Michael

This time I agree 100%
Strangely enough we were also using Christopher Alexander in business
systems deisgn as well
(socio-technical systems). And as you pointed out, key to failure of system
design was the inability of large networked systems designers to use local
needs as tbe basis for design - whether cognitive, social, cultural,
organisational or political

There were recurring scenarios of the type Alexander envisages in patterns
where different 'forces' needt o bea ligned to achieve a good design.
(For example -the global needs of the company (e.g. standardisation to cut
costs) is set agains the local needs that add value (e.g. tailoring to
customer needs to enhance value/sales potential)

The problem with designing up from needs entirely here was that different
communities had different and often conflicting needs that could sometimes
be cleverly aligned by creative thinking to achieve sysnergy, but often the
choices were shaped by the more powerful group of stakeholders - with the
results you describe.

Jenny


>My personal experience & impression is just that TOP DOWN can be such a
>typical example for the "western" and arrogant way of thinking, that
>partly is the cause of the current, global problems. Conceiving
>something at the desk, ignorant of (local) context, need, practical
>conditions etc. I think we all can come up with examples.

-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhDs in Design
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Michael Hohl
Sent: 26 November 2003 19:02
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: History and etymology of the English word "Design"


Hi Jenny,

<snip>
> So i suppose i am somewhere between BOTTOM UP as an ideal and TOP DOWN.
> Structuration theory is interesting on that one thouthg again in
> information
> systems(Wanda Orlikowski)
</snip>

i don't think that TOP DOWN is bad. Sometimes it's the right approach.
:)
And probably one works within a mix anyway.

My personal experience & impression is just that TOP DOWN can be such a
typical example for the "western" and arrogant way of thinking, that
partly is the cause of the current, global problems. Conceiving
something at the desk, ignorant of (local) context, need, practical
conditions etc. I think we all can come up with examples.

(Of course these talents were necessary to get things done for the
success of western culture, education, medicine (& imperialism).;)

Here is a quote from Christopher Alexander, that i use as a Email
signature:

<snip>
"Things that are good have a certain kind of structure.
You can't get that structure except dynamically. Period.
In nature you've got continuous very-small-feedback-loop
adaptation going on, which is why things get to be harmonious.
That's why they have the qualities we value.
If it wasn't for the time dimension, it wouldn't happen.
Yet here we are playing the major role creating the world,
and we haven't figured this out. That is a very serious matter."

Christopher Alexander
[S. Brand, "How buildings learn", p.21, 1994]
</snip>

That is indeed a very serious matter.
The problem usually is that we don't have the time, because time=money.
We have our deadlines and budgets.

Or, as Rastafarians say: "time is time"? ;)

I hope this makes sense,

best, Michael


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Michael Hohl, PhD Research Student

Sheffield Hallam University
School of Cultural Studies
Art & Design Research Centre
Psalter Lane Campus
Sheffield, S11 8UZ
United Kingdom

email: [log in to unmask]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++