Description
In this such a breakdown, define teaching a multi disciplinary new product development course for entrepreneurs.
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
1
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
Lessons Learned from Developing and Teaching
a Multi-Disciplinary New Product Development Course for Entrepreneurs
Tucker J. Marion, John Friar, Tom Cullinane
Northeastern University
ABSTRACT
At both the undergraduate and graduate level, classes on new product development (NPD)
have historically focused on best practices employed by large, established corporations.
These practices range from marketing to stage-gates. However, new ventures are unique in
their lack of abundant resources--both in the human and fnancial capital--required to com-
mercialize new innovation. Additionally, new ventures span the technology spectrum, from
agile development and customer feedback industries like software to long-lead science like
biotechnology. Within these industries, the methods and tools used in NPD can be unique. As
such, we have developed a transformational new product development course that address-
es the similarities and diferences of entrepreneurial NPD across the technology spectrum,
combined with an experiential micro-funded semester-long project. The results of this course
projects that are more advanced at the preliminary design stage and are more customer ori-
ented at the prototype stage. Additionally, these projects are closer to micro or initial angel
investment than typical new product development course outcomes. The pedagogy is de-
tailed, results are discussed, and recommendations for further research are given.
Introduction
Higher education is placing an ever-increasing importance on teaching entrepreneurship, not only to business students but also to
engineers. Central to curricula is learning how an idea is translated into a salable product or service through the new product develop-
ment process (NPD). NPD involves the conceptualization, design, engineering implementation, and commercialization of a new product.
This body of research argues the importance of best practices ranging from the implementation of cross-functional teams (Takeuchi and
Nonaka 1986; Wheelwright and Clark 1992) to the planning and adoption of scalable architectures and product platforms (Meyer and
Lehnerd 1997). The NPD process is arguably the most important dynamic capability within a frm (Nelson 1991). These best practices are
designed to decrease innovation cycle time while increasing the potential for marketplace success. Our motive for developing and deploy-
ing this course was the confuence of three items that may increase the efectiveness of teaching NPD to nascent entrepreneurs: 1) the
diference in NPD at start-ups versus large, established frms, 2) the impact of disparate industry sectors on the development process, and
3) the need for experiential learning to highlight entrepreneurial development in as close to a real-world setting as possible.
In practice, entrepreneurs can be innovative and possess technical skills, but can also lack management process knowledge to the detri-
ment of long-term venture success (Cooper 1970; Saxenian 1985; Oakly 2003). Engineering and management programs tasked with
teaching entrepreneurial skills need methods and tools for teaching NPD in this context, to increase the efcacy of fedgling ventures.
Standard subjects in traditional NPD classes, such as marketing, product strategy, and stage-gates, while important, do not adequately
convey the environment that technology start-ups face. These new ventures do not have the allocated resources to implement traditional
cross-functional teams, spend time developing extensive project plans, leverage core subsystems from existing products, or spend a great
deal of time and money conducting consumer research. They must innovate and commercialize, or fail. In addition to resource constraints,
high-technology, high-growth businesses often occur in industries in which standard methods and practices do not capture the issues
associated with technology-specifc R&D issues (e.g., long cycle, scientifc experimentation R&D like biotechnology). Our research during
program development showed that a new approach was needed to teach students how to operate in a technology-based environment
that requires innovation, yet constrains personal and fnancial resources. It is this necessity, through the lens of diferent technologies,
which forms the basis of a new pedagogy for technology-based entrepreneurial NPD. Highlights of the course and diferentiators include:
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
2
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
baseline content of general product development practices, including virtual team formation, project management, and design strat- •
egy to expose the students to innovation methods, tools, and cases which are common to all development projects;
integration of multiple industrial designers on multi-disciplinary teams; •
tailored course content and cases for specifc new venture technologies (e.g., biotechnology); •
micro-funded, cross-school experiential semester project that encompasses hardware, software, and industrial design resulting in •
functional product prototypes; and
empowered entrepreneurial decision-making on project sourcing and budgeting to complete project goals. •
The NCIIA-funded course (Grant G00003055) debuted at the graduate-level in the Spring 2009 and was ofered again in Spring 2010. The
course has also been deployed to undergraduate students beginning in Fall 2009. Thus far, 87 students have been involved in the course.
Course sections have been highly rated, averaging 4.23/5.0 among the three classes, well above average for new graduate courses (in
fact, the most recent sections have been rated at 4.8/5.0 and 4.6/5.0 respectively). Additionally, outcomes for the graduate-level student
projects have been strong. One project from 2009 is being incorporated, and another from 2010 is actively being developed in a joint col-
laboration with students from Japan.
This paper explores the theory behind the course, details custom course content, and makes recommendations for further pedagogical
improvement. In the next section, we review pertinent literature in new product development, curriculum design, and entrepreneurship.
We then review our course design and deployment. Next, we report on initial results and, fnally, conclude with recommendations for
further improvements and research.
Literature Review
With global competition rising as the world “fattens” (Friedman 2005), the US is under increasing pressure to maintain its once resounding
lead in innovation. Recent studies have indicated that the US is slipping on a variety of measures, from R&D spending to new engineering
graduates (McGinn 2009). Higher education is in a unique position to have an immediate impact on these nascent innovators as they en-
ter the workforce. In order to promote innovation among disciplines, entrepreneurship programs have become ubiquitous in engineering
and business schools throughout the nation, fostering entrepreneurship education and aiding technology transfer from basic research (Di
Gregorio and Shane 2003). These entrepreneurship programs may be undergraduate minors or graduate-level programs, such as North-
eastern’s School of Technological Entrepreneurship (STE).
Solomon et al. (2002) argue that research has demonstrated that there is a positive correlation between teaching entrepreneurship, small
business management skills, and new venture creation and success. Successful entrepreneurship education goes beyond inspiration and
promotes a tendency towards self-employment. It includes skills that require additional behavioral activities such as assembling teams
and resources, leadership, and developing unique business and/or technological solutions (Carter, Gartner, and Reynolds 1996), in fact
quite similar to the versatile cross pollinator espoused by IDEO’s Tom Kelly (Kelly and Littman 2005). However, true entrepreneurs can be
long on innovativeness and technical skill, but short on management process knowledge (Cooper 1970; Saxenian 1985; Oakly 2003), to
the detriment of long-term project success. Gartner, Starr, and Bhat (1998) stated that “What entrepreneurs ‘do’ during venture creation is
a primary determinant of venture survival.” Given the importance of entrepreneurship and innovation to the economy, and the value of
apt management during start-up, efective entrepreneurial education is essential, just as practical engineering expertise is essential to the
new engineer.
In entrepreneurial education, a major tenet of research has focused on entrepreneurial attitudes and intention. Essentially, entrepre-
neurial behavior has been defned as “attitudes toward self-employment” (Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Laham 2007). Increased attitude
towards self-employment actually indicates that a respondent is more in favor of self-employment than organizational employment
(Kolvereid 1996). A second feature of entrepreneurial education focuses on inspiration, or the generation of new thoughts and behavior
(Isabella 1990). This implies that a successful entrepreneurial program will increase propensity toward self-employment and motivate their
students to pursue this goal. In a study conducted in the UK and France, Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Laham (2007) found that students
involved in entrepreneurial programs increased their intention for self-employment versus those not involved in the program, and the
primary cause of this increase proved to be greater inspiration.
Central to many higher education entrepreneurship programs are experiential projects. Jones and English (2004) argue that action-ori-
ented, project-based experiential learning is essential in entrepreneurial education. Since the mid-1990s, there has been a growing trend
of bolstering interdisciplinary project teams to include invention and entrepreneurship. This efort began in 1994 with the creation of the
E-Team concept, championed by entrepreneur Jerome Lemelson (Wang and Kleppe 2001). Lemelson stated that: “What I consider to be
one of my best innovations . . . an E-Team is a group of students who train to go into business and develop products that can be produced
in the future while at school.” Wang and Kleppe (2001) state that E-Teams are development teams that consist primarily of students from
a wide variety of disciplines, including those outside engineering, along with both faculty and professional mentors. These small interdis-
ciplinary teams are charged with rapidly developing new technologies and products. Since 1994, the E-Team concept has been adopted
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
3
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
at schools such as Lehigh University and the University of Virginia. The aim of the experiential, project-based approach is to train nascent
entrepreneurs in a near real-world environment.
In engineering schools, the predominant method for teaching experiential NPD is the capstone course. These capstone courses provide
experiential learning via applied engineering skills and hands-on work (Thorpe 1984). Capstone courses proliferated at engineering
schools in the 1990s and became a major tenet of ABET accreditation. The typical Capstone Design Class focuses on transforming an idea
or concept into a working prototype. In the early phases of most capstone classes, students attend a lecture or two from the university’s
Technology Transfer ofcers and then spend several days researching patents that relate to the problem(s) they are addressing. The class-
work generally focuses on issues such as environmental considerations, optimization, materials selection, project management, report-
writing, and presentation skills. There is a great deal of variance among schools in how the capstone project is approached (Howe and
Wilbarger 2006). This includes whether or not there are dedicated faculty advisors and if there is a multi-disciplinary component to the
project. In the 2005 survey, interdisciplinary capstone involvement had actually decreased from 1994 levels; respondents indicated that
interdisciplinary involvement in mechanical engineering capstone projects had decreased from 28% in 1994 to 17% in 1995 (Howe and
Wilbarger 2006). Given the interdisciplinary nature of industry, innovation, and the need for cross pollination, this is an unfortunate trend
that must be reversed.
Developing the School of Technological Entrepreneurship New Product Development Course
A teaching environment that is action-oriented, encourages experiential learning, problem solving, project-based learning, creativity, and
peer evaluation is essential for creating fedgling entrepreneurs. Such an environment provides the best mix of enterprising skills and
behaviors needed to create and manage a small business (Jones and English 2004). Entrepreneurship minors and dedicated graduate
programs have been developed over the last decade to foster a teaching environment to maximize the nascent entrepreneur from both
engineering and business backgrounds. A unique example of this type of program can be found at Northeastern’s School of Technological
Entrepreneurship (STE), a stand-alone school created in 2004. STE ofers both undergraduate and graduate programs that teach students
how to create technology-based businesses, market science and engineering-based products, and obtain the fnancing necessary to fund
growth. STE is an experiential interdisciplinary program, with classes team-taught by faculty members from the colleges of Engineering,
Business Administration, Computer and Information Science, and Health Sciences. The NPD course was designed to be a cornerstone
of the STE graduate program. It is one of ten courses that range from intellectual property to entrepreneurial fnance. The STE graduate
students come from a range of technical backgrounds, from computer science to mechanical engineering.
In constructing the STE product development curriculum, new pedagogies were developed to foster entrepreneurial management skills
that run parallel to hands-on practical skills as exemplifed in capstone E-Team project courses. We developed a pedagogy centered on
experiential project based learning, interactive lecture, dedicated project mentoring, and technology entrepreneurship-specifc case
studies. At the intersection of these four attributes are the ability for the entrepreneur to actively plan, design, and commercialize their in-
novation. As a frst step in the process of developing the new course, we explored common best practices, elements of which may or may
not be applicable to teaching entrepreneurial management skills or hands-on competencies. In developing the program, and specifcally
the product development course, we reviewed all major programs in the US and investigated all popular new product development texts.
From this investigation, it became clear that the theory on product development best practices needed to be modifed to efectively teach
technology entrepreneurship. In the next subsections, we explore the similarities and diferences among NPD and new ventures: theory
driving pedagogical development.
Common NPD practices
An important question to address is: what is common among NPD best practices that can most impact the new venture? Although early-
stage frms have unique characteristics, they do in fact experience development needs throughout the project that are similar to those of
established frms among a wide variety of industries. A project can be understood as a unique set of tasks with a beginning, an end, and
a well-defned outcome (PMI Standards Committee 1996; Loch, Solt, and Bailey 2008). A start-up is in essence a project that starts with an
entrepreneur’s idea, obtains funding, follows agreed upon milestones, and ends through ongoing operations, closure, or a liquid event
(Loch, Solt, and Bailey 2008). Given that a start-up is a development project, it will go through a series of steps from idea to commercial-
ization, regardless of industry type. We took the view that a new course should be designed to give students an understanding of these
common project principles and practices. This includes project management and planning skills, which R. G. Cooper (2001) notes as one of
the core competencies for doing a project correctly. Ulrich and Eppinger (2004, 26) state: “new ventures or start-ups are among the most
extreme examples of project organizations: every individual, regardless of function, is linked together by a single project – the growth of
the new company and the creation of its product(s).” While a start-up is a project and there are clear indications that traditional NPD prac-
tices are applicable to these frms, distinctions between large, established frms and small new ventures must be explained.
The technology R&D spectrum
High-technology, high-growth ventures typically fall outside the realm of physical assembled products. These include technology sectors
such as biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, information technology (IT), and nanotechnology. The R&D challenges for these frms can be
widely diferent from those found in physical products. For example, a biotechnology frm developing a new genetically modifed medica-
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
4
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
tion may spend 10-15 years developing the product, then several more obtaining FDA approval. Their development teams often spend a
great deal of time performing scientifc experimentation rather than developing a product to meet a market need or a desired specifca-
tion. Traditional NPD practices such as cost quoting, design for assembly, and customer needs are not applicable. In another case, a frm
developing a social networking website does not need onerous stage-gate procedures. Our mission in developing the new course was to
highlight these diferences, focus on the challenges, and detail specifc practices tailored to these industries.
Course development was infuenced by nearly a decade studying the product development process within a range of industries, from
short cycle IT to long-lead R&D. With this range of frms selected, from consumer to biotechnology to software products, they represent
the full spectrum of R&D characteristics. The new ventures can range from short-cycle rapid development (e.g., software and simple
consumer products), to traditional market-facing innovation (e.g., complex consumer products), to long-lead translational research (e.g.,
biotechnology). A schematic of the start-up technology R&D spectrum is shown in Figure 1. Since innovation is contextual between difer-
ent industries in new ventures (Balachandra and Friar 1997), we included frms across the spectrum. Noted in Figure 1 are type of start-up,
industry, the number of participant frms in our research, and general characteristics of NPD. Highlighted in each industry example are
case and empirical research data that has supported development of the new course and related theory.
Figure 1. The Technology R&D Spectrum
On the left side of the spectrum are very agile, highly iterative projects that can be readily tested with consumers. These include software
and IT that can be coded, shipped, tested, and revised with minimal efort and capital requirements. Napster, Facebook, and Twitter are
examples of this agile space. In the middle of the spectrum are traditional development projects. These projects are typifed by market
research and more traditional design methods. In our review of literature, courses, programs, and texts, most best practice research and
classroom pedagogy are aligned to this space. Finally, on the right side of the spectrum are long-lead R&D projects like biotechnology.
These require intense scientifc investigation and large amounts of time and capital. Our overriding goals were to 1) develop custom
course content to highlight the NPD commonalities and diferences between technologies and ventures both new and established, and 2)
foster experiential learning to provide hands-on entrepreneurial training within the context of new venture NPD. In the next section, we
discuss course pedagogy.
STE Technology-Based New Product Development Pedagogy
Teaching commonality, then diferences through custom case studies
The course was developed in 2008, with assistance from an NCIIA grant and a theory-building grant from the North American Case Re-
search Association (NACRA) designed to aid in the development of technology specifc case studies to be used in the course. The course
runs over fourteen weeks and is taught by an internal STE faculty member. A visual schematic of the course is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. NPD Course Schematic
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
5
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
For the frst two weeks, the foundation of project management and common design techniques is taught via course-specifc cases and
in-class activities. Overview of conventional NPD best practices is taught via a traditional (see the middle of the R&D spectrum in Figure
1) development project that highlights the development of a physical product at a successful new venture. The custom developed case
study, “New Product Development Practice Application to an Early-Stage Firm: The Case of the PaperPro® StackMaster™” (Marion and Simp-
son 2009) is about the deployment of a modifed phase gate development process at a new venture in the development of a consumer
product incremental innovation. The process detailed in the case forms the basis of the course project deliverables and serves as a guide
for project management of the student teams (see Appendix B). The important lesson for this part of the course is that there is a balance
between project discipline and how resource-constrained new ventures actually operate. This lesson supports Iansiti’s (1995) argument
that process fexibility and responsiveness are key success factors for NPD in the chaotic early-stage environment. New ventures do not
have the resources to implement onerous management procedures, stage-gates, or project management tools such as extensive Gantt
charts. However, Marion et al. (in press) note that “for the small new venture, moving the ‘ball down the feld’ is all-important, as every
minute that passes without moving closer to production draws down available funds.” The custom case and project process developed
for the course is supported by literature that denotes support for the development of more fexible, simplifed development procedures
(Sethi and Iqbal 2008).
Beginning with week three, specifc technology and development paradigms are taught over the next three weeks. The frst technology
industry explored is software and IT, falling on the left, or agile side of the R&D spectrum. Since IT is generally a very fast build, test, and
iterate industry, we developed a custom case that illustrates this agile methodology. The company we researched and developed the case
around is Attivio, founded in 2007. Attivio (www.attivio.com) is a Newton, Massachusetts-based software frm specializing in corporate
data search via a customizable software platform. A senior architect explained the development process at their company. He stated:
“The goal is to get something out frst and get customer feedback. We strongly believe in fast prototyping and testing.” Attivio executives
make a judgment call about the commitment of the customers to the product prior to any fnal development sprints (Friar, Marion, and
Kinnunen 2009). In class, students are asked to prepare a standard case writeup that explores the diferences between NPD in this case
versus standard methods as explored in the PaperPro case. Further examples are then explored, including the development of frms such
as Apple, Microsoft, Google, and Facebook. Multimedia and the personal experiences of the students are woven into the class discussion.
An important lesson for the class to understand is the fact that software products can be created with very small teams, have near instant
customer feedback and acceptance, and require a very limited amount of fnancial capital to do so. Therefore, they are a perfect mecha-
nism for university students to enter the entrepreneurial universe (as evidenced by the rise of Google, Napster, Facebook, Apple iPhone
applications, etc.). The course also circles back to traditional best practices, noting that advances in rapid prototyping and collaboration
tools are moving NPD toward the left side the spectrum.
Lastly, the right side of the spectrum is explored: long-lead science driven R&D. Long-lead science, such as biotechnology, pharmaceu-
ticals, nanotechnology, and material sciences, are characterized by substantial innovation cycle times, the translation of basic university
science to commercialized products, and large amounts of investment needed (biotechnology compounds may take a decade and over
$1 billion in capital to reach the market). These science-driven teams may experience a decade of scientifc investigation and, even then,
may not have a commercially viable product. To highlight these types of R&D frms, we explored an optics and nano-material company,
Agiltron (www.agiltron.com). The company has approximately ffty scientists working on numerous R&D projects. Their approach to scien-
tifc iteration is a key point that is stressed in the classroom. Founded in 2001, Agiltron is a Woburn, Massachusetts-based private company
specializing in optical components to customers such as Verizon and BAE Systems. They have a series of intense R&D iterations to move
science forward, but if no progress is made, the project may be shelved until more resources are available. Students learn the lesson of
balancing cash fow, resources, and reaching a revenue-producing product. We also present a custom case developed around a biotech-
nology company, Adnexus Therapeutics, Inc. (www.adnexus.com). Throughout the semester, lessons are taught that are integrated with
project deliverables (see Appendix A). For example, cost engineering is reviewed to teach the students about creating engineering R&D
budgets, estimating bill-of-materials (BOM) costs, and estimating volume manufacturing pricing.
Industrial design and project mentoring: Linking design thinking and hands-on “Board of Advisors”
Traditional technological entrepreneurship programs have focused on the business and technical challenges of starting and growing
a frm. While this approach addresses some issues facing engineering and business students, this model is missing a key component
required to enhance the success of any venture: design thinking by way of dissatisfaction design and exploring unique solutions starting
with opportunity spaces. Without both recognizing and overcoming dissatisfaction, many products and services simply fail to fully capti-
vate customer adoption, which translates into a failure to meet tactical and strategic goals in the marketplace.
We often refer to these aspects as user-centered design or customer satisfaction, but these are inadequate descriptors for the diverse array
of values that people unconsciously ascribe to products. Don Norman (2004) notes that, “the emotional side of design may be more critical
to a product’s success than its practical elements.” These factors include symbolic elements that are immediately and naturally interpreted
by customers, creating an intuitive appreciation of specifc product features when done right. The impact of dissatisfaction design is obvi-
ous on transformative consumer products, but the list of markets is unlimited, including industrial, military, medical instruments/devices,
digital media, and others.
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
6
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
Broad design integration is needed to benefcially enhance the creativity of teams seeking innovative (or cross-pollinating) solutions in
areas ranging from business models to user experiences. For early-stage frms, the successful commercialization of each new product or
service is critically important, given the shortage of fnancial resources, a limited product portfolio, and small stafs typical of such frms.
Marion and Meyer (forthcoming) show that when the creative element is present, it enhances both the efectiveness and efciency of
early-stage frm development. The consideration of business, engineering, and industrial design together have a much greater efect than
each does individually, thereby increasing not only the value of the business and product, but the likelihood of survival. Adding industrial
design input early in the business creation process can challenge, enhance, and stimulate creative resources within the core entrepreneur-
ial team, maximizing the ability to catalyze benefcial tension between creativity and technical discipline. The true power of entrepreneur-
ship is only fully realized when industrial design, engineering, and business are combined.
Dym et al. (2005) defnes engineering design as a “thoughtful process that depends on the systematic, intelligent generation of design
concepts and the specifcations that make it possible to realize these concepts. Conversely, designers approach the process diferently.”
Dym (2005) also notes that these individuals tolerate ambiguity as an important element to iterate convergent-divergent thinking, main-
tain a ‘big picture’ viewpoint of the total system, are comfortable with uncertainty, and view the design and decision process as a social
exercise. The best designers explore the opportunity space at hand, are able to operate in a less constrained environment, and come to
innovative solutions that are non-obvious.
In order to accomplish this model of NPD, we have partnered with the Massachusetts College of Art and Design (Mass Art). The STE
product development class runs jointly with the Mass Art Product Design Lab. In the curriculum, several class periods are devoted to
learning brainstorming techniques, ethnographic investigation, and exploring opportunity spaces. This is particularly important for those
participants that are engineers (STE graduates), who are accustomed to convergent thinking. Cases, literature, videos, and design studio
tours are used to illustrate methods at IDEO and Continuum, leading design frms focused on not only innovation but design thinking and
strategy (Meyer and Marion 2010). In order to maximize interaction between these often diferent spheres of thinking, the frst meeting of
the two student groups is an informal pizza party, designed to introduce them to design thinking and methodology. This introduction oc-
curs at Mass Art. Next, student teams are formed and assigned to explore diferent opportunity spaces. This is an important characteristic
of the class. Often, engineering capstone projects are limited in scope (a new type of mechanical apparatus, etc.). Solutions for these types
of problems are very much emblematic of convergent, engineering-like problem solving.
For this class, we give students a very wide opportunity space that forces them to explore a number of potentially unique solutions
around the very wide problem statement. For example, in 2010, our opportunity space was “sustainable and mobile computing.” A require-
ment for the project was that it combine physical (mechanical engineering) and embedded software (electrical and software engineering)
with an internet component (IT). This allows us to have complex projects requiring multiple skill sets, making the project more “real” than
just a “siloed” mechanical or software project. Within this space, student projects ranged from portable health monitors to theme park
family tracking devices. It should be of note that Northeastern has the beneft of an industrial design college several blocks away. Other
institutions may not be so fortunate or have any similar resources. If that is the case, we recommend partnering with any artistic depart-
ment or college on campus, in order to realize the convergent-divergent thinking needs to explore opportunity spaces.
A pillar of the pedagogy is team mentoring. In essence, faculty-to-team mentoring gives the teams a “board of advisors” experience. Once
formed, the project teams are mentored each class session by professors from Mass Art and STE. These advisory sessions often provide
students with critical feedback and advice to the teams. Additionally, industry experts attend the session as guests to add to the mentor-
ing experience (these include entrepreneurs, employees at design frms, and potential investors). In mentoring meetings, project deliver-
ables are reviewed in detail (see Appendix C).
Entrepreneurial micro-funded projects: Experiential learning of hyper-agility
Action oriented, project-based experiential learning is essential in entrepreneurial education (Jones and English 2004). In our classes,
we want experiential learning to be as close to real-world experience as possible. In our case and empirical research, we have found that
industry entrepreneurial teams behave in a dynamic and fuid manner, continually reacting to changes in order to “move the football
down the feld.” Overall, we found that these frms innovated with a “hyper-agile” style. Hyper-agile in this study is defned as extremely
dynamic, lean resource usage, and change-amiable (Marion et al. forthcoming). To accomplish this hyper-agility, teams are given a set
budget amount of $1,500. They are empowered to spend (with prior approval) the budget on any item that will allow them to complete
the project deliverables. For example, if they need to hire an outside software developer, they are free to do so (many teams have engaged
resources worldwide, from programmers in India to engineers in the Ukraine). They are also rewarded in the fnal grade for performing un-
der budget. This fosters a sense of “doing more with less.” For example, asking a mechanical engineering friend to donate time to design or
convincing a prototype company to donate material is expected and encouraged to give students a sense of guerrilla-like development.
Additionally, high performing innovation teams are typically comprised of a number of diferent skill sets and personality types. Kelly and
Littman (2005) note that these teams are made of complementary individuals, each with skill sets that add to create a whole greater than
the sum of its parts. In order to approximate this phenomenon, each student is administered a Meyers-Briggs test.1 Meyers-Briggs is a
1http://www.myersbriggs.org/. Accessed September 27, 2010.
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
7
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
form of personality trait classifcation that denotes personal characteristics such as intro- or extroversion. We form teams with little or no
student input, balancing personality, background (type of engineer, etc.), and experience. Teams are formed during week three, formally
meeting the industrial designers in week four. An initial project manager will be designated and the teams will be given the scope of the
project. Generally, teams have 5-7 members, including the industrial designers. As mentioned, each week a team mentoring session is
held to review project deliverables and team progress. The culmination for each team is a fnal presentation of their concept, prototype,
and technology demonstration to a panel of industry experts and angel investors. The mission of the project is to simulate an investor
pitch in order to raise $25,000 to further advance the project technology. Each panelist reviews the projects based on a 15-question evalu-
ation sheet, which are considered as input to the fnal semester grade.
Early Results
Course descriptives
Below in Table 1, the team projects and student backgrounds are noted. The teams have been overwhelmingly interdisciplinary (STE
graduates mostly have technical backgrounds, although there is a small percentage with fnance and/or business degrees). The projects,
as a result of the pedagogy, are rich in terms of variation, ranging from health systems to consumer products and services. Thus far, 87
students have been involved in the program, spanning schools and degree programs at both the graduate and undergraduate level.
Table 1. Course data.
Student feedback and assessment
Student feedback has been excellent. For the past two years, we have relied on Northeastern’s standard online student/teacher/course
efectiveness surveys (the TRACE system). Below in Table 2 are overall course evaluation ratings.
Table 2. Course ratings.
The course was frst ofered in 2009, and revised to include the custom cases. Even including the ratings from the frst semester, the overall
evaluation of the course is higher than university averages, and higher than those for new courses, which average below 4.2. In looking
at the two most recent semesters, both the overall evaluation and amount learned far exceed university averages. We expect this trend to
continue with successive semesters. Below are excerpts from student evaluations:
“Lots of media, group work and actually physical design and collaboration.” •
“The material was interesting and the course is well structured. Highly recommend - I learned a ton.” •
“The biggest strength is the experiential learning element, as students work closely on developing a prototype of an idea that they •
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
8
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
develop - I learned the most on this part of the course. The feld trip to Continuum was also a nice treat.”
“It allows for real experience in developing a product. Increase the ratio of creative students/mass art student to STE students. It will •
help bring better products to light.”
“Truly enjoyed working on the development project. One of the best courses of the program!” •
“I love this course. It enabled me to learn about how to manage and develop a “New innovative product” and how to organize it for •
preparing enter the market.”
Currently, we are planning to collect custom student survey data on entrepreneurial efectiveness to further gauge efcacy of the course.
This will also include quantitative data from end-of-semester project presentations to industry panelists. These surveys are currently in the
fnal stages of revision and International Research Board (IRB) approval, as all investigations are subject to IRB guidelines. We will use the
collected data, along with student evaluations and project outcomes, as metrics to gauge course efectiveness in addition to the stan-
dard course evaluation system. One of the challenges that is faced, because of the empowerment of the hyper-agile teams, is that some
engineering students accustomed to very rigid classroom environments fnd themselves uncomfortable. We have begun to address this
by actively highlighting this aspect of the course and being extra diligent regarding deliverables during mentoring sessions.
Project example
In spring 2009, we challenged the project teams to develop concepts around an opportunity space using accelerometers and gyroscopes
combined with mobility. One project team developed a concept termed Lumo.™ Lumo is an investigation into the practical uses of ac-
celerometers, gyroscopes, internal memory, GPS, and internet connection on small, inexpensive portable devices to be worn on or close
to the body. The ever-decreasing cost of components (e.g., gyroscopes) is opening new markets for on-body data capture. Initial steps in
this direction are already being seen in products like the Nintendo Wii and Apple iPhone. The aim of the project is to explore the technical
and market feasibility of developing small, long lasting, accurate data capturing units that can give insight into human activity levels and
motion parameters.
Figure 3. Project Lumo
The initial project explored several potential markets, including children’s activity monitoring and sports motion technique capture.
Figure 3 notes some of the initial storyboards used to select leading concepts. These focused on sporting and ftness activities for various
target markets (note the CrissXFit concept shown on the left, a portable gym for business travelers). The Northeastern group selected
the children’s activity monitor as their choice to continue development (shown on the right in Figure 3). In the Fall of 2009, the project
moved from the product development class into the STE i-Cubator (a graduate-level experiential new venture accelerator that is part of
the STE Masters program), where a group of students evaluated the current market potential of the diferent product categories, includ-
ing rehabilitation, sports motion capture and technique enhancement, and children’s activity monitoring. A provisional patent was fled
in September 2010, and the project is currently being formed into an LLC, lead by two original student members. To date, the project has
raised thousands of dollars in scholarship and grant funds to continue prototype development and testing, and is close to securing Series
A angel investment. Several generations of prototypes have been developed and tested on children in a controlled setting. The Cuebee
(see Appendix D) will be joining the STE i-Cubator this fall. In terms of projects having a life after the course--being transferred into the STE
i-Cubator and/or being incorporated--we are running over 15%, which we feel is a good start. Our goal is 25% long-term. End-of-semester
feedback from industry panelists (including potential investors) viewing project presentations has been excellent, with panelists univer-
sally praising the projects for their professionalism and advanced state versus traditional project-based courses.
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
9
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
Conclusions and Recommendations
Creating innovative entrepreneurs is a main goal of educators nationwide. As such, dedicated programs at both the graduate and un-
dergraduate level have become pervasive. These programs promise to increase entrepreneurial and business skills, often by introducing
experiential components. While there are many excellent entrepreneurial programs nationwide, our research in developing our program
and courses suggested that in teaching technology-based new product development and associated innovation resulting from R&D, the
standard paradigm is still focused on traditional best practices. These best practices tend to be centered on the needs of large, established
corporations that are primarily focused on incremental innovations. However, new technology-focused start-ups can span a technology
R&D spectrum, from rapid prototyping agile software projects to long-lead science like biotechnology. Current best practice pedagogy
does not address the diferent needs of these industries, particularly through the lens of the resource-constrained new venture. We have
developed and deployed a NPD course that addresses these gaps and is generalizable to a wide variety of technical and non-technical
students who want to learn the process of commercializing innovation. The course explores the similarities and diferences between
technologies and industries during innovation development through custom curricula and case studies. Additionally, the course is heav-
ily experiential, giving student teams the ability to be hyper-agile, approaching near real-world empowerment through micro-funded
development projects. Given the need for entrepreneurs to be wildly creative, we have an intense focus on industrial design and design
thinking. Lastly, the project includes intense mentoring throughout the semester to simulate the beneft of a board of advisors. Thus far,
the preliminary results have indicated that the quality of student projects and associated entrepreneurial learning can be increased by
using this pedagogy, resulting in projects that are more advanced at the preliminary design stage and are more customer-oriented at the
prototype stage. Of course, the course is new and more data is needed to determine its true efcacy through student entrepreneurship
efectiveness surveys, student-teacher evaluations and ratings, and the overall number of projects commercialized. However, initial indica-
tors are positive. It is our hope that this course will be duplicated by other institutions so the concept of teaching entrepreneurial technol-
ogy development through a multi-disciplinary and hyper-agile experiential lens is spread, enhanced, and popularized.
References
Balachandra, R., and J. Friar. 1997. Factors for success in R&D projects and new product innovation: A contextual framework. IEEE Transac-
tions on Engineering Management 44(3): 276-287.
Carter, N. M., W. B. Gartner, and P. D. Reynolds. 1996. Exploring start-up event sequences. Journal of Business Venturing 11(3): 151-166.
Cooper, A. C. 1970. The Palo Alto experience. Industrial Research 12(5): 58-60.
Cooper, R. G. 2001. Winning at new products. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.
Di Gregorio, D., and S. Shane. 2003. Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy 32:209-227.
Dym, C. L., A. M. Agogino, O. Eris, D. D. Frey, and L. J. Leifer. 2005. Engineering Design Thinking, Teaching, and Learning, Journal of Engineer-
ing Education 94(1): 103-120.
Friar, J. H., T. J. Marion, and R. Kinnunen. 2009. Adnexus Corporation case. In Proceedings for the NACRA Conference, October 29-31, 2009,
Santa Cruz, CA.
Friedman, T. L. 2005. The world is fat: A brief history of the 21
st
century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Gartner, W.B., J. A. Starr, and S. Bhat. 1998. Predicting new venture survival: An analysis of “Anatomy of a Start-up” cases from Inc. Magazine.
Journal of Business Venturing 14(2): 215-232.
Howe, S., and J. Wilbarger. 2006. National survey on engineering capstone design courses. Paper presented at the 2006 American Society
of Engineering Education conference, session 2525.
Iansiti, M. 1995. Shooting the rapids: Managing product development in a turbulent environment. California Management Review 38(1):
37-58.
Isabella, L. A. 1990. Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds: How managers interpret key organizational events. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal 33(1): 7-41.
Jones, C., and J. English. 2004. A contemporary approach to entrepreneurship education. Education + Training,46(8): 416-423.
Kelly, T., and J. Littman. 2005. The ten faces of innovation. New York: Doubleday.
Kolvereid, L. 1996. Organizational employment versus self-employment: Reasons for career choice intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice 20(3): 23-31.
Krishnan, V., and K. T. Ulrich. 2001. Product development decisions: A review of the literature. Management Science 47(1):1-21.
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
10
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
Loch, C. H., M. E. Solt, and E. M. Bailey. 2008. Diagnosing unforeseeable uncertainty in a new venture. Journal of Product Innovation Manage-
ment 25(1): 28-46.
Marion, T. J., and T. W. Simpson. 2009. New product development practice application to an early-stage frm: The case of the
PaperPro
®
StackMaster.™ Design Studies 30(5): 561-587.
Marion, T. J., J. H. Friar, and T. W. Simpson. New product development in early-stage frms: Two case studies. Journal of Product Innovation
Management. (Forthcoming.)
Marion, T. J., and M. A. Meyer. Applying industrial design and cost engineering to new product development in early-stage frms. Journal of
Product Innovation Management. (Forthcoming.)
McGinn, D. 2009. The decline of western innovation. Newsweek, November 16.
Meyer, M. A., and T. J. Marion. 2010. Innovating for efectiveness: Lessons from design frms. Research-Technology Management. (Accepted
for publication.)
Meyer, M. H., and A. P. Lehnerd. 1997. The power of product platforms. New York: The Free Press.
Nelson, R. R. 1991. Why do frms difer, and how does it matter? Strategic Management Journal 12:61-74.
Norman, D. A. 2004. Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York: Basic Books.
Oakly, R. P. 2003. Technical entrepreneurship in high technology small frms: Some observations on the implications for management.
Technovation 23(3): 679-688.
Project Management Institute (PMI) Standards Committee. 1996. Guide to the Project Management body of knowledge. Upper Darby, PA:
Project Management Institute.
Saxenian, A. 1985. Silicon Valley and Route 128: Regional prototypes or historic exceptions? In High Technology, Space and Society, ed. M.
Castells. Beverley Hills and London: Sage Publications: 81-105.
Sethi, R., and Z. Iqbal. 2008. Stage-Gate controls, learning failure, and adverse efect on novel new products. Journal of Marketing 71(1):
118-134.
Solomon, G. T., S. Dufy, and A. Tarabishy. 2002. The state of entrepreneurship education in the United States: A nationwide survey and
analysis. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education 1(1): 1-22.
Souitaris, V., S. Zerbinati, and A. Al-Laham. 2007. Do entrepreneurship programs raise entrepreneurial intention of science and engineering
students? The efect of learning, inspiration and resources. Journal of Business Venturing 22(4): 566-591.
Takeuchi, H., and I. Nonaka. 1986. The new product development game. Harvard Business Review 64(1): 146-147.
Thorpe, J. F. 1984. Design of mechanical systems: A capstone course in mechanical engineering design. In Proceedings of the 1984 ASEE An-
nual Conference: 803-807.
Ulrich, K. T., and S. D. Eppinger. 2004. Product design and development. New York: Irwin McGraw-Hill. 3d ed.
Wang, E. L., and J. A. Kleppe. 2001. Teaching invention, innovation, and entrepreneurship in engineering. Journal of Engineering Education
10(1): 565- 570.
Wheelwright, S., and K. B. Clark. 1992. Revolutionizing product development. New York: The Free Press.
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
11
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
Appendix A: Course Syllabus
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
12
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
13
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
14
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
15
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
16
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
17
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
18
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
Appendix B: Course Project Process, Timing, and Deliverables
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
19
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
Appendix C: Course Project Deliverables (reviewed weekly)
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
20
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
Appendix D: Student Project Concepts
SolidAir: Motion capture and smartphone apps for extreme sports (Spring 2009)
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
21
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
Cuebee: Children’s expandable learning device (Spring 2010)
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
22
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
23
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
doc_351194805.pdf
In this such a breakdown, define teaching a multi disciplinary new product development course for entrepreneurs.
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
1
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
Lessons Learned from Developing and Teaching
a Multi-Disciplinary New Product Development Course for Entrepreneurs
Tucker J. Marion, John Friar, Tom Cullinane
Northeastern University
ABSTRACT
At both the undergraduate and graduate level, classes on new product development (NPD)
have historically focused on best practices employed by large, established corporations.
These practices range from marketing to stage-gates. However, new ventures are unique in
their lack of abundant resources--both in the human and fnancial capital--required to com-
mercialize new innovation. Additionally, new ventures span the technology spectrum, from
agile development and customer feedback industries like software to long-lead science like
biotechnology. Within these industries, the methods and tools used in NPD can be unique. As
such, we have developed a transformational new product development course that address-
es the similarities and diferences of entrepreneurial NPD across the technology spectrum,
combined with an experiential micro-funded semester-long project. The results of this course
projects that are more advanced at the preliminary design stage and are more customer ori-
ented at the prototype stage. Additionally, these projects are closer to micro or initial angel
investment than typical new product development course outcomes. The pedagogy is de-
tailed, results are discussed, and recommendations for further research are given.
Introduction
Higher education is placing an ever-increasing importance on teaching entrepreneurship, not only to business students but also to
engineers. Central to curricula is learning how an idea is translated into a salable product or service through the new product develop-
ment process (NPD). NPD involves the conceptualization, design, engineering implementation, and commercialization of a new product.
This body of research argues the importance of best practices ranging from the implementation of cross-functional teams (Takeuchi and
Nonaka 1986; Wheelwright and Clark 1992) to the planning and adoption of scalable architectures and product platforms (Meyer and
Lehnerd 1997). The NPD process is arguably the most important dynamic capability within a frm (Nelson 1991). These best practices are
designed to decrease innovation cycle time while increasing the potential for marketplace success. Our motive for developing and deploy-
ing this course was the confuence of three items that may increase the efectiveness of teaching NPD to nascent entrepreneurs: 1) the
diference in NPD at start-ups versus large, established frms, 2) the impact of disparate industry sectors on the development process, and
3) the need for experiential learning to highlight entrepreneurial development in as close to a real-world setting as possible.
In practice, entrepreneurs can be innovative and possess technical skills, but can also lack management process knowledge to the detri-
ment of long-term venture success (Cooper 1970; Saxenian 1985; Oakly 2003). Engineering and management programs tasked with
teaching entrepreneurial skills need methods and tools for teaching NPD in this context, to increase the efcacy of fedgling ventures.
Standard subjects in traditional NPD classes, such as marketing, product strategy, and stage-gates, while important, do not adequately
convey the environment that technology start-ups face. These new ventures do not have the allocated resources to implement traditional
cross-functional teams, spend time developing extensive project plans, leverage core subsystems from existing products, or spend a great
deal of time and money conducting consumer research. They must innovate and commercialize, or fail. In addition to resource constraints,
high-technology, high-growth businesses often occur in industries in which standard methods and practices do not capture the issues
associated with technology-specifc R&D issues (e.g., long cycle, scientifc experimentation R&D like biotechnology). Our research during
program development showed that a new approach was needed to teach students how to operate in a technology-based environment
that requires innovation, yet constrains personal and fnancial resources. It is this necessity, through the lens of diferent technologies,
which forms the basis of a new pedagogy for technology-based entrepreneurial NPD. Highlights of the course and diferentiators include:
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
2
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
baseline content of general product development practices, including virtual team formation, project management, and design strat- •
egy to expose the students to innovation methods, tools, and cases which are common to all development projects;
integration of multiple industrial designers on multi-disciplinary teams; •
tailored course content and cases for specifc new venture technologies (e.g., biotechnology); •
micro-funded, cross-school experiential semester project that encompasses hardware, software, and industrial design resulting in •
functional product prototypes; and
empowered entrepreneurial decision-making on project sourcing and budgeting to complete project goals. •
The NCIIA-funded course (Grant G00003055) debuted at the graduate-level in the Spring 2009 and was ofered again in Spring 2010. The
course has also been deployed to undergraduate students beginning in Fall 2009. Thus far, 87 students have been involved in the course.
Course sections have been highly rated, averaging 4.23/5.0 among the three classes, well above average for new graduate courses (in
fact, the most recent sections have been rated at 4.8/5.0 and 4.6/5.0 respectively). Additionally, outcomes for the graduate-level student
projects have been strong. One project from 2009 is being incorporated, and another from 2010 is actively being developed in a joint col-
laboration with students from Japan.
This paper explores the theory behind the course, details custom course content, and makes recommendations for further pedagogical
improvement. In the next section, we review pertinent literature in new product development, curriculum design, and entrepreneurship.
We then review our course design and deployment. Next, we report on initial results and, fnally, conclude with recommendations for
further improvements and research.
Literature Review
With global competition rising as the world “fattens” (Friedman 2005), the US is under increasing pressure to maintain its once resounding
lead in innovation. Recent studies have indicated that the US is slipping on a variety of measures, from R&D spending to new engineering
graduates (McGinn 2009). Higher education is in a unique position to have an immediate impact on these nascent innovators as they en-
ter the workforce. In order to promote innovation among disciplines, entrepreneurship programs have become ubiquitous in engineering
and business schools throughout the nation, fostering entrepreneurship education and aiding technology transfer from basic research (Di
Gregorio and Shane 2003). These entrepreneurship programs may be undergraduate minors or graduate-level programs, such as North-
eastern’s School of Technological Entrepreneurship (STE).
Solomon et al. (2002) argue that research has demonstrated that there is a positive correlation between teaching entrepreneurship, small
business management skills, and new venture creation and success. Successful entrepreneurship education goes beyond inspiration and
promotes a tendency towards self-employment. It includes skills that require additional behavioral activities such as assembling teams
and resources, leadership, and developing unique business and/or technological solutions (Carter, Gartner, and Reynolds 1996), in fact
quite similar to the versatile cross pollinator espoused by IDEO’s Tom Kelly (Kelly and Littman 2005). However, true entrepreneurs can be
long on innovativeness and technical skill, but short on management process knowledge (Cooper 1970; Saxenian 1985; Oakly 2003), to
the detriment of long-term project success. Gartner, Starr, and Bhat (1998) stated that “What entrepreneurs ‘do’ during venture creation is
a primary determinant of venture survival.” Given the importance of entrepreneurship and innovation to the economy, and the value of
apt management during start-up, efective entrepreneurial education is essential, just as practical engineering expertise is essential to the
new engineer.
In entrepreneurial education, a major tenet of research has focused on entrepreneurial attitudes and intention. Essentially, entrepre-
neurial behavior has been defned as “attitudes toward self-employment” (Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Laham 2007). Increased attitude
towards self-employment actually indicates that a respondent is more in favor of self-employment than organizational employment
(Kolvereid 1996). A second feature of entrepreneurial education focuses on inspiration, or the generation of new thoughts and behavior
(Isabella 1990). This implies that a successful entrepreneurial program will increase propensity toward self-employment and motivate their
students to pursue this goal. In a study conducted in the UK and France, Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Laham (2007) found that students
involved in entrepreneurial programs increased their intention for self-employment versus those not involved in the program, and the
primary cause of this increase proved to be greater inspiration.
Central to many higher education entrepreneurship programs are experiential projects. Jones and English (2004) argue that action-ori-
ented, project-based experiential learning is essential in entrepreneurial education. Since the mid-1990s, there has been a growing trend
of bolstering interdisciplinary project teams to include invention and entrepreneurship. This efort began in 1994 with the creation of the
E-Team concept, championed by entrepreneur Jerome Lemelson (Wang and Kleppe 2001). Lemelson stated that: “What I consider to be
one of my best innovations . . . an E-Team is a group of students who train to go into business and develop products that can be produced
in the future while at school.” Wang and Kleppe (2001) state that E-Teams are development teams that consist primarily of students from
a wide variety of disciplines, including those outside engineering, along with both faculty and professional mentors. These small interdis-
ciplinary teams are charged with rapidly developing new technologies and products. Since 1994, the E-Team concept has been adopted
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
3
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
at schools such as Lehigh University and the University of Virginia. The aim of the experiential, project-based approach is to train nascent
entrepreneurs in a near real-world environment.
In engineering schools, the predominant method for teaching experiential NPD is the capstone course. These capstone courses provide
experiential learning via applied engineering skills and hands-on work (Thorpe 1984). Capstone courses proliferated at engineering
schools in the 1990s and became a major tenet of ABET accreditation. The typical Capstone Design Class focuses on transforming an idea
or concept into a working prototype. In the early phases of most capstone classes, students attend a lecture or two from the university’s
Technology Transfer ofcers and then spend several days researching patents that relate to the problem(s) they are addressing. The class-
work generally focuses on issues such as environmental considerations, optimization, materials selection, project management, report-
writing, and presentation skills. There is a great deal of variance among schools in how the capstone project is approached (Howe and
Wilbarger 2006). This includes whether or not there are dedicated faculty advisors and if there is a multi-disciplinary component to the
project. In the 2005 survey, interdisciplinary capstone involvement had actually decreased from 1994 levels; respondents indicated that
interdisciplinary involvement in mechanical engineering capstone projects had decreased from 28% in 1994 to 17% in 1995 (Howe and
Wilbarger 2006). Given the interdisciplinary nature of industry, innovation, and the need for cross pollination, this is an unfortunate trend
that must be reversed.
Developing the School of Technological Entrepreneurship New Product Development Course
A teaching environment that is action-oriented, encourages experiential learning, problem solving, project-based learning, creativity, and
peer evaluation is essential for creating fedgling entrepreneurs. Such an environment provides the best mix of enterprising skills and
behaviors needed to create and manage a small business (Jones and English 2004). Entrepreneurship minors and dedicated graduate
programs have been developed over the last decade to foster a teaching environment to maximize the nascent entrepreneur from both
engineering and business backgrounds. A unique example of this type of program can be found at Northeastern’s School of Technological
Entrepreneurship (STE), a stand-alone school created in 2004. STE ofers both undergraduate and graduate programs that teach students
how to create technology-based businesses, market science and engineering-based products, and obtain the fnancing necessary to fund
growth. STE is an experiential interdisciplinary program, with classes team-taught by faculty members from the colleges of Engineering,
Business Administration, Computer and Information Science, and Health Sciences. The NPD course was designed to be a cornerstone
of the STE graduate program. It is one of ten courses that range from intellectual property to entrepreneurial fnance. The STE graduate
students come from a range of technical backgrounds, from computer science to mechanical engineering.
In constructing the STE product development curriculum, new pedagogies were developed to foster entrepreneurial management skills
that run parallel to hands-on practical skills as exemplifed in capstone E-Team project courses. We developed a pedagogy centered on
experiential project based learning, interactive lecture, dedicated project mentoring, and technology entrepreneurship-specifc case
studies. At the intersection of these four attributes are the ability for the entrepreneur to actively plan, design, and commercialize their in-
novation. As a frst step in the process of developing the new course, we explored common best practices, elements of which may or may
not be applicable to teaching entrepreneurial management skills or hands-on competencies. In developing the program, and specifcally
the product development course, we reviewed all major programs in the US and investigated all popular new product development texts.
From this investigation, it became clear that the theory on product development best practices needed to be modifed to efectively teach
technology entrepreneurship. In the next subsections, we explore the similarities and diferences among NPD and new ventures: theory
driving pedagogical development.
Common NPD practices
An important question to address is: what is common among NPD best practices that can most impact the new venture? Although early-
stage frms have unique characteristics, they do in fact experience development needs throughout the project that are similar to those of
established frms among a wide variety of industries. A project can be understood as a unique set of tasks with a beginning, an end, and
a well-defned outcome (PMI Standards Committee 1996; Loch, Solt, and Bailey 2008). A start-up is in essence a project that starts with an
entrepreneur’s idea, obtains funding, follows agreed upon milestones, and ends through ongoing operations, closure, or a liquid event
(Loch, Solt, and Bailey 2008). Given that a start-up is a development project, it will go through a series of steps from idea to commercial-
ization, regardless of industry type. We took the view that a new course should be designed to give students an understanding of these
common project principles and practices. This includes project management and planning skills, which R. G. Cooper (2001) notes as one of
the core competencies for doing a project correctly. Ulrich and Eppinger (2004, 26) state: “new ventures or start-ups are among the most
extreme examples of project organizations: every individual, regardless of function, is linked together by a single project – the growth of
the new company and the creation of its product(s).” While a start-up is a project and there are clear indications that traditional NPD prac-
tices are applicable to these frms, distinctions between large, established frms and small new ventures must be explained.
The technology R&D spectrum
High-technology, high-growth ventures typically fall outside the realm of physical assembled products. These include technology sectors
such as biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, information technology (IT), and nanotechnology. The R&D challenges for these frms can be
widely diferent from those found in physical products. For example, a biotechnology frm developing a new genetically modifed medica-
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
4
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
tion may spend 10-15 years developing the product, then several more obtaining FDA approval. Their development teams often spend a
great deal of time performing scientifc experimentation rather than developing a product to meet a market need or a desired specifca-
tion. Traditional NPD practices such as cost quoting, design for assembly, and customer needs are not applicable. In another case, a frm
developing a social networking website does not need onerous stage-gate procedures. Our mission in developing the new course was to
highlight these diferences, focus on the challenges, and detail specifc practices tailored to these industries.
Course development was infuenced by nearly a decade studying the product development process within a range of industries, from
short cycle IT to long-lead R&D. With this range of frms selected, from consumer to biotechnology to software products, they represent
the full spectrum of R&D characteristics. The new ventures can range from short-cycle rapid development (e.g., software and simple
consumer products), to traditional market-facing innovation (e.g., complex consumer products), to long-lead translational research (e.g.,
biotechnology). A schematic of the start-up technology R&D spectrum is shown in Figure 1. Since innovation is contextual between difer-
ent industries in new ventures (Balachandra and Friar 1997), we included frms across the spectrum. Noted in Figure 1 are type of start-up,
industry, the number of participant frms in our research, and general characteristics of NPD. Highlighted in each industry example are
case and empirical research data that has supported development of the new course and related theory.
Figure 1. The Technology R&D Spectrum
On the left side of the spectrum are very agile, highly iterative projects that can be readily tested with consumers. These include software
and IT that can be coded, shipped, tested, and revised with minimal efort and capital requirements. Napster, Facebook, and Twitter are
examples of this agile space. In the middle of the spectrum are traditional development projects. These projects are typifed by market
research and more traditional design methods. In our review of literature, courses, programs, and texts, most best practice research and
classroom pedagogy are aligned to this space. Finally, on the right side of the spectrum are long-lead R&D projects like biotechnology.
These require intense scientifc investigation and large amounts of time and capital. Our overriding goals were to 1) develop custom
course content to highlight the NPD commonalities and diferences between technologies and ventures both new and established, and 2)
foster experiential learning to provide hands-on entrepreneurial training within the context of new venture NPD. In the next section, we
discuss course pedagogy.
STE Technology-Based New Product Development Pedagogy
Teaching commonality, then diferences through custom case studies
The course was developed in 2008, with assistance from an NCIIA grant and a theory-building grant from the North American Case Re-
search Association (NACRA) designed to aid in the development of technology specifc case studies to be used in the course. The course
runs over fourteen weeks and is taught by an internal STE faculty member. A visual schematic of the course is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. NPD Course Schematic
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
5
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
For the frst two weeks, the foundation of project management and common design techniques is taught via course-specifc cases and
in-class activities. Overview of conventional NPD best practices is taught via a traditional (see the middle of the R&D spectrum in Figure
1) development project that highlights the development of a physical product at a successful new venture. The custom developed case
study, “New Product Development Practice Application to an Early-Stage Firm: The Case of the PaperPro® StackMaster™” (Marion and Simp-
son 2009) is about the deployment of a modifed phase gate development process at a new venture in the development of a consumer
product incremental innovation. The process detailed in the case forms the basis of the course project deliverables and serves as a guide
for project management of the student teams (see Appendix B). The important lesson for this part of the course is that there is a balance
between project discipline and how resource-constrained new ventures actually operate. This lesson supports Iansiti’s (1995) argument
that process fexibility and responsiveness are key success factors for NPD in the chaotic early-stage environment. New ventures do not
have the resources to implement onerous management procedures, stage-gates, or project management tools such as extensive Gantt
charts. However, Marion et al. (in press) note that “for the small new venture, moving the ‘ball down the feld’ is all-important, as every
minute that passes without moving closer to production draws down available funds.” The custom case and project process developed
for the course is supported by literature that denotes support for the development of more fexible, simplifed development procedures
(Sethi and Iqbal 2008).
Beginning with week three, specifc technology and development paradigms are taught over the next three weeks. The frst technology
industry explored is software and IT, falling on the left, or agile side of the R&D spectrum. Since IT is generally a very fast build, test, and
iterate industry, we developed a custom case that illustrates this agile methodology. The company we researched and developed the case
around is Attivio, founded in 2007. Attivio (www.attivio.com) is a Newton, Massachusetts-based software frm specializing in corporate
data search via a customizable software platform. A senior architect explained the development process at their company. He stated:
“The goal is to get something out frst and get customer feedback. We strongly believe in fast prototyping and testing.” Attivio executives
make a judgment call about the commitment of the customers to the product prior to any fnal development sprints (Friar, Marion, and
Kinnunen 2009). In class, students are asked to prepare a standard case writeup that explores the diferences between NPD in this case
versus standard methods as explored in the PaperPro case. Further examples are then explored, including the development of frms such
as Apple, Microsoft, Google, and Facebook. Multimedia and the personal experiences of the students are woven into the class discussion.
An important lesson for the class to understand is the fact that software products can be created with very small teams, have near instant
customer feedback and acceptance, and require a very limited amount of fnancial capital to do so. Therefore, they are a perfect mecha-
nism for university students to enter the entrepreneurial universe (as evidenced by the rise of Google, Napster, Facebook, Apple iPhone
applications, etc.). The course also circles back to traditional best practices, noting that advances in rapid prototyping and collaboration
tools are moving NPD toward the left side the spectrum.
Lastly, the right side of the spectrum is explored: long-lead science driven R&D. Long-lead science, such as biotechnology, pharmaceu-
ticals, nanotechnology, and material sciences, are characterized by substantial innovation cycle times, the translation of basic university
science to commercialized products, and large amounts of investment needed (biotechnology compounds may take a decade and over
$1 billion in capital to reach the market). These science-driven teams may experience a decade of scientifc investigation and, even then,
may not have a commercially viable product. To highlight these types of R&D frms, we explored an optics and nano-material company,
Agiltron (www.agiltron.com). The company has approximately ffty scientists working on numerous R&D projects. Their approach to scien-
tifc iteration is a key point that is stressed in the classroom. Founded in 2001, Agiltron is a Woburn, Massachusetts-based private company
specializing in optical components to customers such as Verizon and BAE Systems. They have a series of intense R&D iterations to move
science forward, but if no progress is made, the project may be shelved until more resources are available. Students learn the lesson of
balancing cash fow, resources, and reaching a revenue-producing product. We also present a custom case developed around a biotech-
nology company, Adnexus Therapeutics, Inc. (www.adnexus.com). Throughout the semester, lessons are taught that are integrated with
project deliverables (see Appendix A). For example, cost engineering is reviewed to teach the students about creating engineering R&D
budgets, estimating bill-of-materials (BOM) costs, and estimating volume manufacturing pricing.
Industrial design and project mentoring: Linking design thinking and hands-on “Board of Advisors”
Traditional technological entrepreneurship programs have focused on the business and technical challenges of starting and growing
a frm. While this approach addresses some issues facing engineering and business students, this model is missing a key component
required to enhance the success of any venture: design thinking by way of dissatisfaction design and exploring unique solutions starting
with opportunity spaces. Without both recognizing and overcoming dissatisfaction, many products and services simply fail to fully capti-
vate customer adoption, which translates into a failure to meet tactical and strategic goals in the marketplace.
We often refer to these aspects as user-centered design or customer satisfaction, but these are inadequate descriptors for the diverse array
of values that people unconsciously ascribe to products. Don Norman (2004) notes that, “the emotional side of design may be more critical
to a product’s success than its practical elements.” These factors include symbolic elements that are immediately and naturally interpreted
by customers, creating an intuitive appreciation of specifc product features when done right. The impact of dissatisfaction design is obvi-
ous on transformative consumer products, but the list of markets is unlimited, including industrial, military, medical instruments/devices,
digital media, and others.
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
6
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
Broad design integration is needed to benefcially enhance the creativity of teams seeking innovative (or cross-pollinating) solutions in
areas ranging from business models to user experiences. For early-stage frms, the successful commercialization of each new product or
service is critically important, given the shortage of fnancial resources, a limited product portfolio, and small stafs typical of such frms.
Marion and Meyer (forthcoming) show that when the creative element is present, it enhances both the efectiveness and efciency of
early-stage frm development. The consideration of business, engineering, and industrial design together have a much greater efect than
each does individually, thereby increasing not only the value of the business and product, but the likelihood of survival. Adding industrial
design input early in the business creation process can challenge, enhance, and stimulate creative resources within the core entrepreneur-
ial team, maximizing the ability to catalyze benefcial tension between creativity and technical discipline. The true power of entrepreneur-
ship is only fully realized when industrial design, engineering, and business are combined.
Dym et al. (2005) defnes engineering design as a “thoughtful process that depends on the systematic, intelligent generation of design
concepts and the specifcations that make it possible to realize these concepts. Conversely, designers approach the process diferently.”
Dym (2005) also notes that these individuals tolerate ambiguity as an important element to iterate convergent-divergent thinking, main-
tain a ‘big picture’ viewpoint of the total system, are comfortable with uncertainty, and view the design and decision process as a social
exercise. The best designers explore the opportunity space at hand, are able to operate in a less constrained environment, and come to
innovative solutions that are non-obvious.
In order to accomplish this model of NPD, we have partnered with the Massachusetts College of Art and Design (Mass Art). The STE
product development class runs jointly with the Mass Art Product Design Lab. In the curriculum, several class periods are devoted to
learning brainstorming techniques, ethnographic investigation, and exploring opportunity spaces. This is particularly important for those
participants that are engineers (STE graduates), who are accustomed to convergent thinking. Cases, literature, videos, and design studio
tours are used to illustrate methods at IDEO and Continuum, leading design frms focused on not only innovation but design thinking and
strategy (Meyer and Marion 2010). In order to maximize interaction between these often diferent spheres of thinking, the frst meeting of
the two student groups is an informal pizza party, designed to introduce them to design thinking and methodology. This introduction oc-
curs at Mass Art. Next, student teams are formed and assigned to explore diferent opportunity spaces. This is an important characteristic
of the class. Often, engineering capstone projects are limited in scope (a new type of mechanical apparatus, etc.). Solutions for these types
of problems are very much emblematic of convergent, engineering-like problem solving.
For this class, we give students a very wide opportunity space that forces them to explore a number of potentially unique solutions
around the very wide problem statement. For example, in 2010, our opportunity space was “sustainable and mobile computing.” A require-
ment for the project was that it combine physical (mechanical engineering) and embedded software (electrical and software engineering)
with an internet component (IT). This allows us to have complex projects requiring multiple skill sets, making the project more “real” than
just a “siloed” mechanical or software project. Within this space, student projects ranged from portable health monitors to theme park
family tracking devices. It should be of note that Northeastern has the beneft of an industrial design college several blocks away. Other
institutions may not be so fortunate or have any similar resources. If that is the case, we recommend partnering with any artistic depart-
ment or college on campus, in order to realize the convergent-divergent thinking needs to explore opportunity spaces.
A pillar of the pedagogy is team mentoring. In essence, faculty-to-team mentoring gives the teams a “board of advisors” experience. Once
formed, the project teams are mentored each class session by professors from Mass Art and STE. These advisory sessions often provide
students with critical feedback and advice to the teams. Additionally, industry experts attend the session as guests to add to the mentor-
ing experience (these include entrepreneurs, employees at design frms, and potential investors). In mentoring meetings, project deliver-
ables are reviewed in detail (see Appendix C).
Entrepreneurial micro-funded projects: Experiential learning of hyper-agility
Action oriented, project-based experiential learning is essential in entrepreneurial education (Jones and English 2004). In our classes,
we want experiential learning to be as close to real-world experience as possible. In our case and empirical research, we have found that
industry entrepreneurial teams behave in a dynamic and fuid manner, continually reacting to changes in order to “move the football
down the feld.” Overall, we found that these frms innovated with a “hyper-agile” style. Hyper-agile in this study is defned as extremely
dynamic, lean resource usage, and change-amiable (Marion et al. forthcoming). To accomplish this hyper-agility, teams are given a set
budget amount of $1,500. They are empowered to spend (with prior approval) the budget on any item that will allow them to complete
the project deliverables. For example, if they need to hire an outside software developer, they are free to do so (many teams have engaged
resources worldwide, from programmers in India to engineers in the Ukraine). They are also rewarded in the fnal grade for performing un-
der budget. This fosters a sense of “doing more with less.” For example, asking a mechanical engineering friend to donate time to design or
convincing a prototype company to donate material is expected and encouraged to give students a sense of guerrilla-like development.
Additionally, high performing innovation teams are typically comprised of a number of diferent skill sets and personality types. Kelly and
Littman (2005) note that these teams are made of complementary individuals, each with skill sets that add to create a whole greater than
the sum of its parts. In order to approximate this phenomenon, each student is administered a Meyers-Briggs test.1 Meyers-Briggs is a
1http://www.myersbriggs.org/. Accessed September 27, 2010.
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
7
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
form of personality trait classifcation that denotes personal characteristics such as intro- or extroversion. We form teams with little or no
student input, balancing personality, background (type of engineer, etc.), and experience. Teams are formed during week three, formally
meeting the industrial designers in week four. An initial project manager will be designated and the teams will be given the scope of the
project. Generally, teams have 5-7 members, including the industrial designers. As mentioned, each week a team mentoring session is
held to review project deliverables and team progress. The culmination for each team is a fnal presentation of their concept, prototype,
and technology demonstration to a panel of industry experts and angel investors. The mission of the project is to simulate an investor
pitch in order to raise $25,000 to further advance the project technology. Each panelist reviews the projects based on a 15-question evalu-
ation sheet, which are considered as input to the fnal semester grade.
Early Results
Course descriptives
Below in Table 1, the team projects and student backgrounds are noted. The teams have been overwhelmingly interdisciplinary (STE
graduates mostly have technical backgrounds, although there is a small percentage with fnance and/or business degrees). The projects,
as a result of the pedagogy, are rich in terms of variation, ranging from health systems to consumer products and services. Thus far, 87
students have been involved in the program, spanning schools and degree programs at both the graduate and undergraduate level.
Table 1. Course data.
Student feedback and assessment
Student feedback has been excellent. For the past two years, we have relied on Northeastern’s standard online student/teacher/course
efectiveness surveys (the TRACE system). Below in Table 2 are overall course evaluation ratings.
Table 2. Course ratings.
The course was frst ofered in 2009, and revised to include the custom cases. Even including the ratings from the frst semester, the overall
evaluation of the course is higher than university averages, and higher than those for new courses, which average below 4.2. In looking
at the two most recent semesters, both the overall evaluation and amount learned far exceed university averages. We expect this trend to
continue with successive semesters. Below are excerpts from student evaluations:
“Lots of media, group work and actually physical design and collaboration.” •
“The material was interesting and the course is well structured. Highly recommend - I learned a ton.” •
“The biggest strength is the experiential learning element, as students work closely on developing a prototype of an idea that they •
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
8
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
develop - I learned the most on this part of the course. The feld trip to Continuum was also a nice treat.”
“It allows for real experience in developing a product. Increase the ratio of creative students/mass art student to STE students. It will •
help bring better products to light.”
“Truly enjoyed working on the development project. One of the best courses of the program!” •
“I love this course. It enabled me to learn about how to manage and develop a “New innovative product” and how to organize it for •
preparing enter the market.”
Currently, we are planning to collect custom student survey data on entrepreneurial efectiveness to further gauge efcacy of the course.
This will also include quantitative data from end-of-semester project presentations to industry panelists. These surveys are currently in the
fnal stages of revision and International Research Board (IRB) approval, as all investigations are subject to IRB guidelines. We will use the
collected data, along with student evaluations and project outcomes, as metrics to gauge course efectiveness in addition to the stan-
dard course evaluation system. One of the challenges that is faced, because of the empowerment of the hyper-agile teams, is that some
engineering students accustomed to very rigid classroom environments fnd themselves uncomfortable. We have begun to address this
by actively highlighting this aspect of the course and being extra diligent regarding deliverables during mentoring sessions.
Project example
In spring 2009, we challenged the project teams to develop concepts around an opportunity space using accelerometers and gyroscopes
combined with mobility. One project team developed a concept termed Lumo.™ Lumo is an investigation into the practical uses of ac-
celerometers, gyroscopes, internal memory, GPS, and internet connection on small, inexpensive portable devices to be worn on or close
to the body. The ever-decreasing cost of components (e.g., gyroscopes) is opening new markets for on-body data capture. Initial steps in
this direction are already being seen in products like the Nintendo Wii and Apple iPhone. The aim of the project is to explore the technical
and market feasibility of developing small, long lasting, accurate data capturing units that can give insight into human activity levels and
motion parameters.
Figure 3. Project Lumo
The initial project explored several potential markets, including children’s activity monitoring and sports motion technique capture.
Figure 3 notes some of the initial storyboards used to select leading concepts. These focused on sporting and ftness activities for various
target markets (note the CrissXFit concept shown on the left, a portable gym for business travelers). The Northeastern group selected
the children’s activity monitor as their choice to continue development (shown on the right in Figure 3). In the Fall of 2009, the project
moved from the product development class into the STE i-Cubator (a graduate-level experiential new venture accelerator that is part of
the STE Masters program), where a group of students evaluated the current market potential of the diferent product categories, includ-
ing rehabilitation, sports motion capture and technique enhancement, and children’s activity monitoring. A provisional patent was fled
in September 2010, and the project is currently being formed into an LLC, lead by two original student members. To date, the project has
raised thousands of dollars in scholarship and grant funds to continue prototype development and testing, and is close to securing Series
A angel investment. Several generations of prototypes have been developed and tested on children in a controlled setting. The Cuebee
(see Appendix D) will be joining the STE i-Cubator this fall. In terms of projects having a life after the course--being transferred into the STE
i-Cubator and/or being incorporated--we are running over 15%, which we feel is a good start. Our goal is 25% long-term. End-of-semester
feedback from industry panelists (including potential investors) viewing project presentations has been excellent, with panelists univer-
sally praising the projects for their professionalism and advanced state versus traditional project-based courses.
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
9
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
Conclusions and Recommendations
Creating innovative entrepreneurs is a main goal of educators nationwide. As such, dedicated programs at both the graduate and un-
dergraduate level have become pervasive. These programs promise to increase entrepreneurial and business skills, often by introducing
experiential components. While there are many excellent entrepreneurial programs nationwide, our research in developing our program
and courses suggested that in teaching technology-based new product development and associated innovation resulting from R&D, the
standard paradigm is still focused on traditional best practices. These best practices tend to be centered on the needs of large, established
corporations that are primarily focused on incremental innovations. However, new technology-focused start-ups can span a technology
R&D spectrum, from rapid prototyping agile software projects to long-lead science like biotechnology. Current best practice pedagogy
does not address the diferent needs of these industries, particularly through the lens of the resource-constrained new venture. We have
developed and deployed a NPD course that addresses these gaps and is generalizable to a wide variety of technical and non-technical
students who want to learn the process of commercializing innovation. The course explores the similarities and diferences between
technologies and industries during innovation development through custom curricula and case studies. Additionally, the course is heav-
ily experiential, giving student teams the ability to be hyper-agile, approaching near real-world empowerment through micro-funded
development projects. Given the need for entrepreneurs to be wildly creative, we have an intense focus on industrial design and design
thinking. Lastly, the project includes intense mentoring throughout the semester to simulate the beneft of a board of advisors. Thus far,
the preliminary results have indicated that the quality of student projects and associated entrepreneurial learning can be increased by
using this pedagogy, resulting in projects that are more advanced at the preliminary design stage and are more customer-oriented at the
prototype stage. Of course, the course is new and more data is needed to determine its true efcacy through student entrepreneurship
efectiveness surveys, student-teacher evaluations and ratings, and the overall number of projects commercialized. However, initial indica-
tors are positive. It is our hope that this course will be duplicated by other institutions so the concept of teaching entrepreneurial technol-
ogy development through a multi-disciplinary and hyper-agile experiential lens is spread, enhanced, and popularized.
References
Balachandra, R., and J. Friar. 1997. Factors for success in R&D projects and new product innovation: A contextual framework. IEEE Transac-
tions on Engineering Management 44(3): 276-287.
Carter, N. M., W. B. Gartner, and P. D. Reynolds. 1996. Exploring start-up event sequences. Journal of Business Venturing 11(3): 151-166.
Cooper, A. C. 1970. The Palo Alto experience. Industrial Research 12(5): 58-60.
Cooper, R. G. 2001. Winning at new products. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.
Di Gregorio, D., and S. Shane. 2003. Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy 32:209-227.
Dym, C. L., A. M. Agogino, O. Eris, D. D. Frey, and L. J. Leifer. 2005. Engineering Design Thinking, Teaching, and Learning, Journal of Engineer-
ing Education 94(1): 103-120.
Friar, J. H., T. J. Marion, and R. Kinnunen. 2009. Adnexus Corporation case. In Proceedings for the NACRA Conference, October 29-31, 2009,
Santa Cruz, CA.
Friedman, T. L. 2005. The world is fat: A brief history of the 21
st
century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Gartner, W.B., J. A. Starr, and S. Bhat. 1998. Predicting new venture survival: An analysis of “Anatomy of a Start-up” cases from Inc. Magazine.
Journal of Business Venturing 14(2): 215-232.
Howe, S., and J. Wilbarger. 2006. National survey on engineering capstone design courses. Paper presented at the 2006 American Society
of Engineering Education conference, session 2525.
Iansiti, M. 1995. Shooting the rapids: Managing product development in a turbulent environment. California Management Review 38(1):
37-58.
Isabella, L. A. 1990. Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds: How managers interpret key organizational events. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal 33(1): 7-41.
Jones, C., and J. English. 2004. A contemporary approach to entrepreneurship education. Education + Training,46(8): 416-423.
Kelly, T., and J. Littman. 2005. The ten faces of innovation. New York: Doubleday.
Kolvereid, L. 1996. Organizational employment versus self-employment: Reasons for career choice intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice 20(3): 23-31.
Krishnan, V., and K. T. Ulrich. 2001. Product development decisions: A review of the literature. Management Science 47(1):1-21.
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
10
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
Loch, C. H., M. E. Solt, and E. M. Bailey. 2008. Diagnosing unforeseeable uncertainty in a new venture. Journal of Product Innovation Manage-
ment 25(1): 28-46.
Marion, T. J., and T. W. Simpson. 2009. New product development practice application to an early-stage frm: The case of the
PaperPro
®
StackMaster.™ Design Studies 30(5): 561-587.
Marion, T. J., J. H. Friar, and T. W. Simpson. New product development in early-stage frms: Two case studies. Journal of Product Innovation
Management. (Forthcoming.)
Marion, T. J., and M. A. Meyer. Applying industrial design and cost engineering to new product development in early-stage frms. Journal of
Product Innovation Management. (Forthcoming.)
McGinn, D. 2009. The decline of western innovation. Newsweek, November 16.
Meyer, M. A., and T. J. Marion. 2010. Innovating for efectiveness: Lessons from design frms. Research-Technology Management. (Accepted
for publication.)
Meyer, M. H., and A. P. Lehnerd. 1997. The power of product platforms. New York: The Free Press.
Nelson, R. R. 1991. Why do frms difer, and how does it matter? Strategic Management Journal 12:61-74.
Norman, D. A. 2004. Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York: Basic Books.
Oakly, R. P. 2003. Technical entrepreneurship in high technology small frms: Some observations on the implications for management.
Technovation 23(3): 679-688.
Project Management Institute (PMI) Standards Committee. 1996. Guide to the Project Management body of knowledge. Upper Darby, PA:
Project Management Institute.
Saxenian, A. 1985. Silicon Valley and Route 128: Regional prototypes or historic exceptions? In High Technology, Space and Society, ed. M.
Castells. Beverley Hills and London: Sage Publications: 81-105.
Sethi, R., and Z. Iqbal. 2008. Stage-Gate controls, learning failure, and adverse efect on novel new products. Journal of Marketing 71(1):
118-134.
Solomon, G. T., S. Dufy, and A. Tarabishy. 2002. The state of entrepreneurship education in the United States: A nationwide survey and
analysis. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education 1(1): 1-22.
Souitaris, V., S. Zerbinati, and A. Al-Laham. 2007. Do entrepreneurship programs raise entrepreneurial intention of science and engineering
students? The efect of learning, inspiration and resources. Journal of Business Venturing 22(4): 566-591.
Takeuchi, H., and I. Nonaka. 1986. The new product development game. Harvard Business Review 64(1): 146-147.
Thorpe, J. F. 1984. Design of mechanical systems: A capstone course in mechanical engineering design. In Proceedings of the 1984 ASEE An-
nual Conference: 803-807.
Ulrich, K. T., and S. D. Eppinger. 2004. Product design and development. New York: Irwin McGraw-Hill. 3d ed.
Wang, E. L., and J. A. Kleppe. 2001. Teaching invention, innovation, and entrepreneurship in engineering. Journal of Engineering Education
10(1): 565- 570.
Wheelwright, S., and K. B. Clark. 1992. Revolutionizing product development. New York: The Free Press.
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
11
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
Appendix A: Course Syllabus
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
12
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
13
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
14
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
15
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
16
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
17
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
18
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
Appendix B: Course Project Process, Timing, and Deliverables
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
19
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
Appendix C: Course Project Deliverables (reviewed weekly)
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
20
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
Appendix D: Student Project Concepts
SolidAir: Motion capture and smartphone apps for extreme sports (Spring 2009)
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
21
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
Cuebee: Children’s expandable learning device (Spring 2010)
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
22
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
P
E
E
R
-
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
P
A
P
E
R
23
©
N
C
I
I
A
2
0
1
0
doc_351194805.pdf