Compromise

I always thought of it as the job of a designer to optimise the compromises.

 

As I said, you have to define the perspective and the context you are looking the things. We have to be careful how we use each word, cause looking something from a different perspective can create big misunderstandings. Like each one of us looking each side of a coin, and insisting that my "view" is the right one.

From a philosophical point of view, we can spent countless hours discussing and arguing which side is the right one.

From a more realistic point of view, if we see it more wide, more open, more global, you can understand that each design is a compromise, designed and constructed to perform a specific task optimally. However, you have to pay attention to the word "a". Only one thing. If you like to emphasize in ONLY one aspect, then yeah, I agree with you, we can and in real world we do, optimize a design, almost any design, for a specific task.

But if you see it more wider, nothing is perfect, nothing is fully optimized, and because I like to speak more widely, and not trying to nitpicking (if you allow me to use this expression since English is not my mother language), I follow the opinion of the others, that a design is a compromise, optimized for A specific task. No more, no less.

If you like to emphasize and focus on that task, ok. But then I wonder if by focusing on the tree, you will loose the forest.......

 

Lets say I present a brief to a yacht designer. That consists of the following requirements:

1. The boat must have somewhere I can sit all crew in shelter and a deck they can stand and walk on without undue risk of falling off.

2. The boat will be used for brief outings of up to 4 hours on the lake with a maximum of six people.

3. The boat must comply with any regulations applying to the lake.

4. It will be operated from a sheltered but 5m deep mooring and used in a sheltered lake with maximum fetch of 5km. (The lake varies in depth between 5 and 15m.)

5. It must be capable of 6kts using diesel fuel.

6. The length cannot exceed 15m.

7. The budget for design and build is AUD1M.


What requirement here is likely to be subject to compromise? There must be some because it has been clearly stated that ALL THINGS IN YACHT DESIGN ARE A COMPROMISE.

If I could not find a designer that could achieve these requirements WITHOUT COMPROMISE I would be amazed.

Rick W

 

Ok, but the very list is a result of compromise, isn't it?
For example, the item n.3 alone "The boat must comply with any regulations applying to the lake" will determine a number of sub-sequent compromises regarding - for example, the minimum weight (due to safety equipment requirements, liquids storage tanks etc.), or beam (stability requirements) or else. Even the hull shape might be affected by the eventual requirements about maximum wash alowed, for example.
The list has defined boundaries inside of which you will have to find the optimum, but the very fact that you are operating in a bounded design space implicate that this optimum will probably not be an absolute one, but a local one (to use mathematical terms).

 

Correct, and I thought about addressing this but the horse got in the way and told me that I only had around 800 grand for the project too. I guess gold plated faucets are out now.

 

Which of my requirements are you going to ask me to compromise on? I only want to know one. Willallison suggested ALL THINGS IN YACHT DESIGN were a compromise. I have my doubts that you can nominate one single item on the list that is likely to be compromised. To say they ALL need to be compromised is absurd.

I can reasonably predict any competent designer would be able to deliver within the design space I have nominated without compromise. Tell me which requirement cannot be met and a good reason why?

Rick W.

 

To encourage an optimum outcome I might offer you a bonus of half share of the difference between the actual cost to build and my target budget.

But I could be someone with a need for a boat without complication and a wad of money to spend on said boat. Just get on and do the design. Tell me if you need a decision on any of my requirements - here's 10% of the budget to cover the design fee. I want a target estimate in 3 months.

I would expect a creative professional designer to produce something he could be proud of and would make me very satisfied and I would not be asked to compromise on any of my requirements.

Rick W

 

If you want to see how such alliance arrangements are framed in real life for large infrastructure projects in Australia I will be happy to give you document references but only through private email.

Rick W

 

Rick, I am mostly a lurker but do not understand your stance on arguing and having the last word in substantive boating sections. What is the point or what do you intend on achieving in this printed format? The poll stands on its own merits no matter your personal ability and skill level.

 

No, we are not saying the same thing here. I am not saying that the SOR has to be compromised during the design process (but sometimes it does, if it is done in an incongruous way). I am saying that this particular SOR itself is a result of a compromise, at least one (item n.3). But, generally speaking, any time there is a numerical value in a SOR, that number must have come out of some logical process which has taken into consideration other values, with their pros and cons. Once a consistent SOR has been created, the optimization process can start and a design delivered which satisfies the said SOR.

Damn, does it really sound so arguable to you? To me it doesn't.

 

Well, the way I see it, is like this:

From the moment that something it has been optimized for a specific task, by definition, it will not be optimized for another.

Simple as this, but maybe I have a very simple brain also.......

As I said, I can understand the point of Rick.

That is : Optimization for A SPECIFIC task. Is this achievable? Hell yeah in my opinion. (Look the Formula 1 cars. Pure specialization, therefore pure optimization for single oriented task)

But the question is not this. The question is: Can we design the optimum boat/car/airplane/bike/what ever?

Nope, if we want ONE boat/car/airplane/bike/what ever to perform ALL the tasks perfect (or optimum). We CANNOT. That is the reason that you have so many different designs.

 

Daiquiri is perfectly right.

I have changed two little things in the requirements.

1. The boat must have somewhere I can sit all crew in shelter and a deck they can stand and walk on without undue risk of falling off.

2. The boat will be used for brief outings of up to 4 hours on the lake with a maximum of six people.

3. The boat must comply with any regulations applying to the lake.

4. It will be operated from a sheltered but 5m deep mooring and used in a sheltered lake with maximum fetch of 5km. (The lake varies in depth between 5 and 15m.)

5. It must be capable of 6kts using diesel fuel. 60 kts on electricity for 4 hours.

6. The length cannot exceed 15m.

7. The budget for design and build is AUD1M. AUD5000


It is now a whole different story. nobody will be able to design it.
The compromise are the values one have choosen in the requirements.

 

Ok, I'll take on the challange of showing you where the compromise is.

3. The boat must comply with any regulations applying to the lake.
&
5. It must be capable of 6kts using diesel fuel.

You see, what the customer forgot to say is that the lake is a watershed supply that does not allow internal combustion engines to be on the lake. (it was the 5m minimum depth that should have been the givaway that we are talking about a man-made reservoir). However, as you have proposed in other threads, the customer is always right. So do you:
a) tell the customer he is wrong
b) propose a compromise
c) violate your professional ethics and civil law and build it for the customer anyway.

 

I really fail to see what all the fuss is about here! If there's one aspect of yacht design that is a widely accepted fact, it is that every design involves compromise.
Clearly Willallisons posts are not suggesting that the designer should simply opt for the easiest option - the one which is least work for the designer. Rick's position seems to largely be an argument in semantics.

 

I would dare say that all computer programs used to optimize a solution do in themselves contain many assumptions and are therefore compromises that cannot optimize. There is still not substitute for a good eye and common sense.