Fil, Don, Erik et al
Fil - thanks for enriching Don's proposition. I was very uncomfortable
with his formulation because, as Erik noted, it reduced and
oversimplified the relationship between technology and need. It also
failed to deal with how a need or opportunity for a new technology is
recognized and responded to by its inventor(s)/ developer(s). Here are
several suggestions that I think might improve your "balance" model
and make it easier to apprehend as a focus for design research.
First, "equilibrium" seems to offer a more powerful label than
"balance" because it implies a more diverse set of dimensions, not all
physical. I believe that needs, desires, potentials and opportunities
arise in the minds of both inventors and consumers through "focal
situations" in which they recognize anomalies between their current
knowledge, beliefs and practices and the circumstances they are
engaging. A new technology is more or less disruptive in this sense
but so are other changes in the circumstances of experienced
situations. Situatedness is essential to the recognition of need,
desire,opportunity or potential. Without it as a focus you might as
well say that the bow and arrow was the technology that led to nuclear
energy: both channel energy for a purpose. I believe that recognition
of anomalies in a focal situation motivates intention to find
"equilibrium" between the disruptive "information/opportunity/
potential" and the usual response to the situation where no such
"force" is recognized. This helps to explain why designers, inventors,
and others who look for opportunities and potentials to transform
existing situations into preferred ones behave differently than other
people who are not so dedicated or focussed in their search for
improvement, change or other rewards (money, prestige, fun, etc). An
important aspect of the recognition of potential is the knowledge and
disposition that one can bring to bear on a situation of concern.
(These ideas are incorporated in the Theory of Design Thinking
summarized in a short paper on my Academia.edu page)
Chuck
On Apr 1, 2010, at 11:33 PM, Filippo A. Salustri wrote:
> Shucks. T'weren't nuthin'. :-)
> Cheers.
> Fil
>
> On 1 April 2010 11:39, 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
>>>
>>>
> --
> 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/
|