Dissertation

The Analysis of Gap Issues Among Designers and Other Stakeholders in Participatory Design Schedules How the process works, what are the reasons for causing the gaps and what are the solutions for those problems

Unversity of Strathclyde Department of Architecture Cheng. TAN 201578986

a

b

c

CONTENTS: Illustration list: Abstract:

f 1

CHAPTER 1 1.

Introduction 2. Aims and Objectives 2.1 Aims 2.2 Objectives 2.3 Detail actions for achieving objectives 3. Methodology 4.

Chapter Summary

3 4

5 5

CHAPTER 2 1. Literature reviews

7

2.

9

1.1. Design for clients 1.2. Importance of communication 1.3. Designers’ responsibilities 1.4. Stakeholders’ responsibilities

Chapter Summary

CHAPTER 3 1. Definition of participatory design 2. Main methods of participatory design in application 3. Analysis 4. Chapter Summary

11 12 12 13

CHAPTER 4 1.

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 3.

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 4.

Precedence 1 – Bio-mass fuelled power station Background description and explanation of the project Main problems and concerns Actions and Results Analysis of PD approach utility Gap Analysis Precedence 2 – Retrofitting Project of Eastern Market Background description and explanation of the project Main problems and concerns Actions and Results Analysis of PD approach utility Gap Analysis Precedence 3 – Primary School Interface Design Background description and explanation of the project Main problems and concerns Actions and Results Analysis of PD approach utility Gap Analysis Chapter Summary d

15

20

28

32

CONTENTS: CHAPTER 5 1.

Cases Study Discussion 1.1 Methods Analysis 2.

Gaps Discussion 2.1 Knowledge Gap Analysis 2.2 Communication Gap Analysis 2.3 Gap of different expectations Analysis 3.

Solutions 3.1 Designers perspectives

35 36

37

3.1.1 Teaching skill 3.1.2. Mindset of Decision-making Power 3.1.3 Distinguish Ability and Social skill 3.1.3 Expactation skill 3.1.4 Communication skill

3.2 Other Stakeholders perspective

4.

3.1.1. Mindset of participation 3.1.2. Sharing knowledge 3.1.3. Communication skill

Chapter Summary

42

CHAPTER 6 1. The potential problem of participatory design 2.

Chapter Summary

45 46

CHAPTER 7 1.

49

Conclusion

CHAPTER 8 1. Bibliography

ii

e

List of Illustrations

Picture 1 Render of Teesside Power Station Beaven, S. (2011) Architectural research.[online] Available From: https:// sbeaven1.wordpress.com/2011/03/26/architectural-research/ Picture 2 Elevation of Tesside Power Station

15

Diagram 1 Facade tendency

17

Diagram 2 Core connection

17

Diagram 3 Vertical Circulation

17

Diagram 4 External facade Evolo. (2010) Teesside Power Station / Heatherwick Studio. [online] Available From: http://www.evolo.us/architecture/teesside-power-station-heatherwickstudio/

17

Groud Floor Plan Archiscene. (2012) Teesside Power Station by Heatherwick Studio. [online] Available from: http:// www.archiscene.net/wp-content/gallery/archiscene/ teesside-power-station11.jpg

18

Phyisical model of the proposal Thomas Heatherwick. (2011) physical model. available from:https://i.pinimg. com/originals/24/be/fc/24befc45466daac2ec625209b567ca85.jpg Picture 3 Eastern Market

19

Picture 4 Nourishing Detroit Since 1891

20

Picture 5 Nourishing Detroit Since 1891

20

Picture 6 Nourishing Detroit Since 1891 Ellefson, J. (2016) Eastern Market Green Stormwater Management Strategy. [online] Available from: http://www.mi-wea.org/docs/9._Ellefson_Jela-MWEA_ EMC_Presentation_12_2016.pdf

20

Diagram 5-6 Eastern Market Green Stormwater Management Strategy DCDC. (2015) Eastern Market Green Stormwater Management Strategy. [online] Available from: http://www.dcdc-udm.org/projects/strategies/ EMStormwater/

22

f

List of Illustrations

Diagram 7 Role of Green Stormwater Infrastructure Ellefson, J. (2016) Eastern Market Green Stormwater Management Strategy. [online] Available from: http://www.mi-wea.org/docs/9._Ellefson_Jela-MWEA_ EMC_Presentation_12_2016.pdf

23

Diagram 8 Infrustractures working system Diagram 9 Anchored in Green Stormwater Infrastructure DCDC. (2015) Eastern Market Green Stormwater Management Strategy. [online] Available from: http://www.dcdc-udm.org/projects/strategies/ EMStormwater/

24 25

Drawings 1-8 Students' design proposals

26

Drawing 9 Site plan of campus

29

Picture 7-9 Photos of campus

29

Picture 10 - 12 students joining maintence team

30

Picture 13-15 Students in class and in presentation Shu-Ying T. (2012) Participatory Design Application in Green Campus Interface - Taipei Elementary School Case Study. In: Matsumoto M., Umeda Y., Masui K., Fukushige S. (eds) Design for Innovative Value Towards a Sustainable Society. Springer, Dordrecht(Accessed on 9th August 2017)

31

Diagram 10 Nicoletti's method for involving stakeholders to track up-todate desugn document

37

Nicoletti M., Diaz-Pace J.A., Schiaffino S. (2012) Towards Software Architecture Documents Matching Stakeholders’ Interests. In: CipollaFicarra F., Veltman K., Verber D., Cipolla-Ficarra M., Kammßller F. (eds) Advances in New Technologies, Interactive Interfaces and Communicability.

ADNTIIC 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7547. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg https://link-springer-com.proxy.lib.strath.ac.uk/chapt er/10.1007/978-3-642-34010-9_17 (Accessed on 5th August 2017) Table 1Angelov's cases study overview Angelov S., Meesters M., Galster M. (2016) Architects in Scrum: What Challenges Do They Face?. In: Tekinerdogan B., Zdun U., Babar A. (eds) Software Architecture. ECSA 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 9839. Springer, Cham https://link-springer-com.proxy.lib.strath.ac.uk/chapt er/10.1007/978-3-319-48992-6_17

1

38

Abstract Participatory design is a new design approach in architecture design project, it is a functional-based design approach rather than a human-based design approach. To contrast with other design approaches, the main advantage of the participatory design is improving the efficiency of various aspects of the building by involving the users, clients and other stakeholders into the design team. However, there are also limitations in participatory design when non-professionals participate in the design process. Inviting the stakeholders in design team can make them do contributions to the design with their knowledge as well, meanwhile, the inconvenience of the communication among individuals in the design team is increased by the same reason. The aim of this paper is trying to define the communication gaps among the clients, participants and the designers. This dissertation would go through some different types of participatory designed precedencies and conclude the gap problems, which among designers and other stakeholders in participatory design, and their solutions by analyzing, discussing, comparing and summarizing the precedencies would be illustrated.

2

1 1. Introduction Architecture has a long history of evolution. The history of art and architecture in Ancient Greece could be separated into three basic eras: the Archaic Period, which is counted from c.600 to 500 BCE, the Classical Period, which is counted from c.500 to 323 BCE, and the Hellenistic Period, which is counted from c.323 to 27 BCE (Kathrine, 2016). The word architect in ancient Greek is called arkhitekton, which is used for describing the master of the builder. According to this fact, it is clear that the initial core of architecture is building constructions for people to use. During the construction process, the considerations of the comfort level for the future users are necessary. In order to make the space more comfortable, how the user is going to use the space should be cogitated.

According to Roman Architect Vitruvius (1914)’ view: As an architect, a large brand of knowledge should be studied, and the reason for that knowledge needs to be learned is because that knowledge can help designers well understand how the actual activities and working pattern would occur in the target space.

Because of this reason, all the knowledge related to human behavior, at least the knowledge related to the certain design, need to be studied. The depth of the knowledge need to understand depends on how deep the certain knowledge was involved in the design.

Base on this principle, in order to design the comfortable and considered building for users, it is necessary for designers to anticipate how the building is going to be used in the future. Rather than using knowledge and experience to anticipate the utility of the function area, a more efficient way is direct to get the information from the future user of the function area rather than ratiocination. Recently, the idea of gathering useful knowledge from users while the design is developed into a new design approach called participatory design. Since the continuously increasing on paces of lives and people’s lives quality recently, the participatory design, which is the design process focus on efficiency and quality, is becoming progressively popular.

The idea of the participatory design is bringing other stakeholders into design team to combine the experience of users with the professional knowledge of architects is an effective method to design the most suitable construction for certain function uses. For certain aimed functions and using ways, the building designed through participatory design approach would work more efficiently in most aspects than the one designed through normal design process generally.

Nonetheless, since the design is already a high-level skill, the involvement of nonprofessionals into the design team would certainly increase the hardness of the design process. Difficulties would be caused by various gaps in different aspects.

In this dissertation, the gaps among different individuals in participatory design would be analyzed. Firstly, the definition of participatory design would be determined by referencing different kinds of literature, and the basic methods, 3

University of Strathclyde Department of Architecture

which generally used in participatory design would be introduced. Then, the participatory design would be analyzed in depth by demonstrating three different types of participatory designed precedencies. The first precedence introduced in this paper is called bio-mass fuelled power station design project. It is a smallscale single construction re-design project in the original site. The participatory design approach is used for increasing the functionality the efficiency on space occupation. The second precedence is a retrofitting project of Eastern Market.

It is urban scale project. The old function of the place is not suitable anymore, participatory design is used for developing new functions for benefits the local residents. The third case is a primary school interface design project, the specialty of this project is that the majority of the participants are children.

In the following chapter, the gap issues would be discussed by analyzing the precedencies mentioned in the previous chapter, and the solutions would be investigated from perspectives of both designers and stakeholders. Then, one of the limitations of participatory design would be concluded in next chapter.

In the end, a conclusion of gap issues and their solutions of participatory design would be provided.

2. Aim and Objectives 2.1 Aims Because of the different knowledge background, experience, etc, it is always hard to communicate between the users and designers.

The purpose of this dissertation is trying to define the gap issues or communication difficulties among the clients, participants and the designers. What is the reason caused those gaps and what is the solution for those problems.

2.2 Objectives The objectives of this dissertation are: - A: To identity the detail process of the participatory design.

- B: To discuss how designers and other stakeholders cooperate with each other in different types of architectural project.

- C: Define the reason why the gap exists between designers and participants in a participatory design schedule.

- D: How to eliminate the communication gap between each other in a participatory design project.

2.3 Detail actions for achieving objectives Participatory design has developed over 3 decades (Kensing, 1998), there are quite a lot papers written about participatory design. For achieving the objective A, the different kinds of literatures would be referenced. By comparing and selecting, the detail process would be summarized. Also, the participatory design process would be explained through different precedencies. To achieve objective B, C and D. The precedencies would be analyzed, a moderate analyzed and conclusion would be provided.

4

201578986 Cheng. TAN

3. Methodology The participatory design is analyzed in this paper based on desktop research. Main methods used are comparing, contrasting, attesting, selecting and demonstration. In order to understand the gap issue of participatory design, the sub-methods used for studying the precedencies would be comparing, contrasting, analyzing, referencing and summarizing.

The comparison method is used for comparing the arguments of participatory design from different kinds of literatures. Accordingly, the general introductions of utility methods, pros and cons, relevant concerns would be provided. To attesting the authenticity and feasibility, some precedencies would be provided.

The selection of the precedencies is decided by considering the scale, the type and the participants of the projects. The application of participatory design approach would be demonstrated by explaining how the participatory design processes are applied in the precedencies.

The methods such as summarizing, comparing, analyzing, anticipating would be used for discovering what gap problems among the designers and stakeholders and their solutions in participatory design. The conclusions would be provided by referencing or being supported by other authors’ opinions.

The illustrating and referencing methods would be used for providing the limitation and potential problems of participatory design in general circumstances. The summarizing from literatures are the main methods for this section.

4. Chapter Summary In this chapter, an introduction of the dissertation is provided. In the introduction section, Firstly, the history of architecture is discussed, the original aim for an architect is design suitable building for people to stay.

Base on this principle, a design approach called participatory design, which focuses on users experience and utility of the building, is introduced.

Then, how to analyze and what aspects of participatory design would be illustrated in this paper. Then the aim and objectives of the dissertation, and by using what methods to achieve those objectives would be provided.

Finally, a methodology for explaining what methods are used for exploring the gap issues and their solutions would be provided.

5

6

2 1. Literature reviews 1.1. Design for clients Not only in architecture, but also in any kinds of design, one of the most important issues for designers is following brief as much as possible. Although, particularly, in the early step of architectural design, numerous papers would ignore the applicability aspect of a design process. Especially neophytes would mainly focus on technical parts (Weth, 2003). Designers are not design project for themselves, but for clients. So when designing, in order to reach the desire of clients, it is important to make sure that the designers will have the same expectation and intention with their clients. It might sound controversial but it is true that the designers also need to have their own opinion when doing design rather than just only following the every order of clients. In Weth’s (2003) view, when a designer is leading a design team, in most situations, he will not consider about against suggestions which are proposed by the others in the team, even the suggestion is coming from another designer. It is reasonable and indispensable to have own judgments for being successful designers. However, they also need to understand that as designers, their initial job is designing the most suitable product for the clients. As Khadilkar (2013) said: The definition of Design as used is, ‘activities that actually generate and develop a product from a need, product idea or technology to the full documentation needed to realize the product and to fulfill the perceived needs of the user and other stakeholders’.

So architect should design the project base on the client’s intention by using their own, architects themselves, professional design skill and knowledge.

Designers should have judgments, but their judgments should be used for choosing the best and the most efficient methods and skills to design the most appropriate products for clients. However, the different background, knowledge, and experience would cause different perspectives for the same issues. So it is common that when the abstract design concepts are transferred into concrete products, there will always be some degree of gap. (Hsieh et al, 2011). In order to decrease or eliminate the gap, well communications between designers and clients through whole process are necessary. As Mambrey (1998) said: “Design, of course, is more than a communication problem, but communication can be seen as a major problem.” This also proved the importance of communication in design.

1.2. the importance of communication It is clear that the communication is important in an architecture design, but there are different ways for people to communicate with each other in an architectural project. Instead of communicating with clients regularly, directly bringing clients into design team to share minds and understandings meanwhile to design seems a better option. And misleading and misunderstanding could be stopped immediately since the clients would be involved when any design decision is made. Park (2014) also agreed that the outcome is generally better for designers to co-operate with users rather than designers work alone by analyzing 7

University of Strathclyde Department of Architecture

the design science for last two decades. This argument tells that design then talk is less effectively than directly design meanwhile talk.

Hope holds the same opinion, he (2011) argued: A participatory design approach may be a way to more fully involved users in the provision of appropriate spatial design. We assert that involving the users in the (re-)designing of the spaces they use will be a useful way to create functional, flexible spaces that ‘fit’ with changing needs. This is also the initial purpose of participatory design, which is to create more suitable space or products for clients or users. Hope’s arguments highlighted that by involving the participants in the design team it would be easier to create efficiency in many aspects of design. Which means it would be easier to reach the expectation of clients and users.

1.3. designers responsibilities As the statements mentioned above, the advantages of design meanwhile talk is obvious, however, more people involved into design team would lead to more complex communications among individuals in the group. Additionally, involving more non-professionals into a design team is not as simple as just inviting designers. Problems also created by this action. The potential mis-match of cognition between professionals and nonprofessionals and between users and other users could create difficulties (Hope, 2011). Because of the different professional knowledge difference. There was no common language for analysis and design, which both designers and users could understand (Mambrey, 1998).

So designers need to learn how to transfer their language into the language, which the non-professionals can easily understand.

In summary, the designers need to learn how to make non-professionals understand the necessary knowledge and skill as soon as possible.

As the technology develops, there are many ways could be used in architecture to make design easier. The appropriate inclusion of digital technologies in this process may benefit the administrators, users, and professional designers (Hope, 2011). The Cooperative prototyping is another way to link users and designers together. Hsieh (2011) and his colleges think if a designer wants to confirm whether he sent a proper message to the user, one way is through the development of early prototype testing review. Meanwhile, this is also easier and more directly for users to understand what the designers are expressing, so they can know if it is accordance with their expectation. Furthermore, it also achieves the time and cost efficiency by using technology to simulating the design result rather than physically build it.

1.4. stakeholders responsibilities On the other hand, not only designers, but also other stakeholders need to do effort to contribute for filling the gap between designers and themselves. In generally, some clients would consider the participation as an extra job for them, they are usually less interested in doing it since their daily job is busy enough.

(Yutaka, 2012). It is truth that designers are hired to design for them, they do not have to contribute for the design, but more communications and involvements happened, the more clearly designers would understand clients’ intention.

Yutaka (2012) said: I would argue that using consultants or industrial engineers to "fix" one part of a "broken" system will result only in a suboptimization of the overall organizational goals. Further, the only collective expert that exists in an organization, who is knowledgeable of the interdependence among the multitude of processes in the system, is the stakeholders themselves. It stated that stakeholders should take part into the design and using their knowledge to modify the design. Because they are the actual future users for the building,

8

201578986 Cheng. TAN

and no one will know better than themselves of how to use the building. Banathy (1991a), refers to these people when they are actively involved in a redesign, as user-designers. It is they who can best develop a successful, long-term design of the organization's future (Evans, 1994). In another words, stakeholders or users themselves take part in to the design team can effectively modifying the design and can maximizing the benefit for long term scope.

For the clients or the users or the other stakeholders, it is also requirements for them. For making designers totally understand what they want, they should not hesitate when talking about idea, especially in the beginning of design process.

Büscher (2009) think Yet we should expect, and research has indeed shown, that there are deeply consequential relationships between use and software architectural design. If designers hide the ‘sensing’, ‘reasoning’, and computation technologies do, for example, people can find it difficult to perceive, understand, and creatively exploit technological affordances. In addition, the causes of failure and breakdowns can be hard to detect and even harder to address.

2. Chapter Summary To sum up, designing for clients by using the professional design skills are the initial job for a successful designer rather than design for designers themselves by using clients’ resources. So making the building efficiently fulfill the clients requirements has priority over other things. From the previous studies of participatory design, it is obvious that the participatory design can improve the efficiency on practical and utility aspects by involving the stakeholders into the design team. Whereas, there are also problems in this design approach. From the previous studies, several difficulties could be found when applying participatory design approaches.

The reasons for thoese difficulties are various. From both designers and stakeholders perspectives, flaws of behaviors and thinking way could be found.

9

10

3 1. Definition of participatory design 1. Definition of participatory design Participatory design is a design method which requires designers to allocate their power of decision on design to clients and users, and with the help of digital technology, to make the design more reasonable and suitable for certain requirements. Compare with other human-centered design process, the participatory design (PD) enhanced the importance of users in design process by making them as co-designers to be involved in every phases and every design decision makings in a project rather than just being the information provider or brief provider, if the users are also the clients of the project. The co-designers, the stakeholders who are involved, would provide professional knowledge or experience of how the product, building if in architecture project, would be used in the future. And with the skills and knowledge of design and construction provided by architects and engineers, maximally improve the practical aspects of the design (Bratteteig & Wagner, 2014). From the arguments mentioned above, this design approach is letting stakeholders participated into design team to do design. But Makoto has a different opinion about this. He (2009) thinks a participatory design is a form of participatory observation. It is the way that an observer (designer) walks into people’s lives to understand how people are going to use the spaces. So in his view, the design approach is still based on designers, but designers are going to participate in clients view and design base on clients perspective. Van Berkel (2012) agreed with this idea by defining participatory design as a model-based scenario design approach. Furthermore, in participatory design, the issue like anticipating the real-life situation, which focuses on activities, is important (Van Der Velden, 2015). Which is also shown that the working efficiency for the building is important under participatory design schedule.

In summary, either way could be defined as a participatory design, no matter clients participated into design team or designers participated into client side.

Because the main purpose of participatory design is maximally increasing the utility efficiency of the building. Participatory design, as a value-centered design process, rather than a human-centered design process (Van Der Velden, 2015), focuses on the activities and functions relationship inside of the building. As long as the participations happen, and the design is base on the knowledge and skills for both designers and stakeholders, then it could be defined as methods for participatory design.

11

University of Strathclyde Department of Architecture

2. Main methods of PD in application Over 30 years’ development of participatory design research, this new design approach has reached maturity with a lot of analysis published and a variety of methods developed and evaluated (Yutaka, 2012). As the development of participatory design, some generally approaches for teaching people how to apply participatory design are concluded.

In general, there are 6 methods could be classified into a participatory design, and Watter (2015) also agreed that the methods are workshops, ethnography, cooperative prototyping, mock-ups, card sorting and user design.

For workshops, users and designers do design, announce an opinion, study policy and discuss a current situation and make decision together.

The feature for this method is that the designer and user have absolute equal importance in project.

Ethnography, designers are supposed to study users carefully and in detail for obtaining a full understanding of users’ situation.

For Cooperative prototyping, designers are going to design a prototype base on their own understanding of the brief, then the users would experience the prototype and improve it by combining the discussion with designers and their own experience and knowledge.

For Mock-ups, usually made of cardboard, would be created by designers, who is going to pretend they are user and do design base from the users’ perspective base on the previous study of users.

For Card sorting, the perspective and related information of stakeholders would be displayed on cards provided by stakeholders. The designers have to learn the information on the cards before they start to design.

For User design method, User would do the design by themselves but with the help, which is generally design tools provided by designers rather than direct advice from designers, of professionals, who are normally engineers or architects, the concern needs to be noticed that the design tool be easy use for non-professionals (Yutaka, 2012).

3. Analysis When participatory design approach being applied into projects, not all of methods would be used. Only certain methods which are suitable would be selected. The parameters of selection including priorities of the project, project scale, quantities of stakeholders and involvement wills of stakeholders would be considered.

3.31 Through project scale perspective For some small scale projects or some single construction projects, the main concern for the design is space usage experience and efficiency.

In this situation, more involvement of users would efficiently improve the 12

201578986 Cheng. TAN

design. Workshop, is a method which designers and users to cooperate.

The high degree of involvements of the users would increase the utility.

In general, the bigger the scale of the project is, the more stakeholders would be involved. In this situation, the workshop method might not be suitable anymore. With the help of some technology methods, cooperative prototyping could be a good method. Because the stakeholders do not need to actually take part in the design process, designers build the certain scenario model for participants. And participants can give feedback base on their own considerations. In time saving and process difficulty aspect, it is an efficient method.

3.32 Through perspective of stakeholders’ will In many cases, stakeholders do not want to take part in the design team. Then the participatory designs have to base on designers. Mockup, card sorting and ethnography are the ways for designers to design base on users perspective, for the stakeholders, whose professional skill or knowledge would affect the design, such as design hospital for doctor or design kitchen for chef, then the ethnography, as a method which can study the stakeholders in depth, should be used, because the efficiency of the utility of the space would be highly affected by those people’s experience, knowledge or working habits. However, if a museum needs to be designed for visitors, mock up could be a better option. Firstly, even the visitors have their own occupations, but their professional knowledge or skill will not influence the design. In addition, mock-ups is an easier method rather than ethnography because it does not require designers to study stakeholders’ professions in depth. So in this situation, mock up is more suitable.

In certain cases, designing by themselves might sound interesting for the users. Then the user design method should be used. This is also good because no one would know better than users themselves about how they use the space, they would be more considering than anyone else when they do design. And the designers’ job is trying to teach them the needed knowledge or simply support them with their skill, but cannot influence or direct users with their own ideas.

4. Chapter Summary In this chapter, the definition of participatory design is concluded. The main aim for participatory design is improving the efficiency of a certain aspect of the building by using the combination of designers’ and stakeholders’ experiences, knowledge and skills. In order to achieve this goal, 6 methods of participatory design in this paper are introduced. Not all of the methods would be used in one project, different methods would be properly selected base in different situations.

13

14

4 In this chapter, the 6 main methods of participatory design approaches would be demonstrated by going through different types of precedencies. Three cases selected in this chapter, the aspect of project scale, project type, quantities of participants and type of participants, are considered when choosing the presidencies. After the precedencies’ manifestations, the analysis of gap issues in the cases would be discussed.

1. Precedence 1 – Bio-mass fuelled power station The first precedence is small scale project, since limited stakeholders, mainly are stuff for the power station and operators for the machines, would be involved, the emphasis would be the relationship and connections between different function areas.

1.1. Background description and explanation of the project: As the continuous increase on the aspect of world population and political focus on next generation of power, it would be an attractive challenge to design and build a 49 mega-watt power station combining with the surrounded greens. The site of this project is confirmed as a brownfield, which is on the banks of the river Tees, Clarence Works. This area is also a post industrial area and has low biodiversity. On another side of the river is Middlehaven, which is a new residential area for 3000 homes.

1.2. Main problems or concerns: The project is a re-designed project, there is a power station in the original site, but the problem of the old one is the space occupation efficiency is pretty low, and the noise would significant affect residents around it. Due to the working pattern of the power station, surrounded green land is also wasted. Advice for those concerns should be provided in the new proposal.

15

University of Strathclyde Department of Architecture

1.3 Actions and Results Both architectural and cultural aspects are considered when the design is undertaken by the studio. It would be pointless if another group of industrial constructions would be built on the original site after the old buildings are demolished. So instead of that, what the studio did is rearrange and combine the different functional buildings into one big construction with complete system by understanding how the elements work between each other. The new proposal saves over 65% space of original land, so about 4 hectares of land left could be used for plants, which is also a part of the design.

The new proposal made the power station not only the power station but a power park with other public facilities such as schools, gallery, museum, events venue and public park. The river would provide water way access for transporting fuel, which is a more sustainable way than the delivery on roads.

The panelized façade system is used for the external cladding, with the inner steel frame structure, a parabolic hyperboloid shape is constructed. The frame system is an efficient way to bear the loads and effectively making it a lean-to ( Mario et al, 2010).

As Thomas Heatherwick (2010) said in Ted Talk, “we kind of force them to teach us, and so we spent time travelling with them and learning about all the different elements,” then in his view, the space using efficiency is quite low, the way the power station was working in was just taking the land and laying the elements one by one without consideration and organization. Furthermore, what Heatherwick did is after well understanding the functions for the elements, then trying to design a most efficient organization to combine those elements, to minimize the space occupation, meanwhile to make the elements can work with each other in the most efficient way.

1.4 Analysis of PD approach utility There are two main methods used in this participatory design, they are “workshops” method and “Mock-up” method. One of the problems of the previous power station is the low efficiency of land using, the studio was trying to

Picture 1 render of Teesside Power Station

Picture 1 Render from the another side of the Rivers Picture 2 Architectural Drawings Elevation Part of the building is convered by the soil, the sounds would be isolated

Picture 2 Elevation of Teesside Power Station

16

201578986 Cheng. TAN

overcome this problem by integrating all the elements into one single construction. This action needs both design ability of professional designers and the knowledge of the working system of the power station, so the method workshops is quite suitable for this design. The designer working with the user, which are the specialists and operators of the power station in this case, and learn the knowledge from them to make a more appropriate design.

design knowledge to such a huge group of people and also very difficult to accord decisions, thirdly, the potential users less likely to have irreplaceable skill or experience for the design. So the most suitable method for this condition is mock-ups. The designers pretend themselves are the visitors, majority of which are the residents nearby, and trying to think in their perspective to design the most suitable gallery space for this design.

Another method, which is used in the sub-function area design, is “Mock-ups�. The main target users for the sub-function area is the nearby residents, and the functions includes a school of the power station, event venue, museum, parks, etc. So if the designers need to invite users to join the design team, the characters for the potential participants should contain students, visitors, and walkers. Firstly, it is too hard to invite such a huge number with different features individuals to join the team, secondly, it is also hard to teach

From the diagram and the plan, it is quite clear to see how the function areas are arranged. In general, the idea of the design is put main function area, which is the essential elements of a power station, in the middle and the sub-function area, such as events venue, gallery, etc, surround it. And instead of building the construction on a flat landscape, the studio sink the whole building a little and use soil and plants to cover a part of the building, and use façade with a parabolic hyperboloid form to connect the

17

University of Strathclyde Department of Architecture

Diagram 1 Facade tendency

Diagram 2 Core connection

Diagram 3 Vertical Circulation

Diagram 4 External Facade

building with the landscape, made the landscape be a part of the building rather than just surrounding landscape, the reason why the studio did so is that Cash Mat thinks The original construction also has the problem of being too noisy, creating a perception of the power station as polluting. Thomas (2010) think if a construction is quiet, it gives people a feeling that this building is cleaner. Therefore, we suggested that using the surrounding soil to cover part of the building to reduce the sounds by using soil as acoustic insulation.

The possible location for school might be also in the core area shown in the photo of the physical model.

Which is also more reasonable to arrange the school of power station close to the main working element of the power station.

1.5 Gap analysis One of the main problems, in this case, is the knowledge difference between the designers and the operators of the power station. The designers have the knowledge and skill of design, but the users have the knowledge and experience of how to use the machine, which is important information for knowing the relationship between different function areas. Both constitutes’ knowledge is important for this project. The method used in this case is that the designers travel around the power station and study how the different function area works and understand the relationship between them.

From the diagram and the plan, it is clear that there are two main sub-function areas surround the main core in different height, it is also the same which shown in the perspective render. And by analyzing the diagram 2, the two areas were connected by a corridor-like connection crossing the main core area. From the perspective, the two main subfunction areas are more likely to be museum area.

18

201578986 Cheng. TAN

Diagram 5 Groud Floor Plan

pyhsical Model of the proposal

In order to imporve the efficiency of space occupation, the participatory approach is applied for this project.

By using the method Worksop and Mock-up, the studio reach the aim of brief.

19

University of Strathclyde Department of Architecture

Picture 3 Eastern Market

2. Precedence 2 – Retrofitting project of Eastern Market

Because of the participatory design focuses more on the user experience than other design, generally the project scale is quite big in a participatory design project. The more different individuals are involved in, the better the participatory design can show its advantages rather than other design approaches. Because if more participants involved, more complicated the relationship and experiences between users would be. It would be easier to less consider about users, so the big project is better to use participatory design approach.

The second case study reviewed in this paper is a larger scale project. Compare with a single building project, this project focuses more on the people’s experience rather than construction detail, because the larger project has more space as tolerance to adjust, so the layout of the function area has priority. Contrast to the space efficiency has priority in single building design project.

2.1. Background description and explanation of project: Eastern Market has been an important trade center for Detroit from 1891. Over a century, the food supply system changed a lot because of the needs of the city has changed. Eastern market

20

201578986 Cheng. TAN

Picture 4 - Nourishing Detroit Since 1891

Picture 5 - Nourishing Detroit Since 1891

21

Picture 6 - Nourishing Detroit Since 1891

University of Strathclyde Department of Architecture

Diagram 5 - Eastern Market Green Stormwater Management Strategy used to hold the majority of the local products trade with a large number of wholesalers involved until the construction of Detroit Produce Terminal Market in 1925 (Olin, 2016). The new market trades products in larger scale, with the help of train lines, large quantities of products would be imported to and exported from local. Due to the construction of selfsupported regional distribution centers of the most grocery chains on the 1950s, both markets started to shrink in scales and trade fields.

for growing food, processors and wholesalers are continuously moving away during the last 20 years.

Moreover, this problem is also noticed by some organizations such as the Butcher and Packer Co. and Maceri Produce (DCDC, 2015). Therefore, the job opportunities for the local residents are decreased, and the further result is people would feel harder to pay for their living cost.

2.3. Actions and Results DCDC studio came up with a proposal by using the natural resources to create new system loop to solve the problems. A district-wide Stormwater management strategy was proposed (Olin, 2016).

The system would reduce the drainage charges for local people by collecting stormwater to support the water supply system. Furthermore, the environment would be improved and provided more education and working opportunities.The study was prompted

by Eastern Market Corporation’s interest in taking a more proactive approach to stormwater management as well as the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department’s need to reduce its combined

2.2. The problem and concerns The problem of the market is the food circle system is out of date. As the customer reduced, the circulation of food industry ecosystem would not be able to exist. In addition, the whole food system chain such as food producing, processing, allocating and selling would also be canceled. It does not only cause the replacement of the identity as a food system center, but also cause a significant increase of the unemployment of the local people who would be harder to pay for their lives (DCDC, 2015).

Another issue is because there is not enough space

22

201578986 Cheng. TAN

Diagram 6 - Eastern Market Green Stormwater Management Strategy sewer overflows and treatment costs. The studio did the research about the basic situation and buit the initial idea design for the stormwater system of the Eastern Market district.

In expanding Eastern Market into a largely vacant area, the green paths are used for making different function areas more independent (Olin, 2016).

In addition, the area of employment of education institutions and residential area is divided. The existing urban improvement strategies create a different gap between the residential area and rental area, but the new solution by merging the environmental convenience into the design, provide residents new benefits on living, working, entertainment, and studying. All the elements such as Landscape buffers, rentals, building entrance and green paths, would benefits and affects each others as an entire system.

The way that using the combination of environment and residential community to support the food system and provide job opportunities is a creative contraption.

Not only for Eastern Market, but also for other places it is also an innovation.

The proposal sets up a feasible arrangement to disconnect the stormwater catchment in several square kilometers from the combined sewer system.

This arrangement will enormously and positively affect the public and private stakeholders by providing a new source for daily usable water. The discussion conference base on the points mentioned above in 2025 strategy was held for collecting opinions from the public (Olin, 2016). The processes of the meetings are participatory, attendances range from individuals to entire public group are welcome to share opinions and ideas. The main topic of the discussion focuses on environmental issues and the sustainability of the area. Social concerns such as market access, mixeduse development and food system development are considered. With those meetings, different pieces of advices and suggestions are realized from area around Eastern Market.

In summary, a stormwater collecting system was applied in the Eastern Market area. With an in-

23

University of Strathclyde Department of Architecture

depth analysis and well design, by combining with the function areas of existing local community, the proposal provided solve various problems. By using the stormwater, drainage charge of local residents is reduced. By adding new function areas, the job opportunities are increased. Besides, the elements like rentals, buffers and green path, created a comfortable public space for people to socialize.

unless they study the stakeholders carefully.

Another method might be used is card sorting. The strategic direction of Eastern Market has evolved as a partnership of ideas. The District is made up of numerous stakeholders. For this planning exercise, there are 10 types of stakeholders participated in this project. They are Retail Merchants, Customers, Market & Bridge Vendors, Arts & Hospitality, Residents & Professional Services, Property Owners & Developers, Community Partners, Public Sector Partners and Funders. In order to study all of those stakeholders, the Detroit Collaborative Design Center set up several focus groups to talk to the stakeholders separately about the requirements and concerns of the area. In addition, Representatives for a Task Force of each group were selected and get together for more holistic talking about the design. The discussion conference base one the points mentioned above in 2025 strategy was held for collecting opinions from the public. The processes of the meetings are participatory, attendances range from individuals to

2.4. Analysis of PD approach utility There are two methods used in this case, first one is “ethnography”, another one could be “card sorting” or “cooperative prototyping”. For the method ethnography, it is not obvious, because of the regular meeting are deciding all the design decisions, so it looks like the workshop method, which is that designers and stakeholders design and make decision together. But actually, the design process happened before the regular meeting. The designers need to design the proposal base on the stakeholders’ perspectives and trying to fulfill all the stakeholders’ needs. There is no chance for them to design properly

Diagram 7 - Role of Green Stormwater Infrastructure

24

201578986 Cheng. TAN

Diagram 8 - Infrastructures working System

entire public group are welcome to share opinions and ideas. The main topic of the discussion is focused on environmental issues and the sustainability of the area. Social concerns such as market access, mixeduse development and food system development are considered. With those meetings, different pieces of advice and suggestions are realized from an area around Eastern Market.

It is clear that a large number of participants are involved in this project, and each participant have certain concerns and needs for themselves. Card sorting is a fast way to gather the information from different individuals efficiently and accurately. Other ways like cooperative prototyping is possible but less likely to be used in this case, because its information gathering process is more complicated than card sorting method’s. Since the big quantities of involvers, this method would be inefficient on time aspect.

2.5. Gap analysis Because of the large number and variety type of stakeholders, the knowledge background among the stakeholders and designer are quite different. Due

25

University of Strathclyde Department of Architecture

Diagram 9 - Anchored in Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan

26

201578986 Cheng. TAN

to the scale of the project is quite big, the connection between different stakeholders is not as strong and close as those in single construction design project.

So the main problem, in this case, is the knowledge gap between designers and each stakeholder.

The designers need to control the whole design idea, meanwhile communicate with each stakeholder to understand their needs. Some stakeholders also have connections between each other, such as Retail Marchant and customers, so the relationship between those related stakeholders needs to be considered.

And another issue, in this case, is each type of stakeholders also has large quantities of individuals.

So representatives for each stakeholder would be selected. The communication would also happen between the designers and the representatives rather than the stakeholders themselves. There is also a chance to cause misunderstanding when the representative delivery the information. In order to eliminate the misunderstanding as much as possible, avoiding the unnecessary communication and minimizing the complexity of the communication seems to be an efficient way. In this case, all the representatives would be called together regularly to vote for important decisions. The representatives would agree with the proposal if it reaches the requirements of their stakeholders. The proposal would be approved if the majority of the stakeholders agree with it. Designers need to translate their professional language into the language, which the representatives could easily understand, and to judge if the proposal reaches their expectation or not.

27

University of Strathclyde Department of Architecture

3. Precedence 3 – Primary School Interface Design

The third precedence is an urban design project. The reason for selecting this case is not because of the project itself, but the participants involved. The majority of the participants are children, the users of the school. Furthermore, this project is a user-designed project, the emphasis of the project is designed base on users’ intentions.

3.1. Background description and explanation of the project: The school is not only providing place for people to study, it also providing space for people to stay in. Due to this condition, instead of a public area with landscape designing, the campus is more like a community combined with education, entertainment and social connections. For the staff, teachers and students. They all have the different expectation of school. Hence, in this project, the participants would be the instructors and students. With the help of designers, instructors and students should be able to discover their own inspirations and definitions for the school fences.

Four design teams were established by the Taipei City Government, and 18 schools were distributed into the design teams. In this paper, team D would be introduced. Five of the schools were allocated to design team D for further development in the project. One of the 5 schools, which is Min Quan Elementary school, would be analyzed for demonstrating the design process (Shu-Ying, 2012). In this design, instructors, students, parents and residents would be involved as participants for modifying the school in this participatory design. This experience is also the precedence for other design team to refer when undertaking the similar project.

3.2. Main problem and concerns: The main concern for this precedence is the participants are children. Because of the age issues, sometimes the participants cannot think things maturely and holistically when they are doing design. In addition, they might have trouble with understanding or express ideas or opinions. However, the project aim is to

28

201578986 Cheng. TAN

Drawings 1-8 - Students Design Proposals

design base on participants idea, designers need to design, or as the supporter, by following participants’ intentions.

Participatory Design, Participatory Construction and Participatory Maintenance.

The outlines of each step are listed in the following:

3.3. Actions and Results To begin with, some design workshops base on different aspects would be set up. And that workshop would be merged into the normal courses taken in school to help the administrators and instructors to gain the basic knowledge of participatory design. Then questionnaires would be distributed to students to discover the ideal fence in the perspective of students.

So the fence would have more chance to meet the expectation of users, mainly students in this project, in the future. Meanwhile, the students and instructors would also be involved into the design process of

Firstly, several represents for school administrators and instructors would be selected to offer the expectation and requirements for the campus fences. Science teachers would join the design team to discuss the choices for the plants in campus, at the same time, the opinions, which are collected in the science class, of students for the fence plant selections would also be considered.

- Student Survey Because of the proficiency of construction, the detail for construction would be concluded in CDs,

29

University of Strathclyde Department of Architecture

Drawing 9 - Site Plan of Campus

Picture - 7

Picture - 8

Picture - 9

which would be distributed to instructors. Then instructors would selectively and appropriately explain that knowledge to students before filling the survey. In Min Quan Elementary School, students from different levels would show their intention of the campus fences by writing and drawings (ShuYing, 2012). Phonetic notations were noted on the surveys for students which are too young to read and understand the description on the survey. 280 surveys were hand out in total. The special designs, would be selected from the survey by the design team, to be considered when designing the fence in workshops.

- Participatory Construction Because the participants’ idea is essential, the design team developed the detail design and initial blueprint base on the ideas provided by the students. In the process of Construction, the principal, directors, Science teachers, parents and students (40 individuals), design group (7 individuals), construction unit (5 individuals) and recording group (3 individuals) were cooperated with each other to grow the plants in flower stands of the west fence (Shu-Ying, 2012). The sciences teachers would decide which kind of plants should be used by considering other individuals suggestions. The suggested plants should bloom all seasons and advisable for the climate of Taiwan. Such as papayas, white mulberries, bananas, Chinese ixoras, etc. Hibiscuses and azaleas were added with the plants to build an integrated green fence.

- Design Workshop Topics, which are summarized from the students’ survey, as Cute and Fun, Ecology Green, Brightness and Happiness, Architecture Flavor, Sporty Energy, and Color would be included in the workshop.

Students were separated into 6 teams to focus on designing topics they are interested in.

- Participatory Maintenance In the class, Instructors provided the Taiwanese original plants for students to study, the study results would be checked by the assignments. The knowledge of how to grow plants for the children could be learnt from Science class and their practical ability would be practiced by doing the watering and weeding on their own with in the maintenance and arrangement team with designers and instructors inside to help them (Shu-Ying, 2012).

The workshop would offer the materials such as Recycled corrugated papers, ice sticks, Styrofoam boards and foam boards for students to developing their design idea for the school interface. 25 students, 2 instructors, 7 design team members together with 3 recorders have joined this workshop.

Pieces named the Dream of a fish, Brightness and Happiness, Casual Architecture, Basketball Plaza, Beautiful Garden, and the Wall of the River, were completed (Shu-Ying, 2012). In the end, students are going to do the team presentation to clarify their proposal.

3.4. Analysis of PD approach utility In this case, there are three main methods used in this project. The workshops, Cooperative prototyping

30

201578986 Cheng. TAN

Picture 10-12 - Student joining mainteinance team

Picture 13 - 15 - Student in class and in presentation

and user design.

students’ ideas would be improved by this method.

In user design method, designers are supposed to teach the users of design knowledge and let them design by themselves, the design tool they used mainly are pens, papers and the projectors for presentations. In this case, the students would learn the relevant knowledge, which is connected with both site information and design knowledge, by course works provided by teachers. And then, they would start to design the fence according to their desire. Then some design proposals would be made, but these proposals might not be considerable and mature because the participants’ ages are too young. So the design proposal might not be that considerable and mature. So second method, workshops, is used for make sure the final design is feasible. The professional designers would work with students together to figure out the solution. The designer would only use their professional knowledge to help the participants, the students, to achieve their design goal, rather than make design decision by designer themselves.

3.5. Gap analysis The participants for this case are designers, students and instructors. The gaps between each individual are quite big. There are two kinds of gap in this case, knowledge gap and communication gap.

The gap in this case contains communication gap between the students and designers, the knowledge gap among designers, students, and instructors.

For fill the knowledge gap between the designers and instructors, design team would provide CDs with certain knowledge for instructors to study.

In order to fill the knowledge gap the designers and students, because of the limited understanding ability of students and the lack of teaching technique of designers, it is not the appropriate way to let designers talk to students directly. However, as the school staff, the instructors are more experienced in teaching students. Under this condition, the method for this case is letting instructor translate the knowledge from CDs provided by designers into the language which the students can be easier to absorb to let the students understand the basic knowledge.

After the student understand the knowledge and fill the survey, the designers would study the survey to understand students’ ideas.

Then in the workshop method, the designer would work with instructors to develop the design by discussing. And in the participatory construction stage, the designers, instructors and students would work together to fill the plants.

The cooperative prototyping method is used for gathering information and idea from students, multiple media is used for supporting students’ understanding of the surveys. The accuracy of

For fill the knowledge gap between the students and instructors, the daily courses contains the certain knowledge would be available.

31

University of Strathclyde Department of Architecture

4. Chapter Summary In this chapter, 3 precedencies are discussed. The first case is a single construction design, participatory design schedule applied in this case is focus on the space usage efficiency. The essential issues in this case are understandings of the function area working pattern. The main communication gap in design team is knowledge.

The second case study is an urban scale participatory design project base on environment aspect. The relationship and connection between different spaces and areas would be focused on. The main actions for this case are combining the usage of natural resources with new design to create new functions to replace the old functions, which is start to be abandoned, of the place to benefits the local residents in various aspects. The main gap is knowledge gap and different expectation between different stakeholders. The third case study is a school interface design project with children participated. The project would focus on users’ idea to design.

The communication gaps among designers and participants are variety, such as knowledge, maturity, feasibility, etc.

In the end, a discussion by overall considering three precedencies is provided. The participatory design schedule applied in a real project is illustrated. What kinds of communication gaps are summarized and the actions the involvers taken to eliminate the gaps are analyzed.

The first case study discussed in this paper is a power station rebuild project. It is a small-scale single construction project. There are two participatory design methods used in this case, which is the methods workshop and mock-ups. The second case study analyzed in this paper is an urban-scale market retrofit project. The main issues need to be considered in this case is modifying the whole working system of the project base on making benefits for all the stakeholders. The participatory design methods, which are used in this case, are ethnography and card sorting. The third case study illustrated in this paper is special design for school interface. The children participated in this design made this project special. The participatory design methods used in this case are user design and workshop.

32

201578986 Cheng. TAN

33

34

5 In this chapter, three different types of precedencies of participatory design would be introduced. Then the methods used and Gap issues in the cases would be analyzed respectively. The solutions base on aspects of stakeholders and designers would be discussed.

1. Precedencies summary analysis The workshop was used in the first and third case, by checking the common of those two case, it is clear that the workshop methods are suitable for small size of design team, because in workshop, designers are designing with participants, which are normally non-professionals, together, if there are too many involvers in the design team, it would take long team to making progress on design process.

So it is more suitable to use workshop method in the small scale of design team rather than large scale.

In order to make the project achieving the goals of stakeholders in a large-scale project, the ethnography method is used rather than workshop. Ethnography is a designer based design approach in participatory design, designers need to have a deep study of the stakeholders, and to design on their own perspectives.

Because it is a designer based design approach, the design process could be running faster than the workshop method, which has more non-professional involved. But also because it is the designer based design approach, the view of participants cannot be ensured. In order to eliminate this potential problem, in case 2, the regular meetings are held after a certain period of design approach, in order to make the design more understandable, the prototypes are set up for the stakeholders to judge if the design is reaching their goals or not. The communication process is simplified, which means the time is saved and the less chance of the misleading message.

35

University of Strathclyde Department of Architecture

The method mock-ups is used in the first case for designing base on the perspectives of the large quantities of customers by mocking them. By checking the case, this method is used in large quantities and various types of nonprofessional orientation participants. Because of the large quantities and types, it is hard to gather all participants together or separate them into a different group by type then selecting the representatives, which is used in the second case study. And they are not related professionals to the project. So the mock up is suitable.

From the case three, the user design method is used when the design aim to be highly care about the idea of participants. Because this method is a user based design method, the enough design knowledge is essential. In this case, the relative information, skill and knowledge are delivered by course work, lessons and multi-media survey.

1.1. Methods used analysis: Workshop method is suitable for small size design team to cooperate to do the design process. The mock up method is used for large quantities of participants, which is hard to classify for selecting representatives, with no professional orientation. For large scale project, ethnography is an efficient way for saving time on the design process, but for the fulfill the clients’ desire as much as possible, regular meeting with stakeholders for confirming the design direction is needed. Cooperative prototyping is another designer based design method in participatory design, it suitable for either small or large quantity of participants by using the digital software support.

2. Gaps and issues Analysis By analyzing the case studies, the gap among the designers could be separated into different aspects. The knowledge gaps among the designers and stakeholders, the communication gaps among the designers and stakeholders, the conflict of interest gap among the stakeholders.

2.1. Knowledge gap: The knowledge gap usually appears between the designers and the building users. In a participatory designed building, the users of the construction are normally specialists in the certain field for using the whole or a part of the building. In addition, for architects or designers, it is less likely to know knowledge in depth. In order to design the most efficient system for the building, it is essential for them to understand the knowledge in detail. The knowledge gaps would also appear among different stakeholders, the problem would be obviously when they are in the meeting for discussing the design direction, especially in the early stage of design process.

2.2. Communication gap Communication gap usually appeared between the designers and building users, it would be affected by the features such as ages, culture, knowledge, perspectives, etc.

If the participants are too young, the maturity of them might not be enough for proper consideration. Additionally, when discuss design process with them, it would be slower for them to understand the information. Normally children have less patience than the adults, they would lose interesting faster than adults, when that happened. It would be a trouble for the project continues going, in order to solve the problem. Some technology methods could be used. For example, the 36

201578986 Cheng. TAN

animation is helpful for maintaining the interest of children. The verbal or video technology can efficiently help children in taking new knowledge faster.

For the old people, their understanding and memory might not as good as adults.

It would normally take longer for them to understand or memorize certain knowledge.

2.3. The problem of different expectation This kind of gap normally could be found among the stakeholders, the different project would have the different situation. And it is less likely to be found in small project, it is quite in the large urban scale project with more than one types of stakeholders/space users as well. The primary reason for these gaps is the conflict of interest.

3. Solutions In order to eliminate those gaps in a participatory design project, not only the designers and the clients, but all the stakeholders need to contribute for this.

There are some different aspects for those individuals to do.

3.1. Designers Perspective: In the perspective of designers, there are several issues could be noticed for efficiently prevent the issues of the gaps among the design team. The importance of those issues might not be that obvious in general design project, but since the larger participants are involved in the design team, those skills or mind set are becoming more important. In the following sections, the efficient methods for designers to prevent the problem such as the teaching skill, decision making mind set, and difference distinguish skill and expectation skill and communication skill would be discussed in depth.

3.1.1 Teaching skill: Teaching skill for designers is an efficient method for eliminating the knowledge gap between the designers and the stakeholders.

Teaching skill for the designers is not only the teaching process, but also the distinguish step before the real teaching stage. Every project has its own features, and for a different project, maybe different knowledge is needed, architects need to be able to distinguish them.

In general designer-centered design approach, the process works in different way from a participatory design. Designers study and understand the clients’ requirement, then do the design by using their professional skill and knowledge to meet those requirements then meet with clients to discuss the proposal to make sure the design fulfill their expectation. But in a participatory design, the clients, users and other stakeholder are also a part of design team. But they don’t have enough professional knowledge. And they will take part in the design process as well. It is the designers’ responsibility to teach them the knowledge which they need for undertaking the design process. No matter from time efficiency aspect or the complexity of the teaching process aspect, it is neither unnecessary to teach the whole knowledge of design. Langdon (1980) thinks that design is controversial and political. The final desire of any design is what is supposed to be done rather than what is been done (Simon, 1968). In a project, designers supposed to be able to dictate what users can and cannot do for contributing the project (Yutaka, 2012). So the designers need to be able to distinguish which knowledge is useful for a certain situation for certain stakeholders and which are not. Then teach the needed knowledge to the stakeholders.

When talking about teaching skill, designers should think how they learn. One 37

University of Strathclyde Department of Architecture

of the most efficient ways to learn knowledge is by applying it. Burnard (1992) thinks people used to learn things from experience. John Dewey (1916, 1938), Keeton and Associates (1976) also write several papers for telling people how to apply a series of experimental teaching skill. Therefore, it would be helpful to teach with reality related cases rather than the pure theory of certain knowledge.

way of the team should follow certain ways claimed by the leaders, who is approved by others. So the leaders, generally are the designers in the design team, have the certain power to decide the design decisions, but they also need take advice from other individuals in the design team. Friedrichsen (2014) also argues that architectural work should be done by “[…] either the whole team, or at least some specifically skilled team members - to share the knowledge across the team”. So it is clear that the all the participants who are involved in the design team should already have certain understanding relevant design knowledge and skill. If they don’t, they have right to be taught for certain knowledge and skills for fulling involving the design process base on understanding the reason and results of every step and decision.

Similarly, Waterman and his colleagues (2015) think architectural decisions should be a final result of the collaboration of the whole team. （Galster, 2016）

3.1.2. Mindset of decision-making power The mindset of decision-making power for designers is very important for a participatory design project.

Designers used to dominate the design process, and using their own way to fulfil the requirements of clients or the users. But in a participatory design, professionals such as architects or engineers are not the only designers anymore, but they cooperate with few co-designers, the gap of importance in design team would be appeared when the designers think they have more power than the co-designers in a design team. The mindset of decision-making power is trying to let the designers understand that the codesigners are as same important as them in a design team, which means, they, the professionals, also need to share their design right and decision-making right with the co-designers even they think the decision the co-designers made is not correct, they have right to suggest and inform the co-designers but it is not correct to just banning their decisions.

Generally, the architect is the leader of the design team. As a leader, they have to make all the important design decisions. And it is their duty to make sure the whole design stick on the same principle or core idea, so when there are disagreements on design decisions, the idea of the team leader has the priority.

As a good architect, it is necessary that they are able to make the important decision and take responsibility for the results caused by the decision they made. So there is nothing wrong for them to used to hold the decision making power in their own hands when they are running the project.

Even in the beginning stage of participatory design, the relationship between participants and the democracy of the system is being noticed.

Andrew (1992) and his colleagues argued that the democratization is important in a system design.

With the support of Thoresen (1992), they agree that in a system, noticeability of individuals’ rights would affect the efficiency of the whole design process.

The productivities of participants would be increased by their decision right being recognized, and more contributions would be made for the design base on their knowledge and experience, otherwise the design for them is just an assistance for other people’s work rather than their own project. Friedrichsen (2014) said: “The best architectures, requirements, and designs emerge from self-organizing teams” It highlighted that the architecture design is a team work rather than an individual process, the working

Things might be a little bit different in a participatory design project. Since the participatory design is a clients or user based design approach rather than a designer based approach. So the project direction should follow the clients’ or users’ idea rather than the designers’ idea, even for the design part.

Since the principle of the participatory design is bringing the stakeholders into the design team as co-designers, which lead them have the design right meanwhile can share the decision making power with designers.

From the perspective of designers, they need to understand is they have to respect the opinion of co-

38

201578986 Cheng. TAN

designers, they cannot dominate the design process and make all the decisions in the designer process because of they think they are professionals. Galster (2016) argued that it is supposed to be the whole team takes responsibility for every design decision, rather than the one or several individuals, generally, the architect in a design team, hold the right for the final call. Schwaber (2002) and Cohn (2009) supported this opinion by papers that introducing the ‘internal architect’ scenario respectively. The designers need to understand that the users have the same importance as them in the designer team, so they have to respect their opinion even they do not agree with.

3.1.4. Communication skill As a designer, it is necessary to be able to communicate the ideas with the people who barely get to design process and might find difficult to understanding and describe ideas. An efficient architect should be able to build the connections between different individuals to fill the communication gap by using their communication skills (Strano, 2007). It is important for a designer to be able to clearly explain the design detail through different aspects and various foci (Zachman 1987).

As Sogeti (2006) stated, when the organization choosing architects, the one who is good at communication would have more advantages to be hired. The reason is part of the job for them is to build a network to connect clients with other stakeholders and professionals. In other words, the job for designers is not only about design, but also about connecting individuals who are involved in the project.

3.1.3 Distinguish Ability and Social skill In an architectural project, it is common, especially in large scale project, that a number of stakeholders are involved. Usually, they have every complicated interrelationship among each other. Generally, the stakeholders have the different preference on the project, the importance for different aspects or areas of the project to them is different. Some stakeholders might be interested of one aspect but be less interested of another one, which another stakeholder think is important to them.

3.2. For other stakeholders As the paper mentioned before, participatory design is a cooperate work rather than an individual job, not only architects or designers need to do some improvements for eliminating the gap issues, but also the clients and other stakeholders need to contribute as well. Some methods for other stakeholders could be done to improve the communication problems. In the following sections, be willing to be involved, sharing knowledge, communication skill would be introduced.

For designers, they have to distinguish which stakeholders prefer to see which part of the project, and prepare the certain documents for certain stakeholders. Because of the different background of the stakeholders, different expression ways should be used for different readers to make them easily understand the contents. The general rule for improving the understandability of the documents is writing the contents from readers’ view rather than from designers’ view (Nicoletti, 2012). This approach can improve the efficiency of the design process when the workshop method is undertaken in a participatory design by shortening the time for stakeholders to check the documents which provided by the designers.

3.2.1 Mindset of Participation Generally and reasonably, stakeholders always have their own occupations and careers in their own lives.

Most of them are too busy to find time to be involved in the design process, and typically, they do not want to be involved as well. From their perspectives, they think the design process is not their job. Normally, they would prefer to simply tell the designer what they want, and the designers and their team handle the rest of the works and return with a satisfactory design in the end (Yutaka, 2008). But the truth is it is hard to produce a satisfactory design without fully understanding clients’ thoughts. The more thorough

In addition, social skill is more like the design ability.

The designers need to be the connections among the stakeholders when they have disagreements.

The designers should be able to provide the solution for maximally fulfilling the requirements of all stakeholders. This would helpe to eliminate the interest gaps among the stakeholders.

39

University of Strathclyde Department of Architecture

Diagram 10 Nicoletti's method for involving stakeholders to track up-to-date desugn document communications through the whole design process occurred, the easier designers could fully understand the clients’ requirements and clients could track the design direction, the more chance for the design to reach the initial intention of clients.

the designers have the knowledge, there is still a risk that the system architects suggested might not be perfectly suitable for this project. After the project done, the designers will leave, but the stakeholders will continue workings as users in following years. In order to make sure the system is suitable for their working pattern, the best option is let them design their own system. This point might be a little bit hash, but from Yutaka’s view, it is clearly shown that the participation of the stakeholders in a project is important.

Regarding this issue, Oke shows his own attitude in a recent paper. He (2017) all the stakeholders or individuals who might affect the projects should participate the whole-life cycle of the project. The reason is they are the essential constituents for the feasibility of the project. In his view, he highlighted the importance of stakeholders in an architectural project, and the involvements of them are necessary. In order make the design maximally satisfies the stakeholders, Nicoletti (2012) has the same opinion in his paper: One key method is let stakeholders involved into the process when design is updating, by using some digital technology, which is a method called semi-automated construction of stakeholders profiles in Nicoletti’s case study, it is convenient to make stakeholders keep tracking design process meanwhile the design is being undertaken. It is clear that Nicoletti also agrees that stakeholders should try to participate the design process for improving the satisfactory degree of the project. Furthermore, some opinions shown that only participating the project is not enough, in a certain aspect, some of the stakeholders have to design by themselves. Yutaka (2008) think the users must design the system they will use for certain system. The reason is that when one project finished, designers would cooperate with another client for their system design. In general, designers would recommend the similar or same system, which is reasonable because the system could be the most efficient or most suitable system for certain type of project. Even

3.2.2. Sharing knowledge Although the architects’ knowledge, experiences and design skill seems more important for an architectural project, users’ and other stakeholders’ knowledge does also matter.

The building users and other stakeholders have to realize that their own experience and knowledge can also be applied to improve the design in a certain aspect (Yutaka, 2012).

Yutaka (2012) think the users should design the technology system they are going to use by themselves. In a general situation, when the users were asked what type of technology they would like to have for their future usages. Normally they would suggest the same technology system they are currently using, for some experienced users, they would also ask for some improvements base on the current technology system because they might find some inconveniences in daily using. This is understandable, because they do not need to get used to the new system, they can get into work efficiently as soon as possible, but for a long-term perspective. The more advanced system could work more efficiently.

40

201578986 Cheng. TAN

Two problems would have appeared in this situation.

Firstly, if the improvements for all the stakeholders were realized individually, the development cost would be enormous. Generally, it would easily exceed the budget even with a very generous tolerance. Also, the maintain scale would enlarge a lot since every single improvement requirements are fulfilled individually.

Objectively, not all of the request is essentially needed.

Some requests are only “good to have” whereas others are “must have.” Generally, it is not easy for the users to recognize those two types of requests. The reason for this is when users asked about the what

type technology they want, they would only have a narrow view of their own perspective, so the requests they asked are quite independent, They have to learn how to think in an integrated view. Second, such incremental changes do not justify costly technology development. The development of technology aspect should be some significant modifications. Faced with this gap, stakeholders must transform their knowledge, break out of their familiar reality, and design a technology to achieve larger goals (Yutaka, 2012).

Table 1 - Angelov's cases study overview

3.2.3. Communication ability Angelov (2016) did a series of cases study to explore the issues between the design team, which contains architects, engineers and technicians, and external stakeholders, which are constituted by clients, users, etc, in an architectural project. In the end, in some of the cases, the clients were reported to lack certain abilities such as competences, technical and architecting knowledge. Those issues would cause the overhead, which is both time and effort, of designers to solve the problems. The result is insufficient time for the projects. For this result, it is clear that the communication is important for an architectural project not only for the time efficiency aspect, but also for the simplicity of the process. The necessary communication is not only needed to be happened between the architects and stakeholders, but also need to happen between the stakeholders and technicians and engineers, because those individuals can decide the feasibility of the design proposal. The stakeholders need have a holistic perspective when talking to those individuals as same as architects’.

Sogeti (2006) think regular meeting and communication is important. Firstly, people can learn from each other. Secondly, it would also helpful for building a cooperative awareness. As stated before, architectural design is not an individual job but a team work. It would be more effective for stakeholders to participate and discuss with the team about the problems or issues (Sogeti Nederland, 2006).

Nirmit (2012) with his colleagues had concluded three main elements of participatory design: the users’ participation, the scenario design and the experimental protocol. The user participation is about the involvement of the participants, and the second and third point, actually are existed for guaranteeing the design is actualizing the idea of the users. Accurately delivering users’ idea is further development of the participation. In order to avoid misunderstanding or misleading message, a good communication ability is required for both designers and participants.

41

University of Strathclyde Department of Architecture

4. Chapter Summary

In this chapter, firstly, a holistic conclusion of what methods were used in which kind of situation in participatory design would be provided base on the precedencies analysis. Base on those different conditions, what kind of gap would occur in the projects would be discussed. Finally, the solutions for those problems are illustrated by explaining the aspects of designers and other stakeholders.

According to the analysis of precedencies, different purposes of the project would lead to different methods used for achieving the goals. For maximally improving the efficiency of space occupation or working pattern, the workshop method is suitable. But the restriction is stakeholders are willing to be involved and the number of participants is fairly small. For the situation that clients and users do not want to participate the project too often, the methods such as ethnography, mock-up, cooperative prototyping and card sorting would be advisable. Base on how deep the designers need to learn about the stakeholder, the certain methods would be selected.

Those methods are applicable for any scale of projects and would have advantages on large-scale project with significant numbers of participants involved. If the users have a strong interest in designing by themselves, then the user design method is suggested to be used. This method is suitable for a small project with limited numbers of participants.

Three main gaps were founded in the precedencies analysis. They are the knowledge gap, communication gap, and difference of expectations. In order to solve those problems, certain things can be done by the involvers.

For designers, firstly, they need to have the ability to distinguish the

42

201578986 Cheng. TAN

needed knowledge for the participants and efficiently teach them. This can decrease the knowledge gaps. Secondly, they need to transfer their mind, instead of thinking they are dominating the design process, they need to share the power of decision-making in a design, this would reduce the gaps between stakeholders and designers by encouraging the enthusiasm of stakeholders’ participations to make them do more efforts of sharing their knowledge for the design. Thirdly, designers need to have difference distinguish and associated skill, for different stakeholders, different documents need to be prepared and connections between different stakeholders should be built be designers. The difference of expectations between different stakeholders would be eliminated in some extent by setting up a holistic perspective for the design. Last but not the least, communication skill is also important for explaining project and teaching and understanding knowledge, it would have a positive effect for all of the gaps issues.

For stakeholders, firstly, they also need to transfer their mind. The more they are involved in the design process, the more detail they will know about the design. It would also reduce the chance of misunderstanding, it is an efficient way to eliminate the communication gap between them and designers. Secondly, they also need to share their knowledge to designers, because it would be helpful for designing the special option for certain function to make it can work more efficiently in the future. it is a good way to diminish the knowledge gap. Thirdly, they also need to have good communication ability for understanding the knowledge and explanation of the design. This can lessen the gap of knowledge between them and designers.

43

44

6 1. The potential problem of participatory design In participatory design, it is common that some technology or digital methods were used for supporting the participation of stakeholders. But the inappropriate usage of those methods can cause potential problems for participatory design.

Because of the various ranges of projects’ scales and types, sometimes the quantities of the participants are quite large, and it is very hard to make all the participants physically being involved in the design process. In this situation, in order to collect the stakeholders’ opinion as accurate as possible, some methods might be supported by the certain technologies.

For example, it would be an easier way for users to understand the design proposal in certain situation by building an appropriate digital model for them the experience and feel the design by themselves. This is also usual in many scenario designs. It would be a more efficient way than building a physical model in different aspects such as time, cost, operability and understandability. Other cases such as large quantities of involvers might be asked to do a survey, whose comprehensibility is improved by some acoustic and visual technologies, for collecting opinions. The advantages for this case is saving time for large quantities of participants.

When a technology is applied, not only the output products matter, but the factor that the people who are involved is also important (Trist & Bamforth 1951). One truth needs to be noticed is that technologies itself do not have the ability to produce value. The users of certain technology are the subjects who are delivering values. In technology usage aspect, some individuals would directly use the restrained or default operations for certain technology and neglect its potential value. Oppositely, others could use them wisely and creatively (Yamauchi and Swanson 2010). From a short-term perspective, the first option could provide advantages of convenience aspect. However, from a long-term view, the first option would have negative influence on a design by restricting people’s behavior and thinking modes. Using technology as assistant tool rather than guidance tool is the correct way.

45

University of Strathclyde Department of Architecture

2. Chapter Summary Due to the specificity of participatory design, technology is more dependent in this design process than other design approaches. With the help of technology, people can achieve or simplify the process of what other methods cannot (Yataka, 2012), but it also has the potential risk of limiting people’s behavior in certain extent. What designers should do is simplifying the certain process by using appropriate technology methods rather than dealing issues under its boundary by inertia.

46

201578986 Cheng. TAN

47

48

7 1. Conclusion As the developing of technology level and peoples’ life style, the requirements of quality aspect for people are increased. Under this background, the aspects such as space occupied efficiency and function working efficiency are becoming more important for clients to take notice of in an architectural project. Therefore, a design method called participatory design, which could efficaciously solve the problems, is being remarked.

Different from other human centered design approaches, participatory design is more focus on the aspect such as user experience, building working efficiency, and the functional connections between different stakeholders or spaces. In order to achieve those goals, participatory design requires part or all of related stakeholders to be involved in the design team in appropriate extents through whole or parts of the design process, and the participants need to use their knowledge, experiences or skills to improve the design base on their own needs supported by the designers with professional design skills and knowledge. Nevertheless, because of the various type of scale, priorities and exceptions of projects, the procedures for applying participatory design are different. Contrapose different situations, different methods were concluded.

For the projects which are small scale, which normally means fewer stakeholders would be involved, and if the stakeholders are willing to join the team, workshop and user design would be suitable methods for the project.

The selection is decided by how much the participants would like to be involved. If the participation of the individuals is limited, one or some of the methods such as the method mock-up, ethnography and card sorting are applicable to be chosen base on how well the stakeholders need to be learnt.

For some big scale projects, because of the complexity of the design process and the type and quantities of stakeholders, it is impracticable to ask all the stakeholders to join the design team. Then the method such as Cooperative prototyping is more feasible. This method is designers based but, generally, by being supported by some technology methods, is designing base on stakeholders’ feedbacks. Commonly, methods like mock-up, ethnography and card sorting would also be used to support the designers to achieve a more convincing prototype model.

49

The projects are supposed to be smoothly undertaken by using the proper methods mentioned above. Although, no matter which methods are used, the main core of participatory design, which is making designers and stakeholders cooperate, would not be changed.

Therefore, the gaps between the designers and stakeholders could cause multiple issues in many aspects. In this dissertation, three of the gap issues, which are the knowledge gap, communication gap, and difference expectations, are analyzed. Their causations and solutions are discussed.

In participatory design projects, designers have the proficiency of design ability, but the users have the proficiency of how to use the building. Those two types of knowledge or skills are equally important but mastered by different individuals, the result is that the knowledge gap would appear. In order to eliminate the knowledge gap, for designers, they have to recognize what knowledge is important for the certain situation and use most suitable methods to let stakeholders understand as soon as possible. For stakeholders, they also need to share their knowledge to the designers to reduce the risk of the inefficiency of design.

In some situations, the misunderstanding or misleading message delivery would cause by the difference of culture, ages, experiences, etc. therefore, communication gaps among designers and stakeholders would be noticed. For this issue, designers need to communicate with different stakeholders with most comprehensible ways.

It is common that many stakeholders would be involved in a big project, and the different requirements for different stakeholders would cause the different expectations of the project.

To solve this problem, designers should bridge different individuals together and try to design base on group benefits. Stakeholders should be willing to learn design skill and knowledge and trying to consider in a more holistic perspective rather than only considering about their own benefits.

As a design approach involved non-professionals into the design approach, for improving the understanding between professionals and non-professionals, in general, a lot of technology methods were used. The technology provides the convenience for the design process, meanwhile, the potential problem is also caused. People would easily use the technology in inertia way rather than creatively, which would make the technology limits people’s behavior in the certain aspect. To avoid this problem, designers should be cautious when using any approaches to simplify the process. Any methods should be used as a tool rather than restriction.

50

i

ii

7 Bibliography This Chapter contains the references for all the image, text, and illustrations.

iii

Bibliographyies 1.

Anderson E.G., Joglekar N.R. (2012) The Leader as an Architect. In: The Innovation Butterfly.

Understanding Complex Systems. Springer, New York, NY 2.

Angelov S., Meesters M., Galster M. (2016) Architects in Scrum: What Challenges Do They Face?.

In: Tekinerdogan B., Zdun U., Babar A. (eds) Software Architecture. ECSA 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 9839. Springer, Cham https://link-springer-com.proxy.lib.strath.ac.uk/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-48992-6_17 3.

Archiscene. (2012) Teesside Power Station by Heatherwick Studio. [online] Available from: http:// www.archiscene.net/wp-content/gallery/archiscene/teesside-power-station11.jpg 4.

Bratteteig, T. & Wagner, I. (2014). Disentangling Participation Power and Decision-making in Participatory Design. [online] Available from: https://link-springer-com.proxy.lib.strath.ac.uk/book/10.1007% 2F978-3-319-06163-4 (Accessed on 5th August 2017) 5.

Burnard P. (1992) Teaching skills. In: Effective Communication Skills for Health Professionals.

Therapy in Practice Series, vol 28. Springer, Boston, MA 6.

BĂźscher M., Christensen M., Hansen K.M., Mogensen P., Shapiro D. (2009) Bottom-up, Top-down?

Connecting Software Architecture Design with Use. In: BĂźscher M., Slack R., Rouncefield M., Procter R., Hartswood M., Voss A. (eds) Configuring User-Designer Relations. Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Springer, London.[online]. Available from: https://link-springer-com.proxy.lib.strath.ac.uk/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-1-84628-925-5_8.pdf.

(Accessed on 5th August 2017) 7.

Chu TQ., Drogoul A., Boucher A., Jucker JD. (2012) Towards a Methodology for the Participatory Design of Agent-Based Models. In: Desai N., Liu A., Winikoff M. (eds) Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems. PRIMA 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7057. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg https://link-springer-com.proxy.lib.strath.ac.uk/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-25920-3_31(Accessed on 19th August 2017) 8.

Clement. A., Griffiths. M. & Besselaar. P. ven der. (1992).Participatory Design Projects: A Retrospective Look. [online]. Available from: http://ojs.ruc.dk/index.php/pdc/article/viewFile/81/73 9.

Cohn, M.(2009) Succeeding with Agile: Software Development Using Scrum. Addison-Wesley, Reading 10.

DCDC. (2015) Eastern Market Green Stormwater Management Strategy. [online] Available from: http://www.dcdc-udm.org/projects/strategies/EMStormwater/(Accessed on 5th August 2017)

iv

Bibliographies 11.

Dewey, J. (1916) Democracy and Education, Free Press, London.

12.

Dewey, J. (1938) Experience and Education, Collier Macmillan, London.

13.

Diebold, P., Ostberg, J.-P., Wagner, S., Zendler, U.: What do practitioners vary in using scrum? In: Lassenius, C., Dingsøyr, T., Paasivaara, M. (eds.) XP 2015. LNBIP, vol. 212, pp. 40–51. Springer, 14.

Ellefson, J. (2016) Eastern Market Green Stormwater Management Strategy. [online] Available from: http://www.mi-wea.org/docs/9._Ellefson_Jela-MWEA_EMC_Presentation_12_2016.pdf 15.

Evans, B.W. Systems Practice (1994) A user designer-based systems methodology. [online].

Available from: https://doi-org.proxy.lib.strath.ac.uk/10.1007/BF02173499. (Accessed on 5th August 2017) 16.

Friedrichsen, U. (2014) Opportunities, threats, and limitations of emergent architecture. In: Babar, M.A., Brown, A., Mistrik, I. (eds.) Agile Software Architecture, pp. 335–355. Morgan Kaufmann, Boston 17.

Galster M., Angelov S., Meesters M., Diebold P. (2016) A Multiple Case Study on the Architect’s Role in Scrum. In: Abrahamsson P., Jedlitschka A., Nguyen Duc A., Felderer M., Amasaki S., Mikkonen T. (eds) Product-Focused Software Process Improvement. PROFES 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10027. Springer, Cham https://link-springer-com.proxy.lib.strath.ac.uk/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-49094-6_29 18.

Gill, K.S. AI & Soc (1989) Reflections on participatory design. [online]. Available from: https://doi-org. proxy.lib.strath.ac.uk/10.1007/BF01908620 19.

Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-18612-2_4 20.

Hope T., Oka M., Hashimoto Y., Lee MH. (2011) Spatial Design, Designers and Users: Exploring the Meaning of Multi-party Service Cognition. In: Jacko J.A. (eds) Human-Computer Interaction.

Users and Applications. HCI 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6764. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg https://link-springer-com.proxy.lib.strath.ac.uk/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-642-21619-0_41. pdf(Accessed on 5th August 2017) 21.

Hoven.J. V. D.,Pieter. E., Poel. V. I. V. D.,(2015) Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design. [online]. Available from: https://link-springer-com.proxy.lib.strath.ac.uk/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-94-007-6970-0.pdf (Accessed on 5th August 2017)

v

Bibliographyies

22.

Hsieh J., Lin CC., Hsieh PT. (2011) A Method to Solve the Communication Gap between Designers and Users. In: Stephanidis C. (eds) Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Design for All and eInclusion. UAHCI 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6765. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg [online] Available from: https://link-springer-com.proxy.lib.strath.ac.uk/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-642-21672-5_8. pdf(Accessed on 5th August 2017) 23.

Katherine Brady (2016) HISTORY OF HUMANS & ARCHITECTURE [online]. Avaliable from: https:// katherinelbrady.wordpress.com/2016/07/20/history-of-humans-architecture/ 24.

Keeton, M. and Associates (1976) Experiential Learning, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, California.

25.

Kensing, F. & Blomberg, J. (1998) Computer Supported Cooperative Work [online] Available from: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008689307411 26.

Khadilkar P.R., Mani M. (2013) Designer’s Capability to Design and its Impact on User’s Capabilities.

In: Chakrabarti A., Prakash R. (eds) ICoRD'13. Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering. Springer, India https://link-springer-com.proxy.lib.strath.ac.uk/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-81-322-1050-4_115. pdf (Accessed on 5th August 2017) 27.

Langdon, W. (1960). Do Artifacts Have Politics? Daedalus, 109(1) 121–136, 28.

Lawson B.R. (1978) The Architect as a Designer. In: Singleton W.T. (eds) The analysis of practical skills. The study of Real Skills. Springer, Dordrecht. [online]. Available from: https://link-springer-com.proxy.lib.strath.ac.uk/chapter/10.1007/978-94-011-6188-6_15 (Accessed on 5th August 2017) 29.

Maigret, J. (2013) Liquid Planning Detroit. [online] Available from: http://graham.umich.edu/media/ files/DetroitSustainabilityMaigretArquero_Report.pdf. (Accessed on 15th August 2017) 30.

Nirmit Desai, Alan Liu, Michael Winikoff (2012) Principles and Practice of Multi-agent Systems, Springer:New York 31.

Mambrey, P., Mark, G. & Pankoke-Babatz, U. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) (1998) User Advocacy in Participatory Design: Designers' Experiences with a New Communication Channel. [online]. Available from: https://doi-org.proxy.lib.strath.ac.uk/10.1023/A:1008687122083 (Accessed on 5th August 2017) 32.

Mario.C., Kyu Ho. C., F. Kenta., G. Elie., J. Mitchell., L. JaeYoung., M. Adelaïde., M. Nicola ., V.

vi

Bibliographies Eric. (2010). Winners 2010 Skyscraper Competition. [online] Available from: http://www.evolo.us/ architecture/teesside-power-station-heatherwick-studio/ (Accessed on 11th August 2017) 33.

Nicoletti M., Diaz-Pace J.A., Schiaffino S. (2012) Towards Software Architecture Documents Matching Stakeholders’ Interests. In: Cipolla-Ficarra F., Veltman K., Verber D., Cipolla-Ficarra M., Kammßller F. (eds) Advances in New Technologies, Interactive Interfaces and Communicability.

ADNTIIC 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7547. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg https://link-springer-com.proxy.lib.strath.ac.uk/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-34010-9_17 (Accessed on 5th August 2017) 34.

Okamoto M. (2009) Possibility of Participatory Design. In: Kurosu M. (eds) Human Centered Design.

HCD 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5619. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg 35.

Oke A.E., Aigbavboa C.O. (2017) Construction Projects and Stakeholders. In: Sustainable Value Management for Construction Projects. Springer, Cham. [online] Available from: https://link-springer-com.proxy.lib.strath.ac.uk/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-54151-8_4 36.

Olin. (2016) EASTERN MARKET.[online]. Avaliable from: http://9b32aa63de0c5aa2a1c4-ac3ab d6e34c389d1c003fbc359fc9e18.r96.cf1.rackcdn.com/Final-Report-Digital-low-res-160204.pdf (Accessed on 20th August 2017) 37.

Park J., Park HA. (2014) Co-creation Patterns between Designers and Users in the Design Process: A View of Reflexivity. In: Tremblay M.C., VanderMeer D., Rothenberger M., Gupta A., Yoon V. (eds) Advancing the Impact of Design Science: Moving from Theory to Practice. DESRIST 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8463. Springer, Cham 38.

Schwaber, K., Beedle, M. (2002) Agile Software Development with Scrum. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River 39.

Simon, H.A. (1968)The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts 40.

Sogeti Nederland (2006) The Architect as a Success Factor. In: Building an Enterprise Architecture Practice. The Enterprise Series. Springer, Dordrecht https://link-springer-com.proxy.lib.strath.ac.uk/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4020-5606-2_7 41.

Strano, C. & Rehmani, Q. ISeB (2007)The role of the enterprise architect. [online]. Available from: https://doi-org.proxy.lib.strath.ac.uk/10.1007/s10257-007-0053-1 42.

Shu-Ying T. (2012) Participatory Design Application in Green Campus Interface - Taipei Elementary School Case Study. In: Matsumoto M., Umeda Y., Masui K., Fukushige S. (eds) Design for Innovative

vii

Bibliographyies

Value Towards a Sustainable Society. Springer, Dordrecht(Accessed on 9th August 2017) 43.

Thomas.H., (2010). Thomas Heatherwick: Building the Seed Cathedral. [online] Available from: https://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_heatherwick#t-353876 (Accessed on 11th August 2017) 44.

Thomas.K & Roland. W., (2007). Assessment of Land Use Impacts on the Natural Environment. https://link-springer-com.proxy.lib.strath.ac.uk/content/pdf/10.1065%2Flca2006.12.292.1.pdf(Acce ssed on 5th August 2017) 45.

Thoresen, Karl. (1992) Principles in practice. Two cases of situated panicipatory design. In Participatory pesign Perspectives on Systems J)esim. D. Schuler & A. Namiolca. Hillsdale (eds), N.J.: lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

46.

Trist, E.L., Bamforth, K.W. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal-getting: An examination of the psychological situation and defences of a work group in relation to the social structure and technological content of the work system. Human Relations 4(1) 3–38.

47.

Van Berkel, D.B. & Verburg, P.H. (2012) Combining exploratory scenarios and participatory backcasting: using an agent-based model in participatory policy design for a multi-functional landscape. [online]. Available from: https://doi-org.proxy.lib.strath.ac.uk/10.1007/s10980-012-97307 (Accessed on 5th August 2017) 48.

Viturvis. (1914). The ten books on architecture. [online] Available from:http://academics.triton.edu/ faculty/fheitzman/Vitruvius__the_Ten_Books_on_Architecture.pdf (Accessed on 11th August 2017) 49.

Von der Weth R. (2003) Designers and Users — an Unhappy Love Affair?. In: Lindemann U. (eds) Human Behaviour in Design. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg 50.

Waterman, M., Noble, J., Allan, G.: How much up-front? a grounded theory on agile architecture.

In: 37th International Conference on Software Architecture, pp. 347–357. IEEE Computer Society, Florence (2015) 51.

Watter. C. E., Choo. P. & Kang. M. (2015). Design for Experiencing: Participatory Design Approach with Multidisciplinary Perspectives. [online]. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S1877042815007272?via%3Dihub (Accessed on 5th August 2017)

viii

Bibliographyies

52.

Wright, F.L.: (1958).The Living City. Horizon Press.

53.

Yamauchi, Y., Swanson, E.B. (2010) Local assimilation of an enterprise system: Situated learning by means of familiarity pockets. Information and Organization 20(3–4) 187–206, 54.

Yutaka, Y. (2012) Field Informatics.Toru, I. (ed.) Participatory design. [online] Available from: https://link-springer-com.proxy.lib.strath.ac.uk/chapt er/10.1007/978-3-642-29006-0_8 (Accessed on 9th August 2017) 55.

Zachman J (1987) A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Syst J 38(2):454–470

ix