This is something I've been studying with a great degree of enthusiasm. And, in my personal opinion, is practical-yet-damaging to long-term economic and social sustainability.
The reason I'm particularly at odds with the hype cycle is that the concept is being applied to things whose lifetimes are outside of the typical 5-12 year cycle; a building may take 10 to 20 years to achieve profitability and cities can take upwards of century to reach maturity.
But there's also the generational cycle—education and all of its infrastructure generally cycles at intervals of 12-17 years with peaks and valleys of capacity, supply and demand. While these cycles in education are generally reflective of generational cycling, external demands can significantly alter the cycle itself, e.g., recessions, periods of prosperity, governmental intervention.
This has made me think about somethings as of recently about trends, technology and application.
Is STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths) hype-cycle?
I know this is an easy troll-bait question. But I can't help but think that at least STEM maybe nothing more than hype. And that could be a disastrous result if STEM currently is experiencing little more than a "peak of inflated expectations."
If the "peak of inflated expectations" lasts typically 1-5 years and it takes an average of 3-5 years to be reeducated, we will always have a population gambling on being included into the plateau of productivity.
While the hype-cycle seems to make a handful of people very rich in a brief amount of time, it also seems to create an enormous amount of waste. And unfortunately, the objects, infrastructure and people who fuel these hype-cycles are things that have lifecycles far longer than the hype-cycle.
The hype cycle— does it explain the problems in architecture and planning?
This is something I've been studying with a great degree of enthusiasm. And, in my personal opinion, is practical-yet-damaging to long-term economic and social sustainability.
The reason I'm particularly at odds with the hype cycle is that the concept is being applied to things whose lifetimes are outside of the typical 5-12 year cycle; a building may take 10 to 20 years to achieve profitability and cities can take upwards of century to reach maturity.
But there's also the generational cycle—education and all of its infrastructure generally cycles at intervals of 12-17 years with peaks and valleys of capacity, supply and demand. While these cycles in education are generally reflective of generational cycling, external demands can significantly alter the cycle itself, e.g., recessions, periods of prosperity, governmental intervention.
This has made me think about somethings as of recently about trends, technology and application.
Is STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths) hype-cycle?
I know this is an easy troll-bait question. But I can't help but think that at least STEM maybe nothing more than hype. And that could be a disastrous result if STEM currently is experiencing little more than a "peak of inflated expectations."
If the "peak of inflated expectations" lasts typically 1-5 years and it takes an average of 3-5 years to be reeducated, we will always have a population gambling on being included into the plateau of productivity.
While the hype-cycle seems to make a handful of people very rich in a brief amount of time, it also seems to create an enormous amount of waste. And unfortunately, the objects, infrastructure and people who fuel these hype-cycles are things that have lifecycles far longer than the hype-cycle.
What are your thoughts on the hype cycle?
MellowHype?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.