I apologize for my tardy post—I was celebrating the Thanksgiving 
holiday with my family.I want to thank the conference organizers for 
inviting me to be a commentator for session 3 of this conference. As I 
remarked earlier, I am very excited about the UCI proposal to create a 
new design program. I am particularly pleased that I have been asked to 
respond to Prof. Mazumdar's presentation. Below are some of my 
reflections on his post.


I am aware of at least four (I am sure there are many more) approaches 
that I can take to my commentary on the design of the UCI program-- 
given the advanced stage of design the proposal is presently in. The 
first approach, "the new baby", is an appreciative approach. New 
parents do not need, or expect to receive comments about how wrinkled 
and red their new baby is, nor comments on it's, as yet, unformed 
character. They expect to hear appreciative comments on what a precious 
gift this unique child is and on its heritage, whose eyes does it have, 
whose nose or chin, which side of the family does it favor—i.e. its 
inheritance. No critical remarks are welcome until the child is old 
enough to defend itself. The second approach is as a 'critic', one who 
evaluates and judges the quality of the artifact; offering new insights 
and unseen consequences from the cooler perspective of one, who is 
outside the heat of the forge generated by the creative energy that is 
expended on casting the new form. The third approach is the approach 
that C. West Churchman called 'niggling', i.e. looking too closely into 
details (a non-systems approach), without paying attention to the 
larger picture at the same time. The fourth approach, is more of a 
design approach as defined by Russell Ackoff:

"S&L: Let me ask you to advise the individual who sees such an 
opportunity and creates a vision. The manager wants to develop a 
strategy to implement that vision. How does the manager develop 
effective strategy?

Ackofff: This requires design, and designs that lead require 
creativity. Creativity involves a three-step process. The first step is 
to identify assumptions that you make which prevent you from seeing the 
alternatives to the ones that you currently see. These are self-imposed 
constraints. The second step is to deny these constraining assumptions. 
The third is to explore the consequences of the denials."

Russell A. Ackoff interviewed by Robert Allio for Strategy and 
Leadership (2003). 31(3): 19-26

My intention is to take the fourth approach, but I assume all four will 
be present to some extent.

> The components of design described above though analytically
> teased apart and presented as layers, need to be connected back again. 
>  Too
> often one or more components get neglected.  This is where the "design 
> as
> layers" or the "lasagna model of design" as a metaphor can become 
> useful
> for application in design projects.  Eventually, the layers will not 
> remain
> distinct but start to seep into one another and hopefully become a 
> part of
> the subconscious of the designer.

I would like to begin my reflections with the 'lasagna model' presented 
above. As a systems designer my first thoughts are that this is a good 
example of a 'compound' rather than a 'viable system'. This is an 
important distinction, because I believe it is important for designs 
and designing to be approached as 'compositions' rather than 
aggregations—as architectonic wholes rather than tectonic assemblies. 
Traditional university programs are typically assemblies rather than 
compositions.

Compounds (in this case lasagna) can be cut in half, in quarters etc., 
without changing their fundamental nature. This is not the same as 
dis-aggregation, which is often impossible such as un-mixing cake 
batter or ink and water (a task often taken on by the reductionist form 
of science). However, airplanes, elephants and other viable 
systems—i.e. compositions—cannot be cut in half without loosing the 
essential and viable nature of the original system (composition). As 
implied in the above metaphor, it is important to have all components 
accounted for, but I believe it is also important to have them in the 
right measure, right proportion, in the desired interrelationships, 
animated by the appropriate processes resulting in a preferred emergent 
outcome.

> However, it is important for me to note at the outset that my view of 
> the crystal
> ball was affected by my lack
> of 20/20 vision, the colored lens I was wearing (that we are all 
> wearing
> most of the time), and healthy doses of skepticism by those committee
> members who were much more pragmatically driven than dreamers like me, 
> and
> who constantly toned the discussions with what was feasible.

The idea of 'feasibility' is an extremely important issue. Anyone who 
has experienced the process of making something in the real world 
understands that the world speaks back; informing the 'dreamer' of what 
is to be allowed or disallowed, depending on negotiations. I have 
experienced both success and failure in bringing new academic programs 
to life. If a piece of wood is bent without intervention (making it 
thin, steaming it etc.) it will break. Designing is faced with the same 
challenge—making an abstract concept into a concrete innovation given 
the constrains of the real world. The challenge is to not let the voice 
of experience overpower the dialogue between the idea and the reality, 
resulting in what Oscar Wilde refers to as the perspective of the cynic:

"The cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing."; 
Oscar Wilde, Lady Windemer's Fan

It is important to remember that just because some things have never 
been done does not mean that they can never be done, and some things 
which have been done should never have been done in the first place. 
This is a different form of pragmatism:

"Probably the most startling feature of twentieth-century cultures is 
the fact that we have developed such elaborate ways of doing things and 
at the same time have developed no way of justifying any of the things 
we do." C. West Churchman (1961). Prediction and Optimal Decision: 
Philosophical Issues of a Science of Values.

Measuring value is no easy task. Measuring costs and benefits is also 
not an easy task, even though the assumption is often that the bottom 
line rules (as has been demonstrated repeatedly in the newly emerging 
privatization of everything including higher education), but price does 
not always represent worth. 'Pragmatic' businesses or enterprises that 
become too rigid are quickly overcome by more creative and innovative 
competitors. It appears that UCI is attempting to strike such a balance.

Corporations and governmental agencies struggle all the time with the 
conflict between pragmatic and creative impulses. Many organizations 
loose their viability by not being able to balance the two. 
Universities are well known for what Page Smith calls 'academic 
fundamentalism' (Dr. Smith was the founding Provost of UC Santa Cruz 
and author of Killing the Spirit: Higher Education in America (1990)); 
making it extremely difficult to implement any change, especially 
within short periods of time. I am always meeting individuals from 
business or governmental organizations, who are extremely unhappy with 
the pace of change in academia and its inability to respond to their 
felt needs. The case has even been made that universities are no longer 
the kind of organization that can promote new scholarship:

"Centers for advanced study will become a primary locus for addressing 
new, especially transdisciplinary questions and for the development of 
new paradigms."
W. Robert Conner (2003). Why We Need Independent Centers for Advanced 
Study. Chronicle of Higher Education Weekly, (January 17, 2003), 49(19).

I believe that universities can become the locus of new scholarship by 
allowing advanced design programs to become part of their palette. The 
educational scholar Ernest Boyer suggested we think of scholarship in 
four ways (Boyer (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the 
Professoriate):

• The Scholarship of Discovery (or Inquiry (my addition))
• The Scholarship of Integration
* The Scholarship of Application or Engagement
• The Scholarship of Teaching

For me, design programs based on systems thinking are the perfect 
vehicle within a traditional academic environment (even a major 
research university) for the integration of all four forms of 
scholarship. They need to be allowed to join the other traditional 
academic programs on their own terms, rather than being dependent on 
the other academic traditions.

> I have not specifically addressed questions of and science and/or
> art or research and/or practice.   It is not useful or productive to
> polarize the world in that way, in my opinion.

I agree whole heartedly with this important point for two reasons. 
First, as I said earlier, design and designing should be approached 
compositionally. Secondly, I approach design as a tradition of its own 
and not a midpoint between art or science, the humanities and science, 
etc. Nor is design a special case of applied science or art. It is also 
not a polar opposite of one or the other established traditions.

> One can set up
> the courses, but in the end it is the culture of the school and the
> emphasis members of the school put on each of these components in the
> classroom that will make the difference.

I think that this is a statement of how traditional faculty in 
traditional academic programs approach their contributions to a 
curriculum. However, of particular importance in a design program is 
the presence of the degree process that enables students to integrate 
and compose (design) their own learning. The list of components, or 
ingredients for the lasagna if you will, identify the desired outcomes, 
ends and means, or purposes of the program. The struggle with providing 
the appropriate 'experts' in the appropriate 'specialized' areas is 
somewhat shifted, when greater emphasis is placed on 'intention' (the 
aiming of the arrow rather than the target itself) in balance with 
'purpose' (the targets or outcomes). This provides an opportunity to 
design a program that is liquid or plastic rather than structured. An 
example that has come up several times is that of the divided 
brain—left brain, right brain—where the brain is assumed to have 
assigned areas of specialization to specific regions. There is an 
interesting phenomena called 'brain plasticity' that describes the 
process of adaption that damaged brains go through. Activities 
previously performed by damaged areas of the brain are taken over by 
undamaged portions of the brain. The emergent quallity, the character 
of the individual, stays essentially intact (with some difference), 
because of the ability of the brain to adapt to changing conditions 
avoiding the catastrophic consequences of over specialization.

The challenges to systems based design programs are often framed as 
being the difference between depth and breadth, or rigor vs. relevance. 
My response has always been that the area of 'expertise' is in how 
things are connected or composed. Interdisciplinary, or 
multidisciplinary teams, include any number of traditional experts or 
specialists. They may include a generalist, but fail to include those 
who can compose and create unity out of diversity. I often recall the 
statement by the well known historian Fernand Braudel:

"Interdisciplianary study is the legal marriage of two neighboring 
sciences. I favor generalized promiscuity."
Fernand Braudel (1985). World Press Review (March), Magazine Litteraire.

Design is often seen as somewhat promiscuous because it seems to lack 
the legitimacy of being a true discipline—a concept borrowed from other 
academic traditions—and is always trying to be made 'honest' through 
match-making (i.e. by forming interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary 
relationships).

> Yet, the purpose of the school is not providing employees for
> one or a set of companies at one point of time, but to consider 
> societal
> needs over the long run.

I will end my reflections on this important point. This I believe is 
one of the seminal points made by Prof. Mazumdar because it is a clear 
statement of 'intent'. These types of statements are what drive and 
align the entire design process, if they are 'actual' and not merely 
'espoused' intentions. The stated 'outcomes', or 'purposes' , of the 
program ought to match the stated 'intentions' if the design is to be 
congruent.

In addition, this represents what I believe to be a critical 
performance specification for the design of the program itself. It 
represents an intentional shift from the industrial age education 
models that were created in public education in the United States to 
provide trained workers for assembly line production.

Harold G. Nelson, Ph.D., M. Arch.
President; Advanced Design Institute
www.advanceddesign.org
Past-President; International Society for Systems Science
www.isss.org
Affiliated faculty, Engineering, U. Wash.