Project briefing for accessible design

Project briefing for accessible design Rachael Luck, Hans Haenlein and Keith Bright, The Research Group for Inclusive Environments, Department of Construction Management and Engineering, University of Reading, PO Box 219, Whiteknights, Reading RG6 6AW, UK The briefing approach used to design an ‘accessible’ building is presented, including the method used to record ideas and structure decisions made throughout the briefing process. Particular consideration is given to the representation of end user group views in the briefing process, including those of visual, deaf, hard of hearing and mobility impaired users. 쎻 c 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Project briefing, user participation, built environment

T

his paper explains the process being used for an accessible design project to capture project ideas and to structure these so they can be incorporated within the project brief. It is divided into three sections, firstly looking at approaches to project briefing and evaluation, secondly looking at user participation in the design process and the representation of disability needs. The final section describes an approach being used to develop the brief for an accessible building that includes user participation and representation.

1

Approaches to project briefing

Much has been written and discussed about project briefing. A literature review has revealed that project briefing has been viewed in many ways, which have been simplified for convenience in two categories. The first, in terms of the staging and timing of the briefing process, considering briefing to be an early stage of the construction process and secondly in terms of the information flows, the timing and type of information required for the project brief.

1.1 1 RIBA Plan of Work RIBA, London (1967)

Briefing as a project stage

The RIBA Plan of Work1 published in 1967, linked the client brief to stages of the construction process. It was intended that the project brief be developed between Stage A (inception) and Stage D (sketch design) and www.elsevier.com/locate/destud 0142-694X/01 $ - see front matter Design Studies 22 (2001) 297–315 PII: S0142-694X(00)00031-4  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain

297

should not be altered after this point. The sequential nature of the Plan of Work was criticised and a revised method of appointment of an architect was developed2 to suit different procurement methods and recognise the iterative nature of stages of the construction process. The Netherlands Building Research Board published a new Client’s Brief Model3, which presented minimum information needed to plan and direct each phase of the project. The principle of the system was that there is a strong connection between the development of the client’s brief and the development of the plan. This approach acknowledged that the brief and plan are fundamentally different things and that the client’s brief develops as the project progresses. A further development of the Dutch Government Buildings Agency model was published in the briefing framework4. This document had a process-oriented framework, phasing decision-making and risk reduction in the building procurement process. The model focuses on the inter-relationship of decisions made for a particular project with the property market and the public sector/user portfolio. To respond to these different levels of aggregation the client brief is considered at portfolio, building and detail level.

2 RIBA ‘Appointment of an Architect SFA./92’ RIBA, London (1992) 3 Stichting Bouwresearch ‘The Client’s Brief: more than a questionnaire’ in Proceedings of CIB W96 Architectural Management Workshop 15–16 April 1993, Eindhoven University of Technology, (1993) 4 Hendricks, L Briefing Framework for Government Estates Government Building Agency, The Hague (1998) 5 Kagioglou, M, Cooper, R, Aouad, G and Hinks, J ‘The process protocol: improving the front end of the design and construction process for the UK industry’ Journal of Construction Procurement Vol 5(2) (1999) 361–371 6 RIBA Architect’s Job Book, sixth edition RIBA Publications, London (1995) 7 Cooper, R and Press, M The Design Agenda Wiley and Sons, Chichester (1995)

298

The Project Process Protocol5 mapped the complexity and overlap of the stages of the construction process, which illustrated that the stages of a project are not sequential. The briefing process described in the RIBA Architect’s Job Book6 is divided into four stages: the initial brief, project brief, design brief and consolidated brief as the design is developed. These are developed concurrently with the Plan of Work Stages A–E and interact with these. These documents illustrate the change in thinking about briefing. It is now considered that briefing involves more than the production of a document or a questionnaire at a single point in time. Brief development is an ongoing process during the pre-construction phase.

1.2

Information for project briefing

This section describes some approaches to project briefing in terms of the information needed and the documents produced for project briefing. The research of Cooper and Press7 investigated the type of information required to produce a brief and an effective design solution. They considered that designers need both overt and tacit information and that the brief should contain such information as: background information to the company, the design problem, design specifications, product attributes, consumer and market attributes, costs, budgets and timescales. This is an

Design Studies Vol 22 No. 3 May 2001

important development as it acknowledges that the brief can be used as an evaluation document and that the purpose and function of the brief extends beyond a checklist of accommodation needed. Recognising that a brief can be used as a tool to evaluate a design as it is being developed and the benefits of a quantitative approach to briefing, have led to value management principles being applied to early project stages. Presently, there is much interest in value management and its relevance to project briefing8. Value management (VM) and value engineering methodologies (VE) have been adapted from their engineering origins to suit construction practice to quantify the function of elements and better understand value systems. Functional analysis has been the cornerstone of value engineering for half a century, all products can be broken into components which perform a function. The first functional analysis of a component is: What does this do? The next: How else can this be done? This is part of the process in determining a user’s value system9. This analysis should precede any drawing work and should be based upon a study of the building user’s organisation and its value system. A functional analysis of the user’s required space gives a functional specification which may be used as a briefing document and also as a design control tool. The initial approaches to value management take a ‘hard’ VM approach.

8 Gray, C and Hughes, W The successful management of design, second edition (to be published) 9 Kelly, J R ‘A method for determining a user’s value system and its application to briefing’ in Management, Quality and Economics in Building, E and F N Spon, (1991) 10 Checkland, P B Soft Systems Methodology in Action Wiley, Chichester (1990) 11 Green, S D ‘A participative research strategy for propagating soft methodologies in value management practice’ Construction Management and Economics Vol 17 (1999) 329–340 12 Green, S D ‘Modelling client business processes as an aid to strategic briefing’ Construction Management and Economics Vol 17 (1999) 63–76

Developments in value engineering research have included the design of methods to benchmark the design of the building as it progresses. These methods can be applied to the early stages of a project when the project ideas haven’t been formalised. The method is useful for weighting the ideas for the project that are generated during the briefing process. This is a quantitative approach to developing the brief which removes personality influences from the whittling down of conflicting ideas suggested during the briefing process. This approach has similarities with the house of quality advocated by Gray and Hughes8 as a means of impartially evaluating alternative design options and the discussions at the Steering Committee stage of the briefing process described later in this paper. More recent thinking in VM, in common with the process protocol5 acknowledges that the ‘soft’ human dimension plays an important part in the value management process. The soft systems methodologies (SSM) developed by Checkland10 has been applied by Green11 who compared three systems approaches and found them all to be beneficial to VM practice. Soft systems methodologies (SSM) have also enhanced briefing practice12. Checkland’s10 SSM for generating ‘rich pictures’ and structuring the dis-

Project briefing for accessible design

299

cussion using the CATWOE terminology proved useful for briefing. This approach depends on the client’s willingness to engage in participative decision making and where it is accepted that any one person’s interpretation is as valid as another. The method proposed later in this paper similarly gives equal weighting to each person’s ideas. The metaphorical analysis of client organisations and briefing procedures by Green13 showed that for the three defined client types the choice of briefing approach depends largely on the adopted organizational metaphor. It was assumed that a client’s objectives will be clear and pre-determined for organisations where machines, as an instrument of domination, are the metaphor. Clients incapable of producing their own brief need extensive collaboration with designers over a period of time. Experienced clients can develop their own standard briefs, which can be refined and improved as lessons are learnt from successive projects. This work has shown a shift in emphasis amongst construction clients, away from a machine domination metaphor, towards those of the organism and the brain. Building design is no-longer seen to be a technical problem-solving task, but a social process based on iteration and learning.

13 Green, S D ‘A metaphorical analysis of client organisations and briefing’ Construction Management and Economics Vol 14 (1996) 155–164 14 Kelly, J, MacPherson, S and Male, S The briefing process Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, London (1992) 15 Barrett, P ‘The client’s brief: a holistic view’ Management, Quality and Economics in Building. E and F N Spon (1991) 16 Latham Working Group 1 Client Briefing; a recommended structure of effective briefing instruments. CSSC, Reading (unpublished) (1998)

300

Kelly, MacPherson and Male’s14 work, investigating the briefing process, reviews the progress of thinking on design methods and the guides used for briefing and design. Current briefing practice is appraised and the factors which influence briefing are considered such as: the client type, the project size, the nature of the building as well as observations on the conduct of briefing. They also look at the problems encountered in briefing, such as: client experience with the building industry, representation of client interest groups, identifying client needs, interpretation of client needs in building terms, and provision of sufficient time for briefing. An interesting feature of their work is the introduction of a method for measuring the acceptance of a building, to evaluate proposed building designs. The economy of the building is linked to quality, introducing the concept of ‘value for money’. Using form, function and economy as assessment criteria, a system was established to evaluate proposed building designs. Barrett15 reviews the ‘traditional’ approach to project briefing and proposes that an holistic approach to project briefing is needed which considers the differing models for briefing in the context of: communication, leadership, teamwork, views of the client and the briefing process. Instead of proposing a single approach and a checklist, this paper considers that all approaches have their relevance and a world view should include the human dimensions of briefing as well as other perspectives. An unpublished document produced by the Latham Working Group 116

Design Studies Vol 22 No. 3 May 2001

looking at client briefing, developed a structure for briefing instruments to make the briefing process more effective. A briefing map was produced based on a literature search for best practice that was tested during interviews with expert clients and found to be practical and robust. A ‘Structure for Briefing Instruments’ was developed which accommodated the multitude of possible routes for project briefing. This is a key advancement as developments in the area of briefing acknowledge that different project circumstances, procurement route, type of client etc. will influence the project’s briefing process. In common with Barrett’s conclusions, this work takes a contingency approach, considering many aspects of the project rather than a blanket approach to briefing. An important feature of this approach is that briefing and the procurement of a project are integrated with the organisation’s ongoing business activities. This differs from most briefing processes where project briefing is approached in a different way from other business cases. The CIB17 document includes a framework of the stages of a project, showing the outputs at each stage of a developing brief. The first stage generates a ‘statement of need’ and an ‘operations appraisal’. The ‘strategic brief’ and ‘project execution plan’ are the outputs from the second stage. The ‘project brief’, ‘concept design’ and ‘detailed design’ aren’t produced until the ‘designing and constructing’ phase of the project. This is a useful step forward in the understanding of project briefing as this model acknowledges the overlap of stages in the sequential process of construction. It is important, as this process acknowledges that the development of the brief goes through several distinct phases. The document also includes checklists of questions at each stage.

17

CIB Briefing the Team Thomas Telford, London (1997) 18 Barrett, P and Stanley, C Better construction briefing Blackwell Science, Oxford (1999) 19 Bejder, E ‘From client’s brief to end use: the pursuit of quality’ in P S Barrett and A R Males (eds) Practice Management: new perspectives for the construction professional, E and F N Spon, London (1991)

The most recent publication on briefing by Barrett and Stanley18 develops Barrett’s15 earlier ideas and suggests that there is no simple ‘cookbook’ solution to good briefing, but acknowledges that there are five areas where improvement can be made. The five areas for improvement include: empowering the client, managing the project dynamics, appropriate user involvement, team building and using appropriate visualisation techniques. An interesting feature of this work is their observation that both ‘hard’ and ‘soft’, people-focused information about a project is needed. The importance of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ information is also emphasised within the process protocol work by Kagioglou5 and the approach discussed later within this paper, where personal representation of ideas and the social processes of the briefing process are considered to be part of the creative process. An interesting inclusion is Bejder’s19 work and the Johari window model, which shows that there is an unknown area of knowledge that the client

Project briefing for accessible design

301

or the designers are not aware of at the project outset. It is this ‘unknown’ knowledge which feedback and discussions amongst the project team open up through the dynamics of the project. The ‘unknown’ is revealed through interaction and could not have been included if an initial brief had been given by the client to the designers. A similar observation has been made in the field of management studies by Mintzberg and Water20 that the synergy of a discussion reveals better understanding. They observed that an initial intended strategy is altered through discussions and a changed strategy is ultimately realised. The recognition of the human dimension as a key factor affecting whether ideas are implemented and its influence on briefing effectiveness is an observation shared with the approach to briefing advocated within this project. The third area for improvement suggested by Barrett and Stanley18, ‘appropriate user involvement’, is particularly relevant to the observations on briefing being made within this paper. It is acknowledged that the client may have a commissioning requirement as well as an end user requirement. Gathering information on end user requirements may raise their expectations, which cannot be realised. There is a need to gather project stakeholder information but be able to prioritise the factors they suggest. User group dynamics should be considered. These aspects are discussed in greater detail in the next section of this paper where the representation of views and mechanisms for inclusion are considered as a separate issue. Barrett and Stanley18 considered that visualisation techniques should be an area for improvement, to bring life into presenting project information. The communication techniques used in construction projects often mean that the information is coded and not accessible to all in the process. Using an appropriate visual technique opens up the discussion and can reinforce understanding about the project.

20 Mintzberg, H and Water, J A ‘Of strategies deliberate and emergent’ Strategic Management Journal Vol 6 (1985) 257– 272 21 Kohlert, C Briefing through visualisation Briefing conference at DEGW 19 February (1998)

302

A method has been developed by Henn Architects21 to visualise ideas that are generated throughout the briefing process. The method they use creates a platform for dialogue between the requirements for the project and the solution, which is arrived at through visualisation and involvement of all parties in the project. Workshops are staged, led by a facilitator, which are attended by all parties to the project. The project is discussed and ideas are represented in a graphic but non-specific way. A problem with presenting design development information in the drawn form is that the design team can interpret ideas as representing the final building and lead to false expectations. An advantage of this approach is that the interrelationship of spaces and functions can be discussed amongst the project team to create common understanding of the problem, leading to a dis-

Design Studies Vol 22 No. 3 May 2001

cussion of how it can be resolved. The dynamics and interaction of the visualisation exercise are important for user interaction in the design process and also to trigger design solutions, which are found as a result of the synergy of the discussion.

2

User participation in project briefing

This section of the paper is concerned with user participation and the inclusion of user needs in the briefing process. Universal Design is a related issue to user representation that concerns the representation of particular user views.

2.1

22 Darke, J ‘Architects and user requirements in public sector housing’ Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design Vol 11 (1984) 389–404 23 Lipman, A and Harris, H ‘User participation—a closed dialogue’ Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design Vol 25(1) (1998) 1–10 24 Jackson, N ‘The Council Tenant’s Forum: a liminal public space between lifeworld and system’ Urban Studies Vol 36(1) (1999) 43–58 25 Weedman, J ‘The structure of incentive; Design and client roles’ Science Technology and Human Values Vol 23(3) (1998) 315–345

User representation

User participation in the design and briefing process has been a concern for several years and warranted a chapter for discussion within Barrett18. It has received more critical attention since the 1980s22 when the lack of inclusion of the user perspective in the design process was considered an oversight. It was considered that the inclusion of the end user’s views in the design process and briefing process would result in greater user satisfaction with the building. This inclusive approach also acknowledges that giving users a voice reflects an organisation’s consideration for its employees’ working conditions. Lipman and Harris23 have explained this in terms of power within organisations. They made the observation that participation in design has become inextricably linked with the empowerment of those whose views are sought. User representation can be sought for different stages and levels of involvement with a project. For example, council tenants can be consulted as ‘consumers’ of a service as well as representing public opinion24. Irrespective of the role of the user being represented, the method often used to gather information is by focus groups. An external facilitator steers a focus group discussion to elicit ideas and value judgements from those present. Barrett18 made the observation that focus groups can be strongly influenced by group dynamics and can lead to the group having expectations which cannot be met through the project. That may ultimately lead to user dissatisfaction, nullifying the benefit of user involvement. There are other factors that can influence the effectiveness of user participation. Weedman25 has observed that costs to the user, when involved in the design process, can destabilise the user– designer relationship. To address this imbalance the user’s need for improvement and the designer’s need to create should be symmetrical. In construction, user needs have been given much consideration in the field of facilities management, where the area of post occupancy evaluation has evolved as a quantitative measure of the performance of a completed building. Obtaining a measure of the users’ perception of the building in use is

Project briefing for accessible design

303

part of the evaluation process. The unpublished workbook on user needs evaluation draws on the work of Preiser26 and Kernohan27 to present different post-occupancy evaluation techniques with varying levels of building user involvement. The methods range from checklists administered by experienced evaluators, to more involved discussions with users, led by facilitators measuring the effectiveness of the design and briefing process from a building users’ perspective. Koh and Heng28 observed that a lack of user participation and designer accountability in the design process are the two main reasons for inadequacies in decision support. They developed a User Participation and Designer Accountability method involving the use of colour cards and design charts to include everyone in the design process and form a basis on which the designer can be questioned.

26 Preiser, W F E, Rabinowitz, H Z and White, E T PostOccupancy Evaluation Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York (1988) 27 Kernohan, D, Gray, J and Daish, J User participation in building design and management Butterworth Architecture, Oxford (1992) 28 Koh, I S Y and Heng, M S H ‘Users and designers as partners—design method and tools for user participation and designer accountability within the design process’ Information Systems Journal Vol 6 (1996) 283–300 29 Easton, K D ‘The development of a user-centred design process: a case study of multidisciplinary research’. Loughborough University, Loughborough (1992) 30 Hasdogan, G ‘The role of user models in product design for assessment of user needs’ Design Studies Vol 17 (1996) 19–33

304

A participatory building design and management approach was developed by Kernohan et al.27 to create good relationships amongst a project team. This approach was concerned with enabling people to complete a project together, rather than the power of one party over another. In this way user participation can be included in building design and management. The approach is of particular interest to this study as it is concerned with the representation of views from different parties and is also concerned with gaining experiential knowledge through dialogue. It is considered that knowledge is socially constructed through dialogue. Knowledge is generated and confirmed in a dialectic between concrete and abstract knowing. This is a key observation, which coincides with the approach of this project that knowledge and new ideas are generated through the process of discussion. The study of user needs has been investigated in several separate areas of study. Easton29, working in the field of ergonomics and human factors, observed a movement towards more user-centred methods for product design and development in the 1980s. He observed that the term ‘user centred’ came to mean a number of different things: ‘design for users’, where analysts study user behaviour to design a system to match user characteristics. The second interpretation was ‘designed by users’, where users’ commitment and involvement will result in greater uptake of a new product or process. The third approach is ‘local design by individual users’, where users have many opportunities to customise a system to suit their own needs and there is an element of design in their own hands. Hasdogan30 studied the models of users during the design process and gathered the views of designers and ergonomists on the suitability of each

Design Studies Vol 22 No. 3 May 2001

approach. He observed three generic models: empirical, experimental, and scenario-based, theoretical models. Empirical models are those based on collected data, assumed to represent the user population. These models were involved in the design process to a limited extent, partly because the material available to designers was limited to physical aspects of humans, such as anthropometric data and lacked psychological data. Ergonomists’ criticisms were directed towards the validity of data, complaining that it did not reflect the diversity of human nature, culture, gender, age etc. They were also critical that the source of data was not known and didn’t consider human dynamic usage. This is especially true when designing for people with disabilities, when generalised anthropometric data is rarely useful. The data was also considered retrospective and often inapplicable to current problems. In contrast, experimental models involve immediate feedback from live users, either a representative sample of the actual user population, or the designer and/or colleagues acting out usage. It was generally agreed by design practitioners that experimenting on the designed product with live users is an essential part of the design process and did not believe that live users could be replaced by man-made hardware or software user models. This approach allows human behaviour and interaction with a product to be seen, which is difficult to model by computational means. The computer models representing the human body dimensions and movements in 3-D were most used by ergonomists, who were critical of the reliability of the data. Scenario-based models are based on formal or informal story lines relating to users’ usage of a product. These models were most often used by design practitioners, who had positive views on the usefulness of these models.

2.2

31 Hall, P and Imrie, R ‘Architectural practices and disabling design in the built environment’ Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design Vol 26(3) (1999) 409–425 32 Mason, P ‘The representation of disabled people: a Hampshire Centre for Independent Living discussion paper’ Disabled, Handicap and Society Vol 1(7) (1992) 79–84

Universal design

Linked with a need for user participation in the briefing process is the issue of hegemony and representation when designing for disabled building users. Hegemony concerns the location of power and decision making by a majority on behalf of others. There is a feeling amongst many disabled people that many decisions which have a strong influence on their lives are made by others on their behalf22. This includes the design of environments, even those with specific access concerns, where design decisions are made with little or no consultation with people with disabilities. There has been much written about design for disabilities which is uncomplimentary about the process. The work of Hall and Imrie31 investigated architects’ understanding of disabled people’s building needs, based on their relationships with building users and found that many designers were assuming a knowledge and understanding of environmental issues for disabled people which they didn’t have. This presumptive designing has led to dissatisfaction. Mason’s32 work found that when disabled people are

Project briefing for accessible design

305

able to choose for themselves their decisions differ from those made on their behalf. This observation reflects that their interests have not been represented accurately in the past. The issue of user participation and representation of views is particularly sensitive when designing for people with disabilities, as activity in the field of disability theory and the politics of disability have increased since the 1970s. There has been a rejection of the hegemonic labelling of a person as ‘handicapped’ or ‘disabled’ amongst disability theorists and an introduction of disability as a social construct. Disability studies look at impairment from a sociological perspective. A social model of disability considers that societal values determine what is considered abnormal and this defines normality33. This approach has driven a movement towards greater empowerment and inclusion of people with disabilities in decision-making that will affect their lives. Although there are mechanisms for the inclusion of various disability perspectives to influence the design of environments, e.g. access committees to influence local authority access policy, there is criticism of the effectiveness of these methods34: the advice of an access committee can be ignored by a local authority but the fact that it exists meets the authorities consultative duties. To improve the influence which people with disabilities have over the design of the environment their views should be considered from an empowered, rather than a consultative position. This could be possible if disabled people were designing environments for themselves, but few architects and planners are disabled31. Even this position would be flawed as a person with one disability will have to presume the needs of a person with a different disability and the approach assumes that the views of one individual will represent those of a larger population. Because of the impossibility of perfect representation, but acknowledging the sensitivity of representation, the gathering of information from people with differing disabilities was given special consideration within this project.

2.3

33 Davis, L J Enforcing normalcy; disability, deafness and the body. Verso, London (1995) 34 Imrie, R ‘The role of access groups in facilitating accessible environments for disabled people’ Disability and Society Vol 14(4) (1999) 463–482

306

Hypothesis

To summarise: the literature review has shown the change in thinking about project briefing. Within recent years it has been considered that briefing is ongoing throughout the early stages of a project rather than a checklist or a document produced at a single point in time. The multi-dimensions of a client, commissioning and user should be represented in the briefing process. User participation in the design processes is considered to be a good mechanism for increasing the levels of satisfaction with the completed building and is of particular concern when people of varying mobility, visual, cognitive and hearing ability may use a building. Including a range

Design Studies Vol 22 No. 3 May 2001

of views and perceptions on the use of the built environment during the design process that empower the potential users of the building and reduces presumptive design and the misrepresentation of needs. Inclusion of the human dimension, dialogue to provoke ideas and resolve conflicting needs, is considered to be a key feature of successful briefing. The remainder of this paper describes a method being used to prepare a brief and to design an accessible building that attempts to address these issues.

3

The accessible approach to project briefing

An approach to project briefing presently being used to design an accessible building puts into practice some of the findings of the literature review. This approach uses three mechanisms to collect data and knowledge from the user and commissioning client about the future building. The mechanisms are: semi-structured interviews, an information base for the feasibility study, and Steering Group meetings. These mechanisms formalise the social processes within the project to develop the brief. The mechanisms are discreet events to gather information about building users preferences and to elicit the commissioning client’s requirements for the building. The approach is systematic without being a checklist. There is a process for the collection of this information but each person presents their information and their requirements in their own terms.

3.1

Semi-structured interviews

The method used to gather information for the feasibility study was to individually interview people to better understand their experience of working and communicating in buildings. An interview approach was preferred as this allowed people to express their perceptions of the built environment in their own terms. In Hasdogan’s30 terms this approach will generate a theoretical model of the user based on experience and scenarios of use. The interviews were thematic, all were concerned with the ease with which people use the built environment and encouraged people to illustrate their responses with examples of buildings or environments and to describe these settings. A semi-structured approach, using a series of headings, listed on an aide memoire (Fig. 1) was used to steer the discussion. A thematic interview was considered to be the best approach to better understand the experience of people working and communicating in different environments to get insights and examples of environments.

Project briefing for accessible design

307

Figure 1 The aide memoire

The aide memoire prompts were developed through experience in architectural practice, developing an understanding of the information needed to design different types of projects. The prompts relate to aspects of a potential building and were used to encourage the respondent to generate ideas for the building being designed. The headings also prompted comments on other buildings and the experience of other environments, as well as qualitative judgements on the relative merit of these environments. It was this rich information which provided invaluable data for the next stages of the briefing process. The aide memoire prompts were trigger statements used by the person conducting the interview. The response to a prompt was the raw data for collection and analysis. The responses to each heading were included in the notes taken by the interviewer, usually verbatum. The notes were very detailed and the interview text was unmodified within the ‘information base’ document produced in the next stage of the briefing process.

308

Design Studies Vol 22 No. 3 May 2001

The interviews were conducted by the same project researcher, who used the same prompt sheet for each person interviewed. This allowed consistency across the sample of people interviewed, but didn’t impose a structure as to how an individual should respond. The responses were the unprompted, unbounded ideas of the person interviewed. This approach generated rich data of personal perceptions of their experience of buildings and suggestions for improvements to the built environment. Interviewing people individually had the advantage that their ideas were personal and not affected by group pressures and influences. A key concern was selecting who should be interviewed. The research team felt it was important to consult a range of people with different disabilities, not only to satisfy socio–political pressures of representation34,31 but also because of the ‘accessible’ ethos of the project, that the built environment should be accessible for all. The individuals selected were people who would occupy the building, when complete. This addressed Koh’s28 observation that user involvement leads to greater satisfaction. These people had a range of different disabilities and experience of the built environment and were interviewed so they could have direct influence on the design of the project. This group included people with visual impairments, wheelchair users, profoundly deaf and hard of hearing. This method of inclusion of views directly empowered those involved, as their unsolicited opinions were included in the exercise. The decision whether to include an idea within the scheme was subject to the filtering processes of the Steering Group at a later stage rather than the decision of a single person. One of the interviews was conducted with an interpreter using British Sign Language to enable the discussion between the researcher and a deaf person. This changed the dynamic of the interview and introduced another level of interpretation. It became more of a three-way discussion of ideas rather than a prompt and response conversation. Although the words and terms referred to in the checklist were easy to understand, they were all relevant to construction and their use needed to be clarified to the interpreter so they weren’t misrepresented to the person being interviewed. The response to the prompt was also influenced by the person’s knowledge of construction and a keenness to respond in an informed manner. A key factor to get across to the respondent was that there was no correct response. Each response was an expression of their personal wish list for the building based on their own experience. In this way the response was individual and was not assumed to represent a disability. The wealth of information gathered when communicating with a person with a different experience of the built environment is captured in the written notes from the interview.

Project briefing for accessible design

309

3.2

Examples of response

Some examples of response are presented to illustrate how the aide memoire prompt was interpreted by the interviewee and how responses were grouped under the aide memoire headings.

Aide memoire prompt: rooms, workstations, work spaces; special occupational needs “The school for the deaf in California has a central communication system. A monitor in each room is used to attract everyone’s attention in an emergency, which is better than an ambiguous flashing light.” The interviewee gave an example of a method being used in one building to alert deaf and hard of hearing people of hazards in the building. It is interesting that this example has been raised as a special need for deaf and hard of hearing people rather than describing this as a better means of communicating for giving instructions to all users. “Open plan reduces the number of doors and increases the ease of use for those in a wheelchair.” This observation illustrates the consideration being given to design for other building users. This remark wasn’t made by the wheelchair user interviewed.

Aide memoire prompt: internal environment; noise and lighting criteria “Check which colours are best for contrast, yellow may be better than white. Some consideration should be given to the best background colour for lip-reading”. An example of a person elaborating on the subject of the prompt. In this instance colour is discussed as an extension of lighting and the effect colour has on ease of communication for deaf and hard of hearing people is raised as an issue. This statement highlights a deficiency with the aid memoire. As the subject of colour was raised by an interviewee, the other people interviewed were not prompted to discuss the use of colour within the building and the researcher cannot be sure that colour is not also an issue for the other interviewees.

Aide memoire prompt: area useage; access and escape “Tarmac is a good external surface for a wheelchair. We should explore the ease of use of different materials”. “Grass is a good obstacle for wheelchair users.” “The building needs to be flat. Avoid all unevenness. Ideally no kerbs at all. The road and pavement surface should be flat, this is especially difficult if you’re on sticks”.

310

Design Studies Vol 22 No. 3 May 2001

The wheelchair user had many responses to the access and escape prompt and made many suggestions that had implications for the selection of materials for construction as well as the layout of the building. These are examples of general design principles that could be grouped under several headings: ‘needs of users’ as well as the ‘area useage’ section of the aide memoire.

Aide memoire prompt: needs of users; special items to be accommodated “Canine relief facilities” “Re-charging electric wheelchairs” “Equipment for lifting people” “Key-less entrance system, sensitive over a wide range could be explored. How easy are these for blind people to use?” “Fire extinguishers that can be used by all.” “Dimmer switches aren’t special but should be used throughout. The light intensity can be adjusted, high intensity for hearing impaired and no glare for visual impaired. We should be able to test optimum conditions within the building.” It would have been difficult to analyse the text as a narrative as some responses to prompts were a series of items cited in a ‘list-like’ manner rather than constructing sentences. The criticism of interviews, that a person may attach more than a single meaning to their experience35 was addressed within this process by grouping a person’s response that may be applicable to more than one heading of the aide memoire, within several headings. This meant that the textual transcript of the interview included some repetition but that the response was included with the prompt that triggered that response as well as the heading where comments on a related subject from other people interviewed would be included. The interview process encouraged the interviewee to discuss around the prompt, so this type of response was acceptable and easily accommodated within the data gathering process.

3.3 Developing an ‘information base for the feasibility study’

35 Silverman, D Doing Qualitative Research, a practical handbook Sage, London (2000)

Developing an information base for the feasibility study was the term given to the second stage for gathering user and commissioning client expectations from the built environment. The ‘information base’ is the preliminary briefing document for the project developed by combining each of the notes from the semi-structured interviews into a single document. Each interview was written as a separate document, then a combined document was generated, structured around the aide memoire headings. Each person’s

Project briefing for accessible design

311

response to an item was presented in a section so it was possible to read the different responses together. This document was an unedited version of the views represented by those interviewed and contained some conflicting items. This approach was the cumulative representation of the responses without interpretation or judgement on the content of the response12. Developing the ‘information base’ is a consolidation process allowing all views to be equally represented within a single document.

The interview text was unmodified during the ‘information base’ stage of the process. Conversation and discourse analyses are accepted methods for analysing interview data, but weren’t used in this instance, as the text wasn’t considered to be a discussion of a subject between the interviewer and interviewee. The response to a prompt was treated as an individual’s view or experience that would unconditionally be included in the ‘information base’ document, in common with soft system methodologies10,12. It was accepted that the ‘information base’ would include personal judgements that may not be representative of a wider population, even people with a similar disability. This stage of the process, allowing conflicting and ‘unreasonable’ views to be expressed is addressing Bejder’s19 observation, that the ‘unknown knowledge’, at the project outset, can be found out during the interview process. The filtering of opinions and addressing any conflict of need or preference would be considered at the Steering Group stage.

The aide memoire prompt ‘Area useage’ provoked several in-depth responses:

One of the commissioning clients for the project, a Trustee of a charity for deaf and hard of hearing people, made this response: “Use of glass and lighting will have an effect on deaf people’s ability to lip read. The idea to use glass to divide spaces within the building is appealing, so there is visual contact over long distances. People will be aware of others within the building and can acknowledge each other over those long distances. Signing often occurs over longer distances”. His response is from a single disability, hearing impaired perspective, encouraging communication through glass across long distances. He gives insight into the methods of communication used by deaf and hard of hearing people, sign language and the environmental implications of this mode of communication, that the distances separating people when communicating can be much larger than when talking.

312

Design Studies Vol 22 No. 3 May 2001

The wheelchair user commented: “An open plan building will appeal to the user groups in different ways. The building’s acoustics may need special consideration, absorbing surfaces to counteract the effect of a big space. Perhaps visually impaired people would prefer smaller spaces? Is there a way of giving more immediate local information within a large open space?” He was conscious that an open plan, single storey building would suit his disability needs, but he was also conscious that this may not suit others’ requirements. He raises the question that visually impaired people may prefer smaller spaces, without assuming that he understands the needs of this impairment. He pursues this line of thought further and asks the researcher whether there is a method to help people navigate within larger spaces? The profoundly deaf person communicating through an interpreter: “The central space within the building could be a large open plan working area. The concept of a cyber cafe´ is appealing, people working in an interactive environment. Some people will have their own technology, lap-tops, so the infrastructure networks should be in place into which they can connect. Having a large open space and single roof spanning this area may discourage people from living in their own areas and encourage interaction and the dissemination of ideas. This could be the nerve centre for different groups, communal photocopy areas etc. The space should be of an appropriate height so there is a buzz of activity but doesn’t feel like a chimney.” This person thought that a central open space would be a desirable feature of the building to achieve a particular interactive ambience within the space, which suited his preferred method of working rather than a need because of a disability. Unmoderated personal preferences concerning the built environment were expressed at these interviews as well as building features to suit particular disability needs. These vignettes illustrate that conflicting preferences were expressed by people with differing disabilities and also within a disability. One hard of hearing person thought that transparency and the use of glazing to separate spaces would help communication over longer distances, whilst another person, also with knowledge of deaf and hard of hearing people, thought that visual contact was important, but disruptive to work. The last person found it very distracting to be working where he could see others passing. Often he was unsure whether people were trying to attract his attention.

Project briefing for accessible design

313

The resolution of conflicting needs was an objective of the third mechanism for developing a brief, the Steering Group.

3.4

The Steering Group

Bryman36 has been critical that generalisations from several interviews are ‘an aggregation of disparate individuals who have no social interaction with one another’. This criticism is valid for the semi-structured interview stage but the subsequent stages of the process, especially the Steering Group phase, are dependent on social interaction and discussion, which address the deficiencies of the initial single perspective data source. The Steering Group is a management device within the project organisation introduced to formalise decision making and to ensure the representation of different user groups. The Steering Group is a useful mechanism for trade-off and negotiation of problems. It is a forum for problems to be raised and resolved. A key to successful trade-off is the composition of the Steering Group and the understanding each member of the Group has on his or her role within the Group. Kelly, MacPhearson and Male14 wanted to ensure that the representatives on the Group were of sufficient status, part of the decision making unit, so views could be expressed without reference back to others. Each person on the Steering Group totally represents an organisation, but acts in a personal capacity. In this way each person is encouraged to have their own head and generate ideas. If there are different views amongst members of the Steering Group, in order to resolve disputes and move forward and make a decision, the members are reminded of their role as a representative of their own organisation and the wider objectives of the project. This shift in perspective and reminder of the broader responsibilities is a useful mechanism of the Steering Group structure for group problem solving20. The Steering Group should include representation of the building user group as well as the commissioning client. For this project this includes the involvement and representation of various disability groups. The minutes of the Steering Group meeting represent a paper trail recording the decisions made on the project. The issues to be addressed by the Steering Group are to aid the resolution of the differences of opinion expressed within the preliminary briefing document, the Information Base for the Feasibility Study. Each stakeholder on the Steering Group examines the options prepared by the team, which includes the development of the brief as well as the direction the design is to take. 36 Bryman, A Quantity and quality in social research Unwin Hyman, London (1988)

314

Careful examination of the language used and the emergence of ideas is the main thrust of this way of working. In common with Green’s13 work

Design Studies Vol 22 No. 3 May 2001

it is recognised that metaphors illustrate views and subtly encapsulate and communicate complex ideas. The synergy of the group is a good platform for generating and developing ideas, which agrees with Kernohan’s work27. An advantage of this method is that ideas are discussed and more fully understood by all concerned which may lead to a more valid and thoroughly negotiated result. The process is transactional and relies on the shared understanding of language to quickly arrive at a valid result. This approach has parallels with the recent cognitive science models of how the brain works. The bureaucratic management structures and tools that are put in place within a project present the rational part of the brain. The formal structures and procedures ensure that there is the legal commitment of individuals representing organisations, which is the structure for the creative, compost heap for the discussion of ideas. The ideas generated, like the methods in new science, do not deal with absolutes but recognise the uniqueness of suggestions and the necessity for careful use of language to communicate and get agreement to these ideas.

4

Conclusion

The approach described in this paper has been developed to address some of the user representation imbalances mentioned in the literature review24,31,34. Current briefing methods don’t per se cause an imbalance, but the manner in which user information is gathered and decisions are made within the briefing process can have an influence on whether and how these views are represented. For this reason this methodology has been proposed. It was intended to be a prototype with the potential for further development, as knowledge and experience is gained. This is not an attempt to design the most efficient and cost effective design and briefing process. The validation of this approach will be through user satisfaction and post occupancy evaluations of the scheme. The consultative approach is an exploration of the future, taking a deliberately ‘unreasonable’ position, which through discussion is the only reasonable gameplan to arrive at common understanding amongst the project team. The framework is a series of decision making mechanisms and social processes, which regulate the capture of ideas and filter these amongst the project team.

Project briefing for accessible design

315