“Students expect the path to be straight when it is winding.” - Dr Hsin Ning Yong (from 2021 Nomination Document)
The Context
In most of their university education, the students operate in closed systems where the problem is clearly defined and the information is complete. Their task is to apply frameworks, draw conclusions, and present them well.
Even in applied settings involving real clients, the work often ends at the proposal stage. Students justify their ideas without needing to test them. As such, their thinking is rarely challenged by what happens when those ideas are brought into contact with the real world.
This course is structured differently.
It places students in the role of helping a real client undertake a business transformation. The clients I choose to work with are typically small and medium enterprise (SME) owners who are navigating strategic uncertainties and need to transform their business to stay viable.
Each project runs across 13 weeks. In the first half, students shape the opportunity by assessing the real issues, exploring directions, and defining the scope. In the second half, they validate their ideas, test assumptions in the market, and deliver a recommendation that the client can act on.
Many students could not believe it when I told them they needed to test their ideas beyond a PowerPoint presentation. I distinctly remember one student repeatedly asking me,
“Do we really need to test the idea? Like go out and test the idea? What if the customers don’t like it? What if the client doesn’t like it?”
She was not alone in her anxiety. She was simply one of the few who voiced it out. From her reaction, I was almost certain that she would drop my class. Fortunately she did not, and went on to brave the real world.
Challenge #1: The Students’ Mindset
I can empathise with her disbelief.
Many students embark on the course with mindsets shaped by previous ones they have attended. Their modus operandi to do well is to apply frameworks sequentially, and in a one-direction linear process. They expect these to be equally applicable here. This mindset does not prepare them for the messiness of the project, especially when it involves real engagement with the market.
In the early weeks, the ideas often sound polished but fall apart under scrutiny. Their proposals are well-packaged, but the thinking is thin. At this point, I start paying close attention to their work-in-progress drafts. If an idea cannot withstand critique at the early stage, it will likely not carry the team through the rest of the course.
For many students, this is the first time they are expected to build something while continuously adapting it. The learning does not come from getting the “right” answer, but from thinking critically under real conditions. When the students receive feedback from me and the client, many become disoriented because they realised how much they had skipped over.
But the challenge does not stop here.
Challenge #2: The Client
Whilst the client is essential to the course, their involvement brings a different kind of complexity which is often underestimated.
At the start, some clients arrive wanting to co-drive the project. They begin to shape the direction of the work, often by imposing their own preferences or pushing for specific outcomes. This introduces the risk of scope creep.
Other clients respond slowly, taking their time to reply to student requests, which creates slippage in already tight timelines.
These dynamics intensify during the two structured feedback sessions. If the students’ framing does not match the client’s mental model, the response can be dismissive. Some clients critique based on preference rather than substance. Others offer little feedback at all. Students become confused about what matters and what does not.
What begins as a mismatch in feedback often reveals a deeper tension.
Clients bring experience, but not always clarity. They project assumptions without meaning to. As students are still developing their judgment, they struggle to tell the difference between useful insight and personal bias.
Furthermore, they hear familiar phrases like “be customer-centric” and believe that it means listening to the client, and pleasing them. But customer-centricity is not about blindly following the client's lead. It is about listening with intention, then thinking independently.
When students cannot make that distinction, the learning begins to drift. They adjust their ideas based on feedback that may not be grounded. The client believes they are helping, but the students stop thinking critically. Instead of leading the thinking, they begin to follow it, often in directions that are neither clear nor useful.
To prevent this, the course must be designed to hold space for the client, without letting the client steer. It must support student autonomy, even when the ground is shifting.
The Impact on Course Design
These dynamics cannot be left to sort themselves out.
If left unmanaged, they do not just affect the students’ work, they affect the entire experience. Some students may walk away feeling empowered but others may feel lost, confused, or even misled. Some clients may gain insight while others may walk away wondering if the engagement was worth their time.
This kind of variability is not acceptable for a course that asks this much of its students and its clients.
Therefore, structure becomes essential. It is not to control the process, but to hold it steady. The design must create space for exploration while protecting the conditions that allow students to think deeply and lead the work with clarity.
Over time, I have come to see this course as a kind of tide pool. The environment allows the real world to flow in, but gives it form. The conditions are unpredictable, but the space remains anchored. Although the mess is still present, the students can remain afloat.
But for this to happen, I need to be clear about what the course is actually trying to achieve — and what kind of experience must be created in order to get there.
That is the focus of the next chapter.