Charrette Process Research Articles

Applying User-Centered Design to Develop Practical Strategies that Address Overuse in Primary Care.

Engaging patients and frontline clinicians in re-designing clinical care is essential for improving care delivery in a complex clinical environment. This study sought to assess an innovative user-centered design approach to improving clinical care quality, focusing on the use cases of de-intensifying non-beneficial care within the following areas: (1) de-intensifying diabetes treatment in high-risk patients; (2) stopping screening for carotid artery stenosis in asymptomatic patients; and (3) stopping colorectal cancer screening in average-risk, older adults. The user-centered design approach, consisting of patient and patient-clinician charrettes (defined as intensive workshops where key stakeholders collaborate to develop creative solutions to a specific problem) and participant surveys, has been described previously. Following the charrettes, we used inductive coding to identify and categorize themes emerging from the de-intensification ideas prioritized by participants as well as facilitator notes and audio recordings from the charrettes. Thirty-five patients participated in the patient design charrettes, generating 134 unique de-intensification ideas and prioritizing 32, which were then distilled into six patient-generated principles of de-intensification by the study team. These principles provided a starting point for a subsequent patient-clinician charrette. In this follow-up charrette, 9 patients who had participated in an earlier patient design charrette collaborated with 7 clinicians to generate 63 potential de-intensification solutions. Six of these potential solutions were developed into multi-faceted, fully operationalized de-intensification strategies. The de-intensification strategies that patients and clinicians prioritized and operationalized during the co-design charrette process were detailed and multi-faceted. Each component of a strategy had a rationale based on feasibility, practical considerations, and ways of overcoming barriers. The charrette-based process may be a useful way to engage clinicians and patients in developing the complex and multi-faceted strategies needed to improve care delivery.

Creating a Charrette Process to Ignite the Conversation on Equity and Inclusion

ABSTRACT The gaps in graduation and retention rates between ethnic and gender groups continue to be a foremost area of focus at Borough of Manhattan Community College (BMCC), The City University of New York (CUNY). Equity and inclusion is also a critical concern as it relates to faculty and staff. At BMCC, a college-wide initiative, Designing for Success, is seeking to improve declining retention and graduation rates. At its core is the question, “Have we designed our operations to produce these results?” The answer is, “Yes”. BMCC’s Designing for Success strategic planning process seeks to re-design administrative processes and teaching in an effort to eradicate these gaps through efforts which include a community-wide discussion and action planning on equity and inclusion inspired by the charrette process. The charrette creates small groups that meet on more than one occasion to identify critical barriers to addressing equity and inclusion and develops action plans for addressing these barriers from stakeholders at all levels of an organization. This paper proposes that public scholarship is at the core of the charrette process, that it is uniquely appropriate for the higher education environment and moves the community from a “discussion” of the barriers to fully engaging the entire college community in meaningful action-oriented strategic planning.

Tackling Environmental Pollution through Participatory Approach in Nambo, South Tangerang, Indonesia

A participatory approach is well-known for its time-consuming and no-instant approach. Tackling environmental pollution directly from its source in an urban area by participatory approach is very critical. Universitas Indonesia’s Community Engagement Program together with the City Without Slum or Kotaku Program in South Tangerang City, Banten Province, Indonesia, conducted in Kampung Nambo. This joint program carried out in two lines through the local government and the community by a bottom-up approach. The inhabitants of the neighbourhood involved through a charrette process. The outcome of the charrette is the guideline of the new master plan development of Kampung Nambo that responding to tackling the pollution created in the kampung. This master plan will use as a parameter for the Kampung Nambo development program. A team of experts that consists of the local government, the university scholars, the NGO, and the inhabitants joined together for the implementation plan under the intensive and an interactive designated workshop. It concluded that this approach is valuable to integrate the unplanned urban areas development, which happened quite vast in some Indonesian cities and towns. Thus, it helps to reduce the urgency of environmental degradation in the kampung, through awareness and educational campaign. This approach is challenging yet it is a long-term investment.

Plan of Sapti Community Garden-Park by Design Charrette

Yesan-gun was selected to receive a “Village Community Garden Project” in 2018 to foster a sense of community and improve the urban landscape by working with neighbors to create a happy living space for residents. Yesan-gun selected Sapti Park, located in Yesan-eup, as the project site. The project was carried out through the design charrette method (an intense period of collaborative creativity) to allow residents to propose and design park concepts themselves for the community garden construction project to ensure that that the park facilities would provide something for everyone to enjoy. This study followed the actual design project that actively introduced the design charrette in planning the community garden, describing the entire design process from planning to construction and revealing how the opinions of residents were projected onto the design drawings. The purpose of the project was to advance user-participation design methods by reviewing the progress of the design charrette process and to examine how storytelling, the act of conveying ideas through a fun and persuasive story, transformed the plans for the community garden.

Establishing New Community-Based Participatory Research Partnerships using the Community-Based Participatory Research Charrette Model: Lessons from the Cancer Health Accountability for Managing Pain and Symptoms Study.

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is a collaborative and equitable approach to research inquiry; however, the process of establishing and maintaining CBPR partnerships can be challenging. There is an ongoing need for innovative strategies that foster partnership development and long-term sustainability. In 2010, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill developed a CBPR charrette model to facilitate stakeholder engagement in translational research. To describe how the Cancer Health Accountability for Managing Pain and Symptoms (CHAMPS) Study leveraged the CBPR charrette process to develop and strengthen its CBPR partnership and successfully implement research objectives. Fourteen CHAMPS community, academic, and medical partners participated in the CBPR charrette. Two co-facilitators guided the charrette application process and in-person discussion of partnership strengths, needs, and challenges. Community experts (CEs) and academic experts (AEs) with extensive experience in CBPR and health disparities provided technical assistance and recommendations during the in-person charrette. Overall, the CHAMPS partnership benefited significantly from the charrette process. Specifically, the charrette process engendered greater transparency, accountability, and trust among CHAMPS partners by encouraging collective negotiation of project goals and implementation, roles and responsibilities, and compensation and communication structures. The process also allowed for the exploration of newly identified challenges and potential solutions with support from CEs and AEs. Furthermore, the charrette also functioned as a catalyst for capacity building among CHAMPS community, academic, and medical partners. Future studies should compare the impact of the CBPR charrette, relative to other approaches, on partnership development and process evaluation outcomes.

PLURALITY AND DIVERSITY IN ARCHITECTURAL AND URBAN RESEARCH

Demonstrating the essence of the journal as a truly international platform that covers issues of interest and concern to the global academic and professional community, this issue of Archnet-IJAR, volume 11, issue # 2, July 2017 includes various topics that manifest plurality and diversity as inherent qualities of architectural and urban research published in the journal. Topics include architectural education and design studio teaching, urban and rural slums, heritage and historic environments in various contexts, participatory planning and the charrette process, assessment of public spaces and plazas, and human perception of the built environment. These topics are debated and analytically discussed within cities, settlements, and urban environments in Bahrain, Bangladesh, California-USA, Libya, Scotland, and Spain. The issue also includes three papers selected from the Fifth Architectural Jordanian International Conference – 1-3 November 2016, which uniquely speak to the context of Jordan and the wider Middle East. The edition ends with a book review that highlights emerging issues related to border landscapes and social ecologies.

멜버른 시의회 청사(CH2)의 친환경 통합설계 특성에 관한 연구

This study aims at analyzing the integrative sustainable design characteristics of Melbourne City Council House 2(CH2). The success of CH2 is mainly due to diverse reasons including the characteristics of building, strong zero net emission policy, integrated design process and appropriate use for technology for sustainability. CH2 presents that ultimate goal for sustainablitiy in architecture lies to provide better environment through energy saving and this implies the importance of applying sustainable design concept and integrated design approach in the early design stage. Innovative design of CH2 is the result of integrative design that various consultants participated as a form of design charrette. Most of integrative design of CH2 including biomimicry design concept, and innovative ventilation and cooling system come from design charrette process. Melbourne City strongly support the CH2 project because of its symbolic aspects of green policy and the green star system. As a result, CH2's success shows the effectiveness of integrative design in sustainable architecture that features multi-disciplinary characteristics. The availability of case study for integrative design lies in the fact that it can show a desirable direction and method for sustainable design.

Use a Charrette to Build Consensus, Guarantee Buy‐In

Use a <i>Charrette</i> to Build Consensus, Guarantee Buy‐In

Creating Communities: Atlanta's Lifelong Community Initiative

ABSTRACTAtlanta, like most other parts of the nation, is experiencing a dramatic increase in its older adult population. To support healthy aging, it is important to create lifelong communities where people can live throughout their lifetime and where older adults can age in place. The Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), serving as the Area Agency on Aging and the Metropolitan Planning Organization, developed the Lifelong Communities Initiative as a comprehensive effort to help communities in the metro area respond to the diverse needs of a changing population. To more fully realize the Lifelong Community concept for the Atlanta region, ARC sponsored an intensive design workshop that produced several major breakthroughs in what makes a community truly “lifelong.” This article will describe ARC's Lifelong Community Initiative, the planning process, the outcomes of the charrette process, and present the community of Mableton as a case study to implement a lifelong community.

Public Participation and New Urbanism: A Conflicting Agenda?

The challenges to public participation in planning are numerous. Inclusive and equitable processes are recognised as an ideal in much planning theory and practice, yet this ideal is increasingly difficult to realise in today's societies that comprise diverse and multiple publics. Within the wider sustainability debate, “New Urbanism” has emerged as a pragmatic alternative to conventional low-density development. Concomitant with a range of prescribed physical outcomes, the New Urbanism movement advocates a process of “citizen-based participatory planning and design”. Charrettes, with urban design workshops, are the favoured tools for achieving this goal. However, it is argued that the adherence to a single type of participatory tool can be inconsistent with accepted ideals of participation processes and has several implications. Of particular concern is the role of the charrette planner or facilitator, a figure who has the potential to manipulate the public because of his/her inevitable allegiance to the New Urban agenda. In addition, the examination of a charrette process in a small New Zealand town raises several broader questions about the ability of the approach to address issues of inclusiveness and the recognition of difference, two fundamental elements of good participatory processes.

Back to the Future: Is Form-Based Code an Efficacious Tool for Shaping Modern Civic Life?

This Essay serves as a critique of the New Urbanism in general and of form-based code in particular as a tool of the New Urbanism. It may be true that form-based code offers more flexibility than traditional zoning schemes and thus may offer some respite from acknowledged ills such as social and racial divisions created by exclusionary zoning and other tools, and from the relative inutility of single or limited use districts. However, I will argue that these benefits are eclipsed by some of the problems of form-based code. Form-based code is frequently hailed as a back to the future approach to both urban and suburban living which will cure numerous ills such as the physical decay, racial segregation, and economic downturns that are endemic to many United States cities and towns, but it may not be an effective means of addressing the decline of civic life. This is first because form-based code, in advocating for norms to re-create the city of the past, seeks to implement by design what was essentially a spontaneous and self-generated form of social organization driven largely by economic concerns rather than social or political concerns. Next, Urbanism, which is purportedly at the heart of New Urbanist planning schemes such as form-based code, is itself a contested notion, subject to many alternate visions of the city of the past. As a result, the implementation of form-based code premised on New Urbanism may lead to an ersatz Urbanism. Finally, and perhaps most salient among the critiques I present, form-based code's reliance upon the community to formulate design standards through the charrette process has the potential to further isolate those who are already disadvantaged.

Youth Design Participation to Support Ecological Literacy: Reflections on Charrettes for an Outdoor Learning Laboratory

Childhood experiences in nature have been found to hold myriad developmental values, yet opportunities for such experiences have diminished greatly. If children are to regain these values, firsthand experiences to learn from and care about and for such natural places are essential. Such experiences, and the resulting knowledge, caring and competence to act, serve as the foundation of what David Orr defines as “ecological literacy.” A meaningful context for such experiences and literacy building is that of formal education, where youth may undertake hands-on studies outdoors. These studies could occur in nearby open space, such as urban parks, provided the parks were appropriately designed. This paper describes youths' participation in design charrettes for a park's “outdoor learning laboratory,” reflects on the process and outcomes, and suggests potentials to support ecological literacy through both the charrette process and the designed learning environment.

Involving the Users in School Planning

Previous articleNext article No AccessInvolving the Users in School PlanningJames HoltJames Holt Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Volume 82, Number 4Aug., 1974Learning Environments Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/443163 Views: 2Total views on this site Citations: 7Citations are reported from Crossref Journal History This article was published in The School Review (1893-1979), which is continued by the American Journal of Education (1979-present). Copyright 1974 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Erika R. Carlson, Leslie Craigo, Peter P. Hoontis, Elisabeth Jaffe, Lynn McGee, James Sayegh Creating a Charrette Process to Ignite the Conversation on Equity and Inclusion, Community College Journal of Research and Practice 45, no.88 (May 2020): 608–618.https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2020.1756534Ori Eyal When parents choose to start up a school, Journal of Educational Administration 46, no.11 (Feb 2008): 99–118.https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230810849835 The charrette as a tool for collecting information, Evaluation Practice 10, no.33 (Aug 1989): 34–35.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0886-1633(89)80006-6 Tools, Products, Services, Evaluation Practice 10, no.33 (Sep 2016): 34–35.https://doi.org/10.1177/109821408901000306Ronald E. Feldman Collaborative consultation: A process for joint professional-consumer development of primary prevention programs, Journal of Community Psychology 7, no.22 (Apr 1979): 118–128.https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6629(197904)7:2&lt;118::AID-JCOP2290070205&gt;3.0.CO;2-VMartin L. Krovetz Who Needs What When: Design of Pluralistic Learning Environments, (Jan 1977): 251–272.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-2277-1_12Rudolf H. Moos Evaluating and changing community settings, American Journal of Community Psychology 4, no.44 (Dec 1976): 313–326.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00885655