Mechanical Engineering 310 Global Team-Based Design Innovation with Corporate ... It is a core course for many students pursuing a Mechanical Engineering Master's .... Examples there are systems like Smart Bed and Car Door projects.
13
Classifying Student Engineering Design Project Types Micah Lande and Larry Leifer Center for Design Research Stanford University Abstract Mechanical Engineering 310 is a graduate-level product-learning-based mechanical engineering design course at Stanford University that takes its project prompts from sponsoring companies in industry. In the past 30 years, over 325 projects have been presented and worked on by students teams. The nature of these projects has shifted over time from Manufacturing-focused and Test/Tool-focused projects to standalone Product-focused and Human-centered design products and systems. This paper classifies project types and characterizes maps this change over time. Introduction Mechanical Engineering 310 Global Team-Based Design Innovation with Corporate Partners is a year-long, graduate-level product-based learning1 engineering design course based at Stanford University. It is a core course for many students pursuing a Mechanical Engineering Master’s Degree with an emphasis on Design Theory and Methodology. The course has projects sponsored by industry and pairs up teams of students at Stanford with similar teams of students at other global universities. Most students come from an undergraduate experience in Mechanical Engineering. As part of their ABET-approved programs they experienced a capstone design course2 allowing them to synthesize what they learned in their programs. For researchers at the Center for Design Research at Stanford University, ME310 has long been a laboratory and test bed for design research.3 Much study has been devoted to how designers design, how they work in teams and tools that can help along the way. Forerunners of ME310 (also labeled ME210, E210, E310) date back, in its current form, to at least 1972. CDR was established in 1985 and research in ME310 has been going on near 25 years. Technology and the expanding appreciation of what design and design thinking can tackle has changed the scope and type of engineering design projects worked on in the course. This paper classifies project types and characterizes this change over time. Corporate Project Prompts as a Start The yearly slate of projects offered in ME310 are wholly dependent on companies from industry proposing and underwriting project proposals. A dedicated course developer solicits and manages the process. Faculty and staff help edit project prompts for scope and appropriateness to the course pedagogy. Student teams are presented with the array of possible topics, rank their choices and are then assigned to them in a satisficing4 approach. The course is structured to give student teams both the time and freedom to explore their problem-solution space and a safe support system from which to learn how to step through a
Proceedings of the 2009 American Society for Engineering Education Pacific Southwest Regional Conference
14
design process. Weekly meetings with the course faculty and teaching assistants as well as having a paired industry coach help teams progress. Course milestones are geared towards hands-on prototyping early and students are pushed to work collaboratively with their design team counterparts globally. Documentation and Pre-Production Prototype as a Finish Assessment of work is heavily weighted on documentation produced throughout the academic year as evidence of the students’ thinking. A final report of a couple hundred pages is generated in the spring and includes the design problem, requirements, design development and specifications for the end solution. It is prototyped by precursors in the fall and winter. Student teams have project funds of at least $15,000 and oftentimes outsource part of the fabrication or finish of their final system. The expectation is that their engineered deliverable be a pre-production prototype – a proof of concept that functions as desired with a lot of consideration as to how it would be manufactured. Types of Projects For a mechanical engineering course, understandably, much of what is produced is a physical, tangible artifact. There are oftentimes components or whole sub-systems that are not mechanical designed but rather include software or mechatronics. Mabogunje5 examined ME310 projects in the 1991-1992 and 1992-1993 course cycles. He was able to define 3 types of projects: manufacturing process driven machine design, product driven machine design, and a hybrid of the two, a mixed product and process driven machine design (Table 1). Table 1 Types of ME310 Projects by Mabogunje5 Manufacturing process driven machine design……....... Mixed product & process driven machine design…....... Product driven machine design…………………….......
Coding Schema used here Manufacturing Process Test/ Tool for Assessment Product Human-centered design products
Historically this has been able to capture the distribution of project types. With a rise in a humancentered design approach, industry seeking design to solve a wider range of problems and more future-oriented projects, there is a need to introduce a new category of projects that go past the systems optimization and system design but take readily into account the presence of a user engaged in the designed system. It is then necessary to add the category of “Human-centered design products” on top of those that deal mostly with manufacturing process, tests/ tools for assessment and standalone products.
Proceedings of the 2009 American Society for Engineering Education Pacific Southwest Regional Conference
15
Mapping to Ways of Thinking Framework Previous attempts by the authors to classify student activities in the ME310 course has produced a working framework modeling “Ways of Thinking”6 accessed by engineering students. As shown in Figure 1, it is visually represented as a matrix showing relative position of Design Thinking, Engineering Thinking, Production Thinking, and Future Thinking. Along the Y-axis is a spectrum of incremental innovation to “breakthrough innovation.”7 Along the X-axis it is measured in time, short-term to long-term. The activity of Design Thinking8 can be to “solve a problem” with the end results being an “idea” created. For Engineering Thinking9 10 “making a solution” results in an “artifact or stuff.” Production Thinking11 allows for the “remaking of a solution” with the results being “facsimiles of stuff” or plans by which to make copies. Future Thinking12 allows one to “reset the problem” with the outcome being a “question.” Human
Product
Manufacturing
Tool
Figure 1 Ways of Thinking Framework for Engineering Design Projects This maps very closely to the Manufacturing – Test – Product – Human-centered design product coding schema. Figure 1 highlights where these descriptions fall on the “Ways of Thinking” framework. Results in Classifying Projects A survey of 30 years of ME310 projects from AY 1978 to AY 2008 was made. (For the purposes of simplicity academic years are noted by the ending year. AY 2008-2009, for example, would be noted at 2009.) The project title presented at the end of the year was noted and collated. A qualitative coding scheme (listed in Table 1) was applied to classify these projects for their emphasis on a) manufacturing process, b) a test or tool for assessment, c) stand alone product and d) a human-centered product. Over this time period there were 329 projects with the lowest number of project in any year being 5 (in 1978) and the highest number being 16 (in 1988). The average number of project per year was approximately 11. The distribution of project types is shown in Table 2.
Proceedings of the 2009 American Society for Engineering Education Pacific Southwest Regional Conference
16
Table 2 Distribution of Project Type by Year
Year 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 total
Manufacturing Process 1 2 1 3 2 3 4 2 3 3 3 3 3 5 3 2 4 1
Test/ Tool for Assessment 2 4 3 2 5 4 6 7 5 7 9 3 6 4 3 4 4 4 6 4 2 1 1
1
1
1
Product 3 1 4 6 2 1 2 3 6 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 9 6 5 10 6 8 7 7 7 6 9 8 4 4 6
Humancentered design product
1
2
6 7 4
Total 5 6 9 9 10 7 11 14 13 14 16 11 13 12 13 12 15 14 13 14 8 9 8 8 9 6 9 9 10 11 11 329
To better visualize the shifting pattern over time the data table was graphed and color coded. In Figure 2 below, from bottom to top in each column, are noted Human-centered design (blue), product (red), test (yellow) and manufacturing (green) projects. The share of projects has shifted over the years. Manufacturing-focused projects have become less common and Human-centered design projects more so. Tool-focused project have also declined while Product-focused projects have grown slightly and fluctuated in recent years.
Proceedings of the 2009 American Society for Engineering Education Pacific Southwest Regional Conference
17
16
14
12
number of projects
Manufacturing 10
8
Tool 6
Product 4
2
Human
0 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 Human Projects
Product Projects
Tool Project
Manufacturing Projects
Figure 2 Distribution of Project Types from 1978-2008 ME310 courses As way of further illustration, Table 3 shows example project content from 3 years of different eras: 1979, 1999, 2006. Table 3 Selected ME310 Project Content (1979, 1999, 2006) Projects from 1979 Design steam leak measurement system High-speed Kevlar wrapper Arm ergometer Low-cost facsimile printer Universal gas seal Robotic arm controller
Projects from 1999 Driver scanning automatic car door Innovative composite crutch Key fob Smart bed Parallel parking assistive system Shift simulator Power expendable towing mirror Inspection device for detection of contaminated blades
Projects from 2006 Artificial car co-pilot Spherical image display Enhancing passenger communication Intuitive remote control Reinventing rear seat entertainment Future blood glucose meters Making air conditioning personal Tactile touch screen Car shifting system Wireless power steering
Projects from 1979 have a propensity of Manufacturing and Test projects. Project titles have terms like “low cost” and “high speed.” Projects selected from 1999 still mostly fall into Product projects. Examples there are systems like Smart Bed and Car Door projects. Projects from 2006 more recently show a human-centered Design approach. There are still a small number of Tool projects like Car Shifting System or pulling power wirelessly from a steering wheel, but most are
Proceedings of the 2009 American Society for Engineering Education Pacific Southwest Regional Conference
18
with a project centered on people in a car. An interesting thing to note for future exploration is the number of Product and human-centered Design focused projects that ask students to look into the future for the solution space or technology solutions. These include the role of the Artificial Copilot of 2020, Future Blood Glucose Meter and an example of a future display spherical surface. Figure 3 shows the gross distribution of project types within these example years of 1979, 1999 and 2006.
Manufacturing Product
Tool
Tool
Human Projects
Human
Product Projects
Tool
Tool Project
Product
Product
1999
2006
Manufacturing Projects
1979
Figure 3 Distribution of Project Types by Percentage from 1979, 1999 and 2006 Example Years
Conclusions and Next Steps This survey classification of past projects is helpful to get at the gross trends over a number of years. It is instructive and informative to see patterns in the focus of project prompts from industry for student work. Being more mindful of the evolving types of projects pursued is helpful. This is tempered by both an awareness and concern that established pedagogies for Manufacturing-focused projects is different than for Product-focused and user-centered Design-focused projects. Questions arise too then about the student’s steps through the design process. Is the process different for projects of different types and how so? The question is left unaddressed here. In this analysis where ME310 projects end up has been captured but the company prompt and where the student teams have taken the projects is not matched. The next step is to closely examine more complete records from sets of projects to understand the relationship. It’s useful to define and characterize such variables as the types of projects posed in courses like ME310 in order to be more explicit and reasonable about the expectations from the student, faculty and industry sponsor perspectives. Acknowledgements This work was supported by the HPI-Stanford Design Thinking Research Program.
Proceedings of the 2009 American Society for Engineering Education Pacific Southwest Regional Conference
19
Bibliography 1.
Prince, MJ, RM Felder, “Inductive Teaching and Learning Methods: Definitions, Comparisons, and Research Bases,” Journal of Engineering Education, April 1995, pp. 165-174. 2. Dutson, AJ, RH Todd, SP Magleby, CD Sorensen, RH Todd, “A Review of Literature on Teaching Engineering Design Through Project-Oriented Capstone Courses,” Journal of Engineering Education, January 1997, pp. 1728. 3. Ju, W, L Neeley, L Leifer, “Design, Design & Design; An overview of Stanford's Center for Design Research, Position paper for Workshop on Exploring Design as a Research Activity,” CHI 2007, San Jose, California. 4. Simon, HA, Models of Man: Social and Rational. New York: Wiley. 1957. 5. Mabogunje, A, Measuring Mechanical Design Process Performance: A Question Based Approach, Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University, 1997. 6. Lande, M and L Leifer. “Design Steps of Engineering Students Learning to Be Designers”, American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Austin, Texas, June 14-17, 2009. (in submission) 7. Stefik, M, and B Stefik, Breakthrough: Stories and Strategies of Radical Innovation: MIT Press, 2004. 8. Dym, C, Sheppard, S, Agogino, A, Leifer, L, Frey, D, Eris, O, “Engineering Design Thinking, Teaching, and Learning,” Journal of Engineering Education, 2005. 9. Robinson, JA, “Engineering Thinking and Rhetoric,” Journal of Engineering Education, 1998. 10. Cardella, ME, Engineering Mathematics: an Investigation of Students' Mathematical Thinking from a Cognitive Engineering Perspective, Thesis (Ph. D.) University of Washington, 2006. 11. Ishii, K, Introduction to Design for Manufacturability (DFM) ME317 class notes, Stanford University, 2005. 12. Saffo, P, “Six Rules for Effective Forecasting,” Harvard Business Review Vol. 85, No. 7/8, 2007, pp. 122.
Proceedings of the 2009 American Society for Engineering Education Pacific Southwest Regional Conference
