The main purpose of this paper is to evaluate the structure and operation of the DRIVE programme, in relation to the developing understanding of the design process. Studies of the design process have shown a repeated pattern of activities in good design teams. These include: systems and task analyses; clarification and negotiation of agreed goals; modelling of the old system and of the ways in which it could be affected by design changes; implementing a new system which changes the old system in ways which the model suggests to be desirable; evaluating the new system in progressively more expensive but realistic ways as the system develops (these include modelling, the use of demonstrators, field trials, and post implementation evaluations). When the system is complex, then elements of the design must be developed separately. To ensure that the elements of the design are mutually compatible and will work together, requires the use of product, performance and procedural standards, and the use of these standards as design objectives. While some aspects of the DRIVE Programme map onto this description of the design process, some things are lacking which may reduce the likelihood of success. The most obvious deficiencies are the imprecision of our analyses of the problems to be solved, the paucity of predictive modelling to aid and to provide early evaluations of design ideas, and the absence of effective overall direction and control. It is suggested that those who are responsible for the development of the DRIVE 2 Programme should, as a matter of urgency, form themselves into a design team, and be given increased power to take executive decisions. At present DRIVE operated too much on a political model, which disperses responsibility and wastes effort.
Abstract