http://liftlab.com/think/nova/2007/01/17/chance-meetings-at-the-rand/ mind/tech bazar from outer space Thu, 18 Mar 2010 04:56:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=wordpress-mu-1.2.1 http://liftlab.com/think/nova/2007/01/17/chance-meetings-at-the-rand/#comment-231344 Kazys Varnelis Fri, 19 Jan 2007 03:19:16 +0000 http://liftlab.com/think/nova/2007/01/17/chance-meetings-at-the-rand/#comment-231344 Architecture, like all mechanisms of control, does have the ability to shape our environments but also inevitably has a layer of indeterminacy about it. Clever architects can exploit the latter. The writings of Bernard Tschumi (another Swiss!) are probably your best bet for this. In any event, I wanted to mention Michael Kubo's essay on the Rand Corporation. See <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Verb-Connection-Albert-Ferre/dp/8495951061" rel="nofollow">Verb Connection"</a> for that. Architecture, like all mechanisms of control, does have the ability to shape our environments but also inevitably has a layer of indeterminacy about it. Clever architects can exploit the latter. The writings of Bernard Tschumi (another Swiss!) are probably your best bet for this. In any event, I wanted to mention Michael Kubo’s essay on the Rand Corporation. See Verb Connection” for that.

]]> http://liftlab.com/think/nova/2007/01/17/chance-meetings-at-the-rand/#comment-231018 Mads Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:06:40 +0000 http://liftlab.com/think/nova/2007/01/17/chance-meetings-at-the-rand/#comment-231018 I wonder if we are sometimes making too much of the way architecture shape us, shapes its users? I recently read about this large consulting firm who had fine architects come and talk to the users of the future building in an attempt to facilitate more knowledge sharing and informal (and valuable) smalltalk and socializing. Accordingly the closed offices were abandoned in favour of an open floor plan (a classic), but no sign of knowledge sharing. Why? Because the economic structure of the organization was beneficial to individuals, not groups - in other words, you were not payed to share knowledge, but to come up with results - the incitement structure was based on individual efforts, not on groups or sharing as implied by the architects and the company. The company was still hierarchical in terms of economic structure, benefit structure etc. Nevertheless, the company prided itself of its innovation and ability to facilitate knowledge sharing. Pure bullshit of course, but part of every major company's innovation discourse these days. What I'm trying to say is: Are we being too optimistic about the ways architecture (physical or digital) enables people to share, to socialize etc. Do the true challenges not lie elsewhere? I wonder if we are sometimes making too much of the way architecture shape us, shapes its users? I recently read about this large consulting firm who had fine architects come and talk to the users of the future building in an attempt to facilitate more knowledge sharing and informal (and valuable) smalltalk and socializing. Accordingly the closed offices were abandoned in favour of an open floor plan (a classic), but no sign of knowledge sharing. Why? Because the economic structure of the organization was beneficial to individuals, not groups - in other words, you were not payed to share knowledge, but to come up with results - the incitement structure was based on individual efforts, not on groups or sharing as implied by the architects and the company. The company was still hierarchical in terms of economic structure, benefit structure etc. Nevertheless, the company prided itself of its innovation and ability to facilitate knowledge sharing. Pure bullshit of course, but part of every major company’s innovation discourse these days. What I’m trying to say is: Are we being too optimistic about the ways architecture (physical or digital) enables people to share, to socialize etc. Do the true challenges not lie elsewhere?

]]>