W
Windesheim
Dichter bij jou
Blended Intensive Program · September 2026
Hack Yourself into a Sustainable (Business) Design

This list contains accommodations that we have good experiences with. We can help you to make suitable arrangements.

Near the city centre and in between the Windesheim Campus and De Makersfabriek.
Close to the Makersfabriek, but about 1 kilometer from the city center.
Learning outcome (5 EC)
The student largely autonomously designs and prototypes a sustainable (business) intervention in a complex, real-world challenge with an international, multidisciplinary team. They apply and integrate design and leadership methods to create and validate solutions, and critically evaluate their own and others' intercultural collaboration under pressure to formulate evidence-based improvements for future professional practice.
Assessment framework
GradeDescription
1Very poor
2Poor
3Very insufficient
4Insufficient
5Nearly sufficient
5.5 ✕Cut-off score — minimum to pass
6Sufficient
7More than sufficient
8Good
9Very good
10Excellent
Grades are awarded on a scale from 1 to 10, accurate to one tenth (e.g. 6.3, 7.8). The cut-off score is 5.5.
Conditions for assessment
The professional context in which the student operates is complex, multidisciplinary, and international. Guidance is limited to coaching on demand. The student acts with autonomy and professional responsibility.
Rubric criteria
Dimension Insufficient Sufficient Good Excellent
1. Autonomy & Complexity Management Depends on continuous guidance; struggles to act in an open, complex setting. Initiative and problem-structuring are limited. Works largely independent within own role; takes initiative when prompted. Manages ambiguity with limited coaching. Operates largely autonomously in a complex, uncertain context; proactively structures the process and supports effective collaboration. Demonstrates full ownership; anticipates complexity, acts strategically, and guides others with confidence and flexibility.
2. Application & Integration of Design and Leadership Methods Uses methods in isolation without clear rationale or coherence; limited understanding of method–goal connection. Selects and applies appropriate design and leadership methods to define, ideate, and test solutions. Integrates and adapts methods coherently; decisions are well-reasoned and improve process and outcomes. Creatively combines and justifies methods based on evidence and context; innovations are well-founded and effective.
3. Sustainable (Business) Intervention & Validation Prototype or concept lacks a clear sustainability focus, feasibility, or user validation. Develops a feasible intervention incorporating relevant sustainability principles and stakeholder feedback. Designs and tests a prototype that demonstrates sustainable value creation and stakeholder engagement. Creates an innovative, evidence-based, and scalable intervention that generates tangible sustainable impact.
4. Intercultural & Collaborative Effectiveness Collaboration is inconsistent; limited awareness of intercultural dynamics or ineffective under time pressure. Collaborates constructively with diverse team members; manages basic intercultural communication challenges. Fosters an inclusive team environment and leverages cultural diversity to enhance creativity and results. Acts as a facilitator for high-performing intercultural collaboration; strategically uses diversity as a driver for innovation.
5. Critical Reflection & Professional Growth Reflection is descriptive and lacks analysis of behavior, decisions, or cultural dynamics. Reflects on personal role and collaboration outcomes; identifies learning points for improvement. Critically evaluates own and team performance under pressure; translates insights into actionable professional improvements. Demonstrates deep, evidence-based reflection on personal and intercultural effectiveness; formulates concrete, future-oriented development strategies.
Rubric parameters
ParameterLevel / Description
Complexity (ZelCom)High — operates in open, authentic, and multidisciplinary challenges with uncertain outcomes.
Guidance (ZelCom)Limited — student works independently; coaching on demand.
Autonomy (ZelCom)High — self-directed professional responsibility for process and outcome.
Cognitive level (Bloom)Apply → Analyse → Evaluate → Create
Assessment typePerformance-based: active participation in hackathon, prototype development, stakeholder validation, and individual reflective report/presentation.
Assessment & Deliverables

Students are assessed on the rubric criteria listed above. Assessment takes place during two types of moments: pitch moments during the physical week and a group challenge reflection at the end of the programme.

📢 Pitch — Day 2 & Day 3 (Physical week)
Intermediate pitch moments in which groups present their progress, insights and direction to lecturers and peers. These moments are part of the assessment and offer an opportunity for formative feedback.
🏁 Final Pitch — Day 4 (Physical week)
The summative assessment pitch in which each group presents their final result to their client and the lecturers. The form and content of the final result — for example a report, prototype, roadmap or presentation — is determined by the students in consultation with their client during the BIP week.
🔁 Group Challenge Reflection — Day 5 (Physical week)
A structured group reflection session in which students look back on the challenge process, team collaboration and personal development. This session is part of the assessment and is evaluated against the rubric criteria, in particular Critical Reflection & Professional Growth and Intercultural & Collaborative Effectiveness.
All assessment moments are evaluated using the rubric criteria defined in this learning outcomes overview. The final grade is a weighted result of performance across the pitch moments, the final deliverable and the group challenge reflection.