Participatory design, wicked problems, choosing by advantages

Purpose The phenomenon of wicked problems is inextricably associated with a design process, especially participatory design. The management of wicked problems in participatory design, however, remains largely unexplored. The purpose of this paper is to explore the use of the choosing by advantages (CBA) decision system to manage wicked problems in participatory design. Design/methodology/approach Two case studies, involving the application of CBA to make typical participatory design decisions, are evaluated to establish how responsively the CBA decision system operates in the midst of wicked problems in participatory design. Findings Findings point to the exploitability of some elements and attributes of the CBA process to manage wicked problems in participatory design, to some extent. The observed collaborative attributes of CBA is particularly helpful and play a key role in mitigating the adverse effects of wicked problems on collaboration in this regard. Practical implications The recommendation of the paper is the incorporation of CBA in the development of stakeholder involvement frameworks for a design process. Originality/value This paper contributes to knowledge on relying on elements and the attributes of a decision-making system, such as CBA, to manage stakeholder involvement in the design process, particularly focussing on wicked problems. The CBA decision system still remains emergent regarding its application and research in the AEC industry.

[1]  Glenn Ballard,et al.  WICKED PROBLEMS IN PROJECT DEFINITION , 2002 .

[2]  Rachael Luck,et al.  Dialogue in participatory design , 2003 .

[3]  Derek H.T. Walker,et al.  Visualising and mapping stakeholder influence , 2005 .

[4]  Qiping Shen,et al.  An overview of previous studies in stakeholder management and its implications for the construction industry , 2009 .

[5]  Graham Winch,et al.  Managing Construction Projects: An Information Processing Approach , 2002 .

[6]  Elizabeth Joyce Grant.  A Decision-Making Framework for Vegetated Roofing System Selection , 2008 .

[7]  Stephen Emmitt,et al.  The Value Universe: Defining a Value Based Approach to Lean Construction , 2005 .

[8]  Cliff Hooker,et al.  Design, science and wicked problems , 2013 .

[9]  Jyri Seppälä,et al.  Decision Analysis Frameworks for Life‐Cycle Impact Assessment , 2001 .

[10]  Samuel Bowles,et al.  Policies Designed for Self-Interested Citizens May Undermine "The Moral Sentiments": Evidence from Economic Experiments , 2008, Science.

[11]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Structure of Ill Structured Problems , 1973, Artif. Intell..

[12]  David J. Singer,et al.  What Is Set-Based Design? , 2009 .

[13]  Hung V. Nguyen,et al.  Decision Analysis Using Virtual First-Run Study of a Viscous Damping Wall System , 2009 .

[14]  X. Xue,et al.  Stakeholder management in construction : an empirical study to address research gaps in previous studies , 2011 .

[15]  Stuart D. Green.  A participative research strategy for propagating soft methodologies in value management practice , 1999 .

[16]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .

[17]  Iris D. Tommelein,et al.  Making design decisions using choosing by advantages , 2009 .

[18]  Peter E.D. Love,et al.  Partnering research in construction , 2000 .

[19]  Ann Højbjerg Clarke,et al.  How to create a space for stakeholders’ involvement in construction , 2014 .

[20]  J. Aken.  Management Research Based on the Paradigm of the Design Sciences: The Quest for Field-Tested and Grounded Technological Rules , 2004 .

[21]  Malena Ingemansson,et al.  Industrial renewal within the construction network , 2013 .

[22]  Michael D. Lepech,et al.  SELECTION AND APPLICATION OF CHOOSING BY ADVANTAGES ON A CORPORATE CAMPUS PROJECT , 2013 .

[23]  C. Shalley,et al.  A Little Creativity Goes a Long Way: An Examination of Teams’ Engagement in Creative Processes , 2004 .

[24]  Iris D. Tommelein,et al.  Using 'Choosing by Advantages' to Select Tile From a Global Sustainable Perspective , 2013 .

[25]  R. Yin.  Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[26]  H. Rittel,et al.  Dilemmas in a general theory of planning , 1973 .

[27]  H. Sanoff.  Special issue on participatory design , 2007 .

[28]  Iris D. Tommelein,et al.  Comparing AHP and CBA as Decision Methods to Resolve the Choosing Problem in Detailed Design , 2015 .

[29]  Johan Redström,et al.  Towards user design? On the shift from object to user as the subject of design , 2006 .

[30]  Timo Hartmann,et al.  Managing the process of interdisciplinary design: identifying, enforcing, and anticipating decision-making frames , 2013 .

[31]  Michael D. Ensley,et al.  Shared cognition in top management teams: implications for new venture performance , 2001 .

[32]  Sten Bonke,et al.  Facilitating Client Value Creation in the Conceptual Design Phase of Construction Projects: A Workshop Approach , 2010 .

[33]  Iris D. Tommelein,et al.  Comparing Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods to Select Sustainable Alternatives in the AEC Industry , 2012 .

[34]  Per Anker Jensen,et al.  Continuous Briefing and User Participation in Building Projects , 2006 .

[35]  Derek S. Thomson,et al.  The use of freelisting to elicit stakeholder understanding of the benefits sought from healthcare buildings , 2012 .

[36]  W. Trochim.  Outcome pattern matching and program theory , 1989 .

[37]  H. Sanoff.  Community Participation Methods in Design and Planning , 1999 .

[38]  Fritz Gehbauer,et al.  Incentive Systems to Support Collaboration in Construction Projects , 2012 .

[39]  Keith Bright,et al.  Project briefing for accessible design , 2001 .