John and list,
It might help to note that there isn't a "continuous scale from simple
problems to complex problems". There might be from simple problems to
complicated problems, and that is what you describe in your earlier post
about the increasingly complicated spread sheet or its successors. Complex
problems demand a completely different range of strategies. We can, for
example, think of the idea that designers are 'solution focussed' rather
than 'problem focussed' in this light: being solution focussed is one
strategy for addressing a complex situation.
Alongside Chris Rust's point about uniqueness, other features of wicked
problems, as characterised by Rittel and Webber, are critical to seeing
that
the continuous scale idea doesn't apply, for example "there is not
definitive formulation of a wicked problem" and "wicked problems have no
stopping rule" * are two show stoppers, so are all the other features.
Regards,
Janet McDonnell
John Shackleton
<John.Shackleton@BR To: [log in to unmask]
UNEL.AC.UK> cc:
Sent by: PhD-Design Subject: Design Automaton
- This list is for
discussion of PhD
studies and related
research in Design
<PHD-DESIGN@JISCMAI
L.AC.UK>
26/01/2006 08:55
Please respond to
John Shackleton
Dear Chris and list,
> "Rust, Chris" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I would say that this particular architect was not designing. Being
> conscious is not the point, engaging with unpredictable or
> wicked aspects of the problem is.
Sorry Chris, I wasn't explicit enough. I never said my automaton was not
engaging with the 'wicked' aspects of the problem. And if the automaton was
engaging with them then I'm happy to accredit the architect with the same
engagement.
What I was trying to say was that there is a continuous scale from simple
problems to complex problems, and at some point on that scale they become
'wicked'. Why is it that at that point the architect is accredited with
'designing' and the automaton isn't?
I understand that I am assuming for the purpose of the question that it is
possible that an automaton can, eventually, be built that solves 'wicked'
design problems, and that if the assumption is false then the question is
not valid. I am not concerned here *how* it solves wicked problems, only
with why it isn't designing if it does.
Regards,
John
