Dear Jonas and all,
Thank you for your question.
The comments below are my understanding from a relatively limited exposure
to the four design fields.
Cognitive Systems Engineering
This design field uses typically uses modelling as a matter of course on all
complex (multi-feedback loop) design situations. Interestingly, Cognitive
Systems Engineering focuses on how people interact with technology both
cognitively and emotionally and in that sense there is a substantial overlap
of interest and problems with most other design fields. The difference is
that Cognitive Systems Engineering has an approach that addresses and is
well suited to designing in complex (multi-feedback loop) situations.
Resilience Engineering
My understanding of the Resilience Engineering field is limited to reading
about a dozen research papers mostly about safety in process engineering and
transport systems. The characteristic approach was to attempt to convert
all complex multi-feedback loop processes to 'complicated' situations
without feedback loops. This is done on both sides of the design activity.
On one side by ignoring feedback loops and envisioning the system as a
branched decision linear sequential process (typically by flow chart of
activity). On the other side, designs for interventions aim to override the
activity of feedback loops either by enforcing linear processes or by
providing extra processes that use energy and other resources to overwhelm
the activity of feedback loops.
An example of this kind of process, was of a crime prevention intervention
over the first year of operation of a new rail line that massively increased
access between wealthy suburbs and socio-economically disadvantaged suburbs
over a 70km stretch to the south of a city of about 1.8 million people. The
crime and crime prevention context is characterised by large numbers of
feedback loops and multiple opportunities to design successful light touch
interventions at key leverage points. The actual intervention that was
implemented was to commit a large proportion of the city's Police force
throughout the region to enforce behaviour according to the law and ensure
crime was kept low. Resilience Engineering uses a similar approach. The
disadvantages are inefficiency of resources and high cost (costs are much
higher due to the need to suppress the natural complex behaviour of the
situation), and the need to continue to commit these resources because as
soon as they are withdrawn, the natural behaviour of the system will emerge
as a natural consequence of the unmodified feedback loops. A substantial
amount of the analysis of Resilience Engineering is focused on trying to
address the tensions form adopting this approach. Put simply, Resilience
Engineering is characterised by tending towards a 'complicated' view of
situations in which factors combine to create a failure. Lack of attention
to feedback loops renders much of the behaviour of the system hidden and
hence will lead to weird ways to try to address this blindness through for
example intense focus on artefacts.
High Reliability Organisations
Complexity involving factors shaped by multiple feedback loops is
intentionally eliminated in High Reliability Organisation design work. The
focus is to explicitly and completely define all organisational activities
as part of 'complicated' rather than 'complex' (multi-feedback loop)
processes. This follows a similar path to that described in the previous
paragraph. The costs and inefficiencies of enforcing that the
organisaitonal processes work in an explicitly specified way (i.e. without
the uncontrolled influence on organisational behaviour by multiple feedback
loops) is accepted as worthwhile in gaining the benefits of high reliability
and consistency of organisational process outcomes.
Riso School of Ecological Interfaces
The territory of the Ecological Interface approach is to help users cope
with complicated routine processes. The Riso School of Ecological
Interfaces avoids addressing complex (multi-feedback loop) situations and
systems in line with 'Resilience Engineering' and 'High Reliability
Organisations' . There is nothing in what I've read of the Ecological
Interfaces approach that suggests that it would be suited to addressing
complex situations with high numbers of factors in which the dynamic
behaviour of the outcomes were strongly influenced by multiple feedback
loops.
Best wishes,
Terry
____________________
Dr. Terence Love, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM
School of Design and Art
Director Design-focused Research Group, Design Out Crime Research Group
Researcher, Digital Ecosystems and Business Intelligence Institute
Associate, Planning and Transport Research Centre
Curtin University, PO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia 6845
Mob: 0434 975 848, Fax +61(0)8 9305 7629, [log in to unmask]
Visiting Professor, Member of Scientific Council
UNIDCOM/ IADE, Lisbon, Portugal
Honorary Fellow, Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development
Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
____________________
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jonas
Lundberg
Sent: Friday, 23 April 2010 4:42 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Are visual approaches to design outdated?
Dear Terry
If we are to discuss design approaches to complex situations (visual
or not) why not start the discussion with those that at the core aim
at coping with complexity? If other approaches are not so good at
dealing complexity, then that's no surprise.
Examples of design traditions that have coping with complexity at the core:
-Cognitive Systems Engineering
-Resilience Engineering
-High Reliability Organizations
And let's also include an example of visual design for complexity
-The Risö school, of Ecological Interfaces.
Do you think that those traditions have problems with designing for
complex situations (including those with feedback loops)? I would be
very interested in hearing more about that!
Best regards
Jonas Lundberg
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 1:00 AM, PHD-DESIGN automatic digest system
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> There are 5 messages totaling 1736 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics of the day:
>
> 1. Are visual approaches to design outdated? (5)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:11:16 +0800
> From: Terence Love <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Are visual approaches to design outdated?
>
> Hi David,
> Thanks. Well spotted.
> My perspective hasn't changed. I'd assumed people would understand the
> implied insertion of 'in this particular case' in my writing (see below).
> All analyses have a focus and context and reasoning that only makes valid
> sense in relation to them. My comments were that Birger was using evidence
> from a different context to the focus of analysis, and in relation to both
> 'complex system' and 'success', when his proposed evidence was replaced by
> the evidence relevant to the focus, context and reasoning, the reasoning
> supported a different conclusion.
> You are right that there is a shift in this case, Most of the analyses I
do
> are of theory qua theory and hence a lot of it requires a high level
view.
> Looking at evidence of the limits to competence of us as individual
humans
> is different.
> All the best,
> Terry
|
