Advertisement

Optimizing the Design of a Workspace Using a Participatory Design Method

  • Marion Poupard
  • Céline Mateev
  • Fabrice Mantelet
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 824)

Abstract

Today, lots of companies work on the quality and the image of the workspace b as that has a real impact on the quality of their productions. Generally, this consideration involves the redevelopment of a space favourable for the well-being and the communication between users. However, this work on space is still too often treated as a fad and thus summarized to an imitation of the mythic groups communicating on their actions.

The objective of this project is to implement a reasoned approach of participatory design to involve users in the design of a space lead to the practice of innovation.

Keywords

Workspace Participatory design Semantic and emotional analysis Practice of innovation 

References

  1. 1.
    Mathe H (2015) L’espace de l’innovation. 20 Février 2015. http://www.constructif.fr/bibliotheque/2015-6/l-espace-de-l-innovation.html?item_id=3477&web=1. Accessed 2017
  2. 2.
    Braithwaite A (2011) Helsinki in the valley. Finnish mobile giant Nokia’s colorful outpost. Bloomberg Businessweek, 21 November 2011Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hanel M (2011) Garage Mahal. Clif Bar’s offices keep employees limber. Bloomberg Businessweek, 21 November 2011Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goh K (2012) Grab a bite and chill in the office. The Straits Times, 27 May 2012Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Guey L, Giang V (2013) 15 office spaces that push the boundaries of innovation. Business Insider, 16 July 2013Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hancock P, Spicer A (2011) Academic architecture and the constitution of the new model worker. Cult Org 17(2):91–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Seiler J (1984) Architecture at work. Harvard Bus Rev 111–120Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bernstein E (2014) The transparency trap. Harvard Bus Rev, October 2014Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chase D (2013) 100 cool offices and offsites fostering innovation. Forbes, 17 September 2013Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Congdon C, Flynn D, Redman M (2014) Balancing “we” and “me”. Harvard Bus Rev, October 2014Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coleman C, Graham M, Mulhern T, Ramos A (2012) How does space drive innovation? Framework for Innovation Spaces research ProjectGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Darses F, Reuzeau F (2004) Participation des utilisateurs à la conception des systèmes et dispositifs de travail. In: Ergonomie, Paris, PUF, pp 405–420Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Travis D (2013) The Fable of the user-centred-designer. http://www.userfocus.co.uk/pdf/fable.pdf. Accessed 27 Avril 2017
  14. 14.
    Darses F, Reuezau F (2004) La participation des utilisateurs à la conception des systèmes et dispositifs de travail. In: Ergonomie, Paris, pp 404–419Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kensing F, Blomberg J (1998) Participatory design: issues and concerns. Comput Support Coop Work 7:167–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Caelen J (2009) Conception participative par « moments »: une gestion collaborative. https://www.cairn.info/revue-le-travail-humain-2009-1-page-79.htm. Accessed 28 Apr 2017
  17. 17.
    Olsson E (2004) What active users and designers contribute in the design process. Interact Comput 16(2):377–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Samani S, Rasid S, Sofian S (2014) A workplace to support creativity. Ind Eng Manag Syst 13(4):414–420Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vithayathawornwong S, Danko S, Tolbert P (2003) The role of the physical environment in supporting organizational creativity. J Inter Des 29:1–16Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Davis V, Tim R (1984) The influence of the physical environment in offices. Acad Manag Rev 9(2):271–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Spicer A, Taylor S (2007) Time for space: a narrative review of research on organizational spaces. Int J Manag Rev 9(4):325–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lussault M (2007) L’homme spatial, la construction sociale de l’espace humain. Seuil, ParisGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Elsbach K (2004) Interpreting workplace identities: the role of office décor. J Org Behav 25(1):99–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Allen T, Fusfeld A (1974) Optimal height for a research laboratory. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Minchella D (2015) Le rôle de la spatialité dans la mise en place du New Model Worker: du projet Valmy aux tours de la Défense de la Société Générale. HAL, ParisGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lefebvre H (2000) La production de l’espace, 4e édition éd., Anthropos, ParisGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mantelet F (2006) Prise en compte de la perception émotionnelle du consommateur dans le processus de conception de produit. HAL, ParisGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cooper C (2015) Rapport human spaces: Impact du design biophilique dans les espaces de travailGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Darses F (2014) in La conception participative: vers une théorie de la conception centrée sur l’établissement d’une intelligibilité mutuelle, chez Le consommateur au cœur de l’innovation, Paris, CNRS Édition, pp 25–41Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cahour B (2013) Décalages socio-cognitifs en réunions de conception participative, Janvier 2013. https://www.cairn.info/revue-le-travail-humain-2002-4-page-315.htm. Accessed 28 Apr 2017
  31. 31.
    Preece J, Rogers Y, Sharp H (2002) Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marion Poupard
    • 1
  • Céline Mateev
    • 1
  • Fabrice Mantelet
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire de Conception de Produits et InnovationParisFrance

Personalised recommendations