 2002 UICEE
3rd Global Congress on Engineering Education
Glasgow, Scotland, UK, 30 June - 5 July, 2002
A systems thinking approach to the paradigm shift in engineering education.
John St. J. S. Buckeridge¹ and Erol Inelmen2
¹Faculty of Science and Engineering, Auckland University of Technology
Private Bag 92006, Auckland, New Zealand
2
Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey.
ABSTRACT: Changes in our economical, political, technological, social, cultural, and environmental life have necessitated a
paradigm shift in engineering education. Two different views – on one side the “reductionist”, on the other the “holistic”, provide
thought for the paradigm shift strategy. This paper uses a “systems thinking” approach to describe the current conditions, and
suggests an appropriate model to further the current paradigm change. An historical overview of the systems thinking approach is
provided, along with a consideration of the possible limitations on modern engineering education that this may imply. A model where
the stakeholders: employers, administrators, instructors, learners, citizens and politicians, are engaged in the decision making process
is the core of the paper. Each stakeholder clearly has different priorities, and the goal of the model is to find an optimal compromise
between the two views. However, an interesting quandary remains in academia: there is still a strong incentive to be engaged in
“cutting edge research”. This, by its very nature, encourages a quest for deep (but narrow) knowledge, i.e. “reductionism” in its broad
sense. As a possible compromise between reductionism and systems thinking, we suggest a curriculum that starts with an holistic
approach but closes with a learning environment in which the virtues of both reductionism and systems thinking are integrated and
appropriately extolled.
INTRODUCTION
PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION
Peter Checkland’s seminal work “Systems Thinking, Systems
Practice” has had a powerful influence upon the way in which
systems engineering is now taught in many engineering
curricula [1]. Checkland was concerned about the way in which
scientists (including engineers), thought and acted in the
process of decision-making. From the perspective of modern
science, he saw our world-view as a reality based upon
conjectures,
established
in
reductionist
repeatable
experiments, which have not yet been demolished [2].
Reductionist thinking has a place in engineering, but it should
not be studied in isolation. Humans are now only too well
aware of the environmental damage that is derived from our
activities. We have the understanding not only to predict effects
of our actions upon the biosphere, but also to plan and
implement remedial activities to mitigate deleterious effects.
This greater world-view has not arisen by chance – it is a result
of increasing awareness of the biosphere and the growing
influence of holistic, or systems thinking. No action may be
taken in isolation: there is interconnectedness between our
activities, and unless this relationship is taken seriously, it will
lead to systems failure. One of the more delightful
philosophical literary works that explores the relationship
between action and effects is by Robert Pirsig [3], and this is
used as a text to “open the eyes and minds of students” in
numerous engineering schools. Pirsig’s book is all the more
appealing, as it provides systems philosophy within an
engineering context.
Two approaches to decision making are discussed here:
reductionism and systems thinking. These are at opposite
terminals within a spectrum in which analysis moves from the
minutiae to the all-encompassing. Clearly both approaches have
merits in problem solving, especially in engineering. It is
important then to emphasise that both have their place in
engineering education – and it is certainly not an object of this
paper to demonstrate otherwise.
This paper explores the importance of systems thinking in
problem solving within a professional engineering context, then
focuses on how systems thinking can be employed in refining
and updating engineering curricula.
THE HOLISTIC APPROACH
Holistic analysis, or systems thinking, is all about extending an
individual’s (or a group’s) world-view to provide:

An effective means whereby behaviour/actions (of
either an individual or a group) can be analysed.

A comprehensive analysis of the effects of any
individual and/or group action.
Note: The above points define processes that are fully or
partially generated through human activity. Thus it excludes
decisions on those natural processes in which humans have no
input. Systems thinking is none-the-less a powerful tool through
which any natural system can be evaluated. It is particularly
valuable in assessment of risk.
Systems thinking in the human sphere necessitates that
individuals undertake planning to ensure that any undesirable
(or deleterious) outcomes of activities are minimised or
eliminated. The first phase in the systems thinking process is to
determine interested parties (figure 1). This may be as simple
as the placement of notification in a small regional newspaper,
to nationwide (or global) publicity about major issues. Upon
identification of stakeholders, the parties should embark upon a
process of scoping, through which the potential impact on the
physical, biological and human activities outside the proposal
are evaluated. In essence, this systems thinking is all about
thinking “beyond the square”, and is now perceived as a
necessary mental tool for all professionals. In particular it is
seen as essential in engineering, where local, regional and
national human needs are evaluated against the likely effects on
the regional biota, environment and in some cases the global
community.
DEFINING THE ACTIVITY
DETERMINING INTERESTED PARTIES
In New Zealand, any lack of engineering input in politics may
be blamed upon a paucity of engineers in politics. Unlike
countries like Japan and Singapore, there are few engineers in
politics – engineers appear to find politics either unfulfilling or
irrelevant. Thus there are few engineers in the Halls of Power,
with a net result being insufficient engineering expertise in the
decision-making processes.
Ownership of decisions (and of resource use protocols) is the
key to success in gaining acceptance (or support) for any
change that will result from an activity. All too often, critical
decisions are made on the basis of a single consultation with
any “interested parties”. In Figure 1 feedback loops are
incorporated to ensure outcomes actually reflect the needs and
desires of the stakeholders. This diagram is however, not
complete, for many situations, further systems will need to be
implemented to monitor progress of activities, and where
necessary, to modify these [5].
SCOPING FOR EFFECTS
THE REDUCTIONIST APPROACH
DIALOGUE WITH INTERESTED PARTIES
Reductionists attempt to understand complex things by analysis
of its components, i.e. there is a tendency to believe that
systems can be fully comprehended in terms of their isolated
parts. There is of course some validity in taking something
apart to see how it works. However, as a sole analytical tool,
pure reductionism is flawed, as it fails to address any of the
relationships between the components of a system.
conflict
resolved
?
yes
no
proposal
approved
?
yes
SYSTEMS THINKING IN EDUCATION
ACTIVITY MODIFIED*
no
is
change
possible
?
ACTIVITY PROCEEDS
no
yes
ACTIVITY ABORTED
Figure 1. Systems Thinking: The process. *If modification of
the originally proposed activity is undertaken, a range of
responses may be required, from renewed dialogue to a
redefinition of the activity (if sufficient change is proposed).
In all too many instances “engineering” decisions, involving
resource use, are made on the basis of political expediency. By
this, it is implied that many important (i.e. economic) decisions
are made by individuals other than engineers and technologists:
it is politicians who are defining the course of action.
Unfortunately politicians have a poor planning record. Their
focus is all too often on the next election (in New Zealand this
is a mere three years at most). The result, from an urban
development perspective is all too often “SUA” – stochastic
urban accretion, in which planning is undertaken as a knee-jerk
response to continual crises [4].
In recent years, there has been a lessening of the appeal of
science (and engineering) as a career. To some degree this may
reflect the ascendancy of the cult of antitechnology, but it may
also follow a perception that there is greater fiscal reward in
commerce, and perhaps better career prospects [6,7]. (A
frightening possibility is that engineering may be being
increasingly perceived as “too difficult” for the reward – i.e.
there are easier pickings to be made in the business world).
Educators must promote the idea that science and engineering
degrees are not an end in themselves, rather they are a means
to an end. As implied earlier, more engineers as politicians
would ensure more balanced planning in resource development.
Indeed, in the corporate world, some of the most successful
businesses are those where executives are graduates of both
technology and commerce. Commerce and information
technology alone add nothing to society. Together with
engineering, they are more likely to result in informed decision
making, with socially acceptable and agreeable outcomes.
How do we make engineering more appealing as a career
choice? It clearly is too late to contemplate enlisting most
students when they are about to embark upon university study.
A recent comment comparing international student success in
the “sciences” [7] highlighted the need to reassess the contentheavy curriculum characteristic of secondary school science
programmes. The emphasis on an enormous number of facts
has made science less accessible, and has diminished the
opportunity for teachers to show the relevance of science –
especially to the world of our “client group” which begins with
13 year-olds.
If the curriculum is revised by decreasing the plethora of facts
students are required to learn, then educators may well be
accused of “dumbing down” of science. There is a balance
then, of contextualising sciences in order to enhance their
appeal, and maintaining sufficient academic rigour so as not to
diminish (or devalue) the output. Ultimately it is acceptance by
all stakeholders (potential and current students, graduate
engineers, employers and the engineering profession) that will
ensure the viability of an engineering degree. (Figure 2).
DEFINING THE CONCEPT OF
ENGINEERING (as a career)
TARGETING POTENTIAL STUDENTS
There are two levels in which systems thinking should be
addressed in the university environment: clearly it must be
introduced to students (in our case engineering students) as a
powerful tool for decision-making. Secondly it must be used in
the way in which we progress our pedagogy. i.e. the manner in
which we develop modify and implement changes in curricula
(Figure 2). At the UICEE Conference held at Wismar in 2000,
it was effectively demonstrated that in universities, actual
changes (to the curriculum) significantly lag behind
“implemented change” [8]. This reflects inertia within the
teaching body – a resistance to change (often from those who
ultimately do not actually teach the subject), entrenched
organisational barriers and lack of appreciation of the nature
and value of the implemented changes.
UNIVERSITY: DEVELOPMENT OF
EFFECTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT
student
satisfaction
?
no
PEDAGOGY MODIFIED
students
graduate
?
yes
The most potent advocates for science and engineering careers
are none-the-less current practitioners (including graduates
whose vocation takes the outside the mainstream of the
practicing engineer). It is imperative that we, the stakeholders,
communicate to the wider public the value and thus the
fulfilment that a career in engineering can provide.
SYSTEMS THINKING WITHIN THE UNIVERSITY
COMMUNICATING
yes
aspect is performed within the “decision diamonds” where, in a
question like “is change possible?”, embedded elements may
address economic, ethical and environmental concerns. Thus
each decision diamond represents a further systems analysis as
in Figure 1.
Effecting change at faculty level
A systems approach to implementing curricular change must
incorporate the following methodologies:
no
is
change
possible
?
PROGRAMME PROCEEDS
WITH MONITORING
1.
Involvement in the decision making process of
individuals who will be functioning within the new
environment.
2.
Involvement in the decision making process of
individuals who will be secondarily effected by the
implemented changes (i.e. the “stakeholders).
3.
Ensuring that individuals through “ownership of the
new environment” accept responsibility for
implementation.
4.
Ensuring that all parties to change are appropriately
accountable in the implementation process.
5.
Ensuring ongoing commitment of all parties to the
system, the changes and the process.
yes
employer
& profession
satisfied
?
yes
no
no
PROGRAMME DISCONTINUED
Figure 2: A systems approach to the promotion and
implementation of engineering teaching programmes. As with
all systems approaches to problem solving, there is a
“termination of project” option. Of course this is a fairly
draconian option, as it is has ramifications that are not
necessarily evident in the above diagram, e.g. staffing. It is
important to note however, that all aspects, including staffing,
are incorporated in the decision box “is change possible?”
Ultimately, if there are no students, there are no academic
positions. The “proceed” option must include an effective
monitoring programme (including appropriate employment), as
engineering is clearly not a static science.
As well as lateral thinking, a systems approach to problem
solving also necessitates vertical thinking. In Figure 2, this
It may not necessarily be enough to give staff an opportunity to
become involved in a paradigm shift. In many universities,
some staff, especially those of long standing may be
comfortable with the status quo. This need not mean that they
are “drifting to retirement” and seek to maintain an easy (light)
load. Rather, it may reflect full commitment, and a very heavy
teaching load, i.e. they do not have sufficient time to provide
any meaningful input into a curriculum review.
Thus, to ensure involvement of staff, management must provide
time. Further, management must provide a forum where staff
members are able to give feedback in a non-threatening
environment. This is not always easy to achieve. To compound
the problem, some academics do not see themselves as
administrators and resent administrative duties. A response to
heads of department may well be: “It is your job to provide
teaching resources, give me the resources and the students,
and I will ensure an appropriate environment for learning”.
University stakeholders
Change in the engineering curriculum is best achieved when
support of all stakeholders is obtained. As discussed,
identification of these stakeholders and their needs is part of the
scoping process (Figure 1). However, scoping also involves
prioritising needs, and where these needs differ, resolution of
conflict between parties. In Figure 3, some of the motivating
forces for those involved in education are presented. The
potential for successful resolution of disputes about how (or
whether) a paradigm shift should occur may be low, especially
when the priorities (and basis for these) are not communicated
between the stakeholders.
prestige
university
administration
Thus, effective communication (and the empowerment of
stakeholders that this engenders) is pivotal in effecting a
paradigm shift in the university environment.
MANAGING ENGINEERING EDUCATION
The importance of systems thinking, both as part of, and for
development of engineering education is clear. Universities
have tended to be rather insular in the past, and this has been a
weakness in the new world of fiscal (and moral) accountability.
The perspective represented in Figure 3 is thus only a small
part of what a full systems approach would provide. The
relationships between the university and the taxpayer are in this
diagram simply implied. None-the-less these relationships,
ultimately to “those who fund us” must be explicit if the
concept of the university is to continue to exist. We in schools
of engineering have a special place in the move to validate the
university’s existence, as engineering can be readily seen as of
benefit to society. We must be prepared to assume an even
greater rôle in public outreach if the university model is to
survive. Let us make sure that our immediate managers fully
appreciate this…
REFERENCES
1. Buckeridge, J. S. From Reductionist to Systems Thinking:
The Engineering Imperative. In The Environmentally
Educated Engineer: Focus on Fundamentals. Elms D. and
D. Wilkinson. (Eds). Centre for Advanced Engineering,
University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. 119123. (1995).
income
status
2. Checkland, P. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. John
Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England. 330 pp. (1993).
remuneration
3. Pirsig, R. M. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.
Vintage Press, London. 424 pp. (1974).
academic staff
commitment
graduation
capabilities
4. Buckeridge, J. S. Stochastic Urban Accretion and Marine
Reserves: Complementary or Conflicting options? Proc.
19th Ann. Mtg. Int. Assoc. Impact Assessment: Impact
Assessment for a New Century, Glasgow. 10 pp. (1999).
5. Buckeridge, J. S. A systems approach to the geotechnical
design
of
rigid seawalls. Trans. Inst. Professional
Engineers New Zealand. 22(1/CE): 32-37. (1995).
students
Figure 3. Motivating forces for those involved in university
education. Embedded in the ovals are sublevels, e.g. in
“capabilities”, knowledge of the discipline is pivotal, however
this must be supplemented with employability (in which is
embedded a further level addressing issues such as
communication skills, ability to network, ability to work as a
team member and personal motivation); “income” reflects sublevels such as government policy, student numbers and
enrolment criteria. To be successful, the basis for any decision
must be clearly articulated to all interested parties.
6. Buckeridge, J. S. Ethics, Environment and Culture: Their
significance within Engineering Education. David Painter
and John Peet (Eds.). Proc. Intl. Conf. Ecological
Engineering. Christchurch, New Zealand. 57-61. (2001)
7. Campbell, P. Educating future scientists (Editorial). Nature
414 (6865): 673. (2001).
8. Wald, M. S. Managing curriculum change – a challenge for
engineering education. Proc. 2nd UICEE Global Congress
on Engineering Education. Wismar, Germany. 61-63.
(2000).