Dear Martin,
Any complex socio-technical system has a rich mix that includes BOTH technical specifications AND human desires, aspirations, and emotions. I am not conflating these. I tried to indicate the vast number of points and places in the complex socio-technical system of urban transport where we deal with both. This is why a computer cannot design an urban transport system. I am not reducing Las Meninas to oil and paint on canvas, neither Las Meninas by Velasquez nor Las Meninas by Picasso. This is an unfortunate metaphor — it suggests that you don’t accept my description of a transport system or my distinction between a menswear collection and the organisation of designers that produce the menswear collection.
I agree that machines do not demonstrate imagination and intuition. Neither do they demonstrate empathy for human needs. I assert that we need to have empathy and human intuition to design any complex socio-technical system properly. But there are two issues here that make it impossible for machines to design a complex socio-technical system. Several times in the past few days, I have written that automated design systems cannot choose and specify a preferred state, either directly or together with the problem-owner on whose behalf the designer works, and that automated design systems cannot work with and understand the needs of legitimate stakeholders — customer, clients, end-users and perhaps others. This also applies to human designers who specify preferred states without working with and understanding the needs of legitimate stakeholders.
In response to your question, I wrote, "We have no examples of computers that can design either transport systems or menswear collections. It is the case that computers assist human designers, engineers, financiers, and managers in designing and operating both."
Please do not confuse me with others in the conversation. I assert that automated design systems (machines, computers) CANNOT perform either task. They cannot perform any task that requires these skills or capacities. We agree that computers can’t do it for menswear.
We seem to disagree on whether complex socio-technical systems have human dimensions. If the only thing required were hardware, this might not be so. Major areas of psychology, sociology, human-computer interaction, social informatics, anthropology, ergonomics, cognitive science, philosophy and several other fields exist specifically because complex socio-technical systems do not serve human needs well if we fail to consider the people who use the hardware.
From this point on, it’s turtles all the way down. I have passed the two replies point and will stop.
Yours,
Ken
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Elsevier in Cooperation with Tongji University | URL: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/she-ji-the-journal-of-design-economics-and-innovation/
Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia
--
Martin Salisbury wrote:
—snip—
My feeling is that you may be conflating design and production. You mention design for 'human need' in the context of transport and 'a collection of suits' as if they are comparable. What makes them very different, yet comparably complex, is that the clothing collection is also 'design for human desire/ aspiration/ emotion'. That involves imagination and intuition, as Dr Amy Twigger Holroyd has explained. Whereas the design of the transport system (again, I am not an expert) surely has a set of clearly defined objectives/ needs? (As far as I am aware, we do not yet have machines that demonstrate imagination and intuition but I am sure Terry will tell me otherwise)
Your argument seems to me to be equivalent to the suggestion that the design of Velázquez's masterpiece, 'Las Meninas' is of lesser complexity because it consists only of oil paint and canvas. It is the complexity of the design (thinking) process that I am referring to, not the subsequent production/ distribution paraphernalia.
—snip--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|