Chun, M I; Harty, C and Schweber, L (2015) Comparative study of user-centred design approaches. In: Raiden, A and Aboagye-Nimo, E (eds.) Proceedings of 31st Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-9 September 2015, Lincoln, UK.
Abstract
This paper sets out to investigate user-centred design approaches utilised in design and construction of the built environment. 'User-centred design' refers to design which focuses on users' needs and wants. The term is widely used in software design, graphical design and in healthcare products used in the hospital and in design and construction of the built environment, for example in urban development, place-making, workplace design and refurbishment. The phrase covers a number of different approaches including Participatory Design, Co-Design, Space Syntax and Usability of Buildings. This paper compares these supposedly distinct approaches to better understand the different ways in which users' needs can and are being incorporated. More specifically, it focuses on the deployment of these terms in construction research. A comparison of the definition of users, proposed role of users in the design process reveals significant differences in the definition and proposed role of users across the four approaches, with direct implications for the type of space envisioned and produced.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | co-design; participatory design; space syntax; usability; user-centred design |
| Index terms: | space syntax, user-centred design, workplace design, design process, design and construction, urban development, built environment, participatory design, comparative study, usability |
| Subjects: | user-centered design, research design and methodology, design practice, user-centred design, design methods, infrastructure and transport systems, urban design, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Design Practice, Procurement, Urban Studies |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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