Kpamma, Z E; Adjei-Kumi, T; Ayarkwa, J and Adinyira, E (2016) An exploration of the choosing by advantages decision system as a user engagement tool in participatory design. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 12(1), pp. 51-66. ISSN 1745-2007
Abstract
The significance of user involvement in design process towards generating value remains uncontested. It is however a challenge to identify the most appropriate strategy for engaging users to effectively participate in design process. This paper explores the suitability of the choosing by advantages (CBA) decision system for designers to engage users in design process. The paper specifically reports on a case application of CBA to make a typical design decision, such as the choice of a mode of operation of window openings, in the design of a three-storey lecture theatre at Takoradi Polytechnic in Takoradi, Ghana. A workshop, involving various stakeholders, including potential users of the project, was organized to apply CBA to choose among various modes of operation of window openings: louvres, sliding, awning, casement and pivoted. Findings, which were based on an active participation of a key member of the research team in the workshop, were further corroborated by direct observation and interview with some participants in the workshop. The findings point to CBA as a decision system capable of creating a collaborative forum for designers to engage users in design decisions.The significance of user involvement in design process towards generating value remains uncontested. It is however a challenge to identify the most appropriate strategy for engaging users to effectively participate in design process. This paper explores the suitability of the choosing by advantages (CBA) decision system for designers to engage users in design process. The paper specifically reports on a case application of CBA to make a typical design decision, such as the choice of a mode of operation of window openings, in the design of a three-storey lecture theatre at Takoradi Polytechnic in Takoradi, Ghana. A workshop, involving various stakeholders, including potential users of the project, was organized to apply CBA to choose among various modes of operation of window openings: louvres, sliding, awning, casement and pivoted. Findings, which were based on an active participation of a key member of the research team in the workshop, were further corroborated by direct observation and interview with some participants in the workshop. The findings point to CBA as a decision system capable of creating a collaborative forum for designers to engage users in design decisions.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | choosing by advantages; participatory design; stakeholder involvement; users; collaboration; decision support systems; architectural engineering; stakeholders; advantages |
| Index terms: | design process, polytechnic, collaboration, strategy, design decision, window, interview, workshop, participatory design, direct observation, suitability, architectural engineering, Ghana, designer, stakeholder involvement, user engagement, exploration, decision support |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, profession, management, participation process, educational institutions, architectural elements, design criteria, environmental resource management, construction type, design methods, decision analysis, Geography, design practice |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Construction Technology, Organizational Design, Education, Roles and Professions, Sustainability, Stakeholder Management, Design Practice, Business Strategy, Geographical Context, Risk Management |
| 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