As societal problems have increased in extent, variety and ambiguity the current era of architecting and engineering by systematic, prescient design is proving inadequate in an increasing number of instances. Instead of laboriously describing the system to be built, we represent behaviors, usages, and benefits that are much more understandable to those who make of buy components to realize the system.

Instead of laboriously producing as cascade of specifications that represent the statics of the system to be built and strive to communicate the dynamics, we flesh out a holonic array of emulatable propositions that enable pragmatic foresight about the dynamics of the sysem to be built.

This frees us to represent the evolution of the system because the model of the system knows enough about the system to generate orchestrated morphs in several dimensions such as gradients on interrelatonships of the components, structure of the components, repertoire of components, implementation technologies, and even co-evolution with human beneficiaries. We can now cope with cogntive overload and underconceptualization, the two leading gremlins of the design world. I am not talking about CAD or Standards or Syllabi.

I am remarking on actual, though sparse innovations, perhaps the harbingers of the next era of engineering software. The breakthroughs lie partly in new kinds of software that can experiment on itself. But the larger impetus comes from research at Cornell, Stanford and other places about how we think (or not) and arrive at ideas we didn't know we had.

The fusion of thinking and massively parallel experimentation will form a whole new S curve in the field of design. Perhaps it is time to think about moving to the next curve.

Onward, Jack Ring