Hi John, I don't think we are at cross purposes although we may be chasing slightly different quarry.
I would say that if we have an artefact that can identify and solve wicked problems then it is designing (the task descriptions
you gave did not include wicked problems).
If an artefact was designing I'm not sure I'd call it an "automaton" since that implies a routinised function: my dictionary(1)
gives two definitions of automaton, the second is particularly illuminating:
(1) A machine that contains its own power source and can perform a complicated series of actions, including responses to external
stimuli, without human intervention.
(2) A person who resembles a machine by obeying instructions automatically, performing repetitive actions or showing no emotion.
But I suspect the bone of contention is wickedness. Different people (you and I maybe) may put the threshold of wickedness in
different places. For me one key test is whether you can predict the solution by reference to previous examples. For example I'm
not sure that the general layout of the next jetliner is a wicked problem, although it will contain numerous wicked problems as we
move down to a more detailed level.
best
Chris
(1) Encarta World English Dictionary, Bloomsbury, 1999 (OK it's not the Concise Oxford but it's free - I won it for writing a
grumpy letter to the local newspaper)
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of John Shackleton
Sent: 26 January 2006 08:56
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Design Automaton
Dear Chris and list,
> "Rust, Chris" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I would say that this particular architect was not designing. Being
> conscious is not the point, engaging with unpredictable or wicked
> aspects of the problem is.
Sorry Chris, I wasn't explicit enough. I never said my automaton was not engaging with the 'wicked' aspects of the problem. And if
the automaton was engaging with them then I'm happy to accredit the architect with the same engagement.
What I was trying to say was that there is a continuous scale from simple problems to complex problems, and at some point on that
scale they become 'wicked'. Why is it that at that point the architect is accredited with 'designing' and the automaton isn't?
I understand that I am assuming for the purpose of the question that it is possible that an automaton can, eventually, be built
that solves 'wicked' design problems, and that if the assumption is false then the question is not valid. I am not concerned here
*how* it solves wicked problems, only with why it isn't designing if it does.
Regards,
John
|