The Office Scrabble Game: Co-designing Workspaces with the Everyday as a Resource in Design Games

Christina Lundsgaard, Eva Brandt

Publikation: Bidrag til bog/antologi/rapportBidrag til bog/antologiForskningpeer review

Resumé

Our research in co-design builds upon the Participatory Design tradition the origin of which is often referred to as the groundbreaking work that involved employees in systems design and automationin the 1970s and 1980s (see, e.g., Simonsen and Robertson, 2013; Schuler and Namioki,1993; Greenbaum and Kyng, 1991). However, within the field of architecture, employee involvement actually played a crucial role in the creation of workspaces in Sweden and other Nordic countries from the end of the 1960s (see, e.g., Törnquist and Ullmark, 1989). For instance, Steen and Ullmark advocated that “Architects’ participation need not [to] be confined to the building
itself […]. […] architects might be able to contribute to the planning process in general, that is, the planning of production systems and how work is organized” (Steen and Ullmark, 1989: 64).
In parallel, during the 1970s, US scholars including Cross and Müllert (see, e.g., Cross,
1971) strongly argued for new participatory approaches that could embrace the inclusion and participation of citizens at large in design and societal planning. Henry Sanoff has continually contributed to the field in relation to designing, for instance educational facilities, housing, and urban environments (see, e.g., Sanoff, 1979; Sanoff, 1990; Sanoff, 2000). Sanoff sees participation as a way to empower people by allowing them to express their needs, and share control over decisions and resources that affect their everyday practices. Furthermore, Sanoff (2011) argues that some of the important consequences of participation include improvements in the maintenance of the physical environment, accompanied by an enhanced sense of positive public
spirit and satisfaction, as well as significant financial savings. A basic premise is that the participants are acknowledged as legitimate co-designers and not merely as informants. However, participation can be challenging to organize. In the book chapter “Tools and techniques – ways to engage telling, making and enacting” Brandt et al. (2013) stress that one should never apply co-design tools and techniques without consideration of the purpose and context of a particular project. Rather, the consideration of purpose and context should be perceived as a source of inspiration.
OriginalsprogEngelsk
TitelThe Roputledge Companion to Games in Architecture and Urban Planning : Tools for Design, Teaching and Research
RedaktørerMarta Brkovic Dodig, Linda N. Groat
Antal sider13
ForlagRoutledge
Publikationsdato10 jan. 2020
Udgave1
Sider47-59
Kapitel4
ISBN (Trykt)978-1-138-33902-6
ISBN (Elektronisk)978-0-429-44132-5
StatusUdgivet - 10 jan. 2020

Kunstnerisk udviklingsvirksomhed (KUV)

  • Nej

Citer dette

Lundsgaard, C., & Brandt, E. (2020). The Office Scrabble Game: Co-designing Workspaces with the Everyday as a Resource in Design Games. I M. B. Dodig, & L. N. Groat (red.), The Roputledge Companion to Games in Architecture and Urban Planning: Tools for Design, Teaching and Research (1 udg., s. 47-59). Routledge.
Lundsgaard, Christina ; Brandt, Eva. / The Office Scrabble Game : Co-designing Workspaces with the Everyday as a Resource in Design Games. The Roputledge Companion to Games in Architecture and Urban Planning: Tools for Design, Teaching and Research. red. / Marta Brkovic Dodig ; Linda N. Groat. 1. udg. Routledge, 2020. s. 47-59
@inbook{7bb85703e09945828747effeb50608c3,
title = "The Office Scrabble Game: Co-designing Workspaces with the Everyday as a Resource in Design Games",
abstract = "Our research in co-design builds upon the Participatory Design tradition the origin of which is often referred to as the groundbreaking work that involved employees in systems design and automationin the 1970s and 1980s (see, e.g., Simonsen and Robertson, 2013; Schuler and Namioki,1993; Greenbaum and Kyng, 1991). However, within the field of architecture, employee involvement actually played a crucial role in the creation of workspaces in Sweden and other Nordic countries from the end of the 1960s (see, e.g., T{\"o}rnquist and Ullmark, 1989). For instance, Steen and Ullmark advocated that “Architects’ participation need not [to] be confined to the buildingitself […]. […] architects might be able to contribute to the planning process in general, that is, the planning of production systems and how work is organized” (Steen and Ullmark, 1989: 64).In parallel, during the 1970s, US scholars including Cross and Müllert (see, e.g., Cross,1971) strongly argued for new participatory approaches that could embrace the inclusion and participation of citizens at large in design and societal planning. Henry Sanoff has continually contributed to the field in relation to designing, for instance educational facilities, housing, and urban environments (see, e.g., Sanoff, 1979; Sanoff, 1990; Sanoff, 2000). Sanoff sees participation as a way to empower people by allowing them to express their needs, and share control over decisions and resources that affect their everyday practices. Furthermore, Sanoff (2011) argues that some of the important consequences of participation include improvements in the maintenance of the physical environment, accompanied by an enhanced sense of positive publicspirit and satisfaction, as well as significant financial savings. A basic premise is that the participants are acknowledged as legitimate co-designers and not merely as informants. However, participation can be challenging to organize. In the book chapter “Tools and techniques – ways to engage telling, making and enacting” Brandt et al. (2013) stress that one should never apply co-design tools and techniques without consideration of the purpose and context of a particular project. Rather, the consideration of purpose and context should be perceived as a source of inspiration.",
keywords = "design games, codesign, architecture, everyday life, co-creation",
author = "Christina Lundsgaard and Eva Brandt",
year = "2020",
month = "1",
day = "10",
language = "English",
isbn = "978-1-138-33902-6",
pages = "47--59",
editor = "Dodig, {Marta Brkovic} and Groat, {Linda N.}",
booktitle = "The Roputledge Companion to Games in Architecture and Urban Planning",
publisher = "Routledge",
edition = "1",

}

Lundsgaard, C & Brandt, E 2020, The Office Scrabble Game: Co-designing Workspaces with the Everyday as a Resource in Design Games. i MB Dodig & LN Groat (red), The Roputledge Companion to Games in Architecture and Urban Planning: Tools for Design, Teaching and Research. 1 udg, Routledge, s. 47-59.

The Office Scrabble Game : Co-designing Workspaces with the Everyday as a Resource in Design Games. / Lundsgaard, Christina; Brandt, Eva.

The Roputledge Companion to Games in Architecture and Urban Planning: Tools for Design, Teaching and Research. red. / Marta Brkovic Dodig; Linda N. Groat. 1. udg. Routledge, 2020. s. 47-59.

Publikation: Bidrag til bog/antologi/rapportBidrag til bog/antologiForskningpeer review

TY - CHAP

T1 - The Office Scrabble Game

T2 - Co-designing Workspaces with the Everyday as a Resource in Design Games

AU - Lundsgaard, Christina

AU - Brandt, Eva

PY - 2020/1/10

Y1 - 2020/1/10

N2 - Our research in co-design builds upon the Participatory Design tradition the origin of which is often referred to as the groundbreaking work that involved employees in systems design and automationin the 1970s and 1980s (see, e.g., Simonsen and Robertson, 2013; Schuler and Namioki,1993; Greenbaum and Kyng, 1991). However, within the field of architecture, employee involvement actually played a crucial role in the creation of workspaces in Sweden and other Nordic countries from the end of the 1960s (see, e.g., Törnquist and Ullmark, 1989). For instance, Steen and Ullmark advocated that “Architects’ participation need not [to] be confined to the buildingitself […]. […] architects might be able to contribute to the planning process in general, that is, the planning of production systems and how work is organized” (Steen and Ullmark, 1989: 64).In parallel, during the 1970s, US scholars including Cross and Müllert (see, e.g., Cross,1971) strongly argued for new participatory approaches that could embrace the inclusion and participation of citizens at large in design and societal planning. Henry Sanoff has continually contributed to the field in relation to designing, for instance educational facilities, housing, and urban environments (see, e.g., Sanoff, 1979; Sanoff, 1990; Sanoff, 2000). Sanoff sees participation as a way to empower people by allowing them to express their needs, and share control over decisions and resources that affect their everyday practices. Furthermore, Sanoff (2011) argues that some of the important consequences of participation include improvements in the maintenance of the physical environment, accompanied by an enhanced sense of positive publicspirit and satisfaction, as well as significant financial savings. A basic premise is that the participants are acknowledged as legitimate co-designers and not merely as informants. However, participation can be challenging to organize. In the book chapter “Tools and techniques – ways to engage telling, making and enacting” Brandt et al. (2013) stress that one should never apply co-design tools and techniques without consideration of the purpose and context of a particular project. Rather, the consideration of purpose and context should be perceived as a source of inspiration.

AB - Our research in co-design builds upon the Participatory Design tradition the origin of which is often referred to as the groundbreaking work that involved employees in systems design and automationin the 1970s and 1980s (see, e.g., Simonsen and Robertson, 2013; Schuler and Namioki,1993; Greenbaum and Kyng, 1991). However, within the field of architecture, employee involvement actually played a crucial role in the creation of workspaces in Sweden and other Nordic countries from the end of the 1960s (see, e.g., Törnquist and Ullmark, 1989). For instance, Steen and Ullmark advocated that “Architects’ participation need not [to] be confined to the buildingitself […]. […] architects might be able to contribute to the planning process in general, that is, the planning of production systems and how work is organized” (Steen and Ullmark, 1989: 64).In parallel, during the 1970s, US scholars including Cross and Müllert (see, e.g., Cross,1971) strongly argued for new participatory approaches that could embrace the inclusion and participation of citizens at large in design and societal planning. Henry Sanoff has continually contributed to the field in relation to designing, for instance educational facilities, housing, and urban environments (see, e.g., Sanoff, 1979; Sanoff, 1990; Sanoff, 2000). Sanoff sees participation as a way to empower people by allowing them to express their needs, and share control over decisions and resources that affect their everyday practices. Furthermore, Sanoff (2011) argues that some of the important consequences of participation include improvements in the maintenance of the physical environment, accompanied by an enhanced sense of positive publicspirit and satisfaction, as well as significant financial savings. A basic premise is that the participants are acknowledged as legitimate co-designers and not merely as informants. However, participation can be challenging to organize. In the book chapter “Tools and techniques – ways to engage telling, making and enacting” Brandt et al. (2013) stress that one should never apply co-design tools and techniques without consideration of the purpose and context of a particular project. Rather, the consideration of purpose and context should be perceived as a source of inspiration.

KW - design games

KW - codesign

KW - architecture

KW - everyday life

KW - co-creation

M3 - Book chapter

SN - 978-1-138-33902-6

SP - 47

EP - 59

BT - The Roputledge Companion to Games in Architecture and Urban Planning

A2 - Dodig, Marta Brkovic

A2 - Groat, Linda N.

PB - Routledge

ER -

Lundsgaard C, Brandt E. The Office Scrabble Game: Co-designing Workspaces with the Everyday as a Resource in Design Games. I Dodig MB, Groat LN, red., The Roputledge Companion to Games in Architecture and Urban Planning: Tools for Design, Teaching and Research. 1 udg. Routledge. 2020. s. 47-59