More injected interjections below.

> filippo,
> i too interject my comments in yours.
> 
> you note
> 
> Klaus wrote (I think):
>> > engineering is easier as its problems are predominantly tame ones.
> 
> I'm afraid I have to disagree here, because I exclude problems like
> specifying gear boxes or configuring elements from being wholly design
> problems.  Such problems might have design elements in them, but they aren't
> on the whole design problems - as I see it.  I would say there may be *some*
> tame problems in engineering design (i.e. not in just 'engineering').  I
> think it's particularly important we keep some distinction between
> 'engineering' and 'engineering design'.
> 
> well, if you exclude much of what engineers do from engineering design, then
> i understand why you disagree.  if you have ever worked as an engineer, then
> you probably would have the experiences that engineers typically get a
> specific task, such as designing a bridge that satisfies certain measurable
> requirements, finding a way to get more horse power out of a given engine,
> or modify the wing of an airplane to resist small arms fire.  to say that
> they are not design problems is odd.  yet they are tame problems inasmuch as
> the criteria are clear, the engineer has to be ingenious in finding
> alternative solutions, and select the best among them.

I have done engineering work, and I do exclude much of what engineers do 
from engineering design.  Most of what engineers do is optimize and 
analyze.  At least that's what they do in North America.  Let me 
reiterate my caveat, though: there may be some design-ish elements to 
many engineering problems, but the problems themselves are not design 
problems *on the whole*.  Your examples, Klaus, all fall into this 
category.  Designing a bridge, getting more power from an engine, making 
a wing resist small arms fire, are all *mostly* not design.  I've 
participated or observed countless examples of this, where the amount of 
design that happened was maybe 10% at most of the work that went into 
engineering a product.  I'm sure there's exceptions to this rule, and 
I'm sure it depends on the sector you're considering.

> 
> Klaus wrote:
>> > although the engineering problem of increasing the speed of a
>> > microchip may make a computer more desirable to their users, the
>> > design of that microchip is a technical problem. the computer users'
>> > conceptions of what a microchip does has no impact on its design and
>> > the engineer is free to define the problem in engineering terms.  in
>> > designing the interface of a computer, the designer must consider the
>> > conceptions that users have available to handle it, which a far more
>> > complex issue than what an engineer is trained to tackle.
> 
> Again, I'm uncomfortable with this.  Tho I might be misreading Klaus's
> comment, it appears that he's suggesting engineering is separated from the
> user by the 'designers' - this kind of "over the wall" product development
> has been shown to most often lead to products less suitable than would have
> been possible had everyone "played together" - i.e. that engineering
> designers be equal partners in the design.
> 
> While engineers may get often distracted by the technical complexity of the
> widget they're designing, more and more they're also gaining an important
> sensitivity to what the 'users' need.  This is because sometimes (and more
> and more often as technical complexity rises) the requirements are NOT in
> sympathy with user's needs and desires.  By understanding the users,
> engineers are finding they're able to design better widgets.
> 
> your comment suggests to me that you are thinking more of the design of
> gadgets, like kitchen appliances, in which the engineering problems are
> closer to how users think about them. take my example of microchip
> designers.  they would probably be insulted by your suggestion that they are
> "often distracted by the technical complexity of their task.  this IS their
> job.  the usefulness of their task is decided elsewhere, assumed in the way
> the problem is tamed for them.
> 
> klaus   

Yes, you'd be right, Klaus, except that I don't necessarily define 
'users' to be human.  I know this is not maybe the most common 
interpretation of 'user' - and I should have been clearer in my original 
comment - but by 'user' I mean the agent or thing that uses the designed 
item.  EG: I don't think of the driver of a car as the user of the car's 
engine.  I think of the car as the user of the car's engine.  The driver 
is the user of the control interface.  In the chip design case, it's a 
matter of really understanding the thing that will use the chip being 
designed - human or otherwise.  And in that spirit, I continue to 
suggest that engineers can get distracted by the internal technical 
complexity of the chip, leading to a chip that doesn't work as it 
should.  Take the overheating problem with Pentium chips.  That is the 
kind of design flaw that makes my teeth rattle.

Cheers.
Fil
-- 
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://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/