Design innovation integrating deep technology, societal needs, radical innovation, and future thinking: a case study of the CBI A3 program


  • Christine Thong Swinburne University of Technology, John St Hawthorn, VIC, 3122
  • Andreea Cotoranu Pace University, One Pace Plaza, New York, NY 10038
  • Aaron Down Swinburne University of Technology, John St Hawthorn, VIC, 3122
  • Kirstin Kohler University of Applied Sciences Mannheim, Paul-Wittsack- Straße 10, 68163 Mannheim
  • Catarina Batista University of Applied Sciences Mannheim, Paul-Wittsack- Straße 10, 68163 Mannheim



design methods, social innovation, deep technology, self-efficacy, tertiary education


There is a recognized need for innovators with design capability to translate deep technology into applications that consider desirable futures and positive societal impact. Challenge Based Innovation A3 (CBI A3) is an interdisciplinary program that aims to develop such capability in university students’ using an integrated curriculum featuring design skills combining four domains: deep technology, societal needs, radical innovation and future thinking. This paper describes the CBI A3 program and discusses exploratory research using a mixed methods approach of observations, reflections, and before and after surveys measuring growth in student confidence. Initial findings indicate CBI A3 program achieves its learning objectives, recommending further in-depth research to validate findings and broaden understanding of specific tools and curriculum approaches for both professional practice and educational settings.



Alphabeta (Australia part of Accenture), 2020, Australia’s Deep Tech Opportunity: Insights from the Cicada Innovations Journey, A report undertaken on behalf of Cicada Innovations.

Anderson, D.M., 2013, Overarching Goals, Values, and Assumptions of Integrated Curriculum Design, SCHOLE: A Journal of Leisure Studies and Recreation Education, 28(1): pp.1-10. DOI: 10.1080/1937156X.2013.11949690.

ATTRACT, 2021, ATTRACT phase 2 Developing breakthrough technologies for science and society, Retrieved 8th May 2021:

Bandura, A., 1977, Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review, 84(2), p.191.

Bandura, A., 2006, Guide for constructing Self-efficacy scales. In Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, Pajares, F. & Urdan, T.S. (eds.) Information Age Publishing: Greenwich, pp. 307-337.

Carberry, A. R., Gerber, E. M., & Martin, C. K. (2018). Measuring the innovation self-efficacy of engineers∗. International Journal of Engineering Education, 34(2), 590-598.

Chow, J., 2019, What is Deep Tech? Deep Tech Defined, DeepTechWired, Retrieved 9th May, 2021:

Doorley, S., Holcomb, S., Klebhan, P., Segovia, K. & Utley, J., 2018, Design Thinking Bootleg, Guide produced by D.School at Stanford University.

Drake, S.M. & Reid, J.L., 2018, Integrated Curriculum as an Effective Way to Teach 21st Century Capabilities, Asia Pacific Journal of educational Research, 1(1): pp. 31-50.

Fogarty, R., 1991, The mindful school: How to integrate the curriculum, Skylight publishing, Inc.: Palatine, IL.

Gerber, E., Martin, C.K., Kramer, E., Braunstein, J., & Carberry, A.R., 2012, Work in Progress: Developing an Innovation Self-efficacy survey, 2012 Frontiers in Education Conference Proceedings, 2012, Seattle, pp. 1-3.

Harvard Computer Society, 2020, Tech for Social Good, Retrieved 8th May 2021:

Mesa, D., Thong, C., Ranscombe, C. & Kuys, B., 2019, Integrating the product development process in scientific research. Bridging the research-market gap, Proceedings of the Design Society: 22nd International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED19), Delft.

Norman, D.A. & Verganti, R., 2014, Incremental and Radical Innovation: Design Research vs. Technology and Meaning, Design Issues, 30(1): pp. 78-96.

Lande, M. & Leifer, L., 2010, Difficulties student engineers face designing the future, International Journal of Engineering Education, 26(2): pp. 271-277.

Pink, S., Rieken, B., Bjorklund, T., & Sheppard, S., 2017, What Makes an Inquisitive Engineer? An Exploration of Question-Asking, Self-Efficacy, and Outcome Expectations among Engineering Students, Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, 2017 Columbus, OH.

Sambasivan, N., 2019, The remarkable illusions of technology for social good, Interations, 26(3): pp. 64-66.

SGInnovate, 2020, SGInnovate Launches Deep Tech for Good Initiative, Retrieved 8th May 2021:

Stanford University, 2021, Ethics, Society, and Technology Hub. Retrieved May 8th 2021:

UK Design Council., 2018, Designing a Future Economy. Retrieved 13th June 2021:

UK Design Council., 2019, What is the Framework for Innovation? Design Council’s Evolved Double Diamond. Retrieved 23rd March 2021:

UK Design Council., 2021, Beyond Net Zero: A Systemic Design Approach. Retrieved 8th May 2021:

Verganti, R., 2009, Design-Driven Innovation: changing the rules of competition by radically innovating what things mean, Harvard Business Press, Boston, USA.

World Economic Forum, 2020, The Future of Jobs Report October 2020, Retrieved 9th May 2021:



How to Cite

Thong, C., Cotoranu, A., Down, A., Kohler, K., & Batista, C. (2021). Design innovation integrating deep technology, societal needs, radical innovation, and future thinking: a case study of the CBI A3 program. CERN IdeaSquare Journal of Experimental Innovation, 5(1), 32-39.