I've been thinking and reading around the subjects of architecture and design recently. I have been arguing for some time in the context of software that we need to focus on broad architectures into which objects (people and software) and be placed, evolve, mutate and form time to time die. I'm increasingly starting to take that idea across into wider organisational design. It fits in with the complexity theme of partial and mutable constraints. By coincidence I got a linked in request from one of the best designers I have worked with in my life (ands its been a lot) Tracee Wolf who is still with IBM. Her web site has some great examples of her work, including some projects I was involved in. I also got a request from a good friend who's daughter is looking for a placement after three years at the Mackintosh School of Architecture in Glasgow. An example of her work illustrates this post, its all about the manipulation of light in a small area (Incidentally if anyone knows of a good placement opportunity let me know).
Interestingly architects often make the best user interface designers. It's that capacity to represent three dimensions of space, together with light, time and other aesthetic properties into two dimensions with a deceptive simplicity of form. As in software, so in organisations. Creating a loose structure that can coevolve with the needs of your people and markets creates a resilient capacity to cope with change and tolerance of failure. RIgid structures in which all function (for which read application) is determined are fine within the context of their creation. However when the context shifts their robustness becomes brittle and they fail catastrophically. Part of the evolutionary success of the human race (well OK the jury is out on that for the moment but stay with me here) is that we were never optimising for any particular environment, and while we lived within constrains we learnt how to modify those constrains by interaction with them. We co-evolved, but not at random, we did it within constraints.
Comments (3)
I've always been interested in the structures within which we work. I've compared open office plan to being like Jeremy Bentham's Panopticon in its effect on people like me who get to sit at their desks - day after day.
One building I think you should look at is that of Telnor in Norway. The address is:
http://www.telenor.com/xpress/2000/4/hq_fornebu.shtml
It seems to me to be a particularly good example of form meeting function
Posted by Alan Byrne | April 9, 2010 5:09 AM
Posted on April 9, 2010 05:09
Tracee is certainly the best designer I've ever come across and you were very fortunate to have worked with her. The first time I saw the papers on Babble I was completely blown away and that was some of her very early work.
I wouldn't make universal praise for architects - I think like all professions they have their great innovators and they have their staid and unimaginative as well as those so progressive practicalities can be forgotten (my sister has some examples of architect designed hospital operating theatres) and often they are working under strong design constraints making it difficult for us to evaluate them as such.
What sort of specialisation did your friend's daughter do? Is it internal, external, more engineering based etc. or general? Do you have any ideas of the types of placements she would like? I have a nephew who works for a pretty good company in London dealing with internal designs, but on top of that I expect they are well connected. I hope to have dinner with him next week sometime because I have to go to London to place my passport renewal application into NZ house.
Posted by Peter Stanbridge![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/dave/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 9, 2010 3:14 PM
Posted on April 9, 2010 15:14
Very interesting post.
I have noticed a lot of the new way of thinking being employed nowadays (complexity-chaos) is more along "right-brained" moreso than "left-brained"... so it would seem natural to begin using "design" or "art" terminology in place of more scientific or logical terminology.
I myself am an artist first and foremost (mainly 3D animation), but have always been fascinated by research, technology and business... but never in the same ways as other people.
I was astounded the first time I heard a mathematician claim that his work revolved around "patterns"... I believe a "database" can be designed just as well by an artist as it can by a computer scientist... the tools are merely different... as well as trying to get an artist to care about analysis...
As well I find it interesting for people to refer to "design" when talking about something, whereas I would call it "development".
Overall, I think the "principles of art" provide us with a great context as well as terminology in regards to discussing complexity and the like.
The people at C5CORP (www.c5corp.com) have a great wealth of knowledge weaving business, art, research, and technology into one mass narrative.
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
Posted by Mark Spivey | April 9, 2010 11:10 PM
Posted on April 9, 2010 23:10