JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN Archives

PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN  April 2010

PHD-DESIGN April 2010

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Are visual approaches to design outdated?

From:

Terence Love <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Terence Love <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 22 Apr 2010 06:52:07 +0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (381 lines)

Hi Kristina,

Thank you for your input.  In parts of addressing complex systems,
non-rational thinking has a role. I am also very interested in non-rational
thinking in this context. In the area that you discuss in your message,  I
think that non-rational thinking is not necessarily involved. Experience
shows that non-rational thinking doesn't help in relation to complex
multi-feedback loop situations. It seems to result in designers making
design changes in the opposite direction to those intended. 

1.  'Feedback loops' are different from ' variables' in the sense that you
describe them. They are 'ways that  one variable influences another in a
sequence such that this eventually results in a change of  the initial
variable. Hence, feedback loops result in dynamically changing behaviour of
a situation rather than a static solution.

2. There is already a well-tested solution to addressing complex situations
involving multiple feed loops - use dynamic modelling. That way, humans look
at the model to see  what is going to happen. That way, there is no need to
be able to understand the complexity. In the simplest sense, this is what we
do with prototypes. The problem then shifts to  'how representative is the
model'. There is no need to go to non-rational thinking for this.

3. Mapping a complex multi-feedback loop situation doesn't work.  (though it
gives us the sweet illusion that we appear to be understanding the
situation). Mapping feedback loops does not resolve the problem of
predicting the dynamic changes in outcomes over time. Mapping only shows the
relationships between  feedback loops it does not show the dynamic behaviour
of the outcomes and, by observation,  for 2 or more feedback loops  we
cannot predict the behaviour of the outcome from looking at a picture of the
feedback loops. 

Best wishes,
Terry

-----Original Message-----
From: Kristina Börjesson [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Thursday, 22 April 2010 1:55 AM
To: Terence Love; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Are visual approaches to design outdated?

Hi Terry and all.
I will start with announcing that system theory is not where my competence 
lies. My research area is non-rational thinking (!) and behavior and its 
implications for design.
The ongoing discussions has, to my understanding, mainly flowed between 
visualisation as a i) method to manage complex situations and ii) a way to 
aid and facilitate human understanding.
Visualisation has always been used to enhance understanding and facilitate 
meaning-making: "an image says more than thousand words". The negative side 
of this method is of course that once visualised there is a fixed form: we 
are in fact manipulated to think that this is how it should be, which 
naturally prevents or at least makes it more difficult to recognise 
variables which are not accounted for in the image. Terry calls these 
variables feedback loops, or rather, what Terry calls feedback loops, I call

variables.
When I studied sociology way back in time, I learned about controllable and 
non-controllable variables. Researchers created laboratory tests to be able 
to control as many variables as possible, which with current advancement 
within neuroscience and cognitive science appears rather naive. But then, 
design researchers still apply laboratory testing within user-centered 
design. This was, and obviously still is, examples of a reductionist view 
and of efforts to manage complexity: to gain results which could be reported

as almost 'scientific' and therefore plausible or even true.
Reality is different.
* The fewer variables involved, the simpler the situation.
* With rising numbers of variables involved the situation becomes 
complicated.
* The level of complication depends on how many of these variables can be 
approached by rational thinking: to what degree you can apply mathematical 
and other established laws within natural sciences. Laws helps you to 
predict and hence control [and as Terry rightly points out, is the reason 
why we try to introduce codes, regulations, rules and so on everywhere in 
society. It is an effort to mimicry a natural law situation].
* As long as we believe that we can solve a problem rationally (and our 
modern society is basically founded on rationality), we do not use notions 
like chaos and complexity.
* The above notions are describing a situation where human rational thinking

has reached its limits: not only has the number of variables increased but 
they have also to a great extend become un-controllable, they are 
non-rational. Most people would call them emotional or irrational. To avoid 
this, I keep to non-rational, which then indicates non-conscious cognition. 
As humans at some point are involved in all problem solving [even where i.e.

computers play a dominant role], the input is the result of the rational as 
well as the non-rational - and so is the output: how the result of the 
'solved' problem is received and handled by the human it is aimed at. This 
is what makes the feedback loops so difficult to predict in numbers as in 
nature/content.

Terry won't agree, but I like Birger's pragmatic approach: we have to admit 
the limits of human thinking to advance and break new ground.
Equipped with this humbleness, we might turn our energy to map rather than 
to handle multiple feedback loops, hopefully thereby refraining from 
applying solutions, which in fact are merely theoretical. By continuously 
mapping complex situations, you gain experience to use as input in next 
situation, but probably more importantly, you learn to better predict how 
much room in time and space you need to approach complexity without callous 
reductionism leading to false solutions [in fact creating another problem].
This said: a visual approach might be very reductive IF it singularly is 
used to manage complexity. BUT if it is used to map complexity, it could be 
motivated.
All the best
Kristina


Kristina Börjesson
PhD, Research Associate
Central Saint Martins College
University of the Arts London

0044 7767 215992
[log in to unmask]

www.borjesson-mk.se
http://thefoundobject.canalblog.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Terence Love" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: Are visual approaches to design outdated?


Hi Birger,

Thank you for bringing the discussion back to the practical.  That's where
it's easiest to see things.

For me it's watching practical life that shows how badly we humans manage
any situation with feedback loops (complexity). I understand this is the
opposite to what you are suggesting. I'd like to suggest some reasons why.

It seems obvious that we humans are good at situations where the causes are
close in time and space We respond to situations where causes are  single,
direct, obvious and do not involve feedback loops. Watching people  in
practical situations shows we are really bad at single feedback loop
situations and useless at multiple feedback loops situations.

Watch two people bump into each other in a shopping mall and both go one way
and then the other  in a comic routine. That's a single feedback loop with a
bit of a delay. People get in mess and for a short while you can see they
don't know what to do. The impasse is broken when one person converts it to
a zero feedback situation by making a decisive move that is different.
Another example in business, watch how two people behave who meet  for the
first time  and don't know who is the senior. There is a politeness game
that happens - again another single feedback loop with delay. Watch new
couple's behave before they've managed to get enough information on each
other to convert their behaviour to simple stimulus and response routines -
they trip over each other trying to avoid making mistakes. Another single
feedback loop situation. All of us know the relatively simple feedback loops
of addiction - caught in the feedback between rational thought and
underlying emotional desires.

We humans are so bad at even single loop feedback situations that we insist
on structuring life to avoid any feedback. We use management structures,
codes of behaviour, legal codes, monetary codes traffic rules..... anything
to try to convert feedback loop situations to situations without feedback
loops. We intuitively know that we can manage complicatedness but not
complexity.

I can see that it appears at first that standing back we can view the human
situation as complex and that we humans seem to manage. That doesn't seem to
be any proof as to whether or not humans are competent at predicting the
behaviour of multi-feedback loop situations (i.e. complex situations).

There are at least two epistemological fallacies  with the argument.

First, the relevant complexity is how each individual sees it - not the
complexity as seen from a rationalist all-seeing helicopter view. It is us
as  individual humans that are the unit of analysis and it is the situation
as seen from  out individual viewpoint rather than the overall world view.
The alternative you are suggesting  is a bit like saying 'cars are highly
complex mechanical, chemical and electronic technologies' and we drive cars
therefore 'all humans are successful at  designing anything that involves
mechanical, chemical and electronic technologies'. It is the relative
complexity of the reality that each of us sees as individuals that matters
in this context.

The reality from observation  is that we as individuals try as much as
possible to ignore anything with multiple feedback loops (complexity) and if
that is not possible, we instead try to treat situations  as if there are no
feedback loops. If that is not possible, we complain or claim that the
situation  is esoterically odd (e.g. 'it's a wicked problem', or ' not my
problem'  or we make a guess and try to bluff it out). From observation, we
humans handle complicatedness relatively well, and those with an enthusiasm
for relationships can understand situations with single feedback loops.
Again by observation,  as soon as situations with relationships have two or
more feedback loops, people quickly come up with phrases such as 'it could
go either way' or 'it's in the lap of the gods' or something similar that
indicates that they can no longer predict the outcome. So the first fallacy
is  that to suggest that everything is complex is epistemologically the
wrong context for the subject of study.

The second problem  with claiming humans are successful at complexity is
also epistemological. The problem is the viewpoint on 'successful' in the
claim 'humans are successful at dealing with complexity because the world
looked at objectively is complex'.  The underlying key to the fallacy  is in
defining 'success'  as  'what people define as success'. This is claiming an
objective definition  on the basis of a subjective judgment.  It  is like
saying success is simply people doing what they do. Intrinsically, there is
no means of inferring from it  whether we are good or bad at complexity. To
recap, from observation of practical situations, we humans ignore complexity
and deal with it as complicatedness or as simple situations. It is with this
behaviour and these limitations that we define what is success in dealing
with life. That doesn't give any information about  whether or not we are
naturally  able to understand and predict  the behaviour of a situation
determined by multiple feedback loops. The definition of success is
independent of competence in a specific task unless there is much more
carefully defined links with competence.

I'm suggesting that simply by sitting at a café or observing people at work,
when we look at how humans behave in both everyday and highly skilled
situations, we find we as humans avoid multiple feedback situations. When we
do deal with them we deal with them as if they are to single feedback loop
'complicated' situations or even as if they are 'simple' situations.  Also
by observation, when the situations are important and the feedback loops
dominate the outcomes then we get problems . Observing how people deal with
these confirms the same findings. Commonly, those  reviewing a failure
situation try to interpret it without feedback loops. Often this problem
situation can continue indefinitely. A classic case was the  several decades
of failures in IT and Information systems. The combination of feedback loops
and delays was a key component of the outcome being the wrong solution for
the wrong  users.  Recent design methods such as Agile and Scrum address and
partially resolve some of the single feedback loop feedback issues. Again it
needs a method/code etc.

Again, I'll suggest that the issues stand and that visualisation only helps
with complicated situations.

Please send me any example of a visually-based method that enables humans to
predict the dynamic behaviour of a multi-feedback complex situation.
I haven't found one yet.

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: Birger Sevaldson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, 17 April 2010 1:33 AM
To: Terence Love
Subject: SV: Are visual approaches to design outdated?

Dear Terry
Thanks for challenging the ideas of visualisation being helpful in dealing
with complexity. Its clearly justified to do so.
To my experience it is very difficult to impose the old systems model with
well defined boundaries, hierarchies of sub systems, well defined inn and
output and well defined feed back loops. Even quite simple real life systems
are to my mind hard to squeeze into this model. e.g. a car is today built
according to integrale principles where an increasing number of parts are
designed to performe according to multiple criteria and functions. This
makes it very challenging to subdivide an automobile into its subsystems,
because the multiple performance blurres the boundaries. Maybe this
difference in systems approaches is at the heart of the different possitions
in this discussion?
As an example: you say that "'Complex' situations are different. Human
cognitive and emotional biology is
not well suited to understanding or predicting the outcomes of
'complex'situations."
I totally disagree with this:
 To my mind are humans very well equiped cognitively and biologically to
understand and to a certain degree predict the outcomes of very complex
situations. We do this every day from morning to the evening. If we were not
we would not survive for very long. So humans are amazingly well equiped to
navigate through multiple hyper complex systems e.g. walking down a crowded
street while having a conversation with another person, navigating in
different layers of different overlapping and interacting systems being
traffic flows, social spaces, visual symbols, micro climates. How more
complex can it get? We use skills and perseption , visual thinking,
interpretation of patterns, filters, to a large degree tacitly. I think
these skills are what is activated when we work visually with complexity in
design.

I refere to soft systems methodology (Checkland was quoted in this
discussion earlier) and e.g. Systems Architecting as described by Mayer and
Rechtin. I think this soft end of systems thinking is more relevant and
closer related to design thinking, than some of the more traditional systems
approaches.

Maybe we come from different world views and the discussion needs to clarify
this first?

Here a selection of references i found interresting, (please feel free to
suggest additional sources):

Checkland, P. (2000). Soft Systems Methodology: a 30-year retrospective.
Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. P. Checkland. Chichester, John Wiley &
Sons LTD.
Checkland, P. and J. Poulter (2006). Learning for Action: A Short Definitive
Account of Soft Systems Methodology and its use for Practitioners, Teachers
and Students. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a Systems Perspecive for the
Study of Creativity. Creativity Handbook. R. J. Sternberg. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Glanville Ranulph, A Ship without a Rudder  CybernEthics Research, Southsea,
UK 1994
Gordon Dyer, Y3K: Beyond Systems Design as we know it, in: Res-Systemica,
Vol. 2, 2002. Refering to Béla H. Banathy
Frostell, B., Å. Danielsson, et al., Eds. (2008). Sciene for Sustainable
Development: The Social Challenge with Emphasis on the Conditions for
Change. Uppsala, VHU.
Frostell, B. (2009). Industrial Ecology and Environmental Systems Analysis-
Systems Approaches for Increased Complexity. Stockholm, KTH Royal Institute
of Technology.
Gharajedaghi, J. (2006). Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity: A
Platform for Designing Business Architecture. London, Elsevier.
Gigch, J. P. and J. McIntyre-Mills, Eds. (2006). Wisdom. Knowledge and
Management: A Critique and Analyses of Churchman's Systems Approach. New
York, Springer.
Gruber, H. E. (1988). "The evolving systems approach to creative work."
Creativity Research Journal 1.
Gruber, H. E. and D. B. Wallace (1999). The Case Study Method and Evolving
Systems Approach for Understanding Unique Creative People at Work. Handbook
of creativity. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Gunderson, L. H. and C. S. Holling, Eds. (2002). Panarchy: Understanding
Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Washington DC, Island Press.
Gunderson, L. H. and L. P. Jr., Eds. (2002). Resilience and Behavior of
Large-Scale Systems. Washington, Island Press.
Jonas, W. (1996). Systems Thinking in Industrial Design. Systems Dynamics,
Cambridge Massachusets, MIT.
Jonas, W. (2005). Designing in the real world is complex anyway-so what?
Systemic and evolutionary process models in design. European Conference on
Complex Systems Satellite Workshop: Embracing Complexity in Design, Paris.
Maier, M. W. and E. Rechtin (2000). The Art of Systems Architecture. Boca
Raton, CRC Press.
Mariussen, Å. and Å. Uhlin, Eds. (2006). Trans-national Practices, Systems
Thinking in Policy Making. Stockholm, Nordregio.
Meadows, D. (1999). "Leverage Points: Places to intervene in a System." The
Sustainable Institute, Hartland.
Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in Systems. White River Junction, Chelsea
Green Publishing.
Midgley, G. (2000). Systems Intervention: Rhilosophy, Methodology, and
Practice. New York, Kluver Academic / Plenum Publishers.
Miller, J. H. and S. E. Page (2007). Complex Adaptiv Systems: An
Introduction to Computational Models of Social Life. Princeton, Princeton
University Press.
Olsson, M.-O. and G. Sjöstedt, Eds. (2004). Systems Approaches and Their
Applicaitons: Examples from Sweden. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academisc Publishers.
Rechtin, E. (1999). Systems Architecting of Organisations: Why Eagles Can't
Swim. Boca Raton, Florida, CRC Press LLC.
Sage, A. P. and J. E. J. Armstrong (2000). Introduction to Systems
Engineering. New York, John Wiley & Son.
Senge, P. M., B. Smith, et al. (2008). The Necessary Revolution: How
individuals and organizations are working together to create a sustainable
world. New York, Doubleday.
Svedin, U. (2006). Introduction to Systems Approaches and Their Aplications.
Systems Approaches and Their Aplications: Examples from Sweden. M.-O. Olsson
and G. Sjöstedt. Dortrecht, Kluwer.
Ulrich, W. (2000). "Reflective Practice in the Civil Society: the
contribution of critical systemic thinking." Reflective Practice 1(2):
247-268.
Walker, B. and D. Salt (2006). Resilience Thinking. Washington, Island Press


Best regards
Birger

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager