Re: Ways of finding where we are (was: current trends...)

[Terence Love-2]

Dear Tracee,

 

Thank you for your message.

I feel I'm saying something very different from what you appear to think.
I'll try again.

 

I'm pointing out that there are many design situations that are simply too
complex for any designer to understand or think their way round. This is
obvious and easily provable.

 

It doesn't matter how clever or creative the designer is or how many
designers or participants or collaborators you bring together.

The behaviour of some design situations is beyond human thinking. Many
design fields (usually outside traditional 'Art and Design' fields)  are
dominated by these sorts of design situations.

 

The only option proven to work in these complex design situations is
mathematically-based predictive modeling. This mathematically-based modeling
is used  in order that the designer can 'see' the future of potential design
changes via changing parameters in the model and rerunning it to see what
happens.

 

In my previous posts, I was simply suggesting that designers are
unprofessional and open to litigation if they attempt to design without
using predictive modeling in situations that are beyond the limits of human
direct understanding. This is on the basis that if they do not understand
the design situation's behaviour and still attempt to design then they are
simply guessing and chancing. In most domains, this exposes the designer (or
their employer) to potential litigation.

 

As a professional practice in this realm of complex design situations,
methods such as 'helping designers ask questions that will give interesting
results' rather than using modeling to understand the complex design
situation  would seem to be exposing them to increased risk of litigation?

 

Best wishes,

Terry

 

 

 

From: Tracee Wolf [mailto:traceewolf@...]
Sent: Saturday, 24 October 2009 4:47 AM
To: Terence Love
Cc: PHD-DESIGN@...
Subject: Re: Ways of finding where we are (was: current trends...)

 

Hi Terry - sorry for the late response.

I'm not sure I (or anyone else) is claiming that designers don't have
limitations. Designers certainly don't have comprehensive capabilities. But
there is a difference between scoping down a designer's world into a
reductive set of practices, and helping the designer to use the limitless
options in an informed way. A designer isn't likely to cover everything -
that's a given. The question is *what do they choose to cover* and how are
they making an informed decision about it? ... the question is whether or
not we'll let the designer pursue a line of creative thinking that may not
be the line of thinking or procedure you'd like them to take. This may seem
rouge but there is a lot of responsibility on that designer to fully
represent the design rationale. Good design pursuits will make the design
stronger and you'll love the designer for the work they are doing. Design
pursuits that fail will cause you to question the designer but if that
designer has the complete support of a holistic set of design practices,
they will learn from the failures and become a better designer. And, if they
in fact have the holistic set of design practices, there is 'course
correction' and learning along the way to minimize failure and heighten
learning -- heighten design judgment.

More stakeholders or more procedure doesn't necessarily mean that complexity
is dealt with any better or that a better design will be the outcome:
http://dustincurtis.com/dear_american_airlines.html
The response to Dustin's redesign of the American Airlines website is
testimony to this.
http://dustincurtis.com/dear_dustin_curtis.html

I think the real question is "How do we help designers to make inspired and
informed choices as they pursue design so that they're asking the questions
that will give them the most interesting results?" and "How do we support a
holistic designer process so that a designer can continue to grow, learn and
improve the design choices they make?" and "How can we help designers make
interesting, good choices and hone their design judgement?"

thank you!
Tracee



From:    Terence Love <t.love@...>
To:    PHD-DESIGN@...
Date:    10/07/2009 10:44 PM
Subject:    Re: Ways of finding where we are (was: current trends...)
Sent by:    PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
related research in Design <PHD-DESIGN@...>



Dear Tracey and all,

There is a sneaky elision that happens in these discussions. It goes like
this.

1. How do we deal with design issues that are beyond the human limitations
of a designer?

2. Suggest that this can be resolved if many people contribute

3. Argue that these other extra people are stakeholders and not designers.

4. Infer therefore that ALL design problems are within the human limitations
of designers.

This is a fallacious way of arguing that the issue (limitations of
designers) doesn't exist.

The underlying question I raised that started many of the current
conversations on PhD design is,
"How do we deal with design situations that are beyond the human
limitations of the understanding of any individual designer?"

Collaboration between  designers who all do not understand does not resolve
this. The main  advantage of the
collaborative/participative/stakeholder/network/ social approaches to
design is  it makes all the designers feel happy  because they all agree to
make the same mistakes. This is  a convenient and attractive illusion though
that most of us have sucked up to at some time. Lots of people that don't
understand a situation is no better that one person who doesn't understand.
Urban designers and many others have gone down this path of wishful
thinking. Intuition doesn't work either.

The question still stands -

"How do we deal with design situations that are beyond the human
limitations of the understanding of an individual designer?"

And

" How do we train student designers to deal with design situations that are
beyond the biological human limitations of any individual designer?"

Focusing on design process complexity is a distraction.

Best wishes,
Terry
____________________

Dr. Terence Love, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM, MISI

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: [phone], Fax [phone], t.love@...
Visiting Professor, Member of Scientific Council
UNIDCOM/ IADE, Lisbon, Portugal
Honorary Fellow, Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development
Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
____________________



 

[Klaus Krippendorff]

terry responds to tracee:

The only option proven to work in these complex design situations is
mathematically-based predictive modeling. This mathematically-based modeling
is used  in order that the designer can 'see' the future of potential design
changes via changing parameters in the model and rerunning it to see what
happens.

As a professional practice in this realm of complex design situations,
methods such as 'helping designers ask questions that will give interesting
results' rather than using modeling to understand the complex design
situation  would seem to be exposing them to increased risk of litigation?


i'd say:  
we more likely tackle complex problems by analyzing them into orthogonal dimensions, assign each to different teams and deal with the interactions among these dimensions in communication (negotiation and participatory design) among these teams.  of course, everyone uses the tools available to them, including computer models.

but predictive mathematical models do not build cities, do not bring a human to the moon and back -- but interesting visions translated into productive questions on how to realize these visions may lead to solutions of complex design situations

klaus
 

[Swanson, Gunnar]

Terry,

I have to agree with you that
> there are many design situations that are simply too
> complex for any designer to understand or think their way round.

And I'll agree that you are right that the
> behaviour of some design situations is beyond human thinking.

I'd be interested in the list of the many
> design fields (usually outside traditional 'Art and Design' fields)  [that]
> are dominated by these sorts of design situations.

but I suspect that you are right on practical and legal levels, especially within engineering design. You say that the
> only option proven to work in these complex design situations is
> mathematically-based predictive modeling

and I know that there are many situations (especially in structural engineering) where rapid prototyping is best done as a virtual model of some sort. Are there no limits to that?

Your current "usually outside traditional 'Art and Design' fields" disclaimer makes your comments a bit more reasonable but I have understood recent posts to mean that you were claiming that mathematically-based predictive modeling as a paradigm would dominate All design fields including those inside "traditional 'Art and Design' fields." (I'm still not completely clear on what "traditional 'Art and Design' fields" are but I have a vague idea what the term is meant to mean.) Have I been misunderstanding you? Are you just claiming that you think the situations where mathematically-based predictive modeling works are the interesting design problems?

Do you believe that design situations that are not simply too complex for any designer to understand or think their way round are unworthy of anyone's attention? You seemed to claim earlier that all aspects of design not so complex would be completely automated, eliminating this sort of design as a professional activity. Am I understanding that correctly?

Do you believe that there are no design situations of importance where mathematically-based predictive modeling is unlikely to be fruitful?

Do you believe that there are no design situations that are really too complex for any designer to understand or think their way round, thus making the design of a mathematically-based predictive model unlikely? (If so, do you care to comment on the current crisis in economics, where the tendency to develop mathematical models of everything has appeared to show a gap between the models and complex reality?)

I don't believe that anyone would make the case that there are no important design problems (especially in engineering) where mathematically-based predictive modeling is not vital. What I am unable to understand is what seems to be a belief that all complex design (even where the complexity is created by social and cultural issues) is subject to  mathematically-based predictive modeling.

Is your argument with Klaus over which design problems each of you finds interesting or important? Is it a fight over what variety of design each of you sees as most deserving of the honorific "design"?

Care to elaborate on what design fields are dominated by the sorts of design situations subject to mathematically-based predictive modeling and which are not?

Gunnar
----------
Gunnar Swanson Design Office
1901 East 6th Street
Greenville, North Carolina 27858
USA

gunnar@...
[phone]

at East Carolina University:
[phone]
swansong@...

[Klaus Krippendorff]

gunnar and terry,

mathematical prediction is always based on algorithms that deterministically extend given situations (states of knowledge + principles of how its components interact and must develop).  true, humans have not so good at correlating many variables and computing the consequences of interaction principles.

however, mathematical prediction cannot generate any new principles, cannot ask question for which answers are yet to be found, cannot compute anything not yet programmed in its algorithm.  they just execute instructions.  they may aid design, but innovation is not part of them

klaus  

-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:PHD-DESIGN@...] On Behalf Of Swanson, Gunnar
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 5:20 PM
To: PHD-DESIGN@...
Subject: Re: Ways of finding where we are (was: current trends...)

Terry,

I have to agree with you that
> there are many design situations that are simply too
> complex for any designer to understand or think their way round.

And I'll agree that you are right that the
> behaviour of some design situations is beyond human thinking.

I'd be interested in the list of the many
> design fields (usually outside traditional 'Art and Design' fields)  [that]
> are dominated by these sorts of design situations.

but I suspect that you are right on practical and legal levels, especially within engineering design. You say that the
> only option proven to work in these complex design situations is
> mathematically-based predictive modeling

and I know that there are many situations (especially in structural engineering) where rapid prototyping is best done as a virtual model of some sort. Are there no limits to that?

Your current "usually outside traditional 'Art and Design' fields" disclaimer makes your comments a bit more reasonable but I have understood recent posts to mean that you were claiming that mathematically-based predictive modeling as a paradigm would dominate All design fields including those inside "traditional 'Art and Design' fields." (I'm still not completely clear on what "traditional 'Art and Design' fields" are but I have a vague idea what the term is meant to mean.) Have I been misunderstanding you? Are you just claiming that you think the situations where mathematically-based predictive modeling works are the interesting design problems?

Do you believe that design situations that are not simply too complex for any designer to understand or think their way round are unworthy of anyone's attention? You seemed to claim earlier that all aspects of design not so complex would be completely automated, eliminating this sort of design as a professional activity. Am I understanding that correctly?

Do you believe that there are no design situations of importance where mathematically-based predictive modeling is unlikely to be fruitful?

Do you believe that there are no design situations that are really too complex for any designer to understand or think their way round, thus making the design of a mathematically-based predictive model unlikely? (If so, do you care to comment on the current crisis in economics, where the tendency to develop mathematical models of everything has appeared to show a gap between the models and complex reality?)

I don't believe that anyone would make the case that there are no important design problems (especially in engineering) where mathematically-based predictive modeling is not vital. What I am unable to understand is what seems to be a belief that all complex design (even where the complexity is created by social and cultural issues) is subject to  mathematically-based predictive modeling.

Is your argument with Klaus over which design problems each of you finds interesting or important? Is it a fight over what variety of design each of you sees as most deserving of the honorific "design"?

Care to elaborate on what design fields are dominated by the sorts of design situations subject to mathematically-based predictive modeling and which are not?

Gunnar
----------
Gunnar Swanson Design Office
1901 East 6th Street
Greenville, North Carolina 27858
USA

gunnar@...
[phone]

at East Carolina University:
[phone]
swansong@...

[Terence Love-2]

Hi Klaus,

You say,
' predictive mathematical models do not build cities, do not bring a human
to the moon and back'
You are attempting to be misleading.
Actually,  it is only _design activity using mathematically-based predictive
modeling_ that is  proven to be effective and successful in complex
situations.

You say,
' of course, everyone uses the tools available to them, including computer
models'
I'm pointing to the fact that many designers do not use computer modeling
when they need to. Nor do they understand them or why they are using them.
Worse, they are taught in design schools that they need not use
mathematically-based computerised predictive modeling even in situations
where their use is essential.

You say,
' we more likely tackle complex problems by analyzing them into orthogonal
dimensions, assign each to different teams and deal with the interactions
among these dimensions in communication (negotiation and participatory
design) among these teams.'
I know that this is your interest, your life work and  where your investment
is.
Using orthogonality and teamwork doesn't work in complex design situations
that have more than 2 feedback loops. The reasons are:
1. Orthogonality means that there are  separate smaller completely unlinked
design situations (i.e there was no need to tackle the larger design
situation at all!)
2. In complex design situations, the behavior of the outcomes of the
situation is not predictable by humans alone. This apples to and the
consequences of  any new design input in such a system. The outcomes emerge
over time and are usually radically different to the outcomes in the short
term. Predictive mathematical modeling is the only proven way for designers
to have a better understanding of the future outcomes that are consequent on
redesign of part of a system.
Or are you suggesting that designers should only be concerned with
short-termism?  
3. If individuals(or teams) cannot fully understand the behaviour of the
design situation that they are dealing with, then communication between
collaborating teams simply results in muddle on muddle and an even more
errors. It has the unfortunate secondary effects that it gives the illusion
to team participants that they must be right as everyone agrees with each
other; and also that academics get paid for devising such social interaction
processes and this takes money away from other more legitimate research.

 I notice that the frogdesign blog item raised by Glen Johnson follows much
the same path as I'm suggesting
(http://designmind.frogdesign.com/blog/the-end-of-an-era.html). Others such
as Forrester, Sterman and Meadows from MIT have been arguing the same since
the 60s. The approach  also aligns with the underlying assumptions of
heavyweight design research journals such as RED and AIEDAM.

BTW the upcoming special issue of AIEDAM on 'Creativity: Simulation,
Stimulation and Studies' looks like it will be of interest. Editors are
Mary-Lou Maher (Australia), Yong Se Kim (Korea) and Nathalie Bonnardel
(France).

Best regards,
Terry
===
Dr. Terence Love
Love Web Services
For friendly website design and high quality web hosting
For organisations, businesses, research centres, ePortfolios and conferences
Tel/Fax: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
terry@...
www.lovewebservices.com
===

Cheers

-----Original Message-----
From: Klaus Krippendorff [mailto:kkrippendorff@...]
Sent: Sunday, 25 October 2009 2:31 AM
To: Terence Love; PHD-DESIGN@...
Subject: RE: Ways of finding where we are (was: current trends...)


i'd say:  
we more likely tackle complex problems by analyzing them into orthogonal
dimensions, assign each to different teams and deal with the interactions
among these dimensions in communication (negotiation and participatory
design) among these teams.  of course, everyone uses the tools available to
them, including computer models.

but predictive mathematical models do not build cities, do not bring a human
to the moon and back -- but interesting visions translated into productive
questions on how to realize these visions may lead to solutions of complex
design situations

klaus
 

[Terence Love-2]

Dear Gunnar,
Wow, what a delightful message and critique.
I suggest there are three things going on:

1. Computer-based automation of many design practices, skills, thinking,
creativity processes and activities previously the province of professional
human skills, thinking and emotions. In most cases, this results in outcomes
better than achieved by most designers (because it is based on distilling
best practices and thinking  in design across large numbers of expert
designers).
2. Increased need for designers (I suspect this will apply to MOST
designers) to have deep levels of understanding of complex multi-loop
non-linear multidimensional feedback systems. Some of this knowledge will
need to be mathematically based at when is at present degree-level
mathematics. Knowledge of actual mathematical techniques for undertaking
this work will however be needed less and less as these processes are also
being automated and made available in simple form via computer. An example
is the way that say time series analysis (PhD level in the 70s) is now
available on school children's calculators and used widely by secondary
scholl children in simple design problems with changing inputs.
3. Radical changes in design fields in a highly dynamic  with the relative
collapse and replacement of many fields as a result of increased complexity
of design problems being addressed and new knowledge that is resulting in a
shift from foundations in Psychology/Social Science/Humanities towards
foundations in new neurological research/Ethology/Complex Systems/Science.

These forces and factors apply to all design fields but are more significant
to the 'Art and Design' design fields than others. I'm using 'Art and
Design' design fields in the UK sense. They comprise around 40 design fields
and include Graphic Design, Industrial Design, Product Design, Fashion
Design, Textile Design, Architecture' (see for example
http://www.studyin-uk.com/e/studyuk-artdesign/ and
http://diplomaguide.com/article_directory/sh/page/Art%20and%20Design/sh/Job_
Titles_and_Careers_List.html)

One of the claims widely disseminated by  academics, researchers and
designers in these 'Art and Design' fields is that they are professionally
qualified using the same methods to also competently  design in other areas
that include e.g. design of complex business organisaitonal solutions,
social systems design, engineering systems design, socio-technical systems
design, educational systems design.

My recent posts have had two dimensions. Design as a professional activity
is changing and what is taught and practiced as 'good design professional
practice/education'  is commonly badly out of date (although students like
enrolling in courses that teach the earlier stuff!). I'm also emphasizing
that when designers use simplistic design methods in situations that need
more complex design tools, they are open to litigation.

More obviously, I'm pointing to a simple measure that designer or lawyer can
test whether complex systems design tools are necessary. The measure is:

'Are there two or more feedback loops in this design situation?'

If there are 2 or more feedback loops then understanding the system
behaviour is beyond the unaided thinking of any designer or group of
designers. If, as Klaus commented, the situation can be divided into
orthogonal units, they you can address each of these separately (again
asking whether each unit has 2 or more feedback loops).

Best wishes,
Terry
===
Dr. Terence Love
Love Web Services
For friendly website design and high quality web hosting
For organisations, businesses, research centres, ePortfolios and conferences
Tel/Fax: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
terry@...
www.lovewebservices.com
===


Best

-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:PHD-DESIGN@...] On Behalf Of Swanson,
Gunnar
Sent: Sunday, 25 October 2009 5:20 AM
To: PHD-DESIGN@...
Subject: Re: Ways of finding where we are (was: current trends...)

Terry,

I have to agree with you that
> there are many design situations that are simply too
> complex for any designer to understand or think their way round.

And I'll agree that you are right that the
> behaviour of some design situations is beyond human thinking.

I'd be interested in the list of the many
> design fields (usually outside traditional 'Art and Design' fields)
[that]
> are dominated by these sorts of design situations.

but I suspect that you are right on practical and legal levels, especially
within engineering design. You say that the
> only option proven to work in these complex design situations is
> mathematically-based predictive modeling

and I know that there are many situations (especially in structural
engineering) where rapid prototyping is best done as a virtual model of some
sort. Are there no limits to that?

Your current "usually outside traditional 'Art and Design' fields"
disclaimer makes your comments a bit more reasonable but I have understood
recent posts to mean that you were claiming that mathematically-based
predictive modeling as a paradigm would dominate All design fields including
those inside "traditional 'Art and Design' fields." (I'm still not
completely clear on what "traditional 'Art and Design' fields" are but I
have a vague idea what the term is meant to mean.) Have I been
misunderstanding you? Are you just claiming that you think the situations
where mathematically-based predictive modeling works are the interesting
design problems?

Do you believe that design situations that are not simply too complex for
any designer to understand or think their way round are unworthy of anyone's
attention? You seemed to claim earlier that all aspects of design not so
complex would be completely automated, eliminating this sort of design as a
professional activity. Am I understanding that correctly?

Do you believe that there are no design situations of importance where
mathematically-based predictive modeling is unlikely to be fruitful?

Do you believe that there are no design situations that are really too
complex for any designer to understand or think their way round, thus making
the design of a mathematically-based predictive model unlikely? (If so, do
you care to comment on the current crisis in economics, where the tendency
to develop mathematical models of everything has appeared to show a gap
between the models and complex reality?)

I don't believe that anyone would make the case that there are no important
design problems (especially in engineering) where mathematically-based
predictive modeling is not vital. What I am unable to understand is what
seems to be a belief that all complex design (even where the complexity is
created by social and cultural issues) is subject to  mathematically-based
predictive modeling.

Is your argument with Klaus over which design problems each of you finds
interesting or important? Is it a fight over what variety of design each of
you sees as most deserving of the honorific "design"?

Care to elaborate on what design fields are dominated by the sorts of design
situations subject to mathematically-based predictive modeling and which are
not?

Gunnar
----------
Gunnar Swanson Design Office
1901 East 6th Street
Greenville, North Carolina 27858
USA

gunnar@...
[phone]

at East Carolina University:
[phone]
swansong@...

[Klaus Krippendorff]

terry,

when i think of complex design problems then i think of the design of complex software, of NASA projects, of the manhatten project in WW2, of city planning projects involving  diverse communities with different values, or organizing a national campaign to get a presidential candidate elected.

no single individual can handle either of such projects.  it requires the coordination of very many creative people.  each may use computational aid, for example for forecasting public opinion of a presidential election.  but none can rely on mathematical predictions.  they have to work together, amplifying the individual intelligences through coordination of their individual capabilities.

all of these design projects work in a domain that is fundamentally unpredictable, allowing for innovative solutions to emerge, which no computer model can  forecast.

you say "If individuals(or teams) cannot fully understand the behaviour of the
design situation ..." i suggest full understanding is not possible.  we always take some things for granted, like how the shoes we are wearing are manufactured, understanding of which is not required to wearing them.  not addressing some dimensions, trusting others to tackle them, is a common way to cope with complexity that matters

cheers

klaus

-----Original Message-----
From: Terence Love [mailto:t.love@...]
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 10:50 PM
To: Klaus Krippendorff; PHD-DESIGN@...
Subject: RE: Ways of finding where we are (was: current trends...)

Hi Klaus,

You say,
' predictive mathematical models do not build cities, do not bring a human
to the moon and back'
You are attempting to be misleading.
Actually,  it is only _design activity using mathematically-based predictive
modeling_ that is  proven to be effective and successful in complex
situations.

You say,
' of course, everyone uses the tools available to them, including computer
models'
I'm pointing to the fact that many designers do not use computer modeling
when they need to. Nor do they understand them or why they are using them.
Worse, they are taught in design schools that they need not use
mathematically-based computerised predictive modeling even in situations
where their use is essential.

You say,
' we more likely tackle complex problems by analyzing them into orthogonal
dimensions, assign each to different teams and deal with the interactions
among these dimensions in communication (negotiation and participatory
design) among these teams.'
I know that this is your interest, your life work and  where your investment
is.
Using orthogonality and teamwork doesn't work in complex design situations
that have more than 2 feedback loops. The reasons are:
1. Orthogonality means that there are  separate smaller completely unlinked
design situations (i.e there was no need to tackle the larger design
situation at all!)
2. In complex design situations, the behavior of the outcomes of the
situation is not predictable by humans alone. This apples to and the
consequences of  any new design input in such a system. The outcomes emerge
over time and are usually radically different to the outcomes in the short
term. Predictive mathematical modeling is the only proven way for designers
to have a better understanding of the future outcomes that are consequent on
redesign of part of a system.
Or are you suggesting that designers should only be concerned with
short-termism?  
3. If individuals(or teams) cannot fully understand the behaviour of the
design situation that they are dealing with, then communication between
collaborating teams simply results in muddle on muddle and an even more
errors. It has the unfortunate secondary effects that it gives the illusion
to team participants that they must be right as everyone agrees with each
other; and also that academics get paid for devising such social interaction
processes and this takes money away from other more legitimate research.

 I notice that the frogdesign blog item raised by Glen Johnson follows much
the same path as I'm suggesting
(http://designmind.frogdesign.com/blog/the-end-of-an-era.html). Others such
as Forrester, Sterman and Meadows from MIT have been arguing the same since
the 60s. The approach  also aligns with the underlying assumptions of
heavyweight design research journals such as RED and AIEDAM.

BTW the upcoming special issue of AIEDAM on 'Creativity: Simulation,
Stimulation and Studies' looks like it will be of interest. Editors are
Mary-Lou Maher (Australia), Yong Se Kim (Korea) and Nathalie Bonnardel
(France).

Best regards,
Terry
===
Dr. Terence Love
Love Web Services
For friendly website design and high quality web hosting
For organisations, businesses, research centres, ePortfolios and conferences
Tel/Fax: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
terry@...
www.lovewebservices.com
===

Cheers

-----Original Message-----
From: Klaus Krippendorff [mailto:kkrippendorff@...]
Sent: Sunday, 25 October 2009 2:31 AM
To: Terence Love; PHD-DESIGN@...
Subject: RE: Ways of finding where we are (was: current trends...)


i'd say:  
we more likely tackle complex problems by analyzing them into orthogonal
dimensions, assign each to different teams and deal with the interactions
among these dimensions in communication (negotiation and participatory
design) among these teams.  of course, everyone uses the tools available to
them, including computer models.

but predictive mathematical models do not build cities, do not bring a human
to the moon and back -- but interesting visions translated into productive
questions on how to realize these visions may lead to solutions of complex
design situations

klaus
 

[GK VanPatter | NextD]

Sorry to be adding to this so late.
I have been traveling a lot recently so no time to wade into this or other
interesting conversations here.

Some might find this useful.

http://www.humantific.com/the-rise-of-visual-sensemaking/

Conversations about the subject of design are meaningless today without some
kind of updated sensemaking framework that is connected to the real world,
what is already going on in the marketplace, what design oriented firms are
already doing and being asked to do.

Many old frameworks reflect a consciousness that ends at product/service
creation as the edge of the world for design. That¹s ancient history. That
view no longer reflects what is already underway. This world seems to not be
so well reflected or represented on this list.

This is the framework that we use and have found that many others inside and
outside of design find it useful as well. There are many other parts beyond
this one screen. Once you have a useful framework many overlays are
possible. Without a framework dialogue about design tends to go around in
circles.

Leading practices are already working on the overlays. Academia seems more
interested in debates about frameworks.

Hope to see some of you in Melbourne on the weekend.

...

GK VanPatter
Co-Founder

Humantific
SenseMaking for ChangeMaking

NEW YORK / MADRID

6 West 18th Street, 9th Floor
New York City, NY 10011
T: 212-660-2577

http://www.humantific.com

Follow Humantific on twitter: http://twitter.com/humantific

...

[Keith Russell]

Dear Listers

Perhaps there is someone out there who can relieve me of my morning puzzle. It is stopping my normal activities.

While walking to work, I pass by a train line that carries the coal trains that deliver the largest amount of export coal in the world.

This morning, an empty coal train came to a stop nearby. It then started to move again.

When it stopped, I noticed the usual ripple of sound that accompanies the concatenation of carriages as they shunt into each other.

When it started up again, the auditory ripples were much more pronounced and they repeated in both directions for some time.

What I noticed was that the speed of the ripple event was vastly greater than the speed of travel of the train. That is, the wave event was its own event.

Does anyone know of a technical account of what is going on to account for these speed differences? Does the ripple speed up as it goes down the train? It certainly seems to.

Anyway, I pose my problem in order to free my brain up, a little.

cheers

keith russell

newcastle OZ

[Luke Feast]

Keith,

Could it be something to do with the Doppler Effect?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect

"the change in frequency <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency> of a
wave<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave>for an observer moving relative
to the source of the wave"

best
luke

2009/11/19 Keith Russell <Keith.Russell@...>

> Dear Listers
>
> Perhaps there is someone out there who can relieve me of my morning puzzle.
> It is stopping my normal activities.
>
> While walking to work, I pass by a train line that carries the coal trains
> that deliver the largest amount of export coal in the world.
>
> This morning, an empty coal train came to a stop nearby. It then started to
> move again.
>
> When it stopped, I noticed the usual ripple of sound that accompanies the
> concatenation of carriages as they shunt into each other.
>
> When it started up again, the auditory ripples were much more pronounced
> and they repeated in both directions for some time.
>
> What I noticed was that the speed of the ripple event was vastly greater
> than the speed of travel of the train. That is, the wave event was its own
> event.
>
> Does anyone know of a technical account of what is going on to account for
> these speed differences? Does the ripple speed up as it goes down the train?
> It certainly seems to.
>
> Anyway, I pose my problem in order to free my brain up, a little.
>
> cheers
>
> keith russell
>
> newcastle OZ
>

[Terence Love-2]

Hi Keith,

Thanks for your message

This is  the type of design issue that a second year engineering design
student would be expected to model and solve. That may be first year now as
things are moving so fast! My daughter's school does time-series analysis
and that was PhD stuff some years ago.

Back to the train.

Imagine each wagon on the train being represented by one large mass with a
connection to the wagon in front. (we'll ignore the rotational inertias of
the wheels for the moment as well as the slip-stick behaviour of the
bearings and the slightly springy resistive interaction between the wheels
and the rail). We'll assume the train is on a level track.

The connection between the wagons is special. We'll model it as a spring
with a damper and a bit of slack.

The picture of the train overall is of a lot of individual masses all
connected together in a line with a springy link with a bit of slack in
each.

So as one wagon starts to move to pull on the next, first nothing happens
while the slack is taken up. Then the first wagon starts to stretch the
spring which starts to pull on the second wagon which follows with a slight
delay, pulling backwards on the wagon in front

That delay is important,  as  is the pulling backwards on the wagon in
front.

The next wagon  follows a similar process.

Imagine the middle wagon in a group of three. It first gets tugged from in
front and then a short time later after a delay  it gets tugged from the
back as it starts to pull the wagon behind it.

As a limiting slow start case, imagine all the wagons closed up together
with all the connections slack. The engine at the front starts moving
forward at an very very  slow speed. If it is slow enough,  the train will
simply become 'stretched out' to its full length with each wagon moving
after the one in front until all the slack in the connections is removed
before the last wagon starts to move.

If, instead, the first wagon starts with a bit of a jerk (i.e faster than
the above very slow version), then it will have achieved some speed before
the slack is taken up and the effect of its inertia moving forward (remember
each wagon is a large mass)  will act to jerk the wagon behind it forward.
The front wagon will also have the same force acting backwards on it, acting
to slow it slightly.  

After that slight delay, the second wagon is tugged from the front, and then
from behind, with a slight but  different delay.

Each of the tugs extends and contracts each connection between the wagons
each delayed slightly.

The effect is of a wave of movement passing down the train.

At the other end, the last wagon does not have another wagon behind it. Its
behaviour is to be jerked forward and then be bounced backwards on its
spring connection. This gives a jerk backwards on the next wagon - the
equivalent of the whole process starting from the other end of the train.
 
The effect is of a second  wave of movement passing down the train
originating at the other end. This in turn also bounces off the front end of
the train and starts another wave going backwards.

As the waves propagate up and down the train they do so through the
couplings and in each coupling the energy in the springs is slightly
dissipated through damping effects. Eventually the waves decay and disappear
- until the next jerk  

With a bit of mental 3D juggling, one can see that the model is similar-ish
to a vibrating string or air vibrating in an organ pipe.

It is different mechanical process, however, to the Doppler effect.

Best wishes,
Terry


-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:PHD-DESIGN@...] On Behalf Of Keith
Russell
Sent: Thursday, 19 November 2009 7:43 AM
To: PHD-DESIGN@...
Subject: concatenation - trains and shunting

Dear Listers

Perhaps there is someone out there who can relieve me of my morning puzzle.
It is stopping my normal activities.

While walking to work, I pass by a train line that carries the coal trains
that deliver the largest amount of export coal in the world.

This morning, an empty coal train came to a stop nearby. It then started to
move again.

When it stopped, I noticed the usual ripple of sound that accompanies the
concatenation of carriages as they shunt into each other.

When it started up again, the auditory ripples were much more pronounced and
they repeated in both directions for some time.

What I noticed was that the speed of the ripple event was vastly greater
than the speed of travel of the train. That is, the wave event was its own
event.

Does anyone know of a technical account of what is going on to account for
these speed differences? Does the ripple speed up as it goes down the train?
It certainly seems to.

Anyway, I pose my problem in order to free my brain up, a little.

cheers

keith russell

newcastle OZ

[Keith Russell]

 Dear terry

thanks heaps for this excellent account - I've got the first half of my answer - now I need to know the forces that determine the speed of the wave and whether the speed is related to the overall speed of the train or whether it is generated by the wave?


keith

[Terence Love-2]

Dear Keith,

Frequency depends on phase between the action of forces. In practical terms,
the amplitude and frequency of vibration it depends on
Spring constant of connection
Mass of wagon
Damping factor
Number of vibrating elements
Slack in connection

In the case of the rail system the vibration can also be driven by a forced
vibration from the wheels and track in ways that are speed dependent

The theory is of tuned mass-spring-damper systems. If they oscillate, they
are an under-damped system

Such systems  oscillate at natural frequencies you can determine
mathematically (though sometimes the maths is tough manually, it is easy on
many calculators and with software such as MathCAD). To save me trying to
write the theory   on a text only list email, Here is the intro for a single
wagon element that deals with the problem without the slack (adding slack to
the coupling adds a lot of speed and acceleration-related complexity)
http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~ese112/labs/MSDSystemLecturePart%202.pdf 

In the case of a train composed of multiple wagons the solution is by
linking a lot of the above together. Mathematically its easiest to solve it
by matrices to find the eigenvalues and eigenvectors.

There's a good description here
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Vibration?t=1.

The second page has the start of an explanation on multiple wagon designs
(see multiple degree of freedom).

The standard method of removing the vibration effect is to change the
mechanical properties of the system to move the frequency of the vibration
to a speed range where it doesn't matter. The problem with rail systems is
the available changes tend to move the shake rattle and roll to when the
train is at normal travelling speed which presents many more significant
problems particularly of safety - much better to have the oscillations at
low speed when the train is just starting up.

BTW, The Saab 9-5 is a car that the designers appear to have got badly wrong
in exactly this respect. They increased the softness of lining elements  in
the suspension to decouple vibration and the result on models a few years
old is at speed the wheels shake in a steady vibration at the drop of a hat.

Best,
Terry

-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:PHD-DESIGN@...] On Behalf Of Keith
Russell
Sent: Thursday, 19 November 2009 9:43 AM
To: PHD-DESIGN@...
Subject: Re: concatenation - trains and shunting

 Dear terry

thanks heaps for this excellent account - I've got the first half of my
answer - now I need to know the forces that determine the speed of the wave
and whether the speed is related to the overall speed of the train or
whether it is generated by the wave?


keith

[Filippo A. Salustri]

Keith,
Terry nailed that one very nicely.
I'll put my engineering background to good use on the second part.
The speed of the wave is related more to the acceleration than the speed.
The reason you get the effect in the first place is because of the /change/
in speed of one part of the train with respect to another.  The locomotive's
acceleration probably varies as the throttle is opened; then there will be
variations based on power fluctuations and all that too.

The jerk on one car depends on the acceleration at that moment.  Time passes
as the wave travels down the train.  During that time, the accelerations of
the cars ahead of the wavefront can change with respect to the wavefront,
which will change the length of time needed for subsequent jerks.  The
bigger the jerk at the front of car A, the faster car A accelerates, and the
faster the slack at the end of car A will be taken up, so the jerk will be
passed on faster.

There's another, possibly illusory effect that makes the wave seem to travel
faster as the wavefront moves down the train.  This comes in 2 parts.
1. Humans have a harder time gauging speed if something is coming at or
going away from us compared to something passing "across" our view.
So if you were standing halfway down the train, you wouldn't necessarily
notice the wave travel /'way/ up at the front of the train it's moving
(nearly) at you.  But as it got closer to you, you'd notice it zip right by
because by then the wave is travelling orthogonally to your line of sight.
2. The speed of the wave with respect to you must include the train's
speed.  So as the train picks up speed as it goes by you, the wave would
seem to travel faster when it's reflected from the end of the train back up
to the front because now it's speed is added to the train's speed.

That's not nearly as tidy as Terry's explanation, but it's late and I'm
tired.

Terry?  Did I pass? :)

Cheers.
Fil

2009/11/18 Keith Russell <Keith.Russell@...>

>  Dear terry
>
> thanks heaps for this excellent account - I've got the first half of my
> answer - now I need to know the forces that determine the speed of the wave
> and whether the speed is related to the overall speed of the train or
> whether it is generated by the wave?
>
>
> keith
>

--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: [phone] ext 7749
Fax: [phone]
Email: salustri@...
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/

[Keith Russell]

Dear Terry

wow - now we are cooking with gas - but I'm still perturbed, at the level of my immediate experience - how is the speed of the wave determined and does it accelerate?

Too bad about the Saab - I thought the Yanks has the market cornered for speed shakes + poor roads? Seems like it can happen to anyone who goes for softness.

all good fun on a Thursday

cheers

keith

[Keith Russell]

 Dear Fil


With your quick additions to Terry's profundity I am now feeling like I might be able to walk by the train line on my way home without fear of a mental collapse.

Thanks guys - you added significantly to my day

keith

[Terence Love-2]

Dear GK,

Thank you for sharing your model at
http://www.humantific.com/the-rise-of-visual-sensemaking/

Isn't the distribution of effort in the different stages just a matter of
maturity and time things have been around?
I.e for things that have been around a long time (e.g. Traditional Design)
then there isn't much need for sensemaking and there is an established way
of thinking so the opportunities are in strangemaking. Conversely for Social
Transformational design.

BTW, it feels a bit limiting to restrict the step after  Organisational
Transformational Design to encompass only Social Transformational Design?

Cheers,
Terry

[Birkin, Guy]

Dear Keith and others,

I wonder if there if a similarity here between the propagation of the
'auditory ripples' and the occurrence of spontaneous traffic jams on
motorways...?

Cars travelling on a motorway are analogous to the train carriages; the
delay in acceleration between carriages is like the delay between a car
in front braking and the time when you apply your car's brakes to avoid
hitting it. The cars are moving forwards but the 'braking wave' is
propagated backwards. It seems to me that if the speed of propagation of
the 'braking wave' exceeds the speed of the cars, then a jam can result.

I'm sure I've seen reports on this somewhere, but it's not my area so I
don't have a reference to hand.

Regards,

Guy

This email is intended solely for the addressee.  It may contain private and confidential information.  If you are not the intended addressee, please take no action based on it nor show a copy to anyone.  In this case, please reply to this email to highlight the error.  Opinions and information in this email that do not relate to the official business of Nottingham Trent University shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by the University.
Nottingham Trent University has taken steps to ensure that this email and any attachments are virus-free, but we do advise that the recipient should check that the email and its attachments are actually virus free.  This is in keeping with good computing practice.

[Filippo A. Salustri]

I'd say there definitely is such a connection.  The "damping" and "spring"
constants for cars in traffic are - well, not constant.  But constant enough
to make the same effect appear.
Cheers.
Fil

2009/11/20 Birkin, Guy <guy.birkin@...>

> Dear Keith and others,
>
> I wonder if there if a similarity here between the propagation of the
> 'auditory ripples' and the occurrence of spontaneous traffic jams on
> motorways...?
>
> Cars travelling on a motorway are analogous to the train carriages; the
> delay in acceleration between carriages is like the delay between a car
> in front braking and the time when you apply your car's brakes to avoid
> hitting it. The cars are moving forwards but the 'braking wave' is
> propagated backwards. It seems to me that if the speed of propagation of
> the 'braking wave' exceeds the speed of the cars, then a jam can result.
>
> I'm sure I've seen reports on this somewhere, but it's not my area so I
> don't have a reference to hand.
>
> Regards,
>
> Guy
>
> This email is intended solely for the addressee.  It may contain private
> and confidential information.  If you are not the intended addressee, please
> take no action based on it nor show a copy to anyone.  In this case, please
> reply to this email to highlight the error.  Opinions and information in
> this email that do not relate to the official business of Nottingham Trent
> University shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by the
> University.
> Nottingham Trent University has taken steps to ensure that this email and
> any attachments are virus-free, but we do advise that the recipient should
> check that the email and its attachments are actually virus free.  This is
> in keeping with good computing practice.
>

--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: [phone] ext 7749
Fax: [phone]
Email: salustri@...
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/

[Gustavo Víctor Casillas Lavín]

indeed, yes, there is such a connection...

The "shockwave traffic jam":

"The mathematical theory behind these so-called "shockwave" jams was developed
more than 15 years ago using models that show jams appear from nowhere on roads
carrying their maximum capacity of free-flowing traffic - typically triggered by
a single driver slowing down.

After that first vehicle brakes, the driver behind must also slow, and a
shockwave jam of bunching cars appears, travelling backwards through the traffic."

Here is a link to an article "Traffic jams without bottlenecks—experimental
evidence for the physical mechanism of the formation of a jam" in the "New
Jornal of Physics":

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1367-2630/10/3/033001/

and a report with video in New Scientist:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13402

Best regards,

Gustavo

Mensaje citado por: "Filippo A. Salustri" <salustri@...>:

> I'd say there definitely is such a connection.  The "damping" and
> "spring"
> constants for cars in traffic are - well, not constant.  But constant
> enough
> to make the same effect appear.
> Cheers.
> Fil
>
> 2009/11/20 Birkin, Guy <guy.birkin@...>
>
> > Dear Keith and others,
> >
> > I wonder if there if a similarity here between the propagation of the
> > 'auditory ripples' and the occurrence of spontaneous traffic jams on
> > motorways...?
> >
> > Cars travelling on a motorway are analogous to the train carriages;
> the
> > delay in acceleration between carriages is like the delay between a
> car
> > in front braking and the time when you apply your car's brakes to
> avoid
> > hitting it. The cars are moving forwards but the 'braking wave' is
> > propagated backwards. It seems to me that if the speed of propagation
> of
> > the 'braking wave' exceeds the speed of the cars, then a jam can
> result.
> >
> > I'm sure I've seen reports on this somewhere, but it's not my area so
> I
> > don't have a reference to hand.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Guy
> >
> > This email is intended solely for the addressee.  It may contain
> private
> > and confidential information.  If you are not the intended addressee,
> please
> > take no action based on it nor show a copy to anyone.  In this case,
> please
> > reply to this email to highlight the error.  Opinions and information
> in
> > this email that do not relate to the official business of Nottingham
> Trent
> > University shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by the
> > University.
> > Nottingham Trent University has taken steps to ensure that this email
> and
> > any attachments are virus-free, but we do advise that the recipient
> should
> > check that the email and its attachments are actually virus free.
> This is
> > in keeping with good computing practice.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
> Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
> Ryerson University
> 350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
> M5B 2K3, Canada
> Tel: [phone] ext 7749
> Fax: [phone]
> Email: salustri@...
> http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
>

MDI Gustavo Victor Casillas Lavin
Centro de Investigaciones de Diseño Industrial
UNAM
(5255) 5622 0835
gvcl@...
interphasedesign.wordpress.com

-------------------------------------------------
www.correo.unam.mx
UNAMonos Comunicándonos