Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship

2013 Edition
| Editors: Elias G. Carayannis

Applied Design Thinking Lab and Creative Empowering of Interdisciplinary Teams

  • Ruth Mateus-BerrEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3858-8_437



Thanks to all my students and colleagues and especially my daughter Iuna and my husband Tommy.

Ruth Mateus-Berr

Evolution of the Applied Design Thinking Lab (ADTL), Vienna

The Applied Design Thinking Lab (ADTL), Vienna, is situated at the University of Applied Arts in Vienna and was founded by the author in 2009. It might be understood as an application model for universities, companies and institutions of all kind, as it can be considered as a “hypothesis and action model.” Since 2004, the author followed the vision of inter/transdisciplinary work with diverse institutions, universities, and companies (which will be described in chapter Previous Projects), cooperation instead of “single combat” was the strategy.

ADTL approaches inter/transdisciplinary topics with interdisciplinary teams from different departments of...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Bast G. Maths goes design. Kunst/Wien: Universität für angewandte, In-house publishers Angewandte; 2010.Google Scholar
  2. Bauer CA, editor. User generated content – Urheberrechtliche Zulässigkeit nutzergenerierter Medieninhalte. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer; 2011.Google Scholar
  3. Belbin RM. The management of teams: why they succeed or fail. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science & Technology; 2010.Google Scholar
  4. Belbin RM. Team roles: http://www.belbin.com/rte.asp?id=396. 2012
  5. Boradkar P. Designing things. A critical introduction to the culture of objects. Oxford/New York: Berg Publishers; 2010.Google Scholar
  6. Borgdorff H. The conflict of the faculties. Perspectives on artistic research and academia. Leiden: University Press; 2012.Google Scholar
  7. Bourdieu P. Sozialer Sinn, Kritik der theoretischen Vernunft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp; 1987.Google Scholar
  8. Briggs J, Peat FD. Die Entdeckung des Chaos. Eine Reise durch die Chaos-Theorie. München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag; 1999.Google Scholar
  9. Brown T. Change by design. How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York: HarperCollins; 2009.Google Scholar
  10. Brown T. Harv Bus Rev 86 (6): 84-92, 141. 2008. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18605031. Accessed 30 Sept 2011.
  11. Bryman A. The disneyzation, of society. London/Los Angeles/London/New Delhi/Signapore/Washington, DC: Sage; 2004.Google Scholar
  12. Buxton B, Sheelagh C, Greenberg S, Marquardt N. Sketching user experiences. Waltham: Elsevier/Morgan Kaufmann; 2012.Google Scholar
  13. Carayannis EG. The strategic management of technological learning. Learning to learn and learning to learn-how-to-learn as drivers of strategic choice and firm performance in global, technology-driven markets. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  14. Carayannis EG. Measuring intangibles: managing intangibles for tangible outcomes in research and innovation. Int J Nucl Know Manag. 2004;1(1).Google Scholar
  15. Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ. “Mode 3” and “Quadruple helix”: toward a 21st-century fractal innovation ecosystem. Int J Technol Manag. 2009; 46(3/4), 201–234. http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=27%26year=2009%26vol = 46%26issue = 3/4. Accessed 25 July 2012.
  16. Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ. Mode 3 knowledge: production in Quadruple helix innovation systems. 21st-Century Democracy, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Development,. New York: Springer; 2012.Google Scholar
  17. Chomsky N. On certain formal properties of grammars. Inform Control. 1959;2:137–67.Google Scholar
  18. Clarke A. Design anthropology. Object culture in the 21st century, Edition Angewandte, Springer, New York; 2011.Google Scholar
  19. Collins H. Tacit and explicit knowledge. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press; 2010.Google Scholar
  20. Colwell RR. Global climate and infectious disease: the cholera paradigm. Science. 1996; 274 (5295), 2025–2031. DOI: 10.1126/science.274.5295.2025, PMID:8953025.Google Scholar
  21. Crandall R. Design thinking summer session. Resource document Stanford d.school k12 LAB. 2013. http://dschool.stanford.edu/use-our-methods/. Accessed 25 Jan 2013.
  22. Cross N. Designerly ways of knowing. London: Springer; 2006.Google Scholar
  23. Cross N. Design thinking. Oxford/New York: Berg Publishers; 2011.Google Scholar
  24. Cross N, Christiaans H, Dorst K. Analysing design activity. Chichester: Wiley; 1996.Google Scholar
  25. d.school. Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford. http://dschool.stanford.edu/. © 2013 Stanford University Institute of Design. Accessed 25 Jan 2013.
  26. Dalrymple J, Miller W. Interdisciplinarity: a key for real-world learning. Planet No. 17, GEES Subject Centre, University of Plymouth, Plymouth; 2006.Google Scholar
  27. Dasgupta S. Creativity in invention and design. Cambridge: University Press, Denkschule; 1994.Google Scholar
  28. de Bono E. De Bonos neue Denkschule. Heidelberg: mvgVerlag; 2005.Google Scholar
  29. Deleuze G, Guattari F. A Thousand Plateaus. London/New York: Continuum International; 2004.Google Scholar
  30. DeWachter M. Interdisciplinary team work. J Med Ethics. 1976; 2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495117/. Accessed 11 Sept 2011.
  31. Dewey J. Democracy and education. A Penn State Electronic Classics Series Publication (2001) (electronic). Hazleton, USA: Pennsylvania State University. 1916. http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/johndewey/dem% 26ed.pdf. Accessed 25 Aug 2011.
  32. Dilts R. Strategies of a genius, vol. 1. California: Meta Publications; 1994.Google Scholar
  33. Douven I. “Abduction”, The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Spring 2011 ed. Zalta EN, editor. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/abduction/. Accessed 29 Apr 2011.
  34. Drosdowski G, Müller W, Scholze-Stubenrecht W, Wermke M (Hg.) DUDEN, Das Herkunftswörterbuch. Etymologie der deutschen Sprache. Bd.7., Meyers Lexikonverlag, Mannheim, Wien, Zürich; 1989.Google Scholar
  35. Dursun P. Architectural theory and spatial analysis. An analytical tool for thinking and talking about space. Proceedings: eighth international space syntax symposium, Santiago, PUC, Chile. 2012. http://www.sss8.cl/proceedings/. Accessed 13 May 2011.
  36. Edison T. http://www.nps.gov/edis/index.htm. Accessed 28 April 2012.
  37. Ellin N. Postmodern urbanism. New York: Princeton Architectural Press; 1999.Google Scholar
  38. Epstein S. Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. Am Psychol. 1994;49:709–724. Ed. Norman B. Anderson. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.49.8.709.Google Scholar
  39. Frayling C. Research in art and design. In: Royal College of Art Research Papers, 1/1; 1993/1994.Google Scholar
  40. Fuller B. Bedienungsanleitung für das Raumschiff. Erde und andere Schriften. Hg. Joachim Krausse. Amsterdam, Dresden: Verlag der Kunst; 1998.Google Scholar
  41. Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M. The production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage; 1994.Google Scholar
  42. Goel V. Sketches of thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1995.Google Scholar
  43. Göker MH. The effects of experience during design problem solving. Des Stud. 1997;18(4):DOI:10.1016/S0142-694X(97)00009-4.Google Scholar
  44. Goldschmidt G. The dialectics of sketching. Creat Res J. 1991;1(2):123–143.Google Scholar
  45. Goodchild P. Deleuze and Guattari: an introduction to the politics of desire. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: Sage; 1996.Google Scholar
  46. Gordon WJJ. Synectics. New York: Harper & Row; 1961.Google Scholar
  47. Greenbaum J, Kyng M, editors. Design at work: cooperative design of computer systems. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1991.Google Scholar
  48. Hayes JR. Cognitive psychology: thinking and creating. Homewood/Belmont: Dorsey Press; 1978.Google Scholar
  49. Heidegger M. Being and time (trans. J. Stambaugh). Albany: State University of New York Press; 1996.Google Scholar
  50. Huq A, Xu B, Chowdhury MAR, Islam MS, Montilla R, Colwell RR. A simple filtration method to remove plankton-associated Vibrio cholerae in raw water supplies in developing countries. AEM Appl Environ Microbiol. 1996, 2509–2512, PMCID: PMC168033.Google Scholar
  51. Huq A, Yunus M, Sohel SS, Bhuiya A, Emch M, Luby S, Russek-Cohen E, Nair GB, Sacke RB, Colwell RR. Simple sari cloth filtration of water is sustainable and continues to protect villagers from cholera in Matlab, Bangladesh, DOI: 10.1128/mBio.00034-10 18 May 2010 mBio vol. 1 no. 1 e00034-10 http://mbio.asm.org/content/1/1/e00034-10.full. Accessed 1May 2012.
  52. Johnson M, Lakoff G. Leben in Metaphern. Konstruktion und Gebrauch von Sprachbildern. Heidelberg: Carl-Auer Verlag; 2011.Google Scholar
  53. Kandel E. In search of memory. New York: Norton; 2006.Google Scholar
  54. Kant I. Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Stuttgart: Reclam; 1989.Google Scholar
  55. Kelley T, Littmann J. The art of innovation: lessons in creativity from IDEO, America‘s leading design firm. New York: Currency Book; 2001.Google Scholar
  56. Kimbell R, Stables K, Zeidler D. Researching design learning issues and findings from two decades of research and development, Science and technology education library, vol. 34. New York: Springer; 2008.Google Scholar
  57. Klein JT. Interdisciplinarity: history, theory and practice. Detroit: Wayne State University Press; 1990.Google Scholar
  58. Klein JT. Creating interdisciplinary campus cultures. A model for strenghth and sustainability. San Francisco: Wiley Imprint; 2010.Google Scholar
  59. Koskinen I, Zimmerman J, Binder T, Redström J, Wensveen S. Design research through practice. From the lab, field, and showroom. Waltham: Elsevier; 2011.Google Scholar
  60. Krippendorf K. The semantic turn. A new foundation for design. Boca Raton: Taylor %26 Francis; 2006.Google Scholar
  61. Kristensen T. The physical context of creativity. Creat Innov Manag. 2004; 14, Nr. 2, 89–96. DOI: 10.1111/j.0963-1690.2004.00297.x. Accessed 3 Sept 2011.Google Scholar
  62. Kubie KS. The neurotic atortion of the creative process. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press; 1958.Google Scholar
  63. Laurel B, editor. Design research, methods and perspectives. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  64. Lawson B. How designers think. The design process demystified. Amsterdam/Boston/Heidelberg/London/New York/Oxford/Paris/San Diego/San Francisco/Singapore/Sydney/Tokio: Elsevier Ltd. 2006.Google Scholar
  65. Laysiepen U. (Ulay), Mateus-Berr R. Earth water catalogue. 2011. http://www.earthwatercatalogue.net/#project/181. Accessed 1 Apr 2012.
  66. Laysiepen (Ulay) U, Earth water catalogue. http://www.earthwatercatalogue.net/#project/181. Accessed 1 May 2012.
  67. Lieshout AV. Teamrollenprofil nach Selbsteinschätzung. The good, the bad + the ugly. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers; 1998.Google Scholar
  68. Lockwood T, editor. Design thinking. Integrating innovation, customer experience, and brand value. New York: Allworth Press; 2010.Google Scholar
  69. Maciver F, O’Driscoll A. Consultancy designer involvement in new product development in mature product categories: who leads, the designer or the marketer? 2010. www.drs2010.umontreal.ca/data/PDF/077.pdf. Accessed 1 April 2012.
  70. Maddalena G. Guessing or reasoning? A philosophical account of hypothesis. In: de Almeida UB, Rojo J, editors. Euresis, Association for the Promotion of the Scientific Endeavour, Vol. 1 Summer 2011. 2011. http://www.scribd.com/doc/98312138/The-Event-of-Discovery. Accessed 13. July 2012.
  71. Mareis C. The nature of design. In: Mareis C, Joost G, Kimpel K (Hg.), entwerfen, wissen, produzieren. Designforschung im Anwendungskontext, transcript Verlag, Bielefeld; 2010.Google Scholar
  72. Martin R. The design of business. Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Boston: Harvard Business Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  73. Martin B, Hanington B. Universal methods of design. 100 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions. Beverly: Rockport; 2012.Google Scholar
  74. Mateus-Berr R, Laysiepen U. Ulay, Earth water catalogue. 2011. http://www.earthwatercatalogue.net/#project/181. Accessed 1 April 2012.
  75. Matt G. Get together. Kunst als Teamwork. Wien/Bozen: Folio Verlag; 1999.Google Scholar
  76. Mers A. Transferdiskurse zr Künstlerpositionen, Kreativindustrien, Kreativität, Innovation, Ästhetik und Diagrammatik, In: Tröndle M (Hg.) Kunstforschung als ästhetische Wissenschaft, Beiträge zur transdisziplinären Hybridiesierung von Wissenschaft und Kunst, transcript Verlag, Bielefeld; 2012.Google Scholar
  77. Mitchell W.J.T. Interdisciplinarity and visual culture. The Art Bulletin, 77(4), In: Winters T, Interdisciplinarity and Design Education. Conference Proceedings: copyright © 2009 Swinburne University of Technology and RMIT University. Conference Cumulus 38, Hemispheric Shifts across learning, teaching and research. Published in Melbourne, Australia by Swinburne University of Technology and RMIT University; 2009. http://www.swinburne.edu.au/lib/ir/onlineconferences/cumulus/welcome.htm. Accessed 10 Sept 2011.
  78. Mittelstraß J. Art and research: an introduction. In: Rittermann J, Bast G, Mittelstraß J, editors. Kunst und Forschung/Art and research. Wien: Springer; 2011.Google Scholar
  79. Morgan N, Saxton J. Asking better questions. Ontario: Pembroke; 2006.Google Scholar
  80. National Research Council. Scientific interfaces and technological applications. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1986.Google Scholar
  81. National Research Council. Interdisciplinary research: promoting collaboration between the life sciences and medicine and the physical sciences and engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1990.Google Scholar
  82. Newbury D. Research training in the creative arts and design. In: Biggs M, Karlsson H, editors. The Routledge companion to research in the Arts. Routledge/London/New York: Taylor %26 Francis; 2011.Google Scholar
  83. Nonaka I, Takeuchi H. Die Organisation des Wissens. Wie japanische Unternehmen eine brachliegende Ressource nutzbar machen. Frankfurt am Main, New York: Campus Verlag; 1997.Google Scholar
  84. Ormerod TC. Planning and ill-defined problems. In: Morris R, Ward G, editors. The cognitive psychology of planning. London: Psychology Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  85. Osborn AF. Your creative power. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; 1948.Google Scholar
  86. Osborn AF. Applied imagination. principles and procedures of creative problem-solving. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; 1953.Google Scholar
  87. Papanek V (F. Pumhösl, T. Geisler, M. Fineder, G. Bast, (Hg.)). Design für die reale Welt. Anleitungen für eine humane Ökologie und sozialen Wandel. Edition Angewandte. Wien: Springer; 1973/2009.Google Scholar
  88. Parnes SJ. Can creativitybe increased? In: Parnea SJ, Harding HF, editors. A source book for creative thinking. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; 1962.Google Scholar
  89. Parnes SJ, Noller RB, Biondi AM. Guide to creative action. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; 1977.Google Scholar
  90. Parry. 2007. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/episteme-techne/. Accessed 15 July 2012.
  91. Peirce CS. Collected papers. Vols. 1–8, Hartshorne C, Weiss P, Burks AW, editors. Havard University Press, Cambridge, MA; 1935–1966.Google Scholar
  92. Peran M. Interview in: dérive (Pamela Bartar) Stadtplanungen in der Post-It City. Von Barcelona bis Valparaiso oder Wien. Dérive 38 Zeitschrift für Stadtforschung. Artikel aus der Ausgabe 33. 2008. http://www.derive.at/index.php?p_case=2%26id_cont=752%26issue_No=33. Accessed 16 July 2009.
  93. Peters S. Der Vortrag als performance, transcript. Bielefeld: Verlag; 2011.Google Scholar
  94. Plattner H, Meinel C, Weinberg U. Design thinking. Innovationen lernen, Ideenwelten öffnen, Wirtschaftsbuch. München: Finanzbuch Verlag GmbH; 2009.Google Scholar
  95. Polanyi M. The logic of tacit inference. In: Grene M, editor. Knowing and being: essays by michael polanyi. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press; 1966. p. 140–4.Google Scholar
  96. Polanyi M. The tacit dimension. London/Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  97. Prahalad CK, Ramaswamy V. Future of competition: co-creating unique value with customers. Harvard Business Press Books. Pn.9535-SRN-ENG. 2004. http://cb.hbsp.harvard.edu/cb/search/cocreation%2520prahalad%2520ramaswamy?Ntk=HEMainSearch%26N=0. Accessed 23 April 2011.
  98. Raymond M. The trend Forecaster’s handbook. London: Laurence King; 2010.Google Scholar
  99. Rhea D. Bringing clarity to the “Fuzzy front end”. A predictable process for innovation. In: Laurel B, editor. Design research. Methods and perspectives. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  100. Ribot T. Essays on the creative imagination. London: Routledge %26 Kegan Paul; 1906.Google Scholar
  101. Ryle G. The concept of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1949.Google Scholar
  102. Schneider G. In: Klein JT, editor. Interdisciplinary campus cultures. A model for strength and sustainability. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2010 xv.Google Scholar
  103. Schuler D, Namioka A. Participatory design, principles and practices. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1993.Google Scholar
  104. Schön DA. The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. Cambridge: Perseus Books; 1983.Google Scholar
  105. Sennet R. Handwerk. Berlin: Berlin Verlag; 2008.Google Scholar
  106. Shinozaki J, Cavagnaro LB. d.school brainstorming rules. 2009. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1h5L_0rFz8. Accessed 29 April 2012.
  107. Simon HA. The sciences of the artificial. 3rd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1969/2001.Google Scholar
  108. Spearman CE. Creative mind. London/Cambridge: University Press; 1930.Google Scholar
  109. Sperri RE. Nobelprize. 1981. http://www.nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/index.php?id=1606. Accessed 18 March 2012.
  110. Stephan PF. Wissen und Nicht-Wissen im Entwurf. In: Mareis C, Joost G, Kimpel K, editors. Entwerfen wissen produzieren. Designforschung im Anwenderkontext, transcript Verlag, Bielefeld; 2010.Google Scholar
  111. Stokes DE. Pasteur’s quadrant. Basic science and technology innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press; 1997.Google Scholar
  112. Sullivan LH. The tall office building artistically considered. First published in Lippinicott’s Magazine 57, (1896) http://de.scribd.com/doc/104764188/Louis-Sullivan-The-Tall-Office-Building-Artistically-Considered. Accessed 26 Jan 2012.
  113. Sullivan G. Art practice as research, inquiry in visual arts. Washington DC/ Los Angeles/London/New Delhi/Signapore: Sage; 2010.Google Scholar
  114. Torrance EP. Understanding creativity: where to start? In: Psychological inquiry, Bd. 4, Nr. 3, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah. 1993, http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1047-840X%281993%294%3A3%3C232%3AUCWTS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O. Accessed 26 July 2012.
  115. Veryzer W, Borja de Mozota B. The impact of user-orientated design on new product development. An examination of fundamental relationships. J Prod Innov Manag. 2005;22(2):128–43. doi:10.1111/j.0737-6782.2005.00110.x.Google Scholar
  116. Von Hippel EV. Democratizing innovation. Cambridge/London: The MIT Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  117. Wake L. NLP. Principles in practice. St. Albans: Ecedemy Press; 2010.Google Scholar
  118. Wallas G. The art of thought. New York: Harcourt Brace; 1926.Google Scholar
  119. Weingardt M. Fehler zeichnen uns aus. Transdisziplinäre Grundlagen zur Theorie und Produktivität des Fehlers in Schule und Arbeitswelt. Bad Heilbrunn: Verlag Julius Klinkhardt; 2004.Google Scholar
  120. Wiener N. Kybernetik. Regelung und Nachrichtenübertragung in Lebewesen und Maschine. Hamburg: Rowohlt Verlag; 1968.Google Scholar
  121. Wilde O, An ideal husband. “mrs. cheveley. (To herself) How thoughtful of him! To expect the unexpected shows a thoroughly modern intellect”. 1895. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/885/885-h/885-h.htm. Accessed 29 April 2012.
  122. World Health Organization 2011, 86, 325–340, 29 July 2011, 86th year / 29 juiLLET 2011, 86e année No. 31, 2011, 86, 325–340 http://www.who.int/wer (Zugegriffen am 1.2.2012).


Participants and Experts. 2009: Math %26 Art %26 Design: The way Polynomiography things go

  1. Performed at the conference: DIMACS, Rutgers University NJ, USA.Google Scholar
  2. Participants: Petra Ilias, Walter Lunzer, Ao. Univ.-Prof. Ruth Mateus-Berr.Google Scholar
  3. Mentor/experts: Prof. Bahman Kalantari, Prof. Georg Glaeser, Prof. Reinhart Winkler, Prof. James Skone.Google Scholar

Participants and Experts. 2010: Maths Goes Design

  1. Performed at the Bridges Conference (Mathematics, Music, Art, Architecture, Culture) 2010, Pécs, Hungary.Google Scholar
  2. Participants: Konrad Cernohous, Mag. Walter Lunzer, Dominik Gross, Prof. Jonathan Farley, ao.Univ.-Prof. Ruth Mateus-Berr.Google Scholar
  3. Mentors/experts: Prof. Jonathan Farley, Dr. Michael Schreiber, Sebastian Prantl, Prof. James Skone, Franz Morgenbesser.Google Scholar

Participants and Experts. 2011: Math Goes Wherever/Math Goes Fashion

  1. Performed at the Wiskunst Conference 2011, Sint Lucas University Gent, Belgium.Google Scholar
  2. Participants: Konrad Cernohous, Mag. Petra Ilias, Mag. Walter Lunzer, Dominik Gross, Jasmin Schaitl, ao. Univ.-Prof. Ruth Mateus-Berr.Google Scholar
  3. Mentors/experts: Prof. Dirk Huylebrouck, Prof. Reza Sharangi, Vy Hart, Prof. Reinhart Winkler, Prof. Kristof Fenyvesi, Dr. Michael Schreiber, Christian Leeb, Franz Morgenbesser.Google Scholar
  4. Performed at the Bridges Conference (Mathematics, Music, Art, Architecture, Culture) 2011, University of Coimbra, Portugal.Google Scholar
  5. Participants: Konrad Cernohous, Mag. Petra Ilias, Dominik Gross, Jasmin Schaitl, Klaudia Kozma, ao. Univ.-Prof. Ruth Mateus-Berr.Google Scholar
  6. Performed at Pecha Kucha Night Vienna, Vienna Design Week.Google Scholar
  7. Participants: Konrad Cernohous, Mag. Petra Ilias, Mag. Walter Lunzer, Dominik Gross, Jasmin Schaitl, Klaudia Kozma, Prof. Michael P. Schultes, ao. Univ.-Prof. Ruth Mateus-Berr.Google Scholar
  8. Mentors/experts: Prof. Reinhart Winkler, Dr. Michael Schreiber, Prof. Georg Glaeser.Google Scholar

Participants and Experts. 2012: Applied Design Thinking Lab. 4 Layers of Sari

  1. Performed at: Teacher’s Academy ELIA, University of Porto 2012.Google Scholar
  2. Participants: Cornelia Bast, Dr. Elisabeth Geymüller, Klaudia Kozma, László Lukács, ao. Univ.-Prof. Ruth Mateus-Berr, Prof. P. Michael Schultes, Marie-Theres-Wakonig.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Art Sciences and Art Education, Institute of Art & SocietyUniversity of Applied Arts ViennaViennaAustria