Dear Terry,
You are waking up and I am going to bed--it is almost three in the morning
here.
I have been thinking a lot about your much earlier post concerning the
place of engineering design in the work of design research--and the DRS.
The subject concerns me a great deal--it is important, and it is also
difficult and complex. I have worked at this one harder and for longer
than you may imagine--both practically and theoretically.
I liked your response to Gunnar regarding many of the weaknesses of theory
in design methodology and research. I believe you are correct, but there
are ways forward.
I wonder if you would mind commenting on a quotation from Carl Mitcham in
his superb book, "Thinking through Technology: The Pathway between
Engineering and Philosophy." You thoughts on this will be most helpful to
me.
In sections dealing with Engineering Design and subsequently with
Efficiency, Effectiveness and Economy, he closes one section with this
comment:
"It is the visual or schematic representation of this input-output
conceptualization that definitely characterizes engineering design and
allows it to proceed under the ideal of efficiency--that is, making choices
between alternatives based on comparisons of input-output
relationships--thus distinguishing it from other types of designing." (p.
228)
You may not have time right away to put this in context, and it may not
interest you very much. But it seems to me that Carl has put his finger on
a key matter in characterizing engineering design and its methodologies.
He points out that the input/output relationship is a highly unusual
perspective that we may take for granted today without fully recognizing
its significance. (And I would add, its significance for design theory and
philosophy of design.)
I won't try to explain where I am going with this, except to say that the
issue here seems to be the efficient cause--that engineering design is
fundamentally concerned with the efficient cause, expressed through
materials. Perhaps this is an obscure reference, but it has a point.
Any comments on this from your expert knowledge and experience would be
very interesting to me.
By the way, Carl's book contains remarkable bibliographical resources for
those interested in technology and the philosophy of technology. (Chicago,
1994). Personally, I think it is the most important work on the philosophy
of technology produced in the United States in the past three or four
decades, notwithstanding some remarkable works by highly respected
individuals.
Thanks in advance for your comments. I hope this note is not too long or
specific for the general nature of this forum.
Dick
Richard Buchanan
School of Design
Carnegie Mellon University
|