Hi Terry
Thanks again for your interesting reply. I will just restate what I wrote
earlier, I have no problem with the kind of complexity you are discussing
and I have no problem with the idea that designers need new tools to be able
to handle some aspects of a growing complexity. And maybe you don't have a
problem with my version of complexity (or as you write "complicatedness")
which requires designers with a well developed and trained sensibility and
judgment for quality and composition. My point is that, even though the
tools (in terms of methods or knowledge) that you advocate, those tools have
to be incorporated in a designerly process of design inquiry and action as I
described in an earlier post. It can not be the other way around, that is,
that the scientific tools and methods become superior to the designerly
process since then the process is by definition not design anymore. Instead,
it becomes a scientific process (which of course is perfectly fine) but that
changes what we can expect from the process and more important it changes
the measure of success.
best
Erik
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Erik,
>
>
>
> Complexity = more than 2 interlinked feedback loops affecting the behaviour
> of the designed outcome in the real world
>
> Complicated = lots of complications but only one or two feedback loops.
>
>
>
> Designs get created regardless of whether designers address complexity.
> Sometimes they win prizes. Sometimes it is others that address the
> complexity – many other fields are skilled at it. My concern is when
> designers claim to be able to address complexity but don’t have the skills
> and tools or assume that complexity is the same as complication and use
> conventional design tools and assume they are appropriate.
>
>
>
> Designs of pens and desks are usually merely complicated, regardless of the
> complicatedness of the ethical, aesthetical and rational dimensions of
> reality.
>
>
>
> If a designed object affects its environment, its situation, that is
> simple causality (no feedback loops). If the designed object affects the
> situation and then that change in the situation causes you to need to
> redesign the object because the situation has changed and that in turn
> results in a further change to the situation and a further need to redesign
> the object ….. then that is a simple single feedback loop design problem. A
> double feedback loop design problem is one in which the design has two
> feedback loops that differently affect the environment and the design and in
> different ways.
>
>
>
> A typical multi-feedback loop for designing interventions in a simple sales
> organization is shown in
> http://www.systemdynamics.org/DL-IntroSysDyn/feed19.gif The feedback loops
> are ANY combination of lines that form a complete ‘loop’. The designer’s job
> is to identify which interventions are likely to be successful and how they
> will change the behaviour of the organisation in the short , medium and
> longer term.
>
>
>
> For designers creating designs for public promotion to reduce the obesity
> epidemic, it would, in professional terms, seem to be pretty important to
> understand how social and other factors shape obesity trends in order to
> design appropriately. Here is a diagram of the main feedback loops:
> http://www.shiftn.com/obesity/Full-Map.html This causal loop model is the
> starting point from which an understanding of behaviour of a designed
> intervention can begin. Obesity is one of the simpler socio-economic
> situations as it is a single factor outcome measurement to be reduced.
>
>
>
> A reasonable question to ask is whether one expects designers to be capable
> of contributing to designing to reduce obesity (i.e have the skills to
> understand methods such as causal maps, derive system dynamic models and
> work with similar tools) or whether one only expects designers to prettify
> the casual loop models. I suggest many design courses equip designers to do
> the latter rather than the former.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Terry
>
>
>
> *Erik: *
>
> I suspect we use very different definitions of "complexity". To me the most
> "simple" design say a pen, a desk, a small software application, etc, are
> all examples of objects with infinite complexity, since they all encompass
> all possible and existing ethical, aesthetical, and rational dimensions of
> reality.
>
>
>
> I am not sure what you mean by "simple situations" and "complex
> situations", I can't even imagine a "simple situation" in design.
>
>
>
> As an example, I recently listened to a presentation by IDEO where they had
> been asked to design a airplane cockpit instrumentation and environment, the
> whole thing. They of course were no expert on airplanes but are experts on
> the design process. They came up with a cockpit design that has won prizes
> for being a great airplane design. Of course they approached the situation
> in a designerly way and with their design process they could reach new ideas
> and a new design. I don't know if you would consider this as a complex
> situation. For me it is, theoretically not more complex (or wicked) than a
> design of a pen, but maybe that is what you mean.
>
>
>
>
>
|