My reasonings for Evaluating OBREDIMET (OBR) and N.E.T (NET)
1. How much observation and interaction has lead to this design? OBR is hot on observation.(5) NET requires less (3) Its more about focussed observation and micro design, whilest you observe the bigger picture.
2. How much energy is caught and stored? OBR you spend less time implementing and more time scheming (1) NET (2) more likely to implement a small solution and capture energy.
3. How much yield does is produced? Like 2. NET is more likely to produce a yield because its implementable.
4.How much feedback is allowed? OBR much of the feedback is a mental projection of scenarios which are then dealt with in the grand design.Feedback is low because the design is done in big chunks. (2) NET relies on a constant ‘Tweaking’ feedback loop to achieve the big design. (4)
5. How much renewable resources and services does it use? Not sure about this so I put in an arbitary (3) for both.
6. How much waste does this system produce? OBR can be very wasteful because it can lead to unimplemented designs and over implemented designs that need undone and scaled down. (1). NET will produce waste but because the tweeks normally are low input and of a more temporary ‘wait and see’ nature the relative waste is low. This is one of the major advantages of this approach. (4)
7. How much has this design been worked from patterns to details? OBR has the bigger picture in mind alot (5) NET has a more hazy fluid view of the bigger picture, so it can be harder to fit things into a bigger pattern at it is emerging. (3)
8. How integrated is the solution? OBR can seem more integrated on paper(3.5), but NET is probably more integrated in practice in a more ramshackle way (3)
9. How small and slow are the solutions? OBR’s investment in pre design means solutions are often bigger (2). NET’s less personal investment in the sloution often lend them to more temporary small and slow solutions that can be altered. (5)
10. How much diversity does it value? OBR(3) NET a bit more because its nature allows it to be applied to marginal elements in the design because of its lower upfront investment of effort. (4)
11. How much does it use edges and the marginal? OBR values the marginal by applying the permaculture approach. (3) Needs and problems normally happen at the ‘edges’ so NET highly values these and responds and tweeks them continually. (4)
12. How does this solution encourage creative use and response to change? OBR has more of a grand plan feel and is more reluctant to change (1), NET is actively seeking to use change and the engine of incremental design (5).
Obesrvations of the footprint.
OBR is very strong on observation and bigger picture designing, however its main weakness is that it can be wasteful because designs become less incremental and more ‘grand designs’ all or nothing results.
NET has a different orientation majoring on small and slow solutions. It has a more even footprint across the principles.
1. How much observation and interaction has lead to this design? OBR is hot on observation.(5) NET requires less (3) Its more about focussed observation and micro design, whilest you observe the bigger picture.
2. How much energy is caught and stored? OBR you spend less time implementing and more time scheming (1) NET (2) more likely to implement a small solution and capture energy.
3. How much yield does is produced? Like 2. NET is more likely to produce a yield because its implementable.
4.How much feedback is allowed? OBR much of the feedback is a mental projection of scenarios which are then dealt with in the grand design.Feedback is low because the design is done in big chunks. (2) NET relies on a constant ‘Tweaking’ feedback loop to achieve the big design. (4)
5. How much renewable resources and services does it use? Not sure about this so I put in an arbitary (3) for both.
6. How much waste does this system produce? OBR can be very wasteful because it can lead to unimplemented designs and over implemented designs that need undone and scaled down. (1). NET will produce waste but because the tweeks normally are low input and of a more temporary ‘wait and see’ nature the relative waste is low. This is one of the major advantages of this approach. (4)
7. How much has this design been worked from patterns to details? OBR has the bigger picture in mind alot (5) NET has a more hazy fluid view of the bigger picture, so it can be harder to fit things into a bigger pattern at it is emerging. (3)
8. How integrated is the solution? OBR can seem more integrated on paper(3.5), but NET is probably more integrated in practice in a more ramshackle way (3)
9. How small and slow are the solutions? OBR’s investment in pre design means solutions are often bigger (2). NET’s less personal investment in the sloution often lend them to more temporary small and slow solutions that can be altered. (5)
10. How much diversity does it value? OBR(3) NET a bit more because its nature allows it to be applied to marginal elements in the design because of its lower upfront investment of effort. (4)
11. How much does it use edges and the marginal? OBR values the marginal by applying the permaculture approach. (3) Needs and problems normally happen at the ‘edges’ so NET highly values these and responds and tweeks them continually. (4)
12. How does this solution encourage creative use and response to change? OBR has more of a grand plan feel and is more reluctant to change (1), NET is actively seeking to use change and the engine of incremental design (5).
Obesrvations of the footprint.
OBR is very strong on observation and bigger picture designing, however its main weakness is that it can be wasteful because designs become less incremental and more ‘grand designs’ all or nothing results.
NET has a different orientation majoring on small and slow solutions. It has a more even footprint across the principles.
