ICoRD'13 pp 1151-1163 | Cite as

Cross-Disciplinary Approaches: Indications of a Student Design Project

  • H. Hashemi Farzaneh
  • Maria Katharina Kaiser
  • Torsten Metzler
  • Udo Lindemann
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)

Abstract

Cross-disciplinary approaches are adopted in technical product development for a number of reasons, including the improvement of the product quality and the reduction of time to market. However, the positive and negative effects of cross-disciplinary approaches such as cross-disciplinary teams or biomimetics are controversially discussed. In this work, we perform a case study with architecture and mechanical engineering students using biomimetics to gain insights to effects in a threefold cross-disciplinary project. The results indicate possibilities for improving cross-disciplinary team projects.

Keywords

Cross-disciplinary team work Biomimetics Collaborative design 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors want to thank the participating students and Prof. Dr.-Ing. Tina Wolf and Dipl.-Ing. Philipp Molter from the Institute of Shell Constructions for their support.

References

  1. 1.
    Kleinsmann MS (2006) Understanding collaborative design. Ph.D. Thesis, Technical University DelftGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mannix E, Neale MA (2005) What differences make a difference? the promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychol Sci Public Interest 6(2):31–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lindemann U (2009) Methodische entwicklung technischer produkte, 3rd edn. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stempfle J, Badke-Schaub P (2002) Thinking in design teams—an analysis of team communication. Des Stud 23(5):473–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kurtzberg TR (2005) Feeling creative, being creative: an empirical study of diversity and creativity in teams. Creativity Res 17:51–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nachtigall W (2002) Bionik—Grundlagen und Beispiele für Ingenieure und Naturwissenschaftler, 2nd edn. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaiser MK, Hashemi Farzaneh H, Lindemann U (2012) An approach to support searching for biomimetic solutions based on system characteristics and its environmental interactions. International design conference (Design2012), pp 969–978Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sartori J, Ujjwal P, Chakrabarti A (2010) A methodology for supporting “transfer” in biomimetic design. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 24:483–505Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hill B (1997) Innovationsquelle natur: naturorientierte innovationsstrategie für entwickler, konstrukteure und designer. Shaker, AachenGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gramann J (2004) Problemmodelle und bionik als methode. Ph.D. Thesis, Technical University MunichGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Löffler S (2009) Anwenden bionischer konstruktionsprinzipe in der produktentwicklung. Ph.D. Thesis, Technical University Carolo-WilhelminaGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Asknature (2012) http://www.asknature.org, extracted 2012/07/20
  13. 13.
    Cheong H, Shu L, Stone RB (2008) Translating terms of the functional basis into biologically meaningful keywords. In: Proceedings of the ASME IDETC/CIEGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vandevenne D, Verhaegen P-A, Dewulf S, Duflou JR (2012) Automated classification into the biomimetics taxonomy. International design conference (Design2012), pp 1161–1165Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Metzler T, Shea K (2011) Lessons learned from a project-based learning approach for teaching new cognitive product development to multi-disciplinary student teams. IDETC/CIE, WashingtonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Hashemi Farzaneh
    • 1
  • Maria Katharina Kaiser
    • 1
  • Torsten Metzler
    • 1
  • Udo Lindemann
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Product DevelopmentTechnische Universität MünchenGarchingGermany

Personalised recommendations