard to use for many people … . The frustration

and anxiety of users is growing, and the number of non-users is still high. Low-cost hardware, software,

and networking will bring in many new users, but interface and information design breakthroughs are

necessary to achieve higher levels of success.

This review is carried out with the intention of understanding the state of current thinking related to

universal usability particularly applied to the systems based on information and communication

technologies. It was found through the literature search on the electronic and conventional mediums that

the research reporting related to universal usability is very recent. Also, most of the published work is in

the domain of discussing issues and concerns, and establishing directions and strategies for the future

research. Very little inspiring or significant work has been done to improve existing or new systems in

specific terms. Perlman [5], however, has initiated some work towards developing approaches for

upgrading and improving an IT-based system for universal usability. Though, in order to put in perspective


the current strategic thinking in the area of universal usability, a few selected papers published by the

leading people in the area of universal usability are reviewed.

Proposing an agenda for research in Universal Usability

The insightful paper 'Universal Usability - Pushing human- computer interaction research to empower

every citizen' by Ben Shneiderman [7] discusses the compelling need to design for a larger spectrum of

users as the use of information technology rapidly becomes widespread. The author emphasizes the need

for researchers to address the universal usability issues aggressively. The paper delineates three domains of

research in this context - technology variety, user diversity and gaps in user knowledge.

Shneiderman has been a key figure in the area of human-computer interaction over many years. In this

paper he has highlighted the difficult but important task of making information and communication

services usable by all. He defines universal usability as

… having more than 90% of all households as successful users of information and communication services

at least once a week.’

In this context, the issue of financially poor and less educated users is a cause of concern in terms of

achieving universal usability of information and communication services. He urges the researchers to

address the usability issues aggressively in order to meet the goal of universal usability at a global level.

The author presents a research agenda involving three domains of investigation. Though he admits that

there may be more domains, but these three domains can address important issues that are insufficiently

funded by current initiatives. The proposed research in these domains (or challenges, as he would like to

call them) is directed at attaining universal usability for Web-based and other services. These three

challenges, as delineated by him are:

Technology variety: Supporting a broad range of hardware, software, and network access;

User diversity: Accommodating users with different skills, knowledge, age, gender, disabilities, disabling

conditions (mobility, sunlight, noise), literacy, culture, income, and so forth; and

Gaps in user knowledge: Bridging the gap between what users know and what they need to know.

Technology variety is a challenge dealing with many characteristics of the information and communication

technology. One is the pace of change of technology and the variety of equipment used by users. As it is

not possible and even desirable to curtail technological progress, the strategy proposed by the author is ‘to

make information content, online services, entertainment, and user interfaces more malleable or

adaptable.’

Another research area is software to convert interfaces and information across media or devices. This

would help people with impairments such as hearing impairment or visual impairment or limitations caused

by situational aspects. Software changes are pointed out as another area of investigation. New versions,

though necessary, fail to maintain the compatibility of file formats. He suggests carrying out research on

modular designs ‘that promote evolution while ensuring compatibility and bi-directional file conversion.’

Another research area is network access. Some users will continue to use slower speed dial up modems

while others will use much faster cable ones. Web pages with graphics, in such situation, should enable the

user to customize the interface according to the available speeds for efficient data transfer.

User diversity takes into consideration different human characteristics such as skills, knowledge, age,

gender, disabilities, disabling conditions (mobility, sunlight, noise), literacy, culture, and income. The

author gives various examples of the interface design in such situations attempted by various system

developers and service providers. The point made is that the user interface should be designed keeping in


mind the requirements of different kinds of users of the same system. It would attract users to use advanced

technology.

The third challenge is about addressing the need to bridge the gap between what users know and what they

need to know. Different users encounter different types of problems with interfaces. Some users may not

know how to begin and how to handle the systems failures. Strategies such as fade-able scaffolding,

training wheels, and just-in-time training are suggested.

Shneiderman suggests research on software tools and architectures that would enable developers to provide

higher quality universal interfaces. An interesting example is of game designers who present the interface

according to the users' skill levels. Similar technique could be applied to the features of a word processors,

email handlers, and Web browsers. According to him, 'Best practices, validated analyses, guidelines, and

theories could all be improved through extensive research.'

In conclusion, Shneiderman proposes intensified research in the area of universal usability with a particular

focus on technology variety, user diversity and gaps in user knowledge. However, the last two aspects -

user diversity and gaps in user knowledge are related. In fact, gaps in user knowledge can be seen as a

particular aspect of user diversity. Notably, though, he does not touch upon the issues related to the

methodology that needs to be developed further for successful implementation of universal usability in the

design and management practices. Universal usability requires, in many ways, an approach that is different

from the conventional design approaches with ergonomics as a key knowledge base.

Developing generic guidelines for universal usability

The next paper, 'Fundamental Principles and Priority Setting for Universal Usability' authored by Gregg

Vanderheiden [8], addresses this question of methodology for design. As all real-life problem-solving

activities require resources that are usually inadequate, Vanderheiden suggests that different dimensions of

usability be understood and that priorities be applied separately. The paper discusses a multidimensional

prioritization approach coupled to a vector-based usability evaluation procedure being developed through

the author's initiative.

The author defines universal usability for this paper thus:

A focus on designing products so that they are usable by the widest range of people operation in the widest

range of situations as is commercially practical.

According to Vanderheiden, there are no universally usable products because there is great range of human

abilities and a great range of situations or limitations that an individual may find oneself in. Therefore,

creating a universally usable product involves making it as flexible as is commercially possible. This

flexibility accommodates different users and situations. He relates universal usability to limitations caused

by human disabilities as well as situational constraints.

The interest of human factors researchers in universal usability has been generated due to the requirements

for disability access and mobile computing. Section 255 of the Telecommunication Act (requiring

manufacturers of telecommunication products and services to make their products accessible to people with

disabilities where it is readily achievable), and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (requiring the federal

government to show preference when purchasing electronic and information technologies toward those that

are accessible to people with disabilities where it is not an "undue burden," thus making accessibility

commercially advantageous) are particularly noteworthy. Another contributing factor is the rapid increase

in the number of older individuals leading to a market "pull" toward more accessible products. The

increasing use of mobile computing has also contributed to the situations of many kinds.

Based on his research in universal usability, the author suggests prioritizing the accessibility and usability

features of products because of the multi-dimensional nature of disability (vision, hearing, physical,

cognitive) and the large number of individual design techniques or strategies which might be implemented

for each dimension.


He has observed that product designers are not able to make appropriate feature selection as they are not

able to handle a large number of techniques and strategies available to resolve the interface problems. The

other problem is that the features that are easier to implement are chosen rather than strategies that are more

important. As a result, products tend to have multiple low priority features (helpful but not essential for

access). Therefore, he makes an effort to map out the dimensions of complexity involved in dealing with

universal usability of products. The results of this work then would be used in developing simplified

techniques and procedures for addressing or accommodating these dimensions.

He mentions three dimensions for prioritization. First dimension is accessibility and usability. The second

dimension is independence vs. co-dependence. The third dimension is efficiency and urgency requirement.

In addition, there is another dimension, named pseudo-priority dimension, dealing with the ease of

implementation. The latter is an important dimension in that there is a tendency to go for those features in a

product that are easier to implement rather those that are essential.

Vanderheiden studied various schemes that have tried to capture the different dimensions of universal

usability for different product types. These schemes include the ones proposed by The Telecommunication

Access Advisory Committee, Access Board, FCC, and The Electronic and Information Technology Access

Advisory Committee. The guidelines recommended by the above agencies vary from 23 to 90. These

guidelines are a combination of general performance-based guidelines and specific design-based

guidelines. He is trying to find ways of collapsing the guidelines into their essential components. This is

aimed at identifying the key objectives or requirements for providing more flexible, universally usable

interfaces and then identifying key strategies for meeting these objectives. These collapsed guidelines are at

a draft stage.

The work of Vanderheiden is important considering that we do not have a generic framework through

which we can analyze the issues of universal usability in order to address the problems of design and

management of universally usable systems and products.

Proposing an approach for universal usability

Newell and Peter in their paper 'User Sensitive Inclusive Design - in search of a new paradigm' [6] discuss

appropriate methodologies for the development of Universal Usability in order to address all users of IT

systems including those with disabilities. The authors compare some new paradigms with those within the

traditional technological research. They propose a paradigm called 'User Sensitive Inclusive Design' which

includes people with disabilities within a User Centered Design methodology, and recommend a

collaborative approach to the development of such a methodology."

Universal Usability

Newell and Gregor explore the development of universal usability in historical terms. Some titles such as

'Universal Design', 'Design for All', 'Accessible Design', and 'Inclusive Design' have been used to describe

initiatives in the area of designing of persons with disabilities. Some of these initiatives are the INCLUDE

project (http://www.stakes.fi/include) and the Center for Universal Design at North Carolina State

University (http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/ud/ud.htm), and work at the Trace Center in Wisconsin

(http://www.trace.wisc.edu).

It is suggested that in order to achieve universal usability, it may be useful to compromise on product

design so that, while the design retains the functionality required by people with disabilities, it still appeals

to a wider audience. However, the authors recommend guidelines as good cheap basis for integrating needs

of people with varying abilities into design at an early stage. The authors mention the guidelines produced

by Hypponen (Hypponen, H., (1999): The Handbook on Inclusive Design for Telematics Applications,

Siltasaarenkatu 18A, 00531 Helsinki, Finland), the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)

(http://www.w3.org/WAI), and the Center for Universal Design at North Carolina State University

(http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/ud/ud.html).


The authors also suggest that if the methodology of user-centered design can be used with the difference in

the abilities of the users with disabilities from the so-called normal users, it should be possible to develop

universally usable systems. The authors point out that the User-Centered Design methodology applied to

users with disabilities should be carefully modified. They say:

It is … necessary to determine how best to include a consideration of the particular requirements of

working with users with disabilities within this (User-Centered Design) methodology. Such a methodology

should cover:

. Much greater variety of user characteristics and functionality.

. The difficulty in finding and recruiting "representative users",

. Possible conflict of interest between accessibility for people with different types of disability.

. Conflicts between accessibility, and ease of use for less disabled people ("temporary able-bodied"), e.g.

floor texture can assist blind people but may cause problems for wheel chair users,

. Situations where "design for all" is certainly not appropriate (e.g. blind drivers of motor cars),

. The need to specify exactly the characteristics and functionality of the user group, (and)

. Provision for accessibility via the provision of additional components.

They suggest the use of "User Sensitive Inclusive Design" instead of Universal Design. They argue that the

word "inclusive" indicates that inclusivity is more achievable when compared to "universal". They also

propose that the word "sensitive" be used in place of "centered" in the User-Centered Methodology. They

finally conclude by stating " … although this paper exclusively considers people with disabilities within the

concept of Universal Usability, many of the ideas contained in it apply mutatis mutandis to other minority

groups.

This paper does not delineate directions and intentions very clearly. However, it does conclude well with

clear presentation of ideas and recommendations. While there are good points mentioned in the paper, the

actual translation of the User-Centered Design methodology into the framework of Universal Usability is

not addressed in a meaningful manner.

HCI and Universal Usability

Akoumianakis and Stephanidis in their paper 'Universal Design in HCI: A critical review of current

research and practice' [4] provide a cursory review of the efforts in the area of human-computer

interaction based on the thinking about universal usability. These efforts have been categorized in four

categories: guidelines, user interface development frameworks and architectures, user interface software

technologies, and support actions.

For them, 'The challenge of universal design in the context of HCI is to provide the formative insight

needed to design interactive products, which can be experienced and effectively used by the broadest

possible end user communities in a variety of contexts.' Through the review of the HCI work they wish to

know, 'how do the prevailing HCI research strands serve and facilitate the needed understanding of

accessibility in a global context?'

The systematic collection, consolidation and interpretation of the guidelines is pursued by some

international collaborative initiatives such as W3C-WAI Initiative, international standards organizations

such as ISO TC 159/SC4/WG54 national projects, such as the Universal Design Project (Story, M. F.

(1998): Maximising Usability: The Principles of Universal Design, Assistive Technology, 10, 4-12), and

international scientific fora.

Many technical research and development projects have provided useful information on new user interface

development frameworks and architectures that address many issues related to accessibility and interaction

quality. Some of the research concepts developed by projects such as TIDE-ACCESS TP1001 and ACTS-

AVANTI AC042 include toolkit integration, augmentation, expansion, and inoperability [ACCESS


Technical Annex (1993): Development Platform for Unified Access to Enabling Environments. Technical

Annex (TIDE TP 100), The ACCESS Consortium)], user interface adaptation (Akoumianakis, D and

Stephanidis, C. (1997): Supporting user-adapted interface design: The USI-IT System, Interacting with

Computers, 9 (1), 73-104), and pluggable components (Institute for Personalized Information Environment

(1995): FRIEND21 human Interface Architecture Guidelines, Tokyo, Japan).

There are very few developments in the area of user interface software and technology that demonstrate the

benefits of a design for all approach to human-computer interaction. However, The TIDE-ACCESS has

shown promise with the creation of a user interface development platform consisting of a number of tools

and tackling several of the architectural challenges identified in the previous section.

There are agencies outside the domain of active HCI research which advocate universal design. Some of

the names mentioned are industrial consortia such as the USA Telecommunications Policy Roundtable,

scientific and technical committees such as the ACM public policy committee USACM, national legislative

bodies such as the 1996 Telecommunications Act in the USA, and international organization such as

United Nations General Assembly Standard Rules of 1995. Also there are ICT Standardization and

Disability in Europe and Draft HFES.ANSI 200 Standard which are the standards being developed in

Europe and the USA respectively.

In conclusion the authors argue that accessibility is a global issue involving every one in a population. They

propose that universal accessibility should be considered from the early phases of design through

implementation and testing. They also emphasize that HCI stands to gain from the consideration of

diversity in the emerging Information Society.

Summing up

The four papers reviewed above provide an understanding of the present extent of thinking and research in

the area of universal usability. While there is active strategic thinking that has been taking place in this

domain, specific research domains have not really opened up in a major way. Shneiderman's ideas on future

research agenda are deeply thought out and presented with clarity. If adequately funded and spiritedly

supported by the government and industry, it will make a significant difference in the quality of lives of

people. The methodological developments presented by Vanderheiden are in a nascent stage from the point

of view of the required ruggedness which can come only after its results and benefits have been tested

across many varied situations.

Newell and Peter deal more with a shift in viewpoint. They recommend that the well-established user-

centered methodology be seen within the paradigm of universal usability. This, in their opinion, requires

some verbal changes in the name of the methodology along with some context-relevant modifications in the

existing methodology. Akoumianakis and Stephanidis have done an excellent job of compiling the relevant

research and business efforts in order to achieve the goal of universal usability. So one can foresee that in

the coming five to ten years there would be a wider and deeper spread of research in universal usability. A

good thing to happen is that there is a band of researchers spread across the world who are showing a keen

interest in this area. This is a desirable trend and direction for the future.


References

1. U.S. Department of Justice, ADA Standards for Accessible Design (1994), published in the Title

III regulations, (28 CFR Part 36, revised July 1, 1994) issued by the Department of Justice. The

ADA Standards for Accessible Design are in Appendix A of the Title III Regulations;

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/stdspdf.htm

2. Welsh, Polly and Palames, Chris (1995): A Brief History of Disability Rights Legislation in the

United States, An Excerpt reprinted with permission from the publisher, Adaptive Environments

Center on the website http://www.udeducation.org/res_mat/readings/w/welch.asp

3. Board Issues Standards for Electronic and Information Technology (2000), The Access Board,

http://www.access-board.gov/news/508-final.htm

4. Akoumianakis, D and Stephanidis, C. (2000): Universal Design in HCI: A critical review of

current research and practice, Conference Proceedings, Conference on Universal Usability -

CUU2000, Arlington, USA

5. Perlman, Garry (2002): Achieving Universal Usability by Designing for Change, IEEE Internet

Computing, March-April 2002, pp 46-55, http://computer.org/internet/

6. Newell, Alan F. and Gregor, Peter (2000): User Sensitive Inclusive Design - in search of a new

paradigm, Conference Proceedings, Conference on Universal Usability - CUU2000, Arlington,

USA

7. Shneiderman, Ben (2000): Universal Usability - Pushing human- computer interaction research to

empower every citizen, Communications of the ACM, May 2000, Vol. 43, No. 5

8. Vanderheiden, Gregg (2000): Fundamental Principles and Priority Setting for Universal Usability,

Conference Proceedings, Conference on Universal Usability - CUU2000.

Vinai Kumar

Infrastructure for

Design Management Education

Infrastructure for Design Management Education Copyright © Vinai Kumar October 2009

Pag

e1/8

Infrastructure for Design Management Education

Development of infrastructure for Design Management education in local and global business context

Vinai Kumar

Professor and Head, Strategic Design Management (SDM) PG programme

Acting Dean, National Institute of Design (NID)

Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India

This presentation is under the category – Now to the Future

ICSID World Design Congress 2009, Singapore

November 21 2009 Tamasek Polytechnic

Synopsis

A well-configured infrastructure is an essential foundational support for an educational

system for the quality of design management education and its sustainability. The core

educators and anchors are the most important part of the infrastructure, and therefore, their

profile is of special importance for an emerging and very critical management discipline. In

addition, design of physical facilities and organizational culture are important to support the

work of core educators and anchors. Arguments and recommendations are developed to

communicate the importance of developing core design management educators and anchors

supported by well-designed physical infrastructure and a collaborative organizational

culture.

1. Introduction

In my view an infrastructure is an underlying foundational system of physical sub-systems;

human capabilities and values; vision and mission; technological capabilities; operating

environments; and a complex set of goal-driven processes and activities. This underlying

foundational system enables an organization to deliver the proposed and promised services to

its target beneficiaries in an appropriate (the value and quality imperative) and sustainable

manner.

The insightful and visionary design, operation and maintenance of an infrastructure are

crucial for the success of all other human and organizational endeavours that draw from it.

Because of the very complex nature of infrastructural systems, and generally a reductionist

problem-solving orientation of most of the professionals, most of the infrastructure design

and construction occurs in a fragmented manner. It is therefore imperative that the

appropriate design and operation of infrastructure in every field should take the centrestage as


Pag

e2/8

the world that we live in is only going to get more and more complex, and a conscious

infrastructure-thinking and systems thinking based problem-solving seems to be the only way

to go. It is in this perspective I discuss the need for ‘infrastructure-thinking’ for enabling the

effective and efficient delivery of design management education which is an emerging

management discipline which would have a major impact on the future governance, business

practices, and societal activities.

2. The infrastructural issues and challenges for design management education

Design management is now gaining more importance than ever before – particularly for its

role in strategic and competitive business scenarios. Design management, hitherto, has mostly

supported the management of design projects, branding, and product development. However,

with the fast emergence of bigger and complex global markets and the environmental

sustainability concerns, most of the traditional business-related professions such as

engineering and business management are not adequate to address the new challenges of

business. In my view, design management combined with design thinking would take the

centrestage in business as well as governance. The power of design thinking and design skills

have been shown to have business impact. The results of some business impact research and

the design development by some leading design firms have established this fact.

In order to deploy the design thinking, and design knowledge and skills in a holistic and

futuristic perspective, it is important that the design schools initiate design management

education programmes with the major aim to make an impact at a strategic level. This

initiative would require a new thinking and operational efforts to create, install and maintain

appropriate foundational structures – both human and physical. The prevalent paradigms of

design schools and that of the business management schools are not adequate to address the

challenge of design management education. These schools have their historical roots in the

industrial era of the first half of the 20th

century which is characterized by lower complexity

of markets. While design management appears to be mechanical combination of design and

business, it actually is a holistic approach for managing the activities of life, societal issues,

and business. Hence, there is a need to have a fresh look at the vision, resources, and

infrastructure for developing this very valuable discipline of design management.

2.1 The nature of an educational infrastructure

Without doubt, the most important component in any educational infrastructure is the quality

of educators in terms of their thinking, knowledge, teaching skills, and mentoring attitude.

However, various components in a system are held together by some ‘required’ relationships

between the components. Therefore, a teacher needs to meaningfully connect with his/her

students with the help of an appropriately appointed classroom, and appropriate

communication and knowledge sharing platform. If the classroom does not have an adequate

level of lighting and ventilation, it will impact the quality of educational relationship between


Pag

e3/8

the teachers and students. If the teachers do not have access to a good library, whether

physical or virtual, it will impact their quality of knowledge and skills. Therefore, the vision,

design, and management of an appropriate infrastructure is essential for effective

development of students and educators.

2.2 The issues and challenges

Educating designers requires skills which are very different from those required for teaching

engineering and business management. Design is an eclectic and integrative profession which

achieves required results through a solution-focused rather than an analysis-focused process.

The initials solution ideas based on user-centered creative processes are modelled and

progressively evaluated in a real-life scenario simulation to discover and iron out problems

and issues on the path to a ‘final’ solution. If we have to impart the same spirit and mindset to

a future design manager, it is imperative that the design manager educators should be able to

communicate the management inputs and practices in the way which is described above

which is now popularly known as ‘design thinking’ among management professionals.

It is important to note that the only way to educate business/engineering professionals in

design thinking is by following the way designers are educated which really means

experiencing the process of achieving results by actually working end-users and stakeholders

in real-life scenarios and environments.

I have been working on the development of design-management education for more than 18

months with a design thinking perspective. This really translates into having theoretical

inputs in management and design topics for building the foundational understanding, and

focusing more on scanning the real-life business and social environments and developing

project ideas and proposals. A major focus is on user and contextual research which then is

interfaced with corresponding market and technology research. The insights, learning and

information derived from the above research can lead to business ideas, proposals, and/or

plan that would then need to be communicated to the business stakeholders, designers,

industrial engineers, and quality managers.

It has been my experience so far that both designer teachers as well as business management

teachers need an understanding of the purpose of the design management education, and the

way it needs to be conducted. Design thinking can be best learnt by ‘getting involved’ in the

educational process with a focus on user-centric business results. The evaluation of various

activities in this educational process in terms of taking decisions and arriving at solutions

needs to be carried out through an integrative framework. A discourse with a view to share

vision and implementable solution is important too.

2.3 The variability in the delivery of education


Pag

e4/8

Design management education, when conducted in a ‘design thinking’ way, lands on a shaky

ground when trying to achieve consistency in evaluation of students. Even though the grading

is done in order to assess the capabilities and the output of a student, evaluators’ subjectivity

in evaluations is not possible to eliminate, though an effort is made by having a jury of 3 to 4

members so that an individual evaluators’ biases can be minimized. However, the evaluative

system is not as robust as the one used for evaluating students in the traditional format of

education of business managers, though the validity of traditional evaluation from a real-life

perspective may be in question. There is a serious need to develop educational processes that

would minimize the variability in the fundamental design management capabilities of

students.

3. Core and anchor educators for conducting the design management education

3.1 The core educators

The core educators are the ones who are deeply rooted in the education and practice of design

and design management. For example, the major design areas could be specific design

disciplines could include Industrial Design, Communication Design, and Interaction Design.

The core teachers must have an interest and working knowledge of other disciplines such as

ergonomics, basic management disciplines, qualitative and quantitative research methods,

and business and general communication. In addition, and very importantly the core teachers

must believe in and should be skilled at imparting instructions and mentoring students with a

design thinking perspective to make the difference.

3.2 The anchor

An anchor educator for a design management education programme must have all the

characteristics of a core teacher, and in addition must have the ability to visualize the overall

programme and the ways to work with instructors who have important inputs to provide but

do not have an understanding of or experience of working with designers or design teachers.

In our design management programme, I put in considerable efforts in briefing those

instructors who come from traditional professional education and business management

education backgrounds.

An anchor design management educator who can see a bigger dynamic picture of the impact

of design on business – both observed as well the new possibilities. As design is a profession

that addresses the concerns of the user and context – both of which are highly dynamic and

complex, the operating field for design management and therefore, the design management

educators is never static. Therefore, the anchor educators bind together the core educators,

and enable the other supporting instructors and educators to impart a holistic training to the

design management students. Such persons must have had an eclectic education and

experience, and should be tuned to continually scan the environment, examine the


Pag

e5/8

educational processes for their effective and efficient outcomes, and the appropriateness of

the training and the trained for their placement in business and societal context.

3.3 Educators and research

The traditional educational system encourages that educators engage themselves in research,

as it helps them keep in touch with the real-world and its dynamics. However, it is pertinent

to mention that research in design management again has to contribute to the integrative

nature of design and design management. Most of the traditional doctoral research practice

has its roots in the reductionism of the natural sciences such as physics and chemistry.

However, in design management we are dealing with real-world which requires insights and

information from research that would contribute to the holistic solutions. While a lot is being

talked about the nature of doctoral research in design area, most institutions are still making

an effort to develop a research paradigm that would benefit the integrative design practices. I

tend to believe that, at least for a decade or so, the design management educators should be

rooted more in practice and practical research so that the new breed of managers can make a

real impact in all sectors of human life – governance, business, environment, and social

practices.

4. Evaluating the potential, motivation and performance of the educators

Those who joined the community of design professionals before the 1990s know the struggle

of surviving in a business and social environment which widely believed that design is a

dispensable profession. Most associated design with cosmetic uplift of products and services.

Designers were called in only at the last stages of product development and/or delivery.

4.1 Design in strategic business

The belief of many members of the design community that design could be used as a strategic

tool stands vindicated today as many management thinkers prescribe the use of design and

design thinking for strategic business. However, there is still a large section of business

professionals who are not sure as to what design and design thinking are and what they can

do for their business. Therefore, those who would like to join the community of design

management educators need to have a very high level of conviction and motivation in order

to sail through the lows and highs of conducting such an education. The students frequently

ask the faculty members about their career prospects and where the positions of design

managers are in the business. Encouragingly, however, the students do believe in the

relevance of what they have been learning. This is a kind of déjà vu for me as in the early

1980s there were no published positions for designers in the industry. However, by the late


Pag

e6/8

1990s a lot of industries and businesses have been approaching designers from design schools

for their special abilities. I believe a similar turnaround would take place for design

managers, particularly for their strategic orientation and multiple design and management

skills, within the next 5 to 7 years.

4.2 Evaluating educators

It is imperative from the above that the individuals who are inducted as design educators

must have the conviction, motivation, and tenacity to wade through the rough and uncertain

terrain of the still evolving profession of design management. Such an attitude of a design

educator has to be monitored throughout his or her initial career. Any lack of motivation or

conviction will negatively impact the initiative from taking firm roots. This also implies that

very recent graduates either from design schools or management should not be taken into the

core faculty of design management education. Those designers who have at least served the

business or practices actively themselves in the business world should only be invited to join

the core group – either as a regular faculty member or as a visiting one. Such individuals

would need to be encouraged to develop their professional skills in business communication

and design research – by further focused training or on-the-job. That would make them

effective educators and knowledge creators.

4.3 Evaluation – what kind?

It is my contention that the design educators should not be put through highly quantitative

evaluation system but rather should by subjected to a peer-review of not just their work but

also the quality of their interaction with students, faculty members and the professionals

outside the school boundaries. Preparing high quality relevant courses and delivery methods

is of utmost importance as that is what brings the really meaningful connect between the

students and teachers. There should be a deliberate attempt to judge the design management

educators by the quality of the content and ideas in their published papers and research rather

than just the volume and numbers. The focus of all evaluation mechanisms should be to

encourage and develop a faculty member as an individual and ensure his or her commitment

to the cause of education and students. Students’ feedback is an important source of

evaluation mechanism though appropriate questions should be asked of them in a mutually

agreed upon context in order to avoid any distortion in their response quality.

5. The physical features of the educational infrastructure

We cannot conduct the twenty first century business using only the tools of the nineteenth

century; and while we use new tools (such as social networking tools), we cannot abandon

the old tools (a pencil and a paper) that always worked well. This really means that we need

to have a fresh holistic view of educating design managers with a judicious mix of the

established design education culture and infrastructure, as well as the educational and


Pag

e7/8

research possibilities with continuously evolving ICT technologies and global business

context.

5.1 Educational spaces

In a design school students sit in studios where they have their own table as a workplace, and

some vertical display surfaces. Computers – mostly laptops with wifi network are a major

addition to the paraphernalia of a designer. The studio arrangement, as opposed to the

classroom arrangement deployed in engineering, science and business schools, enables a

more collaborative and interactive culture. Design learning and design thinking requires this

kind of infrastructure. Should the design management education follow a similar structure?

My answer would be affirmative. If we need to teach design managers with a strong

understanding of design and design thinking, their learning processes must be supported by

an appropriate structure of learning spaces. While we have not come to any particular space

configuration design management education yet, it is definitely an important element of the

physical infrastructure.

5.2 ICT technologies and learning

Almost every student has access to computer with internet. Many students tend to feel that

computers can replace the conventional learning aids and associated methods by using

graphics and 3d design software, and accessing internet for information. I see the use of

computers and other ICT tools/methods as an addition in the paraphernalia of design students.

Each tool/method available to us must be used judiciously with other tools/methods (whether

old or new) for their combined effectiveness. So while initial sketching on paper can be used

for quick visualization, a graphic software programme can be used to make it more precise

and render it more realistically. In product design, there is no way the manual methods of

making models can be abandoned. In case of design management education, a similar

perspective is meaningful. While PowerPoint slides are an effective way to communicate

ideas and plans, large sheets of diagrams and flowcharts are irreplaceable in the context of

rich ideation and visualization.

5.3 Involvement of real-world stakeholders

Design management education cannot take place in a cocoon. The involvement of business,

entrepreneurs, social organizations, professionals, and very importantly, end-users is essential

for a meaningful education. The curriculum, design of educational spaces, facilities, and

culture must be aligned with a view to encourage and sustain the interaction with the

stakeholders. These stakeholders should have platforms to participate in academic

discussions, foundational inputs, evaluative processes, and design management research. A

continuing dialogue with the stakeholders and end-users will gradually break the silos that the

traditional professional education programmes build around specialization, and promote a

collaborative spirit. Those educators who can achieve this in a balanced and effective manner

will be able to take their design education management programmes to high levels of

relevance and stakeholder acceptance.


Pag

e8/8

6. Conclusion

I discussed in the paper that design management is now considered significant particularly for

its crucial role in strategic business to meet the user-centric, environmental, and global

market needs. However, the format for educating future design managers varies from one

context to another based on the local perceptions, initiators of the programmes, and the

business and social contexts. In the opinion of the author, the profile of the design

management core and anchor educators as the human side of educational infrastructure

should consist of a strong design-related background.

The nature of the physical infrastructure is important from the point of view of and the

organizational culture are crucial to imparting design management education in a true design

thinking framework. A loosely visualized programme may lead to producing design

management graduates who are very likely to fall short of the stakeholder needs and

expectations. There is a risk of ‘design thinking’ vanishing as yet another new management

buzzword without the profession of design management achieving the recognition it deserves.

Academic and Professional Articles - Part 2 of 2 - Vinai Kumar

Documents

Transcript of Academic and Professional Articles - Part 2 of 2 - Vinai Kumar