ARX, model thinking: taxonomy and operativity of an architectural process

The purpose of this work was to establish a taxonomy of hand made model construction as a platform for an approach to project an operative method in architecture. It was therefore studied and catalogued in a systematic approach a broad model production in the work of ARX. A wide range of families and sub-families of models were found, with different purposes according to each phase of development, from searching steps for a new possible configuration to detailed refined decisions. This working method revealed as most relevant characteristics, the grounds for a potential personal reflection and open discussion on project method, its flexibility on space modeling, an accuracy on the representation of real construction situations and its constant and stimulating opening to new suggestions. This research helped on a meta-reflection about this method, having been useful on creating a consciousness of processes that pretend to become an autonomous language, knowledge that might become useful to those who pretend to implement a haptic modus operandi in the work of an architectural project.

Systems thinking: learning or driving?

The ability to foresee how behaviour of a system arises from the interaction of its components over time - i.e. its dynamic complexity – is seen an important ability to take effective decisions in our turbulent world. Dynamic complexity emerges frequently from interrelated simple structures, such as stocks and flows, feedbacks and delays (Forrester, 1961). Common sense assumes an intuitive understanding of their dynamic behaviour. However, recent researches have pointed to a persistent and systematic error in people understanding of those building blocks of complex systems. This paper describes an empirical study concerning the native ability to understand systems thinking concepts. Two different groups - one, academic, the other, professional – submitted to four tasks, proposed by Sweeney and Sterman (2000) and Sterman (2002). The results confirm a poor intuitive understanding of the basic systems concepts, even when subjects have background in mathematics and sciences.

Systems thinking: learning or driving?

The ability to foresee how behaviour of a system arises from the interaction of its components over time - i.e. its dynamic complexity – is seen an important ability to take effective decisions in our turbulent world. Dynamic complexity emerges frequently from interrelated simple structures, such as stocks and flows, feedbacks and delays (Forrester, 1961). Common sense assumes an intuitive understanding of their dynamic behaviour. However, recent researches have pointed to a persistent and systematic error in people understanding of those building blocks of complex systems. This paper describes an empirical study concerning the native ability to understand systems thinking concepts. Two different groups - one, academic, the other, professional – submitted to four tasks, proposed by Sweeney and Sterman (2000) and Sterman (2002). The results confirm a poor intuitive understanding of the basic systems concepts, even when subjects have background in mathematics and sciences.