Industrial Design - NVAO TUD wo... · QANU /Industrial Design, Delft University of Technology 3...

Industrial Design

The Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology

2 QANU /Industrial Design, Delft University of Technology

Quality Assurance Netherlands Universities (QANU) Catharijnesingel 56 PO Box 8035 3503 RA Utrecht The Netherlands Phone: +31 (0) 30 230 3100 Telefax: +31 (0) 30 230 3129 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: www.qanu.nl Project number: Q0441 © 2014 QANU Text and numerical material from this publication may be reproduced in print, by photocopying or by any other means with the permission of QANU if the source is mentioned.

QANU /Industrial Design, Delft University of Technology 3

CONTENTS

Report on the master’s programmes Design for Interaction, Integrated Product Design and Strategic Product Design of Delft University of Technology ..................... 5

Administrative data regarding the programmes.................................................................................5 Administrative data regarding the institution.....................................................................................6 Quantitative data regarding the programmes.....................................................................................6 Composition of the assessment committee .......................................................................................6 Working method of the assessment committee ................................................................................6 Summary judgement ..............................................................................................................................9 Description of the standards from the Assessment framework for limited programme assessments ...........................................................................................................................................15

Appendices.................................................................................................................... 33

Appendix 1: Curricula vitae of the members of the assessment committee ...............................35 Appendix 2: Domain-specific framework of reference..................................................................37 Appendix 3: Intended learning outcomes ........................................................................................41 Appendix 4: Overview of the curricula.............................................................................................43 Appendix 5: Quantitative data regarding the programmes............................................................47 Appendix 6: Programme of the site visit ..........................................................................................55 Appendix 7: Theses and documents studied by the committee....................................................61 Appendix 8: Declarations of independence .....................................................................................62 This report was finalized on 14 March 2014


Report on the master’s programmes Design for Interaction, Integrated Product Design and Strategic Product Design of Delft University of Technology This report takes the NVAO’s Assessment framework for limited programme assessments as a starting point.

Administrative data regarding the programmes Master’s programme Design for Interaction Name of the programme: Design for Interaction CROHO number: 60355 Level of the programme: master's Orientation of the programme: academic Number of credits: 120 EC Specializations or tracks: none Location(s): Landbergstraat 15, Delft Mode(s) of study: full time Expiration of accreditation: 31 December 2014 Master’s programme Integrated Product Design Name of the programme: Integrated Product Design CROHO number: 60354 Level of the programme: master's Orientation of the programme: academic Number of credits: 120 EC Specializations or tracks: Medisign Location(s): Landbergstraat 15, Delft Mode(s) of study: full time Expiration of accreditation: 31 December 2014 Master’s programme Strategic Product Design Name of the programme: Strategic Product Design CROHO number: 60356 Level of the programme: master's Orientation of the programme: academic Number of credits: 120 EC Specializations or tracks: none Location(s): Landbergstraat 15, Delft Mode(s) of study: full time Expiration of accreditation: 31 December 2014 The visit of the assessment committee Industrial Design to the The Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering of Delft University of Technology took place on 20-22 November 2013.


Administrative data regarding the institution Name of the institution: Delft University of Technology Status of the institution: publicly funded institution Result institutional quality assurance assessment: positive

Quantitative data regarding the programmes The required quantitative data regarding the programmes are included in Appendix 5.

Composition of the assessment committee The committee that assessed the master’s programmes in Industrial Design at Delft University of Technology consisted of:

• Prof. dr. L.T.M. (Luciënne) Blessing (chair), Professor of Engineering Design and Methodology, Université du Luxembourg;

• Prof. dr. P.J. (John) Clarkson, FREng, Professor of Engineering Design, director of Cambridge Engineering Design Centre, Cambridge University, UK;

• Prof. dr. I. (Ilpo) Koskinen, Professor of Industrial Design, Aalto University School of Art and Design, Helsinki, Finland;

• Prof. dr. A. (Albert) Pilot, Emeritus Professor of Curriculum development en Professor of Chemistry education, Utrecht University;

• Prof. (emeritus) dr. M. (Markku) Salimäki, Director (emer.) of International Design Business Management, Aalto University School of Business, Helsinki, Finland;

• P.G. (Philémonne) Jaasma BSc. (student member), Master’s student Industrial Design, Eindhoven University of Technology.

The committee was supported by Ms. T.G. (Terry) Verseput, MSc, who acted as secretary. The board of Delft University of Technology and the Accreditation Organisation of the Netherlands and Flanders (NVAO) agreed to the composition of the assessment committee. Appendix 1 contains the curricula vitae of the members of the committee. All members of the committee and the secretary signed a declaration of independence as required by the NVAO protocol to ensure that they assess without bias, professional preference or personal interest, and that the assessment is made without undue influence from the institute, the programme or other stakeholders (see Appendix 8).

Working method of the assessment committee The assessment of the Industrial design programmes at the Delft University of Technology was part of a cluster assessment. The committee assessed eight programmes at three universities: the University of Twente, Eindhoven University of Technology and Delft University of Technology.

• Prof. dr. L.T.M. (Luciënne) Blessing (chair), Professor of Engineering Design and Methodology, Université du Luxembourg;


• Prof. dr. P.J. (John) Clarkson, FREng, Professor of Engineering Design, director of Cambridge Engineering Design Centre, Cambridge University, UK;

• Prof. dr. I. (Ilpo) Koskinen, Professor of Industrial Design, Aalto University School of Art and Design, Helsinki, Finland;

• Prof. dr. A. (Albert) Pilot, Emeritus Professor of Curriculum development en Professor of Chemistry education, Utrecht University;

• Prof. (emeritus) dr. M. (Markku) Salimäki, Director (emer.) of International Design Business Management, Aalto University School of Business, Helsinki, Finland;

• M. (Manon) Kühne BSc (student member), Master’s student Integrated Product Design, Delft University of Technology (assessment University of Twente);

• P.G. (Philémonne) Jaasma BSc (student member), Master’s student Industrial Design, Technical University Eindhoven (assessment Delft University of Technology);

• R. (Ruben) van den Hout BSc (student member), Master’s student Industrial Design, University of Twente (assessment Eindhoven University of Technology).

Preparation

After receiving the critical reflection, the project manager checked the quality and completeness of the information provided. After approval, the critical reflection was forwarded to the committee, in both printed form and digitally. In addition, the committee members selected and read a number of theses for each programme that was assessed (see Appendix 7). Before the site visit the project manager created a draft programme for the interviews (see Appendix 6). The draft programme was discussed with the chair of the committee and the coordinator of the educational institute. As requested by QANU, the coordinators of the programmes carefully composed a select and representative panel for all interviews. Site visit

During the initial meeting at the start of each site visit, the committee members discussed among themselves their findings regarding the critical reflection and the theses. They also discussed their task and working methods and the proposed domain-specific requirements (see Appendix 2). During the site visit, interviews were held with representatives of the programme, students, alumni, staff members, the Programme Committee (OKIO), the Board of Examiners and a student counsellor. A consultation hour was scheduled to give students and staff of the programmes the opportunity to talk to the committee. No requests were received for the consultation hour during the site visit of Delft University of Technology. The committee used part of the final day of the site visit to discuss the assessment of the programmes and to prepare a preliminary presentation of the findings. The site visit concluded with an oral presentation by the chair on the preliminary findings of the committee. Report After the site visit the project manager wrote a draft report based on the committee’s findings. The draft was first commented upon by the committee members and then sent to the faculty to check for factual irregularities. All comments made by the faculty were discussed with the chair of the committee and, if necessary, with the other committee members. After revision, the report became official.


Decision rules

In accordance with the NVAO’s Assessment framework for limited programme assessments (as of 22 November 2011), the committee used the following definitions for the assessment of both the standards and the programme as a whole. Generic quality The quality that can reasonably be expected in an international perspective from a higher education bachelor’s or master’s programme. Unsatisfactory The programme does not meet the current generic quality standards and shows serious shortcomings in several areas. Satisfactory The programme meets the current generic quality standards and shows an acceptable level across its entire spectrum. Good The programme systematically surpasses the current generic quality standards across its entire spectrum. Excellent The programme systematically well surpasses the current generic quality standards across its entire spectrum and is regarded as an (inter)national example.


Summary judgement This report provides the findings and considerations of the Industrial Design committee on three master’s programmes: Design for Interaction (DfI), Integrated Product Design (IPD) and Strategic Product Design (SPD) at the Delft University of Technology (TUD). The committee assessment is based on information in the critical reflection, interviews during the site visit and a selection of theses. Master’s programme Design for Interaction (DfI) Standard 1: Intended learning outcomes The purpose of the master’s programme DfI is educating specialist designers who design products and services that optimally fit technology to user’s needs. The emphasis of the DfI programme is on the way in which people use, understand and experience products and how these processes can be supported or enhanced: a topic that enjoys increasing attention in industry. The committee appreciates that the programmes have intended learning outcomes in general as well as specific intended learning outcomes for each programme, and that they have clearly been developed in conjunction with each other, resulting in three interrelated, yet unique programmes. The committee concludes that the intended learning outcomes suit an academic master’s programme and are in line with the Dublin descriptors. The programme management wants students to create and take on new knowledge within a team. Additionally, students have to combine a scientific approach with design competences. The committee noted the set of three master’s programmes is complementary and results in students who are market-driven and have professional competence. It is very enthusiast about the profile and orientation of the master’s programmes and the training of students for a future in research and design. The committee feels these master’s programmes would make a great example for other universities. The committee assesses Standard 1 as ‘good’ Standard 2: Teaching-learning environment

Students of DfI informed the committee that they consider the master’s programme to be much more specialised and in-depth compared to the bachelor’s programme. They furthermore strongly appreciate the contacts with companies in the curriculum and would like to have even more contact, for example an internship, in order to prepare for practice. Students and alumni would prefer specific attention with respect to academic writing and how to present themselves and their skills to employers. The committee considers that these aspects indeed are important and is happy to hear that more attention will be paid on academic writing and portfolio building. Students also felt a lack of ability to convince a client. The committee advices to train this crucial aspect of design. It heard from students and alumni that the availability of courses on technology (e.g. programming the interaction) is limited and recommends management to address this issue. The didactic concept stimulates active learning by students and thereby teaches them to think and act independently. Also, students have to be able to link theory to practice and vice versa in particular in the projects. The committee was glad to learn that the programme management has been discussing the issue of the amount of group work in the past year. It


strongly advises the programme management to implement more individual work for students in preparation of the master’s thesis. The committee is convinced that staff and students put a lot of effort in reflection on the progress of students and agrees with management that there seems no need to introduce the competence monitor in the master’s programmes to support reflection. The committee thinks that overall the programmes have a realistic study load and that management is well aware of potential obstacles that prevent students from graduating in time. The committee is of the opinion that the faculty attracted and retained a good, very enthusiastic and coherent staff. The committee strongly values the intensive style of teaching in the master’s programmes. It advices the programme management to monitor the workload of the staff. The committee is impressed with the engagement of the OKIO, the Faculty Student Council, the i.d. Education Committee of the Study Association. It strongly advises that feedback should be given formally and that communication between the different councils and committees should be adequately documented, in particular in the light of the increasing number of international students and staff, who do not have the tacit knowledge about the IDE/Dutch practices. Overall the committee is very impressed with the teaching-learning environment and feels that it definitely enables the master’s students to achieve the intended learning outcomes. The committee assesses Standard 2 as ‘good’ Standard 3: Assessment and achieved learning outcomes The committee is very positive about the efforts to explicitly link the competencies involved in a particular course to how they are assessed in a test matrix and advises to not only train staff but also the students. The committee supports the current development of an evaluation form to ensure transparency in the final project assessment. For each master’s programme the committee assessed a selection of final projects in order to establish the performance of graduates. There was a good match between the assessments given by the committee and those originally recorded by the team of supervisors. The committee was very impressed with the quality of the master’s student’s work. The committee assesses Standard 3 as ‘good’ Master’s programme Integrated Product Design (IPD) Standard 1: Intended learning outcomes

The master’s programme IPD builds upon and deepens the knowledge and skills acquired in the bachelor’s programme Industrial Design Engineering. The programme provides a coherent integration of innovative design theory, aesthetics, ergonomics, engineering and sustainability. Graduates are specialised in designing innovative products and product-service combinations for people, based on balancing societal challenges and the interests of users and business. The committee appreciates that the programmes have intended learning outcomes in general as well as specific intended learning outcomes for each programme, and that they have clearly been developed in conjunction with each other, resulting in three interrelated, yet unique


programmes. The committee concludes that the intended learning outcomes suit an academic master’s programme and are in line with the Dublin descriptors. The programme wants students to create and take on new knowledge within a team. Additionally, students have to combine a scientific approach with design competences. The committee noted the set of three master’s programmes is complementary and results in students who are market-driven and have professional competence. It is very enthusiast about the profile and orientation of the master’s programmes and the training of students for a future in research and design. The committee feels these master’s programmes would make a great example for other universities. The committee assesses Standard 1 as ‘good’ Standard 2: Teaching-learning environment

The IPD students generally chose this master’s programme to achieve further technical and creative development. The committee is of the opinion the students are well prepared for a professional career and have enough experience with practical skills. However, since an explicit course on Research Methodology is absent in this programme, the programme management should continuously ensure that a good balance between practical and academic skills is present. Currently, the committee feels that, as academic master’s programme, more explicit attention should be given to academic skills training. The didactic concept stimulates active learning by students and thereby teaches them to think and act independently. Also, students have to be able to link theory to practice and vice versa, in particular in the projects. The committee was glad to learn that the programme management has been discussing the issue of the amount of group work in the past year. It strongly advises the programme management to implement more individual work for students in preparation of the master’s thesis. The committee is convinced that staff and students put a lot of effort in reflection on the progress of students and agrees with management that there seems no need to introduce the competence monitor in the master’s programmes to support reflection. The committee thinks that overall the programmes have a realistic study load and that management is well aware of potential obstacles that prevent students from graduating in time. The committee is of the opinion that the faculty attracted and retained a good, very enthusiastic and coherent staff. The committee strongly values the intensive style of teaching in the master’s programmes. It advices the programme management to monitor the workload of the staff members. The committee is impressed with the engagement of the OKIO, the Faculty Student Council, the i.d. Education Committee of the Study Association. It strongly advises that feedback should be given formally and that communication between the different councils and committees should be adequately documented, in particular in the light of the increasing number of international students and staff, who do not have the tacit knowledge about the IDE/Dutch practices. Overall the committee is very impressed with the teaching-learning environment and feels that it definitely enables the master’s students to achieve the intended learning outcomes. The committee assesses Standard 2 as ‘good’


Standard 3: Assessment and achieved learning outcomes

The committee is very positive about the efforts to explicitly link the competencies involved in a particular course to how they are assessed in a test matrix and advises to not only train staff but also the students. The committee supports the current development of an evaluation form to ensure transparency in the final project assessment. For each master’s programme the committee assessed a selection of final projects in order to establish the performance of graduates. There was a good match between the assessments given by the committee and those originally recorded by the team of supervisors. The committee was very impressed with the quality of the master’s student’s work. The committee assesses Standard 3 as ‘good’ Master’s programme Strategic Product Design (SPD) Standard 1: Intended learning outcomes The graduated students of the master’s programme SPD initiate, create and introduce strategically sound products and services for clients and customers of a company. The emphasis of the programme is both on the front end of the new product development process and on the back end of innovation, the commercialisation phase. The committee appreciates that the programmes have intended learning outcomes in general as well as specific intended learning outcomes for each programme, and that they have clearly been developed in conjunction with each other, resulting in three interrelated, yet unique programmes. The committee concludes that the intended learning outcomes suit an academic master’s programme and are in line with the Dublin descriptors. The SPD management programme wants students to create and take on new knowledge within a team. Additionally, students have to combine a scientific approach with design competences. The committee noted the set of three master’s programmes is complementary and results in students who are market-driven and have professional competence. It is very enthusiast about the profile and orientation of the master’s programmes and the training of students for a future in research and design. The committee feels these master’s programmes would make a great example for other universities. The committee assesses Standard 1 as ‘good’ Standard 2: Teaching-learning environment

The SPD students told the committee they chose the programme because they were interested in the integration of design and business. Alumni are enthusiastic about the broad programme and the chance to specialize in their area of interest. They missed finance and HRM in the programme. Nevertheless, they are glad to have gained experience on a big project and the chance to build up their network while studying. The committee agrees that some aspects, like finance, could be more strongly highlighted but is of the opinion that the academic master’s programme should hold their primarily focus on academic skills and attitude. The didactic concept stimulates active learning by students and thereby teaches them to think and act independently. Also, students have to be able to link theory to practice and vice versa, in particular in the projects. The committee was glad to learn that the programme management has been discussing the issue of the amount of group work in the past year. The SPD programme is one step further and has focused on independent individual work since


the previous evaluation, leading to almost too much individual work. This is now being fine tuned. The committee advises the three programmes to work together on this aspect. The committee is convinced that staff and students put a lot of effort in reflection on the progress of students and agrees with management that there seems no need to introduce the competence monitor in the master’s programmes to support reflection. The committee thinks that overall the programmes have a realistic study load and that management is well aware of potential obstacles that prevent students from graduating in time. The committee is of the opinion that the faculty attracted and retained a good, very enthusiastic and coherent staff. The committee strongly values the intensive style of teaching in the master’s programmes. It advices the programme management to monitor the workload of the staff. The committee is impressed with the engagement of the OKIO, the Faculty Student Council, the i.d. Education Committee of the Study Association. It strongly advises that feedback should be given formally and that communication between the different councils and committees should be adequately documented, in particular in the light of the increasing number of international students and staff, who do not have the tacit knowledge about the IDE/Dutch practices. Overall the committee is very impressed with the teaching-learning environment and feels that it definitely enables the master’s students to achieve the intended learning outcomes. The committee assesses Standard 2 as ‘good’ Standard 3: Assessment and achieved learning outcomes The committee is very positive about the efforts to explicitly link the competencies involved in a particular course to how they are assessed in a test matrix and advises to not only train staff but also the students. The committee supports the current development of an evaluation form to ensure transparency in the final project assessment. For each master’s programme the committee assessed a selection of final projects in order to establish the performance of graduates. There was a good match between the assessments given by the committee and those originally recorded by the team of supervisors. The committee was very impressed with the quality of the master’s student’s work. The committee assesses Standard 3 as ‘good’ Conclusion The committee assesses the standards from the Assessment framework for limited programme assessments in the following way: Master’s programme Design for Interaction: Standard 1: Intended learning outcomes good Standard 2: Teaching-learning environment good Standard 3: Assessment and achieved learning outcomes good General conclusion good


Master’s programme Integrated Product Design:

Standard 1: Intended learning outcomes good Standard 2: Teaching-learning environment good Standard 3: Assessment and achieved learning outcomes good General conclusion good Master’s programme Strategic Product Design: Standard 1: Intended learning outcomes good Standard 2: Teaching-learning environment good Standard 3: Assessment and achieved learning outcomes good General conclusion good The chair and the secretary of the committee hereby declare that all members of the committee have studied this report and that they agree with the judgements laid down in the report. They confirm that the assessment has been conducted in accordance with the demands relating to independence. Date: 14 March 2014

Prof. dr. L.T.M. (Luciënne) Blessing, T.G. Verseput, MSc. Chair Secretary


Description of the standards from the Assessment framework for limited programme assessments

Standard 1: Intended learning outcomes The intended learning outcomes of the programme have been concretised with regard to content, level and orientation; they meet international requirements. Explanation: As for level and orientation (bachelor’s or master’s; professional or academic), the intended learning outcomes fit into the Dutch qualifications framework. In addition, they tie in with the international perspective of the requirements currently set by the professional field and the discipline with regard to the contents of the programme.

Findings The committee studied the intended learning outcomes of the Industrial Design Engineering (IDE) programmes of Delft University of Technology (TUD) with regard to content, level and orientation. It evaluated the bachelor Industrial Design programme (IO) and three master’s programmes: Design for Interaction (DfI), Integrated Product Design (IPD) and Strategic Product Design (SPD). In this report, the master’s programmes will be assessed. The committee studied the domain-specific framework of reference (DSR) (1.1.), the profile and orientation of the programmes (1.2.) and the objectives and intended learning outcomes (1.3.). 1.1. Domain-specific framework of reference The DSR reflects the common understanding of the quintessence of IDE and has been drawn up conjointly by the three academic educational programmes of IDE in the Netherlands. In the DSR, the profile of the Industrial Design Engineer is described as an academically educated product designer who can integrate knowledge from different fields of technology with human factors, can see signals from the market and can generate creative ideas with new solutions. Seven domains have been identified that are relevant for academic IDE-graduates:

• designing;

• IDE-relevant disciplines;

• research;

• scientific approach;

• intellectual skills;

• co-operating and communicating;

• addressing temporal, social and personal contexts. The description of the domains is phrased in terms of competence descriptors, i.e. as a combination of knowledge, skills and attitudes, and a distinction is made between the bachelor’s and the master’s level. The domain-specific framework of reference for the IDE-programmes in the Netherlands can be consulted in appendix 2. The committee is of the opinion that all the relevant building blocks for IDE-programmes are present in the DSR. The committee finds the DSR to be aligned with relevant IDE-programmes worldwide.


1.2. Profile and orientation of the programmes

Together, the four degree programmes in Industrial Design Engineering (IDE) at the Delft University of Technology form the largest educational academic institute for IDE in the Netherlands. The bachelor’s programme is rather broad, but in the master’s programmes students make a clear choice in their expertise and receive more in depth knowledge. The committee likes the structure of a broad basis in the bachelor’s programme being followed by a specialisation in the master’s phase. According to the critical reflection, the Faculty of IDE has formed a Design Research Alliance with seven other top design schools: Hong Kong Polytechnic, Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT) in Chicago, Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), Middle East Technical University (METU), National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) in Taiwan, and Politecnico di Milano. Members of this alliance collaborate on design research and organise design research workshops. The faculty also has a joint exchange programme with METU in Ankara and KAIST in Korea. The faculty developed three master’s programmes: Design for Interaction (DfI), Integrated Product Design (IPD), and Strategic Product Design (SPD). According to the critical reflection, all three master’s programmes prepare students for a future as an industrial design engineer. The programmes teach students a broad understanding of the influences and knowledge domains that play a role in industrial product development and aims to integrate these aspects into a balanced product concept and to apply scientific research in the design process. However, each master programme has its own identity. Master’s programme Design for Interaction

The critical reflection describes the purpose of the master’s programme DfI as educating specialist designers who design products and services that optimally fit technology to user’s needs. Graduates give human-product interaction a central role in analysing, conceptualising and designing innovative products and services. The students place the product in the physical, cultural, technological and societal context in which it is used. The graduates help to make technology relevant to people. The emphasis of the DfI programme is on the way in which people use, understand and experience products and how these processes can be supported or enhanced. The programme builds on traditional design disciplines, ergonomics and aesthetics. Additionally, it builds on disciplines as human-computer interaction design, experience design and academic research fields as psychology and anthropology. Master’s programme in Integrated Product Design

According to the critical reflection, the master’s programme IPD builds upon and deepens the knowledge and skills acquired in the bachelor’s programme Industrial Design Engineering. The programme provides a coherent integration of innovative design theory, aesthetics, ergonomics, engineering and sustainability. The students learn to approach product design from multiple disciplines, such as design theory, innovation methods, aesthetics, ergonomics, engineering, materials and production knowledge, sustainability and research methods. Graduates are specialised in designing innovative products and product-service combinations for people, based on balancing societal challenges and the interests of users and business. Master’s programme in Strategic Product Design The critical reflection describes the graduated students of the master’s programme SPD as strategic product designers who initiate, create and introduce strategically sound, sustainable and commercially successful products and services for clients and customers of a company.


The emphasis of the programme is both on the front end of the new product development process and on the back end of innovation, the commercialisation phase. During the site visit, the committee learned the executive board decided to build three separate master’s programmes in order to let students choose their type of specialisation at the start of their programme. It strongly appreciates the identity this gives to the students as it allows them to gain knowledge and skills on a deeper level. Furthermore, it appreciates that in doing so, the faculty has created innovative profiles addressing current and future needs of industry and society. The DfI programme prepares graduates for positions as product designers, interaction designers, R&D specialists, and usability consultants, as well as for design-centred research activities. Graduates of the programme have been hired in recent years by companies such as Philips, Vodafone and many smaller firms, and by design and market research agencies. The committee learned that one DfI alumnus started as an interaction designer, the other alumnus is working at ICE mobile in Amsterdam. They both feel that the master’s programme was a good preparation for the work field. Graduates of the IPD programme are prepared for positions as industrial designers, product engineers, product managers, quality assurance managers, sales engineers, packaging designers. Some pursue careers in research and education. One of the IPD alumni is developing himself in website and design skills. Both IPD alumni are working at companies in the Netherlands were they develop themselves by taking on different projects. They are enthusiastic about their role within the companies. Graduates of the SPD programme are prepared to move into all aspects of product development; usually in a commercial environment. They can apply for positions as strategic designer, product or brand manager, new product development project leader, innovation consultant, design and brand consultant, and innovation manager. Some graduates choose to go into research, either in the commercial world or in academia. One SPD-alumnus is co-founder of a company and is structuring the fuzzy front of the innovation process. His ambition is to start up multiple companies. Another SPD alumnus is working at a marketing consultancy in Amsterdam and supports the development of a product from beginning till the end.

Irrespective of their master, the alumni felt they were well prepared for their career. As particularly useful they mentioned: the human-centred approach, systematic way of thinking, the many tools that can be used on a daily basis, the way to approach complex problems and large amounts of data and make these tangible through visualisation, and the fact that their knowledge and skills could be used in a broad range of projects.

The committee feels the students and alumni are aware of their capabilities and their possible positions within the work field. It was very enthusiastic of how students presented themselves and of how they envision their future careers, even though the students felt to have received little training selling themselves and their skills to future employers.

1.3. Objectives and intended learning outcomes The profile and final qualifications of the three master’s programmes incorporate seven intended learning outcomes of TU Delft graduates, and a programme-specific set of learning outcomes. All learning outcomes can be found in appendix 3. The three programmes are related in that they take the phases of the product development process as the basis for their


profile and share common competencies. The committee appreciates that the programmes have intended learning outcomes in general as well as specific intended learning outcomes for each programme, and that they have clearly been developed in conjunction with each other, resulting in three interrelated, yet unique programmes. The majority of learning outcomes concerns competencies that, according to the programme management, will be valid for some time. The committee was told that reflections on current issues, such as societal challenges, do take place. The management has, e.g. decided to focus on sustainability and ageing society, and are discussing how to integrate these two topics in the curriculum. The committee values the consideration of the programme to avoid changing the intended learning outcomes too often, yet still adapting where necessary, to a changing environment. The committee concludes that the intended learning outcomes suit the academic master’s programmes and are in line with the Dublin descriptors. The committee learned from the management that students are taught to be transdisciplinary: able to create and take on new knowledge within a team. Students are taught to combine a scientific approach with design competences. This is accomplished by teaching students the research methodology typical for their master, and teaching them to use scientific research in their product development process and to use their design skills to generate knowledge. The committee is very enthusiastic regarding this approach and feels that it can serve as an example for universities nationally. Considerations The committee is of the opinion that all relevant building blocks of the DSR are present in the IDE-programmes. It strongly appreciates the specialisation focus of the master’s programmes. It determined the intended learning outcomes of the master’s programmes have an academic orientation and are based on the Dublin descriptors. The committee noted an excellent integration of academic skills and design skills based on intended learning outcomes. The committee feels the set of three master’s programmes is complementary and results in students who are market-driven and have professional competence. It is of the opinion that the profile and orientation of the master’s programmes make a great example for other universities. The committee is impressed with the very systematic way of defining the intended learning outcomes as competences, and of explicitly addressing each competence in multiple courses. The competences are based on the DSR, the wide academic research of the TUD on ‘how to teach design, how to design and how to design in Delft’ and on an understanding of what the industry needs. The committee is very enthusiastic with regard to the integration of design and research activities. In conclusion, based on the committee’s collective experience and assessment of the courses during the site visit, the committee is of the opinion Delft University of Technology is leading the way in design education worldwide. Conclusion Master’s programme Design for Interaction: the committee assesses Standard 1 as good. Master’s programme Integrated Product Design: the committee assesses Standard 1 as good. Master’s programme Strategic Product Design: the committee assesses Standard 1 as good.


Standard 2: Teaching-learning environment The curriculum, staff and programme-specific services and facilities enable the incoming students to achieve the intended learning outcomes. Explanation: The contents and structure of the curriculum enable the students admitted to achieve the intended learning outcomes. The quality of the staff and of the programme-specific services and facilities is essential to that end. Curriculum, staff, services and facilities constitute a coherent teaching-learning environment for the students.

Findings In this standard, the findings of the committee regarding the extent to which the curricula enable students to achieve the intended learning outcomes are described. The findings are directed to the curriculum (2.1), didactic concept (2.2), feasibility (2.3) staff (2.4), and facilities (2.5). 2.1. Curriculum Each master’s programme comprises a two year programme of 120 EC. Each course is worth 3 EC or a multiple of 3 EC. There is dual enrolment; students can start their master in either September of February. The three master’s programmes share a similar structure, didactic concept and certain other elements. For example, one project of 12 EC is given to students in which all master’s programmes work jointly on a design assignment (JMP). Also, 9 EC of shared courses are taken by all master’s students. Four shared programme courses form a common basic knowledge and related skills. These courses are: 1. Generic and Professional Skills (GPS): the first week of each semester is dedicated to this

course, in which lectures and workshops, social events and presentations are given with the aim to create an egalitarian setting in which students, alumni and staff can meet and interact with each other.

2. Design Theory and Methodology (DTM): Students explore the theoretical and methodological foundation of designing on the basis of a reflective approach.

3. Internationalisation: students are prepared to work as a designer in the context of globalisation, product development, global distributed production and strategic product development.

4. Joint Master Project (JMP): students from all three master’s programmes collaborate on the development of a complex product for a client in professional practice.

For each master’s programme a total of 48 EC of specific courses and projects relate to the master’s profile. Besides that, a graduation project of 33 EC and 18 EC of electives are included to the programme. An overview of the curricula is provided in appendix 4. The committee heard that the management is discussing whether an internship for students should be mandatory in the master’s programmes, based on recommendations made by students who did an internship. There already is a lot of contact with companies in the various projects and the final project and an internship for a half year might lead to more study delay. The committee suggests that small internships might help to reassure students of what their role could be within a business environment. The committee is glad to see the programme management is picking up signals from students so well.


The committee feels that for the master’s programmes it is crucial to maintain a balance between research and skill practice and is very glad to see the programmes are preparing students for a career in research as well. It is of the opinion these are academic master’s programmes due to the strong connection of research and teaching, and due to strong emphasis on research in teaching. Master’s programme Design for Interaction The core of the first year of the master’s programme DfI is built around two design projects, each with a different focus. These projects are supported by parallel courses in which theory and methods are taught. The first semester focuses on research, analysis and concept generation. Central is the Exploring Interactions project. The second semester focuses on evaluating and iteratively developing user-product interactions. The central project in this semester is Usability and User Experience Testing and Design. In the third semester, students work on the JMP and one DfI specific course is offered. The fourth and final semester comprises the individual graduation project. The third and fourth semester are often conducted with a company (or a research group) as the client. In other projects, companies play a variety of roles, specifically in the projects. The programme considers the development of a design identity especially important for a relatively new discipline such as DfI. Therefore, throughout the programme specific attention is given to the students’ personal signature of designing. The alumni of the DfI told the committee they would have liked to see more emphasis on digital design, although they understood that this is currently being implemented by the programme. The DfI alumni also noted that much of what they learned applies in their career. They got an understanding of the whole creative process and implementation of a product using a human-centred approach. Students informed the committee that they consider the master’s programme to be much more specialised and in-depth compared to the bachelor’s programme. They furthermore strongly appreciate the contacts with companies in the curriculum. Still, they feel the need for more direct experience and knowledge of the outside world and suggest making the internship, which is currently voluntary, mandatory. The programme addresses the presentation of students and their skills through the portfolio. However, the programme still needs to address teaching students to convince clients of their skills. The committee considers that academic knowledge and presenting the student’s skills are important and is happy to hear that more attention will be paid on academic writing and portfolio building. Students also felt a lack of ability to convince a client the committee advices to train this crucial aspect of design. It heard from students and alumni that the availability of courses on technology (e.g. programming the interaction) is limited and recommends management to address this issue. The committee feels DfI is an exceptional programme in the design world, one of the few programmes with a truly strong research leadership. It thinks the DfI programme is a particularly relevant experiment in research-led design education. Master’s programme Integrated Product Design In addition to the shared programme courses and electives, the IPD programme consists of two courses of 21 EC in the first year and two of 3 EC and the graduation project in the second year. The two 3 EC courses in the second year are Managing Product Innovation (MPI) and Strategic Sustainable Design (SSD).


The first of two extensive courses is Advanced Concept Design (ACD), the second is Advanced Embodiment Design (AED). Both focus on specific parts of the product design process and together cover the entire scope of the product design process. Both courses have similar structures: the kernel is a large real-life design project paralleled by a number of areas of expertise. The selection of areas depends on the learning goals of the design project. The structure of the courses aims at synchronising knowledge acquisition and integration. The IPD students generally chose this master’s programme to achieve further technical and creative development. Initially they had some doubts regarding the two major courses in the curriculum, but during the programme it became clear how it works and it works quite well. The committee noted an integrated and logic curriculum. The students feel the courses are advanced because they get projects that are longer and more thorough, also they have to provide more structured argumentation. Students recommended, and the committee concurs, that a more extended description of the courses should be available which should clarify the link between the project and the other elements, in particular for the AED course. Currently staff members are requested to make a short movie regarding their course; the committee considers this would be of great value. The students also noticed that they would like to have a better preparation of how to proceed after the master’s programme in their professional career, for instance by partaking in an internship. The alumni informed the committee that they consider IPD an academic master’s programme, with a broad scope of theories and fundamental research aspects. The programme is not solely focusing on concrete skills. They are able to see many concepts and show people other perspectives. The alumni think it is hard to keep balance between applied and academic skills in a design programme. The committee is of the opinion the students are well prepared for a professional career and have enough experience with practical skills. However, since an explicit course on Research Methodology is absent in this programme, the programme management should continuously ensure that a good balance between practical and academic skills is present. Currently, the committee feels that, as academic master’s programme, more explicit attention should be given to academic skills training. Master’s programme Strategic Product Design The first year of the SPD programme is built around two design projects. Each has a different focus and is supported by parallel courses in which theory and methods are taught. In the first semester the Design Strategy Project (DSP) is given, one of four real-life projects in the programme. An external client poses a strategic question to the entire group of students who work in groups on the question. Other courses in the first semester focus on the front end of innovation, which is typically aimed at the identification of viable new product concepts. The Brand & Product Strategy course (BPS) teaches students the theoretical knowledge related to brand- and competencies inspired design, the Customer Research in NPD course (CR), the Context & Conceptualisation course and the New Product Economics course (NPE). The focus of the second semester is twofold, namely on the back end of innovation and on scientific research. Three courses relate to the back end of innovation: the New Product Commercialisation course (NPC), the Strategic Value of Design course (SVD) and the Leading Strategic Design course (LSD). Scientific research consists of a semester-long project in which students work in pairs (SPD Research Project) and a theoretical course on research


methodology. The third semester is devoted to the JMP and allows electives to be taken. The final semester is devoted to the graduation project. The SPD students told the committee they chose the programme because they were interested in the integration of design and business. They are enthusiastic about thinking from a company and costumer perspective. They recognize the essence of the master’s programme in the courses provided. The committee greatly values that now each semester has a course that explicitly focuses on doing research as a reaction to the 2009 evaluation and recalibration exercise. Alumni of SPD are enthusiastic about the broad programme and the chance to specialize in their area of interest. They are glad to have gained experience on a big project and the chance to build up their network while studying. Graduates feel they can use all their knowledge from the master’s programme, and that it is the broadness of the study that makes them interesting and allows them to specialise later. The committee agrees that some aspects could be more strongly highlighted, like entrepreneurship, but is of the opinion that the academic master’s programme in an abstract area like management should hold its primarily focus on academic skills and attitude. 2.2. Didactic concept According to the critical reflection the didactic concept is to stimulate active learning by students and thereby teach them to think and act independently. Also, students have to be able to link theory to practice and vice versa. The programmes use a variety of working methods, including group work and individual work. An overview is kept to maintain variety and coherence within the semesters. The committee established that group work dominates and students regularly feel insecure about working alone. The students told the committee they appreciate the group work and the individual parts in the projects, but need more real individual design practice, before embarking on the final project. The committee was glad to learn that the management has been discussing this issue in the past year and strongly advises the programme to implement more individual work for students in the master’s curriculum. According to the critical reflection, the DfI programme involves a large project in each semester running in parallel to courses. In recent years they introduced various forms of peer-to-peer learning, through assignments, team composition or explicit peer review actions preceding staff review. The IPD programme focuses on the concept of a project running in parallel with theoretical parts in one course. Students consider working on company based projects as both stimulating and challenging. The SPD programme is one step further and has focused on independent individual work since the previous evaluation, leading to almost too much individual work. This is now being fine tuned. The committee advises the three programmes to work together on this aspect. The committee learned that the management and the staff involved in the programme can be more expressive in what the programme stands for and in how the faculty wants the outside world to see them. The programme management wants to introduce more exhibitions to work on the internal image for students. The committee supports this initiative and suggests


involving alumni. This group has an excellent position to tell students about the application of their knowledge in the work field. 2.3. Feasibility The master’s programmes have several admission procedures for different groups of students. Candidates with a Dutch bachelor’s degree in Industrial Design (Engineering) are admitted directly. Students holding other bachelor’s degrees can also be admitted. Dependent on the degree, students might be required to take additional courses (up to 30 EC) in a bridging programme. The committee considers the intake rates given in appendix 5 to be good. Approximately 20% of the new students have an international background, making the introduction phase important. Activities for international students are organised, to make both foreign students as well as Dutch bachelor’s graduates aware of cultural differences when it comes to design education. According to the critical reflection most students graduate within 2.5 years. The numbers given in appendix 5 are not reliable, since the bachelor-before-master rule has not been introduced until 2010. The programmes consider that especially the graduation phase tends to take longer than intended. To spur students, the third week of the GPS course focuses on activities to get students to reflect on their direction, and provides instructions for deciding upon a graduation project. The critical reflection states that the faculty strives for a balanced distribution of the study programme elements over the semesters and aims for a realistic planning of study load. Based on course evaluations the conclusion is that overall the actual study load is consistent with the planned study load. Exceptions are some project courses and the graduation project. Action is taken to prevent projects from overrunning. The students in their meetings with the committee referred to several elements as challenging, but made no complaints as to the workload. Staff members stated to be enthusiastic with regard to the block structure. They feel the workload is high but manageable for both staff members and students and that the benefits concerning coherence and integrating are worth it. The students mentioned to the committee that study paths are overall clear. However, DfI students mentioned that it was difficult for students who did not do their bachelor programme in Delft to start in February and immediately understand the block structure of the programme. IPD students who started in February also found the block structure a bit confusing at the beginning and found is less logical, but doable, to start with the AED course before the ACD course. SPD students would like to see the workload in the first year spread more evenly. In comparison, they felt the first semester was more slow-paced than the second. Still, all students consider the curriculum to be transparent and doable, even with a start in February, and the committee fully agrees. The committee thinks that overall the programmes have realistic study load and are well aware of potential obstacles that prevent students from graduating in time. During the interview with students of all three masters, it became clear the students considered the competence monitor a forced way of assessing their progress during their bachelor’s programme. Nevertheless, students do think reflection on study goals helps them get to know themselves as a designer. Staff mentioned that the competence monitor is


primarily used in the bachelor’s programme and are of opinion that master’s students should be supported in obtaining a helicopter view on their achievements, but should be doing this more independent compared to the bachelor’s phase. During the course, the staff members give students feedback on their reflection so they can use it to finalize the project. The management told the committee that reflection of master’s students is not dependent on the competence monitor tool. In every design project students have to write an individual reflection about the process. There is no clear structure and students can decide how they want to reflect. The management has no intention to implement the competence monitor in the master’s programme. The committee is convinced that staff and students put a lot of effort in reflection on the progress of students and the competence monitor is not needed in the master’s programmes. 2.4. Staff The faculty has formulated some quality targets for teaching staff. First is that teaching staff is composed of a mixture of people who are active in both education and research, have an international orientation and are or have been active in the professional field of industrial design engineering. Second is that all staff members appointed after 2009 should attain the University Teaching Qualification (UTQ) within four years of the start of their appointment. The committee noted the teaching staff has become more scientific (measured by the number of staff members who obtained PhD degrees). It welcomed the fact that the management is discussing how far a design school can go in a scientific direction if it wants to keep teaching professionals relevant to industry and is trying to find a proper balance between research active staff and staff with a professional background. The committee established that the faculty attracted and retained a good and enthusiastic staff. There is a very strong coherence between the staff members. Management told the committee the performance, organisational skills and leadership of staff members are considered during an annual evaluation. The programme finds it important that young people get the opportunity to learn. That is why management tries to makes pairs of a young staff member and a senior staff member to be responsible for a course. This way, the more experienced staff member can teach the younger ones. This approach is, according to the committee, a very nice structure to ascertain both experience in teaching as well as involving younger staff members and could serve as an example for other universities. Staff members from the SPD programme told the committee that they find the teaching load decent. They try to include students in their own research by teaching them research skills whilst getting data for their own research. The maximum of time spent on teaching is 52%, which the committee considers to be too much to have adequate balance between teaching and research. DfI and IPD staff members also integrate research with education to reduce workload. The committee learned the students are impressed with the availability of the staff. There is a quick and open communication. Staff members are committed to their courses and very enthusiastic. Students think of the staff members as inspiring and motivational and it is valued that the staff comes from a variety of backgrounds. The committee is impressed with the intensive style of teaching in the master’s programmes. It agrees with the programme that learning to design requires intensive and personal supervision, although it understands the pressure this teaching has on time and money. The committee concludes that all three programmes have highly qualified and motivated staff, both with respect to research and


teaching and that – until now –workload is very high, but doable. The committee clearly signalled that any further increase of workload would result in undue pressure on staff members and inevitably have its effects on the quality of teaching (and research). The committee therefore recommends management to monitor the workload of staff members. 2.5. Facilities The programme committee is called OKIO and consists of members of each IDE programme: four staff, four students, the chair of student members and the chair of the staff. The OKIO provides solicited and unsolicited advice to the Dean and Director of Education on programme quality and the content and execution of the relevant regulations. The OKIO keeps contact with the coordinators, students and staff of all programmes and organizes active reflection moments. OKIO meets every three weeks.

The Faculty Student Council consists of 7 students chosen by the IDE students. This council explained to the committee it operates on student and complaint level and has monthly contact with the dean. They also meet regularly with the i.d. Education Committee of the i.d. Study Association. The committee encourages the i.d. Education Committee to extend these evaluations to all courses and ensure the evaluations and their results are documented. The Faculty Student Council receives complaints from students, for instance their struggle to find feedback on blackboard, and communicates it to the faculty Education & Student Affairs department. The Education & Student Affairs department provides support facilities for the university’s educational activities.

The i.d. Education Committee consists of 13 students who are member of the Board of Education, OKIO or the Faculty Student Council. They meet every week. According to the critical reflection it has frequent meetings with the faculty staff and the faculty Education & Student Affairs department. During these meetings, the students are asked to contribute their insights into practical matters and policy plans. The i.d. Education Committee is part of the i.d. Study Association. The critical reflection describes the i.d Study Association. as an organisation for students and staff. It organises multiple activities such as the IDE business fair, the IO festival and study trips for students. Also it contributes by handing out a magazine ‘Turn the page’ and by keeping contact with students and faculty staff. The committee is impressed with the engagement of the above committees and their efforts to improve the master’s programmes. It feels that OKIO and the Faculty Student Council work very well together and that they have good access to the faculty’s management. During the site visit it became clear that not all agreements are officially documented. The committee strongly advises that feedback should be given formally and that communication between the different councils and committees should be adequately documented, in particular in the light of the increasing number of international students and staff, who do not have the tacit knowledge about the IDE/Dutch practices.

During the interview with the students it became clear they are very satisfied with the facilities. When there is something lacking, the Study Association steps in and deals with it. The students are happy with the books and readers. Readers can be downloaded from blackboard or ordered. The master’s student can ask for guidance when they have trouble choosing their courses. The committee is of the opinion that facilities are overall very good.


Considerations The committee is of the opinion that the master’s programmes have a very innovative structure, which is successful because it is extremely well designed and shows coherence in every aspect within and between the programmes. The committee established that the students are well prepared for a professional career and have enough experience with practical skills. It is enthusiastic to see that the master’s programmes are aware of their primary focus on academic skills. The didactic concept of tasks and projects is appealing to the committee and considered a logical choice for an IDE programme. The committee would, however, stimulate the programme to continue with its plans to increase the amount of individual practice for students in preparation of the final project. The committee is also very impressed with the concept of combining research and practice. The committee was very impressed by the staff members. Also, students were positive about their staff members. A major asset of the programme is the individual supervision and small scale group work. The committee feels the master student can really benefit from the intensive style of teaching. Overall the committee is very impressed with the teaching-learning environment and feels that it definitely enables the master’s students to achieve the intended learning outcomes. Conclusion

Master’s programme Design for Interaction: the committee assesses Standard 2 as good. Master’s programme Integrated Product Design: the committee assesses Standard 2 as good. Master’s programme Strategic Product Design: the committee assesses Standard 2 as good.


Standard 3: Assessment and achieved learning outcomes The programme has an adequate assessment system in place and demonstrates that the intended learning outcomes are achieved. Explanation: The level achieved is demonstrated by interim and final tests, final projects and the performance of graduates in actual practice or in post-graduate programmes. The tests and assessments are valid, reliable and transparent to the students.

Findings In this standard, the findings of the assessment system and methods used are described (3.1), followed by the performance of graduates (3.2). The assessment committee has read the programme’s education and (final) examinations regulations (OER), has spoken with the members of the Board of Examiners and has evaluated assignments, exams and final projects of the different programmes. 3.1. Assessment system and methods

The objectives of examinations of the IDE programmes are to show how a student is developing, to provide feedback on the development of competencies, to encourage effective study behaviour and to determine whether a student is capable of becoming a professional designer, according to the programme’s profiles. In addition, the faculty has formulated a number of key objectives. According to the critical reflection, the IDE programmes use a number of examination and assessment methods in order to take into account the students’ different learning styles and to ensure that the form of examination is in line with the learning objectives and achievement levels. Knowledge based objectives are tested by written examination and in the case of study components that focus on applying knowledge, skills and attitude, a practical assignment and/or projects are used to test the competencies of students. According to the critical reflection, the programme makes a distinction between formative and summative assessments and both are used in courses. The programme states to pay attention to the consistency between coaches of assessment of projects. Coaches discuss markings both during and at the end of a project. The committee considers this to be an important issue, since students mentioned that differences were sometimes perceived, although the committee realises that differences cannot be avoided due to the nature of design projects (a multitude of aspects involved and a large variety solutions possible, the majority of which does not exist yet). Officially, each programme that is assessed by this committee has its own Board of Examiners. However, in practice there is one committee of nine staff members that covers all four programmes. At least one member of each programme is member of the Board of Examiners. The Board of Examiners has delegated its day-to-day work routines to an Executive Committee (kEC) which responds to all questions put by students and teachers following the directions of the Board of Examiners. The Board of Examiners ensures that criteria and procedures for examinations and assessments described are implemented. A number of requirements were laid down that staff must fulfil in order to ensure the quality of assignments, exams and assessments. The quality of examinations and assessments is an explicit part of all course evaluations. The committee is glad to see that progress was made in the past period with respect to clarifying the assessment criteria for students. At the beginning


of each course, the standards that students must meet are made clear. This approach was confirmed by the students the committee talked to. The Board of Examiners told the committee that staff members are trained in assessment and talk with each other about their methods. In fact, they are asked by the Board of Examiners to make the exam in a team to ensure they come to a good way of assessing. The committee also heard from the staff members that at the end of each year there is an overview of projects and grading for each supervisor, which is experienced as a moment of self-reflection, but that there is no written rationale. The Board of Examiners now wants to introduce a more proactive approach in ensuring the transparency and the quality of examinations and has started to check on a regular basis whether the written examinations sufficiently match the objectives of the course. For this, so called test matrices are introduced. The Board of Examiners explained to the committee that each course addresses a subset of the competences. The responsible staff members have to make a relation between the competences and how the students are assessed in the course using a test matrix. As from next year, the Board of Examiners will make the use of test matrices mandatory for all course coordinators. It wants to make the development of competences transparent for students in a formal way. The students also use the test matrices for their peer assessment and to grade themselves. The staff members give a formative assessment of this. This helps them reflect on their competences and make a plan to improve their competences. The committee is very positive about the efforts to explicitly link the competencies involved in a particular course to how they are assessed. The committee supports the endeavour of the Board of Examiners to ensure that all staff members are trained in assessment. The committee was told that during projects not only the final product of the students is graded, but also the process and presentation. The coach observes the group dynamics and there is an assessment form with predefined criteria for the group grading as well as the individual part. Blackboard provides information for individual students on how they were assessed. In the case of involvement of a company, feedback is also provided by this company. For the final projects, each student has a team of two supervisors, often from different disciplines or sections. The committee noted that although the process of evaluation is clearly defined and transparent, there is no formal process documented for assessing the thesis project. It supports the current development of an evaluation form and the fine-tuning of the documentation of policies and practices, including moderation. The committee discussed the scientific level of the programmes and specifically of the final project with students and staff. Each student has to make research an integrated part of the final project. In addition, throughout the programmes students are trained in qualitative and quantitative research methodology. The insights from theses courses are used in the final project. DfI students told the committee a scientific approach is used in the scope of the projects and writing an academic paper. The students have one research and one scientific coach with whom they meet regularly, and are pleased with that in general. The coaches meet every six weeks and agree on grading and feedback. The staff emphasised that most courses have a research element. SPD students have a supervisory team that consists of two staff members. Students from this programme were not always convinced that the programme they follow is as research


focussed as could be. They claim it strongly depends on the topic of the final project, whether there was sufficient depth of research. IPD students have both a design and a research coach and are pleased with that in general. The primary research method used is – similar to the DfI method - observational research, interviews and questionnaires related to the product under development. 3.2. Achieved learning outcomes The faculty has determined that the objectives of the master’s programmes are met if the competencies of graduates correspond to the intended learning outcomes of the programmes, the graduates find employment in industrial design engineering or a directly related field within an acceptable period, the graduates use their knowledge and skills in their jobs, and the graduates observe in their jobs that the material they learned is relevant to the professional practice. The critical reflection describes that graduation is the culmination of every student’s study. In the final project, candidates complete a complex project independently and demonstrate professional competence as designers. In most cases, the graduation project is an external project at a company. A minority of students choose to do an internal graduation project. The faculty has established a number of components that are assessed to determine whether the achieved level is sufficient:

• The assignment: is the assignment of a sufficiently high level and complexity, and is its substance related to the field and the specialisation chosen by the student?

• The process: is the approach followed by the student scientific, and are the steps in the process clearly described and are they reproducible?

• The reporting: are the reports of a sufficient scientific standard? Is the study question clear, are the conclusions and decisions properly substantiated? Is the presentation professional?

• The results: how are the results achieved, do they meet professional standards and do they exhibit a sufficiently innovative approach?

Students describe the objectives, planning and deliverables for the graduation project. The proposal for the graduation project (which includes content, planning) has to be approved by the Executive Committee (kEC) of the Board of Examiners. In all cases the Board’s approval is given on condition that the student meets the formal admissions requirements for starting the graduation project. The assessment of process, report and results of the graduation project is carried out by the supervisory team, which consists of a chair and a mentor, both of whom are members of academic staff. For external projects, a company mentor is also involved as advisor. From the students the committee understood that daily supervision also includes PhD students, in case the graduation projects are part of a PhD project. The team of supervisors has to agree on the grading of the final project and for this, six weeks prior to graduation students have to hand in their (almost) final report. Three levels of the graduation are assessed, namely product, presentation and process. These levels build up the final grade. Students receive written feedback and oral feedback is provided as well. The committee discussed the balance between assessment of product and process. A good process is required to come to good results and staff members consider the two intertwined. Also daring and taking risks by students are appreciated, for instance students who choose to graduate on a subject that leads to the start-up of a company.


For each master’s programme the committee assessed a selection of final projects in order to establish the performance of graduates. There was a good match between the assessments given by the committee and those originally recorded by the team of supervisors. The committee was very impressed with the quality of the master’s students. All theses they have assessed were well on international level. Considerations The committee is very positive about the efforts to explicitly link the competencies involved in a particular course to how they are assessed in a test matrix and advises to not only train staff but also the students. The committee supports the current development of an evaluation form to ensure transparency in the final project assessment. Conclusion Master’s programme Design for Interaction: the committee assesses Standard 3 as good. Master’s programme Integrated Product Design: the committee assesses Standard 3 as good. Master’s programme Strategic Product Design: the committee assesses Standard 3 as good.


General conclusion The committee is of the opinion the programme management is very passionate about their master’s programmes. They are searching for continuous improvement and collaboration. The purpose of the master’s programme DfI is educating specialist designers who design products and services that optimally fit technology to user’s needs. The master’s programme IPD builds upon and deepens the knowledge and skills acquired in the bachelor’s programme Industrial Design Engineering and provides a coherent integration of innovative design theory, aesthetics, ergonomics, engineering and sustainability. The emphasis of the master’s programme SPD is both on the front end of the new product development process and on the back end of innovation, the commercialisation phase. All programmes also prepare students to a future in research. The committee appreciates that the programmes have intended learning outcomes in general as well as specific intended learning outcomes for each programme. It concludes that the intended learning outcomes suit the academic master’s programme and are in line with the Dublin descriptors. The committee is very enthusiast about the profile and orientation of the master’s programmes and feels it would make a great example for other universities. The committee feels students know how to present themselves. Students are well prepared for a professional career and have enough experience with practical skills. It advices to put more emphasize on academic writing in the curriculum of DfI, and on entrepreneurship in the SPD curriculum. Overall, the committee feels that each master should pay attention to the right balance between academic and professional skills appropriate for an academic master. The committee is of the opinion that the structure of the masters in themed blocks and quarters is novel, well-thought out and seemingly very effective, efficient and stimulating. The didactic concept is to stimulate active learning by students and thereby teach them to think and act independently. Also, students have to be able to link theory to practice and vice versa. The committee strongly advises the programme management to implement more individual work for students in preparation of the master’s thesis in the DfI and IPD curriculum. The SPD curriculum needs to fine tune their amount of independent individual work and to work together with the other master’s programmes on this aspect. The committee is convinced that staff and students put a lot of effort in reflection on the progress of students and do not need to introduce the competence monitor in the master’s programmes. The committee feels that overall the programmes have a realistic study load and that the faculty attracted and retained a good, very enthusiastic and coherent staff. The committee strongly values the intensive style of teaching in the master’s programmes. The committee strongly advices the programmes to formally document all aspects of the theses evaluations. For each master’s programme the committee assessed a selection of final projects in order to establish the performance of graduates. There was a good match between the assessments given by the committee and those originally recorded by the team of supervisors. The committee was very impressed with the quality of the master’s student’s work.


Conclusion The committee assesses the master’s programme Design for Interaction as good. The committee assesses the master’s programme Integrated Product Design as good. The committee assesses the master’s programme Strategic Product Design as good.


Appendices


Appendix 1: Curricula vitae of the members of the assessment committee Prof. dr. L.T.M. (Luciënne) Blessing obtained her MSc from the Technical University of Delft (Industrial Design Engineering) and her PhD from the University of Twente (UT) (1994). She worked 1984-1992 as lecturer at the UT (Mechanical Engineering), from 1992-2000 at the University of Cambridge (Engineering Design Centre) as senior research associate and Assistant Director. From 2000-2007 she was appointed to the Chair of Engineering Design and Methodology at the University of Technology Berlin. In 2007 she became Vice-president for Research at the University of Luxembourg (until April 2013) and Professor for Engineering Design and Methodology. Since 1999 she co-organises the International Summer School on Engineering Design Research for PhD candidates. She co-founded the Design Society (2000), in its Management Board until 2005, and since in its Advisory Board. 22 PhD candidates successfully defended their PhD under her supervision and 5 under her co-supervision. Since 2011 she is a member of the steering committee of the EUA’s Council of Doctoral Education. Prof. dr. P. J. (John) Clarkson returned to the University of Cambridge in 1995 following a seven-year spell with PA Consulting Group’s Technology Division where he was Manager of the Advanced Process Group, responsible for the design and development of medical equipment and high-integrity automation systems. He was appointed director of the Cambridge Engineering Design Centre in 1997 and a University Professor in 2004. He is directly involved in the teaching of design at all levels of the undergraduate engineering course and his research interests include design process management, change management, healthcare design and inclusive design. Prof. dr. I. (Ilpo) Koskinen was a sociologist, but has worked as a professor of industrial design since 1999. His main research interests have been in mobile multimedia, the relationship of design and cities, and interpretive design methodology. Some of his main publications include Mobile Image (IT Press, Helsinki, 2002), Empathic Design (IT Press, Helsinki, 2003), and Mobile Multimedia in Action (Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ, 2007). Most recently, he has published “Design Research through Practice. From Lab, Field, Showroom,” a book on constructive design research (Morgan Kaufman, San Francisco, 2011). This book explicates recent developments in contemporary design research by focusing on their methodological foundations, whether they come from the sciences, the social sciences, or art and design. Em. prof. dr. A. (Albert) Pilot is emeritus professor of curriculum development at Utrecht University and professor of chemistry education at that university. His research focuses on curriculum development, design of learning and instruction, talent development, honours programmes, quality assurance in higher education, professional development of teachers and context-based science education. He was involved in a number of quality assessments in higher education the Netherlands and with the development of quality assurance and accreditation projects in Poland, Lithuania and Romania. Dr. M. (Markku) Salimäki has been the Director of the International Design Business Management (IDBM) Programme at the Aalto University. After graduation from Helsinki University of Technology (Industrial Management) in 1973 he worked in different managerial positions in the Finnish Ceramic and Glass Industry. Dr. Salimäki left the industry in 1992 to start his doctoral studies at HSE and received his Licenciate Degree in 1996 on topic of “the Competive Strategy of the Finnish Design Companies”. The IDBM Programme was started in the beginning of 1995 and Dr. Salimäki became the first coordinator and director of the


programme. He received the degree of Doctor of Science in 2003 at Helsinki School of Economics. His research interests include managing international design business in general, competitive strategies of design intensive business, design’s role as competitive factor, design intensive entrepreneurship and benefits of multidisciplinary teams. He has published in several scientific journals and management magazines and given key-note and conference speeches in different countries. In the spring 2013 Dr. Salimäki acted as external evaluator of the Design Management and Cultural Management and Cultural Policy Master’s programs at Vilnius University Lithuania. He retired at the end of 2012. P. G. (Philémonne) Jaasma BSc is in her final year of the master’s programme Industrial Design at the University of Technology in Eindhoven. She did an internship in Amsterdam focussing on co-creation with elderly, and a research internship in Umea, Sweden, about engagement through tangible interaction. She is a freelancer employee for several companies, among which are a consultancy company for municipalities, public space and participation, and a social housing corporation. She regularly develops and facilitates multi-stakeholder workshops. She regards her role as designer as that of a facilitator with the goal to empower people. She is active in social-societal fields such as education and neighbourhood development.


Appendix 2: Domain-specific framework of reference Domain-Specific Framework of References For the academic Industrial Design Engineering programmes 1. Introduction The academic educational programmes of Industrial Design Engineering in The Netherlands conjointly specify the profile of IDE Graduates. In this document, the educational programmes in Delft, Eindhoven and Twente describe that profile, the labour market positions of IDE Graduates, a number of specific features of the IDE curricula and the distinction between the Bachelor’s and the Master’s level. In the description of the profile and capabilities of the graduates, the knowledge and skills themselves are described independent of the distinction between the Bachelor’s and Master’s level. The difference between these levels is described in section 5, and addresses the width and depth of this knowledge and these skills. The characterisations in this document reflect the common understanding between the three educational programmes as concerns the quintessence of IDE. In this, the document also elaborates on a number of underlying sources 1 2 3 4. 2. Profile of the IDE Graduates The Industrial Design Engineer is an academically educated product 5 designer who can integrate knowledge from different fields of technology with human factors, can see signals from the market and can generate creative ideas with new solutions. In industry, the need for such versatile product designers is evident. A Bachelor of Science/Master of Science in Industrial Design Engineering can operate in the field of Industrial Design as an interdisciplinary designer. The graduate is able to recognise the relevant disciplines and aspects, such as technology, manufacturing and logistics, market and user, business and marketing, aesthetics and functionality and is able to integrate these aspects into the development of solutions: products, systems and related services. In the full development cycle of products, the IDE graduate:

• is able to analyse market demands and user needs along with technological and social opportunities;

• is able to generate a (personal) vision on the design problem;

• is able to generate and select ideas and design concepts;

• is able to transfer existing knowledge to new problems and to implement new knowledge;

• can materialise a concept to the stage of a working model;

• is able to take into account the marketing and the product life cycle. Because the graduate is an academically educated designer, he has a thorough command of scientific methods and techniques related to the development of products as well as in conducting research. Based on having knowledge and skills in relevant disciplines and sciences, and being able to use these in reasoning and methodological reflection during/on the process of development, the graduate is able to contribute to research projects and to the development of new knowledge.


The graduate is a practiced engineer who proves himself by purposefully rendering added value for the organisation he works in. Moreover, he is self-steering, responsible, creative, is able to build on his own knowledge and skills, is able to develop his own signature and is able to deal with limited certainties. Moreover, he can communicate, can document, visualise and present his design, can structure and manage his projects, can function both individually as well in a multidisciplinary team. The context of his activities can be international and intercultural. The basis for this IDE graduate profile is formed during the Bachelor’s programme and the profile is further developed during the Master’s programme. 3. Domains of knowledge and skills in the IDE curriculum On the basis of the profile, seven dimensions are identified for academic graduates in the IDE programme. Graduates should have the ability to address all these dimensions: 1. Designing; A university IDE graduate can realise new or modified artefacts, products or systems, with the aim of creating value in accordance with predefined needs and requirements. 2. IDE-relevant disciplines; A university IDE graduate is familiar with contemporary knowledge and has the ability to increase and develop this through study. 3. Research; A university IDE graduate is able to acquire new scientific knowledge through research. In this respect, research entails the development of new knowledge and insight according to purposeful and systematic methods. 4. Scientific approach;

A university IDE graduate has a systematic approach characterised by the development and use of theories, models and coherent interpretations, has a critical attitude and has insight into the nature of science and technology.

5. Intellectual skills; A university IDE graduate is able to adequately reason, reflect and form a judgment. These abilities are acquired or refined within the context of a discipline, and then become generically applicable. 6. Co-operating and communicating; A university IDE graduate is able to work with and for others. This not only requires adequate interaction and a sense of responsibility and leadership, but also the ability to communicate effectively with colleagues, clients, (end-)users, suppliers, experts and laymen. He is also able to participate in a scientific or public debate. 7. Addressing temporal, social and personal contexts;

Science and technology are not isolated, and always have a temporal, social and personal context. Beliefs and methods have their origins; decisions have social consequences in time. A university IDE graduate is aware of this, and has the competence to integrate these insights into his scientific work.


The IDE curriculum includes the following aspects/building blocks:

• Design Projects

• Design Methods and Techniques

• Engineering

• Management and Market Studies

• Design

• Human factors

• Socio-cultural awareness

• Research Practices Furthermore, the IDE curriculum is a programme that provides a balance between the formation, processing, application, integration and contemplation of theory and skills. The Design Projects are the core of the curricula. The other building blocks are taught and integrated in the Design Projects. 4. Labour Market Perspective Traditionally, prospects for designers in the labour market have been closely linked to the overall economic situation. In times of a booming economy, jobs were offered to graduates even before they had completed the IDE-programme. In a declining economy, it can take graduates one or two years to find a suitable job. However, the enormous potential of current new developments (such as smart products, smart environments and portable products) means that new industrial designers are likely to be in great demand. More and more, governments and industry are convinced that innovation and smart design are set to play a very important role in future society. Also, the fact that the domain of Industrial Design is widening its scope (for example to services, productservice combinations, the design of environments, the management of product development, brand design), means that the domain could soon become less dependent on the state of the economic situation. So in the long run, the influence of design in society will increase, as will the demand for highly educated professionals in this field. IDE graduates are found in jobs such as industrial designer, product designer, product engineer, design engineer, design manager, product manager, interaction designer, researcher, usability consultant, designcentred researcher, strategic designer, brand manager, New Product Development project leader, innovation consultant, design-brand consultant. Up until now, a relatively low number of Bachelors’ graduates has directly entered the labour market.


5. Differences between a Bachelor’s and a Master’s graduate: The Bachelor’s and the Master’s degree differ in terms of orientation and level. A Bachelor’s graduate A Master’s graduate

Can apply knowledge in various familiar situations

Can apply knowledge in new situations

Can work under supervision; average level of autonomy

Can work independently; high level of autonomy

Can approach/tackle and solve (relatively) basic (design) problems/questions

Can approach/tackle and solve (more) complex(design) problems

Can develop knowledge and skills/ competencies from related disciplines

Can develop knowledge and skills/ competencies from various disciplines

Can integrate and apply knowledge and skills/competencies in relatively basic (design) problems/questions

Can integrate and apply knowledge and skills/competences in more complex (design) problems

Can participate in the design and/or research process

Can adjust the design and/or research process to meet the demands of the task at hand

Has sufficient knowledge of the disciplines to judge the relevance of new developments, and can translate this to own domain

Has sufficient deep-seated knowledge of the disciplines to be able to form a (scientific) judgment, and can translate this to own domain

Can use scientific research findings in the design process and can perform a simple research project under supervision

Can plan and perform scientific research and can reflect on the phases of the research process

Can communicate opinions, ideas, information and results clearly

Can communicate conclusions, including the underlying knowledge, motives and deliberations, clearly, convincingly (and unambiguously)


Appendix 3: Intended learning outcomes TU Delft graduates in general: 1. Are capable of being analytical in their work, drawing on broad and deep scientific

knowledge. 2. Are able to synthesise knowledge and solve problems in a creative way when dealing with

complex issues. 3. Have the qualities needed for employment in circumstances that require sound

judgement, personal responsibility and initiative in complex and unpredictable professional environments.

4. Are able to assume leading roles, including management roles, in companies and research organisations, and to contribute to innovation.

5. Are able to work in an international environment, helped by their social and cultural sensitivity and language and communication abilities, partly acquired through experience of team work and any study periods abroad.

6. Are aware of possible ethical, social, environmental, aesthetic and economic implications of their work, and act accordingly.

7. Are aware of the need to update continually their knowledge and skills. Design for Interaction In addition to having the seven basic TU Delft competencies, Design for Interaction graduates are capable of: 8. Gathering and communicating specialist knowledge from the humanities and behavioural

sciences, and translating it into design parameters. 9. Analysing product use and its various contexts, and communicating the findings

effectively to other people involved in the design process. 10. Conceptualising the above into new products or services. 11. Gathering and integrating knowledge of new technologies (materials, sensors, etc.) into

design opportunities. 12. Developing prototypes of experiential quality and testing these with users. 13. Independently setting up and conducting research projects. 14. Presenting and reporting design concepts and research findings in a professional manner. 15. Answering research questions by designing products/ prototypes. 16. Contributing effectively to design teams. Integrated Product Design In addition to these basic qualifications, graduates of the Master in Integrated Product Design programme: 8. Are capable of developing innovative products and product–service combinations to

satisfy the needs of the stakeholders, based on balancing societal challenges and the interests of users and business, and with due regard to international ethical issues.

9. Have a thorough knowledge and understanding of, and are proficient in, the execution of the total product design process, with a focus on conceptualisation and embodiment design.

10. Are able to perform and manage the design process independently or as members or leaders of teams, often in an international setting.


11. Have a thorough knowledge of the aesthetic, ergonomic, technical and environmental issues involved and are acquainted with the organisational and economic aspects of products.

12. Have the skills to use integrative approaches to these aesthetic, ergonomic, engineering-related and environmental issues during product development.

13. Are capable of generating new knowledge based on scientifically rigorous research. Strategic Product Design In addition to these basic TU Delft competencies, SPD graduates are capable of: 8. Applying tools and techniques to collect information on customer behaviour, competitive

behaviour, market trends and technological developments. 9. Translating product-related firm strategies into conceptualised and visualised product

(line) directions. 10. Synthesising data on the firm and its external international environment, including the

firm-related strategic value of design, into realistic strategic product concepts and its business cases.

11. Translating product line strategies, mission statements, brand identities and information on the firm and its external network of strategic partners into design and engineering guidelines.

12. Independently setting up and conducting a complex multidisciplinary strategic product design, design consulting or research project.

13. Presenting and reporting design concepts and strategic and/or scientific research findings in a professional manner.

14. Leading a product innovation team and delivering strategic input to that team.


Appendix 4: Overview of the curricula

Shared Master Programme

Elective space

Master specific Project

3 left alignment; 1st quarter of semester

3 right alignment; 2nd quarter of semester


Design for Interaction

Fall Spring Fall Spring

GPS → GPS → GPS

DTM (3 ec) INT (3 ec) GPS (3 ec)

ID4010 ID4050 ID4200

3 3 3

ID4216 ID4220

C&C ITD

6 ec 6 ec

ID4045

JMP

3 3 3 3 12 ec

ID4210 VCD (3 ec)

PUUE ID4230

6 ec 3

ID4256

3 3 6 6

UXAD Graduation Project

ID4297 Graduation Project

30 ec

ID 4250 12 ec ID4297

3

EI ROD (3 ec)

9 ec ID4235

3

Electives

3 6 6 6 3

DRM (3 ec)

Electives ID4265 Electives

3 3 3

Electives Electives Electives

3 3 3 15 15

15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

Intake September

Total: 30 ec Total: 30 ec Total: 30 ec Total: 30 ec

DTM Design Theory & Methodology

INT Internationalisation

GPS Generic and Professional Skills

JMP Joint Master Project

C&C Context & Conceptualisation

PUUE Product Understanding, Use & Experience

EI (Project) Exploring Interactions

ITD Interactive Technology Design

VCD Visual Communication Design

UXAD (Project) Usability and User eXperience Testing and Design

DRM DfI Research Methodology

ROD Reflection on Designing


Integrated Product Design


GPS → GPS → GPS


ID4010 ID4050 ID4100

3 3 3

Graduation Project

ID4196 3

MPI (3 ec)

ID4180

ID4170 ID4175 3

SSD (3 ec)

(ACD) (AED) ID4185

Advanced Concept Advanced Embodiment 3

Design Design

ID4045

21 ec 21 ec


30 ec

JMP

12 ec

9 12 12 9 6 6


3 3 3


3 3 3 15 15

15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

Intake September


DTM Design Theory & Methodology INT Internationalisation GPS Generic and Professional Skills JMP Joint Master Project MPI Managing Product Innovation SSD Strategic Sustainable Design


Strategic Product Design


GPS → GPS→ GPS


ID4010 ID4050 ID4300

3 3 3

ID4216 ID4315

C&C NPC ID4045

6 ec 6 ec

JMP

3 3 3 3 12 ec

ID4321 ID4360

CRin NPD SRP

6 ec 6 ec

3 3 3 3 6 6

SRM (3 ec) Graduation Project

ID4310 ID4355 ID4396

BPS 3 3


30 ec

6 ec SVD (3 ec)

ID4340 Electives

6 3 3

LSD (3 ec)

ID4336 Electives

ID4350 3 3

DSP ( 6 ec)

Electives Electives

6 3 3

ID4330

NPE Electives Electives

3 3 3 15 15

15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

Intake September


GPS Generic and Professional Skills

JMP Joint Master Project

C&C Context & Conceptualisation

CRinNPD Customer Research in NPD

BPS Brand & Product Strategy

NPC New Product Commercialisation

DSP Design Strategy Project

SRP SPD Research Project

SRM SPD Research Methodology

SVD Strategic Value of Design

NPE New Product Economics

LSD Leading Strategic Design


Appendix 5: Quantitative data regarding the programmes Data on intake, transfers and graduates Design for Interaction Intake number and composition

Andere universiteiten Jaar

Eigen universiteit NL HBO Buiten HO Totaal Mannen Vrouwen

03/ 04 7 1 0 4 12 4 8 04/ 05 22 0 0 6 28 13 15 05/ 06 42 2 0 3 47 14 33 06/ 07 82 6 1 8 97 35 62 07/ 08 115 7 3 14 139 70 69 08/ 09 66 10 7 15 98 49 49 09/ 10 64 8 3 31 106 58 48 10/ 11 75 15 2 17 109 55 54 11/ 12 29 6 0 26 61 27 34

Total number of registered students

Ingeschrevenen Cohort

Totaal Mannen Vrouwen

03/ 04 6 3 3 04/ 05 23 10 13 05/ 06 50 20 30 06/ 07 98 31 67 07/ 08 124 54 70 08/ 09 200 97 103 09/ 10 242 111 131 10/ 11 282 144 138 11/ 12 259 135 124 12/ 13 247 129 118

Duration of study for Master’s students

Eigen universiteit

Andere universiteit NL

HBO Buiten HO

Afstudeer-cohort

Geslaagd

abs

Duur opl.

gem in

mnd

Geslaagd

abs

Duur opl.

gem in

mnd

Geslaagd

abs

Duur opl.

gem in

mnd

Geslaagd

abs

Duur opl.

gem in

mnd

04/ 05 1 12 1 24 05/ 06 8 13 1 35 4 28 06/ 07 59 16 6 25 07/ 08 53 15 1 26 3 26 08/ 09 42 19 4 31 11 25 09/ 10 57 28 4 28 11 28 10/ 11 65 29 7 31 7 36 14 25 11/ 12 54 33 12 29 3 43 25 28


Duration of studies at TUD Eigen

universiteit Andere

universiteit NL HBO Buiten HO

Afstudeer-cohort

Aantal

geslaagd

Verblijfs-d

uur

(gem) in

maanden

Aantal

geslaagd

Verblijfs-d

uur

(gem) in

maanden

Aantal

geslaagd

Verblijfs-d

uur

(gem) in

maanden

Aantal

geslaagd

Verblijfs-d

uur

(gem) in

maanden

04/ 05 1 48 1 24 05/ 06 8 78 1 35 4 28 06/ 07 59 83 6 25 07/ 08 53 84 1 26 3 26 08/ 09 42 84 4 31 11 25 09/ 10 57 84 4 28 11 28 10/ 11 65 87 7 31 7 36 14 25 11/ 12 54 84 12 29 3 43 25 28

Number of graduated students per year

Cohort Totaal

04/ 05 2 05/ 06 13 06/ 07 65 07/ 08 57 08/ 09 57 09/ 10 72 10/ 11 93 11/ 12 94

Integrated Product Design Intake number and composition



03/ 04 24 0 0 5 29 15 14 04/ 05 44 1 0 8 53 33 20 05/ 06 78 2 1 8 89 53 36 06/ 07 172 3 0 17 192 130 62 07/ 08 152 6 10 16 184 143 41 08/ 09 77 0 10 21 108 83 25 09/ 10 98 4 6 18 126 100 26 10/ 11 99 2 2 22 125 91 34 11/ 12 40 2 4 25 71 48 23



Ingeschrevenen Cohort

Totaal Mannen Vrouwen

03/ 04 13 10 3 04/ 05 58 33 25 05/ 06 95 59 36 06/ 07 158 103 55 07/ 08 225 153 72 08/ 09 316 238 78 09/ 10 303 234 69 10/ 11 307 242 65 11/ 12 316 241 75 12/ 13 350 255 95

Duration of study for Master’s students

Afstudeer

-cohort

Geslaagd

absoluut

Duur opl.

gem in

mnd

Geslaagd

absoluut

Duur opl.

gem in

mnd

Geslaagd

absoluut

Duur opl.

gem in

mnd

Geslaagd

absoluut

Duur opl.

gem in

mnd

04/ 05 7 14 05/ 06 51 18 5 27 06/ 07 86 13 6 33 07/ 08 84 17 10 27 08/ 09 93 21 3 29 12 27 09/ 10 87 30 3 30 6 32 13 26 10/ 11 65 32 2 40 7 34 21 30 11/ 12 74 35 3 40 8 39 20 27

Duration of studies at TUD

Eigen universiteit Andere


Afstudeer-cohort

Aantal

geslaagd

Verblijfs-

duur (gem)

in maanden

Aantal

geslaagd

Verblijfs-

duur (gem)

in maanden

Aantal

geslaagd

Verblijfs-

duur (gem)

in maanden

Aantal

geslaagd

Verblijfs-

duur (gem)

in maanden

04/ 05 7 65 05/ 06 51 65 5 27 06/ 07 86 79 6 33 07/ 08 84 81 10 27 08/ 09 93 81 3 29 12 27 09/ 10 87 86 3 30 6 32 13 26 10/ 11 65 83 2 40 7 34 21 30 11/ 12 74 84 3 40 8 39 20 27

Number of graduated students per year

Cohort Totaal Cohort Totaal

04/ 05 7 08/ 09 108 05/ 06 56 09/ 10 109 06/ 07 92 10/ 11 95 07/ 08 94 11/ 12 105


Strategic Product Design Intake number and composition



03/ 04 10 0 0 1 11 4 7 04/ 05 21 0 0 3 24 10 14 05/ 06 25 1 0 11 37 19 18 06/ 07 70 3 2 21 96 44 52 07/ 08 104 3 9 23 139 76 63 08/ 09 53 11 3 24 91 46 45 09/ 10 55 9 1 25 90 49 41 10/ 11 78 4 1 27 110 66 44 11/ 12 36 9 0 31 76 34 42


Ingeschrevenen

Totaal mannen vrouwen

4 0 4 19 6 13 47 22 25 87 44 43

137 64 73 195 100 95 222 113 109 242 129 113 247 143 104 251 148 103

Duration of study



Afstudeer-cohort

Geslaagd

absoluut

Duur opl.

gem in

mnd

Geslaagd

absoluut

Duur opl.

gem in

mnd

Geslaagd

absoluut

Duur opl.

gem in

mnd

Geslaagd

absoluut

Duur opl.

gem in

mnd

05/ 06 19 16 06/ 07 40 15 7 24 07/ 08 48 13 1 26 14 26 08/ 09 46 21 1 35 19 26 09/ 10 52 26 4 29 5 34 21 26 10/ 11 52 29 9 28 4 43 20 29 11/ 12 40 29 7 33 2 39 29 28


Duration of studies at TUD



Afstudeer-cohort

Aantal

geslaagd

Verblijfs-d

uur

(gem) in

maanden

Aantal

geslaagd

Verblijfs-d

uur

(gem) in

maanden

Aantal

geslaagd

Verblijfs-d

uur

(gem) in

maanden

Aantal

geslaagd

Verblijfs-d

uur

(gem) in

maanden

5/ 06 19 64 06/ 07 40 73 7 24 07/ 08 48 79 1 26 14 26 08/ 09 46 78 1 35 19 26 09/ 10 52 85 4 29 5 34 21 26 10/ 11 52 82 9 28 4 43 20 29 11/ 12 40 84 7 33 2 39 29 28

Total number of graduated students

Cohort Totaal

05/ 06 19 06/ 07 47 07/ 08 63 08/ 09 66 09/ 10 82 10/ 11 85 11/ 12 78

Teacher-student ratio achieved

Number of staff per function group

Function Group FTE Total number Number with a PhD

Professor 19.3 30 22 Associate professor 15 21 20 Assistant professor 42.45 52 37 PhD candidate 64.2 102 - Teacher 30.6 47 3 Researcher 22.7 39 5 Total 194,25 291 87

FTE

IDE employees 51 Guest teachers 9 Teachers at other faculties (e.g. mathematics and mechanics)

2

Student assistants 6

Based on all the faculty’s academic staff (in FTE), the staff-student ration is 1 to 10.


Average amount of face-to-face instruction per stage of the study programme General master courses

Design for Interaction Course code

Course name EC Contact hours

Teaching method

Examination

ID4210 Product Use Understanding and Experience

6 26 Lectures Assignments

Essays (individual)

ID4216 Context and Conceptualisation


Poster (group) Proposal (individual) Paper (individual) Team assessment (individual) Written exam (individual)

ID4250 Project Exploring Interactions

9 52 Lectures Workshop Project

Project portfolio (individual: report, concept, concept prototype, presentations)

ID4220 Interactive Technology Design

6 58 Lectures Master classes Reflective practice Building a prototype

Project portfolio (group: report, blog, presentations, poster, movie, concept prototype)

ID4265 DfI Research Methodology


Participation (individual) Seminar and presentation (group) Assignments (individual)

ID4230 Visual Communication Design


Assignments (group)

ID4256 Project Usability and User eXperience Assessment in Design

12 35 Lectures Workshops Presentations Peer evaluation

Project portfolio (group; reports, paper, interactive prototype, short movie)

ID4235 Reflection on Designing

3 14 Lectures Presentations

Essay (individual) Assignments (individual)

Course code


Teaching method

Examination

ID4x00 Generic and Professional Skills

3 40 Lectures Workshops

Assignments (GPS1, GPS2: group; GPS3 individual)

ID4010 Design Theory and Methodology

3 18 Lectures Seminars Assignments

Assignments (group) Peer review (individual)

ID4050 Internationalisation 3 12 Lectures Assignments

Report (group) Written exam (individual)

ID4045 Joint Master Project

12 22 Lecture Project

Project portfolio (group) Presentation (group) Report (group)

ID4297 Graduation Project 33 20 Project Project portfolio (individual)


Integrated Product Design

Course code


Teaching method

Examination

ID4170 Advanced Concept Design

21 151 Assignments Q&A sessions Lectures Practicals Project Reflective practice

Drawings portfolio (individual) Movie clip (individual) Papers (individual and group) Presentations (individual and group) Reports (individual and group) User research (individual) Written exam (individual)

ID4175 Advanced Embodiment Design

21

167 Assignments Q&A sessions Lectures Practicals Project Reflective practice

Presentations (group) Prototype (group) Peer review (individual) Reports (group) Assignments (group) Written exam (individual)

ID4180 Managing Product Innovation

3 19 Lectures Workshop Feedback sessions

Assignment (individual) Case report (individual) Design proposal pitch (individual)

ID4185 Strategic & Sustainable Design

3 32 Lectures Feedback sessions

Case study (group) Peer review (individual) Reflections (individual)


Strategic Product Design

Course code


Teaching method

Examination

ID4216 Context and Conceptualisation


Poster (group) Proposal (individual) Paper (individual) Team assessment (individual) Written exam (individual)

ID4310 Brand and Product Strategy

6 32 Lecture Assignments Case study

Poster (group) Report (group)

ID4350 Design Strategy Project

6 48 Project Logbook Reflective practice

Presentation (group) Report (group)

ID4360 SPD Research Methodology

3 30 Lectures Tutorials Case studies

Essay (group) Written exam (individual)

ID4315 New Product Commercialisation

6 52 Lectures Case-Assignment Presentations


ID4321 Customer Research in NPD

6 42 Lectures Reflective practice Research project

Report (group) Presentations (group) Written exam (individual)

ID4355 SPD Research Project

6 15 Lectures Research project

Presentations (group) Paper (group)

ID4336 Leading Strategic Design

3 24 Fish bowls Case- Assignment

Reports (individual and group) Presentations (group) Written exam (individual)

ID4340 Strategic Value of Design

3 28 Lectures Case- Assignment


ID4330 New Product Economics

3 16 Lectures Case study



Appendix 6: Programme of the site visit Programme IDE Assessment site visit 20-22 November 2013 All meetings are in workshop room R (ground floor), unless stated otherwise Wednesday 20 November 14.00 – 16.00 Introduction meeting, looking at materials

16.00 – 17.00 Management Prof.ir. M.A. (Ena) Voûte

Dean of the IDE faculty

Prof.dr. J.P.L. (Jan) Schoormans

Director of Education

Ir. H. (Henk) Kuipers

Bachelor programme coordinator

Prof.dr.ir. P.M.A. (Pieter) Desmet

Master programme coordinator of Design for Interaction

Dr.ir. A.J. (Arjen) Jansen

Master programme coordinator of Integrated Product Design

Dr.ir. F.E.H.M. (Frido) Smulders

Master programme coordinator of Strategic Product Design

Drs. E.D. (Ellen) Bos

Head of the Department Educational and Student Affairs

17.00 – 17.15 Break 17.15 – 17.45 Alumni

Ir. E. (Elly) Doek, graduated SPD Master programme 10-7-2009, currently working at Sunidee (marketing consultancy) in Amsterdam

Ir. F. (Frans) van Duijnen, graduated SPD Master programme 26-8-2010, currently working at TheLight Interactive Solutions in Delft

Ir. A.R. (Astrid) Koekoek, graduated IPD Master programme 1-6-2011, currently working at Mampaey Offshore Industries in The Hague

Ir. H.P. (Hans) Ruitenberg, graduated DfI Master programme 3-6-2010, currently working at ICE Mobile in Amsterdam

Ir. R.R. (René) Smeets, graduated IPD Master programme 1-2-2013, currently working at Kinetic Vision in Delft

Ir. B.M.T. (Beatrijs) Voorneman, graduated DfI Master programme 21-1-2011, currently working at KDV Reframing (design consultancy) in Amsterdam

18.15 Dinner


Thursday 21 November 9.00 – 9.45 Students Bachelor programme E.M.P. (Esther) Bosman, second year student

K.R. (Koen) Fraijman second year student

S.G. (Stefan) van der Heijden third year student

M.D.B. (Max) Hoeboer second year student

L.M. (Lotte) Salome third year student

9.45 - 10.30 Staff Bachelor programme

Dr.ir. C.A. (Conny) Bakker

Coordinator of the minor Sustainable Design Engineering

Ir. S. (Sijia) Bakker-Wu

Coordinator of first year course Business, Culture and Technology

Ir. E.J.J. (Ernest) van Breemen

Coordinator of first year course Product in Action and Bachelor Final Project

Ir. S.G. (Stefan) van de Geer

Coordinator of second year course PD4, coordinator of Bachelor Honours Programme

E.J. (Erik) Jepma

Coordinator of third year course Design and Cultural Impact

Ir. C.P.J.M. (Caroline) Kroon

Coach in PD-courses (Guest teacher)

Dr. Y. (Wolf) Song

Coordinator of second year course Modelling

Ir. J. (Jelle) Zijlstra

Coach in PD-courses, coordinator of third year elective course Design Didactics

10.30 – 11.00 Break 11.00 – 11.45 Students Master programme Integrated Product Design J. (Joep) Everaers

Started the Master IPD programme in 2012-2013

M. (Mariet) Sauerwein


N.N. (Nathalia) Scheele


A.L. (Aimee) van der Schoor Started the Master IPD programme in 2012-2013

S. (Shahil) Wadhwa Started the Master IPD programme in 2012-2013


11.45 – 12.30 Staff Master programme Integrated Product Design Dr.ir. A. (Armaĝan) Albayrak

Coordinator of fall semester course Advanced Concept Design

Ir. M.C. (Marijke) Dekker

Represents the area of expertise of Ergonomics in the courses

Dr.ir. S.F.J. (Bas) Flipsen

Represents the area of expertise of Technology in the courses

Dr. MSC E. (Elvin) Karana

Coordinator of spring semester course Advanced Embodiment Design

Prof.dr. T.R.A. (Timo) de Rijk

Represents the area of expertise of Design and Culture in the courses

Dr.ir. R. (Renee) Wever Coordinator of fall semester course Strategic & Sustainable Design

12.30 – 13.30 Lunch (room C-4-050) 13.30 - 14.15 Students Master programme Design for Interaction J.W. (Janna) Alberts

Started the Master DfI programme in 2013-2014; the IPD programme in 2011-2012

F.F.M. (Kiki) den Blanken Started the Master DfI programme in 2012-2013

R.G. (Roderick) Huijgen Started the Master DfI programme in 2011-2012

L. (Lorenzo) Romagnoli Started the Master DfI programme in 2011-2012

M. (Maik) de Rooij Started the Master DfI programme in 2012-2013

J.Y (Jennifer) Wong Started the Master DfI programme in 2012-2013

14.15 – 15.00 Staff Master programme Design for Interaction

Dr. T. (Theo) Boersema

Coordinator of the spring semester course Project Usability and User Experience Assessment in

Design

Dr. S.U. (Stella) Boess

Coordinator of the fall semester course Project Exploring Interactions

Prof.dr. P.P.M. (Paul) Hekkert

Coordinator of the fall semester course Product Understanding, Use & Experience

Ing. A.J.C. (Aadjan) van der Helm

Coordinator of the spring semester course Interactive Technology Design

Dr.ing. A.E. (Anna) Pohlmeyer

Coach in Project Exploring Interactions, Coordinator of the elective Design for Happiness

Dr.ir. M.H. (Marieke) Sonneveld

Coordinator of the fall semester course Reflection on Designing, coordinator of Shared programme

course GPS (week 3 preparations for graduation)

Prof.dr. P.J. (Pieter Jan) Stappers

Coordinator of the fall semester course Context and Conceptualisation


15.00 – 15.30 Break 15.30 – 16.15 Students Master programme Strategic Product Design V. (Vivian) Baas

Started the Master SPD programme in 2012 -2013

E.M. (Eva) Frese

Started the Master SPD programme in 2011-2012

A. (Andrei) Ganci


J.W. (Jaap) Norbruis


P.A.J. (Pieter) Vegt


M. (Mar) Solé Boledo


16.15 – 17.00 Staff Master programme Strategic Product Design

Prof.dr.ir. J.A. (Jan) Buijs

Coordinator of fall semester courses Design Strategy Project, Brand and Product Strategy

Dr. G. (Giulia) Calabretta

Coordinator of the spring semester course Strategic Value of Design

Dr. C.M. (Carlos) Coimbra Cardoso

Coordinator of the shared programme course Design Theory and Methodology

Prof.dr. H.J. (Erik-Jan) Hultink

Represents the area of expertise of Marketing and Consumer Research in the courses

Dr.ir. L. (Linda) Kester

Coordinator of the fall semester course New Product Economics

Ir.MDM. E. (Erik) Roscam Abbing MSc

Coordinator of fall semester courses Design Strategy Project, Brand and Product Strategy

Dr. M.C. (Maria) Sääksjärvi

Coordinator of spring semester course SPD Research Project

17.00 – 17.30 Compose findings 18.00 Dinner


Friday 22 November 9.00 – 9.45 Programme committee (OKIO) and Faculty’s Student Council (FSC)

Ir. I.A. (Iemkje) Ruiter

Staff member, Chair of OKIO, teaching in Bachelor programme

Dr. M.E.H. (Marielle) Creusen

Staff member of OKIO, teaching in Master programme SPD

Dr. I.J. (Ingrid) Mulder

Staff member of OKIO, teaching in Master programme DfI

S. (Sam) van Eijk

Student member of OKIO

B.A. (Bianca) Koppen


A.J. (Alexander) Weiss A.J.


F.S. (Simone) de Jong

Representative of FSC

E. (Eline) van Weelden

Representative of FSC

9.45 – 10.45 Board of Examiners and student counsellors

Dr.ir. J.F.M. (Johan) Molenbroek

Chair of the Board, teaching in Master programme IPD and Bachelor programme

Ir. J.J.A.M. (Joop) van Eijk

Secretary of the Board of Examiners

G.N. (Ger) Bruens

Member of the Executive Committee (kEC), teaching in Bachelor programme and Master

programmes

Ir. E.J.J. (Ernest) van Breemen

Teaching in Bachelor programme and Master programme IPD

Dr.ir. S.C. (Sylvia) Mooij

Teaching in Bachelor programme and Master programme SPD

Dr.ir. G.J. (Gert) Pasman

Teaching in Bachelor programme and Master programme DfI

Ir. J.C. (Hanneke) Thieme

Student Counsellor

Ir. W.M. (Willemine) Biemond

Student Counsellor

10.45 – 11.30 Conducted tour by I.R (Ivo) Salters, student graduating in the Master

programmes DfI and SPD

11.30 – 13.30 Open hour / Preparations of final meeting / Lunch at room C-4-050


13.30 – 14.30 Final meeting with Management Prof.ir. M.A. (Ena) Voûte

Dean of the IDE faculty

Prof.dr. J.P.L. (Jan) Schoormans

Director of Education

Ir. H. (Henk) Kuipers

Bachelor programme coordinator

Prof.dr.ir. P.M.A. (Pieter) Desmet

Master programme coordinator of Design for Interaction

Dr.ir. A.J. (Arjen) Jansen

Master programme coordinator of Integrated Product Design

Dr.ir. F.E.H.M. (Frido) Smulders

Master programme coordinator of Strategic Product Design

Drs. E.D. (Ellen) Bos

Head of the Department Educational and Student Affairs

14.30 – 16.00 Compose preliminary findings 16.00 Verbal explanation of preliminary assessments (in Wim Crouwel room)


Appendix 7: Theses and documents studied by the committee Prior to the site visit, the committee studied the theses of the students with the following student numbers: Design for Interaction 4188063 4120876 1305239 1172115

4117662 4072936 4052757 1265040

1029851 1305123 4032144

Integrated Product Design 1355414 1305271 4041070 4141628

1304895 1369105 4049292 1171828

1305069 1285505 1526375

Strategic Product Design 4123468 1400843 1259709 1355139

4118766 4073401 4039564 4052528

4121325 1220012 1561367

During the site visit, the committee studied, among other things, the following documents (partly as hard copies, partly via the institute’s electronic learning environment): Courses Bachelor:

• 1042 Design and experience

• 1082 Research and design

• 2031 Strategic product innovation

• 2081 Modelling

• 3020 Design and cultural impact

• 3050 Mechatronics Courses Masters:

• 4010 Design theory and methodology

• 4175 Advanced embodiment design

• 4230 Visual communication design

• 4256 Project usability and user experience assessment in design (one example with note achieved, so that we can assess the level required)

• 4350 Design strategy project (one example with note achieved)

• 4310 Brand and product design


Appendix 8: Declarations of independence

Industrial Design - NVAO TUD wo... · QANU /Industrial Design, Delft University of Technology 3...

Documents

Transcript of Industrial Design - NVAO TUD wo... · QANU /Industrial Design, Delft University of Technology 3...