posted 20 July 2001 07:12 PM               

Also see https://elsmar.com/ubb/Forum15/HTML/000296.html

****************************

From: Nancy Jennejohn
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 23:08:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Wine by Design? /Platt/Pfrang

Stuart Platt wrote:

> A colleague (Food Safety Registrar) who deals with several wineries asked my opinion

> whether the production/development of a new wine would qualify for "Design".
> My response (I.T./Software Registrar with mechanical engineering background - a
> million years ago) was no, it is not design, it is configuration of the basic
> wine-making ingredients/materials and processes.
>
> I argued that to qualify for design, the exercise must have precisely defined
> functional and performance requirements (which may change throughout the design
> process) and that the resulting design must be validated against those requirements.
>
> Another colleague (Metallurgist/Materials Registrar) had a somewhat different - but
> not diametrically opposite, view and felt that the development of a new wine would
> qualify as Design.
>
> Am I taking a too-literal view of the requirements of the design process, or would
any
> of you people be happy to have designer wine?.
> Comments?

It seems to me this is a moot point, because calling it "design" doesn't seem to change anything the winery is going to do. Can any wine have "precisely defined functional and performance requirements"? More likely, the best a winery can do is simply to control the materials and process, verify the new product through lab tests (for alcohol content), and validate through subjective taste-testing. What is the point of debating whether or not to call it "design"? Maybe someday wineries will genetically engineer wine to fit some "precisely defined functional and performance requirements," but I don't think that day has arrived.

Doug Pfrang

****************

From: Nancy Jennejohn
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 23:10:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Wine by Design? /Platt/Humphries

From: "Edwin Humphries"

Stuart,

Without knowing the details of the things wine-makers do to create different wines, it's a bit hard to answer.

If it were a matter of different ingredients producing a predictable outcome (as, for example, in the formulation of a new shampoo), then yes, it would certainly be a design issue. However, it's my understanding that two wineries can take the same raw material (e.g., Shiraz grapes) and one will produce an outstanding wine, and the other a rot gut. The differences between the two are process-related, rather than design, and the differences are quite subtle.

I guess it comes down to whether there is an element of wine-making that is "art". If there is, I cannot see how it could be included in the certification. You can certify an orchestra, but you can't certify that which make them play great music.

Best Regards
Edwin Humphries

****************

From: Nancy Jennejohn
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 23:12:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Wine by Design? /Platt/Naish

From: [email protected]

Stuart,

I believe that this is design. If you are creating something new even if it is like something before it is still design. If not then I can not think of anything that you would call design. A new car is just an adjustment of the size and shape of previous cars. It usually has the same parts like tires, an engine, a gas tank, seats, etc. etc. The same is true with computers. Unless you are designing a whole new media type what's really been new for years? The speed is new but the flavor of the wine is new as well. And I would assume but may not be true that there may be some changes being made to the grapes but then they are just grapes. And sugar is just sugar. And and and...

I had an interesting discussion and had to convince a client that they were doing design and would need to be design responsible under the new standard. They perform pesticide residue tests and tests for metals and the like. They said they just use standard test from AOAC or USDA or another group or two. But when I pushed to have them show me they could not match one up exactly because they always modify them to the equipment they have and some other parameters. And they don't know if they will work until they do some capability tests. And they use the same instruments as other tests. And they use many of the same chemicals. But if they are not design they should just work. But they don't and they have to design them to what they have. DESIGN was the key word I finally got them to say and when I did I got them to realize they were doing design.