Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Co-design in Architectural Practice: Impact of Client Involvement During Self-construction Experiences

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018) (IEA 2018)

Part of the book series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing ((AISC,volume 825))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 3192 Accesses

Abstract

This paper investigates how self-construction processes, considered as the utmost form of clients’ involvement in the realm of building a family house, impact clients’ and architects’ interactions. The study of four cases (two involving “traditional” processes, two involving “self-built” processes) and the drawing of Experience Maps for each of them nurture reflections about satisfaction assessment, perceived quality and clients’ integration to the architectural design process (potentially including co-design attitudes).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Siva JPS, London K (2011) Investigating the role of client learning for successful architect-client relationships on private single dwelling projects. Archit Eng Des Manag 7(3):177–189

    Google Scholar 

  2. Reymen I, Dorst K, Smulders F (2009) Co-evolution in design practice. In: McDonnell J, Llyod P (eds) About: designing. Analysing design meetings. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, p 434

    Google Scholar 

  3. Sanders EB-N (2005) Information, Inspiration and Co-creation. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference of the European academy of design, University of the Arts, Bremen

    Google Scholar 

  4. Lawson B (2005) How designers think – the design process demystified, 4th edn. Architectural Press, Routledge, p 321

    Google Scholar 

  5. Barcenilla J, Bastien J-M-C (2009) L’acceptabilité des nouvelles technologies: quelles relations avec l’ergonomie, l’utilisabilité et l’expérience utilisateur? Le Travail Humain 2009/4 (vol 72), Presses Universitaires de France, pp 311–331

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chesbrough H, Vanhaverbeke W, West J (2006) Open innovation. researching a new paradigm. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cardon D (2005) Innovation par l’usage. In: Ambrosi A, Peugeot V, Pimienta D (eds) Enjeux de mots. Regards multiculturels sur les sociétés de l’information, Caen, C&F Editions

    Google Scholar 

  8. Schön DA (1983) The reflective practitionner: how professionals think in action. Basic Books, NY

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cuff D (1991) Architecture: the story of practice. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cairns GM (1996) User input to design: confirming the “user-needs gap” model. Environ Des 1(2):125–140

    Google Scholar 

  11. Olsson E (2004) What active users and designers contribute in the design process. Interact Comput 16:377–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cole-Colander C (2003) Designing the customer experience. Build Res Inf 31(5):357–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Maloney WF (2002) Construction product/service and customer satisfaction. J Constr Eng Manag 128:522–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Zeithaml VA, Berry LL, Parasuraman A (1993) The nature and determinants of customer expectations of service. J Acad Mark Sci 21(1):1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Love PED, Holt GD (2000) Construction business performance measurement: the SPM alternative. Bus Process Manag J 6(5):408–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ling FYY, Chong CLK (2005) Design-and-build contractors’ service quality in public projects in Singapore. Build Environ 40(6):815–823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ng ST, Palaneeswaran E, Kumaraswamy MM (2011) Satisfaction of residents on public housings built before and after implementation of ISO9000. Habitat Int 35(1):50–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ahmed SM, Kangari R (1995) Analysis of client-satisfaction factors in construction industry. J Manag Eng 11(2):36–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Masrom MA, Skitmore M, Bridge A (2013) Determinants of contractor satisfaction. Constr Manag Econ 31(7):761–779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Luck R (2007) Learning to talk to users in participatory design situations. Des Stud 28:217–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. CAE - Conseil des Architectes d’Europe (2017) La profession d’architecte en Europe 2016 – Une étude du secteur. Mirza & Nacey Research Ltd, Royaume-Uni

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gronier G, Lallemand C (2016) Méthodes de design UX 30 méthodes fondamentales pour concevoir et évaluer les systèmes interactifs. Eyrolles, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  23. Adler P (1975) The transitional experience: an alternative view of culture shock. J Humanist Psychol 15(4):13–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Siva JPS, London K (2009) Habitus shock: a model for architect-client relationships on house projects based on sociological and psychological perspectives. In: Proceedings of the future trends in architectural management international symposium, Taiwan, pp 209–220

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Authors wish to thank all stakeholders (clients, architects, counselor) who accepted to take part to this research project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LUCID, Faculty of Applied Sciences, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium

    Pierre Schwaiger, Clémentine Schelings & Catherine Elsen

  2. I3-SES, CNRS, Télécom ParisTech, 75013, Paris, France

    Stéphane Safin

Authors
  1. Pierre Schwaiger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Clémentine Schelings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stéphane Safin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Catherine Elsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catherine Elsen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of the Republic of San Marino, San Marino, San Marino

    Sebastiano Bagnara

  2. Centre for Clinical Risk Management and Patient Safety, Tuscany Region, Florence, Italy

    Riccardo Tartaglia

  3. Centre for Clinical Risk Management and Patient Safety, Tuscany Region, Florence, Italy

    Sara Albolino

  4. Fraunhofer FKIE, Bonn, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany

    Thomas Alexander

  5. International Ergonomics Association, Tokyo, Japan

    Yushi Fujita

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Schwaiger, P., Schelings, C., Safin, S., Elsen, C. (2019). Co-design in Architectural Practice: Impact of Client Involvement During Self-construction Experiences. In: Bagnara, S., Tartaglia, R., Albolino, S., Alexander, T., Fujita, Y. (eds) Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018). IEA 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 825. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96068-5_50

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation