Indoor Air Cartoon Journal, September 2023, Volume 6, #146
[Cite as: Fadeyi MO (2023). Which is more appropriate for adopting ventilation rate: Linear or non-linear mathematical thinking? Indoor Air Cartoon Journal, September 2023, Volume 6, #146.]
Fictional Case Story (Audio – available online)
……………………..
A young mechanical engineering graduate faced the daunting task of revitalising the ventilation system within a vast underground complex. Embracing the conventional path of linear thinking, he painstakingly crafted a technically precise ventilation system. Yet, unexpected challenges surfaced, laying bare the limitations of linear thinking in the face of intricate and ever-changing environments. Determined to learn from his mistakes, the young man embarked on a life-changing educational journey. He sought to understand how complex engineering problems, particularly those associated with using a ventilation system to improve indoor air quality, could be designed in a value-oriented manner with non-linear thinking. The young man’s journey is the subject of this short fiction story.
1 ……………………..
What do humans want or need from what they experience? How do humans experience things? What kind of thinking is appropriate to help maximise value delivery for humans from what they experience?
For the 1st question, what do humans want or need from what they experience? Humans want or need the solution designed to solve their problems to work for them. What does “work for them” mean? It means when humans use their solutions, they want the amount of quantity, quality, and safety of the output generated from the solution and the resulting comfort, convenience, and awareness they experience to be maximised as much as possible for every unit of increase in the cost and associated comfort, convenience, and awareness they invested into the solution.
What needs to be done to achieve what humans want or need? The answer is simply design. What is design? In a very simple definition, design is making things (solutions) work for humans, animals, and the environment. In essence, design is about creating something that gives value to people, animals, and the environment.
As I have alluded to, the focus here is human. Humans want or need value in what they experience. So, what philosophy is needed to make things work for people, i.e., give value to people? The philosophy lies in the understanding that ideas, systems, or events in life are often complex, i.e., real-world problems are often multifaceted and interconnected and require creativity to solve them.
Understanding and appreciating what each entity of ideas, systems, or events means and how their components are interconnected are prerequisites for creativity. The wisdom here is that you cannot be creative with what you do not understand. That means you cannot make things work for people (give value to people), at least effectively, if you do not understand the problems and complexities involved.
It is important to note that the required understanding I mentioned is not enough to be creative. Understanding how humans interact with interconnected ideas, systems, or events is also essential to have the design creativity needed to make things work for humans. This statement begs the 2nd question: how do humans experience things?
Humans simultaneously experience multiple aspects of their environment, creating a rich and multifaceted sensory experience. This simultaneous experience involves the integration of various sensory modalities and cognitive processes. The want or need that has been experienced or is yet to be experienced influences how humans interact with interconnected components of ideas, systems, or events.
To maximise value delivery to humans during their interactions, designers must adopt the right thinking that fits the bill. Thus, designers of anything (solution) need to ask the 3rd question. What kind of thinking is appropriate to help maximise value delivery for humans from what they experience? To find the answer to this question, learn from my story.
2 ……………………………………………
My name is Lebron Lagos. I am a citizen of Casania. I was born and grew up in Casania, a country with an education system that trained students from a young age to follow step-by-step processes, solve problems methodically, and think in a linear fashion. This conditioning made linear thinking feel more natural and comfortable for me.
Thus, many students who went through the education system, especially from primary to high school, exhibit linear thinking in their problem-solving approach. Like many products of the system, linear thinking offered me simplicity and predictability. It gave me a clear path from problem to solution, making it less daunting and more reassuring.
In the education system, students were accustomed to being provided with clear and straightforward instructions and answers. This practice is often celebrated by students and authorities. It is no surprise because people celebrate what they appreciate. My training in linear thinking was not limited to the education system. Social and cultural norms often reward linear thinking. Society often values structured and linear approaches, and individuals who deviate from these norms typically face resistance or criticism.
I got a rude shock during my university days. I went overseas for an exchange programme at Vanguard University in the United States of Abeoluna. Vanguard, as it was popularly called, was and still is a top university in the world that many aspired to be associated with. At Vanguard, I was exposed to non-linear thinking in the true sense of it for the very first time.
I felt very uncomfortable and found this thinking approach to problem-solving very difficult to adopt. You can not blame me for this. I have been exposed to only linear thinking all my life up until my visit to Vanguard University.
At Vanguard University, a non-linear thinking approach was required for completing the applied research project assignments given to us. I felt the non-linear thinking process to be very messy and filled with a high level of uncertainty and risk.
We were required to try new approaches and accept that failure is part of the learning process. However, the mentality from where I came from was that there was little or no room for failure. Thus, people in my country were comfortable with the conventional ways of doing things.
So many people, including me, in my country do not want to take the risk of experimenting with ideas. In my country, because of the linear thinking mentality in the education system and society, many people have a natural tendency to seek information that confirms their bias.
When providing a solution to a problem, we would usually seek information that confirms our existing beliefs and thought patterns. It got to a point where the provision of solutions to problems instead of developing solutions for solving problems was prevalent.
A year after I returned to Casania, after completing my overseas student exchange programme at Vanguard University, USA, I graduated from my home university, The University of Aladuke, Casania. I was the embodiment of youthful enthusiasm and ambition, having recently donned the graduation gown and cap, clutching my degree in Mechanical Engineering with specialisation in Building Services.
I was filled with dreams of conquering the world of engineering. My mind was brimming with theories, equations, and the excitement of possibilities. I was determined to put my hard-earned knowledge into practice.
Armed with my impeccable academic record, First Class Honours degree, and a portfolio of impressive projects from my university years, I embarked on a journey to find the perfect place to kickstart my career. It was not long before my relentless pursuit of excellence led me to the prestigious consultancy company in Casania, Innovative Engineering Solutions.
The company’s name was synonymous with innovation and groundbreaking projects. Nestled amidst the city’s technological epicenter, the glass facade of the company’s headquarters gleamed like a beacon of opportunity. With each step into the company’s lobby, I felt the weight of responsibility mixed with the thrill of possibility. I was greeted by a receptionist who handed me an access card and a warm smile—a small gesture that reaffirmed my decision to join this esteemed establishment.
As I made my way through the sleek corridors of the building, passing by conference rooms filled with engineers discussing intricate designs and brainstorming sessions filled with creative energy, I could not help but be inspired. I had entered a world where cutting-edge technology and human ingenuity converged to shape the future.
Eager to apply my knowledge and contribute to the company’s legacy, I volunteered to help in various projects, from designing energy-efficient HVAC systems for eco-friendly skyscrapers to optimising industrial machinery for maximum output. My passion and commitment were evident in every line I drafted, every calculation I made, and every prototype I tested.
My exceptional skills, tireless work ethic, and an innate knack for solving intricate engineering puzzles did not go unnoticed. I became known as the go-to person for design and engineering challenges within the company. In the intricate world of mechanical engineering, I was a luminary in the making.
I was not just a recent graduate. I was a prodigy, impressing even the most seasoned engineers and project managers with my deep understanding of thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, and mechanical systems. My peers and superiors admired my ability to turn complex theoretical concepts into practical solutions.
It was not just my technical brilliance that set me apart. It was also my dedication and attention to detail. I was known to work late into the night, poring over intricate design drawings, running simulations, and testing prototypes until they met my exact standards. My colleagues often marveled at my relentless pursuit of perfection.
As the months went by, my reputation within the company grew exponentially. I became a rising star, and my name was whispered in the corridors of power at Innovative Engineering Solutions. The partners and senior engineers recognised that they had an impressive talent in their midst.
Then, as if the stars had aligned, an opportunity of a lifetime landed on my desk. The redesign of the ventilation system for a sprawling underground complex. I was made the lead designer for the ventilation system project. This project was more than just another assignment for me. I saw it as an opportunity for me to make a lasting impact on the company and the city it served.
It seemed like this was a project that would truly catapult me into the spotlight. Little did I know that this project, which initially promised to catapult my career to new heights, would become the crucible that tested my abilities, challenged my thinking, and ultimately led me down a path of profound transformation.
The underground complex, a sprawling network of tunnels, chambers, and underground facilities, was a marvel of urban infrastructure. It was a vital hub for transportation, commerce, and essential services. The underground complex was a living, breathing organism with its own rhythms and demands. It had variable occupancy levels, changing weather patterns, and a complex network of interconnecting tunnels and chambers.
However, the aging ventilation system was struggling to keep up with the demands of the modern world. It had become outdated, inefficient, and plagued with a list of issues that compromised the comfort and safety of its occupants. The existing ventilation system had been in place for decades, a relic of a bygone era when engineering standards and technology were vastly different from what they were at the point of the design project.
The existing ventilation system’s design was far from energy-efficient, resulting in soaring utility bills and environmental concerns. It consumed excessive energy, contributing to escalating operational costs and carbon emissions. Occupants within the underground system experienced significant relative humidity and temperature fluctuations. Some areas were uncomfortably warm, while others were perpetually chilly, leading to discomfort and reduced productivity.
The ventilation system struggled to maintain optimal indoor air quality, resulting in complaints of stuffiness, odours, and even health concerns among those who used the underground complex for business and those who frequented the underground complex. The underground complex was a complex maze of interconnected spaces, each with its own unique ventilation needs. The ventilation system to be designed had to navigate a complex network of tunnels, chambers, and infrastructure, further complicating the design challenge.
The challenge was monumental! However, with unwavering determination, I accepted the project, immersing myself in the complexities of the underground complex. As I took the reins of the project, my dreams and aspirations soared even higher. I delved into the underground complex’s intricacies, conducting exhaustive research and analysis to understand its shortcomings.
It was not just about replacing old components with newer ones. It was about redesigning the entire ventilation system. With each passing day, I delved deeper into the world of mechanical engineering, applying my knowledge and innovative ideas to create a ventilation system that would not only meet industry standards but also exceed them.
The underground complex became my canvas, and the ventilation system my masterpiece in the making. It was a chance to demonstrate not just my engineering prowess but my ability to innovate and solve real-world problems. As I delved deeper into the project, the enormity of the task ahead became apparent.
The company’s traditional design approach had always been one of linear thinking. This is unsurprising as many people, including all the senior management members, were products of my country’s educational system. As you know, I am also a product of the same educational system.
My company’s linear thinking methodology was rooted in established engineering principles, tried-and-true formulas, and a step-by-step approach that had yielded successful outcomes in countless previous projects. This linear thinking had become synonymous with reliability and predictability. These were qualities that had bolstered the company’s reputation for delivering technically sound solutions.
And so, when I took on the project, I followed this well-established path. I meticulously adhered to industry standards, ensuring that every aspect of the new ventilation system was designed with precision and thoroughness. My approach was characterised by assessment, problem identification, technical analysis, prototyping and testing, and design documentation.
I began by conducting a comprehensive assessment of the existing ventilation system. This involved inspecting the physical components, analysing historical data, and identifying deficiencies and areas in need of improvement. With a detailed understanding of the existing system, I identified the specific problems that needed to be addressed. These problems ranged from inefficiencies in energy consumption to inadequate air distribution, leading to poor indoor air quality.
Armed with the knowledge of the problems at hand, I delved into the technical aspects of ventilation design. I meticulously calculated airflow rates, assessed the system’s thermal performance, and developed detailed design specifications. I created prototypes and conducted extensive testing to validate the design’s technical feasibility and effectiveness.
This step involved simulated airflow modeling and rigorous performance assessments. The culmination of my efforts and the team that I led resulted in the creation of exhaustive design documentation, complete with detailed schematics, engineering drawings, and technical specifications.
On paper, the design which I led to develop was impeccable. It adhered to industry best practices, met all regulatory requirements, and promised to resolve the underground complex’s long-standing issues. My company’s management, impressed by the thoroughness and precision of my work, had high expectations for the project’s success.
As the design moved from paper to reality, it became evident that my linear thinking approach, while technically sound, was ill-equipped to address the dynamic complexities of the real world. It was during the implementation phase that the limitations of the linear thinking I adopted began to manifest. The underground complex, it turned out, was not a static, predictable environment. It was a dynamic ecosystem subject to a multitude of variables that my linear thinking design approach could not adequately account for.
My design failed to adequately account for changing occupancy, weather variability, interconnected systems, and unforeseen events. With my linear thinking approach, my design could not effectively account for how the complex’s occupancy levels varied dramatically throughout the day and week.
As a result, the ventilation system I designed provides excessive and inadequate ventilation in different areas of the complex. My ventilation system design failed to account for unpredictable relative humidity and temperature fluctuations caused by external weather conditions in the underground complex’s chambers and tunnels.
The ventilation system struggled to adapt to the ever-changing conditions within the complex, leading to a list of issues that impacted occupant comfort and safety. Specifically, the designed ventilation system was not effective in improving indoor air quality in the underground complex it was designed for.
Furthermore, my design did not account for how the complexity resulting from the underground complex’s interconnectedness of systems could influence the performance of my designed ventilation system and how the designed ventilation system could affect the other systems. The omissions from my design led to significantly high invested resources for operating and maintaining the designed ventilation system and other systems in the underground complex. The project was a huge disappointment!
My company’s reputation hung in the balance as complaints from occupants of the underground complex mounted, and the client’s patience wore thin. The client, i.e., the government, was unhappy with my company’s work. The project, which had held such promise on paper, had turned into a costly headache for both the client (the government) and the company. The linear thinking that had guided the company’s past projects fell short in the face of the underground complex’s complexity and dynamism.
In this crucible of challenges and setbacks, I, who had once been celebrated as a rising star, faced a humbling setback. I was removed from my position as the lead of the design team. The company board members also replaced the CEO of the company. The decision, though painful, was made in the interest of salvaging the company’s reputation.
It was a moment of profound reflection and soul-searching for me, prompting me to question the very foundations of my engineering problem-solving philosophy and opening the door to a transformative journey of discovery. It seemed the non-linear thinking approach I detested had come to bite me in the …..
3 ……………………………………………
Determined to learn from my mistakes and fueled by a relentless desire to transform my engineering approach, I resigned from the company. I embarked on a deeply introspective and educational journey. This journey of self-discovery was marked by several significant steps and experiences that fundamentally reshaped my perspective on engineering problem-solving.
I recognised that to truly understand and embrace non-linear thinking, I needed a solid foundation in the theoretical underpinnings of complex systems. Using my savings, I travelled out of my country to study at Vanguard University. As I mentioned earlier, Vanguard University was the place where I was first introduced to non-linear thinking. I enrolled in a 2-year MSc programme in systems engineering and adaptive design. One year was spent at the university, and one year was spent in the industry in the mode of workplace learning.
During the workplace learning, students were paid based on their qualifications and work experience by the companies partnering with Vanguard University. Students were treated like full-time staff. That was the arrangement my university, Vanguard University, had with the participating companies.
The MSc programme was unique and very competitive to be admitted into. This did not come as a surprise, considering the status of Vanguard University in the world and the value the programme gave to its graduates. Graduates of this full-time 2-year MSc programme were highly sought after and commanded very high salaries.
My new academic pursuits were marked by a strong and unquenchable hunger for knowledge. I studied complex systems theory, chaos theory, network theory, and other disciplines that shed light on the dynamics of interconnected systems. I sought out renowned professors and mentors who were at the forefront of non-linear thinking in engineering. I engaged in deep discussions and collaborative research projects, pushing the boundaries of traditional engineering paradigms.
One of the key lessons I learnt was the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration. I actively sought opportunities to collaborate with experts from various fields, including computer science, environmental science, and psychology. Interdisciplinary projects given during the MSc programme exposed me to fresh perspectives and novel problem-solving approaches. I realised that addressing complex engineering challenges often required insights from diverse disciplines.
As I mentioned earlier, my education during the MSc programme was not confined to the classroom. I engaged in hands-on experimentation, creating models and simulations of complex systems. This allowed me to see the real-world applications of non-linear thinking. I worked on projects involving dynamic feedback loops, emergent behaviour, and adaptive algorithms, gaining practical experience designing systems that could respond to changing conditions.
Throughout my MSc learning journey, I benefited immensely from the mentorship and guidance of experienced professors and practitioners. They challenged my thinking, encouraged me to question conventional wisdom, and provided invaluable insights from their own careers. My relationships with mentors were not just educational but also deeply inspirational, as they shared their own experiences of navigating complex engineering challenges.
One such professor is Professor MOF, as he was popularly called. The professor was unique in the way he thought about problem-solving in engineering. Professor MOF taught a module called Philosophy of Problem Solving. Many things he taught us in class resonated very well with me. “You may be wondering, what is the fundamental difference between linear thinking and non-linear thinking.” Professor MOF said this in one of his lectures. He went on to say the following:
“Linear thinking addresses a problem in a silo with little or no consideration for the effect the performance of the provided solution will have on other performances that will influence the value experienced by the users or consumers of the solution. Non-linear thinking addresses a problem with the understanding that the system having the problem to be solved existed as part of several systems connected to form a holistic system.
Thus, a decision made to improve a particular performance of a system through a solution (intervention) provided to mitigate or eliminate its problem will have impacts on other performances associated with the system and the performances of other systems connected with it in the holistic system.
Non-linear thinking considers the complex implications as part of the risk assessment of the solution provided to solve the problem of a system in a holistic system. Thus, the sophistication of risk analysis in non-linear thinking is expected to be considerably higher than that of linear thinking.
The higher the risk mitigated, the higher the safety level provided. The lower the risk mitigated, the lower the safety provided. Real-life problems are complex. This makes linear thinking not to be an appropriate strategy for solving complex human problems sustainably. When safety is compromised, the extent to which a design solution will work, i.e., deliver value for humans, will be compromised. How? Let us look at the Value Delivery Equation in the Figure below.
……….
Figure 1: Value Delivery Equation. [References: (1) Fadeyi MO (2023). Mathematical thinking of the relevance of digital technologies integrated with AI for indoor air management. Indoor Air Cartoon Journal, February 2023, Volume 6, #139.; (2) Fadeyi MO (2022). Computation of value experienced by the end user of a solution: Relevance to indoor air quality management. Indoor Air Cartoon Journal, February 2022, Volume 5, #127.]
……….
A compromised output performance level will worsen the impact of the output on users or consumers of the solution. As a result, the usefulness level experienced by users or consumers of the designed solution will diminish. Based on the Value Delivery Equation, a diminished usefulness level will diminish the value experienced by users or consumers of a designed solution, i.e., the level at which the designed solution works for users and consumers will be reduced.
As suggested by the Value Delivery Equation, if a linear thinking approach is adopted for a complex problem and the quantity and quality of output provided by a solution of a system in a holistic system meets the needed requirement, the compromised safety level due to a high risk level will compromise the provided overall output performance level. The severity of compromise to the safety level can range from mild to severe. The higher the severity level, the lower the output performance level delivered. Furthermore, the lack of holistic design consideration due to the non-adoption of non-linear thinking may also compromise the quantity and quality, further lowering the output performance level.
The lack of or limited non-linear thinking adoption may also create several lean wastes in the process of designing, constructing, managing (operating and maintenance), and using a solution. The higher the level of the severity of lean waste present, the higher the amount of resources that will be invested in making the solution work for people or the people making the solution work for themselves. As suggested by the Value Delivery Equation, the higher the invested resources, the lower the value delivers, i.e., the extent to which the solution works for users or consumers of the solutions will be lowered.”
Surprisingly, Professor MOF then gave an example of ventilation systems design to buttress his point. The example he gave resonated very well with me because of my experience at Innovative Engineering Solutions. He started by asking a question. “Which is more appropriate for adopting ventilation rate: Linear or non-linear mathematical thinking?” “Non-linear thinking is appropriate! Why?” He said. He drew on the whiteboard for students to visualise his idea in the context of an increased ventilation rate. Then he went to say the following.
“The amount of resources a consumer or user invested in a solution to deliver a certain amount of usefulness is the value the solution provides to the consumer or user. Usefulness is the extent to which the solution solves the consumer’s or user’s problems and does not cause other problems. Suppose the ventilation is a consumer or user’s solution to solve an IAQ problem.
Increasing the ventilation rate to increase the rate at which indoor air pollutants are diluted will increase the value delivery. However, as ventilation consumes resources, like energy, money, time, etc., for its operation, a point will come when a unit increase in the consumption of these resources will not correspond to an increase or maximisation of usefulness delivered.
Thereby leading to diminishing returns in value delivery. Furthermore, the usefulness level may decrease, even with an increase in ventilation rate, depending on the context, e.g., poor outdoor air quality, compromise to other performance mandates and systems, etc., surrounding the ventilation adoption. To find the ‘sweet spot’, non-linear thinking is needed to guide creative, intelligent, and innovative design, construction, and management processes to ensure the usefulness delivered can be maximised for every unit of resources invested in the solution (the ventilation).
“Sweet Spot” is the point between increasing and decreasing returns in value delivery. The philosophy guiding linear thinking is that increasing the consumption of a good thing is always good. Such philosophy limits creative, intelligent, and innovative processes. Linear thinking fails to account for how the context in which the system needed the solution exists. Non-linear thinking philosophy accounts for this.
IAQ problems are rarely straightforward. They involve various factors such as indoor sources, indoor air chemistry, occupancy patterns, human activities, wants and needs, outdoor air quality, HVAC system performance, air filters or cleaners, and conditions of enclosed stationary or moving structures. The understanding that IAQ is just a component of what to consider to achieve a total structure performance also complicates the adoption of ventilation.
Non-linear thinking allows for a holistic understanding of the complex interrelationships among these factors and increases the chance of achieving the sweet spot. Considering the increase in climate change crisis, it is important to adopt non-linear thinking for ventilation adoption. You all need to remember that we need critical and reflective thinking to enhance non-linear thinking.” Professor MOF concluded that a well-designed ventilation system using non-linear thinking will facilitate the adoption of ventilation rate using non-linear thinking.
4 ……………………………………………
Moving on, Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning became integral to my education during my MSc degree programme. I learnt that adopting AI can help increase the chances of getting closer to the “Sweet Spot.” I recognised that AI technologies and solutions could be harnessed to create adaptive, non-linear solutions. It became obvious to me that the complexity and uncertainty involved in non-linear thinking is a major obstacle to its adoption, and AI can be used to mitigate the obstacle and its associated challenges.
The complexity involved can be very daunting for humans, especially in an industry where project timeline, money, and manpower are always a challenge. I learnt that AI could help identify what humans would easily miss out on when creating a solution, even if they adopt non-linear thinking. It could help to make a better use of time and manpower available.
AI can be used to generate the experience (knowledge, understanding, and skills) needed to solve problems in a value-oriented manner within seconds and continuously in real time, irrespective of the complexity and dynamism involved. Digital technologies and solutions can be programmed to have artificial intelligence. How?
AI-based technologies and solutions occur when digital technologies and solutions have programmed algorithms that enable and enhance their self-learning, self-unlearning, and self-relearning capabilities needed to process, within seconds, a large volume of information in real-time, irrespective of the complexities and dynamism involved at a level that the human brain often cannot imagine or do to generate a large volume of processed information, also known as experience.
Like humans, AI-based technologies and solutions can also reprocess processed information (now serving as new information) to generate new processed information (new experience). The sophistication of AI-based digital technologies and solutions’ critical and reflective thinking capability that informs its learning capability and its extensive capability to generate, store, manage, and use information to be processed and processed information make it valuable for solving complex and dynamic problems in a value-oriented manner.
After reflection, I defined intelligence as the use of processed information (experience) to solve problems in a value-oriented manner. Intelligence can occur due to the sophistication of the human brain naturally created that makes it learn, or the sophistication of programming done to digital technologies and solutions that make them self-learn, -unlearn, and -relearn. Due to the availability of AI-based digital technologies and solutions, a non-linear thinking approach becomes more feasible for humans to solve complex and dynamic problems.
Another interesting point is that in complex and dynamic problems, an integrated design process is essential. What this means is that effective communication is essential to effectively integrate all the stakeholders involved in the design process. In a process entirely based on humans, the quantity, quality, and safety of information provided at the source can be compromised or lost within the chains of communication lines.
This is because the way humans receive, store, and interpret or process (using their critical and reflective capabilities) information differs due to differences in human nature, experience, intelligence, wisdom, needs, and wants. This lack of consistency in humans increases the risk of miscommunication in a complex and dynamic problem with complex and dynamic chains of communication lines.
The highlighted deficiency in humans can be effectively bridged with AI-based technologies and solutions. The fear of miscommunication alone can increase the fear of adopting non-linear thinking because of the fear of project failure. I hope you can feel me on how AI is so important to non-linear thinking. Let me continue on the things I learnt on the importance of AI to effective adoption of non-linear thinking during my MSc learning journey.
The quantity, quality, and safety of processed information provided is a function of the quantity, quality, and safety of information available to be processed and the learning capability’s quantity, quality, and safety. When more quantity, quality, and safety of processed information are available to solve problems in a value-oriented manner, intelligence level will increase.
The superiority contest between the effectiveness of AI and human intelligence will depend on the specific task and context. AI is well-suited for tasks that involve processing large volumes of data and information quickly and accurately, but it may lack the qualitative and ethical aspects that human intelligence provides.
Humans excel in tasks that require creativity, empathy, and ethical decision-making, but they may be limited by the quantity of data and information they can process, leaving room for the potential of human error occurrence when faced with a large volume of data and information to be processed. However, a large volume of data and information is required to be processed in a non-linear thinking design approach. In between, processing data with learning capability leads to processed data, i.e., information.
Often, the best results are achieved when AI and human intelligence are combined, leveraging the strengths of both to complement each other and enhance overall value delivery. This means AI-based technologies and solutions will be of little use to humans who do not know how to define problems, identify the causes of problems, and use the causes of problems to inform solutions that can be used to solve problems in the context of competing problems. Furthermore, the benefits of available AI-based digital technologies and solutions will be wasted if humans adopt a linear thinking approach to solving complex and dynamic problems.
5 ……………………………………………
The experiences I gained during my MSc learning journey reinforced the importance of non-linear thinking in solving complex and dynamic engineering problems. I worked on projects ranging from optimising energy-efficient building designs to developing smart transportation systems that could adapt to traffic patterns.
As I progressed through my MSc programme, my understanding of non-linear thinking evolved from a theoretical concept to a practical, problem-solving mindset. I realised the main consequence of using linear thinking for a complex problem is the negative impacts that non-considered systems and performances would have on the system being designed and the main performances of interest.
I realised that non-linear thinking was not about discarding the linear thinking approach but about supplementing them with adaptability, flexibility, and a holistic perspective. I learnt from Professor MOF that the linearity thinking status approach is a spectrum.
There is linear thinking at one end and non-linear thinking at the other end. In between these two ends is a mixture of linear and non-linear thinking in different proportions. As you move toward the linear thinking end, the proportion of linear thinking increases while the proportion of non-linear thinking decreases. At the linear thinking end (absolute terms), the proportion of non-linear thinking is zero. The opposite will happen as you move toward and reach the non-linear thinking end.
Professor MOF further said the spectrum is like the x-axis, and the y-axis will be the value delivered from the thinking approach. He said the level of value (how things work for the users or consumers of a solution) delivered is a function of the quality of the proportion of linear and non-linear thinking adopted. This means that even if non-linear thinking is adopted in high proportion or in absolute terms to solve a complex and dynamic problem, it has to be done appropriately. Otherwise, the value delivered can even be significantly lower than linear thinking adopted in absolute terms but done with high quality. I hope you are feeling my mathematical thinking drift.
Professor MOF said irrespective of the thinking approach adopted, understanding whose problem is being solved is essential to effectively define the problem, identify the purpose of intervention activities, and reasons for the purpose. He further said due consideration should be given to the methodology to adopt in solving the problem and risk management to ensure the method adopted can effectively help solve the problem and maximise the value delivered to the users or consumers of the solution provided.
Professor MOF said the decision on the proportion of linear and non-linear thinking to adopt when solving a problem will depend on the complexity and dynamism involved. He also said understanding the key differences between linear and non-linear thinking will help us make an informed decision. He summarised the key differences under six categories: structure and sequence, certainty and uncertainty, problem complexity, creativity and exploration, problem type, and adaptability.
In the context of structure and sequence, linear thinking follows a structured and sequential approach. It emphasises a step-by-step progression, where each step logically follows the previous one. In contrast, non-linear thinking is more flexible and doesn’t adhere to a strict sequence. It may involve considering multiple factors simultaneously and exploring various avenues without a fixed order.
In the context of certainty and uncertainty, linear thinking tends to seek clear, quantifiable answers and aims for predictability and control. It is comfortable with certainty and operates within established guidelines and procedures. In contrast, non-linear thinking is comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty. It acknowledges that not all problems have clear-cut answers and is open to exploring multiple possibilities.
In the context of problem complexity, linear thinking is well-suited for relatively straightforward and well-defined problems that have clear cause-and-effect relationships. It may struggle with complex, multifaceted issues. In contrast, non-linear thinking is often more effective for addressing complex problems that involve multiple variables, uncertainties, and interactions. It thrives in situations where no single linear solution exists.
In the context of creativity and exploration, linear thinking emphasises structured analysis and adherence to established rules and procedures. It may have limited room for creative exploration. In contrast, non-linear thinking encourages creativity, exploration, and the consideration of unconventional solutions. It values thinking “outside the box.”
In the context of problem type, linear thinking is suitable for problems that have known solutions, where efficiency, precision, and predictability are essential. In contrast, non-linear thinking is valuable for tackling complex, dynamic, and ambiguous problems that do not have well-defined solutions.
In the context of adaptability, linear thinking is less adaptable when faced with unexpected changes or new information during problem-solving. It may require significant adjustments to change course. In contrast, non-linear thinking is more adaptable and can quickly pivot, adjust, or explore alternative approaches in response to evolving circumstances.
Thus, thinking back at my design of ventilation systems for the underground complex, I concluded that my thinking approach should have moved closer to the non-linear thinking approach in the linearity thinking status approach spectrum, considering the high level of complexities and dynamism involved in the project. I mean, I should have adopted a very high proportion of non-linear thinking approaches and a small proportion of linear thinking approaches. I cannot afford to discard linear thinking in its entirety.
6 ……………………………………………
Upon completing my MSc degree with distinction, I emerged as a transformed engineer. An engineer who could navigate the intricate landscape of complex systems with ease. I had absorbed the wisdom of non-linear thinking and was equipped to apply it to the most challenging engineering problems.
Little did I know that my return to the industry would not only redefine my career but also revolutionise the field of engineering in Casania, my dear country. My journey from a setback at a consultancy company to an academic pursuit of non-linear thinking was a testament to my resilience, determination, and unwavering commitment to continuous learning and growth. I was now poised to become an influencer in adaptive, non-linear problem-solving, reshaping the way engineering challenges were approached and solved.
With my newfound insights and unwavering commitment to innovation, I took a bold step forward. I decided to establish my own consulting company, which I aptly named “Adaptive Solutions.” My company’s mission was clear: pioneering innovative, flexible, and adaptable engineering designs transcending traditional boundaries. Here is how my journey unfolded as I founded and grew Adaptive Solutions.
With a clear vision in mind, my company, Adaptive Solutions, is a boutique consultancy company specialising in cutting-edge engineering and design solutions. My company’s name reflected its core philosophy, engineering solutions that could adapt to the ever-changing demands of complex systems. My company, Adaptive Solutions, quickly gained recognition for its innovative approach to engineering design.
My projects broke away from convention, incorporating non-linear thinking and adaptability into every aspect of the design process. My team embraced the latest technologies, including AI and machine learning, to create systems that could learn and evolve in response to changing conditions.
Drawing from my experiences in my MSc learning journey, I encouraged interdisciplinary collaboration within my company. Engineers worked alongside psychologists, sociologists, futurists, and human-centered design experts to create solutions catering to technical standards and the well-being and comfort of occupants. This collaborative approach resulted in designs considering human factors, such as occupant behaviour and psychology, leading to improved user or consumer experiences.
Ventilation systems became one of Adaptive Solutions’ flagship specialties. I believe you all understand why it is so. My poor design of the ventilation system led me on my transformative journey. My company redefined how ventilation systems were designed and implemented. Rather than treating ventilation as a purely technical challenge, my team incorporated insights from psychology and sociology to create systems that optimised indoor air quality, comfort, and well-being. Our ventilation designs went beyond simply moving air. They became integral to creating healthier and more pleasant environments for building occupants.
With my company at the forefront, I took on a multitude of complex ventilation challenges worldwide. These projects spanned diverse sectors, including commercial buildings, healthcare facilities, educational institutions, and transportation hubs. Each project presented unique demands and intricacies, from designing ventilation systems for underground transit stations to creating eco-friendly HVAC solutions for sustainable skyscrapers.
My non-linear thinking approach reshaped the way ventilation systems were conceptualised and executed. Rather than viewing ventilation as a static, one-size-fits-all solution, my company focused on adaptability. Ventilation systems designed by my company were not just responsive to changing environmental conditions but also to the dynamic needs of occupants. They could adjust in real-time to ensure optimal indoor air quality, thermal and acoustic conditions. The position and operations of the ventilation systems also considered the need for optimal visual, spatial, and building integrity conditions.
One of the hallmarks of my company designs was a commitment to energy efficiency and sustainability. My approach embraced the principles of green engineering, resulting in ventilation systems that minimised energy consumption and environmental impact. These systems integrated advanced technologies, such as heat recovery, temperature and relative humidity management, natural ventilation, and intelligent controls, to achieve remarkable energy savings while maintaining comfort.
As part of my commitment to sharing knowledge, I became an adjunct professor at the University where I did my undergraduate studies, The University of Aladuke, to teach indoor air quality engineering and management. I also initiated educational outreach programs, inspiring the next generation of engineers to think beyond linear constraints and embrace innovative problem-solving approaches. Many of the leading indoor air quality experts in Casania now were my students. The unique thing about these experts is their non-linear thinking approach to solving engineering problems.
My contributions to the field of engineering did not go unnoticed. I became a sought-after speaker at conferences and symposia, where I shared my insights into non-linear thinking and adaptive engineering. My practice related publications and research further solidified my reputation as an influential thought leader in engineering and design.
I authored books and academic papers and created public educational resources on the subjects of non-linear thinking, adaptive design, and innovative problem-solving. My works became essential reading for those seeking to navigate the complexities of the modern world. My company’s projects garnered international attention and acclaim. My non-linear thinking approach resonated with clients and partners around the world.
My company, Adaptive Solutions, was not just a consulting company. It was a testament to the transformative power of non-linear thinking. My journey from a setback to global recognition inspired countless aspiring engineers and innovators to think beyond linear constraints. It represented a paradigm shift in approaching engineering challenges, emphasising adaptability, sustainability, and human-centric design.
Through my company, Adaptive Solutions, I reinvented myself and redefined the industry’s approach to complex engineering challenges. My holistic, non-linear thinking unlocked new possibilities in creating solutions that adapted, evolved, and improved over time. As I looked back on my remarkable journey, from the setback that had once defined my career to the founding of Adaptive Solutions, I understood that the power of resilience, learning from mistakes, and embracing non-linear thinking could lead to profound transformation.
In the present day, I am not just an engineer or a learning expert. I am a catalyst for change. My life’s work has touched countless lives, fostering a culture of adaptability, innovation, and resilience. My legacy continues to inspire generations of engineers and problem solvers to think beyond linear constraints and explore the limitless possibilities of non-linear thinking. I had become a living embodiment of the transformative power of embracing new paradigms. I am a beacon of inspiration in a rapidly evolving world. I am a change-maker.
7 ……………………………………………
“I hope you have enjoyed this week’s episode of Change Maker. Watch out for another inspiring story in the next episode of Change Maker next week.” Change Maker programme presenter said. The End!
Leave a Reply