Re-conceiving building design quality: A review of building users in their social context

Living Labs in Social Housing Upgrades: Process, Challenges and Recommendations

Social housing (SH) upgrades involve multiple stakeholders with sometimes divergent requirements and needs. Collaboration and participative processes are essential to ensuring an appropriate value for users is delivered through social housing upgrades. Living Labs are user-centred initiatives where researchers, public and private partners, and users collaborate to develop innovative solutions in real-live environments. However, scarce research exists on how Living Labs may support the upgrading of social housing, and there is a need to explore what the challenges are that can be expected in this context. This paper discusses an integrative literature synthesis of housing upgrades developed within the context of Living Labs. Nine information-rich cases identified in the literature were chosen for in-depth examination. A living lab process was proposed based on the literature and activities and tools used in Living Labs were identified. From the challenges highlighted by existing studies, a series of recommendations to support the development of Living Labs in social housing upgrades was proposed. These should support Living Labs implementation initiatives in this specific context.

Participatory Design, Project Clients, and Healthcare User Groups

AIM

This study is the third in a series of investigations that explored the role of project user groups and how they impact on the design of a healthcare facility. Previous studies focused on a wide range of users, whereas this study sought the views of project clients.

BACKGROUND

The "project client" represents the organization responsible for the procurement of a healthcare facility. "Users" will work in or "use" that building. With the input of project clients, this research focused on the user group process required for Australian and New Zealand publicly funded healthcare projects. It sought lessons to improve the process for future projects.

METHODS

Previous research findings, and an expanded literature review examining participatory design, were used to develop questions for semistructured interviews with selected project clients. Responses were transcribed and analyzed in terms of themes and subthemes using reflexive thematic analysis to develop a narrative that reports and discusses the findings.

RESULTS

Although not all are recognized, many stakeholders influence design decisions. No history, rationale, terms of reference, or evaluations of the user group process were found, suggesting that although it is a "given," the process could be enhanced. Useful suggestions for improving the user group process are offered.

CONCLUSIONS

Evaluating the user group process, and learning from alternative approaches, may improve its outcomes. A project charter and terms of reference would support more effective decision making, while best practice guidelines and education for user group participants should be considered.

User Group Consultation: Design Quality and Project Success

AIM

User group consultation is more effective when participants work toward commonly agreed goals and objectives. To understand how they set these goals, this research explored how "user group" participants from diverse professional discipline backgrounds define the concepts of "design quality" and "project success," and their connection on a healthcare facility design project.

BACKGROUND

User group consultation is often time-consuming, frustrating, and expensive. Rarely are design quality or project success clearly defined, nor is the connection between them communicated well either in the literature or by project clients.

METHOD

Using an online survey, respondents were asked to rank frameworks of components for design quality and project success in order of importance and to indicate how they believed their project clients would assess the same items. They were asked about the connection between the terms, and how well each was achieved on their healthcare projects, both from their personal and their client's point of view.

RESULTS

Design quality and project success were personally valued highly by respondents, with a strong connection seen between the concepts. By contrast, respondents perceived their clients saw the connection as less important. Functionality was essential to all, especially clinicians, but designers and other consultants demonstrated a broader perspective on all design outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare designers should take the lead on project teams in defining design quality and its connection to project success as part of setting clear goals and objectives for more effective user group consultation.

Design Quality in the Context of Healthcare Environments: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

We explored the concept of design quality in relation to healthcare environments. In addition, we present a taxonomy that illustrates the wide range of terms used in connection with design quality in healthcare.

BACKGROUND

High-quality physical environments can promote health and well-being. Developments in healthcare technology and methodology put high demands on the design quality of care environments, coupled with increasing expectations and demands from patients and staff that care environments be person centered, welcoming, and accessible while also supporting privacy and security. In addition, there are demands that decisions about the design of healthcare architecture be based on the best available information from credible research and the evaluation of existing building projects.

METHOD

The basic principles of Arksey and O'Malley's model of scoping review design were used. Data were derived from literature searches in scientific databases. A total of 18 articles and books were found that referred to design quality in a healthcare context.

RESULTS

Design quality of physical healthcare environments involves three different themes: (i) environmental sustainability and ecological values, (ii) social and cultural interactions and values, and (iii) resilience of the engineering and building construction. Design quality was clarified herein with a definition.

CONCLUSIONS

Awareness of what is considered design quality in relation to healthcare architecture could help to design healthcare environments based on evidence. To operationalize the concept, its definition must be clear and explicit and able to meet the complex needs of the stakeholders in a healthcare context, including patients, staff, and significant others.