Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T06:55:32.374Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Design Contributions to Building Technology: Goals, Interfaces and Responsiveness

Part of: Responsible Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Stella U. Boess

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In this paper, I identify issues that arose in a recent pilot project in which designers contributed to the construction field. The project was led by an overall responsible innovation goal for sustainability impact: contribute to global CO2 reduction. The innovation solution being developed to achieve this goal was a sustainable renovation concept intended for upscaling. In this pilot project, it was applied to a social housing block of 12 apartments. The designers sought to help align technical solutions with the residents’ later use of their homes, because the latter is an important factor in achieving a zero-energy outcome. The paper identifies four issues that arose in the collaboration between design and construction and installation professionals. The issues are goal translation, goal dissipation, the contested service interface and the contested responsiveness to residents. I argue that designers can engage and contribute through design intervention and applying care in the collaboration, in order to support the success of responsible innovation.

Keywords

Design practiceDesign for interfacesCase studyBuilding industryImpact goal
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 3211 - 3220
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019

References

Bergvall-Kåreborn, B. and Ståhlbrost, A. (October 2008), “Participatory design: one step back or two steps forward?”, In Proceedings of the 10th Participatory Design Conference, pp. 102–111. Indiana University.Google Scholar
Blomberg, J. and Karasti, H. (2012), “Positioning ethnography within participatory design”, Routledge international handbook of participatory design, pp. 86–116.Google Scholar
Boess, S. and Kanis, H. (2008), “Meaning in product use: A design perspective”, In Product experience pp. 305–332. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Boess, S., Silvester, S. and Keizer, H. (2017), “Unpublished research report”, Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
Boess, S., Silvester, S., de Wal, E. and de Wal, O. (August 2018), “Acting from a participatory attitude in a networked collaboration”, In Proceedings of the 15th Participatory Design Conference: Short Papers, Situated Actions, Workshops and Tutorial Vol. 2 p. 16. ACM.Google Scholar
Chiu, L.F., Lowe, R., Raslan, R., Altamirano-Medina, H. and Wingfield, J. (2014), “A socio-technical approach to post-occupancy evaluation: interactive adaptability in domestic retrofit. Building Research & Information”, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 574–590.Google Scholar
Coutts, E.R., Edward, J., Knight, R., Duffy, A. and Grierson, H. (2017), “Is product design evil?”, In DS 87-1 Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 17), Vancouver, Canada, 21-25.08. 2017 pp. 209–218.Google Scholar
De Lille, C. and Buur, J. (2010), “Participatory innovation in SMEs”, In Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference, pp. 277–278. ACM.Google Scholar
Elzen, v.d, S. (2018), “Unpublished Master thesis”, Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
undated EU. “Statistics on small and medium-sized enterprises”, Accessible at http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Statistics_on_small_and_medium-sized_enterprises.Google Scholar
Guerra-Santin, O., Bosch, H., Budde, P., Konstantinou, T., Boess, S., Klein, T. and Silvester, S.J.E.E. (2018), “Considering user profiles and occupants’ behaviour on a zero energy renovation strategy for multi-family housing in the Netherlands. Energy Efficiency”, Vol. 11 No. 7, pp. 1847–1870.Google Scholar
Light, A. and Akama, Y. (2012 August), “The human touch: participatory practice and the role of facilitation in designing with communities”, In Proceedings of the 12th Participatory Design Conference, pp. 61–70. ACM.Google Scholar
Pasman, G., Boess, S. and Desmet, P. (2011), “Interaction vision: expressing and identifying the qualities of user-product interactions”, In DS 69: Proceedings of E&PDE 2011, the 13th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, London, UK, 08.09.09. 2011.Google Scholar
Sartori, I., Napolitano, A. and Voss, K. (2012), “Net zero energy buildings: A consistent definition framework. Energy and buildings”, Vol. 48, pp. 220–232.Google Scholar
Secomandi, F. and Snelders, D. (2011), “The object of service design. Design Issues”, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 20–34.Google Scholar
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R. and Macnaghten, P. (2013), “Developing a framework for responsible innovation”, Research Policy, Vol. 42 No. 9, pp. 1568–1580.Google Scholar