Engineering Design Thinking: Could it be useful to the NTEU?

John Murphy, University of Adelaide

In my role as Learning Designer at the University of Adelaide, I work with academic staff to support and enhance teaching in online and blended environments. I try to take a collaborative, problem-solving and evidence-based approach to my work in course, program and activity design. This often includes advising on the use of new technologies. I also have a university teaching background in Education (Sociology and Digital Media).

Over the past five years – in my now continuing role – I have worked closely with academic staff at the Faculty of Engineering, Computer and Maths Sciences (ECMS). This has given me an insight into engineering design thinking – which has got me asking whether this approach could be of use to the NTEU in our problem-solving.

Engineering design thinking is defined by Dym et al (2005) as 'a systematic process to generate, evaluate, and specify concepts .. (to) achieve clients’ … needs under a set of constraints' (p. 104).

Each Semester, Bachelor of Engineering students at the University of Adelaide are presented with a real world design challenge. Initially I have heard it explained as an analogy (Davey, Yong et al, 2018).

If you wanted to buy a dream car, what factors would you consider? How would you weight them by priority? How would that change, if you had budget and time constraints?

The students then work in groups to define the problem, then design, implement and evaluate a solution. The real world problem involves a developing country or region – for example a digital communication issue in a remote Aboriginal community or a water supply problem in PNG.

The process involves a number of stages. The first step is consultation with the community to better understand their needs and objectives and gain valuable cultural insights. This can save time, money and resources over the course of a project.

The next step is to define the problem. The issue or challenge is broken down into all of its factors. Each is weighted based on estimated importance. The weighted elements add up to 100%. This helps to establish general consensus and measurable priorities given the constraints.

In the next stage, students brainstorm possible solutions. This involves doing further research, gathering information, data, further discussion and analysis. Adjustments can be made to refine the problem definition.

In the next stage, an approach is selected and implemented.

In the final stage, results are evaluated. The students refer back to their initial list of factors and weightings and assess what has changed. Which of the factors are still an issue? Which have been partially, largely or fully resolved? Progress has now become measurable and insights gained.

In an iterative (cyclical) approach, the problem is then re-defined for a new cycle or a future project.

The best solutions are chosen from universities across the country and show-cased nationally as real-world problem solving initiatives. Projects gradually became more complex through the Bachelor of Engineering program leading to final year industry projects such as the Darwin to Adelaide World Solar Car challenge.

As a non-Engineer, I was impressed with this analytical approach to collaborative problem solving. Student engineers are encouraged to be global in their thinking and practice with projects often involving multiple stake-holders in multi-disciplinary teams, from government to industry, NGOs, academic and student representatives.

I am now reflecting on how we could apply this approach to our work in the NTEU. As we commence Enterprise Bargaining negotiations in Adelaide and across the country, could it help us collaboratively define complex issues, inform our collective approach and measure our gains?

What if we use the Engineering Design Thinking to break down the complex issue of casualisation into its components and ask staff to weight each factor of concern from a total of 100%?

Having worked in higher education for many years now, I have witnessed first-hand the effects of job insecurity on health and well-being – how increased casualisation continues to have a negative impact on staff, particularly on women who make up the majority of the casual teaching workforce. It also can impact negatively on the student experience.

What if we use the Engineering Design Thinking to break down the complex issue of casualisation into its components and ask staff to weight each factor of concern from a total of 100%? Table 1 is an example of how we might define the problem using design thinking. The factors that I have listed are based on listening to colleagues as well as local and national concerns.

Could we target some of the low weighted areas initially to achieve some ‘quick wins’? If we can achieve progress on contracts (3) earlier, it may positively impact on stress over job insecurity (6). Obtaining agreement on marking (4) and pay rates (2) could relieve work related stress as we continue to fight for agreement locally and nationally on job security – an issue still before the Fair Work Commission. As we evaluate results, we can begin to answer the question ‘How do we measure success?’ We may be able to achieve general consensus on what we have won, what we have lost, and what we will have to keep fighting for on another day.

John Murphy is a Learning Designer and lecturer/tutor at the University of Adelaide, and a member of the NTEU University of Adelaide Branch Committee