Dear Filippo and Don,
Thanks to both of you for interesting ideas and arguments. Overall I find
both of you to be right in your analysis and I only have a couple of
comments.
Instead of contrasting the two concepts of needs and technology, I would
like to make the picture a bit richer. When I think about the complexity of
development or progress, I like to include the following concepts as
different aspects and factors: discovery, invention, innovation, and design.
These are quite well defined concepts and all relate in different ways to
the issues of need and technology. Any new design is, as Filippo nicely
shows, a complex network of forces, and all have some aspect of each
discovery, invention, innovation and design. There are probably even more
potential aspects to consider, but my point is that reducing it to a
question between need versus technolgy kind of makes the issue a bit too
simple and I think thereby also misses the most important point, which to me
is the recognition of the overwhelming complexity of progress and its
anatomy.
The other point I want to make is that what Filippo suggest as a model is to
me a version of what Latour suggests. There are never any simple
cause-effect relationships in reality, there are only complex networks with
alignments and alliances. Of course, Latour does not really give any advice
on how to handle or strategize when it comes to such complex realities, but
what his philosophy shows is that if we, in an effort to understand reality
(and progress), creates to simplistic models we will not make "progess".
What designers are good at (when they do good) is to be able to handle the
complexity, to understand new discoveries, new inventions and innovations
and in close understanding of the human condition design new possible
realities. There is no starting point in either needs or technology, there
is only the challenge of making sense of existing conditions and
potentials....
Enough rambling on a "långfredag" (long friday) which is the Swedish name of
this day....
Erik
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Don Norman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hurrah! Filippo's analysis is wonderful. here is the comment i entered on
> his blog page:
>
> Very nice analysis. Precisely what I was hoping might result: informed
> discussion and debate, perhaps new formulations. Alas, most of the debate
> has been uninformed. Thank you, Filippo. This is the best analysis I have
> seen. I couldn't have said it better myself. In fact, I obviously didn't.
> Don Norman
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Filippo A. Salustri <[log in to unmask]
> >wrote:
>
> > It's taken a long time, but I've finally put down some thoughts on the
> > whole
> > technology & need thing.
> > Those still interested can read them at
> >
> http://filsalustri.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/balancing-need-and-technology/
> > Cheers.
> > Fil
> >
> > On 18 December 2009 03:57, Rosan Chow <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > > Charles Burnette wrote on 08.12.2009
> > >
> > > "Don Norman seems on our minds these days. Those committing or
> > > committed to design research should read his latest contribution to
> > > the discusssion:"
> > >
> > > http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/technology_first_needs_last.html
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > --
> > Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
> > 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/ <http://deseng.ryerson.ca/%7Efil/>
> >
>
|