This is a touchpoint matrix I sketched to represent a set of services to support faculty research in a college of education. The content in the matrix was developed by a faculty committee at my school that's charged with improving research support services. 

The basic idea behind this matrix is to provide a visual framework that enables our design team to visualize different faculty experiences through different potential touchpoints.

The matrix is built by listing vertically some candidate services that might be offered by the research office.

Candidate services were harvested from a larger set of ideas generated at a faculty design workshop two weeks ago. At that workshop we used human-centered design to learn what our faculty colleagues aspire to do, what they like and dislike about the research support system, and how they ultimately want to feel as a result of the support a research office could provide. 

On the top of the matrix, horizontally, there is a list of the main actions and intentions of faculty that are supported by the a research office.

With a touchpoint matrix one can put a specific persona inside and imagine their journey through the different touchpoints, drawing a line that represents their path.

In the example shown here we see a faculty member who, while new to the university, has arrived with a pre-existing research grant. Thus she entered into the service system in the "post-award" area, a place that not everyone may typically start. However, because she is new to the college, she decides to take advantage of opportunities for peer interaction and capacity building, attending one of the regularly occuring resarsch colloquia.  This leads to new partnerships with peers who share similar interests and then to a new round of proposal writing,

I like this type of matrix because it lets us see the work of a research support office as a connected set of services and experiences regardless of where a user enters the system.

There is much more work to be done with these touchpoints. Each will need to be prototyped in the form of a service blueprint and then shown to our peers for feedback on what works and what could be improved. 

Our matrix is based on the work of Gianluca Brugnoli and the model from which we developed our matrix can be found here.

Tassi, R. (2009). Service Design Tools. Touchpoints Matrix. Retrieved from http://www.servicedesigntools.org/tools/108

What trait will serve you the most as a school leader? There is no shortage of lists extolling the most important knowledge, skills, and abilities that school leaders should hold. Twenty years ago SEDL (http://bit.ly/Kmrogg) suggested that the following six traits were key for leaders to possess in order to facilitate school change: being visionary, believing that schools are for learning, valuing human resources, communicating and listening effectively, being proactive, and taking risks. Leithwood et al. (http://bit.ly/Kmru7J) concluded that three sets of practices comprise the basics of successful leadership: the ability to set direction, develop people, and redesign the organization.  

But which among these is the “gateway” trait? By that I mean, which trait is the one you should lead with? Which trait, if exhibited first, will pave an easier path to other beneficial practices?  I have concluded in the last year that it’s empathy. 

In April of this year I facilitated a workshop at the Iowa 1:1 Institute. The point of the workshop was fairly straightforward. First, I wanted to introduce educators to concept of design thinking as an approach to developing new solutions to challenging issues in education. But more importantly, I wanted them to think differently about how 1:1 initiatives could be improved by introducing a new expert to the conversation: the student. In our workshop the educators were divided into teams of four, each team empathetically interviewing a high school student about his or her needs, feelings, and aspirations, and how the use of laptops might make their lives better. 

That last part may sound a bit daunting: how to make students’ lives better. But making a big difference in a student’s life is not all that difficult. All one needs to do is ask key questions and then start listening. 

After interviews, the teams brainstormed new solutions with the students on how laptops could be integrated to meet student needs. This portion of the workshop yielded scores of ideas. To narrow things down, each team was asked to identify four ideas: The Longshot (but would be awesome if we could do it), The Rational Choice, The Most Likely To Delight, and Team Favorite.

I asked a student at one of the tables what idea would be a longshot to her. I phrased the question as follows: “What’s one thing that you’re certain your school will never, ever, ever do but, if it did, would be utterly amazing for you?” 

Her reply?  “Skype,” she said.  

Seriously. 

To her, the idea of allowing the use of Skype in her school was a complete longshot.  It’s not as though she hoped for all online classes using just Facebook. She didn’t want her school to abolish homework.  She wanted something in her school that for many others would fall into the rational choice category. But for her it would be amazing. 

By getting to know students, and understanding the issues of schooling from their perspective, you boost your ability to lead in a human-centered way. You also provide those around you with the improved courage and strength to communicate with you on issues that are important to them.  It’s the gateway trait. Empathetic listening allows leaders to better set direction, puts people at the center of their leadership approach, and allows for redesign of the organization in a way that respects the values, needs, aspirations of those within it. 

[cross-posted at Education Recoded]

 

This video nicely captures the way in which design thinking can be integrgated into the K-12 curriculum, with secondary students on design teams in service to younger users in the same school district. In this case, the younger "user group" is a 5th grade class. 

All the basic steps and many of the mindsets of design thinking are on display. Steps such as empathy and needfinding, problem definition, brainstorming, prototyping and testing can be seen. Mindsets such as show don't tell, a bias for action, radical collabortion, and being human centered are all present. 

Just look at the surprise and delight on the faces of the 5th graders when they first see the prototypes deliverd to their room. It gave me goosebumps. Seriously. 

The process was best summarized by one of the high school students: 

"When you design something you're giving someone or yourself an opportunity to do someting great or amazing in the world."

Foundations: The Learning Landscape from the G school on Vimeo.

I'm grateful to Reinhold Steinbeck for sharing this video with me. 

Michale Apple suggests that curriculum is a design process in Official Knowledge:

"... following a long line of educators from Dewey to Huebner, I conceive of curriculum as a complicated and continual process of environmental design. Thus, do not think of curriculum as a 'thing,' as a syllabus or a course of study. Instead, think of it as a symbolic, material, and human environment that is ongoingly reconstructed. This process of design involves not only the technical, but the aesthetic, ethical, and political if it is to be fully responsive at both the social and personal levels" (p. 138).

Tip of the hat to Jeremy Wang for this.

It's simply not possible.

Or is it? 

Let's say you're a middle school principal. How can you engage a large group of consultants, each having anywhere between six to eight years of classroom experience, and have them conduct 90 days of observation between the beginning of the school year and November wherein they generate insights on improving curriculum, culture, and student morale? By the way, they won't charge your school district a dime. And the solutions they provide will be exactly what your school needs. 

Do you write a grant to some well-intentioned reform-minded foundation?  

Nope. 

Do you cajole some pro-bono work out of a prestigious consulting group?

Not quite.

Did I mention that the consultants are between 12 and 14 years old?

That's because they're your own students. The students in schools represent a crack consulting team just waiting to be tapped into. By their very nature they're observing, interacting, and working with teachers, staff and other students every day. All that's left for principals and teachers to do is extract the students' "consultant report," which is obtained by merely tuning in -- tuning in to the students' voice, that is. By asking students questions about their experiences, needs and desires, educators can gain greater understanding about what's important to students, leading to imaginative solutions on issues schools are facing. 

In the book The Third Teacher: 79 Ways You Can Use Design to Transform Teaching & Learning, item 71 on the list is "Consult with Kids. Survey students about what they would like to study, then design spaces that let them learn what they want to learn" (p. 225). As Bruce Mau notes, "This is actually a pretty radical idea: to open source school, to say 'well, maybe the best source of information on this practice is the participants themselves.' We assume they don't know anything, and I think that's the biggest mistake we make" (p. 225). 

As they say at the Stanford dSchool, "good design is grounded in a deep understanding of the person for whom you are designing." 

If you want to solve a problem that has anything to do with the students in your school, ask some students what they'd do. You'll be surprised and delighted by the insights they offer. 

[cross-posted at Education Recoded]

 

The notion of brainstorming ideas has been around for a while. It's reported that Alex Faickney Osborn popularized the term in his 1953 book Applied Imagination. At that time, Osborn suggested that ideative efficiency (wow, that's jargony), AKA brainstorming, is enhanced by following four rules:

1. Focus on quantity
2. Withhold criticism
3. Welcome unusual ideas
4. Combine and improve ideas

Since that time we've seen an expansion of that list. The rules that I like to follow are those popularized by the Stanford dSchool in their 2010 Bootcamp Bootleg. They are as follows:

1. One coversation at a time
2. Go for quantity
3. Headline!
4. Buld on the ideas of others
5. Encourage wild ideas
6. Be visual
7. Stay on topic
8. Defer judgement - NO blocking

The authors of the Bootleg suggestion you "follow and (nicely) enforce the brainstorming rules – they are intended to increase your creative output." I would agree.

In case you'd like to know now to kill creativity, here's an example of how not to facilitate a brainstorm, courtesy of Dilbert (tip of the hat to Scott McLeod for sending this my way).

Image Flickr CC Darren Hester

My colleague at the University of Minnesota (and fellow design thinker and UW Badger), Paul Zenke, has shared some great links with me lately and they are too good not to pass on.  

Knowmads (Based on UMN's John Moravec's research)

• http://www.knowmads.nl/

Marcel Kampman: Lift Conference Presentation on the creation of the Project Dream School

• http://liftconference.com/lift11/program/talk/marcel-kampman-reinventing-scho...

Project Dream School

• http://projectdreamschool.org/

Nueva School (applying design thinking in K-12)

• http://nuevaschool.org/programs/i-lab

IDEO Design Thinking For Educators (great toolkit for free download)

• http://designthinkingforeducators.com/

Open IDEO

• http://openideo.com/

KAOSPilots

• http://www.kaospilot.dk/

Today I kick off my summer teaching duties at Iowa State University and I'll be incorporating design thinking into my course, "Leading School Reform."  My students are aspiring school principals from Ottumwa, Iowa and Ankeny, Iowa. 

As a part of their coursework they'll be discussing how design thinking can be applied as a framework for thinking about leadership, school improvement, and school reform.  To prime our conversation they will complete the Wallet Project, a design thinking exercise developed at the Stanford dSchool. It's an excellent method for introducing the tenets of design thinking. Last fall, along with Joanne Marshall, I led a group of 40 doctoral students in our department through the Wallet Project, after which we had an excellent discussion on how design thinking can serve as an alternative framework for decision making in educational organizations.

Currently we don't have a design loft or laboratory where we can do events like the Wallet Project -- all of our classes are taught off campus or online. Therefore we have to bring the project to the people. And that means bringing a lot of stuff. What kind of stuff? Well, the stuff one needs to prototype 20-40 wallets (if you're doing the Wallet Project). Last fall I brought shopping bags of assorted things from my house and the office to class for the students to use when building their prototypes. For the summer I decided to be smarter about it.

This weekend I built a portable design thinking kit for the classroom (image #1).  It contains all the material I need to run the Wallet Project or another activity that requires rapid physical prototyping, and it's all strapped to a portable crate. I'm grateful for the materials list posted by Adam Royalty from Stanford's dSchool, which served as the inspiration for the base set of materials in the kit (image #2).

As for the storage solution, I basically designed it in my head. My thought process went like this: I knew I'd have a lot of small material that would be store well in a set of small drawers. But I also knew I would have some letter-sized items, like construction paper, felt, aluminum foil, and long pipe cleaners. I wanted it to be modular, so that a table with 6-8 people could reach their own materials quickly, and I wanted it to be portable so I could get it from site to site.  

Here's my solution:

Two "table kits," which are table-top storage boxes with small drawers (image #3). All the drawers are labled (image #4) so that students can find what they need quickly. These table kits are identical and contain the following:

• Velcro adhesive circles - 1 roll of 50 split between two kits
• Adhesive craft magnets - 2 packages of strip-style magnets per table kit
• Invisible tape - 2 rolls per table kit
• Glue sticks - 2 per table kit 
• Decorative brads - 3 types per table kit
• Hole punch - 1 per table kit
• Stapler and staples - 1 "Tot" style per table kit
• Low heat hot glue gun - 1 per table kit
• Extra glue gun sticks - about 20 per table kit (a bag split in two)
• Post-it notes - regular square Post-its, 5 per table kit
• Assorted ribbon - 3 rolls per table kit
• Letter stickers - 4 sheets per table kit
• Foam shape stickers - basically a "bucket o' foam stickers" split between the 2 kits
• Popsicle sticks - box of 1000 split between the 2 kits
• Assorted colored rubber bands - one bag in each table kit
• Fine point black sharpies - 4 per table kit
• Assorted colored permanent markers - 12 per table kit
• Watercolor markers - about 10 per table kit

Four 4-litre letter-size boxes (image #5) hold things that are too big to fit in the table kit drawers:

• Masking tape - two rolls
• Colored construction paper - about 250 sheets
• Colored rectangles of felt - 20 sheets
• Colored foam sheets - 50 sheets
• Heavy duty aluminum foil - 2 rolls
• Pipe cleaners - three bags of about 100 each, assorted colors

A few things don't fit in drawers or the 4-litre boxes. But there's room in the crate for them:

• Paper plates - one package
• Paper lunch sacks - one package
• Scissors - various cutting styles (I found a "bucket o' scissors" on sale)

All of this fits in and on top of a collapsable crate. The four letter-size boxes go in the crate, followed by the paper plates, lunch sacks and scissors. The table kits go on top of the crate and are held in place with two bungie cords (image #6). By facing the drawer fronts of the table kits toward each other, the drawers keep themselves closed and nothing falls out when the unit is at an angle (image #7). 

One nice thing I anticipate will occur with this system is I'll be able to track what supplies are popular or running out and easily be able to replenish them.  

I hope to have some photos of them in use this week.

Has anyone else had good luck creating design thinking kits to-go? I'd love to hear about them. 

Bruce Nussbaum suggests that design thinking is a failed experiment and that it’s time to move on to something new.

As the former assistant managing editor at Business Week, he knows how to write a lead that gets attention. 

What the title and lead to his post don’t do well is specify that Bruce’s conclusions only center on a narrow band of design thinking’s application: within the corporate sector and as sold/applied by misguided boutique consultancies.

For the vast number of additional settings in which design thinking is being applied, the evidence is still coming in because the experiment is continuing – and little suggests that its failing, ossifying, or something else is needed.

I like a lot of what Bruce has to say. It’s just that he’s framed it in a way that better serves his need to proffer something new rather than add to a dialogue on what does and doesn't work about design thinking.

If Bruce were one of our doctoral students and he had presented his post as a preliminary piece to his thesis, and his conclusion is that design thinking is a failed experiment, I would probably make the following comments.

First, such a broadly stated conclusion lacks a warrant.

By warrant I mean “to give reason or sanction for; justify: 'The circumstances warrant such measures.'”

In academic circles we talk about a scholarly warrant.  If Bruce wants to claim that design thinking is a failed experiment “then he would be expected to show how this is so.” (Hart, 1998, p. 204)

Bruce attempts to establish a warrant by citing the work of his colleague, Helen Walters, who penned (well, probably keyboarded) “Design Thinking” Isn’t a Miracle Cure, but Here’s How It Helps.”  But Helen’s article is actually more positive than negative about design thinking in my estimation. Helen’s thesis essentially states that design thinking’s success is a matter of time, manner and place. It’s not all things to all situations, but at the right time, in the right manner, and in the right place, it’s very, very helpful.

Helen does suggest that design thinking is not magic (it’s actually quite practical), and it’s not a quick fix. It’s hard work. You don’t suggest something is ossified just because you have to work hard at it to have it succeed.

Thus, none of the “cons” that Bruce urges us to read in Helen’s post really support the notion that design thinking is or has been an experiment, is failed, or is ossified.

In addition to lacking a warrant…

The Conclusion Lacks Ecological and External Validity

If Bruce were one of our doctoral students, his committee would likely call into question the ecological and external validity of his claims.  I would expect the ecological validity of his claim to be high if the method by which he’d arrived at the claim approximated the real-life extent of the claim. This leads to the problem of external validity. Bruce’s claims, while likely true for the corporate community, are unique and idiosyncratic to that setting and therefore do not generalize will to other populations an conditions.

Essentially design thinking, writ large, is thrown under the bus not for it’s own failings, but for that of corporate cultures and ill-prepared boutique consultancies.

We Would Fail to See What’s New in Terms of a Contribution vis-à-vis Creative Intelligence (CQ)

Doctoral committees always want to be sure their students make a new contribution to the field. These new contributions stand out because they situated by the student in the body of literature that is relevant to the topic at hand. Because CQ can’t be presented on its own merits, Bruce has attempted to position it as a replacement to DT. He must declare design thinking dead in order for CQ to fill the gap. Unfortunately, CQ has been already developed, described and documented…its tenets are embedded within design thinking itself.

What Bruce Does Well

Bruce does an excellent job of describing how design thinking has been a slog within the world of big business:

“Design Thinking originally offered the world of big business--which is defined by a culture of process efficiency--a whole new process that promised to deliver creativity. By packaging creativity within a process format, designers were able to expand their engagement, impact, and sales inside the corporate world. Companies were comfortable and welcoming to Design Thinking because it was packaged as a process.”

“But in order to appeal to the business culture of process, it was denuded of the mess, the conflict, failure, emotions, and looping circularity that is part and parcel of the creative process. In a few companies, CEOs and managers accepted that mess along with the process and real innovation took place. In most others, it did not. As practitioners of design thinking in consultancies now acknowledge, the success rate for the process was low, very low.”

Bruce is exactly right. When a business (or any organization, for that matter) doesn’t have the culture or the interest to stick to things, or doesn’t believe they are seeing the results they want, their culture ends up eating the process. I think what Bruce describes well is that the culture of big business has eaten design thinking for lunch [1].  If that’s the case, then I argue it’s the respective organizational cultures that have failed, not the process.

Design thinking is a failure to the extent that organizations are not willing to do the hard work it takes to reap its benefits. And that’s fine. It’s the choice of any organization to continue to work with a process or not. I would just like us to be as clear as possible on what the root causes are before making warrantless, ecologically and externally invalid generalizations.

Footnote

[1] Hear Bill Burnett’s account of Ford CEO Alan Mulally’s discovery that "culture eats process for lunch." (Burnett & Sheppard, 2011)

Image Credit: (CC) Flickr user LifeSupercharger

I’m sitting in Iowa as I write this. The role of Iowans and their academic institutions has not gone unnoticed in the history of computing and technology in the United States. John Anastanof, the man who invented the computer (Smiley, 2010), did so while he was a professor at Iowa State College in Ames.  Fast forward to 2011, where at the same institution (now called Iowa State University), one can find the C6, the most advanced virtual reality “cave” in the world.  At 100 megapixels, it’s the highest resolution immersive environment of its kind (Virtual Reality Applications Center, 2011).

Thanks in great measure to the work by scientists and scholars in Iowa, thousands of children today have access to high performance computing devices on a daily basis in their schools. The ubiquity of computers in schools is creating an environment wherein the discussion is less about whether to integrate computers into schools, but how best might we do that.  And while a great deal of the discussion about integrating computers into schools does involve the topic of technology (hardware, software, peripherals, networks), such discussions sometimes overshadow the more important issues of leadership and decision making that are needed to ensure the integration of technology creates a situation that is better than the one that existed before the change. The tenets of design thinking are well suited to serve school leaders in this regard.

Decision Attitude vs. Design Attitude

I suggest that school leaders look to adopt a “design attitude” (Boland and Collopy, 2004) as a leadership framework for making decisions about how best to integrate technology into schools. Adopting a design attitude would be in contrast to common practices in schools today, which can be described as a “decision attitude” (Boland and Collopy, 2004). A summary of the differences between the styles is summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of differences between a decision attitude vs. design attitude. (adapted from Boland and Collopy, 2004)

Decision Attitude	Design Attitude
Leaders are handed a finite set of alternative solutions by outsiders (other schools, vendors, the literature)	Leaders work with stakeholders to develop custom solutions that are not known at the start.
The leader faces a set of alternative courses of action from which a difficult choice must be made.	Alternatives are designed for local conditions, thus decisions about which alternative to select becomes trivial.
Leaders assume it is easy to come up with alternatives to consider, but difficult to choose among them.	Leaders are concerned with finding the best answer possible, given the skills, time, and resources of the team.
Leaders assume that the alternative courses of action are ready at hand.	Leaders take for granted that the initiative will require the invention of new alternatives.
Leaders are lulled into the belief that there is a good set of options already available, or at least readily obtainable.	Leaders know that their stakeholders are best suited to say what their needs are and options are created based on those needs.
Leaders are trapped in a role as a passive decision maker, making the untenable assumption that the alternatives presented in advance include the best possible alternatives.	Leaders are active designers of a team of decision makers who help develop alternatives that have not yet been thought of and are usually better.

Design Thinking

While the philosophy underlying a design attitude is not new, much of it emanating from decades old work in the field of interaction design (Buchanan, 2004), it’s application in arenas outside computer interface design, product design and architecture is.  Leaders can operationalize a design attitude by implementing the tenets of design thinking, a stepwise approach to problems solving which is gaining increased attention in educational, nonprofit, and social sector leadership.

Design thinking can be applied to more rapidly answer questions such as:

• How might we best integrate authentic intellectual work into the curriculum?
• How might we improve student outcomes through a one-to-one laptop initiative?
• How might we use virtual reality to improve student learning in key concepts?
• How might we make online learning as powerful as face to face instruction?

While there are several “flavors” of design thinking that are discussed in the literature (Meinel and Leifer, 2011; Hasso Plattner Institute of Design, 2010; Brown, 2009; Boland and Collopy, 2004), all have some central common features. For illustrative purposes we’ll draw on an approach advocated by the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design, 2010 (Figure 1). The tenets are:

• Empathize. Design thinking is human-centered because it focuses on creating solutions for the people you are designing for. Thus all design emanates from an empathetic understanding of the needs of the people who you want to affect (IDEO, 2010). For instance, it may be the case that the use of authentic intellectual work is an imperative, but the manner in which you unveil that process can be greatly enhanced by involving students and teachers in the process, hearing how they’d best like it to be implemented.
• Define. Once one understands the needs of the users who will be impacted by your initiative, you must define the precise challenge your initiative is supposed to solve. You might want to have authentic intellectual work (AIW) be a part of a student’s learning routine, however implementing in the same fashion as its done in other districts doesn’t mean that it will meet the needs of your stakeholders. Therefore you should define the problem of implementing AIW in terms of how the implementation can make your stakeholders feel or behave. This leads to an actionable problem statement upon which you can brainstorm, or ideate, solutions. For instance, “How might we implement AIW in a way that enhances students’ confidence in higher order domains AND leverages technology?”
• Brainstorm. To ideate is to brainstorm. It’s the portion of the design thinking process wherein a great many ideas are developed that could address the specific need you defined.
• Prototype. Once you have feasible idea that seems worth trying out, the next step is to create a prototype of the idea so that users can play with it. The main benefit of creating a prototype is to provide a situation where you can fail quickly and cheaply. Testing the prototype of a curriculum idea, or an online learning environment with, say, one class over a weeks time, will tell you if users like it, whether it’s feasible, etc., without investing a lot of time and money up front.
• Test. Testing tells you if your prototype was on the right track. It also tells you more about the intended users of your design. By testing a prototype of a curriculum or instructional technology you are offered another chance to build empathy for your users’ needs by observing them in context.

Figure 1. The design thinking cycle.

Conclusion

I've been testing the tenets of design thinking in the context of P-20 leadership, exposing leaders in K-12 schools and higher education institutions to different aspects of design thinking to different educational challenges. While the work is very preliminary and the insights gained are the result of an early analysis of the data, there is confidence that the following benefits are present when design thinking is used to advance 21^st century skills in schools:

• Design thinking stresses the importance of moving beyond the stated problem and getting to the emotions attached to the problem.
• It forces leaders to confront the impact of their own biases in addressing issues.
• It reminds leaders to keep empathy in their thinking and to remember to draw people out to get their feedback on what aspects of a program are working and which are not.
• Leaders who are design thinkers would benefit from listening and carefully considering the needs of others.  In doing so they are forced to rethink their own biases in order to move forward with solutions that meet the needs of the effected party.
• Design thinking provides a process for leaders to use to listen to the aspirations of others.
• Design thinking focuses a leader’s gaze on an end "user" rather than on what political pressures deem most important.
• Leaders gain the ability to understand what others would like to have in a solution, not what the leaders thinks is good for them.

Bibliography

Boland, R. & Collopy, F. (eds) (2004). Design Matters for Management. In R. Boland & F. Collopy (Eds.), Managing as designing (pp. 3-18). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Brown, T. (2009). Change by Design.  New York: Harper Business.

Buchanan, R. (2004). Management and Design: Interaction Pathways in Organizational Life. In R. Boland & F. Collopy (Eds.), Managing as designing (pp. 36-53). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Hasso Plattner Institute for Design (2010). Bootcamp Bootleg. Retreived from from d.School News website: http://dschool.typepad.com/files/bootcampbootleg2010.pdf

IDEO (2010). Human Centered Design Toolkit (2^nd Ed). Palo Alto, CA: Author. Retreived from IDEO website: http://www.ideo.com/work/human-centered-design-toolkit/

Meinel, C.; Leifer, L. (2011). Design Thinking Research. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, L. Leifer (Eds.), Design Thinking: Understand—Improve—Apply (pp. xiii-xxi). Heidelberg: Springer.

Smiley, J. (2010). The Man Who Invented the Computer. New York: Doubleday.

Virtual Reality Applications Center (2011). The C6. Retrieved from http://www.vrac.iastate.edu/c6.php