"The role of the designer is that of a good, thoughtful host anticipating the needs of his guests."– Charles Eames
Clarity Before Design
In the previous chapter, we looked at a problem space that is almost perfectly designed for things to unravel.
Students enter the course expecting clarity and control, only to realise that neither is guaranteed. The project is timebound, and they are expected to deliver something useful and tested to a real client.
At the same time, the clients bring a different kind of unpredictability. As seen in Chapter 1, some are overly directive, while others are absent. Most do not know how to work with student teams, nor do they realise how much framing students need at the start. These misalignments can quickly become the students’ main focus, drawing attention away from the actual task.
When the project dynamics are unclear, students default to “pleasing”, and that results in uneven learning and inconsistent client outcomes. For example, rather than leading the work, they begin to second-guess whose expectations to meet. Time is spent managing personalities (Prof and Client) instead of solving the real problem.
What unfolds is not necessarily a disaster, but the learning becomes fragmented. Some students may walk away feeling lucky, perhaps their client was responsive, or their team dynamic was strong. Others leave confused, unsure what they actually learned. Likewise, some clients enjoyed the process but walk away underwhelmed by the output. What should have been a strategic exploration becomes a series of polite exchanges, with no lasting insight.
All of these point to the fact that the interactions between students, clients, and instructors must be deliberately shaped.
Therefore, the most important design goal of the course is consistency of experience.
Regardless of the students’ starting point or the client’s level of clarity, the learning experience must be held steady. It must allow every team the chance to do good work, and every student the opportunity to learn how to think, not just execute.
To create a consistent experience, I first have to be clear about what the course is actually trying to achieve. What are we trying to build?
This leads to 2 essential questions:
- What is the outcome I want to deliver for my clients?
- What is the learning objective I want to deliver for my students?
The rest of this chapter sets out to answer both.
Outcome for the Client
The clients I work with are typically small and medium enterprise (SME) owners who are navigating strategic uncertainty. Most of them are busy managing operations, and are looking for fresh thinking that will help them see beyond their current constraints.
Some come in with a rough idea of what they hope to achieve. Others simply know that something in their business is not working, and they are open to being challenged. In both cases, the value of the course from the client’s perspective hinges on whether the engagement helps them make sense of what they are facing.
The outcome I aim to deliver is not a polished report but a shift in the client’s thinking. At a minimum, they should leave with something useful — whether it is a sharper diagnosis, a reframed direction, or a clearer sense of what not to pursue.
In more tangible terms, the outcome for the client includes:
- Real value from fresh perspectives,
- Insights that challenge or expand their current framing,
- Credible outputs they can use to make decisions, and
- An experience that feels purposeful, not cosmetic.
If I were to borrow the words of a recent client:
“The students’ ideas are grounded yet thought-provoking” - Mr James Kwok, Owner of KCK Food Catering
It should feel like a collaboration that surfaced insights that the client could not have arrived at on their own. That, to me, is a meaningful outcome.
Learning Objective for the Student
Before I can define what students must learn, I need to be clear about what is, and what is not, their role in the engagement.
This engagement is not an internship, nor a form of cheap student labour where students carry out tasks based on the direction of the clients. Neither is it a full-scale consulting engagement, where they undertake a full-blown diagnosis of the business, align stakeholders, and carry through with the implementation.
The role of the student team is to lead the thinking, by bringing structure, independence, and rigour to the way the client’s challenge is approached. They are expected to work towards ideas that are grounded, testable, and directionally useful. Even if not fully validated, the thinking should be sound enough for the client to make a clear decision: go, no-go, or go later. These ideas will not be thrown away, but are designed to open up real options, starting with something small and implementable.
If students are to deliver this kind of value, then they need to develop the ability to lead the thinking. This is the core learning objective of the course.
Leading does not mean dominating the discussion or always having the answer. It means having the clarity and discipline to hold the problem well — to move the thinking forward even when the path is unclear, and to do so with independence and judgment.
In order to lead effectively, the student must first learn to listen critically. This goes beyond paying attention. It means filtering what is said, surfacing what is not said, and identifying which signals are useful and which are noise. When a client offers input, the goal is not to be led, but to interpret and stay open-minded while still holding a point of view.
They must also learn to think critically. This includes applying frameworks with purpose, testing assumptions, and making trade-offs when the evidence is partial. Critical thinking is about staying focused on what matters, questioning easy answers, and being willing to change direction when the logic no longer holds. One student summarises it well in their course feedback:
“The central skill needed for this course is to be able to be logical and justify the work we do such that even if we are dealing with many question marks, we can provide ourselves with a more concrete base and structure for a logical roadmap to solve problems.” - student from my 2023 class
Finally, they must learn to demonstrate resilience. Real-world projects are often messy. Things will not go to plan. Clients may shift their expectations, feedback may be contradictory, and progress may feel uncertain. In these moments, students need to stay engaged by finding ways to overcome the challenges. This may involve drawing on their teammates, tapping into their network, or revisiting their own assumptions.
These 3 capabilities — listening critically, thinking critically, and demonstrating resilience — form the foundation for leading well. This is what allows students to deliver real value, in conditions that are anything but straightforward.
The Experience That Enables Learning
Naming the learning objective is not enough. It has to be enabled.
If I want students to learn to lead, I must give them an experience where they are guided to think, yet there is enough friction to sharpen that thinking, but protected from distractions that distort the process.
First, they need the space to think and re-think. Students must be given the room to surface early ideas, test their logic, and revise their work without fear that the project will fall apart. This process allows them to see progress, but more importantly, it helps them build confidence through iteration.
Second, the experience must support collective thinking. While each student needs space to form their own point of view, they must also learn to work with the team as thinking partners — not just to divide tasks, but to challenge ideas and strengthen each other’s logic. This is where many of the sharpest insights emerge.
Third, the experience must protect students from distractions. Students should not be spending their energy managing personalities or interpreting vague client expectations. When this happens, their focus begins to drift. They may shift into performance mode or get caught in dynamics that have little to do with the actual problem. The learning starts to unravel.
This is why the experience must hold steady, even when the environment does not.
Students will face unclear feedback, changing input, and moments of uncertainty. That is expected. But the course must provide a stable foundation, something they can rely on to stay focused and keep thinking. The scaffolding is there to support progress, not control it.
That is what enables deep learning.
The Experience for the Client
If the student experience must hold steady, then the client experience must be shaped just as deliberately because the two are connected.
The ideal client experience should feel purposeful, well-paced, and clear in its expectations. Clients should not be left guessing what is expected of them. Their role must be defined in a way that supports the learning process, without becoming a source of drift or confusion. They should know what kind of input is helpful, when it is needed, and how it will be used, so that their contributions feel focused, not open-ended.
They should also be brought into the students’ work gradually, not abruptly. Rather than reacting to fully formed outputs at the end, clients should be able to see the students’ direction early, even if the work is in progress. This allows them to stay mentally engaged, to observe how the thinking is unfolding, and to contribute with context rather than surprise.
When this experience is well held, both sides benefit.
The client walks away with insights that feel fresh and the students are able to lead the thinking without being pulled off track.
Looking Ahead
With the outcomes and experiences now clearly defined, the next question becomes: how do I hold this structure in practice?
That is where we turn to next.