The Nature of Technology Kap 7 Flashcards
Structural Deepening (10 cards)
What does Arthur mean by internal replacement in the development of a technology, and can you give an example?
Internal replacement is the incremental improvement of a technology by swapping out a limiting component (a sub‑technology) for a superior one—perhaps with a refined design, a better material, or a borrowed solution from rival developers. For instance, jet engines advanced for decades by replacing metal alloys in hot sections with ever‑stronger, higher‑temperature super‑alloys, allowing greater thrust before heat limits were reached.
What is structural deepening, and how does it affect a technology’s complexity over time?
Structural deepening is the process of adding extra assemblies or subsystems to bypass barriers that cannot be overcome merely by swapping a part. Each add‑on enhances performance, expands operating range, handles exceptions, or improves reliability, but every layer makes the overall architecture more intricate—so mature technologies become “encrusted” with subsystems and far more complex than their crude originals.
Arthur lists four reasons why designers bolt on new subsystems during structural deepening. What are they?
Subsystems are added to
(a) enhance basic performance,
(b) monitor and react to changing or exceptional conditions,
(c) adapt the technology to a wider set of tasks or environments, and
(d) increase safety and reliability.
How did the compressor section of the jet engine illustrate structural deepening in practice?
Early turbojets used a single radial‑flow compressor; to raise pressure ratios, designers replaced it with multiple axial‑flow stages. Because axial stages still had limits, guide‑vane systems, ambient‑sensing controls, antisurge bleed‑valves, and their own sensing circuits were successively added, each layer addressing a new constraint and collectively turning one simple compressor into a hierarchy of intertwined subsystems.
Why does Arthur say that a technology often “piggybacks” on external component advances?
Because many of its parts are shared with other technologies, improvements achieved elsewhere—such as better electronic components—can be adopted “for free,” automatically upgrading the host technology without its designers having to invent those advances themselves.
What factors create lock‑in around a mature technology and slow the switch to a novel principle?
(1) Elaborations give the old technology surprisingly good performance, outclassing nascent rivals;
(2) surrounding physical infrastructure and organizations would need costly replacement; and
(3) psychological inertia—experts’ identity and comfort with the familiar—makes them resist the cognitive dissonance of a radically new approach.
Define adaptive stretch and describe when it becomes prevalent.
Adaptive stretch is the practice of pushing a locked‑in, familiar principle beyond its natural envelope—reconfiguring components or grafting on more subsystems—to meet new demands or contexts. It dominates when novel principles exist but have yet to prove themselves or when the cost and risk of switching remain too high, so designers “make do” by stretching what they already understand.
Outline the cyclical pattern of technological evolution that Arthur proposes.
A novel principle appears and is developed; performance limits trigger internal replacement and structural deepening; layers of elaboration create lock‑in; rising demands are met by adaptive stretch until the old principle is strained past viability; then a fresh, simpler principle gains acceptance, and the cycle—simplicity giving way to elaboration—starts anew.
How does Arthur relate his technology cycle to Thomas Kuhn’s model of scientific change?
Just as Kuhn’s paradigm launches, becomes “normal science,” accumulates anomalies, and is replaced by a new paradigm, a technology is originated, elaborated, stretched by anomalies (new requirements), and finally superseded by a simpler principle. Both are purposed systems that evolve through limitation, elaboration, crisis, and replacement.
Why can structural deepening impose especially heavy burdens on non‑physical systems such as legal codes or administrative processes?
Unlike physical devices—where added parts mainly cost materials, space, or weight—non‑physical systems accrue ongoing overhead in bureaucracy and complexity that does not amortize; the added rules or procedures remain even when circumstances change, making the system increasingly cumbersome and costly to maintain.
