I feel technology&invention are same similar in the sense that they both PUSH something.
However need&design is generally in the PULL side.
I think this is the root of main divergences.
[Still borders are transitive indeed]
________________________________
From: Charles Burnette <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Fri, April 2, 2010 5:10:15 PM
Subject: Re: Technology first, invention second, needs last
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/
|