Convergence in Action: Project Runway
Project Runway is one of my guilty pleasures. Yesterday, they ran the Season Three marathon, and I watched fifteen aspiring fashion designers converge to a single winner over twelve episodes (they skipped two). This reality show format has proven to be highly malleable, from "Survivor" to "American Idol" to "Big Brother" and "Top Chef." It also provides a real-world example of set-based decision-making.
However, "Project Runway" has a special place in the reality show pantheon as a great example of convergence. More than the other reality shows, the "Project Runway" contestants have to meet specific challenges in order to advance. There is a mix of objective and subjective criteria involved in deciding whom to eliminate, and industry experts make the decisions. There is no input from the contestants or the audience (although perhaps some from the producers about what would make good television).
The designer offering the weakest solution to the challenge is the one eliminated. Some, but not all of the designers clearly learn and grow during the experience, and those who do last longer than those who don't - all of the finalists came close to elimination during an earlier challenge. The more expensive challenges (fly everyone to Paris to design a couture gown) appear later in the series than less expensive ones, and the most expensive test of all (design twelve looks for New York's Fashion Week) is the last one.
How about the results? I didn't like Jeffrey, the winning designer, at first. He's covered in unsightly tattoos - the kind one might get in prison. He has an edge that went over the top in the first challenge. A poor showing in the "Ordinary Woman" challenge in the middle of the season was nearly the end of him, and he did not endear himself to viewers that week as he subjected another contestant's mother to a surly attitude and a hideous outfit. If the show had selected the best rather than eliminated the weak, he probably would not have made it through the front door.
But over the weeks, he grew on you. We learned that he'd honed his aesthetic designing stage clothing for rock bands, but was capable of a lot more. We got to see his range and his developing maturity as he listened and integrated the judges' feedback. In the last four challenges, he took off, winning two in a row with designs from opposite ends of the spectrum: a dark, glam rocker outfit for himself and a sunny, surprising couture gown that would have been at home on the runways of Paris.
This demonstrates the counter-intuitive effects of set-based decision-making. With a lot more information about the options, and a little more time for the strong ones to mature, we have the ability to make a much better decision. Fourteen elimination rounds is extreme - but even one additional evaluation step can make a big difference in the quality of the final decision.
However, "Project Runway" has a special place in the reality show pantheon as a great example of convergence. More than the other reality shows, the "Project Runway" contestants have to meet specific challenges in order to advance. There is a mix of objective and subjective criteria involved in deciding whom to eliminate, and industry experts make the decisions. There is no input from the contestants or the audience (although perhaps some from the producers about what would make good television).
The designer offering the weakest solution to the challenge is the one eliminated. Some, but not all of the designers clearly learn and grow during the experience, and those who do last longer than those who don't - all of the finalists came close to elimination during an earlier challenge. The more expensive challenges (fly everyone to Paris to design a couture gown) appear later in the series than less expensive ones, and the most expensive test of all (design twelve looks for New York's Fashion Week) is the last one.
How about the results? I didn't like Jeffrey, the winning designer, at first. He's covered in unsightly tattoos - the kind one might get in prison. He has an edge that went over the top in the first challenge. A poor showing in the "Ordinary Woman" challenge in the middle of the season was nearly the end of him, and he did not endear himself to viewers that week as he subjected another contestant's mother to a surly attitude and a hideous outfit. If the show had selected the best rather than eliminated the weak, he probably would not have made it through the front door.
But over the weeks, he grew on you. We learned that he'd honed his aesthetic designing stage clothing for rock bands, but was capable of a lot more. We got to see his range and his developing maturity as he listened and integrated the judges' feedback. In the last four challenges, he took off, winning two in a row with designs from opposite ends of the spectrum: a dark, glam rocker outfit for himself and a sunny, surprising couture gown that would have been at home on the runways of Paris.
This demonstrates the counter-intuitive effects of set-based decision-making. With a lot more information about the options, and a little more time for the strong ones to mature, we have the ability to make a much better decision. Fourteen elimination rounds is extreme - but even one additional evaluation step can make a big difference in the quality of the final decision.
Labels: project-runway, set-based
posted by Katherine Radeka
at
2:24 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home