Using interactive model simulations in co-design: An experiment in urban design

Abstract

This paper presents an experiment in which people performed a co-design task in urban design, using a multi-user touch table application with or without interactive model simulations. We hypothesised that using the interactive model simulations would improve communication and co-operation between co-design participants, would help participants to develop shared understanding and would positively affect the co-design process and its outcomes. However, our experiment (involving 60 people in 20 co-design sessions) only partly confirmed these hypotheses. People positively evaluated the interactive model simulation tools (an interactive map of an urban area, interactive models for traffic, sound, sight and safety, and ‘tangibles’), and these tools promoted communication and co-operation, and the exploration of design solutions. However, people's experiences of social cohesion and their satisfaction with their own contribution to the co-design process were better without these tools, possibly because using these tools drew people's attention towards these interactive model simulations and away from the dynamics between the participants. We therefore advocate using such tools selectively, for example, early on in a co-design process, to improve shared understanding of the contents of the problem, rather than later on, when people need to focus on their fellow participants and on the processes of communication and co-operation.

Keywords:

• collaborative design
• experiment
• shared understanding
• satisfaction
• interactive model
• simulation
• urban design

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful reviews and helpful comments.

Notes

^1. Cronbach's alpha ranging between 0.78 and 0.9.

^2. Cronbach's alpha of 0.87.

^3. NI: Pearson correlation 0.347, p = 0.007; I: Pearson correlation 0.342, p = 0.008.

^4. Pearson correlation 0.338, p = 0.008.

^5. Repeated measurement: condition (55, 1), F = 0.54, p = 0.818, n.s.; condition order (55, 1), F = 3.05, p = 0.086, n.s.; condition map (55, 1), F = 3.99, p = 0.051, n.s.; conscientiousness (55, 1), F = 4.93, p = 0.031; condition*condition order (55, 1), F = 6.11, p = 0.017.

^6. Repeated measurement: condition (56, 1), F = 1.51, p = 0.224, n.s.; condition order (56, 1), F = 2.60, p = 0.113, n.s.; condition map (56, 1), F = 1.70, p = 0.198, n.s.; condition*condition order (56, 1), F = 3.15, p = 0.081, n.s.).

^7. Repeated measurement: condition (56, 1), F = 5.93, p = 0.018; condition order (56, 1), F = 4.77, p = 0.033; condition map (56, 1), F = 1.54, p = 0.220, n.s.; condition*condition order (56, 1), F = 0.83, p = 0.365, n.s.

^8. Repeated measurement: condition (56, 1), F = 1.68, p = 0.178, n.s.; condition order (56, 1), F = 5.42, p = 0.024; condition map (56, 1), F = 1.48, p = 0.228, n.s.; condition*condition order (56, 1), F = 2.20, p = 0.143, n.s.

^9. Repeated measurement: condition (56, 1), F = 0.37, p = 0.547, n.s.; condition order (56, 1), F = 6.29, p = 0.015; condition map (56, 1), F = 1.34, p = 0.251, n.s.; condition*condition order (56, 1), F = 8.52, p = 0.005.

^10. Repeated measurement: condition (56, 1) F = 5.31, p = 0.025; condition order (56, 1) F = 4.25, p = 0.044; condition map (56, 1) F = 1.63, p = 0.208, n.s.; condition*condition order (56, 1) F = 0.02, p = 0.893, n.s.

^11. Repeated measurement: condition (17, 1), F = 5.57, p = 0.030; condition order (17, 1), F = 1.13, p = 0.302, n.s.; condition*condition order (17, 1), F = 0.00, p = 0.951, n.s.

^12. Repeated measurement: condition (17, 1), F = 7.03, p = 0.017; condition order (17, 1), F = 4.04, p = 0.061, n.s.; condition*condition order (17, 1), F = 0.94, p = 0.345, n.s.

^13. We can relate these findings to the barriers and enablers for the development of shared understanding (Kleinsmann and Valkenburg 2008). The interactive table enables co-design participants to democratise expert knowledge (cf. ‘The availability of specialised knowledge within the company’, organisation level), and to co-operate with each other (cf. ‘The ability of the actor to make a transition of knowledge’, ‘The empathy of the actor about the interest of a task’, ‘The view of the actor on the design task’, ‘The equality of the language used between the actors’, ‘The view of an actor on the process to follow’, ‘The prospect of the actor on the task of the other actors’, actor level). In addition, participants develop a shared understanding of ways to co-operate productively on their task (‘The efficiency of information processing’ and ‘The controllability of product quality’, project level).