The emergence of new digital and visualisation technologies in recent

in ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
DIGITAL PARTICIPATION and COLLABORATION
years has led to rapid changes in the field of architecture. Current drives
to incorporate building information modelling as a part of architectural
design are giving way to the increased use of IT and visualisation in
architectural design, user participation and group collaboration.
As digital methods become more mainstream, Digital Participation and
Collaboration in Architectural Design provides an accessible and engaging
introduction to this emerging subject. Supported by selected examples
from research and practice, the book offers an overview of theories,
techniques and approaches which readers can apply in their own work.
In doing so, it shows how these techniques can influence communication,
debate and understanding and encourages readers to see familiar
buildings from original and unusual perspectives.
An ideal starting point for anyone interested in the application of digital
techniques, the book will help students and professionals in architectural
design and digital architecture to understand and embrace new
technologies.

Richard Laing (PhD MRICS) is Professor of Built Environment

Visualisation at Robert Gordon University, where his research has
concerned the use and effects of visualisation within architecture,
construction and public engagement. His work has included
numerous projects with colleagues from across Europe, as well as
the supervision of research students in fields such as collaborative
design, environmental economics and built heritage conservation.
He was born in Vancouver and grew up in Scotland. RICHARD LAING RICHARD LAING

DIGITAL PARTICIPATION
ARCHITECTURE
and COLLABORATION in
Cover image: Richard Laing ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN

ISBN 978-1-138-06266-5

www.routledge.com

9 781138 062665 Routledge titles are available as eBook editions in a range of digital formats
Digital Participation and Collaboration
in Architectural Design

The emergence of new digital and visualisation technologies in recent

years has led to rapid changes in the field of architecture. Current drives
to incorporate building information modelling as a part of architectural
design are giving way to the increased use of IT and visualisation in archi-
tectural design, user participation and group collaboration.
As digital methods become more mainstream, Digital Participation
and Collaboration in Architectural Design provides an accessible and
engaging introduction to this emerging subject. Supported by selected
examples from research and practice, the book offers an overview of
theories, techniques and approaches which readers can apply in their
own work. In doing so, it shows how these techniques can influence
communication, debate and understanding and encourages readers to
see familiar buildings from original and unusual perspectives.
An ideal starting point for anyone interested in the application of
digital techniques, the book will help students and professionals in archi-
tectural design and digital architecture to understand and embrace new
technologies.

Richard Laing (PhD MRICS) is Professor of Built Environment Visualisation

at Robert Gordon University, where his research has concerned the use
and effects of visualisation within architecture, construction and public
engagement. His work has included numerous projects with colleagues
from across Europe, as well as the supervision of research students in
fields such as collaborative design, environmental economics and built
heritage conservation. He was born in Vancouver and grew up in Scotland.
Digital Participation
and Collaboration in
Architectural Design

RICHARD LAING
First published 2019
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2019 Richard Laing
The right of Richard Laing to be identified as author of this work has been
asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced
or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means,
now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording,
or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this title has been requested

ISBN: 978-1-138-06264-1 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-138-06266-5 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-16148-8 (ebk)

Typeset in Univers
by Keystroke, Neville Lodge, Tettenhall, Wolverhampton
This book is dedicated to Audrey, Adam and Abigail.
Contents

Preface ix
Acknowledgements xiii

1 Introduction 1
Summary 9

2 Digital technologies in architectural design 11

Key developments in information visualisation 12
The march to Moscow 12
John Snow and the 1854 cholera epidemic 13
Harry Beck 14
Visualisation in architectural design 16
Early uses of digital drawing in architecture 21
Drawing interfaces – drawing, collaboration, communication 24
The design team 27
Resistance to the use of digital technologies and the
importance of drawing 29
Drawing as a design and communication tool 30
Development of ideas through simulation 35
Information visualisation within education 35
Usability 40
Understanding elementary perception-cognition tasks 41
Prior knowledge 42
Aesthetics 42
Summary 45

3 Digital visualisation in practice 47

Collaborative working – the digital studio 47
Collaborative working – online and distant communication 49
Ideas generation through collaboration 52
Summary 54

vii
Contents

4 Democratic visualisation 55
Methods 56
Democratic access to technology 61
Summary 70

5 Collaboration and participation 73

Democratic engagement in planning and design 80
Image manipulation 81
Viewing and rating images online 83
Greenspace – ‘real’ growth and connections with social
science 91
Image sorting 96
Heritage studies 98
Digital visualisation in architectural marketing (‘true grit’) 101
Summary 107

6 Future directions 109

Smart cities and architecture 111
Representation though collaborative devices 121
Gaming 122
Citizen engagement 126
Summary 127

7 Final remarks 129

References 133
Index 143

viii
Preface

Much of my own research in the past few years has explored the devel-
opment of ways to encourage discussion and debate about our cities
and town centres. This has touched on subjects such as how we travel,
urban tourism, public space and building conservation, and has often used
innovative ways to record or present ‘scenes’ or environments. One of
the central considerations within that work has been the notion that using
approaches from digital visualisation to present these environments and
scenarios could help people to discuss architecture, and to look at what
may be very familiar buildings, or unfamiliar topics, from an original or
unusual perspective.
A key challenge within the architectural disciplines1 in the coming
years will be to find ways to encourage everyone to embrace such tech-
nology, whilst ensuring that there is a clear intention behind its use to
communicate ideas. If we wish to use digital visualisation to encourage
debate, then this requires consideration of questions such as ‘what is the
purpose of a debate?’, ‘who should be involved?’ and ‘how can this best
take place?’ As a consequence of this, practical approaches taken when
trying to ‘sell’ an idea to stakeholders or society, or gain planning consent,
may also be entirely different. The book deals with these issues through
the use of language and examples which are accessible to a wide audi-
ence, with academically referenced discussion, and through a structured
and positively critical description of selected case studies.
As mentioned above, the emergence of new digital and visualisa-
tion technologies in recent years has propelled the architecture and
construction industries into a period of rapid change. This will mean that
extensive parts of the built environment may be represented to profes-
sional expert groups, and to the wider population, through a complex
range of techniques and formats, and issues such as accessibility and
usability of the technology and communication methods will become
incredibly important.

ix
Preface

It is intended that the book will serve to stimulate debate within the
industry, as well as satisfying a wider readership interested in the appli-
cation of visually arresting digital techniques. Within the industry itself,
one need look no further than the rapid uptake of building information
modelling (BIM), within which the digital representation of new and to
some extent existing architecture is central. Outside of the construction
industry, there is a widespread and active community exploring the use
of accessible visualisation technologies to allow them to digitally capture
and represent their own environments.
By exploring the motivations for using digital visualisation, as well as
the application of the methods themselves, the book serves to bridge
a gap between technological assessment of visualisation and architec-
ture and concerns regarding how best to communicate architecture both
to and between different groups.
Figure 0.1  My own personal motivation for writing this book stems from many
Public
years of applied research dealing with participation in architectural design
consultation
session using and involving the use of innovative visual and digital techniques. Those
laser scanning.
(Photo taken by
studies at their heart often had research questions arising from study of the
author.) built environment (e.g. planning, behaviour of citizens, urban connectivity),

x
 Preface

wherein visualisation was employed to facilitate the deeper participa-

tion of people in the studies. This experience persuaded me that the
techniques themselves often hold a deep fascination for end users but
that there is a corresponding requirement to understand how they can
influence communication, debate and understanding.
Furthermore, it has become apparent through the development of
digital technologies in the past two decades that being able to attach
information to models is important and valuable, and that a means to
then discuss such information among members of a design ‘team’ is
also important and valuable. Some of the case study examples provided
which used visualisation in ‘public participation’ work were limited by
the fact that it was difficult to develop models which had any kind of
association with important data. This meant, for example, that an object
in a ‘scene’ (such as a building or a monument) might well have ‘looked’
like the actual object in real life but making any underlying association
was difficult. The development of architectural and geographical software
has eased the making of this association over the years, in that files and
approaches are now more interoperable and comparable, but this then
opens a wider and more fundamental question about who might actu-
ally wish to access data, and for what purpose? In any case, if we spend
time and resources adding information to a model, who is to say in 10 or
20 years that anybody will actually be able to access and make sense of
the information? This practical, and behavioural, aspect of collaboration
is discussed in the book, especially in relation to current agendas which
seek to provide technical ways in which information can be shared to help
collaboration in design, in user engagement and through the life cycle
of a building. Technical opportunities exist to support collaboration and
engagement, but they require commitment and behavioural changes in
order to be successful in practice.
Finally, the book is also intended as a starting point, and to that end
contains numerous references to the work of others. Some of the earlier ref-
erences (Cullen 1961, Eastman 1974, Hornsby 1992) are interesting in that
they proposed theories or frameworks to guide future work, but often in the
absence of suitable technology which might shape those developments.
Although recent professional and academic work within architecture and
construction has expended considerable effort on attempting to similarly
frame the implementation of BIM (Succar 2009), many of the underlying
problems of the industry cannot be solved through technology alone:

• Why should (and could) we engage better with end users?

• Can the problem of inter-team collaboration be solved through the
provision of technology?

xi
Preface

The reader is encouraged to explore some of these wider texts, as they

suggest that the landscape within which we engage with participation
and collaboration is one which demands understanding and exploration
of both social and technical issues.

Note
1. I am intentionally inclusive in the use of this term, and I refer to disciplines
concerned with the design, construction, production and management of the
constructed environment, as opposed to being limited to any one particular
professional discipline.

xii
Acknowledgements

I would like to give special thanks to the many colleagues with whom I
have enjoyed and valued years of discussion, friendship and laughs.

xiii
Chapter 1

Introduction

The themes of participation and collaboration are related and share many
characteristics. This chapter introduces some of the key concepts, includ-
ing the notion that participation of end users in architectural design can
exist across a range of activities, but to ascend the ‘ladder of participation’
requires planning and support. The subject of collaboration, particularly
within design teams, is introduced.

The themes of collaboration and digitisation in architecture have been

prevalent and debated in the industry for decades. Until recently, though,
the themes have tended to develop and be enacted through separate
activities, studies and initiatives. Therefore, an attempt to trace the lines
of either academic or industry study of the themes might identify research
following quite discrete paths, for example:

• collaboration within construction teams

• collaboration within architectural design teams
• membership and operation of design teams
• participation of end users and other stakeholders
• the impact of digital technology on design
• the impact of digitisation on construction and technical processes.

One could argue that this lack of connection between the study of col-
laboration and that of digitisation has been at least in part due to there
being a lack of technological (digital) support for collaborative working. On
the other hand, an important and pressing observation is that software
developers will typically concentrate on the provision of software which
is demanded by an industry, thus suggesting that a need for software to
support collaboration and participation will be likely to emerge from such
practice in a non-digital setting.

1
Introduction

Throughout the book, a conscious attempt has been made to illus-

trate some key examples of connections which can usefully be drawn
between digitisation, wide participation (in terms of participants) and
collaboration within design. The book recognises, of course, that the par-
ticipation of end users requires quite different consideration to that of
collaboration among members of the design team.
The notion of participation first requires us to think deeply about who
we mean by the end user, in that this could refer to people who will
eventually live in, nearby or simply experience architecture through their
daily lives. Particularly when we consider prominent examples of archi-
tecture, the notion of the end user becomes even wider, and people may
find value in or have strong opinions about that architecture, and feel that
somehow affects their lives, even if they do not use the architecture in
any of the above respects.
With regard to collaboration, the topic was the central theme of key
reports in the 1990s (Latham 1994, Egan 1998), which highlighted a lack
of collaboration and cross-discipline working across the industry, leading
to a lack of efficiency and productivity. This has in time seen govern-
ment and professional body interventions attempting to address this
point, often against a backdrop of shifting influences across the design
team. The industry has been defined historically by the production of
unique products (‘every building is different’), often with a new ‘team’
for each project. Therefore, an analogy with other forms of production
(e.g. factory-based car manufacturing) can be misleading in terms of prod-
uct but relevant in terms of the significant change of mindset required
when migrating to a model of industrialised production (Kristensen
2011).
Against a similar time period, we have seen the emergence of digital
technologies within the architectural and built environment disciplines.
Initially, these tended to focus on the replacement of traditional analogue
processes with digital alternatives, most obviously through the substitu-
tion of drawing boards with on-screen drawing and electronic tablets to
support sketching. Whilst we can discuss the ways in which this process
could still be regarded as ‘manual’, through the use of haptic sketch pads,
or simply through the use of a keyboard and mouse in lieu of a pencil or
pen, early approaches to digitisation were visual and produced models
which did not in themselves contain information beyond visual repre-
sentation. It is also worth noting at this stage, and we will return to this
point, that the interface and methods through which the design team
produce drawn material in a digital setting are significantly different from
those for generating ideas and producing materials through the use of
pen and paper.

2
 Introduction

Figure 1.1 
Decision
making through
sketching.
(Image
produced by
Dr Marianthi
Leon.)

Collaboration was possible through sharing of drawings produced

by such early digital drawing systems (via email, of images lacking data),
but technology had not, in the 1990s, reached a point where it was yet
possible, or at the very least easy, to share the models themselves, or to
have teams collaborate on their production. Although discussion of the
practicalities of building information modelling (BIM) can be traced back
at least to the 1980s, the digital modelling software used most widely
in the industry prior to the early 2000s tended to be based on the geo-
metrical shapes used to represent a building, rather than the relationships
between objects, materials, cost and so on. That is, the model might
‘look’ like it contains a floor, but users of the model would be unable to
use data contained within it to determine if the floor was too large, small,
unsupported, or whether it also appeared in drawings and models being
used by the architect, engineer, surveyor and technologist. In 1988, with
the publication in the UK of a new Standard Method of Measurement
(SMM7), came an early attempt to coordinate the production and coding
of project information (Coordinated Project Information). Although this
was difficult to mandate across all disciplines, and harder still to benefit
from in practical sharing of digital data, the seeds of what eventually
became a standard approach to coding the components of a building
project (Uniclass) had been sown.1
At that point, however, various strands of digital innovation had yet to
combine in ways which assisted with meaningful collaboration. Drawings
(often two-dimensional) produced by the architectural team were not

3
Introduction

easily compatible with the parametric approached taken by structural

engineers, and the production of surveyed measured quantities was still
a largely manual and separate process. Furthermore, the oft-cited ‘design
team’ had no mechanism (not a digitally assisted one, anyway) to col-
laborate, and certainly nothing which placed the models themselves at
the centre of collaboration (in much the same way that participants might
discuss printed drawings, sketches or site photographs).
The ways in which this situation continued to evolve form one of
the core themes of this book, including discussion and elaboration on
how the nature of digital participation and collaboration is now closely
linked to sharing of data. Whether this extends to encompassing a wider
understanding of ‘collaboration’ is debatable, and worth exploring. It is
also important to think about the ways in which we can understand the
characteristics of participation and collaboration themselves, and who
the parties involved might be.
In order to do this, it is important for us to first understand how the
notions of participation in design (or any process involving a wide constit-
uency) can be conceptualised. In her seminal 1969 paper, Arnstein (1969)
proposed a ‘ladder of citizen participation’, with the ‘rungs’ as follows:

1. citizen control
2. delegated power
3. partnership
4. placation
5. consultation
6. informing
7. therapy
8. manipulation.

We can immediately recognise that the bottom few rungs (up to ‘inform-
ing’) are prominent and established within architecture, and the desire to
inform members of the public about the visual impact of new develop-
ments would take place almost routinely. However, this might typically
occur without a mechanism to transparently (or otherwise) gather infor-
mation about opinion, or to invite further suggestion. As we move up the
ladder, and arrive at ‘consultation’ and ‘placation’, we start to think about
asking end users or wider constituencies what they might think about
a particular planned activity. Where this does not take place in a man-
ner which is combined with deeper forms of participation, however, the
activity would offer ‘no assurance that citizen concerns will be taken into
account’ (Arnstein 1969). Methods of consultation might include attitude
surveys and wide-invitation public meetings.

4
 Introduction

Arnstein’s example of ‘placation’ comes with the wry suggestion ‘to

place a few hand picked “worthy” poor on boards of Community Action
Agencies or on public bodies’, and brings the valid observation that, with-
out real power or an ability to seriously influence voting patterns and
outcomes, the actual influence of such participants is seriously limited. At
the top of the ladder, we begin to think about genuine transfer of power
to constituents, and an ability for outcomes to be influenced through a
structured and meaningful participation process. Through the course of
the book, we will consider practical ways in which the use of digital tools
has been useful to support such activity. We will also consider, though,
the dangers which can come with a blurring of responsibilities and skills,
in that we should be careful to avoid asking those engaging in a participa-
tion exercise to take on design tasks in which they are inexperienced. The
development of a much deeper design brief, and the facilitation of ways in
which participants can engage with design throughout a process, though,
intuitively bring benefits to the process as a whole.
Likewise, the subject of collaboration and collaborative practice is one
which has become a key theme for debate within the industry in recent
years, but perhaps for reasons which were not anticipated by many dur-
ing the 1990s. At that time, a number of reports (Latham 1994, Egan
1998) identified (a lack of) collaboration within professional design and
construction teams as being a serious impediment to realising develop-
ment, efficiencies and industrialisation in the industry. Indeed, one could
have argued that the dominance of procurement methods which excluded
the partner with most knowledge of construction from the design pro-
cess (i.e. the builder) made little sense, beyond attempting to secure a
cheap price. Although a drive on the back of these reports suggested that
collaborative practice could be facilitated through education (e.g. cross-
discipline educational practice) and changed procurement practice, the
advent and widespread adoption of building information modelling has
seen a return to the debate regarding collaboration, but often through
the lens of using technology as a way to facilitate information sharing.
Whether this actually represents collaboration in itself is debatable, and
is discussed later. Certainly, although some of the early demonstra-
tion case studies undertaken in the UK took place in a context of ‘no
blame’ between parties, the ability of BIM software to track and identify
who made certain changes to a model, and why, appears to support
the opposite view. We return to this subject in Chapter 2 (in particular),
where we explore the development of digital tools within design, and
consider how the use of object-based and information-rich models can
contribute to the deeper and more meaningful adoption of collaborative
practice.

5
Introduction

Figure 1.2  The second key strand in the book concerns the ways in which the
Design team
collaboration.
use of digitisation in architecture can in itself be regarded as a major
(Image step towards a democratisation of planning and design. This includes
produced by
Dr Marianthi discussion of the ways in which online forums have become platforms
Leon.) for discussion and debate, with examples which have been instigated by
local ‘formal’ decision makers, designers, building users and interested
parties. A fascinating aspect of such online engagement with architec-
tural design has been the often unexpected line of discussion which can
emerge through unmoderated debate (through blogging, online forums
and social media). One example has been the worldwide prominence of
sites dealing with the subject of ‘abandoned architecture’. One can see
within the discussions themselves, at once, a genuine interest in the
sites being explored, but also a wider realisation of the apparent meaning
and implications in terms of a sustainable use of resources, a connection
between people and buildings, and an engagement with the constructed
environment in ways which go well beyond established academic forums
and criteria for membership. We can observe citizens participating in
debate and discussion of architecture due to personal, social and cultural
connections, as opposed to them holding any particular professional or
formally ‘educated’ connection to the subject matter.
In a number of later sections of the book, this notion of democratisa-
tion becomes very important. In some of the examples of projects and
previous research which are presented, it would certainly be possible
to use the visualisations and digital models in much the same way that
they are often and typically used within architectural marketing. In such
a situation, of course, anybody viewing the images who was not part
of either the design team or some wider decision-making team would
be unable to exert influence or make contributions which could lead to
significant impact on the design itself. Although it may seem obvious

6
 Introduction

to say so, this book will argue that the visualisation and digitisation pro-
cesses which are being discussed and described carry genuine and quite
powerful potential to act as innovative and creative tools of communica-
tion, and that communication can go in all directions. Indeed, until quite
recently, it was probably the case that most visualisation and 3D model-
ling work undertaken within architecture and planning was instigated and
completed by a formal design team. In the coming years, it is very likely
that we will see the development and rolling out of methods of modelling
and visualisation which can in fact be undertaken by the ‘non-expert’, and
the results almost seamlessly incorporated within a formal planning
and design process. In later chapters, which deal with democratisation
and likely future directions of digitisation in architecture, we deal with
some of these factors in greater depth, particularly regarding access to
technology and the implications of smart cities.
Finally, one important development in recent years has been the
emergence of methods through which actual and widespread participa-
tion in digital architecture has become more accessible, less financially
expensive, less dependent on taught expertise and arguably more

Figure 1.3 
Output from photography-based modelling
(photogrammetry). (Image created by
author.)

7
Introduction

democratic. This has in some cases taken the form of free online view-
ing of models prepared by others, methods through which 3D models
can be produced from photographs, and less and less expensive routes
through which hardware such as laser scanners can be accessed or at
least simulated through cheap(er) products and methods. In some ways
this represents a challenge for both the industry and wider stakeholders
which is rooted in both technical and social foundations.
From a technical perspective, this again connects with the earlier
introduced theme of democratisation in digital architecture, in that the
cost of technology is likely to continue to decrease, and accessibility to
advanced digital technology is likely to widen and become pervasive in
the coming years. From a social perspective, during the 1990s when
a number of influential industry and government-led policy documents2
were published arguing for greater attention to be given to collabora-
tion within the industry, the extent to which our lives were to become
dominated by an information rich digital environment (the Internet, digital
communication, collaboration in the cloud, and so on) was not foreseen
by many. Therefore, it is useful to reassess how this wider accessibility
and engagement in digital architecture will impact on the way that we
work. Some of the examples of applied research which we will consider
in later chapters illustrate very well how democratic access to technology
can have a significant impact on both the design of the research itself
and also the ways in which participants in a study or a design process are
actually able to interact and participate.
In many of my own early research studies, for example, although the
intention might well have been to somehow ascend the ladder of citizen
participation (Arnstein 1969), the reality was that the use of any particular
technology (digital modelling, accessing research studies via the Internet,
capturing information about existing environments using digital tools)
brought with it both opportunities for the particular study and a require-
ment to consider some unique limitations which might emerge as a direct
result of its use. These considerations now extend to the operation of the
design team within practice, where experience and expertise in certain
technologies will vary considerably, with this variation certainly not being
unique to any particular disciplines, and likely to fluctuate even within dis-
ciplines themselves. It is probable this will have a lasting impact on how
the industry engages with end users, and on the design process itself.
By way of providing some closing remarks to this chapter, I should
also say some more about the growth of building information modelling
(BIM) within policy, education and practice. It can be argued that the archi-
tecture and construction industry is among the last to undergo a digital
transformation in terms of methods, education and working practice.

8
 Introduction

There is of course a historical legacy which can and should be

respected (as is the case with most industries and trades), and finding
ways to incorporate the benefits of digitisation in the industry whilst con-
tinuing to derive greatest value from traditional practice and methods
remains a key challenge. One underlying theme which recurs during the
course of the book is that of a need to use technology and digitisation
when it appears to offer capacity and capability in addition to, and in paral-
lel with, other non-digital techniques. We could also consider this in terms
of embedding and integrating digital visualisation as part of the design
toolkit. I have been struck in recent years by the extent to which discus-
sions about BIM are often prefaced by what appear to be reassurances to
an audience that what is being considered is not in fact about computers,
or digitisation, or visualisation at all. This, I would argue, is helpful but to
some extent runs the risk of underplaying the centrality of this actually
being a process through which working practice, outcomes, the design
process and (potentially) the buildings themselves will be supported by
and potentially influenced by the use of digital tools.
Some of the examples which I touch upon in this book demonstrate
quite clearly that the use of digitisation carries genuine potential to
enhance, support and even drive the design process. Other examples
which we discuss later in the book (particularly in Chapter 5) deal with
wider participation in the design of landscapes and streetscapes. These
similarly seek to demonstrate that the processes whereby models can be
applied and tested within both research and practice environments ben-
efit from outcomes that are not thematically tied to the digital techniques
(e.g. aesthetics, preference studies), but which nevertheless could not
have been undertaken in the absence of those tools. Therefore, it is
arguably important that we never lose sight of the ultimate goals of any
particular project or intervention using new techniques. Where the inten-
tion is to enhance collaboration and involvement of a wider design team,
any technology which is brought to bear to help support that process
must be appropriate and tested in terms of how it assists that process
and that intended outcome, as opposed to being an outcome in itself.
Where any policy document advocates the use of digitisation to support
collaboration or participation, we must either presume or critically assess
the extent to which digitisation will actually support and even enhance
the former.

Summary
These are themes to which we return throughout the course of this book,
and which can be illustrated and evidenced through the use of selected

9
Introduction

case studies and examples of digitisation, taken from both industry and
from applied research. In each case, an effort has been made to indicate
what the overarching aim of the study project was at the outset, and to
set the use of digitisation within that context.
The theme of collaboration within design teams has grown in promi-
nence, due perhaps to a wider awareness of the benefits which might
accrue in terms of efficiencies, design certainty and project outcomes.
The subject of user participation in design has been prominent within
both research and practice since the 1960s, and we touch upon examples
from that research in later chapters.

Notes
1. Further information about Uniclass and Coordinated Project Information (CPI)
can be accessed via www.cpic.org.uk (accessed 18 April 2018).
2. Referring again to Latham and Egan.

10
References
Al-kheder, S. , Al-shawabkeh, Y. & Haala, N. 2009, Developing a documentation system for
desert palaces in Jordan using 3D laser scanning and digital photogrammetry, Journal of
Archaeological Science, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 537546.
Andrew, C. , Young, M. & Tonge, K. 1994, Stone cleaning: a guide for practitioners, Historic
Scotland, Edinburgh.
Aouad, G. , Lee, A. & Wu, S. 2005, From 3D to nD modelling, ITcon, vol. 10, pp. 1516.
Appleyard, D. , 1976, Understanding professional media issues, theory, and a research
agenda, in Human behaviour and environment: advances in theory and research, eds. I. Altman
& J. Wohlwill , Plenum Press, New York, pp. 4388.
Arniani, M. , Badii, A. , De Liddo, A. , Georgi, S. , Passani, A. , Piccolo, L.S.G. & Teli, M. 2014,
Collective awareness platforms for sustainability and social innovation: an introduction, Creative
Commons, http://booksprints-for-ict-research.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/BS5-CAPS-FIN-
003.pdf, accessed 24 April 2018 .
Arnstein, S.R. 1969, A ladder of citizen participation, Journal of the American Institute of
Planners, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 216224.
Aspinall, P.A. , Thompson, C.W. , Alves, S. , Sugiyama, T. , Brice, R. & Vickers, A. 2010,
Preference and relative importance for environmental attributes of neighbourhood open space
in older people, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 37, no. 6, pp.
10221039.
Balletti, C. , Ballarin, M. & Guerra, F. 2017, 3D printing: state of the art and future perspectives,
Journal of Cultural Heritage, vol. 26, pp. 172182.
Bar-Eli, S. 2013, Sketching profiles: awareness to individual differences in sketching as a
means of enhancing design solution development, Design Studies, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 472493.
134 Belardi, P. 2014, Why architects still draw, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA.
Bilda, Z. & Demirkan, H. 2003, An insight on designers sketching activities in traditional versus
digital media, Design Studies, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 2750.
Bilda, Z. , Gero, J.S. & Purcell, T. 2006, To sketch or not to sketch? That is the question, Design
Studies, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 587613.
Bishop, I.D. , Wherrett, J.R. & Miller, D.R. 2001, Assessment of path choices on a country walk
using a virtual environment, Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 225237.
Brner, K. , 2002, Twin worlds: augmenting, evaluating, and studying three-dimensional digital
cities and their evolving communities, in Digital cities II: computational and sociological
approaches, eds. M. Tanabe , P. van den Besselaar and T. Ishida , Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp.
256269.
Broadbent, G. 1988, Design in architecture: architecture and the human senses, revised reprint
edn, David Fulton Publishers, London.
BSI Standards Publication 2014, PAS 180:2014 Smart cities vocabulary, British Standards
Institution, London.
BSI Standards Publication 2014, PAS 181:2014 Smart city framework: guide customer service
to establishing strategies for smart cities and communities, British Standards Institution,
London.
BSI Standards Publication 2017, PAS 183:2017 Smart cities: guide to establishing a decision-
making framework for sharing data and information services, British Standards Institution,
London.
Bustillo, A. , Alaguero, M. , Miguel, I. , Saiz, J.M. & Iglesias, L.S. 2015, A flexible platform for the
creation of 3D semi-immersive environments to teach Cultural Heritage, Digital Applications in
Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 248259.
Carver, S. 2003, The future of participatory approaches using geographic information:
developing a research agenda for the 21st century, Journal of the Urban and Regional
Information Systems Association, vol. 15, no. APA I, pp. 6171.
Chen, C. 2005, Top 10 unsolved information visualization problems, IEEE Computer Graphics
and Applications, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 1216.
Conniff, A. , Craig, T. , Laing, R. & Galn-Daz, C. 2010, A comparison of active navigation and
passive observation of desktop models of future built environments, Design Studies, vol. 31, no.
5, pp. 419438.
Coyne, R. , Park, H. & Wiszniewski, D. 2002, Design devices: digital drawing and the pursuit of
difference, Design Studies, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 263286.
Cullen, G. 1961, The Concise Townscape, Architectural Press, New York.
135 Davies, A. 2004, Using images to present stated preference information: an application to
the built environment, PhD thesis, Robert Gordon University.
Davies Cooper, R.F. & Cooper, C.L. 1984, Effect of new technology on the work and methods
of the typographic designer, Design Studies, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 2129.
Demirkan, H. 2005, Generating design activities through sketches in multi-agent systems,
Automation in Construction, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 699706.
Dossick, C.S. & Neff, G. 2011, Messy talk and clean technology: communication, problem-
solving and collaboration using building information modelling, Engineering Project Organization
Journal, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 8393.
Eadie, R. , Browne, M. , Odeyinka, H. , McKeown, C. & McNiff, S. 2013, BIM implementation
throughout the UK construction project lifecycle: an analysis, Automation in Construction, vol.
36, pp. 145151.
Eastman, C.M. 1974, Through the looking glass: why no wonderland? Computer applications to
architecture in the USA, Computer Aided Design, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 119124.
Egan, J. 1998, Rethinking construction: the report of the construction task force, Department of
Trade and Industry, London.
Eris, O. , Martelaro, N. & Badke-Schaub, P. 2014, A comparative analysis of multimodal
communication during design sketching in co-located and distributed environments, Design
Studies, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 559592.
Fonseca, D. , Valls, F. , Redondo, E. & Villagrasa, S. 2016, Informal interactions in 3D
education: citizenship participation and assessment of virtual urban proposals, Computers in
Human Behavior, vol. 55, Part A, pp. 504518.
Froese, T. , 2013, Trends in information and communication technologies for construction: past,
present and future, Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 17th International Conference on Computer
Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD) IV, eds. Weiming Shen , Weidong Li , Jean-
Paul Barthes , Junzhou Luo , Haibin Zhu , Jianming Yong & Xiaoping Li , Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, p. 2.
Hakonen, A. , Kuusela, J. & Okkonen, J. 2015, Assessing the application of laser scanning and
3D inspection in the study of prehistoric cairn sites: the case study of Tahkokangas, northern
Finland, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, vol. 2, pp. 227234.
Harrington, B. & OConnell, M. 2016, Video games as virtual teachers: prosocial video game use
by children and adolescents from different socioeconomic groups is associated with increased
empathy and pro-social behaviour, Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 63, pp. 650658.
136 Heft, H. & Nasar, J. 2000, Evaluating environmental scenes using dynamic versus static
displays, Environment and Behaviour, vol. 32, pp. 301322.
Held, R.T. , Cooper, E.A. , OBrien, J.F. & Banks, M.S. 2010, Using blur to affect perceived
distance and size, ACM Transactions on Graphics, vol. 29, no. 2, p. 19.
Hornsby, S. 1992, Patterns of Scottish emigration to Canada, 17501870, Journal of Historical
Geography, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 397416.
Hunter, A.J.S. , Steiniger, S. , Sandalack, B.A. , Liang, S.H.L. , Kattan, L. , Shalaby, A.S. ,
Alaniz Uribe, F. , Bliss-Taylor, C.A.M. & Martinson, R. 2012, PlanYourPlace.ca a geospatial
infrastructure for sustainable community planning, Revue Internationale de Gomatique, vol. 22,
no. 2, pp. 223253.
Hyde, R. 1989, Design procedures in architectural design: applications in CAAD, Design
Studies, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 239245.
Ibrahim, R. & Pour Rahimian, F. 2010, Comparison of CAD and manual sketching tools for
teaching architectural design, Automation in Construction, vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 978987.
Isikdag, U. & Underwood, J. 2010, Two design patterns for facilitating building information
model-based synchronous collaboration, Automation in Construction, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 544553.
Israel, J.H. , Wiese, E. , Mateescu, M. , Zllner, C. & Stark, R. 2009, Investigating three-
dimensional sketching for early conceptual design: results from expert discussions and user
studies, Computers & Graphics, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 462473.
Johnson, D. , Gardner, J. & Sweetser, P. 2016, Motivations for videogame play: predictors of
time spent playing, Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 63, pp. 805812.
Jonson, B. 2005, Design ideation: the conceptual sketch in the digital age, Design Studies, vol.
26, no. 6, pp. 613624.
Jung, Y. & Joo, M. 2011, Building information modelling (BIM) framework for practical
implementation, Automation in Construction, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 126133.
Kim, J.I. , Kim, J. , Fischer, M. & Orr, R. 2015, BIM-based decision-support method for master
planning of sustainable large-scale developments, Automation in Construction, vol. 58, pp.
95108.
Kokotovich, V. & Dorst, K. 2016, The art of stepping back: studying levels of abstraction in a
diverse design team, Design Studies, vol. 46, pp. 7994.
137 Kourtit, K. , Nijkamp, P. & Stough, R. 2017, Foreword: digital support tools for smart cities,
Socio-economic Planning Sciences, vol. 58, pp. 12.
Koutamanis, A. 1993, The future of visual design representations in architecture, Automation in
Construction, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 4756.
Kristensen, E.K. 2011, Systemic barriers to a transformation of the building industry from a
buyer controlled to a seller driven industry, PhD thesis, Robert Gordon University.
Laing, R. , Conniff, A. , Craig, T. , Scott, S. & Galan Diaz, C. 2007, Design and use of a virtual
heritage model to enable a comparison of active navigation of buildings and spaces with
passive observation, Automation in Construction, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 830841.
Laing, R. , Davies, A. , Miller, D. , Conniff, A. , Scott, S. & Morrice, J. 2008, The application of
visual environmental economics in the study of public preference and urban greenspace,
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 355375.
Laing, R. , Miller, D. , Davies, A. & Scott, S. 2006, Urban greenspace: the incorporation of
environmental values in a decision support system, IT in Construction, vol. 11, pp. 177196.
Lambers, K. , Eisenbeiss, H. , Sauerbier, M. , Kupferschmidt, D. , Gaisecker, T. , Sotoodeh, S.
& Hanusch, T. 2007, Combining photogrammetry and laser scanning for the recording and
modelling of the Late Intermediate Period site of Pinchango Alto, Palpa, Peru, Journal of
Archaeological Science, vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 17021712.
Lasseter, J. 1987, Principles of traditional animation applied to 3D computer animation, in
SIGGRAPH 87 proceedings of the 14th annual conference on computer graphics and
interactive techniques, ACM, New York, pp. 3544.
Latham, M. 1994, Constructing the team: the final report of the government/industry review of
procurement and contractual arrangements in the UK construction industry, HMSO, London,
UK.
Lawrence, R.J. 1982, Trends in architectural design methods: the liability of public participation,
Design Studies, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 97103.
Lawrence, R.J. 1983, Laypeople as architectural designers, Leonardo, vol. 16, no. 3, pp.
232236.
Lawrence, R.J. 1993, Architectural design tools: simulation, communication and negotiation,
Design Studies, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 299313.
Leon, M. , Laing, R. , Malins, J. & Salman, H. 2014, Development and testing of a design
protocol for computer mediated multidisciplinary collaboration during the concept stages with
application to the built environment, Procedia Environmental Sciences, vol. 22, pp. 108119.
138 Leslie, C. 2017, Disappearing Glasgow: a photographic journey, Freight Books, Glasgow.
Lim, S. , Qin, S. , Prieto, P. , Wright, D. & Shackleton, J. 2004, A study of sketching behaviour
to support free-form surface modelling from on-line sketching, Design Studies, vol. 25, no. 4, pp.
393413.
Liu, Y. , van Nederveen, S. & Hertogh, M. 2017, Understanding effects of BIM on collaborative
design and construction: an empirical study in China, International Journal of Project
Management, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 686698.
Lu, T. , Tai, C. , Su, F. & Cai, S. 2005, A new recognition model for electronic architectural
drawings, Computer-Aided Design, vol. 37, no. 10, pp. 10531069.
Magritte, R. 1928, The Treachery of Images [painting].
Mambretti, I.M. 2007, Urban parks between safety and aesthetics: exploring urban green space
using visualisation and conjoint analysis methods, PhD thesis, ETHz (Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology in Zurich).
Mark, E. , Martens, B. & Oxman, R. 2003, Preliminary stages of CAAD education, Automation in
Construction, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 661670.
Merschbrock, C. 2012, Unorchestrated symphony: the case of inter-organizational collaboration
in digital construction design, ITcon, vol. 17, pp. 333350.
Merschbrock, C. & Munkvold, B.E. 2015, Effective digital collaboration in the construction
industry: a case study of BIM deployment in a hospital construction project, Computers in
Industry, vol. 73, pp. 17.
Miguel, M. , Laing, R. & Zaman, Q. , 2016, Explorations of an urban intervention management
system: a reflection on how to deal with urban complex systems and deliver dynamic change, in
Digital futures and the city of today: new technologies and physical spaces, eds. G.A. Caldwell ,
C. Smith & E. Clift , Intellect Ltd, Bristol.
Mitchell, W.J. 1994, Three paradigms for computer-aided design, Automation in Construction,
vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 239245.
Mori, M. 1970, The uncanny valley, Energy, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 3335.
Norberg-Schulz, C. 1980, Genius loci: towards a phenomenology of architecture, Rizzoli, New
York.
Nez Andrs, A. , Buill Pozuelo, F. , Regot Marimn, J. & de Mesa Gisbert, A. 2012, Generation of
virtual models of cultural heritage, Journal of Cultural Heritage, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 103106.
Oh, M. , Lee, J. , Hong, S.W. & Jeong, Y. 2015, Integrated system for BIM-based collaborative
design, Automation in Construction, vol. 58, pp. 196206.
139 Ohyama, S. , Nishiike, S. , Watanabe, H. , Matsuoka, K. , Akizuki, H. , Takeda, N. &
Harada, T. 2007, Autonomic responses during motion sickness induced by virtual reality, Auris
Nasus Larynx, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 303306.
Osman, H.M. , Georgy, M.E. & Ibrahim, M.E. 2003, A hybrid CAD-based construction site layout
planning system using genetic algorithms, Automation in Construction, vol. 12, no. 6, pp.
749764.
Pahl, G. , Badke-Schaub, P. & Frankenberger, E. 1999, Rsum of 12 years interdisciplinary
empirical studies of engineering design in Germany, Design Studies, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 481494.
Pektas, .T. 2015, The virtual design studio on the cloud: a blended and distributed approach for
technology-mediated design education, Architectural Science Review, vol. 58, no. 3, pp.
255265.
Peng, C. , Chang, D.C. , Blundell Jones, P. & Lawson, B. 2002a, Exploring urban history and
space online: design of the virtual Sheffield application, Design Studies, vol. 23, no. 5, pp.
437453.
Peng, C. , Chang, D.C. , Blundell Jones, P. & Lawson, B. 2002b, On an alternative framework
for building virtual cities: supporting urban contextual modelling on demand, Environment and
Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 87103.
Penn, A. & Al Sayed, K. 2017, Spatial information models as the backbone of smart
infrastructure, Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, vol. 44, no. 2,
pp. 197203.
Pickford, L. 2015, 10 things facilities managers should know about BIM, RICS website,
www.rics.org/uk/news/news-insight/comment/10-things-facilities-managers-should-know-about-
bim/, accessed 27 July 2017 .
Purcell, P. 1980, Computer education in architecture, Computer-Aided Design, vol. 12, no. 5,
pp. 239251.
Rattray, C. 2003, Doubleness, Architectural Research Quarterly, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 188192.
Rohrmann, B. & Bishop, I. 2002, Subjective responses to computer simulations of urban
environments, Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 22, pp. 319331.
Sanoff, H. 2011, Multiple views of participatory design, Focus, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1121.
Scheer, D.R. 2014, The death of drawing: architecture in the age of simulation, Routledge,
London.
Schenk, P. 1997, The role of drawing in graphic design and the implications for curriculum
planning, Journal of Art & Design Education, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 7382.
140 Schn, D.A. 1983, The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action, Basic Books,
New York.
Schumann, J. , Strothotte, T. , Raab, A. & Laser, S. 1996, Assessing the effect of non-
photorealistic rendered images in CAD, CHI 1996: proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3541, DOI: 10.1145/238386.238398.
Sener, B. & Wormald, P. 2008, User evaluation of HCI concepts for defining product form,
Design Studies, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 1229.
Spence, R. 2007, Information visualization: design for interaction, 2nd edn, Pearson Education
Limited, Harlow.
Stompff, G. , Smulders, F. & Henze, L. 2016, Surprises are the benefits: reframing in
multidisciplinary design teams, Design Studies, vol. 47, pp. 187214.
Succar, B. 2009, Building information modelling framework: a research and delivery foundation
for industry stakeholders, Automation in Construction, vol. 18, pp. 357375.
Suwa, M. & Tversky, B. 1997, What do architects and students perceive in their design
sketches? A protocol analysis, Design Studies, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 385403.
Themistocleous, K. 2017, Model reconstruction for 3D visualization of cultural heritage sites
using open data from social media: the case study of Soli, Cyprus, Journal of Archaeological
Science: Reports, vol. 14, pp. 774781.
Till, J. 2009, Architecture depends, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Tovey, M. 1989, Drawing and CAD in industrial design, Design Studies, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 2439.
Tufte, E. 2001, The visual display of quantitative information, 2nd edn, Graphics Press,
Cheshire, CT.
Valero, E. , Bosch, F. , Forster, A. , Wilson, L. & Leslie, A. , 2017, Evaluation of historic
masonry: towards greater objectivity and efficiency, in Heritage Building Information Modelling,
eds. Y. Arayici , J. Counsell , L. Mahdjoubi , G. Nagy , S. Hawas & K. Dewidar , Routledge,
London.
Van der Lugt, R. 2005, How sketching can affect the idea generation process in design group
meetings, Design Studies, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 101122.
Vesely, D. 2004, Architecture in the age of divided representation: the question of creativity in
the shadow of production, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Webber, S.S. 2008, Development of cognitive and affective trust in teams, Small Group
Research, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 746769.
Whyte, A. 1999, Building design team communication: practice and education, PhD thesis,
Robert Gordon University.
Willey, D.S. 1976, Approaches to computer-aided architectural sketch design, Computer Aided
Design, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 181186.
141 Wojtowicz, J. 1995, Virtual design studio, Hong Kong University Press, Hong Kong.
Yastikli, N. 2007, Documentation of cultural heritage using digital photogrammetry and laser
scanning, Journal of Cultural Heritage, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 423427.
Yilmaz, H.M. , Yakar, M. & Yildiz, F. 2008, Documentation of historical caravansaries by digital
close range photogrammetry, Automation in Construction, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 489498.