A better approach to desing may be teachable.

The Goal is the desired result, not the process of getting there, as how you get there may have to change along the way. I've seen this theme expressed in books, such as John Scalzi's recent Emperox series.

I'd say the idea is not anything new, but people articulating it now might be.

John :-#)#

Good designs should fight with you a little, but not too much.

That is to say I would've given up on using an analog switch made of discrete FETs for that switchable attenuator problem they're still going on about ages ago

It also reminded my of my career in Electronics for 45 years but with different words.

I learnt it was more important to work towards multiple skills and talent stacks than to focus on goals. Then to trust others but verify. Yet you cannot design anything new without measurable specs.

What they (Psych's) call it What I might call it

------------------------ ------------------------ Metacognitive Theory Talent stacks or Skillsets, domains self-questioning Socratic method Meditation Calm focus or with extreme loud music Reflection Design Reviews, Lessons Learnt SWOT Awareness: Strengths Analog, Dig., RF, S/W code+lang Weaknesses Academics or uber experience, Opportunities Cognitive Skills, jobs hopping Threats Office Politics and Rumour mill common Learning styles Visual Auditory Kinesthetic Logical-Mathematical Interpersonal Intrapersonal Mnemonic aids Schematics Writing down your working Spec's with progressive details Thinking loud Scrum match, Morning meetings Graphic Organizers Ghant, Pert & Bubble Charts Mindmaps Regulation Checklists Design plan, Environmental Plan, Sched Active Reading Strategies Scan, process, predict, verify

Why would you bother learning new skills and acquiring new talents if you couldn't see an area where you would put them to use?

There's no point in designing anything if you don't know roughly what it is going to be used for. The specification nails down what it will be able to do, and lets people tell you if it is enough to justify making the effort to get it working.

There's no point in designing anything if you don't know roughly what it is going to be used for. The specification nails down what it will be able to do, and lets people tell you if it is enough to justify making the effort to get it working.

Yes but irrelevant. There needs to be a demand for something to be worthwhile doing was assumed. But defining the specs as the end result is 1st step in achieving the purpose. Then if it meets spec, it is perfect. Nice have's are optional. But the design process itself requires new talent stacks to achieve the need result so focusing on the budget time for learning these new skills and talents is more important than just hoping to meet the specs with what you know. In other words continuously learning better, faster ways of solving problems is the goal in design to accelerate skills quickly.

Fun and satisfaction. The best possible reasons, other than simple survival.

My father made himself a jacket, only so that he could understand how it was done.

It was wearable, although it looked a little "lived in" from day one :)

ou couldn't see an area where you would put them to use?

This is putting the cart before the horse. Nobody is going to put in the ti me to learn a new skills if they don't have a fairly clear idea of where th ey can apply it. You may need to put in enough time to learn that these ski lls exist, and what they might do for you if you ever had an application fo r them, but that is a much less time-consuming exercise.

Perhaps, but it does need to be goal-directed. If you haven't got something you might want to do, you aren't going to learn something new on the off-c hance that you might find a project where you might exploit them.

Back when I was a chemist I learned how to program a computer because I was dealing with chemical problems that involved serious number crunching, not because I though the capacity to program a computer was a cool skill to ha ve.

The goal is to design things that are easy to build, reliable, and that sell. Often we don't even know exactly what a product will do, when the design is started.

Applying any rigid methology to design will probably be a loser.

Design can be taught to people with the required talents, but not by applying academic theories. I teach my engineers what a great asset confusion is. I lead by example.

I work with companies who have standard top-down design methodologies. It takes them years to develop mediocre stuff. Their sunk-cost numbers are astounding.

Our specs usually follow analysis and testing of interesting designs, unless a customer provides them first, which is unusual.

Yes. When some unexpected thing invokes curious possibilities, it's fun to explore a little, even if it's not obvious why. It's impressive how often off-the-track discoveries turn out to be useful later. And curiosity and learning are good habits to nurture.

We document our goofball experiments, so the learning or failures can be shared. We have a couple hundred such cases by now.

Bill doesn't design electronics and it sounds like he doesn't have much fun. That probably derives from his academic background, where a nose-to-the-grindwheel approach is standard. I hired one PhD once, and will never do that again.

There's a market for very well-specified, well-documented mediocre stuff

Yes, the definition of mediocre is acceptable rather than good. No waste on unneeded features/aspects. It is what every product should be.

Well-documented, on the other hand, is a rare and welcome feature that is often missing in even otherwise excellent products.

I don't recall anyone complaining that a product manual was written in too high a quality of English or that it was overly clear or that the illustrations were excessively detailed.

No, my router doesn't need to be received on the next block or even the next house. But I do need to be able to understand how to set it up.

Can't we have well-documented products that are just good, rather than excellent, for a fair price?

I guess we can't have nice things.

That was baked into the HP Way. People were explicitly allowed to use company components for their home projects, on the principles that it encouraged two-way trust, kept people happy, and might possibly benefit the company in the future.

Also happened informally at another company I worked for, Cambridge Consultants (CCL).

Who was it who said that the most exciting phrase in science isn't "eureka!", but is "...that's funny..."

Avoiding the "stigma" associated with "failure" is often helpful.

This company makes some of the most advanced electric guitar bridges in the world but their documentation is some of the worst i've ever seen, it was a 1 page photocopy that was hardly legible.

Imagine how many they'd sell if they gave instructions on how to install them! Maybe they just figure at that price point anyone buying will just hire a pro.

Meanwhile I've seen small kits of build-your-own-guitar electronics parts on Amazon for $30; the parts are nothing special but the documentation is excellent, big full color wiring diagrams on high-quality paper with lots of legible explanatory text. They sell quite well

Yes, but since most anyone can do mediocre, it's inherently competitive, so the margins are low.

And the specs are often suspect. Even Tek plays games these days.

ff

te on unneeded features/aspects. It is what every product should be.

is often missing in even otherwise excellent products.

too high a quality of English or that it was overly clear or that the illus trations were excessively detailed.

next house. But I do need to be able to understand how to set it up.

That would be a step up from most products. Sometimes things work like the y really should, but mostly they work "well enough" to get by. You can nea rly always find products that are better than just "good enough", but they cost more when you find them. That is the commensurate "fair" price.

Products are made not to fill a need, but to create profit. Filling a need is the path taken by many products to create profit. You can't expect som eone to give up the profit motive.

You can have nice things. But you have to pay for them appropriately so th e people involved in creating and making them can also have nice things.

er that is probably on-topic in a design group.

g out new design has been ripping up what initially looked like promising a pproaches and starting over.

ey talk about as a strategic mind-set - more emphasis on where you want to end up than on any particular way of getting there.

Care to explain what a bunch of academic psychologists would know about thi s subject, or any other subject for that matter. This is just another phony paper from the National Academy of Sycophants, really overdoing it with au thors too stupid to learn the applicable extant science, so they just make stuff up as they go along. They're all insane with schizophrenia which is k nown to manifest itself this way. This is an even dumber cite than that las t joke pretending to study the efficacy of masks in preventing infection. I guess it escaped you they were using data from influenza studies.

I can just image the committee sitting around the table.

Today's agenda: How do we want to design this one?

One more day lost in the schedule.

RL