Many manual techniques have been proposed and used in the past, depending on the artifact and participation characteristics; among others, they consists of workshops, manuals, educational material, games, model building and ways of studying users/customers' needs [14, 1, 3, 5, 11, 16, 17].
Since there are some successful participation projects carried out in computerless environments indicating that computers are not a prerequisite for participation [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] the question of the need for tools for supporting participation arises. The question is whether computational techniques can extend the scope of participation. Some evidence that computer tools can influence participation is obtained from studying the patterns of interactions different people display via electronic mail or other media systems [25]. For instance, some people who did not participate in face-to-face discussions found it easier to participate through an electronic medium.
Our ideal of participation attempts to relax the limitations of participation. It enables all potentially affected by a product to participate. This requires condensing data created in the course of extended participation with tools instead of reducing the potential of producing data by restricting participation. Furthermore, computer tools that can transform a large amount of information into a comprehensible form may support fast informed contextualized decisions [45]. The ideal participation allows potential participants to plan their participation according to its duration; if some cannot or are not willing to participate fully in all discussions, they may monitor the discussion coded through computer medium and comment on them. Their comments are a form of restricted participation but it provides input otherwise inaccessible. If some participants stop participating due to other constraints, their original input remains accessible later. Finally, one can envision potential participants who are unable to participate due to conflicts in schedules-a situation common in urban planning participation projects in small towns [30]; in these cases, tools which are designed to allow for asynchronous participation can permit those potential participants to contribute [28]. While the local newspapers have served as a record of such participation [30], yesterday's newspapers are sometimes hard to come by.
The ideal participation treats all participants as equal in a co-design or dialectical activity. The dissemination of information in a format accessible to all participants can loosen traditional hierarchical structures that increase opportunities for participation; however, there are risks embedded in this scenario [46]. First, users may initially develop resistance to programs that question their judgment. Second, users may develop a tendency to rely on the tool rather than exercising their own judgment. Third, data containing participation records can be used to monitor and control users/designers. We argue that such risks can be minimized in the development of computational tools by involving users in their development.
(take next 2 pars out?) Different computer tools support the communication that underlies participation to various degrees. Some tools provide the basis for participants to communicate via a shared workspace [31]. Other tools support the communication process by recording the structure of issues raised in the participation process (gIBIS, Conklin and Begeman, 1988). And still other tools can elicit issues from multiple participants, provide feedback and guidance, as well as perform analysis to detect discrepancies between different views (KSS0, Gaines and Shaw, 1989).
Whereas all the above tools were developed for collaboration of experts familiar with the use of computers, no such assumption about the proficiency of participants (customers as well as designers) with computers can be made with respect to participation in domains such as architectural design or urban planning. Therefore, in order to provide computational support for participation we need to step back, look at the evolution of this idea in the last two decades, and propose a technique that is informed by past experience and recent empirical analyses of design processes.
Different computer tools may support communication patterns useful for participation to various degrees. However, all these tools were developed for collaboration of experts familiar with the use of computers. No such assumption about the proficiency of participants (customers as well as designers) with computers can be made with respect to participation in domains such as architectural design or urban planning. Therefore, in order to provide computational support for participation we need to step back, look at the evolution of this idea in the last two decades, and propose a technique that is informed by past experience and recent empirical analyses of design processes.
The early visions about the role of computers in participatory design
[14] were optimistic. One study discussed the
development of an environment that would have intelligence, common sense,
that would be able to learn and be responsive [47].
Such an environment would ``participate'' on-line with people in a process
leading to a better environmental state. This idea conceals a critical
difficulty. In order to eliminate the need for professionals, an intelligent
environment would be built. This environment, however, would need to embed
all the ``knowledge'' of these professionals and would be developed by those
who presumably can appreciate all the issues in architectural design or
urban planning a priori. Instead of creating an open environment, this
idea can lead to imposing greater control than currently is exercised over a
human built environment.
Another study proposed to use CAD tools with a participatory twist, namely,
use CAD systems as a means of storing common representations
[48]. Other studies attempted to quantify value
judgment and use computers to help in arriving at common quantifications in
some manner [49]. All these
studies assumed that the terminology used by different participants was the
same and that the objectives were shared by all--a manifestation
of the Platonic view of knowledge and design.
Since the 70's, there have been additional attempts to provide computerized
support for participation in the form of design aids
[50, 12]. To illustrate, PARTIAL was
a layout tool that allowed users to set-up general goals, define preference
features, manipulate graphical layout, and evaluate it
[12].
PARTIAL was not really a tool for participation but simply a design aid, and
one that assumes the analytic part of design as the critical. In fact,
PARTIAL suffered from problems similar to those raised before about creating
the intelligent environment as commented by Watts and Hirst (1982, p. 18):
``It is essential that design tools are congruent with the decision-making
structure, even if used as a vehicle for learning. No tool will be useful
unless it is congruent with the designer's definition of the problem.'' By
implementing a simple fixed procedure for layout design, the program assumed
that it was congruent with the way designer and users would solve layout
problems.
Other tools that support some participation include facilities for storing catalogues of designs to present to potential customers [50] and facilities for layout design of rooms, 3D graphical display of homes, especially when the choices available are among modular units.
In the 1990's we are less sanguine and more skeptical about: (1) the transfer of power regarding design decisions -- the problems surrounding participatory design are not a simple matter of a universal inverting of the power structure between, for example, designers and users; and (2) assuming the existence of sophisticated computer installations for supporting design participation in the near future. We conjecture that what is needed is a focus on specific design contexts, each of which exhibits its own particular problems of interpretation and translation of varying user and designer perspectives, and the honing of computer support tools in a participatory atmosphere responsive to differing design circumstances. In this respect, we also differ with more recent proposals for computer-supported participatory design [52, 53].
There are several critical issues that a system for supporting participation
must address.
Usability. Participants in design projects will often
lack experience with computers. It is critical that computer tools be usable
by participants. Furthermore, as observed in many studies about the
introduction of software into organizations, such support tools may not be
congruent with the way participants think. In such cases, tools
remain unused.
Our approach to the development of computer tools--participatory
design and evolutionary prototyping--is geared towards alleviating
this problem [54].
Type of modeling. Empirical studies show that engineers use a variety of modeling techniques (see summary in Subrahmanian, 1992). Therefore, it is our contention that no single representation or abstraction technique can be imposed on designers as well as other participants a priori, without severely limiting their ability to model effectively. We thus use a notion of conceptual information modeling that allows multiple classifications to be imposed over a corpus of information. Abstraction levels are imposed by the users, in whatever way they see fit.
Empirical studies and critical analyses of modeling activities in engineering [36] also show that the majority of design activities consists of informal, rather than formal, modeling. Informal modeling is even more suitable for modeling value-based, rather than technology-based, decisions. Consequently, a tool for supporting participation must support informal modeling. This property should not, nonetheless, compromise the ability to incorporate formal models as participants see fit.
Extent of participation. If design is broadly interpreted, all those potentially affected by a project are not known. This is due in part to the lifetime of artifacts and to the inclusion of life-cycle concerns in design. Therefore, in urban planning participation involves all future users of buildings as well as users of existing buildings. Facilitating continuous participation requires using innovative techniques. To illustrate, computer tools accessible through terminals can collect feedback from users of existing buildings.
A support for participation activities over an extensive time period can be realized by addressing two critical functionalities:(1) facilitating the creation and maintenance of shared memory--an evolving corpus of shared information including its content and meaning [27, 55] and (2) providing for communication channels for creating this memory [28]. Since the role of communication has been briefly discussed in Section 3 and in [28], we only elaborate further on the concept of shared memory.
Shared memory is critical for design [27, 56]. It is critical for the evolution of a discipline, for avoiding repeating errors, and for communication [57]. The difficult aspect is understanding how shared memory is created, maintained, evolves, and used and how these activities can be supported. As we said in our objection to the Platonic view, shared memory cannot be constructed by individuals; rather, it is socially constructed through negotiations and reconciliations, while maintaining the differing perspectives as legitimate [55].
Those viewing architects or designers as elite may chose to ignore the need or even the benefits from participation. They can present forms of ``shared memory'' constructed by architects, such as the pattern language [58], that can be used for participation. Nevertheless, even they cannot deny the fact that in large projects, several architects or designers operate together and must reconcile their views through some communicative process. For simple examples, revealing patterns of participation through a medium of shared memory among members of design groups, see: (1) Peng (1992), ; (2) a knowledge acquisition study of tall building design illustrating the interdependence relationships and communication processes between architects and structural engineers, see Meyer and Fenves (1993); (3) the use of mappings between languages used to express designs so that the designs can be analyzed by cluster analysis [61]; and (4) the creation of a shared memory by using a multi-exposure photograph of different models, all taken from an identical viewpoint [56]. The photograph in the latter example indicates the perceived similarity between the models from the particular viewpoint. These similarities capture the shared design archetype of the group whose members created the different models. Note that present technology of modeling 3D objects by computers can be used to obtain better fits by searching through a set of potential similarity measures. Once shared memory is recognized as critical to design, in general, and participatory design, specifically, its creation and management needs to be addressed.
We can envision additional functionalities incorporated in a computational
support tool, all helping in the communication process and thereby leading
to the creation of a shared memory. For example, full scale model building
allows participants to evaluate designs in a way significantly different
from observing drawings or 3D scale models
[1, 3]. In the future, graphics
technology including virtual reality techniques could provide similar
functionalities with fewer resources.
Thus far, we have articulated various dimensions of participation based on the experience of participatory design as reported in the literature and our own observations of, and participation in, design projects. These dimensions and their interpretations are bound to be incomplete and approximate. Their further extension requires the collection of information from many participation projects and its analysis. It is this function that computational support tools introduce that are lacking in other techniques. Computational support tools that are used for participation can store the actions and products of users' participation and be used later for analysis. The use of computational tools can remove the significant hurdle of collecting and coding information. Note, however, that the analysis cannot be a solitary activity of researchers, but again, a participatory activity with the other participants (for more details on participatory action research see Reason (1988) and Whyte (1991)).
We now describe n-dim, a computer tool that is designed to facilitate modeling starting from the initiation of a design process and continuing throughout the life-cycle of the artifact [34, 35]. It turns out that the functionality designed into n-dim matches the functionality required from computational tools for participation.