Compromise

That's a good one.

In the architecture firm I used to work at the design principal used to say; Design is the process of making decisions.

 

How about ...

"Each persons optimum solution is ths sum of the compromises they make in thier choices..."

 

Or, every decision is optimised to meet the best compromise...

 

Every design IS a compromise. First of all, between customer's wishes/budget, and reality

Talking seriousely, good design is a succesful compromise of following properties:

- aesthetics;
- performance;
- comfort;
- safety;
- cost

The importance of every property depends on design mission...

 

I will agree with this comment. I have said that maths is not an exact science... and that is because some equations have not been addressed so the answer is wrong.

 

The vote would be completely different if the questions were framed differently using the accepted meaning of the words:

Compromise: each side gives up on some demands or make concessions.

Optimise: to make the best of everything.

Compromise is combative. It is based on suspicion of each other and not fundamental understanding or knowledge. The designer takes the view that the client is out to screw him and is typical wrong. Means the designer spends a lot of time defending his stance rather than working with the client.

Optimisation is cooperative. It is based on working together to find win-win solutions at each step that were unlikely contemplated at the outset. It is an approach based in knowledge and understanding of basic principles not ill-founded and untested beliefs.

If you are the client will you want to work with the guy who is constantly telling you or arguing with you that you have to compromise on your demands or principles or do you want someone who is going to work their but off to deliver a result beyond your expectations?

Rick

 

Oh Rick, come on, please! The answer to this quest is so obvious to everybody that this issue should have been resolved long ago. But you still insist on finding a mere linguistical justification for your stance, when every single person here understands very well the significance of the word "compromise" and how it is intimately related to every single aspect of any single design, in any single engineering field.

The "optimization", which you nominate so often, can be performed only inside what you call the "design space", but is your design space unlimited? No it is not. What is the limiting factor for your design space? It's constraints.
How do you decide constraints for your design space? To put it in few words, you do it by mediating between what you would like to do (the absolute best) and what the miserable, physical, economical, real-life world permits you to do.
At the end, by having to mediate between the two worlds you necessarily operate a compromise.

Once you have compromised on your design space, you can try finding an optimum solution within it (it does not always exists, or is not always an univocal one), and that's what a good engineer or designer does.

All the rest are just linguistical games with little value for this discussion and with certainly no influence on the final product of the design process.

 

My apologies....Seems you were right all along Rick... the entire design community seems to disagree with you. We must all be wrong.... all just sloppy and lazy as you suggested....

I think we can safely put this one to bed now can't we?

 

Here's an excerpt from the preface from an old NA text by G N Hatch 1971.

[ A word which must be kept in mind by all engineers and Naval Architects is optimum,
and the art of naval architecture demands particular compliance with the necessity of achieving optimization,
which is of course the best combination of several incompatibilities. ]

 

Perfectionism can be an imperfection. An optimum compromise is negotiable.

 

Mike

I'll take your quotes and add two more:

KJ Rawson, MSc, DEng., F.Eng, RCNC, FRINA, WhSch
E.C.Tupper, BSc, C.Eng., RCNC, FRINA, WhSch

"...naval architecture involves complex compromises..."

and

BR Clayton, Lecturer Dept. Mech. Eng. UCL.
RED Bishop, Prof. Eng. UCL.

"....compromise is an important factor in design..."

and i'll take those 2 (and many many more) over

RickW's mypoic view that the whole industry is wrong and the I-am-right-attitude, despite the huge weight of evidence to the contrary.

Even the poll suggets so too...

PS
EC Tupper interviewed me for my final C.Eng. clearance. Nice chap.

 

Mike
Thanks. That aligns exactly with my view.

If there is a compromise required it is the clients responsibility not the designers prerogative. The designer has the responsibility to work toward the set objectives. Along the way if he finds there are incompatibilities or conflict with the requirements he must refer to the client not make arbitrary compromises.

Until the bounds of possible solutions are found the designer will never know if the optimum has been achieved.

Rick W

 

Willallison posted this link on another thread:
http://www.westlawn.edu/student_center/lecture1.asp

It makes reference to the word "optimum", "optimisation" or "optimise" exactly 100 times. This is what a designer should be out to achieve.

If there is compromise required it is the clients responsibility not the designers decision. The designer needs to understand the design space and what bounds it. If he finds conflict between certain requirements then they must be referred to the client for a decision. The designer should provide sufficient information so an informed decision can be made.

A designer who takes the view that the client is usually wrong is inclined to disrespect this division of responsibilities and make arbitrary unreferenced compromises on the clients behalf - a guarantee of a deteriorating relationship that reinforces the designers dim view of the client. Successful professionals have high regard for their clients and aim to deliver value.

Rick W

 

Almost everything in life IS a compromise. I do not think that something is perfect, i.e. cannot be improved in a theoretical or practical way in at least one aspect. In the university in both the undergraduate and post-graduate degree, our lecturers and professors used to tell us that any design is always a kind of compromise. But this depends the perspective you are watching that design (i.e. globally or locally).

Therefore I can understand the way Rick is disputing. You optimize something by making a compromise. I.e., you design a vessel or a propeller that performs better in specific conditions. This is optimization for a specific task ONLY. However this specific design cannot perform at the same efficiency under all conditions. Thus it is a compromise OVERALL!!!

Maybe an OPTIMUM compromise, BUT STILL a compromise.

So everything boils down to the perspective you are looking at. If you are talking for AN ALL DO DESIGN, then everything is a compromise. If you are looking for A SPECIFIC TASK/JOB DESIGN, then you can optimize to a certain degree (which can be extremely high).

As an example see the Racing Cars and Racing Boats. Optimization for A SPECIFIC TASK. OVERALL, A COMPROMISE.

So, under which perspective are we talking about?

 

The attached is what I took exception to. I strongly disagree with the sentiment that LIKE ALL THINGS IN YACHT DESIGN, PROPS ARE A COMPROMISE.

Designers who work on the basis that ALL THINGS IN DESIGN ARE A COMPROMISE are going to be arbitrarily compromising without full appreciation of the implications and are not doing their job professionally. Designers should be uncompromising, aiming to meet or exceed their client's requirements. If anyone is going to compromise it is the client's prerogative. At any point where a designer finds incompatible requirements he should prepare the facts to present to the client - not make his own decision, or compromise, based on his perception that the client is usually wrong.

Rick W