I was asked to review some abstracts for acceptance at an international meeting on patient safety. One of the studies from Scotland used an iterative design. I hadn't heard of it, so of course to do a fair review I had to read about that design. According to Wikipedia it means, "Iterative design is a design methodology based on a cyclic process of prototyping, testing, analyzing, and refining a work in progress." It apparently is used in many diverse fields, including with improvement research, which was what this study was about (errors in prescribing and dispensing high risk drugs).

Does anybody know any more about this research design?

I know nothing about iterative design, but I do wonder about the increasing use of the word "methodology" when "method" is really what is meant. Methodology would seem to mean "a study of methods."

You might want to read this Wikipedia article (link).

Here's another interesting link.

Funny how anthology is not the study of flowers, but a florilegium or collection of poems or other short texts. Out in the wild, I discern two slightly different meanings of methodology in use: (1) a set or collection of methods and (2) a single method. For folks who upset easily, I suggest the therapy of starting a Bob the Angry Flower type website (link) to burn off some of their excess word rage. But, as a recovering pedant, I feel your pain. People often say phonetic when they mean phonemic, grammar when they mean orthography or punctuation, or lead when they mean led, and that really harshes my mellow.

Perhaps it should have just been "design." Whatever.

My question, of course, was if anyone else, especially those of you in the UK (since the abstract was from Scotland), had seen that type of design.

quote:

You might want to read this Wikipedia article (link).

Yep. That was the link I had posted, and I did read it. It gave me some good ideas for other sources.

I understood that iterative meant the same as reiterative (a strange synonymy shared by flammable and inflammable) and that both mean repetitive. That is, the design uses, repeatedly, the same instructions to complete the task.

Although not explicit in the expression it would be assumed that testing and feedback would be a part of the process. So in that sense, iterative design would possibly differ from ordinary design insofar as it includes testing. Having said which, I would be suspicious of any design that did not include testing, feedback, and modification.

Yep. That was the link I had posted

So it was. I guess it's time I took up those AARP folks on membership.

Isn't "AARP" the sound made by an old fart?

Asa the near-fossil

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
I understood that iterative meant the same as reiterative (a strange synonymy shared by flammable and inflammable) and that both mean repetitive. That is, the design uses, repeatedly, the same instructions to complete the task.

Actually it is the life cycle process that is iterative. The design, as well as the product and other phases of the life cycle, should improve with each iteration through the process. An iterative design would be a hallmark of a spiral life cycle model. A very common alternative that does not have an iterative design is the waterfall model

quote:

Actually it is the life cycle process that is iterative.

Well, the design cycle, anyway. The problem with anything that uses the "life-cycle" analogy is deciding what it applies to.

For example, the "product life cycle" starts once the product is considered ready for sale and continues through various stages until it become obselete.

quote:

For example, the "product life cycle" starts once the product is considered ready for sale and continues through various stages until it become obselete.

That tends to be more of a waterfall model view. A more iterative life cycle model will take steps to simulate those stages, evaluate shortcomings, and determine if another design iteration is warranted.

quote:

and determine if another design iteration is warranted

Typically that would happen at the decline stage of the PLC - and in some cases it will be decided that little or no change is required, even after many years. The Mars bar, for example, is still largely unaltered after over half a century.

quote:

Typically that would happen at the decline stage of the PLC

Might be okay for Mars bars, but that is rather too late when it comes to patient safety.

Having worked projects where an undetected fault can cost lives, I am glad that Kalleh's group is investigating this methodology.

Product life cycles apply to just about everything, including medicine. Of course, it's better that a product or service is right when it goes into use, and most are. But they are only ever right for the time and situation as it is when they are introduced.

Things change and that is why products go through a life cycle. In medicine many of the products and treatments that were in favour 50 years ago have disappeared to be replaced by others that are better. But some remain in favour, virtually unchanged for many years.

Yet others, abandoned as old-fashioned, may even be revived as their virtues are rediscovered.