Implementation of an eco-innovation toolbox to stimulate design teams: A case of interior design

Abstract In the Fuzzy Front End of Eco-innovation, one of the main challenges of eco-ideation is the generation of ideas with a high level of environmental and socio-economical ambition. Current eco-design methods are not adapted to all the requirements of eco-innovation, because of 1) their complexity of implementation, 2) their low robustness and/or 3) their tendency to provide mostly techno-centred solutions. There is a need to define methods which can support multidisciplinary design teams to eco-innovate. In previous work, a set of seven didactical and meso Eco-ideation Stimulation Mechanisms (ESM) was developed, exploring systemic dimensions related to sustainability currently under-exploited.. The proposition first relies on the co-development of an intuitive and didactic formatting of an ESM toolbox to support the eco-ideation phase in multidisciplinary groups. Second, we propose a method in three main steps implemented in a four-hour workshop: a screening phase with the seven ESMs followed by an in-depth divergent phase with a single mechanism, and a convergent formalization of eco-innovative concepts. We illustrate the eco-innovation method by a real-world case study of an interior agency of a co-working building emphasizing circular economy principles and quality of life at work. A group of 13 stakeholders and experts (architects, eco-design experts, local authority and user representatives) were divided into three groups, facilitated by two researchers. The paper shows that this eco-ideation toolbox can be implemented in a real-life context of interior design in multidisciplinary groups involving multiple stakeholders. It supported the groups in sharing a common vision of interior design, and generating three original concepts of co-working spaces.

[1]  Suvi Nenonen,et al.  Evolution of co-working places: drivers and possibilities , 2017 .

[2]  H. Karasti,et al.  Ethnography : positioning ethnography within participatory design , 2012 .

[3]  Stella U. Boess Design Contributions to Building Technology: Goals, Interfaces and Responsiveness , 2019, Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design.

[4]  Mateja Dovjak,et al.  Comparison of Health and Well-Being Aspects in Building Certification Schemes , 2019, Sustainability.

[5]  J. Allwood,et al.  Development of an eco-ideation tool to identify stepwise greenhouse gas emissions reduction options for consumer goods , 2011 .

[6]  Yadi Li,et al.  Exploring Socio-Technical Features of Green Interior Design of Residential Buildings: Indicators, Interdependence and Embeddedness , 2016 .

[7]  Dominique Millet,et al.  The ESM approach: 8 mechanisms to efficiently support eco-ideation , 2016 .

[8]  Jérémy Legardeur,et al.  A comparative study of ideation mechanisms used in eco-innovation tools , 2014 .

[9]  Thomas J. Howard,et al.  Eco-Innovation Manual: Tools instructions , 2014 .

[10]  N. Bocken,et al.  Circular Economy in the building sector: Three cases and a collaboration tool , 2018 .

[11]  S. Evans,et al.  A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes , 2014 .

[12]  S. Ulgiati,et al.  A review on circular economy: the expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems , 2016 .

[13]  Derek Clements-Croome,et al.  Move beyond green building: A focus on healthy, comfortable, sustainable and aesthetical architecture , 2017 .

[14]  Iban Lizarralde,et al.  Local value creation and eco-design: A new paradigm , 2015 .