My experience has shown that many people find it hard to make their design ideas precise. They are willing to express their ideas in loose, general terms, but are unwilling to express them with the precision needed to make them into patterns. Above all, they are unwilling to express them as abstract spatial relations among well-defined spatial parts. I have also found that people aren't always very good at it; it is hard to do..... If you can't draw a diagram of it, it isn't a pattern. If you think you have a pattern, you must be able to draw a diagram of it. This is a crude, but vital rule. A pattern defines a field of spatial relations, and it must always be possible to draw a diagram for every pattern. In the diagram, each part will appear as a labeled or colored zone, and the layout of the parts expresses the relation which the pattern specifies. If you can't draw it, it isn't a pattern.
Christopher Alexander (1979) in The Timeless Way of Building.
One anxiety inherent in the design methods is the hierarchical nature of complexity. This anxiety moves in two directions, escalation and infinite regression. I will use a story, "The Warning of the Doorknob," to illustrate the principle of escalation.
This has been my experience in Washington when I had money to give away. If I gave a contract to a designer and said, "The doorknob to my office doesn't have much imagination, much design content. Will you design me a new doorknob?" He would say "Yes," and after we establish a price he goes away. A week later he comes back and says, "Mr. Eberhard, I have been thinking about that doorknob. First we ought to ask ourselves whether a doorknob is the best way of opening and closing a door." I say, "Fine, I believe in imagination, go to it." He comes back later and says, "You know, I have been thinking about your problem, and the only reason you want a doorknob is you presume you want a door to your office. Are you sure that a door is the best way of controlling egress, exit, and privacy?" "No, I'm not sure at all." "Well, I want to worry about that problem." He comes back a week later and says, "The only reason we have to worry about the aperture problem is that you insist on having four walls around your office. Are you sure that is the best way of organizing this space for the kind of work you do as a bureaucrat?" I say, "No, I'm not sure at all." Well, this escalates until (and this has literally happened in two contracts, although not exactly through this process) our physical designer comes back with a very serious face. "Mr. Eberhard, we have to decide whether capitalistic democracy is the best way to organize our country before I can possibly attack your problem."
On the other hand is the problem of infinite regression. If this man faced with the design of the doorknob had said, "Wait. Before I worry about the doorknob, I want to study the shape of man's hand and what a man is capable of doing with it," I would say, "Fine." He would come back and say, "The more I thought about it, there's a fit problem. What I want to study first is how metal is formed, what the technologies are for making things with metal in order that I can know what the real parameters are for fitting the hand." "Fine." But then he says, "You know, I have been looking at metal forming and it all depends on metallurgical properties. I really want to spend three or four months looking at metallurgy so that I can understand the problem better." "Fine." After three months he will come back and say, "Mr. Eberhard, the more I look at metallurgy, the more I realize that it is the atomic structure that's really at the heart of this problem." And so, our physical designer is in atomic physics from the doorknob. That is one of our anxieties, the hierarchical nature of complexity.
Eberhard (1970) quoted in Teague & Pidgeon (1985) and Yourdon (1989).
Spatial system capabilities and reach have undergone rapid changes in recent years, moving from networks of expensive high-end workstations to "clouds" of inexpensive desktop personal computers. During this time, organizations have addressed data quality and redundancy issues by moving from project-level systems to enterprise-wide solutions and service-oriented architecture. These developments have dramatically increased the accessibility and efficiency of spatial systems. However, the design and implementation of such systems and their support within organizations often does not meet the promise and expectation. Investigations into the problems provide evidence of human and political issues that lead to the success or failure of such systems. This includes social forces such as fear of losing control, autonomy, independence, complexity, or power.
There are many available design approaches to increase the possibility of meeting expectations. These include participatory design, soft-systems methodology, rapid prototyping, human-computer interaction, and computer-supported cooperative work. However, each of these approaches requires "people" skill to successfully understand and articulate the goals of the design process, evaluate the work environment, and effectively interact with the people in it. The key interactions with people in design might be described as negotiations. There is an implied assumption, however, that all participants in the negotiations are expecting to benefit from a successful outcome, which may not always be the case in organizational contexts.
If you have any questions now or at any point during this lesson, please feel free to post them to the Threaded Discussion Forum. (That forum can be accessed at any time by clicking on the Communicate tab, above, and then scrolling down to the Discussion Forum section.)
Now, let's begin Lesson 1...
To finish this lesson, you must complete the activities listed below. You may find it useful to print this page out first so that you can follow along with the directions.
Step | Activity | Access/Directions |
---|---|---|
1 | Read the lesson Overview and Checklist. | You are in the Lesson 4 online content now. The Overview page is previous to this page, and you are on the Checklist page right now. |
2 | Goodchild, Finding the Mainstream (Skim) [1] Norman, Cautious Cars and Cantankerous Kitchens: How Machines Take Control (Skim) [2] Senge, The Leader’s New Work (Skim) [3] Online Content [4] |
There are three different styles of reading that are referred to in the lessons:
|
3 | View the Lesson Introduction. | You are in the Lesson 4 online content now. Click on the "Next Page" link to access the Lecture/Discussion. |
4 | Geospatial Think-Piece (Template) [5] |
Using Word (or a word processing program compatible with Microsoft®), identify and briefly discuss (<200 words): one fundamental concept in the Norman or Senge reading and describe how you would apply the concept in the design of a geospatial system. The Goodchild reading provides helpful ideas about spatial systems in general. Name your file Lsn4_YourName.doc, Please turn-in your document the Lesson 4 Dropbox in ANGEL. What is a “Think Piece”? A “think piece” is a form of writing that is less polished than a formal paper or presentation but more fully developed than an entry in a personal journal. Think pieces are written to discover what an individual is thinking about a particular topic. Within this course, the writing of think pieces is a way of helping learners connect with the subject matter. Within this context, think pieces reduce the grading risk associated with an “all or nothing” term paper and allow the instructor to communicate with learners throughout the semester, to see the evolution of thinking, and to suggest resources that can further the learners’ understanding. What does a Think Piece look like? The starting point for a think piece for this course lie in the author’s immediate past experience. Because think pieces are as much a reflection of one’s ideas, there is no standard or uniform format for a think piece. In other words, each of us is writing from personal experience. We are not claiming to be objective not are we offering prescriptive, how-to, formulas or guidelines. |
5 | Read lesson Summary. | You are in the Lesson 4 online content now. |
The word design can be used as both a noun and a verb. As a verb, "to design" refers to the process of originating and developing a plan for a product, structure, system, or component. As a noun, "a design" is used for either the final plan or the result of implementing that plan. Here's the bottom line; there’s probably no one definition everyone will agree on since design can be:
Implementing a spatial system will result in modifications to existing roles and responsibilities; it may require a modification of responsibilities within the organization, resulting in a new organizational philosophy, new lines of communication, and a realignment of the business process. Before initiating an implementation you need to understand the existing organizational framework, how it operates and how this new technology will change the structure. You will also need to create a governance framework under which the impacts of change can be managed within the existing Information Technology architecture. When viewed in a positive light, the design process is an opportunity to tune-up virtually every job and function performed within an enterprise and deliver the following benefits:
Despite the power of spatial technology, the success or failure depends almost entirely on the designers of the system. This was not necessarily appreciated when GISs first came on the scene and many of these systems failed. Some did not work at all as analytical tools; others produced faulty results. Still others tended to stop functioning altogether. These systems did not survive because the designers:
It should be clear that when we talk about spatial systems or GIS design, we are not necessarily talking about the actual software design, although this is an important part of the process. When implementing spatial systems across an organization's enterprise, designers will have critical non-technical, as well as some technical issues to consider. The key to addressing the non-technical issues is governance, and the key to effective governance is appropriate control. Project governance is also key to aligning spatial technology resources to business goals and providing value. Governance is needed that will not hinder project delivery while addressing the architecture requirements across the enterprise. Organizations that do not implement effective governance will be unable to achieve architecture integration and will have no effective means to manage business goals.
The designer's (or organization's) philosophy and management perspective may dictate a specific approach. Some approaches guide the overall goal of the design while other approaches guide the tendencies of the designer. Typically, a combination of approaches may be used if they don't conflict.
In a large perspective, Dino Dini (see Dino Dini at wikipedia.org [6]) suggests that design can be defined as "the management of constraints" and he identifies two kinds of constraints, negotiable and non-negotiable. Taking this view, the first step in the design is the identification, classification, and selection of constraints. Design then proceeds from here by manipulating design variables so as to satisfy the non-negotiable constraints and optimizing those which are negotiable. It is possible for a set of non-negotiable constraints to be in conflict resulting in a design with no solution; in this case, the non-negotiable constraints must be revised. Some common approaches that address the management of constraints include:
Assuming one takes a more structured path to design (i.e., not the seat-of-the-pants approach), design Methods, the actual steps one might take, typically include:
The old phrase of "Well, back to the old drawing board" teaches us that designs can fail and redesign is often necessary. Something that is redesigned requires a different process than something that is designed for the first time. A redesign often includes an evaluation of the existent design and the discovery of redesign needs. These findings often drive the redesign process.
In the world of enterprise-wide spatial systems, there is no checklist to work through that will guarantee a designer is thinking in a way that will capture the big picture or identify root causes of difficult design problems. However, experience shows that focus needs to be on the vision of what the system will accomplish, not on the processes and procedures of a bureaucratic entity. This means that designers need to think in terms of behavior of the whole system, in preference to thinking about component parts. They need to think in term of strategic objectives, and to measure success in terms of achieving strategic objectives. Here activity is not a measure of success; busyness and excessive focus on the short term interfere with system development. Designers must see what is actually happening, not just what they want to see happen. Designers of large enterprise spatial system need to think of themselves as leaders of a living system that attunes the mind to the important aspects of organizational behavior and allows one to understand what keeps the system alive in terms of ongoing development and support. I will suggest that there is a framework of three key areas that can be identified:
Albert Einstein argued that "problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them.” The coming of the Industrial Age with complex processes and ever-larger organizations led to the development of management as a profession. In the Information Age of the present day, spatial organizations are increasingly networked, and leadership has evolved the task-focused "matrix organization". With spatial organizations, our challenge is to facilitate teaming techniques, and to evolve another level of leadership. The assignment of oversight to outside and high level panels, boards, or ad hoc groups expands the insight and impact of the leader --- it raises problems above the level in which they arise. Additionally, this high level and “parallel thinking” provides unconstrained thought unbound by routine processes, and introduces different perspectives, ensures objective analysis, and enhances the credibility of results.
With “parallel thinking” all parties are thinking in parallel in the same direction. There is co-operative and coordinated thinking. The direction itself can be changed in order to give a full scan of the situation. But at every moment each thinker is thinking in parallel with all the other thinkers. There does not have to be agreement. Statements or thoughts which are contradictory are not argued out but laid down in parallel. In the final stage the way forward is 'designed' from the parallel thoughts that have been laid out.
A Leader with a clear vision creates a climate that encourages and recognizes viable innovation when it emerges, while allowing the freedom to make mistakes. Throughout the system’s life-cycle, an effective leader maintains focus on the behavior system as a whole, and on the roles it plays and functions it performs in terms of the overall purpose of the system. Few would disagree, in principle, that the effective leader should see not only the parts, but also the big picture. But, why is maintaining a consistent vision so difficult in spatial system development? One reason is because many leaders are so immersed in the myriad day-to-day nuts-and-bolts technology management details it is easy for them to lose sight of the bigger picture. We all know the saying that “Fighting off the alligators takes precedence over draining the swamp.” The problem of “busyness” often compounds the problem of beating off the alligators since it seems as though officials work excessive hours as a matter of pride. This crisis management combined with a culture of busyness has resulted in decision makers who favor short-term view to long-term problems without taking time to think about the actual impact of the fix or the emergent patterns.
A vision needs to be tempered with reality. In his book Why Smart Executives Fail, Sydney Finkelstein examined some of the world’s most notorious business failures. His analysis indicated that in almost every case, the failures were not attributable to stupidity or lack of attention. On the contrary, the leaders were exceptionally bright, energetic, and deeply involved in the operation of their businesses. Up to the point of massive corporate failure, they were all extremely successful. In most instances, the executives failed to see or accept what was actually happening. In some cases, they were blinded by their own prior successes; in other cases, they inexplicably held tenaciously to a vision despite plenty of evidence that the chosen strategic direction was ill-advised.
Mistakes are learning tools that are inevitable in an era of change and advancement, and leadership needs to create an environment whereadmitting to a mistake is a sign of strength. The paradigm that mistakes are bad; they ought to be avoided at all cost; and never admit a mistake needs to be changed. The Leader's pragmatic focus on determining what is actually happening serves as a preventative to self-delusional thinking. Seeing and accepting what is really happening is the hardest part of the job. The continuous assessment process, brought about by broad-based governance, is characteristic of systems thinking and is essential in a volatile, rapidly changing environment. It takes time and good habits of critical reflection to engage in this kind of learning, both for individuals and organizations. A systemic approach to learning from failure is more likely to result in effective long-term solutions. While inspired leadership can make a difference under the worst of conditions, we might ask just how heroic we expect our leaders to be on a regular basis. When a system is so obviously stacked against our leaders, there is a moral imperative to change the system.
Effective leaders are systems thinkers. They see things in terms of loops and patterns, and are aided by constant assessment of what is happening and the changing relationships between elements, rather than flow charts and final output. Peter Senge submits, in The Fifth Discipline, that systems thinking provides just the type of discipline and toolset needed to encourage the seeing of “interrelationships rather than things, for seeing patterns of change rather than static ‘snapshots'.” Senge argues that this shift of mind is necessary to deal with the complexities of dynamic social systems. He suggests that we think in terms of feedback loops as a substitute for simple cause-and-effect relationships.
As I said, there is no checklist to work through that will guarantee a successful spatial system. However, there is a basic concept that can be very helpful when considering the development of a spatial system. This is to focus on the broader purpose for which the system is being created, NOT to focus on the processes and procedures of a bureaucratic entity. A recent Wall Street Journal article by Terry Leap, “Keys to Spotting a Flawed CEO-Before It's Too Late,” suggests avoiding leaders “with a fondness for rules and numbers that overshadows or ignores a broader vision.” This is sage advice when building a large enterprise-wide spatial system.
* Much of this is drawn from an article I wrote with Dennis Bellafiore and David Arctur about spatial data infrastructure development. Here is a link to the entire article. [8]
Design involves finding solutions that fit the user, task, and context of use. Properly designed objects – including software, tools, and web sites --fit their context so well that they are easy to use and beneficial to the user. Building a spatial system is no different and is typically a long and complex process. Much of the challenge of building a spatial system is that it impacts many parts of the enterprise and requires a substantial investment to construct and maintain. Experience has demonstrated that, as we approach the challenge of meeting the demand for the development and management of information systems, a strategic approach is necessary to ensure its success. The approach must be logical, tractable, and documented. It must embrace a vision that reflects the organizational goals and objectives. Importantly, spatial technology is not a hammer looking for a nail. Design is not a solution seeking a problem; it is focused in a problem seeking a spatial solution.
Links
[1] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog468/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.geog468/files/Goodchild.pdf
[2] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog468/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.geog468/files/TheDesignofFutureThings.pdf
[3] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog468/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.geog468/files/TheFifthDiscipline.pdf
[4] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog468/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.geog468/files/NEW_Lesson_4/What%20is%20Design.pptx
[5] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog468/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.geog468/files/Misc/Think-Piece%20Template.docx
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dino_Dini
[7] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog468/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.geog468/files/GS_Leadership_s.ppsx
[8] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog468/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.geog468/files/SDI_Leadership.pdf