Harty, C; Tryggestad, K and Jacobsen, P H (2015) Visualisations and calculations of spaces: Negotiating hospital design during on-boarding. In: Raiden, A and Aboagye-Nimo, E (eds.) Proceedings of 31st Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-9 September 2015, Lincoln, UK.
Abstract
There is a complex relationship between the use of visualisations, and the production of both designs and physical spaces. In the case of hospitals, technical, aesthetic and practice-based requirements are incorporated into negotiations around facilities, layout and operation, and a plethora of stakeholders are engaged in the process. This paper describes a case of the 'on-boarding' phase in the design of a new hospital in North Zealand, Denmark. It describes the use of various visualisations in the engagement of actors concerned with managing the budget and delivering the building programme as well as the eventual users of the hospital. It reveals how visualisations are mobilised to form different and overlapping types of spaces. These are described as economic spaces, concerned with maintaining the economic budget frame, when the client organization is communicating the project and the design to healthcare practitioners at the hospital; design spaces, which include forms of user involvement, when the design team is developing and testing a methodology for engaging with medical staff; organizational spaces, concerning the connection between new physical spaces and healthcare professionals, when members of the project organization work with the aim of facilitating organizational changes in the way health care is delivered at the hospital. Finally the paper discusses how these spaces are connected, and how they both enable and constrain innovation in design and healthcare.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | design; hospitals; space; visualisation |
| Index terms: | design team, aesthetic, client organization, project organization, programme, organizational change, testing, visualization, Denmark, negotiation, methodology, negotiating, health care, practitioner |
| Subjects: | research methods, public and environmental health, design practice, factor and component analysis, Geography, organizational theory, conflict resolution, project controls, business, client relations, practitioner, professional practice |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Time Control, Organizational Design, Research Practice, Project Management, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Health and Safety, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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