<a title="Design Charrette #FutureWall 37320" href="https://flickr.com/photos/taedc/12456680724">Design Charrette #FutureWall 37320</a> flickr photo by <a href="https://flickr.com/people/taedc">tedeytan</a> shared under a <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/">Creative Commons (BY-SA) license</a> </small>
Charrette Process:
Benefits and Disadvantages
Charrette Process
A design charrette engages a codesign process whereby stakeholders collaborate together to share solutions to a design problem (Howard & Somerville, 2014). There are three phases to the charrette process: identifying the problem, creating ideas and designing a solution. Collaboration in the context of design can be extremely valuable and rewarding; however, it also provides some challenges.
The mosaic approach of Clark (2011) focuses on the generation of ideas by participants rather than extracting knowledge. By allowing stakeholders to bring their ideas to the charrette process, they will have evaluated their previous knowledge and use of the space and ‘listened internally’ (Rinaldi, 2005) in order to reflect on their perceived strengths and problems with the space.
When conducting the charrette with my colleagues and students, I first explained the space and identified the problem that we were going address collaboratively, allowing them time to pre-consider their ideas before our meeting. This allowed them time to conceptualise their own vision for the space. Once gathered together, multiple perspectives and visions were shared, then narrowed to a common vision. Due to the multipurpose nature of the ‘hub’ space, it was agreed that the vision was to create a ‘multipurpose space with clearly defined but flexible zones’.
Benefits
The main objective of the charrette process should be to explore all opportunities for the space considering multiple and varying perspectives (Lackney, 2000). By including all stakeholders of the space, a sense of empowerment and ownership is created as each person involved is able to share their thoughts and solutions to the problem. Working towards a shared vision enables stakeholders to feel valued in the design process. Not only are stakeholders valued, but potential roadblocks, problems or concerns can be addressed by the group during collaborative discussion. Allowing all participants to share their design ideas and reasons for their choices, the design group can bounce ideas around and make adjustments through open discussion in order to create the best design solution. Having this process at the beginning of the design phase is essential as it allows for a well-considered design, taking into account as many different ideas as possible, reworking them until an ultimate design is agreed upon. This in turn may prevent multiple redesigns having to be created in the future saving both money and time (Lackney, 2000).
Disadvantages
Some disadvantages we encountered in the participatory design process were the limitation of time and aligning the multiple ideas. Finding ample time to gather all stakeholders together is a challenge; however, having met with the participants prior to the charrette process, allowed them to come prepared so we could make the best use of the time we had together as a collaborative group. We found it beneficial to have a facilitator for the meeting, which helped the group to stay on task. When multiple stakeholders share their ideas, it can be a challenge to find alignment. It took some time to come to a consensus with the group, but having the vision established at the beginning of the charrette helped to eliminate those ideas that did not align.
Overall, the charrette design process is extremely beneficial and empowering. The views of all stakeholders are heard and considered, allowing for the creation of an effective design solution. A charrette is an enjoyable process and an opportunity for building team and community whilst collaborating together.
References
Clark, A. (2011). Breaking methodological boundaries? Exploring visual, participatory methods with adults and young children. European early childhood education research journal, 19(3), 321-330.
Howard, Z., & Somerville, M. M. (2014). A comparative study of two design charrettes: implications for codesign and participatory action research. CoDesign, 10(1), 46-62.
Lackney, J. A. (2000). Thirty-Three Educational Design Principles for Schools & Community Learning Centers.
Rinaldi, C. (2005). Documentation and assessment: What is the relationship. Beyond listening: Children’s perspectives on early childhood services, 17-28.
The mosaic approach of Clark (2011) focuses on the generation of ideas by participants rather than extracting knowledge. By allowing stakeholders to bring their ideas to the charrette process, they will have evaluated their previous knowledge and use of the space and ‘listened internally’ (Rinaldi, 2005) in order to reflect on their perceived strengths and problems with the space.
When conducting the charrette with my colleagues and students, I first explained the space and identified the problem that we were going address collaboratively, allowing them time to pre-consider their ideas before our meeting. This allowed them time to conceptualise their own vision for the space. Once gathered together, multiple perspectives and visions were shared, then narrowed to a common vision. Due to the multipurpose nature of the ‘hub’ space, it was agreed that the vision was to create a ‘multipurpose space with clearly defined but flexible zones’.
Benefits
The main objective of the charrette process should be to explore all opportunities for the space considering multiple and varying perspectives (Lackney, 2000). By including all stakeholders of the space, a sense of empowerment and ownership is created as each person involved is able to share their thoughts and solutions to the problem. Working towards a shared vision enables stakeholders to feel valued in the design process. Not only are stakeholders valued, but potential roadblocks, problems or concerns can be addressed by the group during collaborative discussion. Allowing all participants to share their design ideas and reasons for their choices, the design group can bounce ideas around and make adjustments through open discussion in order to create the best design solution. Having this process at the beginning of the design phase is essential as it allows for a well-considered design, taking into account as many different ideas as possible, reworking them until an ultimate design is agreed upon. This in turn may prevent multiple redesigns having to be created in the future saving both money and time (Lackney, 2000).
Disadvantages
Some disadvantages we encountered in the participatory design process were the limitation of time and aligning the multiple ideas. Finding ample time to gather all stakeholders together is a challenge; however, having met with the participants prior to the charrette process, allowed them to come prepared so we could make the best use of the time we had together as a collaborative group. We found it beneficial to have a facilitator for the meeting, which helped the group to stay on task. When multiple stakeholders share their ideas, it can be a challenge to find alignment. It took some time to come to a consensus with the group, but having the vision established at the beginning of the charrette helped to eliminate those ideas that did not align.
Overall, the charrette design process is extremely beneficial and empowering. The views of all stakeholders are heard and considered, allowing for the creation of an effective design solution. A charrette is an enjoyable process and an opportunity for building team and community whilst collaborating together.
References
Clark, A. (2011). Breaking methodological boundaries? Exploring visual, participatory methods with adults and young children. European early childhood education research journal, 19(3), 321-330.
Howard, Z., & Somerville, M. M. (2014). A comparative study of two design charrettes: implications for codesign and participatory action research. CoDesign, 10(1), 46-62.
Lackney, J. A. (2000). Thirty-Three Educational Design Principles for Schools & Community Learning Centers.
Rinaldi, C. (2005). Documentation and assessment: What is the relationship. Beyond listening: Children’s perspectives on early childhood services, 17-28.