Industrial design and computer science might seem like an odd mix to some, but Jeannette Stekelenburg, Bachelor student at Eindhoven University of Technology, always thought they fit together naturally: “For me, it has always made perfect sense.” 

That logic is now at the core of her graduation research with the Software Design group at TU/e. She is investigating how design thinking can help with software development, especially when building Digital Twins. For this, she is participating in the new multidisciplinary Challenged Based Learning (CBL) programme, which is running for the second time this quarter. This is not unfamiliar territory. As a student assistant for EWUU Alliance, she has been guiding first-year students through CBL and providing student information sessions for years. 

“Very often they develop something that eventually works, but whether it actually helps the end user, that’s missing.”

Copy-paste work 

It began with a moment of recognition. Jeannette saw a pattern in CBL courses: the design thinking model was carefully built, but then used over and over without much thought. “Most professors said: this is a well-thought-out structure. We’ll just use this.” 

That bothered her. Design thinking is supposed to help you quickly make something real and get users involved right away. In software development, the opposite often happens. “Very often they develop something that eventually works, but whether it actually helps the end user, that’s missing.” 

This issue is even clearer with Digital Twins. For example, if you are building a digital twin for a medical use, you should check with a doctor halfway through and ask, is this what you need? “That is still too often overlooked.” 

What students say 

To further test her assumptions for her thesis research, Jeannette observed students and sent out surveys. These showed that students find design thinking pleasant and see it as a support. At the same time, they indicated that the model contributes little when they actually start building. 

“It doesn’t limit freedom. I think it supports freedom.” 

Surprisingly, many students did not realize they were using design thinking. They followed the steps and liked the process, but did not know it was a recognized method. Helping students see design thinking as a method is an important next step. 

Freedom needs structure 

Her conclusion might sound like a contradiction. CBL is meant to let students work on their own, so adding more structure seems to go against that. But Jeannette sees it another way. ‘You can’t just throw a group of students into the void.’ She does not want to create a new rigid framework, but to think carefully about a Design Thinking model that fits better with software development. Such a model would not only support the design process, but also incorporate architectural considerations from the start. By thinking ahead — and giving architecture a deliberate place in the process — there is room to look back and iterate later. “It doesn’t limit freedom. I think it supports freedom.”