Creativity and structural engineering: strange bedfellows?
Author Eric Stokes Published 7 September 2009
A recent forum post referred to a 3 August Financial Review article entitled 'Creative Thinkers want Designer Degrees', which described a proposal to incorporate the principles of design thinking in Business degrees at UTS in Sydney.
Topic 1 of Unit 307 Management of Professional Services contains a brief introduction to the nature of design thinking, which is a particularly important activity in consultancies. The approach to teaching design and ways to encourage creativity in design in engineering undergraduate programs has been a regular subject for discussion over some years. The emphasis on analysis in university programs in general, coupled with a reluctance to teach creative subjects has also been discussed over the years.
In 1969 Herbert Simon gave a series of lectures entitled the ‘Sciences of the Artificial’ in which he pointed out that the human race engages in two significant activities: firstly, the discovery of new knowledge and the refinement of the knowledge base; and secondly, the creation of artefacts and systems for the use of the human race. Design, which incorporates creativity, is a significant process in the second.
The degree of creativity and originality required in design is widely variable. It may simply involve using well-tried methods and readily available resources or, at the other extreme, the creation and development of radical new ideas and new ways to realise them. In a democracy artists, composers and writers may only be constrained by the media they have available to express their ideas and the laws of the country in which they practise. At the other extreme, all those who design artefacts and systems to satisfy a specific requirement usually have constraints placed upon them. These may include legal and financial constraints, requirements for safety, available resources and satisfaction of required function.
A general approach to design can be developed, the teaching methods adopted and the subsequent application of the approach will largely depend on the relative importance placed on creativity against satisfaction of imposed constraints. People may be prepared to view an exhibition of avant-garde painting but they probably aren't prepared to fly in an aeroplane whose safety has not been demonstrated, no matter how innovative the design may be. Likewise, conservative investors may not be prepared to invest their superannuation in a highly innovative company that cannot demonstrate reasonable stability and certainty of return. The community now expects that there will be control measures in critical areas affecting its wellbeing and welfare. These have to be taken into account in any design process.
Design, in general, requires the exercise of creativity to varying degrees, an understanding of available resources and analysis to determine that the imposed constraints have been satisfied. The development of creativity in individuals is a complex area: some individuals are highly creative from early age (musicians, particularly, fit this category), while others develop later. Creativity needs to be developed in both home and school; it is easily suppressed and is hard to recover. As suggested in the article, there is undoubtedly a need for greater interaction between those with different approaches to design. The following story from this writer’s experience may illustrate the point.
When I was teaching structural engineering I was approached by a sculptor in the Art and Design Faculty who had obtained a commission to place a sculpture in a public place. The sculpture consisted of a number of welded stainless steel boxes arranged in a manner to appear as if they were just piled together. This was by far the largest sculpture that he had attempted; the responsible public authority quite rightly wanted reasonable assurance that the structure would resist wind loads and not endanger public safety.
The initial discussions were interesting. The purpose of the sculpture was to demonstrate the instability of modern society. As a structural engineer, I was being invited to devise a way of ensuring that the structure was stable without destroying the illusion of instability. As the discussions proceeded, further constraints emerged. Any connections were to be made in a way that did not detract from the meticulous finish the sculptor required. He was a superb welder who had developed skills of the highest order—and not dissimilar from those required in a high-pressure chemical plant. A solution was achieved with connections accessed through removable panels at critical locations.
The story illustrates the creativity at work in structural engineering: in this case, ensuring the stability of a structure intended to illustrate the instability of modern society. It was mind broadening and great fun, though I would not recommend it as a profitable commission!
The ideas in the article open up a number of issues: the need for cross-disciplinary research, the need to encourage creativity from an early age, the need to show that there is a role for creative people in areas like business management and engineering, as well as the need to realise that design is a multi-faceted human activity.