Bruno Latour, Aramis, or the Love of Technology, PDF - Dss-edit.com

Phase 1: Concept development5phose 3: Prototypewith industrial means;bugs identified;development of test modelPhase 5:Demonstration afterhomologationPhase 4:Industrial developmentFigure 19.question of the soap the maintenance staff was supposed to use to wash thewindows. You begin to see the tension? You can't keep four phases going otthe same time."And on the other hand, the RATP was dealing with the problem in Phase4 or 5 as if it were a new metro train, while some Matra engineers were goingback to first principles!"Instead of making the technological alternatives comprehensible and comparable,the CET locked Aramis in."For Ficheur, the CET was a validation, not a homologation."But there was too much that wasn't clear, and anyway the RATP doesn'thave a handle on that stage. The State doesn't either, by the way; it isn't ableto say, 'You're going to develop and validate ' The ambiguity is there from thestart. They weren't even able to identify the critical paths on which to focus theirstudy: for example, the operating conditions were derived from those of VAL,so it was logical to put off thinking about them until later; they weren't on thecritical path. They existed elsewhere and had been resolved elsewhere."Maintenance, on the other hand, ought to have been a problem for theeET, but it was never dealt with. It was in the original idea; it's on the criticalpath."The whole issue of stations and their design was not a problem they dealtwith; they should have postponed it till later."Matra was always pushing to combine the phases. That's normal; it's up