 |
 |
Thanks, Gunnar, for asking these important questions. Let me start by stating that the questions are indeed interesting and important, and i do not know the answers. On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Gunnar Swanson <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > If "traditional craft" emphasizes creating a beautiful finished object > above everything else, then your seeming assumption is right. If, on the > other hand, the emphasis is on rapid prototyping to answer questions, maybe > that's a good place to begin. > I partially agree. The "partial" is because rapid prototyping is difficult with some of the really big problems because the issues don't arise until there is sufficient scale. So small prototypes are apt to work (and in fact, test trials are prototypes, and in most industries i have looked at, there are numerous very successful test trials that never led to anything). It is really difficult to scale up a proposed solution, especially if it requires major changes in how different people and organizations function. > > You write that "if one looks at the history of large scale sociotechnical > systems, the number of failures during implementation is astounding, and > even where the system eventually was deployed, most were subject to large > cost and time overruns." I suspect that failures and reworking are > attributes of almost anything new. Doesn't failure at smaller projects help > prepare someone for better failures at more complex projects? > Nope. Failure of smaller projects should lead to learning but it often leads to shame and a refusal to listen to those people again (why should i listed to you, you failed!). Not the way things work in Silicon Valley.)( > > I wouldn't argue that most design education prepares anyone for Design <X > (or Design 2 or whatever) or, for that matter, much of anything. I worry, > however, that many educational efforts at tackling big problems seem to > want to start and end with studying and analyzing big problems rather than > learning to tackle problems more generically. > One problem is that when designers stat thinking of how to do this, they often speak only to designers (take a look at CMUs attempt to rethink "transition" design. It aims high, but I fear that it thinks that design alone is the solution. Designers speaking to designers. We need more multidisciplinary educational efforts. I really do think we need to train some of us differently -- not all design, but those who wish to engage in these complex difficult problems facing society. Hmm. I did write a chapter on this i'll see if i can get permission to distribute it. Don Don Norman Prof. and Director, DesignLab, UC San Diego [log in to unmask] designlab.ucsd.edu/ www.jnd.org <http://www.jnd.org/> ----------------------------------------------------------------- PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design -----------------------------------------------------------------