A3BenjaminGolden

A3BenjaminGolden

To Do

1. try to explore the web to get an idea
   • who Herbert Simon was
   • what Simon's book is all about (one summary about this book can be found: http://www.cyberiapc.com/writings/almossawi_2005_2.pdf)
2. which was the most interesting idea/concept you learned from the article?
3. articulate what you did not understand in the article but it sounded interesting and you would like to know more about it
4. discuss what the following statement means to your group:
   • Simon discussed social plans and policies as designs. He considered the Marshall Plan and the U.S. Constitution as specifications for organizational designs. These designs are not mere blueprints, as are some of the key examples elsewhere in the book (clocks and houses), but starting points for living systems that grow and evolve over time- systems whose structure and consequences cannot be anticipated at the time of their design.
5. discuss what the following statement means to your group in relationship to the problems which we explored in the last few class meetings (Number Scrabble versus Tic-Tac-Toe; Mutilated 8x8 Matrix; Mutilated Chessboard):
   • Intelligibility of Design Representations - Meaningful user participation in design requires that the discourse constituting the design work be accessible to all stakeholders.

Group Members

Benjamin Golden

1. Who was Herbert Simon

Herbert Simon was a pioneer of cognitive science in the 20th Century. He was a contributor to fields ranging from psychology and sociology, to economics and even computer science. He studied particularly Cognition, Decision-making, and design. He received ACM's Turing Award for contributions to Artificial Intelligence, The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics for research in decision-making, and the National Medal of Science. His book "Sciences of the Artificial" discusses topics from design and decision-making to artificial intelligence.

2. Most interesting idea/concept you learned from the article?

I think the article placed a significant level of emphasis on the concept of Decomposition. I think a case can also be made that Decomposition is the one, of four topics, that directly influences the actual method of design. Decomposition is the idea of breaking down the design into smaller parts, there by compartmentalizing and organizing them. Conversely the other three sciences; understanding the users psychology, determining the optimal design decision, and representation. All three of these are analysis' of the design. Understanding User means is a mode of understanding better what the design must accomplish. Determining the optimal design decision is choosing a best design among many, and representation is the process of planning the design, but as for the method of actually synthesizing the design the decomposition topic is the only one. I find this interesting that 75% of the sciences should involve analysis beyond the process of the design creation.

3. What did you not understand.

I am unclear as to whether the Author, Herbert Simon, postulated that these 4 categories encompass all of the 'sciences' of design. The 4 'sciences' that are pointed out seem to cover less than a complete range of issues in design, for example in a huge majority of designs there must be independent collaboration of designers, and the success of this collaboration surely can greatly effect the outcome of the design.

Also this interpretation of design seems particularly geared toward the design of computer applications. Is this the bias of the articles author? or is this the intent of the Simon, or was Simon originally talking about design in a broader sense that computers alone?

4. First Discussion

First Reflection:

I think the passage is very correct in its claim that the constitution can be looked at as an evolving design. I think that it is very likely that this is what made the constitution such a revolutionary document in history. Up until this point governments existed as rigid devices, changed only rarely, and only those in charge, and most importantly, done in accordance with no particular specification. But with the creation of the constitution and more specifically the U.S. government came the creation also of an evolving design that slowly changed and grew in accordance with certain pre-designed processes. After all, a huge percentage of the laws that govern America today were not there at it's inception, but through the intended growth of the design they can now exist. I think this is a very relevant observation to make, because while I think it is naive to assume all designs/systems can be understood as the same thing, they can surely be understood as similar, and possessing parallels.

5. Second Discussion

Second Reflection:

Essentially what is being said here is that in order for shared design (Tic-Tac-Toe as a basic example) to be useful or worthwhile the method of understanding the problem must be uniform. For example in the Tic-Tac-Toe Demonstration, if the board is displayed in a numerical fashion as opposed to a visual board some of the users cannot understand how to apply the reasoning they possess to the design problem, i.e. they lose at tic-tac-toe. However once one explains to the participant that the numerical representation is just another form of tic-tac-toe, and the conversion can be understood, then once again the game becomes simple. Thus all participants in shared design must understand the method of interchange with the design problem, this being simply said: an understanding of how to think about the problem.