Given increasing industry demand for integrative learning, marketing curricula need to emphasize interdisciplinary approaches to teaching. Although team teaching is a useful method for achieving cross-functional integration, there are very few frameworks for effectively implementing team teaching. Consequently, marketing educators seeking to offer team-taught, interdisciplinary courses have little direction on how to proceed. Against this background, this article describes the design and implementation of a team-taught, Marketing/Management interdisciplinary course on Technology and Innovation Management (TiM). On the basis of their experiences with the course, the authors provide instructors with a template for effectively implementing similar courses.
Albers-Miller, Nancy, Robert Straughan, and Penelope Prenshaw. 2001. Exploring innovative teaching among marketing educators: Perceptions of innovative activities and existing reward and support programs. Journal of Marketing Education23 (3): 249-259.
2.
Alden, Scott, Rita Laxton, Gordon Patzer, and Leslie Howard. 1991. Establishing cross-disciplinary marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education13 (summer): 25-30.
3.
Amabile, Teresa. 1996. Managing for creativity. Harvard Business School Note, 9-396-271, February 21.
4.
Anderson, Erin, Wujin Chu, and Barton Weitz. 1987. Industrial purchasing: An empirical exploration of the buyclass framework. Journal of Marketing51 (July): 71-86.
5.
Badawy, Michael. 1998. Technology management education: Alternative models. California Management Review40 (4): 94-117.
6.
Bakken, Linda, Frances Clark, and Johnnie Thompson. 1998. Collaborative teaching: Many joys, some surprises, and a fewworms. College Teaching46 (4): 154-157.
7.
Barber, Clifford, Norm Borin, Douglas Cerf, and Teresa Swartz. 2001. The role of marketing in an integrative curriculum. Journal of Marketing Education23 (3): 240-248.
8.
Behrman, J., and R. Levin. 1984. Are business schools doing their job?Harvard Business Review62 (January/February): 140-147.
9.
Birch, Jeffrey. 1995. Ten suggestions for effectively teaching short courses to heterogeneous groups. College Teaching49 (2): 190-195.
10.
Burgelman, Robert. 1996. A process model of strategic business exit: Implications for an evolutionary perspective on strategy. Strategic Management Journal17 (7): 193-214.
11.
Burgelman, Robert, Modesto Maidique, and Steven Wheelwright. 1996. Strategic management of technology and innovation. 2nd ed.Boston: Irwin.
12.
Cardozo, Richard, William Durfee, Alexander Ardichvili, Carl Adams, Arthur Erdman, Michael Hoey, Paul Iaizzo, et al. 2002. Experiential education in product design and business development. Journal of Product Innovation Management19 (1): 4-17.
13.
Christensen, Clayton. 1997. The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
14.
Cornell, John, Ron Randles, and Geoff Vining. 1995. Challenges in teaching short courses by an academic department: The University of Florida experience. The American Statistician49 (May): 195-200.
15.
Darian, Jean, and Lewis Coopersmith. 2001. Integrated marketing and operations team projects: Learning the importance of cross-functional cooperation. Journal of Marketing Education23 (August): 128-135.
16.
de Bono, Edward. 1999. Six thinking hats. Boston: Little, Brown.
17.
DeConinck, James, and Thomas Steiner. 1999. Developing an integrated finance and marketing MBA core course. Journal of Marketing Education21 (1): 44-50.
18.
Drucker, Peter. 1985. The discipline of innovation. Harvard Business Review63 (3): 67-72.
19.
Fleming, Janetta, and Lisa Monda-Amaya. 2001. Process variables critical for team effectiveness. Remedial and Special Education22 (May): 158-171.
20.
George, Marshall, and Patricia Davis-Wiley. 2000. Team teaching a graduate course—Case study: Aclinical research course. College Teaching48 (2): 75-80.
21.
Gomes, Roger, Gregory Pickett, and Charles Duke. 1992. Broadening the marketing curriculum with high technology: An academic response to world-class industrial evolution. Journal of Marketing Education14 (Fall): 15-23.
22.
Hagel, J., and J. Rayport. 1997. The coming battle for customer information. Harvard Business Review75 (January/February): 53-65.
23.
Hamel, Gary, and C. K. Prahalad. 1991. Corporate imagination and expeditionary marketing. Harvard Business Review69 (July/August): 81-92.
24.
Higgins, James. 1995. Innovate or evaporate: Test and improve your organization's IQ. Winter Park, FL: New Management Publishing.
25.
Jolly, V.1997. Commercialization new technologies: Getting from mind to market. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
26.
Katz, Ralph. 1997. The human side of managing technological innovation: A collection of readings. New York: Oxford University Press.
27.
Katzenbach, Jon, and Douglas Smith. 1991. The discipline of teams. Harvard Business Review69 (May/June): 111-120.
28.
Kennedy, Ellen J., Leigh Lawton, and Erika Walker. 2001. The case for using live cases: Shifting the paradigm in marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education23 (August): 145-151.
29.
Leon, Linda, and Lawrence Tai. 2004. Implementing cooperative learning in a team-teaching environment. Journal of Education for Business79 (May/June): 287-293.
30.
Leonard, Dorothy, and Jeffrey F. Rayport. 1997. Spark innovation through empathic design. Harvard Business Review75 (November/December): 102-113.
31.
Leonard, Dorothy, and Jeffrey F. Rayport., and Susan Straus. 1997. Putting your company's whole brain to work. Harvard Business Review75 (July/August): 110-122.
32.
Lindauer, David. 1990. A new approach to team teaching. Journal of Economic Education21 (1): 71-72.
33.
Lovejoy, William, and V. Srinivasan. 2002. Ten years of experience teaching a multi-disciplinary product development course. Journal of Product Innovation Management19 (1): 32-45.
34.
Lunsford, Dale, and John Henshaw. 1992. Integrating courses in marketing research and engineering design: An instructional technique for enhancing the product development process. Journal of Marketing Education14 (Summer): 10-19.
35.
Lynn, Gary, Joseph Morone, and A. S. Paulson. 1996. Marketing and discontinuous innovation: The probe and learn process. California Management Review38:8-37.
36.
Maidique, Modesto, and Robert Hayes. 1984. The art of high-technology management. Sloan Management Review25 (winter): 17-31.
37.
Martin, John, and Thomas E. Moore. 1993. Conjoint analysis: A tool for designing degree programs. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education4:379-403.
38.
Mason, Julie Cohen. 1992. Business schools: Striving to meet customer demand. Management Review81 (September): 10-14.
39.
McKeage, Kim, Deborah Skinner, R. Seymour, Darrell Donahue, and Tom Christensen. 1999. Implementing an interdisciplinary marketing/ engineering course project: Project format, preliminary evaluation, and critical factor review. Journal of Marketing Education21 (3): 217-231.
40.
Mohr, Jakki. 2000. The marketing of high-technology products and services: Implications for curriculum content and design. Journal of Marketing Education22 (3): 246-259.
41.
Moore, Geoffrey. 1991. Crossing the chasm: Marketing and selling technology products to mainstream customers. New York: Harper Business.
42.
National Research Council. 1991. Research on the management of technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
43.
Newell, William. 1994. Designing interdisciplinary courses. New Directions for Teaching and Learning58 (Summer): 35-50.
44.
Novicevic, Milorad, Ronald Buckley, Michael Harvey, and Paul Keaton. 2003. Latent impediments to quality: Collaborative teaching and faculty goal conflict. Quality Assurance in Education3 (11): 150-156.
45.
Peters, Tom. 1990. Get innovative or get dead—I. California Management Review33 (Fall): 9-26.
46.
Peters, Tom. 1991. Get innovative or get dead—II. California Management Review33 (Winter): 9-23.
47.
Picou, Armand, Pat Cantrell, and Jim Barr. 1998. Suggestions for producing teaching excellence. Education119:322-330.
48.
Porter, Lyman W., and L. E. McKibben. 1988. Management education and development: Drift or thrust into the 21st century?New York: McGraw-Hill.
49.
Porter, Michael. 1985. Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Free Press.
50.
Quinlan, Kathleen. 1998. Promoting faculty learning about collaborative teaching. College Teaching46 (2): 43-47.
51.
Silver, William, and Robert McGowan. 1996. Adventures in team teaching. Journal of Management Education4 (November): 435-445.
52.
Silvester, Katherine, Jeffrey Durgee, Christopher McDermott, and Robert Veryzer. 2002. An integrated, market immersion approach to teaching new product development in technologically-oriented firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management19 (1): 18-31.
53.
Stafford, Thomas. 1996. Atale of two cities: Team teaching in action. Journal of Marketing Education18 (3): 3-13.
54.
Sviokla, J., and M. Gentile. 1990. Information technology in organizations: Emerging issues in ethics and policy. Harvard Business School Note, 9-190-130, February 15.
55.
von Hippel, Eric. 1986. Lead users: Asource of novel product concepts. Management Science32 (July): 791-805.
56.
Webber, Alan. 1993. What's so new about the new economy. Harvard Business Review71 (January/February): 24-43.
57.
Workman, John. 1995. Engineering's interactions with marketing groups in an engineering-driven organization. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management42 (2): 129-139.
