Citation
Building inhabitant feedback

Material Information

Title:
Building inhabitant feedback creating a reflective practice for environmental design using activity theory
Creator:
Cunningham, Dara Suzanne ( author )
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
1 electronic file (377 pages). : ;

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Doctor of Philosophy)
Degree Grantor:
University of Colorado Denver
Degree Divisions:
College of Architecture and Planning, CU Denver
Degree Disciplines:
Design and planning

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Critical thinking ( lcsh )
Communication in architectural design ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
The way buildings are designed now, there is little feedback from use involved in the design process. Attempts to correct this problem have been made in the form of Post Occupancy Evaluations POEs for 50-years but have largely failed. POEs are the accepted method for environmental designers to collect feedback about buildings in use. They are infrequently conducted, after the building is built, in a one-time only evaluation, and not funded as part of the build process. Other products receive feedback about the design in use from online critiques. Online critiques could provide a platform for feedback from actors engaged with buildings in use for environmental designers to utilize in developing reflective design rationale to avoid adverse consequences in future designs or correct consequences in past and current designs. Since buildings constitute such a large part of the human environment, it is important to research the effects of buildings on their inhabitants. In order for environmental designers to act on feedback from situated use, designers need to have access to that feedback and all actors interacting with the building design need to have an easy, inexpensive, and accessible method to submit feedback. These needs can be addressed by utilizing modern networked and mobile computing to collect and access building feedback. The analysis presented in this dissertation is informed by a thorough evaluation of the theory of reflective practice, activity theory, environmental design, and cognitive science research. From this analysis, I developed the following contributions. First, I expanded Schon's reflective practice by combining his theory with a modified version of activity theory, using activity theory to enrich reflective practice and create Reflective Activity Systems Theory RAST, which provides a new framework to develop design rationale based on feedback from use and a focus on the activity. Second, I suggest the design of an activity information system, Socio-Technical Environments for Evolutionary Design STEED, which provides an interactive platform for actor and artifact feedback from the use situation. Third, I discuss implications for practice by discussing how the feedback from actors and artifacts in situated use can be used to create reflective design rationale.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Colorado Denver. Design and planning, cognitive science
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographic references.
System Details:
System requirements: Adobe Reader.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Dara Suzanne Cunningham.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
|Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
903217145 ( OCLC )
ocn903217145

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
BUILDING INHABITANT FEEDBACK:
CREATING A REFLECTIVE PRACTICE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN USING ACTIVITY THEORY
by
DARA SUZANNE CUNNINGHAM B.F.A., Rocky Mountain College of Art and Design, 1998 M.A., University of Colorado, 2002
A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Cognitive Science and
Design and Planning
2014


2014
DARA CUNNINGHAM
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


The thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy degree by
Dara Cunningham has been approved for the Cognitive Science Program and
Design and Planning Program by
Brian Muller, Chair Raymond McCall, Advisor Clayton Lewis Tom Yeh
July 24, 2014


Cunningham, Dara (Ph.D., Cognitive Science, Design and Planning)
Building Inhabitant Feedback: Creating a Reflective Practice for Environmental Design Using Activity Theory
Thesis directed by Associate Professor Raymond McCall
ABSTRACT
The way buildings are designed now, there is little feedback from use involved in the design process. Attempts to correct this problem have been made in the form of Post Occupancy Evaluations (POEs) for 50-years but have largely failed. POEs are the accepted method for environmental designers to collect feedback about buildings in use. They are infrequently conducted, after the building is built, in a one-time only evaluation, and not funded as part of the build process.
Other products receive feedback about the design in use from online critiques. Online critiques could provide a platform for feedback from actors engaged with buildings in use for environmental designers to utilize in developing reflective design rationale to avoid adverse consequences in future designs or correct consequences in past and current designs. Since buildings constitute such a large part of the human environment, it's important to research the effects of buildings on their inhabitants. In order for environmental designers to act on feedback from situated use, designers need to have access to that feedback and all actors interacting with the building design need to have an easy, inexpensive, and accessible method to submit feedback. These needs
IV


can be addressed by utilizing modern networked and mobile computing to collect and
access building feedback.
The analysis presented in this dissertation is informed by a thorough evaluation of the theory of reflective practice, activity theory, environmental design, and cognitive science research. From this analysis, I developed the following contributions. First, I expanded Schon's reflective practice by combining his theory with a modified version of activity theory, using activity theory to enrich reflective practice and create Reflective Activity Systems Theory (RAST), which provides a new framework to develop design rationale based on feedback from use and a focus on the activity. Second, I suggest the design of an activity information system, Socio-Technical Environments for Evolutionary Design (STEED), which provides an interactive platform for actor and artifact feedback from the use situation. Third, I discuss implications for practice by discussing how the feedback from actors and artifacts in situated use can be used to create reflective design rationale.
The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication.
Approved: Raymond McCall
v


DEDICATION
For Truman, my amazing, beautiful son and my absolute pride and joy. I have learned more from you than I ever could from any school.
VI


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my deep appreciation and gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Raymond McCall, for pushing me to find my contribution and recognizing that I had something important to say. Dr. McCall encouraged and guided me, from before I applied to the PhD program, through the completion of the dual degree. Dr. McCall's brilliance is matched only by his tenacity and his willingness to mentor the misfits who take on ridiculous goals like completing a dual-discipline PhD. I am truly fortunate to have had the opportunity to work with him.
I would also like to thank my committee members, Drs. Brian Muller, Clayton Lewis, and Tom Yeh for their guidance, suggestions, and general collegiality. Dr. Muller first sparked my interest in the Design and Planning program when I took his Planning Issues and Processes class ten-years before my dissertation completion and has continued to reassure me that I can make it through the PhD. Dr. Lewis was willing to counsel me, a PhD student he'd never met, midway through my program and has been an integral part of my committee throughout the many hurdles involved with completing a PhD. His willingness to read draft after draft and provide thought-provoking suggestions has been invaluable to me. Dr. Yeh was the last member to become a part of my committee but he has been the major source of support for my data collection. Without his willingness to take me on as a last-minute independent study and provide funding for my Comfort and Energy Use Survey, I would not have been able to complete my degree and would not have the proof-of-concept data included in this document. In a similarvein, I'd like to recognize Dr. Gerhard Fischerfor
VII


his contributions to my intellectual growth over the years and for helping me in acquiring a graduate internship at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which allowed me to concentrate on my research while still earning some income.
Finally, I gratefully acknowledge the innumerable sacrifices made by my husband, Patrick, in supporting me over the years it's taken to complete my degree a
always believing in me, even when it seemed I would never finish.


TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
I. DESIGN AND UNEXPECTED CONSEQUENCES: GIVING ACTORS A VOICE........................1
Introduction............................................................1
The Designed Environment and the Inhabitant............................13
The Structure of the Dissertation......................................15
Goals................................................................17
Methods..............................................................19
Organization of the Chapters.........................................20
Listening to the Inhabitants...........................................22
How do we know if buildings work for their inhabitants?................23
Reflective Practice....................................................34
Getting Feedback to Environmental Designers............................47
Activity Theory........................................................49
II. REFLECTIVE PRACTICE, SITUATED COGNITION, AND ACTIVITY THEORY: THE ROLE OF
REFLECTIVE CONVERSATION IN DESIGN............................................57
Highlights...........................................................57
Introduction.........................................................58
Review.............................................................58
IX


Thesis
58
Significance................................................................59
Reflective Practice...........................................................61
The Study of Context..........................................................64
Situated Action Models......................................................67
Distributed Cognition.......................................................68
Activity Theory.............................................................69
Similarities and Differences................................................70
Relation to Reflective Practice.............................................73
Reflective Conversation and Ongoing Feedback..................................75
III. THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF ACTIVITY THEORY: FROM THEORY TO REALITY .... 76
Highlights..................................................................76
Introduction................................................................77
Review....................................................................77
Thesis....................................................................77
Significance..............................................................78
Background..................................................................78
History of Activity Theory................................................79
Activity Systems..........................................................83
x


Simplifying Activity Theory
86
Activity......................................................................87
Usage-Centered Design............................................91
Operationalizing Activity Theory..........................................94
Activity Checklist.........................................................94
Activity-Based Model.....................................................95
Activity Theory Framework..................................96
Taxonomy of Conceptual Knowledge.................................99
Activity-Oriented Design Method..........................................100
Human-Artifact Model...............................................102
Applying Activity Theory to Design...................................109
IV. REFLECTIVE ACTIVITY SYSTEM THEORY (RAST): COMBINING REFLECTIVE PRACTICE AND ACTIVITY THEORY........................................................113
Highlights...................................................................113
Introduction..............................................................113
Review........................................................113
Thesis.................................................................114
Significance................................................................115
The New Theoretical Framework.............................................116
XI


Why is the focus on activity important?..............................122
Reflective Activity Systems Theory...................................126
Applying RAST..........................................................128
Real World Research RAST Application.................................130
V. SOCIO-TECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTS FOR EVOLUTIONARY DESIGN (STEED): AN ACTIVITY INFORMATION SYSTEM TO SUPPORT RAST..................................149
Highlights.............................................................149
Introduction...........................................................150
Review...............................................................150
Thesis...............................................................151
Significance...........................................................152
Background...........................................................152
Approach...............................................................168
STEED System Design..................................................169
STEED Inspiration....................................................192
Design...............................................................206
STEED Prototype......................................................209
Discussion...........................................................209
STEED and RAST.........................................................216
xii


VI. COMFORT AND ENERGY USE SURVEYS
220
Goals..............................................................220
Background.........................................................222
Approach...........................................................228
Preliminary Results................................................233
Continuing Research................................................235
VII. SUMMATION, FUTURE RESEARCH, AND CONCLUSION.............................236
Summation..........................................................236
Findings...........................................................238
Future Research....................................................239
Objectives.......................................................240
Conclusion.........................................................242
REFERENCES..................................................................243
APPENDIX A..................................................................A-l
Buckley Air Force Base Colorado Army National Guard (COARNG) Army Aviation Support Facility (AASF) LEED Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) Survey Questions and Answers................................................................A-l
Survey Questions.................................................A-2
Survey Responses.................................................A-4
xiii


APPENDIX B................................................................B-l
STEED System Requirements, Features, and RAST Analysis Justification.B-l
APPENDIX C................................................................C-l
Comfort and Energy Use Survey....................................C-l
Residence Life Comfort and Energy Use Survey and Interview Questions.. C-2 Residence Life Comfort and Energy Use Survey Responses.........C-9
XIV


LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
1: The Components of an Activity According to Engestrom (Hasan, 2003, p. 6)....96
2: Elements of the Activity-based Model (Hasan, 2003, p. 6)....................96
3: Basic aspects of an activity and their relation to a taxonomy of contextual knowledge
(Kofod-Petersen & Cassens, 2006, p. 8).......................................99
4: Eight-step Model to Operationalize Activity Theory During Requirements Capture
(Mwanza, 2002)............................................................. 100
5: Activity Notation (Mwanza, 2002)........................................... 101
6: Activity as a hierarchically organized system (Bpdker & Klokmose, 2011, p. 320).... 103 7: Summary of affordances, aspects, and activity levels (Bpdker & Klokmose, 2011, p.
328)....................................................................... 106
8: The Human-Artifact Model (Bpdker & Klokmose, 2011, p. 333)................. 109
9: The Components of an Activity as Redefined by Cunningham....................Ill
10: Components of an Activity in Reflective Activity Systems Theory (RAST).....117
11: Additional Cost and kWh Projections for Space Heaters in the Facility......144
12: Cost and kWh Projection for Stand Fans in the Facility.....................145
xv


LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
1: Pruitt-lgoe Towers, Saint Louis, Missouri, Date unknown... but after 1963 and before
1972, United States Geological Survey, Public Domain Image...........................25
2: Activity as a hierarchically organized system, showing the relationship among the three
levels (Bertelsen & Bpdker, 2003, p. 301)............................................83
3: Vygotsky's model of mediation (Engestrom, 1987, p. 78)...............................83
4: The generally accepted modern interpretation of Vygotsky's first generation activity
theory model of action (Engestrom, 1987, p. 78).................................84
5: Engestrom's Activity System triangle diagram (Engestrom, 1987, p. 78)...........84
6: Engestrom's Two Minimally Interacting Activity Systems triangle diagram (Engestrom,
2001, p. 136)....................................................................85
7: Engestrom's Four Levels of Contradictions in a Network of Human Activity Systems
(Engestrom, 1999)................................................................86
8: Reflective Activity Systems Theory..............................................128
9: Buckley Air Force Base Colorado Air National Guard Aviation Support Facility Hangar View (Foundations of Readiness, 2009, p. 35)....................................130
10: Inside the hangar at the Aviation Support Facility (Foundations of Readiness, 2009, p.
35)............................................................................131
11: Inside the operations area at the Aviation Support Facility (Foundations of Readiness,
2009, p. 36)
132


12: Front outside view of the Aviation Support Facility (Foundations of Readiness, 2009, p.
35).................................................................................133
13: Image of the Aviation Support Facility from the architect's pre-build renderings (CH2M
Hill, 2005)........................................................................ 134
14: Energy Informatics Framework (Watson et al, 2010, p.25)............................163
15: Google Maps Digital Timeline for New York City's Freedom Tower (Gesenhues, 2014)
....................................................................................193
16: Salk Institute (Salk Institute for Biological Studies, 2014).......................204
17: STEED Activity Diagram.............................................................207
18: STEED Use Case Diagrams............................................................208
19: Building Monitor Dashboard, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), 2013.. 211 20: Potential STEED design interface example, designed by NREL graphic designers, 2013
...................................................................................212
21: foursquare.com page for NREL's Visitor Center (foursquare.com, 2013)...............214
22: TakeBack App, http://takebackapp.com, May 2014.....................................215
23: Morgan Fire Sign Twitter, pic.twitter.com/dXhls4q22L, May 2014.....................216
24: STEED design interface example 1, NREL graphic designers, 2013.....................218
25: STEED design interface example 2...................................................219
26: Sample STEED Interfaces............................................................222
27: Example of data visualization, NREL, 2013..........................................226
28: STEED Concept Diagram..............................................................227
xvii


29: Pilot Pilot Messages on Facebook Messenger with Friends of the PI, September 2013
..............................................................................229
30: Pilot Pilot Comfort Survey Responses, RA's Friends, October 2013.............230
31: MobyPicture's Map Feature for Residence Life Comfort and Energy Use Survey
Responses, March 2014.........................................................232
xviii


CHAPTER I
DESIGN AND UNEXPECTED CONSEQUENCES: GIVING ACTORS A VOICE
Introduction
The way buildings are designed now, there is very little feedback from use involved in the design process. "Although they are disproportionately more expensive than cars, audio or electrical and electronic equipment, buildings are very rarely revisited and reassessed once they are handed over to their users" (Meir et a I, 2009, p. 190). Attempts to correct this problem have been made in the form of Post Occupancy Evaluations (POEs) for about the last 50-years, beginning in the late 1960s (Preiser, 1995, p. 19; Preiser, 2001, p. 9; Meir et a I, 2009, p. 190), but they have largely failed (Cooper, 2001; Brand, 1995; Zimmerman & Martin, 2001; Hadjri & Crozier, 2009). POEs are the accepted method for environmental designers to collect feedback about buildings in use and are generally comprised of "surveys including walkthroughs, observations, user satisfaction questionnaires, and semi-structured and structured interviews" (Meir et a I, 2009, p. 190) conducted with building inhabitants after the building is built (Vischer, 2001, p. 25; Preiser, 2001, p. 11), and monitoring building performance aspects such as energy management, lighting, acoustics, temperature, humidity, durability of materials, and amount and distribution of space (Vischer, 2001, p. 23; Preiser, 2001, p. 9). POEs are "well represented in the literature.... [as a method] to develop knowledge about the long-term and even the short-term results of design
1


and construction decisions.... to accumulate knowledge so as to inform and improve the
practices of building-related professionals" (Vischer, 2001, p. 23) and are encouraged by environmental design professional groups and organizations, like the National Academy of Environmental Design (NAED) and the American Institute of Architects (AIA), but are generally an afterthought and not funded as part of the build process (Cooper, 2001).
"The barriers to widespread adoption of POE are cost, defending professional territory, time, and skills" (Vischer, 2001, p. 23), each of which will be discussed in the following paragraphs. The "estimated cost of... POEs ranges from 50 cents a square foot... to anywhere from $2.50 upward.... [typically] the range of charges for investigative-type POEs [a thorough comparison of the facility performance compared to other similar facilities] is between $15,000 and $20,000.... amounting to approximately $1.00 per square foot evaluated [in 2001 U.S. dollars]" (Preiser, 2001, p. 13). While this figure may seem high, since POEs are typically conducted by "large institutional owners and managers of real estate inventory [with comparatively large building budgets].... [t]he cost barrier is not caused by the high costs of doing POE" (Vischer, 2001, p. 23). The cost barrier is caused by the "structure of the real estate industry, namely, who pays for POE?" (Vischer, 2001, p. 24). POE is not generally part of the "architect's fee, the construction bid, the move-in budget, or the operating budget of the building.... [t]his means that money to finance any POE activity, however small, must be found on a case-by-case basis" (Vischer, 2001, p. 24).
In addition to assigning responsibility for payment of POE costs, "[defending professional territory is a barrier because POE is, after all, evaluation, and evaluation
2


implies judgment.... [n]o active building professionals seek to have their work judged by
outsiders as part of a process over which they have no control" (Vischer, 2001, p. 24).
While building professionals may agree on the potential value of POE to inform building
planning and practice, the industry as a whole often regards POE researchers with
suspicion and hostility (Meir et a I, 2009, p. 191).
[T]heir work may cause friction between different stakeholders (including architects, consultants, clients, owners, managers, and users) and between these and the authorities (planning and health, for example), expose some of them to liability lawsuits, and others to potential demand for upgrade investments. This institutional and professional fragmentation of authorities, perspectives and liabilities has hampered the uptake of POE as a self-evident part of the design and construction professions and industry, [emphasis added]
(Meir et a I, 2009, p. 191)
Building construction projects are complex and extremely time-sensitive. "Every new building project has a rushed and constraining schedule, and every stage is carried out under unbending time pressures" (Vischer, 2001, p. 24). The building construction planning process is also "rapidly increasing in difficulty with a continuous loss in confidence by clients" (Gidado, 1996, p. 213). While it's known that "rushed and fast-tracked projects often lead to costly change orders and bad long-term decisions.... [g]oing back for a follow-up look at a building... is not bound by the time pressures of new projects" (Vischer, 2001, p. 24). With no one accepting responsibility for the cost or additional time to conduct a POE, the POE "finds no place in the phases of a conventional building project" (Vischer, 2001, p. 24).
"In spite of considerable reflection and writing by academics and researchers, there is no particular technique or tool associated with POE studies" (Vischer, 2001, p. 24). Since it is "hard to compare the results of such studies due to lack of uniform,
3


standard procedures and protocols" (Meir et a I, 2009, p. 190), POEs are often seen as
one-off case studies conducted by non-practitioners. The term POE "has come to be applied to a wide range of different activities.... [defined] so broadly... that no one individual is likely to have all [the skills] needed... and therefore [POEs tend] to fall through the cracks" (Vischer, 2001, p. 24). "It has been claimed that unless a systematic approach is taken for the benchmarking of buildings, improvement of current practices is left to a haphazard process that does not necessarily promote sustainability" (Meir et al, 2001, p. 190) or improvement in building design.
Other products, or artifacts1, are receiving feedback about the design in use from public online critiques in a manner that would have been unimaginable 50-years ago, when POE was first implemented. "Whereas designers expend considerable resources in examining the actual functioning of and user satisfaction with everyday commodities (especially successful ones), and in refining their design accordingly, this is not the case with buildings" (Meir et al, 2009, p. 190).
We know that building designs produce unexpected consequences. In my research, I discovered building inhabitants in a highly energy efficient commercial building taking temperature control into their own hands, causing an increase in energy use of up to 13% over projections. A 2008 study of energy performance for Leadership
1 Artifact in this dissertation refers to something that is "man-made as opposed to natural" (Simon, 1969/1999, p. 4). An artifact refers to anything that can be designed and can be physical, such as a building, a pen, a computer, etc., or it can be symbolic, such as a photograph, a map, language, a drawing, etc.
4


in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED the U.S. Green Building Council's certification system for highly energy efficient and sustainable buildings) demonstrated that "[w]hile the average LEED Energy Star Rating is favorable... one quarter of these buildings had ratings below 50, meaning they used more energy than average for comparable existing building stock" (Energy performance of LEED for new construction buildings, 2008). Feedback from the building in use, as opposed to pre-build models or an unoccupied building, could be used by environmental designers to avoid a similar consequence in future designs or correct the consequence in past or current designs. This is the type of information POEs are meant to provide but, with such a low rate of implementation in the building process, they have failed to convey this feedback to designers.
The absence of feedback from buildings in use has become more relevant with the need to design sustainably (Meir, 2008). The current global conditions that necessitate building more sustainable buildings include:
[a] continuous rise in the consumption of energy, both per capita and in absolute terms;
buildings in industrialized countries consume some 40-50 per cent of overall energy, from 'cradle-to-grave', but primarily during the operational part of their lives (heating, cooling, ventilation, lighting, etc.)
the realization that fossil fuels are being depleted and that their use has adverse environmental, health, social, political and security implications;
people in industrialized countries (but not only!) spending 80-90 per cent of their lives in buildings, living, studying, working, entertaining themselves, consuming and even exercising, which means that the indoor conditions can have a strong imprint on well-being, health and productivity (Pearson, 1998; Wargocki et al, 1999). The indoors is, in a very real sense, the human 'environment', [emphasis added]
(Meir et a I, 2009, p. 190)
5


Since buildings constitute such a large part of the human environment, it's
important to research the effects of buildings on their inhabitants. While "[m]any actors participate in the use of buildings, including investors, owners, operators, maintenance staff, and perhaps most important of all, the end users (i.e., actual persons occupying the building [or inhabitants])" (Preiser, 2001, p. 9), it's necessary to focus research about building performance on the building inhabitants "and their needs as they are affected [the most] by building performance" (Preiser, 2001, p. 9). A recent study revealed that, not only are building inhabitants affected by building performance but that "74% of the aspects of building performance are highly correlated with the occupants' satisfaction" (Nawawi & Khalil, 2008, p. 59).
In order for environmental designers to act on feedback from the building in use, which includes feedback from building inhabitants, designers need to have access to that feedback and all actors interacting with the building design need to have an easy, inexpensive, and accessible method to submit feedback. Feedback from buildings in use can be submitted, collected, and accessed by actors via modern networked mobile computing at potentially no cost to any of the actors, essentially negating one of the big cons of conducting POEs. Another POE con that potentially could be eliminated by this methodology is a reliance on POE training and/or skills that active building professionals more than likely don't have. A ready-made system designed to collect feedback from buildings in use would in a sense have the skills built-in so the building professionals would not have to be trained in how to administer a POE or the myriad quantitative and qualitative roles needed to ask the right questions and analyze the data.
6


With easy access to feedback from buildings in use, environmental designers
would be able to go beyond pure speculation about how their designs perform in use and develop design rationale that takes into account the actual consequences of using the design. "[D]esign rationale is the documentation not only of planning by designers but also of (a) the feedback from actions that challenges design decisions, and (b) the creative thinking of designers in response to such challenges" (McCall, 2010, p. 21). With feedback about the design in use readily available to apply to the development of design rationale, building designers, owners, and operators would be negligent if they chose to ignore the feedback or failed to deal with the feedback in future building designs. This is one of the cons of conducting a POE for active building professionals but one that needs to be overcome if building designs are to be improved through access to information about the real building environment in use, as it has been overcome for other product designs in the age of public, online reviews (Decker & Trusov, 2010).
Without checking expected outcomes against actual outcomes, we don't know if buildings in use fulfill the designer's expectations (or the inhabitants' expectations, for that matter). Since the use situation is not predictable in the sense that it is not possible to fully represent actual use in a model or plan (Suchman, 1987), without information about the building design in use, we also don't know if the design had unexpected side and after effects, or unexpected consequences. The only way to learn about both expected and unexpected consequences from the building design in use is to gather feedback from actors using the building and from the building itself. "[I]n all cases of design as situated cognition action produces feedback that results in a breakdown of
7


expectations, and... this promotes reflection aimed at the generation of new design ideas... to deal with the source of the feedback [emphasis in original]" (McCall, 2013, p. 34). Feedback from the use situation can be used to evolve design rationale, or information that informs the designer's reasoning, that can be applied to past, current, and future designs.
While there is much in the literature condoning the use of POE to improve building design and lamenting the lack of POE, there is virtually nothing suggesting how to improve this situation. In this dissertation, I propose that, in addition to implementing mobile networked computing as a method to democratize POEs and allay expense, training, and skill concerns, it is also necessary to develop a new framework that supports applying information from inhabitants, other actors, and buildings in use to create design rationale. Any information that informs designers should be considered design rationale not just the initial reasoning of the designer. In environmental design, we know the information provided as feedback from the design in use informed the designer by the creation of better buildings and an improved built environment as measured by POE, but POE is not often utilized so, as a result, we don't have the feedback from use and don't know if we are creating better or worse buildings. It's not enough to apply new technological advances to this problem. To support this new form of design rationale, a theoretical framework that supports gathering information inexpensively and easily from the situated use of buildings, that focuses attention on feedback from actors involved in the use of buildings, identifying and categorizing
8


activities taking part in buildings, and reflection on expected and unexpected outcomes
is required.
"Currently, none of the rationale methods that deal with design decision making
explicitly models the ways in which evaluative feedback leads to the generation of new
design ideas" (McCall, 2013, p. 13) and furthermore, "[t]o date, the literature on all
rationale methods except [Scenario Claims Analysis] SCA (Carroll and Rosson 1992) has
dealt exclusively with rationale as planning" (McCall, 2013, p. 23). If we are to deal with
the post-planning, post-implementation type of feedback that comes from actors using
a building, Schon's theory of reflective practice provides the best theoretical model to
use in creating this new type of design rationale.
Schon saw design as an alternation between an intuitive process he called knowing-in-action and a type of reasoning he called reflection-in-action.... Reflective practice is repeated alternation between knowing-in-action and reflection-in-action. Schon describes the designer as engaging in an ongoing "conversation with the situation" (1983, p. 76). This is a view of design as a type of situated action, in that it sees design reasoning as intertwined with and informed by action.... When the situation "talks back," the "backtalk" is evaluative feedback that reveals the consequences of the actions taken. The purpose of the resulting reflection-in-action is to devise new ideas for how to act...
(McCall, 2013, p. 24)
Schon's theory of reflective practice does not explicitly deal with feedback from use or with the multitude of actors involved in any building design. "Schon's (1983) theory of reflective practice does not cover the sort of situated cognition in which feedback from implementation and use challenges a designer to revise the design" (McCall, 2013, p. 34). It also does not take into account the fact that there are more actors involved in the design process than simply the designer and the client. The
9


building inhabitant, or user, is not considered, nor is the designer's removal from the
use situation and dependence on feedback from users in order to receive the backtalk and apply it to reflection-in-action.
Despite its lack of focus on feedback from use and actors other than the designer and client, Schon's theory of reflective practice gives us the framework necessary to utilize back-talk from the use situation to develop reflective design rationale and, therefore, predictive value in that we are able to compare the expected outcomes of applying the rationale to the real outcomes from the application in situated use. However, it doesn't give us the terminology or the focus on human activity necessary to understand the built environment in use and standardize POE. "[T]he built environment exists to support the activities of users that it shelters" (Vischer, 2008, p. 234). The objectives put forth for Universal Design2, recommended for application to buildings, "refer to the attributes of products or environments that are perceived to support or impede human activity" (Preiser, 2001, p. 15). Since support for human activity is at the heart of what buildings are meant to do, activity theory gives us a useful map of human activity and a common language to use to discuss the elements of human activity in the built environment, including the actors, their roles, sociocultural environment, local or regional rules, history, and community expectations (Nardi, 1996; Kaenampornpan &
2 "The goal of universal design is to achieve universal design performance of designs ranging from products and occupied buildings to transportation infrastructure and information technology that are perceived to support or impede individual, communal, or organizational goals and activities." (Preiser, 2001, p. 15)
10


O'neill, 2004; Kofod-Petersen & Cassens, 2006). Activity theory is not, however, predictive (Nardi, 1996, p. 75; Kaptelinin, 1996, p. 113; Basharina, 2007, p. 87).
In this dissertation, I expand Schon's theory of reflective practice by combining his theory with a modified version of activity theory, using activity theory to enrich reflective practice and create Reflective Activity Systems Theory (RAST). RAST is a new theoretical framework that takes advantage of the synergy between Schon's theory of reflective practice, with its predictive value and focus on both the actor's expectation and disappointment of expectation, and activity theory, which focuses on human perception of the world through activity. RAST addresses two problems: 1) the problem that, while clear and persuasive, the examples Schon provides do not explicitly deal with feedback from use or the multitude of actors involved in the design and use of a building, and 2) activity theory provides a framework for mapping human activity that is not available in other theoretical frameworks but it does not have predictive value.
RAST allows us to step away from mapping the idiosyncrasies of individual users and gives us the opportunity to understand the types of activities people engage in.
Mapping and understanding activities maximizes the value of the generalized knowledge received and gets at the heart of knowledge that is a matter of principle, rather than idiosyncratic individual facts. Generalized knowledge can be applied and reused in the design of multiple buildings for multiple use situations. A focus on the activities actors engage in, the roles actors take in those activities, and the embedded sociocultural environment those activities take place in allows us to understand the stake those actors have in the design process. Activity theory provides the perspective
11


we need to map and understand activities. Combined with the theory of reflective
practice to create RAST, the two theories together provide a robust theoretical
framework that supports the need to be able to apply feedback from the built
environment in use to develop reflective design rationale and the terminology and
categories needed to effectively apply reflective design rationale to real human activity
in the built environment. In this dissertation, I will use environmental design case
studies to explore applying RAST to the situated use of designed artifacts.
When considering feedback from situated use and how it can be used in
reflective practice, it's important to note that not everyone involved with the building
may be interested in the feedback. "[0]ccupant evaluations must state explicitly whose
values are referred to in a given case....[a] meaningful evaluation focuses on the values
behind the goals and objectives of those who wish their buildings to be evaluated, in
addition to those why carry out the evaluation" (Preiser, 2001, p. 9). As noted by Vischer
(2001), some actors may have a vested interest in blocking the feedback and, if they
have power and control over what happens to the feedback, they will block it. It has
always been difficult to characterize the roles of actors involved with designed artifacts.
With the RAST framework, we can specify the roles and rules for all of the actors. This
makes it clear which actors may have an inherent conflict of interest and who may try to
restrict feedback. Because of this, it's important to ensure the feedback can be
delivered publicly, anonymously, freely, and easily, without relying on designers or other
actors who may not want the feedback to sponsor the feedback system.
Once POE exists outside the protected framework of a case study research project, another set of barriers present themselves in the form of
12


dissemination of the information yielded by the study. As long as the POE is carried out as academic research, the sanctioned forms of academic research dissemination are available (publication in journals, conferences, etc.). However, in the practical world of building design, construction, and management, most organizations have no established system for knowing how to process, direct, and act on the information they receive from a POE. This may cause the information not to go anywhere, and it becomes a reminder to decision-makers not to repeat the experience.... Many organizations that initiate POE are unclear as to why they want the information, what information they want, to whom it should go, and how they are expected to follow up on it. Several organizations familiar to the author have explicitly required that the results whether positive or not of a POE survey not be disseminated. (Vischer, 2001, p. 30)
The analysis presented in this dissertation will be informed by a thorough evaluation of the theory of reflective practice, activity theory, environmental design, and cognitive science research. From this analysis, I develop the following contributions. First, the Reflective Activity Systems Theory (RAST) theoretical framework, which provides a new method to develop design rationale based on feedback from situated use and a focus on the activities users engage in. Second, I suggest the design of an activity information system, Socio-Technical Environments for Evolutionary Design (STEED), which provides an interactive platform for actor and artifact feedback from situated use. Third, I discuss implications for practice by discussing how the feedback from actors and artifacts in situated use can be used to create reflective design rationale.
The Designed Environment and the Inhabitant
Although it may be argued that there is no part of the natural world untouched by man now that we're in the Anthropocene, or Age of Man, geological era (Kolbert, 2011), this dissertation focuses exclusively on man-made environments, or designed
13


artifacts. The National Academy of Environmental Design (2011), or NAED, defines environmental design as follows:
Environmental design addresses the impact of the built environment on individuals and the natural world and creates a wide range of interventions informed by human and environmental systems.... Environmental design comprises architects, planners, landscape architects, interior designers, preservationists, building technology specialists, and researchers from a wide range of disciplines. Their shared body of knowledge and professional skills affect communities, landscapes, buildings, products, and the individuals who occupy and use them.
Whether or not an individual environmental designer is concerned primarily with the impact of the built environment on individuals and the natural world, I will refer to all designers involved in these professions as environmental designers and consider them engaged in the design of artifacts that are or will become part of the built environment and collectively involved in the field of environmental design.
I will also describe building inhabitants as inhabitants, "who may play an active role in the maintenance and performance of their buildings, as opposed to 'occupants', who are passive recipients of predetermined comfort conditions" (Cole et a I, 2008, p. 324). The term inhabitant implies engagement with the environment and, perhaps, a willingness to communicate and maintain a dialog with environmental designers regarding the built environment. Building inhabitants have the potential to provide "[t]he dynamic, integrated, and participatory dimensions of this new context for comfort [which is] paramount as designers aim for greater levels of sustainable structures and systems and move away from the more conventional emphases on automation, uniformity, and predictability" (Cole et al, 2008, p. 324).
14


The Structure of the Dissertation
This dissertation intends to add to the body of knowledge in the emerging field of inquiry regarding the role of ongoing feedback into the design process. This area of inquiry is rare in design disciplines. I will utilize environmental design case studies and sustainability issues to explore the theories about how this feedback model could work.
I will examine how ongoing feedback about building inhabitant satisfaction with sustainable development and green buildings3, building inhabitant comfort requirements and adaptations, and building inhabitant feedback about the built environment in use can be applied to environmental design. I will explore the idea that we cannot simply prescribe sustainable design but rather have a pressing need to find ways to include the multitude of actors involved with any building in the formation of design rationale to create an inclusive design process and "to include the urgency of climate change and an evolving concept of agency at the individual and social level of building users" (Cole et al, 2008, p. 324). In addition to building inhabitants, the role of the other actors, including the designer, involved with the designed artifact needs to be more fully examined, understood, and considered in the design process. A focus on the types of activities actors engage in while interacting with the built environment is crucial
3 Green buildings are somewhat nebulously defined as buildings that are high performance, energy efficient, non-toxic, environmentally responsible, or have a healthy building design. There are specific green building standards defined by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), known as the Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design, or LEED, certifications, as well as green building standards defined by many other countries around the globe.
15


to understanding how the building works for the actors. "[H]uman activities and thinking are dependent upon interchanges with the world" (Fischer, 1994, p. 221). Inhabitation comprises "ongoing, dynamic encounters between buildings; their constituent elements; and spaces, inhabitants, visitors, design, ergonomics, workers, planners, cleaners, technicians, materials, performances, events, emotions, affects, and more" (Kraftl & Adey, 2008, p. 214). "They remind us that through the process of inhabitation building users, experts, material and immaterial things encounter one another in a myriad of complex, choreographed and unexpected ways [emphasis in original]" (Jacobs & Merriman, 2011, p. 213).
NAED (2011) lists its mission as the promotion of "the flourishing of individuals, communities, and the natural world through the sustainable design and stewardship of human and natural environments." The purpose of NAED is to address the "pressing and catastrophic challenges" facing the United States and the world, "including precipitous climate change, species extinction, and a wide range of epidemics and toxins affecting human health." The challenges environmental designers face in attempting to design the built environment to help solve these rapidly looming issues, or at least not to add to them, require that the way they design changes radically and without the luxury of waiting for the natural evolution of environmental design craft to catch-up to the current crisis. The intention behind this dissertation, in part, is to investigate the role of feedback from built environment inhabitants and a collective environmental design feedback and design rationale system in creating a new way of designing buildings that may accelerate the evolution of environmental design.
16


In this dissertation, I will not claim to have the answers to solve the
environmental crisis. I will not develop the information system to support Reflective Activity Systems Theory (RAST) in practice. I will not recommend a blueprint or model for the ideal house, office, or other structure.
Goals
The ultimate goal of this dissertation is to first inform scholarly discourse around the subject of feedback from actors interacting with designed artifacts and from the artifacts themselves in use as a means of documenting design rationale and then to suggest a framework that may begin to guide the creation of an activity system4 intended to support the exchange of ongoing feedback about the built environment in a public forum. To that end, I will conduct an inquiry into the role of reflective practice and activity theory in design practices. I will modify activity theory and extend reflective practice in order to create a new theoretical framework that addresses shortcomings of each individual theory and combines them to create Reflective Activity Systems Theory (RAST). This inquiry is in response to the current lack of reflective conversation between the actors who interact with designed artifacts, including the designers. I approach the question "What (if any) role does feedback from actors interacting with designed
4 An activity system is made up of the components described in activity theory: subjects/actors/people, tools/artifacts/instruments/resources, object/purpose/motive, actions/tasks, outcomes (planned, intended, unintended), goals, and community/rules/relationships/division of labor.
17


artifacts in use play in the development of design rationale grounded in reality?" as a
three-stage process.
First, I review the literature regarding the role of feedback in reflective practice and situated cognition. I examine and define reflective practice and situated cognition and discuss how the theory of reflective practice can be applied to design practices.
Second, I review the literature regarding activity theory. I examine and define activity theory, then modify the theory with a focus on simplification and operationalization.
Third, I define a new theoretical framework that combines the theory of reflective practice and a modified version of activity theory, called the Reflective Activity Systems Theory, or RAST. This new theory defines a collective reflective conversation between the actors interacting with designed artifacts, in particular the built environment, and extends reflective practice into the ongoing development of design rationale based on the real use of the artifact.
Next, I develop the design for an information system that supports RAST. This system is called the Socio-Technical Environments for Evolutionary Design, or STEED. It is my hope that this prototype will be further refined and developed as an information system used to collect and disseminate information about the use and design of the built environment. I illustrate the importance of inhabitant feedback in the design of the comfortable, sustainable, energy-efficient built environment. I suggest that inhabitant feedback provides the structure to ground research on the relationship between people
18


and their environments in a world struggling with the dichotomy of providing ever more
comfortable and sustainable environmental designs.
Finally, I present initial findings from my own research into gathering inhabitant feedback about the built environment in use. I consider this research a first step in creating and testing the viability of STEED.
Methods
This dissertation follows in the footsteps of theoretical traditions established in reflective practice, activity theory, environmental design, and cognitive science research. My research builds on theoretical process models developed by Schon, Le'ontev, Engestrom, Nardi, Kuutti, Kaptelinin, Bordass, Hasan, and others by integrating the theory of reflective practice and the framework of activity theory. The hypothesis I develop from this integration is further informed and tested against research, documentation from the literature, and first-person accounts.
The methods employed in this dissertation are used with the intention of developing a testable theory. As there is no current public system available for collecting and disseminating ongoing inhabitant feedback about the built environment in use, this dissertation is primarily a theory building effort.
The first model I develop through this method is the Reflective Activity Systems Theory, or RAST, theoretical framework. The model is derived from reflective practice and uses as its starting point Schon's (1983) work on reflective practice. It extends this work by integrating reflective practice with a modified version of activity theory.
19


Reflective practice and activity theory are combined to create an activity system to support a new design rationale process.
The second model is the Socio-Technical Environments for Evolutionary Design, or STEED. This model demonstrates the relationship between inhabitants and the multitude of other actors who interact with the built environment, including environmental designers. STEED is based on RAST. With this system design, I illustrate how people can adapt, critique, review, and participate in the design of the built environment to increase their satisfaction with the world they inhabit. Finally, I use STEED to discuss implications for practice by discussing how the feedback from inhabitants and other actors, including design practitioners, building operators, facilities management, building owners, the professional community of practice, and the general public can be used to create reflective design rationale for environmental design. Organization of the Chapters
This dissertation will build a theoretical argument about the role of feedback in design rationale. The task will require focus on four different literatures: reflective practice, activity theory, cognitive theory, and environmental design, organized as Chapters ll-IV.
In Chapter II, I present an overview of reflective practice and situated cognition and compare them to activity theory. This chapter examines reflective practice and demonstrates an understanding of the design process as situated cognition. It illustrates the lack of investigation into how reflective conversation may support design strategies
20


and highlights underlying issues that may help to explain the gaps between the design,
reflective practice, situated cognition, and activity theory literatures.
Chapter III presents an overview of activity theory. In Chapter III, I simplify and operationalize activity theory so it can be applied to design practices.
In Chapter IV, I combine a modified version of activity theory and the theory of reflective practice. The intention behind this chapter is to identify common principles held by both reflective practice and activity theory and how activity theory extends reflective practice by adding socio-cultural context and artifacts as a central theme. I will discuss how these theories together form the basis for Reflective Activity Systems Theory, or RAST.
In Chapter V, I develop the design for an information system called the Socio-Technical Environments for Evolutionary Design, or STEED. STEED utilizes RAST, which extends reflective practice and activity theory to describe a new model that incorporates inhabitant feedback to measure the success of environmental design efforts to achieve inhabitant comfort, sustainability, energy efficiency, function, and aesthetics, and uses this feedback to improve environmental design processes.
In Chapter VI, I will discuss my own research in testing RAST using SMS and MMS text-based surveys. This initial research could form the basis for STEED, which will be used to collect and disseminate feedback from the multitude of actors who interact with the built environment in a public forum.
In the final chapter, I provide a summary of my contributions, discuss the limitations of this dissertation, and make recommendations for future scholarly
21


investigations. In particular, I explain that what I propose here is not a fully developed
theory but rather a framework to serve as a starting point for future scholarly discussion. I suggest that the RAST theoretical framework may contribute to a body of future research including new methods of investigation into the development of reflective design rationale by providing a preliminary structure to bridge research and practice.
Listening to the Inhabitants
People have emotional, physical, cultural, social, and cognitive connections with their environments. The human designed buildings and other spaces people inhabit, called the built environment, are important to their internal well-being and external connection with the world (Rapoport, 1982; Koskela & Pain, 2000; Bitner, 1992; Hull & Harvey, 1989). Despite this strong connection with the built environment, the inhabitants of these designed spaces are often not asked what they would prefer in their immediate space. If building inhabitants are asked about how they feel about their environmental space, they are generally asked as part of a formal, one-time only evaluation of the space (Cooper, 2001). "Designers and builders are trained to undertake building work and hand over the keys, not to look into what happens afterwards" (Bordass & Leaman, 2013, p. 1). Inhabitants of the built environment don't often have the opportunity to give feedback about the environment in use to the designers of that environment. Environmental designers also have not had a forum to gather information on an ongoing basis from inhabitants about their satisfaction levels with the designer's work. As environmental designers work to continuously improve the
22


spaces they design, especially in light of climatic change and the need to conserve energy we face now, they do so with very little of the feedback, or back-talk as Schon calls it (1983), from the environment in use that is required to learn about what works and what doesn't according to the inhabitants of those spaces (Way & Bordass, 2009, p. 5) and other actors who interact with the designed artifact. Without that feedback, environmental designers are effectively designing in the dark. This dissertation aims to explain the importance of back-talk to the design process and to propose options to provide access to give and receive ongoing feedback about the built environment in use in a public forum.
How do we know if buildings work for their inhabitants?
Since environmental designers are engaged in the design of the built environment, where there are many complex physical variables to be considered, the designs produced tend to have unexpected consequences. Unexpected consequences are surprises that represent the situation generated by the design implementation talking back to the environmental designer. This back-talk from the situation gives the designer an opportunity to reflect upon how to deal with this feedback (Schon, 1983, p. 79). The relevance of the back-talk is that it raises questions for the designer about what to do with this unexpected feedback. The back-talk provides initial design rationale that stimulates additional rationale. Collecting and communicating information about the consequences of environmental design implementations to the designer can inform his or her design solutions. Sharing and continuously gathering information about the consequences of environmental design implementations with and from building
23


inhabitants, environmental design practitioners, the multitude of actors who interact
with any given building, and the general public has the potential to change the way we look at building design "[s]ustainability will not be reached by technology alone, but by deep learning by individuals, groups, professional societies and other institutions" (Brown & Vergragt, 2008, p. 2).
Since architects and other environmental designers often don't experience the
results of their design work personally, they don't know if their designs function as
solutions to the design problem they set out to solve (Way & Bordass, 2009). Often
buildings are designed for aesthetics but don't fulfill the promise of being livable,
comfortable spaces for the inhabitants. "[A]rchitectural forms may be open and
conceived more in terms of connection, line, shape, form and continuity between
interior and exterior, rather than say, enclosure" (Jacobs & Merriman, 2011, p.214),
comfort, or function. Even if the space is beautiful, if it's uncomfortable, inhabitants will
make design modifications in order to make the space more comfortable, if possible. If
designers don't get the necessary feedback to fix the design, inhabitants will go into
workaround mode, likely in a method the designer would find displeasing, or abandon
the structure if there is no acceptable workaround. For example, glass walls may have
the look the designer wanted but that same designer would be displeased to find the
glass walls covered in foil and paper because the space is too bright for the inhabitants.
[inhabitants and users are necessarily everyday designers, or at least redesigners: intervening in the fabric of a building (knocking a door through here, changing a window there, wall-papering everywhere) or re-programming its planned for activities (using a study as a bedroom, a dining room as a lounge, a former factory as an art gallery, a window to suicide by).... Architectures require ongoing maintenance and repair, sometimes by their inhabitants, at other
24


times from individuals with specialist expertise.... These 'experts' acquire specialist knowledge through training, apprenticeships and by practical experience about the performance of building materials and systems.... All too often, the history of architecture and city building has been a history of ignoring or under-valuing the practical knowledge of 'ordinary inhabitants'.... [emphasis added]
(Jacobs & Merriman, 2011, p. 216)
An extreme example of inhabitant discomfort is that of the Modernist Pruitt-lgoe high-rise towers built in Saint Louis, Missouri, as a public housing project in 1954 (depicted in Figure 1 below) (Bristol, 1991). While the towers were initially praised for their design, the elevators and hallways designed to promote community association "proved to be opportune environments for violent crime... residents were threatened and attacked by gangs, who used these spaces as hangouts" (Bristol, 1991, p. 166).
Many people fled the Pruitt-lgoe towers and, in 1972 (just 18-years after they were built), three of the towers were demolished, with the remaining 30 towers being imploded over the next four years (Bristol, 1991).
Figure 1: Pruitt-lgoe Towers, Saint Louis, Missouri, Date unknown... but after 1963 and before 1972, United States Geological Survey, Public Domain Image
25


Most people rely on word-of-mouth reviews and critiques to assist in making
decisions. Presumably, word-of-mouth reviews of Pruitt-lgoe may have deterred potential inhabitants from moving there. "The importance of word-of-mouth... communication is widely accepted.... studies have shown that [word-of-mouth] communication affects consumer attitudes on a wide range of products.... [a]s with traditional [word-of-mouth] communications, online consumer reviews are important for driving the actions of consumers" (Lee et a I, 2008, p. 341). Building inhabitants have never been given the opportunity to post public building reviews in the way that consumers do now with online reviews about other products and services. The fact that people will take a picture of a product and post it online with comments to prove there is a problem with the product, where the problem is, and, often, their own solutions to the problem means that people feel empowered to take action to get the problem fixed. That's one role for technology empowering people to detect and report problems with the artifacts they deal with (King & Brown, 2007; Sawhney & Prandelli, 2005; Cova & Pace, 2006; Romero & Boria, 2009). Building inhabitants can be reliable problem detectors. Many buildings are also now equipped with sensors that measure energy usage, ambient temperature, humidity, lighting, and/or other environmental factors. Information gathered directly from building sensors can be combined with building inhabitant provided information to give building designers a rich picture of the inhabitants' experience of the building that is not otherwise available (Kintner-Meyer, 2005; Vischer, 2009).
26


Problems with buildings are not the fault of the inhabitants, they are caused by
the designer's solution having unintended consequences or by the designer's intentions mismatching the inhabitants' wants and/or needs. Sometimes it is precisely the designer's intended consequences that the building's inhabitants don't like (Kraftl & Adey, 2008).
Since the 1980s... geographies of architecture have been dominated by textual, symbolic, and iconographic approaches to "reading" landscapes that have exposed the inherent, divisive power relations that are written into landscapes. Empirical work in a variety of contexts (from shopping malls to cathedrals) has demonstrated that architecture can be a form of code-making, or control, and that certain visual clues are used to symbolize something other than the immediate time and place of the building.... Although signs and symbols are important elements lubricating certain actions (and precluding others), this focus on symbolism represents only one approach to the diverse styles in which architecture facilitates inhabitation. There is a sense that purely "reading off" symbolism does not attend to the tremendous amount and variety of work that is necessary to create or perpetuate those symbols, or to understand buildings' more affective, tactile, sensual effects. There are many nitty-gritty, material-performative details that are so important to both architects' designs and users' experiences that evade perhaps all (visual) symbolism. On the whole -with certain exceptions such details have remained underresearched [sic]... [emphasis added]
(Kraftl & Adey, 2008, p. 214)
If the designer doesn't get the building design right from the inhabitant's point-of-view, the inhabitants might turn into unauthorized, rogue designers and re-design their spaces to meet their needs as they see them (Jacobs & Merriman, 2011). People exercise control over their environment whether they're licensed to do so or not. Adaptations will happen and, if designers don't accept that adaptations will occur if inhabitants' needs are not met, the adaptations will occur in a way that the designer may not find desirable "from the everyday adjustments that come from being with architecture; or as an effect of effort and intent that might be inclined in another
27


direction but which necessarily or incidentally takes architecture along with it" (Jacobs &
Merriman, 2011, p. 216). From a 1992 POE study of energy efficient buildings, Heerwagen and Diamond list some coping mechanisms of building inhabitants as "the addition of fans, desk lamps, removing some of the ceiling lamps, and covering up or over-riding automatic daylight control sensors" (p. 83). In my research I conducted an interview-based survey at a military Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)5 certified gold building. Many of the interviewees volunteered that they brought space heaters (and possibly fans) to the building because the military standard of building temperatures at 62 degrees Fahrenheit in winter and 80 degrees Fahrenheit in summer were uncomfortable and the inhabitants took matters into their own hands. All of the coping mechanisms listed here contribute to higher-than-modeled energy use for these energy efficient buildings and probably a different aesthetic than the designer intended.
As Schon acknowledges (1983, pp. 76-77), the lines between architecture and other design disciplines such as engineering, planning, and industrial design, have become blurred and building a building is an interdisciplinary endeavor. "[T]he figure of the autonomous, controlling architect-designer has been replaced by the fact of
5 The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification program is the United States Green Building Council's (USGBC) rating system for developing energy efficient and sustainable buildings. Sustainable development was defined by United Nations (UN) World Commission on Environment and Development's 1987 Brundtland Report as development that "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Brundtland, 1987).
28


architecture's 'dependency' on the many others that have a hand in the making of a
building" (Jacobs & Merriman, 2011, p. 215). The interdisciplinary character of the
design process means there will be more unexpected results. In addition to complicating
environmental design with the involvement of multiple disciplines, the technological
revolution we are currently undergoing means that the rate of technological change is
accelerating. Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns (2004) tells us that the rate of
technological growth we are seeing is exponential. Of course, the nature of exponential
functions is that the growth rate itself grows exponentially. This is apparent as the focus
of design for the built environment has shifted toward highly energy efficient,
sustainable, and smart buildings. This situation allows for even more complexity in the
real world with multiple disciplines involved in ever more sophisticated environmental
design endeavors. The environmental designer is forced to:
[E]valuate the integration of an eco-design principle into their standard design.... [and] complications arise from the trade-off with other design issues such as cost, and from a lack of knowledge in how to apply eco-design by the design engineer.... These complications are especially apparent in the case of a complex product [like a building].... Furthermore, complex products result in longer design phases (compared to simple products).... Currently there are [sic] a lack of eco-design methods that can help a design engineer grapple with the trade-off dilemma when faced with tightening legislation and designing more complex energy using products.
(Grote et al, 2007, p. 4100)
With technological changes and disciplinary overlap, there are going to be many more unforeseen consequences than those in traditional, old school environmental design. The more we do things we haven't done before, the more we're going to be surprised by the results. The law of unintended consequences tells us that exponential growth and change lead to exponential unintended consequences. As Merton states:
29


[0]ne may say in general that consequences are fortuitous when an exact knowledge of many details and facts (as distinct from general principles) is needed for even a highly approximate prediction... 'chance consequences' are those which are occasioned by the interplay of forces and circumstances which are so complex and numerous that prediction of them is quite beyond our reach.
(Merton, 1936, pp. 899-901)
Unintended consequences are the nature of the game in any new discipline because there is no explicit knowledge to draw upon and new disciplines tend to cause unintended consequences which indicate accelerating change (Brand & Karvonen,
2007). We need to take this accelerating technological change seriously as something environmental designers need to measure and manage (Brand & Karvonen, 2007). Using Intel CEO Andy Grove's notion that if you can't measure it, you can't manage it6 if you can't detect it, you can't manage it. Designers need to be in the business of detection, reflection, and correction. As Cross comments in 1972 when discussing participatory design7 practices:
[Professional designers in every field have failed in their assumed responsibility to predict and to design-out the adverse effects of their projects.... These harmful side effects can no longer be tolerated and regarded as inevitable if we are to survive the future.... There is certainly a need for new approaches to design if we are to arrest the escalating problems of the man-made world and
6 "If you can't measure it, you can't manage it," or derivations thereof, is an old business adage. I've seen this attributed to William Edwards Deming, Peter Drucker, and Andy Grove, among others. While I can't find any verification that Andy Grove actually said this, his writings and other quotations certainly support this as an idea. Grove has been indirectly quoted in multiple non-academic sources as having said this.
7 Participatory design in the modern usage can be defined as a research methodology used to understand the ways people perform their everyday activities and how those activities might be shaped productively by design intervention (Spinuzzi, 2005).
30


citizen participation in decision making could possibly provide a necessary reorientation.
(Cross, 1972, p. 11)
The designer's work is often introduced as an individual endeavor but it's actually a collaboration between the actors involved in the design process, including the designers, clients, building owners, developers, engineers, construction personnel, and, sometimes, future inhabitants (Jacobs & Merriman, 2011). Future inhabitants arguably have the largest potential critiquing role but they are generally silent, in that they are not involved in the design process. That paradigm is beginning to shift but, "as it is practiced today, is focused more on the exploration and identification of presumably positive future opportunities than it is on the identification and amelioration of adverse consequences" (Sanders & Stappers, 2008, p. 8). In addition, the idea of co-design8 or co-creation9 is becoming popular with researchers (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Tseng & Piller, 2003; von Hippel, 2005; Seybold, 2006, Sanders & Stappers, 2008) but, while not generally used in practice for product design, co-design "is being espoused as a powerful new tool for product naming, packaging, promoting, and advertising" (Sanders & Stappers, 2008, p. 8).
[W]e could talk not (only) about participation at the moment of decision but about participation at the moment of idea generation... We can begin the preparation for this radical change. As a prognostician, I don't think this change
8 Co-design refers "to the creativity of designers and people not trained in design working together in the design development process" (Sanders & Stappers, 2008, p. 6).
9 "[C]o-creation [refers] to any act of collective creativity, i.e. creativity that is shared by two or more people.... [it] is a very broad term with applications ranging from the physical to the metaphysical and from the material to the spiritual.... co-design is a specific instance of co-creation" (Sanders & Stappers, 2008, p. 6).
31


will take place before the end of the [twentieth] century. We will have to suffer first from the lack of foresight of our fathers and forefathers. After that, something radically different can come, but it won't come on its own: it has to be prepared.
(Jungk as cited in Cross, 1972, p. 122)
In addition to co-design and co-creation, in recent years, the term design thinking has come into vogue to describe the strategies that designers employ when creating designs. Design thinking is being used as a way to add value throughout the "business value chain and is no longer found at the end of the product/service development process in terms of mere styling or branding" (Ugas & Kohtala, 2011, p. 516). "Design thinking refers to characteristics of the design process that designers learn in their training, practices and approaches that can be adopted also by non-designers in innovation processes in order to strengthen creativity and solution refinement:
32


brainstorming10 and ideation11, reiteration12 and prototyping13, and abductive reasoning14 combined with an empathetic mindset" (Ugas & Kohtala, 2011, p. 516). Many of the strategies mentioned in design thinking require a team approach or critiquing and reviewing by knowledgeable actors. When applying design thinking to environmental design, building inhabitants are in the best position to comment on the building in use as critics and reviewers of the building because they are the only participants in the process who have real world experience inhabiting the building (Bordass & Ruyssevelt, 2010).
10 Osborn defines a brain-storming session as a group of individuals developing ideas concerning a problem, for a period of a few minutes to an hour, under the guidance of a facilitator. The facilitator states the problem and the group then generates ideas, following the guidelines: (1) no criticism of any idea; (2) idea modification or combination is encouraged; (3) the goal is to generate many ideas; and (4) no idea is too outrageous to be mentioned (Osborn, 1957).
11 Ideation is defined as idea generation. Marketing literature has defined ideation as an approach for developing new products that includes: customer-value-determination processes, ethnography and participant evaluation, customer-value-change process understanding, product analyses, technological breakthroughs, and tapping into experience, with creativity and scenario generation as the outcomes of following this approach (Flint, 2002).
12 Reiteration in design is the process designers go through where they generate design solutions that seem to match the problem constraints given but, as the designer works through the solution, he or she finds that the proposed solution does not match one or more of the constraints, so a new design iteration, or reiteration, of part of the design sequence is required to match the given constraints (Eastman, 1968).
13 A prototype is "a model of a structure or apparatus (or a product); used for testing and evaluating form, design fit, performance and manufacturability; used for study and training.... usually constructed to prove design concepts, evaluate design alternatives... and often just to present a product" (Wang, 2002).
14 Abductive reasoning is the process of determining the meaning based on the experience. In other words, we are surprised by the situation and make an inference that then becomes commonplace to us (Shank, 1998).
33


Buildings and other environmental designs have traditionally been artifacts that
have evolved over time in a certain way that we may not necessarily be able to explain
(Steadman, 1979). What's happening now is the nature of buildings is changing very
quickly and we don't have the luxury of waiting for the new changes to slowly evolve
into something that works. We need to find ways to speed up the natural evolutionary
design process. The team approach suggested by design thinking and co-design may be
a way to develop design rationale grounded in the experience of the reality of designed
artifacts in use quickly by incorporating the expertise of the inhabitant and other actors
involved with designed artifacts in the design process. Alexander makes the argument
that the traditional approach to buildings won't work anymore because of the rate of
change and we, as designers, have to become explicitly aware of these things.
Here is the problem. We wish to design clearly conceived forms which are well adapted to some given context. We have seen that for this to be feasible, the adaptation must take place independently within independent subsystems of variables. In the unselfconscious situation this occurs automatically, because the individual craftsman has too little control over the process to upset the pattern of adaptation implicit in the ensemble. Unfortunately this situation no longer exists; the number of variables has increased, the information confronting us is profuse and confusing, and our attempts to duplicate the natural organization of the unselfconscious process self-consciously are thwarted, because the very thoughts we have, as we try to help ourselves, distort the problem and make it unclear to solve.
(1964, p. 73)
Reflective Practice
Buildings are designed with the eventual inhabitant in mind but inhabitant feedback about the suitability of the building design is generally not a central part of the design process, neither before nor after the building is built (Way & Bordass, 2005;
34


Zagreus et al, 2004). This failure to learn lessons from the building design and construction process is "a kind of collective amnesia" (Derbyshire, 2001, p. 79). The more complicated buildings are as they incorporate more new technologies and become more energy efficient, the more feedback from inhabitants and from building systems is required in order to successfully design buildings that are smart, energy efficient, comfortable, and satisfying to the inhabitants (Darby, 2008; Spencer & Sain, 1997; Gill et al, 2010). While learning to incorporate new technologies makes environmental design more complex, the integration of some of these technologies, such as computerized devices, into the built environment gives us an opportunity not only to make buildings smarter but to gather crucial information about the experience of the built environment in a way that does not require labor intensity on the part of the designer or building inhabitant (Steele & Clark, 2012; Roussac & de Bear, 2010; Hewlett et al, 2012) and give designers the opportunity to reflect on the impact of their design solution in situated use.
Schon's (1983) theory of reflective practice examines the role of feedback, or back-talk, from the situation and how this feedback is an integral part of the design process. Schon presents a view of design (and other professional domains) and the processes designers (and other professional practitioners) use when working through solving a problem in terms of knowing-in-action and reflection-in-action. Knowing-in-action refers to the type of knowing practiced by professionals that is "inherent in intelligent action" where the "know-how is in the action" [emphasis in original] (Schon, 1983, p. 50). Reflection-in-action refers to the process of thinking about something
35


while doing it, often occurring when "intuitive performance leads to surprises, pleasing
and promising or unwanted" (Schon, 1983, p. 56). Successful outcomes rely on the practitioner testing ideas and dealing with back-talk from the situation when the results aren't as planned, the practitioner is surprised by the results, or the action produces additional effects that the practitioner hadn't considered. "[Creativity is significantly influenced by people reacting and making sense out of breakdowns as they occur in the creation and evolution of artifacts and in reflection about them" (Fischer, 1994, p. 221).
When applying knowing-in-action, design practitioners tacitly employ their knowledge while engaging in skilled performance by making judgments and employing skills that are part of their "ordinary practical knowledge" (Schon, 1983, p. 54). While these practitioners know what to do, they may not be able to explain the criteria being employed (Schon, 1983, pp. 49-50). Differing from explicit knowledge, with knowing-in-action the knowledge is tacit and internalized to the point that the practitioner is "usually unable to describe the knowing which our action reveals" (Schon, 1983, p. 54). For example, a tightrope walker may be able to walk the tightrope with skill and adjust his or her performance to the situation at hand but cannot explain to anyone else exactly how this is accomplished (Schon, 1983, pp. 50-51). Even if he or she could explain how to walk the tightrope, the listener would still be unable to walk the tightrope based on the account given (Schon, 1995, p. 5). When the intelligence is in the action, the explanation of the action doesn't necessarily convey all the intelligence or what matters most in the performance.
36


Schon describes reflection-in-action as what happens when the practitioner's
performance engenders unexpected consequences. Surprises, or informative feedback from the situation, may cause the practitioner to reflect and to "focus interactively on the outcomes of the action, the action itself, and the intuitive knowing implicit in the action" (Schon, 1983, p. 56). The situation is reality and, although practitioners may have experienced a similar situation many times, the act of practicing their skill can't just be based on the experience of having done it in the past. Practitioners run into problems and opportunities and, often, what makes the decisive difference in the outcome is what they do as a consequence of the back-talk from reality.
Schon was the first to talk about how this sort of back-talk from the situation is central to the process of designing itself. His theory of reflective practice is considered to be a type of situated cognition (McCall, 2013; Osterman & Kottkamp, 1993; Cafferalla & Merriam, 2000; Bilda et al, 2007). In a closed-world model of problem solving15, the inquirer learns a little bit about what doesn't work. "[Djesign worlds are not closed but open-ended" (Fischer, 1994, p. 223). In an open-ended problem solving model16, which is what environmental design practitioners encounter, much more happens in the way of unexpected consequences (Bargh et al, 2008). Taking ongoing feedback from the environment into account is central to the effective practice of environmental design -
15 The closed world model of problem solving assumes that the inquirer has a complete knowledge of the world and the problem.
16 The open-ended problem solving model assumes the inquirer has an incomplete knowledge of the world and of the problem to be solved.
37


"[i]n particular, we call for attention to how those affects are experienced and negotiated, in practice, via inhabitation" (Kraftl & Adey, 2008, p. 228). When the results produced are unexpected, the designer needs to reflect on what to do with that information, rather than retreating from the situation or writing the results off as a failure.
As Schon describes the Positivist, or traditional, account of problem solving, it is a technical procedure that separates means from ends (Schon, 1983, p. 165). Compared to the traditional model of problem solving, Schon's model of reflective conversation with the situation is elevated to a new level "[i]n their problem setting, means and ends are framed interdependent^.... [a]nd their inquiry is a transaction with the situation in which knowing and doing are inseparable" (Schon, 1983, p. 165). It's a much more complex phenomenon where the designer is constantly learning about the problem and reframing the problem as a consequence of this ongoing feedback. Schon understands the role of back-talk from the real world the unexpected consequences of actions and how they trigger the reflection that's going to make the decisive difference in the quality of the end product.
In the reflective conversation practitioners have with the situation, traditional problem solving isn't effective. The effectiveness of traditional problem solving is "measured by its effectiveness in achieving a pre-established objective" (Schon, 1983, p. 165); research is separate from practice and "rigorous practice can be seen as an application to instrumental problems of research-based theories and techniques whose objectivity and generality derive from the method of controlled experiment" (Schon,
38


1983, p. 165); and knowing is separate from doing so "action is only an implementation
and test of technical decision" (Schon, 1983, p. 165). In contrast, the design practitioner can enhance his or her capacity for reflection-in-action by "studying] the ways in which practitioners frame problems and roles" (Schon, 1983, p.309) to help "practitioners become aware of and criticize their tacit frames" (Schon, 1983, p.309).
As Schon tells us, the Positivist epistemology of practice separates means from ends so "instrumental problem solving can be seen as a technical procedure to be measured by its effectiveness in achieving a pre-established objective" (Schon, 1983, p. 165). In contrast, reflective practitioners "frame the problem of the situation" and "[i]n the ensuing inquiry, action on the situation is integral with deciding, and problem solving is a part of the larger experiment in problem setting" (Schon, 1983, p. 165). The inquirer frames and re-frames the problem as he or she remains open to the situation's back-talk, adopting a type of double vision so that he or she can act but still be open to changing the course of action as new confusions and uncertainties arise within the situation (Schon, 1983, p. 164). Through "seeing as and doing as" [emphasis in the original] the problem is framed, new models of the situation are made and tested, and the testing allows the inquirer to "achieve satisfactory moves or to surface phenomena which cause them to reframe the situation" (Schon, 1983, p. 166).
Design practitioners learn from repetition and from personal experience (Schon, 1983). For architects and other environmental design practitioners, the experience of designing a building is removed from the experience of inhabiting that building (assuming the designer is not designing for his or her own office or residence). When
39


discussing the architect's role in evaluating the success of his or her building design, Brand mentions "a remarkable study of fifty-eight new business buildings near London [where] researchers found that in only one case in ten did the architect ever return to the building and then with no interest in evaluation" (1995, p. 66). Because of this removal from the experience of the use of the building, the knowledge that would be gained from the designer experiencing the reality of the building may not occur or be applied by the designer to the design of the next building. In addition, the practice of building modern, highly energy efficient, sustainable, and smart buildings is new, giving practitioners little real world knowledge to draw upon.
While Schon focuses on reflection-in-action (1983), he discusses two other types of reflection that practitioners engage in: reflection before the act, which can be considered a type of planning; and post-mortem reflection, or reflection after the act is completed. It can be argued that any type of reflection is valuable in some way to the professional practitioner. However, back-talk from the situation only comes from action and reflection-in-action comes during a time when that reflection could still make a difference in the outcome. Schon concentrates exclusively on the value of reflection-in-action. To Schon, it's not necessarily about changing what you did; it's about understanding what these unexpected consequences imply for the situation at hand.
As Suchman (1987) points out, plans are a means to prepare for action but all they are is preparation that can be used or abandoned during the situation. Suchman aggressively pursues the notion that action is never entirely based on plans. "As ways of talking about action, plans as such neither determine the actual course of situated
40


action nor adequately reconstruct it" (Suchman, 1987). The term situated action is used
throughout this text. It's acquired from Suchman's 1987 publication Plans and Situated Actions, where the "term underscores the view that every course of action depends in essential ways upon its material and social circumstances" (Suchman, 1987, p. 50). In a similar vein, Schon describes the process an architect goes through when sketching plans for a building. The plans are made, then tested, then re-made until the solution seems to be satisfactory (Schon, 1983, p. 166).
When discussing the ramifications of planning on a large scale, Schon argues that the entire basis of American centralist planning in the mid-1960s was based on two flawed assumptions: 1) that "(t)here is a working consensus about the content of the public interest, sufficient for the setting of planning goals and objectives" and, 2) that "(t)here is a system of knowledge adequate for the conduct of central planning" (Schon, 1983, p. 206). The plans put in place based on these assumptions at the time had unintended side effects and either failed to solve the problems, made the problems worse, or created new problems. While modern city planning has changed substantially since the 1960s, Schon's city planning example shows that plans are often put in place to accomplish a stated purpose but actually make the situation worse in the long run. A situation that arises as the result of well-intended planning, that appears to be an initial success (like the Pruitt-lgoe towers mentioned earlier in this chapter), can actually be worse than before the plan went into effect. The after effects are an inevitable consequence of what the planner intended to do. In the case of unintended after effects, the planner needs to rethink the original intentions. As Broome tells us,
41


"[intending to do something is not a reason to do it" (Broome, 2001, p. 100), or the
intention to reach an end does not justify the means. To the extent that those things
intended are themselves means to some higher goal, the planner needs to determine
whether there are alternative means of achieving those higher goals.
Schon maintains the process of planning has value. Plans are valuable to the
professional because they function as a way to explore the proposed situation and
determine possible problem-solving moves. "Hypothesis testing has the limited function
of enabling them to achieve satisfactory moves or to surface phenomena which cause
them to reframe the situation" (Schon, 1983, p. 166). Similarly, when discussing plans in
the military, Eisenhower famously uttered the following:
... Plans are worthless, but planning is everything. There is a very great distinction because when you are planning for an emergency you must start with this one thing: the very definition of 'emergency' is that it is unexpected, therefore it is not going to happen the way you are planning... So, the first thing you do is to take all the plans off the top shelf and throw them out the window and start once more. But if you haven't been planning you can't start to work, intelligently at least... That is the reason it is so important to plan, to keep yourselves steeped in the character of the problem that you may one day be called upon to solve--or to help to solve.
(Eisenhower, 1957)
Eisenhower is talking about the importance of being familiar with the problem. Rittel called this the problem-scape, which is the list of all the issues and potential answers and arguments for and against those potential answers (1972). It's why re-use of knowledge can happen often if, and only if, the designer knows the underlying rationale because the designer is not going to re-use the solution or rubberstamp it onto something else. The designer needs to understand how the rationale fits or doesn't fit and, without understanding why it was done, the designer does not know how to
42


change it (Schum & Hammond, 1994). Much of what's going to make the information
collected after implementation valuable is an understanding of the rationale.
Designers need to be able to articulate design rationale because, while the solution is not going to be used again, the understanding of the design problem, or rationale, can be applied to other designs (Schum & Hammond, 1994). Design solutions are evaluated mainly in terms of their consequences. The reflective practitioner is getting feedback about unexpected consequences that can be applied to past, current, or future situations. "[Creativity is enhanced if design and its rationale are considered not merely as planning for future action for example, implementation and use but also as a type of situated cognition in which design is shaped by feedback resulting from action" (McCall, 2010, p. 12). The traditional mode of planning, does not take into account the opportunity to incorporate feedback to reframe the problem during the design process, as Schon tells us, "[g]iven the separation of knowing from doing, action is only an implementation and test of technical decision" (Schon, 1983, p. 165). Design practitioners frame and reframe the problem at hand as they work through different solutions.
To apply knowledge gained from experience, the design practitioner needs to find a way to gather continual back-talk from the situation in order to both "act in accordance with the view he has adopted" and "break it open later to make new sense of his transaction with the situation" (Schon, 1983, pp. 163-164). The information gathered from back-talk also needs to be shared by and with building inhabitants and other actors involved with the design (including the designer), other design
43


practitioners, and the public to engender a collective discussion with the aim of continuously improving building design. Weick et al tell us, when discussing high reliability organizations, "one means to learn even though trial and error is limited, is by broadening the set of errors that are available from which to learn and by instituting practices that encourage people to report all of those errors that are detected" (2008, p. 40). Back-talk from the situation is a way of reporting unexpected consequences, or surprising side-effects, as they arise.
The accepted method for environmental designers to gather information about buildings in use has been a survey and in-person interview process (called a Post Occupancy Evaluation, or POE) that is conducted after the building is built (Preiser et a I, 1988) and when the situation for the designer is over. POEs are time-consuming, expensive, unreliable, uncommon, unshared, and tend to be conducted once, right after the building is built (Brand, 1995, pp. 65-66). POEs as they are conducted now do not provide the continual back-talk needed by environmental designers (Alexander, 2010, p. 15). POEs are also a type of post-mortem reflection. "[A] cognitive postmortem [can be defined as] the practitioner looking] back on her experiences to explore again the understandings she brought to them in the light of her outcomes" (Greenwood, 1993, p. 1185).
Similar to planning, post-mortem reflection can yield some useful information for the practitioner to use in future situations. The issue with post-mortem reflection is that the situation is over. When you throw a pitch and the ball doesn't go where you thought it would go, it may be useful to talk about what happened later but the pitcher
44


needs to improve now, in the middle of the game, and reflect-in-action about how to
adjust his or her pitching to the situation at hand, in order to be successful. The back-talk from the situation informs the pitcher's next pitch and the sequential actions performed as a result of the back-talk provide feedback for the next action (Schon,
1983, pp.54-55). While the post-mortem reflection may provide some value, the situation is over so the reflection is no longer in action but after action. Schon refers to "research undertaken outside the immediate context of practice" as reflective research (Schon, 1983, p. 309). While he does see value in this type of research, the value mainly lies in becoming aware of factors that either fostered or impeded reflection-in-action for the practitioner (Schon, 1983, p. 321). The difference between post-mortem reflection and gathering continual back-talk from the situation-in-use is that post-mortem reflection is a one-time endeavor and it is not concerned with or informed by the situated use of the designed artifact.
Schon showcases architectural design as a model of practitioners applying feedback from the situation to their work, but he does not specifically talk about what happens after the building is built. Most architects begin work on a design problem by sketching design solutions, either on paper or using digital models. Sketches are a great way to work out problems but they are only a representation. Sketching is a "process in which partial and rudimentary representations are produced, evaluated, transformed, modified, refined, and replaced by others.... since they involve ill-structured problemsolving, it is not clear at the outset where the process is leading to, and what the end result might be" (Goldschmidt, 2002, p. 72). A representation doesn't include all the
45


information that will be contained in the actual building. Sketches are not a replacement
for the real world. We can't put a world in our head, much less on paper. Representations are abstractions that don't contain information about what will happen when the design is implemented. Even very detailed models, like energy-use simulations produced for LEED certified buildings, are no guarantee of performance. "Realizing that we are trying to integrate a large set of interacting actors, design stages, tools, enterprise-aspects, etc., we must acknowledge that no short term- solutions exist....[c]ertainly, any attempt to produce a complete and final solution would prove to be over-ambitious" (Augenbroe, 1992, p. 150).
A recent study determined that 28-35% of the LEED buildings studied actually used more energy than their conventional counterparts (Newsham et al, 2009, p. 904). Like the pitcher who can't take back a bad throw, a building implemented as planned may not work out. For architects the "bad throw" is more permanent. When do you want the bad news before or after the building is built? Schon under-emphasizes the outcome of the action. What happens once the design is implemented? What do we do about it then?
Schon also discusses reflective practice in terms of the designer's interaction with the design or in terms of reflective conversation between the design practitioner and client, presumably before the design is implemented. Schon does not take explicitly take into account the multitude of other actors involved with the designed artifact and their role in the development of design rationale.
46


Getting Feedback to Environmental Designers
In the context of our society, the environmental design professional is a service provider and projects on the scale of a building or other environmental design mean the designer has many clients, or actors involved with the outcome of the design (Schon, 1983, pp. 290-291). Reflective practice does not free practitioners from worrying about the consequences of their actions. Instead, it allows the practitioner to engage in a reflective conversation with the client(s). "Here the professional recognizes that his technical expertise is embedded in a context of meanings.... his actions may have different meanings for his client than he intends them to have, and he gives himself the task of discovering what these are" (Schon, 1983, p. 295).
The practitioner displays a "recognition that one's expertise is a way of looking at something which was once constructed and may be reconstructed; and there is both readiness and competence to explore its meaning in the experience of the client"
(Schon, 1983, p. 296). In turn, the competent client also functions as a reflective practitioner who engages in reflective conversation with the practitioner. This interactive reflective conversation between client and professional can involve the client in stimulating reflection on knowledge-in-practice for the professional and allow the client to exert some control over the situation (Schon, 1983, p. 302).
To support reflective conversation between environmental designers, building inhabitants, and other actors involved with the building, a public forum in the form of a
47


social network site17 is needed that will: 1) allow building inhabitants to submit reviews
of the built environment in use; 2) allow other actors to view, submit reviews, and information about the building; and 3) allow environmental designers to access these reviews, comment, and submit solutions and new design models for critiquing. This forum should have information from building sensors and other automated building information systems, building systems information, building information modeling (BIM)18, if available, and comments and questions from the professional design community and the general public. An important factor to the success of this type of public forum is that it needs to be sponsored and implemented by actors who do not have a reason to stifle the public feedback. Maintaining this impartiality is also an important reason to keep the forum and the information contained therein public. In the case of environmental design, the sponsors should not be designers, building owners, or building management as these actors may have a disincentive to support public feedback about the building. As we've seen with online product reviews for other
17 Social network sites are defined as "web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of
connections and those made by others within the system.....the nature and
nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site" (Potts et al, 2008, p. 167).
18 The National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) defines Building Information Modeling (BIM) as: "[a set of models that utilize] cutting edge digital technology to establish a computable representation of all the physical and functional characteristics of a facility and its related project/life-cycle information, and is intended to be a repository of information for the facility owner/operator to use and maintain throughout the life-cycle of a facility" (Ashcraft, 2008, p. 5).
48


types of designed artifacts, the review process has become commonplace in public forums like those on Web sites owned by Amazon, Netflix, and even retailer sites, like Best Buy, Sears, Target, etc., and is considered to be a type of word-of-mouth communication (even though the communication is generally between strangers) (Lee et al, 2008). These reviews are not controlled by the product designers, owners, operators, or builders so the sponsorship is relatively independent, if we ignore the possibility of paid negative or positive reviews (Chatterjee, 2001).
Activity Theory
Reflective practice provides a rich theoretical basis for design practice but does not give us a sufficient model to apply to the complexities of design or a clear way to specify the actors interacting with the designed artifact, their roles, the local or regional rules involved, and the socio-cultural and historical factors involved with the artifact. Activity theory provides a framework for mapping human activity that is not explicitly part of the theory of reflective practice. At its most basic level, activity theory posits that human consciousness is subjective, shaped by history, social, and cultural experience, and that human activity is fundamental to human consciousness, formed by the tools that we use, and, in turn, humans change the tools we use and the tools change us. "In other words, all human activity is purposeful, is carried out through the use of 'tools' and is essentially social" (Crawford & Hasan, 2006, p. 50). Tools, including language, are what separate us from other animals and humans can only be understood in terms of the tools we use (Vygotsky, 1934/2012). To activity theory purists, this description of activity theory may seem over-simplified but the operationalization of activity theory
49


requires this simplification in orderto take it from a purely philosophical endeavorto a
useful framework.
For designers, the great potential of activity theory is to provide an organized and consistent way to investigate, describe, and understand the larger context of activity within which use of a software tool or other artifact is embedded.... however, the somewhat vague formulations and expressions of activity theory need to be made more precise and accessible.
(Constantine, 2009, p. 28)
"Activity theory provides the vocabulary and conceptual framework for understanding the human use of tools and other artifacts" (Constantine, 2009. P. 27). In a complementary fashion to activity theory, Schon's reflective practice provides the impetus for the notion that back-talk from human use of tools or artifacts (for example, from the built environment) is something that designers want and need to collect. Like the theory of reflective practice, activity theory is a type of situated cognition but, different from reflective practice, activity theory is considered to be social situatedness19 (Lindblom & Zimke, 2003; Swain & Deters, 2007; Rasmussen, 2001). Activity theory provides the social framework to use in support of reflective practice for design practitioners.
Activity theory is a socio-psychological theory that has been applied in Europe, particularly Russia and Northern European countries, since the first half of the 20th
19 Social situated ness is the theory that "[i]t is likely that the aspects of human intelligence that are deeply rooted in our society may be as important as those rooted in our physical embodiment, due to the peculiar importance of language for us....
[h]umans are above all social beings, and it seems that it is our sociality which makes us human" (Edmunds & Dautenhahn, 1999, p. 201).
50


century (Hasan, 2006, p. 50), and developed alongside but independent of Anglo-American social sciences (Kuutti, 1996, p. 25). It has its roots in the work of the Russian psychologist, Lev Vygotsky, whose seminal publication, Thought and Language, was translated into English in 1962 and is considered to be a foundational work in cognitive science (Vygotsky, 1934/2012, p. ixx). Yrjo Engestrom is widely credited with bringing activity theory to the Western academic consciousness with his 1987 work, Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. Activity theory was initially adopted in the West by the education community and has since been adapted by enthusiasts in many disciplines, including psychologists, anthropologists, linguists, sociologists, human performance technologists, knowledge management specialists, philosophers, information systems (IS) engineers, and human computer interface designers (Nardi, 1996, p. 10; Marken, 2006, p. 27 ; Hasan, 2002).
This dissertation will concentrate on a modified version of activity theory combined with an expanded version of Schon's reflective conversation as a framework for the formation of design rationale. This framework is called Reflective Activity Systems Theory (RAST). RAST will be utilized in the design of a system intended to be an interactive online public repository for information and communication about the built environment in use that extends reflective practice into the an interactive and collective community of practice.
As a design domain that deals with the design of complex designed artifacts and a design discipline with a relatively large body of research and literature available, Human-computer Interaction is an appropriate discipline to examine and mine for
51


concepts that can be applied to other design disciplines. "Human-computer Interaction
(HCI) is the area of intersection between psychology and the social sciences, on the one hand, and computer science and technology, on the other" (Carroll, 1997, p. 501). Activity theory has increasingly entered the HCI conversation as an alternative to the perceived limitations of the cognitive psychology research agenda (Carroll, 1997, p. 511). HCI has been trending toward a more social agenda over the past 30 years. Carroll maps this trend as a result of four independent developments: 1) by 1990, it was clear to the majority of the HCI community that cognitive modeling "had failed to provide a comprehensive paradigm" for their research; 2) many in HCI "suggested that [a] more socially or organizationally oriented approach was required to supplement or replace the cognitive paradigm"; 3) there was a growing concern that the usability movement was unintentionally becoming a "vehicle for de-skilling and disempowering workers" by reducing the skill required to perform work requiring the use of computing technology; and 4) "new technologies for communication and collaborative activity swept through the computing industry and raised significantly new challenges and opportunities for HCI" (Carroll, 1997, pp. 511-513).
As Lewis (1990) tells us, the need to consider context in HCI is paramount. Cognitive theory before 1990 did not have much focus on perception or how the environment shapes behavior in the context of social and organizational processes and cognitive modeling minimized the importance of focusing on the users' experience (Lewis, 1990, p. 129). In the 1990s, "[ajnthropologists and sociologists joined what had been largely a cognitive psychology project.... [and] European perspectives on
52


technology and work began to penetrate the discourse of what had been a somewhat
insular American and British endeavor" (Carroll, 1997, p. 512). The HCI community
directed more attention at "understanding situated and distributed cognition"20 and
began to focus on context and social factors (Carroll, 1997, p. 512).
Carroll tells us that activity theory is by far the "most theoretically rich alternate
paradigm" to cognitive theory for the HCI research community (Carroll, 1997, p. 512).
The factors that make activity theory such a good fit with HCI are:
[T]he ensemble of technological factors with social factors, and of individual attitudes, experiences and actions with community practices, traditions and values.... [emphasizing] that these ensembles are inherently contingent and changing, that human activities are mediated and transformed by human creations, such as technologies, and that people make themselves through their use of tools.
(Carroll, 1997, p. 512)
Other HCI researchers seem to agree a recent Google Scholar search for "activity theory and HCI" resulted in ~168,000 results, with ~150,500 of those results from articles and books published since 2010. With its focus on tools and the mediating role that tools have in all human activities and mental processes, and the ubiquitous role that computerized tools have in our modern lives, activity theory is a particularly useful framework to apply to HCI and other design modes focused on the development of tools and other artifacts, like buildings building "architecture is one of the many 'envelopes' within which human activity proceeds" (Jacobs & Merriman, 2011, p. 213).
20 "Distributed cognition asserts as a unit of analysis a cognitive system composed of individuals and the artifacts they use.... [that] moves the unit of analysis to the system and finds its center of gravity in the functioning of the system" (Nardi, 1996, p. 77).
53


Since the system I propose to design is a collaborative information system, utilizing HCI
as the communication mechanism, and a focus on large-scale tools and artifacts (the built environment), activity theory is an ideal framework to apply to this system.
In activity theory, "[t]ools or artefacts refer to culturally produced means for changing the environment and achieving goals" (Gould et a I, 2000, p. 3). Beyond the technological revolution we've experienced with the advent of the computer, the global, interactive, ubiquitous nature of the Internet has brought computer-based tools into the full spectrum of tools available to mediate human activities: "primary (tangible, external or physical), secondary (internal, semiotic or mental), and tertiary (schematics where mind and culture act together such as environments or ecosystems)" (Crawford &
Hasan, 2006, p. 50). Wartofsky, an activity theorist and contemporary of Engestrom, tells us that primary artifacts are tools used directly in "the production of the means of existence and in the reproduction of the species" (for example, shelter, hunting and farming tools, transportation, clothing, computers, telecommunications networks, etc. -Vygotsky refers to these as technical tools) (Wartofsky, 1979, p. 200). Secondary artifacts "are those used in the preservation and transmission of the acquired skills or modes of action or praxis21 by which this production is carried out" (for example, language, counting systems, writing, diagrams, research methods, theoretical models, etc. Engestrom refers to these as the 'how' and 'why' Vygotsky refers to these as
21" 'Practice' (Praxis)... represents merely an emphatic term to describe the whole of human action (in contrast to 'theory' and mere thinking" (Reckwitz, 2002, p. 49).
54


psychological tools) (Wartofsky, 1979, p. 200). "Secondary artifacts make it possible for
practitioners to take an overall view of their activity, and then to reflect on it, as well as to collect and save their experiences as potential material for further development of the work" (Virkkunen & Pihlaja, 2004, p. 35). Tertiary artifacts "do not have a direct representation function but instead serve the free construction in the imagination of tools, rules and operations that are distinctively different from those adopted for the praxis.... (for example, games, play, imagination, dreams, visions for the future, etc.) (Virkkunen & Pihlaja, 2004, p. 35).
For designed artifacts to be most effective as tools, they must be suited to the operational context in which they are actually used and deployed.... this requires that the design fit with the purpose(s) of the activities within which the use by subjects takes place.... it also requires that the designed artifacts effectively support the combined actions by which these purposes are advanced.... [and] a well-designed artifact takes into account the community of participants, their roles, and the rules regulating their activity, [emphasis added]
(Constantine, 2009, p. 30)
Activity theory provides the framework for mapping human activity, including the community, actor roles, rules in place, and a focus on the activity and its importance to human cognition. Activity theory is not, however, predictive (Nardi, 1996, p. 75; Kaptelinin, 1996, p. 113; Basharina, 2007, p. 87). Schon's (1983) theory of reflective practice is a predictive model. As Kaufmann and Mann tell us, "[i]t is the predictive value of theory that is of practical value.... [reflection in... practice extends this view by proposing that theory and practice inform each other.... we can learn from our experience in an ongoing iterative process" (2010, p. 12). Reflective practice and activity theory are synergistic theoretical models that, combined, enhance each other and
55


address deficiencies in each theory. Reflective practice gives us the means to bridge theory and practice and activity theory gives us the conceptual framework and language to discuss the multitude of actors involved with a designed artifact. Together, the two theories combine to create a Reflective Activity Systems Theory (RAST) that can be used to develop design rationale based on feedback from situated use.
56


CHAPTER II
REFLECTIVE PRACTICE, SITUATED COGNITION, AND ACTIVITY THEORY: THE ROLE OF REFLECTIVE CONVERSATION IN DESIGN
Highlights
Schon (1983) discusses reflective practice as a reflective conversation with the situation involving two activities: intuitive knowing-in-action and explicit reflection-in-action. This chapter focuses on design as a reflective practice and the activities that underlie reflective practice as a form of situated cognition. The literature has largely focused on reflective practice and situated cognition in learning environments, even though Schon applied the concept of reflective practice in his writings to design domains, like the practice of architecture, as well as education, psychotherapy, medicine, and other domains, and other authors have written about reflective practice and situated cognition as applied to human computer interface (HCI) design. This chapter examines reflective practice and demonstrates an understanding of the design process as situated cognition. It illustrates the lack of investigation into how reflective conversation may support design strategies and highlights underlying issues that may help to explain the gaps between the design, reflective practice, situated cognition, and activity theory literatures. Activity theory is compared to reflective practice and theories of situated cognition in this chapter and explored more fully in Chapter III.
57


Introduction
Review
In the first chapter, I described reflective practice and how environmental design strategies are rarely based upon feedback from use or verified through post-occupancy evaluation (POE). I also explained some of the issues with POEs and the ways they are conducted (or not conducted, as is more frequently the case). The literature on the theory of reflective practice and theories of situated cognition has focused primarily on learning environments with some literature discussing applications to HCI design. In this chapter, I will conduct a more detailed cross-disciplinary review of the literature, discuss limitations in the manner these theories are currently utilized, and suggest a more robust application of reflective conversational practices.
Thesis
I will illustrate in this chapter how a cross-disciplinary review of the reflective practice, situated cognition, and design literature is essential for understanding key issues concerning 1) why creating a relationship between design rationale, reflective practice, and situated cognition is important to move the design reflective conversation to the next level, and 2) how feedback from the artifact in use can be used to create a reflective conversation among the actors involved with the design artifact. This type of cross-disciplinary review is rare in environmental design and has the potential to open a new line of inquiry for environmental design research, as well as general design domains. This cross-disciplinary review reveals: 1) reflective conversation among actors involved with the design artifact, including the designer as an actor, is what's needed to
58


ground design strategies; 2) while Schon's theory of reflective practice comes the closest to suggesting reflective conversation as a design rationale gathering strategy, Schon doesn't recognize that there are multiple actors who need to be involved in the conversation not just the design practitioner and client; and 3) although feedback from the built environment in use has been viewed in the environmental design community as increasingly important to sustainable environmental design solutions, this feedback has not been consistently collected and has not been collected on an ongoing basis. There is a gap between the prescribed environmental design methodology and the actual environmental design practices. Implementing reflective conversational practices for design addresses this gap and allows designers to begin designing with true reflection-in-action.
Significance
This chapter seeks to illustrate the need for reflective conversation between designers and actors involved with their designs. The following review of reflective practice, situated cognition, and design literature suggests that: 1) reflective practice based on situated cognition has informed design strategies in many disciplines; 2) the theories implicit in these design strategies are cross-disciplinary in nature and can be applied to environmental design; 3) the common measure to determine the effectiveness of these design strategies is feedback from the end user (in environmental design, the end user is the inhabitant); and 4) the current industry standard sustainable environmental design strategies do not typically get reviewed by actors who are not directly associated with the design practitioner(s) following design implementation and
59


are therefore not part of a reflective conversation between designers and actors involved with their designs. The significance of this review is that it reveals the importance of collecting feedback from actors to establish reflective conversation as a method for developing design rationale for past, current, and future designs.
Sustainable environmental design strategies "rely largely on anecdote and folk knowledge, which yield inconsistent results" (Malinin, 2013, p. 24). The lack of reflective conversation among actors involved with environmental design artifacts has contributed to the inability of environmental designers to reliably create sustainable, comfortable, satisfying outcomes. There is a need for investigation strategies in environmental design practices to provide proof that the buildings and other built environmental structures we inhabit are sustainable, meet the stated design goals, and are meeting the needs of the actors involved with the design artifact. Without the data to show whether or not sustainable environmental design solutions are effective in meeting the actors' wants and needs, environmental designers are designing based on pure speculation. There is a crucial need for environmental design to consider the feedback from actors interacting with the designed artifact in situated use.
60


Reflective Practice
"Schon is (if one excepts the design theorist Rittel) the first author after Simon to introduce a new approach to cognitive design theory22.... one generally refers to Schon as the author who, through his proposal of the reflective-practice... offered an alternative" (Visser, 2010, p. 21). Simon's seminal work, The Sciences of the Artificial, defines the sciences of design as distinct from natural science his term "artificial" refers to man-made rather than natural artifacts (Simon, 1969/1996, p. xi). Newell and Simon jointly defined an approach to design problem-solving as "symbolic information processing," or the SIP approach, also referred to as symbolic processing (Newell & Simon, 1972).
According to the symbolic processing view... symbols are fundamentally involved in all cognitive activity. Every account of cognitive phenomena consists of a set of operations that construct and modify symbolic structures; that is, every cognitive process is a symbolic process. Some cognitive processes are considered as being situated, and others are apparently thought not be situated, or at least the situativity of some processes is not crucial for their scientific analysis.... [A] symbol... is a structure physical or mental that is interpreted as representation of something.... As we understand... Simon's view... the concept of symbol is used to account for all action in which cognition plays a role.
(Greeno & Moore, 1993, pp. 50-51)
Simon describes symbols as follows:
[Pjhysical patterns (e.g., chalk marks on a blackboard) that can occur as components of symbol structures.... A physical symbol system is a machine that, as it moves through time, produces an evolving collection of symbol
22 Cognitive design theory is any theoretical model used to describe designers' behaviors and cognition (or human thinking processes) during the practice of design (Takeda et al, 1990, p. 154).
61


structures. Symbol structures can, and commonly do, serve as internal representations (e.g., "mental images") of the environments in which the symbol system is seeking to adapt. They allow it to model that environment... and consequently to reason about it.... Symbol systems are called "physical" to remind the reader that they exist as real-world devices, fabricated of glass and metal (computers) or flesh and blood (brains). In the past we have been more accustomed to thinking of the symbol systems of mathematics and logic as abstract and disembodied, leaving out of account the paper and pencil and human minds that were required actually to bring them to life."
(1969/1996, p. 22)
"The SIP approach has been one of the main starting points of the 'cognitivistic'
perspective in cognitive science.... [i]n the early years of cognitive psychology, many
authors embraced this paradigm as the fundamental schema for their investigation of
cognitive activities" (Visser, 2010, p. 12). Newell and Simon used the SIP approach "for
their research into concept formation, verbal learning,... perception, ... administrative
and organizational behavior, creativity... scientific discovery, ... music and emotion"
(Visser, 2010, p. 12). Simon, without Newell, applied the SIP approach to design.
In these analyses of design, Simon identified and elaborated various characteristics of this specific problem-solving activity that have formed, for some 10 to 15 years, the basis of the approach adopted toward design by many, if not most, researchers in cognitive psychology and cognitive ergonomics who have been conducting research on design since the early 1980s. [emphasis in original]
(Visser, 2010, p. 12)
"Contrary to Simon's elaboration of a general theory of problem solving, which was based on experimental research, his work on design was analytical... Simon... has not been involved in... empirical studies on design" (Visser, 2010, p. 12). In his chapter entitled "The Science of Design" in The Sciences of the Artificial, Simon tells us that "[d]esign... is the core of all professional training; it is the principal mark that distinguishes the professions from the sciences" (1969/1996, p. Ill) and he laments the
62


natural sciences pushing design from professional school curricula -- "a development
that peaked about two or three decades after the Second World War" (Simon, 1969/1996, p. 111). He discusses the emergence of a science of design that "has been emerging since the mid-1970s" (Simon, 1969/1996, p. 113). Simon then discusses topics that he considers to be components of a theory of design. He lists these topics as:
THE EVALUATION OF DESIGNS
1. Theory of evaluation: utility theory, statistical decision theory
2. Computational methods:
a. Algorithms for choosing optimal alternatives such as linear programming computations, control theory, dynamic programming
b. Algorithms and heuristics for choosing satisfactory alternatives
3. THE FORMAL LOGIC OF DESIGN: imperative and declarative logics THE SEARCH FOR ALTERNATIVES
4. Heuristic search: factorization and means-ends analysis
5. Allocation of resources for search
6. THEORY OF STRUCTURE AND DESIGN ORGANIZATION: hierarchic systems
7. REPRESENTATION OF DESIGN PROBLEMS [emphasis in original]
(Simon, 1969/1996, p. 134)
Schon acknowledges Simon's efforts to identify and help to close the "gap between professional knowledge and the demands of real-world practice" (1983, p. 45) but Schon says that Simon preserves the model of Technical Rationality, or traditional problem solving, by "proposing a science of design which depends on having well-formed instrumental problems to begin with" (1983, p. 48). Schon maintains "the model of Technical Rationality is incomplete, in that it fails to account for practical competence in 'divergent' situations" (1983, p. 49). According to Schon, the alternative to traditional problem solving is reflective practice, which is applying reflection-in-action in the practical context (1983, p. 68). Schon describes reflective practice as follows:
63


When someone reflects-in-action, he becomes a researcher in the practice context. He is not dependent on the categories of established theory and technique, but constructs a new theory of the unique case. His inquiry is not limited to a deliberation about means which depends on a prior agreement about ends. He does not keep means and ends separate, but defines them interactively as he frames a problematic situation. He does not separate thinking from doing, ratiocinating his way to a decision which he must later convert to action. Because his experimenting is a kind of action, implementation is built into his inquiry. Thus reflection-in-action can proceed, even in situations of uncertainty or uniqueness, because it is not bound by the dichotomies of Technical Rationality.
(1983, pp. 68-69)
Schon tells us that "in actual reflection-in-action... doing and thinking are complementary.... [d]oing extends thinking in the tests, moves, and probes of experimental action, and reflection feeds on doing and its results" (Schon, 1983, p. 280). He posits that, "[i]f the model of Technical Rationality is incomplete in that it fails to account for practical competence in 'divergent' situations.... [I]et us search, instead, for an epistemology of practice implicit in the artistic, intuitive processes which some practitioners do bring to situations of uncertainty, instability, uniqueness, and value conflict" (Schon, 1983, p. 49) that is, reflective practice. "In design circles, one generally refers to Schon as the author who, through his proposal of the reflective-practice concept, offered an alternative to the SIP approach" (Visser, 2010, p. 22).
The Study of Context
Schon refers to design in terms of reflective activity, reflective practice, reflection-in-action, knowing-in-action, and reflective conversation (Schon, 1983). The activities underlying Schon's terminology are considered by many researchers to be part
64


of situativity theory, often called "situated action" or "situated cognition" (Greeno &
Moore, 1993). Suchman defines situated action as:
[N]ot made explicit by rules and procedures. Rather, when situated action becomes in some way problematic, rules and procedures are explicated for purposes of deliberation and the action, which is otherwise neither rule-based nor procedural, is then made accountable to them.... If we look at the world commonsensically, the environment of our actions is made up of a succession of situations that we walk in to, and to which we respond.
(1987, p. 54)
In other words, situated actions, or actions taken within the situation at hand, are ad hoc and, like Schon's reflection-in-action, don't require explication until the situated action has unexpected consequences. When the practitioner is in the midst of a situation that is outside his or her frame of knowledge, and the situation presents "itself as unique or unstable, the practitioner may surface and criticize his initial understanding of the phenomenon, construct a new description of it, and test the new description by an on-the-spot experiment" (Schon, 1983, pp. 62-63). This is reflection-in-action.
Situated cognition is a theory based on the premise that knowledge cannot be separated from context, that knowing is "inextricably situated in the physical and social context of its acquisition and use" (Brown et al, 1988, p. 32). Situated cognition is dependent on the body as well as the brain, it "routinely exploits structure in the natural and social environment.... and extends beyond the boundaries of individual organisms" (Robbins & Aydede, 2009, p. 3). Several theses make-up research on situated cognition, including embodied cognition, enactive cognition, embedded
65


cognition, and extended cognition23, more often called distributed cognition [my emphasis]. When discussing situated cognition, Clark posits the following three points:
1. that understanding the complex interplay of brain, body and world requires new analytic tools and methods
2. that traditional notions of internal representation and computation are inadequate and unnecessary
3. that the typical decomposition of the cognitive system into a variety of inner neural or functional subsystems is often misleading, and blinds us to the possibility of alternative, and more explanatory, decompositions that cut across the traditional brain-body-world divisions
(Clark, 1999, p.349)
Situated action models and distributed cognition are two theories that have been used by HCI design practitioners as a means to study the context, or situation, in which artifacts are used and in which actors use artifacts. "It has been recognized that... design will benefit from explicit study of the context in which users work... [t]he unaided individual divorced from a social group and from supporting artifacts is no longer the model user" (Nardi, 1996, p. 69). Three popular approaches to the study of context that have been used frequently by researchers over the past 20 years are: situated action models, distributed cognition, and activity theory.
23 "First, cognition depends not just on the brain but also on the body (the embodiment thesis). Second, cognitive activity routinely exploits structure in the natural and social environment (the embedding thesis). Third, the boundaries of cognition extend beyond the boundaries of individual organisms (the extension thesis). Each of these theses contributes to a picture of mental activity as dependent on the situation or context in which it occurs, whether that situation or context is relatively local (as in the case of embodiment) or relatively global (as in the case of embedding and extension)." (Robbins & Aydede, 2009, p. 3)
66


Situated Action Models
"Situated action models emphasize the emergent, contingent nature of human
activity, the way activity grows directly out of the particularities of a given situation"
(Nardi, 1996, p. 71). The focus of situated action analysis is "a very fine-grained level of
minutely observed activities, inextricably embedded in a particular situation" (Nardi,
1996, p. 71) and is not concerned with the social setting. "The unit of analysis is... not
the individual, not the environment, but a relation between the two" (Nardi, 1996, p.
71). Situated action came about as "a reaction to years of influential work in artificial
intelligence and cognitive science... that overemphasized the importance of plans in
shaping behavior" (Nardi, 1996, p. 72) and that "failed to treat the environment as an
important shaper of activity, concentrating almost exclusively on representations in the
head usually rigid, planful ones as the object of study" (Nardi, 1996, pp. 72-73).
Situated action emphasizes responsiveness to the environment and the improvisatory nature of human activity (Lave 1988). By way of illustrating such improvisation, Lave's (1988) "cottage cheese" story has become something of a classic. A participant in the Weight Watchers program had the task of fixing a serving of cottage cheese that was to be three-quarters of the two-thirds cup of cottage cheese the program normally allotted. To find the correct amount of cottage cheese, the dieter, after puzzling over the problem a bit, "filled a measuring cup two-thirds full of cheese, dumped it out on a cutting board, patted it into a circle, marked a cross on it, scooped away one quadrant, and served the rest" (Lave 1988).
(Nardi, 1996, pp. 71-72)
By focusing on "improvisation and response to contingency, situated action deemphasizes study of more durable, stable phenomena that persist across situations.... [t]he cottage cheese story is telling: it is a one-time solution to a one-time problem" (Nardi, 1996, p. 72). Situated action models differ from Schon's work in that Schon
67


accounts for situations that occur again and tells us encountering the same situation
many times is what leads a professional practitioner to knowing-in-action. "As a practitioner experiences many variations of a small number of types of cases, he is able to 'practice' his practice.... [h]e develops a repertoire of expectations, images, and techniques.... [and] learns what to look for and how to respond" (Schon, 1983, p. 60). Situated action is, however, like Schon's reflection-in-action, an acknowledgement that "[o]nce one looks at real behavior in real situations, it becomes clear that rigid mental representations such as formulaic plans or simplistically conceived 'rational problem solving' cannot account for real human activity" (Nardi, 1996, p. 73).
Distributed Cognition
"Distributed cognition asserts as a unit of analysis a cognitive system composed of individuals and the artifacts they use" (Nardi, 1996, p. 77). The focus of research attention is the functional system, or cognitive system, rather than the individual. "Distributed cognition is concerned with structure representations inside and outside the head and the transformations these structures undergo.... [t]his is very much in line with traditional cognitive science" (Nardi, 1996, p. 78). An example of a cognitive system follows:
Systems have goals; in the cockpit, for example, the goal is the "successful completion of a flight." Because the system is not relative to an individual but to a distributed collection of interacting people and artifacts, we cannot understand how a system achieves its goal by understanding "the properties of individual agents along, no matter how detailed the knowledge of the properties of those individuals might be" (Hutchins, 1991a). The cockpit, with its pilots and instruments forming a single cognitive system, can be understood only when we understand, as a unity, the contributions of the individual agents
68


in the system and the coordination necessary among the agents to enact the goal, that is, to achieve "the successful completion of a flight."
(Nardi, 1996, p. 77)
"Distributed cognition tends to provide finely detailed analyses of particular artifacts and to be concerned with finding stable design principles that are widely applicable across design problems" (Nardi, 1996, p. 78). A main focus of distributed cognition is on "understanding the coordination among individuals and artifacts, that is, to understand how individual agents align and share within a distributed process"
(Nardi, 1996, p. 78). The theory of distributed cognition and activity theory have much in common and it has been suggested that they may merge at some point in the near future (at least for HCI researchers).
Activity Theory
"A key idea in activity theory is the notion of mediation by artifacts.... [a]rtifacts
broadly defined to include instruments, signs, language, and machines, mediate activity
and are created by people to control their own behavior" (Nardi, 1996, p. 75). In activity
theory the unit of analysis is an activity, described as follows:
[A]n activity [is] composed of [a] subject, object, actions, and operations. A subject is a person or a group engaged in an activity. An object (in the sense of "objective") is held by the subject and motivates activity.... Actions are goal-directed processes that must be undertaken to fulfill the object. They are conscious (because one holds a goal in mind), and different actions may be undertaken to meet the same goal, [emphasis in original]
(Nardi, 1996, p. 73)
Operations are the means by which an action can be completed (for example, one operation may be to write with a pen, while another may be to write with a computer writing is the action, the pen and the computer are the operations).
69


An illustrative example of an activity theoretical object is Christiansen's Palme
case. Christiansen conducted research on the design of information systems used by Danish police. A Danish detective told her the system needed to be strong enough to handle a 'Palme case/ "referring to the largest homicide investigation known in Scandinavia, when the Swedish prime minister Oluf Palme was shot down on a street in Stockholm in 1986!" (Nardi, 1996, p. 74). Holding a system that could handle a 'Palme case' out as the objective of the entire enterprise focuses the collective attention of the actors working on this system on the desired result and allows them to direct their efforts and find the means to reach that result.
Activity theory holds that artifacts as well as people carry their own history and culture "and are persistent structures that stretch across activities through time and space" (Nardi, 1996, p. 75). "Activity theory... proposes a very specific notion of context: the activity itself is the context.... [cjontext is constituted through the enactment of an activity involving people and artifacts.... [and] not an outer container... inside... which people behave in certain ways" (Nardi, 1996, p. 76).
Similarities and Differences
Situated action, distributed cognition, and activity theory are all concerned with "the need to look at real activity in real situations and... squarely facing the conflux of multifaceted, shifting, intertwining processes that comprise human thought and behavior" (Nardi, 1996, p. 78). While situated action and distributed cognition are both considered facets of situated cognition, there are more differences between situated
70


action and distributed cognition then there are between activity theory and distributed
cognition.
In activity theory and distributed cognition, motives or goals are emphasized. Activity theory "emphasizes motivation and purposefulness" (Nardi, 1996, p. 79) and is concerned with both the individual and the collective push to achieve an activity. Distributed cognition emphasizes a system goal "which is similar to the activity theory notion of object, except that a system goal is an abstract systemic concept that does not involve individual consciousness" (Nardi, 1996, p. 79). Situated action does not consider goals or motives important to action and considers them to be something the actor interprets after the action has occurred. Situated action analyzes the subject's reaction to the environment, or situation, and it's that reaction that determines the subject's action. "People 'orient to a situation' rather than proactively generating activity rich with meaning reflective of their interests, intentions, and prior knowledge" (Nardi,
1996, p. 81).
Activity theory focuses research attention on high level consciousness, rather than low level concerns. While it may be difficult to answer questions about operations, for example, "say how you type, or how you see the winning pattern on the chessboard, or how you know when you have written a sentence that communicates well" (Nardi, 1996, p. 82), at the "higher conscious levels of actions and objects; ask a secretary what the current problems are with the boss, or an effective executive what his goals are for the next quarter, and you will get an earful!" (Nardi, 1996, p. 82). Situated action models stay in the realm of low level consciousness, with "a focus on moment-by-
71


moment actions [which] leads to detailed descriptions of highly particularistic activities
(such as pricing cheeses in a bin or measuring out cottage cheese) that are not likely to be replicated across contexts" (Nardi, 1996, p. 83).
"In situated action, what constitutes a situation is defined by the researcher; there is no definitive concept such as object that marks a situation" (Nardi, 1996, p. 82). In activity theory, "object[s] and goals [remain] constant while actions and operations change because of changing conditions" (Nardi, 1996, p. 82). Thus, a major difference between activity theory and situated action models is that, in activity theory "the structuring of activity is determined in part... by human intentionality before the unfolding in a particular situation; in situated action, goals and plans cannot even be realized until after the activity has taken place" (Nardi, 1996, p. 82).
"For both activity theory and distributed cognition, persistent structures are a central focus" (Nardi, 1996, p. 83). Two major tenets of activity theory are the historical development of activity and the use of tools. "Distributed cognition offers a similar notion... [with] 'collaborative manipulation/ the process by which we take advantage of artifacts designed by others, sharing good ideas across time and space" (Nardi, 1996, pp. 83-84). Situated action models do not tend to accommodate persistent structures. "To the extent that activity is truly seen as 'situated/ persistent, durable structures that span situations, and can thus be described and analyzed independent of a particular situation, will not be central [emphasis in original]" (Nardi, 1996, p. 84).
"Activity theory... sees artifacts and people as different.... [a]rtifacts are mediators of human thought and behavior; people and things are not equivalent"
72


(Nardi, 1996, p. 86). By contrast, distributed cognition "views people and things as conceptually equivalent; [but both] people and artifacts are 'agents' in a system.... similar to traditional cognitive science, except that the scope of the system has been widened to include a collaborating set of artifacts and people" (Nardi, 1996, pp. 86-87). Somewhat agreeing with activity theory, "situated action models portray humans and things as qualitatively different... [however] situated action models, perhaps inadvertently, may present people as reactive ciphers rather than fully cognizant human actors with self-generated agendas" (Nardi, 1996, p. 88).
Relation to Reflective Practice
Reflective practice is considered by many researchers to be a situated action model. However, while Schon says the design practitioner needs to be open to the situation's back-talk, he does not dismiss plans or goals in the way that situated action does. Schon discusses the relationship of the design inquirer with planning in the following:
[l]nquiry, however it may initially have been conceived, turns into a frame experiment. What allows this to happen is that the inquirer is willing to step into the problematic situation, to impose a frame on it, to follow the implications of the discipline thus established, and yet to remain open to the situation's back-talk. Reflecting on the surprising consequences of his efforts to shape the situation in conformity with his initially chosen frame, the inquirer frames new questions and new ends in view.
(Schon, 1983, p. 269)
While Schon does discuss social systems, particularly in terms of city or urban planning and social reform, he does not discuss design in terms of the collective, as expressed in activity theory, or the historical and cultural role of artifacts in society. He also does not discuss people and artifacts as being a part of the same functional or
73


cognitive system, or as being equivalent, like distributed cognition does. He does discuss
the cultural and historical development of traditional artifacts in an activity-theoretic
way with his description of Alexander's Slovakian shawls example as follows:
Chris Alexander, in his Notes Toward a Synthesis of Form, considers the knowing involved in design. He believes that we can often recognize and correct the "bad fit" of a form to its context, but that we usually cannot describe the rules by which we find a fit bad or recognize the corrected form to be good. Traditional artifacts evolve culturally through successive detections and corrections of bad fit until the resulting forms are good. Thus for generations the Slovakian peasants made beautiful shawls woven of yarns which had been dipped in homemade dyes. When aniline dyes were made available to them, "the glory of the shawls was spoiled." The shawlmakers had no innate ability to make good shawls but "were simply able, as many of us are, to recognize bad shawls and their own mistakes. Over the generations... whenever a bad one was made, it was recognized as such, and therefore not repeated." The introduction of aniline dyes disrupted the cultural process of design, for the shawlmakers could not produce wholly new designs of high quality, they could only recognize "bad fit" within a familiar pattern.
(Schon, 1983, pp. 52-53)
Schon discusses reflection as part of the design process in a way that activity theory, distributed cognition, and situated action models don't. Reflection is never explicitly brought up in activity theory or distributed cognition. However, activity theory and distributed cognition focus on the persistent structures of an artifact through time and space, which implies the ability to reflect upon the expected or unexpected consequences of the activity. Situated action models suggest that "we are actively embedded... in an ongoing situation that directs the flow of our actions much more than reflection or the use of durable mental representations" (Nardi, 1996, p. 80) thus dismissing reflection as unimportant to action.
74


Reflective Conversation and Ongoing Feedback
As Schon tells us, "[w]hen a practitioner becomes a researcher into his own practice, he engages in a continuing process of self-education" (Schon, 1983, p. 296) and a practitioner becomes a researcher-in-practice when he or she enters into reflective conversation with his or her clients. Schon's reflective practice, and even his reflective conversation, both focus on reflection between the designer and the situation. A reflective conversation can take place between the practitioner and the situation or between the practitioner and the client. While the conversation between practitioner and client can be very open and empowering for the client, Schon somewhat misses the point that there are many actors involved in the design process who need to participate in the reflective conversation. While it is important for the design practitioner to employ reflection-in-action, it is even more important for the design practitioner to employ refection about feedback from the designed artifact in use, which will most often only be available from actors who interact with the artifact and engage in situated use.
If we employ the persistent structures of activity theory and distributed cognition, reflection on the activity or situation can persist over time and space. The reflective conversation can continue and grow to encompass any actor who is involved in any way with the designed artifact. This combination of theories may provide the optimal environment to extend reflective conversation about designed artifacts in a manner that has the potential to profoundly impact the way designers receive and employ reality-based information about their designs.
75


CHAPTER III
THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF ACTIVITY THEORY: FROM THEORY TO REALITY
Highlights
This review and analysis of activity theory literature presents the next step toward bridging the theory of reflective practice and activity theory literatures and creating a new theoretical framework with elements of both. The activity theory literature consists largely of educational, organizational management, and psychological research, with some research focusing on Human Computer Interaction (HCI). In recent years, a handful of researchers have attempted to simplify and operationalize activity theory so it can be used as a framework for design practices, which I will address here. None of the literature addresses applying activity theory to environmental design practices and none of the literature demonstrates an adequate application of activity theory to real world design environments. In this chapter, I will further examine activity theory and suggest modifications to the theory in a manner appropriate to develop a Reflective Activity Systems (RAST) theoretical framework (introduced in Chapter IV) that can be applied to the development of design rationale.
76


Introduction
Review
In the first chapter, I briefly described activity theory and its potential promise as a means to extend the theory of reflective practice into design practices. Chapter II illustrated the need for a theoretical framework to bridge the reflective practice and design literatures. In this chapter, I will conduct a more detailed cross-disciplinary review of the activity theory literature and argue for a modified version of activity theory that can be blended with the theory of reflective practice and applied to the development of design rationale.
Thesis
I will illustrate in this chapter how a cross-disciplinary review of the activity theory literature is essential for understanding key issues concerning 1) simplifying and operationalizing activity theory, and 2) how activity theory can be modified to use as the basis for an activity information system to collect feedback from artifact24 users. This practical application of activity theory has not been adequately demonstrated in the
24 Artifact is used in this dissertation to mean anything that is man-made as opposed to natural. Simon defines artifact as "a meeting point an 'interface' in today's terms -between an 'inner' environment, the substance and organization of the artifact itself, and an 'outer' environment, the surroundings in which it operates" (1964/1996, p. 6). Simon defines the artificial, or man-made, as distinct from natural as "synthesized... by human beings....[and] characterized in terms of functions, goals, adaptation" (1964/1996, p. 5). He also says that "[a]rtificiaI things may imitate appearances in natural things while lacking, in one or more respects, the reality of the latter" and that "[a] rtificia I things are often discussed, particularly when they are being designed, in terms of imperatives as well as descriptives" (Simon, 1964/1996, p. 5). In other words, Simon's artifacts are very similar, if not the same, as Vygotsky's tools and signs.
77


literature and has the potential to provide a new line of inquiry into the uses of a modified version of activity theory. There is a gap between the literature about the potential of activity theory and actual application of activity theory to real world scenarios. Developing a new version of activity theory addresses this gap and creates a new theoretical framework which can be used to develop practical activity systems. Significance
This chapter examines, simplifies, and operationalizes activity theory. The following review of activity theory literature suggests that 1) activity theory has been used to inform design strategies in many disciplines but has yet to be applied satisfactorily to the design of artifacts outside the educational and psychological realms, 2) the theories implicit in these design strategies are cross-disciplinary in nature and have the potential to be applied to any designed artifact, 3) the recent attempts to simplify and operationalize activity theory for application to the development of information systems do not adequately achieve this aim. The significance of this review is that it reveals the promise of applying a modified version of activity theory to design practices in the real world.
Background
Activity theory is a "psychological theory developed over the course of 70 years in the Soviet Union" (Nardi, 1996, p. i). Activity theory has been applied to many different design disciplines and is well-suited as a framework for the study of artifacts, including buildings (Norman, 2005; Baerentsen & Trettvik, 2002). Like the theory of reflective practice and situated cognition theories, activity theory says that
78


"consciousness is located in everyday practice: you are what you do" (Nardi, 1996, p. 7).
Activity theory also says that we are embedded in the social matrix of the human environment, which is made up of people and artifacts. "Understanding the interpenetration of the individual, other people, and artifacts in everyday activity is the challenge activity theory has set for itself" (Nardi, 1996, p. 8).
History of Activity Theory
Activity theory is considered to have three generations. The first was introduced by S. L. Rubinshtein, a Soviet philosopher of psychology (1889-1960), who "noted that activity is not merely external behavior... it is inextricably linked with consciousness.... [and] is the key to understanding the relationship between consciousness and the objective world" (Hung & Wong, 2000, p. 33). L. S. Vygotsky followed Rubinshtein in the development of Soviet psychology. While Vygotsky "did not dwell specifically on the concept of activity in any great detail, his work had many ramifications in the theory of activity in its current form, for example his notions of mediation by tools and signs25" (Hung & Wong, 2000, p. 33). The second generation of activity theory was developed by one of Vygotsky's students, A. N. Leont'ev "who created a hierarchical model for analyzing an activity" (Zurita & Nussbaum, 2007, p. 214). Leont'ev's hierarchical model
25According to Vygotsky, "[t]he tool's function is to serve as the conductor of human influence on the object of activity; it is externally oriented; it must lead to change in objects....[t]he sign.... is a means of internal activity aimed at mastering oneself; the sign is internally oriented" (1978, p.57). In other words, Vygotskian tools are artifacts, such as hammers, pens, forks, shovels, scissors, etc. and Vygotskian signs are psychological tools, such as language, counting systems, mnemonic techniques, algebraic symbol systems, art, writing, diagrams, maps, mechanical drawings, etc. (Vygotsky, 1981).
79


said that "[ajctivities are distinguished on the basis of their motive... actions, on the basis of their goals; and operations, on the basis of the conditions under which they are carried out" [emphasis added] (Hung & Wong, 2000, p. 33). "Activities are carried out by a collection of actions, undertaken toward specific, and often short-term, goals.... [u]nder certain conditions" (Hasan, 2003, p. 5) determined by the operation(s). According to Leont'ev, consciousness and meaning are always formed in a joint, collective activity (1978). Activity is a system with its own structure that suggests a mediation between the activity and the tools, or artifacts, used in the activity where the tools mediate what is able to be done and the tools evolve with use (1959/1981).
In 1987, Engestrom developed the third generation, often called cultural-historical activity theory, or CHAT, that "extended Vygotsky's original conceptualization for the mediated relationship between the subject and the object by introducing an expanded version of the activity [theory] model that also incorporates Leont'ev's concepts" (Zurita & Nussbaum, 2007, p. 214). The components of Engestrom's model are the:
(1) object of the activity (or objective, ie, the goals and intentions),
(2) subjects in the activity (ie, the people engaged in it),
(3) tools mediating the activity (anything physical, eg, computers; or mental, eg,
models or heuristics used in the transformation process),
(4) rules and regulations (norms that circumscribe the activity),
(5) division of labour (eg, actions undertaken by individuals within the group
versus tasks that are a group responsibility,
(6) community (individuals directly or indirectly involve [sic] in the tasks) and
(7) outcome (ie, the results and final products of the defined objectives)
[emphasis and line breaks added].
(Zurita & Nussbaum, 2007, p. 214)
80


Engestrom's third generation of activity theory defined "the unit of analysis in
studying human mediated activity [as] an activity system [emphasis in original], a community of actors who have a common object of activity" (Miettinen, 1999, p. 174). With the collective activity system as the unit of analysis, "[t]he study of activity ceases to be the psychology of an individual but instead focuses on the interactions between an individual, systems of artifacts, and other individuals in historically developing institutional settings (Miettinen, 1999, p. 174).
Leont'ev distinguishes between action and activity [emphasis added] (1959/1981). "An action is conducted by an individual or group to fulfill some 'goal'.... [a]n activity... is undertaken by a community (deploying a division of labour, and various means of production) and it has an 'object' and a 'motive'" (Bakhurst, 2009, pp. 199-200). Leon'tev famously uses an illustration of a member of a hunter-gatherer society who is a beater with the job of beating a hedge to startle game (1959/1981, p. 210). In this illustration, the "action is beating a hedge to startle the game; his activity is hunting.... [t]he action is individual, the activity collective.... [t]he beater's motive is the need for food or clothing, but his action does not address this directly" (Bakhurst, 2009, p. 200). The beater's actions make a contribution to the "social activity in which the participants each supply some part to the realization of a common end" (Bakhurst,
2009, p. 200) and they don't make sense unless they are part of this wider social activity.
In Leont'ev's illustration, the activity collectively is hunting motivated by the need for food or clothing, the beater's action is creating noise and has the goal of
81


startling the animals to run toward other members of his community, and the beater's
operation is beating a hedge where presumably the conditions are that he has a stick and a hedge to beat (if he did not have a stick or a hedge, the operation would be handled differently). Hasan gives us an example of the activity of publishing the results of research where the activity is publishing, which is motivated "both by the desire to make public the findings of the research and also by personal career requirements for publications.... [each] action, such as the editing of the paper, has the specific goal of producing a readable manuscript... but is not an activity in itself.... the typing of the script [is] an operation, under conditions" (Hasan, 2003, pp. 5-6) where the author is writing on a computer. The operation is handled differently if the author is writing with a pen and paper.
Bertelsen & Bpdker (2003) describe the three levels of activity as not fixed; "an action can become an operation through automation/internalization, and an operation can become an action through conceptualization in breakdown situations" (p. 300). This focus on transition and flux in human acts and the notion that human activity can "transfer between the different levels of activity" is "an important feature that distinguishes this [activity theory] framework from the mainstream of cognitive theories... where acts are classified as belonging to static categories such as time bands.... development is a basic feature in the framework of activity theory" (Bertelsen & Bpdker, 2003, pp. 300-301). Figure 2 below illustrates activity as a hierarchically organized system.
82


Full Text
Days Responded 0 1.97E+10
Days Responded 14
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3 4
Day 4 3 B
Day 5 A A andB
Day 6 2 ACDG
Day 7 1 theandlights
Day 8 2
Day 9 c
Day 10 A B
Day 11 3
Day 12 2 abc Day 13 4
Day 14 c 2 5
1.97E+10
Days Responded 8
Day 1 2 D
Day 2 4 Day 3 D
Day 4 3
Day 5 2 A B
Day 6 4 Day 7 C
Day 8 D
1.72E+10
Days Responded 14
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3 3 A Day 4 5 C Day 5
Day 6 2
Day 7 2 temandlighting
Day 8 5 A
Day 9 D
Day 10 D B andC
Day 11 5 Day 12 2 A
Day 13 5
Day 14 D 5 5
1.72E+10
Days Responded 13
Day 1 A
Day 2
Day 3 2
Day 4 5
Day 5 B
C-26


Day 6 5
Day 7 5 heandlights
Day 8 5
Day 9 C B
Day 10 B
Day 11 2
Day 12 4
Day 13 45 5
C-27



PAGE 1

BUILDING INHABITANT FEEDBACK: CREATING A REFLECTIVE PRACTICE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN USING ACTIVITY THEORY by DARA SUZANNE CUNNINGHAM B.F.A., Rocky Mountain College of Art and Design, 1998 M.A., University of Colorado, 2002 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Cognitive Science a nd Design and Planning 2014

PAGE 2

ii 2014 DARA CUNNINGHAM ALL RIGHTS RESER VED

PAGE 3

iii The thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy degree by Dara Cunningham has been approved for the Cognitive Science Program and Design and Planning Program b y Brian Muller, Chair Raymond McCall, Advisor Clayton Lewis Tom Yeh July 24 2014

PAGE 4

iv Cunningham, Dara (Ph.D., Cognitive Science, Design and Planning) Building Inhabitant Feedback: Crea ting a Reflective Practice f or Environmental Design Using Activity Theory Thesis directed by Associate Professor Raymond McCall ABSTRACT The way buildings are designed now, there is little feedback from use involved in the design process. Attempts to correct this problem have been made in the form of Post Occupancy Evaluations (POEs) for 50 years but have largely failed. POEs are t he accepted method for environmental des igners to collect feedback about buildings in use They are infrequently conducted after the building is built in a one time only evaluation and not funded as part of the build process. Other products receive feedback about the design in use from online critiques. Online critiques could provide a platform for f eedback from actors engaged with buildings in use for environmental designers to utilize in developing reflective design rationale to avoid adverse consequence s in future designs or correct consequ ence s in past and current designs. Since buildings constitute such a large part of the human In order for environmental designers to act on feedback from situated use, d esigners need to have access to that feedback and all actors interacting with the building design need to have an easy, inexpensive, and accessible method to submit feedback. These needs

PAGE 5

v can be addressed by utilizing mo dern networked and mobile computing t o collect and access building feedback. The analysis presented in this dissertation is informed by a thorough evaluation of the theory of reflective practice, activity theory, environmental design, and cognitive science research. From this analysis, I deve lop ed the following contributions. First, I expand ed activity theory using activity theory to enrich reflective practice and create Reflective Activity Systems Theory (RAST) w hich provides a new framework to develop design rationale based on feedback from use and a focus on the activity Second, I suggest the design of an activity information system, Socio Technical Environments for Evolutionary Design (STEED), which provides a n interactive platform for actor and artifact feedback from the use situation Third, I discuss implications for practice by discussing how the feedback from actors and artifacts in situated use can be used to create reflective design rationale. The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication. Approved: Raymond McCall

PAGE 6

vi DEDICATION For Truman, my amazing, beautiful son and my absolute pride and joy. I have learned more from you than I ever could from any school.

PAGE 7

vii ACKNOWLED GEMENTS I would like to express my deep appreciation and gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Raymond McCall, for pushing me to find my contribution and recognizing that I had something important to say. Dr. McCall encouraged and guided me, from before I applied t brilliance is matched only by his tenacity and his willingness to mentor the misfits who take on ridiculous goals like completing a dual discipline PhD. I am truly fortunate to have had the opportunity to work with him. I would also like to thank my committee members, Drs. Brian Muller, Clayton Lewis, and Tom Yeh for their guidance, suggestions, and general collegiality Dr. Muller first sparked my interest in the Design and Planning program when I took his Planning Issues and Processes class ten years before my dissertation completion and has continued to reassure me that I can make it through the PhD. Dr. Lewis was willing to my program and has been an integral part of my committee throughout the many hurdles involved with completing a PhD. His willingness to read draft after draft and provide thought provoking suggestions has been invaluable to me. Dr. Yeh was the last member to become a part of my committee but he has been the major source of support for my data collection. Without his willingness to take me on as a last minute independent study and provide funding for my Comfort and Energy Use Survey, I would not have been ab le to complete my degree and would not have the proof of concept data

PAGE 8

viii his contributions to my intellectual growth over the years and for helping me in acquiring a g raduate internship at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which allowed me to concentrate on my research while still earning some income Finally, I gratefully acknowledge the innumerable sacrifices made by my husband, Patrick, in supporting me over always believing in me, even when it seemed I would never finish.

PAGE 9

ix TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. DESIGN AND UNEXPECTED CONSEQUENCES: GIVING ACTORS A VOICE ............................ 1 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 1 The Designed Environment and the Inhabita nt ................................ ................ 13 The Structure of the Dissertation ................................ ................................ ...... 15 Goals ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 17 Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 19 Organization of the Chapters ................................ ................................ ........ 20 Listeni ng to the Inhabitants ................................ ................................ .............. 22 How do we know if buildings work for their inhabitants? ................................ 23 Reflective Practice ................................ ................................ ............................. 34 Getting Feedback to Environmental Designers ................................ ................. 47 Activity Theory ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 49 II. REFLECTIVE PRACTICE, SITUATED COGNITION AND ACTIVITY THEORY: THE ROLE OF REFLECTIVE CONVERSATION IN DESIGN ................................ ................................ ........... 57 Highlights ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 57 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 58 Review ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 58

PAGE 10

x Thesis ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 58 Significance ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 59 Reflective Practice ................................ ................................ ............................. 61 The Study of Context ................................ ................................ ......................... 64 Situated Action Models ................................ ................................ ................. 67 Distributed Cognition ................................ ................................ .................... 68 Activity Theory ................................ ................................ ............................... 69 Similarities and Differences ................................ ................................ ........... 70 Relation to Reflective Practice ................................ ................................ ....... 73 Reflective Conversation and Ongoing Feedback ................................ ............... 75 III. THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF ACTIVITY THEORY: FROM THEORY TO REALITY .... 76 Highlights ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 76 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 77 Review ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 77 Thesis ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 77 Significance ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 78 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 78 History of Activity Theory ................................ ................................ .............. 79 A ctivity Systems ................................ ................................ ............................. 83

PAGE 11

xi Simplifying Activity Theory ................................ ................................ ................ 86 Activity ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 87 Usage Centered Design ................................ ................................ ................. 91 Operationalizing Activity Theory ................................ ................................ ....... 94 Activity Checklist ................................ ................................ ............................ 94 Activity Based Model ................................ ................................ ..................... 95 Activity Theory Framework ................................ ................................ ........... 96 Taxonomy of Conceptual Knowledge ................................ ............................ 99 Activity Oriented Design Method ................................ ................................ 100 Human Artifact Model ................................ ................................ ................. 102 Applying Activity Theory to Design ................................ ................................ 109 IV. REFLECTIVE ACTIVITY SYSTEM THEORY (RAST): COMBINING REFLECTIVE PRACTICE AND ACTIVITY THEORY ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 113 Highlights ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 113 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 113 Review ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 113 Thesis ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 114 Significance ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 115 The New Theoretical Frame work ................................ ................................ .... 116

PAGE 12

xii Why is the focus on activity important? ................................ ..................... 122 Reflective Activity Systems Theory ................................ .............................. 126 Applying RAST ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 128 Real World Research RAST Application ................................ ....................... 130 V. SOCIO TECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTS FOR EVOLUTIONARY DESIGN (STEED): AN ACTIVITY INFORMATION SYSTEM TO SUPPORT RAST ................................ .................... 149 Highlights ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 149 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 150 Review ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 150 Thesis ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 151 Significance ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 152 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 152 Approach ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 168 STEED System Design ................................ ................................ ................... 169 STEED Inspiration ................................ ................................ ......................... 192 Design ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 206 STEED Prototype ................................ ................................ .......................... 209 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 209 STEED and RAST ................................ ................................ ............................... 216

PAGE 13

xiii VI. COMFORT A ND ENERGY USE SURVEYS ................................ ................................ ..... 220 Goals ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 220 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 222 Approach ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 228 Preliminary Results ................................ ................................ .......................... 233 Continuing Research ................................ ................................ ....................... 235 VII. SUMMATION, FUTURE RESEARCH, AND CONCLUSION ................................ ............ 236 Summation ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 236 Findings ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 238 Future Research ................................ ................................ .............................. 239 Objectives ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 240 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 242 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 243 APPENDIX A ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... A 1 Buckley Air Force Base Colorado Army National Guard (COARNG) Army Aviation Support Facility (AASF) LEED Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) Survey Questions and Answers ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ A 1 Survey Questions ................................ ................................ .......................... A 2 Survey Responses ................................ ................................ ......................... A 4

PAGE 14

xiv APPENDIX B ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... B 1 STEED System Requirements, Features, and RAST Analysis Justification ........ B 1 APPENDIX C ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... C 1 Comfort and Energy Use Survey ................................ ................................ ...... C 1 Residence Life Comfort and Energy Use Survey and Interview Questions .. C 2 Residence Life Comfort and Energy Use Survey Responses ......................... C 9

PAGE 15

xv LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: The Components of an Activity According to Engestrm (Hasan, 2003, p. 6) ............. 96 2: Elements of the Activity based Model (Hasan, 2003, p. 6) ................................ .......... 9 6 3: Basic a spects of an activity and their relation to a taxonomy of contextual knowledge (Kofod Petersen & Cassens, 2006, p. 8) ................................ ................................ ....... 9 9 4: Eight step Model to Operationalize Activity Theory During Requireme nts Capture (Mwanza, 2002) ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 1 00 5: Activity Notation (Mwanza, 2002) ................................ ................................ .............. 101 6: Activity as a hierarchically organized system (Bdker & Klokmose, 2011, p. 320) .... 103 7: Summary of affordances, aspects, and activity levels (Bdker & Klokmose, 2011, p. 328) ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 106 8: Th e Human Artifact Model (Bdker & Klokmose, 2011, p. 333) ................................ 109 9: The Components of an Activity as Redefined by Cunningham ................................ .. 111 10: Components of an Activity in Reflective Activity Systems Theory (RAST) ................ 11 7 11: Additional Cost and kWh Projections for Space Heaters in the Facility ................... 144 12: C ost and kWh Projection for Stand Fans in the Facility ................................ ............ 145

PAGE 16

xvi LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: Pruitt Igoe Towers, Saint Louis, Missouri, Date unknown... but after 1963 and before 1972, United States Geological Survey, Public Domain Image ................................ ......... 25 2: Activity as a hierarchically organized system, showing the relationship among the three levels (Bertelsen & Bdker, 2003, p. 301) ................................ ................................ ........ 83 mediation (Engestrm, 1987, p. 78) ................................ ................ 83 4: The generally accepted modern interpretation of Vygots theory model of action (Engestrm, 1987, p. 78) ................................ ............................ 84 ......................... 84 2001, p. 136) ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 85 Human Activity Systems (Engestrm, 1999) ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 86 8: Reflective Activity Systems Theory ................................ ................................ ................. 1 2 8 9 : Buckley Air Force Base Colorado Air National Guard Aviation Support Facility Hangar View (Foundations of Readiness, 2009, p. 35) ................................ ................................ 13 0 10 : Inside the hangar at the Aviation Support Facility (Foundati ons of Readiness, 2009, p. 35) ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 13 1 1 1 : Inside the operations area at the Aviation Support Facility (Foundations of Readiness, 2009, p. 36) ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 13 2

PAGE 17

xvii 1 2 : Front outside vi ew of the Aviation Support Facility (Foundations of Readiness, 2009, p. 35) ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 13 3 1 3 : build renderings (CH2M Hill, 2005) ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 134 1 4 : Energy Informatics Framework (Wat son et al, 2010, p.25) ................................ .......... 16 3 1 5 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 1 93 1 6 : Salk Institute (Salk Institute for Biological Studies, 2014) ................................ ............ 2 04 1 7 : STEED Activity Diagram ................................ ................................ ................................ 2 07 18 : STEED Use Case Diagrams ................................ ................................ ............................. 2 0 8 19 : Buil ding Monitor Dashboard, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), 2013 .. 2 1 1 20 : Potential STEED design interface example, designed by NREL graphic designers, 2013 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 2 1 2 2 1 .................... 2 1 4 2 2 : TakeBa ck App, http://takebackapp.com, May 2014 ................................ .................... 2 1 5 2 3 : Morgan Fire Sign Twitter, pic.twitter.com/dXhIs4q22L, May 2014 ............................. 2 1 6 2 4 : STEED design interface example 1 NREL graphic designers, 2013 .............................. 2 1 8 25: STEED design interface example 2 ................................ ................................ ................ 2 1 9 2 6 : Sample STEED Interfaces ................................ ................................ .............................. 222 2 7 : Example of data visualization NREL, 2013 ................................ ................................ ... 2 2 6 2 8 : STEED Concept Diagram ................................ ................................ ................................ 2 2 7

PAGE 18

xviii 29: Pilot Pilot Messages on Facebook Messenger with Friends of the PI, September 2013 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 2 2 9 30 : Pilot Pilot Comfort Survey Responses ............................. 2 3 0 Responses, March 2014 ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 2 32

PAGE 19

1 CHAPTER I DESIGN AND UNEXPECTED CONSEQUENCES : GIVING ACTORS A VOICE Introduction The way buildings are designed now, there is very little feedback from use than cars, audio or electrical and electronic equipment, buildings are very rarely 190). Attempts to correct this problem have been made in the form of Post Occupancy Evaluations (POEs) for about the last 50 years, beginning in the late 1960s (Preis er, 1995, p. 19; Preiser, 2001, p. 9; Meir et al, 2009, p. 190), but they have largely failed (Cooper, 2001; Brand, 1995; Zimmerman & Martin, 2001; Hadjri & Crozier, 2009). POEs are t he accepted method for environmental designers to collect feedback about buildings in use and are generally comprised of observations, user satisfaction questionnaires, and semi structured and structured conducted with building inhabitants after the buildin g is built (Vischer, 2001, p. 25; Preiser, 2001, p. 11), and monitoring building performance aspects such as energy management, lighting, acoustics, temperature, humidity, durability of materials, and amount and distribution of space (Vischer, 2001, p. 23; to develop knowledge about the long term and even the short term results of design

PAGE 20

2 prac tices of building environmental design professional groups and organizations, like the National Academy of Environmental Design (NAED) and the American Institute of Architects (AIA), but a re generally an afterthought and not funded as part of the build process (Cooper, 2001). he investigative type POEs [a thorough comparison of the facility performance compared to other simi institutional owners a nd managers of real estate inventory [with comparatively large industry, namely, wh in budget, or the operating budget must be foun d on a case by professional territory is a barrier because POE is, after all, evaluation, and evaluation

PAGE 21

3 ing professionals seek to have their work judged by While building professionals may agree on the potential value of POE to inform building planning and practice, the i ndustry as a whole often regards POE researchers with suspicion and hostility (Meir et al, 2009, p. 191). [T]heir work may cause friction between different stakeholders (including architects, consultants, clients, owners, managers, and users) and between these and the authorities (planning and health, for example), expose some of them to liability lawsuits, and others to potential demand for upgrade investments. This institutional and professional fragmentation of authorities, perspectives and liabilities has hampered the uptake of POE as a self evident part of the design and construction professions and industry. [emphasis added] (Meir et al, 2009, p. 191) Building construction projects are complex and extremely time new building project has a rushed and constraining schedule, and every stage is carried cult y with a continuous loss in confi dence by cli ents tracked projects often lead to costly change orders and bad long [g]oing back for a follow cher, 2001, p. 24). With no one accepting responsibility for the cost or academics and researchers,

PAGE 22

4 p. 190), POEs are often seen as one off case studies conducted by non therefore [POEs tend] to fall approach is taken for the benchmarking of buildings, improvement of current practices is left to a haphazard process that does not nece al, 2001, p. 190) or improvement in building design. Other products, or artifacts 1 are receiving feedback about the design in use from public online critiques in a manner that would have been unimaginable 50 years ago, in examining the actual functioning of and user satisfaction with everyday commodities (especially successful ones), and in refining their design accordingly, this is no t the case We know that building designs produce unexpected consequences. In my research, I discovered building inhabitants in a highly energy efficient commercial building taking temperature control into their own hands, causing an increase in energy use of up to 13% over projections. A 2008 study of energy performance for Leadership 1 made as opposed to artifact refers to anything that can be designed and can be physical, such as a building, a pen, a computer, etc., or it can be symbolic, such as a photograph, a map, language, a drawing, etc.

PAGE 23

5 in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED certification system for highly energy efficient and sustainable buildings) demonstrated hile the average LEED Energy Star Rating is favorable quarter of these buildings had ratings below 50, meaning they used more energy than average for comparable existing building stock Energy performance of LEED for new construction buildings 2008) Feedback from the building in use, as opposed to pre build models or an unoccupied building, could be used by environmental designers to avoid a similar consequence in future designs or correct the consequence in past or current designs. This is the type of information POEs are meant to provide but, with such a low rate of implementation in the building process, they have failed to convey this feedback to designers. The absence of feedback from buildings in use has become more relevant with the need to design sustainably (Meir, 2008). The current global conditions that necessitate building more sustainable buildings include: [a] continuous rise in the consumption of energy, both per capita and in absolute terms; buildings in industrialized countries consume some 40 50 per cent of overall energy, to operational part of their lives (heating, cooling, ventilation, lighting, etc.) the realization that fossil fuels are bei ng depleted and that their use has adverse environmental, health, social, political and security implications; people in industrialized countries (but not only!) spending 80 90 per cent of their lives in buildings, living, studying, working, entertaining t hemselves, consuming and even exercising, which means that the indoor conditions can have a strong imprint on well being, health and productivity (Pearson, 1998; Wargocki et al, 1999). The indoors is, in a [emphasi s added] (Meir et al, 2009, p. 190)

PAGE 24

6 participate in the use of buildings, including invest ors, owners, operators, maintenance staff, and perhaps most important of all, the end users (i.e., actual persons occupying building performance on the building i aspects of building performanc (Nawawi & Khalil, 2008, p. 59). In order for environmental designers to act on feedback from the building in use, which includes feedback from building inhabitants, designers need to have access to that feedback and all actors interacting with the building design need to have an easy, inexpensive, and accessible method to submit feedback. Feedback from buildings in use can be submitted, collected, and accessed by actors via modern networked mobile co mputing at potentially no cost to any of the actors, essentially negating one of the big cons of conducting POEs. Another POE con that potentially could be eliminated by this methodology is a reliance on POE training and/or skills that active building prof essionals ready made system designed to collect feedback from buildings in use would in a sense have the skills built in so the building professionals would not have to be trained in how to administer a POE or the myriad quan titative and qualitative roles needed to ask the right questions and analyze the data.

PAGE 25

7 With easy access to feedback from buildings in use, environmental designers would be able to go beyond pure speculation about how their designs perform in use and develo p design rationale that takes into account the actual consequences of using the design. but also of (a) the feedback from actions that challenges design decisions, and (b) the creat With feedback about the design in use readily available to apply to the development of design rationale, building designers, owners, and operators would be negligent if they c hose to ignore the feedback or failed to deal with the feedback in future building designs. This is one of the cons of conducting a POE for active building professionals but one that needs to be overcome if building designs are to be improved through acces s to information about the real building environment in use, as it has been overcome for other product designs in the age of public, online reviews (Decker & Trusov, 2010). Without checking expected buildi ngs that matter). Since the use situation is not predictable in the sense that it is not possible to fully represent actual use in a model or plan (Suchman, 1987), without in formation and after effects or unexpected consequences. The only way to learn about both expected and unexpected consequences from the building design in use is to gath er feedback from actors using the building and from the building itself. design as situated cognition action produces feedback that results in a breakdown of

PAGE 26

8 expectations reflection aimed at the generation of new desi gn 34). Feedback from the use situation can be used to evolve design rationale or that can be applied to past, cur rent, and future designs. While there is much in the literature condoning the use of POE to improve building design and lamenting the lack of POE, there is virtually nothing suggesting how to improve this situation. In this dissertation, I propose that, in addition to implementing mobile networked computing as a method to democratize POEs and allay expense, training, and skill concerns, it is also necessary to develop a new framework that supports applying information from inhabitants, other actors and b uildings in use to create design rationale. Any information that informs designers should be considered design rationale not just the initial reasoning of the designer. In environmental design, we know the information provided as feedback from the design in use informed the designer by the creation of better buildings and an improved built environment as ldings. enough to apply new technological advances to this problem. To support this new form of design rationale, a theoretical framework that supports gathering information inexpensively and easily from the situated use of buildings, that focuses attention on feedback from actors involved in the use of buildings, identifying and categorizing

PAGE 27

9 activities taking part in buildings, and reflection on expected and unexpected outcomes is required. design decision making explicitly models the ways in which evaluative feedback leads to the generation of new rationale methods except [Scenario Claims Analysis] SCA (Ca rroll and Rosson 1992) has the post planning, post implementation type of feedback that comes from actors using a building, theory of reflective practice pr ovides the best theoretical model to use in creating this new type of design rationale. Schn saw design as an alternation between an intuitive process he called knowing in action and a type of reasoning he called reflection in Reflective practice is repeated alternation between knowing in action and reflection in action. Schn describes the designer as engaging in an ongoing of situated action, in that it sees desi gn reasoning as intertwined with and evaluative feedback that reveals the consequences of the actions taken. The purpose of the resulting reflection in action is to devise new ideas fo r how to (McCall, 2013, p. 24) theory of reflective practice does not explicitly deal with feedback from (1983) theory of reflective practice does not cover the sor t of situated cognition in which (McCall, 2013, p. 34). It also does not take into account the fact that there are more actors involved in the design process than simply the d esigner and the client. The

PAGE 28

10 use situation and dependence on feedback from users in order to receive the backtalk and apply it to reflection in action. Despite its lack of focus on feedback from use and actors other than the designer and client, theory of reflective practice gives us the framework necessary to utilize back talk from the use situation to develop reflective design rationale and, therefore, predictiv e value in that we are able to compare the expected outcomes of applying the rationale to the real outcomes from the application in situated use. understand the built e objectives put forth for Universal Design 2 recommended for application to buildings, ributes of products or environments that are perceived to support or heart of what buildings are meant to do, activity theory gives us a useful map of human activity and a common language to use to discuss the elements of human activity in the built environment, including the actors, their roles, sociocultural environment, local or regional rules, history, and community expectations (Nardi, 1996; Kaenampornpan & 2 performance of designs ranging from products and occupied buildings to transportation infrastructure and information technology that are perceived to support or impede individual, communal,

PAGE 29

1 1 l 2004; Kofod Petersen & Cassens 2006) Activity theory is not, however, predictive (Nardi, 1996, p. 75; Kaptelinin, 1996, p. 113; Basharina, 2007, p. 87). In this dissertation, I expand his theory with a modified version of activity theory using activity theory to enrich reflective practice and create Reflective Activity Systems Theory (RAST) RAST is a new theoretical framework that takes advantage of the synergy between Schn reflective pr and disappointment of expectation, and activity theory, which focuses on human perception of the world through activity. RAST addresses two problems: 1) the problem that, while cle ar and persuasive, the examples Schn provides do not explicitly deal with feedback from use or the multitude of actors involved in the design and use of a building, and 2) activity theory provides a framework for mapping human activity that is not availab le in other theoretical frameworks but it does not have predictive value. RAST allows us to step a way from mapping the idiosyncras ies of individual users and gives us the opportunity to understand the types of activities people engage in. Mapping and under standing activities maximizes the value of the generalized knowledge received and gets at the heart of knowledge that is a matter of principle, rather than idiosyncratic individual facts. Generalized knowledge can be applied and re used in the design of mu ltiple buildings for multiple use situations. A focus on the activities actors engage in, the roles actors take in those activities, and the embedded sociocultural environment those activities take place in allows us to understand the stake those actors ha ve in the design process. Activity theory provides the perspective

PAGE 30

12 we need to map and understand activities. Combined with the theory of reflective practice to create RAST, the two theories together provide a robust theoretical framework that supports the need to be able to apply feedback from the built environment in use to develop reflective design rationale and the terminology and categories needed to effectively apply reflective design rationale to real human activity in the built environment. I n this d issertation, I will use environmental design case studies to explore applying RAST to the situated use of designed artifacts When considering feedback from situated use and how it can be used in e involved with the building behind the goals and objectives of those who wish th eir buildings to be evaluated, in (2001), some actors may have a vested interest in blocking the feedback and, if they have power and control over what happens to th e feedback, they will block it. It has always been difficult to characterize the roles of actors involved with designed artifacts. With the RAST framework, we can specify the roles and rules for all of the actors. This makes it clear which actors may have an inherent conflict of interest and who may try to delivered publicly, anonymously, freely, and easily, without relying on designers or other actors who may not want the feed back to sponsor the feedback system Once POE exists outside the protected framework of a case study research project, another set of barriers present themselves in the form of

PAGE 31

13 dissemination of the information yielded by the study. As long as the POE is ca rried out as academic research, the sanctioned forms of academic research dissemination are available (publication in journals, conferences, etc.). However, in the practical world of building design, construction, and management, most organizations have no established system for knowing how to process, direct, and act on the information they receive from a POE. This may cause the information not to go anywhere, and it becomes a reminder to decision at initiate POE are unclear as to why they want the information, what information they want, to whom it should go, and how they are expected to follow up on it. Several organizations familiar to the author have explicitly required that the results whethe r positive or not of a POE survey not be disseminated. (Vischer, 2001, p. 30) The analysis presented in this dissertation will be infor med by a thorough evaluation of the theory of reflective practice, activity theory, environmental design, and cognitiv e science research. From this analysis, I develop the following contributions. First, the Reflective Activity Systems Theory (RAST) theoretical framework, which provides a new method to develop design rationale based on feedback from situated use and a fo cus on the activities users engage in Second, I suggest the design of an activity information system, Socio Technical Environments for Evolutionary Design (STEED), which provides an interactive platform for actor and artifact feedback from situated use. T hird, I discuss implications for practice by discussing how the feedback from actors and artifacts in situated use can be used to create reflective design rationale. The Designed Environment and the Inhabitant Although it may be argued that there is no par t of the natural world untouched 2011), this dissertation focuses exclusively on man made environments, or designed

PAGE 32

14 artifacts. The National Academy of Environmental Design ( 2011), or NAED, defines environmental design as follows: Environmental design addresses the impact of the built environment on individuals and the natural world and creates a wide range of interventions informed by h Environ mental design comprises architects, planners, landscape architects, interior designers, preservationists, building technology specialists, and researchers fr om a wide range of disciplines. Their shared body of knowledge and professional skills affect commu nities, landscapes, buildings, products, and the individuals who occupy and use them. Whether or not an individual environmental designer is concerned primarily with the impact of the built environment on individuals and the natural world, I will refer to all designers involved in these professions as environmental designers and consider them engaged in the design of artifacts that are or will become part of the built environment and collectively involved in the field of environmental design. I will also d escribe building inhabitants as inhabitants, who may play an active role in the maintenance and performance of their buildings, as opposed occupants who are passive recipients of predetermined comfort conditions 324) The term inhabitant implies engagement with the environment and, perhaps, a willingness to communicate and maintain a dialog with environmental designers regarding the built environment. Building inhabitants have the potential to provide he dynamic, integrated and participatory dimensions of this new context for comfort [which is] paramount as designers aim for greater levels of sustainable structures and systems and move away from the more conventional emphases on automation, uniformity, and predictability Cole et al, 2008, p. 324)

PAGE 33

15 The Structure of the Dissertation This dissertation intends to add to the body of knowledge in the emerging field of inquiry regarding the role of ongoing feedback into the design process. This area of inquiry is rare in design disciplines. I will utilize environmental design case studies and sustainability issues to explore the theories about how this feedback model could work. I will examine how ongoing feedback about building inhabitant satisfaction with sustainable developmen t and green buildings 3 building inhabitant comfort requirements and adaptations, and building inhabitant feedback about the built environment in use can be applied to environmental design. I will explore the idea that we cannot simply prescribe sustainabl e design but rather have a pressing need to find ways to include the multitude of actors involved with any building in the formation of of climate change and an evolving con cept of agency at the individual and social level of building users the other actors, including the designer, involved with the designed artifact needs to be more fully examined, understood, and considered in the design process. A focus on the types of activities actors engage in while interacting with the built environment is crucial 3 Green buildings are somewhat nebulously defined as buildings that are high performance, energy efficient, non toxic, environmentally responsible, or have a healthy building design. There are specific green building standards defined by the U.S. Green Buil ding Council (USGBC), known as the Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design, or LEED, certifications, as well as green building standards defined by many other countries around the globe.

PAGE 34

16 thinking are depe constituent elements; and spaces, inhabitants, visitors, design, ergonomics, workers, planners, cleaners, technici ans, materials, performances, events, emotions, affects, and inhabitation building users, experts, material and immaterial things encounter one another in a myriad of complex, choreographed and unexpected ways [emphasis in the flourishing of individuals, communities, and the natural world through the sustainable design and stewardsh ip of human and natural environments including precipitous climate change, species extinction, and a wide range of epidemics and toxins affecting human health the built environment to help solve these rapidly looming issues, or at least not to add to them, require that the way they design changes radically and without th e luxury of waiting for the natural evolution of environmental design craft to catch up to the current crisis. The intention behind this dissertation, in part, is to investigate the role of feedback from built environment inhabitants and a collective envir onmental design feedback and design rationale system in creating a new way of designing buildings that may accelerate the evolution of environmental design.

PAGE 35

17 In this dissertation, I will not claim to have the answers to solve the environmental crisis. I wil l not develop the information system to support Reflective Activity Systems Theory (RAST) in practice. I will not recommend a blueprint or model for the ideal house, office, or other structure. Goals The ultimate goal of this dissertation is to first info rm scholarly discourse around the subject of feedback from actors interacting with designed artifacts and from the artifacts themselves in use as a means of documenting design rationale and then to suggest a framework that may begin to guide the creation o f an activity system 4 intended to support the exchange of ongoing feedback about the built environment in a public forum. To that end, I will conduct an inquiry into the role of reflective practice and activity theory in design practices. I will modify act ivity theory and extend reflective practice in order to create a new theoretical framework that addresses shortcomings of each individual theory and combines them to create Reflective Activity Systems Theory (RAST). This inquiry is in response to the curre nt lack of reflective conversation between the actors who interact with designed artifacts, including the designers. I approach the question actors interacting with designed 4 An activity system is made up of the components described in ac tivity theory: subjects/actors/people, tools/artifacts/instruments/resources, object/purpose/motive, actions/tasks, outcomes (planned, intended, unintended), goals, and communi ty/rules/relationships/division of labor.

PAGE 36

18 artifacts in use play in the development of design rationale grounded in reality as a three stage process. First I review the literature regarding the role of feedback in reflective practice and situated cognition. I examine and define reflective practice and situated cognition and discuss how the theory of reflective practice can be applied to design practices. Second, I review the literature regarding activity theory. I examine and define activity theory, then modify the theory with a focus on simplification and operationalization. Third I de fine a new theoretical framework that combines the theory of reflective practice and a modified version of activity theory called the Reflective Activity Systems Theory, or RAST This new theory defines a collective reflective conversation between the act ors interacting with designed artifacts, in particular the built environment, and extends reflective practice into the ongoing development of design rationale based on the real use of the artifact Next I develop the design for an infor mation system that supports RAST This system is called the Socio Technical Environment s for Evolutionary Design, or STEED It is my hope that this prototype will be further refined and developed as an information system used to collect and disseminate information about the use and design of the built environment. I illustrate the importance of inhabitant feedback in the design of the comfortable, sustainable, energy efficient built environment. I suggest that inhabitant feedback provides the structure to ground research on the relationship between people

PAGE 37

19 and their environments in a world struggling with the dichotomy of providing ever more comfortable and sustainable environmental designs. Finally, I present initial findings from my own research into gathering inhabitant fe edback about the built environment in use. I consider this research a first step in creating and testing the viability of STEED. Methods This dissertation follows in the footsteps of theoretical traditions established in reflective practice, activity theor y, environmental design, and cognitive science research. My research builds on theoretical process models developed by Schn Hasan, and others by integrating the theory of reflective practice and th e framework of activity theory The hypothesis I develop from this integration is further informed and tested against research, documentation from the literature, and first person accounts. The methods employed in this dissertation are used with the intent ion of developing a testable theory. As there is no current public system available for collecting and disseminating ongoing inhabitant feedback about the built environment in use, this dissertation is primarily a theory building effort. The first model I dev elop through this method is the Reflective Activity Systems Theory, or RAST, theoretical framework The model is derived from reflective practice work by integrat ing reflective practice with a modified version of activity theory.

PAGE 38

20 Reflective practice and activity theory are combined to create an activity system to support a new design rationale process. The second model is the Socio Technical Environment s fo r Evolut ionary Design, or STEED This model demonstrates the relationship between inhabitants and the multitude of other actors who interact with the built environment, including environmental designers. STEED is based on RAST With this system design, I illustrat e how people can adapt, critique, review, and participate in the design of the built environment to increase their satisfaction with the world they inhabit. Finally, I use STEED to discuss implications for practice by discussing how the feedback from inhab itants and other actors, including design practitioners, building operators, facilities management, building owners, the professional community of practice, and the general public can be used to create reflective design ratio nale for environmental design Organization of the Chapters This dissertation will build a theoretical argumen t about the role of feedback in design rationale. The task will require focus on four different literatures: reflective practice, activity theory, cognitive theory, and environm ental design, organized as Chapters II IV. In Chapter II I present an overview of reflective practice and situated cognition and compare them to activity theory This chapter examines reflective practice and demonstrates an understanding of the design pro cess as situated cognition. It illustrates the lack of investigation into how reflective conversation may support design strategies

PAGE 39

21 and highlights underlying issues that may help to explain the gaps between the design, reflective practice, situated cogniti on, and activity theory literatures. Chapter III presents an overview of activity theory In Chapter III, I simplify and operationalize activity theory so it can be applied to design practices. In Chapter IV, I combine a modified version of activity theo ry and the theory of reflective practice. The intention behind this chapter is to identify common principles held by both reflective practice and activity theory and how activity theory extends reflective practice by adding socio cultural context and artif acts as a central theme. I will discuss how these theories together form the basis for Reflective Activity Systems Theory, or RAST In Chapter V I develop the design for an information system called the Socio Technical Environment s fo r Evolutionary Design or STEED. STEED utilizes RAST, which extends reflective practice and activity theory to describe a new model that incorporates inhabitant feedback to measure the success of environmental design efforts to achieve inhabitant comfort, sustainability, energ y efficiency, function, and aesthetics, and use s this feedback to improve environmental design processes. In Chapter V I I will discuss my own research in testing RAST using SMS and MMS text based surveys. This initial research could form the basis for ST EED which will be used to collect and disseminate feedback from the multitude of actors who interact with the built environment in a public forum. In the final chapter, I provide a summary of my contributions, discuss the limitations of this dissertation, and make recommendations for future scholarly

PAGE 40

22 investigations. In particular, I explain that what I propose here is not a fully developed theory but rather a framework to serve as a starting point for future scholarly discussion. I suggest that the RAST th eoretical framework may contribute to a body of future research including new methods of investigation into the development of reflective design rationale by providing a preliminary structure to bridge research and practice. Listening to the Inhabitant s People have emotional, physical, cultural, social, and cognitive connections with their environments. The human designed buildings and other spaces people inhabit, called the built environment, are important to their internal well being and external conn ection with the world (Rapoport, 1982 ; Koskela & Pain, 2000; Bitner, 1992; Hull & Harvey, 1989). Despite this strong connection with the built environment, the inhabitants of these designed spaces are often not asked what they would prefer in their immedia te space. If building inhabitants are asked about how they feel about their environmental space, they are generally asked as part of a formal, one time only undertake building w ork and hand over the keys, not to look into what happens often have the opportunity to give feedback about the environment in use to the designers of that environment. Environmental designers also have not had a forum to gather information on an ongoing basis from inhabitants about their satisfaction levels

PAGE 41

23 spaces they design, especiall y in light of c lima tic change and the need to conserve energy we face now, they do so with very little of the feedback, or back talk as Schn call s it (1983) from the environment in use that is required to learn about what works to the inhabitants of those spaces (Way & Bordass, 2009, p. 5) and other actors who interact with the designed artifact Without that feedback, environmental designers are effectively designing in the dark. This dissertation aims to explain the importance of back talk to the design process and to propose options to provide access to give and receive ongoing feedback about the built environment in use in a public forum. How do we know if buildings work for their inhabitants? Since environmental designers ar e engaged in the design of the built environment, where there are many complex physical variables to be considered, the designs produced tend to have unexpected consequences. Unexpected consequences are surprises that represent the situation generated by t he design implementation talking back to the environmental designer This back talk from the situation gives the designer an opportunity to reflect upon how to deal with this feedback (Schn, 1983, p. 79). The relevance of the back talk is that it raises q uestions for the designer about what to do with this unexpected feedback. The back talk provides initial design rationale that stimulates additional rationale Collecting and communicating information about the consequences of environmental design implemen tations to the designer can inform his or her design solutions. Sharing and continuously gathering information about the consequences of environmental design implementations with and from building

PAGE 42

24 inhabitants, environmental design practitioners, the multit ude of actors who interact with any given building, and the general public has the potential to change the way we look at building design by technology alone, but by deep learning by individuals, groups, professional (Brown & Vergragt, 2008, p. 2). solutions to the design p roblem they set out to solve (Way & Bordass, 2009) Often comfortable spaces for the inhabitants. conceived more in terms of connec tion, line, shape, form and continuity between comfort, or function make design modifications in o rder to make the space more comfortable, if possible. If workaround mode, likely in a method the designer would find displeasing, or abandon the structure if there is no acceptable workaround. For example, glass walls may have the look the designer wa nted but that same designer would be displeased to find the glass walls covered in foil and paper because the space is too bright for the inhabitant s. [I]nhabitants and user s are necessarily everyday designers, or at least re designers: intervening in the fabric of a building (knocking a door through here, changing a window there, wall papering everywhere) or re programming its planned for activities (using a study as a bedro om, a dining room as a lounge, a Architectures require ongoing maintenance and repair, sometimes by their inhabitants, at other

PAGE 43

25 cquire specialist knowledge through training, apprenticeships and by practical experience All too often, the history of architecture and city building has been a history of ignoring or under valuing [emphasis added] (Jacobs & Merriman, 2011, p. 216) A n extreme example of inhabitant discomfort is that of the Modernist Pruitt Igoe high rise towers built in Saint Louis, Missouri, as a public housing pr oject in 1954 (depicted in Figure 1 below) (Bristol, 1991) While the towers were initially praised for their design, the elevators and hallways designed to promote community association Many people fled the Pruitt Igoe towers and, in 1972 (just 18 years after they were built), three of the towers were demol ished with the remaining 30 towers being imploded over the next four years (Bristol, 1991). Figure 1 : Pruitt Igoe Towers, Saint Louis, Missouri, Date unknown... but after 1963 and before 1972 United States Geological Survey, Pu blic Domain Image

PAGE 44

26 Most people rely on word of mouth reviews and critiques to assist in making decisions. Presumably, word of mouth reviews of Pruitt Igoe may have deterred potential inhabitants from moving there. The importance of word of mouth communica tion is widely studies have shown that [word of mouth] communication affects consumer attitu s with traditional [word of mouth] communications, online consumer reviews are important for driving the actions of consumers (Lee et al, 2008, p. 341) Building inhabitants have never been given the opportunity to post public building reviews in the way that consumers do now with online reviews about other products and services The fact that people will take a pictur e of a product and post it online with comments to prove there is a problem with the product, where the problem is, and, often, their own solutions to the problem means that people feel empowered to take action to get the problem fixed. technology empowering people to detect and report problems with the artifacts they deal with (King & Brown, 2007; Sawhney & Prandelli, 2005; Cova & Pace, 2006; Romero & Boria, 2009). Building inhabitants can be reliable problem detectors. Many buildings are also now equipped with sensors that measure energy usage, ambient temperature, humidity, lighting, and/or other environmental factors. Information gathered directly from building sensors can be combined with building inhabitant provided information to give building designers a rich picture of the Meyer, 2005; Vischer, 2009).

PAGE 45

27 Problems with buildings are not the fault of the inhabitant s, they are caused by the design sol mismatching the inhabitant inhabitant (Kraftl & Adey, 2008) Since th dominated by textual, symbolic, and iconographic approaches exposed the inherent, divisive power relations that are written into landscapes. Empirical work in a variety of con texts (from shopping malls to cathedrals) has demonstrated that architecture can be a form of code making, or control, and that certain visual clues are used to symbolize something other than the Although signs an d symbols are important elements lubricating certain actions (and precluding others), this focus on symbolism represents only one approach to the diverse styles in which architecture facilitates inhabitation. symb olism does not attend to the tremendous amount and variety of work that more affective, tactile, sensual effects. There are many nitty gritty, material performative details tha On the whole with certain exceptions such details have remained underresearched [sic] [emphasis added] (Kraftl & Adey, 2008, p. 214) If t building design right from the inhabitant of view, the inhabitant s might turn into unauthorized, rogue designers and re design their spaces to meet their needs as they see them (Jacobs & Merriman, 2011) People exercise inhabitant may not fi nd desirable architecture; or as an effect of effort and intent that might be inclined in another

PAGE 46

28 Merrima n, 2011, p. 216) From a 1992 POE study of energy efficient buildings, Heerwagen and Diamond list some coping mechanisms of building inhabitant addition of fans, desk lamps, removing some of the ceiling lamps, and covering up or over riding automa In my research I conducted an interview based survey at a military Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) 5 certified gold building. Many of the interviewees volunteered that they brought space heaters ( a nd possibly fans ) to the building because the military standard of building temperatures at 62 degrees Fahrenheit in winter and 80 degrees Fahrenheit in summer were uncomfortable and the inhabitants took matters into their own hands. All of the coping mech anisms listed here contribute to higher than modeled energy use for these energy efficient buildings and probably a different aesthetic than the designer intended. As Schn acknowledges (1983, pp. 76 77), the lines between architecture and other design dis ciplines such as engineering, planning, and industrial design, have become blurred and building a building is an interdisciplinary endeavor the autonomous, controlling architect designer has been replaced by the fact of 5 The Leadership in Energy and Environ mental Design (LEED) certification program is the energy efficient and sustainable buildings. Sustainable development was defined by United Nations (UN) World Commission on Environ ment and Development's 1987 Brundtland ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Brundtland, 1987).

PAGE 47

29 The interdisciplinary character of the design process means there will be more unexpected results. In addition to complicating environmental desig n with the involvement of multiple disciplines, the technological revolution we are currently undergoing means that the rate of technological change is (2004) tells us that the rate of technological grow th we are seeing is exponential. Of course, the nature of exponential functions is that the growth rate itself grows exponential ly This is apparent as the focus of design for the built environment has shifted toward highly energy efficient, sustainable, a nd smart buildings. This situation allows for even more complexity in the real world with multiple disciplines involved in ever more sophisticated environmental design endeavors. The envir onmental designer is forced to: [E] valuate the integration of an eco design principle into their standard design complications arise from the trade off with other design issues such as cost, and from a lack of knowledge in how to apply eco design by the design engineer hese complications are especially apparent in the case of a complex product Furthermore, complex products result in longer design phases (compared to simple products) Currently there are [sic] a lack of eco design methods that can help a design engineer grapple with the trade off dilemma when faced with tightening legislation and designing more complex energy using products (Grote et al, 2007, p. 4100) With technological changes and disciplinary overlap, there are going to be many more unforeseen consequences than those in t raditional, old school environmental surprised by the results. The law of unintended consequences tells us that exponential growth and change lead to exponential unintended co nsequences. As Merton states:

PAGE 48

30 [O] ne may say in general that consequences are fortuitous when an exact knowledge of many details and facts (as distinct from general principles) is th ose which are occasioned by the interplay of forces and circumstances which are so complex and numerous that prediction of them is quite beyond our reac h. (Merton, 1936, pp. 899 901) Unintended consequences are the nature of the game in any new discipline because there is no explicit knowledge to draw upon and new disciplines tend to cause unintended consequences which indicate accelerating change (Brand & Karvonen, 2007) We need to take this accelerating technological change seriously as something enviro nmental designers need to measure and manage (Brand & Karvonen, 2007) Using 6 if you reflection, and correction. As Cross comments in 1972 when discussing participatory design 7 practices : [P] d responsibility to predict and to design Th ese tolerated and regarded as inevitable if we There is certainly a need for new approaches to design if we are to arrest the escalating problems of the man made world and 6 tions thereof, is an old business this, his writings and other quotations certainly s upport this as an idea. Grove has been indirectly quoted in multiple non academic sources as having said this. 7 Participatory design in the modern usage can be defined as a research methodology used to understand the ways people perform their everyday act ivities and how those activities might be shaped productively by design intervention (Spinuzzi, 2005)

PAGE 49

31 citizen participati on in decision making could possibly provide a necessary reorientation (Cross, 1972, p. 11) T often introduced as an individual endeavor actually a collaboration between the actors involved in the design process including t he designers, clients, building owners, developers, engineers, construction personnel, and, sometimes, future inhabitants (Jacobs & Merriman, 2011) Future inhabitants arguably have the largest potential critiquing role but they are generally silent, in th at they are not involved in the design process. practiced today, is focused more on the exploration and identification of presumably positive future opportunities than it is on the identification and ameli oration of adverse In addition, the idea of co design 8 or co creation 9 is becoming popular with researchers (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Tseng & Piller, 2003; von Hippel, 2005; Seybold, 2006, Sanders & Stappe rs, 2008) but while not generally used in practice for product design co design (Sanders & Stappers, 2008, p. 8) [W]e could talk not (only) about partic ipation at the moment of decision but 8 Co working together in the design developme 9 creation [refers] to any act of collective creativity, i.e. creativity that is shared by physical to the metaphysical an design is a specific instance of co

PAGE 50

32 will take place before the end of the [twentieth] century. We wi ll have to suffer first from the lack of foresight of our fathers and forefathers. After that, be prepared. (Jungk as cited in Cross, 1972, p. 122) In addition to co design an d co creation, i n recent years, the term design thinking has come into vogue to describe the strategies that designers employ when creating designs. Design thinking is being used as a way to add value throughout the ound at the end of the product/service in their training, practices and approach es that can be adopted also by non designers in innovation processes in order to strengthen creativity and solution refinement:

PAGE 51

33 brainstorming 10 and ideation 11 reiteration 12 and prototyping 13 and abductive reasoning 14 & Kohtala, 2011, p. 516). Many of the strategies mentioned in design thinking require a team approach or critiquing and reviewing by knowledgeable actors When applying design thinking to environmental design, b uilding inhabitants are in the best position to comment on the building in use as critics and reviewers of the building because they are the only participants in the process who have real world experience inhabiting the building (Bordass & Ruyssevelt, 2010). 10 Osborn defines a brain storming session as a group of individuals developing ideas concerning a problem, for a period of a few minut es to an hour, under the guidance of a facilitator. The facilitator states the problem and the group then generates ideas, following the guidelines: (1) no criticism of any idea; (2) idea modification or combination is encouraged; (3) the goal is to genera te many ideas; and (4) no idea is too outrageous to be mentioned (Osborn, 1957) 11 Ideation is defined as idea generation. Marketing literature has defined ideation as an approach for developing new products that includes: cus tomer value determination processes, ethnography and participant evaluation, customer value change process understanding, product analyses, technological breakthroughs, and tapping into experience, with creativity and scenario generation as the outcomes of following this approach (Flint, 2002) 12 Reiteration in design is the process designers go through where they generate design solutions that seem to match the problem constraints given but, as the designer works through the so lution, he or she finds that the proposed solution does not match one or more of the constraints, so a new design iteration, or reiteration, of part of the design sequence is required to match the given constraints (Eastman, 1968 ) 13 and evaluating form, design fit, performance and manufacturability; used for study and rnatives... (Wang, 2002) 14 Abductive reasoning is the process of determining the meaning based on the experience. In other words, we are surprised by the situation and make an inference tha t then becomes commonplace to us (Shank, 1998)

PAGE 52

34 Buildings and other environmental design s have traditionally been artifacts that have evolved over time in a certain way that we may not necessarily be able to explain (Steadman, 1979) quickly and we have the luxury of waiti ng for the new changes to slowly evolve into something that works. We need to find ways to speed up the natural evolutionary design process The team approach suggested by design thinking and co design may be a way to develop design rationale grounded in t he experience of the reality of designed artifacts in use quickly by incorporating the expertise of the inhabitant and other actors involved with designed artifacts in the design process. Alexander makes the argument that the traditional approach to buildi change and we, as designers, have to become e xplicitly aware of these things. Here is the problem. We wish to design clearly conceived forms which are well adapted to some given context. We have seen that for t his to be feasible, the adaptation must take place independently within independent subsystems of variables. In the unselfconscious situation this occurs automatically, because the individual craftsman has too little control over the process to upset the p attern of adaptation implicit in the ensemble. Unfortunately this situation no longer exists; the number of variables has increased, the information confronting us is profuse and confusing, and our attempts to duplicate the natural organization of the unse lfconscious process self consciously are thwarted, because the very thoughts we have, as we try to help ourselves, distort the problem and make it unclear to s olve. (1964, p. 73) Reflective Practice Buildings are designed with the eventual inhabitant in m ind but inhabitant feedback about the suitability of the building design is generally not a central part of the design process, neither before nor after the building is built (Way & Bordass, 2005;

PAGE 53

35 Zagreus et al, 2004). This failure to learn lessons from th e building design and more complicated buildings are as they incorporate more new technologies and become more energy efficient, the more feedback from inhabitant s and fr om building systems is required in order to successfully design buildings that are smart, energy efficient, comfortable, and satisfying to the inhabitant s (Darby, 2008; Spencer & Sain, 1997; Gill et al, 2010). While learning to incorporate new technologies makes environmental design more complex, the integration of some of these technologies, such as computerized devices, into the built environment gives us an opportunity not only to make buildings smarter but to gather crucial information about the experie nce of the built environment in a way that does not require labor intensity on the part of the designer or building inhabitant (Steele & Clark, 2012; Roussac & de Bear, 2010; Hewlett et al, 2012) and give designers the opportunity to reflect on the impact of their design solution in situated use back talk from the situation and how this feedback is an integral part of the design process. Schn presents a view of design (and oth er professional domains) and the processes designers (and other professional practitioners) use when working through solving a problem in terms of knowing in action and reflection in action Knowing in action refers to the type of knowing practiced by prof how is in 1983, p. 50). Reflection in action refers to the process of thinking about something

PAGE 54

36 rformance leads to surprises, pleasing practitioner testing ideas and dealing with back talk from the situation when the results ed by the results, or the action produces influenced by people reacting and making sense out of breakdowns as they occur in the creation and evolution of artifacts a When applying knowing in action, design practitioners tacitly employ their knowledge while engaging in skilled performance by making judgments and employing skills that are Schn 1983, p. 54) While these practitioners know what to do, they may not be able to explain the criteria being employed (Schn, 1983, pp. 49 50). Differing from explicit knowledge, with knowing in action the knowledge is tacit and inte rnalized to the point that the practitioner is For example, a tightrope walker may be able to walk the tightrope with skill and adjust his or her performance to the sit uation at hand but cannot explain to anyone else exactly how this is accomplished ( Schn 1983, pp. 5 0 51) Even if he or she could explain how to walk the tightrope, the listener would still be unable to walk the tightrope based on the account given ( Sch n 1995, p. 5) When the intelligence is in the what matters most in the performance.

PAGE 55

37 Schn describes reflection in per formance engenders unexpected consequences Surprises, or informative feedback the outcomes of the action, the action itself, and the intuitive knowing implicit in the just be based on the experience of having done it in the past. Practitioners ru n into problems and opportunities and, often, what makes the decisive difference in the outcome is what they do as a consequence of the back talk from reality. Schn was the first to talk about how this sort of back talk from the situation is central to th e process of designing itself. His theory of reflective practice is considered to be a type of situated cognition ( McCall, 2013; Osterman & Kottkamp, 1993; Cafferalla & Merriam, 2000; Bilda et al, 2007) In a closed world model of problem solving 15 the inq open In an open ended problem solving model 16 which is what environmental design practitioners encounter, much more happens in the way of unexpected consequences (Bargh et al, 2008) Taking ongoing feedback from the environment into account is central to the effective practice of environmental design 15 The closed world model of problem solving assumes that the inquirer has a complete knowledge of the world and the problem. 16 The open ended problem solving model assumes the inq uirer has an incomplete knowledge of the world and of the problem to be solved.

PAGE 56

38 negotiat When the results produced are unexpected, the designer needs to reflect on what to do with that information, rather than retreating from the situation or writing the results off as a failure As Schn describes the Positivist, or traditional, account of problem solving, it is a technical procedure that separates means from ends (Schn, 1983, p. 165). Compared on with the situation is elevated to a new level Schn 1983, p. 165) uch more complex phenomenon where the designer is constantly learning about the problem and reframing the problem as a consequence of this ongoing feedback. Schn understands the role of back talk from the real world the unexpected consequences of action in the quality of the end product. In the reflective conversation practitioners have with the situation, traditional aditional problem solving is ( Schn, 1983, p. 165) application to instrumental problems of research based theories and techniques whose ( Schn,

PAGE 57

39 1983, p. 165) In contrast, the design practitioner can enhance his or her capacity for reflection in (Schn, 1983, p.309) become aware of and criticize their tacit fra As Schn tells us, the Positivist epistemology of practice separates means from measured by its effectiveness in achieving a pre established object Schn, 1983, p. 165). In contrast, r the ensuing inquiry, action on the situation is integral with deciding, and problem solving is a part of the larger experiment in problem setti inquirer frames and re back talk, adopting a type of double vision so that he or she can act but still be open to changing the course of action as new confusions and uncertainties arise within the seeing as and [emphasis in the original] the problem is framed, new models of the situation are made and tested, and ctory moves or to surface phenomena Design practitioners learn from repetition and from personal experience ( Schn, 1983) For architects and other environmental design practitioners, the ex perience of designing a building is removed from the experience of inhabiting that building (assuming the designer is not designing for his or her own office or residence). When

PAGE 58

40 ng design, eight new business buildings near London [where] researchers found that in only one case in ten did the architect ever return to the building p. 66 ). B ecause of this removal from the experience of the use of the building, the knowledge that would be gained from the designer experiencing the reality of the building may not occur or be applied by the designer to the design of the next building. In addition the practice of building modern, highly energy efficient, sustainable, and smart buildings is new, giving practitioners little real world knowledge to draw upon. While Schn focuses on reflection in action (1983), he discusses two other types of reflect ion that practitioners engage in: reflection before the act, which can be considered a type of planning; and post mortem reflection, or reflection after the act is completed. It can be argued that any type of reflection is valuable in some way to the profe ssional practitioner. However, back talk from the situation only comes from action and reflection in action comes during a time when that reflection could still make a difference in the outcome. Schn concentrates exclusively on the value of reflection in understanding what these unexpected consequences imply for the situation at hand As Suchman (1987) points out, plans are a means to prepare for action but all they are is prepa ration that can be used or abandoned during the situation. Suchman talking about action, plans as such neither determine the actual course of situated

PAGE 59

41 action nor adeq situated action is used Plans and Situated Actions, essential w similar vein, Schn describes the process an architect goes through when sketching plans for a building. The plans are made, then tested, then re made until the solution seems to be satisfactory (Schn, 1983, p. 166). When discussing the ramifications of planning on a large scale, Schn argues that the entire basis of American centralist planning in the mid 1960s was based on two onsensus about the content of the 1983, p. 206). The plans put in place based on these assumptions at the time had unintended side effects and either failed to solve the problems, made the problems worse, or created new problems. While modern city planning has changed substantially ws that plans are often put in place to accomplish a stated purpose but actually make the situation worse in the long run. A situation that arises as the result of well intended planning, that appears to be an initial success (like the Pruitt Igoe towers m entioned earlier in this chapter) can actually be worse than before the plan went into effect. The after effects are an inevitable consequence of what the planner intended to do. In the case of unintended after effects, the planner needs to rethink the or iginal intentions. As Broome tells us,

PAGE 60

42 intention to reach an end does not justify the means. To the extent that those things intended are themselves means to some higher goal, the planner needs to determine whether there are alternative means of achieving those higher goals Schn maintains the process of planning has value. Plans are valuable to the professional because they function as a way to explore the proposed situ ation and determine possible problem of enabling them to achieve satisfactory moves or to surface phenomena which cause sing plans in the military, Eisenhower famously uttered the following: distinction because when you are planning for an emergency you must start with this one thing: the very definiti thing you do is to take all the plans off the top shelf and throw them out the window and start once more. But if you haven't been plann ing you can't start keep yourselves steeped in the character of the problem that you may one day be called upon to solve -or to help to solve. (Eisenhower, 1957) Eisenhower is talking about the importance of being familiar with the problem. Rittel called this the problem scape which is the list of all the issues and potential answers and arguments for and against those potential answers (1972). It's why re use of knowledge can happen often if and only if the designer knows the underlying rationale because the designer is not going to re use the solution or rubberstamp it onto something else. The designer needs to understand how the rationale fits or doesn't fit and, withou t understanding why it was done, the designer does not know how to

PAGE 61

43 change it (Schum & Hammond, 1994) Much of what's going to make the information collected after implementation valuable is an understanding of the rationale. Designers need to be able to ar ticulate design rationale because, while the solution is not going to be used again, the understanding of the design problem, or rationale, can be applied to other designs (Schum & Hammond, 1994) Design solutions are evaluated mainly in terms of their con sequences. The reflective practitioner is getting feedback about unexpected consequences that can be applied to past, current, or not merely as planning for future acti on for example, implementation and use but also as a type of situated cognition in which design is shaped by feedback resulting from The traditional mode of p lanning does not take into account the opportunity to incorpor ate feedback to reframe the pr oblem during the design process, as Schn Schn 1983, p. 165). Design practitioners frame and reframe the problem at hand as they work through different solutions. To apply knowledge gained from experience, the design practitioner needs to find a way to gather continual back talk accordance with the view he has Schn, 1983, pp. 163 164). The information gathered from back talk also needs to be shared by and with building inhabitant s and other actors involved with the desig n (including the designer) other design

PAGE 62

44 practitioners, and the public to engender a collective discussion with the aim of continuously improving building design. Weick et al tell us, when discussing high one means to learn even though trial and error is lim ited, is by broadening the set of errors that are available from which to learn and by instituting practices that encourage people to report all of those errors that are detected Back talk from the situation is a way of reporting unexpected consequences or surprising side effects, as they arise. The accepted method for environmental designers to gather information about buildings in use has been a survey and in person interview process (called a Post Occupancy Evaluation, or POE) that is conducted after the building is built (Preiser et al, 1988) and when the situation for the designer is over. POEs are time consuming, expensive, unreliable, uncommon, unshared, and tend to be conducted once, right after the bui lding is built (Brand, 1995, pp. 65 66). POEs as they are conducted now do not provide the continual back talk needed by environmental designers (Alexander, 2010, p. 15). POEs are also a type of post def ined as] the practitioner look[ing] back on her experiences to explore again the 1185). Similar to planning, post mortem reflection can yield some useful information for the practitioner to use in future situations. The issue with post mortem reflection is thought it would go, it may be useful to talk about what happened later but the pitc her

PAGE 63

45 needs to improve now, in the middle of the game, and reflect in action about how to adjust his or her pitching to the situation at hand, in order to be successful. The back ions performed as a result of the back talk provide feedback for the next action (Schn, 1983, pp.54 55). While the post mortem reflection may provide some value, the situation is over so the reflection is no longer in action but after action. Schn refers to (Schn, 1983, p. 309). While he does see value in this type of research, the value mainly lies in becoming aware of factors that either fostered or impeded reflecti on in action for the practitioner (Schn, 1983, p. 321). The difference between post mortem reflection and gathering continual back talk from the situation in use is that post mortem reflection is a one time endeavor and it is not concerned with or informe d by the situated use of the designed artifact. Schn showcases architectural design as a model of practitioners applying feedback from the situation to their work, but he does not specifically talk about what happens after the building is built. Most arch itects begin work on a design problem by sketching design solutions, either on paper or using digital models. Sketches are a great way to work out problems but they are only a representation. which partial and rudimentary represe ntations are produced, evaluated, transformed, structured problem solving, it is not clear at the outset where the process is leading to, and what the end 2, p. 72).

PAGE 64

46 information that will be contained in the actual building. Sketches are not a replacement n our head, much less on paper. Representations are abstractions that do when the design is implemented. Even very detailed models, like energy use simulations produced for LEED certified buildings are no guarantee of performance. Realizing that we are tr ying to integrate a large set of interacting actors, de sign stages, tools, enterprise aspects, etc ., we must acknowledge that no short term solutions ertainly any attempt to produce a com plete and final solution would prove to be over amb 0). A recent study determined that 28 35% of the LEED buildings studied actually used more energy than their conventional counterparts (Newsham et al, 2009, p. 904). may no want the bad news before or after the building is built? Schn under emphasizes the outcome of the action. What happens once the design is implemented? What do we do about it then? Schn with the design or in terms of reflective conversation between the design practitioner and client, presumably before the design is implemented. Schn does not take explicitly take into account the multitude of other actors involved with the designed artifact and their role in the development of design rationale.

PAGE 65

47 Getting Feedback to Environmental Designers In the context of our society, the environmental design professional is a service provider and projects on the scale of a building or other environmental design mean the designer has many clients, or actors involved with the outcome of the design (Schn, 1983, pp. 290 291). Reflective practice does not free practitioners from worrying about the consequences of their actions. Instead, it allows the practitioner to engage in a technical expertise is embedded in a context of meanings his acti ons may have different meanings for his client than he intends them to have, and he gives himself the something which was once constructed and may be reconstructed; and there is both ( Schn, 1983, p. 296). In turn, the competent client also functions as a reflective practi tioner who eng ages in reflective conversation with the practitioner. This interactive reflective conversation between client and professional can involve the client in stimulating reflection on knowledge in practice for the professional and allow the client to exert som e control over the situation (Schn, 1983, p. 302). To support reflective conversation between environmental designers building inhabitants, and other actors involved with the building, a public forum in the form of a

PAGE 66

48 social network site 17 is needed that will : 1) allow building inhabitants to submit reviews of the built environment in use ; 2) allow other actors to view, submit reviews, and information about the building ; and 3) allow environmental designers to access these reviews comment, and submit solu tions and new design models for critiquing This forum should have information from building sensors and other automated building information systems, building systems information, building information modeling (BIM) 18 if available, and comments and questi ons from the professional design community and the general public. An important factor to the success of this type of public forum is that it needs to be sponsored and implemented by actors who do not have a reason to stifle the public feedback. Maintainin g this impartiality is also an important reason to keep the forum and the information contained therein public. In the case of environmental design, the sponsors should not be designers, building owners, or building management as these actors may have a di sincentive to support 17 Social network sites are defined as based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those mad he nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site 167) 18 The National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) defines Building Information establish a computable representation of all the physical and functional characteristics of a facility and its related project/life cycle information, and is intended to be a repository of information for the facility owner/operator to use and maintain throughout the life

PAGE 67

49 types of designed artifacts, the review process has become commonplace in public forums like those on Web sites owned by Amazon, Netflix, and even retailer sites, like Best Buy, Sears, Target, etc. and is considered to be a type of word of mouth communication (even though the communication is generally between strangers) (Lee et al, 2008). These reviews are not controlled by the product designers, owners, operators, or builders so the sponsorship is relatively independent if we ignore the possibility of paid negative or positive reviews ( Chatterjee, 2001) Activity Theory Reflective practice provides a rich theoretical b asis for design practice but does not give us a sufficient model to apply to the complexities of design or a clear way to specify the actors interacting with the designed artifact, their roles, the local or regional rules involved, and the socio cultural and historical factors involv ed with the artifact. Activity theory provides a framework for mapping human activity that is not explicitly part of the theory of reflective practice. At its most basic level, activity theory posits that human consciousness is subjective, shaped by histor y, social, and cultural experience, and that human activity is fundamental to human consciousness, formed by the tools other words, all human activity is purposeful, is what separate us from other animals and humans can only be understood in terms of the tools we use (Vygotsky, 1934/2012). To a ctivity theory purists, this description of activity theory may seem over simplified but the operationalization of activity theory

PAGE 68

50 requires this simplification in order to take it from a purely philosophical e ndeavor to a useful framework. For designers, t he great potential of activity theory is to provide an organized and consistent way to investigate, describe, and understand the larger context however, the somewhat vague form ulations and expressions of activity theory need to be ma de more precise and accessible. (Constantine, 2009, p. 28) e, 2009. P. 27). In impetus for the notion that back talk from huma n use of tools or artifacts (for example, from the built environment) is something that designers want a nd need to collect. Like the theory of reflective practice, activity theory is a type of situated cognition but, different from reflective practice, activity theory is considered to be social situatedness 19 (Lindblom & Zimke, 2003; Swain & Deters, 2007; Ra smussen, 2001). Activity theory provides the social framework to use in support of reflective practice for design practitioners. Activity theory is a socio psychological theory that has been applied in Europe, particularly Russia and Northern European coun tries, since the first half of the 2 0th 19 Social situatedness is th t is likely that the aspects of hum an intelligence that are deeply rooted in our society may be as important as those rooted in our physical embodiment, due to the peculiar [h] umans a re above all social bei ngs, and it seems that it is our sociality which makes us

PAGE 69

51 century (Hasan, 2006, p. 50 ), and developed alongside but independent of Anglo American socia l sciences (Kuutti, 1996, p. 25 ). It has its roots in the work of the Russian psychologist, Lev Vygotsky, whose seminal pub lication, Thought and Language, was translated into English in 1962 and is considered to be a foundational work in cognitive science (Vygotsky, 1934/2012, p. ixx). Yrj Engestrm is widely credited with bringing activity theory to the Western academic cons ciousness w ith his 1987 work, Learning by Expanding: An Activity Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. Activity theory was initially adopted in the West by the education community and has since been adapted by enthusiasts in many disciplines, inc luding psychologists, anthropologists, linguists, sociologists, human performance technologists, knowledge management specialists, philosophers, information systems (IS) engineers, and human computer interface designers (Nardi, 1996, p. 10; Ma rken, 2006, p 27 ; Hasan, 2002 ). This di ssertation will concentrate on a modified version of activity t heory combined with an expanded version of Schn as a framework for the formation of design rationale. This framework is called Reflectiv e Activity Systems Theory (RAST). RAST will be utilized in the design of a system intended to be an interactive online public repository for information and communication about the built environment in use that extends reflective practice into the an inter active and collective community of practice. As a design domain that deals with the design of complex designed artifacts and a design discipline with a relatively large body of research and literature available Human computer Interaction is an appropriat e discipline to examine and mine for

PAGE 70

52 concepts that can be applied to other design disciplines. computer Interaction (HCI) is the area of intersection between psychology and the social sciences, on the one hand, and computer science and technology, o n th ). Activity theory has increasingly entered the HCI conversation as an alternative to the perceived limitations of the cognitive psychology research agenda (Carroll, 1997, p. 511). HCI has been trending toward a more soci al agenda over the past 30 years. Carroll maps this trend as a result of four independent developments: 1) by 1990, it was clear socially or organizationally oriented approach was required to supplement or replace de reducing the skill required to perform work requiring the use of computing technology; the computing industry and raised significa ntly new challenges and opportunities for 513). As Lewis (1990) tells us, the need to consider context in HCI is paramount. Cognitive theory before 1990 did not have much focus on perception or how the environment shapes behavi or in the context of social and organizational processes and experience (Lewis, 1990, p. 129 been largely a cognitive

PAGE 71

53 technology and work began to penetrate the discourse of what had been a somewhat situated and distributed cognition 20 and began to focus on context and social factors (Carroll, 1997, p. 512). ity (Carroll, 1997, p. 512). The factors that make activity theory such a good fit with HCI are : [T] he ensemble of technological factors with social factors, and of individual attitudes, experiences and actions with community practices, traditions and valu changing, that human activities are mediated and transformed by human creations, such as technologies, and that people make themse lves through their use of tools. (Carroll, 1997, p. 512) Other HCI researchers seem to agree a recent Google Scholar search for from articles and books published since 2010. With its focus on tools and the mediating role t hat tools have in all human activities and mental processes, and the ubiquitous role that computerized tools have in our modern lives, activity theory is a particularly useful framework to apply to HCI and other design modes focused on the development of t ools and other artifacts like buildings building 20 nalysis to the system

PAGE 72

54 Since the system I propose to design is a collaborative information system, utilizing HCI as the communication mechanism, and a focus on large scale tools and artifacts (the built environment), activity theory is an ideal framework to apply to this system. chan ging the environment and achieving ). Beyond the interactive, ubiquitous nature of the Internet has brought computer based tools into the or physical), secondary (internal, semiotic or mental), and tertiary (schematics where & Hasan, 200 6, p. 50). Wartofsky, an activity theorist and contemporary of Engestrm, g and farming tools, transportation, clothing, computers, telecommunications networks, etc. Vygotsky refers to these as technical tools ) (Wartofsky, 1979, p. 200) Secondary kills or modes of action or praxis 21 language, counting systems, writing, diagrams, research methods, theoretical models, etc. Vygotsky refers to the se as 21 kwitz, 2002, p. 49).

PAGE 73

55 psychological tools ) (Wartofsky, 1979, p. 200) practitioners to take an overall view of their activity, and then to reflect on it, as well as to collect and save their experiences as potential material for f urther development of representation function but instead serve the free construction in the imagination of tools, rules and operations that are distinctively different from those adopted for the praxis (for example, games, play, imagination, dreams, visions for the future, etc.) (Virkkunen & Pihlaja, 2004, p. 35). For designed artifacts to be most effective as tools, they must be suited to the operational context in wh requires that the design fit with the purpose(s) of the activities within which the it also requires that the designed artifacts effectively support the combined actions by which these purposes are a well designed artifact takes into account the com munity of participants, their ro les, and the rules regulating their activity. [emphasis added] (Constantine, 2009, p. 30) Activity theory provides the framework for map ping human activity, including the community, actor roles, rules in place, and a focus on the activity and its importance to human cognition. Activity theory is not, however, predictive ( Nardi, 1996, p. 75; Kaptelinin, 1996, p. 113; Basharina, 2007, p. 87) (1983) theory of reflective practice is a predictive model As Kaufmann and Mann tell us proposing that theory and practice infor 2010, p. 12). Reflective practice and activity theory are synergistic theoretical models that, combined, enhance each other and

PAGE 74

56 address deficiencies in each theory. Reflectiv e practice gives us the means to bridge theory and practice and activity theory gives us the conceptual framework and language to discuss the multitude of actors involved with a designed artifact. Together, the two theories combine to create a Reflective A ctivity Systems Theory (RAST) that can be used to develop design rationale based on feedback from situated use

PAGE 75

57 CHAPTER II REFLECTIVE PRACTICE SITUATED COGNITION AND ACTIVITY THEORY: THE ROLE OF REFLECTIVE CONVERSATION IN DESIGN Highlights Schn (19 83) discusses reflective practice as a reflective conversation with the situation involving two activities: intuitive knowing in action and explicit reflection in action. This chapter focuses on design as a reflective practice and the activities that under lie reflective practice as a form of situated cognition. The literature has largely focused on reflective practice and situated cognition in learning environments, even though Schn applied the concept of reflective practice in his writings to design domai ns, like the practice of architecture, as well as education, psychotherapy, medicine, and other domains and other authors have written about reflective practice and situated cognition as applied to human computer interface (HCI) design This chapter exami nes reflective practice and demonstrates an understanding of the design process as situated cognition. It illustrates the lack of investigat ion into how reflective conversation may support design strategies and highlights underlying issues that may help to explain the gaps between the design, reflective practice, situated cognition and activity theory literatures. Activity theory is compared to reflective practice and theories of situated cognition in this chapter and explored more fully in Chapter III.

PAGE 76

58 Introduction Review In the first chapter, I described reflective practice and how environmental design strategies are rarely based upon feedback from use or verified through post occupancy evaluation (POE). I also explained some of the issues with POEs and the ways they are conducted (or not conducted, as is more frequently the case). The literature on the theory of reflective practice and theories of situated cognition has focused primarily on learning environments with some literature discussing applicati ons to HCI design In this chapter, I will conduct a more detailed cross disciplina ry review of the literature, discuss limitations in the manner these theories are currently utilized, and suggest a more robust application of reflective conversational prac tices Thesis I will illustrate in this chapter how a cross disciplinary re view of the reflective practice, situated cognition and design literature is essential for understanding key issues concerning 1) why creating a relationship between design rationa le reflective practice, and situated cognition is important to move the design reflective conversation to the next level and 2) how feedback from the artifact in use can be used to create a r eflective conversation among the actors involved with the desig n artifact This type of cross disciplinary review is rare in environmental design and has the potential to open a new line of inquiry for environmental design research as well as general design domains This cross disciplinary review reveals : 1) reflecti ve conversation among actors involved with the design artifact including the designer as an actor,

PAGE 77

59 ground design strategies ; 2) while Schn closest to suggesting reflective conversation as a de sign rationale gathering strategy, Schn conversation not just the design practitioner and client ; and 3) although feedback from the built environment in use has been viewed in the environmental design community as increasingly important to sustainable environmental design solutions, this feedback has not been consistently collected and has not been collected on an ongoing basis. There is a gap between the prescribed environme ntal design methodology and the actual environmental design practices. Implementing reflective conversational practices for design addresses this gap and allows designers to begin designing with true reflection in action. Significance This chapter seeks to illustrate the need for reflective conversation between designers and actors involved with their designs The following review of reflective practice, situated cognition, and design literature suggests that : 1) reflective practice based on situated cognit ion has informed design strategies in many disciplines ; 2) the theories implicit in these design strategies are cross disciplinary in nature and can be applied to environmental design; 3) the common measure to determine the effectiveness of these design st rategies is feedback from the end user (in environmental design, the end user is the inhabitant); and 4) the current industry standard sustainable environmental design strategies do not typically get reviewed by actors who are not directly associated with the design practitioner(s) following design implementation and

PAGE 78

60 are therefore not part of a reflective conversation between designers and actors involved with their designs The significance of this review is that it reveals the importance of collecting fee dback from actors to establish reflective conversation as a method for developing design rationale for past, current, and future designs knowledge, which yield inconsistent re The lack of reflective conversation among actors involved with environmental design artifacts has contributed to the inability of environmental designers to reliably create sustainable, comfortable, satisfying outcomes There is a need for investigation strategies in environmental design practices to provide proof that the buildings and other built environmental structures we inhabit are sustainable, meet the stated design goals, and are meeting the needs of the actors involve d with the design artifact Without the data to show whether or not sustainable environmental design solutions are effective in meeting the actors and needs, environmental designers are designing based on pure speculation There is a crucial need fo r environmental design to consider the feedback from actors interacting with the designed artifact in situated use.

PAGE 79

61 Reflective Practice Schn is (if one excepts the design theorist Rittel) the first author after Simon to introduce a new approach to cogn itive design theory 22 Schn as the author who, through his proposal of the refle c tive practice offered an alternative The Sciences of the Artificial defines the sciences of design as distinct from natural science artificial refers to man made rather than natural artifacts (Simon, 1969/1996 p. xi ) Newell and Simon jointly defined an approach to design problem ch also referred to as symbolic processing (Newell & Simon, 1972). involved in all cognitive activity. Every account of cognitive phenomena consists of a set of operations that construc t and modify symbolic structures; that is, every cognitive process is a symbolic process. Some cognitive processes are considered as being situated, and others are apparently thought not be situated, or at least the situativity of some processes is not cru cial for their physical or mental that is symbol is used to account for all action in which cognition plays a r ole. (Greeno & Moore, 1993, pp. 50 51) Simon describes symbols as follows: [P]hysical patterns (e.g., chalk marks on a blackboard) that can occur as that, as it moves through time, pr oduces an evolving collection of symbol 22 and cognition (or human thinking processes) during the practice of design (Takeda et al, 1990, p. 154).

PAGE 80

62 structures. Symbol structures can, and commonly do, serve as internal symbol system is seeking to adapt. They allow it to model that environmen remind the reader that they exist as rea l world devices, fabricated of g lass and metal (computers) or flesh and blood (brains). In the past we have been more accustomed to thi nking of the symbol systems of mathematics and logic as abstract and disembodied, leaving out of account the paper and pencil and (1969/1996, p. 22) perspective in cognitive science authors embraced this paradigm as the fundamental schema for their investigation of cognitive activities N ewell and Simon used the SIP approach (Visser, 2010, p. 12). Simon, without Newe ll, applied the SIP approach to design. In these analyses of design, Simon identified and elaborated various characteristics of this specific problem solving activity that have formed, for some 10 to 15 years, the basis of the approach adopted toward desig n by many, if not most, researchers in cognitive psychology and cognitive ergonomics who have been conducting research on design since the early 1980s. [emphasis in original] (Visser, 2010, p. 12) oblem solving, which In his chapter The Sciences of the Artifici al, Simon tells us that p. 111) and he laments the

PAGE 81

63 natural sciences pushing design from professional school curr icula -1969/1996, p. 111). He discusses th emerging since the mid Simon then dis cusses topics that he considers to be components of a theory of design. He lists these topics as: THE EVALUATION OF DESIGNS 1. Theory of evaluation: utility theory, statistical decision theory 2. Computational methods: a. Algorithms for choosing optimal alternative s such as linear programming computations, control theory, dynamic programming b. Algorithms and heuristics for choosing satisfactory alternatives 3. THE FORMAL LOG IC OF DESIGN: imperative and declarative logics THE SEARCH FOR ALTERNATIVES 4. Heuristic search: fact orization and means ends analysis 5. Allocation of resources for search 6. THEORY OF STRUCTURE AND DESIGN ORGANIZATION: hierarchic systems 7. REPRESENTATION OF DESIGN PROBLEMS [emphasis in original] (Simon, 1969/1996, p. 134) Schn between professional knowledge and the demands of real but Schn says that Simon preserve s the model of Technical Rationality, or traditional gn which depends on having well Schn of Technical Rationality is incomplete, in that it fails to account for practical competence ording to Schn the alternative to traditional problem solving is reflective practice, which is applying refl ection in action in the practical context (1983, p. 68). Schn describes reflective practice as follows :

PAGE 82

64 When someone reflects in action, he becom es a researcher in the practice context. He is not dependent on the categories of established theory and technique, but constructs a new theory of the unique case. His inquiry is not limited to a deliberation about means which depends on a prior agreement about ends. He does not keep means and ends separate, but defines them interactively as he frames a problematic situation. He does not separate thinking from doing, ratiocinating his way to a decision which he must later convert to action. Because his expe rimenting is a kind of action, implementation is built into his inquiry. Thus reflection in action can proceed, even in situations of uncertainty or uniqueness, because it is not bound by the dichotomies of Technical Rationality. (1983, pp. 68 69) Schn in action [d]oing extends thinking in the tests, moves, and probes of Schn 1983, p. 280). i] f the model of Technical Rationality is incomplete in that it fails to an epistemology of practice implicit in the artistic, intuitive processes which some pract itioners do bring to situ ations of uncertainty, instability, uniqueness, and value Schn 1983, p. 49) that is, reflective practice. generally refers to Schn as the author who, through his proposal of the reflective pr actice concept, offered an The Study of Context Schn refers to design in terms of reflective activity, reflective practice, reflection in action, knowing in action, and reflective conversation ( Sch n 1983). The activities underlying Schn considered by many researchers to be part

PAGE 83

65 of situativity theory, or Greeno & Moore, 1993). Suchman defines situated action as: [N]ot made expli cit by rules and procedures. Rather, when situated action becomes in some way problematic, rules and procedures are explicated for purposes of deliberation and the action, which is otherwise neither rule based nor procedural, is then made accountable to th commonsensically, the environment of our actions is made up of a succession of situations that we walk in to, and to which we respond. (1987, p. 54) In other words, situated actions, or actions taken within the situation at ha nd, are ad hoc and, like Schn in situated action has unexpected consequences. When the practitioner is in the midst of a situation that is outside his or her frame of knowledge, and the situation pr esents as unique or unstable, the practitioner may surface and criticize his initial understanding of the phenomenon, construct a new description of it, and test the new description by an on the 63). This is re flection in action. Situated cognition is a theory based on the premise that knowledge cannot be Situa ted cognition is dependent on the body as well as the brain, it Several theses make up research on situated cognition, including embodied cognition, enactive cognition, embedded

PAGE 84

66 cogni tion, and extended cognition 23 more often called distributed cognition [my emphasis]. When discussing situated cognition, Clark posits the following three points: 1. that understanding the complex interplay of brain, body and world requires new analytic tools and methods 2. that traditional notions of internal representation and computation are inadequate and unnecessary 3. that the typical decomposition of the cognitive system i nto a variety of inner neural or functional subsystems is often misleading, and blinds us to the possibility of alternative, and more explanatory, decompositions that cut across the traditional brain body world divisions (Clark, 1999, p.349) Situated acti on models and distributed cognition are two theories that have been used by HCI design practitioners as a means to study the context or situation, in design will ben individual divorced from a social group and from supporting artifacts is no longer the 1996 p. 69 ). Three popular approaches to the study of context that have b een used frequently by researchers over the past 20 years are: situated action models, distributed cognition, and activity theory. 23 e brain but also on the body (the embodiment thesis). Second, cognitive activity routinely exploits structure in the natural and social environment (the embedding thesis). Third, the boundaries of cognition extend beyond the boundaries of individual organi sms (the extension thesis). Each of these theses contributes to a picture of mental activity as dependent on the situation or context in which it occurs, whether that situation or context is relatively local (as in the case of embodiment) or relatively glo & Aydede, 2009, p. 3)

PAGE 85

67 Situated Action Models activity, the way activit (Nardi, 1996, p. 71). grained level of 1996, p. 7 71). i important shaper of activity, concentrating almost exclusively on representations in th e head usually rigid, planful ones 73). Situated action emphasizes responsiveness to the environment and the improvisatory nature of human activity (Lave 1988). By way of illustrating such improvisation, Lav classic A participant in the Weight Watchers program had the task of fixing a serving of cottage cheese that was to be three quarters of the two thirds cup of cottage cheese the program normally allotted. To find the correct amount of measuring cup two thirds full of cheese, dumped it out on a cutting board, patted it into a circle, marked a cross on it, scooped away one quadrant, and (Nardi, 1996, pp. 71 72) [t]he cottage cheese stor y is telling: it is a one time solution to a one (Nardi, 1996, p. 72). Situated action models differ from Schn Schn

PAGE 86

68 accounts for situations that occur again and tells us encountering the same situation many times is what lead s a professional practitioner to knowing in practitioner experiences many variations of a small number of types of cases, he is able Schn 1983, p. 60). Situated action is however, like Schn in action, an acknowledgement that representations s Distributed Cognition of individual The focus of research attention is the functional system, or cognitive system, rather than the individual. representations inside and outside the head An example of a cognitive system follows: l to a distributed collection of interacting people and artifacts, we cannot individual agents al ong, no matter how detailed the knowledge of the its pilots and instruments forming a single cognitive system, can be unders tood only when we understand, as a unity, the contrib utions of the individual agents

PAGE 87

69 in the system and the coordination necessary among the agents to enact the (Nardi, 1996, p. 77) yses of particular artifacts and to be concerned with finding stable design principles that are widely A main focus of distributed d artifacts, that is, (Nardi, 1996, p. 78). The theory of distributed cognition and activity theory have much in common and it has been suggested that they may merge at some point in the near future (at least for HCI researchers). Activity Theory mediation broadly defined to include instruments, signs, language, and machines, mediate activity and are cr In activity theory the unit of analysis is an activity, described as follows: [A]n activity [is] composed of [a] subject, object, actions, and operations. A subject is a person or a group engaged in an activity. An object (in the sense of directed processes that must be undertaken to fulfill the object. They are conscious (because one holds a goal in mind), and d ifferent actions may be undertaken to meet the same goal. [emphasis in original] (Nardi, 1996, p. 73) Operations are the means by which an action can be completed ( for example, one operation may be to write with a pen, while another may be to write with a computer writing is the action, the pen and the co mputer are the operation s ).

PAGE 88

70 case. Christiansen conducted research on the design of information systems used by Danish po lice. A Danish detective told her the system needed to be strong enough to Scandinavia, when the Swedish prime minister Oluf Palme was shot down on a street in Stockholm in 19 actors working on this system on the desired result and allows them to direct their efforts a nd find the means to reach that result. Activity theory holds that artifacts as well as peo ple carry their own history and proposes a very specific notion of context: di, 1996, p. 76). Similarities and Differences Situated action, distributed cognition, and activity theory are all concerned with multifaceted, shifting, intertwining processes that comprise human thought and While situated action and distributed cognition are both considered facets of situated cognition, there are more differences between situated

PAGE 89

71 action and distributed cognition then t here are between activity theory and distributed cognition. In activity theory and distributed cognition, motives or goals are emphasized. concerned with both the indiv idual and the collective push to achieve an activity. notion of object, except that a system goal is an abstract systemic concept that does not involve individual consc Situated action does not consider goals or motives important to action and considers them to be something the actor interprets after the action has occurred. Situated action analyzes to the environment 1996, p. 81). Activity theory focuses research attention on high level consciousness, rather than low level concerns. While it may be difficult to answer questions about operations, o the current problems are with the boss, or an effective executive what his goals are for Situated action by

PAGE 90

72 moment actions [which] leads to detailed descriptions of highly particularistic activit ies (such as pricing cheeses in a bin or measuring out cottage cheese) that are not likely to there is no definitive concep Thus, a major difference between activity th unfolding in a particular situation; in situated action, goals and plans cannot even be realized until after Two m ajor tenets of activity theory are the historical development of activity and th 83 84). Situated action span situations, and can thus be described and analyzed independent of a particular situation will not

PAGE 91

73 (Nardi, 1996, p. 86). By contrast, distribute conceptually equivalent; [but both] similar to traditional cognitive science, except that the scope of the system has been widened to include a collaborating set of art 87). inadvertently, may present people as reactive ciphe rs rather than fully cognizant human actors with self Relation to Reflective Practice Reflective practice is considered by many researchers to be a situated action model. However, while Schn says the design practit ioner needs to be open to the talk, he does not dismiss plans or goals in the way that situated action does. Schn discusses the relationship of the design inquirer with planning in the following: [I]nquiry, however it may initially have b een conceived, turns into a frame experiment. What allows this to happen is that the inquirer is willing to step into the problematic situation, to impose a frame on it, to follow the implications of the discipline thus established, and yet to remain open to the talk. Reflecting on the surprising consequences of his efforts to shape the situation in conformity with his initially chosen frame, the inquirer frames new questions and new ends in view. ( Schn 1983, p. 269) While Schn does dis cuss social systems, particularly in terms of city or urban planning and social reform, he does not discuss design in terms of the collective, as expressed in activity theory, or the historical and cultural role of artifacts in society. He also does not di scuss people and artifacts as being a part of the same functional or

PAGE 92

74 cognitive system, or as being equivalent, like distributed cognition does. He does discuss the cultural and historical development of traditional artifacts in an a ctivity theor etic way wi Chris Alexander, in his Notes Toward a Synthesis of Form, considers the knowing involved in design. He beli e ves that we can often recognize and ntext, but that we usually cannot describe the rules by which we find a fit bad or recognize the co r rected form to be good. Traditional artifacts evolve culturally through successive detections and corrections of bad fit until the resulting forms are good. Thus for generations the Slovakian pe asants made beautiful shawls wo ven of yarns which had been dipped in homemade dyes. When aniline dyes were made no innate ability to make go whenever a bad one was made, it was recognized as such, and therefore not ltural process of design, for the shawlmakers could not produce wholly new designs of high ( Schn 1983, pp. 52 53) Schn discuss es reflection as part of the design process in a way that activity explicitl y brought up in activity theory or distribut ed cognition However, activity theory and distr ibuted cognition focus on the persistent structures of a n artifact through time and space, which implies the ability to reflect upon the expected or unexpected s much more than (Nardi, 1996, p. 80) thus dismissing reflection as unimportant to action.

PAGE 93

75 Reflective Conversation and Ongoing Feedback As Schn w]hen a practitioner becomes a researche r into his own practice, he engages in a continuing process of self education Schn 1983, p. 296) and a practitioner becomes a researcher in practice when he or she enters into reflective conversation with his or her clients Schn and even his reflective conversation, both focus on reflection between the designer and the situation. A reflective conversation can take place between the practitioner and the situation or between the practitioner and the client. While the conversation between practitioner and client can be very open and empowering for the client, Schn somewhat misses the point that there are many actors involved in the design process who need to participate in the reflective conversation. While it is important for the design practitioner to employ reflection in action, it is even more important for the design practitioner to employ refection about feedback from the designed artifact in use, which will most often only be available from actors who interact with the artifa ct and engage in situated use If we employ the persistent structures of activity theory and distributed cognition, reflection on the activity or situation can persist over time and space. The reflective conversation can continue and grow to encompass any actor who is involved in any way with the designed artifact. This combination of theories may provide the optimal environment to extend reflective conversation about designed artifacts in a manner that has the potential to profoundly impact the way designe rs receive and employ reality based information about their designs.

PAGE 94

76 CHAPTER III THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF ACTIVITY THEORY : FROM THEORY TO REALITY Highlights This review and analysis of activity theory literature presents the next step toward bridgi ng the theory of reflective practice and activity theory literatures and creating a new theoretical framework with elements of both The activity theory literature consists largely of educational organizational management, and psychological research, with some research focusing on Human Computer Interaction (HCI). In recent years, a handful of researchers have attempted to simplify and operationalize activity theory so it can be used as a framework for design practices, which I will address here None of t he literature addresses applying activity theory to environmental design practices and none of the literature demonstrates an adequate application of activity theory to real world design environments In this chapter, I will further examine activity theory and suggest modifications to the theor y in a manner appropriate to develop a Reflective Activity Systems (RAST) theoretical framework (introduced in Chapter IV) that can be applied to the development of design rationale

PAGE 95

77 Introduction Review In the first chapter, I briefly described activity theory and its potential promise as a means to extend the theory of reflective pra ctice into design practices Chapter II illustrated the need for a theo retical framework to bridge the reflective practice and design l iteratures. In this chapter, I will conduct a more detailed cross disciplinary review of the activity theory literature and argue for a modified version of activity theory that can be blended with the theory of reflective practice and applied to the develo pment of design rationale Thesis I will illustrate in this chapter how a cross disciplinary review of the activity theory literature is essential for understanding key issues concerning 1) simplifying and operationalizing activity theory and 2) how activ ity theory can be modified to use as the basis for an activity information system to collect feedback from artifact 24 users This practical application of activity theory has not been adequately demonstrated in the 24 Artifact is used in this dissertation to mean anything that is man made as opposed to Simon defines the artificial, or man t igns.

PAGE 96

78 literature and has the potential to provid e a new line of inquiry into the uses of a modified version of activity theory There is a gap between the literature about the potential of activity theory and actual application of activity theory to real world scenarios Developing a new version of act ivity theory addresses this gap and creates a new theoretical framework which can be used to develop practical activity systems. Significance This chapter examines, simplifies, and operationalizes activity theory The following review of activity theory li terature suggests that 1) activity theory has been used to inform design strategies in many disciplines but has yet to be applied satisfactorily to the design of artifacts outside the educational and psychological realms 2) the theories implicit in these design strategies are cross disciplinary in nature and have the potential to be applied to any design ed artifact 3) the recent attempts to simplify and operationalize activity theory for application to the development of information systems do not adequat ely achieve this aim The significance of this review is that it reveals the promise of applying a modified version of activity theory to design practices in the real world Background f 70 years Activity theory has been applied to many dif ferent design disciplines and is well suited as a framework for the study of artifacts, including buildings (Norman, 2005; Brentsen & Trettvik, 2002) Like th e theory of reflective practice and situated cognition theories, activity theory says that

PAGE 97

79 Activity theory also says that we are embedded in the social matrix of the human interpenetration of the individual, other people, and artifacts in everyday activity is the History of Activ ity Theory Activity theory is considered to have thre e generations. T he first was introduced by S. L. Rubinshtein, a Soviet philosopher of psychology (1889 [and] is the key to understanding the relationship between consciousness and the L. S. Vygotsky followed Rubinshtein in the development of Soviet psychology. ly on the concept of activity in any great detail, his work had many ramifications in the theory of activity in its current form, for example his notions of mediation by tools and signs 25 (Hung & Wong, 2000, p. 33). T he second generation of activity theory was developed by rita & Nussbaum, 2007, p. 214). 25 According to Vygotsky, [t] influence on the object of activity; it is externally oriented; it must lead to change in objects sign is a means of internal activity aimed at mastering on eself; the sign In other words, Vygotskian tools are artifacts, such as hammers, pens, forks, shovels, scissors, etc. and Vygotskian signs are psychological tools, such as language, counting systems, mnemonic techni q ue s, algebraic symbol systems, art, writing, diagrams, maps, mechanical drawings, etc. (Vygotsky, 1981).

PAGE 98

80 said that are distinguished on the basis of their motiv e actions, on the basis of their goals; and operations, on the basis of the conditions under which they are [emphasis added ] (Hung & Wong, 2000, p. 33). a collection of actions, undertaken toward specific, and o ften short onsciousness and meaning are always formed in a joint, collective activity (1978). A ctivity is a system with its own structure that suggests a mediation between the activity and the tools, or artifacts, used in the activity where the tools mediate what is able to be done and the tools evolve with use ( 1959/ 1981). I n 1987 Engestrm developed the third generation often called cult ural historical activity theory, or CHAT, for the mediated relationship between the subject and the object by introducing an The components of Engestrm are the : (1) object of the activity (or objective, ie, the goals and intentions), (2) subjects in the activity (ie, the people engaged in it), (3) tools mediating the ac tivity (anything physical, eg, computers; or mental, eg, models or heuristics used in the transformation process), (4) rules and regulations (norms that circumscribe the activity), (5) division of labour (eg, actions undertaken by individuals within the group versus tasks that are a group responsibility, (6) community (individuals directly or indirectly involve [sic] in the tasks) and (7) outcome (ie, the results and final products of the defined objectives) [emphasis and line breaks added ] (Zurita & N ussbaum, 2007, p. 214)

PAGE 99

81 Engestrm studying human mediated activity [as] an activity system [emphasis in original] a 1999, p. 174) to be the psychology of an individual but instead focuses on the interactions between an individual, systems of artifacts, and other individuals in historically developing institutional settings (Miettinen, 1999, p. 174) action and activity [emphasis added] (1959/1981) ken by a community (deploying a division of labour, and various gatherer society who is a beater with the job of beating a hedge to startle game (1959/1981, p. 210). In need for 2009, activity.

PAGE 100

82 s operation is beating a hedge where presumably the conditions are that he has a stick and a hedge to beat (if he did not have a stick or a hedge, the operation would be hand led differently). Hasan gives us an example of the activity of publishing the results make public the findings of the research and also by personal career requirements for 6) where the author is writing on a computer. The operation is handled differently if the author is writing with a pen and paper. Bertelsen & B action can become an operation through automation/interna lization, and an operation focus on transition and flux in human acts and the notion that human activity can mportant feature that distinguishes this [activity theory] framework from the mainstream of cognitive & Bdker, 2003, pp. 300 301). Figure 2 below illustrates activity as a hierarchically organized system.

PAGE 101

83 Figure 2 : Activity as a hierarchically organized system, showing the re lationship among the three levels (Bertelsen & Bdker, 2003, p. 301) Activity Systems illustrates the showi ng that there is a Subject, an Object, and a Mediating F actor which is an artifact or tool Figure 3 ) and the commonly used modern Figure 4 ) are shown below (Engestrm, 1987, p. 78). Figure 3 mediation (Engestrm, 1987, p. 78) Activity Acti on Operation Conceptualization Automation

PAGE 102

84 Figure 4 : The generally accepted modern interpretation of Vygot activity theory model of action (Engestrm, 1987, p. 78) Engestrm activity system and idea is that the triangle can be applied to concrete subject matter; the diagram ( Figure 5 ) is shown below (Engestrm, 1987, p. 78). Figure 5 : Engestrm (Engestrm, 1987, p. 78) As these figures illustrate, Engestrm concep tualization of the mediated relationship between subject and object by

PAGE 103

85 the interactio n among subject, object, motivation, goals, sociohistorical context, and the Lynch, 2007, p. 455). As conceptualized by Engestrm (1987), an activity system is made up of a subject (individuals or groups that act and whose agency is selected as the point of view for the analysis) and an object (that which is acted upon), as well as the components (tools [conceptual and physical], community, rules, and divisions of labor) that mediate the relations of subject and objec t. Activity systems are also constrained by the formal (systematic, general, and expected), informal (idiosyncratic adaptation), and technical (mandated and, potentially, written) rules, norms, and conventions of the community. (Barab et al, 2004, pp. 27 2 8) Engestrm range of information, topics, and relationships in one diagram. Since the triangle diagram is a non standard way for most Anglo American researchers to view information meant to show relationships and flow of influence and information, triangle diagrams can tend to be confusing for Western researchers, particularly as they get more complex. For example, when the diagrams show multiple activity systems interacting, as in Figure 6 and Figure 7 Figure 6 : Engestrm ( Engestrm 2001, p. 136)

PAGE 104

86 Figure 7 : Engestrm Systems ( Engestrm 1999) Simplifying Activity Theory would have formed a special issue on a Activity theory has its roots in psychology and philosophy which, while giving it a rich context and platform for the thoughtful analysis of the nature of human consc iousness, does not tend to make activity theory easy to summarize or apply in practice. sandbox for adventure and discovery and leads to the w ork of philosophers, psychologi sts, anthropologists, ling While not ignoring the complexity of activity theory, I intend to present activity theory in a structure that is condensed to facets that have practical application to designers. By simplifying activity t heory, I can use its basic tenets in a concrete manner. As Nardi posits about activity theory and the needs of design practitioners:

PAGE 105

87 ethnographic and participatory design methods to dis cover and describe real everyday activity, we run into the problem that has bedeviled anthropology for so long: every account is an ad hoc description cast in situationally specific terms nography assumes no a priori framework that orders the data, that contributes to the coherence and generalizability of the descriptive account. This leads to a disappointing lack of cumulative research One would like to be able to design and evaluation activities It would b e desirable to be able to go back to previous work and find a structured set of problems and solutions. Activity theory will help us to ac hieve this goal but not until its concepts become part of a shared vocabulary [emphasi s mine]. (Nardi, 1996, pp. 10 11) By simplifying and operationalizing activity theory, I intend to develop a common vocabulary that can be used in any design situation I also intend to develop activity theory as a comparative framework that can be applied to design and evaluation activities I will do this by first describing and compiling the work of many activity theorists who have attempted to simplify and operational ize activity theory, then by synthesizing, revising, and expanding upon their work Activity Activity theory is based on the notion that human activity is a dialectic 26 relationship between subject (person) and object (purpose). This relationship is 26 understanding of the usage of this term is that dialectic relat ionship refers to

PAGE 106

88 roles within which the subjects act. Individual or group interpretations of the meaning and potential of these mediators stimulate the need for strategic can be physical or ideal, and may be d istinct from its observable outcomes. (Hasan, 2003, p. 3) Yamagata Lynch utilized Engestrm analyses of a yearlong teacher professional development program designed to foster technology integration into rural Indian a schools. While she found value in using activity theory and activity systems to analyze the rich data sets gathered in her study stating the overwhelming nature of complicated data sets and to isolate methods for managing Lynch, 2007, p. 453) she confronted several analytical dilemmas confronted during data analysis were (a) defining activity settings from a rich data set, (Merriam Webster Online Dictionary). To take this further, in activity t specifically human type of consciousness is needed to make sense of the relation rough There are multiple other definitions of dialectic but, in activity theory, the dialogue between the subject and object/motive is key to understanding the activity not exist situated [emphasis added] inside the head of the individual but in the interaction realized through material activity between the individual and the objective forms of cultured created by the labor of mankind (Miettenin, 1999, p. 173) As Nardi tells us, practice science understanding everyday practice in the real world is the very ob jective of

PAGE 107

89 (b) drawing human activities as series of activity systems, and (c) identifying tensions Lynch, 2007, p. 476). lved the methods for explicating tacit interactions between participant activities from the rich context [because] the activity settings and participant activities became intertwined and [she] found they were changing fr om moment to moment as [she] progres (Yamagata Lynch, 2007, p. 476). To deal with this dilemma, Yamagata object 27 ude contextual information that did not directly affect [the] Lynch, 2007, p. 476). Yamagata complex human activities in identifiable units while simultaneously avoiding Lynch, 2007, p. 476). As activity system models based on rich data using the s tatic methods of Engestrm (1987) model (Yamagata Lynch, 2007, p. 476). participant activities from their rich context by summarizing the data in units of activity interdependent relations of multiple 27 to remember that the object is the reason individuals and groups of individuals choose to participate in an activity, and i t is what holds the elements involved in an activity Lynch, 2007, p. 455).

PAGE 108

90 Lynch, 2007, p. 476). included contextual data that was most prevalent in the qualitative data analysis and Yamagata Lynch, 2007, p. 477). The third dilemma Yamagata Lynch faced occurred while identifying tensions 28 within activity systems ities enacted by various subjects within the real world context but beyond the scope of the triangle Lynch, 2007, p. 477). While extracting only information that directly contributed to the attainment of the object of the activity was us eful to resolve analyze the relationships between activities and the implications of those i]n other words, [she] had to shift [her] focus back and forth between (Yamagata Lynch, 2007, p. 477). 28 The term tension [t ]hese tensions can encourage the activity to collapse or become the reason for Lynch, 2007, p. 456). In other words, unexpected consequences. disturbances do not occur accidentally or arbitrarily but instead are inherent in human Lynch, 2007, p. 456).

PAGE 109

91 rovided a useful framework for analyzing human practices in context, but the lack of a standard method for applying it 2000, p. 7). While Mwanza found the triangle representational an d methodological weaknesses were identified that would need addressing if it were to be adopted as a tool for supporting The difficulties Mwanza ntationally, there are difficulties in 2000, p. 7). Usage Centered Design Constanti have used or been influenced by activity theory in their work (see, for example, Nardi, 1996), it is often difficult to trace precisely where or how the results have actually been sha While it is difficult to find cases activity theory is to provide an organized and consistent way to investigate, de scribe, [f]or this potential to be fully realized, however, the somewhat vague formulations and expressions of activity theory need to be made more precise and a To address issues with applying activity theory

PAGE 110

92 understanding about the context of activity and to reflect this understanding in their desi activity theory and essential use cases 29 Constantine contrasts usage centered design with user centered design calling usage model driven process for user interface and interaction design that takes its name from its primary focus on use or usage rather than (Constantine, 2009, p. 31). In contrast to user centered design, where the focus is on n the case of personas, the pursuit of realism even includes construction of a hypothetical personal history, background, personality, and frequently even centered design is the 31). centered design is less a matte r of adding new concepts to the method than one of providing a Constantine proposes an amalgam of usage centered design and activity theory. The first step in this amalga 29 models of usage ty.gov defines a use a written description of how users will perform tasks on your website [and] is represented as a sequence of simple steps, beginn ing with a user's goal and end

PAGE 111

93 object, rather than objective [emphasis in original], to refer to the motive for or purpose this less common usage conflicts with the software engineering lexicon, (Constantine, 2009, p. 34). To accommodate this difference in terminology, Constantine proposes that tas k be substituted for the activity theory term object Constantine maintains that it is also important to distinguish the difference between participants who interact directly with the artifact and those who are involved with the system but not directly wit actors the well established term in both usage centered design and software engineering, while other participants are referred to as (Constantine, 2009, p. 34). Constantine also propo ses that this amalgam between usage centered design and activity theory, which he calls human activity modeling, utilize a notation system centered design, which, in turn, is related to the Unified Modeling Language (UML) widely used in software engineering symbols for activities, actions, artifacts and non actor, or player, participants. In order to simplify activity theory and make it easier to understand, and thus more palatable to Anglo American researchers, I propose to use industry standard engineering flowcharts, utilizing the Unified Modeling Language ( UML ) to map and

PAGE 112

94 document activity theory specifically utilizing a modified version of human activity modeling symbols and notation system Activity system diagrams to follow in this disser tation will utilize this notation system Operationalizing Activity Theory Simplifying activity theory is part of operationalizing activity theory so it can be used in the development of a functioning system, rather than as just a philosophical construct. In order to truly operationalize activity theory, we need to create techniques conceptual tools, rather than a collection of tools and techniques ready for practica l & Bdker 2003, p. 294). Engestr m (19 93 theory does not offer ready made techniques and procedures for research instead its conceptual tools must be concretized (p. 97). Activity Checklist I have already dis cussed several attempts to simplify activity theory and make it more applicable to the design environment. There have also been several attempts to systematize and operationalize activity theory. For example, Kaptelinin, Nardi, and Macaulay (1999) develope d the Activity Checklist, which is a complex set of definitions, Duignan, Noble, and Biddle (2006) utiliz ed the Activity C hecklist in a detailed study of electronic music producers and their tool use. They address the complexity of the checklist and provide the following critique of it:

PAGE 113

95 T he first issue with the checklist is that the items are not presented i n an operationalised form [emphasis added ] not immediately lead the mind to apply the checklist item any of the checklist items directly address elements of the activity being examined, while others speak to a highe r level of analysis hile it attempts to make the this epending on the version used, the checklist has between 37 and 43 number of checklist items where any redundancy is present he ] approach divides the possible usage of the making it unwieldy for use in the in between cases ven though it is supposed to provide a concrete activity theory resource, there is some conceptual work needed before it can be practically applied ( Duignan et al, 2006, pp. 8 10). [of the Activ ity Checklist] as an Activity Interview [emphasis added] (Constantine, 2009 p. 28). but they a re somewhat abstract when it comes to the actual business of working on a Activity Based Model Further efforts to simplify and truly operationalize activity theory have been more successf ul at distilling activity theory down to its useable essence. Hasan developed an Activity Based Model as part of an effort to apply activity theory to the design of a knowledge management system. Her r elatively simple chart that shows the components of a s ingle activity according to Engestrm is shown in T able 1 below (Hasan, 2002, p. 6).

PAGE 114

96 Table 1 : The Components of a n Activity According to Engestrm (Hasan, 200 3 p. 6) Component Definition and Clarification Object The purpose and motives that define the activity Subjects The person or people who carry out the activity Outcomes Both intended and unintended results of carrying out the activity Tools/Instruments Both physical and non physical instruments that are used in the conduct of the activity Community The community in which the subjects carry out that activity Rules The formal and informal rules that the community imposes on the subject Division of Labour Relationships in the communit y that determine the roles that subjects have in carrying out the activity In addition to mapping the components of an activity, Hasan created another ta ble showing the elements of an Activity Based M odel. This model has been shown in her research to be meaningful to strategi the Activity Based M odel chart is shown in Table 2 below. Table 2 : Elements of the Activity based Model (Hasan, 2003, p. 6) Activ it i es : who is doing what, for what purpose Components of each activity (as listed in Table 1 ) Relationships between those activities Actions and Operations by which Activities are carried out An historical record of the above elements Activity Theory Framework Hasan and Crawford (2006) further studied the use of activity theory in IS research and developed a seven point Activity Theory Framework They discuss how activity theory is ideally suited to provide a fr amework for analyzing complex information systems because: Research in this field needs to take into consideration the dynamic interplay over time of information and communication technologies, emerging cultural trends, patterns of human experience, activ ity and use, and the related cultural

PAGE 115

97 and organizational processes that emerge, or are inhibited, as the dimensions and purpose of the whole system of work activity changes. Activity theory with its focus on accumulating factors that affect the subjective interpretations, the purpose, and sense making of individual and group actions and operations, also provides a useful paradigm for the ways in which human experience, needs and creativity shape the design and effectiveness of emerging technologies [emphas is added] (Crawford and Hasan, 2006, p. 53) The seven point Activity Theory Framework Crawford and Hasan developed is below : 1. The object of the research activity i.e. the work/learning activity system being studied in terms of the subject object dialecti cs of the constituent activities and how these activities make up an activity system 2. The subjects/people of the activities their composition and growth as individuals and groups as the activities evolve and change 3. The purpose of those activities the va rious, sometimes conflicting, motives that may be involved 4. The primary, secondary, and tertiary tools used for the work/learning activities being studied 5. The culture and context within which they occur 6. The tools of the research activity 7. Resea rch interventi ons and its evolu tion (Crawford & Hasan, 2006, p. 56) This framework was used to present and analyze five research activities using the seven points above. The research activities studied were: a Q study 30 to elucidate user requirements for an Internet sea rch engine; a multi level systems modeling approach to an organizational knowledge management system; a system designed to implement Design Science to support knowledge creation and to support web based 30 Q methodology provides a foundation for the systematic study of subjectivity, a other elements that apply (Brown 1996, p 561 ).

PAGE 116

98 community groups engaged in emergent knowledge proces ses; a game designed to simulate network centric organizations by having teams play a modified version of the ancient Chinese strategy game of Go; and content analysis of online groups using a web based groupware package to support ongoing collaboration an d project development (Crawford & Hasan, 2006, pp. 56 64). understanding of how people do things together with the assistance of sophisticate [sic] tools in complex dynamic environ ments where socially constructed, collective 65). between the sub elements of an activit expectations, rules and roles are not aligned with the potential permitted by new [which is] the necessary [precursor] to e Hasan, 2006, p. 65) which results in individuals being socialized and trained to be wford & Hasan, 2006, p. 65). They define [where t]he mediation is a mutual development of both the activity and the tools which

PAGE 117

99 [include] primary (physical) tools, secon dary tools (ideas, models etc) and tertiary tools 31 Taxonomy of Conceptual Knowledge Kofod Petersen and Cassens emphasize contextual knowledge in their map of pture a knowledge level [and which] should include knowledge about the acting subjects, the objects towards which activities are directed and the community as well as kno wledge about the Persen & Cassens, 2006, p. 8). Their map of the basic aspects of an activity and their relation to a taxonomy of contextual knowledge is shown in Table 3 below. Table 3 : Basic aspects of an activity and their relation to a taxonomy of contextual knowledge (Kofod Petersen & Cassens, 2006, p. 8) CHAT aspect Category Subject Personal Context Object Task Context Community Spatio Te mporal Context Mediating Artefact Environmental Context Mediating Rules Task Context Mediating Division of Labour Social Context 31 a tertiary tool.

PAGE 118

100 Activity Oriented Design Method As part of developing an Activity Oriented Design Method (AODM), Mwanza created an eight step model to operationalize Activity Theory for require ments gathering for Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) and e Learning environments ( Table 4 below) perationali ses terms of a situation being examined an be used to aid requirements capture during systems design i.e. data gathering and n be used to translate and com municate design insight e.g. abstracting or modelling an activity system from a given scenario (Mwanza, 2002). Table 4 : Eight step Model to Operationalize Activity Theory D uring Requirements Capture (Mwanza, 2002) Identify the: Q uestions to Ask Step 1 Identify Activity of Interest What sort of activity am I interested in? Step 2 Object ive Why is the activity taking place? Step 3 Subjects Who is involved in carrying out this activity? Step 4 Tools By what means are the subject s performing this activity? Step 5 Rules & Regulations Are there any cultural norms, rules or regulations governing the performance of this activity? Step 6 Division of Labour Who is responsible for what, when carrying out this activity and how are th e roles organised? Step 7 Community What is the environment in which this activity is carried out? Step 8 Outcome What is the desired Outcome from carrying out this activity?

PAGE 119

101 Mwanza further operationalized activity theory by developing an activity no of the term object (see Table 5 below) consists of an actor, or doer, of an activity represented by a subject or a community component and a mediator of activity represented by the tool, rules, or division of labour component. The key features of this notation system are that it s upports systems decomposition [by aiding] the proc ess of breaking down a complex activity system into sub activities to reduce complexity [and] g enerated sub activities systems can be studied independently or as representative un its of the main activity Table 5 : Activity Notation (Mwanza, 2002) Actors (Doers) Mediators Object ive Subjects Tools Object Subjects Rules Object Subjects Division of Labour Object Community Tools Object Community Rules Object Community Division of Labour Object M wanza also generated a list of research questions based on sub activity upport traceability of design procedures i .e. the questions generated using this approach are driven by the representation presented in

PAGE 120

102 the notatio nal combinations outl of research questions is as follows: 1. What Tools do the Subjects use to achieve their Object ive and how? 2. What Rules affect the way the Subjects achieve the Object ive and how? 3. How does the Division of Labour influence the way the Subjects satisfy their Object ive? 4. How do the Tools in use affect the way the Community achieves the Object ive? 5. What Rules affect the way the Community satisfies their Object ive and how? 6. How does the Divisi on of Labour affect the way the Community achieves the Object ive? [emphasis in the original] (Mwanza, 2002) as follows : Stage 1 The researcher i nterpret s the situation being examined ; Stage 2 The researcher m odel s the situation being examined ; Stage 3 The researcher d ecompose s the situation ; Stage 4 The researcher g enerate s ( his or her own) research questions ; Stage 5 The researcher c onduct s a detailed investigation ; and Stage 6 The researcher i nterpret s and c ommunicate s findings (Mwanza, 2002) Human Artifact Model B address the gap between culture, experience, and the practical role of artifacts in

PAGE 121

103 em bodiment 32 They present the Human Artifact Model as: [A] tool for structuring design used to frame both comprehensive and casual analysis of observed interaction and to frame design artifact model is not intended to have a specific place in a design process but yet theoretically sound, tools a challenge th at we address with the human artifact model. (B dker & Klokmose, 2011, p. 318) B level hierarchy of human activity: activity, action and operation. They of analytical glasses, each of which focuses on an important aspect of human activity: motivation (by asking why? ), goal orientation (by asking what? ) and function (by asking how? dker & Klokmose, 2011, p. 320). The three aspects of an activity are meant to be use not interesting without asking the following questions: What action has been (B dker & Klok mose, 2011, p. 320). Table 6 below illustrates the activity as a hierarchically organized system. Table 6 : Activity as a hierarchically organized system (B dker & Klokmose, 2011, p. 320) Leve ls of Activity Mental Representation Realizes Level of Description Analytical Question 32 Embodiment logical perspective, where individuals are, inter alia, defined by the tools they use, whether called ( Bdker & Klokmose ue of culture and emotion; it is equally an issue of how our physical capacities extend and expand Bdker and Klokmose 2011, p. 317).

PAGE 122

104 Activity Motive (need) not necessarily conscious, but may become conscious Personality The social and personal meaning of activity, its relation to motives and needs Wh y? Action Goal conscious Activities (systems of actions organized to achieve goals) Possible goals, critical goals, particularly relevant sub goals What? Operation Condition of action (structure of activity) normally not conscious, only limited possibi lities of consciousness Actions (chains of operations organized by goals and concrete conditions) The concrete way of executing an action in accordance with the specific conditions surrounding the goal How? B dker and Klokmose maintain an additional conc ern is to: [M] ove the focus away from one artifact alone toward artifacts [emphasis in the interplay between artifacts: how the use of one artifact may influence the use and perception of another, and how human understanding and the use of artifacts at large influence an artifact in use In this manner the focus is on the interplay between reflection and action [emphasis added], rather than one or the other alone. (B dker & Kl okmose, 2011, p. 321) Artifacts are used as a means of mediating our environment and, as such, cannot be seen as a simple subject between the user and the [artifact] as something that the user wor ks on or communicates with see the [artifact] as something that the user acts a mediator dker & Klokmose, 2011, p. 321). The importance of viewing artifacts in their artifact ecology is an unders tanding that artifacts are not used in isolation. An artifact ecology is a group of multiple artifacts dker & Klokmose, 2011, pp.321 322). In choice of artifact that the user may make is situated [emphasis added] and depending both on the material conditions of the activity and on the specifically intended

PAGE 123

105 outcome rtistic painting dker & Klokmose, 2011, p. 322). oriented action of some kind and not as (B dker & Klokmose, 2011, p. 322). Artifacts regularly used in relation to a given activity are the current artifact ecology of use. Artifacts that have previously been applied to the activity, and that the user has a past experience with that orients his or her perception of new or other artifacts, are the historical artifact ecology (B dker & Klokmose, 2011, p. 322). While artifact ecologies are primarily used to address collections of artifacts, artifact ecologies provide users with action possibilities by experience and relate to every artifact that the acting subjects have come across in potentials as well as problems of relying on past experiences and similarities f (B dker & Klokmose, 2011, p. 322). Artifact ecologies help us address the historical development of artifacts, the current artifact ecology, and the future action possibilities with new artifacts (B dker & Klokmo se, 2011, p. 323). Artifact ecologies bring the focus of attention back to the activity involved, since artifacts are fundamentally crystallizations of activity are externalizations of op erations with earlier artifacts, and second, they are dker & Klokmose, 2011, p. 325).

PAGE 124

106 Brentsen and Trettvik (200 86 ) affordances 33 and modified them by applying activity theoretical concepts as a frame of reference for the concept of affordance. B dker and Klokmose used the Brentsen and Trettvik description of activity theoretical affordances in combination with theirs to create a summary of affordances, aspects, and activity levels, along with Bdker model of the relationships between the physical and handling aspects of artifacts. In this combined model, need related affordances refer to mo tivation, instrumental affordances refer to naturally evol ved, ecologically deter mined pa Bdker & Klokmose, 2011, p. 326). The combined chart showing a summary of affordance, aspects, and activity levels in shown in Table 7 below. Table 7 : Summary of affordances, aspects, and activity levels ( Bdker & Klokmose, 2011, p. 328) Affordance Aspects Activity Level Need related Activity Why? Instrumental Subject object directed aspects Action What? Operational Conscious Adaptive Handling aspects Physical aspects Operation How? Finally, Bdker and Klokmose utilize the activity hierarchy described in 33 Bdker and Klokmose action possibili affordances of the environment are what it offers the animal, what it provides or furnishes, either for good

PAGE 125

107 Table 6 and the summary of affordances, aspects, and activity levels shown in Table 7 in the creation of their Human Artifact Model. The Human Artifact Model additionally incorporates the orienting basis of the user and the qualities of action possibilities. Human beings are born into a cultural situation that shapes the way they act with technology and the practices they share learned from their culture and from [t]here is no user without other users who share experience with artifacts and Bdker & Klokmose, 2011, p. 329). This shared experience in part shapes the orienting basis of the user and determines the action possibilities he or she perceives. In addition, the orienting basis is determined by the capacities with which the domain independent general actions, reusable knowledge within a specific domain, and trial and error [emphasis in original] Bdker and Klokmose, 2011, p. 329). Domain independent general actions are those actions that, once learned, may be used for many kinds of purposes, for example, bike riding, addition, writing sending e mail messages, etc. Reusable knowledge within a specific domain refers to actions learned that are not transferable, such as e mailing within a proprietary system, woodwork skills for working with plywood only, or playing an instrument for rock and roll but not jazz or classical. Actions learned through trial and error are those actions that are applied without an understanding of the underlying principles of the action, for example, learning to play a song on the piano by picking out the tones one at a time or dividing

PAGE 126

108 numbers by 10 without understanding the decimal system or the number positioning system ( Bdker & Klokmose, 2011, pp. 329 330). The Human Artifact Model serves as a way of structuring the concepts above so they can be applied to a reason about the dynamics between the levels of interaction and the relationship between the aspects of the artifact and the orienting basis of the user, the possibilities and problems of a fu nctional organ 34 Bdker & Klokmose, 2011, p. 332). The Human Artifact Model can be applied starting on the human side or the artifact side and the address tensions between f Bdker & Klokmose, 2011, pp. 332 333) addressed one at [a] time by summarizing empirical findings and by singling out particularly critical issue ( Bdker & Klokmose, 2011, p. 332). The Human Artifact Model is illustrated in T able 8 below. 34 According to Bdker nd Bdker & Klokmose, 2011, p. 329).

PAGE 127

109 Table 8 : The Human Artifact Model ( Bdk er & Klokmose, 2011, p. 333) Why? Motivational aspects Motivational orientation What? Instrumental aspects Goal orientation How? Operational aspects Handling aspects Operational orientation Learned handling Adaptive aspects Adaptation Artifact Human Applying Activity Theory to Design While all of these attempts to simplify and operationalize activity theory are inspiring, they lack the ultimate simplicity and a ha moment that would truly inspire designers to utilize activity theory in the developme nt of design rationale. I pose that part o f this conundrum is that the terminology used while more clear to practitioners in the examples in this chapter than previous versions of activity theory, is still off putting and contradicts with commonly used ja rgon in other disciplines In addition, these proposals do not take into account the interactive nature of the current Web 2.0 technologies (and future Web. ## ? t echnologies) that allow the actors and community to be a part of the design reflective conversa tion in a manner that has not been feasible in the past [sic] framework for analyzing the Crawford & Hasan, 2006, p. theoretical framework to provide a basis for

PAGE 128

110 research into complex socio technical 35 Activity theory provides this holistic theoretical framework but it requires simplification and operationalization in order to create a framework that can be applied in real world design situations I will provide a modification of activity theory that can be combined with the theory of reflective practice to create a new theoretical framework that can be practically applied to th e deve lopment of design rationale First, I will dispense with the object, motive, goal, and conditions distinctions and group these elements all under the term objective although I will refer to the Human Why?, What?, and How? since thi s terminology grounds the inquiry in a basic, familiar investigative theme Objective seems to be the term that most fully captures the essence of what is meant by these different levels in activity theory. Second, I will refer to subjects as actors. The t erm actor complies with use and usage limited players and go with culture as a term that captures the essence of all of the el ements involved with the community and other socio cultural factors that affect the activity and actors I will refer to artifacts, tools, signs, affordances, and instruments as active means I believe the term active mean s accurately describes physical an d non physical, internal and external, tools, signs, 35 Socio technical environments (including abs tractions, domain models, tools, design ual history: they have theories and basic assumptions built into them, and users accept these (most of the time unknowing cher, 2001, p. 5).

PAGE 129

111 artifacts, and affordances while also not being heavily complicated with preconceived meaning. I will also dispense with the division of labor term and replace this with roles. Division of labor seems da ted and co njures images of hammer and sickle Communist Russia that is not related to the essential meaning of this term in activity theory. These clarifications in terminology allow a re purposing of several of the previous activity theory simplification a nd operationalization attempts. The components of an activity as I have re defined them are listed as follows in Table 9 Table 9 : The Components of an Activity as Redefined by Cunningham Compon ent Definition and Clarification Object ive The purpose goals, conditions, and motives that define the activity actions, and operations (the Why? What? and How?) Actors The person or people who carry out the activity Active Means Both physical and no n physical means, or tools (primary, secondary, and tertiary tools) that are used in the conduct of the activity and in the research about the activity Culture The sociocultural group in which the actors carry out that activity Rules The formal and in formal rules that the culture imposes on the actors Roles Relationships that determine the roles that actors have in carrying out the activity Outcomes Both intended and unintended results of carrying out the activity Applying Web 2.0 (and future) i nteractive technologies, and the notion that w e can collect reviews and crowd source design rationale, loosens the concept of requirements gathering and allows the opportunity to open the gates to a new way of conceptualizing design practices using simplif ied and operationalized activity theory For example, like other designed affordances, a building could be reviewed by inhabitants management, and owners/developers (roles) cou ld access these reviews and ask for additional information to afford design revisions and adaptations to address any

PAGE 130

112 concerns presented in the online reviews (objectives). Designers in the concept stage could post design models and simulations and ask for critiques from potential built. The environmental design community could post que stions and answers on the site, as well as access real world, in use information gat hered from building sensors about building inhabitant actions and inhabitant reactions to building environmental changes. With this type of interactive environment, the research environment becomes a living design char r ette 36 The potential of this interact ive environment is currently unrealized but has the potential to create a new collective community between design practitioners and inhabitants as actors, with its own history, rules, and roles. Chapter IV will present a new Reflective Activity Systems The ory (RAST) framework that can be used to apply feedback from the situation in use in a reflective activity theoretical model to develop design rationale. 36 meeting in which all stakeholders in a project attempt to reso Dictionaries Online). This is a somewhat general term for a process th at is generally part of architectural design and/or urban/city/town planning sessions that the public is invited to in order to help finalize plans for a building or other environmental design solution.

PAGE 131

113 CHAPTER I V REFLECTIVE ACTIVITY SYSTEM THEORY (RAST) : COMBINING REFLECTIVE PRACTICE AND ACTIVITY THE ORY Highlights As illustrated in Chapters II and III, the gap between the literatures on environmental design, the theory of reflective practice, and activity theory is due to a lack of coherent theory concerning the role of reflection and collective know ledge in design. This chapter develops a new theory called the Reflective Activity Systems Theory (RAST) that combines the theory of reflective practice and a modified version of activity theory. RAST gives structure to create a framework that bridges the gap between the theory of reflective practice and activity theory and gives designers a new way to create design rationale. I define RAST and demonstrate how the theory of reflective practice and activity theory enhance and build upon one another in this n ew theory. I conclude this chapter with a list next steps required to develop an activity information system structure based on RAST. Introduction Review My review of the theory of reflective practice and activity theory literatures in Chapters II and III described how reflective design practices and collective knowledge can be applied to design strategies. The theory of reflective practice and activity theory together reveal three implicit principles that are applicable to design: 1) that reflection

PAGE 132

114 in act ion is a neces sary part of the design process; directly with the artifacts they create need back talk, or feedback, from those who do interact with the artifact directly in order to repl icate reflection in action; and 3 ) the development of effective design rationale requires ongoing and collective feedback, knowledge, and social interaction to apply reflection in action to the design process. I suggested that current attempts to provide feedback to environmental designer s in the form of POEs are not successful because they are generally one off attempts, conducted requirements of the ongoing reflective conversation designers need to have with inhabitants of the built environment. Finally, design strategies that make no attempt to incorporate reflection in action are ineffective at meeting the needs of the artifact users (or inhabitants, in the case of environmental design), particularly when d iscussing the results of sustainable environmental design efforts. It is clear from this review that designers would benefit from a functional (i.e., useful) theory to guide the design and evaluation of environmental or other artifact design. Thesis This c hapter will consider how combining the theory of reflective practice and activity theory g round s design strategies and begin s to bridge the gap between design, reflective practice, and ac tivity theory literatures. S ituated cognition is physical, or embodie d, cultural, social, and collective, or extended (Robbins & Aydede, 2009). A review of situated cognition literature reveals two key aspects of the relationship between artifacts, artifact users, and artifact designers that are significant for design

PAGE 133

115 pract ice. interventions their needs; or they seek out new environments when it is difficult or impractical to alter an existing one p 80 81 ). As active inhabitants of their environments, people are also willing to assist the design process by giving feedback to the designer(s). Second, design is not a solitary venture. Designers are part of a collective group of actors engaged in the design process that includes artifact owners, artifact builders, artifact users, artifact buyers, and artifact critics. This chapter illustrates how together the theory of reflective practice and activity theory can be modif ied and combined into a new theory, Reflective Activity Systems Theory (RAST) that can form a grounded structure for design rationale thus providing the first step toward bridging the theory of reflective practice, activity theory, and design literatures Significance This chapter provides the theoretical grounding for a new framework to bridge the theory of reflective practice, activity theory, and design literatures. In Chapter II, I proposed that a cross disciplinary review of the theory of reflective practice, situated cognition, and design literature s is essential for understanding key issues concerning 1) why creating a relationship between design, the theory of reflective practice, and situated cognition is important to improve environmental design and other design practices and 2) how feedback from the built environment in use can be used to create a reflective conversation between environmental designers and inhabitants of the built environment. In Chapter III, I suggested a cross disciplinary rev iew of the activity theory

PAGE 134

116 literature is essential for understanding key issues concerning 1) simplifying and operationalizing activity theory, and 2) how a modified version of activity theory can be utilized as the basis for an activity information system to collect feedback from artifact users. In this chapter, I combine the theory of reflective practice and a modified version of activity theory into a coherent framework that addresses the key issues surfaced in Chapters II and III. The new theory I devel op, the Reflective Activity Systems Theory (RAST), addresses these key issues and extends design practice by creating a new theoretical framework to generate design rationale. The New Theoretical Framework I propose taking the modified version of activity theory I created in Chapter III and adding a reflective element. The new Reflective Activity Systems Theory (RAST) created by combining the theory of reflective practice with my modified version of activity theory is illustrated in the following table ( Table 10 ).

PAGE 135

117 Table 10 : Components of an Activity in Reflective Activity Systems Theory (RAST) Component Definition and Clarification Object ive The purpose goals, conditions, and motives that defi ne the activity actions, and operations (the Why? What? and How?) Actors The person or people who carry out the activity Active means Both physical and non physical means, or tools (primary, secondary, and tertiary tools) that are used in the conduct of the activity and in the research about the activity Culture The sociocultural environment in which the actors carry out that activity Rules The formal and informal rules that the local and regional culture imposes on the actors Roles Relationship s that determine the roles that actors have in carrying out the activity Outcomes Both intended and unintended consequences of carrying out the activity Reflection The process by which i nformation about the activity outcomes and design in situated use are applied to design interventions and design rationale for future designs Reflective practice takes into account the history of the activity and active means used in the activity that can be reflected upon and used to create future action possibili ties. RAST focuses on the activity and the creation of u sage centric rationale Usage centric rationale is a term coined by Burge et al in 2008 Usage centric design rationale is not the type of rationale used by most design rationale researchers. Carroll and Scenario with usage scenarios; as such, it is the most user (Burge et al, 2008, p. 12). SCA is also the only argumentative approach to show how rationale fits into the i n short, SCA represents a fundamentally differe (Burge et al, 2008, p. 12) The contribution of usage centric rationale like SCA is to recognize that organiz ing rationale around decisions is not the best way to elicit and characterize some of the rationale needed for making appropriate design decisions. A design must in large part be judged in terms of its consequences for its users, and the best way to identi fy these consequences is to document the evaluation of system features by users as they interact with the system. [emphasis added] This information can then be fed back to the system designers in the form of argumentation rationale that prompts them to rev ise

PAGE 136

118 their decisions about the design of the system. Thus, usage centric rationale, such as that provided by SCA gets its value for design by informing design decision making, but it does so by providing feedback that gets designers to change their previous design decisions. [emphasis in original] SCA is thus part of (Burge et al, 2008, p. 159) We need to understand Schn ad to reflection on the task at hand during the action present in order to understand how feedback informs designers. SCA gives us a focus on usage and providing feedback that designers can use to adjust their designs as part of an iterative cycle (Burge e t al, 2008, p. 159). In addition, activity theory brings a focus on the activity versus the user. It shifts the focus from user centered design to usage and activity centered design. The RAST theor etical framework is an activity theoretical secondary and tertiary artifact. It provides both a framework for analysis of existing activities or secondary artifact, and a framework for envisioning future tools and activities or tertiary artifact (Wartofsky, 1979, p. 200) RAST allows design practitioners to int eract with other actors involved with the designed artifact collect feedback about the situation in use, apply reflection in action ( even in situations where the designer has no firsthand knowledge of the artifact in use ) and develop collaborative protot ypes along with the actors that incorporate their feedback. Secondary artifacts make it possible for practitioners to take an overall view of their activity, and then to reflect on it, as well as to collect and save their experiences as potential material for further development of the work secondary artifacts serve as tools for reflecting upon, evaluating and developing primary artifacts, while tertiary artifacts serve as tools for reflecting upon, evaluating and transforming both secondary and primary a rtifacts to an increased investment in research and development, cycles of renewal regarding business product and production concepts have been summarily

PAGE 137

119 shortened. In order to master such cycles of transformation practitioners need new forms of p roduction related generalization, which would make it possible for them to take a reflective stance not only on individual tasks or problems, but to the historical transformation of both the object and principle of their production activity. It also calls for tertiary artifacts to serve as tools for the critical analysis of the present principle of the production activity, and for designing a new principle and new secondary artifacts needed in the new form of production activity. Besides this new level of m astery regarding the transformation of an activity, qualitatively new types of actions of generalizing are also often needed such as generalization through negotiation and collaborative prototyping. [emphasis added] (Virkkunen & Pihlaja, 2004 pp. 35 39 ) In Schn to create design rationale based on feedback from user activity (McCall, 2013) Carroll combined design rationale with scenarios of predicted usage activities (Carroll, 1995) f users (R. McCall, personal communication May 25 2014) With the exception of any of the design rationale methods currently in use and a focus on user activities in r arely represented in the design rationale literature (Burge et al, 2008). consistent path shown in the literature for holding user activities at the center of the design rationale development process If we can provide a method for users to give feedback on the design in use, or the actual usage of the artifact in performance of an activity usage feedback becomes a way of checking the design rationale and, ultimately, forms the basis for future design rationale.

PAGE 138

120 an can be defined as a cognitive or material artifact which supports the anticipatory reflection of future goals for actions, based on experience about recurrent structures in life 9). Design rationale, as a kind of planning, can only be a prediction of the effects of action possibilities. The test of the plan is in the usage of the artifact in the performance of an reflection [emphasis in original] obtained through a ctivity, constituting the basis for expectations, and desires about Activity theory is not predictive but, as happen, we anticipate the results of activity. the activity, the goal of the action and the orienting basis of the orientation, respectively. The anticipation of future events is the f undamental principle of anticipatory reflection as developed by Anokhin. The classical example of conditioned reflex: When a dog salivates in response to the ringing of a bell, it is not because saliva is needed to digest the bell but because the dog anticipates food to appear in the future which has to be digested. The anticipatory reflection guides the activity by making an afferent synthesis between a perception of the environme ntal state of the activity, and memory (i.e. the cumulated experience of the person). This afferent synthesis forms an anticipation of the future state as a result of the activity about to be performed. When the activity is performed there is a feedback me chanism which compares the result of the activity with the prediction, and any incongruence (i.e. a breakdown) gives rise to a learning situation (i.e. the experience of the person is expanded). [emphasis added] This model of anticipatory reflection based on the afferent synthesis between perception and memory is a general model for all levels of the activity. [emphasis in original except where noted ] (Bardram, 1997, p. 4) Bardram seems to be giving an account of reflection in action in this passage, sugge sting that there is an inherent connection between reflective practice and activity

PAGE 139

121 theory (R. McCall, personal communication, May 25, 2014) However, this connection is not mentioned by either Bardram or Schn nor is it mentioned in any other literature that the author is aware of. The importance of feedback as part of the design process is not feedback on the about the effects of the artifact in use. The artifact is a product of the actions of the designer who is anticipating the consequences of the design, but an additional kind of action is required and that is actor interaction with the artifact that trigger s feedback What actors actually do with the artifact and the results of those actions need s to play a cen tral role in the design process by helping to form design rationale for future designs. The history of artifacts in the world partially determines actor anticipation of the activity to be performed with the artifact. Gaining an understanding of how designe r anticipation and user perception of the experience of triggers feedback into the design. Scenarios are simply predictive activities. The actual activities are the crucial piece of the puzzle. How does the designer get feedback about the actual activities and their expected or unexpected consequences in order to improve their f uture designs and re designs? The feedback has to come from the actors engaged with the art ifact in use instantiation of the 6). As Schn transactional [emphasis in

PAGE 140

122 original] [h]e shapes the situation, but in conversation with it, so that his own models and appreciations are also shaped by the Schn 1983, pp. 150 151). deviation [emphasis Activity deals with the level of motivation; it motivates why [emphasis in original] a particular set of actions, with particular material or ideal objects, is carried out. Without motive, there is no activity. terms of expectation and evaluation) of this object motivates the activity activity at the activity level means to focus on the social and personal meaning reflection consist s of an ongoing evaluation of the actual outcome of actions on objects against the desired outcomes (B dker & Klokmose, 2011, p. 319) Why is the focus on activity important? ntial and coherent collective endeavors directed at meaningful objectives behavior and experience as organized and contextualized [emphasis added] al, 2006, p. 25). Keeping the focus of attention on real wo rld activity and using activity theoretical and reflective theoretical rich framework helps to avoid the oversimplification entrained by considering [simulations] as models of complex human activity in the real world 006, p. 25). Plans, simulations, surveys, laboratory exercises, training tasks, and other are quite limited with respect to the behavior and experience of teams coping with ill structured problems in real world contexts of high uncertainty the co mplexity, dynamics, and lack of a priori

PAGE 141

123 constraints of group activity have been severely underestimated [emphasis added] (Carroll et al, 2006, p. 24). Adding to the overall complexity, c ollaborative work, like the work involved in environmental design en deavors, the range and complexity of collaborative work expands; it is critical to account for the behavior of groups constituted to address open 2006, p. 24). roles cannot be rigidly structured a priori; communication and coordination example, consider a town zoning commi effort; it involves a variety of technical knowledge and skill (urban planning, landscape architecture, civil engineering, environmental science) and a variety of stakeholder perspectives (state or federal environmental agencies, local government, neighborhood groups of affected residents, community groups with particular interests and responsibilities). The design goal is not achieved in a few minutes, or even a few hours. It is directed at a complex outcome and requires a substantial problem solving process. It incorporates goal decomposition and refactoring, nonlinear development of partially ordered fragments, interleaving of planning, a cting, and evaluation, and opportunistic plan revision. It involves coordinating and carrying out different types of task components such as assigning roles, making decisions, negotiating, prioritizing, and so forth. These components must be understood and pursued in the context of the overall purpose of a shared activity, the goals and requirements ( Carroll et al, 2006, pp. 24 25) activity perspective on teamwork, the focus shifts from relatively static and stable constructs such as shared knowledge to the more dynamic and constructive views offered by theories of interpersonal interaction and development [emphasis added] A building is a t eam project and building inhabitants are members of that team. If building designers, operators, and builders are to gain the

PAGE 142

124 ability to reflect in action dependent upon the situated use of the building, it is imperative to find new ways to interact and co llaborate with building inhabitants. The interpersonal interaction between actors involved with a building leads to development of reflective design rationale. When building inhabitants share their real world knowledge of the building, we all gain an activ to before. Activity theory considers activ ity to be a collective endeavor individual [sic] or groups within a community, working toward shared objectives or motives, and recruiting and transforming the m aterial environment, including shared tools, data, social and cultural structures, and work practices c ontinuous with the constitute an activity are not stand alo ne tasks and ca nnot effectively be examined independent of the activity. e process of seeking and providing evidence of shared understanding interaction, enacted repeatedly as we behave in the world With common ground as a base, teams construct and act w ithin a community of practice. Members of communities of practice share more than language, they share praxis domain These practices emerge over time from the sustained pursuit of a shared activity, according to these goals and values constructs social capital. Social capital is a framework for thinking about active connections among people emerging over time in social life: trust, mutual understanding, shared values and behaviors

PAGE 143

125 that bind the members of communities and make cooperative action po ssible maintenance of social institutions, but they require authentic activity contexts. Thus, like communities of practice, they would not be relevant or observable in laboratory exercises or formal training. [emphasis added] (Carroll et al, 2006, pp. 29 30) public: to the extent that all collaborators see or hear something, ipso facto i t becomes part of their common gro al 2006, p. 36). To create activity awareness for designers who are removed from the experience of the situated use of their designs, designer To create this shared awareness, design users or actors, need a public forum where they can share information about the situated use of the design with designers. This public shared information about the activity situation creates a common ground for designers and desi gn users (both actors) making design users coll aborators in the design process, and allowing designers to reflect upon and correct their past, current, and future designs. The public nature of this shared information is crucial as a means of not only provi ding a platform for users and other actors to give feedback about designs but should be noted that some companies fear soliciting feedback from building occupants on the grounds that both seeking and receiving this type of information may obligate 30). If feedback about designs is available ed, particularly if there are adverse consequences to ignoring this feedback, legal threats may be a distinct possibility.

PAGE 144

1 26 correcting nature of collective activity [ and ] emphasizes the importance of shared g oals and motivation, including the dynamic processes of recognizing and addressing breakdowns (e.g. social conflicts, tool Building inhabitants are the actors who know about the activ ity breakdowns. T he complex nature of building design, particularly ultra energy efficient green building design, is a collective activity but one that has effectively left the feedback from the inhabitants out of the activity awareness process. Building d the only actors qualified to comment about the situated use of those buildings. Research grounded in reflection in research will be participatory, evo ( Crawford & Hasan, 2006, p. 55). In the next section of this chapter, I will discuss a real world application of RAST and demonstrate how this can be applied to research. Reflective Activity Systems Theory Reflective Activity Systems Theory, or RAST, is a combination of the theory of reflective practice and a modified version of activity theory. An activity in activity theory involve s performing conscious actions, that have an immediate and definite goal, and operations [sic] a whole range of biases that will affect how they approach the activity: previous experience, cognitive volve as For the purpose of facilitating focussing [sic] on the whole activity, and not the detailed

PAGE 145

127 pose of the [artifact] is at issue, and cross into account the political, economical [sic] social a 49). 1998, p. 49). theory] AT is the unity of consciousness and activity, where consciousness is considered to be the human mind as a whole and activity is considered as the interaction of the (Hasan, 1998, p. 50). This view of activity has been incorporated into the RAST model. Designers rarely consider how the tool they design will mediate activities, as [actors] become familiar with the [artifact] can they appreciate the possibilities it In order to develop design rationale based on the actual use of an artifact, the designer needs to have access to feedback from actors who have experience with the artifact in use. Feedback, or back talk, from the actors who have experience with the artifact in use leads to reflective conversation, which leads to reflection in action by proxy for the designer The reflection engendered by the feedback and the reflective conversation provides a basis for reflective design rationale. The reflective design rationale can be utilized to react to unexpected consequences in past and current designs and used to develop future designs that benefit from the

PAGE 146

128 knowledge gained from previous designs. A visual representation of RAST is shown in Figure 8 below. Figure 8 : Reflective Activity Systems Theory Applying RAST RAST can be applied to any conscious action conceived of as desi gn but here I will review applying it to environmental design. Currently, there is a two way relationship between building inhabitants and the built environment and separate two way relationship s between designers, builders, building operators and the bui lt environment. Inhabitants interact with the built environment and, in some instances, have the opportunity to provide feedback about the building and/or receive information or other performance. Building designers, builders, a nd operators typically have much more access than inhabitant

PAGE 147

129 energy and other performance attributes but may not have much, if any, information about inhabitant comfort and satisfaction levels. With a RAST information system, there feedback from building inhabitants Designers, builders, and operators would have access to information about their buildings and other buildings like theirs that c an be used to improve the building design process and adapt existing buildings to accommodate the comfort needs. In addition, the professional community and the public can provide feedback on designs in progress and access information about in habitant comfort levels and building energy use. The activity information system I have designed to collect and disseminate feedback about the built environment in use is called the Socio Technical Environment s for Evolutionary Design 37 or STEED (more on S TEED in Chapter V) 37 Evolutionary design is defined as an incremental im provement to product design driven by selection of features that increase utility and comfo rt over many generations of use. Evolutionary design uses the following structure: design test adjust use get feedback from users adjust use get feedback adjust use get feedback adjust (Werby, 2008).

PAGE 148

130 Real World Research RAST Application Figure 9 : Buckley Air Force Base Colorado Air National Guard Aviation Support Facility Hangar View (Foundations of Readiness, 2009, p. 35) Activity: Helicopter Repair and Maintenance in a LEED S ilver Facility Objective: The objectives of the activity are to perform repair, maintenance, and training operations on military helicopters and aircraft quickly and efficiently, while using less energy than a traditionally built building in a facility des igned to be highly energy efficient. This research uses results of a survey I conducted in 2009 regarding the Buckley Air Force Base Colorado Army National Guard (COARNG) Army Aviation Support Facility (AASF) in Aurora, Colorado. The facility is 111,000 sq uare feet (Foundations of Readiness, 2009). I conducted the survey using standard LEED Post Occupancy Evaluation questions (see Appendix A for the questions and survey answers). Six

PAGE 149

131 bui lding inhabitants were surveyed there are 70 full time employees at the building so this is equivalent to 9% of the regular building inhabitants (Foundatio ns of Readiness, 2009, p. 36). In addition to the building inhabitants, s ix University of Colorado undergraduate students (not design practitioners) and six University of C olorado graduate Architecture and Planning students ( at least four of whom could be considered to be experienced design practitioners in that they had experience performing design work at an architectural firm ) viewed a 3D simulation of the building and an swered the same survey questions based on what they thought it would be like to inhabit the building. Figure 10 : Inside the hangar at the Aviation Support Facility (Foundations of Readiness, 2009, p. 35) Why was the building built and chosen for this su rvey ? The U.S. military requires functional helicopters and aircraft for domestic and international missions. In

PAGE 150

132 addition, any new building built for the military must conform to green building The U S General Services Administration (GSA) has required basic LEED certification for all federal buildings since 2003 and since 2010, it's required LEED Gold certification 2006, was LEED Silver certified. Part of why the buil ding management and the architectural firm agreed to a survey was to earn more points toward LEED Gold certification. LEED grants points for building inhabitant satisfaction the survey questions asked were the recommended LEED questions to ascertain this at the time along with additional questions the architect wanted to know the answers to. Figure 1 1 : Inside the operations area at the Aviation Support Facility (Foundations of Readiness, 2009, p. 36) What do they do in this building ? The actions under taken in the building include aircraft and helicopter repair and maintenance, aircraft and helicopter operations,

PAGE 151

133 administration, training, drills, and hosting pilots who are waiting for their helicopter or aircraft. How are the operations carried out in t his building ? Helicopter repair technicians work in large hangars often open to the outside. Operations, administration, and training work in interior offices. The building incorporates energy saving features like daylighting and motion sensitive lighting, highly efficient mechanical and electrical systems, and insulating building materials. Figure 1 2 : Front outside view of the Aviation Support Facility (Foundations of Readiness, 2009, p. 35) Actors: The actors at this facility are the helicopter repair technicians, the operators, administrators, trainers, pilots, and U.S. military facilities management personnel. Active Means : The active means of interest here are the areas of the built environment the actors interact with. The research active means were a 3D simulation of the facilities and a survey conducted with building inhabitants who answered

PAGE 152

134 questions about their situated use of the built environment and non building inhabitants who watched the 3D simulation and answered questions about what they t hought the built environment would be like in situated use. Figure 1 3 build renderings (CH2M Hill, 2005) Culture: The culture of the people interviewed for this study was U.S. military fo r the building inhabitants (many of whom had just returned from Iraq or Afghanistan) and academic or design practitioners for the non building inhabitants. The military building inhabitants were not asked to view the 3D building simulation before the build ing was built or during my survey and were not familiar with this early prototype method of gaining actor feedback. The graduate student design practitioners were the most familiar with 3D building simulations and gave more feedback than the undergraduate

PAGE 153

135 academic participants. In addition, everyone who participated is, was and will be a building inhabitant in multiple built environments. sustainable design choices with a strict ly limited budget. The building was one of the earliest Army National Guard projects to earn a LEED Silver certification by the U.S. Green Building Council (Foundations of Readiness, 2009, p. 35) and, as such, it was both a showcase and a testing ground fo r sustainable design practices. Rules: The rules for the facility building inhabitants included having very little control over the ambient temperature. The temperature controls were located off site of the Aurora base). The military also maintained a standard 62 F inside the building in the winter and 80 F inside the building in the summer. For the helicopter and aircraft technicians, there was an even wider gap in ambient temperature in their shop s due to the hangar doors frequently opening and closing and a lack of weather sealing around the hangar doors. All of these temperature ranges are outside the norm for buildings that are not on a military base (and that the building inhabitants would have frequent current, past, and future exposure to). OSHA recommends temperature control in the range of 68 76 F (OSHA Technical Manual, 2003). The building was designed to conserve water and electricity wherever possible and to avoid disturbing the prairie dog and burrowing owl habitats on the grounds. The when daylighting was unavailable or when motion was detected after daylight hours.

PAGE 154

136 ocated a considerable distance from the build ing in order to avoid disturbing animal habitats. The research rules were that survey participants either had direct experience with the building or indirect experience through viewing the 3D simulation. In addi tion, survey participants were required to be over the age of 18 years old and either a military employee working at the facility being studied or a student at the University of Colorado and be willing to answer a series of questions in a face to face inte rview. Roles: The roles of the actors in the building were: helicopter and aircraft repair technicians who had the role of working in the aircraft and helicopter hangers, while occasionally accessing other areas of the building; operations and administrati on personnel who worked in the interior offices; trainers who worked in interior offices and classrooms; pilots who accessed the hangars and interior lounges; and U.S. military facilities management personnel who maintained and operated the building, inclu ding controlling the heating and cooling systems from a distance. The roles of the actors involved in the survey were: military building inhabitants who had knowledge of military culture and rules, and of the building in situated use; design practitioners who had knowledge of architectural and planning standards and experience with 3D simulations as a means of evaluating a prototype; undergraduate students who had general knowledge as experienced building inhabitants but no specialized knowledge of architec ture, building simulations, or the building being studied.

PAGE 155

137 Outcomes: [emphasis added for feedback that negatively effects energy use] Undergraduate students reviewed the 3D building simulations and had the following feedback about the building design: add warmer colors to the interior design the building seems well lit, comfortable, modern, functional, organized, and orderly the building appears to need better signage it would be nice to see furniture and workspaces specified in the simulation it seems to be a pleasant and positive work environment the spaces are open but seem to be lacking privacy the building is futuristic looking and attractive Design practitioners (architectural graduate students) reviewed the 3D building simulations and had the followi the building appears to be well designed with an effective layout the interior offices seem to be well lit but the repair center could use better lighting it seems as though noise may be an issue with the open spac e plan and hangars connected to the interior offices cooling in the summer may be an issue the building entrance seems far removed from parking/access the design is coherent

PAGE 156

138 the main circulation after leaving the atrium seems too tight the locker bay area seems too labyrinthine and dark the kitchen, which consisted of counter space located in a hallway, seems too tight and could be congested there are potential security issues from visitors being able to see from the atrium into the hangars floating pinup/w hiteboards could have problems with glare due to placement next to the windows the hallways seems canyon like extremely tall and narrow it would be a comfortable place to work the building has a lot of space and an open atmosphere Building inhabitants ha d the following feedback: everything in the building is practical the building needs a washer and dryer (laundry room) up to work on helicopters everything is easily accessible needs more water fountains (there are no water fountains at the back of the building, where the hangars are) the layout is effective emergency lights need to be placed in the bathrooms (when the power goes out, there is no lighting in the bathrooms)

PAGE 157

139 the hangars are supposed to have their own t emperature controls and for those that do [have temperature controls] professional environment parking is not easily accessible motion sensitive automatic ligh working so you need to jump up to get the lights back on there is no access to temperature monitoring or controls anywhere in the building (although at least one survey participant thought other personnel who worked in the hangars had control over the temperature in their area) the building is too cold in the winter and too hot in the summer the building has plenty of space there are drainage issues in the han gars/shops where puddles of water gather in the winter through in the winter (some technicians have sealed the doors themselves) some things in the hangars/shops have been over done (for exa mple, there are more air hoses and reels than needed)

PAGE 158

140 the hangars/shops have no obstructions so the equipment is easily accessible the building is almost too well lit in the summer (it gets hot and glary) split doors are [Americans with Disabilities Act] A DA compliant but difficult for people not in wheelchairs to use there was an over expenditure on nice equipment, like flat panel screens, in the front of the building while the back of the building could have used more attention building inhabitants were n ot asked to view the 3D building simulation and give feedback before the building was built (and have still not seen the simulation) the hangar doors are wearing out prematurely there are cracks in the floors in the hangars/shops pleasant, impressive, upli fting design, with easy access to get to the places they need to go or they have a drill weekend (more people than usual using them) the break room had to be restructured after the bu ilding was built to accommodate use the building has plenty of storage space the classrooms could use theater style seating add more private office space

PAGE 159

141 the building needs an intercom system that reaches the hangars/shops (if the door into the hangar from operations is too small and goes into a the trophy case should be replaced with sliding glass doors that have a motion sensor so they open automatically the motion sensor will begin turning lights on while the inhabitant searches for the switch to turn the lights off the computer networking has issues nice views people in interior offices h hangars/shops the flight operations area gets extremely hot in the summer (close to 90 degrees) due to the number of windows the break room needs to be more central (pilots prefer to stay in the flight operations area for a second break room in flight ops would be nice) not enough spaces in the parking lot to accommodate classes or drill weekends Overall, neither the undergraduate students nor the architectural graduate student

PAGE 160

142 standard for indoor temperature is outside the U.S. OSHA indoor standard by several degrees colder and warmer than what is considered normal. The simulation also does not specify this standard. While one architectural graduate student noted that cooling in the summer may be an issue due to the large number of windows, none of the remaining non building inhabitants noticed this. One architectural graduate student observed the parking and building access seemed too far apart. While this was a common complaint from the building inhabitants, it was not something that was noticed by any other non inhabitants The other frequent complaint about the waterless urinals not being up to the task of dealing with drill and training sessions was not mentioned but not specified in the 3D simulation so the non inhabitants would not have been aware of this. Everyone surv eyed agreed the building is aesthetically pleasing and the daylighting systems are effective. However, the heating issues contribute to building inhabitants providing their own heating measures and attempting to seal the massive hangar doors on their own. inhabitants also find ways to deal with indoor temperatures of up to 90 F in the summer by bringing in fans or air conditioning units In addition, the building inhabitants have no control over the bui efficient heating and cooling systems, leaving them to use energy guzzling personal heating and cooling appliances to adjust the te mperature in their personal space.

PAGE 161

143 Commercial buildings represent just under one fifth of U.S. energy consumption he top three end uses in the commercial sector are space heating, lighting, and space cooling, which represent close to half of comm ercial site efficient HVAC system, and choice of building materials mean the building consu mes 42 percent less energy than a comparable, traditional building, saving the Colorado Army National Guard nearly $60,000 annually (Foundations of Readiness, 2009, p. 36). However, LEED certified buildings are not required to demonstrate the building ener gy use after occupation the estimates for LEED certified building energy use are based on pre build energy modelling and simulations. M ost common convection space heaters will use around 1500 watts of energy per hour Assuming that, on winter days, a sp ace heater is used for 9 hours a day (the standard U.S. work day with an hour for lunch), one building inhabitant would use an additional 13.5 kilowatt hours (kWh) per day (energyusecalculator.com, 2014). In August 2013, the average price of a kWh in Color ado was 11.6 cents, which can be rounded up to 12 cents per kWh with the current upward trend in electricity pricing (Jaffe, 2013). This means it would cost ~18 cents per hour per space heater, or $1.62 per day per space heater, using 2014 pricing. If we a ssume that building inhabitants run space heaters on winter days when the daily high temperature is 32 F or below, conservatively, the space heaters would be run 21 days per year, which is the average number of days in Denver that the high temperature for the day is 32 F or lower

PAGE 162

144 (Current Results, 2014), at a cost of $34.02 and 283.5 kWh per inhabitant running a space heater a full day for those 21 days If we assume that building inhabitants run space heaters on winter days when the daily low temperature is 32 F or lower, the space heaters would be run 157 days per year (Current Results, 2014), at a cost of $254.34 and 2,119.5 kWh per inhabitant running a space heater a full day for those 157 days If we take a number in the middle and say the space heat ers are run 90 days per year, the cost is $145.80 and 1,215 kWh per building inhabitant running a space heater a full day for those 90 days The survey did not reveal how many building inhabitants are using space heaters so I will use several numbers for comparison. There are 70 full time personnel in the of building inhabitants using space heaters in the facility for comparison. Utilizing the numbers set previously, the following table shows a comparison for an annual number of days of space heater use and number of inhabitants using space heaters, with kWh rounded up or down ( Table 11 ). Table 11 : Additional Cost and kWh Projections for Space Heaters in the Facility Number of Inhabitants Running Space Heaters 21 Days Running Space Heaters 90 Days Running Space Heaters 157 Days Running Space Heaters 30% 21 Inhabitants $714.42 5,954 kWh $3,061.80 25,515 kWh $5,341.14 44,510 kWh 60% 42 Inhabitants $1,428.84 11,907 kWh $6,123.60 51,030 kWh $10,682.28 89,019 kWh 100% 70 Inhabitants $2,381.40 19,845 kWh $10,206.00 85, 050 kWh $17,803.80 148,365 kWh

PAGE 163

145 The additional expense of more motion sensor lights turning on than needed and fans for cooling personal spaces is more difficult to gauge than space heater expenses. Since the lighting system is LED based, the energy use w ould be minimal. A stand fan is generally an 80 watt appliance. Calculating the cost to run a stand fan for 9 hours at 12 cents per kWh, the usage per day is .72 kWh at a cost of 9 cents. While this is not anywhere near the intensive energy use of a space heater, it would still add up to a would be run on days when the temperature is 80 F or higher, the fans would be run 127 days a year in Denver (Current Results, 2014 ). The following table shows the annual energy use depending on the number of inhabitants using stand fans for those 127 days ( Table 12 ). Table 12 : Cost and kWh Projection for Stand Fans in the Facility Number of Inhabitants Running Stand Fans 127 Days Running Stand Fans 30% 21 Inhabitants $ 240.03 1,920 kWh 60% 42 Inhabitants $ 480.06 3,841 kWh 100% 70 Inhabitants $ 800.10 6,401 kWh Conventional a ir conditioning units use about the same amount of energy as conventional space heater s Assum ing one 1 500 watt room air conditioning unit was brought into the operations area to help cool the room down, which is reasonable to assume since this area reaches temperatures of up to 90 F the unit would use 13.5 kWh (City of Glendale Water and Power, 2014) in 9 hours at a cost of $1.62 per day with 2013 Colorado electricity prices at 12 cents per hour. If this unit r an for the 127 hottest days of the year in Denver, the cost would be an additional $ 205.74 annually and the

PAGE 164

146 facility would use an additional 1,715 kWh of electricity over projections The facility has an evaporative cooling system installed that, if used instead of an air conditioning unit, uses about one quarter of the energy (energy.gov 2012). Reflection: The activities supported by the Buckley Air Force Base Colorado Army National Guard (COARNG) Army Aviation Support Facilit y (AASF) in Aurora, Colorado are helicopter and aircraft repair, maintenance, and training. One o f the many tools supporting these activities is the building itself. While the building is aesthetically pleasing, designed for sustainability, and effectively built for helicopter and aircraft models. The building was projected to use 42% less energy than traditionally constructed energy use records for this facility, using the same cost and electricity mea su res used to determine the probable space heater fan, and air conditioning unit costs and kWh of energy use in the previous tables I can extrapolate that $60,000 is equivalent to 500,000 kWh, and the projected annual energy use for the facility is 1,190,4 76 kWh. With a low estimate of $954.45 and 7,874 kWh or a high estimate of $18,809.64 and 156,481 kWh additional unplanned energy use per year solely from the use of space heaters, fans, and/or air conditioners the energy modelling for the facility is o ff by anywhere from 1% to 13% higher than planned. Culturally, it seems the blame for this inhabitants will not conform to military comfort standards or it could be that the

PAGE 165

147 simulations. Based on the survey respondents, even design practitioners did not predict the heating issues brought to light by the building inhabitants and only one design pract itioner noted the potential cooling issues. Since most buildings around today have energy modeling available to is compared to projected energy use. LEED buildi ngs do tend to incorporate energy modeling in the planning process so there is some data available about how LEED buildings perform in terms of actual energy use versus energy modeling simulations. However, recent figures regarding LEED building energy use show that LEED commercial buildings reporting energy data (a small percentage) actually used an average of 29% more than the Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) mean of 81,600 BTUs per square foot per year for all new commercial building s (Gifford, 2008, p. 4 ; Newsham et al, 2009, p. 904 ). With this figure in mind, the Aviation Support Facility could easily be using 30 43% more energy than projected. use of the building, presumably faciliti es management would only realize the energy projections were off by comparing the projections to the actual monthly utility bill. Feedback from the building in use is a nd operators can reflect in action and determine corrective measures. The unintended consequence of not receiving this feedback is the higher than planned energy use. While I did report my findings to both the architectural firm and building management, al ong with an offer to complete additional research as the issues were

PAGE 166

148 addressed, the feedback I gave was not well received I was told before I submitted my report that building management was interested in maintaining an ongoing research relationship with me. However, after my initial report submission, I did not receive a response from building management to my requests to conduct further research. The architectural firm also did not respond to my report. The building received the U.S Air Force (USAF) Hono r Award for Sustainable Design for it s energy efficiency, innovation, and use of sustainable materials in 2008, and an additional USAF Honor Award for Interior Design in 2009.

PAGE 167

149 CHAPTER V SOCIO TECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTS FOR EVOLUTIONARY DESIGN (STEED) : AN ACTIVITY INFORMATION SYSTEM TO SUPPORT RAST Highlights This chapter describes the design of Socio Technical Environment s for Evolutionary Design (STEED) activity information system s I incorporate the Reflective Activity Systems Theory (RAST) as a theoret ical framework and foundational set of guidelines to assist the actors involved with the built environment as they plan and evaluate settings to support sustainability and other needs STEED systems are critiquing and argumentation system s directed at help ing environmental and other designers use available feedback from use to inform their designs as well as provide a forum for users (called inhabitants when discussing the built environment) builders, operators, facilities management, the design community and the general public to discuss buildings, provide information about buildings and building data sets, and view or download information about buildings and the built environment Incorporating RAST as a framework suggests an activity information system that supports gathering design rationale from use, implementation, and designers, and providing environmental designers with post occupancy evaluation strategies to create an activity based approach to past, current, and future environmental design method ologie s Together RAST and STEED provide a structure to guide the development of future activity based

PAGE 168

150 design research and theory development around the role of the designed environment as it pertains to sustainability comfort, aesthetics, and other desig n goals Introduction Review In Chapter IV, I presented the Reflective Activity Systems Theory (RAST) theoretical f ramework and discussed the importance of maintaining a focus on activities and r eflective practice when evaluating design strategies and of describing the relationship between actors, artifacts and the colle ctive and social history of artifact s As RAST tells us, there is a collective group of actors engaged in the design process that includes artifact designers, artifact clients artifact bu ilders, artifact users, artifact managers, and artifact operators. RAST describe s the relationships between these actors. The purpose of RAST i s to provide a structure to apply the theory of reflective practice and a modified version of activity theory com bined to support apply ing feedback from actors engaged with the built environment to the development of reflective design rationale and design practice based on feedback from use Using RAST as a structure for STEED systems implies that STEED system s are o rganized around the collection of feedback about real world activities. I proposed RAST as a theoretical framework and method to organize investigation around the role of reflection, collective knowledge, social interaction, and history in improving the de sign of artifacts The RAST framework is also an answer to those who say activity theory is a philosophical endeavor rather than a practical solution I explained how RAST illustrates three different propositions about the designed environment. First, desi gners require

PAGE 169

151 feedback from the design, or artifact, in use in order to learn how to create better designs Second, for designers removed from the situated use of an artifact they designed, feedback from artifact users contributes the necessary information required for reflection in action Third, the collective knowledge contained in an activity information system provides the basis for a rich design rationale for designers to use in evaluating and correcting past designs, gathering feedback for current de signs, and creating new designs STEED organizes features of RAST to support gathering design rationale and collect ing feedback from users, or inhabitants operators, builders, facilities management, clients, other designers, and the general public Thesis In this chapter I describe the standard for Socio Technical Environment s for Evolutionary Design (STEED) activity information system s intended to support reflective conversation and building information exchange in the environmental design rationale deve lopment process Just as there are standards for buildings, like LEED, STEED is a standard for system s to collect feedback about buildings. A STEED system incorporates Reflective Activity Systems Theory (RAST) described in Chapter IV. I describe how STEED empower s actors involved with the design to participate in the design process, allows design practitioners to utilize feedback from artifact users and from artifacts provides collective knowledge from feedback about other designs and gives a socio cultur al context to support a new type of reflective design rationale By making the feedback public and freely available, STEED systems motivate design practitioners to use the feedback provided by users involved with the artifact in situated use in the re desi gn of

PAGE 170

152 past or current artifacts and as rationale for future designs Design practitioners who ignore this feedback could potentially be seen as negligent and held liable for persistently ignored design issues. Utilizing RAST as a foundation, STEED systems provide an independent platform for all of the actors involved with an artifact to give and receive feedback about the artifact in use along with information about their sociocultural environment. STEED allows the design practitioner to participate in refl ective conversation with actors involved with the situated use of the designed artifact and provides the setting to support designers in developing design rationale based on feedback from real world, situated feedback Significance The purpose of this chap ter is to demonstrate h ow RAST dictates the design of STEED system s de scribe the design of STEED and illustrate how STEED systems will be activity information system s that support inhabitants in providing feedback from the artifact in situated use gathe ring collective knowledge from designers, and formulating design rationale in a socio cultural context appropriate to the built environment The framework has practical implications for activity based e nvironmental design strategies to support sustainabili ty inhabitant satisfaction, and other environmental design desired qualities Background Design Rationale Design rationale is defin

PAGE 171

153 of reasoning underlying the design process that explain, derive, and justify design provide a complete account of the reasoning applied to their designs decisions and the associated reasoning are made implicitly by construction and are not complete accounting of the rationale for a design by the designer would take away from the design process However, rove their own work, (b) to cooperate with other people holding stakes in the design, and (c) to understand uable for the designer to have predictions are documented, they can be compared to actual u p. 39 6). Even if the designer s predictions are not documented, feedback about the design in use provides a way for designer s to reflect in action without having to be a part of the actual use situation reflection in action by p roxy. Collaborative Design Environment storage mechanism for a design, and must start becoming a medium of communication unication with the

PAGE 172

154 Fischer et al, 1994a). An online building information and review environment can provide the means for communication and collaboration between designers and inhabitants, as well as builders, operators, and the general public. Building inhabitants have an important role to play in this type of system by providing feedback about the design in use. RAST tells us that feedback from all actors involved with the artifact is important to the reflective conversation between act ors about the design but building inhabitants are often the only actors involved with buildings who have experience with the building in situated use Building inhab itants can become ognize when particular aspects of design are suboptimal or the designer might otherwise benefit 16). Critics could also be other designers, owners, builders, operators, or the general public who may have experience with a similar situation and the ability to provide rationale associated with the design issue. providing rationale about why the critic suggestion is inaccurat & McCall, 1996, p. 17). Reflective Conversation The dialogue between critics and designers constitutes the reflective conversation Schn discusses between a client and practitioner. should really function i n many ways as a reflective practitioner ( Schn 1983, p. 302 ). According to Schn the relationship between client and practitioner who agree to

PAGE 173

155 engage in reflective conversation can be summarized in a reflective contract which spells out the role of the client as follows: I join with the professional in making sense of my case, and in doing this I gain a sense of increased involvement and action. I can exercise some control over the situation I am not wholly dependent on him; he is also dependent on in formation and action that only I can undertake. I am pleased to be able to test my judgments about his competence. I enjoy the excitement of discovery about his knowledge, about the phenomena of his practice, and about myself. ( Schn 1983, p. 302) Schn compares the reflective contract to the traditional contract, saying that child [while the reflective contract provides] the gratification, and the anxiety, of becom Schn 1983, p. 302). This type of shared inquiry can form the basis for a system designed to support Reflective Activity Systems Theory ( RAST ) My design for such a system is the Socio Technical E nvironments for Evolu tionary Design, or STEED Case Based Design STEED builds upon other systems that have incorporated support for designers in gathering and applying design rationale. Case based design (CBD) is promising for producing design rationale ba sed on use. Case based reasoning (CBR) was pioneered by Kolodner in the early 1990s. A small computer based library system called Archie was The Archie system was developed to provide designers with design decision support based on problems, propose and refine solutions, critique and modify proposed designs, and

PAGE 174

156 1992, p. 14). However, architects did not then and do libraries but are scattered in file cabinets, magazines, books, and the memories of other 992, p. 14). Some large architectural firms do maintain small al, 1992, p. 14). Archie was designed to assist architects with high opposed to low level tasks such as drawing and drafting, numerical calculations, and To use Archie, the architect outlines pp. 15 16). es whose similarity value is architect sees how other architects solved similar design problems, and can combine solutions from several cases to create a high level qualitative d esign (Pearce et al, 1992, p. 16) which the architect can then critique, refine, and adapt. Archie contains three kinds of knowledge: primitive concepts, domain models, and design cases Primitive concepts refer to the primitive objects, relations, and p arameters of office buildings, and for part of the language for representing and indexing cases. Domain models capture the causal relationships among case concepts. Cases in Archie are represented as flat, static frames, each with more than 150 possible fe atures. Features can be featu res came from the domain models that describe outcomes. For example,

PAGE 175

157 the color of the walls, floor, and furniture all affect the amount of glare in a [sic] office, so these features were added to the representation language. Finally, some features develope d from usability issues. (Pearce et al, 1992, p. 17) based knowledge engineering shell. cases: nearest nei ghbor matching and model al, 1992, p. 17). Nearest neighbor matching and (Pearce et al, 1992, p. 18). An architect could retrieve information about lighting from sim ilar cases to the design at hand, including the type Domain models are used to cluster cases in memory, called model based An architect could retrieve i nformation about satisfaction with lighting based on evaluation of the quality of lighting and glare intensity. Based on the cases retrieved, Archie predicts the outcome of new designs. For example, based on designs with low lighting quality and high glare intensity, Archie problematic outcome for any new design based on this case (Pearce et al, 1992, p. 18). Lessons learned from testing Archie are: Lesson 1: Real world cases are incomplete cases in making [t]he best practical solution might be to settle for many semidocumented [sic] cases rather than a few fully documented ones Lesson 2: Real world cases are large large vocabulary to capture enough information about a case to make it useful

PAGE 176

158 Lesson 3: Systems must offer users multiple types of knowledge a Lesson 4: Systems must present relevant information the forms are static dynamically restructure the interface to make important information more gned] more for knowledge engineering (Pearce et al, 1992, p. 19) Work with Archie led the researchers involved to reorganize and refine the original system and develop further case cognitive model underlying CBR and observation of designers at work on concept development [which] both suggest that conceptual design 38 would benefit from a quick, easy way to survey a wide range of existing artifac There are still not many formal ways for a designer to survey a wide range of existing artifacts, although for architects and other built environment designers there are relatively new resources like pinterest.com houzz.c om and numerous tiny house 39 Web sites that support searches for designs design issues, and viewing the work of other designers documentation of existing designs with evaluations [emphasis in original] of the The need also still exists for an approach at a more grassroots level that allows users across the spectrum of roles to 38 et al, 1994, p. 1). 39 The tiny house move is a social movement where people are downsizing the space that they live in information gathered from other tiny house builders to develop their own design.

PAGE 177

159 control what goes in, rather than having researchers e stories that emphasize the concerns of different stakeholders into the conversation should help participants confront a range of issues that might not be fully represented includes members of the maintenance staff, or in which such representatives feel free to speak candidly and are listened to seriously In RAST and STEED systems, members of the maintenance staff are operator s and have a role in providing feedback about the artifact in use. Looking at the actors, roles, rules, and community involved with the activity at hand is an important part of getting it right in design and giving all actors the opportunity to tell their story is a central factor to gaining the feedback necessary for designers to have the ability to reflect in action by proxy whether what was constructed (and what is about to be borrowed) was actually a good idea [emphasis added] From Planning to Situated Cognition The closest work to the CBDA efforts appears to be the work of Fischer, McCall, rs] have built a series of environments, such as the Janus [emphasis in original] system for architecture, that Janus a se is a complete kitchen rec orded as an arrangement of (Domeshek et al, 1994, pp. 15 16).

PAGE 178

160 In addition to specification and construction components that allow users to create new designs, a rule bas ed critique of resulting constructions, and some prior designs from which pieces can be borrowed, and an argumentation hypertext discussing rationale for various design decisions design proper, the information we can collect is weaker than theirs because [W]e believe We expect reuse from previous designs to focus on appreciation of the consequences of decisions as viewed by the full range of stakeholders over the full life cycle. This kind of evaluative feedback from existing artifacts is not possible if a design aiding system is closed within the world of the designer. [emphasis added] (D omeshek et al, 1994, pp. 15 16) In 2010, McCall reviewed many of the systems created to support design rationale that he has been involved with creating over three decades, including Janus, and evaluated lessons learned ( p. 11) One lesson learne d was the importance of intertwining ideation and evaluation. Schn ign as situated ideation 40 and evaluation 41 [which promotes] with the design, the 27). gn is shaped by feedback 40 ideation refers to the generation of ideas, especially novel ideas, for artifact 41 evaluation refers to determination of the value of such ideas [emphasis in 12).

PAGE 179

161 The commitment to using feedback driven, critical conversations to promote projects. One implication concerns the type of processes that are modeled. Currently, none of the rationale methods that deal with design decision making explicitly models the ways in which evaluative feedback leads to the generation of new design ideas. When rational e methods cannot model these processes, they not only cannot promote them but may actually discourage them. A second implication concerns the sources of design rationale. Current approaches concentrate almost exclusively on rational e from design discussion (planning). This is s ufficient to allow rationale based on speculative reasoning and the experience of previous projects, but not sufficient to allow rationale based on feedback from actions [emphasis added]. (McCall, 2010, pp. 12 13) Schn tice does not cover the sort of situated cognition in which feedback from implementation and use challenges a designer to Schn intuitive process he calls knowing in Call, 2010, p. 31). In Schn designer reflects upon his or her own action. In order to experience reflection in action, the designer needs to experience reflection in action by proxy via feedback about the artifact. participation to the provision of feedback by implementers and users about the actual As McCall concludes, [s]hould it be treated as a decision centric rational e process or should a special method provide an answer to that question with the design of STEED.

PAGE 180

162 Energy Informatics The ability to gather information directly from buildings about factors such as : energy use tracked by date, time, a nd location within the building; ambient temperature, and humidity lighting and air quality levels; structural integrity; inha bitant movement and use; and inhabitant feedback given directly to building monitoring systems is available and built in to some modern buildings. The new discipline of energy informatics was launched as a subfield of Information Systems (IS) research in 2 010 (Watson et al, 2010) and is concerned with providing systems to support the collection and analysis of data gathered from buildings. Energy informatics as a discipline is particularly focused on spurring the IS academic community to engage in the devel opment of environmentally sustainable business practices (Watson et al, 2010) Energy informatics is expressed by the formula: Energy + Information > Energy Illustrated in Figure 14 t he field of energy informatics i s concerned with the collection and analysis of energy and other building data sets with analyzing, designing, and implementing systems to increase the efficiency of energy demand and supply systems and echoing activity theory (although not mentioning ac tivity theory in the literature) with monitor ing human factors involved in carrying out activities in the built environment, including the goals and motives (objective), socio cultural environment, local and regional rules, and actor roles (Watson et al, 2010).

PAGE 181

163 Figure 1 4 : Energy Informatics Framework (Watson et al, 2010 p.25 )

PAGE 182

164 New sustainable energy efficient buildings have networked information systems, building sensors, and sensitized devices incorporated into their design This networked built envir onment makes for a new type of intelligent building, which can provide rich data sets for energy informatics. As Callaghan et al describe in Buildings as intelligent autonomous systems: a model for integrating personal and building agents (2000): Le Corbu Modern buildings have strong physical similarities to machines in that they contain a myriad of mechanical, electrical, electronic, computing and communication devices. As building services become increasingly sophisticated they contain ever more sensors, effectors, computer based devices and networks. From a computer science viewpoint an Intelligent Building (IB) can be ern the building environment so as to optimize user comfort, energy consumption, ( Sharples 2000, p. 99) Modern buildings are incredibly complicated systems that need to meet the needs of all of the actors involved with them including building owners, inhabitant s, visitors, and government regulators The green building movement and sustainability requirements also now mean carefully monitoring and adjusting building systems to ensure buildings use as little energy as possible while still maintaining a suitable environment for their inhabitants. As buildings incorporate computing and communication devices into their design, we gain the ability to closely track energy flows in and out of the building, the status of areas or items within the building, and individual actions. An information system capable of tracking these elements is an intelligent energy system. The three types of technologies that make up an intelligent energy system are: flow networks, sensor networks, and sens itized objects (Watson et al, 2010). A flow

PAGE 183

165 network for the built environment is a transport mechanism for resources, such as electricity, fuel, air, and water, or objects, such as cars, packages, containers, or people (Watson et al, 2010) A sensor networ k is a set of devices that report the status of a physical item or environmental condition, such as traffic on a highway, temperature in rooms in a building, or air pollution (Watson et al, 2010). Sensitized objects are physical goods that a consumer owns or manages that have the capability to sense and report data about its use (Watson et al, 2010) such as pay as you drive insurance that uses GPS to record travel information and send it to the insurer. Smart grids are an example of an intelligent energy system. Smart grids have been implemented in several U.S. cities as a considerable upgrade to the electric grids put in place in the late 1800s. Smart grids allow for two way communication between utilities and customers, they allow tracking and control of the flow of electricity along the grid, and they allow customers to track their energy use as they go rather than waiting for a bill at the end of the month (smartgrid.gov, 2014). The data collected by smart meters in the U.S. is being collected, analyzed and made publicly available online by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) (smartgrid.gov, 2014 ). The information gathered using intelligent energy systems can help us design a more sustainable and energy efficient built environment. Utilizing energy informatics we can gather and analyze intelligent building factors, including energy performance, indoor environmental quality, the embodied energy of all elements incorporated into the building design (total energy use from production to disposa l), and intrinsically human factors, such as accessibility, comfort, aesthetics, functionality, and task

PAGE 184

166 alignment (Heerwagen and Zagreus, 2005; Brown and Herendeen, 1996; Alexander, 2006). Intelligent energy systems allow building operators to identify pa tterns, issues, and building performance over time. generally available to the stakeholders for a single building or used in academic studies The data gathered is also often not compared t o pre build energy modeling so there is little accountability for designers and builders to prove the validity of their energy estimations. actual incentives for contractors or ongoing operations staff to ensure efficient up to ensure the building is performing as specified. Sharing energy informatics gives designers, builders, and operators an opportunity to learn about wha to conserve energy in the built environment. Comfort Norms Intelligent building systems give building inhabitant s a more comfortable environment. The world we live in is becoming more and more homogenized, with people around t he world adopting the intelligent building customs that used to be considered uniquely American. Standards of comfort, cleanliness, and convenience (the 3 Cs) are changing globally with the result being an associated increase in energy use d to sustain the 3 Cs. T he increasingly common expectations of building inhabitant s include a constant indoor temperature around 72 degrees Fahrenheit, daily hot showers, and freezer s and microwave s to produce everyday meals. These new norms

PAGE 185

167 mean that much of the world is using more energy and other resources than ever before to maintain the new standard of the 3 Cs s that, 25). Parallel to activity theory Giddens says that people continually mak e and remake ideas and norms based on what they become accustomed to. Shove explored Giddens ideas and applied them to modern comfort norms (2003). Shove posits that technological innovations added to an environment, such as freezers, microwaves showers, and air conditioning, create new norms for the inhabitant s of that environment. As inhabitant s use these new technologies, their comfort norms are redefined. Where an inhabitant may have been satisfied with a fan before getting air conditioning, the addit ion of air conditioning changes the inhabitant comfort norm for indoor summer temperature. Once an environment is modified so inhabitant s have become accustomed to new comfort norms, the conversation about sustainable design changes (for example, sustain able design for a house before it has a refrigerator may look very different from sustainable design for the same house with a refrigerator). Technology shapes collective conventions and can cause unexpected, and unplanned for, resource demands (Shove, 200 3). At a time when the world demands more energy and resource use to maintain new and developing comfort norms, designers, operators, and builders of the built

PAGE 186

168 environment are striving to use less energy in buildings. Feedback from inhabitant s is ever more important to achieve the mutual goals of energy efficiency and comfort. If building designers, builders, and operators are utilizing standards that inhabitant s see as outdated, the inhabitant s will adapt their environment in ways that may not be sustainab le or energy efficient (e.g., bringing a space heater or fan to work, adjusting the thermostat, turning on or adding lights, etc.). STEED will provide a platform for information exchange and collaboration envir onment that is currently unavailable outside of a few academic or private studies With STEED, the information gathered from inhabitant s and building sensors will be public, shared, and accessible to be used in creating a better match between inhabitant co mfort norms and sustainable building standards. Approach When developing the design for STEED, I set out to answer the question s : What would a system designed to collect actor reviews of and information about the built environment in use building sensor d ata, and other information about the built environment look like? ; What would designers, operators, and builders nee d in order to have the ability to reflect upon feedback from inhabitants other actors involved with buildings, and energy informatics, and apply this to the creation of design rationale for past, current, and future designs? ; and, What factors need to be part of the system to prevent the shutdown of feedback and motivate design ers clients managers, and other actors in control of the artifac t to reflect on this feedback and utilize the feedback to improve past, current, and future designs?

PAGE 187

169 STEED System Design The RAST method leads to important conclusions about the design of STEED activity information systems that we would not get with other methods. The activity drives the system requirements. We need to know what the activity was, what went wrong with it, what went right, and why, if at all possible. The RAST method tells us to look at the What, Where, When, Why, Who and How We also n eed t o list all of the actors involved with the activity and their stake in the activity When actors engage in an e d to be able to report on it immediately the activity of experienc ing the breakdown and reporting on it are non separable. RAST Actor Role Attributes For environmental design, and, generally, all types of design, the actors involved with the designed artifact, aka the building, have the roles of the user, the designer, t he builder, the client, the operator, and the manager. Each actor role plays a part in activities engaged in with the artifact, which provides one of the active means used by the actors in the pursuit of activities (other active means are too numerable to count, Colorado Air National Guard Aviation Support Facility research as an ex ample and limit the discussion to energy related activities at the building Give n these limitation s the attributes for each actor role are:

PAGE 188

170 1. User Role RAST Attributes a. Activities: The direct or indirect facilitation of the repair and maintenance of militar y helicopters and airplanes b. Rules: U.S. Military regulations and green building standards c. Culture: U.S. comfort norms, U.S. Military standards, and green building standards d. Active Means: ability to perform work functions. Any breakdowns that occur in productively perform work functions The actor has a direct influence on energy use in the building and can use energy efficiently or not in attempts to re des ign the building environment to support a comfortable, productive work environment. e. Reflective Practice : The user is often the only actor involved with the artifact in use. Building inhabitants provide reflection on the building in situated use by providin g feedback about the consequences of using the building and by modifying, or re designing, the building to create an environment that matches their needs. 2. Designer Role RAST Attributes a. Activities: The design and supervision of the construction of the build ing

PAGE 189

171 b. Rules: Architectural and engineering standards, U .S. building standards, U.S. Military regulations and green building standards c. Culture: Architectural design and engineering trends and standards U.S. comfort norms, U.S. Military standards, and green building standards d. Active Means: Gaining as near as possible a complete understanding of the activities that will be carried out in the building and designing the structure to support the facilitation of those activities with the goal of having the buildin g disappear, Desi gning an aesthetically pleasing highly energy efficient facility that successfully functions as a means to complete helicop ter and airplane repair and maintenance in a sustainable manner. e. Reflective Practice: The designer reflects in action while creating the design. The designer engages in reflective conversation with the other actors involved with the artifact. The designer uses feedback about the situated use of the artifact provided by users to reflect in action by proxy and create reflective design rationale for past, current, and future designs 3. Builder Role RAST Attributes a. Activities: The construction of the building

PAGE 190

172 b. Rul es: U.S. building standards, U.S. Military regulations, and green building standards c. Culture: U.S. comfort norms, U.S. Military standards, and green building standards d. them in the real world, wh ich means the builders will discover many of Incorporating an understanding of the factors that lead to a building. Determining how to execute the design and build it to appropriate standards while adhering to strict time and budgetary limits. e. Reflective Practice: The builder employs reflection in action while construction decisio ns. The builder utilizes reflective practice while modifying the building plans to match reality. Building plans always require modification when the building is built and the plans conflict with the real construction situation. 4. Client Role RAST Attributes a. Activities: Financing and providing the rules for the design and construction of the building

PAGE 191

173 b. needs and requirements, U.S. building standards, U.S. Military regulations, and green building standards c. Culture: Focus on controlling costs while maintaining quality, U.S. comfort norms, U.S. Military standards, and green building standards d. Active Means: Providing the goals, reasoning, and finance to support the design and construction of the build ing Making decisions about cost trade offs of incorporating the most energy efficient building features versus saving money in the building process but spending it later on building retrofits, re designs, or increased energy use. e. Reflective Practice: The client engages in reflective practice by engaging in reflective conversation with the other actors involved with the artifact. The client and design roles create the initial design rationale together. Feedback about similar design situations in use can be used to inform the creation of reflective design rationale. Feedback about the building in use can be used for reflection in action by proxy and incorporated in building retrofit and re design to correct negative unexpected consequences (for example, unexp ectedly high energy use due to

PAGE 192

174 which leads to inhabitants providing their own devices, like space heaters and fans, to adjust the temperature). 5. Manager Role RAST Attributes a. Activities: Managemen t of t he maintenance operation, retrofits, and re design of the building Providing and enforcing rules and regulations for inhabiting the building b. Rules: Facilities management standards, U.S. building standards, U.S. Military regulations, and green build ing standards c. Culture: U.S. comfort norms, U.S. Military standards, and green building standards d. Active Means: Facilitating the ability of the users to complete their work productively. Managing the maintenance and repair of the building. Revising the buil ding design as needed to support the actual use of the facility. e. Reflective Practice: The manager role employs reflective practice when dealing with the unexpected consequences of the artifact in use. The manager engages in reflection in action by proxy wh en feedback about negative unexpected consequences of the building in use is received and the building requires alterations in order to satisfy inhabitant needs. When this happens, the manager reflects upon the situation and creates reflective design ratio nale about how to re design or retrofit the building.

PAGE 193

175 6. Operator Role RAST Attributes a. Activities: Operation, repair and maintenance of the building, Providing and enforcing rules and regulations for inhabiting the building b. Rules: Facilities management standa rds, U.S. building standards, U.S. Military regulations, and green building standards c. Culture: U.S. comfort norms, U.S. Military standards, and green building standards d. Active Means: Facilitating the ability of the users to complete their work productively Operating, maintaining, and repairing the building. Revising the building design as needed to support the actual use of the facility. e. Reflective Practice: The operator role employs reflective practice when dealing with the unexpected consequences of the artifact in use. The operator engages in reflection in action by proxy when feedback about negative unexpected consequences of the building in use is received and the building requires alterations in order to satisfy inhabitant needs. When this happens, th e operator reflects upon the situation and creates reflective design rationale about how to re design or retrofit the building. The operator reacts to the situation of the building in use and re

PAGE 194

176 designs, or repairs, building design features when they cause negative unexpected consequences. STEED Requirements Derived from RAST, the requirements for a STEED system are: 1. To gather information about the activity a. A description of the activity the What? i. Where the activity took place ii. When the activity took place iii. Applicable local or regional rules b. The objective the Why? i. What did the actors intend to achieve with the activity? ii. c. The active means the How? i. How did the actors intend to achieve the activity? d. The Outcomes i. Unex pected and expected outcomes of the activity 1. What was the breakdown? 2. What caused the breakdown? e. Reflection i. The actors reflect upon the activity and give feedback 2. To gather information about the actors

PAGE 195

177 a. A list of the actors the Who? i. Categorization of the a ctor roles ii. Stake in blocking or accepting feedback from the artifact in use iii. Sociocultural environment for the actors who interact with the artifact 3. Anonymous feedback from actors a. hidden but cannot guarantee anonymity (photographic images may contain recognizable data, other actors may be able to guess the identity of the poster based on the content submitted, location or role information may give away the identity of the poster) 4. Publicly available feedback from actors a. Feedback cannot be blocked by other actors 5. Easy actor submission of feedback a. The system will gather as much information as possible without the user having to formally enter the information, including geolocation, time and date stampin g, social profile from social media sites (Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Google, etc.) to complete actor profiles, and existing public information about the building (BIM, Google Map and Timeline, Google 3D Sketch,

PAGE 196

178 photos, satellite images, floor plans, bl ueprints, news, postings or reviews on other sites, LEED or other certifications, awards, legal findings, etc.) i. Actors can accept or change automatically gathered information so, if the actor is not posting from the location he or she is giving feedback ab out or is posting about something that happened in the past, he or she can manually enter the location, time, date, etc. b. The system will accept feedback from multiple sources, including email, Twitter, SMS/MMS text messages, Web site postings, Application Program Interface (API) Web service integration, and STEED applications c. The system will gather any available energy informatics, including aggregate energy use, energy source (power plants, utilities, renewable energy sources, etc.), building system data s ets, and energy use comparison to other similar buildings 6. The system will accept feedback from anyone, anywhere, any time a. The system is freely, publicly, globally available and has unlimited bandwidth b. Posts will not identify the actor but will identify the c. indicate that

PAGE 197

179 d. Actors will be allowed to post comments to postings 7. The system will accept incomplete feedback a. The actor will not be required to submit all of the information req uested in order to post to STEED i. role will be tagged as unverified 8. When a new building profile is created, the system will attempt to determine who designed the building, who owns the building, and who manages the building and contact those actors to let them know a profile has been created a. The system will create a building profile and Property Identification Number (PIN) for each unique location created i. The building profile will include the PIN, add ress, GPS coordinates, and a profile name, either provided by the actor creating the posting or assigned by the system based 9. The system will present the building reviews and other information in format s actors are familiar with and allow actors to choose the format a. Reviews will be posted with an optional star rating (one to five stars, as is common with most online reviews) b. Reviews will be posted as pins or notes on maps or building floor plans or in bu ilding models

PAGE 198

180 c. Reviews can be viewed in little detail or great detail d. Reviews can be zoomed in or out e. Reviews can be viewed as text or images f. Reviews and other information can be downloaded as data sets g. Reviews can be viewed as a timeline 10. The system will al low actors to post design information, models, sketches, images, etc. for future buildings with a request for review 11. The system will allow actors to choose what information should be shown at log in 12. The system will allow actors to request notification for any new information posted about a location or multiple locations 13. The system will allow actors to request reviews of a location 14. The system will allow actors to submit contact information for other actors a. STEED will contact the actors with a request to crea te a profile b. STEED will relay requests for reviews or other information 15. The system will provide applications that can be customized for a location or locations a. The submissions to any customized applications will still go directly to STEED and be publicly v iewable 16. The system will be monitored for malicious or harmful postings and moderated when necessary but will not remove postings unless they are

PAGE 199

181 expectations of privacy A complet e listing of STEED Requirements mapped to System Features and a RAST Analysis Justification for each requirement can be found in the Appendix B STEED Usage Scenario A STEED usage scenario for the Buckley Air Force Base Colorado Air National Guard Aviation Support Facility is below, based on STEED system requirements. The actor in this scenario is a repair and maintenance technician at the facility and has downloaded a STEED mobile application to his smartphone. He has taken photos of the hangar door in his work location and of the space heater and thermostat indicating the indoor temperature is 62 degrees Fahrenheit He has logged in to the STEED mobile application using his Facebook social media profile and has submitted the images to STEED from his work l ocation during regular work hours on a winter day when the outside temperature is below freezing. 1. To gather information about the activity a. A descripti on of the consequences of the breakdown of the activity the What? After log in, the STEED application as ked t he actor what the main activity is at this location. The actor provided a description of the activity as helicopter and aircraft repair and maintenance. i. Where the activity took place Actor

PAGE 200

182 verified when prom pted by the Steed application that the submission wa s about the Buckley Air Force Base Colorado Air National Guard Aviation Support Facility. ii. When the activity took place Actor provided date and time from smartphone submission and verified when prompted by the STEED application that the submission is about a current situation iii. Applicable special or exceptional local or regional rules Actor provided location from submission automatically gathered from smartphone application automatically gat hered information about the location. a LEED certified building located in Aurora, Colorado, in the U.S. indoor temperature is set to 62 degrees Fahrenheit in the winter; 2) there is no local control of the temperature. b. The objective the Why? i. What did the actors intend to achieve with the activity? Actor provided verification when prompted by the STEED application that the activity is hel icopter and aircraft repair and maintenance in a military, LEED certified facility.

PAGE 201

183 ii. Actor provided verification when prompted by the STE ED application that he works full time at the facility as a helicopter and ai rcraft repair technician, that is not a building manager or operator, and that he does not own the building. c. The active means the How? i. How did the actors intend to achieve the activity? The actor verified when prompted by the STEED application that his i ntention is to continue to work in the facility. d. The Outcomes i. Unexpected and expected outcomes of the activity 1. What was the breakdown? Actor provided submission when prompted by the STEED application that his work location (the hangar) is too cold in the w inter and that he runs a space heater 9 hours every winter work day to raise the temperature. 2. What caused the breakdown? Actor provided submission when prompted by the STEED application that the temperature is set to 62 degrees Fahrenheit in the winter, i s set at another

PAGE 202

184 location, and that no one at the facility has control over the indoor temperature. The hangar doors also are not properly sealed so the hangars are colder than the rest of the facility e. Reflection i. The actors reflect upon the activity and g ive feedback Actor provided submission when prompted by the STEED application that his work location is uncomfortably cold which impacts his productivity. 2. To gather information about the actors a. A list of the actors the Who? i. Categorization of the actor ro les Actor verified when prompted by the STEED system that he works full time at the facility and he has no role in the design, management, operation, or ownership of the facility. ii. Stake in blocking or accepting feedback from the artifact in use Based on th verification of his role, the STEED application verified that he does not have a stake in blocking or accepting feedback about the facility.

PAGE 203

185 iii. Sociocultural environment for the actors who interact with the artifact Actor verified when prompted by t he STEED application that he is in the military, that he works at a military, LEED certified facility, and that he lives and works in Aurora, Colorado in the U.S. 3. Anonymous feedback from actors a. hi dden but cannot guarantee anonymity (photographic images may contain recognizable data, other actors may be able to guess the identity of the poster based on the content submitted, location or role information may give away the identity of the poster) If there is only one individual with the actor role specified (for example, Building Manager), this actor is identified automatically and is not anonymous. In such cases, STEED will allow submission of comments without public role identification. Actor acknow ledged the STEED Privacy Policy when prompted by the STEED application. 4. Publicly available feedback from actors a. Feedback cannot be blocked by other actors Actor acknowledged the STEED Information Access Policy when prompted by the STEED application.

PAGE 204

186 5. Easy a ctor submission of feedback a. The system will gather as much information as possible without the user having to formally enter the information, including geolocation, time and date stamping, social profile from social media sites (Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter Google, etc.) to complete actor profiles, and existing public information about the building (BIM, Google Map and Timeline, Google 3D Sketch, photos, satellite images, floor plans, blueprints, news, postings or reviews on other sites, LEED or other cert ifications, awards, legal findings, etc.) The STEED application created a page for the Aviation Support Facility that included: a map of the location; images of the facility from the Buckley Air Force Base Web site, the CH2MHill Web site (architectural mod els and simulations), satellite and street views from Google Maps, and from the actor submission; links to Web pages with news stories about the facility; and a description of the facility pulled from Wikipedia. i. Actors can accept or change automatically ga thered information so, if the actor is not posting from the location he or she is giving feedback about or is posting about something that happened in the past, he or she can manually enter the location, time, date, etc.

PAGE 205

187 Actor verified the submission was p osted from the facility and that the submission was about a current situation. b. The system will accept feedback from multiple sources, including email, Twitter, SMS/MMS text messages, Web site postings, and STEED applications The actor submitted the post f rom his smartphone via a STEED mobile application. c. The system will gather any available energy informatics, including aggregate energy use, energy source (power plants, utilities, renewable energy sources, etc.), building system data sets, and energy use comparison to other similar buildings The actor verified he had no access to this information when prompted by the STEED application. The STEED application connected with the local power utility and requested access to the gy use informatio n. The utility contacted the behalf. The responsible party denied access. The STEED application STEED page. The STEED applic ation searched for any public locate any information.

PAGE 206

188 d. The system is freely, publicly, globally available and has unlimited bandwidth The actor was able to post with no restriction and no delay. e. time worker at the facility with no design, operation, management, or ownership role at the facility. f. is not specified or unverified, the STEED post will indicate that The actor verified his role by providing his Facebook account information and a photo of his military ID. The military ID was verified by STEED to match the Facebook identity. The military I D and Facebook information is private and only viewable by the actor with that identity g. Actors will be allowed to post comments to postings The actor completed his posting and opted not to post any when prompted by the STEED application. 6. The system will accept incomplete feedback a. The actor will not be required to submit all of the information requested in order to post to STEED

PAGE 207

189 i. role will be ta gged as unverified ii. Incomplete facility information can be added to or modified by other actors 7. When a new building profile is created, the system will attempt to determine who designed the building, who owns the building, and who manages the building and c ontact those actors to let them know a profile has been created a. The system will create a building profile and Property Identification Nu mber (PIN) for each unique location created i. The building profile will include the PIN, address, GPS coordinates, and a p rofile name, either provided by the actor creating the posting or assigned by the system based The STEED application sent emails to the contacts for the Buckley Air Force Base and CH2MHill Web sites no tifying the contacts that a posting was submitted and a page was created on STEED for the facility. 8. The system will present the building reviews and other information in formats actors are familiar with and allow actors to choose the format a. Reviews will be posted with an optional star rating (one to five stars, as is common with most online reviews)

PAGE 208

190 b. Reviews will be posted as pins or notes on maps or building floor plans or in building models c. Reviews can be viewed in little detail or great detail d. Reviews can be zoomed in or out e. Reviews can be viewed as text or images f. Reviews and other information can be downloaded as data sets g. Reviews can be viewed as a timeline The actor opted to view the facility page as a satellite map view with the images he submitted and his comments overlapping the facility view. 9. The system will allow actors to post design information, models, sketches, images, etc. for future buildings with a request for review The actor did not have anything to post in this category. 10. The system will al low actors to choose what information should be shown at log in The actor opted to have the STEED application show the Aviation Support Facility at log in. 11. The system will allow actors to request notification for any new information posted about a location or multiple locations The actor opted to have the STEED application notify him by SMS/MMS text messaging of any new information posted about the Aviation Support Facility.

PAGE 209

191 12. The system will allow actors to request reviews of a location The actor opted to h ave STEED request reviews of the Aviation Support Facility from any other actors with a STEED profile who show a GPS location at or near the Aviation Support Facility. 13. The system will allow actors to submit contact information for other actors a. STEED will c ontact the actors with a request to create a profile b. STEED will relay requests for reviews or other information The actor opted not to submit contact information for any other actors. 14. The system will provide applications that can be customized for a locati on or locations a. The submissions to any customized applications will still go directly to STEED and be publicly viewable The actor did not request a customized application. 15. The system will be monitored for malicious or harmful postings and moderated when n ecessary but will not remove postings unless they are expectations of privacy The STEED application did not detect any malicious, ha rmful, or invasive information i posting.

PAGE 210

192 STEED Inspiration STEED is a type of system that is designed to collect actor reviews of and information about the built environment. This system is an interactive, online system that collects data submissions from users via SMS/MMS or other tex t messaging methods, digital widget, Web page, mobile application or other submissions (for example, client customized applications, data sets from building sensors, designer plans, energy models, designer simulations, etc.) The actor data submissions wi ll consist of reviews, comments about, and images of the built environment as the actors experience it. The data submissions will be publicly viewable and searchable. Called the Socio Technical Environment s for Evolutionary Design, or STEED this type of s ystem would allow actors to share their experience of the built environment in use with environmental designers facilities managers, developers, planners, building inhabitants, and the general public This system would also collect information about geolo cation, building sensors, architectural models, designer provided rationale and plans, planning meeti ng transcripts, building system data sets, Building Information

PAGE 211

193 Modeling (BIM), digital mapping systems such as Google Maps 42 Google Earth 43 and Google Ma ps Digital Time line 44 (see Figure 1 5 below) and formal and informal actor critiques, reviews comments, etc Figure 1 5 (Gesenhues, 2014) 42 Google Maps is a Web based service that provides detailed information about geographical regio n addition to conventional road maps, Google Maps offers aerial and satellite views of many places well as street v iews. 43 Google Earth is a virtual globe, map and geo t maps the Earth by the superimposition of images obtained from satellite imagery, aerial photography and geographic in om, 2014). 44 Google Maps has launched a cool new feature for its Street View images that lets you see past pictures of various la called the Google Maps Digital Timeline.

PAGE 212

194 STEED systems will be a type of social network wher e every user can be an active provider as well as a consumer of information (prosumer). STEED systems will allow users to tag information and categorize it, while also connecting to other applications and sharing information intelligently dubbed Amazon r eviews for buildings or Facebook for buildings by several of my colleagues An easy to use, intuitive, graphics based interface will allow users to drag and drop, touch to move, and add post its, arrows, and text to any image or description on the system. In addition, pages will be created automatically for any building with any location based piece of information submitted. The system will search for any publicly available information on the building Each page will continue to gather any additional information publicly available about the building or location and and inhabitant ( s ) that information was submitte d. A STEED system will allow designers to view reviews, search for relevant projects, and export data from actors buildings, and other designers to inform the designer as he or she embarks on a new design project or seeks data about past or current desig ns Designers will be able to su b mit, edit, build and change models while in the STEED system. They will also be able to present these models to users for critique, comment, and revision. Users will be able to use and revise submitted models for their own purposes. The information collected through STEED systems is only helpful in terms of how

PAGE 213

195 integrated approach to design rationale where design communication is captured and, ove r time, incrementally structured into argumentation and other formalisms to enable Shipman & McCall 1996, p. 1) that can Our basic approach in attempting to solve the problems of design rationale is threefold: 1. to use the communication perspective for capturing rationale, 2. to use the argumentation [reasoning] perspective for retrieving rationale, and 3. to bridge the gap between these two approaches by structuring rationale after capture and in a way that makes heavy use of the computer to reduce or eliminate the work of structuring. In using the communication perspective for capture our approach is to create software that integrates all th e major kinds of digital media. Thus, we seek to incorporate e mail text, word processor documents, video of meetings, voice mail conversations, scanned documents, photographs, and CAD drawings into a single, hypermedia database rating communication and argumentation perspectives is to make argumentation workable in argumentation. Thus, the capture problem is solved for argumentation and the retrieval p roblem is solved for communication. (Shipman & McCall, 1996, p. 9) of design information, support the incremental structuring of this unstructured information, and promote the information continuously over the lifetime of the system and make that information available to designers when it 292). Fischer et al discussed such systems, users develop new techniques and extend the functionality of the system

PAGE 214

196 to solve problems In the same way that these software systems are extensible by programmers who use them, design environment s need to be extended by domain designers (our terms for the users of design environments) who are neither interested nor trained in the (low level) details of computational environments. (Fischer et al, 1994, p. 292) In order for STEED to launch success fully, it will need to incorporate some information previously gathered about buildings. This information needs to be enough to seed the system but not enough to make it an expert system. Knowledge acquisition is a crucial issues in the creation of effecti ve information systems of all types (including expert systems, hypermedia systems, and design environments). There have been two extreme approaches: one is to input information in advance of use (this has been typified by expert systems) and the other is t o start with an empty system and allow its information base to all the knowledge in at the erous reasons. It is inadequate for domains in which the domain knowledge undergoes rapid domain designers to articulate their knowledge outside the context of problem solving or during an initial knowledge acquisition phase) fail to capture tacit [emphasis in original] knowledge, because designers know more than they can provide an empty approach requires too much work of designers in th e context of a specific project. The difficulties of capturing design knowledge from design projects are well known. Documenting interferes with the thought process itself, disrupting design and requiring substantial time and effort that designers would ra ther invest in design. Designers typically find it difficult to structure their thoughts in a given format, regardless of the format used. In addition, domain designers often lack the knowledge and the interest to formalize knowledge so it can be computati onally interpreted. (Fischer et al, 1994, p. 293) about an artifact requires talking with the artifact [emphasis in

PAGE 215

197 f this view is that design artifacts must not 294). The design rationale structure and seeding information incorporated into STEED can be used to develop agents to simula te how actors will or did act in past, current, and future designs. The agent based approach supports the study of system evolution through accumulation of individual interactions both among humans and between humans and their environment sed Model] ABM usually consists of some heterogeneous agents and a framework to simulate their decisions, interactions, and adaptations to their environment. (Yin & Muller, 2007, p. 281). Activity theory has been utilized to map activities for the purpose of accurate simulation in agent based modeling. A notable example is an agent based model developed to map work practices on t he International Space Station, where planning must be completed years in advance and there is no margin for error, or unexpected consequences, without the potential for loss of life or other dire results. Acquisti et al (2002) discuss the development of representational constructs designed to create user models based on activity theory for the International Space Station. They crea ted Agents who are located and have Belief s that lead them to engage in Activities specified by Workframes Workframes consist of Preconditions of beliefs that lead to Actions, consisting of Communication Actions Movement actions

PAGE 216

198 Primitive Actions Other composite activities Consequences of new beliefs and facts Thoughtframes that consist of Preconditions and Consequences [formatting in original} (Acquisti, 2002, p. 317) behaviors of people and their tools in time and space, such that resource availability and inform Their agent calculation, but instead captures aspects of the social physical context in which reasoning occurs Agent based modeling provides a method for designers to take feedback from designs in situated use and attempt to simulate how real people will interact with their designs ABM is promising as a possible addition to STEED systems that enhances the gathering of design rationale and takes it to a new level. For all actors interacting with STEED systems a simple, intuitive interface that necessa ry. Actors supplying information to STEED systems have the option (and would reviewing. A visual search feature would allow designers and other actors to search for design features or issues without having to specify keywords. Sikuli is a visual search system that has been

PAGE 217

199 developed to search and automate graphical user interfaces (GUIs) using screenshots (Yeh et al, 200 9). Incorporating visual search like that available with Sikuli into STEED systems would be ideal, especially since many people have difficulty describing designs or features of designs or what is important about the image. Users could also submit a pictur e of a building and allow the system to identify the image and connect it with other representations of the building. problematic because images convey information relating to what is actually depicted in the image of a glass of wine, but be about Goodrum, 2000, p. 63). Similarly, in my research, when asked to take a picture of the major factor influencing comfort and satisfaction in his or her environment, a student in a dormitory room might take a picture of a radiator or large window but be discussing heating and cooling levels. Related Work One of the few industries currently applying evidence derived fr om research to the design of buildings is the health care industry. In 2004, a team of researchers more than 600 rigorous studies linking a range of aspects of the built environment of hospitals to staff stress and effectiveness, patient safety, patient and family stress and healing, and p. 26). Ulrich et al define evidence based design (EBD) as a method for basing environmental design

PAGE 218

200 and of continuing to monitor the success or failure for subsequent d (Ulrich et al, 2004 p. 26 ). T he use of EBD research in forming design rationale for the health care industry is an existence proof demonstrating that this not only can be done but is being done already, although EBD does not take into acco unt feedback from inhabitants interacting with the situated use of the building. While EBD about what it occupancy evaluations are not conducted for most buildings and the healthcare industry is no except ion. This means that there is not much evidence to draw from for the evidence data and info (Becker & Carthey, 2007, p. 3) and seems to be used as a form of political pressure to support th [N]o research findings are ever incontrovertibl e. D ifferent interpretations of the same findings are the hallmark, in fact, of scientific inquiry So, too, is the call, at the end of each study, for further research! No less op en to interpretation are the implications for practice of research findings, even when evidence require information generated from research into specific problems and paths for dissemination and uptake of this knowledge by

PAGE 219

201 practitioners. However, as in medical practice, evidence is not the only information relied upon or professional design practice to occur. It is one part of the repertoire of skills and information that practitioners use to determine To improve care, quality evidence based design requires grounding in, and the crossing of the disciplinary boundaries, of clinical practice, architecture and its allied disciplines, the social sciences, and business and administration. For that collaboration to be successful, several things need to happen. The first is that more attention needs to be paid to what evidence based design can and cannot do. The second is to recognize the need for different forms of evidence based design, some based in academia and some based in practice. The third is to understand the need for collective problem sol ving of all the key stakeholders involved in developing, implementing, operating, and using hospital facilities. [emphasis in original and added ] (Becker & Carthey, 2007, p. 4) We can utilize EBD as one source of information about the design of the built environment. In addition to EBD information, the collection of feedback from the built make sense of the unexplained data gathered as evidence. The design of STEED i llustrate s how RAST may be used as a foundation upon which to build a body of knowledge utilizing activity based design to examine the role of the designed environment in sustainability and actor satisfaction with the environment STEED is intended to serv e as a s upport s tructure to guide environmental design strategies by providing a forum for inhabitants, operators, implementers, facilities management, builders, designers, and the public to engage in reflective conversation and exchange information RAST provides a method for environmental designers to contribute to and access valuable data from real world situations to inform and develop reflective design rationale As an implementation founded on RAST STEED provides a structure where environmental desig n strategies can be developed tested, and refined.

PAGE 220

202 Post Occupancy Evaluation STEED provides a new way to implement continuous Post occupancy evaluation to the design 2011, p. 240), and would seem to support the goals of a reflective practitioner, in shelves or are pu satisfaction has evolved into a weakness of the POE paradigm, being more effective at instructing rese 241 242). While building industry professionals are interested in how building inhabitants are a ffected by features of the built environment they inhabit, they have not had reliable access to the type of knowledge requ ired to make design decisions. Utilizing A BD in environmental design by providing ongoing feedback from building inhabitants, buildin gs themselves, facilities managers, building owners, developers, and designers in an interactive setting gi ves environmental designers the opportunity to have that reflective conversation with the stakeholders in the process necessary to discover the limit s of our expe rtise and expand those limits. A BD allows for building research [which] serves the function of accumulating and describing [familiar situations, cases, or precedents] in ways useful to reflection in Schn 1983, p. 315).

PAGE 221

203 S alk Institute Design Example Laura Malinin (2013) writes about the need for activity based design in environments meant to inspire creativity based design) As Malinin points out, many buildings are built with the no tion that they will p. 55). One example she examines is the design of the Salk Institute in San Diego, California. collaboration with Jonas Salk, the Salk Institute was meant to inspire the same type of creativity that Jonas Salk experienced at the Saint Francis of Assisi Monastery in Perugia, Italy, where Salk experienced the breakthrough needed to develop the polio vaccine lly compelling facility that both captured the spirit of the monastery and reflected his understanding about how space could aces for solitary work; flexible spaces to accommodate changes in workplace practices; and circulation configurations that link for meeting and relaxation create opportu (Malinin, 2013, p. 54).

PAGE 222

204 Figure 1 6 : Salk Institute (Salk Institute for Biological Studies, 2014) [h]e linked the studies and labs with small courtyard spaces intended for the impromptu conversations and collaborations that [he thought] would 2013, pp. 54 55). Kahn made the se design decisions even though, in his interviews with design p. 56). The studies have been mostly delegated to postdoctoral fell gardens outside the laboratories have become places to store surfboards and the plaza

PAGE 223

205 2013, p. 56). employed at The Salk successes seems to be a common practice for environmental designers. In my re search with the Buckley Air Force Base Colorado Air National Guard Aviation Support Facility, I learn what worked eadiness, 2009, with heating and cooling, or other issues brought up in my survey. While well meaning, Kahn and Salk made some fundamental errors in the design of th e Salk Institute that could have been solved if they had access to data gathered from actors and buildings in use in other design situations intended to support social interaction and collaboration as a means to stimulate creativity. In just two examples, occupancy use of their mission and remained largely deserted. The real social interaction for both facilities takes place in dining halls (Malinin, 2013, p. 56). The dining hall as preferred location for social interaction could have been discovered relatively easily by a ny designer with access to feedback from actors involved with these facilities. There is a bigger question

PAGE 224

206 about whether or not social interaction fosters creativity but that will not be answered here. Design Unified Modeling Language (UML) diagrams that d etail some activities that could be carried out with STEED are below ( Figures 1 7 and 1 8 ) These are initial diagrams for some of the STEED Human Building Interface (HBI), social media platform, activity information system activities Figure 1 7 shows poten tial information flows from actors to STEED. Actors can create a profile, collect information about the built environment (BE), create, submit, or edit architectural models, post or collect social media data (reviews, comments, connections, etc.), and cond uct data analysis. Figure 1 8 shows some potential STEED Use Ca se diagrams for different actor roles

PAGE 225

207 Figure 1 7 : STEED Activity Diagram

PAGE 226

208 Figure 1 8 : STEED Use Case Diagrams

PAGE 227

209 STEED Prototype STEED is a type of information system that supports the new di scipline of designing intelligent sustainable buildings. Cognitive walkthrough (Lewis & Wharton, 1997) will be used to test the system before development. The Cognitive Walkthrough (CW) is a method for evaluating user interfaces by analyzing the mental pr ocesses required of users. To perform a CW an analyst chooses a specific task from the suite of tasks that the interface is intended to support, and determines one or more correct sequences of actions for that task. The analyst then examines these sequence s, in the context provided by the interface, and assesses whether a hypothetical user would be able to select an appropriate action at each point. If a difficulty is identified, a reason is (Lewis & Wharton, 1997, p. 333) Data Collection The data gathered about the built environment will consist of: comments and reviews from actors time stamped, geo located, with accompanying image (s), audio, or video, if provided ; time stamped geo located temperature, light, and humidity readings from individua l sensors; time stamped, place stamped temperature, light, and humidity readings from building sensors; and data provided by designers, builders, and operators, such as POE data, plans, building models, building simulations, BIM, energy models, etc. Discus sion Currently, in a few buildings, inhabitant s can provide information about their comfort levels and general conditions in the building using information gathering devices either installed in the building or available on computers, smartphone s, and other communication and computin g devices. Building systems, in turn, provide information to building inhabitant s regarding energy use and other factors via monitors

PAGE 228

210 displayed in the building (example shown in Figure 19 ) an d publicly available Web sites and widgets available on computing and communication devices ( potential STEED interface design example shown in Figure 20 ).

PAGE 229

21 1 Figure 1 9 : Building Monitor Dashboard National Renewable En ergy Laboratory (NREL) 2013

PAGE 230

212 Figure 20 : Potential STEED design interface e xample designed by NREL graphic designer s, 2013

PAGE 231

213 In a few buildings, t he built environment now provides data gathered from sensors ( and sometimes inhabitants) to building designer s, builders, and operators. In future building information systems, building operators will also have access to device specific data so they can maintain the building and repair issues before inhabitant s notice there is a problem (e.g., a room could inform building operators that the temperature is not within set standards or an outlet could inform building operators that the power demands are excessive for the circuit load). While there are no publicly available systems currently that d irectly compare to a RAST activity system like STEED, there are sites that allow people to provide information about the built environment, like foursquare.com Honest Buildings and Yelp Foursquare.com (see Figure 2 1 below) allows users to rate businesses like restaurants, museums, parks, etc., for entertainment purposes. Honest Buildings is a real estate site that allows for inhabitant reviews of buildings. It is a recently launched online software platform that also allows building service providers, inhabitant s, owners, and other stakeholders to exchange information, offerings, and needs. Honest Buildings does not currently accept data sets and does not provide building sensor data. Yelp allows reviews of apartments and property management firms much like their restauran t and hotel reviews i.e., a star rating and comment posting by individual users Another University of Colorado student, Layne Jackson Hubbard, has recently launc hed a Web site called TakeBack, that encourages people to take a picture of any public area in their community that needs improvement and post it to the site, to

PAGE 232

214 support local collaboration to solve neighborhood issues (see Figure 2 2 below). Also, a recent tweet showed a picture of a sign posted on a trail in the forest where the Morgan Fire burn ed in Mount Diablo State Park, 18 miles east of Berkeley, California, in September 2013. The sign asked trail visitors to take a picture of the landscape by putting their camera on a bracket that ensures the view is the same for each picture and tweet the picture to add to a timeline showing landscape recovery from the fire (see Figure 2 3 below). Figure 2 1 :

PAGE 233

215 Figure 2 2 : TakeBack App, http://takebackapp.com May 2014

PAGE 234

216 Figure 2 3 : Morgan Fire Sign Twitter, pic.twitter.com/dXhIs4q22L, May 2014 STEED and RAST With the implementation of the future envisioned STEED system, b uilding designers builders, and operators could provide information gathered from buildings to compare and contrast wit h building sensor and inhabitant data. This information can be used in the informed design, adaptation, and operation of the built environment.

PAGE 235

217 The STEED system will collect information from inhabitant s (reviews, comfort information, issues, and images e xample design interface shown in Figure 2 4 and Figure 25 below ), from designers, builders, and operators (data sets, designs, building issues, and modifications), and from the built environment (building sensor data, i nhabitant provided comfort information, and building operator and inhabitant provided issues). The STEED system will act as a dynamic social network, crowd sourced design and information platform, knowledge management system, and collection of Application Program Interfaces (APIs) that can be downloaded and modified as needed. STEED will make information collected publicly available and allow building inhabitant s, designers, builders, and operators to exchange ideas and collaborate on design projects. With STEED, information can be collected from and shared with the professional community of designers, builders, operators, academics, and other industry experts, as well as the general public. STEED provides public, online support for RAST by allowing designer s to focus on the activity, map human activities to the actors, roles, rules, socio cultural environment, and history of the artifact, allowing actors to provide feedback from the artifact in use, allowing feedback from the artifact itself, and providing a ctive means for designers to reflect in action by proxy.

PAGE 236

218 Figure 24: STEED design interface example 1 NREL graphic designers, 2013

PAGE 237

219 Figure 2 5 : STEED user interface example 2

PAGE 238

220 CHAPTER VI COMFORT AND ENERGY USE SURVEY S Goals The goals for the Comfort a nd Energy Use Surveys I (Principal Investigator) completed with Tom Yeh (Sponsoring Faculty Member) and Brennan McConnell (Research Assistant) on the University of Colorado Boulder campus from August 2013 to April 2014 were to: 1) provide proof of concept for differing methods of collecting feedback about the built environment; 2 ) develop rudimentary methods for collecting and displaying inhabitant feedback about the built environment ; and 3 ) gauge building inhabitant interest in providing and accessing fee dback about the built environment. The initial stage of the project was a pilot testing the viability of conducting comfort and energy use surveys via Short Mess age Service ( SMS ) text messaging, Multimedia Message Service ( MMS ) messaging, and Facebook Mess enger conducted in overlapping, staggered two week sessions with social groups progressively removed from connection with the PI. The pilot testing was conducted first with family and friends, then members of the Human Centered Computing (HCC) group at th e University of Colorado Boulder, then with friends of the Research Assistant assisting with the survey, then eight residents of the Cockerell Hall Dormitory This initial stage called the Pilot Pilot and then the Pilot, was completed in Decem ber 2013 ( at the end of the University of Colorado Boulder Fall 2013 semester ) The survey continue d in the Spring

PAGE 239

221 2014 semester called the Residence Life Comfort and Energy Use Survey, beginning in February 2014 and ending in April 2014, with residents of residence halls (dormitories) on the University of Colorado Boulder campus The resulting survey data will be mined to define use cases and visualizations for a prototype Social Technical Environments for Evolutionary Design (STEED) building review system. Later ph ases of the project can extend to other campus buildings and allow building inhabitant s to use their smartphones 45 and/or an application to scan design with the goal of making the process of providing feedback about buildings in use accessible to building inhabitants and providing crowdsourced feedback about buildings in use for public view. The text, images, audio, video and other feedback mechanisms can be stored in a compre hensive database to provide a common repository of building operational performance that can eventually be tied directly to facilities work control systems and serve as seed data for STEED Figure 2 6 below shows examples of potential STEED user interfaces developed at NREL based on collaborative work I completed with their Commercial Buildings Department using their building agent comfort survey data as sample data The first image shows a smartphone application prototype STEED user interface. The second im age shows a tablet based application that could be used on 45 The Oxford Dictionary definition A mobile phone that is able to perform many of the functions of a computer, typically having a relatively large screen and an operating system capable of runni ng general Dictionaries Online, 2014).

PAGE 240

222 tablets mounted to the wall in public rooms so building inhabitants can quickly and easily use a touch based interface to provide feedback about the room in use. Background The success of a highly energy efficient sustainable environment relies on the inhabitant s. Adoption of and persistence of energy efficient behavior are critical to the successful achievement of design goal s. Buildings account for roughly 40% of all U.S. energy use (70% of all electricity): residential buildings account for 22% of all U.S. energy use and commercial buildings accoun t for 18% of all U.S. energy use (Preston, 2009) With such a large percentage of energy utilization resting in the hands of Figure 26: Sample STEED Interfa ces NREL Commercial Buildings, 2013

PAGE 241

223 inhabitant performance goals is key to realizing those goals. Building performance has a high correlation with building occupant satisf action. A recent study utilizing Post occupancy Evaluations (POEs) in Malaysian government buildings showed a 74% correlation between building performance and occupant satisfaction (Nawawi & Khalil, 2008, p. 59). While POEs have been determined to be a val uable method to learn about building inhabitant satisfaction levels, they are under utilized in practice and generally not used as an ongoing situated use feedback mechanism (Cooper, 2001; Vischer, 2001). There is an unanswered need for information about b uildings in use and how building design affects building inhabitant comfort, productivity, and, by extension, energy use levels (Meir et al, 2009) This work will provide feedback about buildings in use, which is an area where there is a deficit and contr ibute to the knowledge and practice of creating a highly energy efficient built environment. Csikszentmihalyi (1981) introduced the concept of experiential sampling as a way to measure the impact of environment on personality. In Csikszentmihalyi t udy participants were asked to record notes on their cognitive and affective state several times a day over a period o f time whenever a pager went off S imilar methodolog ies were used in the Comfort and Energy Use Survey s I conducted over the Fall 2013 an d Spring 2014 semester s at the University of Colorado Boulder campus. The survey prompted the recording of feedback about the built environment in use notes on moo d, notes on comfort, etc. Smart phones and other mobile computing technologies

PAGE 242

224 allow convenience in providing such feedback and contextuali zing it to location. Vogel et al (2010) describe a system architecture for gathering information using smartphone s in the field a s follows: location based application, real time data collection from different sensors, visualization of collected data using different APIs, sending sensor data to other systems, and analyzing data ( p. 68) The functionality Vogel described exists now, h o wever the ability to gather geo located feedback through ubiquitous mobile devices o smartphones, is not as granular as desired and a possible impediment to broade r replication of the approach. For example, in my study, survey responses could be mapped by building but not by room. The proposed STEED system s scaffold upon the Comfort and Energ y Use Survey project and extend the system design into a comprehensive building design and operations support system. The targeted audience for the STEED system is two fold: 1) building inhabitant s; and, 2) architects, facilities managers, developers, planners, civil engineers, and other actors who are striving to design and operate highly energy efficient systems that are comfortable and pleasing to the inhabitant s. It would be the first system of its kind, enabling users to provide feedback from use about any building and making the feedback, data and applications publicly available. Broad deployment would enable all building actors including inhabitant s, owners, buye rs, designers, facilities managers, and building operations the opportunity to review buildings the way they now can review other products (e.g., Amazon user reviews, Yelp restaurant st ate information Web sites like z illow.com and honestbuildings.com could link to STEED to gather and

PAGE 243

225 display information about what building inhabitant s have to say about a building or similar buildings. STEED users will be able to participate in reportin g about: accessibility, comfort, aesthetics, functionality, task alignment, perceived energy efficiency, and other user selected issues. They may also opt in to a system that tracks their whereabouts and correlates where they are with comfort feedback or r eviews on social networking sites. Location based information is already being combined with social networking, creating with a common interest to communicate and share in formation with others within a certain geographica An example of a current dynamic social network is foursquare.com. Foursquare.com (and some recent competitors, like Gowalla, Whrrl, Brightkite, Buzzd, and G ypsii) (Campbell, 2010) is a geolocation smartphone application that allows users to track other users by location, post pictures and reviews on a map, find locations nearby, and get promotions from nearby businesses. STEED will take a dramatic leap beyond the current geolocation applications as a set of applications with publicly available data, the opportunity for dramatic scalability, and the additional information that can be correlated with actual inhabitant use feedback and direct energy use feedback for the benefit of designers, facilities managers, building operations, developers, and planners, as well as users. Data analysis and visualization are important aspects of STEED systems The data will be continuously analyzed using online processing techn iques to provide quick feedback to the building team s inhabitant s, facilities managers, and other interested parties.

PAGE 244

226 Data analysis will include evaluation of data such as specific comfort feedback, the number of feedback reports received, evaluation of u ser feedback and structured interviews if available and fusion with building performance data collected directly from building systems For building operations and facilities managers, STEED data analysis will highlight inhabitant issues that have an imp act on energy efficiency. For example, if the standard building temperature is kept too low or too high for user comfort, as shown in my research, actors could attempt to ameliorate the situation by bringing in space heaters or fans, which changes the basi s for energy efficiency predictions for the building. Facilities managers and building operations would be aware that users are dissatisfied with the standard building temperatures and have an opportunity to adjust the ambient temperature before inhabitant s take the matter into their own hands. Data visualization will include comfort based spatial temporal heat maps that enable rapid assessment of building performance. Figure 27 below is an example of data visualization that uses actual average daily temper ature comfort data obtained over 1.5 years with a Building Agent Comfort Survey conducted at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado in 2013 The blocks outlined in black indicate one month. The grid corresponds to different rooms with in the building. Orange equates to the inhabitant s dissatisfaction and green to satisfaction levels. Figure 27: Example of data visualization, NREL, 2013

PAGE 245

227 Lastly, building performance indices will require new (and unique) schemas. Openly providing these detailed schemas and example applications is imperat ive for adoption of the STEED platform and enabling an ecosystem of applications to interact with the platform. An important objective of this project is to provide design recommendations for publicly available systems and to establish a working system to enable data collection beyond t he campus. Opening data, schemata and example applications for public use will be valuable to future building design efforts and enable correlation of energy efficiency with inhabitant comfort feedback from situated use of b uildings, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) survey data (and other building certifications) other building survey data, and building sensor data. Figure 28 below illustrates the concept behind STEED. Informed Building Design & Operations STEED User Feedback from Use Building Sensor Data Designer & Facilities Data Figure 28: STEED Concept Diagram

PAGE 246

228 Approach The Comfort and Energ y Use Survey was initiated as a test environment to gather use cases and user stories of building inhabitant s to determine which interfaces inhabitant s respond ed best to for consideration in the design of STEED systems During the Fall 2013 semester, a Pil ot Pilot and Pilot surveys were conducted. The Pilot Pilot survey began in August 2013 I initially recruited thr ee family members, followed by six Human Centered Computing (HCC) members to participate in in the survey using smartphone s utilizing the SMS text and MMS text messaging service Three friends were also recruited to participate using Facebook Messenger application The Pilot Pilot was a t wo week Comfort and Energy Use Survey. During the first week, participants were sent a message prompting th em to reply with a text only answer about comfort levels. The answers to the survey que stions were structured on a Lik ert sca le ranging from one to five, with one being Very Dissatisfied and five being Very Satisfied. During the second week of the survey, participants were asked to reply to a text message pro mpt with a photo and comment (a Multimedia Messaging Service or MMS message) about their immediate environment. The participants were not asked to respond from any particular location or at any partic ular time. Figure 29 below shows some sample survey responses from the Pilot Pilot with friends via Facebook Messenger

PAGE 247

229 Figure 29: Pilot Pilot Messages on Facebook Messenger with friends of the PI, September 2013 In addition to my recruits, the Researc h Assistant (RA) for the project recruited three friends to participate in the Pilot Pilot. During this survey, the SMS text messaging option was simplified by allowing the participants to respond with a number instead of spelling out their response to th e Li k ert scale questions (1 to 5) and with a letter indicating their multiple choice response to any question they responded to with a 1 (Very Dissatisfied) or 2 (Dissatisfied). The survey questions and lettered responses are listed in the Appendix C In a ddition, Brennan began testing automated text messages using a Python based program. Images from the text messages in this stage of the Pilot Pilot are shown in Figure 30 below.

PAGE 248

230 Q: Sometime today please take a picture of your indoor environment and send it with a comment about your comfort level. Thanks! A: My bed is the most cumfy place in the world! The Pilot of the Comfort and Energy Use Survey began in with University of Colorado dormitory residents (Cockerell Hall First Floor) in November. Eight participants were recruited to participate in a t wo week Comfort and Energy Use Survey followed by a short (10 minute) interview. Participants were paid $30 for full participat ion. The survey questions were sent using Twilio (a cloud communications company). Python p rogram that could send a text to multiple numbers. This approach is advantag eous due to the possibility for very large scale messaging. The Python program was used to send the daily survey question to all participants. in XML format. The RA c reated a second Python Program to parse the XML a new standard CSV file. The program allowed for a date to be chosen with all sent and

PAGE 249

231 received messages for that date or since that date (option up to the Twilio user) sent to a file. The information from the CSV file is then recorded an d averaged in a Spreadsheet. After testing data submission and collection methods during the Pilot Pilot and Pilot surveys, we determined that: 1) basic text messaging prompts had the best response rate; 2) survey respondents were mixed in preference for submitting photographic images (family and friends and HCC members did not mind or preferred submitting photographic images while Cockerell Hall residents were divided on this, abou t 50% negative versus positive); 3) both those who participated without an incentive and those who participated with an incentive said they would continue to participate without an incentive (except for Facebook Messenger participants, who dropped out almost immediately). In February 2014, we began the Uni versity of Colorado Boulder Residence Life Comfort and Energy Use Survey. Based on outcomes from the Pilot Pilot and Pilot surveys, we decided to conduct the new survey via SMS and MMS text messaging, using Twilio to collect the SMS text messages. For the MMS message, with a photograpic image, we opted to send the images to MobyPicture and Twitter so the images could be compiled and viewed more easily. For the Residence Life survey, we initially recruited 71 survey participants from five residence halls on the University of Colorado Boulder campus. After confirming participation and acquiring signed consent forms, this number dropped to 42 participants in four residence halls. Figure 31 below shows location idence Life survey responses.

PAGE 250

232 Figure 31 survey responses, March 2014

PAGE 251

233 We opted to have participants respond to survey questions with a number and/or letter and to give them the option to provide additional information via text. We also opted to ask the same questions in week one and week two, with the only difference being that, in week two, participants submitted photographic images via MMS message submitted to Twitter and MobyPicture vi a the same address. Based on the number of participants and the seeming lack of distinction between text and face to face interviews in the Pilot survey, we decided to go with an email based interview format for the Residence Life survey participants. Prel iminary Results The Pilot Pilot and Pilot survey participants overwhelming preferred using simple text messaging over using Facebook Messenger so we did not continue with an option to participate using Facebook Messenger for the Residence Life survey Resp onses to Facebook prompts were slow, with many taking more than a full day to respond. All but one participant dropped out of the Facebook survey for the second week of the survey Based on answers to survey questions and the Pilot and Pilot Pilot intervie ws, Pilot Pilot participants preferred to send text with images (except in the Facebook Messenger portion of the Pilot Pilot). Pilot participants preferred not to send images. Residence Life participants preferred not to send images. All participants chose SMS text over email or a Web based application but said they would download a free smartphone application. batch process MMS data in any of the surveys so far

PAGE 252

234 Seven out of eigh t Pilot participants said they would participate in a similar survey without a paid incentive The Pilot Participants : Have been texting 2 9 years Preferred to have the option to provide comments but not pictures Said the survey prompted them to think abou t comfort levels but generally not about energy use levels Generally said they would view building reviews but may not contribute to them Currently get information about potential live/work environments by word of mouth or not at all Did not find it diffic ult to complete the survey ( ) Would be interested in getting more information about how their comfort levels relate to their energy use The Residence Life survey participants: Said the questions asked in the survey were straigh tforward and easy to understand Said all of the questions were necessary Have been texting for 5 8 years Said that t ext was by far the easi est medium and very convenient Did not think email, an app, or another method of collecting survey data would be better than text messaging Did not have an issue with taking photos but said that p hotos could be inconvenient and/or difficult at times when the student was not in their room

PAGE 253

235 For the second week of the survey, many said they would prefer to submit without photographs but that they did understand the need for photographic images Preferred close ended multiple c ho ice q uestions over open ended questions Many said it was unlikely they would pa rticipate without compensation but a few said the y most likely would still participa te Said the survey made them think about their comfort levels S aid the survey made them th ink of their energy use more often A majority of said they would be interes ted in reading reviews online but there were also a number of responses that said it was un likely t hey would view that information About half of respondents said they would contribute to a building review system They said the survey was not a burden Many said they were not interested in receiving more informati on about the built environment but that they would use building reviews when deciding where to live Participants c urrently get most of their i nformation through the internet Continuing Research I am currently working with the University of Colorado Boulder Residence Life Department to determine next steps. I will be presenting the Comfort and Energy Use Survey results to the Residence Life Department in July 2014. If we continue the survey, we may use this data as seeding data for a first iteration of a STE ED system.

PAGE 254

236 CHAPTER VII SUMMATION, FUTURE RESEARCH, AND CONCLUSION Summation The way buildings are designed now, there is little feedback from use involved in the design process. Attempts to correct this problem have been made in the form of Post Occupan cy Evaluations (POEs) for 50 years but have largely failed. POEs are t he accepted method for environmental designers to collect feedback about buildings in use They are infrequently conducted after the building is built in a one time only evaluation, an d not funded as part of the build process. Other products receive feedback about the design in use from online critiques. Online critiques could provide a platform for feedback from actors engaged with buildings in use for environmental designers to utiliz e in developing reflective design rationale to avoid adverse consequences in future designs or correct consequences in past and current designs. Since buildings constitute such a large part of the human f buildings on their inhabitants. In order for environmental designers to act on feedback from situated use, designers need to have access to that feedback and all actors interacting with the building design need to have an easy, inexpensive, and accessibl e method to submit feedback. These needs can be addressed by utilizing modern networked and mobile computing to collect and access building feedback.

PAGE 255

237 I set out in this dissertation to investigate the role of feedback from buildings in use in environmental design practice. Responding to the growing need for feedback from building inhabitants to support the design of smart, energy efficient buildings that effectively meet the needs of the inhabitants, I hoped to develop a theoretical framework, grounded in re flective practice to guide the informed design of modern reflective practice as it has been understood had some limitations. While Schon described the reflection in actio n designers employ while working on a design in the initial stages, reflective practice had not been discussed in terms of designers reflecting consequences of their des igns in use, and environmental designers have not had much access to feedback about buildings in use, the reflection in action by proxy that can be employed by designers reflecting on consequential feedback from design users, or plored. In addition, the role of the other actors who interact consideration. With the idea that there is something more to be gained from utilizing both the theory of reflective practice and activity theory in environmental design, I began to investigate what a combination of the two theories might look like. I hoped to develop a theoretical framework, grounded in both the theory of reflective practice and activity theo ry, to guide the design and evaluation of environmental design settings. As I embarked on this process, I soon discovered that there was no existing literature for such a framework. Environmental design researchers

PAGE 256

238 almost universally ignore both the theory of reflective practice and activity theory. This investigative process was driven by a thorough review and evaluation of the reflective practice activity theory, cognitive science, and environmental design literatures along with an analysis of environm ental design strategies, first person accounts by practitioners, and my own experiences. Subsequently, I constructed my own theory that combines the theory of reflective practice and activity theory My Reflective Activity Systems Theory (RAST) model RAST gives structure to create a framework that bridges the gap between reflective practice and activity theory and has practical implications, giving designers a new way to create design rationale based on reflection in action by proxy on feedback from inhabit ants who have experienced the building in use. In order for designers and other actors involved with the built environment (Users, Clients, Managers, Builders, and Operators) to utilize feedback from building inhabitants in the creation of reflective desi gn rationale, they need to have access to a forum to both give and receive information about buildings in use. STEED systems unify theory and practice by utilizing RAST as the underpinning for activity information systems designed to capture feedback from the design situation in use, specifically from building inhabitants, and create an environment for reflective conversation between all of the actors involved with designed artifacts, specifically the built environment. Findings The main findings are chapt er specific and were summarized within the respective chapters. In the first chapter, I described reflective practice and how environmental design strategies are rarely based upon feedback from use or verified

PAGE 257

239 through post occupancy evaluation (POE). Chapt er II illustrated the need for a theo retical framework to bridge the reflective practice and design literatures and compared reflective practice, situated cognition, and activity theory In Chapter III, I examined activity theory and suggested modification s to the theory to simplify and operationalize activity theory for application to an activity mapping framework. In Chapter IV, I presented the Reflective Activity Systems Theory (RAST) theoretical framework that combines reflective practice and my modifie d version of activity theory, and discussed the importance of maintaining a focus on activities and reflective practice when evaluating design strategies Chapter V presented the design of Socio Technical Environments for Evolutionary Design (STEED), a typ e of information system based on RAST that empowers actors involved with the design in use to participate in the design process, allows design practitioners to utilize feedback from artifact users and from artifacts, provides collective knowledge from feed back about other designs, and gives a socio cultural context to support a new type of reflective design rationale. Chapter VI presented implications for the design of a STEED prototype gleaned from several Comfort and Energy Use surveys conducted at the Un iversity of Colorado Boulder campus. Future Research Why are STEED systems important now? In the United States of today, buildings account for roughly 40% of all energy use (70% of all electricity): residential buildings account for 22% of all energy use and commercial buildings account for 18% of all energy use. In the quest to reduce this energy use, there is an unanswered need for

PAGE 258

240 information about buildings in use and information about how building design affects building inhabitant comfort, productivi ty, and, by extension, energy use levels. There are currently no comprehensive tools that architects and engineers can use early in the design process to weigh various scenarios of inhabitant behavior against key aspects of building design and expected co mfort and energy use outcomes. As a result, building designers typically have no information about how real people might use and perceive their spaces. Building designers are tasked with achieving energy efficiency in spite of the uncertainties surrounding inhabitant behavior and the impact of that behavior on energy efficiency. STEED systems give us an opportunity to analyze inhabitant feedback about comfort with buildings systems generated energy use impacts and apply this analysis to building design and operation. Objectives The objectives for STEED system s are to provide spatial data to building designers and operators, provide an open platform to share building information, to building inhabitant s to interact with the system as active participants in the building design process and to create industry partnerships. These objectives are expanded upon below. Objective 1: Spatial Data Open access to spatial comfort data, energy data and tag/pin data will enable building designers and operators to save ene rgy. STEED systems are designed to gather user feedback about the built environment in use, as well as information from designers, builders, managers, clients, and owners, and energy use data from building

PAGE 259

241 systems This combined information provides a plat form for reflective conversation among actors who interact with the built environment in order to create reflective design rationale. STEED systems b uild on existing social networking systems and existing research Objective 2: Open Platform To provide an open platform (with open data standards) that will better enable sharing of building information STEED w ill become a crowd sourced platform to collect data about the entirety of the built environment. Objective 3: Interactivity Users can be both active pr oviders and consumers of information Building designers can make better decisions during the building design process (new or retrofit) and during building operation by accessing feedback about buildings in use provided by building inhabitant s. Building in habitants can participate in creating reflective design rat ionale by giving feedback that can be directly accessed by other actors involved in this process. All actors can both give and receive feedback and other design information. Objective 4: Partnersh ips Engage existing and emerging companies to provide and use STEED systems data Some potential industry partners include Foursquare the United States Green Building Council ( USGBC) Green Building Information Gateway and Honest Buildings.

PAGE 260

242 Conclusion While there is much in the literature condoning the use of Post occupancy Evaluations (POE) to improve building design and lamenting the lack of POE, there is virtually nothing suggesting how to improve this situation. POE is meant to provide the type of p ost advances to this problem. To support design rationale based on feedback from buildings in use a theoretical framework that supports gathering information inexpensively and easily from the situated use of buildings, that focuses attention on feedback from actors involved in the use of buildings, identifying and categorizing activities taking part in buildings, and reflection on expected and unexpected outcomes is required. Reflective Activity Systems Theory (RAST) provides this theoretical framework and, with RAST applied to the design of Socio Technical Environments for Evolutionary Design (STEED) systems, the new type of POE provided by STEED activity information systems provides a way for the practice of environmental design to transform to a partnership with building inhabitants to improve building designs and create a new reality.

PAGE 261

243 REFERENCES Acquisti, A., Sierhuis, M., Clancey, W. J., & Bradshaw, J. M. (2002, May). Agent based modeling of collaboration and work practices onboard the international space station. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Conference on Computer Generated Forces and Behavior Representation (Vol. 8, pp. 315 337). Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Alexander, K. (2006). The application of usability concepts in the built environment. Journal of Facilities Management, 4(4), 262 270. doi: 10.1108/14725960610702947 Alexander, K. (Ed.). (2010). Usability of Workplaces Phase 3. CIB W111. Retrieved from http://www.metamorfose.ntnu.no/Artikler/w111_pub3301_Usability_Walkthroughs_si de31 44.pdf#page=6 Ashcraft, H. W. (2008). Building information modeling: A framework for collaboration. The Cons truction Lawyer 28, 5. Augenbroe, G. (1992). Integrated building performance evaluation in the early design stages. Building and Environment, 27 (2), 149 161. BREEAM (2014). What is BRE EAM? http://www.breeam.org Brents en, K. B., & Trettvik, J. ( October 2002 ). An activity theory approach to affordance. In Proceedings of the second Nordic conference on Human computer interaction (pp. 51 60). ACM. Bakhurst, D. (2009). Reflections on activ ity theory. Educational Review, 61 (2), 197 210. Barab, S., Schatz, S., & Scheckler, R. (2004). Using activity theory to conceptualize online community and using online community to conceptualize activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 11 (1), 25 47. B ardram, J. E. ( September, 1997). Plans as situated action: an activity theory approach to workflow systems. In: Proceedings of ECSCW 97 Conference. Lancaster, U.K. Bargh, J. A., Green, M., & Fitzsimons, G. (2008). The selfish goal: Unintended consequences of intended goal pursuits. Social Cognition, 26 (5), 534. Basharina, O. K. (2007). An activity theory perspective on student reported contradictions in international telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 11 (2), 82 103.

PAGE 262

244 Becker, F. and Carthey, J (2007) Evidence based Design: Key Issues in a Collaborative Process. Proceedings of the W092: Interdisciplinarity in the Built Environment Procurement Conference, 23 26 September, Newcastle, Australia. Bertelsen, O. W., & Bdker S ( 2003 ). Activity theo ry In Carroll, J. M. (Ed.). HCI models, theories, and frameworks: Toward a multidisciplinary science (pp. 291 324) Morgan Kaufmann. Beu, L. (January, 2014). So, Who Is Accountable? ASHRAE Journal. http://ashrae.org Bilda, Z., Candy, L., & Edmonds, E. (2 007). An embodied cognition framework for interactive experience. CoDesign, 3 (2), 123 137. Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. Journal of marketing, 56(2). B dker, S., & Klokmose, C. N. (2011 ). The human artifact model: an activity theoretical approach to artifact ecologies. Human Computer Interaction (26) 315 371. Boland, R. J., Tenkasi, R. V., & Te'eni, D. (1994). Designing information technology to support distributed cognition. Organizat ion science, 5(3), 456 475. Brown, M. T., & Herendeen, R. A. (1996). Embodied energy analysis and EMERGY analysis: a comparative view. Ecological Economics 19 (3), 219 235. Bordass, B., Leaman, A., & Ruyssevelt, P. (2001). Assessing building performance in use 5: conclusions and implications. Building Research & Information, 29(2), 144 157. Bordass, B., & Leaman, A. (2013). A new professionalism: remedy or fantasy?. Building Research & Information, 41(1), 1 7. Brand, R., & Karvonen, A. (2007). The ecosystem of expertise: complementary knowledges for sustainable development. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, 3 (1), 21 31. Brand, S. (1995). How buildings learn: What happens after they're built. Penguin. Bristol, K. G. (1991). The Pruitt Igoe Myth. Jou rnal of Architectural Education, 163 171. Broome, J. (2001). Are intentions reasons? And how should we cope with incommensurable values. Practical rationality and preference: Essays for David Gauthier, 98 120. Brown, H. S., & Vergragt, P. J. (2008). Bounde d socio technical experiments as agents of systemic change: the case of a zero energy residential building. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75(1), 107 130. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of l earning. Educational researcher, 18(1), 32 42.

PAGE 263

245 Brown, S. R. (1996). Q methodology and qualitative research. Qualitative health research, 6 (4), 561 567. Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Report of the World Commission on environment and development: Burge, J. E., Carroll, J. M., McCall, R., & Mistrik, I. (2008). Rationale based software engineering. Springer. Caffarella, R., & Merriam, S. B. (2000). Linking the individual learner to the context of adult learning. Handbook of adul t and continuing education, 55 70. Callaghan, V., Clarke, G., Pounds Cornish, A., & Sharples, S. (2000, December). Buildings as intelligent autonomous systems: a model for integrating personal and building agents. In The 6th International Conference on Int elligent Autonomous Systems (IAS 6) (pp. 410 415). Campbell, S. 5 Best Location Based Alternatives to Foursquare. Makeuseof, 2010. http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/5 locationbased alternatives foursquare/ Carroll, J.M., Rosson, M.B. ( 1990 ) Human computer inte raction scenarios as a design representation. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences (Kailua Kona, HI, 2 5 January, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, pp. 555 561. Carroll, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (1992). Getting around the task artifact cycle: how to make claims and design by scenario. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 10 (2), 181 212. Carroll, J. M., Rosson, M. B., Convertino, G., & Ganoe, C. H. (2006). Awareness and teamwork in compu ter supported collaborations. Interacting with computers, 18 (1), 21 46. Chatterjee, P. (2001). Online reviews: do consumers use them?. Advances in consumer research, 28 (1). Christiansen, E. (1996). Tamed by a Rose: Computers as Tools in Human Activity. In Nardi, B. (Ed.), Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human Computer Interaction 175 198. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. City of Glendale Water and Power. (2014). How much does it cost to operate my appliances?. Retrieved from: http://ww w.glendalewaterandpower.com/rates/appliance_operating_costs.aspx Cole, R. J., Robinson, J., Brown, Z., & O'Shea, M. (2008). Re contextualizing the notion of comfort. Building Research & Information, 36(4), 323 336.

PAGE 264

246 Constantine, L. L. (2009). Human activity modeling: toward a pragmatic integration of activity theory and usage centered design. In Human Centered Software Engineering (pp. 27 51). Springer London. Constantinides, E., Romero, C. L., & Boria, M. A. G. (2009). Social media: a new frontier for retai lers?. In European Retail Research (pp. 1 28). Gabler. Cooper, I. (2001). Post occupancy evaluation where are you?. Building Research & Information, 29(2), 158 163. Cova, B., & Pace, S. (2006). Brand community of convenience products: new forms of customer empowerment European Journal of Marketing, 40(9/10), 1087 1105. Crawford, K., & Hasan, H. (2006 ). Demonstrations of the activity theory framework for research in information systems. Australasian Journal of Informati on Systems 13 (2). Cross, N. (Ed.), 1972. In conference 1971. Academy editions. London, UK. Csikszentmihalyi, M. and Graef, R. (1981). Environmental Effects on Cognitive State: The Experien tial Time Sampling Method. Social Behavior and Personality. 9(1): 23 32. Current Results. (2014). Denver temperatures: averages by month. Retrieved from: http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/Colorado/Places/denver temperatures by month average.php Darby, S. (2008). Energy feedback in buildings: improving the infrastructure for demand reduction. Building Research & Information, 36(5), 499 508. Decker, R., & Trusov, M. (2010). Estimating aggregate consumer preferences from online product reviews. Internation al Journal of Research in Marketing, 27 (4), 293 307. DeLoache, J. S. (2004). Becoming symbol minded. Trends in cognitive sciences, 8(2), 66 70. Demirbilek, O., & Demirkan, H. (2004). Universal product design involving elderly users: a participatory design model. Applied Ergonomics 35 (4), 361 370. Derbyshire, A. (2001) PROBE: the UK context. Building Research and Information. 29 (2), 79 84. Domeshek, E. A., Kolodner, J. L., & Zimring, C. M. (1994, January). The design of a tool kit for case based design aids In (pp. 109 126). Springer Netherlands. Dourish, P. (2004). What we talk about when we talk about context. Personal and ubiquitous computing 8 (1), 19 30.

PAGE 265

247 Duignan, M., Noble, J., & Biddle, R. (2006). Activity theory f or design from checklist to interview. In Human Work Interaction Design: Designing for Human Work (pp. 1 25). Springer US. Dwight D. Eisenhower: "Remarks at the National Defense Executive Reserve Conference," November 14, 1957. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=10951 Eastman, C. M. (1968). Explorations of the cognitive processes in design. Carnegie Mellon University Research Showcase, Computer Science Department, School of Computer Science. Retrieved March 10, 2014. http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2836&context=compsci&seiredir =1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fstart%3D10%26q%3Dre iteration%2Bin%2Bdesign%2Bdefinition%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt %3D0%2C6#search=%22 reiteration%20design%20definition%22 Edmonds, B., & Dautenhahn, K. (1999). Social intelligence. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory 5 (3), 199 201. Energy Consortium of the Americas. (2014). Resources: Energy Efficiency. Ret rieved from: http://eco americas.com/energyefficiency.html Energy performance of LEED for new construction buildings. Vancouver, WA: New Buildings Institute, 2008. Energy Use Calculator. (2014). Electricity usage of a space heater. Retrieved from: http://e nergyusecalculator.com/electricity_spaceheater.htm Energy.gov. (July 1, 2012). Evaporative coolers. Retrieved from: http://energy.gov/energysaver/articles/evaporative coolers Engestrm Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to development research. Orienta Konsultit, Helsinki. Engestrm, Y. (1993). Developmental studies of work as a testbench of activity theory: The case of primary care medical practice. In Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 64 10 3 ) Cambridge University Press. Engestrom, Y., Reigo M., & Raija Leena P. (1998). Perspectives on Activity Theory. Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press Engestrm Y. (1999). Cultural Historical Activity Theory. Retrieved from http://www.helsinki.fi/cr adle/activitysystem.htm Engestrm, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of education and work, 14 (1), 133 156.

PAGE 266

248 Fischer, G. (1994). Turning breakdowns into opportunities for creativity. Knowledg e Based Systems, 7 (4), 221 232. Fischer, G., Lemke, A. C., McCall, R., & Morch, A. I. (1991). Making argumentation serve design. Human Computer Interaction, 6 (3 4), 393 419. Fischer, G., McCall, R., Ostwald, J., Reeves, B., & Shipman, F. (1994a). Seeding, evolutionary growth and reseeding: supporting the incremental development of design environments. Pre publication draft. Fischer, G., McCall, R., Ostwald, J., Reeves, B., & Shipman, F. ( April, 1994 ). Seeding, evolutionary growth and reseeding: supporting t he incremental development of design environments. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems (pp. 292 298). ACM. Fischer, G. (2001, August). Communities of interest: Learning through the interaction of multiple knowledge systems. In Proceedings of the 24th IRIS Conference (pp. 1 14). Department of Information Science, Bergen. Fischer, G., & Ostwald, J. (2002, June). Seeding, evolutionary growth, and reseeding: Enriching participatory design with informed participation. In Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference, PDC (Vol. 2, pp. 135 143). Fischer, G. (2007, July). Designing socio technical environments in support of meta design and social creativity. In Proceedings of the 8th i n ternational conference on Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 2 11). International Society of the Learning Sciences. Flint, D. J. (2002). Compressing new product success to success cycle time: deep customer value understanding and idea generation. Industrial Marketing Management 31 (4), 305 315. Foundations of Readiness. (2009). Journal of the Army National Guard Installations Division. Novatrics. Arlington, Virginia, U.S.A. Retrieved from: http://www.arng.army.mil/aboutus/Documents/ARNG_Installations_Division_Journal_2 009_low_re s_ _spreads.pdf foursquare.com (2013). NREL Visitor Center. https://foursquare.com/v/nrel visitors center Gesenhues, A. (2014). Back 7 Years http://searchengineland.com/new google maps str eet view digital timeline features offers past images important landmarks 189771 Gibilisco, S. (2013). Google Maps. whatis.com. http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/Google Maps

PAGE 267

249 Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Psycholo gy Press. Gidado, K. I. (1996). Project complexity: the focal point of construction production planning. Construction Management & Economics, 14 (3), 213 225. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration Univ ersit y of California Press. Gifford, H. (2008). A better way to rate green b uildings. EnergySavingsScience.com. Gill, Z. M., Tierney, M. J., Pegg, I. M., & Allan, N. (2010). Low energy dwellings: the contribution of behaviours to actual performance. Building Re search & Information, 38 (5), 491 508. Goldschmidt, G. (1994). On visual design thinking: the vis kids of architecture. Design studies, 15 (2), 158 174. Goldschmidt, G. (2003). The backtalk of self generated sketches. Design Issues 19 (1), 72 88. Goodrum, A. A. (2000). Image information retrieval: An overview of current research. Informing Science, 3 (2), 63 66. Green Building Council of Australia (2014). What is GreenStar? http://www.gbca.org.au/green star/green star overview/ Greeno, J. G., & Moore, J. L. (1 993). Situativity and symbols: Response to Vera and Simon. Cognitive Science, 17 (1), 49 59. Greenwood, J. (1993). Reflective practice: a critique of the work of Argyris and Schn. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18 (8), 1183 1187. Grote, C. A., Jones, R. M., B lount, G. N., Goodyer, J., & Shayler, M. (2007). An approach to the EuP Directive and the application of the economic eco design for complex products. International Journal of Production Research, 45 (18 19), 4099 4117. Hagras, H. (2008). Employing computat ional intelligence to generate more intelligent and energy efficient living spaces. International Journal of Automation and Computing 5 (1), 1 9. Hadjri, K., & Crozier, C. (2009). Post occupancy evaluation: purpose, benefits and barriers. Facilities, 27 (1/ 2), 21 33. Haron, S. N., Hamid, M. Y., & Talib, A. (n.d.). Quality of Outpatient Service Des ign: An Adaptation o International Conference on Project and Faciliti es Management 2011.

PAGE 268

250 Has an, H. (2007). Integrating IS and HCI using activity theory as a philosophical and theoretical basis. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 6 (2). Hasan, H. (2003 January). An activity based model of collective knowledge. In System Sciences, 2003. P roceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 9 pp). IEEE. Heerwagen, J., & Diamond, R.C. (1992, August). Adaptations and coping: inhabitant response to discomfort in energy efficient buildings. In Proceedings of the 1992 Summer Stu dy on Energy Efficient Buildings. Heerwagen, J. U. D. I. T. H., & Zagreus, L. (2005). The human factors of sustainable building design: post occupancy evaluation of the Philip Merrill Environmental Center. Herceg, A. (2013). Bringing the Internet of Things to the Built Environment via Building Systems Integration. Meeting of the Minds, Articles, http://cityminded.org/bringing the internet of things to the built environment via building systems integration 7200 Herrmann, T. (2003). Learning and teaching in s ocio technical environments. Van Weert, TJ 59 72. Hewlett, J. D., Manic, M., & Rieger, C. G. (2012, August). WESBES: A wireless embedded sensor for improving human comfort metrics using temporospatially correlated data. In Resilient Control Systems (ISRCS ), 2012 5th International Symposium on (pp. 31 36). IEEE. Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J. and Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28 :1, 75 105. Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., & Kirsh, D. (2000). Distributed cognit ion: toward a new foundation for human computer interaction research. ACM Transactions on Computer Human Interaction (TOCHI) 7 (2), 174 196. Honest Buildings. (2013). Honest Buildings Web site. http://www.honestbuildings.com/ Hull, R. B., & Harvey, A. (198 9). Explaining the emotion people experience in suburban parks. Environment and behavior, 21 (3), 323 345. Hung, D. W., & Chen, D. T. (2001). Situated cognition, Vygotskian thought and learning from the communities of practice perspective: Implications for the design of web based e learning. Educational Media International, 38 (1), 3 12. Hutchins, E. (1991a). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Ms. La Jolla: University of California, Department of Cognitive Science.

PAGE 269

251 Jacobs, J. M., & Merriman, P. ( 2011). Pract ising architectures. Social & Cultural Geography, 12 (3), 211 222 Jaffe, M. (August 21, 2013). Colorado households use more energy than the US average, but pay less for it. The Denver Post: The Balance Sheet. Retrieved from: http://blogs.denverpost.com/theb alancesheet/2013/08/21/energy 10617/10617/ Ambient Intelligence (pp. 367 374). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Kaptelinin, V. (1996). Activity theory: implications for human computer interaction. Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human computer interaction, 103 116. Kaptelinin, V., Nardi, B., Macaulay, C. (1999). Methods & tools: The activity checklist: a tool for Interac tions, 6 (4), July Aug. 1999. ACM New York, NY, USA. doi>10.1145/306412.306431 Karat, J. (1997). Evolving the Scope of User Centered Design. Communications of the ACM, 40 (7), July 1997. New York, NY, US. doi>10.1145/256175.256181 Kaufman, D. M., & Mann, K. V. (2010). Teaching and learning in medical education: how theory can inform practice. Understanding medical education: Evidence, theory and practice, 16 36. King, S. F., & Brown, P. (2007, December). Fix my street or else: using the internet to voice loc al public service concerns. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Theory and practice of electronic governance (pp. 72 80). ACM. Kintner Meyer, M. (2005). Opportunities of wireless sensors and controls for building operation. Energy enginee ring, 102 (5), 27 48. Kofod Petersen, A., & Cassens, J. (2006). Using activity theory to model context awareness. In Modeling and Retrieval of Context (pp. 1 17). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Kolbert, E. (March 2011). Age of Man. National Geographic. Retriev ed from http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/03/age of man/kolbert text Koskela, H., & Pain, R. (2000). Revisiting fear and place: women's fear of attack and the built environment. Geoforum, 31 (2), 269 280. Kraftl, P., & Adey, P. (2008). Architecture/aff ect/inhabitation: geographies of being in buildings. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 98 (1), 213 231. Kurzweil, R. (2004). The law of accelerating returns. In Alan Turing: Life and Legacy of a Great Thinker (pp. 381 416). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

PAGE 270

252 Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lee, J., Park, D. H., & Han, I. (2008). The effect of negative online consumer reviews on product attitude: An information processing view. Electronic Commerce Resea rch and Applications, 7 (3), 341 352. Activity, consciousness and personality. Englewood Hills, NJ: Prentice Hall. 1959/ 1981). Problems of the Development of Mind. Moscow : Progress. Leslie, S. W. (2008). : Scientific and Architectural Style in IM Pei's Mesa Laboratory and Louis Kahn's Salk Institute. Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences, 38 (2), 173 221. Lewis, C. H. (1990). A research agenda for the Nineties in Human Computer Interactio n. Human Computer Interaction, 5 (2), 125 143. Lewis, C., & Wharton, C. (1997). Cognitive walkthroughs. Handbook of human computer interaction, 2 717 732. Lewis, C., Polson, P. G., Wharton, C., & Rieman, J. (1990, March). Testing a walkthrough methodology for theory based design of walk up and use interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: Empowering people (pp. 235 242). ACM. Iii, F. M. S., & McCall, R. J. (1997). Integrating different perspectives on design rationale: Supporting the emergence of design rationale from design communication. Artificial intelligence for engineering design, analysis and manufacturing: AI EDAM., 2, 141 154. Lindblom, J., & Ziemke, T. (2003). Social situatedness of natural and artif icial intelligence: Vygotsky and beyond. Adaptive Behavior, 11 (2), 79 96. Luck, R. (2003). Dialogue in participatory design. Design Studies 24 (6), 523 535. Li, M. and Du, Z. Dynamic Social Networking Supporting Location Based Services. Intelligent Human M achine Systems and Cybernetics. IHMSC '09. International Conference. 149:152, 26 27, August 2009. Malinin, L. (2013). Empowering the creative practitioner: Towards an ecological framework of creativity as embedded practice to inform environmental design. T hesis submitted to the faculty of the graduate school of the University of Colorado. Marcacci S. (August 2013). Green Building Set to Equal Half of U.S. Construction By 2016. EcoWatch, August 2013. http://ecowatch.com/2013/green bui lding half us construct ion 2016

PAGE 271

253 Markus, M., Majchrzak, A., & Gasser, L. (Sep 2002 ). A Design Theory for Systems That Support Emergent Knowledge Processes. MIS Quarterly, 26 (3), 179 212. McCall, R. (2013). Critical conversations: Feedback as a stimulus to creativity in software design. In Creativity and Rationale (pp. 11 40). Springer London. Meir, I. A. (2008). Apology for architecture. In S. Roaf, & A. Bairstow (Eds.), The Oxford Conference: A Re evaluation of Education in Architecture (pp. 33 36). Southampton, Boston: WIT Pres s. Meir, I. A., Garb, Y., Jiao, D., & Cicelsky, A. (2009). Post occupancy evaluation: an inevitable step toward sustainability. Advances in Building Energy Research, 3 (1), 189 219. Merton, R. K. (1936). The unanticipated consequences of purposive social ac tion. American sociological review, 1 (6), 894 904. approaches to studying innovations. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6 (3), 170 195. Mihailidis, A., Carmichael, B., & Bog er, J. (2004). The use of computer vision in an intelligent environment to support aging in place, safety, and independence in the home. Information Technology in Biomedicine, IEEE Transactions on 8 (3), 238 247. Mitchell, R. (2014). What is the tiny house movement? The Tiny Life http://thetinylife.com/what is the tiny house movement/ Mwanza, D. (December 2 6, 2000). Mind the gap: Activity theory and design. CSCW 2000 Conference. Knowledge Media Institute: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Mwanza, D. (2002) Towards an activity oriented design method for HCI research and practice Doctora l dissertation, Open University Nardi, B. A. (Ed.). (1996). Context and consciousness: activity theory and human computer interaction. M IT Press. Nardi, B. A. (1996). Activ ity theory and human computer interaction Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human computer interaction (pp. 7 16). MIT Press. Nardi, B. A. (1996). Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cog nition. Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human computer interaction (pp. 69 102 ) MIT Press. National Academy of Environmental Design. (2011). National A cademy of Environmental Design. Retrieved March 7, 2014, from http://www.naedonline.org

PAGE 272

254 Nawawi, A. H., & Khalil, N. (2008). Post occupancy evaluation correlated with building occupants' satisfaction: An approach to performance evaluation of government and public buildings. Journal of Building Appraisal, 4 (2), 59 69. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Newell, A. and Simon, H. (1976). Computer science as empirical inquiry: symbols and search. Communications of the ACM, 19 :3, March 1976. Newsham, G. R., Mancini, S., & Birt, B. J. (2009). Do LEED certified buildings save energy? Yes, Energy and Buildings, 41 (8), 897 905. Norman, D. (1988). The design of everyday t hings. New York: Basic Books. Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. Basic books. Norman, D. A. (2005). Human centered design considered harmful. Interactions, 12 (4), 14 19. OSHA Technical Manual. (2003). Section III, Chapter II. Retrieved from: https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/otm_iii/otm_iii_2.html#5 Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied imagination. Scribner: N ew York. Osterman, K. F., & Kottkamp, R. B. (1993). Reflective practice for educators. Newbury Park : Corwin Press. Oviatt, S. (2006, October). Human centered design meets cognitive load theory: designing interfaces that help people think. In Proceedings of the 14th annual ACM international conference on Multimedia (pp. 871 880). ACM. Oxford Dictionaries Online. Definition of Charrette. Retrieved April 1, 2014 from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/charrette Oxford Dictionaries Online. Definition of smartphone. Retrieved June 12, 2014 from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/smartphone Pearce, M., Goel, A. K., Kolodner, J. L., Zimring, C., Sentosa, L., & Billington, R. (1992). Case based design support: A case s tudy in architectural design. IEEE Expert, 7 (5), 14 20. Pearson, D. (1998). The new natural house book: Creating a healthy, harmonious, and ecologically sound home. Simon and Schuster: Chicago. Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M., and Chatterjee, S (2007). A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24:3, 45 77, Winter 2007/2008.

PAGE 273

255 Petersen, D. (2007). Usability theory, practice and evaluation for learning objects. Learning object s: Applications, implications, & future directions 337 370. Polson, P. and Lewis, C. (1990). Theory Based Design for Easily Learned Interfaces Human Computer Interaction, 5 : 2 3 Potts, J., Cunningham, S., Hartley, J., & Ormerod, P. (2008). Social network markets: a new definition of the creative industries. Journal of cultural economics, 32 (3), 167 185. creation. Journal of interactive marketing, 18 (3), 5 14. Preiser, W. F. (1995). Post occupancy evaluation: how to make buildings work better. Facilities, 13 (11), 1 9 28. Preiser, W. F. (2001). The evolution of post occupancy evaluation: Toward building performance and universal design evaluation. Federal facilities council technical report, learning from our buildings: A state of the practice summary of post occupanc y evaluation, 9 22. Preiser, W. F., Rabinowitz, H. Z., & White, E. T. (1988). Post occupancy evaluation. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Preiser, W. F., & Vischer, J. (Eds.). (2005). Assessing building performance. Routledge. Preston. (2009). Breaking Dow n Building Energy Use. Jetson Green. http://www.jetsongreen.com/2009/08/breaking down building energy use.html Ranganathan, A., Al Muhtadi, J., Biehl, J., Ziebart, B., Campbell, R.H., and Bailey, B. (2005). Towards a Pervasive Computing Benchmark. Third IE EE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops: Proceedings, PerCom 2005 Workshops, 8 12 March, 2005, Kauai Island, Hawaii. Rapoport, A. (1982). The meaning of the built environment: A nonverbal communication approach. Uni versity of Arizona Press. Rasmussen, J. (2001). The importance of communication in teaching: A systems theory approach to the scaffolding metaphor. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33 (5), 569 582. Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a Theory of Social Practices A de velopment in culturalist theorizing. European journal of social theory, 5 (2), 243 263. Reijula, J., Grhn, M., Mller, K., & Reijula, K. (2011). Human well being and flowing work in an intelligent work environment. Intelligent Buildings International 3 (4) 223 237.

PAGE 274

256 Generations" (pp. 390 396). Institute of Urban and Regional Development. Robbins, P., & Aydede, M. (2009). A short primer on situated cognition. The Cambridg e handbook of situated cognition, 3 10. Roussac, A. C., & de Dear, R. Simple, timely and actionable feedback improves commercial office building performance. In Proceedings of 7th Windsor Conference: The changing context of comfort in an unpredictable worl d. Cumberland Lodge, Windsor, UK, 12 15 April 2010. London: Network for Comfort and Energy Use in Buildings, http://nceub.org.uk Salk Institute for Biological Studies (2014). Salk Architecture. http://www.salk.edu/about/architecture.html Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co creation and the new landscapes of design. Co design, 4 (1), 5 18. Sawhney, M., Verona, G., & Prandelli, E. (2005). Collaborating to create: The Internet as a platform for customer engagement in product innovation. Journal of i nteractive marketing, 19 (4), 4 17. Schn, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action (Vol. 5126). Basic books. Schn, D. A. (1995). Knowing in action: The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change: The Magazine o f Higher Learning, 27 (6), 27 34. Shipman, F. M. McCall, R. J. (1996). Integrating different perspectives on design rationale: Supporting the emergence of design rationale from design communication. Published Online, May, 96 001. Shum, S. B., & Hammond, N. (1994). Argumentation based design rationale: what use at what cost?. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 40 (4), 603 652. Seybold, P. B. (2006). Outside Innovation: How Your Custome rs Will Co s Future. Harper Collins eBook s. Shank, G. (1998). The extraordinary ordinary powers of abductive reasoning. Theory & Psychology, 8 (6), 841 860. Sharples, S., Callaghan, V., & Clarke, G. (1999). A multi agent architecture for intelligent building sensing and control. Sensor Review 19 ( 2), 135 140. Simon, H. A. ( 1964/ 1996). The sciences of the artificial. Third edition. MIT press.

PAGE 275

257 Smith, M. K. (2001). Bibliographic reference: The encyclopedia of informal education Retrieved May 4, 2007. h ttp:// www.infed.org/thinkers/et schon.htm. Spencer Jr, B. F., & Sain, M. K. (1997). Controlling buildings: a new frontier in feedback. Control Systems, IEEE, 17 (6), 19 35. Spinuzzi, C. (2005). The methodology of participatory design. Technical Communicatio n 52 (2), 163 174. Steadman, P. ( 1979). The evolution of designs: Biological analogy in Architecture and the Applied Arts. Routledge Taylor and Francis Group: London and New York. Steele, R., & Clarke, A. (2012, July). A real time, composite healthy buildi ng measurement architecture drawing upon inhabitant smartphone collected data. In 10th International Healthy Buildings Conference. Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions. New York, Cambridge University. Sustainablebusinessnews.com. (2/3/2012). Yes, LEED Certified Buildings on Chopping Block Too Retrieved from: https://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/23375 The Modern Language Journal, 91 (s1), 820 836. Takeda, H., Hamada, S., Tomiyama, T., & Yoshikawa, H. (1990). A cognitive approach to the analysis of design processes. Design Theory and Methodology DTM, 90, 153 160. Trist, E. (1981). The evolution of socio technical systems. Occasional paper 2 Tseng, M. M., & Piller, F. T. (2003). The customer centric enterprise (pp. 3 16). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Twistedsifter.com (2014). 50 Amazing Finds on Google Earth http://twistedsifter.com/2014/02/50 amazing finds on google earth/ USGBC. (2013). T he U.S. Green Building Council Web site. http://www.usgbc.org/ Ugas, O., & Kohtala, C. (2011). Sustainability awareness in design bridging the gap between design research and practice. Trends and future of sustainable development. In Lakkala, H. & Vehmas, J. (Eds.), Trends And Future Of Sustainable Development: Proceedings of the Conference 9 10 June 2011 (pp. 514 525). Tampere, Finland: Finland Futures Research Centre, University of Turku.

PAGE 276

258 Ulrich, R., Zimring C., Joseph, A., & Choudhary, R. (2004). The role of the physical environment in the hospital of the 21st century: a once in a lifetime opportunity. Concord, CA: The Center for Health Design. United States Geological Survey. n.d. Photograph of Pruitt Igoe Towers. Public domain image. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pruitt igoeUSGS02.jpg Usabiliity.gov. n.d. Use Cases. Retrieved March 31, 2014 from http://www.usability.gov/how to and tools/methods/use cases.html Virkkunen, J., & Pihlaja, J. (2004). Distributed systems of generalizing as the basis of workplace learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(1/2), 33 43. Vischer, J. (2001). Post occupancy evaluation: a multifaceted tool for building improvement. Learning from our buildings: a stat e of the practice summary of post occupancy evaluation, 23 34. Vischer, J. C. (2008). Towards a user centred theory of the built environment. Building research & information, 36 (3), 231 240. Vischer, J. C. (2009). Applying knowledge on building performance : From evidence to intelligence. Intelligent Buildings International, 1(4), 239 248. Visser, W. (2010). Schn: Design as a reflective practice. Collection, (2), 21 25. Visser, W. (2010). Simon: Design as a problem solving activity. Collection, (2), 11 16. Vogel, B., Spikol, D., Kurti, A., and Milrad, M. Integrating Mobile, Web and Sensory Technologies to Support Inquiry Based Science Learning. Wireless, Mobile and Ubiquitous Technologies in Education (WMUTE), 2010 6th IEEE International Conference on. 65:72 12 16, April 2010. Von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. MIT press. Vygotsky, L. S. ( 1934/ 2012). Thought and language. MIT press. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard. Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher men tal functions. The concept of activity in Soviet psychology, 144 188. Walls, J. G., Widmeyer, G. R., and El Sawy, O. A. "Building an Information System Design Theory for Vigilant EIS," Information Systems Research (3:1), 1992, pp. 36 59. Wang, G. G. (2002) Definition and review of virtual prototyping. Journal of Computing and Information Science in engineering, 2(3), 232 236.

PAGE 277

259 Wargocki, P., Wyon, D. P., Baik, Y. K., Clausen, G., & Fanger, P. O. (1999). Perceived air quality, sick building syndrome (SBS) sym ptoms and productivity in an office with two different pollution loads. Indoor air, 9 (3), 165 179. Wartofsky, M. (1979). Perception, Representation, and the Forms of Action: Towards an Historical Epistemology. In Models, Representation and the Scientific U nderstanding. D. Reidel Publishing Company: 188 209. Watson, R. T., Boudreau, M. C., & Chen, A. J. (2010). Information systems and environmentally sustainable development: energy informatics and new directions for the IS community. MIS quarterly, 34(1), 23 38. Way, M., & Bordass, B. (2005). Making feedback and post occupancy evaluation routine 2: Soft landings involving design and building teams in improving performance. Building Research & Information, 33 (4), 353 360. Way, M., Bordass, W., Leaman, A., & Bu nn, R. (2009). The Soft Landings Framework. For better briefing, design, handover and building performance in use. BSRIA. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2008). Organizing for high reliability: Processes of collective mindfulness. Crisis ma nagement, 3, 31 66. Werby, O. (2008). Interfaces. com: Cognitive Tools for Product Designers. Createspace: USA. Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 9 (4), 625 636. Xie, W., Shi, Y., Xu, G., & Xie, D. (2001). Sma rt classroom an intelligent environment for tele education. In Advances in Multimedia Information Processing PCM 2001 (pp. 662 668). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Yamagata Lynch, L. C. (2007). Confronting analytical dilemmas for understanding complex human i nteractions in design based research from a cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) framework. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16 (4), 451 484. Yeh, T., Chang, T. H., & Miller, R. C. (2009, October). Sikuli: using GUI screenshots for search and aut omation. In Proceedings of the 22nd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology (pp. 183 192). ACM. Yin, L., & Muller, B. (2007). Residential location and the biophysical environment: exurban development agents in a heterogeneous landsca pe. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 34 (2), 279. Zagreus, L., Huizenga, C., Arens, E., & Lehrer, D. (2004). Listening to the inhabitant based indoor environmental quality survey. Indoor Air, 14 (s8), 65 74.

PAGE 278

260 Zimmerman, A., & Martin, M (2001). Post occupancy evaluation: benefits and barriers. Building Research & Information, 29 (2), 168 174. Zimring, C. M., Ulrich, R. S., Zhu, X., DuBose, J. R ., Seo, H. B., Choi, Y. S., & Joseph, A. (2008). A review of the research literature on evidenc e based healthcare design. Zurita, G., & Nussbaum, M. (2007). A conceptual framework based on activity theory for mobile CSCL. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38 (2), 211 235.

PAGE 279

A 1 APPENDIX A Buckley Air Force Base Colorado Army National Guard (COARN G) Army Aviation Support Facility (AASF) LEED Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) Survey Questions and Answers

PAGE 280

A 2 Survey Questions Interview Questions Exploring User Centered Design Using 3D Architectural Modeling Principle Investigator: Dara Cunningham, PhD Student Questions will address overall satisfaction with the building and the workspace, as well as satisfaction with specific features (daylight, amount of light, views, furnishings, and layout). The psychosocial modules address the following areas: conc entration and attention, information awareness and communication, interactive behaviors, acoustical functionality, sense of community, and morale and well being. For the model review, users will need to tell us what they think these areas would be like. I nterviews Interviews will be held. The interviews will begin with the same specific questions, but the full discussion will vary depending upon topics brought up by the interviewee. Questions asked will be: 1. What were your first impressions of the build ing? 2. What is/would it be like to work here? 3. What would you change about the building? 4. Is the layout of the building effective? 5. Is the building well lit? 6. Is there anywhere that the building's architecture interferes with (or would interfere w ith) work? 7. Is there anything that you wish you could change about the building? Monitoring and control (for appropriate Buckley Air Force Aviation Support Facility personnel only): 1. How often do you access the HVAC Monitoring equipment to observe t he status of the HVAC system? 2. Do you run performance reports to track energy consumption? 3. Have you made adjustments to the HVAC system to improve performance? 4. Can you estimate the effectiveness of these interventions? We would also like to know if any of the energy saving features we put into the building to achieve energy efficient performance have caused any unexpected problems. Energy saving features include: Daylighting Windows Translucent panels Light shelf Motion Sensors Dimming contr ols Heat Recovery Air Handling Unit Building Envelope Monitoring and Control system Performance (for appropriate Buckley Air Force Aviation Support Facility personnel only):

PAGE 281

A 3 1. Are the energy saving features put into this building being used to their fu ll potential? If not ... explain. 2. Have any of the energy saving features cause conflicts with operations? 3. Have any of the energy saving features cause conflicts with comfort? 4. Have light levels in the building been satisfactory? Maintenance (for appropriate Buckley Air Force Aviation Support Facility personnel only): 1. Were maintenance personnel satisfactorily trained to operate the and maintain the energy saving features on this building? 2. Has any unusual maintenance been required to maintain this building? 3. Have any building systems proved to be maintenance intensive? Does the added maintenance interfere with the buildings mission? We also want to know if the architectural choices of this building have caused problems. A rchitectural finishes (for appropriate Buckley Air Force Aviation Support Facility personnel only): 1. On a scale to 1 10 how easy has this facility been to maintain? (followup questions may be needed) 2. Have the architectural finishes been satisfact orily durable? If not which finishes are having trouble. Durability (for appropriate Buckley Air Force Aviation Support Facility personnel only): On a scale of 1 10 how durable has this facility been? Mechanical / Electrical Maintenance (for appr opriate Buckley Air Force Aviation Support Facility personnel only): 1. Do you maintain the facility with in house staff? (If yes, answer the questions below.) Does your in house staff adjust equipment performance? Does your in house staff perform routine maintenance on mechanical equipment? Does your in house staff perform corrective maintenance on mechanical equipment? 2. Do you contract maintenance work? (If yes, answer the questions below.) Is the contract for routine m aintenance? Is the contracted service doing corrective maintenance on mechanical equipment?

PAGE 282

A 4 Survey Responses Non Architectural Participants (6): USER 1: 1. What were your first impressions of the building? It is very large and spacious. 2. Wh at would it be like to work here? I think it would be a comfortable work environment. 3. What would you change about the building? Add more color to the interior design (Warm colors like dark reds, brown or even some black). White and gray coloring t ends to give off a sterile look/feel. 4. Is the layout of the building effective? I think it is. 5. Is the building well lit? It appears to be judging from the large number of windows and other light fixtures. 6. Is there anywhere that the buildin g's architecture interferes with (or would interfere with) work? Not that I can think of. 7. Is there anything that you wish you could change about the building? see question #3 USER 2: 1. What were your first impressions of the building? Modern desi gn, looks similar to a new office building. 2. What would it be like to work here? Functional and orderly 3. What would you change about the building? No changes 4. Is the layout of the building effective? It seems effective and well organized. 5. Is the building well lit? Appears to be 6. Is there anywhere that the building's architecture interferes with (or would

PAGE 283

A 5 interfere with) work? Not that I saw 7. Is there anything that you wish you could change about the building? No, I liked the design and appearance User 3: 1. What were your first impressions of the building? I liked the textures and colors of the walls. They look very pleasing and inviting. 2. What would it be like to work here? I think it would be a comfortable working env ironment 3. What would you change about the building? Well I did get a bit lost in the video so the floor plan 4. Is the layout of the building effective? I could not really tell. The video was a bit jumpy and was moving so fast that it was hard to tell where I was even at in the building. 5. Is the building well lit? Yes 6. Is there anywhere that the building's architecture would interfere with work? I am not to sure 7. Is there anything that you wish you could change about the building? Make the lay out a bit easer to navigate User 4: 1. What were your first impressions of the building? Modern, commercial office space, very contemporary 2. What would it be like to work here? would need a floor plan and walk through tour to position myself 3. What would you change about the building? more obvious signage community space 4. Is the layout of the building effective? It was difficult to tell how the building would be used for actual workspace like wo uld the larger rooms ultimately be chipped up into cubicle 5. Is the building well lit? yes lots of windows and open spaces 6. Is there anywhere that the building's architecture would interfer e with work? I kept wondering what the rooms would look like furnished and what type of an individual workspace would ultimately get crammed into that narrow hallway. 7. Is there anything that you wish you could change about the building? Show functional furniture and workspaces

PAGE 284

A 6 USER 5: 1. What were your first impressions of the building Modern, open and futuristic work workplace. 2. What would it be like to work here? I believe that it would be a pleasant experience and a positive work environment. 3. What would you change about the building? More office privacy and enclosed secured areas especially for a Mil/Space facility. 4. Is the layout of the building effective? Yes 5. Is the building well lit? It appears to be more than adequate lighting a nd a large number of outside window areas in building. 6. Is there anywhere that the building's architecture interferes with (or would interfere with) work? Too many open cubicles for a Mil/Space facility. 7. Is there anything that you wish you could change about the building? More enclosed office space for privacy and the elimination of possible distractions and outside interferences. USER 6: 1. What were your first impressions of the building Very open and futuristic work workplace. Fitting exterio r for a military building. 2. What would it be like to work here? Modern and open with lots of glass. Welcoming atmosphere with easy access to the entire building. 3. What would you change about the building? Not enough structured office space. 4. Is the layout of the building effective? Yes 5. Is the building well lit?

PAGE 285

A 7 Yes, lots of windows especially the windows with more than one story length. 6. Is there anywhere that the building's architecture interferes with (or would interfere with) work? Too much openness in corridors into working areas. 7. Is there anything that you wish you could change about the building? I think from the outside it fits with what I would expect from a Mil/Space facility; non descriptive and not overly obvious. Architectural Participants (7): Participant 1: 1. What were your first impressions of the building? it is a well designed building. the floorplan is nice. The front entrance is quite briliant. the video showed the basic structures of the building. 2. W hat would it be like to work here? it could be a fairly nice place to work. 3. What would you change about the building? not sure. 4. Is the layout of the building effective? I think is the layout is effective. the office space and the repair space ar e seperated but still connected by the lobby. 5. Is the building well lit? the open office plan and the windows are good combinations. however, I think the repair center can be lit better. 6. Is there anywhere that the building's architecture interferes with (or would interfere with) work? noise reduction. I am not sure if the noise comes from the repair center will interfere with the office enivronment. 7. Is there anything that you wish you could change about the building? cooling in the summer may be a problem. Participant 2:

PAGE 286

A 8 1. What were your first impressions of the building? >> >> Seriously, the 3d model underwhelmed my first impressions of the >> actual building. The modeling software seemed to be an older >> technology and detracted from the actual building form and >> materiality. Looking at the building however, it seems that from an >> urban design layout the entrance is a bit far removed from >> parking/access. The entrance seemed fairly well defined as well as >> main circulation. Exp osed roof structure in the office area relates >> nicely to structure of hanger bays. >> >> 2. What would it be like to work here? >> >> I can only answer this question due to the actual photographs placed >> in the video. I think it would be a nice work environment. It seems >> care was taken in placement and design of work stations. Circulation >> is clear, rooms seem to have views. The experiential quality of the >> space seems appropriate such as the juxtaposition of the typically >> more quiet rece ption/entry/atrium with the activity view of the hanger >> bay but at the same time reinforcing the sense of entry/exit that >> exists between person and machine. >> >> 3. What would you change about the building? >> >> The main circulation after leaving t he atrium seems a bit too tight. >> The proportions feel off in that the space is too narrow and tall, >> more of a canyon feel rather than a dense urban street feel. The >> locker bay area seems a bit too labyrinthine and dark. The kitchen? >> (counter sp ace in hall) also seemed too tight and queuing could impact >> circulation in the hall. >> >> 4. Is the layout of the building effective? >> >> As said before the layout seems clear and ordered. Maybe some issues >> with the distance of the entrance to par king difficult access. The >> building scale and orientation of the office part of the building to >> the size of the hanger bays seems appropriate. >> >> 5. Is the building well lit? >> >> It does seem to be well lit from the photographs especially the >> atrium and the hanger bay. It was a bit difficult to tell with the 3d >> model how much transparency was in the building. The clerestory >> windows in the main circulation are appropriate as well. The locker >> bays seemed like they may be underlit. >> >> 6. Is there anywhere that the building's architecture interferes with >> (or would interfere with) work? >> >> Well, refer to other answers few things with the width of hall, >> lockers, entry distance on site. Could be some security issues with > > being able to see into the hanger bay from the atrium. The floating >> pinup/white boards could have problems with glare due to their

PAGE 287

A 9 >> placement next to the windows. >> >> 7. Is there anything that you wish you could change about the building? >> >> As stated before, the width of the hallway I would increase. Recess >> "kitchen" thing in hall. More daylight or possible change of spacial >> relationships in the locker area less labyrinthine. Participant 3: 1. What were your first impressions of the building? I liked the building at first impression. Not so much the first image, but the image at the second "stop" and through the first look through the window at the rendering/photo. From the outside it looked like it would have a lot of nice sunlight & natural lighting. 2. What would it be like to work here? Initially it felt somewhat bright, warm, colorful. But as the walkthrough continued, it began to feel more like a warehouse. The hallways seemed extremely tall and narrow & cold, it was difficult t o discern if that was from the design of the hallway or the cartoony surface of the model. 3. What would you change about the building? It's hard to say. I don't think I really got a good understanding of the building to know. 4. Is the layout of the build ing effective? Same as above. 5. Is the building well lit? In some areas, yes. 6. Is there anywhere that the building's architecture interferes with (or would interfere with) work? Not that I could tell, but again, see the above. 7. Is there anything that you wish you could change about the building? I would have liked to see the building "walk thru" better. The movement of the walkthrough was very "jerky"... pausing somewhere, then sprinting incomprehensibly to some new point that I couldn't always see. Th e renderings were fantastic, more renderings and a more accurately rendered progression/path that moved more fluidly (as if actually walking) so I could understand where I'm moving. Participant 4: 1. What were your first impressions of the building? I th ink the building is very interesting seems to have a good feel to the spaces and incorporates the use well, the entry seems well organized and easily accessible 2. What would it be like to work here?

PAGE 288

A 10 Working in this building would definitely be a comforta ble experience it seems that there is a fair bit of well lit spaces using a fair amount of day lighting. 3. What would you change about the building? Because of my limited experience in the video i have a hard time commenting on what i would change it see ms like there is a central core with veins of program running in multiple directions from there, which makes sense just wish i had a better way of experiencing it 4. Is the layout of the building effective? It is hard to get an idea of the layout of the b uilding from teh video so i have a hard time suggesting a way to im prove the layout 5. Is the building well lit? I get the feeling there is a lot of day lighting and the lighting would not be too harsh for comfortable use withing the project 6. Is there anywhere that the building's architecture interferes with (or would interfere with) work? the architecture seems simple and just encloses the use of space i dont see much additions "architecture" which could interfere with the use or work within the build ing 7. Is there anything that you wish you could change about the building? I would change the way it was experience it seems like there are nice spaces but the way that you move through them and from one to the other does not feel as strong as some of th e spaces. Participant 5: 1. What were your first impressions of the building? Spacious. Rendering appears cold but actual space photos are much more welcoming. 2. What would it be like to work here? Space feels inviting and interesting with inside/outsi de quality. 3. What would you change about the building? Interior space color scheme. 4. Is the layout of the building effective? Can't tell from the video. 5. Is the building well lit? Appears so from photographs. 6. Is there anywhere that the buildin g's architecture interferes with (or would interfere with) work? N/A 7. Is there anything that you wish you could change about the building? No

PAGE 289

A 11 Participant 6: 1. What were your first impressions of the building? Large amount od square footage. 2. What would it be like to work here? It seems like a good open atmosphere. 3. What would you change about the building? The furniture. 4. Is the layout of the building effective? Yes. 5. Is the building well lit? I can't tell by looking at the model but it se ems like there is a good amount of daylighting by the amount of glazing. 6. Is there anywhere that the building's architecture interferes with (or would interfere with) work? Not at all! 7. Is there anything that you wish you could change about the build ing? The interior finishes. Participant 7: 1. What were your first impressions of the building? Typical 3D model. But the renderings were eye catching and beautiful. 2. What would it be like to work here? It feels sterile. 3. What would you change abou t the building? More light in atrium/entrance. 4. Is the layout of the building effective? Seems to be I like the window into the hangar area. 5. Is the building well lit? In the renderings, yes. In the general 3D model, it doesn't appear as well. 6. Is there anywhere that the building's architecture interferes with (or would interfere with) work? I honestly don't know enough about this type of building to give a good answer. 7. Is there anything that you wish you could change about the building? I wi sh there was a way to do a walkthrough in rendered style. Maybe better pick now materials are depicted in 3D model. Buckley Air Force Base Participants (6):

PAGE 290

A 12 Participant #1 Worked here about a year part time and 5 months full time works on the helico pters First impression: Amazing, great building very impressed works Aviation Life Support System Equipment Set up to work on helicopters, everything is easily access ible What would you change: Add water fountains on the floors no water fountains at the back of the building Well Lit: A lot of natural light even when the electricity went out, there was plen ty of light (except in the bathroom emergency lights need to be better placed) Otherwise, very well lit Architecture: does not interfere with work Change: No likes the way it looks actually brings people here to see the building HVAC: 1. No A LSSE Shop is supposed to have its own temperature controls and gauge but they 2. No 3. No 4. No Performance: 1. Participant #2: Worked here for 18 months full time Avionics shop 1. Professional environment op en 2. Easy to get around nice classrooms shop areas are large 3. Parking for the workers not really easy access to parking (parking in front or back only) 4. Yes 5. Yes sensitive ) 6. No 7. More control over the temperature HVAC No access to monitoring or controls Performance:

PAGE 291

A 13 1. I think so 2. Yes motion sensitive lighting is inconvenient (have to stand up and walk around to get lights to come back on) 3. Heating causes dis comfort a lot of the guys have portable heaters by their desks 4. Levels are satisfactory Maintenance: 1. No 2. Sometimes the heating has to be reset by the building maintenance guy it goes out if they lose power 3. No 4. No not yet if the lights go out they still have daylighting Architectural Finishes: 1. 8 (new building) 2. Yes although, the main hallway flooring is wearing out Mechanical/Electrical N/A Additional Comments: Parking is main issue exits leading to parking need to dire ct to parking (from Participant #3: Engine Shop has been in the building since September 2007 1. Wow one of the biggest structures on the base saw it being built nice facility to walk through would l ike to show the building off to friends and family was involved in the planning process (asked where doors should be and how shop should be laid out) 2. Overall good has twice as much floor space as he used to have 3. Parking drainage issues ( no threshold barrier in engine shop gets puddles of water added threshold barrier he did weather stripping around the door himself in the door units cold wind blowing through the door s) has more air hoses in his shop then he needs and more reels than he needs (some things have been overdone) has his own individual heater and thermostat ceiling is so high that the heat goes straight to the ceiling 4. Overall has no complaints saw the plans for the different layouts they were considering the shops are in line with each other listened to his suggestions about the shop layout (no obstructions equipment is easily accessible) 5. Yes almost too well lit in power outage his disco ball in the summer) 6. No no problems with the layout split door is ADA compliant but difficult for people not in wheelchairs to use wider doors would have been better for moving equipment (tool ro om door) has access to the loading dock

PAGE 292

A 14 7. Over expenditure of nice equipment (flat panels) in the front of the building versus the back of the building would like to have seen the building simulation so the end users could have made changes before th e building was built (they were asked but did not see the simulation would like to have seen all of the equipment in place) weather stripping around the doors in the shops Monitoring: 2. N o 3. No 4. No Performance: 1. Yes they did a good job with them skylights are very helpful motion sensors work fine gas) 3. No 90% of the time (unless the hangar doors are open) 4. Yes not too bright, not too dark Maintenance: 1. Overall, they do a good job on the building and know who to talk to 2. No the hangar doors are wearing out prematurely (maintenance people have come out to replace parts) 4. Have been able to work around the maintenance by moving aircraft around Architectural Finishes: 1. N/A average 2. Cracks in the floors in the hangar and sho ps (Colorado heaving soils) Durability: 9 Mehanical/Electrical Maintenance: N/A Participant #4: ALSSE all over the building 3 years full time 1. Blown away in the army 17 years 2. Pleasant uplifting still impressed 3. ALSSE needs a washer and dryer maintenance floor needs water fountains 4. Extremely easy access to the places they need to get to not difficult to get anywhere aligned right for the shops classrooms are good 5. Above and bey ond like the motion sensors set up to save energy never have a problem with lighting 6. No 7. No Monitoring and Control: 1. No access Performance:

PAGE 293

A 15 1. Absolutely 2. No (waterless urinals are different) 3. No just takes some getting used to 4. Yes Maintenance: 1. No major problems everything is maintained 2. Had to do some maintenance on the outside of the break room structural changes 4. Not at all Architectural: 1. 10 2. Yes Durability: 10 Mechanical/Electric al Maintenance: NA Participant #5: the offices 1 year, 7 months 1. Very impressive brand new very nice hard to belive the army built it a lot of storage space (extra storage space ) that has the storage space 3. Would change the classroom to theatre type seating add more office space 4. Yes 5. Yes 6. No 7. Add an intercom system there is one built into the phones (not near a phone especially the guys near the 7. Door into the hangar from operaitions is way too small door goes into a corner replace trophy case with sliding glass doors that have a motion sensor Monitoring and Control: with it Performance: 1. Pretty much only aware of HVAC and lighting features 2. No ha d trouble figuring out how to switch lights out (while trying to switch lights out, the motion sensor will turn on more lights) 3. Not for him thermostats controlled offsite 4. Yes Maintenance:

PAGE 294

A 16 1. N/A 2. Not that he knows of standard opening problems nothing unusual changed pilings outside the building 3. No computer networking has problems 4. N/A Architectural Finishes: 1. 9 2. Yes Durability: 9 Mechanical/Elecrical Maintenance: Support Safety Guy 1. Yes a) No b) No c) N/A 2. Not aware co ntracted out a circuit in the gym to an electrical contractor Participant #6: Flight Operations Desk West end of building Full Time 3 weeks, once a month for a year very unique can see everything from his area (good views) his work area is at a 3. The Flight Ops area g ets extremely hot in the summer (close to 90 degrees) a lot of windows air conditioning is controlled offsite (state HQ) have conflicts with then have drill weekend s 4. Very effective 5. Yes up lights in the bathrooms when the power goes out) 6. No 7. Break room in more of a central point pilots like to come eat in the Fli ght Ops area which is not allowed (second break room would be nice). Monitoring and control: 1. N/A no access Performance: 1. Yes 2. No 3. Urinals excessive heat in flight ops (big windows) 4. Yes Maintenance: 1. Yes 2. No

PAGE 295

A 17 3. No some trash cans get more full than others 4. N/A Architectural: 1. 9 2. Yes Durability: 10 Mechanical/Electrical Maintenance: N/A Additional Comments: Parking has been a big issue during drill week, people were parking on the grass the far east parking has be en addressed there are plans to expand the parking lot not enough spaces currently

PAGE 296

A 18

PAGE 297

A 19

PAGE 298

A 20 O S R C S E Bathr W P M Se Li Some W W Respons Questi t buildi w architec Respon Architec Respon B Respon L N M C Respons Questi th anywhe t t buildin architectur interfer w wo interfe w wo architec Respon Architec Respon B Respon

PAGE 299

A 21 I F S C S P C Temper C S Relatio L N B Ren Mov Equi B v Fun Fu Works S In S Respons Questi th anythi t y w y co cha ab t buildin architec Respon Architec Respon B Respon

PAGE 300

B 1 APPENDIX B STEED System Requirements, Features, and RAST Analysis Justification

PAGE 301

B 2 This section extracts a list of system requirements and features from a RAST analysis of STEED. The requirements are clustered into 7 groups: 1. Gather feedback about the consequences of activity breakdowns from the actors who have experience with the artifact in use 2. Gather information about the actors who experience the conseq uences of activity breakdowns 3. Gather information about the active means used in the activity 4. Provide a forum for interactive reflective conversation between actors 5. Gather information about future artifacts 6. Display information 7. Facilitate information The STEED requirements identified in the following pages are mapped to the RAST analysis justification and the system features necessary to meet the requirements. Every group of requirements includes: A requirement number The RAST analysis justification The re quirement description The features the requirement corresponds to Requirement 1: Gather feedback about the consequences of activity breakdowns from the actors who have experience with the artifact in use

PAGE 302

B 3 RAST Rationale: Feedback about actual activities and their expected or unexpected consequences has to come from the actors engaged with the artifact in use. These are the only actors who have experience with the artifact in use so they are the only actors qualified to give this feedback. Feedback from the s ituated use of the artifact is required for reflection in action by proxy by the actors who control the design or re design of the artifact in order to develop reflective design rationale. 1. Description of the outcomes of the activity a. User Feedback about the u nexpected and expected outcomes of the activity RAST Rationale: The User Role provides feedback about the consequences of activity breakdowns from the situated use of the artifact in order to empower reflection in action by proxy by the Designer, Builder Client, Manager, and Operator Roles. System Feature: Collect and archive anonymous, publicly available User feedback Requirement Rationale for System Feature: Provide a forum for building inhabitants (the User Role) to give feedback about the consequence s of activity breakdowns from the situated use of the artifact and archive this feedback so it can be viewed by actors in the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles and utilized for the reflection in action by proxy necessary to develop ref actor is not personally identified (anonymous) to prevent any attempts by other users to retaliate against the User providing the feedback. User

PAGE 303

B 4 feedback needs to be publicly available so it cannot be blocked by actors with a stake in blocking feedback and to provide motivation for Designers, Clients, Managers, and Operators to reflect on the activity breakdowns and act on feedback from Users. b. What was the breakdown? c. RAST Rationale: The User Role provides feedbac k about breakdowns that occur in the process of performing an activity using the artifact. Feedback about breakdowns that occur during the situated use of the artifact can be used to empower reflection in action by proxy by the Designer, Builder, Client, M anager, and Operator Roles. System Feature: Collect and archive anonymous, publicly available User feedback Requirement Rationale for System Feature: Provide a forum for building inhabitants (the User Role) to give feedback about activity breakdowns from t he situated use of the artifact and archive this feedback so it can be viewed by actors in the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles and utilized for the reflection in action by proxy necessary to develop reflective important the actor is not personally identified (anonymous) publicly to prevent any attempts by other users to retaliate against the User providing the feedback. User feedback needs to be publicly available so it cannot be blocked by actors with a stake i n blocking feedback

PAGE 304

B 5 and to provide motivation for Designers, Clients, Managers, and Operators to reflect on the activity breakdowns and act on feedback from Users. d. What caused the breakdown? RAST Rationale: The User Role provides feedback about the causes of breakdowns that occur in the process of performing an activity using the artifact. Feedback about the causes of breakdowns that occur during the situated use of the artifact can be used to empower reflection in action by proxy by the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles. System Feature: Collect and archive anonymous, publicly available User feedback Requirement Rationale for System Feature: Provide a forum for building inhabitants (the User Role) to give feedback about the causes of act ivity breakdowns from the situated use of the artifact and archive this feedback so it can be viewed by actors in the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles and utilized for the reflection in action by proxy necessary to develop reflective identified (anonymous) to prevent any attempts by other users to retaliate against the User providing the feedback. User feedback needs to be publicly available so it cannot be blocked by actors with a stake in blocking feedback and to provide motivation for Designers, Clients, Managers, and Operators to reflect on the activity breakdowns and act on feedback from Users.

PAGE 305

B 6 e. Suggested fix for the breakdown RAST Rationale: The User Role is the only acto r qualified to give feedback about the use of the artifact and, as the only actor familiar with how the artifact performs in use, the user is uniquely qualified to suggest design revisions to repair the breakdown. Suggestions about how to repair breakdowns that occur during the situated use of the artifact can be used to inform reflective design rationale developed by the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles. System Feature: Collect and archive anonymous, publicly available User feedback R equirement Rationale for System Feature: Provide a forum for building inhabitants (the User Role) to give suggestions about how to repair activity breakdowns that occur during the situated use of the artifact and archive these suggestions so they can be vi ewed by actors in the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles and utilized for the reflection in action actor is not personally identified (anonymous) publicly to prevent any attempts by other users to retaliate against the User providing the feedback. User feedback needs to be publicly available so it cannot be blocked by actors with a stake in blocking feedback and to provide motivation for Designers, Clients, Man agers, and Operators to reflect on the activity breakdowns and act on feedback from Users.

PAGE 306

B 7 2. Description of the activity the What? a. Where the activity took place RAST Rationale: Activity takes place in a physical location and that location may play a part i n activity breakdowns. For physical artifacts, like buildings, the location is the artifact, or the active means, used in the performance of the activity. The User Role provides feedback about breakdowns that occur in the process of performing an activity using the artifact. Feedback about breakdowns that occur during the situated use of the artifact can be used to empower reflection in action by proxy by the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles. System Feature: Collect, map, verify, displ ay, and archive artifact location information Requirement Rationale for System Feature: Provide a forum for building inhabitants (the User Role) to give feedback about activity breakdowns from the situated use of the artifact. The location of the activity may affect the performance of the activity and, in the case of physical artifacts like buildings, the location is the artifact, or active means to fulfill the activity. Locations are generally viewed in a mapped format to give context to the viewer. The sy stem will automatically collect location information when the User submits feedback but will prompt the User to verify the submission location is the location of the activity. The system will archive this feedback so it can be viewed by actors in the Desig ner, Builder, Client, Manager, and

PAGE 307

B 8 Operator Roles and utilized for the reflection in action by proxy necessary to develop reflective design rationale. b. When the activity took place RAST Rationale: Activity takes place in the context of a situation. The cont ext of an activity includes when the activity took place. The day, date, and time of the activity may play a part in activity breakdowns. The history of the artifact is also part of understanding the activities performed using the artifact, or active means The User Role provides feedback about breakdowns that occur in the process of performing an activity using the artifact. Feedback about breakdowns that occur during the situated use of the artifact can be used to empower reflection in action by proxy by the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles. System Feature: Collect time and date information for feedback submissions, verify the time and date of the activity, and display time and date information in a timeline format Requirement Rationa le for System Feature: Provide a forum for building inhabitants (the User Role) to give feedback about activity breakdowns from the situated use of the artifact. The day, date, and time of the activity may affect the performance of the activity and give co ntext for the situation. Information about day, date, and time is generally displayed in a timeline to give context to the viewer. The system will automatically collect time and date information when the User submits feedback but will prompt the User

PAGE 308

B 9 to ve rify the submission time and date is the time and date of the activity. The system will archive this feedback so it can be viewed by actors in the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles and utilized for the reflection in action by proxy nec essary to develop reflective design rationale. c. Applicable local or regional rules (special or exceptional rules) RAST Rationale: The formal and informal rules that the local and regional culture imposes on the actors is a component of an activity in RAST. Local or regional rules that are special, different from the surrounding culture, or artifact, or active means. The User Role provides feedback about breakdowns that occur in the p rocess of performing an activity using the artifact. Feedback about breakdowns that occur during the situated use of the artifact can be used to empower reflection in action by proxy by the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles. System Fea ture: perform the activity Requirement Rationale for System Feature: Provide a forum for building inhabitants (the User Role) to give feedback about activity breakdowns from the situated use of the artifact. The local, regional, special, different, or activity. Rules can be added to User feedback but are optional. The system will archive this feedback so it can be viewe d by actors in the Designer,

PAGE 309

B 10 Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles and utilized for the reflection in action by proxy necessary to develop reflective design rationale. 3. The objective of the activity the Why? a. What did the actors intend to achieve wi th the activity? RAST Rationale: The objective of the activity is a component of an activity in RAST. The objective is the purpose, goals, conditions, and motive that define the activity, actions, and operations. The objective is the reason why the User is performing the activity. The User Role provides feedback about breakdowns that occur in the process of performing an activity using the artifact. Feedback about breakdowns that occur during the situated use of the artifact can be used to empower reflectio n in action by proxy by the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles. System Feature: Collect anonymous, publicly available feedback about why the User performs the activity b. Requirement Rationale for System Feature: Provide a forum for buildi ng inhabitants (the User Role) to give feedback about activity breakdowns from the situated use of the artifact. The objective is the reason the User is performing the activity. The objective can be added to User feedback but is optional. The system will a rchive this feedback so it can be viewed by actors in the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles and utilized for the reflection in action by proxy necessary to develop reflective design identified (anonymous)

PAGE 310

B 11 publicly to prevent any attempts by other users to retaliate against the User providing the feedback. User feedback needs to be publicly available so it cannot be blocked by actors with a stake in blocking feedback and to provide mo tivation for Designers, Clients, Managers, and Operators to reflect on the activity breakdowns and act on feedback from Users. c. RAST Rationale: Actor roles are a component of an activity in RAST. Relationships betw of the artifact in the performance of the activity. The User Role provides feedback about breakdowns that occur in the p rocess of performing an activity using the artifact. Feedback about breakdowns that occur during the situated use of the artifact can be used to empower reflection in action by proxy by the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles. System Fea ture: Collect anonymous, publicly available feedback about the Requirement Rationale for System Feature: Provide a forum for building inhabitants (the User Role) to give feedback about activity breakdowns from the situated use of the artifact. The system will archive this feedback so it can be viewed by actors in the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles and utilized for the reflection in action by proxy necessary to develop reflective design rationale. Other ac tors can also provide feedback but may

PAGE 311

B 12 the role in order to prevent this from happening or give context to the non identified (anonymous) publicly to prevent any attempts by other users to retaliate against the User providing the feedback. User feedback needs to be publicly available so it cannot be blocked by actors with a stake in blocking feedback and to provide mo tivation for Designers, Clients, Managers, and Operators to reflect on the activity breakdowns and act on feedback from Users. 4. The active means the How? a. How did the actors intend to achieve the activity? RAST Rationale: Active means are a component of an activity in RAST. Active means are the physical and non physical means, or tools (primary, secondary, and tertiary tools), that are used in the conduct of the activity and in the research about the activity. The User Role provides feedback about breakdown s that occur in the process of performing an activity using the artifact. The artifact is the active means used in the performance of the activity. Feedback about breakdowns that occur during the situated use of the artifact can be used to empower reflecti on in action by proxy by the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles. System Feature: Collect anonymous, publicly available feedback about how the actor intended to achieve the activity Requirement Rationale for System Feature: Provide a for um for building

PAGE 312

B 13 inhabitants (the User Role) to give feedback about activity breakdowns from the situated use of the artifact. The artifact is the active means used in the performance of the activity. The system will archive this feedback so it can be viewe d by actors in the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles and utilized for the reflection in action by proxy necessary to develop identified (anonymous) publicly to pre vent any attempts by other users to retaliate against the User providing the feedback. User feedback needs to be publicly available so it cannot be blocked by actors with a stake in blocking feedback and to provide motivation for Designers, Clients, Manage rs, and Operators to reflect on the activity breakdowns and act on feedback from Users. b. How did the actors provide the feedback? RAST Rationale: The User Role provides feedback about breakdowns that occur in the process of performing an activity using the artifact. Feedback about activity is often easier to explain with visual information, audio information, and gesturing, both for the feedback provider and the feedback provide the fee dback. Feedback about breakdowns that occur during the situated use of the artifact can be used to empower reflection in action by proxy by the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles. System Feature: Provide support for multiple feedback, c ommunication, and

PAGE 313

B 14 interaction options, including mobile applications, text, image, audio, and video Requirement Rationale for System Feature: Provide a forum for building inhabitants (the User Role) to give feedback about activity breakdowns from the situa The system will prompt the user and facilitate the feedback submission in order to lessen the burden on the feedback provider. The system will archive this feedback so it can be viewed by actors in the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles and utilized for the reflection in action by actor is not personally identified (anonymous) publicly to prevent any attempts by other users to retaliate against the User providing the feedback. User feedback needs to be publicly available so it cannot be blocked by actors with a stake in blocking feedback and to provide motivation for Designers, Clients, Managers, and Operators to reflect on the activity breakdowns and act on feedback from Users. Requirement 2: Gather information about the actors who experience the consequences of activity breakdowns RAST Rationale: The relationships between actors determine the rol es actors have in culture gives context for the actors as they engage in the activity and influences the

PAGE 314

B 15 the actor is the sociocultural environment in which the actors carry out that activity. 1. A list of the actors the Who? a. Categorization of actor roles RAST Rationale: The User Role provides feedback about breakdowns that occur in the process of performing a n activity using the artifact. Feedback about breakdowns that occur during the situated use of the artifact can be used to empower reflection in action by proxy by the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles. System Feature: Simple, easy to complete radio buttons or checkboxes with that are combined to create a profile for the system user e xplaining the personally identifiable information; the system will also connect with and LinkedIn, Twitter, G oogle, etc.; System user can enter as little or as much information as desired, similar to creating a Facebook user profile; System downloads a cookie so the system user is recognized on subsequent log ins; System will accept feedback from anyone, anywhere anytime Requirement Rationale for System Feature: Provide a forum for building inhabitants (the User Role) to give feedback about activity breakdowns from

PAGE 315

B 16 The system will promp t the user and facilitate the feedback submission in order to lessen the burden on the feedback provider. The system will archive this feedback so it can be viewed by actors in the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles and utilized for the reflection in action by actor is not personally identified (anonymous) publicly to prevent any attempts by other users to retaliate against the User providing the feedback. User fe edback needs to be publicly available so it cannot be blocked by actors with a stake in blocking feedback and to provide motivation for Designers, Clients, Managers, and Operators to reflect on the activity breakdowns and act on feedback from Users. b. Stake in blocking or accepting feedback from the artifact in use (is the actor a User, Designer, Client, Builder, Manager, or Operator) RAST Rationale: The User Role provides feedback about breakdowns that occur in the process of performing an activity using the artifact. Feedback about breakdowns that occur during the situated use of the artifact can be used to empower reflection in action by proxy by the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles. However, Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Ope rator actors may have a stake in blocking feedback from Users to prevent damage to their reputation, the extra cost of implementing repairs or re

PAGE 316

B 17 they designed, own, constructed, managed, or operated an artifact that causes activity breakdowns. System Feature: Simple, easy to complete radio buttons or checkboxes with that are combined to create a profile for the system user explaining the personally identifiable information; the system will also connect with and gather LinkedIn, Twitter, Google, etc.; System user can enter as little or as much information as desired, similar to creating a Facebook user profile; System downloads a cookie so the system us er is recognized on subsequent log ins; System will accept feedback from anyone, anywhere, anytime Requirement Rationale for System Feature: Provide a forum for building inhabitants (the User Role) to give feedback about activity breakdowns from the situat The system will prompt the user and facilitate the feedback submission in order to lessen the burden on the feedback provider. Connection with other social media sites can be used to verif y the actor has the role claimed. The system will archive this feedback so it can be viewed by actors in the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles and utilized for the reflection in action by proxy necessary to develop reflective design ra tionale.

PAGE 317

B 18 prevent any attempts by other users to retaliate against the User providing the feedback. User feedback needs to be publicly available so it cannot be blocked by actors with a stake in blocking feedback and to provide motivation for Designers, Clients, Managers, and Operators to reflect on the activity breakdowns and act on feedback from Users. c. Sociocultural environment for actors who interact with the artifact RAST Ratio nale: objectives, active means, and the rule s associated with the activity. The User Role provides feedback about breakdowns that occur in the process of performing an activity using the artifact. Feedback about breakdowns that occur during the situated use of the artifact can be used to empower ref lection in action by proxy by the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles. However, Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator actors may have a stake in blocking feedback from Users to prevent damage to their reputation, the extra cos t of implementing repairs or re designs, or a constructed, managed, or operated an artifact that causes activity breakdowns. System Feature: Simple, easy to complete radio buttons or checkboxes with

PAGE 318

B 19 that are combined to create a profile for the system user explaining the personally identifiable information; the system will also connect with and LinkedIn, Twitter, Google, etc.; System user can enter as little or as much information as desired, similar to creating a Facebook user profile; System downloads a cookie so the system user is recognized on subsequent log ins; System will accept feedback from anyone, anywhere, anytime Requirement Rat ionale for System Feature: Provide a forum for building inhabitants (the User Role) to give feedback about activity breakdowns from The system will prompt the user and facilitate the feedback submission in order to lessen the burden on the feedback provider. Connection with other social media sites can be used to verify the actor has the role claimed and to will archive this feedback so it can be viewed by actors in the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles and utilized for the reflection in important the actor is not per sonally identified (anonymous) publicly to prevent any attempts by other users to retaliate against the User providing

PAGE 319

B 20 the feedback. User feedback needs to be publicly available so it cannot be blocked by actors with a stake in blocking feedback and to pro vide motivation for Designers, Clients, Managers, and Operators to reflect on the activity breakdowns and act on feedback from Users. d. RAST Rationale: The User Role provides feedback about breakdowns that occur in the process of performing an activity using the artifact. Feedback about breakdowns that occur during the situated use of the artifact can be used to empower reflection in action by proxy by the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles. However, Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator actors may have a stake in blocking feedback from Users to prevent damage to their reputation, the extra cost of implementing repairs or re designs, or a potential legal liabili they designed, own, constructed, managed, or operated an artifact that causes activity breakdowns. System Feature: Simple, easy to complete radio buttons or checkboxes with that are combined to create a profile for the system user explaining the personall y identifiable information; the system will also connect with and

PAGE 320

B 21 LinkedIn, Twitter, Google, etc.; System user can enter as little or as much information as desired, similar to cre ating a Facebook user profile; System downloads a cookie so the system user is recognized on subsequent log ins; System will accept feedback from anyone, anywhere, anytime Requirement Rationale for System Feature: Provide a forum for building inhabitants ( the User Role) to give feedback about activity breakdowns from The system will prompt the user and facilitate the feedback submission in order to lessen the burden on the feedbac k provider. The system will archive this feedback so it can be viewed by actors in the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles and utilized for the reflection in action by t the actor is not personally identified (anonymous) publicly to prevent any attempts by other users to retaliate against the User providing the feedback. User feedback needs to be publicly available so it cannot be blocked by actors with a stake in blocki ng feedback and to provide motivation for Designers, Clients, Managers, and Operators to reflect on the activity breakdowns and act on feedback from Users. e. RAST Rationale: The User Role provides feedback about breakdowns that occur in the process of performing an activity using the artifact. Feedback about breakdowns that occur during the situated use of the artifact can be

PAGE 321

B 22 used to empower reflection in action by proxy by the De signer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles. However, Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator actors may have a stake in blocking feedback from Users to prevent damage to their reputation, the extra cost of implementing repairs or re desi they designed, own, constructed, managed, or operated an artifact that causes activity breakdowns. System Feature: Simple, easy to complete radio buttons or checkboxes with User role categorie that are combined to create a profile for the system user explaining the personally identifiable information; the system will also connect with and LinkedIn, Twitter, Google, etc.; System user can enter as little or as much infor mation as desired, similar to creating a Facebook user profile; System downloads a cookie so the system user is recognized on subsequent log ins; System will accept feedback from anyone, anywhere, anytime Requirement Rationale for System Feature: Provide a forum for building inhabitants (the User Role) to give feedback about activity breakdowns from The system will prompt the user and facilitate the feedback submission in

PAGE 322

B 23 order to lessen the burden on the feedback provider. The system will archive this feedback so it can be viewed by actors in the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles and utilized for the reflection in action by proxy necessary to develop reflectiv actor is not personally identified (anonymous) publicly to prevent any attempts by other users to retaliate against the User providing the feedback. User feedback needs to be publicly available so it cannot be blocked by actors with a stake in blocking feedback and to provide motivation for Designers, Clients, Managers, and Operators to reflect on the activity breakdowns and act on feedback from Users. Requirement 3: Gather information about the active means used in th e activity RAST Rationale: Active means are a component of an activity in RAST. Active means are the physical and non physical means, or tools, (primary, secondary, and tertiary tools), that are used in the conduct of the activity and in the research about the activity. 1. When a new artifact/building profile is created, the system will attempt to determine who designed the building, who owns the building, and who manages the building f. The system will create a building profile and Property Identification Number (PIN) for each unique location created RAST Rationale: For physical artifacts, like buildings, the building is the artifact, or the active means, used in the performance of the activity. Each building is a unique artifact and needs to be identified as suc h. The User Role

PAGE 323

B 24 provides feedback about breakdowns that occur in the process of performing an activity using the artifact. Feedback about breakdowns that occur during the situated use of the artifact can be used to empower reflection in action by proxy by the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles but these actors will not be able to use the feedback in reflection in action if they System Feature: System will automatically collect geolocation information and attempt to connect that with an address and building name; System will search for and collect public information about the location (BIM, Google Map and Timeline, Google 3D Sketch, photos, satellite images, floor plans, blueprints, news, postings, or reviews on other sites, LEED or other building certifications, awards, legal findings, etc.); System users can accept or change automatically gathered information so, if the user is not posting from the location he or she is giving feedback about or is posting about somet hing that happened in the past, they can manually enter the location, time, date, etc.; System user can enter as little or as much information as they want, similar to creating a Facebook user profile; System will gather any available energy informatics, i ncluding aggregate energy use, energy source (power plants, utilities, renewable energy sources, etc.), building system data sets, and energy use comparison to other similar buildings Requirement Rationale for System Feature: Provide a forum for building i nhabitants (the User Role) to give feedback about activity breakdowns from

PAGE 324

B 25 The system will prompt the user and facilitate the feedback submission in order to lessen the burden on the feedback provider. The system will archive this feedback so it can be viewed by actors in the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles and utilized for the reflection in action by proxy necessary to develop reflective design rationale. I nformation about the building, or active means, needs to be grounded in the context of the sociocultural environment of the actors as they engage in the activity. New technology allows us to gather feedback directly from the artifact to be used as another source of feedback from the situated use of the artifact for reflection in action by proxy by the Designer, Client, Builder, Manager, and Operator roles. a. The building profile will include the PIN, address, GPS coordinates, and a profile name, either provid ed by the actor creating the posting or assigned by RAST Rationale: For physical artifacts, like buildings, the building is the artifact, or the active means, used in the performance o f the activity. Each building is a unique artifact and needs to be identified as such. The User Role provides feedback about breakdowns that occur in the process of performing an activity using the artifact. Feedback about breakdowns that occur during the situated use of the artifact can be used to empower reflection in action by proxy by the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles but

PAGE 325

B 26 these actors will not be able to use the feedback in reflection in action if they Syste m Feature: System will automatically collect geolocation information and attempt to connect that with an address and building name; System will search for and collect public information about the location (BIM, Google Map and Timeline, Google 3D Sketch, ph otos, satellite images, floor plans, blueprints, news, postings, or reviews on other sites, LEED or other building certifications, awards, legal findings, etc.); System users can accept or change automatically gathered information so, if the user is not po sting from the location he or she is giving feedback about or is posting about something that happened in the past, they can manually enter the location, time, date, etc.; System user can enter as little or as much information as they want, similar to crea ting a Facebook user profile; System will gather any available energy informatics, including aggregate energy use, energy source (power plants, utilities, renewable energy sources, etc.), building system data sets, and energy use comparison to other simila r buildings Requirement Rationale for System Feature: Provide a forum for building inhabitants (the User Role) to give feedback about activity breakdowns from The system will pro mpt the user and facilitate the feedback submission in order to lessen the burden on the feedback provider. The system will archive this feedback so it can be viewed by actors in the Designer, Builder, Client,

PAGE 326

B 27 Manager, and Operator Roles and utilized for t he reflection in action by proxy necessary to develop reflective design rationale. Information about the building, or active means, needs to be grounded in the context of the sociocultural environment of the actors as they engage in the activity. New techn ology allows us to gather feedback directly from the artifact to be used as another source of feedback from the situated use of the artifact for reflection in action by proxy by the Designer, Client, Builder, Manager, and Operator roles. Requirement 4 : Pro vide a forum for interactive reflective conversation between actors RAST Rationale: Reflective conversation among the actors involved with the artifact in use can be utilized to create reflective design rationale. 1. Actors will be allowed to post comments to postings RAST Rationale: The User Role provides feedback about breakdowns that occur in the process of performing an activity using the artifact. Feedback about breakdowns that occur during the situated use of the artifact can be used to empower reflectio n in action by proxy by the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles. The User, Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles can engage in reflective conversation about the activity breakdown and collaborate on the development of re flective design rationale. System Feature: Support for crowdsourcing the development of reflective design rationale; System will contact system users who have requested notification about new information about an artifact via their preferred contact method ; System will

PAGE 327

B 28 provide feedback, critique, and argumentation forums for past, current, and future designs Requirement Rationale for System Feature: Provide a forum for building inhabitants (the User Role) to give feedback about activity breakdowns from the situated use of feedback so it can be viewed by actors in the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles and utilized for the reflection in action by proxy n ecessary to develop reflective design rationale. The actors in the User, Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator roles can collaborate and exchange feedback to inform the development of reflective design rationale. 2. Actors will be able to request r eviews of an artifact RAST Rationale: The User Role provides feedback about breakdowns that occur in the process of performing an activity using the artifact. Feedback about breakdowns that occur during the situated use of the artifact can be used to empow er reflection in action by proxy by the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles. The User, Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles can engage in reflective conversation about the activity breakdown and collaborate on the devel opment of reflective design rationale. System Feature: Support for crowdsourcing the development of reflective design rationale; System will contact system users who have requested notification about new information about an artifact via their preferred co ntact method; System will provide feedback, critique, and argumentation forums for past, current, and future

PAGE 328

B 29 automatic contact generation and selection; System can email or text sy stem user contacts with a request to review an artifact Requirement Rationale for System Feature: Provide a forum for building inhabitants (the User Role) to give feedback about activity breakdowns from the situated use of preferable to the User. Actors can request feedback from other actors to generate more feedback to draw on for reflection. The system will archive this feedback so it can be viewed by actors in the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles an d utilized for the reflection in action by proxy necessary to develop reflective design rationale. The actors in the User, Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator roles can collaborate and exchange feedback to inform the development of reflective design rationale. 3. Actors will be able to submit contact information for other actors a. The system will contact the actors with a request to create a profile RAST Rationale: The User Role provides feedback about breakdowns that occur in the process of perform ing an activity using the artifact. Feedback about breakdowns that occur during the situated use of the artifact can be used to empower reflection in action by proxy by the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles. The User, Designer, Builder Client, Manager, and Operator Roles can engage in reflective conversation about the activity breakdown and collaborate on the development of reflective design rationale. In order to provide feedback, the actors need to be aware

PAGE 329

B 30 of the need for the feedba ck and the existence of the feedback collection forum. System Feature: Collect and archive anonymous, publicly available User feedback ; Support for crowdsourcing the development of reflective design rationale; System will contact system users who have requ ested notification about new information about an artifact via their preferred contact method; System will provide feedback, critique, and argumentation forums for past, email applic ation for automatic contact generation and selection; System can email or text system user contacts with a request to review an artifact Requirement Rationale for System Feature: Provide a forum for building inhabitants (the User Role) to give feedback abo ut activity breakdowns from Actors can request feedback from other actors to generate more feedback to draw on for reflection. The system will archive this feedback so it can be viewed by actors in the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles and utilized for the reflection in action by proxy necessary to develop reflective design rationale. The actors in the User, Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator rol es can collaborate and exchange feedback to inform the development of reflective design rationale. Other actors can also provide feedback but may have a stake in blocking or denying User feedback from happening or

PAGE 330

B 31 give context to the non personally identified (anonymous) publicly to prevent any attempts by other users to retaliate against the User providing the feedback. User feedback needs to be publicly available so it cannot be blocked by actors with a stake in blocking feedback and to provide motivation for Designers, Clients, Managers, and Operators to reflect on the activity breakdowns and act on feedback from Users. b. The system will rel ay requests for feedback or other information RAST Rationale: The User Role provides feedback about breakdowns that occur in the process of performing an activity using the artifact. Feedback about breakdowns that occur during the situated use of the artif act can be used to empower reflection in action by proxy by the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles. The User, Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles can engage in reflective conversation about the activity breakdown and collaborate on the development of reflective design rationale. In order to provide feedback, the actors need to be aware of the need for the feedback and the existence of the feedback collection forum. System Feature: Collect and archive anonymous, publicl y available User feedback ; Support for crowdsourcing the development of reflective design rationale; System will contact system users who have requested notification about new information about an artifact via their preferred contact method;

PAGE 331

B 32 System will pr ovide feedback, critique, and argumentation forums for past, email application for automatic contact generation and selection; System can email or text system user contacts with a re quest to review an artifact Requirement Rationale for System Feature: Provide a forum for building inhabitants (the User Role) to give feedback about activity breakdowns from Act ors can request feedback from other actors to generate more feedback to draw on for reflection. The system will archive this feedback so it can be viewed by actors in the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles and utilized for the reflectio n in action by proxy necessary to develop reflective design rationale. The actors in the User, Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator roles can collaborate and exchange feedback to inform the development of reflective design rationale. Other acto rs can also provide feedback but may have a stake in blocking or denying User feedback give context to the non personally i dentified (anonymous) publicly to prevent any attempts by other users to retaliate against the User providing the feedback. User feedback needs to be publicly available so it cannot be blocked by actors with a stake in blocking feedback and to provide moti vation for Designers, Clients,

PAGE 332

B 33 Managers, and Operators to reflect on the activity breakdowns and act on feedback from Users. 4. The system will allow actors to request notification for any new information posted about an artifact or multiple artifacts RAST Ra tionale: The User Role provides feedback about breakdowns that occur in the process of performing an activity using the artifact. Feedback about breakdowns that occur during the situated use of the artifact can be used to empower reflection in action by pr oxy by the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles. The User, Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles can engage in reflective conversation about the activity breakdown and collaborate on the development of reflective design r ationale. In order to provide feedback, the actors need to be aware of the need for the feedback and the existence of the feedback collection forum. System Feature: Collect and archive anonymous, publicly available User feedback ; Support for crowdsourcing the development of reflective design rationale; System will contact system users who have requested notification about new information about an artifact via their preferred contact method; System will provide feedback, critique, and argumentation forums fo r past, current, and future designs; System can generation and selection; System can email or text system user contacts with a request to review an artifact Requirement Rationale for System Feature: Provide a forum for building inhabitants

PAGE 333

B 34 (the User Role) to give feedback about activity breakdowns from the situated use of from other actors to generat e more feedback to draw on for reflection. The system will archive this feedback so it can be viewed by actors in the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles and utilized for the reflection in action by proxy necessary to develop reflective design rationale. The actors in the User, Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator roles can collaborate and exchange feedback to inform the development of reflective design rationale. Other actors can also provide feedback but may have a stake in blocking or denying User feedback so context to the non identified (anonymous) publicly to prevent any attempt s by other users to retaliate against the User providing the feedback. User feedback needs to be publicly available so it cannot be blocked by actors with a stake in blocking feedback and to provide motivation for Designers, Clients, Managers, and Operator s to reflect on the activity breakdowns and act on feedback from Users. Requirement 5 : Gather information about future artifacts RAST Rationale: Reflective conversation among the actors involved with the artifact in use can be utilized to create reflective design rationale. 1. The system will allow actors to post design information, models, sketches, images, etc., for future buildings with a request for feedback

PAGE 334

B 35 RAST Rationale: The User Role provides feedback about breakdowns that occur in the process of perfo rming an activity using the artifact. Feedback about breakdowns that occur during the situated use of the artifact can be used to empower reflection in action by proxy by the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles. The User, Designer, Build er, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles can engage in reflective conversation about the activity breakdown and collaborate on the development of reflective design rationale. Reflective design rationale can be developed for future artifacts based on feedbac k from past and current artifacts as well as representations of future artifacts. System Feature: Collect and archive anonymous, publicly available User feedback ; Support for crowdsourcing the development of reflective design rationale; System will contact system users who have requested notification about new information about an artifact via their preferred contact method; System will provide feedback, critique, and argumentation forums for past, current, and future designs; System can be connected to the generation and selection; System can email or text system user contacts with a request to review an artifact Requirement Rationale for System Feature: Provide a forum for building inhabitants (the User Role) to give feedback about activity breakdowns from the situated use of from other actors to generate more feedback to draw on for reflection. The system will archive this feedback so it can be viewed by actors in the Designer, Builder,

PAGE 335

B 36 Client, Manager, and Operator Roles and utilized for the reflection in action by proxy necessary to develop reflective design rationale. The actors in the User, Designer, Builder, Client Manager, and Operator roles can collaborate and exchange feedback to inform the development of reflective design rationale. Reflective design rationale can be developed for future artifacts based on feedback from past and current artifacts as well as rep resentations of future artifacts. Other actors can also provide feedback but may have a stake in blocking or denying happening or give context to the non is not personally identified (anonymous) publicly to prevent any attempts by other users to retaliate against the User providing the feedback. User feedback needs to be publicly available so it cannot be blocked by actors with a st ake in blocking feedback and to provide motivation for Designers, Clients, Managers, and Operators to reflect on the activity breakdowns and act on feedback from Users. Requirement 6 : Display information RAST Rationale: Reflective conversation among the ac tors involved with the artifact in use can be utilized to create reflective design rationale. 1. The system will present the building feedback and other information in formats actors are familiar with and allow actors to choose the display format a. User feedbac k will be posted with an optional star rating (one to five stars, as is common with most online reviews) RAST Rationale: The User Role provides feedback about breakdowns that occur

PAGE 336

B 37 in the process of performing an activity using the artifact. Feedback about breakdowns that occur during the situated use of the artifact can be used to empower reflection in action by proxy by the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles. The User, Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles can engage i n reflective conversation about the activity breakdown and collaborate on the development of reflective design rationale. Feedback and other information needs to be easy to understand by all actors and as explicit as possible. System Feature: Collect and a rchive anonymous, publicly available User feedback ; Provide personalized and customizable data views; Interactive format; Customizable user interface; Option to choose how much interaction is wanted or necessary; Provide support for multiple feedback, comm unication, and interaction options, including mobile applications, text, image, audio, and video Requirement Rationale for System Feature: Provide a forum for building inhabitants (the User Role) to give feedback about activity breakdowns from the situated can request feedback from other actors to generate more feedback to draw on for reflection. The system will archive this feedback so it can be viewed by actors in the Designer, Builde r, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles and utilized for the reflection in action by proxy necessary to develop reflective design rationale. The actors in the User, Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and

PAGE 337

B 38 Operator roles can collaborate and exchange feedback to inform the development of reflective design rationale. Reflective design rationale can be developed for future artifacts based on feedback from past and current artifacts as well as representations of future artifacts. Other actors can also provide fee important to know the role in order to prevent this from happening or give context to the non personally identified (anonymous) p ublicly to prevent any attempts by other users to retaliate against the User providing the feedback. User feedback needs to be publicly available so it cannot be blocked by actors with a stake in blocking feedback and to provide motivation for Designers, C lients, Managers, and Operators to reflect on the activity breakdowns and act on feedback from Users. b. User feedback will be posted as pins or notes on maps or building floor plans or in building models RAST Rationale: The User Role provides feedback about breakdowns that occur in the process of performing an activity using the artifact. Feedback about breakdowns that occur during the situated use of the artifact can be used to empower reflection in action by proxy by the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles. The User, Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles can engage in reflective conversation about the activity breakdown and collaborate on the development of reflective design rationale. Feedback and other information needs to be easy to understand by all actors

PAGE 338

B 39 and as explicit as possible. Activity takes place in a physical location and that location may play a part in activity breakdowns. For physical artifacts, like buildings, the location is the artifact, or the active me ans, used in the performance of the activity. Providing a visual display of User feedback situated in a representation of the location of the artifact provides a familiar reference for actors to reflect upon. System Feature: Collect and archive anonymous, publicly available User feedback ; Provide personalized and customizable data views; Interactive format; Customizable user interface; Option to choose how much interaction is wanted or necessary; Provide support for multiple feedback, communication, and int eraction options, including mobile applications, text, image, audio, and video; System will automatically collect geolocation information and attempt to connect that with an address and building name; System will search for and collect public information a bout the location (BIM, Google Map and Timeline, Google 3D Sketch, photos, satellite images, floor plans, blueprints, news, postings, or reviews on other sites, LEED or other building certifications, awards, legal findings, etc.); System users can accept o r change automatically gathered information so, if the user is not posting from the location he or she is giving feedback about or is posting about something that happened in the past, they can manually enter the location, time, date, etc.; System user can enter as little or as much information as they want, similar to creating a Facebook user profile Requirement Rationale for System Feature: Provide a forum for building

PAGE 339

B 40 inhabitants (the User Role) to give feedback about activity breakdowns from the situate location of the activity may affect the performance of the activity and, in the case of physical artifacts like buildings, the location is the artifact, or active means to fulfill the a ctivity. Locations are generally viewed in a mapped format to give context to the viewer. The system will automatically collect location information when the User submits feedback but will prompt the User to verify the submission location is the location o f the activity. The system will archive this feedback so it can be viewed by actors in the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles and utilized for the reflection in action by proxy necessary to develop reflective design rationale. The actor s in the User, Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator roles can collaborate and exchange feedback to inform the development of reflective design rationale. Reflective design rationale can be developed for future artifacts based on feedback from p ast and current artifacts as well as representations of future artifacts. Other actors can also provide feedback but may have a stake in prevent this from happening or give co ntext to the non prevent any attempts by other users to retaliate against the User providing the feedback. User feedback needs to be publicly available so it cannot be blocked by actors with a stake in blocking feedback and to provide motivation for

PAGE 340

B 41 Designers, Clients, Managers, and Operators to reflect on the activity breakdowns and act on feedback from Users. c. Feedback can be viewed in little detail or grea t detail RAST Rationale: The User Role provides feedback about breakdowns that occur in the process of performing an activity using the artifact. Feedback about breakdowns that occur during the situated use of the artifact can be used to empower reflectio n in action by proxy by the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles. The User, Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles can engage in reflective conversation about the activity breakdown and collaborate on the development of re flective design rationale. Feedback and other information needs to be easy to understand by all actors and as explicit as possible. System Feature: Collect and archive anonymous, publicly available User feedback ; Provide personalized and customizable data views; Interactive format; Customizable user interface; Option to choose how much interaction is wanted or necessary; Provide support for multiple feedback, communication, and interaction options, including mobile applications, text, image, audio, and vide o Requirement Rationale for System Feature: Provide a forum for building inhabitants (the User Role) to give feedback about activity breakdowns from the can request feedback f rom other actors to generate more feedback to draw on

PAGE 341

B 42 for reflection. The system will archive this feedback so it can be viewed by actors in the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles and utilized for the reflection in action by proxy neces sary to develop reflective design rationale. The actors in the User, Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator roles can collaborate and exchange feedback to inform the development of reflective design rationale. Reflective design rationale can be d eveloped for future artifacts based on feedback from past and current artifacts as well as representations of future artifacts. Other actors can also provide important to know the r ole in order to prevent this from happening or give context to the non personally identified (anonymous) publicly to prevent any attempts by other users to retaliate against the User providing the feed back. User feedback needs to be publicly available so it cannot be blocked by actors with a stake in blocking feedback and to provide motivation for Designers, Clients, Managers, and Operators to reflect on the activity breakdowns and act on feedback from Users. d. Reviews can be viewed as text or images RAST Rationale: The User Role provides feedback about breakdowns that occur in the process of performing an activity using the artifact. Feedback about breakdowns that occur during the situated use of the arti fact can be used to empower reflection in action by proxy by the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles. The User, Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and

PAGE 342

B 43 Operator Roles can engage in reflective conversation about the activity breakdown and collaborate on the development of reflective design rationale. Feedback and other information needs to be easy to understand by all actors and as explicit as possible. System Feature: Collect and archive anonymous, publicly available User feedback ; Provid e personalized and customizable data views; Interactive format; Customizable user interface; Option to choose how much interaction is wanted or necessary; Provide support for multiple feedback, communication, and interaction options, including mobile appli cations, text, image, audio, and video Requirement Rationale for System Feature: Provide a forum for building inhabitants (the User Role) to give feedback about activity breakdowns from the e User. Actors can request feedback from other actors to generate more feedback to draw on for reflection. The system will archive this feedback so it can be viewed by actors in the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles and utilized for th e reflection in action by proxy necessary to develop reflective design rationale. The actors in the User, Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator roles can collaborate and exchange feedback to inform the development of reflective design rationale. Reflective design rationale can be developed for future artifacts based on feedback from past and current artifacts as well as representations of future artifacts. Other actors can also provide

PAGE 343

B 44 feedback but may have a stake in blocking or denying User fee important to know the role in order to prevent this from happening or give context to the non personally identified (anonymous) publicly to prevent any attempts by other users to retaliat e against the User providing the feedback. User feedback needs to be publicly available so it cannot be blocked by actors with a stake in blocking feedback and to provide motivation for Designers, Clients, Managers, and Operators to reflect on the activity breakdowns and act on feedback from Users. e. Reviews and other information can be downloaded as data sets RAST Rationale: The User Role provides feedback about breakdowns that occur in the process of performing an activity using the artifact. Feedback about breakdowns that occur during the situated use of the artifact can be used to empower reflection in action by proxy by the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles. The User, Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles can engage i n reflective conversation about the activity breakdown and collaborate on the development of reflective design rationale. Feedback and other information needs to be available to actors in a format that can be incorporated into reflective design rationale. System Feature: Collect and archive anonymous, publicly available User feedback ; Provide personalized and customizable data views; Interactive format; Customizable user interface; Option to choose how much interaction is wanted or necessary; Provide suppor t for multiple feedback, communication,

PAGE 344

B 45 and interaction options, including mobile applications, text, image, audio, and video Requirement Rationale for System Feature: Provide a forum for building inhabitants (the User Role) to give feedback about activity breakdowns from the can request feedback from other actors to generate more feedback to draw on for reflection. The system will archive this feedback so it can be viewed by a ctors in the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles and utilized for the reflection in action by proxy necessary to develop reflective design rationale. The actors in the User, Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator roles can coll aborate and exchange feedback to inform the development of reflective design rationale. Reflective design rationale can be developed for future artifacts based on feedback from past and current artifacts as well as representations of future artifacts. Othe r actors can also provide important to know the role in order to prevent this from happening or give context to the non person ally identified (anonymous) publicly to prevent any attempts by other users to retaliate against the User providing the feedback. User feedback needs to be publicly available so it cannot be blocked by actors with a stake in blocking feedback and to provid e motivation for Designers, Clients, Managers, and Operators to reflect on the activity breakdowns and act on feedback from Users.

PAGE 345

B 46 f. Reviews can be viewed in a timeline RAST Rationale: Activity takes place in the context of a situation. The context of an act ivity includes when the activity took place. The day, date, and time of the activity may play a part in activity breakdowns. The history of the artifact is also part of understanding the activities performed using the artifact, or active means. The User Ro le provides feedback about breakdowns that occur in the process of performing an activity using the artifact. Feedback about breakdowns that occur during the situated use of the artifact can be used to empower reflection in action by proxy by the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles. System Feature: Collect time and date information for feedback submissions, verify the time and date of the activity, and display time and date information in a timeline format Requirement Rationale for System Feature: Provide a forum for building inhabitants (the User Role) to give feedback about activity breakdowns from the situated use of the artifact. The day, date, and time of the activity may affect the performance of the activity and give context for the situation. Information about day, date, and time is generally displayed in a timeline to give context to the viewer. The system will automatically collect time and date information when the User submits feedback but will prompt the User to verify the subm ission time and date is the time and date of the activity. The system will archive this feedback so it can be viewed by actors in the Designer, Builder,

PAGE 346

B 47 Client, Manager, and Operator Roles and utilized for the reflection in action by proxy necessary to dev elop reflective design rationale. g. System users can choose what information will be shown upon log in RAST Rationale: The User Role provides feedback about breakdowns that occur in the process of performing an activity using the artifact. Feedback about bre akdowns that occur during the situated use of the artifact can be used to empower reflection in action by proxy by the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles. The User, Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles can engage in re flective conversation about the activity breakdown and collaborate on the development of reflective design rationale. Feedback and other information needs to be easy to understand by all actors and as explicit as possible. Activity takes place in a physica l location and that location may play a part in activity breakdowns. For physical artifacts, like buildings, the location is the artifact, or the active means, used in the performance of the activity. Providing a visual display of User feedback situated in a representation of the location of the artifact provides a familiar reference for actors to reflect upon. System Feature: Collect and archive anonymous, publicly available User feedback ; Provide personalized and customizable data views; Interactive forma t; Customizable user interface; Option to choose how much interaction is wanted or necessary; Provide support for multiple feedback, communication, and interaction options, including mobile applications, text, image, audio, and

PAGE 347

B 48 video; System will automatic ally collect geolocation information and attempt to connect that with an address and building name; System will search for and collect public information about the location (BIM, Google Map and Timeline, Google 3D Sketch, photos, satellite images, floor pl ans, blueprints, news, postings, or reviews on other sites, LEED or other building certifications, awards, legal findings, etc.); System users can accept or change automatically gathered information so, if the user is not posting from the location he or sh e is giving feedback about or is posting about something that happened in the past, they can manually enter the location, time, date, etc.; System user can enter as little or as much information as they want, similar to creating a Facebook user profile Req uirement Rationale for System Feature: Provide a forum for building inhabitants (the User Role) to give feedback about activity breakdowns from the location of the activity may a ffect the performance of the activity and, in the case of physical artifacts like buildings, the location is the artifact, or active means to fulfill the activity. Locations are generally viewed in a mapped format to give context to the viewer. The system will automatically collect location information when the User submits feedback but will prompt the User to verify the submission location is the location of the activity. The system will archive this feedback so it can be viewed by actors in the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles and utilized for the reflection in action by proxy necessary to develop reflective design rationale. The actors in the User,

PAGE 348

B 49 Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator roles can collaborate and exchange fe edback to inform the development of reflective design rationale. Reflective design rationale can be developed for future artifacts based on feedback from past and current artifacts as well as representations of future artifacts. Other actors can also provi de feedback but may have a stake in prevent this from happening or give context to the non ous) publicly to prevent any attempts by other users to retaliate against the User providing the feedback. User feedback needs to be publicly available so it cannot be blocked by actors with a stake in blocking feedback and to provide motivation for Design ers, Clients, Managers, and Operators to reflect on the activity breakdowns and act on feedback from Users. Requirement 7 : Facilitate information RAST Rationale: Identification of actor roles and the stake the actor has in blocking feedback is necessary to prevent Designers, Clients, Builders, and Managers from suppressing User feedback. 1. The system will be monitored for malicious or harmful postings and moderated when necessary but will not remove postings unless they are clearly false, unnecessarily malic RAST Rationale: The User Role provides feedback about breakdowns that occur in the process of performing an activity using the artifact. Feedback about breakdowns

PAGE 349

B 50 that occur during the situa ted use of the artifact can be used to empower reflection in action by proxy by the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles. However, Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator actors may have a stake in blocking feedback from Users to prevent damage to their reputation, the extra cost of implementing repairs or re known that they designed, own, constructed, managed, or operated an artifact that causes activity breakdowns. System Feature: Simple, easy to complete radio buttons or checkboxes with User create a prof media sites, such as Faceb ook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Google, etc.; System user can enter as little or as much information as desired, similar to creating a Facebook user profile; System downloads a cookie so the system user is recognized on subsequent log ins; System will accept feedb ack from anyone, anywhere, anytime Requirement Rationale for System Feature: Provide a forum for building inhabitants (the User Role) to give feedback about activity breakdowns from the situated use of er. The system will prompt the user and facilitate the feedback submission in order to lessen the burden on the feedback provider. Connection with other social media sites can be used to verify

PAGE 350

B 51 the actor has the role claimed and to gather information about sociocultural environment. The system will archive this feedback so it can be viewed by actors in the Designer, Builder, Client, Manager, and Operator Roles and utilized for the reflection in action by proxy necessary to develop reflective des ign rationale. any attempts by other users to retaliate against the User providing the feedback. User feedback needs to be publicly available so it cannot be blocked by a ctors with a stake in blocking feedback and to provide motivation for Designers, Clients, Managers, and Operators to reflect on the activity breakdowns and act on feedback from Users.

PAGE 351

C 1 APPENDIX C Comfort and Energy Use Survey

PAGE 352

C 2 Residence Life Comfort and Energy Use Survey and Interview Question s Week One: when you receive the question, please answer the question about your room and not your current location. Most questions will be answered using a scale of 1 t o 5 with 1 being Very Dissatisfied and 5 being Very Satisfied: 1 Very Dissatisfied 2 Dissatisfied 3 Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied 4 Satisfied 5 Very Satisfied All questions are two part questions. For questions using a scale of 1 5, if you are Dissatisfied (1 or 2 score), please answer the second part of the question. 1. How satisfied are you with the temperature in your room today? 1 5 Very Dissatisfied to Very Satisfied 1a. If you are dissatisfied with the temperature, what is the reason? A. H ot B. Too warm C. Too cool D. Cold E. Temperature swings 2. How satisfied are you with the humidity in your room today? 1 5 Very Dissatisfied to Very Satisfied 2a. If you are dissatisfied with the humidity, what is the reason? A. Too dry B. Too humid 3. How efficient do you think the energy use is in your room today? A. Very efficient B. Efficient C. Neutral

PAGE 353

C 3 D. Inefficient E. Very inefficient 3a. If you chose D or E, please choose the most likely energy waster: A. Lighting B. Heating or Cooling C. Appliance(s) D. Computer(s) E. Other (Plea se Specify) 4. How satisfied are you with the lighting in your room today? 1 5 Very Dissatisfied to Very Satisfied 4a. If you are dissatisfied with the lighting, what is the reason? A. Too bright B. Too dim C. Not the right distribution for my work tasks D. Glary E. Ot her (please specify) 5. How satisfied are you with the air quality in your room today? 1 5 Very Dissatisfied to Very Satisfied 5a. If you are dissatisfied with the air quality, what is the reason? A. Stuffy B. Odors C. Breezy D. Other (please specify) 6. How satisf ied are you with the noise level in your room today? 1 5 Very Dissatisfied to Very Satisfied 6a. If you are dissatisfied with the noise level, what is the primary reason? A. People talking on the phone B. People overhearing my private conversations C. People talki ng in surrounding areas

PAGE 354

C 4 D. People talking in the corridors E. Telephones ringing F. Office equipment G. Noise generator (sound masking) H. Other (please specify) 7. Which of the following statements are true about your control of the energy use in your room? A. I do not have any control over the systems. B. I do have some control but not enough. C. I do have complete control. D. I get busy and forget to control the systems E. Other (please specify) 7a. If you answered B, C, or D, please specify what you have control over. Week Two: when you receive the question, please answer the question about your room and not your current location. Most questions will be answered using a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 b eing Very Dissatisfied and 5 being Very Satisfied: 1 Very Dissatisfied 2 Dissatisfied 3 Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied 4 Satisfied 5 Very Satisfied All questions are two part questions. For questions using a scale of 1 5, if you are Dissatis fied (1 or 2 score), please answer the second part of the question. After replying to the question, you will take a picture of your room and send that to cucomfort9400@mobypicture.com Please ensure ther e is no one in your picture just a picture of the room. 1. How efficient do you think the energy use is in your room today? A. Very efficient B. Efficient C. Neutral D. Inefficient E. Very inefficient

PAGE 355

C 5 1a. If you chose D or E, please choose the most like ly energy waster: A. Lighting B. Heating or Cooling C. Appliance(s) D. Computer(s) E. Other (Please Specify) Please take a picture of your room now, focusing in on the element you think uses the most energy if appropriate, and text the image to cucomfort.9 400@mobypicture.com. 2. How satisfied are you with the temperature in your room today? 1 5 Very Dissatisfied to Very Satisfied 2a. If you are dissatisfied with the temperature, what is the reason? A. Hot B. Too warm C. Too cool D. Cold E. Temperature swi ngs Please take a picture of your room now, focusing in on the element that affects the temperature if appropriate, and text the image to cucomfort.9400@mobypicture.com 3. How satisfied are you with the lighting in your room today? 1 5 Very Dissatisfied to Very Satisfied 3a. If you are dissatisfied with the lighting, what is the reason? A. Too bright B. Too dim C. Not the right distribution for my work tasks D. Glary E. Other (please specify) Please take a picture of your room now, focusing in on the element that affects the lighting if appropriate, and text the image to cucomfort.9400@mobypicture.com

PAGE 356

C 6 4. How satisfied are you with the humidity i n your room today? 1 5 Very Dissatisfied to Very Satisfied 4a. If you are dissatisfied with the humidity, what is the reason? A. Too dry B. Too humid Please take a picture of your room now, focusing in on the element that affects the humidity if appropri ate, and text the image to cucomfort.9400@mobypicture.com 5. Which of the following statements are true about your control of the energy use in your room? A. I do not have any control over the systems B. I do have some control but not enough. C. I do have complete control. D. I get busy and forget to control the systems E. Other (please specify) 5a. If you answered B, C, or D, please specify what you have control over. A. Thermostat B. Unplugging appliance s and computers C. Turning off lights D. Other (please specify) Please take a picture of your room now, focusing in on the element(s) that you have control over in terms of energy use if appropriate, and text the image to cucomfort.9400@mobypicture.com 6. How satisfied are you with the air quality in your room today? 1 5 Very Dissatisfied to Very Satisfied 6a. If you are dissatisfied with the air quality, what is the reason? A. Stuffy B. Odors C. Breezy D. Other (please specify)

PAGE 357

C 7 Please take a picture of your room now, focusing in on the element that affects the air quality if appropriate, and text the image to cucomfort.9400@mobypicture.com 7. How sati sfied are you with the noise level in your room today? 1 5 Very Dissatisfied to Very Satisfied 7a. If you are dissatisfied with the noise level, what is the primary reason? A. People talking on the phone B. overhearing my private conversations C. People t alking in surrounding areas D. People talking in the corridors E. Telephones ringing F. Office equipment G. Noise generator (sound masking) H. Other (please specify) Please take a picture of your room now, focusing in on the element that affects the noise level if appropriate, and text the image to cucomfort.9400@mobypicture.com Spring 2014 Comfort and Energy Use Study Residence Life Email Interview Questions Please reply to this email with your answers to the following interview questions. Once I receive your interview question answers, I will send your payment to your cell phone or email, depending on whether you chose Amazon or Paypal. Thanks for your inpu t! Interview Questions: Were there any survey questions asked that were confusing or difficult to answer? Were there any questions you would have expected to see in the survey that weren't asked? If so, what question(s) were those? How long have you been texting? How did you feel about completing the survey by text? Would you prefer another medium to complete the survey (for example, email, Web based, or a phone based application)? How did you feel about submitting photographs for the second week of the survey? Would you prefer to complete the survey without submitting photographs?

PAGE 358

C 8 Do you prefer multiple choice, close ended questions or open ended questions? Would you participate in a survey like this without compensation or incentives? Did your survey participation prompt you to consider your comfort levels more often than you would have without the survey prompts? Did your survey participation prompt you to consider your energy use more often than you would have without the survey prompts? Would you be interested in viewing reviews of buildings on a publicly available Web site? Would you be interested in contributing reviews of buildings on a publicly available Web site? Did you find participation in the survey to be a burden? Are you interested in getting more information about your personal energy use and how that relates to your comfort levels? Would you use information about comfort levels and energy use when making decisions abou t where to live or work? How do you currently get information about potential living or work environments? Is there anything you would like to add about what we've been discussing? Would you prefer to be paid with an Amazon gift card or a PayPal credit?

PAGE 359

C 9 R esidence Life Comfort and Energy Use Survey Responses 1.21E+10 Days Responded 12 Day 1 3 Day 2 5 A Day 3 B Day 4 3 B Day 5 3 A Day 6 B lights and outle ts Day 7 B C Day 8 C Day 9 2 A Day 10 A Day 11 4 C Day 12 5 1.21E+10 Days Responded 15 Day 1 3 Day 2 4 Day 3 A B Day 4 5 Day 5 2 A Day 6 2 E Every little noise is very easy to hear Music Talking Tv anything Day 7 B light and plug usage Day 8 B light and pl ug usage Day 9 B Day 10 3 Day 11 2 A Day 12 4 Day 13 B C Day 14 3 Day 15 2 Any noise at all 1.21E+10 Days Responded 14 Day 1 5 Day 2 5 Day 3 D E Day 4 5 Day 5 5 Day 6 2 C Day 7 D Heating Never use it Day 8 E D Day 9 5

PAGE 360

C 10 Day 10 5 Day 11 5 Day 12 E Day 13 5 Da y 14 D 1.3E+10 Days Responded 0 1.3E+10 Days Responded 15 Day 1 4 Day 2 5 Day 3 B Day 4 3 Day 5 5 Day 6 3 Day 7 B I only have control over the lights of course and the heat but even controllingthe heat is limited because it will only let you c Day 8 Contro l it if it drops below a certain temperature Day 9 B C Day 10 5 Day 11 2 C Day 12 5 Day 13 B A to a certain degree and C Day 14 3 some odors though Day 15 4 1.3E+10 Days Responded 9 Day 1 5 Day 2 5 Day 3 a Day 4 2 b Day 5 d temperature Day 6 5 Day 7 d Day 8 2 b Day 9 2 h music from next door 1.3E+10 Days Responded 14 5 5 D A 1 B 5 1 D

PAGE 361

C 11 B I have control over my own energy use but not over my roommat'senergy use A 5 I am very satisfied 5 very satisfied 1 A B C 2 D Dry 5 1.3E+10 Days Responded 4 Day 1 2 B Day 2 5 Day 3 C A D Day 4 C 1.3E+10 Days Responded 14 Day 1 2 B Day 2 4 Day 3 D B Day 4 3 Day 5 2 A Day 6 4 Day 7 A Day 8 C Day 9 2 E Day 10 4 Day 11 4 Day 12 B B C Day 13 A Day 14 4 1.3E+10 Days Responded 12 Day 1 ### Day 2 5 Day 3 B Day 4 C Day 5 4 Day 6 2 A B C D Day 7 B heater Day 8 B Day 9 2 C Day 10 Can you take a picture of the desks and then one of fridge an microwaveand send them to me for the survey thing Day 11 5

PAGE 362

C 12 Day 12 3 1.3E+10 Days Responded 15 Day 1 3 Day 2 4 Day 3 D B Day 4 3 Day 5 1 D so dusty D ay 6 1 C Day 7 B some control over the heat (but doesn't work still) and control over the fridge Day 8 C Day 9 C Day 10 3 Day 11 2 A Day 12 4 Day 13 B B C Day 14 D Extremely dusty Day 15 2 D 1.3E+10 Days Responded 14 Day 1 5 Day 2 3 Day 3 B Day 4 A Feels l ike I am in the hospital Day 5 A Day 6 4 Day 7 2 C Day 8 C i have control over the temperatuof the room Day 9 B Day 10 B Day 11 4 9 Day 12 9 Day 13 10 Day 14 10 1.31E+10 10 Day s Responded 15Day 1 10 4 C C 5 4 4 7 B B

PAGE 363

C 13 4 4 5 D Day 13 A B C Day 14 A Day 15 5 1.4E+10 Days Responded 14 Day 1 4 Day 2 4 Day 3 A Day 4 4 Day 5 5 Day 6 4 Day 7 E Day 8 A Day 9 3 Day 10 5 Day 11 5 Day 12 B A B C Day 13 5 Day 14 4 1.41E+10 Days Responded 15 Day 1 5 Day 2 5 Day 3 B Day 4 C Day 5 2 Day 6 5 Day 7 B The only way I can control the temperatuin the room is if it is too hot to open the windows but if I don't want the heater on or the Day 8 window open I have to only close it part ways or it will start blowing heat We don't use the energy savplugs because they are not useful Day 9 A Day 10 4 Day 11 2 A C Day 12 5 Day 13 B B D I can control the temp by closing the window more or less but not the thermosta it is very frustrati ng Day 14 5

PAGE 364

C 14 Day 15 2 B D H traffic from road out window 1.44E+10 Days Responded 16 Day 1 4 Day 2 5 Day 3 A Day 4 4 Day 5 4 Day 6 3 Day 7 C control over how much water I use from the sink control over how I use electricity (lighting and electronicsthat are plugged in) as Day 8 well as control over temperatusettings Day 9 C lighting sink temperature Day 10 B Day 11 4 Day 12 4 Day 13 5 Day 14 C B Day 15 5 Day 16 4 1.51E+10 Days Responded 13 Day 1 3 C Day 2 3 A Day 3 B Day 4 5 Day 5 5 Day 6 4 Day 7 B Lights fri dge power strips Day 8 B C Day 9 5 Day 10 5 Day 11 4 Day 12 B B C Day 13 5 1.51E+10 Days Responded 14 5 5 B efficient 5 4 C I have a good amount of control over things I want control over There's a perfect amount of power saving outlets and normal outlets

PAGE 365

C 15 A 5 5 5 C B 5 4 1.51E+10 Days Responded 14 Day 1 4 Day 2 2 A Day 3 C Day 4 4 Day 5 5 Day 6 1 C Day 7 B lig the(somewhat) Day 8 D B Day 9 2 B Day 10 4 Day 11 3 Day 12 B B C Day 13 5 Day 14 1 C 1.51E+10 Days Responded 13 Day 1 5 Day 2 4 Day 3 A Day 4 2A Day 5 5 Day 6 5 Day 7 A Day 8 4 Day 9 2 C Day 10 5 Day 11 C Day 12 5 Day 13 5 1.7E+10 Days Responded 8 Day 1 4 Day 2 4 Day 3 B Day 4 4

PAGE 366

C 16 Day 5 5 Day 6 3 Day 7 B Day 8 5 1.7E+10 Days Responded 14 Day 1 2 B Day 2 2 B Day 3 C Day 4 1 A andC Day 5 3 Day 6 1CD Day 7 B airtemin a range Day 8 C Day 9 3 Day 10 2D Day 11 3 Day 12 D ABC Day 13 5 Day 14 1CD 1.72E+10 Days Responded 14 Day 1 3 Day 2 3 Day 3 C C Day 4 2 B Day 5 2 A Day 6 3 Day 7 B pooutlets Day 8 C Day 9 2 A Day 10 2B Day 11 5 Day 12 B BandC Not in my rootodbu t usually 2 A 4 1.72E+10 Days Responded 15 Day 1 5 Day 2 Day 3 4 Day 4 C A Day 5 5 Day 6 3 Day 7 3

PAGE 367

C 17 Day 8 B I canconif I want the heat up or down but only sometimes Day 9 B Day 10 5 Day 11 5 Day 12 5 Day 13 D A Day 14 4 Day 15 3 1.72E+10 Days Responded 0 1. 72E+10 Days Responded 14 Day 1 5 Day 2 4 Day 3 C Day 4 4 Day 5 4 Day 6 3 Day 7 B elewater Day 8 B Day 9 4 Day 10 2 E preyelligh(I used my own lamps today) Day 11 4 Day 12 B A B C Day 13 3 Day 14 3 1.72E+10 Days Responded 13 Day 1 2 B Day 2 3 Day 3 D B Day 4 4 Day 5 2 A Day 6 3 Day 7 B lighting Day 8 B B Day 9 2 A Day 10 3 Day 11 4 Day 12 B A Day 13 4 1.72E+10 Days Responded 12 Day 1 5 Day 2 3 Day 3 B

PAGE 368

C 18 Day 4 4 Day 5 1 Day 6 2 D Day 7 B Lightz Day 8 2 A Day 9 4 Day 10 B C Day 11 5 Day 12 2 C 1.72E+10 Days Resp onded 0 1.72E+10 Days Responded 14 Day 1 3 Day 2 2 A Day 3 D B Day 4 2 B Day 5 4 Day 6 3 Day 7 A Day 8 D B Day 9 3 Day 10 2 B Day 11 3 A 3 4 1.72E+10 Days Responded 0 1.72E+10 Days Responded 14 Day 1 1 A Day 2 5 Day 3 B B Day 4 4 Day 5 2 A Day 6 2 D Day 7 A Day 8 C Day 9 2 B Day 10 5 Day 11 5 Day 12 A Day 13 4 Day 14 2 D 1.72E+10 Days Responded 14

PAGE 369

C 19 Day 1 5 Day 2 4 Day 3 C Day 4 5 Day 5 5 Day 6 3 Day 7 D I havconoveeverythingbut I forget occasionally Day 8 C Day 9 4 Day 10 5 Day 11 5 Day 12 D Day 13 5 Day 14 4 1.72E+10 Days Responded 8 Day 1 2 B Day 2 4 Day 3 B Day 4 2 boB andC Day 5 3 Day 6 4 Day 7 B Day 8 5 1.72E+10 Days Responded 14 Day 1 2 E) Day 2 5 Day 3 D C Day 4 3 Day 5 3 Day 6 3 Day 7 A Day 8 D B Day 9 2 B Day 10 5 Day 11 3 Day 12 B B Day 13 3 Day 14 3 1.72E+10 Days Responded 14 Day 1 4 Day 2 4 Day 3 A

PAGE 370

C 20 Day 4 2 B Day 5 2 A andB Day 6 2 C andD Day 7 B Day 8 B Day 9 3 Day 10 1 B Day 11 3 Day 12 B A andC Day 13 2 A andB Day 14 2 C andD 1.72E+10 Days Responded 14 4 4 3 A Day 4 3 Day 5 5 Day 6 4 Day 7 D Lig heafridwater Day 8 b Day 9 5 Day 10 5 Day 11 3 Day 12 d abcd Day 13 5 Day 14 5 1.72E+10 Days Responded 2 Day 1 4 Day 2 A 1.72E+10 Days Responded 8 Day 1 4 ) Day 2 5 A) Day 3 C B) Day 4 5 B) Day 5 1 A) Day 6 1 B) Day 7 3 B) Day 8 E B) 1.72E+10 Days Responde d 0 1.72E+10 Days Responded 14 Day 1 3 C Day 2 5 Day 3 B A Day 4 2 A Day 5 1 C Day 6 2 D

PAGE 371

C 21 Day 7 C ca savwaby closing it every time I don't use it and recycle things that are recyclable Day 8 A I Day 9 5 B Day 10 5 C Day 11 5 B Day 12 D Day 13 5 Day 14 C 4 1 .72E+10 Days Responded 17 Day 1 4 Day 2 Day 3 4 B Day 4 E Day 5 5 B Day 6 2 Day 7 4 Day 8 C I havconovethe heat in our room Day 9 C Day 10 B Day 11 B B Day 13 5 2 Day 14 5 Day 15 4 A Day 16 C B Day 17 2 4 1.72E+10 Days Responded 15 Day 1 A Day 2 2 Day 3 4 Day 4 B B Day 5 2 D smeof Maflow up to the room often as well as cigarettes Day 6 2 B C D H heater clanking Day 7 2 co oveTV comlights aquarium; not fridge heater or microwave Day 8 B B (thiaregoobut heating is out of control) Day 9 B imto emaddress Day 10 with Day 11 C Day 12 Day 13 5 B&C Day 14 B AB Day 15 2 4 1.72E+10 Days Responded 14 1 A

PAGE 372

C 22 Day 2 1 Day 3 3 heating Day 4 D Day 5 3 Day 6 3 Day 7 3 electrical Day 8 B B Day 9 D Day 10 3 Day 11 3 Day 12 3 B 1.72E+10 Days Responded 15 Day 1 I'mversatbu I think when it gets hotter when the seasons change it'll go to like a 1 or 2 When we moved in it was unbearably Day 2 5 it wassuca nuisance I hope there is somethingto fix and resolve the issue before it gets hotter when the time comes Day 3 and A Day 4 3 Day 5 B) Day 6 4 Day 7 5 Day 8 5 I havconovemy personal energy utilities Day 9 B) A) Day 10 B) Day 11 5 Day 12 5 Day 13 5 Day 14 A) Day 15 5 5 1.72E+10 Days Responded 15 Day 1 Day 2 3 Day 3 5 C Day 4 A Day 5 4 Day 6 5 Day 7 4 lig andou appliances Day 8 B lig and ou appliances Day 9 B Day 10 B

PAGE 373

C 23 Day 11 3 Day 12 5 Day 13 5 A B C Day 14 B Day 15 4 5 1.82E+10 Days Responded 12 Day 1 Day 2 4 Day 3 5 A Day 4 D Day 5 4 Day 6 5 Day 7 5 lig andthermostat Day 8 B Day 9 5 Day 10 5 Day 11 Day 12 5 5 1.82E+10 Days Responded 0 1. 86E+10 Days Responded 14 Day 1 Day 2 5 Day 3 5 Day 4 B Day 6 5 5 Day 7 5 Day 8 4 Day 9 A Day 10 B Day 11 5 Day 12 5 Day 13 5 B Day 14 B 5 1.91E+10 Days Responded 6 Day 1 a Day 2 2 c Day 3 d Day 5 1 D 2 B 6 C windows 1.97E+10 Days Responded 10

PAGE 374

C 24 Day 1 B Day 2 D Day 3 2 E it wagood Day 4 C A Day 5 5 D Day 6 2 Ligcomusage Day 7 2 A Day 8 B B Day 9 C Day 10 3 C 5 1.97E+10 2 Days Responded 0 1.97E+10 Days Responded 11 Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 4 Day 4 4 5 Day 5 5 B Day 6 Day 7 Day 8 Day 9 5 Day 10 E Day 11 B 5 1.97E+10 Days Responded 15 Day 1 5 Day 2 Day 3 D Day 4 3 Day 5 D Day 6 3 4 Day 7 5 B watuseandelectricity Day 8 ViswB Day 9 Viswaroopan Day 10 D Day 11 5 4 Day 12 4 Day 13 B Day 14 5 Day 15 B 5 1.97E+10 Days Responded 15 Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 5

PAGE 375

C 25 Day 4 4 Day 5 B Day 6 5 Day 7 3 I havconover some things like how much energy is being used by things that are continuousplugged into my power strips and Day 8 5 lig arelef on Day 9 B Day 10 the Day 11 B Day 12 3 Day 13 5 B & C Day 14 5 Day 15 D 4 5 1.97E+10 Days Responded 0 1 .97E+10 Days Responded 0 1.97E+10 Days Responded 13 Day 1 5 Day 2 A Day 3 Day 4 A Day 5 C Day 6 B Day 7 and Day 8 A Day 9 A Day 10 Day 11 5 12 C 2 A B C Day 13 1 C 1.76E+10 Days Responded 8 Day 1 Day 2 B Day 3 2 B E Day 4 3 E Day 5 3 Day 6 B helights Day 7 E B Day 8 2 E 1.97E+10

PAGE 376

C 26 Days Responded 0 1.97E+10 Days Responded 14 Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 4 Day 4 3 B Day 5 A A andB Day 6 2 ACDG Day 7 1 theandlights Day 8 2 Day 9 c Day 10 A B Day 11 3 Day 12 2 abc Day 13 4 ab Day 14 c 2 5 1.97E+10 Days Responded 8 Day 1 2 D Day 2 4 Day 3 D Day 4 3 Day 5 2 A B Day 6 4 Day 7 C Day 8 D 1.72E+10 Days Responded 14 Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 3 A Day 4 5 C Day 5 D B Day 6 2 Day 7 2 temandlighting Day 8 5 A Day 9 D Day 10 D B andC Day 11 5 Day 12 2 A Day 13 5 Day 14 D 5 5 1.72E+10 Days Res ponded 13 Day 1 A Day 2 Day 3 2 Day 4 5 Day 5 B

PAGE 377

C 27 Day 6 5 Day 7 5 heandlights Day 8 5 Day 9 C B Day 10 B Day 11 2 Day 12 4 Day 13 4 5 5