Inclusive interactive simulation: stakeholder empowerment, satisfaction, and confidence in solution design and decision making
Ira Winder; Kazuo Hiekata
Abstract
In transdisciplinary engineering, the development of solutions increasingly relies on the utilization of computational modeling and simulation tools, skillfully wielded by experts in the field. Although these tools possess great power, they often inadvertently sideline individuals who lack technical expertise, excluding them from the solution design process. Recognizing this issue, we delve into a discussion concerning an experiment aimed at gauging the effectiveness of “inclusive” computational modeling techniques. These techniques are designed to actively involve non-technical stakeholders in the solution generation process. In our experiment, participants assumed the role of empowered citizens tasked with selecting their favored design for a real estate development project within their city. We provided them with access to a web-based digital design tool, enabling them to view, modify, and create various building scenarios. Ultimately, participants were asked to specify their preferred solution as the final choice, while also sharing their levels of satisfaction and confidence regarding their decision. The results of our study revealed a noteworthy willingness among non-expert participants to exercise their personal judgment in decision-making. The most satisfied and confident participants were even willing to override or disregard professional recommendations when making their choices. This research bears significant implications for the integration of technology-driven participatory design processes within the realm of transdisciplinary engineering.
Keywords
References
Alrashed, T., Almalki, A., Aldawood, S., Alhindi, T., Winder, I., Noyman, A., Alfaris, A., & Alwabil, A. (2015). An observational study of usability in collaborative tangible interfaces for complex planning systems. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 1974-1980. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.243.
Habraken, N. J. (1986). Towards a new professional role. Design Studies, 7(3), 139-143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(86)90050-5.
Iazzi, A., Pizzi, S., Iaia, L., & Turco, M. (2020). Communicating the stakeholder engagement process: a cross‐country analysis in the tourism sector. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(4), 1642-1652. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.1913.
Lazar, M., Miron-Spektor, E., & Mueller, J. S. (2022). Love at first insight: an attachment perspective on early-phase idea selection. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 172, 104168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104168.
Pelegrin, L., Moser, B., Wanaka, S., Chavy-Macdonald, M.-A., & Winder, I. (2019). Field guide for interpreting engineering team behavior with sensor data. In E. Bonjour, D. Krob, L. Palladino & F. Stephan (Eds.), Complex systems design & management (pp. 203-218). Cham: Springer International Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04209-7_17.
Pols, A. J. K. (2017). May stakeholders be involved in design without informed consent? the case of hidden design. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(3), 723-742. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9811-0.
Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological Conservation, 141(10), 2417-2431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014.
Rose, C. M., Saratsis, E., Aldawood, S., Dogan, T., & Reinhart, C. (2015). A tangible interface for collaborative urban design for energy efficiency, daylighting, and walkability. In Proceedings of the 14th Conference of International Building Performance Simulation Association (pp. 2691-2698). New York: ACM. http://dx.doi.org/10.26868/25222708.2015.2296.
Underkoffler, J., & Ishii, H. (1999) Urp: a luminous-tangible workbench for urban planning and design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 386-393). New York: ACM. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/302979.303114.
Vardouli, T. (2012). Design-for-empowerment-for-design: computational structures for design democratization [Dissertation]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Wesley, J. M., & Ainsworth, E. L. (2018). Creating communities of choice: stakeholder participation in community planning. Societies, 8(3), 73. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/soc8030073.
Winder, I., Delaporte, D., Wanaka, S., & Hiekata, K. (2020). Sensing teamwork during multi-objective optimization. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE 6th World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT) (pp. 1-6). New York: IEEE. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/WF-IoT48130.2020.9221086.
Winder, I., & Hiekata, K. (2021). User interface design for multi-objective decision making (Advances in Transdisciplinary Engineering, Vol. 16, pp. 566-573). The Netherlands: IOS Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/ATDE220656.
Winder, I., & Hiekata, K. (2022). Generic user interface for inclusive interactive simulation (Advances in Transdisciplinary Engineering, Vol. 28, pp. 279-288), The Netherlands: IOS Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/ATDE210137.
Winder, J. I., & Larson, K. (2017). Bits and bricks: Tangible interactive matrix for real-time computation and 3d projection mapping. In Proceedings of the Future Technologies Conference (FTC) (pp. 1113-1116). United Kingdom: SAI.
Zarzycka, E., Krasodomska, J., & Dobija, D. (2021). Stakeholder engagement in corporate social practices and non-financial disclosures: a systematic literature review. Central European Management Journal, 29(1), 112-135.
Submitted date:
10/18/2023
Accepted date:
11/11/2023
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
StumbleUpon
CiteULike
Reddit
Email