Informed, well-ordered

and reflective: design

inquiry as action research
Roger J Waiters
Oxford Regional Health Authority, Old Road, Headington, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK

This paper develops a view of design as an 'action research' method. This view of design is presented by
considering the 'natural order' of the design process and some parallels between action research and
design, issues to be faced in collecting feedback on building use and the notion of collaborative design
inquiry. The anticipated UK National Health Service estate rationalisation exercise is used to illustrate
some of the issues to be addressed in applying this view. A change in the designer's role can be
anticipated.
Keywords: planning processes, building evaluation, design epistemology

NATURAL ORDER DEBATE

The natural level of debate found within the planning
process has been described by Breheny 1 as 'ill-informed,
unsystematic and non-reflective', see Table 1. Breheny
also suggests that planners can counter this 'natural
order' and enhance debate. Planning and design problems have been defined by Rittel and Webber as
'wicked '2, see Table 2. Those experienced in tackling
'wicked' problems may recognise Breheny's description
of their decision process, yet they will also know that the
process can be 'self-organising'. Jones models design as
'self plus situation' organised through the interaction of a
'search for a feasible design' and a control which
'evaluates the pattern of search '3. However, the more
usual reaction to the uncertainty of planning debate is to
try to rationalise planning procedure. This happens
because there is currently little trust in the selforganising dynamics of the process.
The dominant view of planning is one based upon
technical rationality. Although this can be understood as
a reaction to the uncertainty of natural order debate, this
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the conference
on The Role of the Designer, Bath, 22-24 September 1984

0142-694X/86/01002-12

view of planning is flawed because it makes too many

gross assumptions. It assumes that there is:
a consensus of goals
causal theory sufficient to allow prediction and
effective instrumental knowledge
Most planning and design problems simply do not enjoy
'that fortuitous mix of goal consensus and available
technique'. The notion of technical proficiency misleads,
denying both 'the plural preferences of competing
interests and the primacy of judgement based upon value
preferences '4. Judgement is only informed by information from technical analysis, see Table 3. Planning and
design rely upon both facts and values and include both
the technical and the ethical.
It is within this dominant rational view of planning
that increased emphasis is being placed upon information
and data bases for planning and design. There exists an
'inductive fallacy' here. The logic of the rational
approach suggests that appropriate form follows from
information on user requirements or from a survey of
existing conditions. Information may be necessary but is
never sufficient for tackling 'wicked' problems. Norms

$03.00 1986 Butterworth & Co (Publishers) Ltd

DESIGN STUDIES

Table 1. Natural order debate

"When left to its 'natural order' debate in local government
(planning) is often
iU-informed
unsystematic
non-reflective

Planners can counter this natural order and enhance debate".

After Breheny'.
Table 2. Wicked problems
Dilemmas in a general theory of planning
Planning problems are 'wicked problems'
There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem.
Wicked problems have no stopping rule.
Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but
good-or-bad.
There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a
wicked problem.
Every solution to a wicked problem is a 'one-shot operation';
because there is little opportunity to learn by trial and error,
every attempt counts significantly.
Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an
exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions, nor is
there a well defined set of permissible operations that may
be incorporated into the plan.
Every wicked problem is essentially unique.
Every wicked problem can be considered to be symptom of
another problem.
The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked
problem can be explained in numerous ways. The choice of
explanation determines the nature of the problem's resolution.
The planner has no right to be wrong.
There are "No value-free, true-false answers ..."
"The expert is also the player in a political game".
After Rittel and Webber2.
Table 3. The myth of rationality
"Most problems in public planning do not enjoy that fortuitous
mix of goal consensus and available technique".

and values are also needed. They are socially constrncted, form 'an appreciative system' and provide the
meaning that is attached to information 5. Further,
information overload and transfer difficulties highlight
an 'applicability gap' that limits the utilization of
information. Also, the approach is not supported by
observations of designer behaviour 6. It has been suggested that 'cerebral hygiene' is a necessary coping
strategy. In addition, information is not related to the
'codes' or 'prestructures' actually used, nor to other
forms of knowledge 7. The pattern of information use in a
'conjecture-analysis' procedural model may be very
different from that assumed in an 'analysis-synthesis'
model. These inconvenient issues are ignored in the
rational view of planning. In short, the utilisation of
information is not accounted for in the research design
for the collection of the information and the role of values
is denied.
The utility of many current planning models is
therefore restricted by inappropriate ideas of rationality
and information use that are not found in practice. The
need to enhance natural order debate remains but
rationality and certainty are myths in planning. Storybook planning has to be exposed alongside 'storybook
science 's and storybook management 9. An alternative to
the science/engineering model of technical rationality is
needed. It is provided by a view of planning as learning.
It is suggested that this more modest view is also more
useful. It unites theory with practice. It is as a learning
process that it is possible at present to see design inquiry
as an action research method.

D E S I G N A N D A C T I O N RESEARCH PARALLELS
Design and action research are both forms of learning.
Action research is but one of many types of research,
although the concept is not well known beyond the social
sciences. It has a 40-year history and, like design, it has
an uneven pattern of acceptance as an approach to
inquiry.

The classical model of rational planning is flawed. It assumes:

widespread consensus on goals
causal theory sufficiently advanced to permit prediction
effective instrumental knowledge
The dominant conception of planning is founded on these
assumptions.
Planners should "aim to set procedural rules for reaching
decisions not make substantive plans".
Rationality denies:
plural preferences of competing interests
the primacy of judgement based on value preferences;
judgement is only informed by rational analysis
The notion of technical proficiency misleads.
After Webber4.

Vol 7 No 1 January 1986

Action research
The aim of action research is to 'contribute both to the
practical concerns of people in an immediate problematic
situation and to the goals of social science by joint
collaboration within a mutually acceptable ethical
framework'. The intention 'is to be involved in change
(which must be) change involving the properties of the
system itself'~. The principal concern is the creation of
organisational change and the simultaneous study of the
process. Unusual features of action research include the
acceptance that:
fundamental knowledge might not be attainable in any
other way; that you have to act on the system in order
to fred out

 the researcher has an impact on the system under

study; that an 'objective' stance is not possible
research utilisation has to be part of the research
design
Action research is both a means of advancing science and
achieving practical ends. The conduct of action research
is 'experiential and collaborative'. The process is 'dialectical'. Validation is through feedback loops on a number
of levels; 'on coming to know '11.
A recent discussion of action research in an environmental design context has been offered by Weisman 12.
Weisman suggests 'striking parallels' between action
research and design.

Parallels
The parallels include:
learning through the study of action
repeated cycles of plan, action and evaluation over
many stages
a concern for both the investigation of existing
conditions and for what should be done next
a concern for research utilisation and practical ends
The learning is tentative in the face of uncertainty. Both
procedures rely upon 'reflection in action' as the model of
practice 13. There is a common pattern of working that
includes the joint evolution of problem and solution after
feedback from tentative action. Action research implies
collaborative inquiry. Design also has potential for
participation though it is not usually viewed as essential.
Parallels are evident, but more striking, if design is
also recognised as a mode of inquiry 14. The outcome
from design activity may be both increased knowledge
and novel form. It is then a short step to see collaborative
design inquiry as an action research method. Designing
is a limited form of action; an experiment, a tentative
action prior to agreeing further action. It is a lir~fited
action that may be studied. Likewise, design products in
use may be studied as the results of previous action. The
problematic nature of solutions to wicked problems is
acknowledged and the learning process is extended as
actions are studied over repeated cycles.
The significance of this view is that it provides an
'over-arching framework'. It demands that feedback,
briefing, design and use are seen as an integrated,
on-going process. It relates planning to the context of
organisational change and learning. It suggests a sociotechnical framework. Action research provides one
alternative to the dominant 'positivist-empiricist paradigm' in science 15. It allows traditional science to be
recognised as a powerful but limited framework; one that
has failed to tackle issues of organisation and planning.
Attractive though this view of design may be, there are
currently significant difficulties faced when putting this
view into practice.

Difficulties
Four difficulties are apparent. Firstly, designing at the
service or community level requires a mix of professional
and user input; either one alone is usually not sufficient.
Mechanisms for securing client input are lacking but so
too is any shared and adequate conceptual framework.
The dominant models in planning are not ones of
learning. This may be changing but technical rationality
is expected by many user interests and is offered by many
professional interests. Secondly, there is the issue of
feedback; the vital link between cycles of plan and
action. Within the planning phase, evaluation faces
methodological issues; in use feedback is simply neglected. The cycle is not completed and the learning is
interrupted. Thirdly, the action research view requires a
breadth of training that spans empirical, behavioural,
theoretical and attentional skills 16. Finally, the action
research perspective is a hoax if the will does not exist to
implement change.
The anticipated NHS estate rationalisation exercise
can be used to illustrate some of these difficulties. It can
be suggested that the designer's role is to make the
inquiry process open, informed, well-ordered and reflective; to enhance natural order debate. This has to include
the design of the inquiry and decision processes. It means
being informed on appropxiate methods for collectipg
feedback from performance in use and from each
planning stage. It is found that many of the issues faced
can be addressed by adopting design inquiry, an action
research method, as the research design for the collection
and utilisation of feedback.

FEEDBACK
Building evaluation studies have always faced methodological difficulties. Functional suitability assessment, a
performance measure suggested in a model health care
planning exercise, illustrates difficulties faced in handling feedback on building use.

Heathbridge
The Heathbridge exercise addresses the problem of
estate rationalisation. It assesses the future pattern of
building use within a hypothetical health district 17. It is a
response to the Davies Report TM which highlights the
extent of surplus and underused property in the UK
National Health Service (NHS). Space utilisation and
functional suitability are identified as key performance
measures in both documents.
Heathbridge provides a model data set in terms of
t'mance, manpower and estate data. Estate data are
presented in terms of building condition, utilisation,
suitability, energy and fire data for each hospital
department. Assessments are summarised on a set of
four-point ordinal scales. Given the chronic neglect of
feedback on building use, this data set represents some

DESIGN STUDIES

improvement over current practice. Also, the consideration of the interactions between finance, manpower and
estate is a step forward. Nonetheless a number of
questionable assumptions are made in the planning
model. These include:
the direct applicability of a training exercise in the real
world
the adoption of a sequential planning process model
with autonomous stages
the treatment of goals as fixed
the adequacy of information alone to promote good
planning decisions.

Technical rationality is accepted as both adequate and

appropriate. Information is equated with planning knowledge and is accepted as being objective. The role of
norms and values is denied. Also, ends and means are
treated separately. Evaluation is seen as a mere technical
exercise and a reductionist framework is imposed upon
both data collection and use. This approach may be
justified for the collection of building condition data but
it is not adequate for any assessment of functional
performance. Wider issues are raised, as is shown in a
pilot functional suitability assessment 19.

Functional suitability assessment

This pilot study shows that functional suitability assessments are possible and worthwhile. Table 4 and Figures
1 and 2 give a summary of the findings, together with a
sample ward assessment. Benefits from such assessments
are high and wide ranging. They include strategic plan
data, site plan data, project briefing and space management information and the identification of opportunities
for free tuning. Costs are also high for, although the use
of the ordinal scales is convenient, further departmentspecific criteria and data are needed both to clarify the
meaning of the scales adopted and to support review of
fmdings prior to use. Assessments are always partial due
to the conflict between width (number of attributes) and
depth (level of detail) present. Dilemmas are presented.
Although benefits are high, so too are costs, yet
assessment always remains significantly incomplete. This
incompleteness includes any assessment of the hospital as
a whole, assessment of the site and service dependencies
and information on the potential of existing accommodation for change of use. Whilst further assessments may be
introduced to cover whole hospital and site aspects,
assessment of potential cannot be included without
acting on the system. 'Rigour and relevance' become
mutually exclusive2.
Other issues raised and inadequately addressed by the
approach include:
the lack of any adequate theory of function
the role of values and the assumption that they are
shared and stable

Vol 7 No 1 January 1986

the lack of any absolute standards or norms of

performance
the conflict within goals
the mix of qualitative and quantitative aspects; the
number of potentially relevant aspects and their
interdependence
the lack of either a known budget or agreed distribution for resources to be allocated between competing
planning tasks

Adequate theory of function may be lacking but some

clues are available. Function is a multi-levelled concept.
There is a hierarchy of changing needs. There is
therefore no single measure of performance and no
common metric. Function is a systemic property; a

Table 4. Functional suitability assessment: summary

findings, questions and answers so far TM

Q1 Is it possible?
A Yes, but assessment inevitably incomplete. No estimate of
potential.
Issues outstanding and dilemma presented.
Awareness required
o
o
o
o
o

no absolute standards apply

mix of qualitative and quantitative
conflict in goals
range of interests and role of values
number of dimensions and their interdependence

Q2 Is it worthwhile?
A Yes, benefits high
o
o
o
o

strategic plan data

estate control plan data
project briefing and space management
free tuning

but cost also high

o 1 man day/5 beds
Q3 What level of information?
A Department specific criteria required if department by
department approach adopted. Information needed to
support review and to clarify meaning of scales.
Q4 What co-ordination?
A Separate assessments for suitability, condition, etc But
co-ordinate resource allocation.
Q5 How should future assessments be conducted?
A Conduct as a series of design-in-use studies.
Use a task group and a mix of methods. Include expert
judgement.
Co-ordinate through established planning machinery.
Focus on whole hospital initially then department level.
Allow for graphic presentation of results.
Q6 What next?
A Try out a whole hospital assessment.
Set out building evaluation programme for priority sites.
Produce evaluation kit for whole hospital and departments
with guidance notes on range of possible standards and
procedures.
Investigate cost effectiveness of competing planning tasks.
Review overall resource allocation pattern in relation to
proposed planning model.

r~

701ma

Typical Day

Date 26.1.84

Yes

Time 2.30p.m.

Ground

RW JC r s

Floor

Survey by

LFunctional U=dts 30 beds

A r e . of Dept.

Adequt..

b b n p ~ , to xnq.v~.

h u ~ - ~ l mquiremen=.

None

Spare Unutilised Space None

Spare Functional Units

Spare C a p a c i t y (=o=-temp)

Dty

B ~ o . ~ ~o'~'=

f m which it Js usod.

o,,~~t

Beds stick on ramp.

But WC's off corridor,

Except for offico~ & storage.

Better ob6ezvation desired.

l~y ~
t~at ~m~t ~ iota
than =d~mam ramm (if ~qm)

701

(m~

D e p t m n e n ~ Area

13.2
1~.6
16.5
19
+ 10
3011
9:30
5:30
54
17.8
22
14
2.5

(m =)
(m')

30 Orthopaedic
5@1124@9.7 av 9.96
6

Treatment room
(m')
Sto~nge
(m')
olrces
(no @ m')
W~nt
Baths & showers/patient
Dayspace
(m')
Pantry
(m')
Piped gases oxygen/suction
No. of beds visible from Nb
Av. distance between beds (m)

Dirty utiUty

NO. of beda, speciality

S ~
distribution
No. of singles
Cleenu~ty

Space Standa~.~m

Department Layout

20

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Equipment at fire exit.

Store choo a blool Equipment on floor.
Bed pans stored in corridor.
Shower converted to store.
Side wards isolated.
Assisted bath, no curtains. WC too exposed.
Patients wardrobes used for storage.
Night lighting poor : wall mounted fitt~gs perhaps.
Between 6 bed bay glazing not used.
Male and female toilets.
C h ~
used for coffee, too small.
WC removed in male change, now store.
Used as cleaner.
Pantry too big.
Interna] bathroom di~l!~red.
Showers disliked.
Meal. se office, (not relatives).
Controlled drugs storage, no worktop.
Sampling room not used, too many bedfast patients. Store
for Xmas decorations.
Multi-use, too big as dayspace. If well enough to use day
space then off home!

Notes from Walk through

Figure/. Findingsfrom Junctional suitability assessment: summa~ of overall ratings, department lay-out, space standards and notes from walk-through

Fine ~aing only say 500

C rD uptB

Broad Order of C4mtsto bring

O~m:xowdod overused,

u~.,.,,~

u~deruNd.

Ea~r or g r o ~

Utilisation A g R ' m m l e a t

7 Equipment
E...,~ M.jor

6 La~.~...e~

B
B

~n==ou,-' Co~.o= B

5 ~.e-,~,-~--cy

Layout - Physical Relationships within Department

offing Accommodation

Space - (adequacy oO

Subject a n d Rating

Summary of Overall Ratings

Block Ref 6

F Wharton

Department

Horton

j Hospital

..~

Oo

pot~

On site.
On Ward E.

Storage!
Fire escape ramp
or blankets.

X-Ray too far.

Theatres now
good. Access
~trough OP.

Basement!
Taken over.

I=
ie

;O

mocacL

Muma~d d a y W

s h ~ fro.

3. 0 . m n

- Es

lgattn

Treatment
Offices
Utility rooms
Kitchen
Lifts
Storage

3. F a c i l i t i e s

S. O ~ r a l l g a t l a

II

i
I

' M aa =x~.Ic~.

Beds to WC's
Beds to baths
!
Utility rooms to b e d s
Day/di,'dng to b e d s

Beds to nurse base

2, L a y o u t - P h y s i c a l R e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h i n D e p a r t m e n t

L O ~ r a U P.aUng

Storage
Nurse base
Day space
Relatives

Office

A u ~ e d WC's
Cleam
u~y/~u~

Assi~ed baths

Treatment room

- (adequacy of)
Around b e d s
o!
1. Space

~ q ~ m a
mtamlud ~
(~

Detailed A s s e s s m e n t

Figure 2. Findings from functional and suitability assessment: description of function and detailed assessment

Carpet.

Utilities shared
with ITU/CCU.

Cold Traurr~
(SENT).
Head injuries.
Seasonal.
VariatiorL
Friday lost.

Orthopaedic.

30 beds.

Ask Users

n~qm~?

Little centralised
storage.
Plated meals
wash up on Wards
Part local.

Sagged.

Requisi~ns +
top up (__c~__).

On Ward.
Mixed.
Yes.
Open visi~ng.

34

Acute

30

opera~onal policies

Extract from

What a s p e c t s do y o u Wlmt mq:ecta do you

like most?
dislike moat?

Dmign solmto~contsxt
within h o s p ~
Uavel distances
Departmental relationships
Accessibility for - staff
-patients

S~rage
Catering
Domestic services
Staachang~
Clinical support
Fire escape
Relatives

Wholo i
Supplies

- waste

Sba:ed use o~ space

Space , ~ . q f i o n
Workflow - staff
- pabents
- supplies

Working hours
Booking procedures
allocation

Dm~ztpflam of am.vice
Fun~onal s = e
Type of service
Workload/throughput
Staffing

Aaq~ct?.

What actmmy

Description of Function

Day/Dining

WC's

Sat~g

BGdm

I I I I l l l l l

I Iol

i ioi I I i i i I

II:lllltii

I I I I I '~

Cm41~mns

s. Amenity - Pr~vac

4. O ~ m d l itatlag

Noise
Windows

4. E a v t n m m m t a l

product of organisation arising from the relation between

structure and process. In short, function cannot be
treated within a reductionist framework. A systemic
approach is needed to handle such complexity. Feedback
may be collected over a range of attributes but may only
be used in terms of some assessment of total performance. Further, the dynamics of the planning process are
needed to determine relevance and to control data
collection. An adequate research design for the collection
and use of feedback from building use has yet to be
established. However, some recent post-occupancy evaluation studies offer an alternative but, again, many of
the same difficulties remain unresolved.

Post-occupancy evaluation
It is suggested that a building evaluation programme
focused on total building performance is a part of the way
forward. Recent post-occupancy evaluations by Public
Works, Canada 21 and by the Ministry of Works and
Development, New Zealand 22 provide examples of the
approach. Unique aspects of the emerging approach are:
T h e initial approach focuses upon total building
performance. It does not attempt to impose a reductionist framework.
The approach does not attempt to reduce the evaluation to a mere technical exercise. User involvement is
sought; it is collaborative.
The walk-through allows the introduction of both
qualitative and quantitative aspects of buildings in
use. It admits the 'experience' of building performance.
The concern is to develop practical methods that are
also scientific and to include both physical and human
factors.
The approach is 'transdisciplinary'. It begins to make
clear to participants the relations between various
experts and to reflect the wholeness of building in use.
Occupancy analysis using multi-method research is
another starting point. (See Zeise125)
Organisation and procedure are seen as important
aspects of technique.
Many of these features are in marked contrast to the
approach suggested to functional suitability assessment
within Heathbridge. The approach is demanding but
appears relevant. Nonetheless, a number of difficulties
are apparent in applying this approach to health building
evaluation. These include:
the range and the complexity of the functions
accommodated in health facilities
the size of the health service estate
current service and staff priorities (patients not
buildings)
the range of competing user interests
management attitudes to consensus with introduction
of general management

However, from these experiences a number of management principles can be offered for the conduct of
assessments of functional performance.

Management principles
An on-going, co-ordinated, multi-stage building evaluation programme is required to support cost-effective use
of space within the NHS. Such a programme will not be
quickly established; it can only be implemented gradually. There is no shortage of evaluation methods that can
support feedback. Recent reviews by McAllister 23,
Bishop 24 and Zeise125 illustrate the range of methods (see
Table 5). There are, however, no complete low cost
methods. All methods are partial, limited and approximate. Also, objectives change and no absolute standards
apply. It is for this reason that aspects of organisation and
procedure become important. Recommendations are
given in Table 6 for the conduct of such building
evaluations. They may be summarised as a number of
management principles:
Allow both calculation and judgement.
Accept 'a more refined view of evaluation' as suggested by McAllister; treat, as Zeisel suggests,
methods as a tool-kit. Quality can only be achieved
through a commitment to a mix of methods.
Do not treat evaluation as a mere technical exercise.
Treat values explicitly through review and negotiation
within an established planning forum; seek user
involvement.
Use a balanced team as the task group and include
both user involvement and expert design judgement.
Do not isolate assessments from the planning process.
Resolve width versus depth conflict in favour of width
initially but allow for multi-stage assessments.
Do not be prescriptive in the approach; respond to
context.
Treat methods, procedure and organisation as equally
important but inter-related aspects of any evaluation.
Acknowledge essential incompleteness without acting
upon the system; act on the system in parallel with
data collection.
A focus on current use yields little information on
potential. Handling potential, where no absolute standards apply, is not some extra; it is the very basis for
comparison. Facts may be adequately handled through
measurement but values are most readily handled in
terms of preference for particular policies or products.
The suitability of current use can only be compared with
the cost and performance of possible future uses. The
relevance of design inquiry is the capacity to handle
potential for future use. It offers a more conceptually
complete approach than problem- or analysis-focused
methods. It provides width and depth to assessment
together with feedback information on norms of performance calibration. Some loss of consistency and
precision is the price paid for such completeness. Design

DESIGN STUDIES

Table 5. Evaluation methods: the tool-kit

Table 6. Functional suitability assessment: organisation,

procedure, methods

Urban scale methods after McAllister z3

Organisation
cost-benefit analysis

planning balance sheet

goal achievement matrix

energy analysis
land suitability analysis

landscape assessment
environmental evaluation system
judgement impact analysis
Building scale methods after Bishop 24
Theoretical/partial methods
subjective description
social and psychological approach (user satisfaction)
sociological (market research)

environmental studies
technical appraisal

a part of co-ordinated building evaluation programme

co-ordination and participation through established planning machinery
use of balanced team include user and expert design
judgement
address barriers to implementation (see Dalsh et a122)
adopt management principles
use an evaluation kit
o design guidance review
o notes of standards
o proformas/checklists
o notes on methods, procedure and organisation
in-house or consultant support to task group on preparation
and presentation.
Procedure (major phases brief, data gathering and analysis,
review--first stage of a multi-stage evaluation programme)

Theoretical/inclusive

appraisal model
o 4 functions (Hillier and Leaman)
o resource model (Building Performance Research Unit)

Practical
Essex proformas (Expert team)
York Guide

Building Design Partnership quality quotient (Caudill)

Greater London Council technical feedback
Department of the Environment Housing Appraisal Kit

Environmem-behaviour research methods after Zeise125

observing physical traces
observing environmental behaviour
focused interviews
questions: topic and formats
archives

Transdisciplinary methods after Zeiselzs

floor plan overlays
building walk-throughs
plan annotation

Design methods

design in use
checklists
design inquiry as action research

inquiry as action research offers a research design for

feedback collection and use where problem- and
solution-focused methods are kept in balance. Design
inquiry has therefore to be included in the evaluation
tool-kit. A research design for feedback on building use
is therefore design inquiry. This approach avoids the
positivist assumptions and applicability gap inherent in
most environment-behaviour studies.

C O L L A B O R A T I V E D E S I G N INQUIRY
Awareness of a model of planning as learning and of

Vol 7 No 1 January 1986

Archive material: collect site and departmental layouts

Define portions/departmental boundaries and analyse functional content
Liaise with medical/nursing/admin planning team colleagues
over focus, task group composition and evaluation kit-proformas and guidance notes
Take off key statistics from drawn information
Liaise with local users over terms of reference, programme
and access
Walk-through--completing description of function, proformas, notes and check accuracy of drawn record
Collate data and prepare report summaries
Review data, assessments and conclusions (i.e. further work
with users and with planning team)
and also,
Address issue of width/depth conflict through multi-staged
assessment programme
Methods (a mix of methods from the tool-kit; mix to suit focus
and context - likely first-stage methods)
building walk-through
design checklist/proforma established from literature review
of design guidance
observation of physical traces and behaviour
archive material: take offa key statistics and plan annotation
reported subjective experience of users from focused interview
judgement of balanced team including user and experienced
designer
issues raised by the collection and use of feedback
support the view of design inquiry as an action research
method. A summary of the issues raised is given in Table
7. Information has to be related to other forms of
knowledge to be used: knowing 'that' has to be related to
knowing 'how', to tacit knowledge. There are designerly
ways of knowing 26-28, see Table 8. However, both
designer and user come to the inquiry as co-workers.
Neither has sufficient knowledge to operate alone;
inquiry has to be collaborative. Some of what the
designer knows has to be included, especially the needs
to admit quality, experience, and to act on the system,
see Table 9. T h e first need, however, is for greater
awareness of the issues raised and for the systemic view
that follows.

Table 7. Feedback on building use: summary of issues raised, awareness required TM

Planning models

planning as learning; limits to technical rationality

level of natural order debate
storybook science and storybook planning under storybook
management
idealisation of planning process models; assumptions gross
sufficiency of information alone; inductive fallacy; role of
values
values an 'evolving topology'; planning and design decisions
influence the distribution of both costs and benefits
utility theory assumes completeness, stable and shared
values, aggregation of different logical types and transitive
relations

Feedback

no 'universal methodology'; wide range of methods but each

limited and approximate; use a mix of methods but no
common metric
evolving goals; conflict and contradiction as goals renegotiated
dilemmas: width vs depth, rigour vs relevance, high cost and
high benefit
limits to reductionist framework; socio-technical framework
needed; review research design for feedback; accommodate
both collection and use, calibration and feedback in design
inquiry as the research design for feedback

Collaborative design inquiry

chronic neglect of feedback; methodological difficulties of

feed forward
research design for feedback should accommodate collection
and use
planning process dynamics needed to control feedback;
information overload and transfer difficulties neglected
theory of function: product of organisation, systemic
property, no single objective function, hierarchy of changing needs
completeness: admit quantity, quality and experience yet
essential incompleteness if focus is only current use
assessment subjective and value laden, treat explicitly within
planning forum
no absolute standards; potential the very basis for comparison; handle values in terms of preference; norms of
performance are tacit and contextual
mix of qualitative and quantitative, subjective and objective;
no of dimensions and their interdependence; inverse relations between precision and meaning and completeness and
consistency

action research perspective, repeated cycles of learning,

design as inquiry
completeness: negotiates values, handles potential, supports
evolution of problem and solution and their interaction
need to act on the system, role of tacit knowledge,
designerly ways
balance, co-evolution of problem and solution
management throughout the dynamics of self-organisation,
bootstrapping

Way forward

raise awareness, expose dilemmas and limitations, examine

alternatives
renegotiate conceptual framework, unity of opposites
develop co-ordinated building evaluation programme and
space use management discipline
discuss role of design inquiry in organisational learning,
learn to learn and to design design; trust the process
generate a mature response to uncertainty; informed,
well-ordered and reflective collaborative design inquiry
conducted as action research

Table 8. Tacit design knowledge

"There are things that we know we cannot tell".
(Polanyi)

Knowing how and knowing that

Knowing that can actually inhibit practice.

Science is directed at knowing that; design at knowing how.

Designerly ways of knowing

Knowing how cannot be made explicit.
The form of knowledge is intrinsically non-verbal.
Knowing how is to do with standards of performance that go
beyond competence.
Know how determines quality.

Epistemological categories
Knowing that is unnecessary for many activities.
Knowing that depends upon knowing how. Tacit knowing
can be identified with understanding
Under many conditions of practice the two types of
knowledge are mutually exclusive.

Implications for design knowledge

Knowing that is not of necessity part of design.
Knowing how lies at the core of design.

Design processes
0 Designers solve problems through synthesis; they are
solution focused because it is in terms of solution that
problems can be kept within manageable bounds. They
rely upon 'primary generator' to define problems.
0 Designers use 'codes' to express relations between need
and environment. There is a 'deep structure' to design
codes. Pattern structuring is a feature.
Design products
0 Objects are themselves a form of knowledge (a material
culture). Designers both read and write in this form
translating back from concrete objects to abstract requirements through design codes. Invention often comes
before theory.
Designers tackle ill-defined wicked problems, their thinking
is constructive and solution focused

After Cross et al.26, Cross27 and Archer28

Over-arching

framework

T h i s systemic view c o m p l e m e n t s the r e d u c t i o n i s t

f r a m e w o r k . B o t h are n e e d e d . I t is an issue o f b a l a n c e a n d

10

o f a w i d e r p e r s p e c t i v e . T h e c o m p l e m e n t a r i t y of existing
and potential, subjectivity and objectivity, thought and
action, n o v e l t y a n d c o n f i r m a t i o n , a n d r i g o u r and ima g i n a t i o n shows the ' u n i t y o f opposxtes
,29 . T h e same

DESIGN STUDIES

Table 9. Functional suitability assessment: some of

what the designer knows
Function is a systemic property

Function is an emergent property and is destroyed within a

reductionist framework. It cannot be surveyed nor contained
within a traditional scientific approach.
Planning process dynamics control data collection

Planning problems are not fully given. Means and ends are
interdependent. Relevance and meaning of data are not given.
The interaction of problem and solution can guide data
collection. Methods should be solution focused. Procedures are
not set. Information on extant condition is important but not
sufficient.
Awareness: evaluation dilemmas

Evaluation work presents dilemmas--width vs depth, high

benefits with high costs, rigour vs relevance. There is no
universal method and no common metric. Values are important
and are best handled in terms of preference. Assessment is
always partial. The overall objective is a question of balance.
The research design for feedback needs to be reworked to
include utilisation and calibration.
Rationalioy a myth

Socially constructed values together with objectively given data

make planning possible. Rationality and certainty are myths.
Risks and resource management strategies compete in a plural
society. Technical rationality is an inadequate model for wicked
problems--neither good management, science nor design.
Admit quality and experience

Reality is mnlti-levelied. Needs are an evolving hierachy.

Measurement always approximate and incomplete. Also, the
tendency is to measure what can be measured and ignore the
rest. Calculation and judgement are necessary. Admit the user
as there is no objective experience and no professional
monopoly of appropriate values.
Act on the system

Significant aspects of the problem

functional potential (what can be)
acceptability of proposed solutions (what ought to be)
interaction between what is possible and what is desired
can only be discovered by acting on the system
Assessment cannot be comprehensive or rational but problems
can be handled in terms of solutions. The overall objective is to
achieve harmony; balance between conflicting objectives over a
number of levels. Potential is the very basis of comparison of
policy/product options.
point is made by Jantsch--'in a multi-level evolving
reality opposites vanish ... there is only complementarity
in which opposites include each other'. Collaborative
design inquiry offers increased completeness, meaning
and validity.
It is a process of 'inquiry, experimentation and
research'. It relies upon an 'epistemology of practice',
one that does not include a clear distinction between
practice and research, between knowing and doing and
between ends and means. The framework is one of
'action science' rather than 'technical rationality '3].
Advantages include:
The handling of uncertainty and risk through learning.
'Double loop learning' which includes feedback on the
'very norms which def'me effective performance '32.

Vol 7 No 1 January 1986

That is, feedback is on a number of levels, each of a

different logical type. There is then both feedback and
calibration 33.
The inclusion potential of and the relation between
current and possible future use.
The inclusion of the interaction between economic,
technical, functional and behavioural performance
requirements.
Support for the evolution of goals and values through
the interaction of problem and solution. Goals, values,
priorities, problem definition (organisation and space
requirements) and possible solutions all interact.
Definition of problem and solution are negotiated and
re-negotiated as inquiry unfolds. The contradiction in
goal conflicts informs problem definition, data collection and the control of feedback as well as the
formulation of options.
Information on extant conditions is not sufficient. Often,
information on 'what is' is irrelevant in relation to some
information on 'what can be' and 'what is acceptable'.
Design inquiry can be cost-effective for this reason. It
can be self-organising through the interactions supported. Planning may not be rationally possible but it is
possible in terms of individual and collective preference
for particular policy options. It is not possible as a set
procedure working through a series of autonomous
stages. The process may, however, be 'bootstrapped'
along, relying upon a network of interlocking concepts
and models 34. Inquiry unfolds through the interaction of
the various stages, procedures, models, actors, needs,
opportunities and costs and through self-conversation
with situation.
In the longer term the self-organising paradigm offers
some promise for more rigorous handling of complexity.
The work holds the prospect of models of 'qualitative
change'. Allen is currently studying the evolution of
urban form and his 'origami' example provides a
metaphor for further study of the emergence of form and
of the relation between form and process 3s.
A new understanding is emerging of the role of
feedback in system evolution; of order through fluctuation; of self-renewal. Self-organisation is a pattern that
connects process and product. Successful management of
both the process and product in use requires that the
manager understands and trusts the process and works
with the self-organising dynamics 36. Within a framework
of technical rationality it is neither possible to fully
understand nor to trust the process.

Role of the designer

The way forward includes a change in the view of design;
to see design as inquiry. Greater awareness of the issues
raised by the planning process and by the research design
for feedback leads to re-negotiation of the conceptual
framework, to view planning as learning and to accept
function, organisation and planning as systemic
phenomena.

11

The designer's role may include making substantive

plans at a later stage but the role has to be extended to
include raising the level of natural order debate. The key
roles are as agent for learning and as facilitator or
enabler. The focus is process rather than structural
planning. The product is more likely to be acceptable if
the process is right. Opposites have to be held in dynamic
balance within the process. Design inquiry is then seen as
an essential action research method. Although difficulties
are faced, debate on the role of the designer and of design
inquiry is the next step to be taken. The research design
for the collection and utilisation of feedback and for the
conduct of inquiry has yet to be properly designed. This
design task must also be informed, well-ordered and
reflective. This calls for reflection on how to design
design and to plan planning. The role of design inquiry
in support of organisational learning has yet to be
recognised. Storybook science, planning and management are not sufficient in tackling wicked problems.
Assessing information requirements for adequate and
cost-effective planning raises not only issues of organisation, procedure, method and management, which are
matters of both practical and conceptual concern; it also
raises epistemological issues. Science is an inappropriate
model for planning and design. Rationality is not
enough; it does not account for intuition, tacit knowledge
and the social construction of norms and values. Planning and design practice should not be modelled upon
traditional views of science. It may well be, as Glanville
suggests, that design is the paradigm for science and not
vice versa 37. This may be the root cause of the confusion.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author acknowledges the help of colleagues in the
National Health Service and at T h e Medical Architecture
Research Unit, Polytechnic of North London in completing the pilot study discussed in the text. The views
expressed are, however, the author's alone.

REFERENCES

Hilfier, B et al. 'Knowledge and design' in Mitchell, W

Environmental Research and Practice EDRA 3, Los Angeles
(1972)
8 Mirtoff, I The Subjective Side of Science Elsevier, Amsterdam (1974)
9 Mintzberg, H 'The manager's job: folklore and fact'
Harvard Business Review (July/August 1975)
10 Clark, P A Action Research and Organisational Change
Harper and Row, New York (1972)
11 Reason, P and Rowan, J (Eds) Human Inquiry Wiley,
Chichester (1981) chapter 10
12 Weisman, G D 'Environmental programming and action
research' Environment and Behaviour Vol 15 No 3 (May
1983)
13 Schon, D A 'Reflection in action' R I B A Transactions 2 Vol
1 No 2 (1982)
14 Zeisei, J Inquiry by Design: Tools for Environment-Behaviour Research. Part 1 Research and Design Brooks/Cole,
Monterey (1981)
15 Harre, R in Reason, P and Rowan, J (Eds) Op cit chapter 1
16 Torbet, W in Reason, P and Rowan, J (Eds) op cit
17 DHSS, NHS Advisors, Leicester Polytechnic 'Mereworth
3, Heathbridge' Heathbridge Information Profile, Mereworth
Health Care Planning Model, Ist edition (October 1983)
18 Davies, C Report of the Enquiry: Underused and Surplus
Property in the N H S HMSO, London (1983)
19 Waiters, R J 'Functional suitability assessment: pilot study
report' Internal Report Oxford RHA (1984)

20 Schon, D A op cit
21 Mill, P 'Building diagnostics' Building Utilisation Conference
Proceedings Portsmouth, (1983) in PoweR, J et al. (Eds)
Designing for Building Utilisation Spon, London (1984)
22 Daish, J, Gray, J, Kernohan, D, and Salmond, A
'Post-occupancy evaluation in New Zealand' Design Studies
Vol 3 No 2 (April 1982)

1 Breheny, M J 'A practical view of planning theory'

Environment and Planning B Vol 10 No 1 (1983)

23 MeAllister, D M Evaluation in Environmental Planning:

Assessing Environmental, Social, Economic and Political
Trade-offs The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1980)

2 Rittel, H and Webber, M M 'Dilemmas in a general theory

of planning' Policy Sciences Vol 4 (1973)

24 Bishop, J 'The appraisal of buildings' SA US Occasional

Paper No 5 University of Bristol (1979)

3 Jones, J C Design Methods: Seeds of Human Futures Wiley,

Chichester (1980) p 54

25 Zeisel, J op cit, Part 2 Research Methods

4 Webber, M M 'The myth of rationality: development

planning reconsidered' Environment and Planning B Vol 10
(1983)

5 Viekers, G 'Values, norms and policies' Policy Sciences Vol

4 (1973)
6 Powell, J 'Technology transfer--the design information
drip' Paper Conference Wellington, New Zealand (June
1983)

12

26 Cross, N, Naughton, J and Walker, D 'Design method and

scientific method' Design Studies Vol 2 No 4 (October 1981)
27 Cross, N 'Designerly ways of knowing' Design Studies Vol 3
No 4 (October 1982)
28 Archer, B 'Design as a discipline: the three Rs' Design
Studies Vol 1 No 1 (January 1979)
29 Bateson, G Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity Fontana/
Collins, London (1980) pp 231-239

DESIGN STUDIES

30 Jantsch, E The Self-Organising Universe Pergamon Press,

Oxford (1980) chapter 16 'Ethics, morality and system
management' p 274
31 Schon, D A The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals
Think in Action Temple Smith, London (1983) chapters 2
and 5
32 Argyris, C and Schon, D Organisational Learning: A Theory
of Action Perspective Addison-Wesley (1978) chapter 1
'Organisational learning' p 8

34 Capra, F The Turning Point Fontana, London (1982)

chapter 9 'The systems view of life' p 285
35 Allen, P M 'Evolution, modelling and design in a complex
world' Environment and Planning B Vol 9 (1982) p 95
36 Jantsch, E op cit chapter 16
37 Gianville, R 'Why design research?' Design: Science: Method
Conference Proceedings Portsmouth (1980) in Powell, J and
Jacques, R (Eds) Design: Science: Method, Westbury
House, Guildford (1981)

33 Bateson, G op cit p 211

Vol 7 No 1 January 1986

13