(function() {var s = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0],rdb = document.createElement(“script”); rdb.type = “text/javascript”; rdb.async = true; rdb.src = document.location.protocol + “//www.readability.com/embed.js”; s.parentNode.insertBefore(rdb, s); })();
This article, by Janet Burge and Rob Bracewell, seems to stress the use for methodologies in design rationale. According to Burge, there seems to be a reluctance for the use of design rational – perhaps due to the “potential cost of its collection.” Why does it have to be this way? If design rationale is meant to give breadth and depth to the structure of our arguments for design, then what can be said of those who are reluctant to pursue such an investigation? I remember reading an interview on Bertrand Russell’s convictions where, Bryan Magee probed A.J. Ayer and found one of Russell’s reiterations, “Our beliefs should be in accord with the evidence for them.”

He also talks about how many manufacturing industries now find themselves in the service industry. I can’t help but notice the connection of their realization with that of Gilmore and Pine’s child “The Experience Economy: Work is Theatre and Every Business a Stage.” This connection lies in recognizing how services and products relate to customer experience (I’ll further explore this topic soon enough because there is a lot to it). I recently watched Gilmore’s speech about the identification of experience as being the new industry in economic evolution. I also had the opportunity to speak with him afterwards in a roundtable discussion.

As you may have noticed, I have diverse interests, so pay close attention to how I synthesize my interests with real-world examples. I do my best to find strong connections between design and human factors of production. More specifically, I am fascinated by discourse surrounding innovation, design, and production. Feel free to comment on any of my future posts. Nothing intrigues me more than being humbled, so if my conclusions are wrong or connections are loose, then don’t hesitate to rigorously critique my arguments. You can learn more about me on my about page.

Now, as a minor deviation, I want to fill you in on the meaning of this post’s title. I’ve thought long and hard about what to name my first post – other than the “Hello, World!” paradigm. “To Begin Again, From The Beginning” is a reference from Richard Linklater’s 2001 film Waking Life. Sadly, I can’t find the video excerpt (probably due to copyright). But I did find the script:

“Our critique began as all critiques begin:

              with doubt.
              Doubt became our narrative.
              Ours was a quest for a new story, our own.
              And we grasp toward this new history driven by the suspicion...
              that ordinary language couldn't tell it.
              Our past appeared frozen in the distance,
              and our every gesture and accent...
              signified the negation of the old world and the reach for a new one.
              The way we lived created a new situation,
              one of exuberance and friendship,
              that of a subversive microsociety...
              in the heart of a society which ignored it.
              Art was not the goal but the occasion and the method...
              for locating our specific rhythm...
              and buried possibilities of our time.
              The discovery of a true communication was what it was about,
              or at least the quest for such a communication.
              The adventure of finding it and losing it.
              We the unappeased, the unaccepting continued looking,
              filling in the silences with our own wishes, fears and fantasies.
              Driven forward by the fact that no matter how empty the world seemed,
              no matter how degraded and used up the world appeared to us,
              we knew that anything was still possible.
              And, given the right circumstances,
              a new world was just as likely as an old one."