Informed, well-ordered and reflective: design inquiry as action research

Informed, well-ordered and reflective: design

inquiry as action research Roger J Waiters

Oxford Regional Health Authority, Old Road, Headington, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK

This paper develops a view of design as an 'action research' method. This view of design is presented by considering the 'natural order' of the design process and some parallels between action research and design, issues to be faced in collecting feedback on building use and the notion of collaborative design inquiry. The anticipated UK National Health Service estate rationalisation exercise is used to illustrate some of the issues to be addressed in applying this view. A change in the designer's role can be anticipated.

Keywords: planning processes, building evaluation, design epistemology

NATURAL ORDER DEBATE The natural level of debate found within the planning process has been described by Breheny 1 as 'ill-informed, unsystematic and non-reflective', see Table 1. Breheny also suggests that planners can counter this 'natural order' and enhance debate. Planning and design problems have been defined by Rittel and Webber as 'wicked '2, see Table 2. Those experienced in tackling 'wicked' problems may recognise Breheny's description of their decision process, yet they will also know that the process can be 'self-organising'. Jones models design as 'self plus situation' organised through the interaction of a 'search for a feasible design' and a control which 'evaluates the pattern of search '3. However, the more usual reaction to the uncertainty of planning debate is to try to rationalise planning procedure. This happens because there is currently little trust in the self- organising dynamics of the process.

The dominant view of planning is one based upon technical rationality. Although this can be understood as a reaction to the uncertainty of natural order debate, this

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the conference on The Role of the Designer, Bath, 22-24 September 1984

view of planning is flawed because it makes too many gross assumptions. It assumes that there is:

• a consensus of goals • causal theory sufficient to allow prediction and • effective instrumental knowledge

Most planning and design problems simply do not enjoy 'that fortuitous mix of goal consensus and available technique'. The notion of technical proficiency misleads, denying both 'the plural preferences of competing interests and the primacy of judgement based upon value preferences '4. Judgement is only informed by information from technical analysis, see Table 3. Planning and design rely upon both facts and values and include both the technical and the ethical.

It is within this dominant rational view of planning that increased emphasis is being placed upon information and data bases for planning and design. There exists an 'inductive fallacy' here. The logic of the rational approach suggests that appropriate form follows from information on user requirements or from a survey of existing conditions. Information may be necessary but is never sufficient for tackling 'wicked' problems. Norms

2 0142-694X/86/01002-12 $03.00 © 1986 Butterworth & Co (Publishers) Ltd D E S I G N S T U D I E S

Table 1. Natural order debate

"When left to its 'natural order' debate in local government (planning) is often

• iU-informed • unsystematic • non-reflective

Planners can counter this natural order and enhance debate".

After Breheny'.

Table 2. Wicked problems

Dilemmas in a general theory of planning Planning problems are 'wicked problems'

• There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem. • Wicked problems have no stopping rule. • Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but

good-or-bad. • There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a

wicked problem. • Every solution to a wicked problem is a 'one-shot operation';

because there is little opportunity to learn by trial and error, every attempt counts significantly.

• Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well defined set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan.

• Every wicked problem is essentially unique. • Every wicked problem can be considered to be symptom of

another problem. • The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked

problem can be explained in numerous ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem's resolu- tion.

• The planner has no right to be wrong.

There are "No value-free, true-false answers ..." "The expert is also the player in a political game".

After Rittel and Webber 2.

Table 3. The myth of rationality

"Most problems in public planning do not enjoy that fortuitous mix of goal consensus and available technique".

The classical model of rational planning is flawed. It assumes:

• widespread consensus on goals • causal theory sufficiently advanced to permit prediction • effective instrumental knowledge

The dominant conception of planning is founded on these assumptions.

Planners should "aim to set procedural rules for reaching decisions not make substantive plans".

Rationality denies:

plural preferences of competing interests the primacy of judgement based on value preferences; judgement is only informed by rational analysis

The notion of technical proficiency misleads.

After Webber 4.

and values are also needed. They are socially con- strncted, form 'an appreciative system' and provide the meaning that is attached to information 5. Further, information overload and transfer difficulties highlight an 'applicability gap' that limits the utilization of information. Also, the approach is not supported by observations of designer behaviour 6. It has been suggested that 'cerebral hygiene' is a necessary coping strategy. In addition, information is not related to the 'codes' or 'prestructures' actually used, nor to other forms of knowledge 7. The pattern of information use in a 'conjecture-analysis' procedural model may be very different from that assumed in an 'analysis-synthesis' model. These inconvenient issues are ignored in the rational view of planning. In short, the utilisation of information is not accounted for in the research design for the collection of the information and the role of values is denied.

The utility of many current planning models is therefore restricted by inappropriate ideas of rationality and information use that are not found in practice. The need to enhance natural order debate remains but rationality and certainty are myths in planning. Story- book planning has to be exposed alongside 'storybook science 's and storybook management 9. An alternative to the science/engineering model of technical rationality is needed. It is provided by a view of planning as learning. It is suggested that this more modest view is also more useful. It unites theory with practice. It is as a learning process that it is possible at present to see design inquiry as an action research method.

DESIGN A N D ACTION RESEARCH PARA- LLELS

Design and action research are both forms of learning. Action research is but one of many types of research, although the concept is not well known beyond the social sciences. It has a 40-year history and, like design, it has an uneven pattern of acceptance as an approach to inquiry.

Action research

The aim of action research is to 'contribute both to the practical concerns of people in an immediate problematic situation and to the goals of social science by joint collaboration within a mutually acceptable ethical framework'. The intention 'is to be involved in change (which must be) change involving the properties of the system itself '~°. The principal concern is the creation of organisational change and the simultaneous study of the process. Unusual features of action research include the acceptance that:

• fundamental knowledge might not be attainable in any other way; that you have to act on the system in order to fred out

Vol 7 No 1 January 1986 3

• the researcher has an impact on the system under study; that an 'objective' stance is not possible

• research utilisation has to be part of the research design

Action research is both a means of advancing science and achieving practical ends. The conduct of action research is 'experiential and collaborative'. The process is 'dialec- tical'. Validation is through feedback loops on a number of levels; 'on coming to know '11.

A recent discussion of action research in an environmental design context has been offered by Weisman 12. Weisman suggests 'striking parallels' between action research and design.

Parallels

The parallels include:

• learning through the study of action • repeated cycles of plan, action and evaluation over

many stages • a concern for both the investigation of existing

conditions and for what should be done next • a concern for research utilisation and practical ends

The learning is tentative in the face of uncertainty. Both procedures rely upon 'reflection in action' as the model of practice 13. There is a common pattern of working that includes the joint evolution of problem and solution after feedback from tentative action. Action research implies collaborative inquiry. Design also has potential for participation though it is not usually viewed as essential.

Parallels are evident, but more striking, if design is also recognised as a mode of inquiry 14. The outcome from design activity may be both increased knowledge and novel form. It is then a short step to see collaborative design inquiry as an action research method. Designing is a limited form of action; an experiment, a tentative action prior to agreeing further action. It is a lir~fited action that may be studied. Likewise, design products in use may be studied as the results of previous action. The problematic nature of solutions to wicked problems is acknowledged and the learning process is extended as actions are studied over repeated cycles.

The significance of this view is that it provides an 'over-arching framework'. It demands that feedback, briefing, design and use are seen as an integrated, on-going process. It relates planning to the context of organisational change and learning. It suggests a socio- technical framework. Action research provides one alternative to the dominant 'positivist-empiricist paradigm' in science 15. It allows traditional science to be recognised as a powerful but limited framework; one that has failed to tackle issues of organisation and planning.

Attractive though this view of design may be, there are currently significant difficulties faced when putting this view into practice.

Difficulties

Four difficulties are apparent. Firstly, designing at the service or community level requires a mix of professional and user input; either one alone is usually not sufficient. Mechanisms for securing client input are lacking but so too is any shared and adequate conceptual framework. The dominant models in planning are not ones of learning. This may be changing but technical rationality is expected by many user interests and is offered by many professional interests. Secondly, there is the issue of feedback; the vital link between cycles of plan and action. Within the planning phase, evaluation faces methodological issues; in use feedback is simply neglected. The cycle is not completed and the learning is interrupted. Thirdly, the action research view requires a breadth of training that spans empirical, behavioural, theoretical and attentional skills 16. Finally, the action research perspective is a hoax if the will does not exist to implement change.

The anticipated NHS estate rationalisation exercise can be used to illustrate some of these difficulties. It can be suggested that the designer's role is to make the inquiry process open, informed, well-ordered and reflective; to enhance natural order debate. This has to include the design of the inquiry and decision processes. It means being informed on appropxiate methods for collectipg feedback from performance in use and from each planning stage. It is found that many of the issues faced can be addressed by adopting design inquiry, an action research method, as the research design for the collection and utilisation of feedback.

FEEDBACK

Building evaluation studies have always faced methodological difficulties. Functional suitability assessment, a performance measure suggested in a model health care planning exercise, illustrates difficulties faced in handling feedback on building use.

Heathbridge

The Heathbridge exercise addresses the problem of estate rationalisation. It assesses the future pattern of building use within a hypothetical health district 17. It is a response to the Davies Report TM which highlights the extent of surplus and underused property in the UK National Health Service (NHS). Space utilisation and functional suitability are identified as key performance measures in both documents.

Heathbridge provides a model data set in terms of t'mance, manpower and estate data. Estate data are presented in terms of building condition, utilisation, suitability, energy and fire data for each hospital department. Assessments are summarised on a set of four-point ordinal scales. Given the chronic neglect of feedback on building use, this data set represents some

4 DESIGN STUDIES

improvement over current practice. Also, the considera- tion of the interactions between finance, manpower and estate is a step forward. Nonetheless a number of questionable assumptions are made in the planning model. These include:

• the direct applicability of a training exercise in the real world

• the adoption of a sequential planning process model with autonomous stages

• the treatment of goals as fixed • the adequacy of information alone to promote good

planning decisions.

Technical rationality is accepted as both adequate and appropriate. Information is equated with planning knowledge and is accepted as being objective. The role of norms and values is denied. Also, ends and means are treated separately. Evaluation is seen as a mere technical exercise and a reductionist framework is imposed upon both data collection and use. This approach may be justified for the collection of building condition data but it is not adequate for any assessment of functional performance. Wider issues are raised, as is shown in a pilot functional suitability assessment 19.

Functional suitability assessment

This pilot study shows that functional suitability assessments are possible and worthwhile. Table 4 and Figures 1 and 2 give a summary of the findings, together with a sample ward assessment. Benefits from such assessments are high and wide ranging. They include strategic plan data, site plan data, project briefing and space management information and the identification of opportunities for free tuning. Costs are also high for, although the use of the ordinal scales is convenient, further department- specific criteria and data are needed both to clarify the meaning of the scales adopted and to support review of fmdings prior to use. Assessments are always partial due to the conflict between width (number of attributes) and depth (level of detail) present. Dilemmas are presented. Although benefits are high, so too are costs, yet assessment always remains significantly incomplete. This incompleteness includes any assessment of the hospital as a whole, assessment of the site and service dependencies and information on the potential of existing accommoda- tion for change of use. Whilst further assessments may be introduced to cover whole hospital and site aspects, assessment of potential cannot be included without acting on the system. 'Rigour and relevance' become mutually exclusive 2°.

Other issues raised and inadequately addressed by the approach include:

• the lack of any adequate theory of function • the role of values and the assumption that they are

shared and stable

• the lack of any absolute standards or norms of performance

• the conflict within goals • the mix of qualitative and quantitative aspects; the

number of potentially relevant aspects and their interdependence

• the lack of either a known budget or agreed distribution for resources to be allocated between competing planning tasks

Adequate theory of function may be lacking but some clues are available. Function is a multi-levelled concept. There is a hierarchy of changing needs. There is therefore no single measure of performance and no common metric. Function is a systemic property; a

Table 4. Functional suitability assessment: summary findings, questions and answers so far TM

Q1 A

Q2 A

Is it possible? Yes, but assessment inevitably incomplete. No estimate of potential. Issues outstanding and dilemma presented. Awareness required

o no absolute standards apply o mix of qualitative and quantitative o conflict in goals o range of interests and role of values o number of dimensions and their interdependence

Is it worthwhile? Yes, benefits high

o strategic plan data o estate control plan data o project briefing and space management o free tuning

but cost also high

o 1 man day/5 beds

Q3 What level of information? A Department specific criteria required if department by

department approach adopted. Information needed to support review and to clarify meaning of scales.

Q4 What co-ordination? A Separate assessments for suitability, condition, etc But

co-ordinate resource allocation.

Q5 How should future assessments be conducted? A Conduct as a series of design-in-use studies.

Use a task group and a mix of methods. Include expert judgement. Co-ordinate through established planning machinery. Focus on whole hospital initially then department level. Allow for graphic presentation of results.

Q6 What next? A Try out a whole hospital assessment.

Set out building evaluation programme for priority sites. Produce evaluation kit for whole hospital and departments with guidance notes on range of possible standards and procedures. Investigate cost effectiveness of competing planning tasks. Review overall resource allocation pattern in relation to proposed planning model.


r~

j Hos

pita

l Horton

Dep

artm

ent

F W

hart

on

Blo

ck R

ef 6

Are

. of

Dep

t.

70

1m

a

L Fun

ctio

nal U

=dt

s 30

bed

s

Flo

or

Gro

und

Sur

vey

by

R

W JC

rs

Dat

e 26

.1.8

4 T

ime

2.30

p.m

.

Typ

ical

Day

Y

es

Sum

mar

y of

Ove

rall

Rat

ings

Su

bjec

t an

d R

atin

g

l S

pace

- (

adeq

uacy

oO

A

2

Lay

out

- Ph

ysic

al R

elat

ion-

sh

ips

with

in D

epar

tmen

t B

offi

ng A

ccom

mod

atio

n

4 ~

n=

=o

u,-

' C

o~

.o=

B

5 ~.

e-,~

,-~--

cy

B

6 La

~.~.

..e ~

B

7 E

...,

~ M

.jor

A

Equ

ipm

ent

Ade

qut.

. •

l~y

~ t~

at ~

m~t

~

iota

th

an =

d~m

am r

amm

(if ~

qm¢)

Bet

ter

ob6e

zvat

ion

desi

red.

Exc

ept

for

offi

co~

& st

orag

e.

But

WC

's o

ff c

orri

dor,

Bed

s st

ick

on r

amp.

Uti

lisa

tio

n A

gR

'mm

lea

t

1 E

a~

r or

gro

~

u~de

ruN

d.

2 u~

.,.,

,~

3 O

~m

:xow

dod

over

used

,

Bro

ad O

rder

of C

4mts

to b

ring

C °

rD u

pt°B

Fi

ne ~

aing

onl

y sa

y £5

00

o,,

~~

t

A

fm w

hich

it J

s uso

d.

B ~

o.~

~o'

~'=

c Dty

h

u~

-~l

mqu

irem

en=.

X

bb

np

~,

to x

nq

.v~

.

Sp

are

Ca

pa

cit

y (=

o=-t

emp)

Spa

re F

unct

iona

l Uni

ts

Non

e

Spa

re U

nutil

ised

Spa

ce

Non

e

Dep

artm

ent

Lay

out

®

Spac

e St

anda

~.~m

N

O. o

f bed

a, s

peci

alit

y S

~

dist

ribu

tion

N

o. o

f sin

gles

C

leen

u~

ty

30 O

rtho

paed

ic

5@

11

24

@9

.7

av 9

.96

6 (m

=)

13.2

Dirty

utiU

ty

(m')

1~.6

Trea

tmen

t roo

m

(m')

16.5

St

o~ng

e (m

')

19

+ 10

o

lrce

s (n

o @

m')

W

~n

t 3

01

1

9:30

B

aths

& s

how

ers/

patie

nt

5:30

D

aysp

ace

(m')

54

Pan

try

(m')

17.8

P

iped

gas

es o

xyge

n/su

ctio

n 22

N

o. o

f bed

s vi

sibl

e fr

om N

b 14

A

v. d

ista

nce

bet

wee

n b

eds

(m)

2.5

De

ptm

ne

n~

Are

a (m

~ 70

1

Not

es f

rom

Wal

k th

roug

h 1

Equ

ipm

ent

at f

ire

exit.

2

Stor

e ch

oo a

blo

ol E

quip

men

t on

flo

or.

3 B

ed p

ans

stor

ed i

n co

rrid

or.

4 S

how

er c

onve

rted

to

stor

e.

5 S

ide

war

ds i

sola

ted.

6

Ass

iste

d ba

th,

no c

urta

ins.

WC

too

exp

osed

. 7

Pat

ient

s w

ardr

obes

use

d fo

r st

orag

e.

8 N

ight

lig

htin

g po

or :

wal

l m

ount

ed f

itt~g

s pe

rhap

s.

9 B

etw

een

6 be

d ba

y gl

azin

g no

t us

ed.

10

Mal

e an

d fe

mal

e to

ilets

. 11

C

h~

u

sed

for

cof

fee,

too

smal

l. 12

W

C r

emov

ed i

n m

ale

chan

ge,

now

sto

re.

13

Use

d as

cle

aner

. 14

Pa

ntry

too

big

. 15

In

tern

a] b

athr

oom

di~

l!~re

d.

16

Sho

wer

s di

slik

ed.

17

Mea

l. se

¢ of

fice,

(no

t re

lativ

es).

18

C

ontr

olle

d dr

ugs

stor

age,

no

wor

ktop

. 19

S

ampl

ing

room

not

use

d, t

oo m

any

bedf

ast

patie

nts.

Sto

re

for

Xm

as d

ecor

atio

ns.

20

Mul

ti-us

e, t

oo b

ig a

s da

yspa

ce.

If w

ell

enou

gh t

o us

e da

y sp

ace

then

off

hom

e!

Fig

ure/

. F

indi

ngs f

rom

Junc

tiona

l sui

tabi

lity a

sses

smen

t: su

mm

a~ o

f ov

eral

l rat

ings

, dep

artm

ent l

ay-o

ut,

spac

e st

anda

rds

and

note

s fro

m w

alk-

thro

ugh

Z

O

Oo

Aaq

~ct?

.

Des

crip

tion

of

Fu

nct

ion

Dm

~ztp

flam

of

am.v

ice

Fu

n~

on

al s

=e

Typ

e of

ser

vice

W

orkl

oad/

thro

ughp

ut

Staf

fing

Wor

king

hou

rs

Boo

king

pro

cedu

res

allo

cati

on

Sba

:ed

use

o~ s

pace

S

pace

,~.q

fio

n

Wo

rkfl

ow

- s

taff

- p

aben

ts

- sup

plie

s -

was

te

Who

lo i

po

t~

Sup

plie

s

S~

rag

e C

ater

ing

Dom

esti

c se

rvic

es

Sta

ach

ang

~

Cli

nica

l su

ppor

t F

ire

esca

pe

Rel

ativ

es

Dm

ign

so

lmto

~co

nts

xt

wit

hin

ho

sp~

U

avel

dis

tanc

es

Dep

artm

enta

l rel

atio

nshi

ps

Acc

essi

bili

ty fo

r - s

taff

-p

atie

nts

Wh

at a

spec

ts d

o y

ou

li

ke m

ost?

Car

pet.

Ext

ract

fro

m

oper

a~on

al p

olic

ies

30

Acu

te

34

On

War

d.

Mix

ed.

Yes

. O

pen

visi

~ng.

Req

uis

i~n

s +

top

up (

__c~

__).

Sagg

ed.

Pla

ted

mea

ls

was

h u

p on

War

ds

On

site

. O

n W

ard

E.

Wlm

t m

q:ec

ta d

o y

ou

d

isli

ke m

oat?

Wh

at a

ctm

my

n

~qm

~?

Ask

Use

rs

30 b

eds.

O

rtho

paed

ic.

Col

d T

raur

r~

(SE

NT

).

Hea

d in

juri

es.

Sea

sona

l.

Var

iatio

rL

Fri

day

lost

.

Uti

liti

es s

hare

d w

ith

ITU

/CC

U.

Lit

tle

cent

rali

sed

stor

age.

Par

t lo

cal.

Bas

emen

t!

Tak

en o

ver.

X-R

ay t

oo

far

. T

heat

res

now

go

od.

Acc

ess

~tr

ough

OP

.

Stor

age!

F

ire

esca

pe

ram

p or

bla

nket

s.

Det

aile

d

Ass

essm

ent ~

q~

ma

m

tam

lud

~ (~

1 1.

Spa

ce

- (a

dequ

acy

of)

4.

Ea

vtn

mm

mta

l C

m4

1~

mn

s

Aro

und

bed

s T

reat

men

t roo

m

Ass

i~e

d b

aths

Au

~e

d

WC

's

Cle

am u~

y/~

u~

Off

ice

Sto

rage

N

urse

bas

e

Day

spa

ce

Rel

ativ

es

L O

~ra

U P

.aU

ng

o!

I=

ie

i • s

h~

fro

.

! ;O

• M

um a~

d d

ayW

m

ocac

L

Noi

se

Win

dow

s

4. O

~m

dl

ita

tla

g

I I:lll

ltii

I Io

l I

I I

I I °

'~

i ioi

I

I i

i i

I I

II

Il

ll

ll

s. A

men

ity

- Pr

~vac

B

Gd

m

Sat

~g

WC

's

Day

/Din

ing

2, L

ayo

ut

- P

hy

sica

l R

elat

ion

ship

s w

ith

in D

epar

tmen

t B

eds

to n

urse

ba

se

•

Bed

s to

WC

's

• ' M

aa

=x~.

Ic~.

Bed

s to

bat

hs

! •

i U

tili

ty ro

oms

to b

eds

• I

Day

/di,'

dng

to b

eds

• I i

I S.

O~

rall

gat

la¢

I

• •

•

I l

3. F

acil

itie

s -

Es

Tre

atm

ent

Off

ices

Uti

lity

room

s K

itch

en

Lif

ts

Sto

rage

3. 0

.mn

lg

attn

¢

..~

Fig

ure

2.

Fin

ding

s fr

om f

unct

iona

l an

d su

itabi

lity

asse

ssm

ent:

desc

ript

ion

of fu

ncti

on a

nd d

etai

led

asse

ssm

ent

product of organisation arising from the relation between structure and process. In short, function cannot be treated within a reductionist framework. A systemic approach is needed to handle such complexity. Feedback may be collected over a range of attributes but may only be used in terms of some assessment of total performance. Further, the dynamics of the planning process are needed to determine relevance and to control data collection. An adequate research design for the collection and use of feedback from building use has yet to be established. However, some recent post-occupancy evaluation studies offer an alternative but, again, many of the same difficulties remain unresolved.

Post-occupancy evaluation

It is suggested that a building evaluation programme focused on total building performance is a part of the way forward. Recent post-occupancy evaluations by Public Works, Canada 21 and by the Ministry of Works and Development, New Zealand 22 provide examples of the approach. Unique aspects of the emerging approach are:

• The initial approach focuses upon total building performance. It does not attempt to impose a reductionist framework.

• The approach does not attempt to reduce the evaluation to a mere technical exercise. User involvement is sought; it is collaborative.

• The walk-through allows the introduction of both qualitative and quantitative aspects of buildings in use. It admits the 'experience' of building performance.

• The concern is to develop practical methods that are also scientific and to include both physical and human factors.

• The approach is 'transdisciplinary'. It begins to make clear to participants the relations between various experts and to reflect the wholeness of building in use. Occupancy analysis using multi-method research is another starting point. (See Zeise125)

• Organisation and procedure are seen as important aspects of technique.

Many of these features are in marked contrast to the approach suggested to functional suitability assessment within Heathbridge. The approach is demanding but appears relevant. Nonetheless, a number of difficulties are apparent in applying this approach to health building evaluation. These include:

• the range and the complexity of the functions accommodated in health facilities

• the size of the health service estate • current service and staff priorities (patients not

buildings) • the range of competing user interests • management attitudes to consensus with introduction

of general management

However, from these experiences a number of management principles can be offered for the conduct of assessments of functional performance.

Management principles

An on-going, co-ordinated, multi-stage building evaluation programme is required to support cost-effective use of space within the NHS. Such a programme will not be quickly established; it can only be implemented gradual- ly. There is no shortage of evaluation methods that can support feedback. Recent reviews by McAllister 23, Bishop 24 and Zeise125 illustrate the range of methods (see Table 5). There are, however, no complete low cost methods. All methods are partial, limited and approximate. Also, objectives change and no absolute standards apply. It is for this reason that aspects of organisation and procedure become important. Recommendations are given in Table 6 for the conduct of such building evaluations. They may be summarised as a number of management principles:

• Allow both calculation and judgement. • Accept 'a more refined view of evaluation' as sug-

gested by McAllister; treat, as Zeisel suggests, methods as a tool-kit. Quality can only be achieved through a commitment to a mix of methods.

• Do not treat evaluation as a mere technical exercise. Treat values explicitly through review and negotiation within an established planning forum; seek user involvement.

• Use a balanced team as the task group and include both user involvement and expert design judgement.

• Do not isolate assessments from the planning process. • Resolve width versus depth conflict in favour of width

initially but allow for multi-stage assessments. • Do not be prescriptive in the approach; respond to

context. • Treat methods, procedure and organisation as equally

important but inter-related aspects of any evaluation. • Acknowledge essential incompleteness without acting

upon the system; act on the system in parallel with data collection.

A focus on current use yields little information on potential. Handling potential, where no absolute standards apply, is not some extra; it is the very basis for comparison. Facts may be adequately handled through measurement but values are most readily handled in terms of preference for particular policies or products. The suitability of current use can only be compared with the cost and performance of possible future uses. The relevance of design inquiry is the capacity to handle potential for future use. It offers a more conceptually complete approach than problem- or analysis-focused methods. It provides width and depth to assessment together with feedback information on norms of performance calibration. Some loss of consistency and precision is the price paid for such completeness. Design

8 DESIGN STUDIES

Table 5. Evaluation methods: the tool-kit

Urban scale methods after McAllister z3

• cost-benefit analysis • planning balance sheet • goal achievement matrix • energy analysis • land suitability analysis • landscape assessment • environmental evaluation system • judgement impact analysis

Building scale methods after Bishop 24 Theoretical/partial methods

• subjective description • social and psychological approach (user satisfaction) • sociological (market research) • environmental studies • technical appraisal

Theoretical/inclusive

• appraisal model o 4 functions (Hillier and Leaman) o resource model (Building Performance Research Unit)

Practical

• Essex proformas (Expert team) • York Guide • Building Design Partnership quality quotient (Caudill) • Greater London Council technical feedback • Department of the Environment Housing Appraisal Kit

Environmem-behaviour research methods after Zeise125

• observing physical traces • observing environmental behaviour • focused interviews • questions: topic and formats • archives

Transdisciplinary methods after Zeisel zs

• floor plan overlays • building walk-throughs • plan annotation

Design methods

• design in use • checklists • design inquiry as action research

inquiry as action research offers a research design for feedback collection and use where problem- and solution-focused methods are kept in balance. Design inquiry has therefore to be included in the evaluation tool-kit. A research design for feedback on building use is therefore design inquiry. This approach avoids the positivist assumptions and applicability gap inherent in most environment-behaviour studies.

COLLABORATIVE D E S I G N INQUIRY

Awareness of a model of planning as learning and of

Table 6. Functional suitability assessment: organisation, procedure, methods

Organisation

• a part of co-ordinated building evaluation programme • co-ordination and participation through established plan-

ning machinery • use of balanced team include user and expert design

judgement • address barriers to implementation (see Dalsh et a122) • adopt management principles • use an evaluation kit

o design guidance review o notes of standards o proformas/checklists o notes on methods, procedure and organisation

• in-house or consultant support to task group on preparation and presentation.

Procedure (major phases brief, data gathering and analysis, review--first stage of a multi-stage evaluation programme)

• Archive material: collect site and departmental layouts • Define portions/departmental boundaries and analyse func-

tional content • Liaise with medical/nursing/admin planning team colleagues

over focus, task group composition and evaluation kit-- proformas and guidance notes

• Take off key statistics from drawn information • Liaise with local users over terms of reference, programme

and access • Walk-through--completing description of function, profor-

mas, notes and check accuracy of drawn record • Collate data and prepare report summaries • Review data, assessments and conclusions (i.e. further work

with users and with planning team) and also, Address issue of width/depth conflict through multi-staged assessment programme

Methods (a mix of methods from the tool-kit; mix to suit focus and context - likely first-stage methods)

• building walk-through • design checklist/proforma established from literature review

of design guidance • observation of physical traces and behaviour • archive material: take offa key statistics and plan annotation • reported subjective experience of users from focused inter-

view • judgement of balanced team including user and experienced

designer

issues raised by the collection and use of feedback support the view of design inquiry as an action research method. A summary of the issues raised is given in Table 7. Information has to be related to other forms of knowledge to be used: knowing ' that ' has to be related to knowing 'how' , to tacit knowledge. There are designerly ways of knowing 26-28, see Table 8. However, both designer and user come to the inquiry as co-workers. Neither has sufficient knowledge to operate alone; inquiry has to be collaborative. Some of what the designer knows has to be included, especially the needs to admit quality, experience, and to act on the system, see Table 9. The first need, however, is for greater awareness of the issues raised and for the systemic view that follows.

Vol 7 No 1 January 1986 , 9

Table 7. Feedback on building use: summary of issues raised, awareness required TM

Planning models

• planning as learning; limits to technical rationality • level of natural order debate • storybook science and storybook planning under storybook

management • idealisation of planning process models; assumptions gross • sufficiency of information alone; inductive fallacy; role of

values • values an 'evolving topology'; planning and design decisions

influence the distribution of both costs and benefits • utility theory assumes completeness, stable and shared

values, aggregation of different logical types and transitive relations

Feedback

• chronic neglect of feedback; methodological difficulties of feed forward

• research design for feedback should accommodate collection and use

• planning process dynamics needed to control feedback; information overload and transfer difficulties neglected

• theory of function: product of organisation, systemic property, no single objective function, hierarchy of changing needs

• completeness: admit quantity, quality and experience yet • essential incompleteness if focus is only current use • assessment subjective and value laden, treat explicitly within

planning forum • no absolute standards; potential the very basis for compari-

son; handle values in terms of preference; norms of performance are tacit and contextual

• mix of qualitative and quantitative, subjective and objective; no of dimensions and their interdependence; inverse relations between precision and meaning and completeness and consistency

• no 'universal methodology'; wide range of methods but each limited and approximate; use a mix of methods but no common metric

• evolving goals; conflict and contradiction as goals renegoti- ated

• dilemmas: width vs depth, rigour vs relevance, high cost and high benefit

• limits to reductionist framework; socio-technical framework needed; review research design for feedback; accommodate both collection and use, calibration and feedback in design inquiry as the research design for feedback

Collaborative design inquiry

• action research perspective, repeated cycles of learning, design as inquiry

• completeness: negotiates values, handles potential, supports evolution of problem and solution and their interaction

• need to act on the system, role of tacit knowledge, designerly ways

• balance, co-evolution of problem and solution • management throughout the dynamics of self-organisation,

bootstrapping

Way forward

• raise awareness, expose dilemmas and limitations, examine alternatives

• renegotiate conceptual framework, unity of opposites • develop co-ordinated building evaluation programme and

space use management discipline • discuss role of design inquiry in organisational learning,

learn to learn and to design design; trust the process • generate a mature response to uncertainty; informed,

well-ordered and reflective collaborative design inquiry conducted as action research

Table 8. Tacit design knowledge

"There are things that we know we cannot tell". • Knowing that can actually inhibit practice. (Polanyi)

Knowing how and knowing that

• Knowing how cannot be made explicit. • The form of knowledge is intrinsically non-verbal. • Knowing how is to do with standards of performance that go

beyond competence. • Know how determines quality.

Epistemological categories

• Knowing that is unnecessary for many activities. • Knowing that depends upon knowing how. Tacit knowing

can be identified with understanding • Under many conditions of practice the two types of

knowledge are mutually exclusive.

Implications for design knowledge

• Knowing that is not of necessity part of design. • Knowing how lies at the core of design.

Science is directed at knowing that; design at knowing how.

Designerly ways of knowing

• Design processes 0 Designers solve problems through synthesis; they are

solution focused because it is in terms of solution that problems can be kept within manageable bounds. They rely upon 'primary generator' to define problems.

0 Designers use 'codes' to express relations between need and environment. There is a 'deep structure' to design codes. Pattern structuring is a feature.

• Design products 0 Objects are themselves a form of knowledge (a material

culture). Designers both read and write in this form translating back from concrete objects to abstract requirements through design codes. Invention often comes before theory.

Designers tackle ill-defined wicked problems, their thinking is constructive and solution focused

After Cross et al. 26, Cross 27 and Archer 28

O v e r - a r c h i n g framework

This sys temic view complemen t s the reduc t ion i s t f r amework . Both are needed . I t is an issue of ba lance and

of a wider perspec t ive . T h e c omple me n ta r i t y of exis t ing and poten t ia l , subjec t iv i ty and objec t iv i ty , thought and act ion, novel ty and conf i rmat ion , and r igour and im- ag ina t ion shows the ' un i ty of • ,29 opposxtes . T h e same

10 DESIGN STUDIES

Table 9. Functional suitability assessment: some of what the designer knows

Function is a systemic property Function is an emergent property and is destroyed within a reductionist framework. It cannot be surveyed nor contained within a traditional scientific approach.

Planning process dynamics control data collection Planning problems are not fully given. Means and ends are interdependent. Relevance and meaning of data are not given. The interaction of problem and solution can guide data collection. Methods should be solution focused. Procedures are not set. Information on extant condition is important but not sufficient.

Awareness: evaluation dilemmas Evaluation work presents dilemmas--width vs depth, high benefits with high costs, rigour vs relevance. There is no universal method and no common metric. Values are important and are best handled in terms of preference. Assessment is always partial. The overall objective is a question of balance. The research design for feedback needs to be reworked to include utilisation and calibration.

Rationalioy a myth Socially constructed values together with objectively given data make planning possible. Rationality and certainty are myths. Risks and resource management strategies compete in a plural society. Technical rationality is an inadequate model for wicked problems--neither good management, science nor design.

Admit quality and experience Reality is mnlti-levelied. Needs are an evolving hierachy. Measurement always approximate and incomplete. Also, the tendency is to measure what can be measured and ignore the rest. Calculation and judgement are necessary. Admit the user as there is no objective experience and no professional monopoly of appropriate values.

Act on the system Significant aspects of the problem

• functional potential (what can be) • acceptability of proposed solutions (what ought to be) • interaction between what is possible and what is desired

can only be discovered by acting on the system Assessment cannot be comprehensive or rational but problems can be handled in terms of solutions. The overall objective is to achieve harmony; balance between conflicting objectives over a number of levels. Potential is the very basis of comparison of policy/product options.

point is made by Jantsch-- ' in a multi-level evolving reality opposites vanish ... there is only complementarity in which opposites include each other'. Collaborative design inquiry offers increased completeness, meaning and validity.

It is a process of 'inquiry, experimentation and research'. It relies upon an 'epistemology of practice', one that does not include a clear distinction between practice and research, between knowing and doing and between ends and means. The framework is one of 'action science' rather than 'technical rationality '3].

Advantages include:

• The handling of uncertainty and risk through learning.

• 'Double loop learning' which includes feedback on the 'very norms which def'me effective performance '32.

That is, feedback is on a number of levels, each of a different logical type. There is then both feedback and calibration 33. The inclusion potential of and the relation between current and possible future use. The inclusion of the interaction between economic, technical, functional and behavioural performance requirements. Support for the evolution of goals and values through the interaction of problem and solution. Goals, values, priorities, problem definition (organisation and space requirements) and possible solutions all interact. Definition of problem and solution are negotiated and re-negotiated as inquiry unfolds. The contradiction in goal conflicts informs problem definition, data collection and the control of feedback as well as the formulation of options.

Information on extant conditions is not sufficient. Often, information on 'what is' is irrelevant in relation to some information on 'what can be' and 'what is acceptable'. Design inquiry can be cost-effective for this reason. It can be self-organising through the interactions supported. Planning may not be rationally possible but it is possible in terms of individual and collective preference for particular policy options. It is not possible as a set procedure working through a series of autonomous stages. The process may, however, be 'bootstrapped' along, relying upon a network of interlocking concepts and models 34. Inquiry unfolds through the interaction of the various stages, procedures, models, actors, needs, opportunities and costs and through self-conversation with situation.

In the longer term the self-organising paradigm offers some promise for more rigorous handling of complexity. The work holds the prospect of models of 'qualitative change'. Allen is currently studying the evolution of urban form and his 'origami' example provides a metaphor for further study of the emergence of form and of the relation between form and process 3s.

A new understanding is emerging of the role of feedback in system evolution; of order through fluctua- tion; of self-renewal. Self-organisation is a pattern that connects process and product. Successful management of both the process and product in use requires that the manager understands and trusts the process and works with the self-organising dynamics 36. Within a framework of technical rationality it is neither possible to fully understand nor to trust the process.

R o l e o f the d e s i g n e r

The way forward includes a change in the view of design; to see design as inquiry. Greater awareness of the issues raised by the planning process and by the research design for feedback leads to re-negotiation of the conceptual framework, to view planning as learning and to accept function, organisation and planning as systemic phenomena.


The designer's role may include making substantive plans at a later stage but the role has to be extended to include raising the level of natural order debate. The key roles are as agent for learning and as facilitator or enabler. The focus is process rather than structural planning. The product is more likely to be acceptable if the process is right. Opposites have to be held in dynamic balance within the process. Design inquiry is then seen as an essential action research method. Although difficulties are faced, debate on the role of the designer and of design inquiry is the next step to be taken. The research design for the collection and utilisation of feedback and for the conduct of inquiry has yet to be properly designed. This design task must also be informed, well-ordered and reflective. This calls for reflection on how to design design and to plan planning. The role of design inquiry in support of organisational learning has yet to be recognised. Storybook science, planning and management are not sufficient in tackling wicked problems.

Assessing information requirements for adequate and cost-effective planning raises not only issues of organisation, procedure, method and management, which are matters of both practical and conceptual concern; it also raises epistemological issues. Science is an inappropriate model for planning and design. Rationality is not enough; it does not account for intuition, tacit knowledge and the social construction of norms and values. Plan- ning and design practice should not be modelled upon traditional views of science. It may well be, as Glanville suggests, that design is the paradigm for science and not vice versa 37. This may be the root cause of the confusion.

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T

The author acknowledges the help of colleagues in the National Health Service and at The Medical Architecture Research Unit, Polytechnic of North London in completing the pilot study discussed in the text. The views expressed are, however, the author's alone.

R E F E R E N C E S

1 Breheny, M J 'A practical view of planning theory' Environment and Planning B Vol 10 No 1 (1983)

2 Rittel, H and Webber, M M 'Dilemmas in a general theory of planning' Policy Sciences Vol 4 (1973)

3 Jones, J C Design Methods: Seeds of Human Futures Wiley, Chichester (1980) p 54

4 Webber, M M 'The myth of rationality: development planning reconsidered' Environment and Planning B Vol 10 (1983)

5 Viekers, G 'Values, norms and policies' Policy Sciences Vol 4 (1973)

6 Powell, J 'Technology transfer--the design information drip' Paper Conference Wellington, New Zealand (June 1983)

Hilfier, B et al. 'Knowledge and design' in Mitchell, W Environmental Research and Practice EDRA 3, Los Angeles (1972)

8 Mirtoff, I The Subjective Side of Science Elsevier, Amster- dam (1974)

9 Mintzberg, H 'The manager's job: folklore and fact' Harvard Business Review (July/August 1975)

10 Clark, P A Action Research and Organisational Change Harper and Row, New York (1972)

11 Reason, P and Rowan, J (Eds) Human Inquiry Wiley, Chichester (1981) chapter 10

12 Weisman, G D 'Environmental programming and action research' Environment and Behaviour Vol 15 No 3 (May 1983)

13 Schon, D A 'Reflection in action' RIBA Transactions 2 Vol 1 No 2 (1982)

14 Zeisei, J Inquiry by Design: Tools for Environment-- Behaviour Research. Part 1 Research and Design Brooks/Cole, Monterey (1981)

15 Harre, R in Reason, P and Rowan, J (Eds) Op cit chapter 1

16 Torbet, W in Reason, P and Rowan, J (Eds) op cit

17 DHSS, NHS Advisors, Leicester Polytechnic 'Mereworth 3, Heathbridge' Heathbridge Information Profile, Mereworth Health Care Planning Model, Ist edition (October 1983)

18 Davies, C Report of the Enquiry: Underused and Surplus Property in the NHS HMSO, London (1983)

19 Waiters, R J 'Functional suitability assessment: pilot study report' Internal Report Oxford RHA (1984)

20 Schon, D A op cit

21 Mill, P 'Building diagnostics' Building Utilisation Conference Proceedings Portsmouth, (1983) in PoweR, J et al. (Eds) Designing for Building Utilisation Spon, London (1984)

22 Daish, J, Gray, J, Kernohan, D, and Salmond, A 'Post-occupancy evaluation in New Zealand' Design Studies Vol 3 No 2 (April 1982)

23 MeAllister, D M Evaluation in Environmental Planning: Assessing Environmental, Social, Economic and Political Trade-offs The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1980)

24 Bishop, J 'The appraisal of buildings' SA US Occasional Paper No 5 University of Bristol (1979)

25 Zeisel, J op cit, Part 2 Research Methods

26 Cross, N, Naughton, J and Walker, D 'Design method and scientific method' Design Studies Vol 2 No 4 (October 1981)

27 Cross, N 'Designerly ways of knowing' Design Studies Vol 3 No 4 (October 1982)

28 Archer, B 'Design as a discipline: the three Rs' Design Studies Vol 1 No 1 (January 1979)

29 Bateson, G Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity Fontana/ Collins, London (1980) pp 231-239

12 DESIGN STUDIES

30 Jantsch, E The Self-Organising Universe Pergamon Press, Oxford (1980) chapter 16 'Ethics, morality and system management' p 274

31 Schon, D A The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action Temple Smith, London (1983) chapters 2 and 5

32 Argyris, C and Schon, D Organisational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective Addison-Wesley (1978) chapter 1 'Organisational learning' p 8

33 Bateson, G op cit p 211

34 Capra, F The Turning Point Fontana, London (1982) chapter 9 'The systems view of life' p 285

35 Allen, P M 'Evolution, modelling and design in a complex world' Environment and Planning B Vol 9 (1982) p 95

36 Jantsch, E op cit chapter 16

37 Gianville, R 'Why design research?' Design: Science: Method Conference Proceedings Portsmouth (1980) in Powell, J and Jacques, R (Eds) Design: Science: Method, Westbury House, Guildford (1981)


Documents

Informed, well-ordered and reflective: design inquiry as action research