Janet & list-
I'd like to add a bit more "complexity" to this notion of a "continuous scale from simple problems to complex problems" by suggesting that sometimes it is note the problems themselves that vary, but instead the way that the designer treats the problem. Sometimes an expert designer will take a "simple" problem and treat it as a more complicated problem or a complex problem. So a novice desginer might be solving a simple problem and an expert designer might be solving a complicated problem, while both are solving the same problem.
Regards,
Monica Cardella
PhD Candidate, Industrial Engineering
Research Associate, Center for Engineering Learning and Teaching
University of Washington
Box 352183
Seattle, WA 98195-2180
206.543.5694
Fax: 206.221.3161
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Janet McDonnell wrote:
> John and list,
>
> It might help to note that there isn't a "continuous scale from simple
> problems to complex problems". There might be from simple problems to
> complicated problems, and that is what you describe in your earlier post
> about the increasingly complicated spread sheet or its successors. Complex
> problems demand a completely different range of strategies. We can, for
> example, think of the idea that designers are 'solution focussed' rather
> than 'problem focussed' in this light: being solution focussed is one
> strategy for addressing a complex situation.
>
> Alongside Chris Rust's point about uniqueness, other features of wicked
> problems, as characterised by Rittel and Webber, are critical to seeing
> that
> the continuous scale idea doesn't apply, for example "there is not
> definitive formulation of a wicked problem" and "wicked problems have no
> stopping rule" * are two show stoppers, so are all the other features.
>
> Regards,
>
> Janet McDonnell
>
>
>
>
> John Shackleton
> <John.Shackleton@BR To: [log in to unmask]
> UNEL.AC.UK> cc:
> Sent by: PhD-Design Subject: Design Automaton
> - This list is for
> discussion of PhD
> studies and related
> research in Design
> <PHD-DESIGN@JISCMAI
> L.AC.UK>
>
>
> 26/01/2006 08:55
> Please respond to
> John Shackleton
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
|