Does Systems Engineering Stifle Creativity? PDF Print E-mail
Written by INCOSE-LA   

Article by Jorg Largent

The prejudices of the author: “Classical” systems engineering is unfairly maligned and the pell-mell rush to change the process to meet the needs of future systems lacks the discipline of a root cause analysis, lacks the rigor of a true lessons learned application, and confuses glamorous new tools with improvements to the process. Indeed the term “classical” systems engineering is misunderstood and besmirched by the mimicry of activities that have many of the attributes of systems engineering but which fail nonetheless.

Creativity versus Systems Engineering

The Manhattan Project is an example of a project that involved a high degree of creativity. It is also a source of illustrations of the tension between creativity and the systems engineering process. Some insight into the challenges faced by the systems engineering profession can be illustrated by starting with a quote attributed to Dr. Richard Feynman: “Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out, but that is not the reason we are doing it.” Systems engineering is a counterpoint to Dr. Feynman’s tongue-in-cheek, but pithy, remark. Systems engineering is the discipline that limits scientific projects to those activities most likely to produce something useful.

It should be noted that, according to the at-least anecdotal history of the Manhattan Project, there was, on that project, one, if not more, illustrative instance of limiting activities to those most likely to produce the desired product. It was Dr. Robert Oppenheimer’s lot to confront a challenge, and, thereby, to apply an element of the systems engineering process in that esoteric scientific endeavor. Dr. William Teller, a creative genius in his own right, wanted to develop a hydrogen bomb rather than the atomic bomb. To quote Dr. Teller’s obituary in the New York Times, “His (Dr. Teller’s) hope to design a hydrogen bomb, or "super" [bomb], led to early friction with Dr. Oppenheimer, the laboratory's director, who insisted that they concentrate on the atomic bomb, which, in any case, would be needed to ignite the hydrogen bomb.”

It is technically correct that in 1944 the systems engineering process had not yet been codified, but the history above is illustrative of the proper application of at least a portion of the process, codified or not. The systems engineering process is architected to provide that needed concentration of scientific activities, albeit very ethereal, on the task at hand. It should be noted that the systems engineering process, by virtue of its distillation in the crucible of academia, is of equal virtue in more mundane projects. And yet the tension remains between the pursuit of science and creativity on the one hand and the need for rigor on the other, and rightfully so.

During the panel discussion at the INCOSE-LA mini-conference on February 7, 2009, a reference was made to a quote attributed to Picasso with a further comment regarding what our education system is doing to creativity. Some surfing to find the Picasso quote led to an organization called “TED.” “TED” stands for “Technology, Entertainment, Design” and the organization is owned by the Sapling Foundation. A TED website has a speech by Sir Ken Robinson. Sir Robinson paraphrased Picasso (“Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once he grows up.”) and elaborated: “We are educating people out of their creative capacities.” February 2006 Talent Development Resources conference in Monterrey, California. (See web site for a video: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html).
 
Sir Robinson’s speech deserves some remark to lend utility and value to the points made regarding creativity. The speech is delightful and presents a challenging perspective as to the adverse effects of our “modern” education system on creativity, noting that “creative” classes such as dance are subordinated to classes in mathematics and languages. There is, of course, some controversy to be had regarding the adverse effects of our “modern” education system on mathematics and language skills as well. Be all that as it may, the entire speech and the mission of the Sapling Foundation are fair game for criticism for, among other things, failing to create a logical sequence of associations from data to conclusion.
Regardless, Sir Robinson does making some compelling points with respect to creativity and, by inference, the structure and hierarchy (dare the term “architecture” be used?) of education.
 
Interestingly enough, Sir Robinson makes a cheeky remark about “senior academics” in a discothèque, “dancing off the beat.” It is the beat that provides discipline for the activity of dancing, if for no other reason than to keep from stepping upon the feet of one’s partner.

In the same vein, poetry is oft’ cited as a product that demonstrates creativity. Without the discipline of the rules of the “language arts,” the most creative poem in the word is reduced to meaningless yammerings, or, at best, to an “eye of the beholder” argument (consider some of the “beat poetry” of the 1950’s in need of psychedelic chemical assistance). There is no such thing as empirically pure creativity. All creative pursuits (discounting the argument that there is no such thing as an original thought) contribute to the human enterprise only if they conform to the discipline and rigor of the medium.

Systems engineering is the discipline and rigor to successfully and deliberately convert an idea into a useful product that meets the needs of a customer. The history of creativity is independent of so-called modern education, from Euclidian geometry to nano-technology. The most notable changes in the arts have been wrought from technology. Petroglyphs required a certain technology, and changes in technology facilitated the paintings of the masters and now facilitate the computer-generated images of virtual reality. Music, too, has changed courtesy of changes in technology: the differences between the music in Solomon’s temple and the music of Mozart, John Newton, Hank Williams, Johnny Cash, the Beatles and Ashwin Batish are summed up in technology, not the waxing and waning of creativity at the mercy of industrialism or other such bugaboos.

The history of change shows us that the time for a new system to come into existence is becoming dizzyingly shorter and shorter. Many of the products that will exit in fifty years, and the jobs to produce them, do not exist today. Our colleagues who live in the ether and listen to the music of the spheres may well invent a body force generator that can transport us to and point Φ, Θ, r and t in the time-space continuum given that we can define the origin and assuming, in the definition of the continuum, that t is the correct independent variable.

Creativity is not threatened by any of the technological changes the have occurred nor is it threatened by the tsunami of change that seems to be rushing at us. The durability and vitality of creativity can be documented by data available in Scriptures, the explanations given to traffic officers writing a ticket, and in the explanations of cost and schedule overruns in project reviews.

So given that creativity is alive and well, what is the issue? Comments and counterpoint are welcome.
Last Updated ( Monday, 06 April 2009 09:23 )