HI Fill and Terence,
In fact I can see Fill's point also through the filter of the studies on
social construction of technologies. In those studies the trick of the
stakeholder=customers is in fact avoided: in those theories "actors" are
considered, which may or may not have a direct involvement (as producers
or users) of a new technology, but they may still influence the way a
technology is developed. However I would be interested in having some
reference about the Constituent Orientation Terence mention.
Thanks
Nicola
Associate Professor Nicola Morelli, PhD
School of Architecture and Design, Aalborg University, Denmark
Web: www.aod.aau.dk/staff/nmor
-----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 Terence Love
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 1:08 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: I swear to God
Hi Fil,
I've found the body of work round Constituent Orientation useful.
Constituent == 'anyone who is affected by or affects a situation'
I've found the direct and indirect stakeholder model gets messy as
situations get complex because some individuals/groups are direct in
some
respects and indirect in others. Also the stakeholder literature is
primarily financial (stake == 'investment') and substantially tied to
a
business-like model that requires some of the people involved to be seen
as
'customers'.
There are two other benefits of the constituent-based approach. There is
a
strong literature and solid body of research/theory; and Constituent
research identifies and resolves many of the problems with
stakeholder-based
approaches. These steakholder problems are particularly evident in
situations that involve public good, such as developing a new approach
to
designing transportation systems, or improving quality in university
doctoral education.
Another tuppence worth,
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: Filippo Salustri [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, 8 February 2006 7:35 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: I swear to God
Nicola et al,
I think of there being direct and indirect stakeholders. For a given
product (or perhaps 'artefact' is better?) there are those directly
involved in its creation (including manufacture/implementation); these
are the direct stakeholders. And then there are those affected by the
activities of the direct stakeholders; these are the indirect
stakeholders.
The granularity here is quite coarse and could be refined further,
leading to many levels of stakeholders. At some point, the impact of a
given level becomes negligible, for practical purposes at least, but
where that point is or should be, is a matter of debate.
2 cents.
Fil
Nicola Morelli wrote:
> HI Rosan,
> I am still convinced that the example (cars or transportation systems
or
> whatever) can be explicative enough. Although I may not have
understood
> immediately what the question was about. By the way But do not
> understand what you mean when you say:
>
> >>My proposal differs from the analysis-synthesis model in assuming
NO
> NECESSARY SEQUENCE between analysis and synthesis, (between context
and
> designs) but retains the necessity of both.<<
>
> Can you explain?
>
> Coming back to the question of redesigning a research approach: I am
> also familiar with the approach described by David, but I wonder
whether
> there shoud be a question before it: how do we identify the
> stakeholders? This identification depends very much on which logical
> context we want to work with. In the case of transportation, someone
> would include, among the main stakeholders, car manufacturers, public
> institutions and other obvious stakeholders, but the question would
be:
> is this group of stakeholder already generating a research direction?
Is
> this research direction in fact excluding some relevant avenues? For
> example is a solution about transportation without cars thinkable if
in
> we include car manufacturers in the group? (and to answer to Martin:
> once you think about working for car manufacturers you are talking
about
> market or strategic research, but you are out of the context we are
> talking about, because you have your approach already defined). Do we
> need to have a vision about our research results before deciding about
> our research approach?
> I agree with Rosan that we are not talking about redesigning products,
> but we are discussing redesigning a research approach. If we want to
> think about a different research approach we should possibly look
beyond
> research, or at the root of the research approach, and here the
question
> looks very much about ethical or political decisions about the
direction
> we want our research to proceed.
> Cheers
> Nicola
>
> Associate Professor Nicola Morelli, PhD
> School of Architecture and Design
> Aalborg University, Denmark
> Web: www.aod.aau.dk/staff/nmor
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
> related research in Design on behalf of Rosan Chow
> *Sent:* Tue 2/7/2006 5:12 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* I swear to God
>
> I know it is very difficult to communicate on this list, and I try to
be
> patient...but please take note:
>
> I AM NOT REALLY INTERESTED IN DESIGNING CARS, TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS,
OR
> BUILT
> ENVIRONMENT.
>
> MY PROPOSAL HAS TO DO WITH A RESEARCH APPROACH. IF ANYTHING, I AM
> INTERESTED IN
> REDESIGNING A RESEARCH APPROACH.
>
> GOT IT?
>
> smiles. hugs. kisses.
>
>
> "Filippo A. Salustri" wrote:
>
> > Rosan,
> >
> > Seems to me you might be more interested in designing a new kind of
> > 'built environment' here, and not a car.
>
--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|
