INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

Is this true?

Any topic related to science can be discussed here.
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24065
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Is this true?

#41 Post by Alan H » September 30th, 2009, 4:46 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

It is wrong to isolate just one of the functions of a wristwatch: it works as a wristwatch because it is convenient and has a good battery life as well as being a reliable indicator of time. The MUF of a wristwatch is that it is a wristwatch and this is not replaced by a phone. In fact, it may never be replaced without phones becoming something they currently are not and losing many other functions that they currently provide.

There is no need to split off any posts here: many threads go off at tangents from time to time and these diversions are sometimes interesting.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nirvanam
Posts: 1023
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm

Re: Is this true?

#42 Post by Nirvanam » September 30th, 2009, 5:13 pm

Alan H wrote:It is wrong to isolate just one of the functions of a wristwatch: it works as a wristwatch because it is convenient and has a good battery life as well as being a reliable indicator of time. The MUF of a wristwatch is that it is a wristwatch and this is not replaced by a phone. In fact, it may never be replaced without phones becoming something they currently are not and losing many other functions that they currently provide.

There is no need to split off any posts here: many threads go off at tangents from time to time and these diversions are sometimes interesting.
Again, it is not the wrist watch needing replacement. It is the function getting performed. That is where the main difference in thinking comes thru in TRIZ philosophy: system exists to perform one or more functions. If one system can perform 2 functions 'effectively and efficiently enough' why do I need to waste money, space, energy on 2 things?

The moment the MUF of wrist watch becomes something other than "telling time" it is no longer a wrist watch it has become a wrist 'something else'. If a cell phone is designed such that it can be strapped onto your wrist, we won't call it a wrist watch although it tells time. It may probably be called a wrist phone.

So, do we absolutely need wrist watches to "tell time"...nope. But individuals have wrist watches that serve other functions that are not done by other systems they carry therefore they continue to use the wrist watches. For example a diver may have some kind of water pressure instrument integrated into his wrist watch so he needs the wrist watch. Now this wrist watch is performing 2 MUF's - one is telling time and second is "water pressure measuring". Also it becomes 2 MUFs only in the space-time of when he is under water. As long as he is not under water it still remains 1 MUF. Now if a cell phone manufacturer also included a functionality of measuring water pressure then even this fellow will not need a wrist watch.

The moment I realized the system-function concept back in early 2004 and looked at my wrist watch with new eyes I stopped wearing it. At least I have never been in a situation where I needed to know the time and wasn't able to know it for more than 2-3 minutes.

Fia
Posts: 5480
Joined: July 6th, 2007, 8:29 pm

Re: Is this true?

#43 Post by Fia » September 30th, 2009, 10:52 pm

Maybe I'm just being dense here, but
Now if a cell phone manufacturer also included a functionality of measuring water pressure then even this fellow will not need a wrist watch.
doesn't make any functional sense unless the cell phone is waterproof and can be strapped to a diver's wrist, which even at the miniscule size they make them now would be impractical for diving. And how on earth would the diver be able to utilise the tiny tiny keys with diving gloves on :shrug:

I need a wristwatch which is analogue and has a large face, so I can instantly see the time at a glance. Mine does nothing else. And my mobile cannot fulfil that almost instant function for me. I'm not sure what else I'd need it to do, no date, no time, no alarm, and I'm happy with that.
Shouldn't I be?

Nirvanam
Posts: 1023
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm

Re: Is this true?

#44 Post by Nirvanam » October 1st, 2009, 12:25 pm

Fia wrote:Maybe I'm just being dense here, but
Now if a cell phone manufacturer also included a functionality of measuring water pressure then even this fellow will not need a wrist watch.
doesn't make any functional sense unless the cell phone is waterproof and can be strapped to a diver's wrist, which even at the miniscule size they make them now would be impractical for diving. And how on earth would the diver be able to utilise the tiny tiny keys with diving gloves on :shrug:

I need a wristwatch which is analogue and has a large face, so I can instantly see the time at a glance. Mine does nothing else. And my mobile cannot fulfil that almost instant function for me. I'm not sure what else I'd need it to do, no date, no time, no alarm, and I'm happy with that.
Shouldn't I be?
Definitely Fia! For you as an individual your requirement is just to tell time without alarm, with analog, and so on. So you will choose to look at a wrist watch as a better option than cell phone. From a business' perspective, the organization that is manufacturing wrist watches sometime in the future will be faced with this question: do we have enough customers like Fia who want wrist watches only to tell time? If the predicted number is below a certain acceptable level, they'll obviously diversify/add new functionality to attract new customers/or close shop.

As far as water proof cellphone is concerned, I agree it is yet to be manufactured. The moment an entrepreneur or a current cell phone manufacturer figures that such a need exists in the market and there is enough potential to make money out of it, they WILL research it and develop it. This is Technical System Evolution. This happens, whether you or I like it or not. What the TRIZ body of knowledge is doing is putting all these so far ad hoc-ly done inventions into a concept called "Trends of Evolution" and now it has taken a further step to evolve the concept to "Directed Evolution" where businesses "predict" how the system will evolve in the future and whether it has reached its full potential...based on that they decide whether to continue to improve an existing system (99% of time this is what is usually done because many systems still wouldn't have reached ideality) or work on building a new system.

So your problem of "water pressure measuring" with wrist phone, and the size of buttons, display size, etc will more or less get developed as the need (from a business perspective) becomes apparent and follow the same trend of evolution.

Just look at a normal cell phone for example - the first ones were as big as cordless phones...they have evolved. There was only talking capability, now u can text, u can email, multi-media communication, etc. I won't be surprised if desktops become redundant in 10-15 years time. If the cell phones can start building on their camera feature to have a resolution as good as a digital camera and other functionality...why would the average Joe (not the photography experts and professionals) want to buy a digital camera when the same functionality, same quality is coming without having to waste space in your pockets? I still own a Canon EOS 300 film camera...the problem is I can't share my photos so easily with everyone. Had it been a digital SLR, it would've been much easier. In fact the other day I was looking on the web for a "film" SLR...you don't even find them so easily. The state of wrist watches will soon reach there. It just takes one second for an individual to get hit by the idea that "hey I can tell the time without the wrist watch" and you'll see the person will think 10 times before buying a new one (he may still use his old one until it gets spoiled).

As an individual we can typically respond in the following ways to change in environment:
a) Accept it and work with it
b) Ignore it and later find out you are left behind, and then accept it
c) Deny it and stay where he or she is in his evolution (professionally, personally, whatever)

There is a 4th response that concepts like NLP, Leadership, Vedas, TRIZ, etc teach: you be the one to make the change for others to follow...then you will not have to feel the discomfort of going thru the process of accepting it at all!

Edit: probably our in-house Economist Nick can add his perspective to the business aspect

Dan
Posts: 298
Joined: November 26th, 2007, 5:05 pm

Re: Is this true?

#45 Post by Dan » October 4th, 2009, 11:04 pm

There's probably a fifth option: put the environment back the way it was. There's probably more.

But really, for all this supposedly profound namedropping of TRIZ, vedas etc etc etc, I'm seeing nothing that is really profound, and quite a lot that is trite and obvious.

So what's the point of all this verbiage? What are you trying to get at, exactly?

Dan

Nirvanam
Posts: 1023
Joined: April 15th, 2009, 11:29 pm

Re: Is this true?

#46 Post by Nirvanam » October 5th, 2009, 9:55 pm

Dan wrote:There's probably a fifth option: put the environment back the way it was. There's probably more.

But really, for all this supposedly profound namedropping of TRIZ, vedas etc etc etc, I'm seeing nothing that is really profound, and quite a lot that is trite and obvious.

So what's the point of all this verbiage? What are you trying to get at, exactly?

Dan
There is nothing profound about this.
Read the whole thread to figure out the context in which the message was posted. If you have and you are still not able to find its relevance then just forget it and move on, it really has nothing so profound in it for you to bother about it.

Dan
Posts: 298
Joined: November 26th, 2007, 5:05 pm

Re: Is this true?

#47 Post by Dan » October 6th, 2009, 6:25 pm

Nirvanam wrote:it really has nothing so profound in it for you to bother about it.
Well, that's a relief at any rate.

Dan

Post Reply