Embracing Change: a Design Education Hybrid!

Greg Van Alstyne
Program Director: Institute without Boundaries
Bruce Mau Design

GK. VanPatter
Co-Founder, NextDesign Leadership Institute
Partner & Co-Founder, UnderstandingLab

Download this conversation as PDF file

1
GK. VanPatter: We were delighted to see the recent announcement regarding the Bruce Mau studio creating an Institute Without Boundaries initiative in Toronto. The idea seems to sync well with the kind of thinking that we are actively in search of at NextD as we attempt to construct an understandable picture of the challenges facing design and design education today. Let me start by asking why you thought Institute without Boundaries was necessary and or a timely idea at this moment?

Greg Van Alstyne: The spirit of research and learning as a process of discovery has always been core to the activities at the Bruce Mau Design studio, and the Institute without Boundaries is an outgrowth of this. A specific opportunity to create a unique educational program arose when George Brown College approached BMD in 2001 to propose collaborating on the creation of a new higher education model for design which was not generic, but which addressed current needs in a radical way.

During the studio's investigation and research, Bruce encountered a group of George Brown students who had created an entire student newspaper from the ground up, an experience that left them both charged, and changed. They said to Bruce, "it was a fantastic project -- we had to learn everything." The palpable intensity of their story was immediately recognizable as the same kind of experience that Bruce created for himself during the initial formation of his practice, while making Zone 1/2 in 1985. I myself had the same experience in apprenticing with Bruce in 1987, when I was more or less employee number one. The Institute without Boundaries is about creating an intense, experiential model for learning within a high-stakes, real world framework.

The emphasis on multidisciplinary studies is likewise in keeping with BMD's overall approach to design. As Bruce stated in his Incomplete Manifesto for Growth, creativity is device-independent. Disciplines arise in order to manage and solve recognizable problems efficiently using highly refined vocabularies and specific patterns of thinking. But what happens when, as in our present condition, societal and technological change have accelerated to the point where problems are no longer recognizable? We need to maximize agility, flexibility, and creativity. The multidisciplinary mind is inherently oriented toward looking at a problem from a variety of angles. By proactively redefining a problem through different filters and lenses, if you will, we create the conditions for true creativity, the kind of work that is not merely novel but fundamentally fresh and intelligent.

2
GK. VanPatter: Is the intention to make participation in Institute without Boundaries open to individuals beyond the traditional design disciplines or is this more of a multidisciplinary design undertaking?

Greg Van Alstyne: This is a good question, as it touches on one of the more unusual and ambitious aspects of the project. We are in fact seeking candidates representing an array of different fields including and in addition to the usual design disciplines. Our stated aim is to produce a new breed of designer who can articulate possibilities, one who is, in the words of Buckminster Fuller, a “synthesis of artist, inventor, mechanic, objective economist, and evolutionary strategist.” Fuller is a tremendously valuable figure in representing the kind of thinking and practice we seek to inculcate. The kind of backgrounds we have in mind include the natural, physical, social, and engineering science, journalism, economics, and international relations, as well as communications design, new media, filmmaking, photography and architecture — not to mention, of course, combinations thereof! Whether we can attract strong candidates from so many fields is another question, but that is our aim. As of this writing we’re still receiving applications, but thus far the results are very promising.

3
GK. VanPatter: Before I ask you more about your program intentions, the Bucky Fuller model and all of that good stuff, let me steer us for a moment towards some more difficult contextual terrain. What is it about design practice and education today that the Institute without Boundaries intends to do better and differently? Come on, spill the beans! What it is about how the majority of practicing designers think and work today that differs from what you guys are up to there? What is it about how design is still being taught in design schools that differs from the Institute without Boundaries? What have you folks seen occurring in the marketplace that “inspired” Bruce Mau Design to introduce this program at this time? What is going on or not going on in design education and practice that concerns you there?

Greg Van Alstyne: Our program addresses two major issues in design education today.

First, we’re creating a rare hybrid. Our program places students in direct contact with real-world clients, deadlines, pace of work. Yet in itself this is not uncommon, for this occurs in most apprenticeships, co-ops, internships, and other experiential work study programs. What’s missing from most of these is a sustained sense of ownership and research-driven, intellectual focus, because most internships are focused on the craft of detailed design and production for commercial, service-oriented client work. Work-study programs typically do not enable students to research, write, edit, and think through complex problems, and then design innovative solutions for real clients, over the course of a whole year. At the Institute without Boundaries, there will not be a dichotomy between the intellectual and the practical, because these two realms are integrally joined through the course of the entire year.

The second issue we seek to address is the overwhelming concentration of existing education models on the quantitative. Schools today and their administrative overseers are unrelenting in their focus on the quantity of learning. Yet learning is of course not simply a mechanical process of imparting fixed units of information about static subjects. Those who've had a life changing educational experience know that it is the quality of the experience that matters most. The Institute without Boundaries will create the conditions to generate a qualitatively different and meaningful learning experience. We will do this by traversing traditional categories and by giving students the responsibility for solving complex real-world problems using unconventional and hybrid discourses and solutions. The resulting energy will irrevocably and positively transform the students (as well as Bruce Mau Design itself).

4
GK. VanPatter: I want to ask you about the HOW of the Institute without Boundaries. If the WHAT of your program this year will be focused on rethinking the future of design, help us understand more about the HOW that you have in mind. In our own work we use visible processes and tools that are designed for use by multidisciplinary teams rather than discipline specific work. This allows us to work across disciplines and to solve complex, often unstructured problems.

You will have students from multiple disciplines there arriving with diverse backgrounds and from many geographic locations. The approach still seen in many design schools is to just throw students in the deep end without any team-based problem solving skill building occurring on the front end. What’s the plan in this regard for the Institute?

Greg Van Alstyne: One of the built-in problems for multidisciplinary work is how to assess and build the multitude of necessary skills as the program unfolds. For example, one entrant may have strengths in interactive strategy, research, analytical thinking, and project management, but little hand-on experience in photography, typography, or video editing. One way we'll address this issue is by conducting a skills audit early on, then setting up tutorials with in-studio experts, to ramp people up to practical levels of facility for the key techniques.

In general, there will be the expectation that a successful student will be ready to roll up their sleeves and acquire certain kinds of knowledge on their own steam, as necessary. E.g. Some kinds of software are best learned by hammering out a real problem by an individual in front of the machine, and any handholding and classroom-type training would just slow it down.

Then some discourses, e.g. how a TV script works, may be inculcated slowly, by routinely speaking the lingo in periodic work sessions and working with the material over time.

We also will have some kind of a buddy system, pairing each student with a counterpart within a "host team" of seasoned people in the studio. As well we intend to set up a 'matrixed' reporting structure, rather than a tree, to ensure that, for or any given question or problem, there will be more than one person a student can go to for answers or help.

The ambition and scale of the project is such that there will be room for people to target certain problems more heavily and skirt others, according to experience and preference. That said, I want to make sure that the interdisciplinary goals are addressed methodically, so we're not relying too heavily on pre-existing knowledge at the risk of being reverential about traditional boundaries.

Another “how” question is, how will the student be able to leverage their results after the program is completed? The IwB projects will certainly generate a network of like-minded and well connected people with varying levels of experience, who want to continue exploring ideas together. That is the whole goal of the exercise. I have no doubt that various employment opportunities will arise out of this inherent dynamic of the project.

3
GK. VanPatter: OK that is very interesting. Before we move on I would like to stay with this for a moment as issues around HOW relate closely to the focus of NextD.

We think about the architecture of HOW as having three primary pieces, which we call Levels 1, 2 and 3. We visualize this model as three interacting rings, one on top of the other. Each level has a different focus and purpose. The kinds of HOW that you speak of here seem to coincide, more or less, with our Level 1 and Level 2. Correct me if your intentions are otherwise.

A brief description of the different levels follows:
Level 1 HOW: Mastering Tools
Involves learning around what we call specialty tools. For designers today these are often digital devices and various software programs. Examples are computers, cameras, and their subsystems: Flash, HTML, Photoshop, CAD, Illustrator, InDesign, etc. Level 1 is often carried out by individuals interacting alone with their technologies.

Level 2 HOW: Mastering Framed Problem Solving
Involves learning around the execution and delivery of specialty processes or services. Level 2 is the traditional domain of design and is typically geared, in terms of skill sets and focus, towards dealing with relatively framed problems of small scale. The designing and making of a web site, a film, a building, an airplane, a book, a chair, a toothbrush, a magazine, an exhibit, an experience, etc. are all considered to all be forms of specialty process work. This level draws on the tools knowledge from Level 1. Level 2 is executed most often, but not always by groups of individuals within a single discipline. Level 2 problems and solutions tend to be discipline specific.
Although often depicted in the marketplace as proprietary, most kinds of Level 2 work are, at their core, some form of problem solving and map directly to Level 3, but lets leave that for another conversation.

Level 3 HOW: Mastering Unframed Problem Solving
Involves learning to scale up discipline agnostic problem solving skill and speak/work across disciplines. Level 3 skills are aimed at dealing with complex, unframed problems and the kinds of cross-disciplinary team communication skills that are needed in the context of complex problem solving today.

Level 3 is aimed at this question:
How are professionals from a multitude of disciplines going to communicate with each other, ideate in a synchronized manner, and solve complex unframed problems together in an organized, systematic way that is repeatable regardless of the nature of the problem? Problem Finding is an important component of this level. Level 3 work is most often performed by multidisciplinary teams focused on defining problems and generating solutions to complex unframed fuzzy situations. This level draws on the knowledge from Levels 1 & 2. Level 3 problems and solutions tend to span multiple disciplines.

From the perspective of NextD, the issues around the changing face of HOW are among the most significant challenges facing the design industries and in turn, design education.

Unfortunately in most traditional design education programs today, graduate and undergraduate, one still finds Level 3 completely missing. In the realms of design education the realization of what is already occurring in the marketplace, multi-disciplinary teams working on complex problems has been slow to arrive. The realization that others outside of the design disciplines are moving to take the leadership reigns in complex problem solving situations has been slow to arrive. For NextD, Level 3 represents a future that has already arrived. We believe it is key for design and designers to be participating there, to be leading there in Level 3.

Having identified Level 3 as a missing component of many graduate design education programs, NextDesign Leadership Institute created the NextD Education Initiative. Its goal is to bring the Level 3 skill-building program to selected graduate design schools. That process is unfolding at this time.

Since the purpose of this Journal Series is to share our exploration of the landscape around design leadership today, rather than make promotional pitches for NextD or Institute without Boundaries, lets leave this part of our discussion here for now. We can talk more off-line if you wish.

Our time in this conversation is running short so let me jump quickly to my next question regarding the Bucky Fuller model. Help us understand precisely what the attraction is there from the Institute without Boundaries perspective. Bucky was an amazing generator and conceptualizer. As you know, much of his professional life was spent inventing things and then trying to sell them to the world.

The dymaxion house and car, geodesic dome, the dome over Manhattan, etc. were extensions of his view of a future world, or how the present one might be improved upon. These were things dreamed up not in the context of working on client problems but working on issues that he believed to be important. Bucky found some great problems as well as some innovative solutions. Is that part of what you folks at Institute without Boundaries see as significant for young design students to think about today?

Greg Van Alstyne: Well, that’s a lot to react to. First let me say that, yes, my examples in discussing skills audits and so on were admittedly simple ones that map to the kind of Level 1 and 2 problems. However we will absolutely be going beyond that point, for the reasons you suggest, that is to say, Level 3 problems are really “where the action is.” As an example of our commitment to team-based skills-building around complex problems: within our candidate interview process, before the program even begins, we are already assessing team-based interaction skills, by modeling a research problem that clusters of applicants must solve together, as a major part of a day-long interview session. It’s amazing and telling how interdisciplinary designers/content creators act in teams, vs. on their own! I’m eager to dig deeper into this territory, but perhaps this should be, as you say, off-line.

Regarding Buckminster Fuller, he is truly an exemplary figure, both for the Institute without Boundaries and for Massive Change. And yet, I want to avoid placing too much emphasis on his specific inventions, as I believe the unique and highly memorable visual forms of these things, great as they are, tends to distract from an appreciation of Fuller’s thought and broad vision. The geodesic dome for example is now so associated with a particular moment of futurism. Fuller’s enduring relevance for us, however, centers more on the scope and depth of his project, that is to say, his unwavering and prescient focus on the entire planet, his sobering discussions of the human condition, and his commitment to meeting real human need through the broadest and most synthetic of design practices. Thus we intend to explore some of the less well known aspects of Fuller’s legacy; e.g. not so much the Dome, but rather the World Game.

4
GK. VanPatter: How much involvement will Bruce have on the day-to-day operation of Institute without Boundaries? What will be his role in the program?

Greg Van Alstyne: Bruce is very engaged in the Institute and especially in Massive Change, the first project the students will grapple with. As with the book Life Style -- which intertwines both BMD studio projects and a critical essay about the global image economy -- Bruce will be heavily involved in the conception, planning, and writing of Massive Change. One indication of the importance of the Institute and it’s projects is that he has postponed all discretionary speaking engagements and invitations for a whole year, to clear as much of his calendar as possible for these efforts. Of course, he is deeply involved in the studio’s client-driven projects as well, but IwB and Massive Change represent a major public, intellectual project for BMD. We intend to do everything necessary to generate an unmatched experience for the students, and a stunning array of tangible outcomes.

5
GK. VanPatter: In closing I want to ask you about the possibility of others connecting with you. I can imagine there being some graduate students among our readers who might be interested in applying to your new program experiment. When is the best time to apply and who should they connect with there?

Greg Van Alstyne: Potential candidates should of course first visit the Institute’s Web site at http://www.institutewithoutboundaries.com and take in all that can be learned there. This site covers the relevant information about the program’s formative concepts and focus, and will be kept updated with enrollment dates, tuition, etc. There is a FAQ that we’ll add to as new questions come in. The site directs initial inquiries by e-mail and phone to George Brown College. Those who need detailed information about the program and the studio can get my contact information from the college.

Our enrolment is now full for the upcoming term. At present we’re considering opening enrolment for additional applicants in June 2003, for an overlapping one-year program, six months out of phase with the first enrollees. In any case we’ll definitely be seeking additional candidates leading up to January 2004 enrolment.

Many thanks for the opportunity to discuss and explore these issues with you.

Copyright © 2003 NextDesign Leadership Institute. All Rights Reserved.
NextD Journal text may be quoted and printed freely for non-commercial purposes with proper acknowledgment. If you wish to reproduce or transmit any of this text for commercial use, please send a copyright permission request to journal@nextd.org