I walked into our wonderful Kanbar Campus Center this morning and quickly observed two design professors intensely engaged in discussion.  Professorial kindness forgave me the interruption.  “What has captured your attention so raptly”, I asked.  “Curiosity”, they responded in unison.   “This year we are making a theme out of curiosity. The students will be rewarded for their abilities to find the range of ‘what and why’ answers to design problems. We will take every opportunity to celebrate and foster curiosity!”

Sfumato - a willingness to accept ambiguity, paradox, and uncertainty

Corporalita - the cultivation of grace, ambidexterity and poise

Arte/Scienza - the development of the balance between science and art, logic and imagination

Dimostrazione - a commitment to test through experience, persistence and a willingness to learn from mistakes

Connessione - a recognition and appreciation for the interconnectedness of all things and phenomena

Curiosita - an insatiably curious approach to life and an unrelenting quest for continuous learning

“One more question Professors. What endeavor doesn’t need this kind of thinking?”

“Exactly”, they answered.

 More great curriculum from Philadelphia University.

I approached our Disaster Medicine and Management Exercise with ambivalence.  I left the six hour experience energized, aware and educated.

Almost 700 volunteers, faculty, administrators, students and 14 city, state and federal agencies gathered on our campus.  A simulated hostage taking event, 18 months in planning, ensued.  Diverse authorities like the Philadelphia and Chester Police, FEMA and Homeland Security, shadowed by our masters students, made real time decisions in a highly dynamic environment. 

While I learned a great deal about disaster management, the startling revelation came in the dramatic validation of Philadelphia University’s philosophy that the university of the 21st century must deliver cross-disciplinary education that is intimately connected to the real world. 

The University leadership team was told there would be a disaster exercise and we were to treat it as a real event and make decisions as facts were revealed to us.  We had to quickly analyze the data and make decisions. 

We witnessed law enforcement in a similar process.  The activity was intense and felt real.

Students and faculty shadowed decision makers and medical personnel and volunteered as hostages.  Some students collected data and will write scholarly analysis of the event.

The debrief was fascinating.  Each decision making constituency talked about their processes and learning…and what they learned from interaction with other groups.  We talked about the power of teamwork.  We learned what we knew and what we had to do better.

 This was a powerful experience.

At Philadelphia University we believe “innovation” needs curricular structure to optimize learning. For over ten years our faculty have engaged in formal interdisciplinary coursework.  The teaching culture here began to recognize creative leverage in multidimensional perspectives on problems and problem solving.  That is, varying academic disciplines bring a different lens to our view of life.  We see problems more clearly.  This clarity helps us conjure interesting solutions to both simple and complex circumstances. 

 We are particularly focused on the intersection of design, engineering and business.  The discussion between the business people and the engineers is one that many seek to mediate.  The attempt is made to link the science of the engineered product (or problem solution) with an economically viable business model.  Philadelphia University has found that the “design” field is the coalescing ingredient in a highly effective three way discussion.  Design is the art and science that speaks to the differentiation that creates value.

Is the integration of Design, Engineering and Business the breakthrough educational structure that helps define innovation?

Pride drives the creation of this blog entry.  The Philadelphia University Women’s 8 crew team finished 4th in the nation at the recent NCAA Division II championships.

Our team’s reaction to this experience inspires greater content.

I received a number of wonderful communications from the women on the team as the process unfolded; anticipation on the flight to California, focus and intensity during and following the preliminaries, exhilaration at making the finals, reflections and learning after finishing fourth in the nation.

The comment that inspires me is how the total rowing experience; pre-season conditioning, 5am practices, competition, disappointment, teamwork and bonding, achievement, fulfillment; this cauldron of actions, events and emotions formed a permanent (I think) compass within each individual that will guide them in future decision making and actions.  The “true north” arrow is not necessarily a quantifiable or even recognizable list of what it takes to be successful.  

Is it the tuning of one’s gut that motivates the impossible effort?

I attended my first graduation celebration on Sunday.  I speculated about what would be interesting, exciting, inspiring and…boring.  As the event progressed I was comforted by my ability to prognosticate; until the students walked across the stage and I gave them their diplomas.

I was committed to looking each of them in the eye, shaking their hand and saying something to every graduate.  What I didn’t expect was the sheer joy I saw in each of the 692 faces.  I am not exaggerating…joy in every face.  It was the most inspiring part of the ceremony for me — and, maybe the most enduring. 

Personal accomplishment was manifested in each individual, yet the collective excitement and sense of community was palpable.  The glow of achievement, multiplied 692 times, creates powerful energy.  I can’t remember a similar experience in my life.

Coming from a background in business and as a business school professor I use (too much) business lexicon to describe everyday experiences.  For example, I am fond of saying that seeing a former student succeed is the “capital gain” of teaching.

Philadelphia University senior, Shaheed Abdulhaqq, will receive his diploma next week.  I never taught Shaheed.  However, my role as President leverages the “capital gain” analogy to a far greater audience. 

Shaheed’s father died when he was young.  His mother died during his 1st year in college. He was gathered in by an aunt and uncle.  Shaheed also found his way to Philadelphia University.  Taking the most demanding science courses, his academic career took off.  On Saturday he will recieve one of what I expect will be many honors in his life.  Shaheed Abdulhaqq is Philadelphia University’s valedictorian, graduating with a perfect 4.0 GPA.  He is deciding which med school to attend of the many that accepted him.

Oh yes, the “Type III” title to this entry.

Shaheed’s fertile mind authored a science fiction novel titled, “Type III”, published this past December by Dorrance Publishing in Pittsburgh.

For a long time I have thought of the phrase “out of the box” as a platitude.  I now think it is an easy way to frivolously express an idea while clinging to a safe position.  Therefore it is dangerous.  Here’s how it works.  An advocate for change purports displeasure with the current state of affairs, then proposes an alternative.   However, the change is to be championed by someone else, or worse, by the organization.  A key indicator of the most dangerous form of inverted box is referencing started by “they should.”  Why call it inverted box?  The author of the risk averse call for change is recognizing a problem and often tries to solve it in an unconventional way…out of the box.  But they adhere to the current state of affairs in an effort to protect themselves.  I think this emasculates the process of change.  The box is turned inside out but remains the bulwark of the organization.  The pseudo-champion clings to the fabric of the now inverted interior of the box. 

Is the inverted box worse than the original cube?

Dear friend and colleague Jeff Timmons unexpectedly died today April 8, 2008.  He was a bigger than life person whom combined a brilliant intellect with a charismatic personality and a special soul.  He taught for many years at Northeastern, Harvard, and most of all Babson College.  He loved Babson as a community, colleagues as friends and students as his inspiration.  He will be remembered as the scholar and teacher who led the revolution in entrepreneurship education.  His legacy is the thousands of students of entrepreneurship that he taught how to make a better world.

Dr. Timmons earned a reputation for “practicing what he teaches.” For over forty years he was immersed in the world of entrepreneurship as an educator, investor, director and advisor in private companies and investment funds including Cellular One in Boston, New Hampshire and Maine; the Boston Communications Group; BCI Advisors, Inc.; Spectrum Equity Investors; Internet Securities, Inc.; Chase Capital Partners; Color Kinetics; and others. He served as a trustee at his alma mater, Colgate University from 1991-2000. He lived on his 500-acre farm in New Hampshire with his wife and partner of 43 years, Sara, and winters at Bray’s Island Plantation near Savannah, Georgia.  He adored his twin daughters, two sons-in-law, and four grandsons.

 Goodbye old friend.

I had the pleasure of presenting to the Eastern Association of College and University Business Officers last Friday.  Four hundred members were present.  I was energized by the experience because the audience, even such a large group, was engaged.  They cheered, booed, laughed and interacted.

 Interestingly, I received a number of emails over the weekend.  Many of them contained a common theme; a college or university will embrace entrepreneurial thinking only if faculty and administrators accept the benefits and risks of change…and believe that inertia is harmful.  If true, then one could conclude that most institutions of higher education will not be entrepreneurial by seeking opportunity and forging change.

My power point presentation can be found at   

http://www.philau.edu/president/documents/EACUBOpresentationvblog.pdf

Now that my first 100 days as Philadelphia University president are passed I have become more proactive in problem solving.  I focus on an issue to not only propose a solution but also find the root of the problem.  In a recent event I tracked the problem to a set of policies that formed an unintended (maybe) stack of administrative hurdles.  These hurdles frustrated efforts of faculty, staff and students to be productive.  Occasionally someone who bumped into a stack of bureaucratic obstacles would find a way around, under or over these barriers…but the logjam remained in place.  I decided to break the logjam, insisting that policies be reviewed and bureaucracy be both coordinated and reduced.

 Upon reflection, this is either a mistake or only the first action required to reduce damming activity.  Will the now reduced bureaucracy be re-built?  Probably.  I think the key is to find the beavers.  Wish me well in the hunt.