This in responce to PRO_SOMATIC collective intelligenetic architectural palm pilots

How ’bout that intro, eh?

Collective Intelligence in Design depicts the multi-layered and faceted groups within technological and social formations. The process of being able to overlap various user groups in an effort to expand potential knowledge is an interesting method in which the possible emergence of the process brings one closer to an enhanced solution. Working in this manner shows how connectivity is virtually limitless which allows for a multitude of outcomes. It also interesting to understand the social implications of our own interconnectivity. Is our technological progress having adverse affects on our social structure, (being both people and the artefacts we create)? Is there a way to bridge the gap where certain moments in time have left us lagging behind our creations? Don’t be shy…

Continuum

Continuum [pg10/18] led by Alisa Andrasek provides a plethora of concepts that I would love to delve into later. For now, I’m just going to have to stay on the idea of flexible emergence. The article talks about ‘cells’ (localized components) within ‘environments’ (global components). Dealing with parametrics, this can be translated into variables to a larger equation and determining what drives parts. For working collaboratively, individual cells could represent different teams and the environment can be the overarching framework in which they create together. Under a broader networking concept, this system can be expanded (potentially indefinitely) with cells working within larger cells and environments overlapping.

What’s more, the team and network are always in a state of flux as parameters are expanding and contracting. You may gain a cell to the network but lose another that is focusing on a different field of content – this is not necessarily ‘good’ or ‘bad’ but rather it simply provides new and different opportunities for exploration.

One part in particular I found to be interesting:

“There is no such thing as a stable assemblage. At best, it is metastable – in a state of constant internal agitation, tension or resonance, able to respond and ready to jump.” [pg12/20]

My thesis is dealing with pro-active somatic adaptation, so the work this collective is involved with and their structure is going to be exceptionally compelling.

On the article “Strength In Numbers” by David Solomon

Taking on the example of the original and new design competition for the WTC, David pointed out a similar fact of how the higher deciding powers tend to favor design from an individual celebrity identity as opposed to a better one that is collaboratively produced. It is interesting how he mentioned that when the balance tend to shift to aspects like power and the enourmous possibility of control that comes with it, in a work involving many individuals it is easy to create a unity that is disparate in the mechanical way it was created with separately finished elements, compared to an intricately unified elements that collaboratively begins from early on.  It is unfortunate that this is the case, but in a collaboration where individuality at its utmost is not valued more than the collective inputs of all that are involved, the result is undeniably a strength in numbers instead of a hindrance in numbers. It means achieving a unity of a complexly integrated whole in which each elements speaks to one another instead of a unity in the sense of a grouping of elements in which nothing relates to the other.  The more is the merrier when we are able to start being open to the various “personal interpretations” that David described and include it in the ongoing work process. “Numbers” has enourmous potentials and therefore should be taken as an added value to strengthen the foundation of a project.

Designing Commonspaces: Riffing with Michael Hardt on the Multitude and Collective Intelligence

Summary: This article is looking at how a currant disintegration of the boundaries between public and private pose new design problems for designing social space. The practice of architecture is also affected as design occupations are influenced by social power. The boundaries of the institution of architecture are blurred as well, allowing the expertise of design to leak out into other activities. Not only that, the blur of boundaries also affects the collective intelligence of  design. When the lines between private and public were more distinctly defined there was a more distinct “common place” where the interactions between different groups could lead to advancing transformation, innovation, and greater diversity. As those boundaries are distorted there becomes a need to design a “commons” and to establish relationships for the exchange of knowledge and “collective intelligence” about space and design.

New:

-Learning new ways of designing social space from social movements (i.e. WTO protests)

Noteworthy:

-Observing how architecture is tending towards moving beyond the boundaries of the institution of architecture and using design logic for various other social activities

-The development of mobile business models that shift architecture from being a problem solving “service profession” to a more innovation-focused and research-based practice.

-”Every form of production becomes a problem of design” raising the power and importance of design

-Design occupations can never be free from social power

Points of Contention:

-None that came to my attention

-Any thoughts or ideas…?

analog meeting notes

the meeting today was great… it was very efficieant… concerns varied from the lack of personal contact to the emotional infustructure of our palm pilots. overall I give the  meeting a grade on the 12 point scale an 8. good work guys it could of been a little more interesting but your hearts were in the right place

COLLABORATION: Cause and Effect

The article ”Does Collaboration Work”, written by Kevin Kennon, reflects on the role of past architects and attempts to unravel the developed character flaws preventing successful and productive collaboration.  He concludes that the evident arrogance and egotism developed from the predominantly desired “architect/hero” role is incapacitating current attempts at collaboration, and in order for it to become successful we must reevaluate ourselves and our goals to focus on “the greater good” rather than ourselves. 

 

I would have to agree completely with Kennon’s observations.  It seems evident to me that the causes for these current problems are a direct result of the professions evolution, that is the inevitable growth and advancement of the building industry itself.  As the need for collaboration is a direct result of the advancements made in the profession, so must we adapt and develop the skills necessary to accommodate it.

A world of utopian idealists bent on perfection working together?

When the issue of collaboration comes to mind, one may think of “Many hands make light work”. Although in the profession where the ones collaborating are designers, what amount of hands can  a team have before the team combusts?

Today’s requirements of an architect differ from the traditional view of the hero architect (although some many argue that keeping the facade of the hero architect is part of the requirement as well). Understanding collaboration is inherent to what one is called up to do when helming a project. Organizing different specialists to produce a final product is collaboration after all. However, that can be considered an overseers job, or a glorified ______(ad lib). Is that true collaboration?

Creative collaboration is different than overseeing. Throughout time we’ve seen collaborations that work…Michael and Scottie, Obi-Wan and Luke, Peanut Butter and Honey, Fire and Gasoline, etc. Well being serious for a second (Obi-Wan and Luke seriously is),  creative collaboration is a whole different monster in that each artist (which really what architects are) has their own view of what a project brings. In fact one could say that an architect’s ideological view on a project is not very plastic at all and only the projects changes with concrete forces such as budget and clientele wishes (everyone wants to get paid, right?).

So when to ideological designers come together one would think that 1+1 = 2. The more, the better, like some super zord of designage. But in fact it is hard to look at someone else’s design and give up your own view, detach from your fixed position that is absolutely infallible and you should get a Noble prize for your idea. But it can be done.

In fact, when a team truly collaborates, the constructive criticism creates an powerful dichotomy between your ideas and the teams. Complementing another’s weaknesses and them yours creates a full project built of a thorough understanding of the different facets a project brings. In theory this is a superior way to design, and can be self fulfilling. But there is that tiny, little detail of compromise that really is the hardest part of the project.

If a farm boy and an old man can take down the Death Star… how hard could it be to design a project with others?

abstract of collective intelligence

after reading the introduction I have boiled it down to understand what collective intelligence (CI) is… An increase in human (global) communication has allowed man to accelarate societys growth based on a function of technology. that my friends is what i think… what do you think?

Does Collaboration Work? – A Review

Referring to - Does Collaboration Work? Author Kevin Kennon describes the past and current architectural world as needing an “architect/hero” like a Homeric image of raging individualism in mythology painted by the media “demanding stars.“ Also he states that the prideful, narcissicistic architect step down to allow room for collaboration in order to attain a better end for the project.  I believe that the architect/hero type is beneficial for the architectural field as well for any field of work. This creates competition and the need to achieve and to become better. Although I do agree with some aspects of his points, I believe the biggest barrier is not the ego of architects, but the legal and economic barriers that are currently hindering full collaborative work. Liability issues are the biggest hurdle in the current architectural field. No firm will fully invest themselves in a collaborative project unless they know that the liability risks of the work of other firms and consultants will not come back to bite them. The other issue is that of economics. It costs more. More professionals fully involved means a higher overall cost. In the current project delivery method, non-collaborative, there are fewer billable hours among the highest pay rates, those of the architect, designer, engineer, etc… In an integrated project delivery method, there is more collaboration among these professions. This means more money for each phase of the project. In an integrated project delivery you are suppose to save money in the construction phase to make up for dishing out more money for the more top money-earners that you will need to have involved earlier in the process. Liability and Economics out rank the ego factor of architects.