The role of time frames in design decision-making

Abstract This paper discusses the value of time frame discrepancies as a means of accounting for certain aspects of uncertainty confronting design decision-makers. Such discrepancies are distinguished from organizational lag by reference to a systems framework. Three case studies indicate the capabilities of a provisional taxonomy for the identification of time frames appropriate to each level of planning and design activity.

[1]  J. Spigelman,et al.  The Nuclear Barons , 1981 .

[2]  Lawrence B. Mohr,et al.  Conceptual issues in the study of innovation , 1976 .

[3]  Claudio R. Frischtak,et al.  Technological innovation and long waves , 1984 .

[4]  A. Stinchcombe.  Stratification and Organization: Bureaucratic and craft administration of production: a comparative study , 1959 .

[5]  David A. Buchanan,et al.  Organizations in the computer age : technological imperatives and strategic choice , 1983 .

[6]  F. Damanpour,et al.  Organizational innovation and performance: The problem of "organizational lag." , 1984 .

[7]  Lex Donaldson,et al.  ORGANIZATION DESIGN AND THE LIFE‐CYCLES OF PRODUCTS [1] , 1985 .

[8]  Mark Stephens,et al.  Three Mile Island , 1980 .

[9]  Carlota Perez,et al.  Structural change and assimilation of new technologies in the economic and social systems , 1983 .

[10]  D. Collingridge.  Critical decision making , 1982 .

[11]  K. Weick.  Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems , 1976, Gestión y Estrategia.

[12]  E. Rogers.  Diffusion of Innovations , 1962 .

[13]  James M. Utterback,et al.  Innovation in Industry and the Diffusion of Technology , 1974, Science.

[14]  Keith Pavitt,et al.  Technical Innovation and British Economic Performance , 1982 .

[15]  G. Gurvitch,et al.  The Spectrum of Social Time , 1963 .

[16]  Mary Kaldor,et al.  The Baroque Arsenal , 1982 .

[17]  N. Rosenberg.  Technological Interdependence in the American Economy , 2023 .

[18]  Robert B. Glassman,et al.  Persistence and loose coupling in living systems , 1973 .

[19]  M. Aiken,et al.  The Organic Organization and Innovation , 1971 .

[20]  S. E. Little,et al.  Incremental and systemic innovation strategies: reflections of technical choice , 1987 .

[21]  A. Gouldner,et al.  Metaphysical Pathos and the Theory of Bureaucracy , 1955, American Political Science Review.

[22]  Elliott Jaques,et al.  Measurement Of Responsibility , 1956 .

[23]  M. F. Cantley,et al.  Strategy for R & D , 1968 .

[24]  C. Perrow,et al.  Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay. , 1975 .

[25]  Donald B. Fedor,et al.  Myth Making: A Qualitative Step in OD Interventions , 1982 .

[26]  W. Richard Scott.  Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems , 1981 .

[27]  Jay R. Galbraith.  Organization Design , 1977 .

[28]  M. Hannan,et al.  Structural Inertia and Organizational Change , 1984 .

[29]  Joan C. Woodward,et al.  Industrial Organisation: Theory and Practice , 1966 .

[30]  Lawrence B. Mohr,et al.  Determinants of Innovation in Organizations , 1969, American Political Science Review.

[31]  A. Giddens.  Central Problems In Social Theory , 1979 .

[32]  H. Faber.  Designing the Future — the implications of CAD interactive graphics for employment and skills in the British engineering industry: E Arnold and P Senker EITB, Watford, UK (1982) 52pp , 1983 .

[33]  A. Gouldner.  The dialectic of ideology and technology , 1976 .

[34]  D. L. Simms,et al.  Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies , 1986 .

[35]  Philip Selznick.  TVA and the grass roots , 1949 .

[36]  Anthony Giddens,et al.  A contemporary critique of historical materialism , 1981 .