Thanks for the suggestions.
It's funny that you suggest "equilibrium" because it suggests non-physical
dimensions. In engineering, which is where I earn my keep, "equilibrium" is
a special word that in fact is strongly tied to ONLY physical dimensions.
That's why I chose "balance." [insert Fil slapping himself on the forehead]
I agree that situatedness (or what I normally call context) is essential.
Situatedness is also quite compatible with systems perspectives, of which I
am a big fan.
I'll read your paper.
On 2 April 2010 10:10, Charles Burnette <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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)
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Email: [log in to unmask]