IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 43, NO. 3, AUGUST 2000 343

Collaborative Teaching of Integrated ProductDevelopment: A Case Study

Larry E. Shirland and Jerrold C. Manock

Abstract—This paper presents a case study of a successfulcollaborative effort to design and implement a multidisciplinarycourse entitled integrated product development. It demonstratesthat cross-college collaboration among faculty is possible withlittle outside support or incentives. In this instance, the desire ofcolleagues from different disciplines to learn from each other wasa prime motivator. In addition to developing an actual productthat satisfies an identified need, an important part of the courseinvolves providing feedback to both the team and the individualas to how they are functioning and interacting. One way thisis accomplished is through an exercise called “crises design.”A post-mortem of this impromptu problem quickly introducesstudents to positive and negative aspects of their team dynamicwhile providing metrics for evaluating future team interaction.Individual team member metrics are provided throughout thesemester by summarizing the results of two peer reviews with thestudent. Specific examples of both these concepts are discussed.

Index Terms—Engineering education, integrated product devel-opment, multidisciplinary teams.

I. INTRODUCTION

A COMMON practice in modern manufacturing firms isto use multi-functional teams to design and develop new

products. This process, alternately referred to as concurrentdevelopment, requires the integration of engineering, mar-keting, finance, and production in order to minimize redesignand rework, thus ideally shortening the concept-to-deliverycycle. The means of achieving the objectives of concurrentengineering is often through the use of multidisciplinary teamsthat consider all aspects of interacting issues through the entireproduct life cycle [1].

There have been many successful product design applica-tions using multidisciplinary teams and concepts of concurrentengineering. One notable example was the development of anew four-wheel drive vehicle by Land Rover. It was brought tomarket in half the best time of other vehicles developed by thecompany. The chief executive of the company stated that theincrease in performance of the design team was due to a newfocus on “improving communication between all personnelhaving a role in the new design.” A multidisciplinary teamapproach allowed the removal of organizational boundariesthat often plague new product development. [2]. Additionalsuccesses can be found in [3]–[5].

While it is commonly recognized that practicing engineerscannot work in isolation designing a product without an appreci-

Manuscript received October 25, 1999; revised April 28, 2000.The authors are with the School of Business Administration, The University

of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405-0157 USA.Publisher Item Identifier S 0018-9359(00)07368-4.

ation of all aspects of product development, the question of howto effectively introduce, prior to graduation, an understanding ofthe process necessary to develop a successful product is moredifficult. Nuese [6] states that “An engineer or scientist is firstand foremost an individualist. He or she has been rewardedthroughout the school years for individual accomplishment. Inmany schools, teamwork has not only been avoided, it has beendiscouraged.” Furthermore, he notes that faculty are also prod-ucts of this system as they strive for publications and R&D con-tracts.

In order to educate future scientists, engineers, marketingmanagers, financial analysts, and others who will be involvedwith the development of new products in the 21st century, uni-versities must find ways to integrate a multidiscipline approachinto their curricula. Over the past few years, some universitieshave begun to address this issue. Notable examples of courses inthe area of integrated product development occur at The Massa-chusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, The Uni-versity of California at Berkley, Carnegie Mellon University,and Columbia University. The common approach at these uni-versities is to offer a course or a sequence of courses requiringanywhere from three to 12 academic credits. At The Universityof Vermont, a three-credit course entitled Integrated Product De-velopment that attempts to meet this vital need has been offeredfor eight years. This paper presents our experience in developingthis multidisciplinary course involving faculty from the Collegeof Engineering and Mathematics, and the School of BusinessAdministration.

II. BEGINNINGS

In 1992, a group of faculty from engineering, business, andstatistics, along with a local industrial design consultant, formeda “manufacturing interest group” to learn from each other andto determine if there were ways to share experiences and in-terests that could advance the research and teaching objectivesof the respective departments. After several months of informalmeetings and numerous discussions concerning student needs,it was recognized that one of the weaknesses of our respectiveprograms was that no courses existed in which students fromvarious disciplines learned to work in multidisciplinary teams.The need for an integrating course that introduced students toproduct development concepts which they would encounter inthe workplace upon graduation was recognized. Over the nextfew months meetings focused on course objectives and content.It should be noted that at this point this initiative was purely vol-untary. No administrator was involved, and no funds were madeavailable, nor were any requested.

0018–9359/00$10.00 © 2000 IEEE

344 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 43, NO. 3, AUGUST 2000

A literature search was conducted to determine the experi-ences of others who had developed or were developing cur-ricular material in integrated product development. From thissearch it was clear that there was a need to address many as-pects of integrated product development in a course format. Forexample, Steiner [7] states that “engineering curriculums that donot address innovation and high-level technical management isdepriving its students of essential competencies for engineeringsuccess in the global marketplace and for career enrichment andadvancement in government and industry and, perhaps more im-portantly, making it difficult for them to reach their full humanpotential.” Orsak and Etter [8] note that “Engineers in the 21stcentury will work in an environment that requires additionalskills and capabilities not typically included in a traditional en-gineering program. The path of a concept through design, devel-opment, testing, and, finally, to the marketplace requires suc-cessful interactions of multidisciplinary teams of people whomust communicate through verbal interactions, formal presenta-tions, and readable documentation and reports.” They describe ayear-long course in signal processing that uses “virtual teaming”in which students from several universities use the World WideWeb to complete parts of the course.

Gerhard [9] describes an upper division electronics designcourse in which students are placed in a pseudo corporationin order to modify their behavior learned through manyanalysis-based courses. A primary objective is to teach stu-dents to think and work as professionals to design variouselectronic products. Yung and Leung [10] describe ways inwhich they have incorporated an integrated training programon product design into an undergraduate program. They notethat the unique socioeconomic needs of Hong Kong and itsexport-oriented electronics industry requires students to havea knowledge about all phases of the design and productionprocess. Hamblen and Owen [11] describe an undergraduatecomputer engineering laboratory course on rapid systems pro-totyping aimed at helping students to focus on real-world needsfor a more integrated approach to design and development.Ivins [12] studied multidisciplinary teams and their effect onstudents’ performance, attitude, and culture.

In addition to reviewing current literature, a team of four fac-ulty members attended a conference sponsored by the CorporateDesign Foundation, a nonprofit group having as one of its ob-jectives the incorporation of elements of design into businessrelated courses. In addition, the courses offered by the Massa-chusetts Institute of Technology’s Leaders Program, the Man-ufacturing Program at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and anumber of other similar programs were investigated. For thoseinterested in further information on these initiatives see the ap-propriate web sites listed in [13]–[15].

Two major curricular design criteria, one involving studentsand the other faculty, emerged from this research. With respectto students, a course needed to be designed which includes bothundergraduate and graduate students with diverse backgrounds.In ensuing years several nonbusiness, nonengineering studentshave taken the course after approval of the faculty. Many havecome from the arts and sciences. Their contributions to theproduct design was significant and, with extra effort, theyshowed understanding of the technical concepts presented.

They were valuable team members, and their participationshould be encouraged in the future.

The second criteria involved faculty commitment. In the be-ginning, eight faculty members agreed to participate in all as-pects of the course in order to maintain consistency in presentedmaterial as well as consistency in evaluating students’ perfor-mance. Rather than simply appearing as guest lecturers, all eightfaculty members agreed to attend every class and participate inclass exercises and discussions along with the students. Eigh-teen students enrolled for the inaugural offering of the courseand all eight faculty members honored their obligation to attendall classes. While it may seem that this course was particularlyexpensive for the institution to offer, it should be pointed outthat the course did not count in the teaching loads of any of theparticipating faculty and, therefore, was not costly. The involvedfaculty viewed the experience as a way to learn from each otherand to broaden their own academic experiences as well as theexperience of the enrolled students.

For the initial offering of the course, three primary goals werespecified.

1) Prepare students for the changing workplace where cross-functional teams were becoming commonplace.

2) Simulate an environment where students with diversebackgrounds could bring an idea from concept to proto-type.

3) Build oral and written presentation skills.A major concern during course development was the iden-

tification of appropriate cross-disciplinary course content thatcould be presented at a level that was appropriate for both stu-dents who had prior related courses as well as those with little orno experience with a particular topic. One method to deal withthis problem was to have breakout sessions several times duringthe semester where all nonengineering students would meet todiscuss their concerns and successes in dealing with engineersin their respective teams. Likewise, all engineering students metto discuss their interactions with the nonengineering students intheir respective teams. Summaries of these meetings were thenshared with the entire reconvened class.

Table I shows the distribution for 1995–1999.One year, seven high school advanced placement physics stu-

dents were allowed to participate in the course for indepen-dent study high school credit. They were supervised by a highschool advisor who also attended class. They were given nospecial treatment other than a reduction in the number of ques-tions to be answered on the midterm examination. Of the seventhat started, four dropped out because of time conflicts due tothe many out-of-class group meetings required. All three stu-dents that finished the class were in the upper third of class per-formance. This experiment showed that cooperation betweenpost-secondary and secondary schools can be quite successfulwith motivated students. The experiment should be continued.

A challenge for the faculty was to organize students withthese varying backgrounds and abilities into work teams thatwould simulate the environment that these student specialistswould encounter in a typical industrial project. A following sec-tion on team composition describes the process used to deter-mine teams.

SHIRLAND AND MANOCK: COLLABORATIVE TEACHING INTEGRATED PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT 345

TABLE ICLASS COMPOSITION BY DISCIPLINE

III. COURSEDESIGN

Since most of the students are trained in the more traditional“individual work for grade” method, a primary objective of thecourse is to teach team building skills and how to deal with teamdynamics. In order to develop these skills, the main focus ofthe course is for the students to work in teams designing andbuilding a product prototype by semester’s end. A detailed busi-ness plan is also required to force students to justify their prod-ucts not only from a functional design standpoint but, also, frommarketing and financial perspectives. Topics that address theseissues are included to help students acquire the necessary skillsto discuss these perspectives.

Early in the semester, students are exposed to a potentialclient and a fairly nebulous project statement. The potentialclient is usually selected from a company within the nearbyarea. Proximity gives the students the potential to visit the spon-soring company often. An individual from the company helpsselect a product to be designed based on a definable need or onan underutilized technology to be developed. The students arethen presented with a generic project description that includesthe product or products of the client but does not limit the stu-dents to a design of that product. The project description is pur-posely kept as general as possible in order to allow students touse their creative abilities to develop their prototypes. The onlyrequirement is that the student teams keep within the industryselected. Their final prototypes may be suitable for the client orthey may address competitive products. Experience has shownthat by specifying the project in as generic a way as possible,teams will produce a diverse group of prototype products.

Design project specifications that we have used thus far in-clude the following:

• a carrying system for a snowboard that doubled as a secu-rity device;

• a bagel slicer;• a weather measuring device;• performance aids for handicapped sailors;• a new high-volume consumer product using proprietary

strain gage technology;• a product for the competitive fitness industry;• a handgun safety device.

IV. TEAM COMPOSITION

Very early in the semester background information is col-lected on each student via an “employment application” prior

to assigning teams. A sample of the application is shown in Ap-pendix A. The objective in team composition is to have mem-bers with diverse backgrounds. For example, students with sim-ilar backgrounds are separated so each team member can learnfrom the others and so each team member can contribute theirparticular expertise to the project at hand. Likewise, each teamshould have approximately the same skill sets and experience.

V. TEACHING TEAMWORK AND CREATIVITY : CRISIS DESIGN

EXERCISES

Since there are only about 15 weeks in the semester forthe students to organize themselves into effective teams andcomplete the project requirements, team building is emphasizedearly in the course. One way to accomplish this is with a “crisisdesign” exercise. These exercises are very effective in forcingteams to organize themselves quickly and in revealing problemswith team dynamics. These potential problems can sometimesbe worked out early on, thus preventing more serious problemslater in the semester.

The purpose of the crises design exercise is not to design asaleable product. That will be addressed later in the course. Itspurpose is threefold:

1) to explore rapid design methodology for solving realproblems under time pressure;

2) to explore the role of engineering and management trade-offs in a proposed solution.

3) to act as a benchmarking exercise to lay the foundation forlater examination of blocks to creativity and successfulproblem solving within team problem solving processes.

The crisis design exercise is done at the second or third classmeeting of the semester, just after the project teams have beenassigned. A normal 75 minute lecture is begun by one of the par-ticipating professors when it is quickly interrupted by anotherfaculty member rushing into the classroom with sketchy newsof a developing crisis. Students are told that the “authorities”need their help to recommend a workable solution, and that theyare to immediately go to separate rooms to brainstorm possiblesolution ideas. In a previous class, they have been given sug-gestions as to how to begin problem solving as a group. Theyare told that they may send a representative back to the mainclassroom to ask clarifying questions and seek additional infor-mation.

Four of the crises faced by students in the past are as follows.

1) A ski lift gondola with four people aboard is strandedbetween support towers in subzero temperature and highwinds. Students must devise a way to get propane tanksto the gondola so that the passengers can activate a heaterand stay warm until morning when they can be rescued.

2) A community boathouse with a class of first grade chil-dren and their teacher onboard has broken away from itsdock and is drifting away from shore. It is leaking fuel andslowly sinking in storm-agitated waves. Students mustdecide how to rescue the children before the boathousesinks.

3) A runaway passenger train traveling at 112 km/h witha class of blind students on board is heading toward a

346 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 43, NO. 3, AUGUST 2000

train of tank cars containing chlorine that is stopped ina highly populated area. The students must devise a planto save the passengers and keep the tank cars from beingdamaged. The situation is further complicated by the factthat winter temperatures and fog are present.

4) A Federal Express 727 overshoots a runway while landingin a winter storm and crashes into an airport control tower.The tower is in danger of collapsing with personnel stilltrapped at the top. The problem is further compoundedwhen it is discovered that part of the cargo is deadly bac-teria being shipped to a lab in a local hospital.

A primary key to the success of this type of exercise is antic-ipating what questions will be asked, and having detailed hand-outs available for the students who ask for specific information.In the case of the Runaway Train Exercise, track location maps,time schedules, train car layout and weights, and availability ofsupport equipment in the surrounding community is compiledand duplicated before the class meeting so that these data areavailable on demand. It is also valuable to formulate several po-tential solutions prior to the exercise. Also, the problem grows inchallenge and interest if circumstances are manipulated to pre-clude “standard” solutions.

After a predetermined period of time, student teams return tothe classroom. If time has allowed, teams will have built crudemockups of their solutions out of supplied materials such ascardboard, scaled balsa wood strips, hot melt glue, etc. Theyare then asked to rapidly and succinctly present their ideas tothe assembled group. One of the participating professors actsas a facilitator who tries to get the assembled teams to reachconsensus concerning one solution that will be communicatedto the “authorities” for implementation.

At the beginning of the following class a one page “news ar-ticle” is distributed describing the outcome of the crisis. It iswritten using the group consensus solution of the previous classalong with its logical, detailed technical outcome. It is generallya positive, happy ending but may contain some surprises that thestudents have not considered. The remainder of the class periodis used for discussion of the dynamics of what each team expe-rienced during the conception, modeling, and defense of theirsolution, not the technical solution itself. NASA’s Challengerspace shuttle disaster is used as a vivid case study of failed groupdynamics leading to bad decisions.

Since the crisis design problems, situations, and details arereal and familiar, students can relate quickly and they tend tobecome very involved in the exercise. There is little time to mullover an answer, so students’ inhibitions are reduced. Facultymembers circulate among the teams during the exercise, andtherefore are able to assess the depth of a particular student’sskill set, and determine which students in the team have nat-ural team leadership potential shown by initiative, willingnessto consider other viewpoints, determining and staying focusedon a goal, etc. As mentioned previously, interpersonal conflictsthat arise within team interactions provide ample material forfuture discussion. These exercises have proven to be a very valu-able tool in team problem solving instruction and they provide afast track for teams to get started thinking about their semesterprojects.

VI. OTHER KEY COURSECONCEPTS

While a variety of topics and assignments are presented, themajor focus is on topics that relate to the semester’s project. Forexample, in order to get students to innovate in their thinking,present creativity lectures based on de Bono’s works on lat-eral thinking are presented along with the Six Thinking Hatsmethods [16], [17]. Since many of the projects have involvedconsumer products, emphasis is placed on human factors, er-gonomics, and aesthetics. In addition, time is spent on intel-lectual property rights, materials, quality function deployment,marketing, and life cycle costing.

Another key course element is peer reviews. These reviewsare given midway through the semester and again at the lastclass meeting. On a one page worksheet students are asked torate their teammates and themselves from 1 (low) to 5 (high) inten criteria:

1) quality of technical contribution in their major field ofexpertise;

2) quantity of technical contribution in their major field ofexpertise;

3) willingness to build upon the ideas of others;4) understanding of the team process;5) providing leadership at appropriate times;6) having a positive attitude;7) showing initiative;8) being dependable;9) being reliable;

10) being prompt.Then team averages for all criteria are calculated, as well as

a student’s deviation from this average in each criterion. Theresults are then presented to each student privately, in a similarformat to that used by a typical corporate human resources de-partment in these meetings. It is stressed that these numbers onlyindicate trends in perception, not absolutes and that, in the caseof significantly lower-than-average numbers, they are meant toindicate areas where more effort could be concentrated.

Interesting data for the instructors is found in comparing thestudent’s self-perception of their own performance with the per-ceptions of other team members, and in comparing the changein perception from mid-semester to the end of the semester. Re-view of the later is used to assign an individual final grade worth10% of the course grade.

VII. FINAL PROJECTPRESENTATIONS

The student team final oral presentations resembles, as nearlyas possible, a design presentation to a theoretical company’sboard of directors or a formal presentation seeking funds be-fore a group of venture capitalists. Student groups are given 20min to make their presentations with ten min for questions. Onlythe evaluators (pseudo venture capitalists) are present during thepresentations. After all presentations are given, a poster sessionis held at which all student groups attend and participate. Inmany instances, this is the first time that groups have seen thefinal prototypes produced by their peer teams. Although feed-back has been mixed, a majority of students have indicated that,while it was frustrating not to see another group’s presentation,

SHIRLAND AND MANOCK: COLLABORATIVE TEACHING INTEGRATED PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT 347

the experience seemed more real and actually made them takethe presentations more seriously. In the past, from six to 20 eval-uators have attended the presentations which are professionallyvideotaped for later review and for promoting the course to fu-ture classes.

VIII. C ONCLUSIONS

Well proven above “experiment” status, Integrated ProductDevelopment is now an identified optional course that satisfiesdesign requirements in the Biomedical Engineering curriculum.It is routinely recommended by Mechanical Engineering advi-sors as a technical elective course to round out the experienceof Senior ME students. It is not, as yet, a requirement of the MEDepartment, although its inclusion has been mentioned in cur-riculum change meetings. Although it is currently an elective inthe School of Business Administration, it is often recommendedto students who are concentrating in entrepreneurship. In addi-tion, there has been discussions about incorporating the courseas part of the entrepreneurship program.

Based on student feedback, experience with this course in-dicates that even though it is sometimes frustrating to try todeliver the necessary material in a three credit, one semesterformat, a high quality educational experience does result. Aneven better, more thorough educational experience would re-sult from offering this course as a year-long series of two threecredit courses where there was more time for discussion, morein-depth case studies, and for proper testing and evaluation ofprototypes.

It was also recognized early on that the course could not con-tinue on a purely voluntary basis and would need at least onedesignated faculty member to serve as coordinator and lead in-structor. For the past three years, the administration has fundedthe course for such a position. Several of the volunteer facultymembers still attend a large number of the sessions and havebeen easily able to convince faculty to be guest speakers andparticipate in the evaluation of the final presentations. Even so,there is a need for a closer mentoring relationship between en-gineering and nonengineering faculty with each team. We havenot been able to establish these relationships on a purely vol-unteer basis. Monetary compensation seems to be required toattract the necessary time commitment from the faculty.

The National Research Council report inVisionary Manu-facturing Challenges for 2020state that “Concurrent manufac-turing will revolutionize the ways people interact at all levels ofan organization.” They also note that “New social relationshipsand communication skills will be necessary, as well as a newcorporate culture in which success will require not only exper-tise and experience but also the ability to use knowledge quicklyand effectively.” [18].

The goal of developing a course that addresses the educa-tional needs of engineers and managers for the 21st centuryhas been addressed through this integrated product developmentcourse. After seven years, participating faculty are still excitedabout the course and student enrollment has stabilized at around25 students per year. Faculty acceptance of the need for an inter-disciplinary approach to educating future students has increasedsignificantly.

APPENDIX

REFERENCES

[1] G. Q. Huang, Ed.,Design For X. London, U.K.: Chapman & Hall,1996.

[2] C. J. Backhouse and N. J. Brooks,Concurrent Engineering. New York:Wiley.

[3] H. J. Bullinger and J. Warschat, Eds.,Concurrent SimultaneousEngineering Systems: The Way to Successful Product Develop-ment. London, U.K.: Springer-Verlag, 1996, pp. 285–370.

[4] C. S. Syan and U. Menon,Concurrent Engineering: Concepts, Imple-mentation and Practice. London, U.K.: Chapman & Hall, 1994.

[5] M. Valenti, “Re-engineering aerospace design,”Mech. Eng., pp. 70–72,Jan. 1998.

[6] C. J. Nuese,Building The Right Things Right: A New Model for Productand Technology Development. New York: Quality Resources, 1995.

[7] C. J. Steiner, “Educating for innovation and management: The engi-neering educators’ dilemma,”IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 41, pp. 1–7, Feb.1998.

[8] G. C. Orsak and D. M. Etter, “Connecting the engineer to the 21st cen-tury through virtual teaming,”IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 39, pp. 165–179,May 1996.

[9] G. C. Gerhard, “Teaching design with behavior modification techniquesin a pseudocorporate environment,”IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 42, pp.255–260, Nov. 1999.

[10] E. K. N. Yung and S. W. Leung, “Integrated training program on productdesign in an undergraduate course,”IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 40, pp.46–52, Feb. 1997.

348 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 43, NO. 3, AUGUST 2000

[11] J. O. Hamblen and H. L. Owen, “An undergraduate computer engi-neering rapid systems prototyping design laboratory,”IEEE Trans.Educ., vol. 42, pp. 8–14, Feb. 1999.

[12] J. R. Ivins, “Interdisciplinary project work: Practice makes perfect?,”IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 40, pp. 179–183, Aug. 1997.

[13] Corporate Design Foundation.. [Online]http://www.cdf.org[14] Managing the new product development process: Design theory and

methodology. [Online]http://hart.me.berkeley.edu/~me290p/[15] Bibliography of material on integrated product development. [On-

line]http://www.npd-solutions.com/bibliography.html[16] E. de Bono,Serious Creativity. Toronto, ON, Canada: Harper Collins,

1992.[17] , Six Thinking Hats. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1985.[18] National Research Council,Visionary Manufacturing Challenges for

2020. Washington, D.C.: Nat. Acad., 1998.

Larry E. Shirland received the B.S.M.E. degree from the University of Maine,Orono, in 1964, and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in industrial engineering fromOregon State University, Corvallis, in 1971 and 1972, respectively.

He is currently a Professor in the School of Business Administration at TheUniversity of Vermont, Burlington. His teaching interests are in the areas ofproduction and operations management, operations research, quality control andstructured business programming. His research interests include applications ofmanagement science in decision making.

Dr. Shirland is a member of ASQ, INFORMS, IIE, DSI, and is a chartermember of ASEM.

Jerrold C. Manock received the B.S.M.E. and M.S.M.E. (product design) de-grees from Stanford University, Stanford, CA, in 1966 and 1968, respectively.

From 1979 until 1984, he was Corporate Manager of Product Design forApple Computer, Cupertino, CA. He currently holds an appointment as Ad-junct Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at The Universityof Vermont, Burlington. He has been team-teaching the interdiciplinary courseIntegrated Product Development since 1992. His projects included the AppleII and the original Macintosh personal computer. He is currently President ofManock Comprehensive Design, Inc. specializing in product design engineeringconsulting.