Business + Design: Exploring a CompetitiveEdge for Business Thinking iToni Vngaretti, Johns Hopkins University

Peter Chomowicz, Maryland Institute College of Art

Bernard J. Canniffe, Minneapolis College of Art and Design

Blair Johnson, Johns Hopkins University

Edward Weiss, Johns Hopkins University

Kaitlin Dunn, Johns Hopkins University ¡

Claire Cropper, Johns Hopkins University '

IntroductionToday's business schools prepare future busi-ness leaders and managers to address complexissues that often lack definitive solutions, requirebroad collaborations, and have arduous socialimplications. Business education programs,therefore, seek opportunities to provide uniquelearning experiences to enhance their graduates'business toolbox and sharpen their competitiveedge in the market place. Within this context,some business educators have begun to explorethe unique aspects of design thinking and itsvalue to business education. This study exploresthe supposition that business education infusedwith design thinking (in an effective action-learning format with reflective practice) mightprovide an innovative element to the businesstoolbox that positions graduates to creativelyand effectively address intricate, formidable, andextensive social and organizational needs.

Business school graduates are employed tofunction in high-performing, interdisciplinaryteams consisting of diversely trained individualswho address complex and often confusing prob-lems (termed "wicked" problems by HorstRittel, in the 1960s). It is common knowledgethat their alma maters have been criticized fornot preparing them adequately. Critics havepointed to a range of educational deficiencies,from outmoded teaching methods to failing toimpart a sense of social responsibility (Bennisand O'Toole, 2005; Buchanan, 1992; Coomber,

2009; Friga, Bettis, and Sulhvan, 2003; Ghoshal,2005; Hawawini, 2005; Holland, 2009;Mintzberg, 2004; Mitra, 2008; Navarro. 2008;Pfeffer and Fong, 2004 and 2002; Ruas, Becker,and Balbinot, Z., 2008; Starkey and Tempest,2005).

Whether the quality of business education has,indeed, decreased, or the needs of business havechanged more rapidly than schools' curriculaand pedagogical methods, or an alternate expla-nation exists is difficult to determine. But theconsensus is that educators need to adapt theirprograms to match the contemporary businessclimate — one that is fast-paced and complex.

Interdisciplinary instruction in businessTo their credit, many business schools havemade changes and continue to adjust their teach-ing approaches imd curricula to ensure theirprograms' relevance, rigor, and effectiveness.Examples of such efforts include interdiscipli-nary curricula such as Yale's MBA programwith a core curriculum of eight multidisciplinarycourses (Podolny, 2008; Yale School of Man-agement, 2009); Wharton\s numerous interdisci-plinary undergraduate and graduate businessprograms (Wharton, University of Pennsylvania,2009); and Wake Forest's Babock School ofManagement MBA program (Wake Forest,2009), which includes substantial applied andinterdisciplinary components, to name a few.Other programs in most top business schools

SAM Advanced Management Journal — Summer 2009

partner with disciplines outside business, such asengineering and medicine, to provide targetedinterdisciplinary approaches.

As evidenced by the interdisciplinary en-hancements promoted by these business schools,the narrow or circumscribed perspectives (alsodescribed as silos of learning) attributed totraditional business-school curricula are com-monly seen as a large part of its perceivedshortcomings. Certainly, many forms of cross-disciplinary experiences reap benefits for busi-ness students, but certain combinations havemore advocates than others. One often effectiveand widely adopted cross-disciplinary approach,for example, combines engineering and busi-ness.

While combinations like this provide studentswith knowledge from more than one disciplinerecently attention has been given to exposurethat might offer students not just additional orspecialized knowledge sets, but different mentalmodels offering fresh cognitive, attitudinal, andinterpersonal elements. For example, many havesuggested that the methods and approaches ofdesigners, in disciplines related to the arts,provide a framework for thinking that is helpfulto, or even essential for, today's managers(Adier, 2006; Boland and Collopy, 2004; Breen,2004; Cardozo, Durfee, Ardichvili, Adams,Erdman, Hoey, Iaizzo, Mallick, Bar-Cohen,Beachy, and Johnson, 2002; Dunne and Martin,2006; Martin, 2007a, 2007b; Nussbaum, 2005;Senge, 1994; Simon, 1996; Thomke andFeinberg, 2009; Wang and Wang. 2008; West,2007; Woyke and Maha, 2007).

Besides receiving a great deal of coverage inacademic literature, this mental model, termed"design thinking," has received support throughits integration into the core curricula ofZoUverein's School of Management and Design,in Essen, Germany, and The Rotman School, inToronto, Canada (Zollverein School, 2(X)9;Rotman, 2008). Other schools, such as Califor-nia College of the Arts, Illinois Institute ofTechnology's Institute of Design, StanfordBusiness School's d. school, Kendall College ofArt and Design, Royal College of Art's DesignLondon, Suffolk University in Boston, and apartnership between Babson College and RhodeIsland School of Design — the latter havingbeen developed after the course discussed in thispaper — have incorporated business-designconcentrations or dual-degrees in their offerings(California College, 2009; Illinois Institute,2009.; Kendall College, 2009; Royal College,

2009; Stanford Business. 2009; Suffolk Univer-sity, 2009).

In an interview initiated by David Dunne(2006), Roger Martin, a leading scholar ofdesign thinking, suggested that the addition ofdesign thinking, specifically, to business educa-tion, would better prepare graduates for contem-porary business demands. In general terms,design thinking means approaching managerialproblems just as designers in the arts approachdesign problems. Such an approach, Dunnesummarizes (based on his interview with Martin,2006), includes cognitive, attitudinal, and inter-personal elements that run counter to traditionalbusiness education and practices, but that arecharacteristics of the most successful businessand design people.

Over 10 years ago, Herbert Simon (1996)called for the establishment of a rigorous bodyof knowledge about the design process as ameans of approaching managerial problems. Thediscussion has continued since then, includingtlie work of Adler. 2006; Boland and Collopy,2004; Breen, 2004; Cardozo, Durfee, Ardichvili,Adams, Erdman, Hoey, Iaizzo, Mallick, Bar-Cohen, Beachy, and Johnson, 2002; Dunne andMartin, 2006; Martin, 2007a. 2007b; Nussbaum,2005; Senga. 1994; Simon, 1996; Thomke andFeinberg. 2009; Wang and Wang, 2008; West,2007; Woyke and Maha, 2007. all of whomcommented on the parallels between design andbusiness and examined the value of approachingbusiness from a design perspective.

Business thinking and design thinkingDue to the challenge-based, interdisciplinary,user-centered nature of their work, designershave developed a particular way of approachingproblems that differs in many respects from thetraditional business style (Dunne and Martin,2006). Many agree, however, that a designapproach, in conjunction with business funda-mentals, has the potential to greatly benefitbusiness practices, as is demonstrated in compa-nies that employ this disciplinary fusion orstudents trained in it. Examples include GeneralElectric, Google, IDEO, Intel, Johnson andJohnson, Maytag, McDonald's, Motorola, Nike,Proctor and Gamble, and Whirlpool (Hempeland McConnon, 2006).

In summarizing his interview with Martin,Dunne (2006) suggests that a designer's ap-proach includes: (1) an expectation of, and,therefore, a can-do attitude about, "wicked"problems, often including constraints which.

SAM Advanced Management Journal — Summer 2009

Martin (2006) argues, even serve as a source ofinspiration; (2) idea generation, or abductivereasoning, in addition to the deductive andinductive reasoning used in business thinking;and (3) interactive skills, especially collabora-tion and empathy, most often with respect topeers and consumers. Compare this with whatMartin (2006) describes as the traditional mana-gerial approach: (1) an expectation tbat prob-lems will be recognizable and solvable withprecedented methods; (2) reliance on deductiveand inductive reasoning alone, because newideas (abductive reasoning) are not trusted; and(3) self-contained roles — the absence of con-sultation with peers and customers. Certainly,there are exceptions, but these generalizationsillustrate the most common profiles, accordingto Martin and many others.

In light of expanding support for designthinking's addition to business practice and,therefore, to business education, and consideringthe heretofore lack of empirical validation forsuch a claim, we designed a graduate course inwhich the principles of design thinking wereapplied through action learning and reflectivepractice, and their implications explored qualita-tively.

In this paper, we first define design thinking,reflective practice, and action learning. Next, wecontrast design thinking with business thinking,explaining how it is manifested in practice andbow its elements can be taught through an ac-tion-ieaming course with reflective practice. Wethen describe the course's structure and, subse-quently, summarize students' experiences withintbe course. Finally, we summarize our qualita-tive findings and compare those conclusions toMartin's and others' expectations regardingbusiness students' exposure to design thinking.

Design thinking in educationTo introduce business students to design-think-ing methods, we provided them with designstudent partners in an action-learning scenarioinvolving an authentic business problem.Through the factors present in this course (themental models and attitudes of design thinking,collaboration with design students, and empathywith peers and consumers, in the service offinding solutions for the corporate client), andby fully engaging students through reflectivepractice, we wagered that business studentswould be exposed to, and influenced by, the coreelements of design thinking.

To begin testing ways of exposing business

students to design thinking and exploring waysof measuring variables possibly related to thatexposure, we developed an interdisciplinaryact i on-learning course composed of collaborat-ing business and design students. At its conclu-sion, we attempted, through observation and textanalysis of students' reports and reflections, toidentify what, if any, attitudinal, cognitive, andinterpersonal changes occurred in businessstudents in relation to their experiences duringtbe course. Though correlative phenomena canonly be suggested because of our small sampleand lack of controls, we present observationshere as possible indicators of relationshipsbetween variables and, subsequently, informalguides for future study.

Action leartiing as a vehicle for design-think-ing education. Action learning' has been definedas any specific process used in work-pi ace-basededucation. Its form and meaning bave grownfrom the work of Revans (1980, 1982. 1983).According to Revans (1982), action learning isindividually focused but uses small groupscalled "learning sets" to provide a forum inwhich members discuss, reflect, and challengeeach others' ideas. The main objective of actionlearning is to discover how to ask ambiguousquestions in conditions of risk. Indeed,Marquardt (2004) notes that, "Action learninghas rapidly emerged as the primary tool used byorganizations such as Sodexho, Novartis, andNokia for solving tbeir critical and complexproblems, while concurrently serving as the keymethodology for developing leaders, buildingteams, and expanding corporate capabilities." Assuch, this study's investigators surmised thataction learning would be an effective vehicle forbusiness students' introduction to design think-ing. I

Reflective practice as a vehicle for design-thinking education. Building on Schön's (1983,1987) reflective-practice model of knowing in

' This pilot study also explores the potentiallysignificant contributions that action learning(Marquardt, 2004, Pedler, 1977a, ¡997h) andreflective practice (DeFillippi, 2001 : Schön,1987: Seibert, and Daaudelin, 1999) makes toenhanced learning in business students. But. inthe service of maintaining focus in our presenta-tion of research and findings here, we limit ourdiscussion of them to brief definitions and expla-nations of their purpose in our study.

SAM Advanced Management Journal — Summer 2009

action, Borduas, Gagnon, Lacoursiere, andLaprise (2001 ) explain that when an unusual,real-world problem does not fit an individual'scurrent body of knowledge, skills, and attitudesthat the solution'requires, "reflection in action"leads to a search for additional information.When the additional information is applied tothe real-world situation, the resulting new infor-mational conglomeration is then subject to"reflection on action." This process results inthe acquisition, integration, and use of newknowledge, skills, and attitudes that raise theindividual's level of expertise. This reflectiveprocess then continues in a cyclical fashion.

Other scholars have proposed importantmodifications to this definition (Seibert andDaudelin, 1999; Laughton and Ottewill, 1998),but the essential role of reflective practice inamplifying what has been learned and encourag-ing examination of that learning convincedinvestigators of the crucial role it was likely toplay in a course consisting of numerous newexperiences (and, thus, opportunities to leam)for students. Also, qualitative data gleaned fromstudents' reflective-practice journals served as asignificant source of information about attitudi-nal, cognitive, and interpersonal changes thatmight have occurred in students over the semes-ter.

Research questionsDoes a cross-disciplinary educational approach,in the form of business and design students,coincide with attitudinal, cognitive, and interper-sonal changes in business students that reflectdesign thinking?

Does a cross-disciplinary application, in theform of a business and design synthesis, coin-cide with real-world success (in this case, de-fined as relevant, feasible, and eventuallyutiUzed ideas and products)?

Methods

PopulationThe population for this study consisted of stu-dents from the MBA, Organization Develop-ment, and Marketing programs at a graduatebusiness school, and students from the Environ-mental-Design and Graphic-Design programs atan art-design college. Any business studentcould apply for the course, but only those withintwo semesters of graduation, with a history ofhigh academic performance, and who claimed tobe flexible and tolerant of ambiguity (the latter

two qualities were assessed in interviews) wereaccepted.

ProcedureA cross-institutional, cross-disciplinary team offive faculty — from management, marketing,environmental design, and graphic design —developed a learning-outcomes-based, ihree-credit course called Competitive Advantage:Business + Design. The faculty received grantsupport for the project through an internal uni-versity RFP process designed to encouragevarious disciplines to incorporate the arts intotheir curricula. This funding supported thefaculty team, videotaping of the class sessions,student presentations, as well as instructionaland team-project materials.

One faculty member secured a business client(an intemationai corporation, locally headquar-tered) for the project. The corporation provideda strategic business initiative for the students toaddress and assigned a high-level executive asthe contact for the project. The corporationneeded ideas for extending their current domi-nant market position among baby boomers toyounger generations.

Faculty organized students into four interdis-ciplinary teams with each team including busi-ness and design students. Teams were formedwith the intention of providing a variety ofstudent expertise and complementary personali-ties within each group. Each team was chargedwith developing several strategies to present tothe business client. Students individually sub-mitted a weekly reflection about their experi-ences in the course and any changes they noticedin their thinking, behavior, or learning. Eachteam submitted a weekly progress report detail-ing progress made, ideas considered, issuesencountered, and questions that arose during thatweek.

Course sessionsThe location of course sessions alternated be-tween the business and art/design schools, withthree sessions being held at the businesspartner's corporate headquarters. These threesessions consisted of the students' preliminaryorientation, a midpoint presentation to the CEOand executive team, and a final presentation tothe CEO, executive team, marketing department,and faculty.

Class sessions consisted of mini-lectures,presentations, and workshops by the faculty, bystudents, and a guest speaker from a design firm.

SAM Advanced Management Journal — Summer 2009

Business atid design students prepared sessionsto be presented lo students in their partner disci-plines, which addressed what they each consid-ered to be the essentials of their respectivedisciplines. These session, as well as facultylectures, workshops, and supplementary-materi-als, included topics such as team developmentand effectiveness, presentation skills (e.g., bodylanguage, articulation, PowerPoint slide design,etc.), business principles (e.g., metrics, market-ing, market research, cost/benefit analysis,financiáis, business plan development, projectmanagement, and research approaches), andprinciples of design (e.g., design feasibility,aesthetics of design, design process, researchapproaches, etc.).

To understand both their client's products andthe age groups under study, students used nu-merous research approaches, such as developingcustomer surveys, analyzing data, conductingmarket research, and visiting retail outlets thatsold their client's products. Different researchmethods and resources were exchanged betweenbusiness and design students during this phase ofthe course.

Design thinking had both a direct and indirectrole in the course: faculty introduced the conceptof design thinking, provided reading materials,and showed a video about one company's(IDEO's) innovative production process thatincorporated aspects of design thinking into thedevelopment of business solutions. Businessstudents were indirectly exposed to designthinking through their interaction and work withdesign students

Evaluation approachEach team submitted a weekly project progressreport, and each student submitted weekly re-flections (DeFillippi, 2001) following onSchön's (1983, 1987) and Seibert andDaudelin's (1999) methodologies. Each week'ssession was videotaped in an effort to documentstudents' deveiopment throughout the course.

The faculty developed a rubric with four-point-scale measures of (I) team support, (2)research, (3) concept and/or graphic design, (4)feasibility, (5)-presentation to the client, and (6)evidence of learning. These were used to rate (1)teamwork, (2) consultancy projects, (3) presen-tation rehearsals, (4) mid-point presentations,and (5) final presentations. All rubrics for eachstudent were used to assist students in preparingtheir final presentations, to determine each oftheir course grades, and for analysis by this

study's investigators.Team reports, reflections, and faculty rubrics

and videos were analyzed by investigators forevidence of change in cognitive, attitudinal,and interpersonal aspects. Reviews by the busi-ness client and feedback from the executiveteam and guest faculty were used as indicatorsof relevance to the business environment, feasi-bility, creative thinking, and team performance.Student competence was evaluated on theirpresentation, PowerPoint slides, reflections,and assessments by other team members.

FindingsThis study presents a qualitative analysis ofstudent learning outcomes resulting from partici-pation in a cross-institutional, cross-disciplinarybusiness-design course. The findings reportedhere are based on team presentations, students'final team reports, students' reflections, facultyrubrics, and feedback from the client's executiveteam and marketing department.

Feedback from the members of the businesspartner executive team was generally positive,and all teams exceeded the corporation's hopesfor a quality end-product. According to theexecutive team the students, in general, deliv-ered effective presentations consisting of numer-ous insightful, creative, and feasihle ideas. Asfurther evidence of student success, the clientincorporated many of the students' proposals intheir marketing plan.

An analysis of individual reflections indicatedthat students were engaged in the process ofdeep reflection and that most of them experi-enced continuous improvement throughout thecourse. These documents suggested that, overtime, business students adjusted their approachto the clients' project by developing a greaterunderstanding of their personal strengths andlimitations. They also indicated that businessstudents developed an appreciation of the ap-proaches that were suggested and employed bythe design-trained members oftheir teams.Through this process, students demonstratedtheir ability to engage effectively in reflectivepractice and use it as a tool to enhance theirperformance.

Analysis of business students' reflections andteam progress reports seems to show shifts intheir thinking over the course of the interdisci-plinary experience, some of which are includedin the cognitive, attitudinal, and interpersonaldimensions suggested by Martin and summa-rized by Dunne (2006). From design students.

SAM Advanced Management Journal — Summer 2009

and also from lectures, workshops, and from thecourse project itself, most business studentsnoted that they learned about (or learned moreabout) the importance of teamwork and aboutunderstanding their audience and consumers. Inother words, most business students seemed tohave grasped design thinking's interpersonalattributes (collaboration and empathy). Also,investigators found evidence that most, if not all,business students learned the importance of oneof design thinking's cognitive aspects; abductivereasoning, or the generation of ideas.

In addition to individual reflections, evidencethat students' valued collaboration at least bysemester's end was gleaned from their final teamreports. In these documents, besides discussingthe contribution of their team members, studentsallocated points to each of their team membersbased on the quality of their input, effort, andoverall team participation. The high averagescore students received from other team mem-bers (4.83. with a range of 3.5 to 5.5, and astandard deviation of .63)- demonstrates theirvalue for one another. Qualitatively, studentsreported having a greater appreciation at the endof the course than at the beginning of their teammembers' contributions, and a greater sense oftheir group's collective intelligence. Also, in theteam reports, many students detailed learningabout how to both compensate for each other'sweaknesses and take advantage of each other'sstrengths.

In addition to the course's influence on busi-ness students with regard to design thinking,other interdisciplinary effects were observed.Both business and design students reported thatcross-disciplinary collaboration encouragedthem to approach situations differently and toconsider projects from different and multipleperspectives. Students also learned new basicskills, for instance, informing one another ofresearch resources not normally used by theirrespective disciplines.

DiscussionBusiness schools are challenged to preparefuture leaders and managers to address complexissues that often lack definitive solutions, requirebroad collaborations, and have profound socialimplications. In their effort to develop effectivegraduates and future leaders, business educators

^ The sample size for these statistics was deter-mined hy the number of students for whom wehad team-member scoring data (n = 14).

constantly seek opportunities to provide theirgraduates with a competitive edge through theireducational experiences. This has led some tosee value in adding design thinking to the busi-ness curriculum. A business approach supple-mented by design thinking might add acompetitive advantage to the business toolboxthat positions graduates to creatively and effec-tively address complex, intricate, and profoundsocial and organizational needs.

This study examined the effects of participa-tion in a cross-institutional, cross-disciplinarycourse on achievement of student-learningoutcomes, including students' real-world suc-cess, as demonstrated by client satisfaction. Alsoexamined were students' experiences, if any,with Martin's (2006) attitudinal, cognitive, andinterpersonal dimensions of design thinking. AquaUtative analysis of students' reflections,team progress reports, faculty rubrics, and feed-back from the business client's executive teamindicated that students achieved the learningoutcomes, including real-world success, asevidenced by creating deliverables that exceededthe client's expectations in the areas of creativ-ity, feasibility, and relevance. Students alsoseemed to experience cognitive and attitudinalchanges specific to design thinking, specifically,the importance of abductive reasoning, collabo-ration, and empathy. In general, students gainedan appreciation of expanded approaches tobusiness issues.

Traditionally, business students and designstudents have divergent views of their role in themarketplace (Dunne and Martin, 2006). MBAgraduates typically feel well equipped to manageresources across the enterprise. Participation inthis class. Competitive Advantage: Business +Design, adjusted some of these students' predis-positions to business and leadership. The busi-ness students' own preconceptions werechallenged when they were confronted withbroad thinking that spread across market seg-ments and touched on a generalized critique ofsociety.

Over the last few decades, business tech-niques were based on optimization. Six sigma,total quality management, and the theory ofconstraints all sought essentially the same goal:to improve the bottom line (Martin, 2007b).Either by cost reductions or through input im-provements, these optimization techniques didnot consider how products were conceived, norwas research and development part of the pro-cess. Long ignored is management's ability to

SAM Advanced Management Journal — Summer 2009

foster breakthroughs and create an environmentthat grows the top line, product innovation, andability to be the first to market (The Economist,2007). This interdisciplinary class demonstrateda possible approach to address this shortcoming.The faculty provided the intellectual space forcollaboration, along with a mandate that solu-tions be delivered by the team. Additionally, theclient made clear its desire to see innovativesolutions. These three criteria helped foster aleaming environment where each idea had itstime of discussion, with an understanding of itsplace in the project delivery time line. The classmade the best use of a think-tank: freedom toexperiment and fail; the best use of projectmanagement: ensuring the best solution is realiz-able within given constraints; and the best use ofanalysis: substantiating their positions throughrigorous, objective criteria.

As the criticism of business education contin-ues, it is important to present interdisciplinarymodels that integrate various theoretical per-spectives and practical applications to ensurethat business school graduates are sought asinnovative, creative, and effective leaders, whointegrate theory and practice to advance theprofession of business and improve the socialcondition. This innovative, interdisciplinarymodel that enhances business education withdesign thinking provides promise for preparingbusiness students to work effectively to addressthe complex, undefined, wide-impact challengesof real-world business problems. These prelimi-nary findings on this small population providejust a first step in the exploration of the competi-tive edge that the addition of design thinking tobusiness preparation could provide. Whileencouraging, these findings need to be examinedwith more rigor both qualitatively and quantita-tively, with attention being given to explainingthe variables that might influence the outcome.

Though interdisciplinary exorcizes betweenbusiness and other fields would likely impartsome of these concepts to business students,design thinking, in particular, exposes them toapproaches that, in addition to traditional busi-ness competencies, might be considered crucialto success in today's complex and uncertainbusiness environment. These elements include acan-do attitude even in the face of unpredictableand complex problems, abductive reasoning,enhanced appreciation for multiple viewpointsand agendas of teammates and clients, and deepreflective practice.

Dr. Ungaretti's research interests focus on ac-tion learning, reflective practice, interdiscipli-nary instruction, university-corporatepartnerships, and education for business andmedical professionals. Professor Chomowicz,chair of the Environmental Design Dept. at theM at jl and institute, is also president of Quad-rant: Architecture and Consulting, which spe-cializes in long-range business strategy. BernardCanniffe, chair of the Design Programs at Min-neapolis College of Art and Design, co-foundedand collaborative social design Piece Studio in2008. Edward Weiss, who teaches marketing atthe Johns Hopkins Carey Business School, wasalso vice president of marketing and productdevelopment for two consumer products compa-nies. His research interests are branding andword-of-mouth marketing. Blair Johnson, alecturer on the Carey Business School, has over23 years' experience in high technology, finan-cial services, and corporate development withfirms such as UNIEI. Lincoln National, and GE.Kaitlin Dunn, whose M.S. is in information andTelecommunication Systems for Business, iscurrently a doctoral student at Penn State.Claire Cropper is an independent consultantspecializing in social scientific research, studydesign, and inferential statistics for clientsinvolved with governmental entities and privatebusiness

Acknowledgments: The authors are appreciativeof the support from the Johns Hopkins Univer-sity Arts innovation Program, the Carey Busi-ness School, and the Maryland Institute Collegeof Art.

REFERENCESAdler. N. (2006). The arts and leadership: Now that we can do

anything, what will we do? Academy of ManagementLearning and Education. 5(4), 486—499.

Bennis W.. and O'Toole. J. (2005). How business schools lostiheir way. Han'ardBusiness Review. S3{5), 96-104.

Boland. R. J.. and Collopy. F. (2(X)4). Managing as designing.Palo Alto. CA: Stanford University Press.

Borduas, F., Gagnon. R.. Lacoursiere, Y., and Laprise, R.(2001). The longitudinal case study: From Schon's modelto self-directed leaming. The Journal of Medical Continu-ing Education in the Health Professions. 21, 103-109.

Breen, B. (2004). Masters of design. Fast Company, 83,6t-62.

Buchanon, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking.Design Issues, 8(2), 5-21.

California College of the Arts MBA in Design Strategy.(2009). Retrieved on April 3. 2009. from http://www.cca.edu/academics/graduate/design-mba

10 SAM Advanced Management Journal — Summer 2009

Cardozo, R. N.. Durfee, W. K., Ardichvili, A., Adams. C,Erdman, A. G., Hoey, M., Iaizzo, P. A.. Mallick, D. N.,Bar-Cohen, A.. Beachy. R.. and Johnson, A. (2002). Expe-riential education in new product design and businessdevelopment. The Journal of Product Innovation Man-agement, /9,4-17.

Coomber, S. (2009. May). The business of education. Train-ing Journal. 16-17.

DeFillippi, R. (2001). Introduction: Project based learning:Reflective practices and learning outcomes, ManagementLearning, 29. 69-89.

Dunne. D., and Martin, R. (2006). Design thinking and how itwill change management education: An interview anddiscussion. Academy of Management Learning and Edu-cation, 5(4), 5\2-523.

The Economist. ( 2007). A dark art no more. Retrieved January20.2008. from http://www.economist.com/specialreports/disptaystory.cfm?storyjd=9928239

Friga,P. N.. Bettis.R. A., and Sullivan, R. S. (2003). Changesin graduate management education and new businessschool strategies for the 21st century. Academy of Man-agement Learning and Education. 2(3). 233-249.

Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroyinggood management practices. Academy of ManagementLearning and Education. 4(1), 75-91.

Hawawini. G. (2005). The future of business schools. VÍÍHÍTJÜ/of Management Development. 24(9). 770-782.

Hempel, J.. and McConnon, A. (2006, October 9). The TalentHunt. Business Week Online. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_4l/b4004401.htm

Holland. K. (2009, March 15). Is it time to retrain B-schools?The jVpw York Times.

Illinois Institute of Technology's Institute of Design programdetails.X2009). Retrieved on April I. 2009, from http://www.id.iit,edu/99/

Kendall College of Art and Design graduate programs. (2009).Retrieved April 3. 2009, from http://www.kcad.edu/aca-demic-degrees/graduate

Laughton. D., and Ottewill, R. ( 1998). Laying foundations foreffective learning from commissioned projects in businesseducation. Education and Training. 40(2). 3.

Marquardt. M. (2004. June). Harnessing the power of actionlearning. Training and Development. 5S(6), 26-32.

Martin, R. (2007a). Business and design: Why can't we befriends? Journal of Business Strategy, 28(4). 6-12.

Martin. R. L. (2()O7b). The opposable mind. Watertown. MA:Harvard Busines.s School Press.

MinizbeTg.H.(2004).Managers not MBAs: A hard lookatthe.Koft practice of managing. San Francisco. CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Mintzberg, H., and Gosling, J. (2002). Educating managersbeyond borders. Academy of Management Learning andEducation, 1(1), 64-16.

Mitra. D.. and Golder, P. N. (2008). Does academic researchhelp or hurt MBA programs? Journal of Marketing. 72,

Navarro. P. (2(X)8). Academy of Management Learning andEducation. 7(1), 108-123.

Nussbaum, B. (2005, January 3). Getting schooled in innova-

tion. Business Week.Pedler. M. ( 1997a). Interpreting action learning. In J. Burgoyne,

and M. Reynolds (Eds.). Management learning: Integrat-ing perspectives in theory anil practice. London: Sage.

Pedler, M. (1997b). Action learning in practice (2nd Ed.).Aldershot. Hampshire: Gower Publishing.

Pteffer, J., and Fong, C. (2002). The end of business schools?Less success than meets the eye. Academy of ManagementLearning and Education, 7(1), 78-95,

Pfeffer, J.. and Fong, C. (2004). The business school 'busi-ness': Some lessons from the US experience. Journal ofManagement Studies. 41CÁ). I501-I520.

Podolny. J. (2008, April 4). The transformation of businesseducation. Keynote address at the Johns Hopkins CareyBusiness School Faculty Retreat, Assuring Learning. In-spiring Results. Baltimore. Maryland.

Revans, R. (1980). Action learning: New techniques foraction learning. London: Blond and Briggs.

Revans, R.( 1982). What is action \ea.mïng'ljournal of Man-agement Development. 1(3), 64-75.

Revans, R. (1983). The ABCs of action learning. Bromley:Chartwell Bratt.

Rittel. H. W. J.. and Webber. M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in ageneral theory of planning. Policy sciences. 4(2), 155-169.

Rotman. (2008). Last modified June 10,2008. Retrieved fromhttp://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/about.htm

Royal College ofArt'sDesignLondon. Retrieved on April 10,2009. from http://www.designlondon.net/content.php

Ruas, R. L., Becker, G. V., and Balbinot, Z. (2008). Develop-ing competencies in MBAs: Fiction or reality? Academy o/Management. Anaheim.

Schon.Doria.\à.(l9S3).The reflective practitioner.NewYork:Basic Books.

Schön, Donald. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner.San Francisco. CA: Jossey-Bass.

Seibert, K. W.. and Daudelin, M. W. (1999). The role ofreflection in managerial learning: Theory, research andpractice. Westport, CN: Quorum.

Senge, P. ( 1994). The fifth discipline: The art and practice ofthe learning organization. New York: Currency/Doubleday.

Simon, H. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.).Cambridge. MA: The MIT Press.

Stanford Business School's d. school. (2009). Retrieved onApril 1. 2009. from http://www.stanford.edu/group/dschool/big_picture/our_v ision.html

Suffolk University Executive MBA. (2009). Last modified onApril 15, 2009, Retrieved from http://www.suffolk.edu/business/1629.html

Starkey. K.. and Tempest, S. (2005). The future of the busi-ness school: Knowledge, challenges, and opportunities.Human Relations. 58(\). 61-82.

Thomke, S.. and Feinberg, B. (2(X)9. January 9). Designthinking and innovation at Apple. Boston: Harvard Busi-ness School Case 609-066.

Wake Forest, Babcock School of Management. (2009). Re-trieved April 30, 2009, from http://www.mbit.wfu.edu/default.aspx?id=13

(continued on page 43)

SAM Advanced Management Journal — Summer 2009 11

Dunphy, D.. Griffiths, A., and Benn. S. (2003). Or^aniza-lional change for corporate suslainahility. London:Routledge.

Exxon Mobil Corporate Citizen Report. (2007). RetrievedDecember 16, 2008. from http://www.exxonniobil.L-om/Corporate/trommunity^ccr.aspx

Garvin. D.A., and Roberto, M.A. (2005, Febrtiary). Changethrough persuasion. Harvard Business Review, 104—112.

General Electric Citizenship Report. (2007). Retrieved De-cember 15.2008. from hup://www.ge.coni/files_ ciiizen-ship/pdf/G E_07_08_Citizenship_Report.pdf

Jick, T.D. (1991). Implementing change. Harvard BusinessCase Reprint, 9, A9\-\\A.

Johnson &. Johnson Sustainability Report. (2007) RetrievedDecember 16. 2008. from http://www,jnj.com/wps/wcm/C0tinect/b92d59804ae70ee5bc98fc0f0a50cff8/2007-sustainability-report.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

Kotter,J.P.( 1996). Lí'í/ííí/jgr/iia'íígí'. Cambridge, MA: HarvardBusiness Press.

Kotter, J.P.. and Schlesinger, L.A. (1979). Choosing strate-gies for change. Har\'ard Business Review. 57(2), 106-114.

Lewin, K. (\95l). Field theory in sociai science. New York:Harper and Row.

Nestle Annual Report. (2007). Retrieved December 12.2008,from http://www.nestle.com/InvestorRelations/Reports/ManagementReports/2007.htni

President Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development.(1999, May). Towards a Sustainable America: AdvancingProsperity, Opportunity, and a Healthy Environment forthe 21st Century. Retrieved January 29, 2009, from http://clinton5.nara.gov/media/pdf/tsa.pdf

Proctor & Gamble Sustainability Report. (2008). RetrievedDecember 12. 2008. from http://www.pg.com/inno-vatingsustainability/PG_2OO8_Sustainability _Report.pdf

Reilly. A. H. (2(X)8, May). The role of human resourcedevelopment competencies in facilitating effective crisiscommunication. Advances in Developing Human Re-sources. 10(3).

Report of the World Commission on Environment and Devel-

opment. (1987). Retrieved January 30, 2009, from http://www. un-documents.net/wced-oc f.ht m

Samsung Environment and Social Report. (2007), RetrievedDecember 14, 2008, from http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/corpcitizenship/environmentsocialreport/EnvironmentSocialReport.html

Schultz. N. (2003). Communicating facts. In F. Burgess andH. Burgess (Eds.), Beyond intractahiiity. Boulder: Uni-versity of Colorado, Conflict Resolution Consortium.

Senge, P., Smith. B., Kruschwitz. N.. Laur. J., and Schícy, S.(2(X)8). The necessary revolution: How individuals andorganizafions are working together to create a sustainableworld. New York: Doubleday.

Shell Sustainability Report. (2007). Retrieved December 15.2008, from http://www- /sustainability_reports/shell_su.stainabiiity_report_2007.pdf

Sustainable Life Media. (2008, February 14). Two-Thirds ofFortune 500 Firms Issue Standalone Reports on Responsi-bility.

Van Marrewijk, M.. and Werre. M. (2003). Multiple levels ofcorporate sustainability. Journal of Business Efhics, 44(2-3), 107-119.

The World Bank International Finance Comminee. (2009).Corporate social responsibility. Retrieved January 28,2009 from http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/economics.nsf/con-tent/csr-intropage

Total S.A. Environment and Society Report. (2(X)7). Re-trieved December 15. 2(X)8. from http://www.iotal.com/static/en/medias/topic 1606/TOTAL_csr_en_2007.pdf

Towers and Perdn. (2007). Global workforce study. Re-trieved December 15.2008, from http://www.towerspen"in.com/tp/showhtml.jsp?url=global/publications/gws/indexhtm&country=:global

Unilever Sustainable Development Report. (2007). RetrievedDecember 15. 2008. from http://www.unilever.com/sus-tainability/sustainabledevelopment report/

UNEP/Earthprint. (2005). Communicating sustainability: Howto produce effective public campaigns. Published by UnitedNations Environment Programme, Futerra SustainabilityCommunications, Ltd.

(References continued from page 11)

Wang. S.. and Wang, H. (2008). A design thinking approachto teaching knowledge management. Journal for Informa-tion Systems Education, ¡9(2), 137-139.

West. H. (2007. October 4). The cross-discipline designimperative. Business Week Online. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/oct2007/id2007l04_562559.htm?chan=innovation_special+report+--+d-schools_special-(-report-(-—i-d-schools.

Wharton, University of Pennsylvania. (2009). Retrieved April20, 2009, from http://www.wharton.upenn.edu/mba/difference.cfm

Woyke. E.. and Maha, A. (2007. October 15). The talent hunt:Design programs are shaping a new generation of creativemanagers. Business Week, 54—59.

Yale School of Management. (2009). Retrieved April 20,2009. from http://mba.yale.edu/why/indcx.shtml

Zollverein Schooi. (2009). Last modified April 21. 2009,Retrieved from http://www.zollverein-school.de/cnglish/index.htm

SAM Advanced Management Journal — Summer 2009 43