 |
 |
Chuck, Thanks for the suggestions. Early thoughts: 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. Cheers. Fil 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) > > Chuck > > -- 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/