Kelly, G; Schmidt, R; Dainty, A and Story, V (2011) Improving the design process for adaptability: Linking feedback and architectural values. In: Egbu, C and Lou, E C W (eds.) Proceedings of 27th Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2011, Bristol, UK.
Abstract
Designing for adaptability intuitively requires an understanding of how buildings tend to change over time. This, in turn, suggests that architects could learn from and accumulate knowledge as their buildings evolve and change over time. On the other hand, the ways architects learn through conventional forms of feedback are not conducive to them learning about the effectiveness of their designs in use. For example, they tend to focus on the visual, whereas most feedback is provided in the form of check boxes and reports. Current feedback techniques are also heavily focused on performance metrics captured at one point in time. In this paper it is argued that feedback focused on how buildings are adapted over time should be integrated as part of the design process, informing architects of what has or hasn t worked, and what could be improved. The research addresses the need for a technique that will inspire architects to utilise feedback more effectively. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven UK architects in order to better understand how feedback informs their design decisions and whether more appropriate methods could be devised to improve the design process for adaptability. The analysis reveals that current feedback mechanisms are not sufficient for capturing feedback for adaptability, nor do they present the material in a format that fits into an architects' current mode of operation. The data suggests that architects are interested in learning about how buildings can accommodate change and that a tool that presents the captured lessons of past projects in a visual way, could improve the utilisation of this feedback.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | adaptability; architectural values; design decisions; feedback |
| Index terms: | performance metric, interview, design process, effectiveness, adaptability, architect, design decision |
| Subjects: | performance management, design practice, performance measurement, user focus, data collection methods, profession, design methods |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Quality Management, Research Practice, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here