If you Google for “Technical Disobedience” you’ll come across content featuring Ernesto Oraza, a Cuban industrial designer. For years, Ernesto studied and collected various improvised machines - mostly simple day to day gadgets that we generally take for granted - made by Cubans out of sheer necessity. The list spread from TV antennas to workplace machines and included activities like repairing a machine to keep using it well past its intended lifetime or using left-over parts of other ‘dead’ machines to build a new machine out of scratch.
After the fall of Soviet Union Cuba went in to a state of complete closed economy. USA had already left Cuba along with it most of its investment, material resource sources and engineering intellect. Without Soviet Union to help them out, the Cuban government was not able to provide for even basic needs.
Things that we take for granted, like a Motorcycle, a TV antenna or an electric fan were not to be found. Once the existing lot of items ran out of their life time, Cubans had to invent and invent fast to make use of the remainings. Quite correctly Ernesto sees the situation not as a form of imprisonment or constraint rather as a form of liberation - freedom from the technical boundaries imposed by the objects. As an example a casing for an electric fan is a form of boundary imposed by the product designer on the consumer. A consumer is not meant to violate this restriction. However by opening up the casings of the fan and using its internal parts for originally un-intending purposes the Cubans achieved a sort of technological freedom that the present day consumer can not even fathom.
We are in times when products are intentionally designed to not last long and even before it’s intended short lifespan, they are made obsolete by either a competing product or most probably by the ‘next generation’ item of the same product line. (This philosophy actually extends to areas like food, where attributes like ‘Best Before Date’ pushes consumers to throw food away even when they are fit for human purpose) So when a group of people - in this case a country goes ahead and reuses the product even after it had its natural death is quite extraordinary. It must be noted that this observation is not based on several one off incidents - The Cuban government themselves formally identified the phenomena and fuelled the process by providing handbooks or guidelines for people encouraging them to invent more. After all “Worker, build your machine!” - is claim to be said by non other than Ernesto “Che” Guevara’s
I’d like to think of Software engineering as a way of making a living out of repeatedly breaking boundaries, be it process, technological or even people behaviour. However with increasing trend of productization of our field, we tend to be losing that incentive to go beyond the boundaries or building stuff from scratch. Lack of popularity and understanding of what constitutes software engineering in broader society may well be another factor. After all most involved in software development is helping some big (or small) corporation grow their wealth as opposed to trying to solve a burning problem of the society that they live in.
On the other hand for most users software is seen as a black box, doing what its supposed to do and heavily blocked off. Although its true that more and more people are using software in their day to day life, not many of them have a proper understanding of how they should be used, let alone taking them beyond their original purpose.
One challenge the Cubans have faced during their product augmentation endeavour must be the scalability - scalability of ideas. Suppose couple of guys have come up with an ingenious way to resurrect a machine, how can this be scaled across the country. With the information technology infrastructure expanding every day, scalability should be the least of the problems if you want to break free. Sadly, this is not the case in most instances. Inherent issues with the way software is designed (client - server or binary delivery) and artificial constraints imposed by delivery mechanisms by vendors (Apple AppStore and its devices) make it quite hard to share an ‘improved’ software product even if you are somehow able to do it.
Fundamentally its even questionable whether software can be taken apart like the machines were in revolutionary Cuba. Cubans were able to pull it off even when the original product design has no intention of being improved by its users. Suppose one of our design requirements is to facilitate end user tinkering, can we even design it in such a way? How can this idea can coexist in a world where most innovations are based on more and more centralized software (SOA) and data (BigData).
I suppose this idea is only applicable to a certain class of Software. Example is when the intended use is purely personal (or among a group of people). However this class is ever increasing with the popularization of the mobile devices.
May be being ‘disobedient’ is not only cool, but can be useful or even revolutionary.Inspiration :