Design in Business Education: A Square Peg in a Round World? By Thomas Lockwood
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
I was pleased to re‐read Tom's 2002 article for two reasons: First, because I am impressed by how spot‐on his assessment was at the time; and second, because it is no longer (completely) true. What a relief! In today's United States, programs such as the Strategic Design MBA at Philadelphia University, as well as the design MBA degrees at the California College of Art in San Francisco, the Institute of Design in Chicago, and MICA/Johns Hopkins in Baltimore are resounding proof of integrative approaches in an MBA context. Design thinking and systems thinking are interwoven into the ways these programs teach leadership, operations, marketing, and finance. Additionally, business schools such as Rotman at the University of Toronto and Darden at the University of Virginia have robust business design studios and design thinking modules. Other traditional MBA programs are at least now offering one course in design thinking, if not integrating it throughout their program; and their students, if not the faculty at large, have formed “innovation clubs”—code for “This is a safe space for creativity and design thinking.” It is no longer the rule that graduate business education draws a deep demarcation between creativity and strategy. That is a false dichotomy and, as Tom wrote, there is a “rising importance of corporate creativity.” Of course, relative to the UK, Europe, and Asia, the democratization of design in business‐school curricula is still novel. But the “gridlock of curriculum tradition” and accreditation metrics that impeded innovation in graduate business education are melting away and becoming more fluid. This is mainly because the gaps that Tom so rightly identified between design practitioners and business managers, and between industry's embrace of design thinking and academia's reluctant gaze, has been bridged by academic upstarts who are responding to the market's demand to “give us more than a SWOT analysis!” Tom concluded that it could take 10 years before business educators embraced the value of design. He was pretty close. Although it is still true that academia lags behind the current of industry, it is encouraging that there are an increasing number of tributaries in business education forging ahead.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle