Cole-Colander, C (2003) Designing the customer experience. Building Research & Information, 31(5), pp. 357-366. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
As the role of the professional changes, the importance of 'the client' and 'the user' is increasing. Two initiatives in the UK have sought to improve design quality by bridging the gap between the client and the user on the one hand, and the client and the designer on the other. These initiatives, 'Designing the Customer Experience' and 'Design Quality Indicators' (DQIs), seek to address the divergent goals and impenetrable language that often inhibit communication between client and architect. Designing the Customer Experience aimed at transferring design thinking from the retail sector and led to an Agenda for Change, which included an investigation into how to find a common language between clients and their design consultants. The DQIs build on this agenda and provide a tool for the uninitiated as well as the professional to allow each to express and evaluate the design quality of a building. The extent to which these initiatives have been and potentially can be successful in changing professional relationships with client and user and so improving design quality is assessed.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | client; common language; customer focus; design; design quality |
| Index terms: | investigation, architect, professional relationships, design quality, design quality indicator, designer |
| Subjects: | professional practice, profession, data collection methods, sociology |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Roles and Professions, Research Practice |
| 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