RE-DWELL A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction

Lead Beneficiary: ISCTE – Instituto Universitário de Lisboa Submission date: September 30, 2024 (month 48) Submission date: November 22, 2024 Version: 1 .2 Dissemination level: Public www.re-dwell.eu RE-DWELL “Delivering affordable and sustainable housing in Europe” has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 956082 The European Commission's support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents, which reflect the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction Deliverable 4.7 RE-DWELL Deliverable 4.7 A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction Version 1.2 Authors: Alexandra Paio (ISCTE) Mafalda Casais (ISCTE) Marja Elsinga (TU Delft) Gerard van Bortel (TU Delft) Lucia Chaloin (UGA) Andreas Panagidis (UCY) Leonardo Ricaurte (UREAD) Elanor Warwick (Clarion) Version Date Authors 0.1 December 3, 2023 Evaluation of TEASH toolbox, Gerard van Bortel (TUD) 0.2 June 6, 2023 Evaluation of TEASH toolbox, Gerard van Bortel (TUD) 0.3 September 6, 2023 Evaluation of TEASH toolbox, Gerard van Bortel (TUD), with input from Mafalda Casais (ISCTE) 0.4 February 14, 2024 Report on local implementation Lisbon, Lucia Chaloin (UGA) 0.5 February 20, 2024 Report on local implementation Nicosia, Andreas Panagidis (UCY) 0.6 May 30, 2024 Report local on implementation London, Leonardo Ricaurte (UREAD) & Elanor Warwick (Clarion) 0.7 June 5, 2024 Alexandra Paio (ISCTE), Mafalda Casais (ISCTE) 0.8 June 17, 2024 Mafalda Casais (ISCTE), Alexandra Paio (ISCTE), Marja Elsinga (TUD) 0.9 September 23, 2024 Mafalda Casais (ISCTE), Marja Elsinga (TUD), Alexandra Paio (ISCTE) 1.0 November 13, 2024 Leandro Madrazo (La Salle-URL) – review and editing 1.1 November 20, 2024 Alexandra Paio (ISCTE), Marja Elsinga (TUD) 1.2 November 21, 2024 Leandro Madrazo (La Salle-URL) – review and editing Table of content Executive summary ............................................................................................................... 5 1. Purpose and structure of the report ..............................................................................6 2. Building the TEASH participatory toolbox ..................................................................... 7 2.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 7 2.2. The process of building the TEASH toolbox ....................................................................... 8 2.3. Insights leading to the TEASH toolbox .............................................................................. 10 2.4. The elements of the TEASH toolbox .................................................................................. 12 2.5. Bringing it all together in a participatory toolbox ............................................................ 14 3. Developing the TEASH toolbox ..................................................................................... 15 3.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 15 3.2. Reading summer school ........................................................................................................ 17 3.3. Delft plenary meeting ............................................................................................................. 27 3.4. Barcelona conference ........................................................................................................... 34 3.5 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 42 4. Implementation and evaluation in local settings ....................................................... 44 4.1. Lisbon focus group session ................................................................................................. 44 4.2. London focus group session ............................................................................................... 53 4.3. Nicosia focus group session ................................................................................................. 61 4.4. Takeaway from the local implementations ...................................................................... 69 5. Final reflections .............................................................................................................. 71 6. Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 72 Annex 1 – Card configurations Reading session ................................................................ 1 Annex 2 – Evaluation Reading session .............................................................................. 12 Annex 3 – Case studies Delft session ................................................................................ 14 Annex 4 – Evaluation Delft session ................................................................................... 16 Annex 5 – Evaluation Barcelona session ........................................................................... 21 Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 5 Executive summary Following the work presented in Deliverable 4.6, this report focuses on the development and application of a toolbox designed to foster collaborative knowledge construction among stakeholders addressing affordable and sustainable housing procurement in a local context. A conceptual structure based on a tripartite knowledge taxonomy—systems, target, and transformation knowledge—was introduced to guide the development of the toolbox (as outlined in Deliverable 4.6). This toolbox aims to facilitate collaboration among various stakeholders in defining problems and developing strategies for specific housing initiatives. The TEASH toolbox was developed to operationalize the principles of transdisciplinarity in addressing the challenge of affordable and sustainable housing. Its objectives were to: 1. Understand the complexity of the housing challenge. 2. Integrate diverse perspectives from both academic and non-academic stakeholders on housing problems, goals, and strategies. 3. Bridge abstract and specific knowledge across academic experts and practice experts. 4. Foster shared understanding and practices that contribute to solving the societal issue of inadequate housing. The toolbox was developed through collaborative efforts within the RE-DWELL network, involving ESRs, supervisors, and partner organizations. It was tested in several network activities, including sessions at the International Social Housing Festival in Helsinki (June 2022), the summer school at the University of Reading (July 2023), a network meeting at TU Delft (October 2023), and the final conference in Barcelona (May 2024). Subsequently, the tools developed within the network were adapted and applied in focus groups held in Lisbon, London, and Nicosia, with participation from both network members and external stakeholders. These sessions consolidated the knowledge produced by the network on affordable and sustainable housing and invited participants to collaboratively contribute to its development. The active involvement of ESRs and partner organizations in the implementation of the toolbox significantly enhanced its effectiveness. Their real-world participation contributed practical, actionable solutions and enriched academic discourse. The inclusion of non-academic organizations in the assessment phase provided valuable insights into the toolbox's application, particularly highlighting the importance of local contexts and the specific challenges and stakeholders involved. Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 6 1. Purpose and structure of the report This report focuses on the development and application of a toolbox designed to promote collaborative knowledge construction among stakeholders involved in affordable and sustainable housing procurement within local contexts. Chapter 2 outlines the development of the toolbox, drawing on literature related to transdisciplinary participatory activities, toolkits, and the components of a transdisciplinary environment as described in Deliverable 4.6. Chapter 3 details the development and testing of the first versions of the RE-DWELL TEASH toolbox, including experiences and evaluations from meetings in Reading and Delft. Chapter 4 presents an adaptation of the toolbox applied to three local contexts in Lisbon, London, and Nicosia. These context-specific applications were used to assess whether the TEASH toolbox can facilitate stakeholder interactions and the cross-pollination of knowledge. Finally, Chapter 5 provides a reflection on the process of developing and implementing the TEASH participatory toolbox. Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 7 2. Building the TEASH participatory toolbox 2.1. Introduction The RE-DWELL Transdisciplinary Environment for Affordable and Sustainable Housing (TEASH) provides a conceptual structure to address affordable and sustainable housing challenges, with the participation of the stakeholders involved, academic experts and practice experts. Figure. 2.1. Transdisciplinary Environment for Affordable and Sustainable Housing (TEASH) The TEASH brings together the components of the transdisciplinary learning and research environment collaboratively developed throughout the three-year project activities. It is organised in four layers (Figure 2.1): 1. Crossing disciplines, necessary to understand the challenges and trade-offs at stake, to identify strategies across disciplines and fields (see Deliverables 4.1, 4,2 and 4.3). 2. Linking academia and society, to collaboratively construct knowledge around specific housing problems, based on a tripartite structure: target, systems, and transformation knowledge. 3. Exchanging knowledge, by means of tools and methods aimed at fostering the collaboration of the diverse stakeholders involved, academic experts and practice experts. 4. Building impact, creating outputs -white papers, guidelines, policy recommendations, academic publicationsthat facilitate a better understanding of the specific challenges that the various stakeholder involved are facing. Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 8 The purpose of the TEASH toolbox is to facilitate communication between researchers, practitioners, and policy makers, an understanding of the societal challenge, and the discovery of new angles and new solutions in the combination of strategies. Through its application in local contexts, the aim is to facilitate a common understanding of the challenges, responsibilities, practices, and possibilities for improvement of a system (e.g., a project, an organisation) in the context of affordable and sustainable housing. 2.2. The process of building the TEASH toolbox The development of a toolbox to support knowledge construction and exchange across stakeholders involved in housing provision was collaboratively carried out throughout the project with the following objectives: 1. Fostering communication and co-creation of a shared understanding that integrates and interrelates the findings of fifteen ESRs’ research projects, primarily consisting of academic knowledge. 2. Facilitating collaboration among researchers, policy-makers, designers, planners, and financial experts to ensure a transdisciplinary approach to affordable and sustainable housing. 3. Applying research outcomes in real-world scenarios through interactive sessions and practical engagements. 4. Promoting the exchange of ideas and best practices between academic and nonacademic stakeholders, ensuring the Transdisciplinary Environment’s relevance and adaptability. 5. Supporting the continuous development and refinement of strategies to address complex housing challenges, leveraging insights from both theoretical and practical perspectives. The TEASH toolbox was structured and designed to be flexible and adaptable, enabling its application in diverse scenarios to impact housing problem-solving projects, policies, and partnerships. From its inception in Helsinki ISHF, in July 2022, and through subsequent interactive sessions in Reading, Delft, and Barcelona, with the participation of ESRs, supervisors and partner organisations, different methods and techniques were devised and tested through a learning-by-doing approach in synergy with other project activities Figure 2.2. Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 9 Figure 2.2. Structure of WP4 tasks The development and testing of the TEASH toolbox involved four team development sessions (Helsinki, Reading, Delft, and Barcelona) and three local implementations (Lisbon, London, and Nicosia). − 2022, Helsinki: At the International Social Housing Festival, the RE-DWELL team introduced the idea of a toolkit to facilitate collaboration between RE-DWELL members and external stakeholders. This initial concept laid the foundation for the TEASH toolbox. − July 2023, Reading: A game tool was launched during the summer school to make RE-DWELL’s research outputs more accessible and engaging. This tool aimed to promote collaboration, exploration, and understanding between researchers and industry partners, helping generate practical solutions. − October 2023, Delft: The game tool was further developed and tested on energy poverty and retrofitting projects with the support of partner organisations EFL and SYHA. A card set and board tailored to each real-world scenario were used to explore solutions in these contexts. − May 2024, Barcelona: A refined version of the game tool was showcased at the conference, featuring updated boards and card sets structured around dynamic, scenario-based decision-making to enhance collaboration. In 2024, the tools were applied in workshops in Lisbon, London, and Nicosia, where local stakeholders worked on defining housing problems and developing tailored strategies. These workshops demonstrated the adaptability of the TEASH toolkit to address specific local challenges effectively. Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 16 Figure 3.2. RE-DWELL ISHF 2022 workshop Figure 3.3. Board for the discussion focusing on “Community Participation” Participants, organized into teams, discussed housing issues and proposals, with REDWELL members acting as facilitators (Figure 3.4). Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 17 Figure 3.4. Discussion group at ISHF Helsinki workshop Each group used a specialized board tailored to one of the three focus areas, incorporating key elements to facilitate a holistic discussion of housing challenges across multiple dimensions and scales, in line with RE-DWELL’s transdisciplinary approach. During the discussions, post-its were used to identify interrelated issues within each of the three key research areas (Figure 3.5). Figure 3.5. Outputs of the group discussions 3.2. Reading summer school The next significant step in the development of the TEASH toolbox took place at the University of Reading, in July 2022 (see Deliverable 3.6). A game was prepared for the participants in the meeting - ESRs, supervisors and partner organisations - to test its Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 18 feasibility as tool to facilitate knowledge exchange in a transdisciplinary context. The game was developed by supervisor Alexandra Paio, as leader of the task leader, with the collaboration of ESR Androniki Pappa, following an analysis of several tools and games with similar goals. 3.2.1. Game tool design The first TEASH toolbox contained an activity meticulously designed with integrated guidelines that defined goals and procedures. These guidelines were complemented by narratives that provide a specific context for the activity, making the scenarios more engaging and relevant. The activity was developed with carefully crafted mechanisms to facilitate complex decision-making, ensuring that participants were able to explore various outcomes and strategies. Furthermore, the activity defined facilitators, helping participants through it and ensuring that they could fully understand the decisions, roles, and interactions therein. This guidance was essential during the introduction and debriefing stages, helping participants effectively comprehend the broader implications of their actions during the sessions. Figure 3.6. Overview of the cards used in the Reading summer school activity The game consisted of a sets of cards (Figure 3.6 and 3.7), each one corresponding to the three types of knowledge that can be produced in a transdisciplinary context (see Deliverable 4.6): − Systems knowledge: 15 cards (orange) containing “Research Questions” that relate to affordable and sustainable housing, defined by the ESRs’ research projects. − Target knowledge: 50 cards (green), that include possible methods, tools, and actors, based on the ESRs’ “vocabulary” and “case-studies” libraries, available on the RE-DWELL website. Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 19 − Transformation knowledge: 22 cards (blue) with policies, projects and partnerships based on the survey of partner organisations and their dialogue with ESRs in the supervisory board meeting on May 2023. The indicators on the back of the cards derived from the RE-DWELL research areas. Figure 3.7. Details of the cards used in the Reading summer school activity The game was played during the Reading meeting in two rounds (Figure 3.8) to test the strengths and limitations and to verify to which extent facilitated the creation of a shared language based on the outputs produced by the network so far (vocabulary entries, cases, secondments). Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 20 Figure 3.8. Steps in the activity at the Reading summer school 3.2.2. Participatory session The game was played at the University of Reading, on Wednesday, July 5, 2023, during a three-hour session. There were 31 participants, including one online participant, eleven supervisors, one communication manager, six representatives from partner organisations, and 13 ESRs (Table 3.1). Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 21 Table 3.1. Teams in the Reading session Team Research area focus ESRs Partner organisations Supervisors 1 Design, Planning & Building Anna Martin, Aya Elghandour, Zoe Tzika Elanor Warwick, (Clarion Housing Group) Leandro Madrazo, Gerard van Bortel 2 Design, Planning & Building Andreas Panagidis, Annette Davis, Alex Fernández (online) Charalambos Iacovou, (Cyprus Land Development Corporation) Nadia Charalambous, Lorraine Farrelly 3 Community Participation Androniki Pappa, Carolina Martín, Tijn Croon Maria Antónia Vitória, (Lisbon Municipality) Adrienne Csizmady, Karim Hadjri 4 Policy & Financing Saskia Furman, Effrosyni Roussou Margherita Marinelli, (Housing Europe), Natalie Newman (South Yorkshire Housing Association) (online) Marja Elsinga, Adriana Diaconu 5 Policy & Financing Mahmoud Alsaeed, Marko Horvat, Leonardo Ricaurte Margarida Maurício, (Lisbon Municipality) Gojko Bezovan, Carla Sentieri The objective of this interactive session, facilitated by Alexandra Paio (ISCTE), was to engage participants, clarify doubts and define the times to interact in the two rounds (Figure 3.9). After an introduction to the game and the process, participants started the activity divided into five groups, each with a specific theme. These themes were organized around the three key RE-DWELL research areas: 1. Design, Planning & Building (2 teams); 2. Community Planning (1 team); and 3. Policy & Financing (2 teams) (Table 3.1). Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 22 Figure 3.9. Start of the session in Reading The discussion developed in two rounds, each lasting approximately one hour. In the first round, the groups started with a “Research questions” cards (orange) and in the second they started with “Policies, practices and partnerships” cards (blue). Following the guidelines, participants first had to agree on the cards they would use and then discuss how to put them together. During this discussion, the knowledge each participant possessed, derived from their unique perspective, research, or practice, was verbalized. The potential connections between research questions; methods, tools, actors; and projects, policies, and partnerships were discussed. Throughout the discussion, various arrangements of the cards were laid out on a table (Figure 3.10, see Annex 1 - Card configurations Reading session for the full compilation). At the end of the session, each team filled out an evaluation form describing the selected cards and the rationale for their choices (see Annex 2 – Evaluation Reading session). To conclude the session, a representative from each team shared and explained the process and outcome with the whole group. Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 23 Figure 3.10. One of the arrangements created during the session 3.2.3. Assessment of the tool The assessment of this tool took into consideration notes from the observer (Gerard van Bortel, TUD), the teams’ presentations after each round, the card configurations from each team, as well as the feedback form completed after the session. Due to time constraints, not all participants were able to fill the form. The dynamic nature of the activity encouraged discussions among participants about the need for a shared language to frame housing issues and challenges, leading to suggestions for new cards (Table 3.2). Additionally, feedback on the selected cards and the rationale behind their choices offered valuable insights for improving the activity’s mechanics and card design. Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 24 Table 3.2. Suggestions for new cards Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Green Cards • Construction company + supply chain • User behaviour (real or perceived) • Carrot and/or stick incentives (One idea: taxes example from the Netherlands evaluating housing associations) • EU, national e local government all housing Providers Green cards • Urban Room method • Digital mapping tool • Favourable financial vehicles (EiB, CEB, EBRD) • Favourable loans Blue Cards • End – open source • Authority giving planning permission to think of health of people & health of planet • Library of LLC details • Sustainable construction regulation + policy • Outcome – mass – scalingup capacity Blue Cards • Advocacy • Public-private partnership (picture) • Public-civic partnership (picture) • Assembly co-governance (picture) • CLTs Community Land Trusts; • Participatory diagnosis The session was recognized as a good start for further development, and the toolbox was described as essential and very useful. The following suggestions were gathered from the participants responses and organized thematically: Alignment with RE-DWELL’s core objectives ESRs suggested that future iterations of the toolbox should remain aligned with REDWELL’s core research objectives to maintain continuity. They proposed that tools like this should be a primary output of RE-DWELL, focusing the consortium's efforts on creating a flexible and adaptable toolbox that uses accessible language and inclusive rules. This approach would help avoid excluding the general public with jargon-heavy reports, which could undermine the consortium’s transdisciplinary goals. Innovation and engagement The session was recognized as a good starting point for further development, with the experience of the game being described as essential and highly useful. Positioning the toolbox as a primary output of RE-DWELL was seen as a potential way to enhance innovation and engagement within the consortium. Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 25 Reflection and knowledge co-creation Participants emphasized the importance of using tools like the game for reflection and knowledge co-creation, rather than simply replicating card placements. The game effectively stimulated dialogue among participants about the connections between problems in affordable and sustainable housing, moving beyond just problem identification and solution-finding. Improvement suggestions for the game • Guidelines and time for discussion: To ensure the final selection of cards reflected a shared understanding rather than individual viewpoints, participants suggested clearer guidelines and more time for participants to explain their card placements. Allowing more time for discussion and reflection was seen as a way to deepen the collaborative learning process and ensure a more effective outcome. • Activity dynamics: The dynamics of the activity and time constraints were noted to sometimes limit discussions, leading to uncertainty about whether the final set of cards represented consensus, compromise, or conflicting opinions. Clarifying the activity’s process and adjusting the pacing could help achieve a more robust shared understanding among participants. Round structure Participants found the first round of the activity more engaging, while the second round was perceived as less effective due to participant fatigue. A small break or team swap between rounds was suggested to improve the experience and maintain engagement. Clarity of tools and content • Tools and Methods Confusion: Participants noted confusion between the tools and methods, particularly the green cards representing system knowledge. Some indicators on the research questions cards were considered too general, and it was suggested that clearer definitions and more specific content would improve the game’s usability and understanding as a toolbox. • Research Questions: Some research questions were considered too narrow, and the game experience was noted to be somewhat disconnected from real-world scenarios. ESRs felt that more constraints were needed to reflect actual situations, and clarified the scope of the toolbox (such as focusing on new construction versus renovations) would enhance its realism and practical applicability. Visual arrangement and interaction The visual arrangement of the cards was appreciated, with suggestions to integrate clearer concepts and more interactive visual tools to further enhance the educational and engagement value of the toolbox. Societal challenges vs. research questions The orange cards, which contained research questions related to the PhD projects of the ESRs, were found to be too academic and difficult for partner organizations to engage with. It was decided to replace these research questions with societal challenges (target Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 32 Figure 3.15. Teams discussions using the game cards 3.3.3. Assessment of the tool The evaluation of the Delft activity was done through an online survey completed by 18 participants during or shortly after the morning session (full survey and results are detailed in Annex 4 - Evaluation Delft session). In the afternoon, each team shared their findings, while the observers explained the issues they had identified. Below is a reflection on the main lessons drawn from the survey results. The contents of the online evaluation forms were analysed by Gerard van Bortel from TUD and Mafalda Casais from ISCTE. The following suggestions were gathered from the participants responses: − ESRs expressed confusion regarding the meaning and need of certain components of the cards, such as the levels and dimensions. Additionally, they indicated feeling ambiguity about distinguishing between influencers and decision-makers within the “actors” category. Clearer definitions and categorizations are necessary to resolve these uncertainties. − Feedback suggests that the cards were still too academic and mainly suited for experts. To make them more accessible to non-academic stakeholders, the content needs to be adapted, especially by providing context during activities. This would allow the game to remain general enough for various problems but still be tailored to specific contexts during participatory sessions. Additionally, the challenges described by individual researchers need to be reviewed to create a shared understanding and clear categories. − Feedback on the cards indicates that they are perceived as too academic and primarily tailored for experts. To increase accessibility to non-academic stakeholders, the content requires adaptation, particularly through contextualization within an activity. − Participation in activities using the game as considered as creating opportunities for self-reflection, which can lead to the reformulation of the problems at hand. In that sense, the toolbox was considered an important learning means for both researchers and non-academic actors. Including examples of best practices from Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 33 case studies on the cards was indicated as a way to significantly enhance the toolbox’s utility. − Another point to highlight to improve the effectiveness of the tool is integrating instructions on how to engage with the activity into its introduction. The presence of a moderator to guide participants through the process, along with the use of a board for structuring the activity, was recommended in the evaluation. Role play and scenario-based context-setting are suggested as additional elements that can enhance the experience. − An important outcome of the evaluation is realising this kind of tools, when combined with a participatory activity, does not aim to provide direct solutions to problems. Instead, it fosters a deeper understanding of complex issues, facilitates dialogue, and helps develop strategies and processes for engaging with different actors. Through these participatory activities, housing challenges can be collaboratively defined using the knowledge generated during these sessions. − There is a reciprocal relationship between the tools and localized participatory activities: while the game provides a shared language for discussion, insights from these discussions help to refine and expand the knowledge of both academic experts and practice experts. Participants are encouraged to start by redefining the problem from their own perspectives, using the knowledge embedded in the game as a foundation. To broaden the approach, alternative methods like sequential role-playing were suggested. This way collaboration and collective knowledge-building is reinforced, empowering participants to feel like experts in the discussion. 3.3.4. Conclusion The evaluation of the game in Delft highlighted both its strengths and areas for improvement. The game session was successful in fostering a transdisciplinary exchange by providing a common language for structuring knowledge across disciplines. However, the need for clearer definitions and a more accessible approach for non-academic stakeholders became apparent. Participants expressed confusion about certain components of the game, such as the distinction between influencers and decisionmakers, and the academic nature of the cards was seen as a barrier to broader engagement. Adaptations, including clearer instructions, role play, and context-specific examples, were suggested to make the toolbox more relevant and user-friendly across diverse settings. The sessions highlighted that these tools, when combined with participatory activities, are not intended to provide direct solutions but rather to deepen understanding of complex issues, foster dialogue, and support strategic thinking. To enhance its effectiveness, the tools should be customised based on the specific needs of stakeholders, balancing complexity with practical applicability. By simplifying terminology, refining content, and tailoring sessions to context, the TEASH toolbox can better foster cooperation, generate ideas, and serve as a valuable tool for tackling challenges in affordable and sustainable housing. The main takeaway of the sessions is the need for ESRs, together with non-academic partner organisations to tailor the toolbox based on their own needs, ensuring a balance between complexity and effectiveness, with specific recommendations and strategies for Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 34 context-specific cases. This customization should aim to clarify the toolbox’s purpose, simplify its terminology, refine its structure and content for better clarity and focus, and enhance the interaction and content of the cards to ensure tangible outcomes. By adapting the sessions to fit different contexts and stakeholders’ needs, the TEASH toolbox can better serve as a means for fostering cooperation, facilitating dialogue, and collectively building knowledge to address complex challenges in affordable and sustainable housing. 3.4. Barcelona conference The final stage of the toolbox's development took place at the Barcelona Final Conference, Spain, featuring a participatory session centred on the TEASH toolbox. In preparation for this session, ESRs were tasked with defining issues and objectives for the customised partner organisations' game board, drawing on insights from ESRs' secondment reports and the May RE-DWELL non-academic partner organisations survey. This process facilitated the refinement of the boards, which were updated and structured as dynamic, scenario-based tools to encourage collaborative dialogue between partner organisations, supervisors, ESRs, and external participants. The connection between the three types of knowledge outlined in the literature was explicitly embedded in the session (Deliverable 4.6). 3.4.1. Game tool re-design The updated version of the game integrated insights gained from the Reading and Delft sessions, along with the most recent advancements from the collective research efforts. For this session, the toolbox included three types of cards: − Target knowledge 24 cards (yellow), meaning the “Dimensions”, “Levels”, and “Challenges” to define the problem at hand − Systems knowledge 70 cards (green), corresponding to “Actors”, “Methods”, and “Tools” that are able to operate within the system − Transformation knowledge 60 cards (blue), including “Policies”, “Projects”, and “Partnerships” which become instrumental in applying measures that impact the given reality (Figure 3.16) Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 35 Figure 3.16. Card types used in the Barcelona session In addition to the cards, the TEASH toolbox for the Barcelona session included a board customized to fit the non-academic partner organisations that participated, tailored to address the issues and objectives identified in the May 2023 surveys and ESRs' secondment inputs (Table 3.3). The board simulates the design process of creating impactful solutions, providing a hands-on, interactive way to explore and develop strategies (Figure 3.17). Table 3.3. Issues and corresponding objectives from the Housing Europe group’s board Issues Objectives Promoting policies and initiatives that increase access to affordable housing, ensuring that everyone has a place to call home without facing financial hardship Fit with financial means of the people in need Promoting energy-efficient building practices, retrofitting existing housing stock, and incorporating principles of universal design to ensure accessibility for all residents Building homes, within limits of the natural resources Creating inclusive communities where everyone has the opportunity to thrive Influencing policy changes at local, national, and international levels to prioritize affordable housing and address systemic barriers to accessibility In addition to specifying the challenges being discussed, the board provided structure to the interactive session, based on three stages —1. Preparation, 2. Co-creation, and 3. impact—, which were supported by key-questions and tips that gave directions to address them (Figure 3.18). Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 36 Figure 3.17. Board used by the Housing Europe group Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 37 Figure 3.18. A team engaging with the board in the Barcelona session Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 38 Table 3.4. The three stages defined in the board Stage Cards Tips Stage 1: Preparation 1. Challenge (yellow) Looking at the issues described by the partner organisation, select one Challenge Card that relates to one or more of those. If there is no good match, write a new Challenge and place it here! 2. Who should be involved in a successful preparation phase? (green) Think about different types of knowledge/ experience that each actor can bring 3. What tools and methods can facilitate the preparation phase? (green) Think about the activities that need to happen and the way to support them; e.g., how can the selected actors cooperate? 4. What are the expected outcomes of the preparation phase? (grey) They can be practical, technical, social, operational, etc. Stage 2: Co-creation 5. Who should be involved in a successful co-creation phase? (green) You can add other actors indicated on the cards or use the markers to link to those defined in stage 1. 6. What tools and methods can facilitate the co-creation phase? (green) You can add other tool cards and methods indicated on the green cards or use the markers to link to those defined in stage 1. 7. What are the expected outcomes of the co-creation phase? (grey) They can be practical, technical, social, operational, etc. Stage 3: Impact 8. What needs to happen to achieve long term impact? (blue) The impact may be related to changes in policy/ partnerships/ projects, etc. 3.4.2. Participatory session The session was carried out in six teams, with one team focusing on Design, Planning, and Building, two teams dedicated to Policy and Financing, and three teams concentrating on Community Participation, facilitated by Alexandra Paio (ISCTE). The division of the team members was based on the ESRs' secondments and the expertise of supervisors, who have a deep understanding of the context, issues, and challenges faced by the specific non-academic partner organisations (Table 3.5). This structure ensured that each team could leverage specific knowledge and skills to address relevant topics effectively. Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 39 Table 3.5. Teams and focus areas of the Barcelona session Team Partner Organization Research area ESRs External Supervisors 1 Elanor Warwick (Clarion Housing Group) Design, Planning & Building Leonardo Ricaurte, Carolina Martín Margaux Lespagnard Lorraine Farrelly, Núria Martí 2 Charalambos Iacovou (Cyprus Land Dev. Corporation) Community Participation Andreas Panagidis Lorenzo Stefano Iannizzotto, Fabio Lepratto, Michelle Norris Nadia Charalambous 3 Margherita Marinelli (Housing Europe) Policy & Financing Tijn Croon, Mahmoud Alsaeed Marja Elsinga, Krzysztof Nawratek, Ignacio Guillén 4 Jose Téllez (Sostre Cívic) Community Participation Androniki Pappa, Zoe Tzika Newsha Salari Carla Sentieri, Leandro Madrazo 5 Ana Zadelj Kovač, (Ceraneo) Policy & Financing Marko Horvat, Anna Martin Aboli Mangire, Giuliana Miglierina, Adirane Calvo Gojko Bezovan, Adrienne Csizmady 6 Jordi SerranoCodina (Incasòl) Community Participation Saskia Furman, Lucia Chaloin Noémi Gyárfás Karim Hadjri, Adriana Diaconu, Ana Vaz Milheiro (External Advisory Board) The structure of the session followed a clear progression, organized into the following stages: 1. Team formation: Participants were divided into teams, ensuring a mix of expertise and perspectives; 2. Problem identification: Each team identified key issues and challenges relevant to their focus area, drawing on the specific knowledge and expertise of team members; 3. Strategy development: Teams brainstormed and developed strategies to address the identified problems, integrating insights from their fields and the practical experiences of non-academic partners (Figure 3.19); 4. Final presentation: Each team presented their refined solutions, highlighting anticipated benefits and implementation strategies, ensuring a comprehensive approach to the issues; 5. Feedback and iteration: After the presentations, each team filled out an online form to provide feedback and reflect on the session. Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 40 Figure 3.19. A nearly completed board at the Barcelona session 3.4.3. Assessment of an example The Barcelona version of the TEASH toolbox was used in a discussion that exemplifies this connection: the case brought forward by Housing Europe. Initially, the team focused on the lack of housing, thinking in economic terms of demand and supply and in terms of land and production of new dwellings. However, while exploring the problem definition with the toolbox and input from different disciplines and policy, a new definition was co-created: a lack of dwelling space. This new problem definition opened a wider scope for strategies to tackle the problem: not only the production of new dwellings, but also more efficiently use vacant and underoccupied dwellings. What happened while following the route on the board is that the target knowledge became more abstract—it was not only about housing production, but about dwelling— leading to a brainstorming about more efficient use of the housing stock at various levels (Figure 3.20). Merging these perspectives means that the systems knowledge to consider was different, opening the way: the team was able to draw from different disciplines, and identify new solutions and strategies (transformation knowledge), such as taxing underoccupied or vacant houses, regulating the use of dwelling spaces, and organizing new living concepts, like cooperatives or collaborative housing. Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 41 Figure 3.20. Redefinition of the problem (in white the original definitions, in yellow the reframed issues and solution space) Problem definition is a critical first step in addressing complex issues. Bringing together diverse expertise to understand the issue at an abstract level and produce a joint definition often leads to new problem definitions, which, in turn, open pathways to innovative strategies. Abstraction is a cornerstone of transdisciplinarity, and participatory tools plays a pivotal role in this process. By distilling complex issues to their essential characteristics and omitting less relevant details, the toolbox fosters broader understanding and enhances communication among diverse stakeholders. This is particularly valuable in housing provision, where it bridges divides between individuals with varying expertise, needs, and interests. For example, abstracting the core elements of sustainable housing design can help urban planners, architects, and policymakers align their objectives, resulting in more inclusive and effective solutions. As a tool for transdisciplinary knowledge exchange, the TEASH toolbox facilitates collaboration among disciplines and supports engagement with both academic and nonacademic partners, including experts and non-experts. There is significant potential for further customization of the toolbox, such as incorporating concrete examples or creating tailored versions for specific contexts. By integrating diverse knowledge and balancing abstract concepts with practical issues, the toolbox helps build shared understanding and enables the development of targeted strategies. Our assessment of the TEASH toolbox highlights its effectiveness in supporting collaboration among stakeholders in housing projects. By promoting abstraction, structuring discussions, and aiding in decision-making, the toolbox addresses complex factors such as technical details and regulations. This approach fosters common ground, increases the potential for consensus, and guides stakeholders toward broader, more accessible concepts, ultimately enhancing decision-making and project outcomes. Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 48 Figure 4.2. Board developed for the Lisbon focus group session Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 49 Table 4.3 Structure of the Lisbon focus group session Stages of the activity Stage 1: Preparation Stage 2: Co-creation Stage 3: Impact Questions • What is Vila Romão for you? • Who should be involved in the preparation of a successful retrofit project? • What tools and methods can facilitate the preparation of a retrofit project? • What are the expected outcomes for the preparation phase of a retrofit project? • Who should be involved in the implementation of a successful retrofit project? • What tools and methods can facilitate the implementation of a retrofit project? • What are the expected outcomes of the implementation phase of a retrofit project? • What needs to happen to achieve long-term impact? • Change policy to include residents in retrofit projects? Focus Discussing conception phase of Vila Romão, focusing on involved actors, methodologies, resources, and tools used. Addressing implementation phase by recomposing the network of current actors, methodologies, and tools. Imagining the future of rehabilitation processes beyond their current project experience. The themes guiding the discussion were based on some of the pressing issues that the rehabilitation project poses, namely: 1. balancing the intervention processes and daily living; 2. enhancing understanding among municipality, residents, and technicians; and 3. improving day-to-day interactions among all involved in the project. Participants were divided in two groups and realized the activity in three rounds, each lasting approximately 90 minutes. 4.1.4. Key insights This focus group highlighted the complexity of retrofitting projects that aim to involve residents with diverse approaches and interests. Table 4.4 summarises the main insights that emerged from the focus group session. Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 50 Table 4.4. Key insights from the Lisbon focus group session Themes Key insights Transdisciplinary Environment as a facilitator • Facilitation tools allowed for multi-perspective dialogue • Allowed people whose paths would usually not cross to interact • Opened possibilities for stakeholders to communicate and act • Promoted a shared willingness to collaborate and listen • Helped participants share their knowledge beyond traditional discussion methods • Post it exercise helped bring residents’ opinions and suggestions into the discussion Added value for the challenge • Combining technical and social orientations • Highlighting complementarity of concerns and interests • Supporting the decision-making process by considering more bottom-up inputs The activity brought together stakeholders who typically would not engage directly, offering them a valuable opportunity to collaborate. This experience provided participants with a comprehensive view of the entire process, which some may not have had the chance to learn about or access otherwise. The focus group session emphasized the importance of multi-perspective dialogue facilitated by various tools, enabling participants to leverage their expertise and share their knowledge and experiences beyond traditional discussion methods. The game fostered communication among policymakers, technicians, workers, and residents, helping them build a shared understanding of the issues impacting their community. In addition, the use of post-its (as “customizable cards”) played a crucial role in supporting bottom-up input, allowing residents’ knowledge to surface through practical, everyday insights. The interviews revealed some potential dissonance between residents’ bottom-up input and a vertical decision-making approach based on professional competencies, meaning that at times there is a conflict between what residents want and need, and what is considered best according to a top-down assessment (from the Municipality and other high-level stakeholders). Despite these issues, the focus group session promoted a collaborative and incentivising atmosphere that mitigated those barriers. The high participation in the activity suggests that the materials and processes used supported a generative and effective collaboration environment (Figure 4.3). The session showed that residents were the least engaged—in spite of the efforts of other participants in stimulating the discussion for all. Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 51 Figure 4.3. The board after the discussion Vila Romão’s context-specific challenges and benefits underscore the complexities of keeping residents in their homes during renovations to avoid displacement. While this approach offers practical and social support, it also leads to delays due to the need for temporary utility connections and continuous communication efforts. The group session highlighted the intricacies of stakeholder collaboration in participatory renovation projects and underscored the potential of combining technical and social approaches in participatory retrofitting. It also emphasized the importance of multi-perspective dialogue and diverse facilitation tools to improve collaboration and decision-making throughout the process. 4.1.5. Evaluation Following the focus group session, a questionnaire evaluating the experience was provided to the participants. In the analysis of the responses some moderation-related issues were identified, such as the need for briefing and debriefing moments, the need for better time management, and safeguarding that all the stakeholders were heard. Other questions mentioned in the evaluation relate to the difficulty of some participants (mostly residents) in understanding certain concepts on the cards—e.g., materials portfolio, participant observation. This was justified by the short time for understanding the concepts and due to social, cultural, and power barriers, which constituted significant challenges. As a result, some participants, mainly residents, considered it hard to express different positions in the group interaction. Some participants pointed out the need for simpler and more dynamic materials, better adapted to support residents’ understanding (like better readability, more colours, explanations)—something that should be considered and developed taking a case-bycase approach. The methodology of combining individual and group data collection highlighted the challenges participants faced in expressing differing viewpoints. It became clear that Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 52 group interactions made it easier for individuals to voice their perspectives compared to one-on-one interviews. Participants also noted the positive, willing attitudes of others, which, while not inherently reproducible, may have been encouraged by the collaborative environment of the activity. In addition to the evaluation questionnaire, a brief post-session survey was conducted to gather a more comprehensive understanding of the participants' impressions and the insights they gained from the activity. The survey responses emphasized the need for clearer and more accessible materials and processes, including a better introduction to the activity’s objectives. Participants also suggested enhancing the experience by incorporating additional activities or site visits. To improve group dynamics, they recommended forming smaller, more diverse groups in terms of participants' backgrounds. Despite the difficulties, participants indicated high levels of satisfaction, particularly about the dynamics of the activity that promoted spontaneous opinions and the rare intersection of stakeholders’ viewpoints, as well as the overview of the whole process, to which some might otherwise not have access. Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 53 4.2. London focus group session On May 22, 2024, a team led by ESR Leonardo Ricaurte, supported by Clarion Housing Group representative Elanor Warwick, organized a focus group session entitled “Beyond Standardisation: social value innovation and contextual adaptation” at Clarion's offices in London, UK (Figure 4.4). The session took place in the context of Leonardo’s secondment at Clarion Housing Group—a UK-based Housing Association. The aim was to explore opportunities and barriers to developing a Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) process that can elucidate the quantitative and qualitative impacts of Clarion’s activities that connect POE and Social Value. Figure 4.4. London focus group session Housing associations (HAs) play a crucial role in creating long-term social value in the housing sector. With their wide-ranging interactions and interest in community wellbeing, HAs are in a unique position to implement innovative strategies that drive regeneration, development and retrofit initiatives. 4.2.1. Preparation In preparation of the focus group session, Leonardo conducted a series of interviews with Clarion staff to explore the environment and attitude of participants, about their approach to creating, monitoring and evaluating social value. This was a fundamental step in preparing for the session, not only because it sensitised participants about the topics being discussed, but because it gave the researcher information that would be used to guide the focus group session. This data collection process fed into Leonardo’s PhD research, which seeks to unveil the links between social value creation, the design of the housing block and the expansion of residents’ capabilities as a metric to assess their quality of life. The intention was to provide feedback and show preliminary findings of the first stage of data collection to participants and other relevant Clarion staff. Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 54 4.2.2. Participants To prepare the focus group session, it was necessary to select and recruit participants based on their interest and relevance to the social value chain within the organisation, aiming at covering the range of responsibilities comprehensively. An invitation was sent introducing the objectives of the activity and outlining questions and a challenge to be addressed based on the analysis of the data collected (Table 4.5). In addition, a report was sent together with the invitation, containing an introduction to the collaboration between Clarion and the RE-DWELL programme. This served to get their attention and show that the participation could be valuable to them as well. Table 4.5. Recruitment message explaining the activity Leonardo is proposing a 90 min two-part session as below: Session proposal 1. Clarion’s social value testimonies: The first part of the session will revolve around the main takeaways and findings from the interviews conducted over the last year with Clarion staff. Presentation by Leonardo followed by discussion. Key themes of the discussion are: • How can we get an accurate picture of the outcomes and impacts that our intervention has on our residents? • Are all our outputs reflected and fairly accounted for on current social value figures? • How can we get access to a true picture of the local scale of need and opportunities? 2. From Social Value to POE: Collecting the data systematically and accurately is crucial to developing a robust social value strategy across the group. POE can help to engage with residents at a local level and better understand the impact of interventions, local values and increase empowerment and sense of agency. • What are Clarion’s next steps to progress and reinforce the benefits from both processes? Problem case This session will be focused on the opportunities and barriers to developing a POE process that can help shed light on the quantitative and qualitative impacts of Clarion’s activities. Focusing on the context of the Neighbourhood Standard and the work done with the Quality of Life Foundation, it will address the practical challenges to implementing the theoretical capabilities approach which connects POE and Social Value. Clarion operates across the UK and some participants are not based in London or work in the offices where the activity took place (this is particularly true for the resident involvement staff). To maximise attendance, it was therefore necessary to offer the option of a hybrid meeting (online and in-person) to include those who could not be at the organisation’s offices in central London, but whose attendance was very important for the purposes of the activity. When selecting participants, emphasis was placed on ensuring representativeness and relevance within the social value chain. To achieve this, a wide range of departments and disciplines was included in the selection process (Table 4.6). Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 55 Table 4.6. List of participants including role and form of participation Type of actor Participation In person Online Director of Strategic Asset Management x Director of Regeneration x Regeneration Project Manager x Partnerships & Projects Manager x Community & Social Impact Lead x Portfolio Analyst x Head of Asset Strategy x Head of Strategic Partnerships x Regional Resident Involvement & Scrutiny Manager x Resident Involvement & Scrutiny Manager (2) x The session aimed to be relevant to a wide range of staff. An ideal list of participants included individuals from various levels of the business hierarchy: a few directors, some strategic decision-makers and, crucially, front-line staff delivering programmes and directly engaging with residents. For this session, Leonardo considered including residents, as the simplified version of the activity on a topic more relevant to social housing tenants would have worked well; however, due to logistic limitations, it was not possible. 4.2.3. Participatory session The activity needed to be both grounded and feasible, yet conceptually stimulating, providing space for reflexive and speculative interactions that are often rare in a highly action-oriented organization. For the interactive session, the RE-DWELL transdisciplinary knowledge taxonomy—target, systems, and transformation knowledge—was employed to guide the discussion and facilitate the development of common ground among representatives from different departments within the company. A board was designed to structure the conversation into three phases (Figure 4.5), corresponding to the three types of knowledge. Each phase followed the same order and used the same prompt questions from the RE-DWELL cards. This format enabled the discussion to focus quickly on key issues, leveraging participants’ existing expertise and addressing the challenge of limited time for the activity. Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 56 Figure 4.5. Board developed for the London focus group session The focus group session began with Leonardo explaining the preliminary findings of his secondment and introducing the RE-DWELL programme. After Leonardo presented findings from the first phase of the interviews and fieldwork, the activity was introduced. For that, a diagram with the relevant concepts and the key types of knowledge was presented (as described in Deliverable 4.6). In addition to the printed on-site version, the Miro online platform was used to include the online and in-person participants. The hybrid format implied a pre-registration on Miro, which ensured that people became familiar with the board structure and were curious to see how it would be used it. After introducing the structure of the activity and the overall objectives, the potential benefits of open discussion among staff were highlighted, who rarely have the opportunity to discuss issues impacting their roles. Each phase of the focus group session was then explained in detail. Table 4.7 summarises the questions for each type of knowledge. Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 57 Table 4.7. Structure of the London focus group session Type of knowledge 1. Target Knowledge 2. Systems Knowledge 3. Transformation Knowledge Time allocated 15 minutes 10 minutes 15 minutes Questions What are the expected outcomes? • Group-wide social value strategy • Connecting the topdown with the bottomup • From Social Value to POE. Establishing learning-loops Who should be involved and what tools and methods can facilitate the process? What needs to happen to achieve long-term impact? (transform existing practices and introduce desired ones) Focus Discussing conception phase of Vila Romão, focusing on involved actors, methodologies, resources, and tools used. • Actors • Methods • Tools • Projects • Policies • Partnerships The participants were familiar with each other’s roles and responsibilities, which saved time on introductions, but had little experience in collaborating together. This meant that there was enough trust to talk openly and frankly about difficult situations and barriers, while also having an interest in hearing fresh opinions and occasionally opposing viewpoints. Following various iterations of the RE-DWELL game cards, presenting a simplified format with the board—moving directly to outcomes without an initial preparation phase—felt justified. This was due to the pre-work selecting the session topic and participants sharing familiar organisational objectives and targets. Clarion’s longstanding practice in measuring social value and maturing Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) approaches were referenced, but much of the discussion centred on what the organisation is not yet doing. These shared core aims, which could be deemed as the establishing common ground phase, led to rapid switching between subjects and examples, with minimal time spent on explanation. This reliance on a common organisational language with cryptic references to internal challenges, personnel, or existing programmes made connections that might have been less obvious to an external observer. However, this slight obscurity was offset by a deeper level of discussion. The elaboration of specific, topic-related questions for each knowledge level (target, systems, and transformation) helped to quickly embed the concepts in participants' minds. Nevertheless, it was essential to have two facilitators — one to steer the discussion as the focus group lead and one to act as a scribe. 4.2.4.Key insights This local implementation highlights the complexity of considering a large organisation like Clarion that operates across fields of knowledge and practice with diverse Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 64 Figure 4.8. Board developed for the Nicosia focus group session The board guiding the activity consisted of three stages: “Preparation”, “Co-creation”, and “Impact”. Table 4.11 below details the three stages and the questions in each. Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 65 Table 4.11. Structure of the Nicosia focus group session Stages of the activity Stage 1: Preparation Stage 2: Co-creation Stage 3: Impact Questions • What are the specific problems experienced in the Dafni neighbourhood? • Which actors can be involved in planning a neighbourhood with affordable housing? • How does the Dafni project reveal the communication gaps between actors? • Which methods of collaboration can be used involving the scale of the neighbourhood? • Which topics related to housing and public space can be addressed? • What tools can facilitate better communication between previous actors? • Which new partnerships could help address some of the barriers to collaboration? • Which policies could be changed with the aim to solve communication problems? How? • How do government institutions influence different actors’ decisions? • What are the expected outcomes of a new approach at neighbourhood level? • How do these ideas and potential solutions impact your way of working/ living? The focus group session prompted a discussion about ways of sharing information and knowledge from the initial stage to the implementation of a project, including platforms for cross-learning and for developing policy and practice recommendations. Another key topic of discussion was the provision of affordable housing options—both for purchasing and renting—specifically for individuals who face difficulties accessing housing through the private sector, while still meeting financial criteria. The activity was carried out in two rounds, each lasting approximately one hour. 4.3.4.Key insights Table 4.12 below summarises the key insights from the focus group session and the added value for the challenge. Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 66 Table 4.12. Key insights from the Nicosia focus group session Themes Key insights Group session • Functioned as a platform for exchanging opinions, meeting people, and discussing problems • Allowed varied perspectives and solutions that might not have emerged in a more homogenous group • Provided a structured yet open forum Added value for the challenge • The activity fostered the involvement of different people from government, local authorities, and residents • It allowed moving the discussion from the scale of the municipality to the scale of the neighbourhood • Using of photos and maps facilitate a neighbourhood-focused approach, bridging the gap between abstract discussions and the tangible realities of the context • Including all stakeholders in a horizontal discussion leads to more sustainable and contextually appropriate solutions Participants expressed that broader participation would have enriched the discussions and outcomes. While they acknowledged the value of the session, particularly in providing an opportunity to meet and interact with others, there was a strong consensus that the effectiveness of the focus group session could be enhanced by involving a wider range of voices. Many participants underscored the importance of regular and sustained involvement from a more diverse cross-section of stakeholders, including both government representatives and residents in the efforts to plan and manage affordable housing neighbourhoods. They noted that the inclusion of these groups is crucial for fostering a more comprehensive dialogue and ensuring that the discussions are not only reflective of a variety of perspectives but also grounded in the realities and needs of the broader community. The participants felt that the presence of government officials would provide a direct link to policy-making processes, while the participation of citizens would ensure that the community’s concerns and aspirations are adequately represented. Furthermore, participants emphasized the importance of diversity within the group, particularly noting the presence of community members. They pointed out that the mix of backgrounds, experiences, and viewpoints among the group was one of the session’s most valuable aspects. The inclusion of community members was especially significant, as it ensured that the discussions were rooted in the lived experiences of those who are directly affected by the issues being addressed. This diversity allowed for a richer and more nuanced exploration of the topics at hand, enabling participants to consider different perspectives and solutions that might not have emerged in a more homogenous group. Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 67 The group agreed that the approach taken to discuss neighbourhood problems was both innovative and engaging. They found the participatory methodology to be a refreshing and effective way to bring attention to the various issues facing their community. The participants appreciated the opportunity to engage with one another in a structured yet open forum, where they could voice their concerns, share their insights, and collaboratively explore potential solutions. However, despite the overall positive response, the participants highlighted the need for more time to thoroughly explore and address the complex issues that were brought to the table. They noted that many of the topics discussed, such as urban planning, social inequality, and affordable housing, are deeply intricate and interconnected, requiring thus a more extensive discussion. Moreover, the participants acknowledged the inherent challenges in addressing such complex issues within their community. They pointed out that these problems often involve long-standing practices and established attitudes, making it difficult to convince people to adopt new ways of thinking and doing things. The group stressed that one of the biggest challenges lies in building consensus around new strategies for tackling neighbourhood problems. This involves not only convincing individuals but also navigating the diverse and sometimes conflicting interests within the community. The participants further recognized the need for ongoing education and dialogue to help people understand the benefits of alternative approaches and to foster a willingness to experiment with new solutions. As such, future discussions could benefit from a more sustained engagement process, where the community can revisit topics over time, allowing for the gradual building of consensus and the co-creation of new strategies. One of the key lessons that emerged was recognising of the importance of shifting the focus of discussions from the broader scale of the municipality to the more localised scale of the neighbourhood. Participants realized that while municipal-level planning and discussions are essential for overarching policy and infrastructural frameworks, they often overlook the unique characteristics, needs, and dynamics of individual neighbourhoods. By concentrating on the neighbourhood scale, the discussion can become more relevant, targeted, and impactful, allowing for a deeper understanding of the specific issues that affect residents on a day-to-day basis. In addition, the shift to a more specific scale like the neighbourhood was seen as not only desirable but necessary, allowing for the identification of specific needs and challenges that might be overlooked in broader municipal-level planning. The materials employed during the activity, which included photos and maps, were particularly effective in facilitating this neighbourhood-focused approach, bridging the gap between abstract discussions and the tangible realities of the context. These visual elements provided participants with a concrete and detailed understanding of the site in question, allowing them to engage more meaningfully with the space and its challenges. During the discussion, participants emphasized the need for more horizontal dialogue, advocating for less top-down communication between different levels of governance and the community. Traditional top-down approaches were seen as insufficient for addressing the nuanced needs of individual contexts. A more inclusive process would ensure that diverse Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 68 perspectives are considered, leading to more sustainable and contextually appropriate solutions that truly reflect the needs and desires of the community. Finally, participants stressed the importance of widening the scope of collaboration to include a more diversified range of stakeholders. This includes local businesses, non-profit organisations, schools, and even informal community groups. This would ensure more comprehensive and inclusive solutions. Engaging a wider range of stakeholders would also help to build stronger community ties and foster a sense of shared responsibility for the neighbourhood’s future, making the implementation of plans more effective and sustainable. 4.3.5. Evaluation After completing the session, participants were asked to fill out a short questionnaire to evaluate their experience. The data collected was then analysed to provide an idea of strengths and weaknesses of the activity, the interactions and outcomes. One of the key strengths identified was the session served as an effective forum for the exchange of ideas and opinions. Participants appreciated the opportunity to meet with others from diverse backgrounds, which facilitated rich discussions around the issues being addressed. This collaborative environment enabled the cross-pollination of ideas, fostering a deeper understanding of the system, its problems, and the stakeholders involved through the sharing of multiple perspectives. However, the analysis also revealed some areas for improvement. A common concern was the need for more time to address the complexity adequately. Participants felt that, while the activity encouraged broad discussions, the time available was insufficient for diving deeply into more intricate topics. This was seen as a limitation to fully exploring the dimensions that the focus group session aimed to address. The materials provided to support the discussion were generally regarded as useful, especially in aiding participants’ understanding of the site, its challenges, processes, and stakeholders. However, some participants suggested these materials could be improved. They recommended a simpler format and content, particularly at the outset, to facilitate a smoother introduction to issues at hand. A more streamlined presentation of the materials and the activity could help participants engage more quickly and effectively, allowing them to focus on the substantive discussions rather than dealing with the initial effort. Overall, the feedback confirmed that the focus group session was to a valuable means for fostering dialogue and collaboration, although there is room for refinement, particularly in terms of time management and the presentation of materials, to better support participants in navigating complex issues. Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 69 4.4. Takeaway from the local implementations The local implementations took place in three contexts: 1. in Lisbon, paying attention to issues surrounding a housing complex under a retrofitting process, and particularly on the challenges of coexistence between residents and construction personnel; 2. in London, discussing issues around the operation of a large housing association involving various departments and organisational levels and their concerns on connecting post-occupancy evaluation processes to social value creation; 3. and in Nicosia, focusing on the deficient communication between the actors involved in planning and maintaining affordable housing, considering matters of urban design, maintenance of spaces, and municipal-resident cooperation at the neighbourhood scale. In order to apply the TEASH toolbox in these context-specific local cases, the structure of the participatory sessions and the material used was adapted to fit the unique challenges of each location. In common, the local implementations carried out a session in the form of a focus group (conversational session with a small group of individuals with certain needs and interests about a particular subject), using card sets based on the previous development of the game within the RE-DWELL network, adding and a board containing tailor-made questions to guide the participatory activities in discussing contextual issues around housing provision. The tripartite knowledge acquisition categorization directly informed the questions used in the sessions. Systems knowledge shaped questions about the structures and interactions within the context, focusing on the overall complexity of the challenge. Target knowledge guided questions about goals, values, and the criteria for evaluating the desirability or acceptability of potential solutions or interventions, helping to develop a shared vision among participants. Transformation knowledge contributed to questions about the strategies and actions necessary to achieve the desired outcomes identified during the discussions. 4.4.1. Adaptations for different contexts All local implementations benefited from a “Connecting phase” in which ESRs gathered stakeholders relevant for the subsequent focus group sessions. These networks were fundamental in the recruitment of diversified groups representing the different needs, interests, and desires of the people affected by the challenges being proposed for discussion. In Lisbon and Nicosia, the sessions also benefited from an “Exploratory phase”, prior to the focus group sessions. This additional step helped the ESRs to better understand the contexts and their challenges in preparation for the discussions, and helped sensitize the participants for the topics being considered. In Lisbon, the tools used facilitated interactions between different levels of stakeholders that typically do not engage with one another. In addition, it provided residents with an overview of the entire process, a perspective they rarely gain. However, as laypeople, residents required special adaptations in methods and language to ensure their full integration and participation. It was noted that a better introduction to explain the process would enhance understanding and engagement. Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 70 In London, specifically within the Clarion Housing Association, the focus group session was carried out in a hybrid format (online and in person), which was desirable for a large organisation, attesting to the toolbox's flexibility. This adaptability enabled the inclusion of many relevant voices in the discussion of overarching implications for the organisation, conversations that seldom occur within such a structured environment. In Nicosia, the session enabled a shift in focus from the city scale to the neighbourhood scale, addressing specific local challenges. Like in Lisbon, the need for a better introductory explanation of the process was identified to ensure participants fully grasped the objectives and procedures. 4.4.2.Highlights from the evaluation Across the three local implementations it is possible to observe that the terminology was often complex, particularly for residents, and that the activities required more time to be fully effective. Differences emerged as well: in Lisbon and Nicosia, most group members were unfamiliar with each other, leading to a different group dynamic, while in London, colleagues who already knew each other experienced a new, more flexible way of working together during the activity, characterized by a free-flow approach rather than following a strict agenda. This prompted the use of a different board in London, supporting the reasoning behind this variation. In Lisbon and Nicosia, the focus was primarily on geographical areas and scales, while in London, the emphasis was on the culture within the organisation. These differences resulted in the experience with the activity being different among the participants, with variations in how the format and materials were perceived and utilized. In Lisbon and Nicosia, where many participants were new to each other, the activity served as an introduction to collaborative problem-solving. In contrast, in London, where participants were colleagues, the activity provided a fresh approach to working together, promoting a more fluid and flexible discussion format. These insights underscore the importance of tailoring the toolbox to fit the specific needs and dynamics of each local context. Across all sessions, the activities provided significant value by fostering a deeper understanding of both the topic and the diverse perspectives involved. However, some aspects of the activity were perceived as too abstract, suggesting a need for simplification or further clarification in future iterations. The presence and role of expert facilitators proved crucial in guiding the sessions, ensuring that discussions remained focused and productive. In conclusion, the methods and tools applied in the participatory have proven to be a valuable and versatile means for engaging stakeholders in affordable and sustainable housing projects, offering a structured yet adaptable approach that can be tailored to the unique dynamics of each local context. The differences in focus, experience, and key insights in the three session underscore the toolbox's adaptability and its potential to address the unique needs of diverse local contexts. The insights gained from these implementations are helpful in refining the toolbox further, ensuring it meets the diverse needs of stakeholders while continuing to foster meaningful dialogue and collaboration. Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 71 5. Final reflections The TEASH toolbox was developed and applied to operationalize the principles of transdisciplinarity in addressing the challenge of providing affordable and sustainable housing. It aimed to: 1. understand the complexity of the housing challenge; 2. incorporate diverse perspectives—both academic and non-academic—on housing problems, goals, and strategies; 3. bridge abstract and specific knowledge across both academic experts and practice experts; and 4. develop shared understanding and practices that contribute to the common goal of solving the societal issue of inadequate housing. The components of the TEASH toolbox were designed to be adaptable and customizable to meet the specific needs of stakeholder groups tackling affordable and sustainable housing challenges in different contexts. This adaptation process involved providing participatory tools to foster constructive exchanges among stakeholders. Through these discussions, participants were able to collectively define the problem, set objectives, explore strategies for achieving them, and anticipate the impact on the prevailing conditions. The active involvement of ESRs and partner organizations in implementing the TEASH toolbox has greatly enhanced the effectiveness of these collaborative efforts. Their participation in real-world settings allowed them to contribute not only to academic discourse but also to provide practical, actionable solutions tailored to address contextspecific challenges. The inclusion of non-academic partner organizations in the assessment phase further enriched the toolbox's development, offering valuable insights into its application. For example, following the assessment sessions in Reading and Delft, a key insight emerged about the critical role of local contexts and the specific challenges and stakeholders that shape them. Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 72 6. Bibliography Bammer, G. (2015a). Toolkits for Transdisciplinarity – Toolkit #1. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 24(3), 149-149. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.24.3.2 Bammer, G. (2015b). Toolkits for Transdisciplinarity – Toolkit #2. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 24(4), 221-221. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.24.4.2 Bammer, G. (2016a). Toolkits for Transdisciplinarity – Toolkit #3. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 25(1), 7-7. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.25.1.3 Bammer, G. (2016b). Toolkits for Transdisciplinarity – Toolkit #4. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 25(2) 77-77. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.25.2.2 Bammer, G. (2016c). Toolkits for Transdisciplinarity – Toolkit #5. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 25(3), 149-149. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.25.3.2 Bammer, G. (2016d). Toolkits for Transdisciplinarity – Toolkit #6. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 25(4), 229-229. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.25.4.2 Bammer, G. (2017a). Toolkits for Transdisciplinarity – Toolkit #7. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 26(1), 7-7. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.26.1.3 Bammer, G. (2017b). Toolkits for Transdisciplinarity – Toolkit #8. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 26(2), 79-79. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.26.2.3 Brandt, E., Binder, T., & Sanders, E. (2012). Tools and Techniques: Ways to Engage Telling, Making and Enacting. In Simonsen, J., & Robertson, T. (Eds), Handbook of Participatory Design (pp. 145-181). New York: Routledge. Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M., & Robson, K. (2001). Focus groups in social research. SAGE Publications Ltd Buser, T. (2016, November). Pop up Webinar: Best Practices on Transdisciplinary and Co Designed Research [Webinar]. Future Earth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEOvBEQ7YJ4 Dalsgaard, P. (2017). Instruments of inquiry: Understanding the nature and role of tools in design. International Journal of Design, 11(1), 21-33. https://www.ijdesign.org/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/2275 Doucet, I., & Janssens, N. (2011). Transdisciplinary Knowledge Production in Architecture and Urbanism. Towards Hybrid Modes of Inquiry. Springer. Hemström, K., Simon, D., Palmer, H., Perry, B., & Polk, M. (2021). Transdisciplinary Knowledge Co-production. A guide for Sustainable Cities. Rugby, UK: Practical Action Publishing. Deliverable 4.7 – A toolbox to support transdisciplinary knowledge construction 73 Hirsch Hádorn, G., Hoffmann-Riem, H., Biber-Klemm, S., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Joye, D., Pohl, C., Wiesmann, U., & Zemp., E. (2007). Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research. Springer. Jacobi, A., Llanque, S.M., Mukhovi, E., Birachi, P., von Groote, R., Eschen, I., Hilber-Schöb, D.I., Kiba, E., Frossard, C., Robledo-Abad, C. (2022). Transdisciplinary co-creation increases the utilization of knowledge from sustainable development research. Environmental Science & Policy, 129, 107-115. Kindon, S., Pain, R, & Kesby, M. (2007). Participatory Action Research Approaches and Methods. Connecting People, Participation and Place. Routledge. Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., Swilling, M., & Thomas, C. J. (2012). Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science, 7(1), 25-43. Mauser, W., Klepper, G., Rice, M., Schmalzbauer, B. S., Hackmann, H., Leemans, R., & Moore, H. (2013). Transdisciplinary global change research: the co-creation of knowledge for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(3-4), 420-431. Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Pohl, C. & Hirsch Hadorn, G. (2007). Principles for Designing Transdisciplinary Research. München, DE: oekom Verlag. Polk, M. (Ed.) (2015). Co-producing Knowledge for Sustainable Cities: Joining Forces for Change. Routledge. Sanders, E., & Stappers, P. (2012). Convivial Toolbox. Generative Research for the front end of Design. BIS Publishers. Sanoff, H. (1979). Design games. W. Kaufmann; Experimental edition. Scholz, R. W., & Steiner, G. (2015). The real type and ideal type of transdisciplinary processes: part I—theoretical foundations. Sustainability Science, 10(4), 527-544. Sousa, M., Atunes, A., Pinto, N., & Zagalo, N. (2022). Games in Spatial Planning: Strengths, Limitations and Support Frameworks. International Journal of Serious Games, 9(2), 115133. Thiel, S., Reisinger, M.R., Röderer, K., & Baldauf, M. (2019). Inclusive Gamified Participation: Who are we inviting and who becomes engaged? In: Bui, T.X. (Ed.). Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 2880-2889). HICSS. Van der Hoorn, M. (2022). Serious Fun Architecture & Games. Nai10 publishers . Annex 1 – Card configurations Reading session 7 A1.7 – Round 2: Group 2 Annex 1 – Card configurations Reading session 8 A1.8 – Round 2: Group 3 Annex 1 – Card configurations Reading session 9 A1.9 – Round 2: Group 4 Annex 1 – Card configurations Reading session 10 A1.10 – Round 2: Group 5 Annex 1 – Card configurations Reading session 11 A1.11 – Round 2: Group 5 Annex 2 – Evaluation Reading session 12 Annex 2 – Evaluation Reading session This Annex contains the evaluation form and respective answers from the participatory activity in Reading. The information was extracted from Deliverable 3.6. Question: Day 3 - Wednesday 5. Please evaluate "RE-DWELL Assessment Framework" session (from 1-lowest to 5-highest) Answers Supervisors ESRs Average 16 4.0 4.0 4.0 Question: Day 3 - Wednesday 5. Briefly explain the reasons of "RE-DWELL Assessment Framework" session evaluation (Open answer) It was a useful session, I was just wondering if that could have been better organised by the three leaders giving Re-Dwell's context through state-of-the-art presentations on the three areas before/instead of presenting our research questions. Also some more context on what a framework is according to the so far research would be helpful. The similarities between the various PhD topics are becoming far clearer - it would be interesting to see where the tensions / contradictions were? Interesting examples, more theoretical input on "social innovation" would have been useful to support the argument. Question: Day 3 - Wednesday 5. Please evaluate "Game session" session (from 1-lowest to 5highest) Answers Supervisors ESRs Average 18 4.6 4.0 4.3 Question: Day 3 - Wednesday 5. Briefly explain the reasons of "Game session" session evaluation (Open answer) The kick-off of the game with its positive and negative points was one of the most transdisciplinary moments of our network. I think the first trial of the serious game was a total success. The 'Game Session' was an engaging and interactive experience that provided a unique approach to engage with the framework. The session effectively combined education and entertainment, allowing participants to learn through gameplay. Annex 2 – Evaluation Reading session 13 Excellent case of innovation in teaching. I would suggest instead of a second round, leave some more time for the first and a feedback session right after so that people's questions/doubts on the game are resolved. I personally enjoyed more the first round than the second one, as the whole team was slightly more tired, and collaboration and innovation were not carried out with the same enthusiasm as in the first one. A small break or a team swap would have improved this. As mentioned in Reading, some of the cards were difficult to understand, so it is necessary to have an expert on each of the fields on the table in order to play the game to its fullest. Not suitable to be played online. Don't understand why we're playing a game if we're short on time and the deliverables are running late. Annex 3 – Case studies Delft session 14 Annex 3 – Case studies Delft session This Annex details the case studies that were part of the TEASH toolbox used in Delft. Case Study #1 : Retrofit of our housing stock Presented by Natalie Newman, South Yorkshire Housing Association All social landlords in the UK must improve the energy performance of their homes. There are various funds available to help towards the cost of this; however, the financial markets will be relied on heavily for loans. Due to funding cycles, there is a boom bust effect on the supply chain. The housing archetypes vary hugely, so the retrofit solution is different for each, as is the cost. The works can vary in terms of disruption to those living in the homes. Policies: Having no properties less the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) Band C, Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP 69) by 2030. This affects roughly a fifth of our housing portfolio (~930 homes) as shown below, and aligns with Government’s: • ‘Sustainable Warmth’ strategy (2021) – which sets out the target to “ensure that as many fuel-poor homes as is reasonably practicable achieve a minimum energy efficiency rating of Band C, by 2030”. • Heat and Buildings Strategy (2021) – which identifies that Government will consider setting a long-term regulatory standard to improve social housing to EPC band C; this may well be embodied in the ongoing review of the Decent Homes Standard. • The Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund which aims to improve sub EPC C properties to that level. • Achieving a net zero carbon performance for our ~5000 homes by 2050 at the latest. • This aligns with the UK’s legislative commitment under the Climate Change Act (2008) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 100% of 1990 levels (net zero) by 2050. • Heat and Buildings Strategy (2021) – which identifies the need that “to meet Net Zero virtually all heat in buildings will need to be decarbonized”, and also that Government will consider the case for setting a date to ensure that all homes meet a minimum energy performance standard before 2050. Projects: • Procurement of contractors • Citizen engagement • Organisational buy in Partnerships: • FundersGrants and Loans • Consortia (to aggregate delivery pipeline) • Other landlords/ homeowner Annex 3 – Case studies Delft session 15 Case Study #2 : Lack of knowledge on targeted policy instruments to alleviate energy poverty Presented by Ben Pluijmers, European Federation for Living How to align shortand long-term measures by three levels of actors: National Government, Local Authorities and Housing Associations. Energy poverty is mainly concentrated in Social Housing, simply because Social Housing is provided to low incomes. The main actors in this area are the National Government (income subsidies, regulations for Housing Associations, regulations housing quality), Local Authorities (Individual income aid, City planning) and Housing Associations (providing good quality homes, affordable rents). These actors have different means/tools to alleviate energy poverty that are very poorly coordinated. Policies: Coordination and tuning of means/ tools by the three levels of actors to effectively lower energy poverty, using an example project. Projects: Design of an integrated approach towards an existing residential area with (approximately 250-500 homes) of a rather low housing quality and a high level of energy poverty. Partnerships: • Ministry of Housing • Municipality • Housing Association • University/ consultants Annex 4– Evaluation Delft session 16 Annex 4 – Evaluation Delft session This Annex contains the evaluation form and representative answers from the participatory activity in Delft. Evaluation questionnaire Question 1: A first purpose of the RE-DWELL Assessment Framework is to aid stakeholders involved in affordable and sustainable housing in finding strategies and solutions for their challenges in practice. The questions put forward by me should have been more specific. Reality is even more complicated than assumed. I would like to turn the case into a real project. Involvement will be complicated, but necessary. The brief for the practitioner. A real-life case. A problem. I wondered if greater clarity was required to give the participants what they needed. But for this group – that was not the case. Complexity of decision-making process having in mind involvement of respective stakeholders. I would have liked to sit with the group and listened intently. The conversations I overheard were really fascinating. The richness in this exercise for me, was there. Opening doors to another knowledge. Help navigate solutions. Discussion tool. Active participation with a topic/problem. Hearings others’ views and at times misconceptions (which was also fascinating). Teasing these out with internal team for example would be invaluable. Knowledge transfer: links. Case studies. Examples from elsewhere. Learning lessons. Richness to discussions. Help organise: value in my team using it, to them to look up and make considerations during project inception. I have a team of project managers who are steeped within detail. Wasn't it a game – who wins? How do you know how you have finished? What's the incentive? How engaging is it? The physical setting for this participatory action facilitated the activity We need to understand the proposed process as seen on the board. The board could be something else in another setting, printed in a larger paper. There could be a rule about how many cards should be placed on the board to focus the conversation. The empty cards are helpful, but their use could be limited. A short set of instructions could be on the board as prompt. We missed the presence of the PO during the first half of the activity. It is impossible to carry out the activity without the PO. The activity is a bit complicated and needs more time to complete. More time is needed for the game.