In Collaborative Design, particularly in architecture, little is known about the effects of the mutual relations among actors in the process and on the process. And from the outset, the actors, which, how many? And how can a design be recognized as Collaborative? Did it influence the process itself, in the sense that its structure influenced the outcome, or only changed the order in which the actors acted, did it change the final outcome? Are there any settled, invariant, issues in this jelly represented by architectural design? These issues must be investigated in depth by those who, like ourselves, set out to build a general model simulating the process/product of Collaborative Architectural Design in order to further develop it using modern ICT tools CollCAAD. Over time we have examined in depth certain theoretical issues (Carrara and Fioravanti 2001), general approach problems (Carrara et al. 2000), as well as specific sectors and key issues (Carrara and Fioravanti 2002). However, the complex of relations underpinning the actions- reactions of the actors involved is a phenomenon that cannot be studied in vitro , but must be reproduced in vivo and analyzed on the spot. However, first of all, in order not to be overwhelmed in the simulation of the general model by claims to priority by requests to intervene in the design action by the actors or by mutually exclusive constraints or diverging (partial) goals of the actors, we deemed it useful to construct a game a highly simplified CollCAAD model. The aim of the game is not just to open up the way to a general model but also to provide a useful teaching tool to illustrate to the student the consequences of his own design choices vis- -vis the choices made by others, and to accustom him to working as part of a group. In order to implement this game, which we have called House, we previously simulated a preliminary briefing session for the design of an exhibition pavilion. The aim was to immediately sift the quantities related to the observed phenomenon, identifying the fundamental ones, 2 discarding the non essential ones and reducing as far as possible the number of actors involved, without reducing the richness of the design dialectics. A no less important aim of the present article is to concretely and tangibly clarify our conception regarding CollCAAD, as the same concepts and terms often take on different meanings and nuances if the context is changed. The article consists of a report and commentary of this simulated work session which proved stimulating for the research students present and gratifying for those experiencing it. The final outcomes and reflections kept the game within given conceptual bounds, eliminating any dangerous overflows. The work session may be considered maieutic to the birth of -House, a game that warrants an ad hoc article in order to be adequately illustrated.

A game of collaborative architectural design: the birth of X–House. A true simulation of a first briefing session / Carrara, Gianfranco; Fioravanti, Antonio. - STAMPA. - (2006), pp. 29-49. (Intervento presentato al convegno InterSymp 2006 - 18th International Conference on: System Research, Infromatics and Cybernetics tenutosi a Baden-Baden nel 08/08/2006).

A game of collaborative architectural design: the birth of X–House. A true simulation of a first briefing session.

CARRARA, Gianfranco;FIORAVANTI, Antonio
2006

Abstract

In Collaborative Design, particularly in architecture, little is known about the effects of the mutual relations among actors in the process and on the process. And from the outset, the actors, which, how many? And how can a design be recognized as Collaborative? Did it influence the process itself, in the sense that its structure influenced the outcome, or only changed the order in which the actors acted, did it change the final outcome? Are there any settled, invariant, issues in this jelly represented by architectural design? These issues must be investigated in depth by those who, like ourselves, set out to build a general model simulating the process/product of Collaborative Architectural Design in order to further develop it using modern ICT tools CollCAAD. Over time we have examined in depth certain theoretical issues (Carrara and Fioravanti 2001), general approach problems (Carrara et al. 2000), as well as specific sectors and key issues (Carrara and Fioravanti 2002). However, the complex of relations underpinning the actions- reactions of the actors involved is a phenomenon that cannot be studied in vitro , but must be reproduced in vivo and analyzed on the spot. However, first of all, in order not to be overwhelmed in the simulation of the general model by claims to priority by requests to intervene in the design action by the actors or by mutually exclusive constraints or diverging (partial) goals of the actors, we deemed it useful to construct a game a highly simplified CollCAAD model. The aim of the game is not just to open up the way to a general model but also to provide a useful teaching tool to illustrate to the student the consequences of his own design choices vis- -vis the choices made by others, and to accustom him to working as part of a group. In order to implement this game, which we have called House, we previously simulated a preliminary briefing session for the design of an exhibition pavilion. The aim was to immediately sift the quantities related to the observed phenomenon, identifying the fundamental ones, 2 discarding the non essential ones and reducing as far as possible the number of actors involved, without reducing the richness of the design dialectics. A no less important aim of the present article is to concretely and tangibly clarify our conception regarding CollCAAD, as the same concepts and terms often take on different meanings and nuances if the context is changed. The article consists of a report and commentary of this simulated work session which proved stimulating for the research students present and gratifying for those experiencing it. The final outcomes and reflections kept the game within given conceptual bounds, eliminating any dangerous overflows. The work session may be considered maieutic to the birth of -House, a game that warrants an ad hoc article in order to be adequately illustrated.
2006
InterSymp 2006 - 18th International Conference on: System Research, Infromatics and Cybernetics
04 Pubblicazione in atti di convegno::04b Atto di convegno in volume
A game of collaborative architectural design: the birth of X–House. A true simulation of a first briefing session / Carrara, Gianfranco; Fioravanti, Antonio. - STAMPA. - (2006), pp. 29-49. (Intervento presentato al convegno InterSymp 2006 - 18th International Conference on: System Research, Infromatics and Cybernetics tenutosi a Baden-Baden nel 08/08/2006).
File allegati a questo prodotto
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/238323
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact