As always I don’t feel that the lectures
was that informal, although Haibo’s lecture was interesting. Especially the
first part of the lecture when he discussed the fundamentals in engineering in
two simple steps:
Define the problem.
Solve the problem.
Further more he also stated that it is a
good distribution in time to dedicate 90% on defining the problem and 10% at
solving the problem. If you manage to define the problem accurate it can help a
lot in the solving part of the process, and if you do not come up with a solution
to the defined problem then the work you have done will probably contribute to
the development within the field of the question. If you did a good work by
defined the problem prior to the solving part. The second lecture for the week
I didn’t care much for so I got nothing to say other than it didn’t contribute
to the course at all, at least for me.
I agree that the lectures were not informative at all! It is quite interesting that you picked up on the “define the problem” and “solve the problem” in a very succinct way. I kind of don’t agree with Habio’s 90-10 time distribution ratio. I think it is quite an exaggeration. That being said, one can not deny the importance of allocation enough time to define a problem that we want to tackle so we do not end up solving a problem that was not ours in the first place. We need to strategically define our problem. However spending as little as 10% on solving the problem probably is not enough to solve a given problem. For example, the bear issue that Haibo talked about in the lecture. Just imagine what would happen if you spend 90% of your time thinking about what to do instead of doing something to save yourself.
SvaraRaderaI liked reading your reflection, good job!
I must also agree with the opinion that this week's lectures were sub par. Besides the point that you bring up in your text about the importance of defining the problem and not just solving it is what I found interesting about Haibo's lecture too. Besides that I did not really understand what we was trying to convey. Unlike you I did find one interesting part in the second lecture though! The difference between prototyping for research and prototyping for industry is not something I for one had thought about before, I only thought about the industrial prototyping, and that is what I will take with me from that lecture.
SvaraRaderaVery short reflection, which sums up very well the amount of useful insights we gained this week: verging on none. I felt that the first one was very basic but at least somewhat relevant to our course, whereas the second - as you so clearly state - was completely useless (though I suppose the lecturer couldn't really be blamed on account of his having been a stand-in for the one that got canceled.)
SvaraRadera