CDM1001: Introduction to Culture and Design Management

Learning Goal:

• Connect foundational design principles to real-world social innovation cases for better understanding.
• Analyze each design case using a Problem–Solution framework.
• Compare alternative design decisions systematically.
• Move beyond subjective judgments such as ‘I like it’ or ‘it looks good’; rather, explain why a design decision may be effective or ineffective for a particular purpose, user, and context.
• Develop an increasingly critical and multidimensional way of examining design cases.

Format

1. Lecture

   Students first learn a foundational design principle for each design domain covered in Weeks 2–7 through an FC lecture and a follow-up in-class lecture.

2. In-Class Group Exercise

   Students critically examine design principles through example cases. Working in small groups, they use D:Branch to explore a design case, compare alternative design decisions, and discuss their interpretations with classmates.

3. Individual D:Branch Exploration

   After class, each student independently uses D:Branch to further examine the relevant design topic. Students may revisit the in-class case or explore additional alternatives and examples.

4. Individual Analytical Report

   Each student submits a short report documenting what they explored, what they observed, how their thinking developed, and what conclusions they reached. Individual submissions are used to assess each student’s own understanding and critical thinking.

Project unit

The in-class group exercise supports collaborative learning and exposure to different perspectives. However, Deliverables #1–6 are submitted and assessed individually. Participation in the group exercises is evaluated separately under Participation & Professional Engagement.

Grade breakdown

Key evaluation criteria

• Understanding of design concepts: Demonstrates an accurate understanding of the design principles introduced each week.
• Depth of comparison: Identifies meaningful differences between design alternatives rather than merely describing visible features.
• Quality of reasoning: Clearly explains why particular design decisions may be effective or ineffective.
• Consideration of context: Evaluates design in relation to its intended users, purpose, cultural context, and medium.
• Critical perspective: Moves beyond personal preference and supports judgments with relevant concepts and evidence.
• Development across assignments: Demonstrates an increasingly sophisticated ability to connect and apply multiple design lenses.

Learning Goal:

• Identify how different art and design elements are incorporated into the space.
• Evaluate whether each design decision supports the purpose of the space and its targeted visitors.
• Explain why particular design elements are effective or ineffective beyond subjective judgments.
• Develop a holistic perspective on how multiple design components work together.

Format

1. Field Visit

   Students visit one pop-up store or comparable space and collect their own observations, photographs, and supporting information.

2. Design Elements Analysis

   Students analyze art, graphic design, product design, interaction design, and service design elements within the selected space. For each area, they examine its contribution to the visitor experience, its alignment with the purpose and targeted visitors, and possible directions for improvement. They also identify at least three relationships among different design elements and analyze how these elements support, enhance, or conflict with one another.

3. Individual Report Writing

   Each student submits an individual Mid-term Report using the provided template. The report includes four sections: Pop-up Store Description, Single Design Elements Analysis, Inter-relational Design Reflection, and Personal Reflection.

Project unit

Individual. Students may visit and discuss the space with classmates. However, the observation, analysis, improvement suggestions, and final report are completed and assessed individually.

Grade breakdown

Key evaluation criteria

• Application of learned design principles: Accurately applies the principles introduced in Project 1.
• Quality of observation: Supports the analysis with specific examples and visual evidence.
• Purpose- and user-centered thinking: Evaluates design decisions in relation to the space’s goals and targeted visitors.
• Quality of reasoning: Clearly explains why specific design elements are effective or ineffective.
• Inter-relational thinking: Identifies meaningful synergies and tensions among different design elements.
• Holistic reflection: Demonstrates an integrated understanding of art, design, experience, and design management.

Learning Goal:

• Understand the Finnish company’s identity, values, products, and existing market position.
• Investigate the needs, perceptions, and behaviors of potential Korean users and customers.
• Identify cultural and market differences that should be considered when entering Korea.
• Translate user research findings into meaningful customer insights and opportunity areas.
• Develop a coherent marketing strategy connecting target customers, positioning, messaging, channels, and customer experience.
• Integrate user-centered, customer-centered, and strategic-centered thinking.

Format

1. Company Briefing and Project Framing

   Students learn about the partner company, its products, values, and project expectations. Each group defines the initial project scope and examines the Korean market and cultural context.

2. User Research Planning and Execution

   Students identify potential Korean users or customers, develop an appropriate research plan, and conduct user research. The research should generate evidence that can guide later strategic decisions.

3. User Insight and Ideation

   Students analyze their research findings, identify meaningful patterns and customer insights, and define key opportunity areas. Based on these insights, they explore and compare possible marketing directions.

4. Strategic Marketing Proposal

   Students integrate cultural, customer, design, marketing, and company perspectives into a coherent Korean market launch strategy. The proposal should clearly explain the target customer, positioning, core message, communication channels, customer experience, and implementation direction.

5. Final Presentation

   Each group presents its final strategy to the class and external collaborators. The presentation should communicate the research process, supporting evidence, strategic rationale, and final proposal in a professional and persuasive manner.

Project unit

Group. Deliverables #8–11 are completed and assessed as group submissions. All members are expected to participate meaningfully in research, analysis, ideation, strategy development, and presentation. Individual grades may be adjusted when there is a substantial difference in documented contribution.

Grade breakdown

Key evaluation criteria

• Understanding of the company and context: Accurately reflects the Finnish company’s identity while considering the Korean cultural and market environment.
• Quality of user research: Uses appropriate participants, questions, and methods to collect meaningful evidence.
• Insight development: Moves beyond summarizing responses and identifies relevant customer needs, patterns, and opportunities.
• Research-to-strategy connection: Clearly demonstrates how the proposed strategy was developed from research findings.
• Interdisciplinary integration: Meaningfully connects culture, design, customer experience, marketing, and management perspectives.
• Strategic coherence: Aligns the target customer, positioning, message, channels, and experience within one consistent proposal.
• Cultural relevance and feasibility: Proposes an approach that is appropriate for Korean customers and realistic for the partner company.
• Originality and professional communication: Presents a distinctive, well-supported, and clearly communicated strategy.

Learning Goal:

• Reflect on personal interests, strengths, and learning experiences from Projects 1–3.
• Identify the disciplines and design subdomains that students wish to integrate.
• Explain the relationships, intersection areas, and potential synergies among selected disciplines.
• Connect personal interests to user-centered, customer-centered, and company-centered design thinking approaches.
• Clarify a possible future learning or career direction through a representative interdisciplinary case.
• Develop a more intentional understanding of one’s position within Culture and Design Management.

Format

1. Personal Interdisciplinary Diagram

   Students create a visual diagram representing the disciplines they wish to connect. The diagram may begin with design, art, management, and technology, but students may add or subdivide domains such as product design, graphic design, service design, psychology, architecture, culture, or museum studies.

2. Diagram Description and Reflection

   Students explain the selected domains, their intersection areas, and the synergies they hope to create. They should also describe which design thinking perspectives and processes they wish to emphasize, using their course and project experiences—particularly the interdisciplinary collaboration in Project 3—as supporting evidence.

3. Representative Case Analysis

   Students select one design project, business case, organization, or professional example that closely aligns with their interdisciplinary diagram. They explain how the case combines the selected domains and how it may serve as a reference for their future learning or career direction.

4. Individual Final Report

   Each student submits an individual report using the provided format. The report consists of a personal interdisciplinary diagram, a written explanation of the diagram, and a representative case analysis.

Project unit

Individual. Project 4 is completed and assessed individually. The diagram and written discussion should reflect each student’s own interests, experiences, and future direction rather than presenting a general description of interdisciplinary design.

Grade breakdown

Key evaluation criteria

• Clarity of interdisciplinary mapping: Clearly identifies the disciplines and subdomains the student wishes to integrate.
• Quality of connections: Explains meaningful relationships and synergies among the selected domains.
• Use of course experience: Supports the diagram with specific learning or collaboration experiences from the course.
• Understanding of design thinking: Appropriately connects the map to user-, customer-, and company-centered perspectives.
• Case alignment: Selects and analyzes a representative case that closely reflects the proposed interdisciplinary approach.
• Future direction: Presents a thoughtful and plausible direction for further learning, projects, or career exploration.