Bad Strategy and Dark Matter. Reframing Italian Architectural Debate on the Post-Pandemic

Q1 Arts and Humanities
Carlo Deregibus
{"title":"Bad Strategy and Dark Matter. Reframing Italian Architectural Debate on the Post-Pandemic","authors":"Carlo Deregibus","doi":"10.4013/sdrj.2021.141.07","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The paper investigates into the inability of Italian architectural debate to produce sensible effects on the society – architects have not been involved in any task forces, nor their proposals have been taken in account for the norms for the post-pandemic. Our hypothesis is that the suggestions emerging from the debate are much vision-oriented, but are so weak from a strategic point of view that they could even be seen as an example of bad strategy – as defined by Richard Rumelt.In the first part, through an extensive survey on various sources (e.g., interviews and video-messages on leading newspapers, social media and TV broadcasts; debates on architectural journals and web forums; official proposals and manifestoes by professional associations), the article analyses and reframes the Italian architectural debate, for highlighting and defining its strategic weakness. The second part explains the main reasons for this weakness, showing that such inefficacy comes from the inability to deal with what Dan Hill called dark matter, i.e. the network of organisations, culture, bureaucracy and norms. The final part hints at a different perspective on architectural design for better dealing with the dark matter, thus giving the possibility of changing the generic proposals into strategic ones.","PeriodicalId":52184,"journal":{"name":"Strategic Design Research Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Strategic Design Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4013/sdrj.2021.141.07","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The paper investigates into the inability of Italian architectural debate to produce sensible effects on the society – architects have not been involved in any task forces, nor their proposals have been taken in account for the norms for the post-pandemic. Our hypothesis is that the suggestions emerging from the debate are much vision-oriented, but are so weak from a strategic point of view that they could even be seen as an example of bad strategy – as defined by Richard Rumelt.In the first part, through an extensive survey on various sources (e.g., interviews and video-messages on leading newspapers, social media and TV broadcasts; debates on architectural journals and web forums; official proposals and manifestoes by professional associations), the article analyses and reframes the Italian architectural debate, for highlighting and defining its strategic weakness. The second part explains the main reasons for this weakness, showing that such inefficacy comes from the inability to deal with what Dan Hill called dark matter, i.e. the network of organisations, culture, bureaucracy and norms. The final part hints at a different perspective on architectural design for better dealing with the dark matter, thus giving the possibility of changing the generic proposals into strategic ones.
坏策略和暗物质。重构意大利大流行后的建筑辩论
本文调查了意大利建筑辩论无法对社会产生合理影响的问题——建筑师没有参与任何特别工作组,他们的建议也没有被考虑到大流行后的规范。我们的假设是,辩论中出现的建议在很大程度上是以愿景为导向的,但从战略角度来看,它们是如此薄弱,以至于它们甚至可以被视为糟糕战略的一个例子——正如理查德·鲁梅尔特(Richard Rumelt)所定义的那样。在第一部分中,通过对各种来源的广泛调查(例如,主要报纸,社交媒体和电视广播的采访和视频信息;建筑期刊和网络论坛上的辩论;官方提案和专业协会的宣言),文章分析和重构了意大利建筑辩论,以突出和定义其战略弱点。第二部分解释了这种弱点的主要原因,表明这种无能来自于无法处理丹·希尔所说的暗物质,即组织网络、文化、官僚主义和规范。最后一部分暗示了一种不同的建筑设计角度,以更好地处理暗物质,从而提供了将一般建议转变为战略建议的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Strategic Design Research Journal
Strategic Design Research Journal Arts and Humanities-Arts and Humanities (all)
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
26 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信