University of Reading

VALUE THROUGH DESIGN

CIB W96 ARCHITECTURAL MANAGEMENT ii

VALUE THROUGH DESIGN

CIB W96 ARCHITECTURAL MANAGEMENT

PROCEEDINGS OF THE CIB W96 COMMISSION ON ARCHITECTURAL MANAGEMENT

HELD IN READING SEPTEMBER 2001

CIB Publication 280

Editors: Prof. Colin Gray, University of Reading, United Kingdom. Joint coordinator W96

Dr. ir. Matthijs Prins, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands. Joint coordinator W96

Technical Editor: Suzanne Tol Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands.

ISBN: 90-6363-????

Published by: CIB Rotterdam, December 2002.

Copyright © 2002 by CIB, University of Reading and Delft University of Technology.

iii iv

PREFACE

On September 14-15, 2001 on Reading University Campus, the “Value Through Design” Conference championed a design agenda that placed design foremost as the driver to produce more effective value added project solutions. This, annual W096 International Conference, has set an ambitious programme to review the current research programmes to establish measures of the value of the architectural input to construction projects, which is a matter of interest to all in the construction industry. The value of the end product to the customer is driven by the architect, but in the complex world of modern projects, has become buried within the myriad of aims of other experts involved in delivery. To change this means measurement. To explore these issues fully, W096 had joined the Design Research Society, to organise and develop the scope of this Conference.

The conference attracted about thirty participants, mostly from Europe (Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom) but also from other parts of the globe (Australia, Brazil, New Zealand. –North- America). Invited keynote presentations were given by prof. David Gann (SPRU), Marco Goldschmied (RIBA) and Sunand Prasad (RIBA).

Prof. David Gann, Prof. Colin Gray and Dr. ir. Alexander Koutamanis presenting

CONFERENCE THEMES

Sunand Prasad (RIBA) stated during the conference that: ‘there has never been a greater need for evidence-based promotion of design in the built environment’, which accurately addressed the scope of the conference. Papers were presented under the following themes:

v 1. Articulating the range of benefits that design can open up Designers in many parts of the world are under increasing pressure to demonstrate the added value of their contribution. At its worst, fees are being reduced because the value of the contribution cannot be articulated. Architects and engineers need to find appropriate methods for communicating the added value of the design contribution with the local audience. - Key performance indicators - Value based procurement - Post occupancy evaluation - Techniques for measuring value

2. Developing a shared language and values Design is not the application of one set of solutions given a common problem, but a problem that is evolving and requires applicable solutions to it. In this way design is an abstract concept. However, to communicate the scope of the issues common models allowing the sharing of ideas concepts and processes need to be developed. - Process modelling - Generic models - Adaptability of models

3. Recognising that design is a process of developing solutions over time Whilst designers appreciate the time necessary for design to formulate others may not, so methodologies which allow clients and users to appreciate the time for design need to be considered. This will address the different stages of the design process and the need for different groups to achieve a level of understanding, which will then support the subsequent project design activity. The methodology should be designed such that the primary designer in each stage can undertake the education of those with whom they will be working. - Process planning - Communication approaches within and without the design team - Training of clients in the design process

4. Understanding that design involves a large number of people and skills Methodologies required to identify key knowledge-needs at each stage of the process, so that the management and procurement process can provide it. At one level it can be prescriptive, but where the design is introducing innovative concepts and technologies the methodology must be open to enable the procurement process to clearly establish the specific knowledge that is needed. - Procurement of design expertise - Specialist Trade Contracting practices - Knowledge management - Learning organisations

5. Removing the fear of technological experimentation Innovation of technologies and the inherent modification of processes is the lifeblood of construction. However each project deals with these issues in different ways depending upon the competencies and capabilities of those involved. - Measures of innovation - Team capabilities to deal with innovations - P I Insurance - Legislation and regulation

vi 6. Raising the awareness Methodologies for developing 'design awareness' that can be used at each stage of the project to induct clients, planners, and specialist designers in raising an awareness of the potential for the creative contribution. - Multi media approaches to benchmarking - Identification of individual audience needs - Visual versus text approaches to design values - Value based performance specification

ADDED VALUE

During the conference an excursion was made to the 'London Eye'. This excursion acted as an excellent example, illustrating how modern construction can add value in –historic- inner cities.

Some impressions from the excursion to the 'London Eye'

COLIN GRAY MATTHIJS PRINS

Reading, Delft December, 2002.

vii viii CONTENT

SOLVING DESIGN PROBLEMS TO ADD VALUE ...... 1 Austin, S.A., Thomson, D.S. 1 Loughborough University, Department of Civil and Building Engineering, United Kingdom ...... 1 Introduction ...... 1 Design Problems and Design Management ...... 2 Value-Adding Mechanisms to Supportive ...... 5 Conclusion ...... 7 Acknowledgements ...... 8 References ...... 8

VALUE BY DESIGN: A QUALITATIVE APPROACH ...... 9 H. M. G. Bártolo 9 University of Reading, Department of Construction Management & Engineering, United Kingdom ...... 9 Introduction ...... 9 Design Decision-Making ...... 10 Quality & Value in Design ...... 11 Method ...... 12 Questionnaire Results ...... 12 Results ...... 15 Acknowledgements ...... 15 References ...... 15

CAN THE VALUE OF DESIGN BE MEASURED? ...... 18 John Boon 18 UNITEC, Auckland, New Zealand ...... 18 Introduction ...... 18 Definitions ...... 18 Nature and Classification of Value ...... 19 Measurement of Value ...... 20 Levels of Decisions ...... 22 Determinants of the value of the design of a house ...... 22 Conclusion ...... 24 References ...... 25

VALUE THROUGH DESIGN CONTROL: A THEORETICAL APPROACH TOWARDS A STRATEGY FOR A CONTROLLED PLANNING AND DESIGN PROCESS ...... 27 Monika Fendl 27 Dresden University of Technology, Department of Architecture, Germany ...... 27 Introduction ...... 28 Framework ...... 29 Questions ...... 30 Hypotheses ...... 31 Starting Basis: Stakeholder Model ...... 32 Description of Issue Model and the Process Model in Terms of Design Control ...... 33 The Strategy "Design Control" ...... 35 Conclusion: Measurement and Demonstration ...... 42 Outlook ...... 42

DESIGN FEE REDUCTION: DOES PUBLIC WORK HAVE A ROLE IN IT? ...... 44 Blair Gardiner 44 The University of Melbourne, Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, Australia ...... 44 Introduction ...... 44 Background ...... 45 “School Council Contracts” and the Effects of Competitive Fee Tendering ...... 45 Service Quality ...... 46 Common Fee Scale and the Consultant Register ...... 47

ix Conclusions ...... 48 References ...... 49

THE BRIEFING PROCESS – A KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE ...... 51 Chung-Chin Kao and Stuart D. Green 51 The University of Reading, The Department of Construction Management and Engineering, UK ...... 51 Introduction ...... 51 Current perceptions of the briefing process ...... 52 Briefing problems and limitations ...... 53 From information processing to knowledge management perspective ...... 56 Conclusion ...... 60 References ...... 60

VALUE ADDITION THROUGH VALUE ADOPTION ...... 63 John L. Heintz 63 Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Architecture, The Netherlands ...... 63 Introduction ...... 63 Building for Ikea ...... 66 Interpretation ...... 68 Other examples ...... 70 Conclusions ...... 71 References ...... 71

EMERGING APPROACHES TO THE QUANTIFICATION OF DESIGN DECISIONS ...... 72 Ian Ellingham and William Fawcett 72 Cambridge Architectural Research Limited, United Kingdom ...... 72 Introduction ...... 72 Uncertainty in Markets: The Role of Options ...... 73 Real Buildings Options: Conceptually ...... 73 Real Buildings Options: Quantified ...... 75 Options in Design ...... 75 Options Embedded ...... 76 Conclusions ...... 76 References ...... 77 Acknowledgement ...... 77

MANAGEMENT OF DIGITAL DESIGN INFORMATION - A BOTTOM-UP APPROACH ...... 78 Alexander Koutamanis 78 Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Architecture, The Netherlands ...... 78 Introduction: democratization and efficiency ...... 78 Management and method ...... 80 Computerization and documentation ...... 84 Discussion ...... 89 References ...... 90

A COMPARISON OF THE ESTIMATED AND EFFECTIVE CASH FLOW FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN METHODOLOGY ...... 93 Tamer Ozdemir and Soofia Tahira Elias-Ozkan 93 Middle East Technical University, Department of Architecture, Turkiye ...... 93 Introduction ...... 93 Research Methodology ...... 94 Findings ...... 95 Conclusion ...... 101 Appendix: ...... 102

DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT; ON THE MANAGEMENT OF VALUE IN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN...... 103 DR. IR. M. PRINS, DR. J. L. HEINTZ, IR. J. VERCOUTEREN 103 Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Architecture, The Netherlands ...... 103

x Introduction ...... 103 Building Project Management and Design Management ...... 104 Management ...... 107 Design Processes ...... 109 Designers and Design Oranisations ...... 111 Architecture and Value ...... 114 Conclusion ...... 115 References ...... 116

PERCEPTIONS OF DESIGN IN MANAGEMENT THINKING ...... 118 Cecilie Schjerven 118 Norwegian School of Management BI, Department of Knowledge Management, Norway ...... 118 Introduction ...... 118 Background & Theory ...... 120 Empirical Study ...... 123 Discussion ...... 128 Conclusion ...... 130 References ...... 130

INVOLVING THE INDUSTRY: THE USE OF 'REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL' PACKAGES AT FRANK O. GEHRY AND ASSOCIATES ...... 132 Paolo Tombesi 132 University of Melbourne, Australia ...... 132 Introduction ...... 132 The Need to Collaborate with Subcontractors ...... 133 The Design-Assist Process ...... 133 ‘Request for Proposal’ Documents ...... 134 Information Strategy ...... 138 Success of the Design-Assist System ...... 139 Conclusions ...... 140

MATERIALISING NON-ORTHOGONAL BUILDING CONCEPTS IN A MARKET ENVIRONMENT .... 142 Dr Karel J. Vollers 142 Introduction ...... 142 Problem Solving by Simplification and Phasing ...... 142 The Design of a Product Consisting of Various new Components within a Market Environment ...... 143 Research by Design ...... 144 The TWIST aluminium façade system ...... 147 Conclusions ...... 147

APPENDIX ...... 148

DISCLAIMER ...... 153

xi xii SOLVING DESIGN PROBLEMS TO ADD VALUE

AUSTIN, S.A., THOMSON, D.S.

Loughborough University, Department of Civil and Building Engineering, United Kingdom

Abstract: Value management is well established in construction to structure early project briefing and to agree satisficing project values and objectives among project stakeholders. Current practice concentrates on the consideration of value during project definition. This paper proposes Integral Value Engineering as a design management practice that considers value in design throughout project resolution and delivery.

An expansion of value management principles is proposed to include the adoption of a problem-solving approach and value-adding tools. These can help assemble value-adding frameworks in which design activity is more explicitly focused on project values. The use of problem solving frameworks to relate design method and outcome to project values is described and the notion of documenting these relationships to create a value-adding audit trail introduced. Integral Value Engineering is defined as the consideration of value when solving design problems, irrespective of the project stage in which they occur or their technical nature.

The adaptability of the problem solving approach is discussed, together with its ability to accommodate the extensive variability in problem scope and concurrency in construction projects. The role of individual design engineers as practitioners of Integral Value Engineering is also described; this focuses on collaborative forums to incorporate the expertise of specialised suppliers. A web-based Value-Adding Toolbox is described to disseminate value-adding tool descriptions, methods and examples within a single organisation or managed value chain.

The paper concludes that, for integral value engineering to be effective, suitable metrics must be identified to monitor the extent to which technical design solutions satisfy overall project values. This would allow responsive mechanisms to be defined so that design development can be managed throughout project duration to ensure that the satisficing values initially defined by value management at project outset will be delivered.

Keywords: Value management; value engineering; design management; problem solving; value-adding tools

INTRODUCTION

Industry clients demand the demonstration of value for money, but in most construction responses value management and value engineering are limited to project conception. These established techniques have become common and relate whole project solutions to end user requirements and stakeholder expectations. They are considered sufficient to format entire

1 construction projects to ensure that their procuring clients will consider them to provide value. However, during the project stages where most design occurs the relationship of technical design solutions to project values is not explicitly considered. The industry must develop means of systematically relating individual technical design solutions to project values. This will provide a rigorous approach to the demonstration of value for money that spans the full extent of design activity within construction projects.

This paper examines problem solving in design management. Integral value engineering (IVE) is proposed as the consideration of value within individual design problems. The practice will therefore complement established value management practices by extending the scope of consideration of value to include all project stages where design takes place. The findings presented are derived from the Integrated Collaborative Design (ICD) research project, a collaboration of AMEC Capital Projects – Construction, Loughborough University and eleven supply organisations, supported by the EPSRC and DETR through the IDAC Link programme.

DESIGN PROBLEMS AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT

The Integrated Collaborative Design project provides designers with tools and techniques to manage their design activity to ensure that end users consider value to have been provided in their solutions. To achieve this, the research established a premise to extend the scope of explicit value consideration within projects from its current restriction to conceptual design to encompass all design activity, irrespective of the project stage in which it takes place. This section describes the development of this premise.

The role of value management In construction, the individuals responsible for defining physical and functional project characteristics (i.e. designers) tend to be isolated from those whose view of those characteristics determines them be of value in use. Designers must therefore anticipate how users will perceive value, using the functional requirements of the project client to define expectations. Physical and functional project characteristics are defined to satisfy these requirements.

To achieve this, current practice uses value management to agree the basic format, objectives and characteristics among the client, stakeholders and providers of the construction service (McGeorge and Palmer, 1997; Neasby, M., Barton, R., et. al., 1999). Value management complements client briefing by initiating a project solution anticipated to deliver value to its end users. Periodic workshops create forums in which the mutual buy-in and understanding required to make satisficing decisions is developed (Austin and Thomson, 1999). The process of doing this, however, is complicated by two characteristics of construction:

1. the numerous parties who will either use or be influenced by a project. Because these stakeholders are not directly involved in projects, their relationship with the project after handover must be predicted; and 2. the need for a multitude of organisations to be involved in projects to provide the range of specialised skills required. Each organisation has internal business objectives that influence the manner of its involvement in projects. Each project solution must therefore be satisficing: responding to diverse client and stakeholder needs to a sufficient extent to ensure their buy-in to it, while also satisfying the business objectives of all project parties.

2

Current value management practice addresses the first characteristic. A response to the second characteristic is not typically provided, as value is not systematically addressed in the later project stages where most technical design occurs. To overcome this, integral value engineering will provide the continuous appraisal of the relationship between technical design task solutions and the project value expectations they must satisfy.

Designers and design problems Integral value engineering (IVE) uses a problem solving approach to create frameworks in which design tasks can be completed using established methods and related to the project values. IVE defines a problem as a difficulty that must be overcome (following Hawkins, 1986, for example). This definition accommodates substantial variation in the scope of the activity it may encompass. For example, the completion of an entire construction project could be managed in this way, as could the design of a mechanical system within it, down to the selection of paint colours and ironmongery.

Problems arise when a set of objectives must be fulfilled and the manner of doing so is not well understood or routine. Given that objectives are specific to project circumstance and can not therefore be generalised, the management of problems must be concerned with controlling the progress of their solution. Numerous problem-solving process definitions exist. A representative selection of these was compared to derive a generic process (Figure 1).

Generic Observation Definition Creativity Analysis Planning Implementation Reviewing Definition

"Recognise "Evaluate Allison (1993) "Make sure, implementation work"

problem" "Define effectiveness" problem" problem" "Develop "Analyse, measure" solutions" elements" "Break into manageable "Map out the

"Generating "Solution "Gaining acceptance and Hicks (1991) "The 'mess'" "Data ideas" finding" implementation" problem" gathering" "Defining the

Sanderson "Solution "Approach "Planning" "Diagnosing or "Implement" (1979) defining" "Idea assessment" assessment" building" "Solution "Solution "Approach generation" assessment assessment (retrospective)" (retrospective)"

"Accept Olsen (1982) "Ideate" "Select" "Implement" "Evaluate"

situation" "Define" "Analyse"

Cooke and Slack "Determine "Observe / "Implement" "Set

(1991) options" options" Monitor" monitor" problem" problem" "Choose" "Evaluate "Observe / objectives" "Recognise "Understand Figure 1. Management Problem Solving Processes Compared

By progressing individual technical design tasks within the generic problem solving process in Figure 1, emerging technical design solutions can be related to project values and, if necessary, modified as they are produced to ensure they will contribute to the satisfaction of project values.

Figure 2 illustrates the effect of varying the scope of the problem solving process considered. Irrespective of the scale of the problem solving activity, an emerging solution can continue to be revised until a stage in its progression at which the cost of revising the emerging design (to better align it with project values, for example) exceeds the benefit of doing so. When a whole construction project is managed as a problem solving process, this cut-off point tends to arise at the boundary between problem definition and resolution activities. This restricts value management to the conception project stages (Figure 2A). If problem solving structures the completion of individual design tasks, the problem solving approach will commence with the

3 start of that design task at a time in the overall project programme determined by traditional methods (Figure 2B). This extends value consideration into the project stages where most design occurs and the greatest opportunity to add value therefore lies.

Value Management Problem Solving Scope (Whole Project) Cost/Difficulty of Implementing Change

A Whole Project Whole

Value Adding Problem Problem Solving Scope Potential of Change

Concept Detail Site Pre-Brief Briefing Design Design Operations

Project Client Outline Scheme Detailed Production Bills of Tender Project Operations Inception Feasibility Completion Feedback awareness development proposals design design information quantities action planning on site Value Management Integral Value Engineering Project Progression

Integral Value Engineering Problem Solving Scope (Design Tasks)

Problem Solving Scope of Individual B De s ign Tas k s Cumulative Scope of Whole Project Problem Problem Solving Scope

Concept Detail Site Pre-Brief Briefing Design Design Operations

Project Client Outline Scheme Detailed Production Bills of Tender Project Operations Inception Feasibility Completion Feedback awareness development proposals design design information quantities action planning on site Value Management Integral Value Engineering Project Progression Figure 2. Variation of Design Problem Scope within Project Progress

Viewed collectively, the application of problem-solving frameworks to individual design tasks continuously address value throughout detailed design development (Figure 3).

Pre-Brief Briefing Concept Design Detail Design Site Operations

Project Client Outline Scheme Detailed Production Bills of Tender Project Operations Inception Feasibility Completion Feedback awareness development proposals design design information quantities action planning on site

VALUE MANAGEMENT INTEGRAL VALUE ENGINEERING

Periodic Application Continuous Application

Figure 3. Value Management and Integral Value Engineering in Project Scope

We have examined whether a problem solving process will aid the consideration of value when developing technical design solutions. The Job Plan, which is commonly used to

4 structure value management processes (see SAVE International, 1997; British Standard Institute, 2000 for examples), is itself a specialised problem solving process: a series of workshop forums establish the buy-in of clients and stakeholders into an emerging project solution while satisfying project value objectives. In effect, the Job Plan already confirms that a problem solving process is an appropriate mechanism to establish the ability of a design solution to provide value. This research has also investigated whether designers can use problem solving frameworks to develop and document technical design solutions and their relationships to project values. The latter would facilitate the audit of value-adding contributions to the project.

VALUE-ADDING MECHANISMS TO SUPPORTIVE

This section describes the use of a problem solving process by designers to manage the delivery of value from individual design tasks, using integral value engineering.

The value-adding tools Value-adding tools are assembled to form problem solving frameworks in which individual design tasks can progress. Each tool provides a means of performing the tasks typically undertaken within a given stage of a problem solving process. They help designers consider whether an emerging technical solution is likely to satisfy the relevant project values.

We initially assembled a range of tools that could be used by designers to expose the relationship between their design solutions and project values by drawing from existing value management, value engineering and problem-solving practices in a variety of industries. An initial set of 38 tools was documented in a standard formal comprising a description of: its purpose; a summary of its function; a pictorial representation of its procedure (where appropriate); its typical applications; its advantages and disadvantages; and links to related tools. Later review reduced the size of this tool set.

By documenting the outcome of tool use, an audit trail of the role of each design solution in adding value to the project will be created. This will provide a response to the growing demand of industry clients for documented evidence of the role played by the construction projects they procure in providing value to their businesses.

The value-adding toolbox Designers start the problem solving processes by selecting a tool from a central repository (Figure 4). This resource must be maintained by their organisation to contain the tool descriptions, examples and supporting proformas and software. The management of this resource can also provide competitive advantage to an organisation as it influences the ability of designers to relate their technical design solutions to project values.

5 Project Values

Value Adding Problem Solving Structure Value Observation Definition Creativity Analysis Planning Implementation Reviewing Adding Design Task Design Output

Value adding tools assembled to form design problem solving process

Value Adding Toolbox Figure 4. Value-Adding Problem Solving Frameworks

Such a value-adding toolbox must be available to all designers and be actively maintained if it is to disseminate current knowledge and value-adding lessons learned within an organisation. The value-adding toolbox can also guide designers’ selection of tools suited to their problem solving requirements. Five selection methods were developed, using: 1. the stage of project progression in which the design task is considered; 2. the stage of the problem solving process for which a tool is required; 3. characteristics of the design task to which the tool will be applied; 4. key words or phrases in tool descriptions; or 5. an index of all tools in the toolbox.

The value-adding toolbox is suited to electronic dissemination using the Internet or the Intranet of a single organisation or a supply network. This will speed access and provides a simple means of ensuring that designers always have access to their organisation’s current tool portfolio. The ICD project has validated this approach by converting a paper-based prototype to an active, web-based resource. An electronic medium also encourages exploration by designers using standard web technologies, which can help them identify suitable value-adding tools.

Testing the value-adding mechanisms The principle, format and dissemination mechanism of the value-adding toolbox was tested by case studies of its application by a representative sample of the design disciplines commonly involved in construction projects. This exercise sought to validate their application of problem-solving and to help understand the role of design task solutions in adding value to projects.

Each tool has already been shown to be effective and widely used in its originating industry. Therefore, the purpose of this validation exercise was to determine the ability of these tools, to improve designers’ understanding of the relationship of their emerging design solutions to relevant project values. To achieve this, a series of workshops were held with a representative selection of designers, sourced from a large multi-disciplinary design management contractor. These engineers were selected from a broad spectrum of design disciplines, providing a sample of the attitudes towards integral value engineering that may be encountered in practice.

Validation workshops were held with designers either individually or in pairs. Prior to the validation exercises, the designers attended a workshop to familiarise them with IVE principles, including the role of value adding tools and the value-adding toolbox. Each

6 designer was visited at his or her place of work and asked to consider how integral value engineering could be applied to the design task they were working on at the time of the visit. They were guided through the process of tool selection and problem solving process formation although no influence was exerted regarding tool selection or their application. This process produced five case studies of design problem solving using IVE principles.

Designers’ ability to add value to a project through their design solutions was improved in all cases. This was established by the retrospective review of the problem-solving process assembled from value adding tools and the resulting documented output of those tools. In all cases, the completing engineer determined that the value adding tools had provided him or her with greater insight into the requirements of their client (or client representatives) and the ability of their technical design solution to satisfy them than would have arisen had the problem been solving using established methods along. They considered the exercise of assembling a problem-solving process to be beneficial due to its ability to provide them with this additional insight and to justify their chosen technical solution. However the benefit to a whole construction project or organisation could not be addressed in these case studies and a broader validation exercise is required.

Collaborating to design in value Supply chain management initiatives create long-term business relationships between organisations that repeatedly work with each other. These long-term relationships create opportunities to develop and use business resources collaboratively (Porter, 1985). The value- adding toolbox is an example of a business resource suited to this collaborative development. By sharing a single toolbox, the value-adding tools in it will provide a common basis for collaboration between members of different organisations.

Where individual design tasks are complex and require the specialised input of a number of individuals and organisations, this approach will be particularly advantageous. A variety of tools within the initial tool portfolio help create and manage the forums required for the group-based working to promote collaboration. Whilst workshops within established value management practices gather buy-in, these IVE workshops will gather expertise.

CONCLUSION

Integral value engineering will provide a means of extending the consideration of value during construction projects into those stages where the greatest quantity of design information is produced. It adopts an explicit problem solving approach, building on certain aspects of established value management practice during project conception, and extending them to later stages of design.

The consideration of project values has been found to be sufficiently applicable to all stages of design activity. Furthermore, audit trails of the value-adding role of technical design solutions can be provided during all project stages. Value-adding tools, sourced from a value- adding toolbox, have been found to be helpful in guiding the development of technical design solutions. The opportunity to collaboratively develop these business resources with supply network partners has been identified and the benefits of electronically disseminating them within that network established.

There is a need to extend the validation of integral value engineering principles to whole projects and organisations and to test its ability to document value-adding design trails that

7 can demonstrate value to clients. This would allow a measurement of the extent to which project satisfies the values of its procuring clients, allowing corrective action to be taken if found necessary during project progression.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work has been undertaken by the Department of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University, UK as part of a project entitled ‘Integrated Collaborative Design’. The research is funded by UK Government under research grant GR-M4-035 by the EPSRC, DETR and industry (AMEC Capital Projects; Briggs Roofing and Cladding; Colt International; Crown House Engineering; Environmental Air Contracts; E-Squared; Galloway Group (Northern); Hathaway Roofing; Hilton Building Services; Honeywell Control Systems; MSS Clean Technology; Senior Hargreaves).

REFERENCES

Allison, M. (1993) The Problem Buster’s Guide, Gower, Aldershot, UK. Austin, S., Thomson, D.S. (1999) “Integral Value Engineering in Design”, Proceedings of Cobra 1999, RICS Construction and Building Research Conference, 1-2 September, School of Construction and Property Management, University of Salford, UK. British Standard Institute (2000) Value Management (BS EN 12973), British Standard Institute, London. Cooke, S., Slack, N. (1991) Making Management Decisions (2nd Ed.), Prentice Hall, New York. Hicks, M. J. (1991) Problem Solving in Business and Management: Hard Soft and Creative Approaches, International Thomson Business Press, London. Hawkins, J.M. (Ed.) (1986) The Oxford Reference Dictionary, Clarendon Press, Oxford, p.662. McGeorge, D., Palmer, A. (1997) “Value Management”, in Construction Management: New Directions, McGeorge, D., Palmer, A. (Eds.), Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 11-52. Neasby, M., Barton, R., et al. (1999) “Value Management” in Building in Value: Pre-Design Issues, Best, and De Valence (Eds.), Arnold, London, pp. 232-247. Olsen, S. A. (Ed.) (1982) Group Planning and Problem-Solving Methods in Engineering Management, John Wiley and Sons, New York. Porter, M.E. (1985) Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, The Free Press, New York. Sanderson, M. (1979) Successful Problem Management, Wiley-Interscience, New York. SAVE International (1997) Value Methodology Standard, SAVE International, Northbrook, IL, USA.

8 VALUE BY DESIGN: A QUALITATIVE APPROACH

H. M. G. BÁRTOLO

University of Reading, Department of Construction Management & Engineering, United Kingdom

Abstract: Most design processes are complex. The decision-making process towards the best solution depends not only on objective and rational factors but also on subjective issues. Different considerations, such as dimensional, functional and morphological characteristics, as well social and aesthetic concerns, contribute to shaping the appearances of designed environments. Adding value to a design means to create balanced solutions reflecting a total understanding of the project and client/user needs.

Key decisions in the development of a project affecting cost and quality need to be taken in the very early stages of the design process to achieve the best value. It is therefore important to make the correct strategic decisions in the early stages, as it becomes increasingly expensive and unrealistic to make changes as design progresses.

The exploratory nature of this research involved the development of two distinct research methods. First, a version of Kelly’s repertory grid method, a psychological research method based on Kelly’s Personal Construct Theory, was used to elucidate the quality attributes perceived by classroom users. Through Generalised Procrustes Analysis (GPA), a statistical procedure, common dimensions of perception and experience across groups of subjects, were identified. Repertory grid technique allied with GPA is proposed as a flexible tool for the study of proposed architectural environments. Finally, a questionnaire was used to get a better understanding of the processes involved in achieving good quality building within acceptable cost margins.

Keywords: Design decisions, design quality, environmental design, best value.

INTRODUCTION

The interactions between humans and their surroundings have become of great interest and importance to modern civilisation (Halliday, 1995). An increasing public pressure to respond to the feelings of building users, to make design more responsive to people, supported design research to help inform environmental design, to provide the basis for harmonising any physical arrangement to the human purposes of design. However, as Mitchell (1993) and Duin and Wegen (2000) point out, design research to be effective, should not only consist of ideas about design, in the case of environment-behaviour studies, but rather must be design itself.

This rise of environmental considerations in the building design and construction process (Manning, 1995 and Mahnke, 1996) brought the inevitable difficulties of reassessing priorities, acquiring new skills and integrating new information into an existing project

9 process (Mitchell, 1995). Scientists and others are systematically investigating the consequences of environmental conditions and the implications of the human alteration of these conditions (Manning, 1995; Mahnke, 1996; Rosenman and Gero, 1998). Central to these issues are the role of the user as an active force in the development of environments, together with the role of designers as agents in the process of ‘human habitat’. Mitchell (1993) suggests that the new and varied definitions of design reflect the multiplicity of possible outcomes of the design process, as well the way in which users’ experiences are accounted for in the process. Gray et al (1994) describes designing as a human interaction process whose outcome includes the interpretations, perceptions and prejudices of the people involved. A study undertaken by the Royal Institution of British Architects (RIBA) argues that the word design has a variety of meanings dependent on the context and priorities of the user (RIBA, 1995).

Research is increasingly focusing on cultural questions about the role of design and its potential for contributing to the creation of a built environment that best serves the physical and psychological needs of people (Gero, 1990; Mitchell, 1995; Hubbard, 1996; Gromark, 2000). Adding value to a design means to create balanced solutions reflecting a total understanding of the project and client/user needs. Nahapiet and Nahapiet (1985) and Morris and Hough (1987) also highlight the importance for project success to address conflict and ambiguity in relation to a project’s objectives at early stages. For Peng (1999) the crux of the problem for every design team is how to achieve a successful synthesis of built form, a balanced solution that relates quality and cost. Macmillan et al (2001) also point out that decisions taken at the conceptual design phase of a building project can significantly reduce costs and increase customer satisfaction. It is important to make the correct strategic decisions in the early stages, as it becomes increasingly expensive and unrealistic to make changes as design progresses.

The aim of this research is to produce a reliable strategy, for use at an early stage of the design process, which enables the evaluation of a proper balance between cost and quality, in order to achieve the best value for the client.

DESIGN DECISION-MAKING

Design problems are extremely complex, requiring the designer to deal with interrelationships between many sub-problems, to trade-off with all the constraints that form the design problem and balance them to achieve a suitable solution (Akin and Lin, 1996). Schön (1991) acknowledges that design problems usually must be constructed from a complex and ill- defined situation, in which geographical, topological, financial, economic and political issues and the design constraints are all mixed up. Constraints are imposed by clients/users, legislators and even designers, and can be characterised as internal or external constraints (Lawson, 1980). Internal constraints usually allow a greater degree of freedom and choice, since they relate to factors that are under the designer’s control, unlike external constraints that are more demanding and challenging, as they restrict the options of the designer.

The management of ideas for a solution is a vital part of a designer’s strategy at the conceptual design phase (Dahl et al, 2000). The range of possible design solutions is infinite, though only some of these solutions will be good enough to solve the problem within ‘real- life’ constraints (Dorst, 1996). In contrast to their importance, decisions during early design stages are often made using less information than the one available in later stages, especially for new design products (Suwa et al, 1999). Additional information and data becomes

10 available only through the design process. Thus, early design activities require decision- making based upon limited information, which implies a good articulation of design goals and the consideration of uncertainty.

Empirical studies show that individual designer strategies are subject to changes, with no pre- determined solution path (Gero and Tang, 2001). Thus, deciding which strategy to apply cannot be pre-determined as it depends on the intermediate results, so a general strategy is difficult to define (Duin and Wegen, 2000). The existence of more than one possible solution requires different ways for reaching a goal (Dorst, 1996). In general, studies of practice show that designer strategies are open-ended, intuitive and based on heuristics (Goldschmidt, 1994). Most studies conclude that divergence is the consequence of the ill-structured nature of design problems, involving judgement delays and reformulation (Rowe, 1987; Goel, 1995; Lawson and Piling, 1996).

QUALITY & VALUE IN DESIGN

The Latham Report (1994) argues that a well-designed project will impact upon the satisfaction, comfort and well being of its occupants, besides providing value for money in terms of both total cost and cost-in-use. A study conducted by Gray (1996) concluded that a building strategy that highlights cost neglecting design quality is not acceptable by construction clients. NEDO (1987) and Connaughton and Green (1996) claim that value for money cannot be achieved only through cost-effectiveness, as problems can occur at the onset of the design process, if during the briefing proper consideration is not given to the quality that is to be achieved. Baya and Leifer (1996) also stress that decisions taken during the conceptual design phase of a project have fundamental and extensive effects on both cost and performance. Thus, key decisions in the development of a project affecting cost and quality need to be taken in the very early stages of the design process to achieve the best value.

In the commercial world, value is usually perceived as the relationship between function and price, between project product cost and customer satisfaction. The value of a product may be considered in terms of its functional utility. Value must be measurable and the product must offer value for money, when compared with its alternatives or alternative uses for the resource spent in its provision.

In relation to buildings, Broadbent et al (1980) argues that “meaning of buildings are all those things which relate to buildings beyond the face value of their physical properties, to all those things in life which people attach significance and value, including purposes, conceptions, ideas and beliefs”. Harrington (1987) relates quality and value, describing quality as meeting or exceeding customers’ expectations at a price that represents value to them. Allinson (1993) points out the ‘value-laden’ character of the quality concept, while Atkin and Pothecary (1994) highlight the ambiguity of its definition and the difficulty to measure it.

Pursuit of quality is a widespread implicit aim in building design activity (Powell, 1984). Burt (1978) recognises the difficulty in quantifying the attributes of quality due to its subjectivity. Seymour and Low (1990) highlight two conflicting trends in the quality debate, depending upon the extent to which quality can be reduced to the level of calculable fact as opposed to being a matter of judgement and interpretation. Essentially, two distinct aspects can be considered in relation to quality:

11 (i) a quantifiable quality meaning ‘conformance to requirements’, a rigorous way to control the conformance of the product against predetermined goals.

(ii) a subjective quality meaning a personal response to built form, people perception of space, scale, texture, colour and light, the meanings and associations attached by people to places, the way by which people assign aesthetic qualities to their surroundings. This subjective quality is very difficult to quantify, it is essentially a question of perception and consequently a question of characteristics.

METHOD

This research study aims to investigate how designers arrive at a proper balance between quality and costs, in early building design, to reach an integrated solution that constitutes the best value for the client. The exploratory nature of this research involved the development of two distinct research methods.

The first phase of this research (Galha, 1998,1999a, 2000a,b) was carried out at Reading University Campus and involved two stages:

• An exploratory survey carried out to understand what were the most important quality characteristics of a classroom design, from the users’ point of view, • Interviews were considered the most appropriate method of research, as questionnaires were too fine tools when looking at individual’s perceptions. To elucidate the quality attributes perceived by classroom users, students and staff, it was decided to use a version of Kelly’s repertory grid (Kelly, 1955) Then, Generalised Procrustes Analysis (GPA), a statistical procedure, was applied to individual grids to obtain common dimensions of perception and experience across groups of subjects. Repertory grid technique allied with GPA is proposed as a flexible tool for the study of proposed architectural environments

The second phase (Galha, 1999b; Bártolo 2000, 2001) involved Hampshire County Council primary schools and their architects, to further investigate whether quality in design of buildings and costs are actually related. A research study was undertaken using Hampshire County Council primary schools, built between 1995 and 2000, as case studies. They were selected as the County Policy is quality building but with the contention of costs. Moreover, their schools are qualitatively regarded as excellent, in a quality scale of poor to excellent. A questionnaire was also supplied to Hampshire architects, to get a better understanding of the processes involved in achieving good quality building within acceptable cost margins.

QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS

A summary of some of the architects' answers to questions are outlined below:

How do you define quality in design? • A good design incorporates creativity, good form, composition and proportion. This applies not only to scheme design, but extends as far as detailing. It must also function well.

• In detail.

12

• It may be considered as turning the dreams and aspirations of a Client into reality and beyond. I once heard of a Client, who responded to the Architect’s design solution, by saying that ‘he had achieved something that the Client had not believed was ever possible’.

• Quality in design can be defined as: (1) fulfilment of the requirements within a stimulating environment which offers opportunities to the users, (2) environmental issues integrated into the design, (3) Cost effective and (4) integration of services.

• The achievement of a totality, which is more than the sum of the parts.

• Simple and elegant use of space. At a smaller scale, well resolved details.

• A rational response to brief and intuitive response to site that combines tectonic and spatial qualities, thus creating a memorable place for living.

How do you choose between the range of possible building design solutions and arrive at the best one? How do you achieve at an optimum compromise between quality and costs?

• The decision may be cost driven or it may be evident which design is best. The architect must decide which items to let go of and which to hold on to, in terms of quality, materials, and also which are those items, which matter aesthetically. It is a subjective exercise.

• Prioritise building elements, compare performances, cost and develop a scheme in close consultation with the Quantity Surveyor.

• When there is a budget it is necessary to control the building costs. The quality might change in the finishes, but the type of finishes can be accommodated in the costs. You are making a decision fairly early on cost, to design for the lower possible cost. When you are designing, you are looking for the best product for the job, you design for the requirements, underneath there is an understanding, you are designing with a minimum resource cost.

• The adoption of a final design solution, which may be perceived as the optimum compromise between quality and cost, is only achieved after a very complex programme of considerations, compromises and decisions. The basis on which the design decisions are made can be many and varied and are often a combination of several influences, which need to be brought into equilibrium.

• By looking at a range of possible solutions, from capital intensive to revenue intensive, and discussing the various trade-offs in the Project Steering Group. The Project Steering Group as a whole will agree the optimum.

• The architect usually goes for a design that is appropriate to the context + functional while keeping in mind costs (both in terms of short + long, i.e., life cycle costing/maintenance).

13 In your opinion, there is a relationship between quality and costs? Do you think that it is possible to produce quality work and not expensive?

• Yes, quality usually costs more, as materials that last longer, cost more and to detail well takes longer in terms of design time. However, it is possible to produce quality work, that is not expensive but it requires great skill and probably experience to know what can be used and to put those materials together.

• Yes, you can make the most raw and inexpensive material beautiful by simply respecting its inherent quality.

• I think it is true to say that there can be a relationship between quality and cost, in that if more funding is available, it makes for a greater range of options to be available to the designer. However, that is not to say that quality cannot be achieved at low cost. Indeed, amongst my personal list of favourite buildings is a wooden beach hut, which although it only cost a few pounds to construct, was in my opinion a masterpiece of quality design.

• Cost/quality: experience is a key factor in the achievement of quality within a constrained budget.

• There is not necessarily a direct connection between quality and cost (you can have high quality at low cost as low quality at high cost. The key is the quality of the design process.

• Yes, there is a relationship. It is possible to produce quality work, which is not expensive through good design and enlightened clients.

How do you predict that a design will be high quality and low cost? How do you measure quality and economy of a design?

• Usually from the materials that are used. All Hampshire schemes are economical since being a public body, we are accountable for every penny spent. Measurement of quality comes from the architect's own sense of aesthetics and from client/end user comments.

• From experience and first principles you can predict that a design will be high quality and low cost. Quality and economy of a design can be measured through space efficiency and simplicity in its detail.

• Having determined the desired quality that is expected from the building under consideration, the quality standards can be rigorously prescribed in the contract specification and supporting document. The final assessment as to whether quality has been achieved is largely in the mind of the beholder.

• By using excellent designers who perceive the importance who perceive the importance of the different client stakeholders’ contributing to the design process, and insisting in value for money solutions to all aspects of the project.

14 • If the client is open minded and trusting of the architect. It is a start, however it is too hard to predict.

RESULTS

According to the architects’ answers, quality design involves some characteristics like ‘creativity, good form, composition and proportion’, ‘attention to detail’, ‘simple and elegant use of space’, ‘integration of services’ and ‘fulfilment of users requirements within a stimulating environment’. Quality is also described as ‘the achievement of a totality that is more than the sum of the parts’. Similarly, Nieuwenhuis and Ouwerkerk (2000) highlight the designer’s ability to create a unity through the mixing of a set of opposite requirements, integrating these divergent requirements and transforming them into a unified whole.

It is the designer’s task to integrate and co-ordinate design constraints, to find a way to convert constraints into positive elements (Suckle, 1980), as designers need to balance qualitative and quantitative criteria in their decision-making processes. The adoption of a final design solution, an optimum compromise between quality and cost, is only achieved after ‘a very complex programme of considerations, compromises and decisions’ in order to achieve an ‘equilibrium’. Designers report the following characteristics as fundamental to achieve quality within a constrained budget: the quality of the design process ‘enlightened’ and committed clients and designers’ experience. Thus, skilled and experienced designers seem to be a key asset in the achievement of quality in design.

The viewpoint that there is not necessarily a direct connection between quality and cost, as architects design for quality though ‘making a decision fairly early on cost’, to design for the lower possible cost, is shared by all the design practitioners. This is a very interesting conclusion, confirming the first phase findings of this study.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work is supervised by Dr Will Hughes and Prof. Hans Haenlein, at the University of Reading. It is supported by both the ‘Comissão Invotan - Instituto de Cooperação Científica e Tecnológica Internacional’ under Grant OTAN (ref. 6/A/95/PO) and the Poytechnic Institute of Leiria for which the author is very grateful.

REFERENCES

Akin, Ö and Lin, C. (1996) Design protocol data and novel design decisions. In N. Cross, H. Christiaans and K. Dorst (eds). Analysing design activity. Wiley. Chichester, 35-63. Allinson, K. (1993) The wild card of design: a perspective on architecture in a project management environment. Butterworth, Oxford. Atkin, B. L. and Pothecary, E. (1994), Building futures: a report on the future organisation of the building process, Research Paper, Department of Construction Management & Engineering, University of Reading Bártolo, H.M. (2001) Cost and quality at the early stages of building design. In Proceedings of CIB World Building Congress, Wellington, NZ.

15 Bártolo, H.M. (2000) Improving the value of design: a quality/cost approach. In Akintoye, A. (ed). Procs 16th ARCOM Conference, Glasgow Caledonian University, September. Association of Researchers in Construction Management. Reading. 1. 667-73. Baya, V. and Leifer, L. J. (1996) Understanding information management in conceptual design. In “Analysing design activity”, N. Cross, H. Christiaans and K. Dorst (eds), Wiley, Chichester, pp. 151-68. Brandon, P.S. (1984) Cost versus quality: a zero game? Construction Management and Economics. 2. 111-126. Broadbent, G. H., Bunt, R. and Llorens, T. (1980) Meaning and behaviour in the built environment. Wiley, Chichester. Burt, M.E. (1978) BRE report: A survey of quality and value in building. BRE Publications, Watford. Connaughton, J.and Green, S.D. (1996) Value management in Construction: a client’s guide, Construction Industry Research and Information Association, London. Dahl, D.W., Chattopadhyay, A.and Gorn, G.J. (2000) the importance of visualisation in concept design. Design Studies. 22(1). 5-26. Dorst, K (1996) The design problem and its structure. In N. Cross, H. Christiaans and K. Dorst (eds). Analysing design activity. Wiley. Chichester. 17-34. Duin, van L. and Wegen, van H. (2000) Research by design: architectural strategies and design methods. In Research by Design. A. Nieuwenhuis and M. van Ouwerkerk (eds) . Delft University Press. Delft. 25-8. Galha, H.M. (2000a) A new approach to evaluate quality in building design. In Research by Design. A. Nieuwenhuis and M. Van Ouwerkerk (eds). Delft University Press. Delft. 110. Galha, H.M. (2000b) Users’ quality perception in classroom design: a case study. In J. W. Scheer (ed.). The person in society: challenges to a constructivist theory. Psychosozial- Verlag. Gieβen. 239-50. Galha, H.M. (1999a) A perceptual appraisal of design quality. In Bowen, P.A.and Hindle, R.D (eds). Procs CIB W65 & W55 International Symposium. Customer satisfaction: a focus for research & practice in construction. Cape Town. September. 2. 470-80. Galha, H.M.(1999b) Economic quality design. In Hughes, W.P. (ed), Procs 15th ARCOM Conference, University of Liverpool, September. Association of Researchers in Construction Management. Reading. 1. 345-54. Galha, H.M. (1998) Quality in building design: a case study. In Hughes, W.P. (ed), Procs 14th ARCOM Conference, University of Reading, September. Association of Researchers in Construction Management. Reading. 1. 310-19. Goel, V. (1995) Sketches of thought. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Goldschmidt, G. (1994) On visual design thinking: the vis kids of architecture, Design Studies, 15(2), 158-84. Gray, C., Hughes, W. and Bennett, J. (1994) The successful management of design, Centre for Strategies Studies in Construction, University of Reading, Reading. Gero, J. S. (1990) Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design, AI Magazine, 11(4): 26-36. Gero, JS and Tang, M (2001) Differences between retrospective and concurrent protocols in revealing the process-oriented aspects of the design process, Design Studies, 21(3), 283- 95. Gromark, S. (2000) The specificity of architectural research in search for a singular scientific identity. In Research by Design. A. Nieuwenhuis and M. van Ouwerkerk (eds). Delft University Press, Delft.

16 Halliday, S.P. (1995) BSRIA's environmental code of practice for buildings & their services. BSRIA. London. Harrington, H.J. (1987). The Improvement Process. Quality Press. Milwaukee. Hubbard, P. (1996) Design quality: a professional or public issue, Environments by design, 1(1), 21-37. Kelly, G.A. (1955) The psychology of personal constructs, Norton, N.Y. Lawson, B. (1980) How designers think. Butterworth Architecture. London. Lawson, B. and Pilling, S. (1996) The cost and value of design, Architectural Research Quarterly, 4(1), 82-9. Latham, M. (1994) Constructing the team. HMSO, London. Macmillan, S.Steele, J., Austin, S., Kirby, P. and Spence, R. (2001). Development and verification of a generic framework for conceptual design. Design Studies. 22(2). 169-91. Mahnke, F. (1996) Color, environment, and human response. Van Nostrand. New York. Manning, P. (1995) Environmental design as a routine. Building and Environment, 30(2). 181-96. Mitchell, C.T. (1995) Action, perception and the realisation of design, Design Studies, 16, 4- 28. Mitchell, C.T. (1993) Redefining design: from form to experience. Van Nostrand Reinhold, N. Y. Morris, P.W.G. and Hough, G.H. (1987) The anatomy of major projects: a study of the reality of project management, Wiley, Chichester. Nahapiet, J. and Nahapiet, H. (1985) The management of construction projects: case studies from the USA and UK, Chartered Institute of Building (CIB), Ascot. NEDO (1987) “Achieving quality on building sites”, Building and Economic Development Committee. HMSO, London. Nieuwenhuis, A. and Ouwerkerk, M. van (2000) Architectural intervention. In Research by Design. A. Nieuwenhuis and M. Van Ouwerkerk (eds). Delft University Press, Delft, pp. 3. Powell, C. (1984) An editorial conjecture concerning building design, quality, cost and profit. In Quality and profit in building design, P.S.Brandon and J.A.Powell (Eds.), E & FN SPON, London, pp. 3-27. Peng, C. (1994) Exploring communication in collaborative design: cooperative architectural modelling, Design Studies, 5(1), 19-44. RIBA (1995) Strategic Study of the profession: phases 3 and 4 - the way forward. RIBA. London. Rosenman, J.A. and Gero, J.S. (1998) Purpose and function in design: from the socio-cultural to the techno-physical. Design Studies. 19(2). 161-86. Rowe, P.G. (1987) Design Thinking. MIT Press. Cambridge. MA. Schön, D.A. (1991) The reflective practitioner - how professionals think in action. Arena, Aldershot. Seymour, D. and Low, S. (1990) The quality debate, Construction Management and Economics, 8 (1), 13-29. Suwa, M., Gero, J. S. and Purcell, T. (1999) Unexpected discoveries and s-inventions of design requirements: A key to creative designs, in J. S. Gero and M. L. Maher (eds), Computational Models of Creative Design IV, Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia, pp. 297-320.

17 CAN THE VALUE OF DESIGN BE MEASURED?

JOHN BOON

UNITEC, Auckland, New Zealand

Abstract: The measurement of the value of design is a problematic matter involving complex subjective judgements. This paper addresses the question within the context of design of bespoke residential houses. It draws on micro economic theory to argue that value such as these can only be measured ordinally as preferences relative to other things within the context of the total amount of monies available. It notes however that market or exchange values do impact. It then draws on work by Paul (2000) to suggest how the underlying drivers of these values can be articulated using “modes of involvement” as a frame of reference.

Key words: Design, measurement, modes of involvement, value.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the debate regarding how the value of design can be articulated and measured, particularly in the context of the dialogue that occurs between client and designer as the design is developed. This is a complex matter within which subjective judgements often predominate. In order to constrain the debate within this paper it is focussed on the value of design as it relates to bespoke designed residential dwellings. This context has been selected as it substantially eliminates the issues of investment return as the predominant value that occurs in the context of commercial buildings. However, it is accepted that the issue of investment return as a value is not entirely eliminated.

DEFINITIONS

Value: The Concise Oxford Dictionary has thirteen definitions, the first six are believed to be relevant to this paper and define in broad terms the issue being explored: 1. the worth desirability or utility of a thing, or the qualities on which these depend (the value of regular exercise) 2. worth as estimated; valuation (set a high value on my time) 3. the amount of money or goods for which a thing can be exchanged in the open market 4. the equivalent of a thing; what represents or is represented by or may be substituted for a thing (paid them the value of their lost property) 5. (in full value for money) something well worth the money spent 6. the ability of a thing to serve a purpose or cause an effect (news value; nuisance value).

18 Design: Confusion can arise as to whether one is debating the value of design as a process or the value of the features designed into the end product. Through the body of this paper, the focus is on the value of the features designed into the end product.

NATURE AND CLASSIFICATION OF VALUE

Rescher (1969) argues that value is: • Benefit orientated: it is an expression of the benefit, or needs satisfaction a person derives from a thing. • Subjective: the value a person will place on a thing will depend on their needs at the time, the extent to which the thing will satisfy those needs and what alternative satisfactions to their needs are available to them. • Relational: the value arises from the interaction between a person (or collection of people) and the thing, rather than being an inherent property of the thing itself. The value is therefore dependent on the extent and nature of interaction. The value each person (or group of people) will place on a thing will therefore differ.

Value must therefore be seen from the perspective of the person on whose behalf the valuation is being made and within the context of the benefit sought.

Lock (1973) uses classifications of: • Exchange value: that which enables an article to be offered in exchange for money or for an article. • Cost value: the sum of the materials, labour and other costs required to produce an article or to perform a service. • Use value: the sum of the properties and qualities possessed by an article which perform a use or provide a service. • Esteem value: the sum of the features of the article which beyond its actual use prompt the decision to buy. (p496)

Lock’s “exchange, use and esteem” values are in line with Rescher’s argument and the dictionary definitions. However the author challenges Lock’s classification of “cost value” his definition is simply a historical record of cost (at best a past exchange value or series of values) does not describe a benefit and therefore cannot be regarded as a classification of value. It is disregarded in this paper.

More recent writers following similar thinking Best and De Valance (1999) use the classifications of exchange, use and esteem value. They also debate the issue of quality relative to cost and quote The Building Research Establishment (BRE) (1976) “maximum value is then in theory obtained from a required level of quality at least cost, the highest level of quality for a given cost or from an optimum compromise between the two”. The BRE argument, from the perspective of this paper, confuses “value” in an absolute sense with “value for money” a comparison of the benefit received with the cost of obtaining that benefit. This paper is concerned with whether value in its absolute sense can be defined and measured so that the “value for money” judgement can be made in a rational scientific manner.

Sources of Benefit In response to Rescher’s (1969) argument that value is benefit related it is useful to consider the types or sources of benefit that arise from building design. Analysis of recent publications

19 on the value of architecture, particularly Worpole (2000) and Loe (2000) suggests that benefits can accrue to two distinct sets of people: • The population generally in the area where the building is located and • The owner and users of the building.

To the first set of people benefits such as improved streetscape and urban environment can accrue. Larger buildings can provide what Worpole (2000) describes as the flagship effect; they stimulate the economies of the cities within which they are developed. Worpole cites Frank Gehry’s Guggenheim museum in Bilbao, Eldred Evans & David Shalev’s Tate Gallery at St Ives and Richard Roger’s and Renzo Piano’s Pompidou Centre. Walker (2001) has recently revisited the value of the Sydney Opera House calculating its value on the amount of tourists dollars it brings to the City of Sydney rather than on its utility as an opera house. This type of benefit which economists would describe as externalities is not the concern of this paper. This paper is concerned with the benefits that clients seek for themselves in commissioning the design of the building. Analysis of Worpole (2000) and Loe (2000) includes the following benefits that can arise directly to clients: • Functionality – the design of the building facilitates the carry out of the desired functions within the building • Psychological health – the nature of the environment created within the building stimulates a sense of well being amongst the occupants • Physical health – the environment created by the building is not detrimental to physical health due to the introduction of toxins or poor air quality etc. • Livable and social places – the design of the building stimulates a sense of enjoyment in living and encourages positive social interactions amongst the occupants and between the occupants and the surrounding community. • Safety and security – the building provides a safe non-accident inducing environment and security from unwanted visitors etc. • Prestige and delight – the building stimulates within its occupants a sense of pride and pleasure from using it.

Whilst this list may not be exhaustive it is sufficiently comprehensive to indicate the types of benefits that this paper is attempting to address.

MEASUREMENT OF VALUE

A Micro Economic Perspective In addressing this issue micro economic theories concerning consumer behavior and utility are helpful. Utility represents the satisfaction a consumer derives from a good or group of goods. The theory distinguishes between total utility and marginal utility. Total utility is a measure of the level of satisfaction that a consumer derives from a particular good or basket of goods, whereas marginal utility measures the additional satisfaction derived from an additional unit of a good (when the levels of consumption of all other goods are held constant).

The law of diminishing marginal utility holds that: “as a person consumes more and more of a given commodity (the consumption of other commodities being held constant) the marginal utility of the commodity eventually will tend to decline.” (Mansfield 1985 p52). This suggests that if utility (or satisfaction) can be measured it will not be constant.

20 Micro economic theory assumes that the consumer is rational and attempts to maximize total utility when making purchase decisions. In attempting to maximize utility the consumer must take account not only of their own tastes but also the prices of the various commodities and the level of their money income. The relevant points are that consumers are seeking to achieve an optimal basket of goods and services rather than maximize the marginal utility of a particular good or service. And that the overall size of this optimal basket is determined by their money income. It is acknowledged that the consumer does not always achieve optimization of their total basket for reasons such as incomplete knowledge.

Importantly, micro economic theory recognizes that utility cannot be measured in a cardinal sense. That is it cannot be measured in a hard objective sense where one basket of market goods is measured as being of 100 utils of value and another of 115 utils and the second is preferred by a measure of 15% over another. Mansfield (1985) quotes Hicks (1946) Hotelling (1935) and Samuelson (1947) to justify that most micro economists hold that utility can only be measured in an ordinal sense, that is that consumers can only rank market baskets in order of preference but that the degree of utility or preference cannot be measured.

Transcription to Monetary Values Boon (1994) explored how people place a monetary value on the benefit received from a particular component or part of a building. He argued that: • people are able to place priorities on their needs satisfaction. • when people make decisions to purchase satisfaction of their non economic needs they transcribe the value they place on the needs satisfaction into monetary terms at least to the point where they have determined that their value is in excess of the exchange value.

He went on to argue in line with micro economic theory that the thought processes used where such monetary values are arrived at by a rationale process take account of: • the total funds available for this purpose • the needs currently experienced • the priorities of needs satisfaction • the cost of satisfying each of the needs or a combination of needs.

He suggested that where people place a monetary value on the benefit derived from a component of a building, they use a thought process similar to that used by valuers and property developers to determine the value of a piece of land for development purposes. That is the total value of the complete development is determined and then all other costs and margins are deducted to arrive at a “residual” valuation. Boon (1994) then proceeded to demonstrate with the aid of Fig 1 that if this process is applied to each component in turn it is found that the value of each component is dependent on the cost of all other components and the total pool of money available. The valuation being carried out is therefore a kind of “iterative residual” valuation.

21 Individual benefit

Total pool of money available

Value of each benfit is dependent on the cost of the other componentsand the total pool of money Figure 1. Monetary valuation of a non economic benefit (Boon 1994)

This argument can be extended to demonstrate that if a further component is introduced as being essential whilst the total pool of money remains unchanged then the value of all existing components is reduced. Further examination of this argument suggests that this process is questionable as a valuation at all, it is in reality simply an affordability check, or part of the process of deciding what mix of components is most desirable. It demonstrates and reinforces the argument that values of this nature are relative and can only be measured ordinally.

LEVELS OF DECISIONS

Examination of the decisions involved in determining the design of a house that maximizes value to the client suggests that decisions have to be made at a number of levels e.g.: • The decisions regarding how much is to be spent on the house relative to the purchase of other goods and services. • Decisions regarding type and number of spaces and their configuration for instance should ensuites to all bedrooms be traded for a study. • Decisions regarding the quality of finishes and hardware

Whilst it would appear logical to work through these layers sequentially Lawson (1990) and Schon (1991) have both identified that this does not work well in practice. They argue that the complexity of the problem is such that designers find it preferable to work in what Lawson terms a “solution orientated” mode by postulating design solutions and testing them with the client to further elucidate their requirements and their values. Much anecdotal evidence exists of clients changing their mind during this process regarding the total budget, when they have a better understanding of what can be obtained for a given budget. This change in budget can be seen as a shift in priorities between expenditure on the house and on other goods and services. Although neither Lawson or Schon discuss the process in these terms this type of iterative processing may be necessary in part because the client is only able to reveal their values by expressing preferences between alternatives and this can only be done when alternatives are presented to the client.

DETERMINANTS OF THE VALUE OF THE DESIGN OF A HOUSE

It is suggested that determination of the value of the design of a house is a complex multi dimensional problem as illustrated by Fig 2. The value is expressed by preferences between alternative goods and services and alternative designs. At the same time it is influenced by

22 exchange values. Other people who engage with the house differently to the owner will place a different value on it.

Exchange value

Market value of similar houses Decisions bounded by Potential value to future purchasers total monies available

Value Preferences Preferences Value & costs of to determine Value of Design to determine & costs of alternative optimal basket optimal basket other goods designs & services

Externalities

Value to others

Figure 2. Determinants of the Value of the Design of a House

Determination of the Total Amount To Spend It is not unreasonable to suggest that most people determine the amount they will spend on their house by taking account of the total capital funds they have available, their current and future earnings and their borrowing capacity. How much they spend on the house rather than on consumer goods, other capital goods or savings is determined by their own needs and preferences. If this amount is seen as a monetary expression of the value they place on the house it can be seen that the value is entirely subjective being determined by funds available and competing wants and needs. As the design evolves the client may decide to change their mind regarding the desirability of the house relative to other satisfactions and may therefore decide to spend more (or less) on the house.

However, it is suggested that most home purchasers when making these decisions are aware that: 1. They can purchase an alternative house that will provide similar benefits on the open market 2. The investment in the house is not only a purchase to satisfy their wants and needs as consumers but is also a capital investment. They will therefore have some regard to the resale value of the house.

It therefore can be seen that two value sets interplay to determine the monetary value the client places on a proposed house. One set of values are driven by Lock’s (1973) notions of use and esteem. The other values derive from the market as exchange values (which it could be argued are a complex aggregate of the population’s in general use and esteem values).

The Value of Components of the Design It has been argued above that values of this type are relative and can only be measured ordinally. These values are expressed as preferences relative to alternatives. To discuss the values it is therefore necessary to be able to articulate how people establish these preferences.

23

Paul (2000) describes Kodak’s research in a similar area, reporting their attempts to measure consumer preference between design features on similar cameras (Paul 2000). Note how this problem has been reduced to a layer of the consumer decision making. They are not concerned with the decision to buy a camera at all, nor with the area of price and functionality required only with the choice between relatively similar cameras. Based on computer analysis of interviews of purchasers they have concluded that purchasers can be seen as having a variety of modes of involvement with a product. These include: • Practical involvement, or functional utility: the degree to which the product fulfills its intended purpose • Intellectual involvement: the degree to which the product stimulates curiosity, or holds potential for developing knowledge or skill • Emotional involvement: the degree to which the product enhances the ego, self- concept, or self-ideal • Social involvement: the degree to which the product represents affinity to a political, social, economic, religious, or intellectual group (Paul 2000 p73). Kodak have gone on to developing a process of perceptual mapping that displays the buyers level of involvement for each of these four modes.

They have also developed a set of measures of emotional involvement as set out in Table 1 below:

Psychological Process Measure (for Application to Scales)

Internal/Core Self This product “is like me/is not like me.” Personal Identity This product gives/does not give meaning to what I want to become. External Self I would like to be seen using/would be embarrassed to be seen using this product. Joy of Self This product is great fun to use/no fun to use. This product makes my life better/worse. Identification This product does/does not give meaning to what I do. Mood I am at ease/not at ease with this product Table 1. Measures of Emotional Involvement (Paul 2000 p75)

These “measures” are scored on a 1-5 scale through a process of purchaser interviews.

Paul does not suggest that Kodak have attempted to pull these measures together to form an aggregate “best design” score. If one accepts Mansfield’s (1985) argument that these things can only be measured ordinally it would seem futile to attempt such an exercise. However, Paul’s “modes of involvement “ and measures of “emotional involvement” do seem to provide a language to facilitate debate of the benefit of the components of a design. They add sophistication to Lock’s (1973) notions of “use” and “esteem” value and help explore the underlying drivers of the values being ascribed.

CONCLUSION

This paper has sought to describe how the value of design can be articulated and measured within the context of bespoke residential dwellings.

24 As defined by Rescher (1969) value is benefit orientated, subjective and relational. Any attempt to describe value must therefore be made from the perspective of the person seeking the benefit and within the context of the benefit being sought.

It must also be recognized that value is subjective and determined by competing wants and needs and the total purchasing power available to satisfy those wants and needs. As such values of this type can only be expressed ordinally in terms of preferences to alternatives. However, such values are also influenced by market values as a client is unlikely to decide to purchase a given design or design component if satisfaction of the benefit being sought can be achieved through the purchase of a cheaper good elsewhere in the market.

Whilst these values can only be measured ordinally Paul’s (2000) language of “modes of involvement” and measures of “emotional involvement” provide suitable tools for discussing how a client develops their preferences for various design alternatives.

The conclusion that values of this nature are relative and can only be measured ordinally reinforce conclusions reached through alternate routes by Newton (1990) and Kelly (1990) that the value of a property development project cannot be optimized in a scientific rational sense. The best that can be achieved is that a “satisficed” position is reached. Satisficed is a term coined by Simon (1975) to describe the position reached when the debate has been continued and the options explored until the parties are satisfied that an outcome that is "good enough" has been achieved.

These conclusions also help explain the usefulness of processes such as Value Management that facilitate debate between client and designer. Green (1992) has identified these processes as structured decision conferences within which a “shared social reality” is achieved that satisfices the participants, rather than scientifically rational decisions are made. Given that the values used in making these decisions can only be expressed as preferences this would appear to be the best that can be achieved.

Paul’s (2000) language of “mode of involvement” and measures of “emotional involvement” indicate the type of language we need to articulate the value of design. High value design may, through this language, be seen as design that maximizes the client’s satisfaction from engagement with the product (in this case the house) in terms of their practical, intellectual, emotional and social involvement, within the context of their preferences relative to other things.

REFERENCES

Best, R. & G. De Valence (1999) Building in Value – pre design issues; Arnold; London. Boon, J. (1994) Enhanced Value Generation during the Design Process – The Search for Optimisation and the Measurement of Value; Proceedings of Internet World Congress; Oslo, Green. S.D., A SMART (1992) Methodology for Value Management. CIOB Occasional Paper No 53. Chartered Institute of Building. London. Hicks, J. (1946) Value and Capital; Oxford University Press; Oxford. Hotelling, H., (1935) Demand Functions with Limited Budgets; Econometrica. Kelly, J.R. (1990) Building Design Optimisation. Proceedings of CIB90 Symposium on Building Economics and Construction Management. Eds V. Ireland, H. Giritli, C. Roberts, M. Skitmore.

25 Lawson, B. (1990) How Designers Think; Butterworth; Oxford. Lock, D. (1973) Engineers Handbook of Management Techniques. Gower Press, Hampshire. Loe, E. (2000) The Value of Architecture - Context and Current Thinking; RIBA; London. Mansfield, E. (1985) Micro Economics, Theory and Applications; Norton; New York Newton, S. (1990) Formal Optimisation and Informal Design. Proceedings of CIB90 Symposium on Building Economics and Construction Management. Eds V. Ireland, H. Giritli, C. Roberts, M. Skitmore. Paul, J.J. (2000) Performance Metrics to Measure the Design; Design Management Journal. Rescher, N. (1969) Introduction to Value Theory; Prentice Hall; New Jersey. Samuelson, P. (1947) Foundations of Economic Analysis; Harvard University Press; Cambridge Mass. Schon, D.A. (1991) The Reflective Practitioner; Gower; Vermont. Walker, D. (2001) Cost Versus Value; ProDesign 51; Auckland. Worpole, K. (2000) The Value of Architecture – Design, Economy and the Architectural Imagination; RIBA; London.

26 VALUE THROUGH DESIGN CONTROL: A THEORETICAL APPROACH TOWARDS A STRATEGY FOR A CONTROLLED PLANNING AND DESIGN PROCESS

MONIKA FENDL

Dresden University of Technology, Department of Architecture, Germany

Abstract: The paper as a component of an extensive research project on design methods focuses on the question how architects could develop systematically goal-oriented architectural solutions (including innovative solutions) in the complex field of social and healthcare buildings. Within this framework, the paper, a component of the whole research project, is looking at two fundamental questions in terms of the indispensability of the contribution of architects during the planning and design process for complex and complicated design tasks: 1. Are there any techniques for measuring the added value contributed by architects? 2. How can architects demonstrate / communicate the added value of their contribution? The argumentation bases on two hypotheses: 1. The added value of the architects' contribution can be measured either through the evaluation of the architectural solution or of the planning / design process. 2. Architects can demonstrate / communicate the added value of their contribution either through the quality of the architectural solution or the successful of the interactive procedure that is therefore satisfying that architects, engineers, clients, users, etc. are included. The starting basis are the stakeholders. They are the ones, who control – who monitor and guide – the whole planning and design process using two models developed by the author: 1. The first model, the "issue model", explains the multidisciplinary issues architects have to take into account while planning and designing. The "issue model" provides a structure to identify all important areas of interest for planning and designing. This model helps to gather, store, manage, retrieve and apply information as well as to use it in order to evaluate the architectural solution. This model is a basis to measure the quality of the architectural solution. 2. The second model, the "process model", describes - in accordance with the definition of the architects' area of responsibility - the terms planning and design and their process. The "process model" provides a structure for the process (steps) as well as additional components. These additional components are to be taken into consideration while proceeding the steps. This model is a basis to evaluate the interactive procedure. The most important additional component of the "process model" is design control. While plenty of other well-known models of the planning / design process intend to evaluate the architectural solution after construction, this model proposes to control the architectural solution after each step and therefore the whole process. Using that strategy, it is possible to compare continuously the goals of each step and the achieved results of each step. That allows to influence the future proceeding "step by step". In addition, architects are enabled to control the whole planning and design process and can pass this information about the progress to the client. This will contribute to a clear and satisfying collaboration and

27 interaction. Finally, the added value of the architect’s contribution can be measured as well as demonstrated / communicated through the method of evaluation followed by an analysis of deviation. The last stage of design control is called Pre-Occupancy-Evaluation (PreOE) and represents the last chance to identify mistakes before realisation is started. By using the "issue model" as well as a preliminary "process model" a design project for a department for the treatment of cancer patients was developed. This example provides - even within the strict rules mentioned above - an innovative and world-wide unique architectural approach which is to be described and explained very briefly in the paper. Continuous control - in the meaning of monitoring and guidance - from the very beginning of planning and designing to the finishing of the plan / design is a must to achieve high-quality, goal-oriented architectural solutions and a successful interactive procedure.

INTRODUCTION

References It is obvious that the paper does not have any footnotes. The reason for that is, that the paper is a result of my own thoughts on the question how architects could measure and demonstrate the added value of their contribution within the planning / design process. My thoughts have resulted in a theoretical approach to answer this question. This approach is based on my current research, which has been ongoing for two years and is still in progress. All ideas are developed by myself and therefore, there are no footnotes. But I would like to direct you toward these references:

The first one is the proposal for the research project mentioned above that is now granted by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Council) (published in English and German):

Fendl, Monika; Schmieg, Heinzpeter: Planning and Design Methods in Architecture. Analysis and further development illustrated by the example of social and healthcare buildings. Research design of DFG-project SCHM 1513/1-1. Planungs- und Entwurfsmethoden in der Architektur. Analyse und Weiterentwicklung, dargestellt an einem Beispiel aus dem Bereich Bauten des Sozial- und Gesundheitswesens. Forschungsdesign des DFG-Projekts SCHM 1513/1-1, (bilingual/zweisprachig) in: Architekturinformation TU Dresden, Schriftenreihe der Fakultaet Architektur, Nr. 32, 2000 (online: http://www.tu-dresden.de/arige/sozialb/forschung/fendl02.pdf)

The final report on the research project will be available in 2002. It will also present some aspects of this paper. In terms of the announced chapter on Pre-OE, which is contrary to the abstract not part of the following paper because it would have been too extensive, I would also like to direct you toward the forthcoming publication on the research project. If you are interested in these publications, please do not hesitate to contact me.

The second one is a publication on the architectural milieu and its influence on patients treated with huge medical equipment (written in German), which enabled me to draw conclusions in terms of architectural goals in the field of radiology / radiotherapy:

Fendl, Monika: Die bauliche Huelle von medizinischen Grossgeraeten und deren Bedeutung fuer ein therapeutisches Milieu, in: Architekturinformation TU Dresden, Schriftenreihe der Fakultaet Architektur, no. 31, 1999

28 (online: http://www.tu-dresden.de/arige/sozialb/forschung/fendl01.pdf)

In addition, I abstained from presenting in detail the example of a strategic procedure to plan and to design a hospital as well as the exemplary architectural solution for that hospital because of another publication about that design project, because you can find it on our web page:

Fendl, Monika; Schmieg, Heinzpeter: Case Study. Systematic strategy to develop a concept for the extension of a hospital and to design an integrated private medical practice for radiology and radiotherapy, in: Architekturinformation TU Dresden, Schriftenreihe der Fakultaet Architektur, no. 33, 2001 Online: http://hsss.slub- dresden.de/hsss/servlet/hsss.urlmapping.MappingServlet?id=998986084500-7488.

Acknowledgements This paper was specifically prepared for this conference in Reading and was written during my research stay in the USA. For many discussions and plenty of new impulses, I would like to thank especially – in the chronological order of my visits:

Thomas J. Allen, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA Gunter Henn, Technische Universitaet Dresden, Deutschland; Henn Architekten, Munich, Berlin, Dresden, Germany William Lyman Porter, Department of Architecture, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA Omer Akin, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA Heike Goeller, Reinhart Butter, Department of Industrial, Interior, and Visual Communication Design, The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA Liz Sanders, Company Sonic Rim, Columbus, USA Wolfgang F. E. Preiser, DAAP, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, USA Edward Arens, Galen Cranz, University of California in Berkeley, California, USA Anne-Cathrin Schulz, Lothar Maier, George Tingwald, Company SOM, San Francisco, USA Hans-Christoph Haenlein, Banny Banerjee, Barry Katz, Company IDEO, San Francisco, USA Bill Rostenburg, Joyce Polhamus, Company SmithGroup, San Francisco, USA For proof-reading the paper before submission I would like to thank very much: Catharina Kriegbaum, Trumpf GmbH & Co KG, Ditzingen, Germany Rachael Luck, Research Group for Inclusive Environments, University of Reading, Reading, UK

FRAMEWORK

The paper is based on an extensive research project on planning and design methods: The title of the project is "Fundamentals of Planning and Design Methods in Architecture – Analysis and Further Development of Planning and Design Methods Illustrated by the Example of Complex Planning and Design Tasks Especially in the Field of Social and Healthcare Buildings". It focuses on the question how architects could develop systematically goal- oriented architectural solutions (including innovative solutions) for complex planning and

29 design tasks. One central question within this project is whether and how a method can be evaluated itself (see Valuefigure through Design 1). Control Framework

Framework

Extensive research project on How can architects develop planning and design methods in systematically goal-oriented architecture architectural solutions in the complex field of social facilities and healthcare buildings?

How to evaluate a method?

Figure 1. Value through Design, September 14-15 2001, Reading © Monika Fendl 1

The overall aim of the research project is to develop a method supporting the process of architectural planning and designing that is to be defined as a procedure to develop architecture. Architecture is an environment intentionally formed through people using an – intelligent – analytical and synthesising way and is therefore the result of a procedure striving for or even achieving defined goals, such as the physical and psychological well-being of the users as well as formal, constructive, technical, economical, and ecological issues according to the building law.

QUESTIONS

Within this framework, the paper, a component of the whole research project, is looking at two fundamental questions in terms of the indispensability of the added value of the contribution of architects during the planning and design process for complex and complicated planning and design tasks (see figure 2): 1. Are there any techniques for measuring the added value contributed by architects? 2. How can architectsValue through Design demonstrate Control / communicate the added valueQuestions of their contribution?

Questions

Are there any techniques for How can architects demonstrate measuring the added value / communicate the added value contributed by architects? of their contribution?

Figure 2. Value through Design, September 14-15 2001, Reading © Monika Fendl 2

These questions include the investigation whether and how a method could be evaluated itself.

30 HYPOTHESES

Amongst the hypothesis, that the architects’ role within the planning and design process is basically to work on any tasks in an analytical or in a synthesis building way as well as to co- ordinate the people involved and the jobs to be done, this investigation bases on two further hypotheses (see figure 3).

Measurement of the Added Value The added value of the architects' contribution can be measured either through evaluation of the architectural solution or through the evaluation of the interactive procedure.

Demonstration / Communication of the Added Value Architects can demonstrate / communicate the added value of their contribution either through the quality of the architectural solution or the success of interactive procedure that is therefore satisfying that architects,Value through engineers,Design Control other contributors, clients, users, etc.Hypotheses are included.

Hypotheses

The added value of the architects' Architects can demonstrate / contribution can be measured communicate the added value of either through the evaluation of their contribution either through the the architectural solution or of quality of the architectural solution the planning / design process. or the successful procedure.

Figure 3. Value through Design, September 14-15 2001, Reading © Monika Fendl 3

The quality of the architectural solution and of the success of the interactive procedure can be measured by using the methods bipolar profile and analysis of deviation. The idea is to find out whether the people involved are content with the architectural solution and also with the interaction during the process.

General Theoretical Approach Figure 4 shows the general theoretical approach to find answers to the posed questions. First of all, planning / designing is influenced and done by people. They are either involved in planning and designing the building or they use it. In addition, people having any kind of demands on or are affected by the architectural solution or the interactive procedure, are called stakeholders.

31 Value through Design Control General theoretical approach

Issues (architectural goals)

Evaluation of the architectural solution using the issue model in terms of its quality through an analysis of deviation of the expected performance

Stake- holders Measurement / Demonstration of the architects‘ contribution

Evaluation of the interactive procedure using the process model in terms of the success of the planning/design process through an analysis of deviation

Process (successful interaction)

Figure 4. Value through Design, September 14-15 2001, Reading © Monika Fendl 4

These stakeholders influence the planning / design issues and therefore the architectural solution through constituting the issues, which are supposed to be the architectural goals for the building. These goals cover architectural aspects as well as non-architectural ones. They are used later on for a valid evaluation of the architectural solution and consequently of the quality of the architecture. To visualise the wide range of issues, an issue model is developed. In addition, people have an effect on the process through leading, participating, attending, observing, or even ignoring the planning / design process and therefore through influencing its success by interacting with people. This process is illustrated by a process model. This model is to be used for evaluating this interactive procedure and is therefore looking at the success of the planning and design process. With these two approaches it is possible to evaluate on the one hand the quality of the architectural solution and on the other hand the success of the interactive planning and design process. It is therefore possible to answer the two questions in terms of measurement and demonstration (see centre of the graphic) using these models combined with an analysis of deviation of the expected performance of the architectural solution and or of the interactive procedure.

STARTING BASIS: STAKEHOLDER MODEL

Because people influence the architectural solution and the planning and design process, the starting basis is the stakeholder model which is not meant to define groups precisely and completely, but to illustrate, that people belong to different groups (sets) within the planning / design process: planners, users, and contributors.

32

Figure 5.

The investigation turned out that there are two main sets of people (see figure 5): the planners and the users. The intersection set between planners and users are called contributors and are either part of the set of planners or of the group of users. Although it is important to include into the process also the non-contributors e.g. for gathering information, the paper focuses on the intersection group of contributors because they are aware of their ideas and are consequently suitable to be interviewed later on. Because the stakeholders influence the design work in two main areas, the general theoretical approach requires two models, one to support evaluating the quality of the architectural solution and a second one to support the evaluation of the success of the interactive procedure. Both models must be simple to handle, easy to understand, and they must consider the subjectivity of people’s reception.

DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE MODEL AND THE PROCESS MODEL IN TERMS OF DESIGN CONTROL

Issue Model The first model is called the issue model. It provides a structure to identify all important areas of interest for planning and designing and visualises the multidisciplinary issues architects have to take into account when planning / designing simple and complex buildings. These issues anable the contributors to derive architectural goals. This model helps to gather, store, manage, retrieve, and apply information as well as to use it for evaluation of the architectural solution (see figure 6). The column in the middle shows the general requirements architects have to take into account while planning and designing. The model consists of given constraints, as e.g. the site or static aspects, and of requirements formulated by all stakeholders, especially by the users. These central issues are called main issues. The column on the left is added as an example and tells more about the people (stakeholders) and the subjects that could contribute to the planning / design process. The right column gives further examples of subjects which should be asked for their support.

33 Value through Design Control Issue Model (in parts further developed)

Tasks of the Architect

1. Consideration of Issues 2. Planning and Designing

Medicine Physical Demands of Users Workplace Org. and Design

Psychology Psychol. Demands of Users Pedagogic

Aesthetics Formal Design Issues Art

Civil Engineering Constructive Issues Construction Physics

Maintenance (FM) Technical Issues Radiation Physics/Protection

Economics Economic Issues Administration and Law

Ecological Science Ecological Issues Biology and Gardening

Law According to Building Law Politics

Figure 6. Value through Design, September 14-15 2001, Reading © Monika Fendl 6

The issue model is to be seen three-dimensional. Each column shows subjects of interest (constraints and requirements) and is to be extended by additional requirements in the same field. "Behind" each requirement one can identify stakeholders who are able to provide information about the requirements. Any space or room in the building to be planned and designed has be investigated in terms of each issue mentioned in the middle column and has to be further developed in terms of the subjects and the stakeholders involved. Of course, in the left column there will be listed much more than only one single issue. There will be plenty of issues, e.g. in terms of the technical requirements in hospitals. Later on, an example will be given to show how the further development of the issue model could look like. Actually, this model is a basis to measure the quality of the architectural solution.

Process Model The second model is called the “process model”. It provides a structure for the process following steps as well as for important additional components. These additional components are to be taken into consideration while proceeding the steps as we will see later on. The process model describes – in accordance with the definition of the architects' area of responsibility – the terms planning / design and its process (see figure 7). The column in the middle describes the steps – it is called the process path – that are recommended to be followed by architects. The big arrow on the left – the forward path – shows the general way of proceeding (feed forward). The arrow on the right – the backward path – shows that it might be necessary to go back to previous steps (feed back). To not formulate the rule that each step has to be done, there are small arrows from the forward and the backward path to the steps to show that any user of the model is allowed to leave the path and follow other paths forwards or backwards at any time. By visualising the general approach of the process of planning / designing, any stakeholders, planners, contributors, or users, are enabled to know how the interactive procedure is to be done. Consequently, it is possible for them to evaluate, whether if each important issue is considered and each step of the interactive procedure is done. Therefore, they are enabled to add their own contribution or to ask other contributors to think about one special issue in more detail, if necessary. Therefore, this model is a basis to evaluate the success of the interaction within the process.

34 Value through Design Control Process Model

Planning/Design Impulse

Planning of Planning (through Gathering Information)

Formulation of the Problem (through Analysis of Information)

Setting the Goals (through Information Processing

Generation of Alternatives

Prognosis

Assessment/Evaluation

Decision

Drawing up the Plan

Forward Process Path Backward Path Planning / Design Process Path Figure 7. Value through Design, September 14-15 2001, Reading © Monika Fendl 7

THE STRATEGY "DESIGN CONTROL"

Using the stakeholder model linked with the issue model and the process model, it becomes possible to develop instruments to support measurement and demonstration of the added value through the architects' contribution if they are using the specific strategy called design control.

Description The aims of the strategy design control are: • to involve all important people and to share their explicit and their tacit knowledge as well as their experiences, • to consider all important issues, • to avoid planning and design mistakes by following a systematic procedure, and • therefore to support architects to develop a goal-oriented architectural solution.

The single steps of the strategy design control are (see figure 8): • Step 1: Definition of the stakeholders using the stakeholder model. • Step 2: Setting up the specific architectural goals using the issue model. • Step 3: Planning the interactive procedure using the process model. • Step 4: (Parallel to planning and designing step by step following the given process model:) Evaluation of the quality of the architectural solution and of the interactive procedure using a bipolar profile with opposite characteristics (e. g. achieved-not achieved) to support them to formulate their estimation are used. • Step 5: Analysis of deviation using questionnaires as a means to estimate the development of the quality of the architectural solution during the process and the success of the interactive procedure itself.

35

Figure 8.

For the success of the strategy design control it is fundamental to • do it from the very beginning of the process, • do it regularly after each single step (continuously through the whole procedure), and • do it up to the very end of the process.

The results derived from must be easy and quickly to be analysed, easily comprehensible, clearly to be illustrated, and they must visualise the relative change during the procedure. In addition, the strategy requires that • the results of the single questionnaires are analysed immediately in detail, • the results of the questionnaires in terms of the development of the quality of the architectural solution on the one hand and of the interactive procedure on the other hand are analysed and visualised, and • the results of the questionnaires are immediately communicated to the stakeholders.

Design control is an approach to control – to monitor – the previously elaborated steps (feed back) with the goal to use that information and to provide guidance for the future steps (feed forward). Therefore, design control is a future-oriented strategy. In addition, design control confirms the planners to re-do steps already done if their results turned out as insufficient. Design control therefore helps to develop issues as well as evaluating the architectural solution. In addition, it helps to carry out the planning and design process and to evaluate it, too. And, most important, it becomes very clear, that the term control covers backward- oriented monitoring as well as forward-oriented guidance.

Analysis of Deviation How does design control work practically? Figure 9 gives a brief overview over the strategy: In a first step, necessary characteristics concerning the issues and the process are to be identified and put in an order of importance. Therefore, a bipolar profile with opposite characteristics (e.g. a-a') is used. Then, the ideal, optimal, and acceptable level is to be laid down. The evaluation of the quality of the architectural solution in terms of the issues and the success of the interactive procedure in terms of the process is done by the stakeholders, respectively the users and the planners. This evaluation has to be done from the very beginning, continuously, and of course to the very end after each step of the process as mentioned above. Because of changes of the architectural solution during the process and of the process itself (see real (actual) versus previous evaluation), the real (achieved) level will

36 show this in its course and will therefore measure and demonstrate the changes. Finally, the comparison of the ideal, optimal, and acceptable level with the real level of performance of the architectural solution or the real level of the success of the interactive procedure – an analysis of deviation – is a way to measure and to demonstrate the added value of the architects' contribution within the planning / design process. In addition, changes during the process are also visualised. Value through Design Control Design control through Evaluation using Bipolar Profiles (Semantic Differential Scales)

Characteristics in order of importance Evaluation Better Optimal Worse than expected than acceptable

a a' a a' a a' b b' b b' b b' c c' c c' c c' d d' d d' d d' e e' e e' e e' f f' f f' f f' g g' g g' g g' h h' h h' h h' i i' i i' i i' j j' j j' j j' k k' k k' k k' Ideal Real Comparison Optimal Real, e.g. previous evaluation Acceptable Figure 9. Value through Design, September 14-15 2001, Reading © Monika Fendl 9

To make it possible that changes in terms of the architectural solution or of social changes within the interaction are identified, it is important to integrate all stakeholders in the evaluation and the analysis of deviation. Therefore, all individuals, all groups, and the community of stakeholders as a whole is to be integrated. Then, the individual views, the judgement of the group, and the opinion of the community of stakeholders as a whole can be visualised and analysed (see figure 10). Value through Design Control Design Control Using the Stakeholder Model Planners Contributors Users Who perceive Who plans Who is involved Who experience Who designs Politician Who is Economistss affected Administrators Physicians Nurses

Interior Impaired Architects People Landscape Designers Psychologists Physically Mentally Architects Impaired People Ecologists Impaired People Aesthetists/ Patients Artists

Visitors Energy Engineers Civil Neighbours Engineers HVAC Radiation Engineers Physicists Maintainers

Cleaning Staff Public Construction Staff for Technical Facility Physicists Managers Support Lighting Acoustic Engineers Engineers

Figure 10. Value through Design, September 14-15 2001, Reading © Monika Fendl 10

Design Control Using the Issue Model The following chapter will show how the strategy design control uses the issue model (see figure 11).

Evaluation in Terms of Issues Each named main issue is developed furthermore into sub-issues according to the kind of planning and design object. These sub-issues are called output issues because they are derived

37 from the main issues through gathering from and controlling information by the stakeholders within a first step in the planning / design process. They have to be evaluated again, developed furthermore, and to be investigated in more detail. These output issues are in turn used as input issues that develop and control again the main issues. These input issues are therefore the basis for the next generation of output issues and in the end for the development of the architectural goals or the architectural solution. Value through Design Control Further Developed Issue Model

Tasks of the Architect

main 1. Consideration of Issues sub- issues 2. Planning and Designing issues

Physical Demands of Users

Psychol. Demands of Users output input issues Formal Design Issues issues

Constructive Issues

Technical Issues

Economic Issues

Ecological Issues

According to Building Law

Design Control

Figure 11. Value through Design, September 14-15 2001, Reading © Monika Fendl 11

Although this kind of design control is a simple feed-back-feed-forward procedure, it is a new development in design methods because previous methods recommend to gather information cyclically, but they do not recommend to double-check the information they received and to use the information again as an input. Investigation turned out that information gathered from future users of buildings were sometimes simply and objectively false, even without the awareness of the future users. They just misjudged the situation although they have experienced the situation before. It is therefore very important to double-check the information received and to use it again as an input. In addition, each issue, each information, is a possible stimulus for the planners' and designers' work in terms of activating their creativity! Therefore, design control is also a way to stimulate creativity. Because of the increasing precision of the issues, the output issues become more and more a suitable basis for the development of an architectural solution. By showing the difference between the input issues and the output issues, the architect is able to measure his positive influence on the design process in terms of the issues. Therefore, it is a way to demonstrate the added value through his contribution. Consequently, the second innovative idea is, that the architectural solution is continuously evaluated during the whole process and that this strategy enables the stakeholders to influence the architectural solution before it is too late for changes. With that, the goals to develop issues as a basis for the architectural solution and its evaluation in terms of its quality and a basis for the measurement and the demonstration of the added value of the architects' contribution is fulfilled. Example:

38 Value through Design Control Example: Further Developed Issue Model in Terms of Main and Sub-Issues

Technical Issues

Radiation Physics/Protection

Ionising radiation Non-ionising radiation

Radiotherapy Radiology Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Electron-, neutron-, proton-, photon-radiation, Magnetic fields Hi-frequent radio waves spread radiation

Radiation protection through E.g. copper foil, x/10 mm E.g.: baryte concrete, 5 feet e.g. iron panels, 2cm thick

Protection against Protection against Protection against unintentional dangerous dangerous influence on e.g. interference with other radiation of people/animals pacemakers, and against radio waves, protection of external effects on the the measurement against homogenous magnetic field external effects

Weight of the walls and Do not forget to talk to Weight: 6-16 tons ceilings or floors! Civil Engineers!

Figure 12. Value through Design, September 14-15 2001, Reading © Monika Fendl 12

Figure 12 shows one special subject as a part of the general technical issue. It is about radiation physics and radiation protection in hospitals. It gives in a very simple way an idea about the complexity of that single issue. Of course, there are plenty of other issues that have to be taken into consideration when planning and designing a unit for radiotherapy, as e.g. physical and psychological demands as well as formal design issues, constructive, economical, and ecological issues according to the building law. These issues have also to be developed through a multidisciplinary team of planners and users. Therefore, all these other aspects have to be identified and visualised in similar figure. The figures are of help in the end because of an easier identification of the important issues. This way, it is easier for the planner and designer to simplify (= to make more clear) the complexity of the planning / design object, to take the issues into consideration, and finally to develop an architectural solution.

Analysis of Deviation in Terms of the Issues The evaluation is to be done by a simple analysis of deviation between the ideal, optimal, and acceptable performance and the real achieved performance (see figure 13). This evaluation is to be done using the criteria, the main and sub-issues, gathered from the stakeholders, respectively the users and planners. Results may include that a user is complaining about a certain issue, and the planner possibly, too. They might agree or they might disagree. In any case, the results of this evaluation are to be recorded and therefore useful for the next similar project or even for the improvement of the existing situation. A possibility to record the results is again a bipolarValue through profile. Design Control Example: Evaluation in Terms of Issues and Analysis of Deviation

Characteristics in order of importance Evaluation in terms of the Better performance Optimal Worse performance quality of the architectural solution than expected performance than acceptable

a a' a a' a a' b b' b b' b b' c c' c c' c c' d d' d d' d d' e e' e e' e e' f f' f f' f f' g g' g g' g g' h h' h h' h h' i i' i i' i i' j j' j j' j j' k k' k k' k k' Ideal performance Real evaluation Comparison in terms of Optimal performance performance/evaluation: Analysis of deviation Acceptable performance Figure 13. Value through Design, September 14-15 2001, Reading © Monika Fendl 13

39 Design Control Using the Process Model In the following chapter will show how the strategy design control uses the process model.

Evaluation in Terms of Process While plenty of other well-known models of the planning / design process intend to evaluate the architectural solution after its construction, this model proposes to evaluate the architectural solution after each single step and to control each step and therefore the whole process itself. Aspects that have been taken into account during one step in an insufficient way have to be re-done. In addition, future requirements / problems are to be identified and the problem can therefore be solved in future steps. Therefore, it is possible to compare the requirements and the achieved results of each step from the very beginning, continuously, and up to the very end. This innovative approach enables the architects to influence the future proceeding "step by step". Consequently, architects get control over the whole planning and design process and can pass this information to the client. This will contribute to a clear and satisfying collaboration. With that, the goals to influence the future process as well as to enable architects to measure and to demonstrate the added value of their contribution are fulfilled. The approach recommends a repeated reflection after each step (see figure 14). Therefore, architects are enabled to examine the success of this step and to foresee future arising tasks. Consequently, architects may see that some additional work has to be done to avoid mistakes. By recording all the information about the process – its lacks and its success – the architect is enabled to demonstrate the client the added value of his contribution, e.g. by pointing out the steps that should be investigated in further detail. Value through Design Control Design Control Using the Process Model Planning/Design Impulse Control Information Communication (feed forward) (feed back) Planning of Planning (through Interaction Gathering Information) Issues ... Formulation of the Problem ...... (through Analysis of Information) Plan/Design ... Setting the Goals (through Information Processing

Generation of Alternatives

Prognosis

Assessment/Evaluation

Decision

Drawing up the Plan

Architectural Forward Process Path Design Backward Interaction Solution Path Planning / Design Process Control Path (Stakeholders) Figure 14. Value through Design, September 14-15 2001, Reading © Monika Fendl 14

Example: One example might be that a client causes a planning / design impulse. After having clarified the general of the planning / design project, the architects go on and gather information. The idea is that the architects only do the first round of gathering information which means that they only gather information that is important in general and is only meant to give the client and the architects and overview over the problem. When they have recorded this information, they go back to the previous planning / design impulse to examine whether that information supports the idea of the project or whether the information reveals that the project is not suitable for the site. In order to avoid such a basic mistakes, a repeated feed back and feed forward design control is highly recommended.

40 Analysis of Deviation in Terms of the Process

Value through Design Control Example: Evaluation in Terms of the Process and Analysis of Deviation Characteristics in order of importance Evaluation in terms of the Better process Optimal Worse process success of the interaction than expected process than acceptable

a a' a a' a a' b b' b b' b b' c c' c c' c c' d d' d d' d d' e e' e e' e e' f f' f f' f f' g g' g g' g g' h h' h h' h h' i i' i i' i i' j j' j j' j j' k k' k k' k k' Ideal process Real evaluation Comparison in terms of from every participant Optimal process process/evaluation: Analysis of deviation Acceptable process Figure 15. Value through Design, September 14-15 2001, Reading © Monika Fendl 15

The evaluation is again done by a simple analysis of deviation between the ideal, optimal, and acceptable process and the real achieved success of the process (see figure 15). This evaluation should be done by the stakeholders, respectively the users and planners using the criteria of the process model. A result may be that the planners are content with the process and think that they did every step very well, and that by contrast the users felt misunderstood or even unnoticed. In any case, the results of this evaluation are to be recorded again and therefore are useful for the next process or even can improve the current process. One possibility to record the results is again a bipolar profile. With this procedure of evaluation, it is possible to compare the results step by step in terms of • changes between previous and current estimations in terms of the quality of the architectural solution and of the interactive procedure, • dependencies between the quality of the process and the quality of the architectural solution step by step, and • similarities between the subjective opinion of individual stakeholders, groups of stakeholders or the community of stakeholders as a whole (see figure 16). Value through Design Control Analysis of Deviation: Similarities and Differences in Terms of the Issues and the Process

Evaluation of the architecture Evaluation of the process Evaluation through diff. groups

a a' a a' a a' b b' b b' b b' comfortable - uncomfortable c c' c c' c c' functional - not functioning d pleasant - unpleasantd' d d' d d' suitable - unsuitable e e' organisede - unorganisede' e e' productive - unproductive f f' consideratef - not consideratef' f f' g g' integratingg - -not disharmonical integratingg' g g' harmonical h h' h h' h h' i i' i i' i i' j j' j j' j j' k k' k k' k k' this step this step group 1

last step last step group 2

Figure 16. Value through Design, September 14-15 2001, Reading © Monika Fendl 16

41 CONCLUSION: MEASUREMENT AND DEMONSTRATION

This is to summarise the approach described above (see figure 17). Value through Design Control Conclusion Stakeholder model

Stakeholder-oriented approach

Issues model Improve (guaranteed) participation Process model

Goal-oriented approach Future-oriented approach

Improve architectural solutions Improve interactive process

Continuous cyclical evaluation and analysis of deviation after each step

Facilitates measurement and demonstration of the added value of the architect’s contribution

Through “Design Control”

Figure 17. Value through Design, September 14-15 2001, Reading © Monika Fendl 17

First of all, three models have to be developed: • the model of stakeholders as a general basis (stakeholder-oriented approach) to guarantee participation, • the issue model as a basis for the architectural solution and its evaluation (goal- oriented approach) through interviewing stakeholders, and • the process model as a basis for the interactive procedure of planning and designing and its evaluation (future-oriented approach) through interviewing the stakeholders.

The strategy design control is a feed-back-feed-forward strategy and is to be used • to consider and to develop main and sub-issues, • to involve all stakeholders, • to evaluate the issues again and again through interviewing the stakeholders, • to provide guidance for future steps through the evaluation of the previous ones, • to evaluate - and therefore to control (to monitor and to guide) - the process continuously through interviewing the stakeholders, • to avoid planning and design mistakes, and therefore • to support a successful interactive goal-oriented process.

Finally, by recording the results of the evaluations by the stakeholders of the architectural solution and of the interactive procedure, architects are enabled to measure and to demonstrate the added value of the their contribution to the client. This will contribute to a clear and satisfying collaboration.

OUTLOOK

Design control uses issues (the architectural goals) to develop the issue model and therefore the architectural solution and in the end the evaluation of the quality in terms of its deviation. In addition, they use the process model to follow a procedure and to evaluate the procedure in terms of its success in the end. Through this evaluation, measurement and demonstration of the added value of the architects' contribution will be possible. Using this strategy linked with the three models, the planning and design process becomes more comprehensible and

42 therefore acceptable for the stakeholders. Therefore, design control will make the stakeholders more content.

43 DESIGN FEE REDUCTION: DOES PUBLIC WORK HAVE A ROLE IN IT?

BLAIR GARDINER1

The University of Melbourne, Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, Australia

Abstract: Design professionals are coming under increasing pressure to compete in the market place by reducing their design fee levels. The added value of the designer’s contribution is generally perceived as an expendable and unnecessary cost in the construction process. Recent research conducted at CSIRO in Australia has shown that the reduction in fee levels has a debilitating effect over building procurement, since project and construction inefficiencies increase management time and cost. Reduced fee levels carry a corresponding reduction in research, innovation, design development and documentation quality. The consequence of this manifests itself in such factors as the limiting of optimized solutions, construction rework, variations, cost overruns, extensions of time, program delays and increased project administration. This paper will examine the unfolding of this fee reduction process in Australia, considering in particular the role of government departments in lowering fee scales. Its aim is to support the hypothesis that an investment in reasonable fee levels for design professionals will contribute to increases in construction process efficiencies.

Keywords: Construction professionals, fee tendering, service quality.

INTRODUCTION

There is a perception amongst consultant architects that fee levels are a significant selection factor when tendering on government contracts. Even where tender proposals are submitted under a “two envelope” system or in government “value for money” tender determinations, many architects feel that fees constitute the defining criteria for selection. A recent survey by the Royal Australian Institute of Architects found that fee levels are believed to be “very important” in consultant selection, particularly at Local and State Government levels. (RAIA 1999)

This perception is often used in the arguments concerning the relationship between fee bidding and design quality by practitioners and their professional bodies. The CEO of the RAIA Michael Peck brought it up for instance against the Olympic Co-ordination Authority on its method of appointment of architects, through his comment “ they’ve gone to the cheapest sub-consultants rather than the best” (RN 1996). The point was used as a basis to lament the salary scales of architects and the use of “negotiated contract labour rates being set at the minimum levels, to enable fee bid tendering to undercut competing practices” (Sale 1997).

1 [email protected]

44 The general feeling amongst the profession is that the commitment to competitive fee tendering in government consultant contracts is leading to a reduction in the quality of the design product and a reduction in the level of professional service (Shaw 1999).

It is difficult to gauge the effect of competitive fee tendering on the operational procedures of architectural practice. Most firms claim they do not undercut fees and do not compromise on the in-house project management or on the project delivery or service to the client. However, recent research has indicated that a reduction in fee levels is having a detrimental effect on project management, time and cost (Bubshait 1998, DeFraites 1989, Tilley 2000).

It is worthy of note that, in late 1999, the Department of Education, Employment and Training in the Australian State of Victoria abolished competitive fee tendering on its projects and adopted a common fee scale.

This move was significant given that the Department of Education, Employment and Training is the largest state government employer of private consultant architects and that the educational sector comprises the majority of public sector building activity. In 1998-99, the value of public sector non-residential building commencements in Victoria was $922.1 million and educational building formed 36% of this expenditure (ABS 2000).

BACKGROUND

The Public Works Department historically undertook all of government educational building activity in Victoria for the Department of Education, this was so until the early 1980’s when a reform process began which opened the educational building works programme to private consultants. In line with the new system works could be completed either by the PWD directly or by open tender to private consultant architects. In less than five years this changed into the requirement for the PWD to bid in open competition for all works.

Parallel to this restructuring process, the Department of Education instituted the “school council contracts” system. This entrusted local school councils with conducting their own building works programmes and in engaging their own consultants to do the works.

The change to a Liberal government, in 1992, saw a number of changes, amongst which was a reduction in the workforce of the public sector. As a consequence the PWD moved towards privatisation; in 1993 the public works department was closed by 1998 it was fully privatised. Government policy also made all education works to be carried out as “school council contracts”.

“SCHOOL COUNCIL CONTRACTS” AND THE EFFECTS OF COMPETITIVE FEE TENDERING

The “school council contract” program required individual schools to call open expressions of interest and tender submissions for consultant packages for their building works program.

Several interviews conducted with the professional and institutional parties involved in this type of work (Gardiner 2001 a, b, c, d) revealed a number of flaws with the system. To start with school councils were selecting their consultants based on price and applying for the “savings” in the consultants fees to be transferred from the consultant budget to the

45 construction works budget. This was permissible only where the works program involved maintenance works. On new construction works the councils were subsidised to the value of the professional fee package selected.

Another cause of concern was that the councils lacked the expertise to be able to discern whether the fees proposed by the consultants were sufficient to provide them with the level of service required for the project to be carried out.

This problem was further compounded by the economic recession of the early 1990s that saw full professional fees for projects being tendered at unprecedented low levels. For new building works school councils were accepting tender fees as low as 50% of the fee level previously considered to be acceptable – from 10% to 5% of construction costs (Gardiner 2001 a).

It was at this point that the Department of Education decided that the level of service was not being provided to the level required. Delays in meeting project timelines were encountered, documents were submitted which did not permit accurate pricing of the projects, or proper definition documents in scope or detail to permit construction. It was also found that inadequate time was being allocated by primary and secondary consultants in the administration of the project (Gardiner 2001 a).

During a review conducted by the Department of Education it was discovered that 70% of work was being done by a small number of firms. For instance one architectural practice had received 40% of the entire Department’s building works program.(Gardiner 2001 a). This concentration of work with a small number of practices was resulting in program deadlines not being met. The practices were reluctant to put on extra staff due to the volatility of government budgetary commitments to education spending and hence a reluctance to engage salaried staff (Gardiner 2001 a). Some practices claimed this was leading to an increase in the use of contract staff with a potential for poor quality outcomes due to lack of familiarity with in house procedures and educational work (Gardiner 2001 d).

Lastly, fee bidding was found to be having an effect on sub-consultants fees (Gardiner 2001 b). Architects were competitively tendering sub-consultant packages in order to achieve savings they needed to be able to sustain their low fees. Hence, the level of service offered by sub-consultants was reduced in scope and documentation levels with project and site administration charges being treated as a separate hourly rate fee.

SERVICE QUALITY

The Department of Education undertook a further review of the system, in which competitive fee tendering was positively identified as one of the factors, which was leading to poor outcomes in service delivery and quality of production.

In particular, two items related to fee levels were identified. Firstly, the competitive fee tendering system was found unreliable in establishing a comparative system based on service quality.

Secondly, school councils had difficulties in making proper judgement on adequate fee levels. In this case, the Department decided to take away fee based selection from the school

46 councils. This would permit a more objective analysis of the design response and service level of consultants interviewed.

In the Department’s view by taking away the fee variable, a service level comparison could be made and a system be instigated to improve the quality of work rather than “getting what you paid for” (Gardiner 2001 a).

In 1999, the Department of Education, Employment and Training approached three principal consultant architectural firms who were undertaking most of the major works with the department to establish a common fee scale.

COMMON FEE SCALE AND THE CONSULTANT REGISTER

The firms were requested to review their costs for educational works for the Department and suggest an appropriate level of fees for a range of project types and budget.

Two practices contributed to the report and tabulated their costs for six different project types. The fee quoted on all projects was 10% for the all inclusive consultant package. It was found that the practices’ profit margin on these projects ranged from a loss of 187% of a project value of $ 340,000 for a primary school extension to a 22% profit on a $3,500,000 new secondary school. Of the eleven projects ranging in project cost from $ 275,000 to $ 4,000,000, nine made a loss, the average loss being 58% (Sainsberry 1998).

The reasons presented for such “paper losses” included; (1) increased competition for work with fee bidding driving fee percentages down, (2) fee percentages being based on budgets that were below market rates,(3) project budgets that were considered insufficient for the scope of works required. Informal discussion amongst RAIA members cited the procedural system that required liaison with the school councils and a department appointed project manager which increased the project time commitment by the consultants. Increasing business overhead costs were also put forward as being influential at a time where fees were being restricted according to depressed construction costs (Gardiner 2001 a, b, c, d).

The consultants’ report concluded with a graph illustrating recommended fee levels in which a maximum fee of 16.5% was proposed on projects under $ 200,000 to a fee of 10.5% fee recommended on projects over $ 4,000,000.

In response to the consultants’ report the Department of Education drafted a policy paper, which was forwarded to the Victorian Chapter of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects, for review. (Professional consultant associations have little impact apart from an advocacy role in the face of federal government legislation, which promotes market competition, through National Competition Policy and Trade Practice legislation. They may take on an effective collaborative role when providing support to government bodies by advising on appropriate consultant terms of engagement and fee levels commensurate with the required level of service. This consultative approach with the Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Victorian Chapter was one adopted in the Department of Education’s review in adopting a common fee scale and led to the appointment of an on-going department liaison committee by the RAIA).

The policy paper proposed the establishment of a common scale of fees for consultants on all major construction. The fee scale commenced at 14% for refurbishment projects over the

47 value of $ 200,000 and went down to 9.8% for new secondary schools over the value of $ 5,000,000. Although this represents a substantial increase, these percentages remain below both the consultants’ report and the recommended fee scale of the RAIA.

The reasons presented for the adoption of a common fee scale by the Department were telling:

• “Competition with the industry has increased markedly with fee bidding becoming prevalent to the extent where in some cases service delivery and quality is becoming affected”.

• “Building costs have remained relatively stable while operating costs have increased and client expectations through the introduction of a devolved education system, have increased”.

• “The department wishes to ensure that quality and standards related to the design and construction supervision are maintained”. (DOE 1999)

The policy paper recognised that the fee bidding process was having a negative effect on service delivery standards, and that reduced fee levels were not commensurate with quality outcomes.

The Department also proposed a change in the method of obtaining consultants for their projects. Previously, any firm could tender on Department work and submit a fee proposal directly to the various school councils. Now by contrast the Department maintains a consultant register graded into three categories based on the firms’ level of experience on educational work. The amount of work is rotated and the consultant list is updated accordingly, based on the work each practice has with the Department at a particular time.

Not all practices were in favour of the new fee scales. Some felt that their ability to compete with larger practices had been reduced through the removal of fee based tender submissions: practices now are required to compete for work using criteria other than price (Collier 2000).

CONCLUSIONS

The Department of Education’s introduction of a common fee scale for consultants has been operating for approximately eighteen months. Consequently the number of projects concluded under this system, to date is insufficient to make an adequate assessment of the move away from competitive fee bidding. Nevertheless, the institutional dynamics of this story are worth commenting on.

The Victorian State Department of Education Employment and Training represents a government body who perceived a negative effect on its project delivery system arising in part from the fee bidding process. Competitive fee tendering under which the Department operated had introduced a mechanism that opened the pool to fee scale lowering through open bidding. Under such a system open competition between consultant professionals was lowering fee levels to levels where service delivery performance was being adversely affected, as well as to levels that were not sustainable for their business.

The fee bidding process promoted this situation and amplified it by allowing school council’s to make decisions for which they were ill equipped.

48

Although critical of this method of government procurement the professional architectural association was powerless to respond effectively in light of federal government legislation encouraging competition over service delivery standards. The experience of the Victorian State Department of Education ran counter to the desired outcomes promoted by national competition policies, namely “the key role in driving efficient outcomes in consumer choice, pricing, productivity and innovation” (P.C.2000).

With price being one of the principal factors in the selection of professional consultants, the experience of the Department of Education’s has been that service levels were tailored to suit the low fee. Rather than promoting innovation, competitive fee bidding encouraged expediency and repetition. Documentation scope and quality were reduced, and service levels influenced by low fee budgets.

This analysis suggests that client bodies hold a significant position in influencing professional service standards and can act as a balancing factor to the profession. This is particularly so for government client groups which, in light of their building activity are in a position to asses whether a quoted professional fee is sufficient and to monitor and assess the quality of service levels and project delivery. This is in line with research indicating that clients value service above discounted fees (Hoxley 2000). Clients should be willing to support consultant quality outcomes by an appropriate professional selection and procurement procedure that removes fee bidding as the primary selection criteria. The Department of Education Employment and Training experience suggests that an investment in reasonable fee levels for design professionals may contribute to increases in construction process efficiencies.

REFERENCES

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2000) Building Activity, March Quarter 2000, Cat. No. 9752.2, ABS, Canberra. Bubshait, A. A, Al-Said, F. A., Abolnour, M. M. (1998) Design Fee versus Design Deficiency. Journal of Architectural Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 2, June, pp 44-46. DeFraites Jr, A. A. (1989) Fees versus Quality. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering, Vol. 115, No. 2, April, pp 125-128. Department of Education (1999) Consultants’ fees for major construction works – Policy paper, 12 April. Gardiner, B. (2001a) Unpublished transcript of interview with Russell Collier, Assistant General Manager –Facilities Operations, Department of Education, Employment and Training, July. Gardiner, B. (2001b) Unpublished transcript of interview with Rick Leonard principal of Hayball Leonard Stent, July. Gardiner, B. (2001c) Unpublished transcript of interview with Richard Sainsbery principal of The Sainsberry Reed Group, August. Gardiner, B. (2001d) Unpublished transcript of interview with Paul Viney RAIA committee member of DEET/RAIA liaison committee, July. Hoxley, M. (2000) Are competitive fee tendering and construction professional service quality mutually exclusive? Construction Management and Economics, No. 18, p. 599- 605. Productivity Commission (2000) Review of Legislation Regulating the Architectural Profession, 16 November, p. 79. Radar News – New South Wales (1996) Architecture Australia, Vol. 85 No. 4.

49

Royal Australian Institute of Architects (1999) RAIA Membership Attitude Survey 1999.pp 30-31. Sainsberry Reed Group and Hayball Leonard Stent Pty Ltd (1998) Department of Education Consultant Fees for Building Works. Shaw, Nigel (1999) Presidents Foreword, Architecture Australia, Vol. 88, No. 5. Sale, John (1997) Architecture Contracts. Architecture News, Autumn. Tilley, P. A. (2000) CSIRO Survey Shows Poor Design & Documentation Hits Project Costs, Building Environment Innovation and Construction Technology, No. 15, October.

50 THE BRIEFING PROCESS – A KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE

CHUNG-CHIN KAO AND STUART D. GREEN

The University of Reading, The Department of Construction Management and Engineering, UK

Abstract: Briefing is commonly perceived as the process of eliciting client requirements. The existing prescriptive literature tends to see briefing primarily as a data and information collection process. Numerous checklists and flow charts are repeatedly advocated as guides to better practice. It is contended that the dominant information-processing paradigm perpetuates an impoverished and mechanistic approach to the briefing process. A new perspective is offered drawing from the emerging concept of knowledge management (KM), and specifically from the highly relevant KM literature relating to the problems of ‘knowledge transfer’ between organisations. The underlying proposition is that client requirements containing the essence of organisation knowledge cannot simply be ‘transferred’ from one organisation to another. Organisation knowledge is frequently tacit in nature and embedded in context. In contrast, the information-processing model of briefing takes it for granted that knowledge relating to client requirements can be easily codified. Unfortunately effective briefing not only depends upon explicit organisation knowledge, but also upon tacit organisation knowledge that is notoriously difficult to codify. From a KM perspective, briefing becomes a process of knowledge creation between client representatives and professionals. A designed process of knowledge creation becomes of central importance to the briefing process. Issues of data collection and information management remain important for the transfer of explicit knowledge. Nevertheless, the frequent dominance of tacit knowledge within organisations means that client requirements cannot be understood without a prolonged socialised process of mutual contextualisation. The KM perspective on briefing process provides a number of recommendations for improving current briefing practice.

Keywords: Briefing process, client requirements, knowledge management, knowledge transfer, knowledge creation.

INTRODUCTION

Historically briefing had been intertwined in the realisation of a building project for a long time. But with the developments in the field of project management, especially the increasingly demanding focus upon client’s building needs and satisfaction, briefing started to be identified separately as an independent stage and sub-discipline at last four decades ago (Cherry, 1998). A better briefing process can deliver a better product to the client’s satisfaction has become the premise of most briefing research works. Thus, briefing is commonly perceived as the process of eliciting client requirements thoroughly into a documentation of brief to provide guidance for the sequential phrases of the design and construction processes. Due to the intention of documentation, numerous briefing guides tend to see the briefing process primarily as a data and information collecting process. However, it

51 is contended that this dominant information-processing paradigm has limitations and unrealistic presumptions in briefing practice, which can be revealed by other perspectives. In this regard, a new perspective is suggested drawing from the concept of knowledge management (KM), specifically from the highly relevant KM literature on organisation knowledge transfer and knowledge creation. The implications of KM for briefing are argued to offer a new insight into the briefing problems for the improvements.

The overall objectives of this paper are to review current briefing perceptions, to identify briefing problems and limitations, and to re-conceptualise the briefing process from a knowledge management perspective. In particular, the key features of knowledge management and its implications to the briefing process will be discussed and identified.

CURRENT PERCEPTIONS OF THE BRIEFING PROCESS

Briefing can be perceived differently depending on the aspect from which it is considered. Generally speaking, the briefing process has been discussed under three aspects in the literature: the procedural change in briefing, brief formulation and the relationship with the client organisation:

Procedural Stages in Briefing Briefing has been seen as a staged-process in the sequential stages of construction process. At first, briefing was regarded as a ‘one-off’ inception stage, through which client requirements relating to project objectives could be identified as guidance for carrying through the sequential phases of the design and construction processes (Pena et al., 1977; O'Reilly, 1987). As the emphasis on strategic management has progressed to the construction of buildings, ‘strategic’ briefing has been further specified as an independent stage to set up the project strategy, identifying client needs prior to any formal design action (Kelly et al., 1993; CIB, 1997; Blyth and Worthington, 2001). Following the route maps approach to the design operation practice (RIBA, 1973), the process of briefing was also regarded as consisting of a set of separable stages in a sequential order in relation to the development of design (Salisbury, 1998; Blyth and Worthington, 2001). The function of briefing was to process out in advance the pre-determined agenda of each stage in order to set out the course of design actions. Furthermore, in the light of project evaluation, the function of briefing has even been extended to the post-project stage as a constant feedback-loop (Nutt, 1993; Duerk, 1993; CIB, 1997; Duerk, 1997; Blyth and Worthington, 2001). Briefing may be no longer regarded as a ‘one-off’ phase, but as a continuous activity throughout the whole progress of the project in order to develop and maintain the project objectives. With the procedural stage perspective, it was suggested that the briefing process itself consists of a sequence of identifiable stages, like flow charts of steps. As a result, client requirements relating to project objectives were supposed to be processed out comprehensively through a set of procedural stages.

Brief Formulation Commonly the purpose of briefing process was perceived to compile and formulate client requirements into formal documents called ‘briefs’. In addition to listing the procedural stages of briefing, many briefing guides have proposed several kinds of information needed within each stage in the form of checklist to aid the formulation of briefs (e.g. Palmer, 1981; O'Reilly, 1987; CIB, 1997; Salisbury, 1998 etc.). The intention of documentation was to make client requirements detectable and quantifiable like data and information. The briefing process, therefore, was intended to be an activity to collect data and information, and to categorise activities. For example, the ‘matrix’ framework has been proposed as a primary

52 briefing tool to ensure all necessary information was collected completely into each of the ‘boxes’ (Pena et al., 1977; Palmer, 1981; Duerk, 1993). Client requirements were set down into a prioritising and hierarchical structure in terms of time, cost, and quality parameters. Alternative methods were suggested such as the design issue-based approach to avoid the ‘procrustean’ information situation (Kumlin, 1995) and the interactive interview and workshop for ‘new’ information (Blyth and Worthington, 2001). However, briefing still was presumed to result from the identifiable information sources by a unilateral information- collecting process for brief formulation. Furthermore, in terms of information management, Information Technology (Yusuf, 1997) and the information system of Quality Function Deployment (Fisher, 1999) have both been applied in the briefing stage as a support tool to formulate client requirements into a high-level matrix structure. Generally the underlying assumption of brief formulation was that client requirements were explicitly identifiable through converting the inputs collected (information) into the formatted outputs (brief). Besides, the description of briefing focused on the products of each stage rather than on the process itself.

Relationship with Client Organisation Here, briefing is seen more as the generator of form than as the facilitator of dialogue and exploration in the relationship between clients and consultants. Following the study of client organisation complexity and its involvement in construction management by Cherns and Bryant (1984), understanding clients’ responsibilities and roles has become a crucial issue for the effective briefing process. It has been argued that the client role in briefing was directly responsible for the project development and implementation in a ‘symbiotic’ and ‘reciprocal’ relationship with the consultants (Murray, 1996). The adopted approach to client briefing might be differentiated not only by pre-determined parameters of client types – such as sector and experience (Kelly et al., 1992; Gameson, 1996), project participants (Farbstein, 1993), and knowledge-support needed (Barrett, 1991) – but also by understanding the social complexity of client organisation by a ‘metaphorical’ analysis of the organisation (Green, 1996). The purpose of briefing is no longer to view the client organisation simplistically by its technical characteristics. Instead, the client organisation should be regarded as pluralistic and complex in nature needing a social process to be understood. Furthermore, in terms of client requirements, a ‘disclosure-feedback’ communication between clients and consultants was proposed to explore an area ‘unknown’ to clients and consultants at the outset of project (Bejder, 1991). In other words, client requirements could not be revealed comprehensively until a social interaction had taken place within the project team. Briefing could be regarded as a process revolving around a social interaction between clients and consultants to discover and understand client requirements. The nature of client requirements needed more than an attainable objective fact derived from an information collection method. It required a subjective construction from the social interaction of project participants.

BRIEFING PROBLEMS AND LIMITATIONS

There are a number of identifiable and interrelated factors that characterise problems in the briefing process: client experience with the building industry; representation of client interest groups; identification of client needs; interpretation of client needs in building terms, and provision of sufficient time for briefing (Kelly et al., 1992). Client briefing was seen as an ‘open-ended’ problem lacking a one-right-answer solution (Smith et al., 1998). In other words, descriptions of briefing problems will change according to the perspective adopted and then will lead to different solutions for improvement. Several divergent perspectives have been employed to discuss the limitations in current briefing practice:

53 Objective and Engineered Processing Perspective Firstly, an objective processing perspective was commonly adopted to enhance the current information-processing protocols of briefing. Here briefing problems were approached like engineering problems, which can be separated into several measurable elements and resolved objectively. For example, with a focus on client requirements, Kamara and Anumba (2001) have argued that current briefing problems mainly resulted from inadequate involvement of design activities. All briefing problems were perceived and explained by a presumption that briefing is too involved with the design process to identify the objectivity of client requirements. They have suggested that client requirements should be defined separately and distinctly from other project requirements (such as site, environmental and regulatory requirements etc.), and should be non-solution-focused and traceable (not relying on the representation of sketches and drawings) in order to achieve an objective prioritisation of client requirements and maintain client satisfaction afterwards. In this respect, the Client Requirements Processing Model was proposed to ‘define’, ‘analyse’, and ‘translate’ client requirements into ‘solution-neutral’ design specifications. Briefing was seen as a re- engineered process to ensure that client requirements could be neutrally and objectively established.

There are several underlining presumptions about the client requirements to sustain this engineered processing model. Firstly, client requirements are pre-existent and separable from other project requirements, and must be understood independently from a purely client perspective, not those of the different professional disciplines. Secondly, a thorough understanding of the client requirements can be achieved objectively without the involvement of design activity, which was termed as involving subjective and exclusive aspects. Finally, client requirements can be formatted into an unambiguous and traceable representation at the outset of the project, and be consistent all the time. The traceability of client requirements is required to allow tracing and managing the inevitable changes to requirements. Therefore, it is clear that client requirements are perceived merely as an ‘object’ like data and information, which can be codified and collected thoroughly in time by a formalised-engineered process. Briefing is perceived as relying on detectable, quantifiable information only. In other words, if client requirements are regarded as ‘information’ only, these assumptions will make sense in sustaining such an engineered processing model. However, these assumptions are challenged by other contrary perspectives. Some possible explanations for the problematic situation in briefing may come from other alternative perspective.

Non-Rationalist Decision-making Perspective A shifting perspective on the critique of rationality in decision-making has offered a new insight into explanations of briefing problems (Barrett and Stanley, 1999; Hudson, 1999). Under a rationalist decision-making paradigm, Hudson (1999) has argued that briefing requires three conditions to function satisfactorily. Firstly, objectives precede action: client requirements relating to project objectives should be identified in advance of the design action. Secondly, objectives will not be changed by action: client requirements should be pre- determined neutrally as objectives, and not be affected by the design process. Finally, objectives remain constant over time: client requirements relating to project objectives will be used to evaluate the finished building. However, according to March’s (1994) critique of rational decision-making, Barrett et al. (1999) have found these conditions cannot be satisfied comprehensively in briefing practice, and have argued that briefing relevant to decision making was based on an logic of ‘appropriateness’ rather than one of ‘consequence’. In other

54 words, objectives are not decided as a definitive consequence, but exist in a state of flux that is driven by an appropriate action for particular individuals or groups in a particular context.

Similarly, in the field of operation research, Rosenhead (1989) has also offered several points to criticise the simplistic approach to a rational formulation of objectives. His critique can be summarised under the following headings: it is like a one-player game, application is limited to a specific type of organisation, agreed objectives are needed in advance for analysis, lack of consideration of human factors etc. Generally, he has criticised the rational formulation model as ‘socially undesirable’ as it was presumed that a single agency could deploy agreed objectives while failing to consider the pluralistic nature, and ‘practically infeasible’ in its failure to provide evidence of linking action and consequence.

The critique of rationalist decision-making has provided a new insight into the briefing problem and its limitations. In terms of non-rationalist decision-making, briefing is no longer seen as logic of consequence process, in which project objectives are presumed as pre-existent and consistent all the time. Instead, objectives emerge from the action rather than precede the action. According to March (1994), a decision is an outcome of the interplay between problems, solutions, participants, and choices, and happens only when suitable problems, solutions, participants, and choices coincide. This statement has been also discussed in the field of design methodology.

Learning Design Methodology Perspective The focus of this perspective is on briefing in relation to the design process. Conventionally, briefing was defined as ‘analysing’ and ‘defining’ design problems to precede the design process and ‘synthesising’ and ‘solving’ them sequentially (for example, Pena, 1977). This sequential relation, however, has been questioned and criticised as a result of examining the nature of design problems and the solution process. Firstly, the design problem has been regarded as ‘ill-defined’ or ‘wicked’ in nature (Rittel and Webber, 1973; Simon, 1973; Lawson, 1997). The characteristics of design problems were described as unable to be comprehensively stated at the outset; interrelated and interacting together in a dynamic situations; involving participants’ divergent subjective interpretations; and changing over time through the development of design problem-solving process etc. Therefore, as Lawson (1997) has concluded, the identification of design problems depends upon the interplay between the designers’ adopted approach, the time availability, and the working relationship of clients and designers. In general, defining design problems in briefing is no longer seen as through a definitive and thorough formulation process, but as a social understanding based upon an interactive working relationship.

In response to the ill-defined problem, the perspective of design methodology has been shifted from a sequence of identifiable activities in a rational paradigm to an intermingling process of problem definition and solution in a learning paradigm (Darke, 1979; Lawson, 1997). While the design process is regarded conventionally as a sequence of ‘analysis’, ‘synthesis’ and ‘evaluation’ to deal with the pre-determined and agreed problems, a ‘primary generator’ process (Darke’s terms) was observed in the practice, where designers tend to generate and examine preconceived solutions to understand and explore problems from a learning approach. Design problems and solutions are not consecutive, but tend to emerge in parallel. To an extent, design solutions may create design problems. In this respect, briefing is integrated with design process in a complementary relationship, rather than precedent to

55 design process in a sequential consequence. Besides, a place for creativity in briefing was required and enhanced as an aid to forming design problems.

These three perspectives have some important implications for the proposition of this paper. Firstly, a rational processing approach to achieving the objectivity in briefing can function satisfactorily only under very limited conditions. Due to its unrealistic presumptions, refining existing processing approaches are unlikely to result in much improvement in practice, but may stifle and impoverish the practice in progress. Secondly, the critique on a rationalist model of decision-making and design methodology has introduced human and social considerations into the briefing practice. Briefing is no longer seen as an engineered processing to collect client requirements like data and information, but as a social learning process to understand and explore them. Finally, an alternative perspective is needed to convert the social matters of briefing into a methodological approach. In other words, the new perspective on briefing process can provide a methodology for improving current briefing practice.

FROM INFORMATION PROCESSING TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE

In the field of Knowledge Management (KM), knowledge transfer for effective leverage within the company and knowledge creation for new product and service provision have been identified as two new insights into the understanding of organisation knowledge management (Von Krogh, 1998). The efficient transfer of existing knowledge and the effective creation of new knowledge have become two major management tasks for organisation knowledge. Reviewing related KM literature, it can be found that existing knowledge transfer and new knowledge creation between organisations are highly relevant to the briefing process.

Client Requirements: from Information to Knowledge In order to ensure a clear concept that client requirements contain the essence of organisation knowledge, firstly it is necessary to distinguish between information and knowledge. According to Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), there are two distinctions between information and knowledge. First, while both knowledge and information are about meaning attribution in some specific and relational context, knowledge, unlike information, is regarded distinctly as ‘beliefs’ and ‘commitment’, which are both deeply rooted in individuals’ value systems. Knowledge is seen as personal ‘justified true belief’ rather than information that is seen with the imposed meaning of ‘messages’ or ’signal carrier’. Second, knowledge is created dynamically by a flow of information. Information is seen as a necessary ‘medium’ or ‘material’ containing new meaning to elicit and construct knowledge. Conversely, the perception of information is relative to what knowledge is held already. Generally, Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) focus their attention on the active, subjective, and information-produced nature of knowledge. From this viewpoint, client requirements cannot be perceived only as a flow of information, but also as knowledge that contains subjective beliefs and commitments to organisation’s business goals, environments, and culture. Thus, the knowledge perspective can enhance the subjectivism of client requirements as human elements and social matters.

The Nature of Organisation Knowledge Taxonomy has been identified as one of themes necessary to understand the static concept of organisation knowledge (Scarbrough, 1999). Adapting and extending Gill’s (1994) categorisation of knowledge types, there are two approaches to understanding the nature of organisation knowledge: non-person centred and human centred.

56

The non-person centred approach regards knowledge as able to be accumulated, codified and objectified, and its nature is considered as absolute, static, and universal over time. Knowledge is non-contextual, time-independent and depersonalised – e.g. explicit knowledge. On the other hand, the human centred approach is developed from constrains and limitations of the concept of non-person centred knowledge. The implicit aspect of knowledge is recognised as personal and embedded in a specific context. Knowledge is context-specific, time-dependent and personalised, and difficult to formulate and communication – e.g. tacit knowledge. Because of its implicit nature, the value and importance of tacit aspect of knowledge has been identified in most KM literature (Scarbrough, 1999). Tacit knowledge is a crucial matter when human centred issues are emphasised as an evolving discipline of KM.

Within this dual distinction of knowledge, three further dimensions can be found to recognise the complexity of organisation knowledge. The first one is the level of codification – the extent to which it is expressed in writing or is in a tacit form. The second is the degree of dependence of context – the extent to which the knowledge is embedded in its context or is stand-alone. The third is the level of ownership – the extent to which it is the individual’s own or the organisation’s own. It can be concluded that organisation knowledge is complex in nature and its transfer within an organisation and between organisations cannot be achieved in a simplistic manner.

Organisation Knowledge Transfer The ambiguity of tacit knowledge has been associated with the problems of knowledge transfer and has become a central issue in the field of KM (Blackler, 1995; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Scarbrough, 1999). Since recognising knowledge as tacit in nature and embedded in context, knowledge transfer across organisational boundaries becomes problematic and cannot easily be done by tools and techniques such as Information Technology, which only focuses on capturing, codifying and compiling the explicit knowledge (Swan et al., 1999). Instead, several social influences on tacit knowledge transfer, such as the group dynamics relationship and forms of expression, have been recognised as a place for design creation and innovation (Gill, 1994; Hislop, 2000). Even Nonaka and Takeuchi have contended that knowledge cannot be managed like tangible assets, but needs a creation process to deal with its intangibility. In a sense, knowledge transfer problems can be resolved through a knowledge creation process.

The problems of knowledge transfer in the field of KM are highly relevant to current briefing problem situations. In terms of organisation knowledge, client requirements cannot be seen only as codified and explicit in nature, but also embedded in context and tacit. The information processing model of briefing, which take it for granted that client requirements can be fully codified, is questionable from a perspective of organisation knowledge transfer.

Organisation Knowledge Creation Theory The central theme of the organisation knowledge creation theory is that organisation knowledge is created through a continuous dialogue of tacit and explicit knowledge between individuals and groups within the company and between companies (Nonaka, 1994). There are three important premises for organisation knowledge creation, which are also relevant to justifying briefing as an organisation knowledge creation process: • From information processing to knowledge creation: In classical organisation theory, organisations innovate by simply processing information, from the outside in, in order to solve existing problems and adapt passively to a changing environment. Now organisations rather have to create knowledge and information, from the inside out, in

57 order to redefine both problems and solutions to recreate their environment actively (Von Krogh and Grand, 2000). In other words, in order to cope dynamically with the changing environment, the organisation needs to create knowledge and information actively, not merely to process and transfer them passively (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). • Organisation knowledge as justified true beliefs about individual and social, tacit and explicit: Knowledge is not simply like information, but a ‘dynamic human process of justifying personal belief’ (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Organisation knowledge needs to be reproduced to address specific tasks or issues in order to respond to the changing environment. It involves shared beliefs about a situation that are justified individually, socially, tacitly and explicitly. In other words, organisation knowledge depends on the situation and people involved rather than on absolute truth or hard facts (Von Krogh et al., 2000). • Organisation knowledge relies on a range of perspectives: With a constructionist perspective, organisation knowledge is defined as a social construction of reality rather than in any abstract or universal way (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Different perspectives are helpful to reveal and understand a phenomenon and situation better. Acknowledging a rage of perspectives is essential to construct the organisation knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995).

Based upon the above premises, an organisation knowledge creation framework was proposed as a two-dimension spiral process through a series of creation phases under several enabling conditions (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) (Figure 1):

Figure 1. Spiral of Organisation Knowledge Creation Model (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995)

The Epistemological Dimension: the conversions between tacit and explicit knowledge. With an assumption that knowledge is created through conversion between tacit and explicit knowledge, four different modes of knowledge conversions were proposed: (1) Socialisation: from tacit to tacit knowledge, (2) Externalisation: from tacit to explicit knowledge, (3) Combination: from explicit to explicit knowledge, (4) Internalisation: from explicit to tacit knowledge. Through an interactive and social process, knowledge is created not only by each of the conversion modes independently, but also by a dynamic interaction between all four of them.

58 The Ontological Dimension: the level of social interaction. rganisation knowledge creation also relies on a social interaction between individuals and organisations. In this regard, several levels of social interaction were identified from individual, group, organisation and inter-organisation levels by informal and formal processes.

Five-phase of organisation knowledge creation: Organisation knowledge creation involved five main steps: (1) Sharing tacit knowledge: a face-to-face dialogue in a self-organisation team and corresponds to ‘socialisation’. (2) Creating concepts: ‘abduction’ employing figurative language such as metaphors and analogies and corresponds to ‘externalisation’. (3) Justifying concepts: screening justified true beliefs against available market data, the firm’s strategy, and commercial and technological feasibility of the solutions proposed. (4) Building an archetype: the justified concept is converted into an archetype, which is tangible and concrete. Through this step, newly created explicit knowledge will be combined with existing explicit knowledge. (5) Cross-levelling knowledge: newly created knowledge is shared intra- and inter- organisationally.

Five enabling conditions for organisational knowledge creation: Five enabling are identified as creation drivers to promote the knowledge creation spiral: (1) Intention: concerned with how individuals form their approach to the world and try to make sense of their environment. (2) Autonomy: all members of organisation should be allowed to act autonomously as far as circumstances permit in order to increase the chance of introducing unexpected opportunities. (3) Fluctuation and creative chaos: these are perceived to stimulate the continuous interaction between the organisation and the external environment. (4) Redundancy: this is concerned with the existence of information that goes beyond the immediate operational requirements of organisational members. Sharing redundant information promotes the sharing of tacit knowledge. (5) Requisite variety: this can help organisational members to cope with many contingencies in order to deal with challenges posed by the external environment.

In their work on knowledge creation theory, Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) have demonstrated that new knowledge is created socially when tacit knowledge interacts with explicit knowledge. It is a social as well as an individual process, which contains the need for ‘justification, explanation, persuasion, and human connectedness’ (Von Krogh et al., 2000). It implies an active approach to dealing with tacit knowledge in terms of creation into newly articulated configurations. In other words, knowledge is no longer managed passively as tangible and codified matters, but understood through sharing and creating socially. Also, a place for creativity can be identified clearly from this creation paradigm.

This organisation knowledge creation theory provides a fresh perspective for improving current briefing practice. In terms of knowledge creation theory, briefing is perceived not only as a means of collecting, gathering, and processing information about client requirements, but also of creating new knowledge about their requirements. Moreover, this new knowledge is created by a collective knowledge creation process from the client’s business and the consultant’s building knowledge contributions. The combination of creativity of client organisations and consultants is necessary to access the tacit essence of client requirements. Therefore, it is contended that bringing clients and consultants together into the knowledge creation process is key to achieving successful briefing. The organisation knowledge creation theory also provides methodological recommendations for briefing improvements.

59 CONCLUSION

Conventionally briefing was perceived as a mean of accumulating information, seeking advice, resolving queries and then establishing criteria procedurally in order to have fundamental influences on the subsequent course of action. However, this rational procedure process has its limitations and unrealistic underlying presumptions from a human and social perspective. Beyond the critique on a rational processing model in briefing, the KM perspective can provide a fresh insight into briefing practice and also offer a potential development of briefing methodology. Specifically, knowledge transfer and conversions between explicit and tacit knowledge are the essence of knowledge creation within the briefing process. It is contended, therefore, that there is a need for a paradigm shift of briefing process:

1. Information processing paradigm – a cognitivist perspective: The limitations of the rational processing aspect: • Organisation is considered as passive and static all the time • Innovation is seen merely as a problem-solving process, which is an input-output sequence of hierarchical information processing process. • Client’s requirements are seen as static, detectable, and quantifiable, existing ‘over there’ within the client’s side and which can be processed out by an information processing process.

2. Knowledge creation process paradigm – a constructionist perspective: • The fundamental task for organisation is not only to process information efficiently, but also create information and knowledge in response to a changing environment. • Innovation is considered as an ongoing process in which the organisation creates and defines problems by the creation of knowledge and then actively develops new knowledge in turn to solve them • Client’s requirements contain the essence of organisation knowledge, which can be revealed and understood from a two-sectoral knowledge creation process.

In terms of KM, briefing can be perceived to initiate the demand of knowledge acquisition, which consists of knowledge transfer and creation, in order to resolve the discrepancies of knowledge between clients and consultants in order to understand building requirements. Generally the briefing process is not just about information collection and processing like the IT tools. It must also be about relationships and community-building to germinate the ideas about the client requirements that are facilitated by a knowledge-creation framework.

REFERENCES

Barrett, P. (1991) The Client's Brief: A Holistic View. Management, Quality and Economics in Building. Bezelga, A. and Brandson, P. London, E&FN SPON. Barrett, P. and Stanley, C. (1999) Better Construction Briefing. London, Blackwell Science Ltd. Bejder, E. (1991) "From Client's Brief to End Use: the Pursuit of Quality" in Practice Management: New Perspectives for the Construction Professional. Barrett, P. S. and Males, A. R. (eds.). London, E&FN Spon: 193-203. Blackler, F. (1995) “Knowledge, Knowledge Work and Organisations: An Overview and Interpretation.” in Organization Studies 16(6): pp. 1021-1046. Blyth, A. and Worthington, J. (2001) Managing the Brief for Better Design. London, Spon.

60 Cherns, A. B. and Bryant, D. T. (1984) “Studying the Client's Role in Construction Management.” in Construction Management and Economics 2: pp. 177-184. Cherry, E. (1998) Programming for Design: From Theory to Practice. New York, John Wiley. Construction Industry Board (CIB) (1997) Briefing the Team: A Guide to Better Briefing for Clients. London, Thomas Telford Publishing. Darke, J. (1979) "The Primary Generator and the Design Process" in Developments in Design Methodology. Cross, N. (eds.), John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: 175-188. Original published in Design Studies, 1 (1) (1979), pp.36-44 Duerk, D. P. (1993) Architectural Programming: Information Management for Design. USA, John Wiley & Sons. Farbstein, J. (1993) "The Impact of the Client Organisation on the Programming Process" in Professional Practice in Facility Programming. Preiser, W. F. E. (eds.). New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold: 383-403. Fisher, N. (1999) Better Briefing - Capturing User Requirements for Building, a Clients' Project Definition Tool (Implementation Guide). Advanced Construction Technology, The University of Reading, Gameson (1996) "Client-Professional Communication During the Early Stages of Project Development" in The Organisation and management fo Construction: Shaping Theory and Practice (Volume Two). Langford, D. A. and Retik, A. (eds.). London, E&FN Spon. Gill, S. P. (1994) Dialogue and Tacit Knowledge for Knowledge Transfer. PhD Thesis. Department of Experimental Psychology, Darwin College, the University of Cambridge. Cambridge Green, S. D. (1996) “A Metaphorical Analysis of Client Organizations and the Briefing Process.” in Construction Management and Economics 14: pp. 155-164. Hislop, D., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., Swan, J. (2000). "Innovation Processes and the Management of Knowledge". Knowledge Management: Concepts and Controversies, University of Warwick, Conventry, UK. Hudson, J. (1999) "Briefing and Design: The Role of Creativity". RICS Research Foundation: CORBRA 1999. Kamara, J. M. and Anumba, C. J. (2001) “A Critical Appraisal of the Briefing Process in Construction.” in Journal of Construction Research 2: pp. 13-24. Kelly, J., Macpherson, S. and Male, S. (1992) The Briefing Process: A Review and Critique. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors(RICS), Paper Number 12 Kelly, J., Male, S. and Macpherson, S. (1993) Value Management: A Proposed Practice Manual for the Briefing Process. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), Paper Number 34 Kumlin, R. R. (1995) Architectural Programming: Creative Techniques for Design Professionals. New York, McGraw-Hill. Lawson, B. (1997) How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified (3rd edition). Oxford, Architectural Press. Murray, J. P. (1996) "Understanding Clients: Briefing and the Client's Role". CIB W92 Symposium: North meets South: Developing Ideas, Procurement Systems, Durban, South Africa. Nonaka, I. (1994) “A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation.” in Organization Science Vol.5(No.1): pp. 14-37. Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, Inc. Nutt, B. (1993) “The Strategic Brief.” in Facilities 11(9): pp. 28-32.

61 O'Reilly, J. J. N. (1987) Better Briefing Means Better Buildings. Garston, UK, Building Research Establishment. Palmer, M. A. (1981) The Architect's Guide to Facility Programming. New York, America Institute of Architects. Pena, W., Caudill, W. and Focke, J. (1977) Problem Seeking: An Architectural Programming Primer. USA, Cahners Books International. Inc. Rittel, H. W. J. and Webber, M. M. (1973) "Planning Problems are Wicked Problems" in Developments in Design Methodology. Cross, N. (eds.), John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: 135- 144. Original published as 'Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning', Policy Science, 4 (1973), 155-69 Rosenhead, J. (1989) "Introduction: Old and New Paradigms of Analysis" in Rational Analysis for a Problematic World: Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict. Rosenhead, J. (eds.). UK, John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Royal Institution of British Architects (RIBA) (1973) Plan of Work for Design Team Operation, RIBA Publication Limited. Salisbury, F. (1998) Briefing Your Architect. Oxford, Architectural Press. Scarbrough, H., Swan, J. and Preston, J. (1999) Knowledge Management: A Literature Review. London, Institute of Personnel and Development. Simon, H. (1973) "The Structure of Ill-structured Problems" in Developments in Design Methodology. Cross, N. (eds.), John Wiley & Sons: 145-166. Original published in Artificial Intelligence, 4 (1973), 188-200 Smith, J. M., Kenley, R. and Wyatt, R. (1998) “Evaluating the Client Briefing Problem: An Exploratory Study.” in Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 5(4): pp. 387-398. Swan, J., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H. and Hislop, D. (1999) “Knowledge Management and Innovation: networks and networking.” in Journal of Knowledge Management 3(4): pp. 262-75. Von Krogh, G. (1998) “Care in Knowledge Creation.” in California Management Review Vol. 40(No.3 Spring): pp. 133-153. Von Krogh, G. and Grand, S. (2000) "Justification in Knowledge Creation: Dominant Logic in Management Discourses" in Knowledge Creation: A Source of Value. Von Krogh, G., Nonaka, I. and Nishiguchi, T. (eds.). London, Macmillan Press Ltd.: 13-35. Von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K. and Nonaka, I. (2000) Enabling Knowledge Creation: How to Unlock the Mystery of Tacit Knowledge and Release the Power of Innovation. N.Y., Oxford University Press, Inc. Yusuf, F. (1997) Information and Process Modelling for IT Implementation at the Briefing Stage. PhD Thesis. Department of Surveying, University of Salford. Salford, UK

62 VALUE ADDITION THROUGH VALUE ADOPTION

JOHN L. HEINTZ1

Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Architecture, The Netherlands

Abstract: Architects can regain a predominant role in the design process if by instead of attempting to win over the client to the architect’s value system, the architect adopts the value system of the client. By doing so the architect regains the central position on the design team, and also the right to build architectural values into the project. Further, the architect places him- or herself in a position to add value to the project as measured by both client and architect.

In the case of the design of an IKEA store by Mecanoo Architecten, the client had explicit and well-developed criteria for the business performance of the building. Their reason for not normally engaging an architect to design the interior was the belief that no architect could produce a more effective design than their own in-house designers could. Mecanoo was able to demonstrate that: 1) they understood and accepted the performance criteria IKEA had for the interior of the building, and 2) they could design a more effective interior than IKEA staff.

In this case, and in to other examples discussed, the architects demonstrated that they could increase the expected value of the realised project by the client’s own measures. In each case, the architect studied their client and adopted the client’s goals. They presented alternatives to the client that could clearly exceed the clients expected return in the project, and won greater authority and responsibility in the project. Since the architects had shown the client that they understood the client’s goals and values, the clients were, in each case, much more willing to accept the architect’s advice. The value realised in these two projects was greater for both client and architect than either might have originally expected.

Keywords: Value adding, architectural value, client values

INTRODUCTION

One often hears architects speaking of “educating” their clients – educating, and acculturating them in architectural values and aesthetics. This is seen as an essential preparation for the client if he/she is to participate in an appropriate manner in an architectural project. Another often repeated remark is that the client has forced compromises on the architect – compromises that reduce (compromise) the architectural value of the design.

Behind both of these stories lies a model of the relationship between the architect and the client. In this model the architect is the repository of architectural value, insight and skill. The client is at best only possessed of a shortsighted instrumental interest in the building. At worst the client is perceived as being simply philistine. The model further proposes that the architect

1 E-mail address: [email protected]

63 is the sole best arbiter of value in a building project. In the most paternalistic forms of this model (one thinks of Frank Lloyd Wright) the architect is judged better able to address even the client’s instrumental interests. The client is simply an obstacle in the design process. Better that they were to remain at a respectful distance and be grateful for the product the architect provides them. Thus, although the client is the investor and initiator, it is the architect who ought to determine what counts as success. All this makes architects seem unreasonable, arrogant, and very paternalistic.

There is naturally, another side of the story: clients do often insist on changes that compromise the architectural, aesthetic and sometimes the instrumental value of their new buildings. We are in danger of seeing the client architect relationship as one of hostility and conflict.

Analogy with doctor patient relationship: trust and values. There are differences in the value systems of clients and architects – rarely conflicts in values, but conflicts over priorities between values. But there is also an issue of trust. Just as a patient has to trust the expertise of the doctor, the client is setting his/her fate in the hands of the architect. The client needs to be able to trust that the architect will handle the client’s interests in a respectful and professional manner. This means that short of violating responsibilities to the profession and the public the architect will act on the clients behalf as if the client’s interests and values where his own.

When speaking of value adding in architecture, we must think of the value added not in terms of an industrial process, whereby the metal is extruded in a tube form, and the resulting tube is more valuable that the original metal. (A design, unimplemented, has very little intrinsic value, perhaps only as drawings to be collected.2) We must think of value added as the difference in value between the design eventually chosen for a building project, and other possible designs (either taken specifically or in general terms). We will, therefore, always be restricted to relative value and to a certain vagueness inherent in the discussion of large ranges of unnamed possibilities. We can never say that a certain architect has optimized the value of a project, as an exhaustive search of all the possibilities is impossible. We can only say that relative to other easily imagined outcomes this has greater value – and we may sometimes be able either to assign a monetary value to this additional value or to characterize it in psychological, sociological or aesthetic terms.

We often encounter a particular picture of value in architecture. This picture poses value as something experienced by the user (who is sometimes the client) through their presence in the building. The “value” emphasized in this picture is a capital ‘A’ Architectural value – the enjoyment of space one might call it. This value is created by the architect through his/her unique ability to design, but also through their unique understanding of what is “good”. Goodness here means not just high regard in architectural circles, but it may also mean good for the client or good for the user. If you detect the possibility of paternalism in this use of the phrase “good for the client” then you are following my meaning quite well. Value is for architects to determine, and for architects to provide.

2 Indeed, the notion of value adding as used in industrial process engineering is of questionable value in the building industry. There are moments where processes are performed, and yet the value of the result is lower than the original materials. Imagine, for example, construction projects abandoned after the completion of only part of the structure. Any purchaser acquires more risk and less flexibility now than if they had acquired the ground before construction was begun. Completing the project under these conditions is also generally more expensive than it would have been had the construction not been interrupted. Thus, even if the purchaser goes ahead with the project as originally conceived, they have new expenses.

64

An alternative picture of value in architecture poses value as a return (not necessarily financial) on investment. Value is realized in a project when the building is ‘provided’. Many key decisions determining what value will be realised are indeed made by the architect, but only upon consultation with the client who determines what to value, and often how to reach those values. The role of the architect is as technician, who understanding how buildings work, can provide the client with a building that performs as desired.

The problem with these two pictures is that they are both wrong, and yet they are both right. Where they are wrong is that both pictures presume that there is only one arbiter or standard of value. Were they are right is that, in stereotypic ways they each account for a legitimate standard of value.

Both architect and client have values at stake in the realisation of any project. Clients want to realise functional and financial goals, and architects want to design buildings of architectural merit – however one chooses to define it. Understanding value in architecture means understanding conflicting values and seeking their resolution. Not compromise but transcendence through the mutual adoption of values. Adoption, not acceptance.

Does this mean that architects must be the passive instruments of their clients? No certainly not, but it does mean that architects must have a firm grasp of and respect for the values of their clients.

Against this picture of two forces competing in a zero sum game to see their values realized. We can propose another model in which the architect and client are embarked upon projects that they themselves are incapable of realising. The realisation of the goals of the architect and client both depend on the realisation of the other’s goals. In such a model, we could choose to stress the trust and collaboration that can yield a greater result for both players. One could even use the Prisoner’s dilemma to explain this. In the situation in which the architect and client see each other as competing for the better share of a compromise they each fail to maximize their payoff. When little trust exits between the players, they choose a course of action that minimises their losses. (In the prisoner’s dilemma, they avoid the especially long sentence that the uncooperative player gets if the other player “cops a plea”.) If they players trust each other, then they can achieve an optimal outcome. (The prisoners go free.)

How do we apply this to the architect and the client? In the model put forth at the beginning of this article, both players are sceptical of the other’s desire or ability to share their values. Each sees the other as an obstacle to reaching their goal rather than as an asset. The client fears that the architect will sacrifice functionality and affordability to a whimsical and fleeting aesthetic impulse. The architect fears that the client will impose unreasonable budget and functional constraints that there will be little chance that an architecturally meretricious building can be produced. Given these perceptions, little trust exists between the players and each will adopt a strategy that seeks to minimize losses.

Here each seeks to impose their values on the other. This has resulted in a situation where architects have a much-reduced authority in building projects when compared to their position in the 19th century. Professionalism and project management are two important responses to the fact that many clients can no longer trust unsupervised architects to handle their interests and respect their values (either financial or functional).

65

The alternative approach is to seek to establish the trust between the players that would allow the client to be confident that budget and functionality will be carefully addressed. Reciprocally, the confident client will be much more open to alternatives suggested by the architect which are either unexpected variations on the functional aspects of the building or are aesthetically ambitious compositions. In this paper I will offer three examples in which the architects have gained the confidence of their clients and in so doing have obtained other goals in the project – aesthetic, functional, and business goals.

Here the architect, by adopting the clients’ values, wins the clients trust that permits a greater freedom in the design. Architects can, therefore, regain a predominant role in the design process if by instead of attempting to win over the client to the architect’s value system, the architect adopts the value system of the client. By doing so the architect regains the central position on the design team, and also the right to build architectural values into the project. Further, the architect places him- or herself in a position to add value to the project as measured by both client and architect.

BUILDING FOR IKEA

Story line The case that follows is the urban and architectural design of The Westermaat Nord retail park and the Ikea store located there by mecanoo architecten. The case is based on an interview with the project architect Iemke Bakker (Bakker 2001).

The City of Hengelo (in the Netherlands, near the German Boarder) set out to develop a large tract of land northwest of the city. This land was divided by the A1 highway into three areas. The northern portion, the 20 ha.Westermaat Nord, and the southern Westermaat Zuid (72 ha.), were both to be developed as business parks. The third 20 ha. portion divided from the others by a regional highway is Westermaat Plein(Hengelo 2001). An international real estate development company, Trammell Crow Nederland (TCN), having already retained the noted architecture firm, mecanoo, approached the City of Hengelo (here after referred to as ‘Hengelo’ or ‘the City’) with a proposal for developing the Westermaat Plein as a retail park.

Mecanoo was to be responsible for the urban design of the development, as well as the design of the buildings. Mecanoo brought to the project their theory of mobiliteitsesthetiek. This is a design aesthetic specifically suited to highway projects, a theory of regional, urban, landscape and architectural design intended to make something positive out of the immense corridors of land either side of a highway.

By the fall of 1999, mecanoo had developed a scheme consisting of a series of large retail buildings unified by a consistent architectural treatment, a strong concept for the parking and landscaping and a lint or ribbon marking the boundaries of the site, and partially encircling the buildings. This ribbon consisted of an over scale (to be perceived from the highway) wooden latticework.

When mecanoo presented the urban design concept to Hengelo in mid-January 2000, the City was impressed with this approach, and happily accepted the scheme, but with one proviso: the City believed that the concept would only work if the buildings were developed by a single architect, preferably the same architect who developed the lint. From then on, Hengelo

66 considered mecanoo’s participation as the sole architects of the buildings as well as the site essential.

In the meantime, Hengelo began negotiations with Ikea to bring them in as the anchor store remained central to the development. Ikea, however, never leases their premises; they always own and build themselves. Further, Ikea, although they use local architects to ensure that their buildings meet local codes, keeps the design of their stores under the tight control of their in- house architectural firm: Inter Ikea Systems. Ikea wanted to buy part of the site, and proceed with the development of their store independently. Mecanoo advised TCN that this would defeat the purpose of developing the entire parcel as a whole, creating both aesthetic and organisational problems on the site. TCN then passed this advice on to Hengelo. Given Hengelo’s commitment to a highly unified approach to the development of the Westermaat Plein, this suggestion fell upon friendly ears.

Eventually, Ikea decided to partners in the development of the entire site. This would allow them to retain control as owners of the building, while the Westermaat Plein could be developed as a single project. Ikea entrusted TCN with the administration of the design and development of the Westermaat Plein, while retaining control over the development of the store. In this role TCN requested that mecanoo proceed with a sketch design of the Ikea store, and guaranteed the fee. Hengelo and TCN still felt that retaining mecanoo as the sole architect was essential to the success of the project. It was therefore essential to them that Ikea accept mecanoo as architects of their store. Ikea, however, was going ahead with their own design for the store by their in-house architectural firm Inter Ikea Systems. There were, thus, two design processes running in parallel.

Mecanoo presented their initial sketch design of the store to IKEA in late November 1999. The reaction of the Ikea representatives, including staff from Inter Ikea Systems, was negative – they thought it a very nice idea, but not for them. Ikea has very strict guidelines for their stores. They are concerned for both the integrity of their corporate image, and the cost of the building. Their view is that they have the optimized design for any Ikea store already worked out, and only minor adjustments should be required to meet local codes, and address the unique qualities of the site. Indeed, the interior design of the stores is always carried out by Inter Ikea Systems, and the exterior design must be approved by Ikea international’s head office. Ikea had had an experience with a departure from their standard designs before, in Denmark, and they were not satisfied. Indeed, they continuously referred to the Danish store as an example of exactly what they did not want. Further Ikea was not convinced that the twisted plan shapes would easily accommodate their showroom and warehouse. Ikea wanted what they always did, a blue and yellow box with a furniture-selling machine inside.

The staff at mecanoo, on the other hand, felt that the image of the Ikea stores they know did not do credit to the furniture on sale there. (Seeing as the staff of mecanoo represents at least one group of potential or actual Ikea customers – young people who want inexpensive new furniture in a relatively modern style – their opinion did have some relevance to Ikeas business plan.) They wanted to provide Ikea with a store that would be more in keeping with contemporary notions of design fashion. Their sketch departed from Ikea by proposing large amounts of glass on the façade, the rest of the façade to be in wood or a combination of metal and wood in accordance with the urban design of the Westermaat Plein. They eliminating the standard Ikea sign in favour of a ‘salt-tower’3 on which Ikea would place its logo.

3 Salt-towers are a formerly common local vernacular form, many of the remaining examples are now protected as monuments.

67

At this first meeting, it was not at all clear that Ikea would accept mecanoo as their architect. Inter Ikea Systems was preparing their own design for the store and intended to use a local architectural technology office only to do the construction drawings. In any case, the interior design would remain entirely in the hands of Inter Ikea Systems. Mecanoo requested another month to work on the design and integrate the concerns of Ikea. During this time 2 architects from mecanoo attended a daylong in-house training session at Ikea in order to gain familiarity with their operating procedures and business culture. Although intended to give the architects a better grasp of the functional requirements for an Ikea store, the training session proved extremely valuable introduction to the Ikea corporate culture, enabling the architects to communicate far more effectively with Ikea.

At the end of January 2000 Ikea accepted an amended design, although not without comment. The building form was now rectilinear and almost entirely blue, and the signage was adapted to Ikea norms. However, the wooden lint crucial to the urban design and to which Ikea had objected, remained, as did the salt-tower for signage. Further, mecanoo had persisted with alterations to the entrance, checkout, restaurant and exit areas – implicitly violating Ikea’s absolute control over the interior. Mecanoo demonstrated that, contrary to Ikea’s expectations, their design for the front area of the building (entrance, restaurant, check out area and exit) would out perform the design from Inter Ikea Systems; out perform, that is, in terms of supporting Ikea’s business operations. The merit of these ideas was recognized, although the architects from Inter Ikea Systems chose to redraw the front area. Perhaps this was a way of reasserting their control over the interior. Ikea continued to request further changes to this ‘second’ design, but they did accept it, and are now building it. Indeed, they seem now to be allowing the architects on other new store projects somewhat greater freedom than they had previously.

INTERPRETATION

In the development of the urban design for the Westermaat Plein with mecanoo and TCN we have an example of the scenario where the architect adds value by determining what is good: the architect comes with a specific pre-establish design concept, and demonstrates to everyone just how it will be both architecturally innovative and serve the clients’ own goals in the project. In this case mecanoo offered the concept of mobiliteitsesthetiek (Houben, Richters et al. 2001). Mecanoo imposed their pre-established design values on the project.

Mecanoo encountered difficulties with Ikea because they did not yet fully appreciate how highly Ikea regards their established corporate image or the specificity with which they guard it. It is not until after attending Ikea’s in-house staff training that the architects begin to be able to communicate to Ikea using their own language, speaking to them in their own culture, and convincing them that this strange new design will serve them.

Mecanoo had, at the vary least, to adopt the technique of the anthropologist in dealing with Ikea. Further, where the architects found that there were indeed non-negotiable stipulations regarding the exterior of the store, they found that they best way to react was to assume those values.

What is interesting to note is that the design changes between the first and second presentation to Ikea were not especially drastic. However, Ikea’s reception of those changes was. It seems necessary to find some other factor that leads to this change in position. I believe that the

68 experience the mecanoo architects gained on the Ikea training course helped them not only to design more effectively for Ikea but also to communicate more effectively. This because Ikea has a very specific corporate value system, and only by thoroughly absorbing this value system could the architects at mecanoo suggest design features that seemed at first glance to violate it. Accepting not only the client’s design stipulations, but also the values and arguments behind them.

Take the example of the use of colour in Ikea stores. The well-known Ikea store design is a box in the colours of the Swedish flag, medium blue and bright yellow. Typically the flat surfaces are blue, and the entrance and decorative features in yellow. These colours were a non-negotiable given in the minds of the Ikea staff. In the first design, mecanoo used no blue on the exterior. They wanted to show Ikea that, despite the firms’ (both Ikea’s and mecanoo’s) noted association with blue, it was possible to do it differently. In this case differently meant more in keeping with the current fashions in interior design – to which Ikea addresses their product line.

In the design now under construction the box, having acquired a somewhat more nuanced form, is mostly blue, but the blue is now accompanied by the wooden latticework of the lint. The yellow is gone except in the Ikea logo itself, and on glass near the entrance. Indeed, there is a prominent use of glass much of it tinted blue.

But in the midst of all this argument about colours something even more astounding happened. Ikea adopted the design of the entrance, check out, restaurant and exit areas proposed by mecanoo. Although, throughout the process, mecanoo had given no thought to the display floor and warehouse sections of the store – precisely as Ikea preferred, they persistently included in their drawings interiors of the ‘front’ of the store. Where as in the first meeting this was merely taken as evidence of architectural enthusiasm, Ikea came to accept that their handling of these areas was not as good as that proposed by mecanoo. In the end, territoriality had to be reasserted, and Inter Ikea Systems re-drew mecanoo’s interiors, mecanoo’s interior design was accepted – a radical departure for Ikea policy. This only happened as mecanoo were able to demonstrate that the flow of customers through these areas worked better than it had in the original Inter Ikea Systems design.

Both Ikea and mecanoo were uncertain and insecure in their relationship. Both were concerned that the other did not appreciate their own value system. Ikea was unsure that mecanoo properly appreciated the importance of their strong corporate image. Mecanoo was uncertain that Ikea did not appreciate the value of “Architecture”. Yet both invested in building the bridge between them – through willingness to listen and through the participation in Ikea training. In was in their ability, not only to adopt a cynical acceptance of the other’s values, but to see the worth of the other’s ideas and to come to adopt the other’s values that value addition could find a place.

The acceptance of these values is not just a resigned acceptance – this is the way they want it, so it has to be. Rather it is an acceptance of the reasoning behind the values expressed by the client and of the arguments for why things must be as they are. Or not, as it is only by accepting the reasoning the client gives that the architect can intervene to suggest that, yes it must be blue, but blue can be transparent, blue can be hip, and blue can be combined with wood.

69 It has been shown that by searching for the reasoning behind preferences for different design schemes, once can transcend these differences and rather than compromise, come to a design that satisfies both parties (Jeng 1995). The design effort will then be in service not only of the architect’s aesthetic vision, but also in the service of Ikea’s corporate mission. The result is a building with an improved functionality, and more in keeping with the high level of design quality of the products exhibited and sold within it. If the architect can demonstrate that they have internalized the value system of the client then the client responds by accepting the expertise of the architect, especially as regards aesthetics and ‘architectural quality’ – approving the architect rather than approving the design.

OTHER EXAMPLES

Météor In the design of the Météor metro line stations in Paris it was never quite clear to the client RAPT, why only an architect could solve their problems, but they continued to find that only their architect Bernard Kohn & Accociés could carry out important aspects of the design (Kohn 2001). For Bernard Kohn the project began with a small assignment to develop architectural design guidelines for a series of 6 metro stations, which he had won on the basis of an ‘ideas’ competition. RAPT intended this new metro line to “enhance the image of public transport”(Beaupère 1998) and attract new riders to the metro system. This task was supposed to occupy 6 architects for 3 months. Instead the project kept up to 25 architects busy for 9 years. RAPT has a large internal engineering staff, and had intended to do most of the design work for the stations themselves. Architects would be brought in only to provide inspiration and guidelines for the in-house engineers.

At each phase of the project RAPT sought to delineate a specific and limited package of services, which would provide this guidance. However, each time RAPT accepted Kohn’s ideas, they found that they had raised the level of expectation they had of the design of the stations. Contrary to the expectations of RAPT, their in-house engineers proved unable to implement Kohn’s schemes to the standard of excellence that was now expected. This, in turn, seemed to force them to return to Kohn and request additional design services. In the end, Kohn had prepared design guidelines and supervised the design of all 7 stations on the line, and designed 5 stations himself.

In this case, the problem was that RAPT had a well-formulated goal expressed on a general verbal level. They were not, however, capable of expressing this goal in architectural terms or forms. Kohn succeeded where the in-house engineers failed in that he understood the goals RAPT set for the project, and was able to translate these goals into architectural reality. The in-house engineers failed to do this, probably because they were intent on continuing to do things in the way they had always done them – setting and fulfilling the design goals for metro stations themselves.

Vancouver International Airport Terminal Value adoption is not always a case of adopting the functional, operational and financial values of the client. In the case of the design of the International Terminal at Vancouver Airport, it was the client’s aesthetic values that were key (Smith 2001). The Vancouver based architectural firm Architectura, a generalist firm with no prior airport experience, won the contract to design the International Terminal at the Vancouver Airport because, unlike their more experienced (in airports at any rate) competition, they understood the client’s intention to have an airport that was specific to the Pacific Northwest. The Vancouver Airport

70 Authority has taken the unusual step of purchasing a major sculpture, The Spirit of Haida Gwaii, the Jade Canoe, for the terminal before even selecting the architect. In purchasing this sculpture, by a major Northwest Coast native artist, Bill Reid, the Vancouver Airport Authority were committing themselves to a specific set of aesthetic and cultural values. Architectura was the one firm, among all those “presenting their credentials”, who correctly interpreted this commitment, and responded with a scheme that was expressive of the character of the Vancouver region.

Airports are usually designed by specialist firms – firms who have the specific expertise required to design these complex systems. In this case, we therefore see an inversion of the expected scenario. Here it is the client who had the aesthetic ambition, while most of the firms under consideration places functional and operational concerns ahead of aesthetic values. Architectura was able to demonstrate that they shared the clients aesthetic concerns while also having respect for the functional difficulties involved in the design. Again, it was the architect’s ability to learn what was of value to the client that led to success.

CONCLUSIONS

In each of the examples discussed we have seen that it was due to the fact that the architects were, perhaps eventually, able to understand and adopt, or internalize, the goals of the client. This did not require them to abandon their own architectural intentions, rather it required that the architects be prepared first to entertain the goals of their clients, and then transcend the apparent conflicts between these goals and the firms’ general architectural goals, in order to arrive at a solution that met the expectations of everyone involved.

As mecanoo’s project architect for the Ikea store said: “If it has got to be blue, then it has to be a really good blue.”

REFERENCES

Bakker, I. (2001) Interview. J. Heintz. Delft, Mecanoo Architecten. Beaupère, B. (1998) Météor, line 14 a journey into the heart of the city. Sant-Mandé, France, Bernard Kohn & Accociés. Gemente Hengelo (2001) Bedrijventerrein Westermaat. http://www.hengelo.nl/bedrijventerreinen/westermaat/index.html. Houben, F., C. Richters, et al. (2001) Composition, contrast, complexity : Mecanoo architects. Basel; Boston, Birkhäuser. Jeng, H.-E. (1995) A Dialogical Model for Participatory Design. Delft, Publikatieburo Bouwkunde. Kohn, B. (2001) Interview. J. Heintz. Delft - Sant-Mandé. Smith, S. (2001) Interview. J. Heintz. Vancouver, British Columbia.

71 EMERGING APPROACHES TO THE QUANTIFICATION OF DESIGN DECISIONS

IAN ELLINGHAM AND WILLIAM FAWCETT

Cambridge Architectural Research Limited, United Kingdom

Abstract: There is a promise of advances in property and building decision making from the application of recent developments in the financial services industry. Methods for understanding and modelling traded financial options have been applied to ‘real’ investment decisions in many industries, offering a significant advance over traditional discounted cash flow techniques. Many issues arise in the application of the new techniques to buildings and property, as the context and the quality of available information are very different from the financial world. This paper presents an introduction to these new decision-making methodologies, and outlines the work currently being undertaken by Cambridge Architectural Research.

Key words: Design, value, decision-making, options.

INTRODUCTION

When attempting to quantify the value of buildings and property it is natural to see what can be learned from the financial world where values are precisely quantified. Historically, many techniques used in the analysis of buildings and property have had origins in the evaluation of traded securities. This is an industry where fortunes can be made from understanding and modelling price movements: even small advantages can generate millions of pounds of profits. In the building and property industry value seems more complex and it is harder to develop models. Multiple sources of uncertainty and the perversity of success are frustrating, as exemplified by the successful investor or builder: how can we tell whether success resulted from extraordinary insight, or just good luck? Was this entrepreneur simply one among hundreds randomly throwing darts who happened to hit the centre? What is needed is not the capability to perceive success in hindsight, but an ability to understand the creation of value in advance.

The worth of a building or project is typically calculated from an expected future stream of benefits, often expressible in terms of money as a discounted cash flow. The amount and timing of such benefits is always exposed to some level of uncertainty. Dealing with uncertainty is usually difficult, and it is often tempting to ignore it, or somehow contain it. Many design decisions are surrounded by uncertainty, and it has been suggested that an element of unquantifiability is a distinguishing feature of design. However, the date when all aspects of uncertainty will be overcome is so far distant that we hardly need to speculate about whether what would be left would be design or something else.

Discounted cash flow techniques under uncertainty can yield sub-optimal answers. In particular, such techniques do not give sufficient weight to the role of the manager. Reality

72 includes a proliferation of opportunities, which the manager can take into account in his decision making.

UNCERTAINTY IN MARKETS: THE ROLE OF OPTIONS

An extremely interesting recent development in the investment industry has been the emergence of techniques for valuing options. A core factor facing players in the financial markets is that future prices are uncertain: as prices change over time the value of investments can rise or fall, reflecting expectations about future cash flows. Options are a way of responding to this uncertainty. Initially options were developed for financial trading, but there are growing applications of the techniques for ‘real options’ outside the financial services industry.

Options are a vehicle to manage risk, or speculate on future market directions. The owner of an option has the right to purchase (‘call’) or sell (‘put’) a specified asset (typically a security, currency, or commodity), at a specified price, within a specified time frame. While options in one form or another have been traded for hundreds of years, modelling how the market sets option prices was a problem only solved in the 1970s by Black, Merton, and Scholes, which resulted in the award of the 1997 Nobel prize in economics. Of course, mathematical modelling does not eliminate risk, as the catastrophic misadventures of Long-Term Capital Management and Nick Leeson can testify.

Considering building and property decisions relative to options yields two benefits: first, it helps to conceptualise and respond to the uncertainty surrounding many design decisions, and second, the quantification of some decisions is possible.

REAL BUILDINGS OPTIONS: CONCEPTUALLY

The owner of an option is able to behave in differing ways depending upon the outcome of uncertain future events. In the case of traded financial options, the owner of a call (right to buy) option will exercise the option if the underlying security is valued above the exercise or ‘strike’ price, whereas if the security is below that price the option is left to die.

Often risk is seen as undesirable – something to be eliminated or limited. In contrast, options depend upon uncertainty for their value: the greater the uncertainty the higher the value of the option. There are many products which would have no value without uncertainty, for example, if there was no uncertainty insurance would be pointless and worthless. Exhibit 1 explains how why this occurs. If future value is uncertain, it might be modelled with a mean (in this case shown as zero for convenience) and a distribution around that mean. For someone exposed to both the upside and the downside uncertainty, the best estimate of value is the mean. However, an option holder is exposed to only one side of the distribution: a call option with a strike price of zero would only be exercised if the value of the underlying asset was positive when the option expired. An underlying asset with high variance provides a greater probability of obtaining a high return, because of the longer ‘upside’ tail.

73 Exhibit 1. The Source of Option Value

The call option can be used as a model for the ‘real option’ of waiting before undertaking a building or development project. This was the situation which first led Cambridge Architectural Research to investigate options. n investor had decided not to replace old boilers with new, energy-efficient units, even though a discounted cash flow analysis said ‘go’. The decision was made by an experienced manager using ‘gut feel’, and an options analysis confirmed that the best decision was to wait. This decision can be expressed as a real option as follows: ‘The building owner held an option to invest (the right to replace the boilers with more efficient models), within a specified period of time (at any time until the existing boilers fail), for a specified price (the cost of the new boilers).’ Proceeding with the replacement meant destroying the option. Accordingly, it was clear that a discounted cash flow analysis gave an incomplete picture of the cost of proceeding, as shown in Exhibit 2. The existence of the option explained the curious phenomenon of an experienced decision-maker rejecting an investment in an apparently a high-yielding building refurbishment opportunity .

Exhibit 2. The Boiler Replacement Decision CONVENTIONAL DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW EVALUATION Invest if: Present value of ongoing cash flow (savings) > Capital Cost

REAL OPTIONS EVALUATION Invest now if: Present value of ongoing cash flow (savings) > Capital Cost + Value of any options used/lost ...otherwise wait until the boilers fail, and then invest according to a conventional discounted cash flow analysis.

The value of the boiler replacement is the present value of the stream of fuel savings, and therefore varies in accordance with the future price of gas, which is uncertain. The more volatile gas prices, the greater the value of the ‘wait’ option. Over the next few years, energy

74 prices might rise or fall. If they fall, a bad decision would have been avoided by waiting. If they rise, the managers can go ahead and install the new boilers. Of course, waiting also means that new boilers may become even more energy efficient. A further source of value in this option is that while there is a cost (the energy not saved while waiting), the owners don’t have to pay for the boilers now. As long as this option is available, the owner has the ability to benefit from good outcomes, but can avoid bad ones.

REAL BUILDINGS OPTIONS: QUANTIFIED

Unfortunately quantifying real options in buildings and property is often difficult. Some of the original applications in property focused on explicit options, such as those found in office leases, in which the option is clearly defined and the uncertainty relates to real factors, such as changing office rents.

The next step is to deal with options embedded in buildings. This involves defining the option and the factors which endow it with value: specifically, identifying the underlying assets and determining how their volatility can be quantified.

There are a number of reasons why quantification is difficult. The most important is the lack of good quality data. Detailed data for traded securities is readily available, but the building and property industry in contrast does not have centralised exchanges, so collecting data often means many hours in libraries or with uncompiled corporate records. Furthermore, while one share of General Electric is the same as any other, buildings tend to be unique. The first analyses undertaken by Cambridge Architectural Research were based on one of the simpler sources of uncertainty – energy prices, for which historic data can readily be obtained.

There are a number of techniques for valuing options in buildings. While the Black-Scholes model is widely used in the securities industry and computer programmes are readily available, it is less appropriate for building-based options, so blindly plugging numbers into the Black-Scholes formula is unwise. We have found it more useful to use simulations of decisions and outcomes to model building-based options.

The focus of a current ‘Partners In Innovation’ project led by Cambridge Architectural Research is to make options techniques easier to use within the construction and property industries. Fortunately, in these industries even approximate results can be markedly superior to plain discounted cash flow analysis.

OPTIONS IN DESIGN

There are many types of decisions in which options can have an important role. One relates to flexibility as a design objective. This has often been emphasised in building design, yet attaching values to it is difficult. Flexibility may be desirable – but how much should one pay to achieve it? The answer can be established by regarding flexibility as an option.

The classic flexibility option is demountable office partitions. They cost more than conventional systems, and perform the same job most of the time: the extra cost of demountable partitions buys an option to move them cheaply in the future. The option is exercised if and when the partitions have to be moved; otherwise it will be left unused. Is buying the flexibility option a good investment?

75

Normally designers rely on simple numerical techniques augmented by experienced ‘gut feel’, which can be reasonably reliable, but is inadequate when large amounts of money are involved or when the decision-maker does not have enough relevant experience. The key to calculating the option value is the level of volatility in the business environment, which is measured from past data and used to model the future rate of change. This involves the quantification about how much activities have changed in the environment under consideration. Obviously, the value of an option to relocate partitions is higher in a volatile business in which change is ongoing.

Another approach to flexibility can be viewed in terms of exit options. Consider single-user office buildings. While it is often appealing to tailor the design to the needs of a specific user, the volatility of business means that the user is at a risk of being taken over or failing: what happens to the building? The capability of easily turning it into multi-tenant use would be desirable, and therefore the option of multi-tenancy use has value. The option would be exercised if the original user disappeared, otherwise not. This type of flexibility option involves paying now for a design with multi-tenancy capability. As before, the uncertainty involves activity change.

We are currently collecting data about the rate of business change in order to quantify flexibility options, but it is easy to see that in buildings serving a volatile industry, such as telecommunications, flexibility options will have more value than in traditional industries.

OPTIONS EMBEDDED

Returning to the boiler replacement problem, it can seen that the option to wait is embedded in the ownership of the building. It was not specifically purchased, and exists whether one is aware of it or not. Accordingly, buildings can be seen as portfolios of embedded options corresponding to the actions that the owner has the discretion of taking or not taking in relation to the property. Traditional discounted cash flow analysis ignores such options, so it leaves major pieces of value unaccounted for – though they may be introduced in an ad hoc way by decision makers’ ‘gut feel’. Any property contains a portfolio of embedded options – to change use, demolish and rebuild, redecorate, subdivide, extend, and so on – and they are all part of building value: designer cannot ignore them and indeed it would be desirable to quantify them.

CONCLUSIONS

Real option pricing techniques are now being applied widely in the pharmaceutical and energy industries. Cambridge Architectural Research has found that once one is aware of the concept of options, one sees them virtually everywhere.

Designers who understand options and manage them can enhance value for building owners and users. Clearly, in the design context, real options can play a major role. Even without quantification the concepts can be used to give significant insights into design decisions. The tremendous potential of the options approach is that it can lead to quantification, providing detailed and specific answers in many difficult areas of design affected by uncertainty, where previously experienced ‘gut feel’ was the only resource available.

76 REFERENCES

Amram, M. & Kulatilaka, N. (1999) Real Options: Managing Strategic Investment in an Uncertain World. Harvard Business School Press, Boston. Brealey R. & Myers S. (1996) Principles of Corporate Finance (5th Edition). McGraw-Hill, New York (see Part Six). Copeland, T. & Antikarov, V. (2001) Real Options: A Practitioner’s Guide. Texere Publishing, New York. Hodder, J.E. & Riggs, H.E. (1985) Pitfalls in Evaluating Risky Projects, Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb 1985.Reprinted in Clark, K.B. & Wheelwright, S.C. (Eds) (1994) The Product Development Challenge. Harvard Business Review Books, Boston. Howell, S., Stark, A., Newton, D., Paxson, D., Cavus, M. & Patel, K. (2001) Real Options: An Introduction for Executives. Financial Times / Prentice Hall, London. Kolb, R.W. (2000) Futures. Options, and Swaps (3rd Edition). Blackwell, Malden MA. Luehrman, T.A. (1998a) Investment Opportunities as Real Options: Getting Started on the Numbers. Harvard Business Review, July-August 1998, pp.51-67. Luehrman, T.A. (1998b) Strategy as a Portfolio of Real Options. Harvard Business Review. September-October 1998, pp 89-99. University of Reading & DTZ Debenham Thorpe (1998) Right Space: Right Price? Using asset pricing models to value property interests. Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, London. Williams, J.T. (1991) Real Estate Development as an Option. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, no.4, pp.191-208.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This works was supported by the project ‘New Generation Whole-life Costing’ in the DTI ‘Partners in Innovation’ scheme.

Contact details: Cambridge Architectural Research Ltd The Eden Centre 47 City Road Cambridge CB1 1DP UK tel +44 (0) 1223 460475 fax +44 (0) 1223 464142 e-mail [email protected] website www.carltd.com

77 MANAGEMENT OF DIGITAL DESIGN INFORMATION - A BOTTOM-UP APPROACH

ALEXANDER KOUTAMANIS

Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Architecture, The Netherlands

Abstract: The general informatization of processes, products and services has been exerting an influence on architectural practice that is arguably disproportionate to that of academic research and teaching. It is probably for this reason that the massive effort in practical computerization has not led to the expected improvements in efficiency and design performance. The gigantic amounts of design information being produced and processed by computers have become a source of new and an accentuation of existing problems. Such problems are symptomatic of an early stage of development and can be resolved through the application of a coordinated information management system that combines existing information carriers and sources, facilitates continuity of information processing throughout a building’s life cycle and improves performance in decision taking by means of reliable, relevant information that extends conventional reasoning. The potential of the proposed approach is counterbalanced by its complexity and tenacity. This suggests that wider application of the approach presupposes a higher level of computational instruments and the emergence of information management as a distinct specialization within architectural design.

Keywords: Computerization, visual documentation, information systems, descriptive approach, integration.

INTRODUCTION: DEMOCRATIZATION AND EFFICIENCY

Despite the extensive use of transferred technologies, architecture has generally attempted to be self-sufficient in the generation of new directions and influences. Most new concepts are justified as being firmly rooted in architectural history or, at least, in a number of powerful precedents. However, the prevailing influence on architecture and building since the mid- nineties has arguably been rather alien: the democratization of information and communication technologies (ICT), which has facilitated the transfer of informatization to the processes, products and services relating to building design, construction and management. The practical success of this transfer has been variable. The promise of efficiency has yet to be realized and there is little performance improvement that can be attributed to computerization. Such low return from the massive investment in ICT is due to a number of reasons:

• The relative stagnation of computer-aided architectural design (CAAD) in research and teaching: CAAD has traditionally been disconnected from practice in terms of ambitions and priorities. When academic activities were overtaken by the pace of ICT application in practice, CAAD became diffuse and unfocused. Integration of ICT in a

78 variety of tasks and applications meant that CAAD was finally relegated to the lowly level of implementation mechanisms (Marr 1982). The methodical aspects that could guide the use of ICT in architecture and building seem to have receded into a largely irrelevant historical background.

• The superficial transfer of existing practices to the computer: In the absence of a new methodical framework that could guide the informatization of architecture and building, most applications of ICT derive from established analogue practices. In most cases computerization is employed for the mere production of pre-existing analogue documentation. For example, modeling a design’s form and structure with the computer is generally aimed at the production of conventional drawings on paper. Moreover, the computational processes often replicate the analogue structures, such as making separate drawings and files for each floor plan, section and detail rather than creating a single, integrated three-dimensional model. Similarly, connections between graphic and alphanumeric documentation are almost non-existent and generally reduced to time-consuming manual processing. Even though the possibilities of automated identification and measurement provide more than enough opportunities, the lack of connectivity in the analogue conventions means that digital design information remains fragmentary and highly redundant.

• Limited understanding of information and information processing: One of the most profound reasons for (or consequences of) computerization is the emphasis on information and information processing, as opposed to the processing of the documents than contain this information (Negroponte 1995). Nevertheless, the replication of analogue processes in the computer means that there is widespread confusion between information and its carriers (including the metaphors used in computer interfaces). The main consequence is that most ICT applications are targeted at the document level, treating facsimiles of conventional analogue documents as integral entities. Such applications impede the development of meaningful, flexible information systems, as well as the revision of existing practices needed to achieve a higher level of overall performance.

Computerization in practice is therefore characterized by the production and processing of gigantic amounts of digital design documents, with limited explicit design information and design information processing. The extent and limitations of computerization in practice have become a source of new problems, especially in the areas of organization and cognitive ergonomics. Digital documents are less intuitive or familiar than analogue information carriers. Therefore, users require clear structures for handling documents individually and collectively. Moreover, the availability of affordable storage media and the emphasis on collaborative design result into multiple versions of the same documents, produced from different viewpoints or at different moments in the design or construction process. The combination of this multiplicity with the relative opaqueness of digital documents makes archiving, indexing and retrieval extremely complex and sensitive to local errors, misinterpretations and omissions. Many problems are also common to analogue document management but computerization tends to accentuate them, despite the compactness of digital storage and the availability of advanced computational techniques for e.g. content-based retrieval of visual information (Gross 1995; Koutamanis 2000c, 2000b).

79 The resulting picture is not so much of inefficiency as of ignorance. The main reason for failing to realize the full potential of informatization is lack of knowledge of several interrelated aspects:

• Design information processing in relation to means and ends in the design, construction and management of the built environment (regardless of computerization) • Possibilities afforded by ICT for representation, communication and machine intelligence • Correlation between design information processing and ICT possibilities

The above are clear indications of the current early stage in the informatization of architecture and building. At such a stage, experimentation and exploration necessarily precede realistic demonstrations. However, the transition to demonstrations and from there to practical applications that improve understanding and performance is not simply a matter of getting further acquainted with the new technologies. For example, virtuosity in computer drawing does not necessarily improve the utility of computer-based design representations. What we further require is analysis of existing design methods and techniques and their applicability in a computational context. This returns a practical framework for digital design information management that builds on existing practices while making them amenable to knowledge and technology transfer. We have been developing such a bottom-up framework in the past few years, not only in academic research and teaching but also in practice (Koutamanis 1995, 1997, 1999, 2000a; Mitossi and Koutamanis 1998; Leusen and Mitossi 1998). This framework aims at:

1. The combination of information carriers towards a representation-based digital information system that describes fully every relevant aspect and icorporates the use of simulation and scientific visualization for the analysis of building behaviour and performance (virtual design prototyping) 2. Continuity in information processing throughout a building’s life cycle, i.e. transition from virtual to rapid prototyping and from there to robotic construction and facilities management, as well as re-use of explicit information as cases or precedents in new design and building projects 3. Performance improvement in decision taking through the enrichment and extension of conventional design reasoning by means of reliable, relevant information

MANAGEMENT AND METHOD

The term “information technology revolution” is a succinct but apt characterization of ongoing processes that are altering most facets of human life and culture. Nevertheless, the emphasis on ICT obscures the social and economic changes that relate to this revolution either as causes or as effects (Castells 1996). The informatization of professional activities is not merely a matter of computerization. Its emphasis on coordination, rationalization and efficiency points out to a wider necessity or desire for drastic change. Following the successful introduction of management to most aspects of construction and real estate, design management is emerging as the new application area as the last architectural domain to have escaped rationalization and modernization. One of the main arguments for design management is the alleged low design performance of the architect. This is attributed largely to the increasing complexity that characterizes the built environment and its design. Such complexity and its pace results into conceptual, technical and operational problems that cannot be resolved by conventional architectural practices (Colquhoun 1981). CAAD has

80 attempted to provide an answer by a rational, analytical introduction of not only technology but also methods that aimed at improving most facets of designing, from design generation to communication (Mitchell 1990; Schmitt 1993).

However, with the democratization of ICT external factors have become too powerful for CAAD to have a profound influence on architectural theory and practice. Arbitrary technology transfer and loose analogical justifications are proving more popular than reasoning on the basis of computational domain systems, despite the inherent dangers of comparisons between architecture and other areas (Collins 1965). Consequently, management is considered by many to be the missing link in the architect’s methodical and operational framework. It is proposed that the transfer of management concepts to architectural design and the remodelling of the design process in accordance with general principles that underlie the procedures of other disciplines can provide the much-needed improvement of design performance and, though this, of the quality of the built environment.

The present paper suggests a dissenting view in that it proposes that any approach to design management derives primarily from the constraints of the architectural domain and its subject matter rather than from a management perspective. While management concepts appear to be a necessary addition to areas where architectural performance has already been secondary, such as construction (Warszawski 1990), we argue that the cognitive and social processes of designing should be augmented by (mostly computational) analytical means. These support the exploration and understanding of the nature and structure of the design process rather than aim at short-term efficiency increases. This view contrasts sharply with deterministic models that serve as background to simple, straightforward formalization and automation of designing. The fundamental difference is that the view proposed in this paper is rooted in education and research and assumes therefore that the first step in design management is a better understanding of what designing entails and how it could be coordinated. From this perspective, design management addresses the two main dimensions of architectural design, these of design method and of design subject.

Method With respect to method we distinguish between three basic categories:

1. Proscriptive approaches: these characterize the core of architectural practice, from architectural styles to the bulk of building codes and regulations. In a sense, proscriptive approaches refer to the origins of current architecture and the (ultimately arbitrary) formal systems that determined the design of the built environment on the basis of orthodoxy. By accepting the commandments of a system, which are usually expressed not only as norms and rules but also through positive and negative examples, the designer can determine explicit or, more probably, implicit solution spaces and position his actions and results with respect to these. The acceptability of a design can be determined by the inclusion of recommended or required elements and the exclusion of prohibited ones (Summerson 1980). Proscriptive approaches are therefore appropriate for systems such as architectural styles (e.g. classicism, modernism), which are defined by prototype, precedent and canon. Similarly, building norms, rules and regulations that aim not at a design’s form but its behaviour and performance, define acceptability by means of design features (characteristics and relationships) that can be easily detected, measured and evaluated.

81 2. Prescriptive approaches: these underlie most computational attempts and represent in effect a reversal of proscriptive systems. Rather than defining solution spaces, prescriptive approaches attempt to guide the design process in an algorithmic fashion. Designing is segmented into distinct stages and steps that form generally deterministic sequences of known states. By means of reductionism and determinism prescriptive systems purport to reduce complexity and uncertainty and thereby guarantee adequate design performance. Such systems advocate orthopraxy, i.e. a ‘correct’ way of handling situations by taking the prescribed ‘correct’ steps in established ‘correct’ frameworks. Prescriptive approaches can be viewed as a twentieth-century reaction to the limitations of proscriptive ones, especially following the relaxation effected by eclecticism. The results of this reaction are design approaches that are determined by a ‘method’, i.e. a formal interpretation, usually in a computational direction (Eastman 1975). Prescriptive approaches have also transformed building rules and regulations, especially where procedural aspects are concerned. Such aspects are frequently formulated as stereotypes that provide predictability and hence design guidance.

3. Descriptive approaches: these focus on the representation of design problems and products with accuracy, precision and completeness that vary with the design stage, aspect or level of abstraction. While proscriptive and prescriptive approaches consider the complexity of real design problems and situations a problem and substitute it with simple rules, norms and local procedures, descriptive approaches acknowledge and attempt to register and process this complexity. In what might appear as an almost total negation of method, descriptive approaches make the designer central to the resolution of design problems and facilitate his activities by providing the necessary information in a relevant and responsive manner. This contrasts with the dominance of the system or method over the designer in proscriptive and prescriptive approaches. Descriptive approaches form therefore a reaction to the limitations of proscriptive and prescriptive ones, especially in the framework of the ongoing informatization of professional activities. For example, rather than implementing established, outdated rules of thumb (Maver 1987), descriptive analysis employs advanced simulation technologies in order to produce projections of behaviour and performance for use by the designer and other decision-takers (Hartog, Koutamanis, and Luscuere 1998; Hartog and Koutamanis 2000). Concepts like representation, analysis, information and abstraction are central to descriptive approaches. It is worth noting that precedents, originally a proscriptive device, are also heavily used in descriptive approaches. The difference lies in that descriptive precedents operate not as implementations of prototypes but as in the sense of case-based reasoning and as carriers of fuzzy typologic structures.

Subject The second dimension distinguishes between the coordination of:

1. The design process (syntagmatic aspects): this is approached either holistically or segmented in discrete procedures. One aspect common to most available models of the design process is the emphasis on dynamic issues such as transformations, transactions and transitions largely irrespective of the declarative side (input and output). 2. The design product (paradigmatic aspects): similarly to the design process, the products of designing (decisions, policies, specifications of form and of activities in the built environment) are considered either continuously or with respect to

82 (preferably correlated) distinct aspects and abstraction levels. These correspond to different design stages and the parties involved in these stages.

The distinction between process and product may seem academic but one should not underestimate its analytical and explanatory power. The separation of input, output, transformation and transaction is instrumental for the identification of weaknesses, conflicts, incompleteness, inconsistency and other factors influencing operation and performance (Van Sommers 1984). Moreover, the correlation of procedural and declarative factors provides a comprehensive and coherent map of distinct events and actions that goes beyond current interpretations of designing in terms of stages and aspects. This has beneficial effects on e.g. feedback, as it permits higher transparency and specificity in the propagation of constraints and hence better control by the designer by means of fuller understanding of different types of relations.

The descriptive agenda The development of descriptive instruments for design management is a continuous process that should reconsider its applications and principles with each application or the addition of a new aspect or abstraction level. To achieve this, emphasis should be on representation and analysis in a coordinated multilevel, multivariate system. Such emphasis focuses the immediate priorities of design management on design information management towards the virtual prototyping environments that will allow comprehensive treatment of the design product and process on the basis of performance-based guidance rather than administrative control. On the methodical level this implies intensive use of informatization and stresses the significance of cognitive aspects, both in designing and in human interaction with the built environment. Especially the latter can provide meaningful departure points and criteria for the improvement of design performance and accountability. On the process side, the emphasis on representation facilitates continuity in the design process and even beyond it, towards construction (e.g. through rapid prototyping), facilities management and post-occupancy evaluation. It also supports communication, by providing a responsive background of relevant information that helps focus problems and decisions and recognize their significance and consequences.

The correlation of these principles and priorities suggests two main areas of investigation and development that have the potential to transform architectural practices:

• The amphidrome development of a design: the conventional linear development of a design from initiative and brief to construction and post-occupancy should be complemented by the reverse direction that draws from detail, case and precedent to formulate design ideas and solutions, even at the conceptual stages. Continuity of design information in the direction of virtual prototyping is the key concept for this development, as it allows for precise projections, accurate positioning of each contribution and targeted feedback. • The identification and management of critical moments: rather than prescriptively defining sequences of deterministic steps, we should concentrate selectively on moments characterized by convergence of activities and hence extensive and intensive communication. At these moments decision-taking refers primarily to issues such as normalization and conflict resolution. This results into guidance that determines the further development of the design process, including feedback loops to earlier decisive moments.

83 COMPUTERIZATION AND DOCUMENTATION

Similarly to other professions, architectural offices nowadays rely on the computer for the production of a wide range of documents for internal and external use. However, the extent of computerization does not necessarily mean improvement of effectiveness, reliability or even efficiency. This is most evident in the form of digital architectural documents such as drawings and renderings. It seems that, as the primary reason of these documents is to produce analogue versions, little attention is paid to issues such as structure, semantics, integration, correlation or overall utility. In other words, such documents rarely qualify as usable digital design representations (Koutamanis and Mitossi 2000b).

Architectural computerization in practice is often characterized by superficiality, segmentation of processes and products, a large number and high redundancy of information carriers, rapidly increasing quantities of barely manageable information and an overall high complexity that combines the worst of the analogue and digital worlds. Efficiency improvement (the main promise of computerization) is at best only local. Nevertheless, efficiency should not be the primary and certainly not the initial target of computerization. More appropriate targets relate to the improvement of architectural information, its management and utility so as to provide a reliable and effective background to architectural performance (Mahdavi et al. 2001).

Some of the problems of architectural computerization are due to demographic reasons. Most applications in practice are decided, managed and implemented by older architects with insufficient grounding in architectural computerization and no incentive for proper on-the-job training. Other problems relate to the relative immaturity of digital media and devices. Both the ergonomics and the cognitive ergonomics of computer-based tools are frequently judged to be inferior to these of their analogue counterparts. Such shortcomings can be alleviated partly by technological evolution, e.g. larger screens and interface refinement and partly by human adaptation to the affordances of the computer. The latter is also related to the demographics of computer users.

However, the core of the problem remains architectural. The increase in the amount and complexity of information produced for the specification, analysis and communication of design decisions and products derives less from computerization and more from necessity to improve the depth (specificity) of architectural documentation (Nys et al. 2001). The tendency towards informatization in e.g. communication and manufacturing raises the level of explicitness, accuracy and precision in design information, as well as of coherence and completeness in the resulting information complex. Consequently, more and more detailed information is being produced to cover the width and depth of the required specification, even though it is generally acknowledged that quantity of information is not by itself the solution.

Computerization is designed to have a positive effect on both information production and coordination but offers no built-in guarantees. In terms of effectiveness and reliability it is constrained by the underlying methodical approach, while in terms of efficiency it adds to the tenacity and extent of design information processing. The complexity, redundancy and sheer amount of information that is generated on a variety modern media has accentuated the problems of archiving, indexing and retrieving design information, either for the same building project or for related projects (cases and precedents). Computerized archiving, indexing and retrieving design information has also made evident that the correlation of different items, aspects or abstraction levels is no trivial problem. The comprehensive

84 representation of a design on the basis of correlated documents (i.e. partial descriptions) is becoming increasingly cumbersome, with negative effects on consistency and completeness.

The visual design document Computerization has traditionally focused on alphanumeric information. Despite significant technical advances, visual documents remain relatively unexplored. Even advanced techniques like content-based indexing and retrieval may rely on human interpretation and segmentation. Disciplines such as architecture, which employ visual documents such as drawings and photographs, receive little technical support for the processing of such documents. Computerization appears to underestimate the potential of images as information carriers (Lopes 1996). The treatment of visual documents as largely integral entities with an ad hoc structure and uncertain utility is symptomatic of the uncomfortable relationship between architectural attitudes and the mathematical and cognitive principles underlying architectural representations (Evans 1995).

In practical terms, we are confronted with a variety of visual information carriers and kinds, which derive from different origins and different digitization channels. On the one hand, a large proportion of digital architectural documents are digitized analogue images (drawings, sketches, photographs). These are input in the computer usually by optical means such as scanners that transform them into arrays of pixels. Pixel images can be static (still photographs or technical drawings) or dynamic, i.e. sequences of static images (video). In addition to digitized analogue images, CAD and other computer programs are used to generate design documents such as two or three dimensional drawings and models. Computer- generated visual documents include pixel images (e.g. renderings) but are generally vector- based. Moreover, they are interactive: their appearance can be modified by the user by means of selective manipulation ranging from panning and zooming to turning layers on and off.

Production, transfer, storage and dissemination of digital images follow analogue practices. These are characterized by the integrity and self-sufficiency of each document. Cross- references to other documents are usually meant as a reference frame. This is due to the segmentation of information by projection (floor plan, section, elevation) and type / subject (detail, rendering, scale). Even though drawings can derive from the same representation, e.g. a three-dimensional model, CAD drawings generally reproduce analogue formats. For example, in a CAD-drawing it is quite usual to have floor plans drawn next to each other (instead of on top of the other) and sections and elevations around a floor plan (rather than on planes perpendicular to it).

This lack of correlation and connectivity extends to the relations between computer-generated and digitized images. While the former are emerging as the primary design documentation and specification, the latter are indispensable as carriers of additional visual information on the state of a building (photographs of damage), historical or cultural value (photographs of surfaces ornamentation) and behaviour / performance (light simulations). Such information can be registered in two manners: as alphanumeric annotations or as attached visual documents. Annotations are more useful in terms of classification but inevitably suffer from omissions (ellipsis) and subjective interpretation, i.e. inconsistency, especially where more than one persons are involved. Current CAD systems provide ample facilities for the integration of pixel images in vector models, as well as for linking external pixel documents to specific groups of vectors. Despite such facilities, CAD practices appear to be too firmly rooted in the tradition of analogue technical drawing to make intensive use of compound representations.

85

It is noteworthy that many of the missed opportunities relate to the lack of appropriate structure in CAD drawings. Overconstrained standardization schemes, overreliance on superficially structured component libraries (of inflexible symbols), the efficiency push and hypes such as the virtual workplace have conspired to reduce drawing structure to prescribed modularization (e.g. layers) and element description at the level of implementation mechanisms rather than that of the symbolized entities (Marr 1982). In most CAD drawings elements are described by formally unrelated collections of graphic primitives. For example, a rectangular column in a floor plan may consist of four loose straight line segments, hopefully intersecting precisely at their endpoints. Even worse, a space bounded by building elements is only implicit in the drawing, as in its analogue counterpart. The lack of symbolic structure is a major obstacle for the integration and correlation of digital visual information (Koutamanis 1995; Mitossi and Koutamanis 1998; Leusen and Mitossi 1998).

Design information systems Despite the relative immaturity of visual design documents, the extensive application of digital design tools and the resulting huge production of digital visual documents have made practice sensitive to the management and utility of these documents. The solutions proposed to this end invariably involve computerization, even if the documents are largely analogue. The envisaged design information systems profess to serve a variety of purposes at different levels of abstraction. In the case of a single design project they should constitute comprehensive dossiers for the registration and communication of design decisions. These dossiers should also be usable in other, related projects as sources of relevant cases and precedents. Moreover, with the proliferation of informatization in many aspects of the building industry, such dossiers also promote continuity of design information e.g. in the direction of construction and facilities management, as well as of stock and real estate management. A comprehensive archive of buildings and projects provides a stable, responsive and transparent background to strategic decision taking.

Attempts to meet such purposes can be classified in three basic categories. The first is the application of commercially available or purpose-built document management systems. These address the administrative side of designing by registering time, authorship, revision etc. In the best cases they also offer (interactive) indexing facilities and trigger automated background tasks, such as archiving and dissemination of documents. Even in complex, coordinated environments such as extranets and groupware for collaborative design, document management takes a prescriptive form by specifying the position, type and relations of an document and refers more to integral documents / carriers and less to the information they contain (Chiu and Yamaguchi 2001; Morozumi et al. 2001). This impedes the emergence of compound representations out of correlated collections of documents. Document management is an essential component of office automation that facilitates and supports human processes. However, it offers no solutions to domain problems like design control and guidance as feedback triggered by the identification of omissions or conflicts in the visual documentation of a design.

The second category derives usually from CAAD research and proposes to resolve coordination problems by means of holistic representation formalisms which integrate a wide range of design aspects in a single geometric description, usually heavily annotated or cross- referenced to external databases (Mahdavi et al. 1997; Mahdavi et al. 2001; Ozel 2000). In the framework of research such formalisms have generated useful insights and valuable refinements to representation approaches. However, practice generally views such holistic

86 systems with skepticism. The level of automation they involved is considered to be too advanced and hence too expensive in terms of infrastructure, facilities and training.

Also the third category has academic origins but a much shorter tradition than representation formalisms. Its approach too is more radical, as it focuses on virtual information space and the use of advanced interfaces. These build on document management systems or general information technologies (usually on the Web) and place emphasis on communication and exploration (Stäger and Engeli 2001; Schmitt 1999). This category represents a possible new architectural application, provided that it moves beyond metaphorical (i.e. lay) use of space as an interface, so as to utilize architectural knowledge on human interaction with space.

Classification into these three categories reveals a fundamental shortcoming of current approaches to the coordination and management of visual design information: they are either subservient to existing operational patterns in practice or largely unrelated. This explains the frequent reluctance of practice to invest into applications of CAAD academic knowledge, as well as the largely technocratic approach to design automation, especially at the level of information management. Therefore, approaches to design information management are confronted with the following problems:

• Organizational uncertainty: The addition of computerization to architectural practice is seldom the result of a thorough plan of reorganization. This leads to several, usually alternative but frequently overlapping organizational structures which may confuse the user. This is most evident in the archiving and retrieval of documents: without personal knowledge of a project, identification of (all of) the desired information can be time-consuming and frustrating. • Superficial replication of analogue practices in digital information processing: This is the joint product of organizational uncertainty and lack of knowledge of and experience in CAAD, especially with respect to the analysis and reconsideration of ends and the recognition of appropriate means. • Limited understanding of information utility: One of the most frustrating aspects of computerization in practice is that digital information is rarely used outside its original purpose. Such rigorous segmentation makes practice unaware of possibilities for e.g. information exchange and hence reluctant to invest in coherent and comprehensive documentation. • Chronic underestimates of automation potential coupled to overestimates of costs: This follows from all the above and forms a major obstacle to informatization. Approaches that require substantial initial investment and do not return immediate spectacular results compare unfavourably to the analogue equivalents, even if they are more economical and productive on the long run.

A bottom-up approach to visual documentation management The analysis of the current situation in practice suggests that improvement of visual documentation processes and products can only be incremental, in a bottom-up manner, even when the target remains a comprehensive representation-driven solution or an advanced visual interface. The components of the proposed approach are: • Integration of different information kinds and carriers in a single representation: rather than introducing novel representation in a demanding, short-term environment such as architectural practice, we can integrate all drawings (floor plans, sections, elevations, details) of a design in a single document. This document also contains pixel images (photographs, video, sketches, scanned analogue drawings), either

87 integrated or as cross-references (hyperlinks) to external documents. Provided that these partial drawings are structured in a consistent and relevant way, the emerging multilevel representation covers a variety of abstraction levels and can therefore be used throughout the design process (Koutamanis 1997). Such a representation can evolve further in the direction of virtual prototyping and support continuity of information throughout the life cycle of a building. In the short term, integration of visual documents reduces drastically the size and complexity of a project dossier, thereby resolving most administrative problems and making the information carrier and storage less important than the transparent attribution of information. This is also beneficial to the correlation of individual actions and production to group frameworks and activities. • Correlation of information registration and processing with information utility: The current segmentation of design information derives from analogue practices. The transformability of digital information improves utility by facilitating information exchange between processes, continuity in the registration of design development and flexible, interactive treatment of designs. The comprehensive identification of situations where specific information forms the input or output of decision and communication procedures is a prerequisite to the evolution or replacement of existing practices. • Structural rather than opportunistic or deterministic integration: Identification of utility and matching to available information does not necessarily lead to structural improvements in design information and its management. As opportunistic or deterministic solutions seem more efficient in the short term, structural measures are frequently put off to a later, more appropriate time, only to be forgotten with the next problem. Emphasis on the explicitness of utility requirements in well-defined representations of design products or processes is an effective and reliable approach to such problems. • Recognition of informatization and information management as a new specialization: Given the general acceptance of the demographic factor in the current state of design automation, a reasonable academic reaction is the development of a new specialization that complements existing roles in the design and management of the built environment. This specialization should become the carrier of new computational methods and techniques that utilize information and communication technologies in practice.

An educational perspective The last component as well as the overall approach entail a strong educational dimension that has three main consequences for CAAD teaching:

1. The scope of adult education is increasing to a degree that makes it an obvious target for academic education. At the same time, adult education is hampered by the frequent inability of the existing workforce to go beyond analogue facsimiles and by the practical implausibility of on-the-job training. 2. The juxtaposition of existing commercial CAD courses and tutorials with academic CAAD education and training should make explicit the significance of design representations, and facilitate the transition from mere registration of a design’s form to design information processing and decision taking. 3. The production of the new specialists required for effective and efficient design information management is a combination of technical and organizational skills that should always remain coupled to domain knowledge.

88 DISCUSSION

One of the fundamental intentions underlying the proposed bottom-up approach is to smoothen the transition from analogue to digital design documentation. A smooth transition is essential for the full but discrete exploration of informatization in architecture and building and its direct application in a realistic, practical manner. The utility of informatization also relies on the ability to reconsider and reform existing domain knowledge for constraining the computational methods and techniques. This too presupposes a bottom-up approach that permits discretization of problems and solutions. It follows that the resulting information system is coordinated rather than holistic (as prescribed by rigorous standardization schemes). This facilitates the development of modular, hierarchical information systems for registering design decisions, their effects and interrelationships. The multilevel structure of such systems supports abstraction, feedback and the use of precedent and case-based techniques (Koutamanis 1997, 1993).

A central component in such systems is the design representation. Its basis is the spatial representation of a design or building in terms of its spaces and building elements. These may be initially implicit in the compound drawings created by the integration of different drawing carriers and types, but must be made explicit as a prerequisite to automating design information processing. Spaces and building elements are the fundamental primitives that register design decisions and conditions, from programmatic analysis to facilities management. They also provide the input and accommodate the output of most design analyses, which generally refer to properties of spaces and building elements and relationships between them (Hartog, Koutamanis, and Luscuere 2000; Koutamanis 2001; Mitossi and Koutamanis 1998).

The significance of the representation for the accuracy, precision and reliability of design, construction and management processes presupposes that the grammatical and syntactic quality of the representation can be controlled and verified (Koutamanis and Mitossi 2000a). Such quality refers to objective fundamental criteria that derive from formal aspects. These can be identified in the geometry and topology of spaces and building elements. Functional aspects (i.e. relating activities accommodated in the geometry and topology of a design) also take into account semantics. These are generally superimposed on the design as ad hoc activity patterns and specific requirements or as general reference frames. Consequently, they are implemented as annotations of the basic design representations. Annotations can be graphical (including links to external imagery) or alphanumerical (preferably by reference to coherent external databases), so as to describe important properties other than the geometry and location of a space or building element. In effect, the design representation is implemented against background information systems that provide specific project information, normative and analytical performance guidance, as well as relevant cases and precedent information. In this context, the representation can be used for:

1. Dynamic and direct analyses of designs in relation to performance measures and requirements 2. Correlation and comparison of distinct information sources, e.g. performance measured by both requirement satisfaction and cost 3. Integration of design documentation in the direction of virtual prototyping 4. Permanent communication of design information resulting in continuity in time and with respect to multiple abstraction levels

89 Such uses have been explored in research and practice with promising results as far as it concerns effectiveness, efficiency and transparency. Automation of analyses and controls, as well as of local generative systems (e.g. parametrization) suggest that the proposed approach is quite promising, both as a vehicle of academic research and as a practical instrument for design and management. However, these optimistic conclusions should not obscure the complexity and tenacity of a descriptive approach to design information management. The performance of the approach and its instruments relies on the extensive, careful collection and processing of data, on correlation with extensive corpora of domain knowledge (that seldom are explicit) and analytical consideration of local conditions and effects so as to take into account all relevant aspects. Consequently, the proposed approach is in its current stage of development labour-intensive and time-consuming. The results usually justify the investment of time and effort, especially when the problems considered are complex and beyond the scope of conventional techniques or standard professional knowledge.

Wider application of the principles underlying the approach presupposes two main improvements in the current implementation context. The first is a higher level of computational instruments and especially the computational implementation of design representations. The simple geometric primitives used to represent spaces and building elements in current CAD are insufficient for capturing the design rationale behind the form of an entity and the possibilities that arise from it. Also the implementation of relationships remains a thorny problem in digital design representations.

The second improvement is the emergence of information management as a distinct specialization within architectural design. The current generalist tendencies in both architecture and management impede the development of new methods and techniques that derive jointly from architecture, management and informatization. The transition from prescriptive applications of borrowed concepts to new domain knowledge and technology presupposes trained specialists who are capable of not only transferring innovation to architecture but also of identifying the true reasons for doing so.

REFERENCES

Castells, Manuel (1996) The rise of the network society. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell. Chiu, Mao-Lin, and Shige Yamaguchi 2001. Supporting collaborative design studios - scenarios and tools. In CAADRIA 2001, edited by J. S. Gero, S. Chase and M. Rosenman. Sydney. Collins, Peter (1965) Changing ideals in modern architecture. London: Faber & Faber. Colquhoun, Alan (1981) Essays in architectural criticism. Modern architecture and historical change. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Eastman, Charles M., ed. (1975) Spatial synthesis in computer-aided building design. London: Applied Science. Evans, Robin (1995) The projective cast. Architecture and its three geometries. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Gross, M.D. (1995) Indexing visual databases of designs with diagrams. In Visual databases in architecture. Recent advances in design and decision making. edited by A. Koutamanis, H. Timmermans and I. Vermeulen. Aldershot: Avebury. Hartog, J.P. den, A. Koutamanis, and P.G. Luscuere (1998) Simulation and evaluation of environmental aspects throughout the design process. In 4th Design and Decision Support Systems in Architecture and Urban Planning Conference. Eindhoven.

90 Hartog, J.P. den, and Alexander Koutamanis (2000) Teaching design simulation. In Promise and reality., edited by D. Donath. Weimar: eCAADe & Bauhaus-Universität Weimar. Hartog, J.P. den, Alexander Koutamanis, and P.G. Luscuere (2000) Possibilities and limitations of CFD simulation for indoor climate analysis. In Design and decision support systems in architecture. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference. Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of Technology. Koutamanis, Alexander (1993) Preliminary notes on abstraction. In Advanced technologies. Architecture, planning, civil engineering. edited by M. R. Beheshti and K. Zreik. Amsterdam: Elsevier. ——— (1995) Recognition and retrieval in visual architectural databases. In Visual databases in architecture. Recent advances in design and decision making. edited by A. Koutamanis, H. Timmermans and I. Vermeulen. Aldershot: Avebury. ——— (1997) Multilevel representation of architectural designs. In Design and the net. edited by R. Coyne, M. Ramscar, J. Lee and K. Zreik. Paris: Europia Productions. ——— (1999) Designing with the computer: the influence of design practice and research. In Computers in design studio teaching. edited by H. Neuckermans and B. Geebelen. Leuven: KU Leuven. ——— (2000a) Digital architectural visualization. Automation in Construction 9 (4):347-360. ——— (2000b) Recognition of spatial grouping in rectangular arrangements. In Design and decision support systems in architecture. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference. Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of Technology. ——— (2000c) Representations from generative systems. In Artificial Intelligence in Design '00. edited by J. S. Gero. Dordrecht: Kluwer. ——— (2001) Analysis and the descriptive approach. In AVOCAAD: Third International Conference. edited by K. Nys, T. Provoost, J. Verbeke and J. Verleye. Brussels: Hogeschool voor Wetenschap en Kunst, Departement Architecture Sint-Lucas. Koutamanis, Alexander, and Vicky Mitossi (2000a) Grammatical and syntactic properties of CAAD representations for the early design stages. In Design and decision support systems in architecture. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference. Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of Technology. ——— (2000b) On representation. Design Systems Reports 2000 (1):74-82. Leusen, Marc van, and Vicky Mitossi. 1998. A practical experiment in representation and analysis of buildings. In 4th Design and Decision Support Systems in Architecture and Urban Planning Conference. Eindhoven. Lopes, Dominic (1996) Understanding pictures. Oxford: Clarendon. Mahdavi, Ardeshir, Rohini Brahme, Stephen Lee, and Christie Mertz (2001) Towards 'self- aware' buildings. In Advances in building informatics. edited by R. Beheshti. Paris: Europia Productions. Mahdavi, Ardeshir, Paul Mathew, Satish Kumar, and Nyuk-Hien Wong (1997) Bi-directional computational design support in the SEMPER environment. Automation in Construction 6:353-373. Marr, D. (1982) Computer vision. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman. Maver, T. (1987) Software tools for the technical evaluation of design alternatives. In CAAD Futures '87. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Computer-aided Architectural Design Futures. edited by T. Maver and H. Wagter. Amsterdan: Elsevier. Mitchell, W.J. (1990) The logic of architecture: Design, computation and cognition. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Mitossi, Vicky, and Alexander Koutamanis (1998) Spatial representations as the basis of formal and functional analysis. In 4th Design and Decision Support Systems in Architecture and Urban Planning Conference. Eindhoven.

91 Morozumi, Mitsuo, Riken Homma, Yasuhiro Shounai, Shigeyuki Yamaguchi, and Norihiro Kawasumi (2001) Web-based collaborative design studio: tools and programs. In CAADRIA 2001, edited by J. S. Gero, S. Chase and M. Rosenman. Sydney. Negroponte, N. (1995) Being digital. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Nys, Koenraad, Tom Provoost, Johan Verbeke, and Johan Verleye, eds. (2001) AVOCAAD 3rd International Conference. Brussels: Hogeschool voor Wetenschap en Kunst. Ozel, Filiz (2000) Architectural knwoledge and database management systems. In Promise and reality. edited by D. Donath. Weimar: eCAADe & Bauhaus-Universität Weimar. Schmitt, Gerhard (1993) Architectura et machina. Wiesbaden: Vieweg. Schmitt, Gerhard (1999) Information architecture: basis and future of CAAD. Basel: Birkhäuser. Stäger, Benjamin, and Maya Engeli (2001) Information technology for virtual enterprises: meta-visualisations of document-structures. In Advances in building informatics. edited by R. Beheshti. Paris: Europia Productions. Summerson, John (1980) The classical language of architecture. rev. ed. London: Thames and Hudson. Van Sommers, Peter (1984) Drawing and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Warszawski, Abraham (1990) Industrialization and robotics in building. New York: Harper & Row.

92 A COMPARISON OF THE ESTIMATED AND EFFECTIVE CASH FLOW FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN METHODOLOGY

TAMER OZDEMIR AND SOOFIA TAHIRA ELIAS-OZKAN

Middle East Technical University, Department of Architecture, Turkiye

Abstract: Although public construction projects hold an important place in the construction sector in Turkey, only a small number of them are completed before their deadlines, and an even smaller number are completed within the estimated budget. Consequently, a constant revision in scheduling is required throughout the execution of the projects. This situation creates many problems for both the owner and the builder.

This study focuses on the appraisal of the differences between the estimated and the actual cash flow in public works, and the possible reasons for such discrepancies by analysing data gathered from a recent large and prestigious public works project in Turkey. Furthermore, the role and influence of all the parties concerned on these discrepancies, as well as the architect’s contribution in solving the problems, which occurred due to revisions in the, are investigated.

It was discovered that the cost estimates for conventional buildings were closer to the final cost of construction. However, costing for hi-tech construction works was far from predictive; this may be due to a lack of knowledge about the new materials and detailing of such works. Due to time constraints, the designers were not able to research the application of such materials/details in similar buildings elsewhere. A lack of information about the existing topography and soil conditions, along with an absence of a detailed design brief were also cause for revisions and changes in the project.

Keywords: Estimated costs, progress payments, role of architects, design brief, discrepancies in initial and final costing.

INTRODUCTION

The difference between estimated and actual cash flow is an expected and accepted norm in the Turkish building industry. This difference does not occur merely due to frequent price hikes and high rates of inflation in the country, since all estimated costs and actual payments are calculated on the basis of construction rates announced bi-annually by the Ministry of Works, but also due to insufficient information. Although, most large construction projects are initiated by state-owned agencies, contrary to expectations this difference is even greater, in spite of a greater control over the various phases of design and construction activities.

Undoubtedly, not all clients are familiar with the design and construction processes of a building project. Nevertheless, it is expected that the more knowledgeable and educated the client, the more comprehensive the design brief would be. Consequently, the design itself and,

93 hence, the bill of quantities (BOQ) will be more precise, leading to a pretty accurate estimated cost. This is not so in reality. In spite of the fact that all government agencies have a building control department that is staffed with qualified people to oversee any building construction or renovation project the agency may undertake, public works projects also end up with vast differences between the initial cost estimates and the final bill of payments.

This study appraises the revisions and errors in the estimated budget during the construction phase of public works projects and searches for reasons behind these changes. The public works project selected as a case study was a part of a greater project in Istanbul. This unique and very important project aimed at establishing an integrated dynamic scientific, technological and educational infrastructure for economic development, in conjunction with a free trade zone and a new airport. Moreover, it was to establish an exemplary model in terms of master-planning, landscaping, architecture and design, suitable to attract necessary resources for the development and success of the technopark. The project’s target was to set up a national strategic and dynamic infrastructure in 16 years consisting of 8 phases, which would meet the advanced technological requirements of the Turkish industry.

The Master Plan and feasibility studies of the project were prepared in 1992, by a specialised group of designers from Ireland, who were highly experienced in the establishment of technoparks. According to the master plan, four main units were to be built on an area of 13 km2 to form a centre of excellence with their synergy. These units were as follows:

1. An international airport was planned in two phases in accordance with air traffic requirements in Istanbul in the next 20 years. It was envisaged that the capacity would be 3 million passengers per year in the first phase, and would be updated to 10 million passengers per year in the second phase.

2. A technological park with free-trade zone status was to be established, featuring the national strategic co-operation of education, science and industry.

3. A social and commercial zone with a high standard of dwelling units, recreational facilities, commercial and professional service buildings, convention and exhibition centres etc. was planned to satisfy all the requirements of the technocrats.

4. A university and Advanced Technology Institute was planned to provide the needed qualified manpower in the technopark.

The first unit of the technopark, i.e. the airport, was to be built in the first instance. This unit was selected as our case study regarding public works projects.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Information related to the case study was collected from the government agencies that were assigned the responsibility of overseeing the project and of executing it; and the four consortiums building the project. In order to gather data about the changes and revisions in the project, additional works, and the reasons for the aforementioned, interviews were conducted with the architects and engineers from the two government agencies and the contractors consortiums that were working on the site and at the head-office. Precise and detailed information about the design was obtained from the head office and the construction site in Istanbul was visited several times to make pertinent observations.

94

During the survey, some professional documents and the State Bidding Law were investigated, in order to determine the format and the procedure used in the construction sector in Turkey. The bidding and contract documents and the bills of quantities for the project, which were obtained from the public works department (PWD), were also examined to gain an insight into the methods and procedures used in the execution of the public works construction projects.

Cost estimates and cash flow tables of the four consortiums, for their respective parts of airport construction project, were studied and a general picture of the differences between the estimated and final costs was brought to light. In order to make a strict comparison, the effects of the economical situation and high inflation rates had to be excluded; therefore, net quantities without escalations and taxes were compared. Only then could the reasons behind the discrepancies be examined without any bias.

FINDINGS

The department in charge of overseeing the project was not specialised in construction and, hence, was not capable of managing a project of such complexity. In order to carry out the project, another experienced government agency had to be assigned the responsibility of designing, organising and building the first part of the project.

Design Phase of the Airport Project After the selection of architectural and engineering consulting firms for the preparation of the infrastructure projects and the supervision of the construction work, the studies for the design of the airport facilities started in 1997. Following the completion of the infrastructure projects, the construction started in 1998. In order to achieve fast tracking of the project and savings in time and money, the construction work of the infrastructure project of the airport was divided into two divisions, and two separate building consortiums were awarded the job.

The bids for the architectural and engineering projects of the airport super-structure and other facilities were opened in March 1999.The selected consortium had to prepare the projects in accordance with the international civil aviation regulations and standards, within 90 days from the award of the contract. The consortium subcontracted the architectural design of the airport and the other service buildings to a large and well-known architectural firm of Turkey. The working drawings were completed and approved by the administration in July 1999. The time for the design phase of the project was very limited for the preparation of all necessary detailed drawings, hence, these were produced later during the construction phase, until 2000.

Although, during the design stage the management structure of the airport was unclear, it was expected that it would be managed by Devlet Hava Meydanları İşletmesi Genel Müdürlüğü (DHMI – General Directorate of Airport Management). Therefore, the architectural consultants gathered information for the design brief from DHMI and Demiryollar, Limanlar ve Havaalanları Inşaatı Genel Müdürlüğü (DLHI – General Directorate of Railways, Harbour and Airport Construction). These agencies are the state authorities for airport management and airport construction, respectively.

Construction Phase of the Airport Project After completion of the architectural and engineering working drawings, the construction job was tendered out in four groups, according to the different types of facilities requiring

95 different construction expertise. The contract was a unit-price contract, but since the construction of an airport requires many special construction techniques and materials, most of the unit prices were special prices different from the unit-price list published by the Ministry of Public Works. Moreover, since all the detailed projects were not ready at the time of bidding, a unit-price type of contract with monthly price escalations was selected for the construction works. This situation was the cause of many changes during the construction process, and the necessity for additional works. The detailed drawings were prepared with the help of the contractors and manufacturers during the construction phase.

Four consortiums of contractors were awarded the contracts for the four separate groups of construction works, in June 1999. These contractors were selected from amongst the largest and most experienced construction firms in Turkey, who had been able to satisfy the pre- qualification criteria.

A B C D

Figure 1. Initial estimates for each Consortium shown as part of the whole project

The contract duration was 365 days from the start of the contract time. The four consortiums had submitted their estimated work progress and payment schedules with their bids. However, when the requests for advance payments were made, the schedules had to be revised in detail.

An office was established on the construction site by the government and the engineering and architectural consultants, to take care of the problems that might occur during the construction phase. Hence, the construction works could be supervised and monitored continually and drawings for the changes in plans and required details could be produced on the construction site.

The airport management firm was established by the government agency in the last quarter of 1999. The technical staff of the said firm inspected all the architectural and engineering projects and specifications for the under-construction airport. They reported on various details of the construction that did not comply with the international civil aviation standards. The reports also indicated numerous design errors, which could result in lowering the category of the airport according to international standards. The airport managers also proposed improvements in the project, in terms of aesthetics, safety and comfort.

On May 02, 2000, due to these reports and some other technical difficulties, such as additional works because of unexpected topographic conditions and revisions in detailed projects, an increase in the estimated work and cost occurred. While, additional works were also assigned to the contractors in compliance with the proposed improvements requested by the airport management. Thus, the deadline was extended from July 2000 to September 30, 2000. Consequently, second estimates had to be prepared for the construction works and an increase of 33.65 % in the total work was accepted. Since this estimate was prepared in a very limited time, a detailed quantity survey could not be prepared for most of the extra works.

96 Therefore, a detailed and revised second estimate was prepared later, with an increase of 33.72 %.

This process was followed by other additional works assigned to the contractors due to further requirements stipulated by the airport managers, in August 2000, and the completion date was extended to 25 October 2000. Consequently, third estimates including subsequent extra works were prepared and approved by the owner. Hence, a total increase of 53.94% over the initial contract prices occurred; 36.33% of the increase was due to additional requirements while 17.61% was due to the increases in initial measurements.

In addition to these changes, in October 2000 some other changes in the constructed facilities and additional construction works were needed. Estimates were prepared for these works and an additional budget of 1 trillion TL was approved. The total payments have been derived from addition of progress payments, since the final BOQ had not been prepared at the time this paper was being prepared. The tabulated comparison of effective payments and revised estimates prepared during the construction with initial estimates is shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Percentages of increases in revised estimated costs and costs of additional works compared to initial estimates nd Building 2nd. Revised2 3rd 3rd. Revisions Additional Effecti ve Consortium Es ti m ate Es ti m ate Es ti m ate Es ti m ate + in 3rd. works Payments Additional estimate works A 27.59 % 28.40 % 34.32 % 37.48 % 11.41 % 26.08 % 40.92 % B 47.47 % 49.30 % 115.16 % 115.16 % 23.54 % 91.61 % 114.96 % C 28.24 % 27.52 % 46.49 % 46.49 % 21.75 % 24.74 % 47.52 % D 41.36 % 39.26 % 57.82 % 57.82 % 22.91 % 34.90 % 54.46 % Totals 33.65 % 33.72 % 53.94 % 55.37 % 17.61 % 37.75 % 56.37 %

97 Difference Between the Estimated and Effective Cash Flow It is obvious that the economical problems of a country have an important role in the inevitable revisions of the cash flow schedules. However, there are other factors that create the discrepancies between the estimated and effective costs of public works. In order to appraise these important parameters affecting the cash flow schedules, net payments without escalation and VAT were calculated from the bills of payment of each of the building consortiums. Hence, net payments predicted in initial estimates are compared with net effective payments per month.

Cumulative Net Payments Made to Consortium 'A'

Costs inBillionTurkish CostsLira 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 Estimates 40,000 Effective 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Aug. 99 Nov. 99 Feb. 00 36647 Aug.00 Nov. 00 Time in Months

The main factor that caused the changes was the increase in quantities and extra works required during the construction period. As stated earlier, time for the design phase of the project was very limited because of certain administrative and political constraints. Consequently, at the time of bidding, the quantity surveys were prepared only according the plans and specifications made available to the building consortiums and many other factors that could affect the cost of construction had to be omitted. Later on, detailed projects were produced in co-ordination with the manufacturer firms during the construction work.

Cumulative Net Payments Made to Consortium 'B' Costs inBillion CostsLirasTurkish 25,000

20,000

15,000 Estimates 10,000 Effective

5,000

0

Aug. 99 Oct. 99 Dec. 99 Feb. 00 Apr. 00 Jun.00 Aug.00 Oct. 00 Time (Month)

98 In addition, some construction changes were made due to the architects’ and engineers’ recommendations, higher standard of performance than those specified and impossibility or impracticality of specifications. Moreover, some additional precautions had to be taken during the acceleration of the work on the instructions of the administration. Consequently, the BOQ was increased and estimates had to be revised.

Cumuative Net Payments Made to Consortium 'C'

Costs inCosts Billion Turkish 25,000

20,000 Lira 15,000 Estimates Effective 10,000

5,000

0

Jun.00 Aug. 99 Oct. 99 Dec. 99 Feb. 00 Apr. 00 Aug.00 Oct. 00 Dec. 00 Time (M onth)

Another factor that creates changes in cost estimates is the change in unit prices due to revised detail drawings. Most of these changes were made on the request of the contractor because of technical difficulties in the construction. A smaller portion of the changes was due to the errors and omissions in plans and specifications.

Cumulative Net Payments Made to Consortium 'D'

40,000 Costs in Billion Turkish Liras TurkishinBillion Costs 35,000 30,000 25,000 Estimates 20,000 Effective 15,000 10,000 5,000 0

Aug. 99 Oct. 99 Dec. 99 Feb. 00 Apr. 00 Jun.00 Aug.00 Oct. 00 Time (Month)

In addition to increases in quantities and project revisions, a greater increase in the quantities occurred due to the extra work given to contractors. Some of this extra work was requested by

99 the airport managers in order to comply with the aviation standards and consisted of a domestic flights terminal building, cargo building extension, additional road construction, additional fence construction for security reasons. Other extra work had to be done due to various site work which was not specified in the contract and specifications, such as changing the course of the river, and additional drainage systems for roads and landscaping. Some part of the extra work became necessary because of technical difficulties and drawbacks in the engineering projects, such as displacement of some devices related to aviation. Finally, the owner, due to the demands and pressures of other governmental and military organisations stipulated some extra work.

The raison d’etre for the additional works is presented in terms of percentages, in Figure 2. Compared to the total cost of extra works, 5.26 % of these works were initiated due to technical difficulties, 6.38 % due to changed site conditions, 7.91 % due to the demands of the owner and 80.44 % were executed due to the requirements of the airport managers.

Differing Site Conditions %6,38 Technical Difficulties Owner Requirement %5,26 %7,91

User Requirement %80,44

Figure 2. The percentages of initiation reasons of the extra works

Another important issue, which had an important effect on the project operations and cash flow, was the scheduling changes. Scheduling changes and delays are the most prevalent problem on construction projects. In this case, the affect of severe weather conditions, which decelerated the work starting from December 1999 and continued in the first four months of 2000, can be observed from the Monthly Net Payments of each contractor group.

Other than the weather conditions, in the airport project, typical types of delays related to the conditions caused by the owner or the contractors stated previously were observed. Interference with the contractors during construction, design changes, variation in estimated quantities and extra works created owner-caused schedule changes, while late procurement of materials, subcontractor delays, late responses to owner and architect/engineer inquiries and constructions not conforming to contract requirements created contractor-caused changes. In addition, conflicts and negative effects of the four contractor firms working on the same construction site prevented some of the works from being done according o schedule. For example, landscape works could not be finished until the other constructions were completed because of the vehicles working on site and transportation problems.

100 CONCLUSION

The procedure for developing a design brief and the time allocated for the same play a vital role in the costing and scheduling of a project. In large-scale public, or even private, construction projects, the designer must have all the relevant input needed to make the most accurate decisions during the preliminary-design stage of the project. The needs and requirements of both the user and the owner play an important role. This process of data collection and working with experts of other disciplines, mainly, the planners, engineers, construction managers and quantity surveyors, is very crucial for the planning and execution phase of the project.

The decisions taken during the design of an architectural project have considerable effect on the time and cost planning of the project, therefore, the architect is held responsible for any and all errors and delays that might occur because of inaccurate design decisions. Consequently, changes in the project and, hence, the estimated costs due to the tentativeness of design, scheduling and construction phases of the project must be avoided as much as possible, in order to complete the project within the budgeted resources. Cash flow between the owner and the contractor is very important for both parties as it directly affects the progress of construction works. This cash flow is scheduled on the basis of cost estimates. However, estimates are inevitably subject to error since they are mere predictions, but the main rationale is to minimise the revisions and errors in these estimates. The most effective way to prevent changes in a project and, consequently, the cost estimates is to have detailed and carefully prepared scope of work, plans and specifications. It may be noted here that once the project is under-construction, any changes can be extremely expensive in terms of time and actual costs. In the case of the airport project, the client required changes in the project and construction of additional facilities, therefore, extra work had to be given out to the contractors on May 02, 2000; August 18, 2000 and October 25, 2000.

101 APPENDIX:

Table A: Initial, revised and final estimates for each consortium undertaking the construction of the Airport project according to the 1999 rates.

Type of Works Consortium A Consortium B Consortium C Consortium D Specialized *Terminal *Technical Block, Building Building Tower Construction *Air Traffic and *Meteorology and Co mmunicat ion Administrative Systems Building Conventi al *Main Checkpoint *Official *Police Security Building Building Dwelling Units Building Construction * Hostel Building (100 m2) *Customs Office * Security *Official Building Building Dwelling Units *Apron Entrance *Health and First- (150 m2) Checkpoint aid Building *Service Building Building for the Co mpanies *Fire-Brigade Building Hangars / *Cargo Building *Waste Collection *Water Supply, Sheds / *Open Shed Facility Storage and Workshops Structure of *Vehicle Distribution Service Bu ild ing Maintenance Installations for the Co mpanies Workshop *Liquid fuel nd *Open Shed Facilities (2 Structure of Part) Customs Building Electrical / *Power *Waste Water Mechanical Distribution and Filter Plant Plants Reduction *Heating Plant Transformers *Liquid fuel st *Diesel Generator Facilities (1 Part) Groups Infrastructure *Telephone *Site Drainage *Installation Installations on Works Galleries whole site *Natural gas installations on whole site Landscaping *Landscaping *Security Fences Works Internal Roads and Parking Areas *Lighting Installations on the whole site

102 DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT; ON THE MANAGEMENT OF VALUE IN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN.

DR. IR. M. PRINS, DR. J. L. HEINTZ, IR. J. VERCOUTEREN

Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Architecture, The Netherlands

Abstract: The increasing complexity of buildings and processes to design and to construct them, in functional, technical, organizational and legal ways, has caused an increase in the variety and number of building design specialists. This increasing complexity of buildings, building processes and number of design specialists reinforces the need to manage design processes for buildings in a more efficient and goal-oriented way. Design management is a function oriented toward strategic design, -proces- layout and steering of the design of buildings. This paper is about the development, definition and meaning of design management.

Keywords: Architecture, architectural design, design management, and architectural values.

INTRODUCTION

Currently the design of buildings is not the exclusive job of the architect by him- or herself. A complex building design demands as a rule, the effort of other experts. In this case one can name among others consultants in the fields of urban development, architecture, structural mechanical and electrical engineering, and buildng physics. Depending on the type of building and the organization of the project, all these experts play various rolls during the design- and construction phase.

The commitment of a large number of participants in the design process makes it necessary to make good mutual agreements in advance. In particular, there is a need for agreements over the responsibilities and contributions of all the participants. This is also important from a juridical point of view, as new regulations determine the liabilities of the design team participators for the required quality of buildings more than in the past. There is also a need for agreement on the manner of management of the design process. During the execution of the design process all activities need to be coordinated with one another with regard to the relationships between design activities, progress, quality, throughputtime, costs of the design process and the building itself.

Before starting an architectural design process, a proper process design has to be provided. There is also a need for steering during the execution of the design process. The strategic modelling, layout and steering of architectural design processes, is called design management. The management of architectural design processes is traditionally a comparatively indefinite and vaguely formulated responsibility of the architect. Only recently is design management developing into a better-defined discipline both as a field of science and as a practical tool of management.

103 Chapter two of this paper goes more deeply into the emergence and the function of design management in building practice. In chapter three, a suitable definition of management is elaborated. Special requirements are specified for the design management function, because of: • The properties of buildings; • The character and ambition of the team participators; • The nature of architectural design processes.

These are the issues of respectively the chapters four, five and six.

BUILDING PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT

The increasing functional and technical complexity of buildings caused an increasing organizational and juridical complexity with respect to the content of architectural design processes. Thus, as has been stated, attention to the manageability of design processes becomes essential. Other causes of the increasing complexity of design processes and the rise of design management are (Prins, 1997): • The separation between client, owner and occupant, which is becoming more common, due to the fact that many clients place the accommodation of their company outside of their core business; • The change from a supply driven towards a demand driven building market; • An increasing demand for technologically innovative and sustainable buildings; • An increasing attention for the so-called 'soft' values of a building (ethics, culture, aesthetics, social value).

This paper will next examine the most important developments in the building market, with respect to the rise of building project management in general and of design management in particular. In addition the differences between building project management and design management will be discussed.

The Housing Cycle From the Renaissance onwards, participants in building processes were classically divided into three rolls: • Clients; • Designers; • Builders.

The members of this triad are respobsinle for the three main phases in the building process, repsectively:

• Initiative and Brief; • Design and Preparation; • Construction and Completion.

As fourth main phase one can add ‘Use and Administration’ (facility management). During this phase a difference can arise between the available accommodation (the supply of housing services) and the demand for housing services. At that moment the process of renovation or rebuilding can start again. Because of this, the process as a whole has a cyclical nature. In this context it is more correct to use the term housing cycle instead of building process as the second has a more limited, once-only sense (Figure 1).

104 INITIATIVE DESIGN CONSTRUCTION USE BRIEF ENGINEERING COMPLETION ADMINISTRATION

Figure 1. The Housing Cycle

Initiative, Brief and Use, Administration Formerly in most cases there was a certain integration of client, owner and occupant. Now client, owner and occupant are often separate parties. Besides incidental clients, there are professional clients with separate organisations for real estate development and administration. Furthermore there are housing associations, developers and investors who are more or less engaged in speculative building. At the moment the building process starts, the eventual occupant or owner is not always known in these cases. More and more companies prefer not to develop their accommodation as property. They prefer to rent or to lease. Currently these developments cause clients to seek advisors and consultants for the administration of their housing and building processes. Such consultants may include consultants for housing, facility management, project management, and organisation consultancies.

Design and Preparation As has been stated the functional and technical complexity of buildings led to an increasing number of disciplines responsible for parts of the design as a whole. These include architects, structural engineers, HVAC engineers, and quantity surveyors. Dependent on the structure chosen for working together to design the building, and the position and duties of the architect, these participants in the design team are described as 'advisors' or 'designers'. However to a certain extent this last statement reflects an ideological discussion. Basically the architect is responsible to integrate all the different designs and advises on parts of the complete complex into the total plan. Traditionally the architect is also responsible for coordination during the design process. The client or the building manager, under the authority of and on behalf of the client, sometimes undertakes this task. It is still rare that a separate design manager is called in.

Construction and completion There is also a growing number of specialists involved during the construction phase of buildings. On the one side one can think on supliers of materials, semi- manufactured articles, and wether or not one-off manufactured building components. On the other side, specialised suppliers of labour and equipment for production, manufacture and assembly on the site are contracted. Usually the general building contractor designs, coordinates and administrate the construction processs. The architect usually has a supervising roll in this phase. However this roll is diminishing, although there are variations in practice between countries.

Building Project Management Given the above sketch of the housing cycle one can conclude that separate management functions can be defined for all the main phases. In current Dutch building practice, a distinction can be made between –integrated- building project management, and expert management functions. Integrated building project management is an all-party management, executed by or in the name of the client, and directed to several phases of the housing cycle. The expert management functions for the most part, are applicable for just individual phases

105 of the housing cycle. However mostly a certain overlap is to be observed with the adjacent phases. The expert management functions are sometimes done by participants engaged by other parties Figure 2 shows the housing cycle indicating the different functions in building project management.

BUILDING PROJECT MANAGEMENT

FACILITIES & REAL ESTATE DESIGN CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT

INITIATIVE DESIGN CONSTRUCTION USE BRIEF ENGINEERING COMPLETION ADMINISTRATION

Figure 2. The Housing Cycle and Building Project Management

In practice a certain blurring of rolls can be observed. There are, for instance, parties offering in addition to their core activities integrated services in project management for important parts of the housing cycle. Some larger building contractors have architectural services of their own (sometimes a bit fuzzy indicated like 'building engineering development department'). In the initiative- and briefing phase of building projects, sometimes facility managers claim to be consultants on housing. Consultants on building costs offer integrated services in construction management. Some larger architectural firms have core technical expertise in structural mechanical, electrical engineering, and/or in building physics (so called integrated or full service firms).

Over the last few decennia the above mentioned developments in the building process also altered the duties of the architect and reduced them to a certain extent. This happened relatively quietly when one looks to the increase in the number of technical advisors, which entered the market. Among architects the rise of the diverse management consultants has caused some distress. On one hand this is understandable as the traditional roll of the architect/master-builder is brought into discussion. On the other, this is surprising as the knowledge and skills of management are only briefly and marginally part of the education and expertise of architects. In any case, the rise of management has divided the world of architects into two camps: emphatically declared supporters and opponents.

Design Management The simplest definition of design management is that it comprises all management activities in the design phase of a building project. In practice this means that design management is a part of –integrated- building project management. Usually building project management implies that the management function is executed as delegated clientship. More precisely design management can be defined as the management function of design processes in a design project as far as this is executed by the design consultants or - contractors. In this last case, the design management function corresponds to the traditional coordination duties of the architect.

106 Finally the design management function can be seen in the context of a design project within a design organisation. In this case there are both project management on a design bureau and self-controlling of individual designers.

So the design management function finds itself on a sliding scale. It starts with the self- management of individual designers and ends as part of the management of the total project through integrated building project management.

In the framework of the integrated management of time, money and quality, design management is especially focused on facilitation of creation of architectural value (in the broadest sense). This extends from the thorough understanding of the clients' and occupants' needs to a sense of social and cultural responsibility. This is fed by domain knowledge about architecture, technique, design and management (see also 'Rules of Conduct of the Royal Institute of Dutch Architects; BNA, 2001). Design management is distinguised from regular management functions by its emphasis on the coordination and facilitation of –design- processes. Steering on values preceeds steering of risks and traditional administrative factors as time, money and quality. Teambuilding, leadership, the creation of commitment and shared values, and steering on outputs are more important than the specification of activities. Coordination and integration of design information is more important than from an hierarchical position, enforcing production within strict narrowed preconditions.

Sometimes in practice design and management are experienced to be in conflict. This to a certain extend is a consequence of a cultural turn-around in the building practice, where the duties of the architect more pointedly are defined as primarily concerned with the creation of cultural values, and functionality and technique are seen as of lesser concern for the architectural designer. Probably this is also the reason why there is not yet an accepted contemporary knowledge base concerning how to organize or manage architectural design processes either in terms of research, or of practical experience. However the above- mentioned developments make the need for more explicit design management even clearer.

MANAGEMENT

Professional management is relatively young and is to be dated from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. It is remarkable that there is a great deal of confusion about how to define management. Even there is a reasonable amount of literature to be found in this field, but after gaining an understanding of this, one may often still be left uncertain of proper definitions.

In early management literature, optimisation regarding relatively mechanistically interpreted production processes is highlighted: delegation of tasks and control of activities (Taylor) are major points. A more recent trend is concerned with motivation and human potential. Later these approaches are united in so-called 'Total Quality Management' concepts. The most recent literature employs a variety of approaches. These vary from 'Chaos Theory' to all kinds of 'New Age' variants focussed on the individual (Neuro-Linguistical Programming, Emotional Intelligence, etc.).

Also because of a lack of decent definitions, concepts in building project management are justified relatively poorly. In time management, for example, one is mostly concerned with the duration of building processes and rarely or not at all with the temporal qualities of the

107 building. In cost management the focus is on construction cost and, hardly or not at all on maintenance and life cycle costs of the building. In reasoning about the housing cycle as mentioned in chapter 2, the management of building projects needs to acknowledge the differences between the building as an object on its own, the design process, the construction process, and the use process. (Figure 3).

BUILDING- DESIGN CONSTRUCTION USE OBJECT PROCESS PROCESS PROCESS

TIME Tb Td! Tc Tu

COST Cb Cd Cc Cu

QUALITY Qb Qd Qc Qu

Figure 3. Different Ranges of Application for the Managerial Function in the Housing Cycle

Definitions In this context the following definitions of management are used:

Management Management is a process, executed by a temporarily or during organisation, of working with and through others. Management is focussed on specifying, taking and executing decisions related to optimal tuning between the wished aims to be realised and the efficient and effective use of needed means via the functions of setting up a strategy, -process- layout and steering.

Means Means are all kinds of material and immaterial issues, available for use by organisations to realise aims. For example, time, authority, knowledge, information, human resources, instruments, equipment, and possessings like materials, ground and money.

Setting up a strategy Setting up a strategy is a management function primarily focussed on the specification of aims of an organisation, and the determination on mainlines of how to realise these in terms of layout and steering.

-Process - Layout Lay out is the actual design of the process, making an organisation ready to realise strategically formulated aims. One can determine the next activities: phasing and planning, organising, staffing, developing and selecting (of appropiate knowledge, instruments, procedures, methods, techniques, norms and standards).

Steering Steering is a management function directed at facilitating and monitoring of the adequate use of the means at the disposal of an organisation. One can make distinctions between: communication, coordination, motivation, leadership, influencing, administration, and controlling.

108 The Cyclical Nature of Management Functions In the definitions given above one need to note that management is a cyclical process, alternating between the functions setting up a strategy, layout and steering a project, increasing in detail from global specifications to final and fully specified implementations.

DESIGN PROCESSES

The post-war period was characterized by much optimism, and scientific positivism. That led to a great deal of literature focussed on theoretical and methodical foundations of design processes. Well known authors in this field include: Ömer Akin, Christopher Alexander, Bruce Archer, Geoffry Broadbent, Nichel Cross, Bill Hillier, Christopher Jones, Brian Lawson, Adrian Leaman, Donald Schön, Herbert Simon, and Amos Rapoport. The impact on the practical experience of the building industry of all this scientific effort was however relatively modest. More recently, in particular in Japan, many more practical, design methods have been developed. For example: Quality Function Deployment (QFD), Design for Assembly (DFA), Failure Mode Effect Analysis (FMEA), Design Defect Analysis (DDA) and others (a survey is given by Roozenburg and Eekels, 1998; and Delhoofen, 1994). Although these methods were introduced in industry with more or less success, this is again less so within the building industry.

Those supporting a more systematic and methodical approach to the design process never became very popular in the professional design community. This with an appeal to the creative and artistic aspects of architectural design processes. This also accounts for the fact that the management of design processes is a relatively new topic. However, beyond others, the fact that architectural design is not a 'lonely act' of a master architect any more, raises concerns about the manageability of design processes.

According to Simon (1969) design problems are characterized by complexity and a certain lack of structure. Because of this the results of a design process are relatively open in a programmatically sense.

In almost all definitions of design the iterative and cyclical nature of design processes is generally highlighted. Boekholt, (2000) summarises alll these attempts in a definition in which one can make a distinction between the following four basic elementary design activities:

• Analysing the problem (defining a problem state and objectives); • Setting the basis for the design (brief / formulating design constraints and criteria); • Generating design variants and solutions (synthesis); • Evaluating design solutions. (by defining new inputs for the problem state and objectives).

Notwithstanding differences in terminology, the above given definitions for design activities generally fullfil most of the definitions given in the literature. Boekholt (2000), and Voordt & Wegen (2000) give more detailed surveys.

Boekholt (op. cit.) defines this set of design activities as the so-called 'elementary working cycle', recognizable on various levels and phases in the design process. Although in the science of design there is consensus over this classification, practice is often more obstinate.

109 The various activities in the design process seem hard to distinguish formally. There are differences in approach among disciplines and designers. Sometimes the accent is on analysis and determination of design constraints in other cases on generating and (implicit) evaluation. During the design process in general (Boekholt, op. cit.) there seems to be a moving accent on the various elementary design activities coming up (see figure 4).

Analyse Determine Generate alternative Evaluate objectives design criteria solutions design solutions Time

Determination of a Presentation final housing problem architectural design

Figure 4. Moving Accents During the Design Process on Elementary Design Activities

Figure 5, borrowed from Gray and Hughes (2001), illustrates a good description of the cyclical nature of design processes and the complex interrelation of the activities inside.

INTERPRETATION CHOICE 1. What's the type of problem? 3 2 3 2 1. Which are the pressures acting on 2. How these problems can be tackled? a decision? 3. Which approach is most accurate? 2. Which are the different ways of 4. Who can provide valuable advise? responding to these? 3. Which ways will be most effective? 4. What can be done/decided first? 4 1 4 1

A: PROBLEM A B B: DECISIONS ON DEFINITION ACTION AND POLICY

D: RANGE OF ALTER- NATIVE SOLUTIONS C: COMPARISONS AND D C REFERENCES

3 2 3 2 COMPARISON GENERATION 1. What's the nature of the different 1. What are the areas of choice? solutions? 2. What are the different type of solutions 2. Which evaluation methods and within? techniques are available? 3. Which of the solutions are feasible? 3. Which of these provide accurate 4. Which range of solutions can be 4 1 4 1 insight's? compared? 4. Are there any references which help to make a decision ? Figure 5. The cyclical nature of the design process

Concluding one might say that designers can not be managed by strict prescription of activities and process protocols. Experience has undoubtful shown this not to work in general. So in addition to motivation (identification with the values of an organisation/project) one has foremost to manage on results and outputs more than on activities (Dunietz, Prins and Boissevain 1999). However a certain understanding of work processes is essential for adequate management on outputs. At present, specialisation is growing among the various designing and consulting disciplines in the building industry. Each is to a certain extend still familiar with the other’s outputs but the different design processes themselves more and more are becoming 'black boxes'. This makes integration and tuning in the design phase difficult to achieve. Because of this, broad knowledge within the domain of building, skills in analysing design processes, and thorough understanding of designers are essential to design management.

110 DESIGNERS AND DESIGN ORANISATIONS

The way a design process is executed is not only dependent on the nature of the design task but also on the designer. To a certain extent every design is unique and the same is valid for design processes and designers.

Almost 80% of the British architects subscribe the necessity of proper management in a design project, according to a recent English survey (see Bradley & Cavanagh, 1994). However when confronted with the accepted project management techniques great opposition arises. Apparently the paradigmatic basis of these disciplines are not immediately compatible.

This chapter discusses a number of important characteristics of designers and design organisations.

Designers Relatively designers are solo working, creative, and intellectual professionals, having very own points of view and ways to approach a problem. Their work is part of a personal and often artistic expression. Many important architects claim to achieve a genuine improvement of the world with the help of a particular design doctrine. The quality of the resulting building is sometimes esteemed more prevalant than a controlled process in terms of budget and time. Every successful building project is a unique solution for a collection of relatively vaguely formulated problems. This solution corresponds with demands, needs, desires and dreams of an abundance of persons or parties directly or indirectly involved, the designer definitly included. Typically the problem definition itself is part of the design process (Allinson, 1997). These characteritics don't just combine with more or less relatively rigid, functional planning- and control-methods, set by a management function with sharply pointed destinctions of borderlines and authority.

Design firms Designers work in so-called ‘knowledge intensive organisations’. Knowledge intensive organisations are characterized by (Weggeman, 1997): • People are the most important assets; • These assets (i.e. knowledge workers) don't appear on the balance sheet; • They are vulnerable because the assets are mobile in principle, knowledge workers can easily switch between other organisations or start an office of their own; • The core activities cannot become computer-based; • One sees creativity and innovation as a panacea for many diseases; • Most important criteria for success vary from the financial results.

Mintzberg (1979) states that professionals in knowledge intensive organisations are not to be managed by laying down rules and procedures, of by using of information systems. Weggeman (1992, 1997) states the energy level of professionals is a function of the possibility to identify themselves with the values of an organisation/project.

Gray and Hughes (2001) point at an alternative characterisation of design firms in this respect. Most of the design departments have a relatively limited hierarchical structure. Sometimes the actual production process, the generating of design information, is on a level, directly positioned under the management of the office. This implies that one is producing on the working floor by high educated professionals, with a lot of responsibilities, able to operate on a high and independent level and being able to decide relatively autonomous.

111 Also the commitment of designers with the produced work is relatively high; so high that the will to quality of the design in some cases prevails over the need for return on investment in the business. According to the most recent comparative study of the Royal Institute of Dutch Architects (Masurel, 2000) approximately 50% of the smaller Dutch architectural offices (3 staff or less) run at a loss. Although this fact can have to a certain extend its explanation in the Dutch fiscal system for small businesses, it also illustrates the commitment of the architects to the content of their services.

As a last distinguishing mark of design organisations, one can point to the fact that, especially in smaller offices, management is often on a operational level directly involved with the primary business processes on the working floor.

The frequently rather vague organisational structures of design firms may be declared of the above and due to: • Lack of, and lack of interest in, formal rules and procedures; • Accent on motivation and commitment; • Relative autonomy of the individual designer; • The primacy of content above return on investment; • Relatively diffuse hierarchical stratification.

In larger design organisations due formal stratification is available (see for example CAO line of business of the Architects; Royal Institute of Dutch Architects, BNA 2000, and the Standard Architects Administration (SAA)) on project level processes are often excecuted in rather informal vague structures. In figure 6 for example, there is an organogram of a large architectural office. The heavily outlined functions have - in principle - management responsibilities, usually without clearly defined managerial tasks. The four principal functional clusters are: • The management, primarily responsible for the strategic (operational) and commercial management; • A support department, responsible for the facilitation of the internal business processes; • Architecture department, responsible for conceptual design and design development; • Engineering design department, responsible for detailing, technical work out, estimation and specifications.

112 STRATEGIC, OPERATIONAL SUPPOR &COMMERCIAL T MANAGEMENT

Office ICT Director manage r Manager

Senior partner Secretariat

Design manage r

Project Projectleader Specifications architect engineering designer

Assistent Senior Cost designer draughtsma calculator n

Architectural Draughtsma draughtsma n n

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING DESIGN DESIGN Figure 6. Organization Chart of an Architectural firm

The design management function can fill a coordinating roll for the four various functional clusters, wether or not with formal hierarchical power. One can staff the design management function on a project basis with, for example, one of the project architects or with a representative of the board of directors. It is also possible that the design management function is worked out by separate staff officers. Certainly staffing professional management by separate staff officers for smaller organisations is not possible. Therefore within the architectural profession the fee structure is set too sharply. In these cases the managerial staff of design organisations clearly has to be aware from which organisational perspective one is working on the diverse moments.

Design teams Both the building industry and the building design business are very fragmented. Besides some important players, there are a variety of small actors. More than 80% of all architectural firms in the Netherlands are smaller than 10 persons. Most of which (circa 50%) are one-man businesses, this according to the most recent annual report of the Royal Institute of Dutch Architects (BNA, 2000). The design team generally includes a conglomeration of relatively small companies on a temporarily basis, every one with their own aims, which aren't always synchronised.

113 Based on work of among others Greiner and Mintzberg, Pos (2000) characterised the organisation of a design project as a so-called 'operational adhocracy'. By this is understood an organisational form consisting of several professionals, engaged on a temporary base, to realise a specific project, in which there is competition on quality, innovation and creative potential rather than on marketing and price. The organisation form is informal and relatively chaotic. Temporary strategic liaisons simplify the coordination of information. Planning is in the form of flexible frameworks instead of detailed schemes of activities. Mutual, fraternal control prevails over line management and standardised steering mechanisms. Ambiguity and efficiency problems are rather normal than exceptional. Because of this, operational adhocracies are able to operate in a continually changing setting. They are prepared for projects in which the aims of the client are changing in the time.

Management of an operational adhocracy, i.e. a design team, has to face processes that are not logical, but based on implicit understanding, intuition and creativity. Analytically problem solving processes, planning and controlling have to be replaced by a more adaptive and teaching process where is room for imagination, intentions, motivation and uncertainty. Far too ofter the attitude of project managers toward work of designers and design organisations is neglegent, disparaging or mocking. However mutual understanding, respect and sympathy are essential to reach a productive outcome.

ARCHITECTURE AND VALUE

The outcomes of architectural design processes have to aim at buildings with architectural values. Facilitating development of architectural value is in essence reason for the existence of design management as a separate process function.

Architectural value to a large extend is determined by the integration which is gained by the architect between artistic and professional (functional and technical/engineering) values in a building design. The extent of integration is to some extend basically qualifying the ethical, cultural, historical and esthetical values and societal importance attached to a building. A building is ‘architecture’ if within a broad societal and professional context it is considered to be as such.

Given present connotations connected to the concept of quality, in this context pointedly the value concept is used. Atkin (1990) indicates the value concept as a central turning point in the time-costs-quality triad. Price (1993) defines value as the extent of desired quality of a product for consumers. However in case of buildings, value cannot be defined as one- dimensionally as in the examples mentioned above. In this context, value is esteemed as an overall concept, uniting effectiveness and efficiency as well as matters such as meaning and satisfaction. For example, for an owner a building has value in terms of use, or as investment property, or as a historical cultural object, of combinations of these (Best & de Valence, 1999). However the value of a building is not only set by the owner, but also by all other people (parties involved) having commitment with the building in one stage or another during it’s total life time.

In such a way the concept of value is comprehensive, representing not only personal but also collective connotations. Debating about values is rarely, if ever, about easily quantifiable problems of tuning, but about setting a delicate and critical balance between mostly difficult to define and foremost conflicting interests and aims.

114 Architectural value is determined by the realisation of a long lasting desired outcome for all parties concerned in a building- and housing process (Figure 7).

Environment

Cultural environment

Physical Social/ Political environment environment

Stakeholders

Client Users Quality VALUE

Other Contractors stakeholders Time Cost

Management

Object Process

Place Project

Figure 7. The Concept of Value

In discussions about current architecture sometimes another content is given to the concept of architecture. The artistic aspects and supposed cultural meaning of the building are isolated and elevated above the other values. Notwithstanding the fact that one may doubt that this type of view on architecture last long; as has been stated this is an extra legitimation for the development of design management as a field of knowledge and as a separate discipline.

CONCLUSION

Recent developments in the building industry have made the design management function essential. Design management can be defined as setting up a strategy, defining a –process- lay-out and steering of the design process. Management of design processes is not to be simply combined with the traditional steering techniques. This is based on: • Characteristics of the buildings to be designed, mostly in terms of architectural value; • Characteristics of design processes, in cyclic and problem generating terms; • Nature and ambitions of the -design- parties' involved, in terms of appreciation for art, creativity, and social and cultural responsibility.

An essential condition for effective design management is knowledge and understanding with regard to architectural values and the essentials of design processes, designers and design organisations. Thereby one needs to realise that (see also Gray et.al, 1994). : • The search for perfect solutions can be endless;

115 • There are no foolproof process solutions; • Design is about finding and solving problems; • Intuitive and subjective decisions, judgements, understandings and feelings will always play a roll; • A universal, easy scientific design method does not exist.

For design management the points above imply: • A designer needs time to reflect and deserves to get that time; • Designers with relevant experience are essential; • Designers have to be supported in their search to find solutions; • An open adjustable framework is needed with goals and outputs; • Frequent access to the client and the occupant is essential to get all necessary information; • Working towards a final result is essential.

Only by carefully working together with a wide range of expertise, understanding what aims and values have to be achieved, mutual respect and teamwork, can design managers and designers realise buildings, not only meeting the specified aims on costs and time, but also resulting in the creation of architectural value.

REFERENCES

Adviescommissie Personeelszaken Architectenbureaus (2000) Collectieve Arbeids Overeenkomst voor personeel in dienst van achitectenbureaus, (Collective Agreement on Labour for Architectural employees) BNA, Amsterdam. Allinson, K. (1997) Getting There by Design, an Architects Guide to Design and Project Management, Architectural Press, Reed Elsevier plc Group, Oxford. Atkin, B. (1990) Information Management of Construction Projects, T.W. Crow Associates and Crow Maunsell, Sydney. Best, R., en Valence, de G. (1999) Building in Value, Pre-Design Issues, Arnold Publishers, London. BNA (1998) Standaard Architecten Administratie, SAA, Herziening 1998, (Standard Architects Administration) BNA, Amsterdam. BNA (2000) BNA jaarverslag (Annual Report) 1999, BNA, Amsterdam. BNA (2001) Architecten 2001, BNA Amsterdam. Boekholt, J.T. (2000) Ontwerpen leren, leren ontwerpen, (Learning Design) Bouwstenen nr. 57, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Faculteit Bouwkunde, Eindhoven. Bradley, J.V.F. (1994) Cavanagh, P., Management as Intermediary. In: Nicholson, M.P. eds, Journal of Architectural Management Practice and Research, CIB publication 170, CIB, Rotterdam. Delhoofen, P. (1994) Handboek voor innovatie, communicatie en analyse bij het ontwerpen van produkten, (Handbook on innovation, communication, and analysis while designing products) Stam Techniek, Houten. Dunietz, J., Prins, M., Boissevain, G.W.O. (1999) A model for outputdocuments in architectural design processes, a basis for the improvement of client communication. In: Nicholson, M.P. eds, Journal of Architectural Management Practice and Research, vol. 14, CIB/SAAM, Nottingham. Gray, C., Hughes, W., Bennett, J. The Successful Management of Design, A Hanbook of Building Design Management, the University of Reading, Reading, 1994. Gray, C., Hughes, W. (2001) Building Design Management, Butterworth-Heineman, Oxford.

116 Masurel, E. (2000) Grote en middelgrote bureaus presteren goed, (Large and Average Offices are Performing Well) BladNA nr 12, jaargang, 2000, BNA, Amsterdam. Mintzberg, H. (1979) The Structuring of Organisations, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs. Price, C. (1993) Time, Discouting and Value, Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford. Prins, M. (1992) Flexibiliteit en Kosten in het Ontwerpproces, een besluitvorming ondersteunend model, dissertatie, (Flexibility and Cost in the Design Process, a Design Decision Support Model. Phd thesis) Bouwstenen, nr, 22, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Faculteit Bouwkunde, Eindhoven. Prins, M. (1997) Architectural education in times of revolution. In: Cairns, G. & Worthingthon J. eds., Perspectives on Architectural Education, Institute of Advanced Architectural Studies, IoAAS, York. Pos, M. (2000) Inquiry into the Management of Innovative Architectural Design, Afstudeerverslag Technische Universiteit Delft, Faculteit Bouwkunde, Werkverband Bouwmanagement en Vastgoedbeheer, Delft. Roozenburg, N.F.M, Eekels, J. (1998) Productontwerpen, structuur en methoden, (Product Design, Structure and Methods) Lemma, Utrecht. Simon, H.A. (1969) The Sciences of the Artificial, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Voordt, D.J.M. van der, Wegen, H.B.R. van (2000) Architectuur en gebruikswaarde, programmeren, ontwerpen en evalueren van gebouwen, (Architecture and Functionality; Briefing, Design and Evaluation of Buildings) Toth, Bussum. Weggeman, M.C.D.P. (1992) Leidinggeven aan Professionals, (Management of Professionals) Kluwer, Deventer. Weggeman, M.C.D.P. (1997) Organiseren met kennis, (To Organise with Knowlede) Scriptum, Schiedam.

117 PERCEPTIONS OF DESIGN IN MANAGEMENT THINKING

CECILIE SCHJERVEN

Norwegian School of Management BI, Department of Knowledge Management, Norway1 Lund University, Lund Institute of Technology, Department of Theoretical and Applied Aesthetics, Sweden

Abstract: In the continued pursuit to optimise the benefits of using design in a business context, the relationship between designers and business management plays a crucial role. The proposition herein centres on the importance of cultural and trans-disciplinary exchange between these groups. Based on case study findings in building construction, the research suggests that decision-makers in specific managerial roles exhibit a largely negative attitude towards the role of designers and design. This attitude may express a fundamental cultural difference between the two groups and impede aspects of their communication. These findings are linked to the possibility that managerial and organisational culture lacks an understanding and accepting attitude towards the potential of the ‘soft’ qualities imbedded in design thinking and practise. Based on the work of Jeanne Liedtka in strategic management theory, the paper extends this proposition to the field of design as an opportunity to export some of its strategic and methodological skills to the field of management. In the process, the cultural differences between the groups would be partly recognised, potentially smoothened, and improved communication and relations would ensue.

Keywords: Attitude, communication, cultural difference, design management.

INTRODUCTION

Over the last ten years, the field of design management has emerged in response to the increasing value bestowed upon design and design services as a factor in gaining a competitive edge in business and marketing. With its roots in the discipline of strategic management, design management’s goal is to barter between the interests of firms and organisations on one side, and, on the other, designers and design firms.2 Amongst the contributors to its theoretical debate, there exists an overwhelming consensus about the potential role that design can have for a company in product development and gaining a competitive advantage in the market. But apart from a series of well-known and oft-cited examples where this is seemingly true3, design management theorists are also keenly aware of

1 E-mail adress: [email protected] 2 ‘Design management is a facet of organisational management. It is a dimension of such fundamental business activities as research, product development, marketing, communications, and production.’ (DMJ Academic Review, 2000) See: http://www.dmi.org/dmi/html/publications/academic/fullabstract_academic_d.jsp?itemID=AR-V1 3 The cases of John Deer, working with Henry Dreyfuss and Braun both represent the ‘success stories’ in this respect.

118 that design at large remain an untapped resource to the majority of firms and organisations that could well have benefited from designers’ skills and expertise.

Christopher Lorenz has posed a few simple questions that frame the situation and appear to widely haunt the design management field: ‘If (design’s) commercial power has been manifest since at least the 1930s, why do so many managers still fail to recognise it? Why, when they do, have so many failed to give it sufficient weight within their organisation?’ (Lorenz 1994) While Lorenz and others4 have ascribed this failure of integrating design and designers more intimately with corporate structures and processes to a series of differences between designers and managers, the research in the design management field has thus far been content with identifying these possible causes and not the underlying nature of the formal and informal differences in question.

This paper attempts to contribute to this situation through a co-lateral examination of theory and empirical investigations. It assumes that it is only by addressing the nature of the underlying formal and informal structural differences between managerial and design culture that the situation can be remedied over time. While the majority of design management literature is based on the services of industrial design, the case examined here is from architecture. The existence and assumed importance of design’s capability to yield a value- added effect in given market situations has in particular been contingent on the process of product development in industry, or more specifically, industrial design which is the design of industrially produced commodities for mass-market consumption. But ever since Peter Behrens’ work for the AEG in Germany at the beginning of the 20th century (Pevsner 1987), architecture could also be related to a notion of value-added resource in economic terms. With more recent examples, such as Frank Gehry & Associates’ design for the Guggenheim museum in Bilbao (Friedman 1999)5, Spain, and Bernhard Franken Architekten’s design for the car manufacturer, BMW Group’s, BMW Pavilion in München, Germany6 – to mention just two, architecture’s capacity for contributing to branding in areas of mass-market competition seems as clear as in the case of industrial design. There will for sure be differences on many levels and of many kinds between these two types of design, but this paper concerns itself rather with the assumed and, in this case, over-riding difference between design at large and managerial culture. It specifically addresses the attitudes of corporate project managers towards the role and service of architects and situates this with respect to a theoretical cultural model.

After reviewing and discussing selected existing theory, the paper introduces the case study of Telenor’s construction of its new headquarters at Fornebu, outside Oslo, Norway. Telenor is Norway’s largest telecommunications company with 6.500 employees and an annual turnover of $ 3 333 333 (2000). Its new head-quarters is a 137 000 square-meter office complex that has been designed by the American firm, NBBJ, in collaboration with two smaller Norwegian firms7 and is one of the largest on-land construction projects in Norwegian history. In this

5 The building has had a massive media-coverage, both in print and on television. 6 For two years, the BMW Pavilion has served in its new role as the communication centre for the brand and its products. More than 333,000 visitors annually have visited the fascinating exhibitions and events, focussing on cars and motorcycles, as well as science, research, art and culture. In September 2001 the Pavilion will re-open, with a broad spectrum of new themes and content. See: http://www.bmw.com or http://www.abb-architekten.com 7 NBBJ has collaborated with Huus Arkitekter AS and Plan Arkitekter AS. Consult the following addresses to see a presentation of the design or the state of the construction process: http://www.nbbj.com; http://www.telenor.no

119 study8, the attitudes and awareness of the professional project managerial team towards architecture and the architectural team were investigated. Through a series of interviews based on an open structure and a narrative model, members of the managerial team were probed for what attitude they had in relating to the design and the designers of the project. In turn, the results of this investigation and analysis are contextualised in relationship to a model based on collaborative culture and cultural difference between the corporate managers and the designers.

Through the analysis of the empirical findings and the development of a theoretical model, the paper aims at contributing to a further understanding of the relationship between design as a cultural and economic service and resource and the future implementation of successful business models, both in terms of design at large and corporate business activities.

BACKGROUND & THEORY

The different dimension While numerous researchers in design management have suggested that design can be a potential value-added resource to firms and organisations in competitive market situations (Lorenz 1994, Trueman 1998, Peters 1989), the limited use of this resource has been explained in various ways. Perhaps the most basic type of explanation is that ‘most organisations have no clear understanding of design, which is often associated only with aesthetics and styling’ (Trueman 1998, p 595). An alternative view expressing the same, has been that firms and organisations that are to benefit from design and designers as a resource must have a design competence (Bruce 1998).

Others again have implied that lack of effective management structures are a barrier to implementing the necessary monitor and control mechanisms that in turn will ensure a beneficiary use of design (Cooper 1995, p.3). Echoing this argument is that there is a need for ‘a dynamic organising capability in, or around, firms’ (Jevnaker 1998, p.14). All of these possible reasons for the failure of business and corporate managers to use design more extensively in processes of creating added value, emphasize directly or relatively managerial resources or capacities. In the last instance, the arguments go to sustain and enhance the need for design management, the same field from which the arguments are launched.

An early and succinct outline of the problems related to the relationship between design and business has been offered by Christopher Lorenz (1994, p.74). Calling for ‘a voyage of ‘executive discovery’ – or rediscovery – about design’s potential role in strategy’, he enumerates the following reasons for the situation: that, fundamentally, design is not part of managers’ strategic concepts; that there is no break-down of design into typological and instrumental constituents; that design still occupies a sub-serviant position compared to marketing and engineering; and, finally, that design is taken to be a ‘right-brained activity by managers whose education has been largely left-brained, verbal, linear and analytical.’ The latter begins to suggest a far reaching problem, namely one that has its roots in education – as Lorenz indicates, and may therefore, in organisations and firms alike, serve to reify a given culture and continue to leave design behind as an estranged, inferior resource.

8 This case study is one of several that are part of the empirical research for an on-going doctoral dissertation in design management to be submitted to Lund University, Sweden. Part of the work has been conducted in close collaboration with and with the guidance of staff within the doctoral programmes at the Oslo School of Architecture and the Norwegian School of Management BI.

120

A view that relatively supports this can be taken from the field of strategic planning theory. Focusing on the metaphor of design as a resource for strategic planning, the American theorist Jeanne Liedtka (2000, p.8-30) describes design for what it represents in terms of difference to strategic thinking. In so doing, she begins to account for design and design thinking through a particular set of abstract characteristics – or, constituent typologies, corresponding in part to what Lorenz has called for. Furthermore, by importing Liedtka’s argument from strategic planning to design management, theorists and practitioners within the latter may be able to develop their own understanding of design and promote this in a fuller sense to their business and corporate clients. Design would in consequence begin to represent something more to business and corporate clients than merely the means to physically describe and style an object.

It is beyond the scope of this paper to account for Liedtka’s argument in full. But by using her characteristics of design and design thinking, sufficient ground will be prepared to develop the argument herein.

Relying on a series of designers and design theorists – among them Frank Gehry, Nigel Cross, Richard Buchanan and Vladimir Bazjanac – Liedtka proposes that business strategy would benefit from implementing some of the dynamics that design thinking at large represents. These dynamics include that design thinking is synthetic, adductive, hypothesis-driven, opportunistic, dialectical, and inquiring and value-driven. That design thinking is synthetic means that it has the capability to make a coherent overall strategy out of a relation between disparate things. Second, being adductive means that it can devise strategies for realising intentions relating to desired future situations. Third, its hypothesis-driven nature enables it to employ conjectural strategies for creating “what if”-situations that subsequently are tested from an imbedded strategy of assumptions about cause-effect relationships, an “if then”-type of logic. Fourth, design thinking is opportunistic which means that it is capable of making use of new and emergent possibilities within its own process of production. Fifth, its dialectical characteristic reflects its ability to negotiate between givens of the present with unknowns of the future; that is, design thinking is always projective, using and transcending today’s constraints for tomorrow’s possibilities. And fifth and last, design thinking is inquiring and value-driven which goes to say that it welcomes inquiry and scrutiny and is willing to explicitly engage with its audience.

In effect, attributing these fundamental ways of operating within a discipline as characteristics of difference in comparison to another discipline, mounts to describing key attributes that inform the possibility of cultural difference. In other words, Liedtka underscores the difference between the disciplines and qualifies this with respect the essential operations that are informed by rational, contemplative and intuitive processes - to name a few. Liedtka’s imported understanding of design and design thinking begins to suggest the way these are radically different from the ‘left-brained’ managerial culture referred to by Lorenz. As opposed to strategies in design management whereby efforts would be made to present design as palpable to managers solely on their terms (for instance, efficiency and profitability), Liedtka positively emphasises characteristics that make it different but, according to her, desirable for market-oriented strategists and decision-makers. Her way of qualifying design and design thinking in terms of this essential difference to managerial culture lends credence to suggesting two essential points.

121 First, design management exists exactly because of this difference and to manage it cannot be about making compromises because of it. On the contrary, it should focus on ways to ensure that this difference is not conflated and that it is allowed to emerge as the exact reason for why employing designers and their services can be productive. Second, the difference between designers and corporate and business managers may begin to be understood as so fundamental that the notion of a cultural difference is strengthened. With reference to Liedtka’s characteristics of design thinking, the manner in which designers operate is outlined both in terms of essential and productive mental processes and, in consequence, their varied ways of working. Their emerging ‘right-brain’ operations are not only fundamentally different to managers’ left-brain’ operations, taken in sum they constitute a difference that invites us to address the issues at stake in terms of cultural differences and corresponding different sets of values.

It is about such differences that the remainder of this paper will concern itself. These are differences that, as already indicated, are understood as potentially and fundamentally productive. But relying on the status within design management theory, we may ask if these differences are allowed to be so? The questions will henceforth be: What is the status of understanding such differences, and what measures can be taken in order to most efficiently study them?

Difference as cultural resource By culture is here meant ‘a process of reality construction that allows people to see and understand particular events, actions, objects, utterances, or situations in distinctive ways (Morgan 1986 cited Krogh 1990 p.102).’9 Cultural differences can be understood as a resource, and the key to accessing this resource is through individuals and the process of communication between them (Harris 1991). In fact, studies indicate that managers spend 75% of their time communicating and their optimisation of resources from other cultures is pending their ability to communicate inter-culturally.10 Furthermore, in the extremely complex context of communication and culture in general, two points can be ventured regarding the possible success or failure of inter-cultural interaction in this context:11

• Attitudes to the other are central in determining how the relation operates. An undesirable attitude for managers is ethnocentrism or self-reference criteria. The attitudes brought forth in a relation determine the norms for what is good and bad, what is right or wrong in this relation. • Thought patterns or forms of reasoning works similarly; they inform and determine to some degree the standards for what is appreciated and defined as successful.

In his book, Cross-Cultural Management Communication, Richard Mead (1990) argues similarly. Relying on a definition of culture that is based on shared systems of values,12 Mead posits that the successful cross-cultural manager understands how members of the other group perceive reality, why they perceive it this way, how they express their perceptions, and - not the least - how these perceptions and their expressions differ from his or her own.13 Successful cross-cultural relations, according to Mead, can be ‘intensely creative.’

9 Von Krogh also cites two other definitions of culture, but the quoted one is most appropriate here. 10 Ibid, p.28-29. 11 These points rely entirely on two of seven points brought forward by Harris and Moran to qualify the management of an inter-cultural situation. See, ibid, p.40-41. 12 Ibid, p.14. 13 Ibid, p.10.

122

Within design management theory there is an absence of studies exploring these issues. The failure of business and corporate managers to more fully use design as a resource is not addressed as a cultural problem. When mentioned, it is merely touched upon within a theoretical discourse.14 But, independent of what issues are addressed in the literature, there is still an overwhelming need for empirical research to clarify basic questions and focus the work on future problem solving.

Supporting the claim for this need is Antti Ainamo’s (1991) report that there exists lacking evidence in the design management literature both on the level of documenting the success of firms using design, and basic, empirical findings to support different propositions.15 There is, in other words, a need to compare insights from theoretical deliberations with in-depth analyses of corresponding, empirical material. This situation with, in particular, a distinct need for empirical work to be conducted, can also be found in other, related fields. In the management field this has been coupled to the notion of culture and the capacity for improvement within an organisation. James Detert (2000) and colleagues have asserted that the concept of culture with respect to organisational culture and the capacity for improvement and change, remains vague as the main body of research on the topic in organisational theory seems ‘only to move farther away from a cumulative body of theory or empirical evidence that would benefit practitioners and theorists alike.’ They go on to ‘link the general culture dimensions to a comprehensive set of values and beliefs’ that in turn is proposed to represent the chore of a model based on culture. They report that little attention has been given ‘to the values, beliefs, and underlying assumptions that support or impede (…) new behaviours (Detert 2000, p.850-863).’

Preliminary summary A review and discussion of selected theoretical work within the field of design management and related fields allow notions of culture and, specifically, cultural differences to be launched as a crucial factors in how the relationship between designers and business and corporate managers work. Exploring this hypothesis, light may be shed on the generally accepted view that the latter is not successful in using designers and design for what they have to offer. In fact, design management may eventually be much about enabling the best possible relationship and exchange across what initially are vast cultural differences between the two fields.

EMPIRICAL STUDY

Introduction The following empirical study explores the attitudes of the corporate managerial group responsible for the construction of Telenor’s new headquarters in Norway with respect to the architects. The study focuses on documenting attitudes and values that shed light on how the

14 One example can be found in Bruce, M., 1998. Here the personal relationship between client and designer is mentioned as important. 15 The report can be found in a proposal for a ‘Working Paper’ in design management submitted to the Department of Marketing and Production Economy, Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration, Helsinki, 1991. While somewhat dated, the understanding of the status within the field still rings true, reflecting, in part, the fact that the field itself is relatively young. His doctoral dissertation was submitted in 1996: Antti Ainamo, Industrial design and business performance : a case study of design management in a Finnish fashion firm, Acta Universitatis Oeconomicae Heslingiensis, A-112, Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration, Helsinki, 1996.

123 designers of this huge architectural project are perceived and received by the clients, that is the managerial group. Given the fact that the project thus far is understood as highly successful, the aim of this particular study was not to lend support to the claim that designers and design are not sufficiently used in business and marketing terms. On the contrary, the study took the apparent success of the engagement of the architects as given and focused instead on issues that would give general support to the notion of a cultural model as the basis for how the relationship between clients and designers, in this case the project managing group and the architects, can be understood.

The choice of the construction of Telenor’s new head quarter as a subject of study was guided by several reasons. First, Telenor had clear motifs and focus for using the architects. This meant that the project had a clear demand for design services. The clear ambition for the new building to serve Telenor in profiling and marketing meant that the building project complies with that which would be expected of design in terms of added economic value. The previous combined with the size and the complexity of the project, was expected to produce clear and distinct roles for designers and clients. It was not deemed significant that most of the members of the managerial, client group only commenced work on the project after the first decisions to build the new headquarter were made. The group still fulfilled a client role with respect to the architects in an executive sense.

Telenor is Norway’s largest telecommunications company.16 In 1997 the company decided to invest in the construction of new headquarters. An architectural competition was decided in May 1998, and a contract with the architects was signed December 1999. The new building complex is designed by NBBJ Architects (USA) in collaboration with Huus Arkitekter and PKA Arkitekter (Norway). The total square meter age of the new complex is 137 000. The company will have moved in by the end of 2002. The new building implies a reduction in building costs of 20% compared to the existing situation where employees are scattered around Oslo in 35 to 40 different buildings. With the new headquarters, Telenor has formulated a set of goals. These include that the company seat shall be the best Nordic centre for new business and inspire to innovation and new thinking; the buildings must be flexible and responsive to new changing needs; the head quarter shall have a high aesthetic quality; and, the buildings shall contribute to improved customer service. The construction of the building is managed by an in-house company, Telenor Eiendom AS. This company has its office next to the construction site and is run by a small managerial group that oversees all activities in connection to the construction of the new building complex. This group is the same as the client group in this study.

Method The empirical study consisted of a set of four interviews with members of this managerial group.17 The interviews were conducted in the period between October 27 to November 14 2000. On average, the interviews lasted 1-1,5 hours and all were tape-recorded and transcribed. The study was designed in accordance with standards for qualitative research wherein the work sought ‘access to the cultural categories and assumptions according to which one culture construes the world’ (McCracken 1988). Furthermore, the interviews were semi-focused,

16 ‘Telenor is a Norwegian telecommunications group with extensive and fast growing business operations in a number of countries in Europe and Southeast Asia. The company is Norway's leading distributor of voice, information, knowledge and entertainment through a broad range of modern communications services. Telenor became a listed company in December 2000.’ From http://www.telenor.com or http://www.telenor.no 17 In accordance with normal practice, the interviews are reported anonymously.

124 meaning that ‘a greater insight might be gained from permitting the respondent to choose his own path’ (Easterby-Smith 1991).18 This meant that very few questions were posed. The subjects were rather encouraged to speak freely and extensively, only loosely guided back to the topic of interest were they to stray too far from it. Finally, the study was understood and executed as a phenomenological study as described by John Creswell (1998, p.51-50). This method is designed in order to search for essential, invariant structures or the central underlying meaning of an experience and emphasize the intentionality of consciousness. Phenomenological data analysis is based on the reduction and analysis of specific statements and themes.

In this case, each interview was scanned for statements that could be understood as ‘value statements’ with reference to architecture, architects and / or the process of working with architects. The statements were then further examined, analysed and coded according to the extent to which they carried an absolute negative value, relative negative value, relative positive value, or absolute positive value. For instance, a statement, such as, ‘architects are great’, would be given an absolute positive value and assigned the number +2 for later quantitative treatment. A statement, such as, ‘this project attracts clever people’, would be assigned a relative positive value and coded with the number +1 for later quantitative treatment. Proceeding according to this method is a mixture of qualitative and quantitative analysis and can be referred to what is called ‘content analysis’ where the researcher ‘goes by number and frequency’, and ‘grounded theory analysis’ where the researcher goes by feel and intuition, aiming to produce common or contradictory themes and patterns from data that can be used as a basis for interpretation (Easterby-Smith 1998, p.105).

Results Of the four interviews only three were suited to undergo the prescribed modelling and analysis. The fourth interview was with a professional architect working in the managing group, and this subject spoke with invested interest about architects and architecture. While, for instance, clearly expressing a large amount of negative opinions about architects, the statements were part of a prolonged and seemingly polemically motivated speech about architectural education, language and the like. The interview may be used at a later stage in developing the study herein.

The remaining three interviews gave the following results:

18 The semi-structured interview was proposed by Merton and Kendall in 1957. See: Easterby-Smith, M., 1991.

125 Table 1. Total number of statements & value statements (Note: one statement can contain more than one value statement.) Total number of statements 36

Total number of value statements 58

Total number of value statements about 28 neg pos 18 10 Total number of value statements about 23 neg pos 17 6 Total number of value statements about 7 neg pos 6 1

Table 2a. Interview 1: Number of statements & value statements Total number of words 5566 Total number of statements 7 Total number of value statements 10 Total number of value statements about architects 5 neg pos 4 1 Total number of value statements about 4 neg pos 3 1 Total number of value statements about 1 neg pos 1 0

Table 2b. Interview 2: Number of statements & value statements

Total number of words 5856 Total number of statements 16 Total number of value statements 24 Total number of value statements about architects 8 neg pos 4 4 Total number of value statements about 11 neg pos 7 4 Total number of value statements about 5 neg pos 4 1

126 Table 2c. Interview 3: Number of statements & value statements Total number of words 5339 Total number of statements 13 Total number of value statements 24 Total number of value statements about architects 15 neg pos 10 5 Total number of value statements about 8 neg pos 7 1 Total number of value statements about 1 neg pos 1 0

Table 3. Total number of value statements per category absolute relative relative absolute Value statements about architects 6 12 6 4 Value statements about 5 12 4 2 Value statements about 1 5 0 1

Table 4a. Interview 1: Number of Value Statements per Category absolute relative relative absolute Value statements about architects 1 3 1 0 Value statements about 2 1 1 0 Value statements about 0 1 0 0

Table 4b. Interview 2: Number of Value Statements per Category absolute relative relative absolute Value statements about architects 0 4 4 0 Value statements about 2 5 2 2 Value statements about 1 3 0 1

Table 4c. Interview 3: Number of Value Statements per Category absolute relative relative absolute Value statements about architects 5 5 1 4 Value statements about 1 6 1 0 Valuearchitecture statements about 0 1 0 0

127 Figure 1. Average number of value statements

Abs. Pos Val

Ind. Pos V al

Ind. Neg V al

Abs. Neg Val

-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

DISCUSSION

The recording and analyses of the results of the interviews focus on value statements about architects, architecture and / or the process of collaboration between the managerial group and the designers. The overall results also include neutral statements about these categories. But these statements are filtered out and not carried forth for analysis. The discussion that follows must therefore be understood in this context; it focuses as does the analysis entirely on statements that could be assigned a positive or negative value.

The codification and analysis of the statements in the interviews clearly show that there are more negative than positive statements about the three categories: architects, architecture and the collaborative process between the managerial group and the designers. Of the value statements recorded, most refer to architects, nearly as many to architecture, and less than 1/3 to the collaborative process.

Of these, there are nearly twice as many negative statements about architects as there are positive ones, almost thrice as many negative about architecture as there are positive ones, and six times as many negative statements about the process than there are positive.

That there are so few value statements about the process, may express that this process to a large degree has been fixed and that the architects have largely delivered a service in the same manner as any construction firm. If so, the process may have been very static due to the large amount of control exerted by the managerial group. But at the same time, it is important to recall that the task of the managerial group is to lead and control the project and secure that the budgets and schedules are kept. In Norway there have of recently been numerous high profiled and costly building projects that have come into crisis because budgets and / or schedules have been transgressed. This study does not intend to bring the mandate of the

128 managerial group into question. It does not question this group’s professionalism nor call to exert strict control according to the needs of the project. But the results indicate a strong negative attitude towards the architects. For instance, Interview # 1 and # 3 have both overwhelmingly more negative than positive statements about architects and architecture. Interview # 2 has as many negative as positive statements about architects, and almost twice as many negative statements than positive statements about architecture.

There are in general more relative than absolute negative value statements and more relative than absolute positive value statements. This may on one hand reflect the obvious, namely that a relative negative or positive value statements would most likely be more common than an absolute value statement in most types of conversation between strangers. Furthermore, the relative type of value statement could also be expected to be more common than the absolute value statement by a professional who is giving information. Finally, the relative value statements have to a larger degree than the absolute value statements been interpreted by the researcher. As such, searching for a concise way of characterising the subjects’ attitudes towards architects and architecture, the absolute value statements lend most help.

Reflecting on both the architect and the process of collaboration, a mixed positive value statement is found in Interview # 3: ‘I have seen engineering drawings of the building, and they don’t look like anything at all. So the architect then is a very important co-worker for the client.’ The first sentence is a relative positive value statement; the last sentence expresses an absolute positive value statement.

‘We very much emphasize to control the architects’ is an example of an absolute negative value statement (Interview #1). The statement directly expresses that architects need to be controlled. It may, by extension, mean both that they must be restrained or subordinated. If the latter, it suggests that their contribution must be subordinated another hierarchically "better" structure. This is supported by numerous other statements, both of absolute and relative value, such as, ‘we struggle hard to get, especially architects, the whole consultancy field, to organise their own work, to have a clear organisation, and clear responsibility, and clear plans for what they are going to do, their own deliverances, how, and how they structure their own deliverances.’ (Interview #3) Again, the normative standard is given by the managerial team, and other ways of working or operating are subjected to this norm.

In fact, the majority of negative value statements was about architects not meeting with the economic and functional standards foreordained by the managerial group. While focusing on this, it must be stressed once more that this must not be taken as a challenge to the professional mandate that this group has. But it nevertheless also reflects a fixed set of measures that emanates entirely from the managerial group. It would correspond to what has been referred to as self-centrism.

The results seem to indicate that the managerial group meet the architects with a strong set of standards and, possibly, values. These standards and values express a professional view that again may be a symptom of how architects and architecture are perceived at large. While clearly at the heart of the project, there always seems as if there is something else, larger than architects and architecture, that eventually all things must be measured against. The many negative attitudes directly or indirectly expressed in the numerous value statements, instate architects and architecture as the artistic, not very useful participant in a project like Telenor’s new headquarters. In Liedtka’s terms, it would be the use of designers simply for an

129 instrumental service, not for the extended resource that they may represent. If there were to be a significant cultural difference between a managerial group and architects, it must exist in this case. It would be prohibitive to an optimisation of design as a resource for the corporate aims of Telenor.

CONCLUSION

The empirical study can be brought to a tentative conclusion. This conclusion is that the managerial group in this study expresses views on architecture and architects that support the argument developed in the theoretical discussion. That is, there exists a cultural difference between the corporate managerial team and the designers, a difference that is expressed through negative terms in the interviews. Herein rests the essence of pointing to a cultural difference, namely the large amount of negative statements expressed about the designers. These negative statements are taken to express a view that eventually is rooted in ways of thinking and operating, those things that in the theoretical section were taken as possible criteria for a cultural difference.

The study is not about facts nor figures. It cannot be asserted that if the relation between the managerial group and the architects in this study had been optimised according to the argument developed in the theoretical section, the project for a new Telenor headquarter would have been different. The point is also not that a possible cultural difference should be eliminated. For, as argued in the theoretical section, one premise for using designers in the first place is that they represent a resource that is significantly different to the client’s own. But given the difference, as ascertained in the interviews, and given the manner in which this difference is negotiated, or - rather - not negotiated, there remains much work to be done before architects and designers will be employed for the powerful, creative resource they may represent.

But then there also remains much work to be done before these issues can be appropriately addressed, both theoretically and practically. Design management has just begun.

REFERENCES

Ainimo, A. (1991) Design Management research scheme. Working Paper. Helsinki school of economics and business administration. Bruce, M. and Morris, B. (1998) A comparative study of design professionals. In: M. Bruce & B.H. Jevnaker, eds. Management of design alliances, Chichester: J.Wiley, 261-282. Cooper, R. and Press, M. (1995) The design agenda: a guide to successful design management, Chichester: Wiley. Creswell, J.W. (1998) Qualitative inquiry and research design, Choosing among five traditions, London: Sage. Detert, J.R. and Schroeder, R.G and Mauriel, J.J. (2000) A framework for linking culture and improvement initiatives in organisations. The academy of management review, 25 (4), 850-863. Easterby-Smith, M. and Thorpe, R. and Lowe, A. (1991) Management research: An introduction, London: Sage. Friedman, M. (1999) Gehry talks: architecture + process: Frank O. Gehry and associates. New York: Rizzoli.

130 Harris, P.R. and Moran, R.T. (1991) Managing cultural differences. 3rd ed. Houston: Gulf Publishing Company. Jevnaker, B.H. (1998) Building up organizational capabilities in design. In: M. Bruce & B.H. Jevnaker, eds. Management of design alliances, Chichester: J.Wiley, 14. Liedtka, J. (2000) In defence of strategy as design. California management review, 42 (3), 8- 30. Lorenz, C. (1994) Harnessing design as a strategic resource. Long range planning, 27 (5), 73- 84. Mccracken, G. (1988) The long interview. Newbury Park: Sage. Mead, R. (1990) Cross-cultural management communication. Chichester: Wiley. Peters, T. (1989) The design challenge. Design management journal, 1 (1). Pevsner, N. (1987) Pioneers of modern design. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Trueman, M. and Jobber, D. (1998) Competing through design. Long range planning, 31 (4), 594-605. Von Krogh, G. F. (1990) A theoretical analysis of strategy implementation in a newly acquired organisation. Thesis (PhD). Norwegian institute of technology. Walton, T. (2000) Design management as a business and academic discipline. Design management journal academic review, 1 (1), 5.

131 INVOLVING THE INDUSTRY: THE USE OF 'REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL' PACKAGES AT FRANK O. GEHRY AND ASSOCIATES

PAOLO TOMBESI

University of Melbourne, Australia

Abstract: In the last few years, the work of Frank O. Gehry and Associates has gained notoriety for its sculptural approach to building form. Projects such as the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, the Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles and the Experience Music Center in Seattle have redefined the idea of what is possible in architecture. This paper describes the procedure used by the architect to screen, select and use the technical expertise of the building industry since the early stages of the procurement process. The material attached in support of the Requests for Proposals, regularly issued by the architect for the development of individual systems, occupies a critical position in the design strategy of the firm. Through a simple and by-now- standardized method of project description, Gehry and Associates can explain and tie the overall architectural idea to the technical requirements of the building systems they use: concrete, steel, stone, metal sheating and glazing. Whilst still highly reflective of the architect's formal intent, this information remains essentially performance-based, allowing subcontractors to develop their proposals around their own proprietary technologies and actively contribute to the solution of the design problem.

INTRODUCTION

In the last few years, the work of Frank O. Gehry and Associates (FOG/A) has gained wide notoriety for its sculptural approach to building form. In light of their geometrical complexity and often unorthodox use of materials, projects such as the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, the Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles, the Experience Music Center in Seattle, and the Neue Zollhof office complex in Dusseldorf seem to have redefined the idea of what is possible in architecture.

The development of such a strong formal vocabulary has been associated to the adoption of new information technologies such as Catia, the 3D modeller borrowed from the aerospace industry, which entered Gehry’s office in 1991. Catia allows the architect to transfer complex forms from a physical model into a digital database, to reduce these forms to geometric points and polar coordinates, to represent these points visually as well as mathematically, and to interact with them by manipulating their characteristics on the screen. The files thus produced can be passed in an electronic format to the other members of the project team (generally linked to and through Catia), for whom such files become either design templates or manufacturing instructions.

There is little doubt that Catia has offered strong if not critical support to the development and implementation of some of Gehry’s most famous buildings; yet the mature work of the office should also be seen in relation to other, more traditional, procurement challenges. This paper focuses on Gehry’s distinctive operative relationship with suppliers and subcontractors;

132 particularly on the type of information the office had to organize in order to set up and manage such relationship.

THE NEED TO COLLABORATE WITH SUBCONTRACTORS

Need and advantages of working in collaboration with subcontractors became evident at FOG/A in the second half of the 1980s, when the work of the office started to veer decisively towards a language that was less and less derivative of current practice. FOG/A found that prototypical construction solutions had to be verified with receptive system producers and trade specialists before completing and sending the documentation out to tender. The involvement of building executors would help the architect in two ways: on one side, the office could tap into the existing reservoir of practical knowledge, ie. use fabricators as trade consultants on elements or systems they had not tried before; on the other side, the subcontractors’ understanding of the work under development was deemed key to the success of the entire enterprise, both performance- and cost- wise. By asking for advice, FOG/A was confident that it could screen the industry and win allies, singling out those operators who were not only technically capable but also culturally sympathetic to the kind of work it had set out to produce. Moreover, in line with the traditional division of technical responsibilites in the US building process, FOG/A was interested in reviewing and adapt its work to suppliers’ proprietary technologies rather than proposing entirely new solutions for it.

But involving fabricators early in the design process presented a problem: the increasing scale of FOG/A’s work and the largely institutional nature of the office’s client base required competitive tendering. Early design collaboration could not mean renouncing to open market selection. In order to by-pass this problem, the architect came up with ‘design-assist’, a contractual invention which allows subcontractors to be brought in and contribute to the project in an engineering capacity before being selected for the job.

THE DESIGN-ASSIST PROCESS

The design-assist process is organized in three phases: (1) proposal definition and selection; (2) design development; and (3) subcontract award.

Towards the end of schematic design, a selected group of subcontractors are asked to prepare a proposal to assist FOG/A in the development and construction of a given system, for which preliminary documentation is provided by the architect. Subcontractors are encouraged to make suggestions or take decisions which “advance the economic and aesthetic goals of the project”. To this end, they can use the plans and specifications provided by the architect “as a flexible guideline” for the application of their own technologies. Proposals are requested in the form of a lump sum amount and must be presented for review and evaluation by the Owner/Architect/Contractor team. After the presentation, one subcontractor is issued a letter of intent for award of subcontract (while the other participants receive a fixed reimbursement).

“The selected subcontractor must then work in concert with the Architect, Consultants, Client and General Contractor, to fully develop the design of that system within the required target budget”. The schedule for this design period is officially kept within 90 days (but has often been extended to 120 days). The intent of this phase is to achieve or “maintain the highest

133 quality possible while affording the Owner the most economical system, meeting all aesthetic and functional criteria as set forth and/or implied in the initial design documents”.

If the required design and budget goals have been achieved at the completion of the design phase, a lump sum contract is awarded to the subcontractor. If these goals are not achieved within this period, the letter of intent can be terminated without obligation or compensation for any costs incurred by the Proposer, while the work may be competitively bid or renegotiated. In this case, the Architect, Client and/or Contractor have the right to use all designs and concepts prepared by the Proposer during the design period. In other words, design-assist is a particular version of design-and-build, where the award of the contract is postponed until the end of the system’s design development stage, so as to give the architect control over the work being carried out.

To operate this way, FOG/A has been moving towards building procurement methods that allow for the progressive insertion of separate packages into the construction and financial management of the project. Today, the office works mostly in collaboration with a general contractor - selected shortly after the architect and long before the completion of contract documents - on a guaranteed maximum price, the calculation of which initially excludes the cost of the packages to be awarded to specialist contractors. Once developed, these are generally added to the scope of the main contract, and carried out under the supervision of the general contractor.

‘REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL’ DOCUMENTS

The interest of this design-assist system lies not so much in the early involvement of subcontractors as in the physical documentation produced by FOG/A at the start of the process to communicate design intent and scope of the work.

Requests for Proposals have now become a technical trademark of the office. According to the official language, the function of the information enclosed in these documents is to introduce prospective subcontractors to the project while defining its problems. The details are offered only as suggestions and serve as a means to assist in the problem’s definition while illustrating required finish profiles. The technical detailing required to meet the system’s specified performance criteria is the contractor’s sole responsibility – subject, however, to review by the architect. The final engineering in terms of addressing life safety and structural safety issues remains responsibility of the design team.

The communication challenge faced by FOG/A in the preparation of these RfPs is significant. On one hand, the architect must be able to transfer a formally complex idea; this task requires a synthetic approach to its overall description, lest to lose touch with it. On the other hand, the performance, visual and constructional principles of this idea must be spelt out clearly, so as to render the constructional scope of the work unambiguous and yet open to accommodating possible contributions from the specialists involved.

To achieve this objective, the R.f.P. is structured as follows. It opens with a project overview that contains a general introduction with photographs of the physical model, a series of one- page descriptions of the various systems used in the building, and the list of documentation formats that will be provided by the architect, including 3D files in Catia. The scope of this introduction is to emphasize architectural objectives as well as main technical choices. The second section contains a detailed description of the system for which FOG/A is seeking

134 ‘assistance’, including its visual, geometric and structural aspects. The description defines and organizes the scope of the work by categories - types of walls, types of materials, types of geometry, and types of detail – and is meant to articulate all the formal characteristics of the building: planes, curvatures, corners, edges, etc. This section is integrated by a ‘surface area and volume calculations’ component, which establishes naming conventions, lists all the surfaces and volumes involved in the package, and indicates preliminary quantities derived from the Catia masterfile. This information is accompanied by simple explanatory images, either axonometric views or roof plans, which directly connect the figures provided to the physical elements of the building. Last, relevant specifications sections are attached, together with sketches and detail drawings that show the configuration of the element as well as the design choices that one can consider in the visual and constructional connection between the various parts.

135

136

137

INFORMATION STRATEGY

Overall, the RfP template contains several features, which set it apart from more conventional documents of a similar type:

(1) All the printed information is conceived, prepared and organized with the specific objective of enlisting the help of subcontractors in a design capacity and at a stage where the project may still undergo major variations. The description provided never loses sight of this goal: it is very simple (to the point of being diagrammatic or even cartoonish) and yet very accurate as far as design intent, but remains flexible when it comes to engineering strategies.

(2) Since the scope-drawing function of the RfP is well recognized, the building description is conceptually inverted. Instead of explaining the building through the construction detail, FOG/A uses the volumes to locate and describe the engineering work that will have to be sorted out by subcontractors. The resulting description is thus more geometrical than architectural (or constructional): what matters, at this stage, is the spatial definition of the idea in all its various components.

138 (3) Axonometrics play a critical role in the definition and comprehension of this idea. It is indeed the method of representation that clarifies it all, that brings all the details together. One important reason for its use must be found in the spatially integrated nature of Gehry’s work. Contrary to general opinion, the focus here is not on ‘form’ per se but rather on the topological relationship that must be established between building systems. Axonometrics show how different technological elements are conceptually connected and will be physically related. On the other hand, the pictorial description of the entire building allows subcontractors to understand the scope of the work, eventually suggesting alternative ways of achieving such description if need or advantage be.

(4) Catia files provide the dimensional amalgama for all this work, making sure that coordination is not only achieved between systems, but also updated as the project moves on. This allows engineering subcontractors to concentrate on their work without worrying about programme modifications and dimensional coordination, already taken into account by Catia file revisions.

SUCCESS OF THE DESIGN-ASSIST SYSTEM

The question that informs this analysis should, of course, be whether the structure described allows FOG/A to manage specialist contributions effectively, while enhancing the performance of the design procurement process. This question is a difficult one to answer by using cost figures. As with any other office, project financial information is guarded very closely at FOG/A. Besides, this information may not yield conclusive findings. The work developed by the office in the last ten years has defined a niche to which only a relatively small group of trade specialists has had access. Even within a competitive bidding environment, the type of projects and the use of specific technical and formal solutions have resulted in a selected construction market with limited players. (By 1997, for instance, Zanher Metals from Kansas City had worked with FOG/A on more than thirty projects.) This condition has obviously created relations of consolidated trust, mutual understanding and technical cooperation, which go beyond the scope of work defined by hard documents. The success of FOG/A’s working relationship with many trade specialists could well depend on this unusual and privileged situation rather than the structure of the documentation.

Nonetheless, several elements should be considered. On one side, the practice described has been going on for ten years. It was introduced in 1991 to cope with the stone cladding and support system of the Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles, and has been progressively extended to any project that FOG/A works on. Today, the office uses design-assist RfPs on an average of six or seven specialty packages per project, generally on primary structure, secondary structure and envelope. The effort required to prepare such documents is significant. By-and-large, an initial request translates into a booklet of at least one hundred pages, and distributed to half a dozen selected contractors.

The structure of the document has changed through the years. In the early 1990s, RfPs betrayed the novelty of the experiment for the office. Descriptive materials were collected more or less from existing design development documents, and did not follow the same rigorous structure that they follow today. Rather than reflecting a precise method of organizing the documentation, the early information had an ad-hoc character, which tended to reflect the degree of complexity of the individual system rather than a formalized approach to cooperative work. Over time, the layout has acquired standard formats which are now employed consistently, albeit not rigidly, across different systems.

139

The development of such apparatus should also be put in relation to FOG/A’s maturing position about architecture. Today, the office has refined its idea of architecture as sculpture by qualifying it technologically: architecture is a spatial practice consciously defined by the use of a few particular technologies (casting, cutting, milling and sheating) applied to a few particular materials: generally concrete, steel and stone. RfPs have thus become the first methodological reflection of a process of architectural specialization, the strategies of which have been extended to the work-breakdown structure of the building process (and hence to the planning of its procurement).

The association of language to construction has strenghtened the position of FOG/A in the process. The office can now deal directly, still at a design level and with considerable leverage, with the subcontractors that are assembling over 50% of the building value. Moreover, by concentrating on a relatively small range of building solutions, FOG/A has acquired significant technical expertise in the systems it wants to use and the results it wants to obtain from using them. If early RfPs were an attempt to gain information that was not available within the office, they are now a way to control the selection and steer the work of suppliers and subcontractors. While RfP instructions are kept simple and streamlined (an indication of acquired expertise), the list of documents that subcontractors are required to submit for their design-assist bids is not only very extensive but also extremely precise contentwise. The letter of invitation to which the RfP is attached contains several pages detailing the graphic and non-graphic requirements of the submission. By setting up the framework for collaboration in such a way, FOG/A uses both subcontractor selection and design assist as a laboratory to test, or further, its own predefined directions of investigation.

CONCLUSIONS

In the end, FOG/A’s design-assist RfP method has achieved several results:

(1) It has shown a way to interact with trade specialists before the completion of contract documents, and without disrupting competitive tendering;

(2) It has set up a structure that requires subcontractors to become proactive in the definition of the building’s systems, and take responsibility if the development of these systems does not meet expectations;

(3) It has defined a controlling position for the architect by relinquishing many detail design responsibilities to the execution component while acquiring clear planning and coordinating roles;

(4) It has created a technical framework which can be expanded over time, which the office can build on in terms of cumulative knowledge, and which can be reused with minimal modifications on every project without resulting in the same artifact;

One could say that all of this was made possible by FOG/A’s almost unique position in the world of architectural practice. This position has conferred the office great leeway in setting up unusual design paths, enticing specialists to participate in these design ventures, and concentrating resources on research and development. Yet if one considers the methods employed rather than the final building product, FOG/A’s experience provides lessons that are

140 independent of the scope of the contract, the type of market, or the architectural language in use.

To start with, the attention to RfP preparation shows a clear understanding and acceptance of the relationship that should exists in architecture, operatively and culturally, between conception and implementation. FOG/A’s design intent is not limited to form definition; it enters all aspects of form making, down to the procurement issues of the building process. By extension, design monitoring starts at project planning stage rather than tender or on site; at that moment, it is too late to establish a fruitful relationship with the execution component.

This relationship, on the other hand, cannot be based entirely on information for construction; the communication of design intent at an early stage must use its own representational methods and conventions. The description of Frank Gehry’s work in the Requests for Proposals prepared by his office is different from that found in the contract documents or in the architectural drawings. Simply organized but highly explanatory of the logics of the object, RfP materials take complex geometries and dissect them into elementary components. Graphics are intentionally immediate and often pictorial but never reduce the content of the message. The documents reveal a pedagogical approach to group work, which aims at facilitating comprehension from all parties rather than establishing individual positions.

141 MATERIALISING NON-ORTHOGONAL BUILDING CONCEPTS IN A MARKET ENVIRONMENT

DR KAREL J. VOLLERS

INTRODUCTION

The application of curved lines and surfaces in architecture, with their characteristic associative qualities, is receiving a growing attention. To realise these shapes for a reasonable price necessitates in an industrialised country, the use of the newest techniques and stimulating the process of innovating. This requires knowledge of the interrelation of function, form, means of materialising and structure of the market. Within the growing possibilities that computerising of the building industry offers, it is essential to make efficient use of the available means, and for this reason give direction to the developments, and support them on a national level with a demand of the market. In the architects’ work, technical developments are not an aim in itself, but a way to realise architecture in a pure form. Combining and coordinating new developments in the use of materials and techniques, has always been an important task of the architect. In the following description the problems when developing a double-curved façade including glass, have been approached integrally. It focuses on twisted surfaces.

PROBLEM SOLVING BY SIMPLIFICATION AND PHASING

The various problems related to the shaping of double-curved surfaces in their pure geometrical shape were dealt with in phases. First the shaping of relatively simple surfaces was studied, then that of surfaces with an increasing degree of transforming and complexity. The research focussed on the twisted surfaces. As they consist of straight lines, they are to be placed between the freely double-curved surfaces and the unfoldable surfaces, like cones and single-curved surfaces. The twisting of components usually is being avoided in building, as both measuring and production were complicated. The introduction of computers eased the problems. Twisted surfaces have an archetypical form. They are important to designers because they imply a great increase of the available semiotic vocabulary that is inherent to the use of shapes in architecture. Linked with the degree of deforming, the connotations of twisting range from associations with strangling, getting caught in a situation, to that of a romantic desire to break out of it.

142 Hardly any architect, designer or draughtsman still knows how to handle mathematical formulas that describe (double)-curved surfaces. The formulas offer mathematically correct descriptions, but do not connect in a direct way to the actual building process. The circles that intersect the earth, or are positioned inclined in the air do not easily connect up with building in the open air, under varying weather conditions. The contours of surfaces in modern architecture usually no longer are straight or of one radius. Therefore prior to showing architectural uses of twisted surfaces, a new scheme was made to organise the different types of surfaces. This scheme is not based on the conventional descriptions using ‘complicated’ formulas that no builder understands, for example hyperbolic paraboloid or conoid, and that hardly offer any help in the assembling process of a building, but is based on manipulations used when drawing the surfaces with a computer, i.e. ‘move’ and ‘rotate’. These manipulations are represented in the above scheme by icons. In series of models the use and materialising possibilities of twisted surfaces was studied, varying in the degree of deformation, repetition, and the height of the buildings, and making use of the straight lines for dimensioning the building models. To give direction to producers and building investors, models were elaborated showing building volumes, build-up of façades and floor plans. The building types often are new. First the use, dimensioning and materialising possibilities of single-curved surfaces were investigated in a housing project, consisting of 2 housing blocks with complementary curved facades. In these surfaces a straight line is moved, following a single-curved path. Next the use of twisted surfaces was investigated. ‘Ruled’ surfaces are twisted surfaces, built up by moving a straight line and simultaneously rotating it, whereby there always is a component of the rotation perpendicular to the direction of movement. ‘Curve’ surfaces (which is a new group of surfaces), are surfaces built up by moving and rotating a curved line. Freely double- curved surfaces subsequently, are more complex than curve surfaces. Twisted surfaces and freely double-curved surfaces have many similarities in their geometry and way of producing, but the latter are, because of the different curvatures of the neighbouring lines, more complex.

THE DESIGN OF A PRODUCT CONSISTING OF VARIOUS NEW COMPONENTS WITHIN A MARKET ENVIRONMENT

First 4 study teams were assembled: Concrete panelling, Glas, Cladding system and Cad (- Cam). The chosen materials are the most common ones used in current high rise buildings, and therefore their manufacturers may wish to obtain substantial shares in the future market of double-curved facades also. In this initial phase the problems of the remaining building parts

143 were being considered to be of less importance. Participants were selected and forwarded clear descriptions of the paths to follow, with on the one hand the problem and on the other hand a trajectory for the innovating. Thus the manufacturers will distinguish themselves by their innovating qualities, which implicitly possibly will visually enrich the environment. Each team worked on the problems of twisting independent of the others, but coordinated by the architect. By separating the teams work, the participants were not burdened by the problems that others sometimes encountered, and the reports issued to them could stay thin and easy to understand. Also it kept the architect like a spider in the middle of the web. He could not be passed. A disadvantage of this organisation was that the process slowed down every time any of the participants didn’t get on with his task. This happened regularly, as they were not paid for their work, and often favoured, because of financial repercussions, to finish of other projects they had at hand. Also as the architect closely took part in the developments, any time he had to slow down because of lack of funding, all teams halted.

RESEARCH BY DESIGN

The following building models and prototypes were designed to motivate, integrate and show the teams direction:

A tordo (a building with an orthogonal organised internal structure of which floors and walls meet under straight angles) is relatively easy to build, as only the facades at the front and backside have been (slightly) twisted, and the rules connect to the superstructure.

144 In this twister the floors are positioned with a rotation in a vertical direction. In a cylindrical core some building components (such as elevators) rise vertically, while other components (such as sanitary units and stairs) rotate in conjunction with the rectangular office wings. The varying interpositioning of the components results in a different plan in the core on every floor. As every floor is repeated on the next level, all building elements feature a big repetition.

This 150m high twister was fitted in an urban situation to put the twisting formula to the test. It is composed of 2 perpendicularly intersecting volumes. As a result of the only slight twisting of approx. 0,5' per m1, it is conventional in use. The façades hardly lean over. The volume as a whole looks spectacular, because the many slightly twisted elements add up to the considerable twist of 66.6'. There is an enor-mous repetition of parts; the window frames and the glass are to be bent cold. To prove the system’s feasibility, a mock-up was made of the façade, measuring 2.4x4.8 m. Light steel wings are hung from a concrete building core. A corridor acts as an intermediate between the core that rises without rotation, and the wings that hang from it. They rotate 1,5' further on each floor. This project has been tendered by the industries for all parts of major importance, including the installations for climatising and facade cleaning. However, as the project was only proposed to the client late in the planning process, he preferred to continue cooperating with another architect. The model now can quickly be adjusted to suit a client for a different location.

145 To study an alternative building structure and other architectural uses, this symmetrically composed twister, 60 m high, has 2 wings rotating in opposite directions around the cylindrical core. The side facades are not twisted but cylindrical. Because of the contrary rotation of the wings, the floor plans in the core vary on each level. This is an interesting aspect for the use of the building, as it introduces diversity, by differently positioning similar elements. The cylindrical concrete core is essential for the stability. The reflection of a twisted façade in a twisted façade results in unexpected images.

In low-rise tordo’s the deformation of the reflection at streetlevel was investigated; moving reflections of carlights, or if the spectator moves himself, of streetlanterns, will move with a varying speed over the façade and transform.

The models with twisted surfaces that are mentioned above are meant to show examples of possible uses. Just like when using rectangular shapes, the possibilities to vary and combine are countless. The models were drawn because the subject is so new, that the building participants had to be shown the possibilities.

146 THE TWIST ALUMINIUM FAÇADE SYSTEM

This is an industrially produced framing system for twisted façades, with warm bent twisted glass, the first in the world. [1] It combines a stiff backing profile, (which for example is positioned everywhere parallel to the floors or walls), with a glazing profile, that lies parallel to the twisting (or if preferred, a freely double-curving) glass-surface. By bending the backing profiles freely in one direction, a freely double curved façade results. The development of heat-strengthened twisted glass and subsequently freely double-curved glass will be a focus point in my future work. They are in line with the development of annealed twisted glass.

CONCLUSIONS

It is possible to make an industrially produced framing system for twisted and freely double curved façades. It is possible to make twisted annealed glass for a twisted façade. Cold bent tempered glass within a cold bent aluminium framing system is an economically interesting option for twisted façades. The concept of twisting can result in similar images for the building layout and the façade system.

[1] The system was developed with: • Van Dool gevelconstructies • Reynolds Architectuursystemen, Reynolds Special Products and Van Dool Constructies • Van Tetterode Glasatelier, Eijkelkamp and Glaverbel • Hellevoort Visuals [2] Additional to the ones mentioned in [1] for this prototype Reynolds Special Products was a participant.

147 APPENDIX

International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction

CIB General Secretariat:

Office address: Kruisplein 25-G tel: +31.10.411 02 40 3014 DB Rotterdam fax: +31.10.433 43 72 Postal address: P.O. Box 1837 e-mail: [email protected] 3000 BV Rotterdam http//www.cibworld.nl The Netherlands

CIB is a world wide network of over 5000 experts from about 500 organisations, who actively cooperate and exchange information in over 50 Commissions and Task Groups. Their scopes extend to all fields in building and construction related research and development. They are listed on the next page.

They are actively engaged in initiating projects for R&D and information exchange, organising workshops, symposia and congresses and producing publications of acknowledged global repute.

It is in their ability to bring a multi-national and multi-disciplinary approach to bear on the subject matter delineated in their Terms of Reference that is their strength.

CIB Members come from institutes, companies, partnerships and other types of organisations as well as individual experts involved in research or in the transfer or application of research results. More than 130 Universities worldwide have joined.

CIB is an Association that utilises the collective expertise of its membership to foster innovations and to create workable solutions to technical, economic, social and organisational problems within its competence.

Details on Membership and Activities are obtainable from the General Secretariat at the address above.

148 CIB Task Groups (TG) and Working Commissions (W) (as at 1st November 2002)

Task Groups TG19 Designing for the Ageing Society TG23 Culture in Construction TG28 Dissemination of Indoor Air Sciences (joint CIB-ISIAQ Task Group) TG31 Macro-Economic Data for the Construction Industry TG33 Concurrent Engineering in Construction TG34 Regeneration of the Built Environment TG37 Performance Based Building Regulatory Systems TG38 Urban Sustainability TG39 Deconstruction TG40 Informal Settlements TG41 Benchmarking Construction Performance TG42 Performance Criteria of Buildings for Health and Comfort (Joint CIB-ISIAQ Task Group) TG43 Megacities TG44 Performance Evaluation of Buildings with Response Control Devices TG45 Performance Indicators for Urban Development (Joint CIB-FIG Task Group) TG46 Certification in Construction TG47 Innovation Brokerage in Construction TG48 Social and Economic Aspects of Sustainable Construction TG49 Architectural Engineering TG50 Tall Buildings

Working Commissions W014 Fire W018 Timber Structures W023 Wall Structures W040 Heat and Moisture Transfer in Buildings W051 Acoustics W055 Building Economics W056 Sandwch Panels (joint CIB - ECCS Commission) W060 Performance Concept in Building W062 Water Supply and Drainage W063 Affordable Housing W065 Organisation and Management of Construction W067 Energy Conservation in the Built Environment W069 Housing Sociology W070 Facilities Management and Maintenance W077 Indoor Climate W078 Information Technology for Construction W080 Prediction of Service Life of Building Materials and Components (Joint CIB-RILEM Commission) W082 Future Studies in Construction W083 Roofing Materials and Systems (Joint CIB-RILEM Commission)

149 CIB Task Groups (TG) and Working Commissions (W0) (as at 1st November 2002)

W084 Building Non-Handicapping Environments W086 Building Pathology W087 Post-Construction Liability and Insurance W089 Building Research and Education W092 Procurement Systems W094 Design for Durability W096 Architectural Management W098 Intelligent and Responsive Buildings W099 Safety and Health on Construction Sites W100 Environmental Assessment of Buildings W101 Spatial Planning and Infrastructure Development W102 Information and Knowledge Management in Building (Joint CIB-UICB Commission) W103 Construction Conflict: Avoidance and Resolution W104 Open Building Implementation W105 Life Time Engineering in Construction W106 Geographical Information Systems W107 Construction in Developing Countries W108 Climate Change and the Built Environment

150 CIB HOME PAGE

WWW.CIBWORLD.NL

The CIB home page contains the following main and publicly accessible sections: 1. General Information 2. Newsletter 3. Databases

General Information Included is General Information about CIB in the following sub-sections: • Introduction, including among others: CIB in the past and present • Mission Statement • Membership which includes information on the various types of CIB Membership and on developments in the composition of the CIB Membership • Organisation, including the composition of the CIB Board and its Standing Committees and of the CIB General Secretariat and links with the CIB Partner Organisations • Programme of Activities • Services to Members, and in addition the possibilities for Members to participate in CIB's Programme of Activities • Fee System and How To Join, including the description of the current Membership Fee Levels and the option to electronically request a Membership Application Form

Newsletters In this section electronic copies are included of the various issues of INFORMATION, the CIB Bi-Monthly Newsletter, as published over the last couple of years. Also included is an Index to facilitate searching articles on certain topics published in all included issues of INFORMATION. Databases This is the largest section in the CIB home page. It includes fact sheets in separate on-line regularly updated databases, with detailed searchable information as concerns:

• ± 500 CIB Member Organisations, including among others: descriptions of their Fields of Activities, contact information and links with their Websites • ± 5000 Individual Contacts, with an indication of their Fields of Expertise, photo and contact information • ± 50 CIB Task Groups and Working Commissions, with a listing of their Coordinators and Members, Scope and Objectives, Work Programme and Planned Outputs, Publications produced so far, and Schedule of Meetings • ± 100 Publications, originating to date from the CIB Task Groups and Working Commissions, with a listing of their contents, price and information on how to order • ± 250 Meetings, including an indication of subjects, type of Meeting, dates and location, contact information and links with designated websites for all CIB Meetings (± 50 each year) and all other international workshops, symposia, conferences, etc. of potential relevance for people interested in research and innovation in the area of building and construction

151 Searchable Data: an Example Searching for certain publications in the Databases in the CIB home page can be done in the following three ways: 1. In the home page itself a pre-selection is included of all recent CIB publications (published in the last 4 to 6 months). By clicking on "New Publications" the respective list will appear. By clicking on a title in this list the information fact sheet about this Publication will appear, including the option for an electronic order if it concerns a publication produced by the CIB Secretariat. 2. In the description of a Task Group or Working Commission in the database "Commissions" a pre-programmed selection is included of all publications produced under the responsibility of each Commission. 3. In the database "Publications" one can search, for example, for all publications on a certain topic, by simply typing the word that covers this topic in the box "Title" in the search page that appears when one asks for this database.

• • •

WWW.CIBWORLD.NL

152

DISCLAIMER

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system without permission in writing from the publishers.

The publisher makes no representation, express or implied, with regard to the accuracy of the information contained in this book and cannot accept any legal responsibility or liability in whole or in part for any errors or omissions that may be made.

The reader should verify the applicability of the information to particular situations and check the references prior to any reliance thereupon. Since the information contained in the book is multidisciplinary, international and professional in nature, the reader is urged to consult with an appropriate licensed professional prior to taking any action or making any interpretation that is within the realm of a licensed professional practice.

153