and Entrepreneurial Mindset. Bahram Roughani & Randall Jones | Department of Physics | Loyola University Maryland | Baltimore, MD, 21210. Introduction.
Bridging Scientific Thinking with Innovation and Entrepreneurial Mindset Bahram Roughani & Randall Jones | Department of Physics | Loyola University Maryland | Baltimore, MD, 21210
Introduction
User Innovation
Technical Innovation & Entrepreneurship:
•
A new course on Technical Innovation and Entrepreneurship that is cross listed by Physics, Engineering, and Computer Science departments at Loyola University Maryland is aiming to enhance the entrepreneurial mindset of science and engineering majors by building a connection between scientific thinking and Innovation and Entrepreneurship (I&E). Two examples of topics in this course presented here are: • Topic 1 – User Innovation: Creating personal context for I&E learning. • Topic 2 – Design Thinking: Creating human context for I&E learning by connecting scientific approach and “Technical Feasibility” with “Human Desirability” & “Economical Viability”. Other elements of this course (not presented here) include guest speakers, visiting startups, a team project (50% of course grade) with a presentation, and a report comprised of a business plan with a Business Model Canvas, commercialization ideas, patent search and a financial and commercialization plan. The final exam is in form of a presentation in shark tank format.
Background The Physics program at Loyola University Maryland is involved in two closely related I&E initiatives. The Technical Innovation and Entrepreneurship course serves both initiatives as described below: • Pathways to Innovation: Three departments (Physics, Engineering, and CS) are collaborating in a Pathways initiative. The Pathways to Innovation Program, created and run by Epicenter in collaboration with VentureWell and supported by NSF.
Physics & Design Thinking Case Study:
Step 4: Explore who else might have the same problem, by: • Determining other groups of people who may share their problem.
KickStart:
• Selecting one of these groups to interview and learn more about.
• Uses Farmer-centered design to develop irrigation products in Kenya.
• Analyzing the data, and indicating lessons learned from interviews.
• Mass-produces high quality pumps for large-scale distribution.
• Developing a self-assessment tool to use to refine Step 4. • Step 5: Reimagine (co-forming) the problem statement & solution, by: • Restating the problem based on lessons learned so far. • Presenting the description of the solution in more depth based on the lessons learned.
• Optimizes a private-sector supply chain for pumps & spare parts in Africa • Promotes and mass-markets the pumps to farmers & organizations working with farmers. • Measures the impacts of the pumps on the lives of farmers to refine and improve.
• Determining how proposed solution may reach others. • Developing a self-assessment tool to use to refine Step 5 . • Step 6: Innovation Diffusion: Based on the proposed solution decide: • Would you diffuse your innovation? If yes, would this be Peer-to-Peer, Via the Market, or both? • How to enhance the chances of success for diffusing the innovation? • Seek feedback by asking for a peer assessment using rubric provided and include results to refine and improve Step 6. • Step 7: Provide a Reflection: User Innovation reflection should address:
Adding Human Contexts by Connecting Physics with Design Thinking Physics of KickStart: Students are asked to conduct a feasibility study to find out whether an irrigation system such as Kickstart is technically feasible. • The technical feasibility studies include work-energy calculations
• Dealing with ambiguity in an open ended problem: It is a “messy problem” that requires making assumptions and asking question such as: • What is the area of the farm? • How much water (cm/m2) is needed per season based on the crops being grown?.
• Why and how is democratizing innovation happening?
• What volume of water must be pumped each day?
• Which of these forces is most relevant for you?
• What is the height difference between the water source and the farm?
• Ask for a peer assessment using rubric provided and include results to refine and improve Step 7.
• How much energy is needed each day to lift the required amount of water? • How much energy can one put into pumping water using a foot pump?
• The PIPELINE Network: PIPELINE is a three year (2016-2019) NSF supported project bringing together the efforts of six universities and the American Physical Society to create and document new approaches to teaching innovation and entrepreneurship in physics.
User Innovation
To guide students through a discovery process about user innovation with strong personal context, they are asked to complete the following 7-step exercise: •
Step 1: Identify 10 problems: These are problems they've faced in life, or they personally care about. •
•
Step 2: Top 3: students refine the list of 10 problems to 3 discrete problems based on what they care about the most. •
•
`
Then using a rubric, students conduct a self- assessment to determine whether problems stated are specific, occur frequently, and/or are painful.
Then using a rubric, students conduct a self-assessment about Step 2 exercise.
Step 3: Matching Skills with problems: to select which problem to solve: • Students Conduct a self-assessment of their skills • Select a problem to solve from the list of their top 3 problems based on how best it is suited to their skills. • Students frame the problem they are solving. • Students are asked to develop a self-assessment rubric (based on experience from step 1 & 2) & use it to refine step 3 results.
Top 10 “Needs” or Problems
Top 3 “Needs” or Problems
Skills & the problem to solve
Reframe the problem & solution
Who else has this problem?
How to Diffuse?
• Is a human-operated pump technically feasible in this context? • Framing this using Design Thinking:
Reflections
• Is this solution Technically Feasible? • Does this meet Human Desirability criteria?
User Innovation Outcome Seven step user innovation approach resulted in: • All team projects of students in this course (9 total) each could be viewed as a “User Innovation” project, since each idea was proposed as a “need” by a student (as part of the Step 1 exercise). This allows students to be introduced to innovation based on a strong personal context. • An understanding about why would User Innovators ever give up their ideas for free? 1. Personal Development such as skills development, useful collaborations. 2. Access to mentors, information, I&E eco-systems 3. Satisfaction from contributing personal ideas to a greater social good 4. Social Rewards that may include networking, support, recognition & prestige
Business Viability
• Does this meet Financial Viability criteria?
Human Desirability
Technical Feasibility
References • Eric A. von Hippel “The Dominant Role of Users in the Scientific Instrument Innovation Process.” Research Policy 5, no. 3 (July 1976): 212–239. • Eric von Hippel “Democratizing Innovation”, The MIT Press (2005). • F Goldberg, V Otero, S Robinson, “Design principles for effective physics instruction: A case from physics and everyday thinking”- American journal of physics, 2010 - aapt.scitation.org • Frank Devitt, Peter Robbins, “Design, Thinking and Science”, Communications in Computer and Information Science · January 2013.
5. New Opportunities by being part of the ecosystem in the current economy 6. Financial Rewards that may include prizes, funding, and business opportunities
• “Wicked Problems in Design Thinking”, Richard Buchanan Design Issues Vol. 8, No. 2 (Spring, 1992), pp. 5-21
