terry,

when i think of complex design problems then i think of the design of complex software, of NASA projects, of the manhatten project in WW2, of city planning projects involving diverse communities with different values, or organizing a national campaign to get a presidential candidate elected.

no single individual can handle either of such projects. it requires the coordination of very many creative people. each may use computational aid, for example for forecasting public opinion of a presidential election. but none can rely on mathematical predictions. they have to work together, amplifying the individual intelligences through coordination of their individual capabilities.

all of these design projects work in a domain that is fundamentally unpredictable, allowing for innovative solutions to emerge, which no computer model can forecast.

you say "If individuals(or teams) cannot fully understand the behaviour of the
design situation ..." i suggest full understanding is not possible. we always take some things for granted, like how the shoes we are wearing are manufactured, understanding of which is not required to wearing them. not addressing some dimensions, trusting others to tackle them, is a common way to cope with complexity that matters

cheers

klaus

-----Original Message-----
From: Terence Love [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 10:50 PM
To: Klaus Krippendorff; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Ways of finding where we are (was: current trends...)

Hi Klaus,

You say,
' predictive mathematical models do not build cities, do not bring a human
to the moon and back'
You are attempting to be misleading.
Actually, it is only _design activity using mathematically-based predictive
modeling_ that is proven to be effective and successful in complex
situations.

You say,
' of course, everyone uses the tools available to them, including computer
models'
I'm pointing to the fact that many designers do not use computer modeling
when they need to. Nor do they understand them or why they are using them.
Worse, they are taught in design schools that they need not use
mathematically-based computerised predictive modeling even in situations
where their use is essential.

You say,
' we more likely tackle complex problems by analyzing them into orthogonal
dimensions, assign each to different teams and deal with the interactions
among these dimensions in communication (negotiation and participatory
design) among these teams.'
I know that this is your interest, your life work and where your investment
is.
Using orthogonality and teamwork doesn't work in complex design situations
that have more than 2 feedback loops. The reasons are:
1. Orthogonality means that there are separate smaller completely unlinked
design situations (i.e there was no need to tackle the larger design
situation at all!)
2. In complex design situations, the behavior of the outcomes of the
situation is not predictable by humans alone. This apples to and the
consequences of any new design input in such a system. The outcomes emerge
over time and are usually radically different to the outcomes in the short
term. Predictive mathematical modeling is the only proven way for designers
to have a better understanding of the future outcomes that are consequent on
redesign of part of a system.
Or are you suggesting that designers should only be concerned with
short-termism?
3. If individuals(or teams) cannot fully understand the behaviour of the
design situation that they are dealing with, then communication between
collaborating teams simply results in muddle on muddle and an even more
errors. It has the unfortunate secondary effects that it gives the illusion
to team participants that they must be right as everyone agrees with each
other; and also that academics get paid for devising such social interaction
processes and this takes money away from other more legitimate research.

 I notice that the frogdesign blog item raised by Glen Johnson follows much
the same path as I'm suggesting
(http://designmind.frogdesign.com/blog/the-end-of-an-era.html). Others such
as Forrester, Sterman and Meadows from MIT have been arguing the same since
the 60s. The approach also aligns with the underlying assumptions of
heavyweight design research journals such as RED and AIEDAM.

BTW the upcoming special issue of AIEDAM on 'Creativity: Simulation,
Stimulation and Studies' looks like it will be of interest. Editors are
Mary-Lou Maher (Australia), Yong Se Kim (Korea) and Nathalie Bonnardel
(France).

Best regards,
Terry
===
Dr. Terence Love
Love Web Services
For friendly website design and high quality web hosting
For organisations, businesses, research centres, ePortfolios and conferences
Tel/Fax: +61 (0)8 9305 7629
Mobile: +61 (0)434975 848
[log in to unmask]
www.lovewebservices.com
===

Cheers

-----Original Message-----
From: Klaus Krippendorff [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, 25 October 2009 2:31 AM
To: Terence Love; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Ways of finding where we are (was: current trends...)


i'd say:
we more likely tackle complex problems by analyzing them into orthogonal
dimensions, assign each to different teams and deal with the interactions
among these dimensions in communication (negotiation and participatory
design) among these teams. of course, everyone uses the tools available to
them, including computer models.

but predictive mathematical models do not build cities, do not bring a human
to the moon and back -- but interesting visions translated into productive
questions on how to realize these visions may lead to solutions of complex
design situations

klaus