78

Architectural Engineering and Design Management

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Architectural Engineering and Design Management
Page 2: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

Architectural Engineering and Design ManagementASPECTS OF BUILDING DESIGN MANAGEMENT

GUEST EDITOR Stephen Emmitt

Page 3: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

Contents

EditorialStephen Emmitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

International Building Design Management and Project Performance:Case Study in São Paulo, BrazilLeonardo Grilo, Sílvio Melhado, Sérgio Alfredo Rosa Silva, Peter Edwardsand Cliff Hardcastle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Design Management from a Contractor’s Perspective: The Need for ClarityPatricia Tzortzopoulos and Rachel Cooper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Forming Core Elements for Strategic Design Management: How to Define and DirectArchitectural Value in an Industrialized ContextAnne Beim and Kasper Vibæk Jensen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Modelling Trade Contractor Information ProductionColin Gray and Salam Al-Bizri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Rules of Engagement: Testing the Attributes of Distant Outsourcing MarriagesPaolo Tombesi, Bharat Dave, Blair Gardiner and Peter Scriver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Building Stories Revisited: Unlocking the Knowledge Capital of Architectural PracticeAnn Heylighen, W. Mike Martin and Humberto Cavallin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Book reviewsStephen Emmitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

prelims 6/13/07 11:29 AM Page 1

Page 4: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

This special edition of Architectural Engineering andDesign Management takes part of the journal’s title,design management, as the theme. The paperspublished here were originally submitted to aconference held at the Technical University ofDenmark, organized by the CIB’s working groupW096 Architectural Management. A select number ofauthors were subsequently asked to revise andextend their papers for inclusion in this specialedition. Papers were selected to give a broad view ofdesign management and the variations in approachand style are indicative of the authors’ backgroundsand approach to their subject area. The work reportedalso has an international flavour with contributorsrepresenting Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Denmark,England, Puerto Rico, Scotland and the US. It ishoped that in taking such a multi-faceted approach,the papers will stimulate debate and further researchinto this rapidly growing field.

In the first paper, Grilo et al provide a usefulinsight into design management and the performanceof construction projects from an internationalperspective. The case study from São Paulo, Brazil,helps to highlight the cultural differences withininternational design and project teams and thechallenges arising from such temporal configurations.Coordination and management of informationfeatures strongly, as does the implication of designchanges and late decision making. Cultural normsand socio-technical differences pose significantmanagement challenges to such workingarrangements. Indeed, the clearest result from thecase study is the need for participants to understandthe roles and responsibilities of other stakeholdersthrough appropriate communication. All of which

point to the need for better management of theinterfaces between project participants.

In the second paper, Tzortzopoulos and Cooperinvestigate design management from the perspectiveof contractors working in the UK. With contractorsassuming and taking managerial responsibility for thedesign process in the majority of projects in the UK,the issues of roles, responsibilities and control ofdesign value have taken on increased importance.Two case studies help to identify some confusionover the term design management and the lack ofclarity regarding the design management role inpractice. The paper raises an important issue aboutwho is best qualified to manage design, and judgingfrom the case study findings it would appear thatthere is considerable scope for improvement incontracting organizations. Of practical help is theidentification of skills necessary for effective designmanagers. The authors conclude with a plea forgreater clarity of stakeholders’ roles in designmanagement with a view to achieving effectiveprocesses and best value.

Defining and directing architectural value withinindustrialized buildings in Denmark forms the thrust ofthe paper by Beim and Vibæk Jensen. Thisphilosophical, yet pragmatic, attention to coreelements of strategic design management helps tooutline an approach for achieving architectural qualitywithin an industrialized context. The authors arespecific in their aim: to help architectural officesidentify the characteristics and specific workingmethods for industrialized architecture, although thepaper does have a wider application. Case studies andexamples drawn from interviews with architects helpto add some colour to their theoretical model. Similarly,

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 3–4

3

Editorial

Stephen Emmitt

Editorial 6/13/07 10:13 AM Page 3

Page 5: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

testing the model in architectural education andreflecting on the results adds further to the authors’argument. This is a paper about empowering thearchitect and helping to improve architectural quality.

In the fourth paper, Gray and Al-Bizri attempt tomodel the not inconsiderable amount of informationproduction by trade contractors in the UK. Theauthors have focused on an area of engineeringdesign/design management largely overlooked byresearchers to date, despite its importance to thematerialization of buildings. By concentrating on therole of trade contractors, the authors propose ageneric sequence of design activities for constructionelements, which recognizes project specificrequirements and interactions with other components.The design of a precast concrete cladding panelprovides a worked example. In addition to exploringthe complexity of the detailed design phase, theauthors conclude by arguing for a knowledge base forall technologies to guide the user to the mostappropriate solution. Presumably such an approachwould also help to make the management of thisphase in the life of a design project more effective,thus helping to reduce uncertainty and associatedwaste during the realization phase.

Continuing the theme of information productionand documentation, Tombesi et al report on the digitaloutsourcing of architectural services from anAustralian perspective. This paper clearly identifiesthe challenges for researchers and practitioners inpresenting a balanced view of the opportunitiesand perils inherent in digital outsourcing and thecreation of distant alliances. This paper isinteresting in that it does not concentrate solelyon information communication technologies; moreimportantly, it addresses the socio-technicalcharacteristics and cultural routines of the firms

involved in such relationships. The complex socio-technical characteristics of architectural practices andthe need for clear criteria and protocols whenoutsourcing work are emphasized. The experience ofthe research project to date has shown that distantcollaboration changes significantly with thedocumentation requirements of the firms involved.Thus, it is crucial that the purpose of the work isclearly defined and the structure of the professionalcollaboration designed with the same care as thatgiven to the building.

A common feature of the papers is the issue ofknowledge and information transfer. In the final paper,Heylighen et al tackle knowledge capital inarchitectural education. This work draws heavily onthe experience of the authors at the University ofCalifornia – Berkeley, and posits a good argument forstorytelling as a precursor to good design and itsmanagement. In addition to providing usefulreflection on their educational programme, theauthors aim to create a discussion forum for dialogueabout how knowledge is generated and disseminatedin architecture. Largely implicit in this paper is therelationship between storytelling and effective designmanagement, especially through the ability todevelop relationships in collaborative arrangements.Hopefully, this is an area for further research.

Explicit and implicit in the papers is the issue ofhow actors work, or at least attempt to work,together. Collectively, the papers help to emphasizethe softer side of design management and the inter-relationships between people, technologies andmanagement. Continuing the design managementtheme, two books are reviewed that deal with relatedfactors. The first deals with partnering and integratedteamworking, the second with the integration of valueand risk management.

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 3–4

4 Editorial

Editorial 6/13/07 10:13 AM Page 4

Page 6: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

■ Keywords – Building design; construction; contracts;globalization; project management; quality

ECONOMIC SCENARIO ANDCONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IN BRAZILWith a population close to 186 million people, a grossdomestic product (GDP) around US$1.492 trillion anda GDP per capita of US$8100 (CIA, 2005), Brazil hasthe largest domestic market in Latin America. Locatedin the south east of the country, São Paulo is Brazil’smost important city, and is the third largest in theworld in terms of population, behind Tokyo andMexico City. With regard to the Brazilian constructionindustry, São Paulo is also the most significant state

for development, with about 30,000 residential unitsbuilt annually just in the metropolitan area of SãoPaulo city (Conjuntura da Construção, 2005).

In the 1970s, foreign investment brought aboutsignificant growth rates in Brazil, which led to theimplementation of large infrastructure projects andthe development of a competitive heavy constructionindustry. However, public expenditure and growthrates were severely constrained after a shortage offoreign investment in the 1980s. Monthly inflationrates of up to 80% discouraged measures to improveefficiency owing to the attractiveness of financialoperations. Low productivity, lack of quality andhigh material wastage contributed to create

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 5–16

5

AbstractThe decline in construction demand in developed countries has led to the search for business opportunitiesoverseas and the entry of foreign companies into emerging markets. Recent advances in information andcommunication technologies have also favoured the procurement of architecture, engineering andconstruction services on a global basis, and have led to the establishment of international design teams. Theemployment of foreign design firms for complex building projects in developing countries can promotebenefits such as technology transfer and innovative architectural and engineering design solutions. However,it can also bring about additional risks that, if not recognized early in the procurement process, can createdifficulties during the design and construction stages. International design teams may exacerbate traditionalcommunication problems as a result of differences in language, managerial style, organizational andindividual culture, lack of personal contacts and poor adoption of communication technologies. This paperexplores the technological, managerial, organizational and cultural barriers that may arise from theemployment of foreign design offices for complex building projects in developing countries. Analysis of acase study in São Paulo suggests that the engagement of foreign consultants requires careful planning,innovative managerial approaches, attention to behavioural issues, appropriate communication andinformation technologies, sensible choice of procurement routes, and mutual understanding of stakeholders’roles and responsibilities.

ARTICLE

International Building DesignManagement and Project Performance:Case Study in São Paulo, BrazilLeonardo Grilo, Sílvio Melhado, Sérgio Alfredo Rosa Silva, Peter Edwards

and Cliff Hardcastle

Grilo 6/15/07 12:10 PM Page 5

Page 7: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

a negative image of the construction industry,according to public opinion.

In the past decade, globalization, marketopenness, privatization of state-owned enterprises,monetary stability, fiscal constraint and shortages inpublic expenditure, changes in the procurement law,decline in profit margins and increasing customerconsciousness have all contributed towardsreshaping the profile of the construction industry.Some sectors responded promptly and establishedextensive measures to address the inefficiencies thattraditionally plagued the industry.

Government-driven policies, such as the BrazilianQuality and Productivity Program (PBQP-Habitat),inspired in the Housing Quality Program of São PauloState (QUALIHAB), enforced the gradual implementationof quality management systems as a requirement forconstruction and design firms to take part in publicbids. According to the Brazilian Technical StandardAssociation, about 280 construction firms and 160design and project management offices werecompliant with ISO quality management systemstandards and about 1550 contractors were compliantwith PBQP-Habitat’s requirements in the four levels ofexigency (D, C, B and A) up to February 2003 (ABNT,2003). These figures clearly illustrate the increaseduse of quality systems in the Brazilian constructionindustry. However, despite improvements achievedin some segments, advances across sectors anddifferent regions of the country remain heterogeneous.

Foreign companies are present in varioussegments of the Brazilian construction industry. Thedecline in construction demand in developed countriestends to enhance the search for opportunities on aninternational basis and the entry of foreign competitorsinto developing markets. In Brazil, the entry of foreignorganizations has exposed the technical andcommercial weaknesses of local firms. In addition, thelack of mutual agreements to regulate the trade ofbuilding design services between countries hasenhanced these limitations. Musa (1996) listed somerelative weaknesses of local architectural offices incomparison with foreign firms, such as lack ofresponsiveness and flexibility, difficult relationshipswith technical designers and reduced involvement ofclients in the decision-making process. Musasuggested some measures to reduce the impact of

globalization and stressed the importance of initiativesaimed at reducing barriers to entry for Brazilian designpractices in other countries, such as diploma validationrequirements, excessive taxation and the need to setup a branch with a local company in order to gain accessto these markets.

Despite recent improvements, the constructionindustry is still considered as backward comparedwith other industries. Frequently, constructionmethods are poorly chosen, workers are not properlytrained and on-site supervision and projectmanagement are lax. Extensive waste, informality andproject time and cost overruns are recurrent. TheBrazilian construction industry also lacks consistentindustrial policies, since its activity level is oftenerratic and driven by political motivations, such asabsorbing non-skilled workers. In its annual report onthe construction industry, for example, the BrazilianInstitute of Geography and Statistics highlights thatthe informal sector was responsible for 63% of thevalue added by the construction sector in 2003 (IBGE,2003; Zaidan, 2005).

The Brazilian industry is dependent ongovernment programmes such as low-incomehousing, infrastructure and other civil works. The highcost of capital, credit scarcity, public expenditureshortages, political turbulence and economic shockshave recently affected the performance of the sector,despite a national housing shortfall in excess of7.2 million units (Fundação João Pinheiro, 2005;Garcia et al, 2005). The construction industryexperienced outstanding progress in the 1990s.However, the inconsistent economic growth in recentyears may affect long-term initiatives workingtowards the improvement of the performance of theBrazilian construction industry.

POTENTIAL BARRIERS FOR BUILDINGDESIGN MANAGEMENTIn no other important industry is the designresponsibility so detached from the productionresponsibility as it is in construction (Banwell, 1964).Harvey (1971) criticized the separation betweendesigners and contractors in England. Contractors areoften excluded from the design process, whiledesigners are expected to undertake responsibility forelements of the construction that they do not fully

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 5–16

6 L. GRILO, S. MELHADO, S.A.R. SILVA, P. EDWARDS AND C. HARDCASTLE

Grilo 6/15/07 12:10 PM Page 6

Page 8: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

understand. The construction industry presents acomplex responsibility chain and nobody seemsprepared to satisfy the client (Egan, 1998). Somecommentators argue that designers could benefitfrom the early involvement of contractors, who, undertraditional procurement systems, are not usuallyinvolved before the bidding process (Pocock et al,1997).

Frequently, designers and contractors are workingtogether for the first time on a project. Even if theirparent companies have collaborated in the past,actual team members assigned to a new project willprobably be unknown to each other (Groák, 1992).The fact that project team members do not knoweach other in personal and organizational terms isrelevant (Brown, 2001).

Stakeholders commonly approach projects withparticular expectations. Although these expectationsvary according to the project type, clients usuallyseek time and cost certainty, and quality. Designersfocus on aesthetics, functionality and a minimal useof resources. Conversely, contractors expect feasiblemethods, viable schedules and a profit margincommensurate with the level of risk transfer. Theunderlying divergence of objectives can hinder teambuilding and encourage an adversarial approach.Selected by their reputation, designers will focus onquality; whereas contractors, hired by competitivetendering, tend to concentrate on efficiency andeconomy (Bobroff, 1991; Nam and Tatum, 1992;Barlow et al, 1997).

Architects have been accused of abandoning theirresponsibilities within the project team (Weingardt,1996) and studies point out that they have beenincreasingly replaced by contractors and projectmanagers in the design management role (RIBA,1992; Gray and Hughes, 2001), mainly as a result ofpoor communication with clients and deficient costand time management. The Tavistock Institute (1999)recommends the appointment of architects for thepurpose of design integration and of otherprofessionals for project management, since thelatter involves duties that are unattractive toarchitects and which could thus be neglected if theywere to undertake a project management role.

An adequate level of client involvement candemonstrably enhance overall satisfaction with the

investment and the likelihood of meeting establishedgoals (Davenport and Smith, 1995). If the client adoptspractices that promote a collaborative environment,the stakeholders will be encouraged to increase thequality and efficiency of their services in all stages ofthe process (Jawahar-Nessan and Price, 1997).

Procurement systems can also influence theproject performance and the integration betweendesign and construction teams. The selection ofprocurement routes should consider aspects such asproject type, building complexity, design andconstruction schedule and budget, and clientorganization and experience (Chan and Chan, 2000).Love et al (1998) suggest a range of criteria toestablish client requirements and informprocurement choices, namely, speed during designand construction, variability, flexibility to designchanges, quality, protection against risks, complexity,responsibilities, total price and arbitration.

POTENTIAL DIFFICULTIES FORINTERNATIONAL BUILDING DESIGNTEAMSDespite recent technological developments,communication between organizations (or evenwithin a single organization) has been identified asa main driver of failures in construction projects.Research carried out by British insurance companiespointed to poor communication and lack ofcoordination as primary drivers of client dissatisfaction,claims, frustration with unattended items, lack ofpositive relationships and incomplete information(Brown, 2001).

Communication and functional issues, whichinvolve not only the organizations but also theindividuals, cannot be ignored. Without an analysis ofindividual skills, cultures and interests, there will be littleunderstanding of roles or respect for leadershipstructures, which can enhance rivalry and reluctance tocooperate. Issues such as roles, cultures andcommunication must be addressed if personal skills areto be optimized on behalf of the team (Brown, 2001).

In recent years, information and communicationtechnologies have evolved rapidly. Providers havedeveloped collaborative systems and started to offerservices that enable project team members tocooperate in a virtual project environment. Collaborative

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 5–16

International Building Design Management and Project Performance 7

Grilo 6/15/07 12:10 PM Page 7

Page 9: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

systems can bring about potential benefits, includingreduction of communication failures, savings withposting and photocopying, speed, safety, privacy indata transfer, automatic issue of reports andelimination of document control and distributionprocedures (Chinowski and Rojas, 2003).

However, team members tend to operate inisolation, which inhibits the establishment of trust andthe awareness of individual roles. Therefore, projectmanagers need to reinforce individual roles andconciliate team members’ expectations throughoutthe project. They should also set parameters forinformation exchange to reduce the likelihood ofexponential increases in data flow and informationoverloads. Consequently, remote project teamsrequire leaders who are able to communicate andestablish relationships (Chinowski and Rojas, 2003).

In theory, international design teams canadversely influence team members’ willingness tocollaborate because of factors such as remoteness,impersonal relationships, preconceptions, lack ofadequate technologies to support communicationand data transfer, different languages and particularindividual and organizational cultures. On the otherhand, foreign offices can bring a lot of advantages,notably technology transfer, innovative designconcepts and awareness of aesthetic issues.Nevertheless, these benefits can be outweighed bythe potential disadvantages, which should beproperly managed to minimize the likelihood andimpact of their occurrence.

Wang (2000) describes some difficulties in theassignment of foreign designers in Chinese projects:selection by a ‘competition of ideas’ does notconsider the size, reputation and capacity of thedesign practice; lack of familiarity with localstandards may necessitate late design changes oradjustments to plans and specifications by local‘design institutes’; the need for large numbers ofimported components in service engineering;deficient communication techniques; differentlanguages; and long distances.

Moreover, Wang (2000) highlights the relevanceof the functional arrangement for the performance ofthe design team. The appointment of foreign officesto coordinate the design ensures a broader fidelitywith the original concept, but tends to create

difficulties for local contractors. Alternatively, clientscan assign Chinese design institutes for thepreparation of detail plans and specifications so as tofavour buildability in terms of local practice. Wangsuggests a hybrid arrangement: the appointment oflocal designers at the outset of the project in order toadapt the design to local standards and to minimizethe involvement of foreign designers in the detailwork. It is assumed that this strategy could proveequally beneficial in projects that involve foreigndesign firms in Brazil.

CASE STUDY RESEARCH METHODOLOGYThe technical scope of a case study can be defined as‘an empirical investigation that observes acontemporary phenomenon in a realistic context,especially when the boundaries between thephenomenon and the context are not clearly evident’(Yin, 1994). Investigations that focus on the linkagesbetween complex organizations – such as thoseinvolved in a construction project – may require theadoption of multiple sources of evidence (interviews,documental analysis) and the consultation of multipleunits of analysis (designers, contractors and projectmanagers) to produce more reliable outcomes. Basedon a broad literature review, a research instrumentwas prepared and tested in an exploratory case study.The questionnaire comprised open and closedquestions related to the variables:

● integration: quality of interaction between projectteam members

● procurement system: method for the selectionand organization of the project teams for theobtainment of a building by a client

● project performance: time and cost certainty,compliance with client’s objectives, and absenceof claims.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted withseven primary players involved in the projectconsisting of representatives of the construction firm,the designers and the project managers. Thefollowing criteria informed the selection of the projectfor the case study – the participation of Brazilianleading construction and design firms, and the size,complexity and uniqueness of the project.

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 5–16

8 L. GRILO, S. MELHADO, S.A.R. SILVA, P. EDWARDS AND C. HARDCASTLE

Grilo 6/15/07 12:10 PM Page 8

Page 10: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

COORDINATION PROBLEMS WITHFOREIGN DESIGN CONSULTANTS ON ACOMPLEX BUILDING PROJECTWith a net floor area of 82,000 m2, the case studyproject creates a distinctive landmark in São Paulo’slandscape. Some innovative characteristics of theproject include: appointment of foreign designconsultants; extensive specification of importedcomponents and equipment such as master controlpanels, chillers and lifts; modular panellized curtainwalls; variable air volume systems for airconditioning; duplicated wiring; and an independentpower generation system. For the facade, low-emissivity glazing controls solar heat gain and visiblelight transmission. An aerogel deposited within theglazing avoids condensation occurring when internaland external temperatures differ. Some specificationsof the project were criticized by the project team,such as the reinforcement cover of up to 7 cm andthe 20 different mix designs for the concretestructure, with concrete strengths ranging from30–60 MPa. The excessive reinforcement coverrequired the use of water-vapour fans and ice in themixing water to reduce surface concrete cracking. Inaddition, the curtain wall was designed to resisttyphoons, despite no previous occurrence oftyphoons in the local region.

The project adopted the traditional procurementsystem (separated design, bid and constructprocesses) with a guaranteed maximum price (GMP)contract divided into four stages, in whichconstruction prices would be gradually reduced. Thecontractor was selected through a closed bidfollowed by a negotiation stage. The selection criteriatook into account technical, economical and financialcriteria. The successful construction company hasoperated in the local market for almost 40 years andhas executed more than 4 million m2 of buildings invarying market segments. Certification of thecompany’s quality management system, according toISO 9001, was obtained in 1999. The constructionteam was composed of production, technical andadministrative teams, and totalled 18 professionals.

The design concept was developed by US officesin Chicago and New York, and then adapted by localarchitecture and engineering firms. The foreignarchitectural office has accumulated experience in

different project types in more than 50 countries. Theservice engineering design was developed by a UScompany with branches in different continents. Aproject management company from Chicago openeda branch in São Paulo especially to advise the client,whose team encompassed a facilities manager, twoarchitects and a project management team with fiveprofessionals.

The structural design, developed in the US, wasadapted by an Argentine design practice that hadworked for the Brazilian client on another project inSouth America. The local design office participated inthe development and coordination of architecturaland urban planning designs. With a markedlycommercial character, it focuses on the leverage ofbusiness opportunities within government bodies,public entities and developers. The organizationalstructures for the project and the design team areshown in Figure 1.

The case demonstrates that the appointment offoreign design offices fosters innovation andtechnological transfer, particularly in architectural andengineering design solutions, but can adverselyimpact on design management, since a number oftechnical, managerial, cultural and economic factors,such as the development of the local supply chain,should be realized at an early stage in the briefingprocess. In this context, it is argued that internationaldesign teams require careful management ofthe work scope for each designer, extensiveconfiguration management, clear authority lines,mutual understanding of roles and responsibilities,management of interfaces and adequate selection oflocal partners. The design management may also beinfluenced by the organization of the design team orthe roles and responsibilities assigned to eachdesigner. Some of the difficulties faced by the projectteam as a result of deficiencies in the designmanagement for the case study project aresummarized in Table 1 and discussed later.

DEFICIENCIES IN THE SELECTION OF LOCALAND FOREIGN DESIGN OFFICESThe design concept was commended as outstandingand innovative, but team members admitted withhindsight that design development should have beenassigned to Brazilian offices from the outset of the

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 5–16

International Building Design Management and Project Performance 9

Grilo 6/15/07 12:10 PM Page 9

Page 11: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

project, because of their greater familiarity with localconstruction methods and faster decision-makingcapacity. On the other hand, the local design officeswere considered unsuitable for the project becauseof its technical and managerial complexity. Accordingto the contract manager: ‘It’s inconceivable that oneof the largest design offices in São Paulo doesn’tknow [about] dry wall. This reflects a wrong selectionof the partners.’ The design coordination, assigned toa local architectural office, was criticized: ‘When youbring designers together, they do not talk to eachother. The coordination is not done or if it is done, itis not done well.’ According to a project manager:‘Architects are considered efficient when they areable to produce compatible drawings, but they arenot always good at coordinating the design process.’

The structural design was also questioned.According to one architect: ‘An engineer could findsolutions in this project that have been used all overthe world. There is no standardization. They possiblyused all the solutions available in the concrete books.’The design of the concrete structure was consideredconservative due to the implicit lack of familiarity ofUS designers with this technology and to the lack oftrust in the reliability of local contractors. A consultanthired by the construction firm to review the structuraldesign found material errors and omissions such asbeams with only 50% of the required reinforcement,

which could have endangered the rigidity of thebuilding.

DIFFICULTIES IN THE USE OF THE FOREIGNDESIGNSThe assignment of foreign designers to the designdevelopment assured the incorporation of the originaldesign intent but raised further difficulties for thedesign management. In general, US suppliersundertake an essential role in the design detailing.Despite their international experience, the foreigndesign consultants assumed that local supplierswould be capable of detailing the shop drawings.However, Brazilian contractors and project managersnoticed that the design documents were insufficientto inform local suppliers and subcontractors. Thisomission led to delays while the problem wasrectified and hampered the mutual understanding ofdesign team members’ roles and responsibilities.

A Brazilian architect who worked in the USarchitectural practice was initially assigned tocoordinate the design. Despite the good intention,this proved unfeasible due to the attitude of foreigndesigners, who never made decisions duringmeetings and were considered technically defensiveby other project team members. According to thecontract manager, ‘as the project was falling behindschedule, it wasn’t working. Foreign designers don’t

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 5–16

10 L. GRILO, S. MELHADO, S.A.R. SILVA, P. EDWARDS AND C. HARDCASTLE

Acoustics

Interiordesign

Structuraldesign

Foundations

WaterproofingStone

consultancy

Façade

Airconditioning

Buildingsystems

Buildingsystems

Lightningdesign

Architecturallandscaping

Architecture& structure

Architecture

Contractual relationships

Functional relationships

Client

Projectmanager

Design team Constructionteam

Client team

SubcontractorsMultidisciplinaryteam

Five professionals

14 main design disciplines

Technicaldirector, 2architects

Production,technical supportand administrationteams (18professionals)

23 mainsubcontractors

United States

Brazil

Argentina

FIGURE 1 Project and design team organizational chart

Grilo 6/15/07 12:10 PM Page 10

Page 12: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

overcome contract terms and don’t run unnecessaryrisks.’

The specification of imported components poseddifficulties for the construction firm as a result of non-standard dimensions, connections and methods ofexecution. Moreover, the design concept followed nomodularization precepts. The contract managerpointed out that the ‘modularization of the concretestructure differs from the standards of Braziliancurtain wall systems. There are differentmodularizations.’

The project also exposed some weaknesses inthe local supply chain. An architect highlighted that ‘a

US company delivered a curtain wall faster than alocal factory’.

THE POOR QUALITY OF THE BRIEFINGPROCESSThe architect stressed the importance of an intenseinvolvement of the client’s organization throughoutthe briefing process so as to mitigate the risk of latedesign changes:

If I could start it all over again, I would start from thebriefing. Defining a brief is one of the mostimportant milestones of a project, but nobody

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 5–16

International Building Design Management and Project Performance 11

TABLE 1 Deficiencies in the project design process and subsequent impacts on project managementDeficiencies in the design process Impact on project management

Lack of standardization or excessive customization Complex procurement, budgeting, contract management, change

management and document control

Conflicting information in different documents Work overload for the project team, complex procurement and

budgeting, construction errors, rework and material wastage

Lack of information Work overload for the project team, delays in the procurement of

construction subcontracts, complex contract management, cost and

time overruns, insufficient information for procurement purposes

Problems in the information flow and communication structure Different level of information between team members, late

incorporation of design changes in the plans, incompatibility

between information received by team members, heterogeneous

information

Delay in the incorporation of design changes in plans and Construction errors, complex document control, reviews with out-of-

specifications date information, varying levels of information between team

members, complex contract management with subcontractors,

stress, rework, execution prior to the incorporation of information in

the design

Excessive non-reviewed items in plans and specifications Complex document control on the site, risk of errors in the

execution, demand of excessive follow-up meetings

Excessive design reviews Cost and time overruns, construction errors, work overload for

project team, stress, escalation in printing and photocopying costs,

delays in the distribution of drawings to the site

Multiple stakeholders in the client team Complex decision-making and approval process, excessive design

changes, varying level of information between project team

members

Excessive design changes in a late stage of the project Complex contract management with subcontractors, difficult design

review, rework, time and cost overruns, work overload for

construction and coordination teams, negotiations with the client,

rescheduling, changes in the budget, stress

Grilo 6/15/07 12:10 PM Page 11

Page 13: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

seems to care about it. The client should haveparticipated more actively. So they came out lateron with solutions used elsewhere, but which couldnot be adopted in this building.

The design management was largely affected byfailures in the scope definition and design changemanagement. The Brazilian architectural designerstressed the deficiencies in the briefing process:

The brief should be finished by a given date. Thenthis date approached and there were a lot ofchanges. Nobody is to blame. We were unableto determine [from the brief] exactly what theclient wanted. This is a point that should bestressed.

DEFICIENCIES IN COMMUNICATION ANDINFORMATION FLOWSIdeally, the design management should define whattype of information is relevant for each team memberand establish communication lines, informationflows, timetables and formats to transfer, record anddistribute the information. The lack of communicationprocedures can lead to managerial problems, such asvarying levels of information between project teamsor even within a single team. According to anengineer:

I received information initially and then a drawingwith different information. Then I found that thedesigner did not receive the required informationeither. Consequently, he issued drawings thatdiffered from what was agreed upon earlier. Thereare three or four client representatives directlyinvolved in the process. So different people dealwith the information and sometimes it does notreach all the recipients. I received information fromthe project manager that differed from that sent bythe client. There are too many people involved, andnot in an organized way.

The complexity of the project and the unusualnumber of participants affected the communicationprocess, which could have been facilitated bycollaborative systems and the adoption of agreedupon coordination procedures.

DEFICIENCIES IN THE CONTROL AND ISSUEOF DESIGN REVIEWSOngoing design changes and a lack of criteria for theissuance of design reviews postponed the definitionof critical items. The contract manager criticized thedesigners’ lack of commitment to meeting projectmilestones: ‘Works on some floors were disrupted aswe did not know how to progress. The mostimportant floors for the client are exactly those wherethe design is behind schedule.’ Reviews too often didnot solve design errors and omissions, and sloweddown the procurement of subcontractors and thedistribution of drawings to the site. An engineercomplained about the design review process: ‘Itseems illogical, because issuing reviews is time-consuming, but in some cases we received out-of-date reviews. Whenever a review is issued, it shouldcontain up-to-date information.’

The contract manager criticized the planning ofthe reviews: ‘We have drawings with more than 20reviews. Why? It is linked to the lack of planning.’ Theprocess also exposed the lack of quality controlprocedures: ‘In the rush, designers deliver anything.Nobody reviews or coordinates. These problemsoccur due to the lack of coordination. The drawingsare simply incompatible.’ The issue of successivedesign reviews hindered the distribution of drawingsto the site. The drawings were being reviewed soquickly and so often that the contractor nearly sentout a version that was already obsolete. Decision-making in design review meetings was fast, whichmeant that drawings frequently could not incorporatethe agreed information quickly enough. Therefore,the construction firm modified its quality controlprocedure so as to enable the receipt of incompleteor ‘under approval’ drawings, which were given partialapproval and distributed to the subcontractorsthrough coordination meetings.

LACK OF INFORMATION AND DESIGNINCOMPATIBILITIESThe lack of information affected the management ofcontracts with suppliers and necessitated theappointment of additional professionals to theconstruction team. Initially, a reduced team wasassigned to manage the lump sum contracts, whichwere soon afterwards replaced by unitary cost

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 5–16

12 L. GRILO, S. MELHADO, S.A.R. SILVA, P. EDWARDS AND C. HARDCASTLE

Grilo 6/15/07 12:10 PM Page 12

Page 14: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

agreements because of the lack of information.According to the contract manager: ‘I shouldn’t careabout it, but I spend 20–30% of my time trying to sortout the consequences of a poor design. The design iscalamitous in this project.’ The construction teamreported design errors and omissions and stressedthe lack of quality control procedures. Design errorsoverburdened the construction team and hamperedcost estimates. An engineer pointed out that ‘alltechnical, procurement and construction problems inthis project are related to the lack of information’. Adelay in the choice of stainless steel for thecurtain wall postponed the schedule by four months.The contract manager complained: ‘We are oncemore building without a design. The owner wants tolaunch the project, but had he decided to completethe design earlier, he could have saved time andmoney.’

DEMAND FOR MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING OFROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIESThe architect criticized the lack of clear authority linesin the design management. Conversely, members ofthe construction and project management teamsargued that the coordination role was definitelyassigned to the architect. However, typical roles of thedesign manager – such as control, registration,distribution and issuance of design documents, as wellas quality control and change management – wereundertaken by the construction team, who prepared aspreadsheet to guide the architect. According to anengineer: ‘I take a look at the drawings to identifymissing or conflicting data and inform them throughmeetings, e-mails or letters. I identify the missing dataand require its inclusion in the design.’

These difficulties were partially caused by a poorunderstanding of design team members’ roles andresponsibilities and a lack of recognized leadership.The dissatisfaction seemed to emerge fromunrealistic expectations, preconceptions andconflicting requirements. The team members clearlypresented different understandings of their roles andresponsibilities, as suggested by the architectinterviewed:

Someone has already said that deadlines werenot set to be met. I haven’t seen a single deadline

met in this project. Now they set an unlikelyschedule. They are going nuts to meet it. But wewill succeed and it is going to end up with a bigparty.

DIVERGENT INTERESTS AND EXPECTATIONSBETWEEN PROJECT TEAM MEMBERSPoor coordination procedures led to difficulties, suchas different information levels, between the projectteams. An engineer pointed out that three peoplefrom the client team worked directly in the process.Consequently, she received data both from theproject manager and the client, leaving room forextensive doubts. Coordination procedures,implemented and supervised by each team leader,should have substantially minimized the emergenceof different information levels between projectteams.

The architect emphasized the conflicting interestsbetween designers and contractors: ‘This isabsolutely normal. We’re acting on the client’s behalf.We are protecting the client’s interest in this project;the contractor is protecting his interests.’ Thearchitect also criticized the architects’ detachmentfrom the construction and complained about recentchanges in professional roles, which illustrate theunderlying rivalry between architects and engineers,and the reluctance to change:

Architects are unconsciously relinquishing theirtraditional leadership role, which gives engineersthe opportunity to enter the market. Engineers arenot the same anymore. I used to learn with them.Now they become bureaucrats who manage thecontract to meet the schedule, even if they have todestroy their partners. It really is a battle in thisrespect.

DESIGNERS’ DETACHMENT FROM TIME ANDCOST MANAGEMENTThe contract manager criticized the designers’detachment from cost and time management: ‘It isclear to me. There is a historical detachment ofdesigners from cost management that leads toconstruction problems. There is a deadline and I don’tknow what I am supposed to do on some floors. I amnot inventing this whole story.’ Excessive design

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 5–16

International Building Design Management and Project Performance 13

Grilo 6/15/07 12:10 PM Page 13

Page 15: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

changes and late decision-making affected theprogress of the project and the relationship betweenteam members. According to an engineer, frequentdesign changes required an active contractmanagement approach by the construction team:

Frequently, the work is already done when adesign change appears. There is rework and ademand for new cost estimates. We try to identifythe cost as the design is issued and negotiate itwith the client. Then we have to procure it onceagain. This demands hands-on contractmanagement.

CONTRACT COULD NOT BE IMPLEMENTED ASEXPECTEDThe Maximum Guaranteed Price contract wasconsidered comprehensive and conducive toachieving high performance by all parties. Accordingto the project manager: ‘The contract has a USstructure, but is organized and precise, and providessolutions for any dispute.’ Despite its strengths, thecontract was not fully adopted, according to thecontract manager, because of the lack of definitionsin the design: ‘The cost should be reduced as thedesign was developed. We were unable to do it,however, as the design was incomplete. We hadto raise the price. Thus, we offered no benefits tothe client.’ According to the project manager, theinexperience of the local supply chain affected thecontract enforcement: ‘A guaranteed maximum price(GMP) contract is clear for a North-Americancontractor. The second price is lower than the firstone. If the design does not change, then the price isreduced. In contrast, a local contractor makes a lot ofdecisions based on assumptions.’ The contractordisagreed: ‘The first cost estimate was R$130 million,because there was only a schematic design. The firstGMP was R$128 million and the last R$146 million.Something happened, right?’ He also questioned theso-called ‘concurrent engineering’:

Engineering has been re-invented in Brazil. I’vebeen working for 23 years. Today, it is much worsethan in the past. There isn’t concurrent engineeringif this concurrence occurs during the construction.I cannot procure a curtain wall if I don’t know the

type of glass or aluminium. This is not engineeringto me, it is something else.

CONCLUSIONSThe assignment of foreign offices to work onconstruction projects in developing countries canbring about benefits, such as technology transfer andinnovative design concepts. On the other hand, itposes difficulties for the design management as itmay intensify coordination and communicationproblems, and there may be conflicting interests anda lack of mutual understanding of roles andresponsibilities among project team members.Therefore, it can increase project risks to the client,induce cost and time overruns, cause excessivedesign changes and claims, and have an adverseimpact on quality.

The assignment of foreign offices can adverselyaffect communication and team building dueto different languages, remoteness, impersonalrelationships, lack of face-to-face contacts,inadequate communication technologies and culturalsingularities. In the project case study, foreigndesigners assumed a defensive technical attitudeso as not to incur liabilities for their firms, whichdelayed the decision-making at a critical stage of theproject.

The involvement of foreign offices in the designdevelopment stage can warrant fidelity to originalconcepts and compliance with specified solutions.Nevertheless, differences in the level of informationof construction documents, lack of familiarity of localcontractors and subcontractors with foreign plansand specifications, and complexity in estimating,procuring and installing imported items andequipment may arguably affect the design andconstruction management. US constructiondocuments present a lower level of information incomparison with Brazilian ones, since subcontractorsand suppliers play an essential role in thedevelopment of the design in the US.

Furthermore, communication problems wereintensified due to the employment of foreigndesigners. The Brazilian design team had to learnEnglish and the foreign team had to learn Portuguese.According to the contract manager, nobody in thelocal design team was fluent in English. Certainly, this

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 5–16

14 L. GRILO, S. MELHADO, S.A.R. SILVA, P. EDWARDS AND C. HARDCASTLE

Grilo 6/15/07 12:10 PM Page 14

Page 16: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

aspect delayed the analysis of plans andspecifications, affected the clarification of doubts andinduced failures in the interpretation of the designdocuments.

Teleconferences were used by design managersbut without great success. Drawings were also madeavailable for download from an intranet at the outsetof the project. However, the system was abandonedas the majority of the subcontractors had never usedit before. Moreover, design documents distributedthrough the intranet bypassed the qualitymanagement system of the construction firm.Therefore, the availability of promising technologiesdoes not guarantee immediate adoption andacceptance by project team members, since theirimplementation commonly requires investment,training, managerial changes and overcoming culturalbarriers.

The study identified serious deficiencies in designquality management, such as failures in designbriefing and scope management, incompatibilities,interferences, lack of procedures for the issueof design reviews, poor standardization andmodularization, and an excessive number of latedesign changes. According to the interviewees, theseproblems emerged mainly as a result of: the unusualcomplexity of the project; deficient selection of localdesign offices; lack of precepts, tools and techniquesfor the design quality management; deficiencies inthe scope management; and inappropriate choice ofthe procurement route.

Although the volume of information exceededoverall expectations, it is assumed that careful designplanning and the adoption of simple precepts, suchas the single statement of information, could havereduced the problems faced by the project team. Thespreadsheet developed by the contractors fordocument management purposes denotes aproactive approach that should have beenencouraged. The design coordination could haveagreed upon an information demand schedule withclient and construction teams. Presumably, thisinitiative was not taken due to conflicting interestsand a lack of trust and genuine leadership within theproject team.

The case study has highlighted some potentialimpacts of the trend for globalization in the

construction industry, such as the purchase of goodsand services on an international basis and theestablishment of international design teams. Remotedesign teams promote innovative personal andprofessional relationships, but may conversely raisetechnological, managerial and organizational barriers tothe integration of design and construction. Therefore,an informed choice of the procurement method andinnovations in management, technology and humanresources are required to establish trust andstrengthen cooperation in international design teams.

AUTHOR CONTACT DETAILSLeonardo Grilo (corresponding author): Department of Civil

Construction Engineering, Polytechnic School, University of São

Paulo, Brazil. Tel: +55 11 3091 5459, fax: +55 11 3091 5544,

e-mail: [email protected]

Sílvio Melhado and Sérgio Alfredo Rosa Silva: Department of

Civil Construction Engineering, Polytechnic School, University of

São Paulo, Brazil. Tel: +55 11 3091 5164, fax: +55 11 3091 5544,

e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

Peter Edwards: School of Property, Construction and Project

Management, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.

Tel: +61 3 9925 3478, fax: +61 3 9925 1939, e-mail:

[email protected]

Cliff Hardcastle: School of the Built and Natural Environment,

Glasgow Caledonian University, Scotland, UK. Tel: +44 141 331

3630, fax: +44 141 331 3696, e-mail: [email protected]

REFERENCESABNT (Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas), 2003, ‘Empresas

certificadas pela ABNT por programa de certificação: sistemas de

gestão da qualidade (ISO 9000)’, www.abnt.org.br/mapa.htm (accessed

10 February 2003).

Banwell, H., 1964, The Placing and Management of Contracts for Building

and Civil Engineering Work, London, HMSO.

Barlow, J., Cohen, M., Jashapara, A. and Simpson, Y., 1997, Towards

Positive Partnering. Revealing the Realities in the Construction Industry,

Bristol, Policy Press.

Bobroff, J., 1991, ‘A new approach of quality in the building industry in

France: the strategic space of the major actors’, in A. Bezelga and

P. Brandon (eds), Management, Quality and Economics in Building,

London, E&FN Spon, 443–452.

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 5–16

International Building Design Management and Project Performance 15

Grilo 6/15/07 12:10 PM Page 15

Page 17: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 5–16

16 L. GRILO, S. MELHADO, S.A.R. SILVA, P. EDWARDS AND C. HARDCASTLE

Brown, S.A., 2001,Communication in theDesignProcess, London, E&FNSpon.

CIA (Central Intelligence Agency), 2005, The World Factbook,

www.cia.gov/cia/publications/ factbook/index.html (accessed 11

November 2005).

Chan E.H.W. and Chan A.P.C., 2000, ‘Design-Build Contracts in Hong Kong –

Some Legal Concerns’, in Serpell, A. (ed.), Information and

Communication in Construction Procurement, Chile, Pontificia

Universidad Catolica de Chile, April 2000, 183–200.

Chinowsky, P.S. and Rojas, E.M., 2003, ‘Virtual teams: guide to successful

implementation’, in Journal of Management in Engineering, 19(3), 98–106.

Conjuntura da Construção, 2005, ‘Indicadores da construção: mercado

imobiliário’, www.sindusconsp.com.br (accessed 14 November 2005).

Davenport, D.M. and Smith, R., 1995, ‘Assessing the effectiveness of client

participation in construction projects’, in RICS COBRA Construction and

Building Research Conference, The Royal Institution of Chartered

Surveyors, London, September 1995, 17–28. www.rics.org (accessed

09 February 2007).

Egan, J., 1998, Rethinking Construction, The report of the Construction Task

Force on the scope for improving the quality and efficiency of UK

construction, London, Department of Environment, Transport and the

Regions, HMSO.

Fundação João Pinheiro, 2005, Déficit Habitacional no Brasil – Municeípios

Selecionados e Microrregiões Geográficas, Belo Horizonte, FJP.

Garcia, F., Castelo, A.M., Lins, M.A.T. and Brollo, F., 2005, Por Dentro do

Déficit Habitacional Brasileiro: Evolução e Estimativas Recentes, São

Paulo, Fundação Getulio Vargas.

Gray, C. and Hughes, W., 2001, Building Design Management, Oxford,

Butterworth-Heinemann.

Groák, S., 1992, The Idea of Building: Thought and Action in the Design and

Production of Buildings, London, E&FN Spon.

Harvey, J.H., 1971, The Master Builders: Architecture in the Middle Ages,

New York, McGraw-Hill.

IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística), 2003, Pesquisa Anual

da Industria da Construção, Rio de Janeiro, IBGE.

Jawahar-Nessan, L. and Price, A.D.F., 1997, ‘Formulation of best practices

for owner’s representatives’, in Journal of Management in Engineering,

13(1), 44–51.

Love, P., Skitmore, M. and Earl, G., 1998, ‘Selecting a suitable procurement

method for a building project’, in Construction Management and

Economics, 16(2), 221–233.

MUSA, E., 1996, A invasão americana e as possíveis linhas de nossa

defesa. www.asbea.org.br (accessed 01 June 2001).

Nam, C.H. and Tatum, C.B., 1992, ‘Non-contractual methods of integration

on construction projects’, in Journal of Construction Engineering and

Management, 118(3), 577–593.

Pocock, J.B., Hyun, C.T., Liu, L.Y. and Kim, M.K., 1997, ‘Relationship

between project interaction and performance indicators’, in Journal of

Construction Engineering and Management, 122(2), 165–176.

RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects), 1992, Strategic Study for the

Profession. Phase I. Strategic Overview, London, RIBA Publications.

The Tavistock Institute, 1999, The Role of the Architect in the Supply Chain,

draft workshop report, London, The Tavistock Institute.

Wang, Y., 2000, ‘Coordination issues in Chinese large building projects’, in

Journal of Management in Engineering, 16(6), 54–60.

Weingardt, R., 1996, ‘Partnering: building a stronger design team’, in

Journal of Architectural Engineering, 2(2), 49–54.

Yin, R.K., 1994, Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd edn,

Thousand Oaks, California, Sage Publications.

Zaidan, E.M., 2005, ‘Informalidade na construção civil: um jogo de soma

negativa’, in Conjuntura da Construção, 3(3), 7–8.

Grilo 6/15/07 12:10 PM Page 16

Page 18: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

■ Keywords – Contractors; design management; designmanagers

INTRODUCTIONArchitectural design is a complex activity whichposes difficult managerial problems. Complexities liewithin the technical knowledge, informationavailability, the uniqueness of design and interactionsbetween different stakeholders (Sebastian, 2005).Design involves a number of decisions withnumerous interdependencies (Cornick, 1991; Ballardand Koskela, 1998). There are often conflictingrequirements, demanding an effort to recognize,understand and manage trade-offs, and decisionsmust usually be made quickly and sometimes withoutcomplete information (Reinertsen, 1997; Sanban et al,2000; Koskela, 2004). A large number of stakeholdersare involved, such as architects, project managers,structural engineers, building services engineers andmarketing consultants. Moreover, feedback fromproduction and operation takes a long time to be

obtained and tends to be ineffective (Formoso et al,2002).

Design management, as a body of knowledge,has emerged with the aim of reaching a betterunderstanding of these issues and how they shouldbe tackled. In recent years, the rising complexityof projects and growing market competitionhas significantly increased the pressures toimprove design performance i.e. to develop high-quality design solutions through shorter timescales.Such complexities affect both designers andcontractors.

In the UK context, procurement routes such asdesign and build (D&B) and Public Private Partnerships(PPP) are currently being widely adopted. Theseenable clients and/or owners to benefit from having asingle organization taking responsibility for deliveringthe required building and associated servicesaccording to predefined standards (Bennett et al,1996). Akintoye (1994) further elucidates that themajority of D&B contractors employ external

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 17–28

17

AbstractOver the past 40 years, a concern with the adoption of business methods to support successful designdevelopment has emerged. Design management as a discipline addresses such concern through two centralschools of thought. The first focuses on organizing the design firm, and the second aims to better understandthe design process (its nature, stages and activities) and to propose improved communication andcoordination mechanisms. Both schools of thought have taken essentially a design professional’s perspectiveto analyse design. Nevertheless, the recent adoption of procurement routes in which contractors areresponsible for design, construction and facilities management has imposed on contractors the need tomanage design to maintain competitiveness. This paper presents results from two case studies investigatingthe contractor’s role in managing the design process. Research results are presented in terms of theproblems contractors face in managing design, the necessity for appropriate design management and theskills contractors believe are required for effective design management. The paper concludes by advocatinga need for clarity in the definition of design management from a contractor’s perspective.

ARTICLE

Design Management from a Contractor’sPerspective: The Need for ClarityPatricia Tzortzopoulos and Rachel Cooper

Tzortzopoulous 6/13/07 10:15 AM Page 17

Page 19: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

consultant architects and engineers to develop thedesign. Within this environment, contractors need toappropriately manage the design process to maintaincompetitiveness in the marketplace and to reducewastage both in design and in downstreamconstruction activities (Broadbent and Laughlin,2003).

However, to date, design management researchhas not sufficiently emphasized how contractorscould manage design, what their role is in thisprocess and what barriers they face. The concept ofdesign management and the necessary skills tomanage design from a contractor’s perspectiveappear to be unclear. Such a gap may be a partialconsequence of the fact that design managementhas typically been approached mainly from theperspective of the different professionals involved indesign (Press and Cooper, 2002). Therefore, a broaderperspective on design management is needed.

This paper aims to partially address this issue byanalysing data from two case studies in whichcontractors were responsible for managing thedesign process. The paper discusses the role ofcontractors in design management, examining theskills needs for design managers from a contractor’sperspective. Questions for further research are alsoposed.

DESIGN MANAGEMENTDesign management endeavours to establishmanagerial practices focused on improving thedesign process, thus creating opportunities for thedevelopment of high-quality innovative productsthrough effective processes. Even though excellencein management is not considered a substitute forhigh-quality creativity and innovation, it can representthe difference between success and failure inmultidimensional and complex project environments(Cooper and Press, 1995).

Emmitt (1999) poses that in architecture, the workof Brunton et al (1964) represents an early attempt tointroduce managerial concepts in design. The searchfor an understanding of how people perform complexcognitive activities has been the underlying principle ofdesign research for the past four decades (Kalay, 1999).During this period, there has been a slow but steadygrowth in understanding design ability. Similarly, the

need to provide research and measures to encouragefirms to make use of design for competitive advantagecame to light (Press and Cooper, 2002). It was hopedthat understanding ‘how designers think’ would lead tothe development of methods and tools to help thereliable achievement of high-quality results in design(Kalay, 1999; Lawson, 2006).

In general, past research has focused on twodifferent design management dimensions i.e. office orpractice management and individual job management(the management of the design/project in hand)(Sebastian, 2004). However, such distinction may bepotentially misleading since the two interconnect i.e.the management of people and social characteristicsof staff employed will create the unique culture of thefirm, which will in turn affect the way individualprojects are managed (Emmitt, 1999).

From a project management or individual jobperspective, the design process has been studiedfrom two different viewpoints. The first aims toincrease understanding of the nature of the designactivity (e.g. Lawson et al, 2003). The secondproposes ways in which design should be developedat its different stages, considering both ‘hard’activities and ‘soft’ social design interactions (e.g.Kagioglou et al, 1998). Along these lines, designmanagement has been closely related to a concernwith systematic design methods, focusing on theoutcome of design decisions (i.e. the product ofdesign) and the activity of designing (i.e. the designprocess) (Cross, 1999; Press and Cooper, 2002;Lawson et al, 2003).

As a result, the need to consider the whole lifecycle of projects became apparent. Architecturalmanagement evolved from approaching design asan isolated activity at the front-end of projects, tocover the project from inception through todemolition, recycle and reuse. Figure 1 describes thecontext in which design management happens, anddemonstrates the importance of communication andcollaboration with different stakeholders. These areessential design and design management skills.

Figure 1 demonstrates some of the differentissues that need to be considered by designmanagers. Nevertheless, for design management tobe effective, a more detailed understanding of skillsneeds is essential. A brief description of such skills,

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 17–28

18 P. TZORTZOPOULOS AND R. COOPER

Tzortzopoulous 6/13/07 10:15 AM Page 18

Page 20: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

as discussed in the literature, is presented in thenext section.

DESIGN SKILLSDesign skills are essential for the activity ofdesigning. Bloom et al (2004) state that, put simply,skills are what an individual possesses, and these canbe learnt both informally (on the job) and formally(through training). It is important to recognize thatthere is a natural way in which humans develop theability to design e.g. by categorizing different thingsor through activities such as changing the furniturelayout in our houses. However, the development ofdesign skills could be compared to the acquisition ofa language, in that it is a continuous processbeginning in childhood (Lawson, 2006).

It is accepted that in order to locate design skillsand competences (i.e. knowledge and behaviours)and to consider their value, one must analyse

the breadth of the profession of design. Differingdesign professions have evolved by educationalpush and by corporate and consumer pull, whichmeans that there are various perspectives from whichto assess the design and the design managementprofession and its future (Press and Cooper, 2002).

It is well known that design activity includes highcognitive abilities, including creativity, synthesis andproblem solving. Cross (2004) reviews the field ofexpertise in design, linking it to design behaviour andthe design process. The author states that expertdesigners appear to be ‘ill-behaved’ problem solversas they do not spend much time defining the designproblem. Expert designers are, therefore, solution-focused, not problem-focused. Generating a widerange of alternative solutions is a recommendedstrategy in the literature (e.g. Reinertsen, 1997).However, Cross (2004) points out that this may not benecessarily good, as most expert designers tend to

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 17–28

Design Management from a Contractor ’s Perspective 19

FIGURE 1 Architectural design management within the project framework, from Emmitt (2002: 40)

Tzortzopoulous 6/13/07 10:15 AM Page 19

Page 21: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

define a single solution and then develop it further.The study of the way in which expert designersbehave may provide clues as to how designmanagement should be approached; however, thelinks between these two areas appear to be unclear inthe literature.

Design managers’ skills have been brieflydescribed in the literature. It has been stated thatdesign managers need to have the skills tounderstand a comprehensive set of requirements andto support their capture from the client/users andconstruction teams (Barrett and Stanley, 1999). Theyalso require communication skills, both verbal andvisual, to coordinate the exchanges of informationthroughout design development, and to explain theconcepts to the stakeholders whenever necessary(Press and Cooper, 2002). Therefore, designmanagers need to have technical skills, looking atdesign as a sequence of activities based on arationalized approach to a technical problem;cognitive skills, approaching the skills and limitationsof the individual designer; and social skills, looking athow designers interact with other stakeholders andhow this influences teamwork and value generation(Cross and Clayburn, 1995).

Even though such descriptions are important, it isbelieved that more information is needed to supporta better understanding of design management and ofthe skills that effective design managers shouldpossess. The currently poor understanding of the roleof design managers within different contexts (e.g.design office, contractors, developers, etc.) may berelated to deficiencies in current definitions of designmanagers’ skills.

RESEARCH METHODThe epistemological option for this study is based onthe interpretative school of thought. The researchuses qualitative approaches to inductively andholistically understand human experience in context-specific settings. As pointed out by Silverman (1998:3), a ‘particular strength of qualitative research ... is itsability to focus on actual practice in situ, looking athow organizations are routinely enacted’. Thus, designmanagement developed by contractors was analysedwith an emphasis on meanings, facts and words toreach an understanding of the phenomena in practice.

Within this context, a case study approach withexploratory characteristics was used to understandthe overall role of contractors in managing design,and examine the skills that design managers need toperform such activity. The two companies involved inthe case study are major construction contractorswithin the UK, and both are heavily involved withdesign management due to the type of procurementadopted i.e. in both cases more than 60% of thework undertaken involves managing the designand construction processes. The companies werealso selected because they considered designmanagement to be of strategic importance.

Data were collected through (a) seven semi-structured interviews with design managers – four atcompany A and three at company B; (b) participationof one of the researchers in meetings in which designmanagement issues were discussed (six at companyA and four at company B); and (c) documentaryevidence including company information over theInternet and descriptions of design managers’capabilities and skills. Specific documents forcompany A included a design management map; amap linking the design and bid processes; trainingprogramme; mistakes made and lessons learnt;designer performance review form; managementsystem procedure; D&B guidance notes; hospitalbidding documentation. Documentary evidence forcompany B incorporated procurement information(e.g. http://www.dh.gov.uk/ProcurementAndProposals/PublicPrivatePartnership/NHSLIFT/fs/en); biddingdocuments; training needs for design managers; anddescription of the design managers’ role. All interviewswere tape recorded and verbatim transcribed,generating a detailed report on design managementissues faced by the companies.

Data analysis was developed with the aid ofcontent analysis. According to Krippendorff (1980:21), ‘content analysis is a research technique formaking replicable and valid inferences from data totheir context’ and its purpose is to provide knowledgeand new insights through a representation of facts.The analysis focused on identifying the perceived roleof contractors and its design managers in managingdesign and the problems faced, as well as theperceived skills that design managers should havefrom the contractor’s perspective.

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 17–28

20 P. TZORTZOPOULOS AND R. COOPER

Tzortzopoulous 6/13/07 10:15 AM Page 20

Page 22: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

FINDINGSCase study findings are presented for companies Aand B. The background of each company isdiscussed, followed by a description of its role inmanaging design. Interview quotes are provided toenrich the discussion. Finally, the role of designmanagers is discussed. The discussion sectionpresents the cross-case analysis and draws majorconclusions.

CASE STUDY 1: CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ACompany A is a major civil engineering andconstruction contractor. The company’s turnover isaround £450 million a year, with a staff of about 1200in the UK. The company works in different businessstreams and 70–80% of the contracts are procuredthough D&B or PPP. The company has main offices in18 different regions in the UK.

BackgroundCompany A was involved in an improvementprogramme called Implementing Best Practice. Aspart of the programme, a design managementprocess model was developed. The model describesthe design process focusing on the activities to beperformed by the contractor’s design manager. Themodel aims to improve design management skillsand therefore bring all company design managers upto a minimum standard.

The model is a prescriptive ‘to be’ generic model(see Winch and Carr, 2001 for a definition) developedat the firm level, presenting six project phases asdescribed in Figure 2:

● get opportunity ● work up to bid: involves all design stages ● win and start up: includes the award of the

contract, mobilization and production information ● do work: construction ● handover and close ● review.

Figure 2 also shows the hierarchical structure of themodel, which presents three different levels of detaili.e. project stages, activities and tasks.

The model defines project deliverables as well asinformation needs in terms of activities, technology

and people. The discussion presented here focuseson the role of design managers within the firm, aswell as the problems faced by the company inmanaging design, which triggered the process modeldevelopment.

Design management problems: the role of designmanagementIn company A, design management is perceived as asignificant risk due to the fact that badly manageddesign can cause increased construction costs,rework, changes and time delays. More importantly,poor design can cause failure in bidding, affectingcompetitiveness. Even though its importance is clearlyacknowledged, design is the most inconsistentlymanaged process across the company. Inappropriateplanning, poor reviews, poor resource availability andpoor quality were issues identified. As stated by asenior design manager interviewed:

This is where the problem is, processes areinconsistent at the moment, and design is themost inconsistent, and that’s the best way ofdescribing it.

Design work is always sub-let to externalconsultancies. Progress is usually monitored againsthigh-level milestones. However, milestones do notfocus on the information that should be produced butrather on major activities such as getting planningapproval. Furthermore, there is a belief that the detaildesign phase should be pulled from constructionplanning (as, in most cases, design and constructionare developed concurrently), but this does nothappen because of poor information transfers withexternal designers. As a consequence, many designdecisions are taken on site.

Design review meetings occur less often thanwould be appropriate. Design fixity (see Kagioglouet al, 1998 for a definition) should be sought throughthese reviews, but the concept of fixity seems to bepoorly understood, and there is no clarity on how itcould be achieved. Moreover, defining and controllingthe brief is considered a challenge, as designers havetheir own agendas that often conflict with thecontractor’s interests, as clearly stated in thefollowing interview extract:

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 17–28

Design Management from a Contractor ’s Perspective 21

Tzortzopoulous 6/13/07 10:15 AM Page 21

Page 23: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 17–28

22 P. TZORTZOPOULOS AND R. COOPER

FIGURE 2 Design management process model – hierarchical structure

Tzortzopoulous 6/13/07 10:15 AM Page 22

Page 24: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

Designers want to reduce their own costs ... andare not so much [concerned] with reducingconstruction costs.

Further difficulties occur when design is novated tothe company. This is generally problematic as theproposed design does not consider the company’sbuilding standards, and there is poor financialflexibility to obtain design changes or details. Inaddition, it has been stated that sometimes designersare inflexible in terms of not being able to respond tothe company’s requests because many designconsultancies are small and lack ‘slack’ resources.1

The company has a total of 12 design managerswhich, in general, get involved in large D&Bconstruction projects. Of those, three are designersand nine come from different backgrounds e.g.planners, programmers or quantity surveyors.Therefore, it appears that most design managers donot have appropriate knowledge, and possibly do nothave the necessary skills, to manage design. This isevidenced by the following interview extract:

We have people doing design management butthey don’t actually know how to do it, they are notqualified to do it ... because they don’t reallyunderstand the design process ... so the only thingthat they can check it for is if it is buildable, andrelatively simple plans, quality plans. So most ofthem ... tend to operate as information coordinators,it’s just pushing drawings out of the people, withoutreally analysing quality or the process.

Finally, the company design managers suffer diffi-culties with external architectural consultancies as, inmany cases, the latter believe the contractor to betaking over their responsibilities. This demonstratestensions with regard to who should manage design –designers as service providers, or contractors as theinternal client.

Skills requiredCompany A has difficulties in defining the role ofdesign managers and consequently the skills requiredto perform the activity. Company offices in differentregions work independently and this generatesproblems in implementing a unified approach.

Furthermore, some of the company managers believethat as design work is subcontracted, design manage-ment should be too. Others believe that design is ofstrategic importance and, therefore, its managementshould be taken over by the company for its ownbenefit, as well as for the benefit of its clients.

Even though there was not an agreement withrespect to subcontracting or developing designmanagement internally, work was conducted as partof the process model design to establish basic designmanagement skills. Seven key skills for designmanagers were established:

● design procurement ● commercial interface● project standards● design coordination● design verification● programme and performance measurement● project systems (IT focused).

Those skills were further detailed through a list of 35items summarizing the design manager’s role. Theseare described as follows.

First, the design manager should map the specificproject process, based on the generic model. Theproject process should form the basis for planningand controlling design development, including thedelivery of work by external consultants andsubcontractors. Weekly meetings should be held toensure work is developed to schedule, and the designmanager should have authority to coordinate theparticipants and activities of each phase. Second, thedesign manager should appoint appropriately skilleddesign consultants. Third, s/he should be thecommunications link between the clients, designersand subcontractors, and therefore be responsible forcontrolling the briefing process and requirementsmanagement. In this sense, s/he should be capable ofmaking fast and effective decisions on designmatters. Fourth, issues of design aesthetics,buildability, costs, quality and programme constraintsshould be appropriately balanced. Drawings shouldbe checked and approved for compliance with thecontractor’s regulations. Finally, soft human skills arementioned in terms of providing leadership andestablishing teamwork.

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 17–28

Design Management from a Contractor ’s Perspective 23

Tzortzopoulous 6/13/07 10:15 AM Page 23

Page 25: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

However, it seems that the development of anoverarching standard approach to design manage-ment within the firm remains a major challenge. Thisis partially a consequence of the divergentperspectives on design management within thecompany, which has been evidenced throughdiscussions observed by the researcher about theimplementation of the design process model. Thesefocused much more on ‘what is a design manager?’than on the implementation process itself. Thisdemonstrates the importance and lack of clarity aboutthe design management approach at company A.

CASE STUDY 2: CONSTRUCTION COMPANY BCompany B is an international construction groupwith capability in the design, procurement anddelivery of major projects. Its turnover is around £1.6billion, with about 9000 staff in the UK. The companyhas a major track record in working through initiativessuch as private finance initiative (PFI) and designbuild finance and operate (DBFO) schemes with thepublic sector.

BackgroundCompany B is involved with the LIFT initiative (LocalImprovement Finance Trust). LIFTs are public/privatepartnerships set up to allow NHS Primary Care Trustsand their local partner organizations to developprimary healthcare facilities. Through LIFT, a numberof schemes are clustered and delivered by a singleprivate sector partner. Company B is the privatesector partner in two major LIFTs in the UK, beingresponsible for designing, building, financing thefacilities and providing facilities management andsupport services over a 25-year period.

Company B was responsible for procuringdesigners and managing the design process in thedevelopment of LIFT schemes. The design of suchschemes is challenging, as buildings are innovativeand complex. Complexities lie within the need toprovide therapeutic environments supportive of thehealing process and the need for a patient-centredservice model (Gesler et al, 2004). The functional levelof the buildings and the operating conditions arecomplex, as different services need to be deliveredjointly, and the service mix and ways of operation arevaried and unknown at the outset.

Design management problems: the role of designmanagementCompany B considers effective design managementessential in controlling the front-end of the majority ofits projects. Furthermore, design quality is consideredparamount to maintain and increase competitiveadvantage. However, the company faces designmanagement difficulties. Poor clarity with regard towho should capture and manage requirements, poorcontrol of design changes, difficulties in managingexchanges of information between clients, designersand contractors, and poor alignment between designsolutions and clients’ requirements were issuesidentified. The occurrence of these issues isillustrated through the description of problems thathave occurred on a specific primary healthcareproject.

There was no appropriate ownership and controlover clients’ requirements at the project environment.These were partially managed by the clients, partiallyby company B’s design managers, and partially by thearchitects. Requirements were not ranked neitherwas the ability to deliver analysed. As a consequence,there were difficulties in trade-offs between users’wants and a prioritization of project needs. Inaddition, the design managers/designers were notpresent at all requirements capture meetings;therefore, the expected support to the client was notprovided, and communications between clients anddesigners were inappropriate.

Furthermore, there was no audit trail for designchanges in place. Requirements changes had beendealt with directly by the architects, and requestsfrom users were generally included in the designwithout considering affordability or the effects thatthe changes had in terms of time delays. The numberof changes in the project is clear from the followinginterview transcript:

I do remember some late change requests, and Ikept saying, do you [client/user] realize what this isgoing to cost you? And when they did, then theymanaged to refine their requirements. And therehad been design solutions that had cost a fortunethat had to be removed as inappropriate designsolutions. So it was an unstructured, ill-disciplinedprocess.

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 17–28

24 P. TZORTZOPOULOS AND R. COOPER

Tzortzopoulous 6/13/07 10:15 AM Page 24

Page 26: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

As in company A, design managers in company Bcome from a variety of professional backgrounds i.e.engineers, architects, building services and planners.Most importantly, many design managers did nothave all the capabilities necessary to appropriatelyperform their role. The design managers intervieweddid not have previous training or experience in design,as one had a degree in construction management andworked as a production coordinator, and the secondhad a building degree and had worked withconstruction planning. It is believed that this mayhave influenced some of the problems that occurredat the project level.

Interview data also made clear that designmanagers in company B tend to approach their workfrom personal, and sometimes contrasting,perspectives. For instance, one design managerbelieved that as he was representing the contractor,he should not be involved in requirements capture andmanagement. However, it was on the remit of thecontractor’s work to provide support to the clients inmanaging requirements. On the other hand, a seconddesign manager believed that he should managerequirements and provide an appropriate link betweenclients, contractors and designers. Unfortunately, hefaced problems in performing such activities becauseof his skills level and his poor bargaining power withboth the client organization and the designers. Suchdifferent managerial approaches make explicit thelack of clarity in design management roles andresponsibilities at the company level.

Skills requiredCompany B has stated the design management skillsit requires in terms of different issues. Designmanagers are expected to have appropriateprofessional qualifications (e.g. RIBA, MICE, MIOB,etc.) and to be able to demonstrate competence inthe role. There is a belief that good design managersmust understand the project’s needs, budgets andaspirations, making decisions and communicatingthese appropriately. Furthermore, s/he must becapable of understanding processes within both thedesign and construction environments. Also, thedesign manager is considered to be key in creating aseamless link from design, through procurement intoconstruction, commissioning and handover.

In this sense, design managers are expected toplay an active part within the wider project team,liaising and coordinating the design team, the client,trade designers, statutory authorities and otherinterested parties e.g. fire officers, police, disabilityadvisers, etc. Therefore, it is believed that designmanagers need listening, communicating andasserting skills, in addition to a thorough practical andtechnical knowledge.

Finally, design managers must be able to controlthe costs of the emerging design solutions and becapable of ensuring that the delivered design meetscontractual and construction requirements.

In summary, it is possible to state that there is anemphasis on planning and controlling the designprocess in a project management ‘command andcontrol’ style (Tzortzopoulos, 2004) i.e. defining thework that needs to be done and pushing it to thedesign team, and controlling design developmentsolely through the production of deliverables.However, such a ‘command and control’management style does not appear to be deliveringthe expected results.

DISCUSSIONDesign managers need to have the appropriate skillsand capability to lead design development (Mozota,2003). Therefore, clarity of roles and responsibilities,the availability of appropriately skilled designmanagers and a clear vision of what the company istrying to achieve through design management aremain issues. However, research results demonstratepoor clarity on all these issues at both case studycompanies.

There were divergent and sometimes conflictingperspectives on design management by the topmanagement, regional managers and design managersthroughout company A. Furthermore, there was a lackof agreement on the potential benefits of managingdesign from the contractor’s perspective. The lack of aclear and agreed company-wide design managementstrategy, coupled with the lack of clarity on the designmanager’s role created difficulties at the company.

Similarly, at company B, each design managerappeared to be taking a personal view on how designshould be managed. This is evidenced by the factthat design managers took conflicting approaches to

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 17–28

Design Management from a Contractor ’s Perspective 25

Tzortzopoulous 6/13/07 10:15 AM Page 25

Page 27: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

the management of requirements. Poor control ofdesign changes and difficulties in managingcommunications and delays were also identified.

Therefore, difficulties in managing design can bea consequence of the poor definition of thecompanies’ role (and that of their design managers)in the process. Generally speaking, the designmanagers from both case study contractorsappeared to have inappropriate understanding, skillsand knowledge about design. These issues raisequestions that need to be answered through furtherresearch.

First, should the management of the designprocess be the responsibility of developers, cont-ractors, designers or clients? Market trends indicatethat major contractors in the UK are involved withdesign management, so research needs to bedeveloped to clarify the most appropriate role forcontractors throughout design development. Clarityregarding the design manager’s skills andcompetence needs, to allow them to effectively actduring design, should be sought in alignment with thecontractor’s role in the process.

Second, how should tensions be balancedbetween designers wanting to manage design, andthe contractor’s design managers? Finding means toappropriately empower design managers working forcontractors and also engage designers by demon-strating benefits would be essential to ease suchtensions.

Third, can stakeholders from varied non-designbackgrounds achieve the necessary capabilities tomanage design without appropriate training? Andwould the establishment of a unified conceptualapproach to design management reduce the occur-rence of problems in practice?

Finally, the appropriate managerial strategies tobe adopted by contractors need to be established. Isit appropriate for design to be managed solelythrough a system of personal beliefs? In effect, anappropriate level of process control should besought, allowing efficiency and reliability of stableprocess activities to be achieved throughout thedifferent company projects (Barrett and Stanley,1999). However, at the same time, design managersshould retain the capability to identify situations

that require change, ensuring effectiveness andresponsiveness throughout the process. This wouldsupport improvement and innovation, allowing formanagerial autonomy in each project. It also allowsthe ‘design’ of the best possible way of managing theprocess by considering good practices and also thestructure of physical, political and cultural settings ofdesign action in each project context.

CONCLUSIONSThe importance of appropriately managing thedesign process has been long acknowledged. In thecurrent context of contractors taking managerialresponsibility over the design process, this issuebecomes even more important as a new designmanagement direction emerges.

This paper emphasized a research gap in whichpoor attention has been given to the managementof design from a contractor’s perspective. Casestudy data evidenced shortcomings in practicein terms of establishing the role of contractorsin managing design, as well as poor clarityregarding the skills and competences necessaryfor design managers working for contractors. Basedon these issues, questions for further research wereproposed.

The lack of a clear theoretical foundation fordesign management influences the problems facedin practice. To date, research has failed to providean overarching framework that could supportimprovements in practice. This is related to the factthat the main research focus has been on managingdesign from a designer’s perspective only. Also, dueto the great diversity of design practice, poorconsideration has been given to the importance ofcontext, organizational and project issues in designmanagement. Poor clarity with regard to any of thesewould lead to problems in design managementpractice.

Therefore, we put forward the need for a morecritical reflection on design management’s purposeand direction within the construction industry. Morespecifically, clarity is needed as to how differentstakeholders should approach design managementso that the best value and most effective processescan be achieved.

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 17–28

26 P. TZORTZOPOULOS AND R. COOPER

Tzortzopoulous 6/13/07 10:15 AM Page 26

Page 28: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

AUTHOR CONTACT DETAILSDr Patricia Tzortzopoulos: Research Institute for the Built and

Human Environment, University of Salford, Maxwell Building,

Salford, M5 4WT, UK.

Address for correspondence: School of the Built Environment,

University of Salford, Room 412, 4th Floor, Maxwell Building,

Salford, M5 4WT, UK. Tel: +44 (0) 161 295 4284, fax: +44 (0)

161 295 4587, e-mail: [email protected]

Professor Rachel Cooper: Lancaster Institute for the Contemporary

Arts, Lancaster University. E-mail: [email protected]

NOTE1 Slack resources are surplus resources necessary to address unexpected

work, threats or opportunities – see, for instance, Daniel et al (2004).

REFERENCES

Akintoye, A., 1994, ‘Design and build: a survey of construction contractors’

views’, in Construction Management and Economics, 12(2), 155–163.

Ballard, G. and Koskela, L., 1998, ‘On the agenda of design management

research’, in Formoso, C.T. (ed) Proceedings of the Sixth Annual

Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Guarujá,

Brazil, August 1998, UFRGS, 45–60.

Barrett, P. and Stanley, C., 1999, Better Construction Briefing, London,

Blackwell Science.

Bennett, J., Pothecary, E. and Robinson, G., 1996, ‘Designing and Building a

World-class Industry, Reading, Centre for Strategic Studies in Construction.

Bloom, N., Conway, N., Mole, K., Moslein, K., Neely, A. and Frost, C., 2004,

Solving the Skills Gap, Summary report from a CIHE/AIM Management

Research Forum, London, Advanced Institute of Management Research.

Broadbent, J. and Laughlin, R., 2003, ‘Public Private Partnerships: an

introduction’, in Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 16(3),

332–341.

Brunton, J., Baden Hellard, R. and Boobyer, E. H., 1964, Management

Applied to Architectural Practice, London; George Godwin Ltd for The

Builder Ltd.

Cooper, R. and Press, M., 1995, The Design Agenda: A Guide to Successful

Design Management, UK, Chichester, John Wiley & Sons.

Cornick, T., 1991, Quality Management for Building Design, UK, Oxford:

Butterworth-Heinemann.

Cross, N., 1999, ‘Natural intelligence in design’, in Design Studies, 20(1),

25–39.

Cross, N., 2004, ‘Expertise in design: an overview’, in Design Studies,

25(5), 427–441.

Cross, N. and Clayburn, A., 1995, ‘Observations of teamwork and social

processes in design’, in Design Studies, 16(2), 143–170.

Daniel, F., Lohrke, F.T., Fornaciari, C.J. and Turner, R.A., 2004, ‘Slack

resources and firm performance: a meta-analysis’, in Journal of

Business Research, 57(6), 565–574.

Emmitt, S., 1999, Architectural Management in Practice, London, Longman.

Emmitt, S., 2002, Architectural Technology, London, Blackwell Science.

Formoso, C.T., Tzortzopoulos, P. and Liedtke, R., 2002, ‘A model for

managing the product development process in house building’, in

Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, 9(5–6),

419–432.

Gesler, W., Bell, M., Curtis, S., Hubbard, P. and Francis, S., 2004, ‘Therapy

by design: evaluating the UK Hospital Building Program’, in Health and

Place, 10(2), 117–128.

Kagioglou, M., Cooper, R., Aouad, G., Hinks, J., Sexton, M. and Sheath, D.,

1998, Final Report: Generic Design and Construction Process Protocol,

Salford, University of Salford.

Kalay, Y., 1999, ‘Performance based design’, in Automation in Construction,

8(4), 395–409.

Koskela, L., 2004, ‘Making-do: the eight categories of waste’, in Bertelsen,

S. and C.T. Formoso (ed), Proceedings from the 12th Conference of the

International Group for Lean Construction, Elsinore, Denmark, August

2004, Holbaeks Amts Bogtrykkeri, 3–12.

Krippendorff, K., 1980, Content Analysis: An Introduction to its

Methodology, London, Sage Publications.

Lawson, B., 2006, How Designers Think: Demystifying the Design Process,

4th edn, Oxford, Architectural Press

Lawson, B., Bassanino, M., Phiri, M. and Worthington, J., 2003, ‘Intentions,

practices and aspirations: understanding learning in design’, in Design

Studies, 24(4), 327–339.

Mozota, B.B., 2003, Design Management: Using Design to Build Brand

Value and Corporate Innovation, New York, Allworth.

Press, M. and Cooper, R., 2002, The Design Experience: The Role

of Design and Designers in the Twenty-first Century, UK,

Aldershot, Ashgate.

Reinertsen, D., 1997, Managing the Design Factory: A Product Developer

Toolkit, New York, The Free Press.

Sanban, K., Lansa, J., Lackman, C. and Peace, G., 2000, ‘Organizational

learning: a critical component to new product development’, in Journal

of Product and Brand Management, 9(2), 99–119.

Sebastian, R., 2004, ‘Critical appraisal of design management in

architecture’, in Journal of Construction Research, 5(2), 255–266.

Sebastian, R., 2005, ‘The interface between design and management’, in

Design Issues, 21(1), 81–93.

Silverman, D., 1998, ‘Qualitative research: meanings or practices?’, in

Information Systems Journal, 8(3), 3–20.

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 17–28

Design Management from a Contractor ’s Perspective 27

Tzortzopoulous 6/13/07 10:15 AM Page 27

Page 29: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

Tzortzopoulos, P., 2004, The Design and Implementation of Product

Development Process Models in Construction Companies, PhD thesis,

University of Salford, UK.

Winch, G. and Carr, B., 2001, ‘Processes, maps and protocols:

understanding the shape of the construction process’, in Construction

Management and Economics, 19(5), 519–531.

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 17–28

28 P. TZORTZOPOULOS AND R. COOPER

Tzortzopoulous 6/13/07 10:15 AM Page 28

Page 30: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

■ Keywords – Architectural quality and value; design strategy;industrialization; professional culture; role of the architect

INTRODUCTIONTHE CHALLENGES OF CONTEMPORARYDESIGN PRACTICE Present challenges such as increasing globalcomplexity, the international marketplace and thecontinuing acceleration of industrialization, as well ascomputer-based communication and information

technology, seem to create a growing need forsimplicity, clarity, control and reliability at all levels ofsociety and human life. Similarly, we are facing a newconsumer culture that calls for multiple and morecustomized goods, which leads to more specifiedquality demands (Baudrillard, 2003).1 Thesetendencies are also traceable in the production ofcontemporary architecture. They can be found in thegeneral aspiration for exact definitions of values andqualities, which can be used as standardized

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 29–38

29

AbstractComplexity arising from increasing globalization of the marketplace and computer-based communication andinformation technology seems to create a growing need for simplicity, control and reliability. At the same time,contemporary consumer culture calls for customized and personalized goods. This evolution also leads to ademand for precise definitions of the values and qualities that can be used as managing tools in common buildingpractice and it puts the traditional architectural design process under pressure. This paper outlines an approachto architectural quality as dealt with in the design process in an industrialized context. It also presents a way toanalyse how and to what degree design processes are formed strategically according to specific architecturalintentions (values). Through detailed interviews with professional architects, the way in which they manage thedesign process and how the architectural potentials are realized when dealing with modern industrial processesare examined. To analyse and structure the empirical data, a model was developed consisting of four approachesfor action. The approaches are categorized along different dichotomies in order to point out different ways inwhich the offices can direct their design process (strategies) and reach particular end-results (goals). Twoexamples from the analysis are discussed according to the dichotomies and subsequently developed into ageneral classification focusing on strategy. A description is given of how the model was tested in thearchitectural education at the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts – School of Architecture. The overall researchproject has two aims – to help offices identify the characteristics and specific methods of working witharchitectural quality in an industrialized context, and to generate a common debate about quality in industrializedarchitecture. It is hoped that by presenting a way to talk about strategy and architectural value, it will inspirefurther elaboration of the field of strategic design management.

ARTICLE

Forming Core Elements for StrategicDesign Management: How to Defineand Direct Architectural Value in anIndustrialized ContextAnne Beim and Kasper Vibæk Jensen

BEIM 6/13/07 10:16 AM Page 29

Page 31: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

governing tools in common building practice.2 How todefine and manage architectural quality seems to bedetermined by a series of conditions (productdemands, value-chain definitions, technologies andrequirements of the end-users) that are detachedfrom the specific architectural context. Consequently,architecture and the design process are ruled by amixture of quality standards and managing tools thatdo not relate to the architectural project as a holisticentity or, it could be argued, to architecture at all.

As a result of this evolution, the traditionalarchitectural design process is being put underpressure as it is an ‘open process’ comprising artisticand innovative activities. Each step is difficult to fullyplan and predict and when it comes to the end-result,it is impossible to control. At the same time, variousresearch has shown that during the early stages of aproject design (conception and programming), 90%of the final costs and qualities are defined (ATV, 1999).In our opinion, these two points highlight the need fora more conscious approach among practisingarchitects as to how and to what degree strategicdesign management should be a part of thearchitectural design process. This is in order to bettertranslate visions into built (real) form and realize asmany of the embedded values as possible in abuilding project when confronted with the conditionsof an industrialized reality.

The research project discussed in this article is anempirical investigation into how professionalarchitects define and manage architectural qualitiesand values in the design process. It focusesespecially on the architectural potential (freedom andconstraints), which lies in the use of contemporaryindustrial manufacturing processes. Questionstouched upon are: How is architectural qualitydefined in specific architectural solutions? Whichstrategies and methodologies are being used in orderto reach specific goals (architectural qualities) in theproduction of architecture today?

DEFINING ARCHITECTURAL QUALITY INAN INDUSTRIALIZED CONTEXTIn architecture, quality can be defined as a relativematter that relates to specific architectural questionsand solutions. Architectural quality includes a number ofdimensions that are not easily recognizable within a

traditional industrial context. The industrial concept ofquality primarily concerns functional and technicalmatters whereas architecture and its qualities reachmuch further as a culturally dependent product(Frampton, 1983) . Besides functional and technicalissues, architectural quality also embraces aesthetic andethical aspects e.g. forming answers to questions suchas ‘How shall one live to live in a right way?’ (Lundequist,1992). As such, the concept of architectural qualityconcerns human existence, our needs and aspirations,and its core values can be said to have existedunchanged as long as the history of mankind. Insummary, the industrial concept of quality hasdeveloped into a narrow rational/technical concept,whereas the concept of architectural quality can becharacterized as an overall human premise (Beim, 2004).

Furthermore, architectural quality depends on how‘the creator’ (here, the architect), as well as ‘thespectator’ (the user), perceive and interpret the ideasbehind an architectural project as well as what sort ofmeaning (or lack of meaning) they transfer into thephysical solutions. It then becomes a matter ofperception and association i.e. I give meaning to what Isee (perception), based on my previous knowledge andexperience. According to Pallasmaa, it is important tobe aware of the observed qualities and the generativeconcepts in relation to architectural perception as twodifferent, but intertwining, levels of perception. They aredescribed as, ‘analogous to the tension between theempirical and the rational, where the logic of pre-existing concepts meets the contingency andparticularity of experience’ (Pallasmaa, 1994). In ouropinion, this means that architectural quality can neverbe expressed as a single formula and neither is itpossible to make direct comparisons between differentlevels of quality and different architectural solutions.This means that not only the architectural designprocess (as described above) but also the very conceptof architectural quality seems to be challenged by theprocesses linked to industrialized manufacturing andcomputer technology which both require strict planningand a predictable output.

A THEORETICAL MODEL DEFINING FOURAPPROACHES FOR ACTION Through detailed interviews with practisingarchitects, the investigation tries to reveal how they

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 29–38

30 A. BEIM AND K. VIBÆK JENSEN

BEIM 6/13/07 10:16 AM Page 30

Page 32: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

work in order to reach their final results. These resultsare not necessarily single building constructions, butalso building concepts and building systems, as wellas (industrial) design principles which we define as‘industrialized architecture’. The architects thathave been interviewed all work in the field ofindustrialized architecture and present interestingattitudes.

As part of the project, we have formulated amodel consisting of four approaches for action (idealtypes)3 which helps to categorize and structure thedifferent ways in which the architectural offices try tomanage the design process and the end-results. Theapproaches are not exact representations of anyempirical reality, but try to collect a series of relatedmotives for action, arranged as clear-cut strategies.The model was conceived through a brainstormexercise based on general (intuitive) experience andspecific impressions from the interviews, but hassubsequently and continually been corrected andrefined during the analysis of the interviews, whileused as a way to structure the analysis. In this way,the model works more as a dynamic tool than as arigid theoretical framework. Furthermore, it has beenthe intention to make the model useful outside thisspecific research project i.e. to generateconsciousness and debate among practitioners andstudents about how they work. This approach – partlyborrowed from the social sciences – seemsappropriate in the present setting, as it does not try to ‘classify or bring order into a chaotic reality but rather aims at caricaturing essentialcharacteristics in this reality’ (Andersen, 1990 –author’s translation). According to Andersen’sinterpretation, ideal types work as ‘entrance keys’ to adeeper understanding of the inner nature of empiricalphenomena.4

The four approaches contained in the model are:

● the pragmatic approach● the academic approach● the management approach● the conceptual approach.

Each represents different strategies along four sets ofdichotomies. These are:

● project vs process orientation● architecture as an autonomous vs conditional

discipline● innovative vs evolutionary working method● intuitive vs explicit accumulation of knowledge.

The dichotomies – as well as the approaches – havebeen adjusted and refined throughout the work withthe empirical results.

THE PRAGMATIC APPROACHThis approach starts from the belief that ‘goodarchitecture’ is ordinary buildings that worksatisfactorily and are made for ordinary people. Thebrief, the given conditions and the context sets up abasic framework as a starting point. The role of thearchitect is not to revolutionize the world orarchitecture, but to present qualified proposals andimprove the general standards. Knowledge isaccumulated through a kind of apprenticeship basedon routines and tradition and it is matured throughworking on specific projects. Knowledge is primarilyproduced and held by the involved employees in eachproject and there is no systematic cross-projectevaluation and transmission. Architects deal withwhat is possible within the given situation. Objectivesconcerning architectural quality are defined by the

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 29–38

Forming Core Elements for Strategic Design Management 31

FIGURE 1 The relation between reality and theory (Andersen, 1990)

BEIM 6/13/07 10:16 AM Page 31

Page 33: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

programme and during the specific sketchingprocess. A personification of this approach could bethe craftsman. In summary, the pragmatic approachdefines architecture as a discipline depending onother disciplines. The approach is primarily project-oriented, based on tradition (evolution) with anintuitive non-explicit use of knowledge.

THE ACADEMIC APPROACHBehind this approach, there is an understanding ofarchitecture stressing a holistic perspective. Only thearchitect is capable of fully understanding thiscomplexity, which nevertheless is created throughinteraction between various individuals/firms, eachone contributing with specific knowledge. The role ofthe architect is to interpret and synthesize the manydifferent inputs. Knowledge is systematically gainedand critically held up against present knowledge. Thismeans that knowledge is accumulated directly withinthe company. The working methods are fixed andtransparent, and well-known solutions (typologies)are repeated while continually adjusted and refined.Every task is specified so that responsibility can bedistributed easily. Objectives concerning architecturalquality transcend the project level, for examplesustainability, low-cost building or exploitation of thepotential of daylight. Through a fixed method,architects try to reach some defined goals of quality.The personification would be the scientist. Summingup – the academic approach claims architecture to bean autonomous discipline. It is primarily process-oriented, based on tradition (evolution) and has a highlevel of explicit knowledge accumulation.

THE MANAGEMENT APPROACHThis approach is based on the belief that architectureis created by the interaction between different agentsboth inside and outside the building industry, and thearchitect has no unique status in this context.Efficient coaching/management, rational thinking andgood business are musts to attain good results.Knowledge is based on theoretical models andexperience collected for internal use. The businessadministration is in charge of the total amount ofknowledge as a platform for decision-making.Keywords are professional business administration,specialization and management of each employee’s

qualifications. This assures an optimal use of all theknow-how and skills held within the company by itsemployees. In this way, room is made for new ideasto emerge by possessing sufficient economicalresources in each project, as well as in the companyas a whole. A personification could be the manager.Summing up – the management approach claimsarchitecture’s dependency on other disciplines. It isprimarily process-oriented, innovative and has a highdegree of explicit knowledge accumulation.

THE CONCEPTUAL APPROACHArchitecture is conceived as an art in this approach.Every building must – regardless of technologicallimitations and restrictions – form a uniquestatement, which means being more than just a‘physical shelter’ for human activity. To work as anarchitect is a vocation. Every work (of art) has its ownsignificant premises, which means that you cannottransfer the same knowledge from one project toanother. Reusing former ideas or solutions can evenrestrain the work. Every project must start as a tabularasa where a particular concept sets up theframework for possible action.

This concept may originate or be inspired by partof reality, but generates its own logic. The quality isembedded in the value of the concept, the degree ofinnovation or the special characteristics and theclarity of the final result. However, this qualitydefinition does not exclude technical and functionaldimensions, but they are not regarded as mainparameters. The approach can be personified as theartist. Summing up – the conceptual approach claimsarchitecture to be an autonomous discipline. It isprimarily project-oriented and innovative and has anintuitive non-explicit use of knowledge.

The four approaches are to be understood asimpartial and we have tried to not favour one approachover another. We have assumed that all approaches canresult in high levels of architectural quality and greatvalue for the end-users and society. The approaches arean expression of a cultivation and grouping of relatedcharacteristics. In reality, architectural practice willalways be more ambivalent and often point towardsdifferent approaches simultaneously. As such, generalarchitectural practice most likely forms a complexcombination of different strategies.

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 29–38

32 A. BEIM AND K. VIBÆK JENSEN

BEIM 6/13/07 10:16 AM Page 32

Page 34: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

AXES OF DICHOTOMIESTo further illustrate the model, Figure 2 sets up the fourdifferent concept axes or dichotomies used in thesummary of each approach. The figure anddichotomies should help to distinguish the approachesfrom each other and facilitate their comparison.

PROCESS/PROJECTThe first dichotomy is a process/project axis thatdescribes the focus of the architects when working inthe office. A process focus starts from theassumption that structuring and managing theprocess is the best way to control the result. The waywe do things has a great influence on the finaloutcome. This means that the working methods oftenhave a general character directed towards ‘how to do’and this is not necessarily linked to any specialcharacteristics in the actual project. The project focusstarts the other way around with the aim of ‘what todo’. This makes the process more arbitrary orimprovised in the way that ‘anything goes’ in order toreach the goals set up in a specific project. A uniqueresult can be an outcome of many differentprocesses. The working method is thus postponed inrelation to the product/project.

EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE ACCUMULATION/INTUITIVE NON-EXPLICIT USE OFKNOWLEDGEThe second dichotomy deals with the nature of theknowledge used or could also be illustrated as the‘media and code’ used for information storage andexchange. Explicit knowledge accumulation mainlyuses external media and universal codes5 e.g.paper/pen (media) and letters/English (code). Thistype of knowledge accumulation facilitatescommunication and exchange by making it moreindependent of the actors involved. Intuitive non-explicit

use of knowledge is stored in the actors themselvesand codes are personal, or at least limited by personalaccess.6 This knowledge can be conscious but ismore likely to be part of the subconscious. The actualknowledge accumulation will always be a combinationof the two extremes. This has to do with theinterpretative act, which will always be involved in thetranslation of any form of information independent ofmedia and code into usable real-time knowledge.‘Who’ is reading the text or looking at the drawing isjust as important.

INNOVATION/EVOLUTIONThe third dichotomy spanning from innovation toevolution is related to the ‘use’ of knowledge whengenerating new ideas and projects. Innovation has todo with the ability or the intention to throw away whatyou already know and take in completely newinformation without prejudice. This knowledge can beboth reliable knowledge generated in externalenvironments7 and more ad-hoc knowledgegenerated by a particular combination of conditionsthat are present in the specific case or situation.Evolution means that the main part of the knowledgeor information employed in a project is alreadypossessed by the actor (the architect) before thebeginning of the project. Compared to nature itself,evolution is based on mutation where minorcorrections and refinements make an organism(object or process) more apt in a certain environment,context or situation. Yet again, reality will always besomewhere in between. It is not possible to startcompletely from scratch even if you wanted to. Therewill always be reuse of some basic knowledge e.g.how to use a pen or the dimensions of the humanbody (in architecture). At the opposite end of thespectrum, total reuse will not generate new ideas andcannot even be defined as evolution.

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 29–38

Forming Core Elements for Strategic Design Management 33

FIGURE 2 The different approaches placed within the four dichotomies

BEIM 6/13/07 10:16 AM Page 33

Page 35: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

AUTONOMOUS/CONDITIONALThe fourth dichotomy describes architecture’sautonomy or dependency. An autonomousarchitecture is an architecture that is exclusivelydefined within itself and the architect dominateswhen it comes to deciding what is relevant to includein this definition. This has to do with a conception ofarchitecture as a true profession rather than anoccupation (demarcation/action). On the other hand,architecture as dependant discipline, places thearchitect as one actor among many others in theproduction of architecture. This is not necessarilyconstraining for the development of architecture; thevague borders can be seen as possibilities andinspiration rather than limitations.

The dichotomies represent a simplified way toclassify the different theoretical approaches. Thisshould help to make the model a useful tool foranalysis and discussion of specific empirical reality inarchitectural offices. In this research project, it hasbeen tested on a collection of interviews withprofessionals from different Danish and foreignarchitectural offices. An interesting analysis wouldnot try to make an exact match between reality andtheory, but rather discuss the clashes between therigid classifications and the ever-complex reality.

CASES FROM THE ANALYSISUsing the model as a language or a matrix enables usto locate and discuss the specific statementsconcerning architectural quality (goals) and the way toattain it (strategies). The overall scope of the analysisand the research project is to ‘locate and discuss’ –rather than to interpret – the different strategies andspecific goals (in the process of architectural design)as reflected among a selection of practitioners(cases).

Design strategies seem to work on several levelsand some of them are only indirectly related to theactual design process. A strategy can be directedstrictly towards the formal design – the process ofgiving physical shape to a project, but it can also havebroader technical scope introducing industrial buildingtechniques or deal with more legislative themes suchas building standards and codes. The strategy canalso focus on external factors such as environmentalissues or politics, which may be considered to have

decisive impacts on the actual design. As a generalguideline, one can look at the ‘level’ and the ‘nature’ ofthe strategy employed (Figure 3). ‘Level’ refers to thelevel of consciousness – high or low strategicconsciousness – and ‘nature’ points to a distinctionbetween the concrete (exact) and abstract nature ofthe specific goals implied in the strategy. Here, we willbriefly present two examples from the analysis thatboth present high strategic consciousness butcomprise very different natures spanning from theconcrete (exact) to the abstract.

EXACT (CONCRETE) STRATEGYOne of the case studies is the work of thearchitectural office Lundgaard & Tranberg (LTA), amedium-sized Danish company with 35 employeesfounded in 1974. In the mid-1990s, the officedeveloped a building concept or system calledComfort House, which is based on a businessconsortium that joins contractor NCC and engineersCarl Bro with LTA as the architects. The concept orsystem is partly an organizational framework andpartly a constructive system for housing complexesof varying size. The managing director at the time wasinterviewed. (The office is now owned by apartnership of leading employees.)

Most of the statements from the interviews placeLTA closest to the pragmatic approach, althoughmany features are also related to the conceptualapproach. The management and academicapproaches share no significant resemblances withthe way LTA seems to work. In very general terms, theapproach can be characterized as clearly project-oriented mainly using intuitive non-explicitknowledge. Furthermore, LTA does not statearchitecture as an autonomous discipline while bothinnovative and evolutionary features can be found.

Comfort House is a standardized building system,although the starting point in LTA is the actual projectrather than a general strategy. There is no fixedprocedure or a complete tabula rasa. The organizedframework and the building system give somecommon directions for the different actors involved inthe process but leave a great deal of openness for thearchitect in some specific parts e.g. designing thefacade and organizing the plan. A common set ofrules make it possible for the involved actors to work

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 29–38

34 A. BEIM AND K. VIBÆK JENSEN

BEIM 6/13/07 10:16 AM Page 34

Page 36: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

more simultaneously e.g. the engineer does not haveto wait for the final solution from the architect beforecalculating the structure.

LTA’s design strategies run in two directions: onthe one hand, they accept the building system andfocus on the inherent possibilities and, on the otherhand, they always try to challenge the lure ofrepetition, which also characterizes the system.

The project-oriented focus characterized by thepragmatic approach, and which also can be found inthe LTA interview, leads to quite specific strategicstatements8 e.g. improvement of buildingcomponents and detailing, and how these are relatedto the whole. Examples could be LTA’s work with agreater deal of flexibility where the foundation meetsthe ground, various placements of the plane of thefacade or the use of alternative materials. Theanalysis points to a moderate to high level of strategicconsciousness directed towards exact (concrete)goals (Figure 3).

ABSTRACT STRATEGYThe second case is an interview with the managingdirector of Arkitema (AT). AT is the largestarchitectural office in Denmark and was founded in1970. The firm shows an explicit interest inindustrialized processes and, among other reasons,was selected because of its biannually publishedVidenregnskab – a written and illustrated summary ofits business and where it wants to focus in the future.

The interview places AT close to the managementapproach. AT’s approach can, in general terms, becharacterized as mainly process oriented. Explicitknowledge accumulation is the aim and to somedegree a fact. AT does not state architecture as anautonomous discipline but claims extremedependency on related fields while many innovativefeatures are present with the aim to empower thearchitect.

The process orientation is found in the focus onorganization within the company and the organization

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 29–38

Forming Core Elements for Strategic Design Management 35

FIGURE 3 Strategic nature (x) and consciousness (y)

BEIM 6/13/07 10:16 AM Page 35

Page 37: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

of the building process as a whole. However, it mustbe stated that the interviewee works at theorganizational level, which is not necessarilyrepresentative of all employees. One of the initiativesis a pronounced specialization of the staff, which aregrouped into expert departments with differentprofiles. A particular task force is specialized inresearch and accumulation of knowledge. This part ofthe company does not deal with external costumers,but rather generates value indirectly by supportingand inspiring the other departments. The role of thearchitect is not to decide what is wrong or right interms of architecture, but instead to enable theinvolved actors to make the best decisions. Thearchitect thus becomes a process manager morethan a decision maker. By opening up and giving otheractors influence in traditional working fields of thearchitect, the possibility of gaining access to otherdecisive areas seems to be maximized. This turns theway the architect works upside down and points todistinct innovative features.

Most of the strategic choices presented in theinterview point towards a more general level (non-project specific) with focus on the process instead ofon the final product. Strategies are less directedagainst internal factors e.g. specific formal design,and more against external factors e.g. coordinationwith other parties involved and questions about theorganizational setup of the construction process. Oneof the major problems in the building industry,according to the interviewee, is precisely theimprovised character of this organizational setup. Theanalysis points to a high level of strategic consciousnessdirected towards abstract goals (Figure 3).

NO STRATEGYBoth examples analysed present a high degree ofstrategic consciousness, but of a very differentnature. To complete the schema, the otherinterviewed offices reveal considerably lowerstrategic consciousness mainly of an exact nature,which in many ways corresponds to the pragmaticapproach. A low strategic consciousness of a moreabstract nature would correspond to an extremeversion of the conceptual approach although Figure 3cannot be understood just by locating each of thefour approaches in a quadrant. All the cases present

interesting attitudes towards industrializedarchitecture and are consequently located in the‘upper conscious end’. An allegation could be thatmany traditional offices would be located in the‘lower conscious end’ showing low or no strategicconsciousness at all. The aim of this project is not toconfirm this, but instead to contribute to make thesecompanies more responsive to the way they work.

IMPLEMENTATION AND FURTHERPROJECTSThe model of action has been presented in variouscontexts thus trying to initiate a more consciousstrategic approach among architects.

Preliminary attempts to test the model were madein March and November 2005 with two differentgroups of architectural students. In March, thestudents attended a half-day workshop on projectdesign and group processes. They were presentedwith the model of action and a couple of examplesfrom the analysis, and were given time to think aboutand write down their personal approach using themodel and the four theoretical approaches as a pointof departure. Each student was then asked to presenttheir approach. The idea was to discuss how thepersonal approaches related to the theoretical onesand, on a more specific level, to see if the resultscould point towards different roles among thestudents in their current group project.

The presentations and the subsequent discussionshowed that the students placed themselves insimilar ways. Most identified themselves mainly withthe conceptual approach with some resemblancesto the pragmatic approach. This implied that eventhough they as students were in a process oflearning, they did not claim to use any systematic orexplicit form of knowledge accumulation, but ratherimprovised (intuition) or did ‘as they used to do’ whenthey had to start up a project. However, many of thestudents also claimed that more systematicknowledge accumulation – as characterized by boththe management and the academic approach – wouldbe desirable, but that they had no tools to reach suchan end.

The second workshop was planned to run for aweek. This time, groups of four or five studentsworked with the model, designing a building system

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 29–38

36 A. BEIM AND K. VIBÆK JENSEN

BEIM 6/13/07 10:16 AM Page 36

Page 38: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

for a facade. As an introduction to the whole schemethe students first had to define their own approach onthe basis of the model. Each group was then given aspecific approach that they had to follow strictly. Theassignment consisted of two parts – a planning phaseand an executing/building phase. The students foundit difficult not to fall back on their traditional workingmethods, but after a while they began to find it easierwhen they dropped their individual need to influencethe project and instead worked as a group. Whenexecuting their schemes, they fully carried out theirroles and the various project results of the groupsturned out very differently – very much in accordancewith the different approaches.

In general, the students seemed enthusiasticabout trying these new working methods and someof them said they were surprised how effectively theyhad worked with the project. The approaches hadprovided a neutral ground for their cooperation. As forthe results, it was quite astonishing how much theydiffered and hence provided interesting material foracademic discussion. The model appeared to work;however, as part of an architectural educationexercise it was more important in helping students tounderstand the core elements of the profession,rather than providing students with operational tools.

Through publication in architectural magazines(Arkitekten 06/05, Nordic Journal of ArchitecturalResearch, etc.), by means of workshops and futurecourses arranged at the School of Architecture inCopenhagen and through presentations at relevantdesign conferences (CIB W096, Joining Forces,EAAE, etc.), we are trying to make the project morethan a final report to be placed on the bookshelves ofother researchers. It is our hope that the model canand will be used by architectural offices indiscussions about strategy and that it can contributeto make architects more conscious about the waysthey manage the design process and try to reachgoals concerning architectural quality.

Two other projects have been formulated to followup this project. One project delves further into theaction-perspective. Through observation studiescarried out in studios selected among the presentcases we intend to study the actual ‘processes’ takingplace when architects work on a specific project. Wehave learned that what people ‘talk’ about doing and

what they actually ‘do’ when they work, are twodifferent things. The thesis is that the correspondencebetween these two levels can vary considerably and itthus becomes interesting to analyse both sides –especially with a focus on the strategic consciousnessdescribed in the previous section.

The second project focuses on the ‘product’ thatcomes out of the building process. When dealingwith design, it is a fact that you can never claim thata specific process will lead to specific previouslydefined qualities. It is therefore equally relevant toanalyse the actual ‘works’ or results. The aim is todevelop the terminology and concept formation onarchitectural quality in an industrialized contextclaiming that this will, to some extent, differ from itsmore traditional equivalent. We need new orsupplementary concepts to be able to talk about andhence better understand the (industrialized)architecture we find today. The result from the twoprojects will be used to describe characteristics of therelationship between process and product. Thedivision in two main concepts is thus meant as purelyanalytical; it helps to clarify certain aspects about areality that will always be a complex web of‘interaction’ between the two.

CONCLUSIONOne could ask if industrialized architecture reallyneeds its own terminology and specific strategicdesign management in order to direct thearchitectural value. There is no doubt that there is adifference between not being conscious and‘choosing’ not to be so. Our argument is that giventhe new and industrialized context as describedabove there is definitely a need for this consciouschoice. This is not only seen as a means to empowerthe architect as a professional person and theprofession, but rather to emphasize what is moreimportant – the ‘architectural quality’. The traditionaldesign process is under pressure and in this contextit is our opinion that new measures must be taken toensure that design is not reduced merely to costcontrol, industrial just-in-time production or buildingcodes. These are important issues, but they shouldbe submitted and measured against a more generalapproach including all the other important aspects ofa ‘holistic’ architectural design process.

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 29–38

Forming Core Elements for Strategic Design Management 37

BEIM 6/13/07 10:16 AM Page 37

Page 39: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

We believe the proposed model, including thedichotomies, represents a way to form a language bywhich we can work more consciously with thecomplexity of architecture in an industrialized context.By using the model on our empirical data as well as inan educational context, we have been able to pointout and discuss different strategies and how they areused in order to aim at specific goals. It is our hopethat it will inspire further use and elaboration of thefield of strategic design management.

AUTHOR CONTACT DETAILSAnne Beim: Associate Professor, Centre of Industrialised

Architecture, Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, School of

Architecture, Philip de Langes Alle 10, Dk-1435 Copenhagen K,

Denmark. Tel: +45 3268 6355, fax: +45 3268 6236,

e-mail: [email protected]

Kasper Vibæk Jensen: Associate Researcher, Centre of

Industrialised Architecture, Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts,

School of Architecture, Philip de Langes Alle 10, Dk-1435

Copenhagen K, Denmark. Tel: +45 3268 6352 , fax: +45 3268

6236 , e-mail: [email protected]

NOTES1 Baudrillard reveals the implications of the consumer society in relation

to physical cultural objects.

2 International certifications such as ISO and CE are both used for

managing quality in construction as well as in the production of goods.

3 Ideal types as a tool for analysis were originally introduced by the

sociologist Max Weber. Ideal type does not refer to any moral ideals nor

does it ever correspond to concrete reality (e.g. Coser, 1977:

pp 223–224).

4 Ibid: p. 94.

5 Universal codes do not exist. In this context, universal should be

understood as ‘shared by a large number of individuals’. Even shared

codes (e.g. letters and the English language) will contain an

interpretative element.

6 An extreme way of attempting to surpass this personal access could be

the use of torture.

7 Knowledge collected from other related or non-related fields.

8 It is important to emphasize that it is not possible to compare the

interviews directly with each other. The conversations do not

necessarily cover the same topics and do not take place on the same

level. This can, in itself, result in strategies on different levels.

REFERENCESAndersen, I., 1990, Valg af Organisationssociologiske Metoder – et

Kombinationsperspektiv, Copenhagen, Samfundslitteratur.

ATV (Akademiet for de Tekniske Videnskaber), 1999, Byggeriet i Det 21.

Århundrede – Industriel Reorganisering af Byggeprocessen, Lyngby, ATV.

Baudrillard, J, 2003, ‘The rise of the object – the end of culture’ in Proto, F.

(ed), Mass. Identity. Architecture – Architectural Writings of Jean

Baudrillard, West Sussex, Wiley-Academy. 93–124

Beim, A. and Mossin, Natalie, 2004 Designproces og Brugerkrav –

Indarbejdning af Brugerkrav i Arkitektoniske og Produktorienterede

Designprocesser, Hørsholm, Statens Byggeforskningsinstitut.

Coser, L.A., 1977, Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical and

Social Context, San Diego, Harcourt.

Frampton, K., 1983, ‘Prospects for a Critical Regionalism’, in Perspecta:

Yale Architectural Journal, 20, 147–162.

Lundequist, J., 1992, ‘Kvalitetsbegreppets två Dimensioner,’ in Arkitektonisk

Kvalitet, Arkitekturmuseets Årsbok, Stockholm, Arkitekturmuseet.

Pallasmaa, J.,1994 ‘An architecture of the seven senses’ in Pallasmaa, J.,

Perez-Gomez, A. and Holl, S. Questions of Perception – Phenomenology

of Architecture, A+U Special Issue, July 1994, 27–37.

BIBLIOGRAPHYArief, A. and Buchart, B., 2002, Prefab, Salt Lake City, Utah, Gibbs Smith

Publisher.

Beim, A., 2004, Tectonic Visions in Architecture, København,

Kunstakademiets Arkitektskoles Forlag.

Cold, B., 1989, ‘Om arkitektur och kvalitet – ikke den teknisk, funksjonelle,

målbare kvaliteten, men den upplevde estetiske’, in Tidsskrift för

Arkitekturforskning, 2(1-2), 31–46.

Cross, N., 2001, ‘Designerly ways of knowing: design discipline versus

design science’, in Design Issues, 17(3), 49–55

Jensen, K.V., 2005, ‘Strategisk partnering og arkitektonisk merværdi’, in

Arkitekten, 6, 32–36.

Ministry of Education, Finland, 2003, Discussing Architectural Quality,

European Forum for Architectural Policies, 21 May 2002, Helsinki, Finland.

Nilsson, F., 2005, ‘Knowledge production by architectural practice’, in Grimes,

Brendan (ed.): Between Research and Practice, EAAE Conference

Proceedings, June 2004, Dublin, Dublin School of Architecture, 127–136.

Sällström, P.M., 2002, ‘Indledning om SARs policy för byggandet’ in

Processer för arkitektonisk kvalitet i byggandet – Rapport Från Nordisk

Konferens i Samband med Arkiteturåret 2001, Kulturhuset, Stockholm,

Oktober 2001, Stockholm, Sveriges Arkitekter, 9–12.

Schnier, J., 2005, ‘On the interdependency of thinking mode and design

strategy’, in Grimes, Brendan (ed.): Between Research and Practice,

EAAE Conference Proceedings, June 2004, Dublin, Dublin School of

Architecture, 152–160.

Strike, J., 1991, Construction into Design, Oxford, Butterworth Architecture.

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 29–38

38 A. BEIM AND K. VIBÆK JENSEN

BEIM 6/13/07 10:16 AM Page 38

Page 40: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

■ Keywords – Design; information transfer; management

INTRODUCTIONEmmitt (1999) recognizes the complexity of thedesign process and the need to model it for planningand organization purposes. Coles and Barritt (2000)provide a conventional planning approach, but thishas its limits and does not deal with the issue of detaildesign in sufficient depth given the scale of designoutside of the design team. Austin et al (2001)recognize the need to model the interaction betweennumerous information sources and inputs to thedesign. They also recognize the supply chain inherentin component design and the need to model using aprocess map approach. However, they do notdevelop the models necessary to provide the detaileddescription of design needed to plan it in detail. Also,the majority of the studies of design informationproduction concentrate on that produced by the

consultant team in the early stages of the designprocess as defined by the RIBA plan of work.However, this framework was criticized by Gray andHughes (2001) in that detail design, productioninformation and shop drawings, for component-based construction, are a continuum more properlycalled ‘engineering design’. The bulk of theinformation that is produced for engineering designinvolves the integration of the specialist trades’design into the whole. The scale of specialistcontractors’ involvement in the whole of the projectinformation production process is extensive. Freeman(1981) in a review of comparative studies of UK andUS practice, noted that Eden and Green in a study ofUS hospitals had found that for a 300-bed hospital,the design team produced 204 drawings and thespecialist more than 3000. In a study of seven UKprojects, reported by Gray (1999), the percentage ofthe total drawings produced by the specialist trade

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 39–48

39

AbstractDesign management research usually deals with the processes within the professional design team and yet,in the UK, the volume of the total project information produced by the specialist trade contractors equals orexceeds that produced by the design team. There is a need to understand the scale of this production taskand to plan and manage it accordingly. The model of the process on which the plan is to be based, whilegeneric, must be sufficiently robust to cover the majority of instances. An approach using design elements,in sufficient depth to possibly develop tools for a predictive model of the process, is described. The startingpoint is that each construction element and its components have a generic sequence of design activities.Specific requirements tailor the element’s application to the building. Then there are the constraintsproduced due to the interaction with other elements. Therefore, the selection of a component within theelement may impose a set of constraints that will affect the choice of other design elements. Thus, a designdecision can be seen as an interrelated element–constraint–element (ECE) sub-net. To illustrate thisapproach, an example of the process within precast concrete cladding has been used.

ARTICLE

Modelling Trade Contractor InformationProductionColin Gray and Salam Al-Bizri

Gray 6/13/07 10:17 AM Page 39

Page 41: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

contractors on a typical UK building project was 42%,with a range of 10–75%. The Senator House casestudy (Steel Construction Institute, 1993) reportedthat the design and fabrication drawings for a steelframe comprising 2930 pieces of steel, required 1200structural consultant drawings and more than 2000fabrication (shop) drawings. However, this scale ofinvolvement is largely unrecognized and yet has tobe managed in order to deliver the supply ofcomponents to the site (Gray and Hughes, 2001). Thefailure to design the project as an assembly ofinteracting pieces may prove to be detrimental toperformance during installation (Tsao et al, 2000).

This paper explores the nature of the specialists’information production process with a view todeveloping an understanding of the process of designwithin this area of design and information productionin order that the scope and scale can be planned asan integral part of the whole design process.

DEVELOPING AND MODIFYING GENERICMODELS OF DESIGNThe proposition is that each construction element orcomponent has associated with it an establishedsequence of design processes that can be modelled.At the right level of detail, this would enable theproduction of a common or generic model. Themodel should hold the common elements for aparticular technology. When using the component ina specific situation, the model should be able to beadapted. One issue, therefore, is to define anappropriate level of detail that permits the genericpatterns of the processes to be found. This is not tobe confused with the notion of the iterative nature ofthe design process. Each step in the process maywell contain considerable iterations as the process isdefined in a broad sense. Much iteration occursbecause the designer is unaware of or has yet toreceive input information to the process. If thenecessary inputs can be defined then iterations maybe reduced, so improving the execution of theprocess. With an established model of the designprocess for each technology and component setwithin it, the designer can understand the scope andscale of the process. This was the thrust of the workof Farell (1968) but, because of the nature of theplanning and computing technology at that time, he

had to work within a known framework which was toconcentrate on the exchanges between technologiesto enable the design of the interfaces. However, theunderlying model is: inherent process, sequence ofprocesses, constraints from information providers,interface/fixing design and, finally, timing resultingfrom the interaction between interrelated,technologically driven processes.

The design management task is to then ensurethat the sequence is understood and that thedesigners in every process understand their role andtask so that information flows between them. This isthe main reason the current work focuses oninformation requirements and flows at componentlevel.

The constraints that control the selection from,and the modification of, the fundamental sequence ina design process can be classified into twodimensions. First, the constraints that tailor thisdesign element to the specific building. Second, theconstraints produced as a result of the interactionbetween the elements of another technology. In otherwords, the choice of elements that satisfy a designproblem and the interfaces between the technologiesproduce a network, and a complex design decision canbe seen as an interrelated element–constraint–element(ECE) sub-net.

In practice, it is difficult to identify the network asit is complex i.e. the number of different patterns ofrelations between elements increases when thenumber of different elements increases. Thus, aproper approach to solve the complexity could be:

● select one design element or component at atime and predict the implicit constraints

● identify the constraints produced when linking toother design components

● develop the resulting model of the designprocess.

A decision has to be made as to the level of detail formodelling. It would probably be impossible to modelevery component because of their variety. As Farell(1968) found, it is best to let the designers determinethe scale of work in each process, while manageriallyit is more important to determine the informationflows and inputs (Gray and Hughes, 2001). The choice

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 39–48

40 C. GRAY AND S. AL-BIZRI

Gray 6/13/07 10:17 AM Page 40

Page 42: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

here is the general level of component e.g. claddingpanel.

METHODOLOGYThe issue of design management that this workaddresses is the supply of detailed production orfabrication information to either the site or for thecomponent manufacturing stage. In order todetermine the scope and scale of informationproduction for a trade, it is necessary to determinethe range of components that are being used and thedegree of customization. A generic model will specifythe available range and the number of constraints(variations on a theme) will enable the variation to bedetermined. At the information production stage, andparticularly the shop drawing stage, there will be atleast one drawing for every unique combination ofitem and modification. The approach used todetermine both the range and possible customizationwas to examine the information generation processof a specialist trade package with the objective ofidentifying the best practice set of activities. Bestpractice has been defined as the element’s sequenceand information flows that would produce the mosteffective technical solution in the most efficientmanner.

Precast concrete cladding and its connection to astructural frame was chosen to develop the approach.This was a suitably complex component that has aclearly articulated interface with a structure.

The process of understanding the informationrequirements was as follows:

● first, study the available literature to create aninitial understanding of the technology of precastcladding from which an initial model of thedesign process was developed

● second, conduct an input/output analysis of thedata and information transfer points between theprecast cladding design and the structural designto understand the flow at the interface (typicallycaused by the fixing details) between thetechnologies

● third, evaluation by a panel of experts of theresulting model using an iterative Delphiapproach to achieve the final model. The expertsused worked examples of details to confirm the

correctness of the map or to modify it until therewas final agreement, and

● finally, model the process in a suitable form thatwould allow the output to reflect and adjust inresponse to the selection and choices that hadbeen made.

These steps, when combined, enabled the creation ofa generic model that could be modified for each ofthe panel-to-structure combinations.

DEVELOPING ECE NETS AS GENERICMODELSThe model representation chosen was knowledge-based engineering (KBE) as it has the most flexibilityin adjusting generic models to the specific situation.IDEF0 process maps could have been used (Karhuet al, 1997), but are subject to manual rewriting foreach application whereas KBE can adjustautomatically. Experience of knowledge-baseddevelopment has shown the context must first bedescribed before the abstracted elements can bedescribed in a suitable way for a knowledge-basedapproach (Gray and Little, 1985).

DESIGN CONTEXT FOR KNOWLEDGE-BASEDDEVELOPMENTPrecast architectural cladding panels are usually non-loadbearing, but loadbearing panels are used whenthey provide the most economic structural solution.Designing non-loadbearing precast concrete claddingpanels and their connection to the structural frame isa complex process, which involves designers fromdifferent design teams and organizations. Thearchitect, structural engineer and cladding specialistsare usually involved. The specialist has to determineevery requirement for each panel and instance. So thefollowing is repeated for every panel type where thereis a change so that the manufacturing process canmake the right panel.

The design of non-loadbearing precast concretecladding is highly interdependent with the structuralframe. The units and their fixings are designed towithstand panel self-weight, wind loads and the liftingand handling stresses during manufacture and erection.The process of designing non-loadbearing precastconcrete panels and their relationship to the structure

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 39–48

Modelling Trade Contractor Information Production 41

Gray 6/13/07 10:17 AM Page 41

Page 43: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

involves the architect, structural engineer and the tradecontractor. The main factors, which the designer has toconsider in determining the final panel size, shape andfixings, are discussed below.

DIMENSIONS OF THE PANELThe precise dimensions of the panel are determinedby the architectural and structural requirements, thepracticality of manufacture, the transportation andweight of unit for lifting. From the input information ofelevation and detail drawings, the cladding designerdetermines the panel’s width and length. The precisestructure of the panels is a function of manyconsiderations. However, the self-weight of the unitand the fixing methodology are the most importantfor the structural engineer. For each fixing location tothe structure, the structural engineers should checkthe loads on the structure as it may affect the columndimensions and spacing. Also the structural engineershould consider the effect of the weight of thecladding panels on the edge detail of the structuralslabs. This is the first iterative loop between thespecialist and the design team.

SHAPE OF THE PANELPanels can be of either uniform thickness or thinpanels with reinforcing ribs. The profile of the panel isdefined by the panel’s web thickness, plus thethickness of the horizontal nibs and the verticalstrengthening ribs (Figure 1).

Uniform thickness panels are preferred, butcoffered edge (ribbed back) panels reduce the self-weight of the panels, as well as providing asubstantial joining profile for the panel. Informationabout the edge of the structural slabs and the columndimensions is exchanged between the structuralengineer and the cladding designer so that whensizing the horizontal nibs and vertical ribs thereinforcement can be avoided.

TYPE OF PANEL There are two main types of panel – mullion andspandrel units. A mullion panel extends from floor tofloor while a spandrel panel spans between columnsor from window to window. The architecturaldrawings provide the cladding designer withinformation about the height of the panels, but thedesign of the structural slabs affects the decision onthe height of the panels as their depth can affect theheight of the spandrel panels and the floor-to-floorheight; therefore, this will affect the height of themullion.

PANEL SUPPORTS AND FIXINGSPanels can be either supported at the base or hungfrom the top. Generally, bottom-supported panels arepreferred as the panel will be in compression and therisk of cracking is minimized. The nibs on the panelstransfer the loads to the structure. In the case of theuniform thickness panels, the fixing would be

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 39–48

42 C. GRAY AND S. AL-BIZRI

FIGURE 1 Strengthening ribs and support nibs

Gray 6/13/07 10:17 AM Page 42

Page 44: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

designed to transfer the total load. Fixings can beeither loadbearing or restraint. The fixing method tothe structure can be either by angle cleats or dowels.

Angle cleatsAngle cleats are used to restrain the panel at the top,and may be used to fix the panel at the base. The sizeof the angle cleat is calculated according to the loads.Angle cleats should be designed to give dimensionaladjustment in three planes – vertical adjustment,horizontal adjustment between the cleat and thepanel to the face of the building, and linearadjustment parallel to the edge of the slab (Figure 2).Vertical adjustment is provided by slotted holes in theangle cleat and packing pieces allow horizontaladjustment. Cast-in channels provide adjustmentparallel to the edge of the slab. Cast-in sockets,drilled-in sockets and expanding sleeves can also beused to provide the fixing at the edge of the slab.

DowelsDowels can be used to restrain the panel through thebottom support nibs into the slab. The dowel systemis normally slotted so that it does not restrict thermalmovement. Dowels are cheaper than cleats andeasier to assemble however cleats are more flexiblein accommodating dimensional inaccuracies in thestructure. A hole is formed in the panel and a pocketis cast into the in-situ floor to receive the dowel.

Inaccuracies can occur during construction. Toovercome these inaccuracies, tolerance must beallowed in the method of fixing to accommodate thevariable clearance between the panels and the structure.The tolerance specification is another point of iteration –to obtain an agreement that satisfies all parties.

Specialist cladding contractors prefer bottom-supported panels as the panel will be in compression.The specialist’s first choice of fixing would be cleats,but the choice of base-supported panels gives thecheaper option of dowels. When the cladding panel isfixed to an in-situ concrete slab, there may be greaterstructural inaccuracy and cleats allow a greateraccommodation of wider tolerances.

The cladding designer should provide the structuralengineer with information about the fixings that will beused, as the choice of cleats, dowels or other type offixing affects the design of the fixing points at the edgeof the structural slabs. When the cladding designerchooses cleats, the structural engineer can choosebetween cast-in channels, cast-in sockets, drilled-insockets or bolts with expanding sleeves depending onreinforcement density. Channels are the preferredmethod. If the cladding designer chooses dowels, thestructural engineer has to consider how to provide thepockets at the edge of the slab, with the resultingdemand on casting accuracy.

ELEMENT–CONSTRAINT–ELEMENT SUB-NETSTo achieve the flexibility necessary for futuremodelling, the different configurations of theelement–constraint–element network are presentedin the KBE format (Al-Bizri, 1995). This is preferred toan IDEF0 approach, as used in design processmodelling (Karhu et al, 1997), because of the need toexpress choice and the need to adapt to changingsituations. Using the precast concrete claddingdesign in relation to a concrete structure as anexemplar, it has been found that there are fourgeneric types of relationship between the twoelements (Figure 3). These can be expressed in thefollowing logical statements:

Case 1: [e1] consequence [e2] Example: Column dimensions have a directconsequence on the width of the verticalstrengthening ribs of the coffered-edge precast

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 39–48

Modelling Trade Contractor Information Production 43

FIGURE 2 Various combinations of dowels and cleat fixings

Gray 6/13/07 10:17 AM Page 43

Page 45: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

concrete cladding. This relationship between thecolumn and the ribs of the precast concrete claddingcan be expressed by:[e1] consequence [e2]where:[e1] is the column and its dimensions in the frametechnology[e2] is the width of the vertical ribs of the coffered-edge precast concrete cladding technology.

Case 2: [e1] constraint [c] consequence [e2]Example: The depth of the structural slab affects thefloor-to-floor height and the floor-to-floor height willbe a constraint that will affect the height of themullion of the precast concrete cladding. Thisrelationship between the depth of structural slab andthe height of the mullion of the precast concretecladding can be expressed by:[e1] constraint [c] consequence [e2]where:[e1] is the depth of the structure slab in the frametechnology[c] is the floor-to-floor height in the frame technology[e2] is the height of the mullion of the precastconcrete cladding technology.

In certain situations more than one solution ispossible and although these are preferences, otherchoices may be made. However, any model mustmake provision for such a situation and the followingtwo cases illustrate how the proposed model canadvocate a preference by weighting one choice morethan another.

Case 3: [e1] preference [e4]Example: The choice of base-supported precastconcrete cladding gives a preference to the choice ofdowel as a fixing for the precast concrete cladding.This relationship can be expressed as:[e1] preference [e4]where:[e1] is the base-supported precast concrete claddingin the panel technology[e4] is the dowel fixing preference for the precastconcrete cladding affecting hole location in the frametechnology.

Case 4: [e1] constraint [c2] preference [e5]Example: The choice of in-situ structure slabcauses specific tolerance issues and gives greaterpreference to the choice of cleat as a fixing for the

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 39–48

44 C. GRAY AND S. AL-BIZRI

FIGURE 3 Types of relationships between two elements in an ECE sub-net

Gray 6/13/07 10:17 AM Page 44

Page 46: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

precast concrete cladding. This relationship can beexpressed as:[e1] constraint [c2] preference [e5]where:[e1] is the in-situ structural slab[c2] is the tolerance profile[e5] the cleat fixing of the precast concrete claddingis the preferred option.A complex ECE sub-net results when combining thefour generic cases of ECE relationships.

ELEMENT DEFINITION USING AN ECESUB-NETThe definition of an element could be seen as acomponent within a technology; first, where there isa choice e.g. the precast concrete cladding panel’sshape can be uniform or coffered edge and, second,the features e.g. the panel element has threedimensions, ribs, webs and fixings. Some of thefeatures will be preferred such as cast-in channelfixings, but all may be interrelated.

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 39–48

Modelling Trade Contractor Information Production 45

FIGURE 4 Sub-net 1 – structure dimensions

Gray 6/13/07 10:17 AM Page 45

Page 47: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

The following are examples of the sub-nets of thedecision-making process generated using the ECEnet approach. The examples are for the two keydecisions for precast concrete panel design inrelation to a concrete structural frame – the fixing

types and locations, and the size and shape of thepanel. Once the basic decision of fixing type has beenmade, the panel designer requires the totalinformation for each panel in order to complete themanufacturing (shop drawing) for each panel.

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 39–48

46 C. GRAY AND S. AL-BIZRI

FIGURE 5 Sub-net 2 – panel dimensions

Gray 6/13/07 10:17 AM Page 46

Page 48: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

SUB-NET 1: FIXING DECISIONS (FIGURE 4)Cleats are usually preferred, however, the choice of abase-supported panel gives greater preference to thechoice of dowels. With base-supported panels, anytype of fixing is possible, whereas dowels are notused with top-hung panels. The choice of in-situstructure slab causes specific tolerance issues andgives greater preference to the choice of cleat as afixing for the precast concrete cladding. The choice ofcleats permits the choice between channels, cast-insockets, drilled-in sockets or expanding sleeves as amethod of fixing at the edge of the structural slab.Cast-in channels are usually the preferred fixingmethod at the edge of the slab, however, by choosingdowels, the fixing method at the edge of the slabshould be pockets, which is the less preferred option.

SUB-NET 2: PANEL DIMENSIONS (FIGURE 5)Uniform thickness panels are usually preferred morethan the coffered-edge panels. However, the self-weight of the panel may influence this choicetowards a coffered-edge panel, as this would reducethe self-weight of the panel. A coffered-edge panelalso provides a better joining profile. When a panelhas a coffered edge, the loads the panel is exposedto affect the depth of the horizontal nibs and thevertical ribs. The design of the edge of the structuralslab affects the depth of the horizontal nibs andvertical ribs, as they have to be large enough for thepanel to be safely fixed to the structure. The columndimensions affect the breadth of the verticalstrengthening ribs in the places where the panelsattach to or pass the columns. The size of the paneli.e. web thickness, span and height, affect the self-weight of the panel. Consequently, the self-weightaffects the design of the edge of the structural slabso that it can carry the load over the length of theedge, as well as the loads at the fixing positions. Theloads affect the column size and spacing.

CONCLUSIONThe elements of a generic model of the designprocess at the detailed level has been developed. Anapproach based on the identification of thedeliverables of the design process enables a bottom-up model to be built for any technology. Constraintswhen certain technological choices are made, allow

the model to adjust to the specific situation.Additionally, preferences for particular solutions canbe provided to guide the user as to the best-practicesolution.

If this approach were to be developed further intoa knowledge base for all technologies, it wouldrequire the definition of the design elements of thedomains and the constraints that link these designelements to each other. The knowledge base couldbe structured into the following modules:

● The element definition modules. Each module inthis section defines the design elements of aspecific technology, such as a concrete structureelements definition module.

● The specific domain nets modules. Each moduledefines the ECE sub-nets generated by the inter-relationships of the specific domain elements.

● The global nets module, which defines the ECEsub-nets generated by the interrelationships ofdesign elements across domains.

● The design context module, where the user canconsult detailed information about the designconsiderations relevant to an ECE sub-netsupported by graphics.

A knowledge base built in this way can offer proactiveadvice as to preferred design options when certainchoices either have been made or are about to be made.Once the inputs, outputs and constraints are known, it isthen a question of scaling the model up to cover all ofthe unique instances for each component set.

The potential of this approach is that it isgrounded at the lowest level – the detail of thetechnology – to drive the model. In the end, buildingsare built from sets of components which have to beproduced to order which, in turn, demands perfectinformation. A KBE model allows considerableflexibility to self adjust, to proffer alternatives basedon a combination of factors, so incorporatingexperience. What this model does not achieve is aplan. It is only able to produce the best-processcontent and a model of the interactions to achieve thesequence of design. It would have to be used as inputto techniques such as ADePT (Austin et al, 2002)which can then be used to prioritize the sequence ofinformation production.

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 39–48

Modelling Trade Contractor Information Production 47

Gray 6/13/07 10:17 AM Page 47

Page 49: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

AUTHOR CONTACT DETAILSColin Gray: Professor of Construction Management, The School of

Construction Management and Engineering, The University of

Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 6AW, UK.

E-mail: [email protected]

Salam Al-Bizri: The School of Construction Management and

Engineering, The University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading,

RG6 6AW, UK. E-mail: [email protected]

REFERENCESAl-Bizri, S., 1995, Design Management Plan Generator (DMPG), Knowledge

Based System for Planning the Design Process in the Construction

Industry, unpublished PhD thesis, Reading University, UK.

Austin, S., Baldwin, A., Hammond, J., Murray, M., Root, D., Thomson, D.

and Thorpe, A. (2001), Design Chains: A Handbook for Integrated

Collaborative Design, Loughborough, Loughborough University, UK.

Austin, S., Baldwin, A., Li, B. and Waskett, P., 2002, Analytical Design

Planning Technique (ADePT), Loughborough, Department of Civil and

Building Engineering, Loughborough University, UK.

Coles, E.J. and Barritt, C.M.H., 2000, Planning and Monitoring Design

Work, Harlow, Pearson Education.

Emmitt, S., 1999, Architectural Management in Practice, London, Addison

Wesley Longman.

Farell, R., 1968, Introductory Survey of Programme Management,

Programme Management of Power Station Construction, Central

Electricity Generating Board, London, Basil Blackwell.

Freeman, I., 1981, Comparative Studies of the Construction Industries in

Great Britain and North America: a Review, Current Paper CP 5/81,

Garston, Building Research Establishment.

Gray, C., 1999, Value for Money – Building the Buildings the UK Likes,

Reading, Reading Construction Forum.

Gray, C. and Hughes, W., 2001, Building Design Management, Oxford,

Butterworth-Heinemann.

Gray, C. and Little, J., 1985, A systematic approach to the selection of an

appropriate crane for a construction site, in Construction Management

and Economics, 3, 121–144.

Karhu, V., Keitila, M. and Lahdenpera, P., 1997, Construction Process

Model: Generic Present-state Systematisation by IDEF0, Finland, VTT

Building Technology, Technical Research Centre of Finland.

Steel Construction Institute, 1993, A Case Study of the Steel Frame

Erection at Senator House, London, Technical Report 136, Ascot, SCI

Tsao, C.C.Y., Tommelein, I.D., Swanlund, E. and Howell, A.G., 2000, ‘Case

study of work structuring: installation of metal door frames’,

Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of the International Group for

Lean Construction, 17–19 July, Brighton. 1–14.

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 39–48

48 C. GRAY AND S. AL-BIZRI

Gray 6/13/07 10:17 AM Page 48

Page 50: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

■ Keywords – Architectural practice; design management; IT;outsourcing

INTRODUCTION: OUT OF THE CLOSETYou can teach a man to draw a straight line ... andto copy any number of given lines or formswith admirable speed and perfect precision ... butif you ask him to think about any of those forms ...he stops; his execution becomes hesitating ...; hemakes a mistake in the first touch he gives to hiswork as a thinking being. But you have made aman of him for all that. He was only a machinebefore, an animated tool...

And observe, you are put to stern choice in thismatter. You must either make a tool of the creature,or a man of him. You cannot make both. Men werenot intended to work with the accuracy of tools, tobe precise and perfect in all their actions. If you willhave that precision out of them, and make theirfingers measure degrees like cog-wheels, and theirarms strike curves like compasses, you mustunhumanize them...(Ruskin, 1853).

A spider conducts operations that resemble thoseof a weaver and a bee puts to shame many anarchitect in the construction of her cells. But whatdistinguishes the worst architect from the best of

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 49–64

49

AbstractIn the space of a few years, the provision of architectural services that rely on the digital outsourcing ofdocumentation responsibilities to other firms – often located offshore in areas of the world with lower labourcosts – has come to the forefront of the restructuring debate of the architectural sector. Today, the discussionabout digital outsourcing cannot be reduced to the simple exploitation of rent differentials between distinctsocio-economic and professional worlds. It must also reflect and examine the objective extension of thetransactional market of architectural practices, where firms can reorganize their production strategicallyacross a vast territory to remain sustainable or competitive. Even though the distant collaborations thatunderlie this arrangement are drawing more public attention than in the past, it is still difficult for non-anecdotal evaluations to take place, since the parameters currently employed in the analysis of thisphenomenon have not yet been sufficiently developed theoretically. As a result, it is arduous for industrialscholars, or for those firms that have not directly taken part in such ventures, to assess the perils andpossibilities of this emerging mode of service delivery in a balanced way. Building on work carried out for aresearch programme sponsored by the Australian Research Council, this article establishes a set of criteriaand protocols to gauge, more systematically, the potential and viability of distant alliances. By adopting suchcriteria, it becomes clear that the evaluation of digital collaborations cannot be done in the abstract or solelythrough the use of office spreadsheets. It requires a thorough consideration of the socio-technicalcharacteristics of the firms involved, and an in-depth analysis of their cultural routines.

ARTICLE

Rules of Engagement: Testing theAttributes of Distant OutsourcingMarriagesPaolo Tombesi, Bharat Dave, Blair Gardiner and Peter Scriver

Tombesi 6/13/07 10:18 AM Page 49

Page 51: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

bees is this, that the architect raises his structure inimagination before he erects it in reality. At the endof every labour process we get a result that existedin the imagination of the labourer at itscommencement. He not only effects a change ofform in the material on which he works, but he alsorealizes a purpose... (Marx, 1887).

In the space of 20 years, information andcommunication technologies have virtually uprootedtraditional modes of professional exchange andinteraction by disconnecting the production anddistribution of information from the physical world.With paper no longer an essential support to thetransfer of design decisions, the Prometheus ofarchitectural practice has been unchained from thetyranny of place and physical (‘hard-copy’) documentdelivery. Today, drawings are assembled and movedaround for the most part electronically (Baker, 1999;Dalal, 2000; PMA, 2001; ZweigWhite, 2001).1

Until recently, though, this Prometheus seemedreluctant to show off its newfound agility. While thereappeared to be no problem in celebrating the powerof digital technology to compress time and space,virtually connecting distant locations and clusteringdistant people together, there was palpableresistance in laying down explicitly the multiple officeunit configurations resulting out of this opportunity, oraddressing openly the social implications or possiblerepercussions of the passage from physical (andtherefore local) workplaces to digital (and thereforepotentially global) workspace (Tombesi, 2001a).

As Solomon and Linn (2005) suggest, suchreluctance can be caused by the stigma associatedwith such arrangements, and the fact that theyencroach upon employment, money and profit –traditionally sensitive territories of professionalpractice. In addition, the ‘north–south’ connotationinevitably characterizing many of these collaborationscan still conjure up images of socio-technicalcolonialism, where economic powers tap into a globalpool of lower-cost resources that are eitherunderutilized or in excess (Tombesi, 2001b; Tombesiet al, 2003; Wilkins and Tombesi, 2005).

Today, the design industry may have reached apoint where cultural cargos are ready to give way tobalanced and critical discussion. Digital practice has

certainly attained new levels of exposure. Theevidence of professional or business relationshipsinvolving the alliance of firms from higher-wage andlower-wage regions is mounting rapidly (Housley Carrand Krizan, 1988; Korman, 1995; Baker, 1999; Klein,2003; Lyall, 2004; Rubin et al, 2004). A search ofOffshoreXperts – a website of distant outsourcing –will produce armies of potential drawing servicessubcontractors, divided by world region or type ofspecialty. They may not all qualify for advancedconsulting, but their cyber-spatial presence illustratesa degree of organizational infrastructuringunthinkable only a few years ago.

More significant, however, is the fact that distantservices have come out of the proverbial professionalcloset to situate themselves at the forefront of thearchitectural sector restructuring debate. Bothprofessional and management journals now give digitaloutsourcing a modicum of coverage, and the manyprofessional firms that have used such services aremore prepared to talk about it, at least compared withthe past.2 This may be partly connected to the evolutionof building design markets in advanced economiessuch as Australia’s, where the specialization of firms inconstruction documentation or project administration –i.e. services valued by sophisticated clients particularlyon complex projects – is now considered a soundprofessional strategy to hedge knowledge-acquisitionor specialist training costs and reduce offices’ financialexposure. Be that as it may, the chief executive officersof some of the most successful offshore design servicesubcontractors have entered the professional scenefrom the front door of American Institute of Architects(AIA), Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) andCommonwealth Association of Architects’ (CAA)meetings, with addresses or workshop presentationsaimed at debunking myths of makeshiftcompetitiveness through the display of professionalwares and office workforce preparation.

As a matter of fact, many of these structures havecome to resemble (or literally to replace) commercialdesign or executive architectural offices in the US orthe UK. They use the same language, publiclysubscribe to an ideology of scrupulous productivityand value for money, and in some cases havegraduates of prestigious universities or formerassociates of renowned firms at their helm.

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 49–64

50 P. TOMBESI, B. DAVE, B. GARDINER AND P. SCRIVER

Tombesi 6/13/07 10:18 AM Page 50

Page 52: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

Meanwhile, the advantage of their location becomesthe object of institutional support, with governmentagencies and professional bodies from developingeconomies addressing, specifically, the possibility ofcross-border activities, the lowering of barriers todigital trade in architecture, and the facilitation ofcommercial establishments through tax cuts (see, forexample, Young-Pugh (2005)). In some cases, thisresults in the concentration of IT infrastructure aroundspecific, and essentially urban, locales. This is astrategy that gives such territorial enclaves atechnologically competitive edge, favourable to theexport processing of IT-related activities as well asthe attraction of foreign investment (Tombesi et al,2003).

FROM COMPETITIVE TO COMPARATIVEADVANTAGEAcknowledging the evolving position of digitaloutsourcing in architectural practice does not justprovide a chance for historical or sociologicalreflection. The recognition that distant servicecollaborations are gaining acceptance as a legitimateprofessional tactic also serves to understand that theenvironment within which these take place is likely tochange, and that the average expected quality of theservices performed is likely to increase.

In a widening market characterized by firms’ long-term strategic decisions and higher levels of publicinformation, where there is ample opportunity topreview skills and undergo preliminary pilotcollaboration tests, the appropriate use of draftingroutines, detail libraries and quality assuranceguidelines is the necessary condition to operate at aminimum competitive level. However, once competitioncompels labour cost-cutting measures to be adopted,as a rule, by all players in the field, the problem withdistant collaborations is unlikely to be simply that offinding a documentation contractor who can draftcorrectly and more cheaply than in-house resources.Rather, it will concern the ability of competing players(firms) to join forces with truly complementaryestablishments that can enhance their servicedelivery ability.

In widely published professional texts such asStyles and Bichard’s Working Drawings Handbook(2004), or in the material produced and disseminated

through industry-wide working groups such asthe UK-based Construction Project InformationCommittee,3 construction documentation conventionsand logics tend to be presented as generallyapplicable norms and standards of good practicepresumably derived through a neutral, context-freetranslation of generic principles. However, as Coxe etal (1987) have shown, individual architectural firmstend to develop distinctive subcultural practices oftheir own. These practices conform to and employspecific systems of design procurement, decision-making, element costing and technical linkages thathave major consequences over the formatting/layoutof contractual information and associated graphics.This generates markedly specific collaborative needs,which can easily become the basis for ad-hocalliances and the arrangement of selective servicesin a fee-shrinking environment. Several draftingoutsourcing firms have understood the potential ofthese collaborations to help them differentiate theirwork from that of their competitors, and are noweager to prove their ability to participate more fully inthe design or project development process.

Recent developments notwithstanding, neitherindustrial nor academic research have yet produced areflective theoretical framework, or investigated theunderlying attributes of successful alliances betweencollaborating entities. Most of the (few) examplesavailable in the existing literature to illustrate the ‘dosand don’ts’ of outsourcing practice are too crude andelementary to form a serious benchmark for aprofessional sector, and practical workshops tend tofocus on business issues or management tips ratherthan technical details. From this point of view, digitaloutsourcing is still being dealt with superficially, as ageneric form of service offloading that requires onlylimited disciplinary scrutiny. Yet, without propercategories of analysis it is difficult to advance thediscussion beyond the anecdotal. In the absence ofevaluative criteria that are comparable across theboard, the experiences of different firms remainisolated in their own particularity. What is needed, bycontrast, is an inclusive conceptual scaffold thatallows the successful parameters of digitallysupported distant collaborations to be characterized,and their likely impact on forms of architecturalpractice in the contemporary climate to be weighed

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 49–64

Rules of Engagement 51

Tombesi 6/13/07 10:18 AM Page 51

Page 53: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

up vis-à-vis particular kinds of project requirementsand development paths.

SETTING UP THE SCAFFOLDThe definition of such a scaffold was one of theobjectives of an Australian Research Council-sponsored research project, concerned with theevaluation of the industrial potential of distantcollaborations between architectural providers, andthe assessment of the likelihood that such practicewill develop into a fully-fledged mode of servicedelivery.4

In order to achieve these two objectives, theresearch programme was set up as an industriallaboratory that reproduced and helped solve thedifficulties that firms face in establishing acollaborative link and evaluating its viability. Withinthis laboratory, a series of controlled documentationprojects involving collaborations between differentdistant design service providers and a selected groupof architectural firms based in Melbourne (thehometown of the research team) were to be carriedout digitally, with specific indicators to measurethe levels of cultural understanding as well astechnical proficiency required, and the resultsobtained.

In concrete terms, the plan of this ongoingresearch is to connect a group of seven Melbourne-based architectural offices that reflect differentprofessional markets, building types and office sizes,with four other specific, similarly sized groups oftheoretically competitive drawing service providers.Based on previous research, a decision was made tocompare the performance of four types of firms that

cover the sociological spectrum of servicesubcontractors in architecture:

● Australian firms that specialize in contractdocumentation, thus reflecting market nichingdecisions rather than socio-economic differences

● Indian professional firms, which epitomizeentities active in a professional reality with similarhistorical roots but different socio-economic andenvironmental conditions

● Web-based firms, specifically set up to workremotely, without any programmatic connection totheir physical place of operation – which are thedirect result of technological opportunities, and

● South-East Asian firms employing staff withdirect experience in Australian education andprofessional practice, and possibly run by formerMelbourne University students.

The involvement of each group with digitalsubcontracting is informed by different rationales andembodies distinct professional cultures – task-based,non-Australian place-based, technology-based, andplace-informed. The particulars of the work and theprogression of tasks can be found in Tombesi et al(2005).

The theory behind the methodology selected (andoutlined in Figures 1 and 2) was that, by organizing asystem of technical tests and design tasks that didjustice to the complexity of the design process andthe variety of skills required to carry it out properly,qualitative differences in the performance of distantactors could be examined, and the relationshipbetween these differences and certain environmental

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 49–64

52 P. TOMBESI, B. DAVE, B. GARDINER AND P. SCRIVER

FIGURE 1 Experimental pairing of firms through pilot tests

Tombesi 6/13/07 10:18 AM Page 52

Page 54: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

characteristics be determined. Once the conditionsthat should be satisfied for Australian architecturalestablishments to outsource their work had beenarticulated explicitly, the tests developed could helpdetermine whether or not the different types of firmscurrently involved in the market of digitalcollaborations have the technical capacity to meet therequirements identified.

Within the context outlined, the most importantelement became the design of a documentationtemplate that could be employed for the various pilottests. The template was envisioned as a strategiccompilation of single project-specific informationpreviously produced by each one of the architecturalfirms contracting out the service, which would beused in two ways:

● to reflect upon and articulate, in-house, thecharacteristics of the work needed or expectedfrom future partners, and

● to evaluate submissions from potential externalcollaborators.

In other words, the template was a device conceivedboth to help define the scope of work of a

collaborative test, and to form the benchmark uponwhich the technical and economic performance ofthe firms subcontracted for the pilot would bemeasured (Figure 2).

These two functions were part of the samecollaborative loop. At one end of the loop, eacharchitectural firm would select technical drawings froma previously developed project documentation set thatreflected the characteristics of the work carried outinside the firm, the constraints and the productionenvironment (A.0 in Figure 2). Such drawings wouldform the basis for a cartoon set specifying the scope ofthe submission e.g. the documentation required fromthe subcontractor (A.1). This cartoon set would besupplemented by two items:

● (A.2) a copy of the material used by the originalarchitectural firm to produce the content of thetemplate (e.g. brief requirements, sketches anddrawings, office detail libraries, particular systemspecifications, office CAD layering conventions,photographs of buildings or building solutionsreferences), and

● (A.3) a copy of a complete set of drawings fromanother project, which implicitly described the

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 49–64

Rules of Engagement 53

FIGURE 2 Documentation template and information loop

Tombesi 6/13/07 10:18 AM Page 53

Page 55: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

firm’s approach to project documentation andselection of details, as well as the parts of thework that are technologically or architecturallyimportant to the same firm.

Together with a schedule of the drawings eventuallyrequired – effectively the same schedule of drawingsproduced by the firm for the original project (A.4) –this information would constitute the package sent topotential drafting subcontractors to understand thescope of the work, determine the price of the serviceoutsourced, and establish the production timeframe.This would result in a preliminary indication of thecost differences between in-house and outsourcedwork, and a quantification of the savings theoreticallyachievable by subcontracting work to categories ofcollaborating firms differently organized or differentlylocated.

At the other end of the loop, the template wouldbe used by the architectural firm to compare thedocumentation submitted by the drafting serviceprovider with the documentation originally producedin-house. The performance of the subcontractorwould be determined on the basis of categoriesexplicitly established and employed at the outset, andtranslated into qualitative levels related to howclosely the work received approximates to the

standards set by the firm itself. Levels would varyfrom ‘unacceptable’ (0) to ‘superior’ (5), and wouldbe organized either in bar chart or diamond diagramformats to allow immediate visual comparisonsbetween firm types (Figure 4).

DEFINING LAYERS OF IDENTITYThis agenda defined the template as a technicallycomplex documentation micro-project, which had toreflect multiple representational dimensions. It had tobe agile enough to be used by the parties preliminarily,before entering a formal contractual relationship, andyet thorough enough to include well-structureddrafting tasks. In turn, these had to be engineered soas to entail (and allow one to observe) various kinds oftechnical knowledge and professional skills, includinguse of explicit and implicit conventions in buildingdesign and construction.

Eventually, a decision was made to limit thetemplate to less than six documentation sheets andup to approximately 40 hours in production timerequirements. Such dimensions were consideredappropriate to guarantee both an inclusive draftingscope and a pilot that could be developed quickly andat a relatively small cost for the architectural firm.

As implied in Figure 2 and described in Figure 3,the set of documents required within this framework

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 49–64

54 P. TOMBESI, B. DAVE, B. GARDINER AND P. SCRIVER

FIGURE 3 Conceptual and graphic structure of the template

Tombesi 6/13/07 10:18 AM Page 54

Page 56: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

had to contain descriptions of the project at differentscales, reflect location-, assembly- and component-drawing challenges, and imbue specificdocumentation strategies. The drawings also had toencode the firm’s way of communicating its owntrademark language decisions (i.e. prescriptivetechnology), responding to code requirements (i.e.normative technology) and acknowledging localpractice conventions (i.e. conventional technology).Technical graphics, in other words, were expected toinclude a range of representations from ‘generic’ to‘specific’. More broadly, the structure of the templatewas designed to induce future partners to displaythree layers of skills encompassing increasingly morecomplex and yet tacit arenas of practice – vocational,professional and socio-cultural.

Vocational skills related to the subcontractor’sability to act simply as a drafting agent, by translatingthe pre-construction document information receivedinto a proper construction drawing notational format.Professional skills implied the subcontractor’s abilityto respond to less literal demands from thedocumentation provided. These include understandingand supporting the design intent of the documents,integrating scales of representation, tracking downpossible inconsistencies, and adding or correctingincomplete information. Socio-cultural skills referredto the subcontractor’s ability to interpret theconstraints generated by the institutionalenvironment of which the contracting firm is a part.These comprise building and planning codes thatmust be considered in the preparation of the draftingpilot but are not part of the documentation packagereceived; technical traditions that affect the selectionof details, the organization of project procurementand the structure of documents; and culturalpreferences that inform the specific development ofparticular solutions.

While it is comparatively easy to establish abstractrequirements, it is more difficult to embed them neatlyin actual documents. For this reason, ad-hocarrangements had to be adopted in order to associateevaluative categories to the graphics needed by thecontracting firm and produced by the subcontractor.Accordingly, it was decided that vocational skills werethose displayed in the proper rendering of the variousindividual representations required by the test – floor

plans and sections as well as horizontal and verticaldetails. The analysis of professional skills, instead,hinged on the relationship (established or understood)between the various representations contained in thetemplate. Socio-cultural skills were to be found in theintegrated incorporation – in the technical developmentof the drawings – of the prescriptions generated bythe architectural language of the contracting firm, bynormative requirements and by local customs.5

By considering these three categoriessimultaneously, one could determine how closely thedocumentation pilot approximated the ‘culture’ of thearchitectural firm administering the test (Figure 4).

REVEALING TECHNICAL DIFFERENCESThe conceptual definition of the template has beenimportant in the development of the research projectas it helped to highlight a critical element in thepreparation of the background material for thecollaborations. It was observed that as one combinestechnical documentation categories, precise evaluativeparameters and individual firms’ ambitions, theselection of drawings for the template takes on a veryspecific and idiosyncratic character that informs thestructure of the template itself. Consideringconstruction documentation comparatively – in thelight of different firms’ methods, office routines anddesign objectives – turns neutral representations intoculturally charged information strategies.

The preparation of the templates in collaborationwith the Melbourne-based offices selected for theproject supports this assertion. In spite of the factthat each template was supposed to generateanswers to the same questions and be equivalentin scope, the architectural agenda of each firm,their employment structure and the methodsconsequently adopted to illustrate their designdecisions and technological choices, varied so widelyas to require different sets of technical descriptionsand different weights for the parameters adopted. Anexample can be given by using three of the firmscontributing to the research.

FIRM AThe trademark of firm A, a high modernist design unit,is the employment of quasi-industrial materials andconstruction systems (e.g. concrete and commercial

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 49–64

Rules of Engagement 55

Tombesi 6/13/07 10:18 AM Page 55

Page 57: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

aluminium window sections) in the high-enddomestic market. This requires a thorough resolutionof project detailing, possibly early in thedocumentation programme, so as to control thearchitectural design intent tightly and not to allow thedomestic-scale contractor to tackle the work as ageneric assemblage of given industrial components.Firm A normally produces a higher-than-averageamount of highly resolved construction documents.Many of the technical drawings are relational innature, and place emphasis not only on theindependent description of the various buildingsystems but also on their reciprocal position andinteraction.

In the single-family project selected for thetemplate (Figure 5), the choice of concrete as thestructural and aesthetic generator of the architecturehad determined an inflexible system where theintegration of services, finishes and built-in joineryrequired early and close coordination withsubconsultants to minimize the possibility forpositional errors. Within this context, the

documentation approach adopted by firm Asubdivided location drawings into layers, effectivelytrade-sequencing structure, services and finishes.Consideration of the resolution and communicationof detail issues was also necessary in order tofacilitate the early production of fabrication shop-drawings, rendered necessary by the close spatialintegration of independent systems or trades, and thefine tolerances of finish required by a building designconsisting of deceptively simple lines. In addition,materials selection e.g. concrete and glass neededcareful detailing because of the required thermalperformance of the building within the context ofresidential regulations. Hence, much thought had tobe given not only to insulating the concrete andglazing systems but also to the incorporation ofconcealed shading devices to reduce the thermalload.

From a collaborative standpoint, firm A was thusinterested in testing its potential partners’ ability totake the firm’s preliminary architectural sketches, welldeveloped technical detail specifications and

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 49–64

56 P. TOMBESI, B. DAVE, B. GARDINER AND P. SCRIVER

FIGURE 4 Performance of vocational, professional and socio-cultural skills evidenced in the

subcontractor’s work compared with the contracting firm’s culture

Tombesi 6/13/07 10:18 AM Page 56

Page 58: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

structural engineering decisions, and transformthese, based on an analysis of the firm’s previousdocumented work, into proficient constructiondrawings comparable to those produced in-house.This, in fact, is the area where firm A invests most ofits skilled-labour resources during the designdocumentation process.

For this reason, the template/cartoon set definedfor the pilot (Figure 6) included three differenttechnical layers of the same floor plan (a, b, c), twosimple location sections featuring internal andexternal areas (d) and elaborate sets of vertical (e) andhorizontal (f) component details. The challenge, here,was to understand and represent subtle variations inthe configuration of each system vis-à-vis its positionin space and within the building, while supportingboth the semantic and the performance value of thesolution designed by firm A.

FIRM BFirm B, by contrast, is a high-profile, small-size officewell known for its attempts to design buildings withhighly figurative and textural effects through the useof mostly standard construction systems in arelatively conventional way. When the use of aselected palette of materials lies outside the bounds

of ‘common practice’, specific solutions tend to bedeveloped through the nomination of specialistcontractors, a choice that results in the preparation ofin-house documents that are considered essentiallyas scope drawings. However, with the firm’s strongemphasis on particular formal aspects of the design,much of the preliminary detailing work must still liaisewith and incorporate input from manufacturers.This ensures that it will eventually be possible forthis latter group to use their systems according tonon-standard configurations while still achievingsatisfactory performance (for instance withwaterproofing).

The multi-family housing project upon which thecollaboration template of firm B was organized wasone such case in which an uncommon palette ofmaterials was specified. The row of apartmentsdefined a regular longitudinal volume with complextransversal cross-sections and an elaborate envelopesystem consisting of creased concrete facadepanelling and curved stainless steel cladding. Withinthe volume, client-specific unit configurationsgenerated a series of individual programme solutions,each with its own micro-design and documentationchallenges. In fact, significant gymnastics wererequired to accommodate unit services, adapt their

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 49–64

Rules of Engagement 57

FIGURE 5 Firm A’s original project as built

Tombesi 6/13/07 10:18 AM Page 57

Page 59: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

functional layout to the architectural ambitions of theproject, and meet building code requirements for fireand acoustic performance as well as access issues.The successful response to these matters requiredclose documentation collaboration with the structuralengineer and quantity surveyor.

This type and method of work affects firm B’sdocument production patterns. The office seldomgenerates sets of documents that progress

consistently through the various phases of theproject. Because of the propositional nature of theirdesign solutions, it is not unusual for the latterto change substantially in the passage fromschematic design to design development, andfrom contract documentation to constructiondocumentation. Yet, the effort involved in docu-menting each stage of the project is substantial giventhe close integration of formal and technical aspects

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 49–64

58 P. TOMBESI, B. DAVE, B. GARDINER AND P. SCRIVER

FIGURE 6 Collaboration template for firm A

Tombesi 6/13/07 10:18 AM Page 58

Page 60: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 49–64

Rules of Engagement 59

FIGURE 7 Firm B’s original project as built

FIGURE 8 Collaboration template for firm B

Tombesi 6/13/07 10:18 AM Page 59

Page 61: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

throughout the entire design process. As a result,firm B was interested in finding out whether itcould outsource the production of technical repre-sentations that were not only imbued with the initialintentions of the designers but also capable ofarticulating these further, while ensuring codecompliance.

In this case, the template differed significantlyfrom firm A’s on two grounds:

● preliminary drawings could not be usedeffectively because they tended to describesuperseded solutions

● it was more important for the subcontractingfirm to show an understanding of thedesign philosophy of firm B and the

normative context in which it operates,rather than demonstrate ability in developingthe full technical details of the systemsrepresented.

These two circumstances were acknowledged in thetemplate/cartoon set by reducing the number ofdrawing items required from the drafting servicesupplier but increasing the amount and range of thepreliminary documentation provided in support.These included structural and mechanicalengineering diagram representations, sketches ofarchitectural and technical details, trade specialists’shop drawings, individual client briefs, and quantitysurveyor comments. Set-out drawings for floor plansand sections were also provided by stripping off thefinal contract documents issued by firm B on theoriginal project. In the end, the template consisted offour items:

● two overall floor plans showing typologicalprinciples, structural bays and service areas

● two cross-sections, chosen to highlight specificarchitectural and code challenges

● the detailed description of such challenges (e.g.slanted wall window details, public passageheadways and wall composition, and circulationrequirements)

● an enlargement of the service area portions ofthe first floor plan, with the development ofselected details.

FIRM CFirm C, a market-leading specialist in healthcaredesign, offered a radically different collaborationscenario. Most of firm C’s work involves extensionand adaptive reuse of major hospital facilities. Withinan environment that sets rigid guidelines for buildingorganization, typological structure and interface withexisting volumes, the challenges encountered by theoffice are concerned not so much with architecturalexpression but rather with programme developmentand coordination, floor layout and ‘old-new’ buildingconnections. Firm C needs to devise efficientfunctional responses to mostly given floorplateswhere several systems must be integrated, and alsomake sure that these responses incorporate andinterpret the latest changes in planning andoccupational health and safety regulations, buildingstandards and fit-out systems.

In this case, the advantage in establishingcollaborations hinges upon the office’s ability to findpartners who can fulfil early planning responsibilitieswithin the boundaries of the programme received,while documenting (and possibly finalizing the designof) robust construction systems that reflect theconstraints imposed on the building by its existingstructures. It is imperative that the design of thesesystems considers all possible aspects concernedwith their manufacture and assembly in order tonot create interferences during the procurementprocess.

Firm C can rely on a solid library of spatial andtechnical layout solutions, integrated by thoroughdesign routines in the office manual, and a widerange of previously developed details. Yet, while theplanning component can be developed on the basisof programme, norms and precedents, constructiondesign must always refer to the specific conditions ofthe particular project. The one selected for the pilottest – a hospital renovation in Melbourne thatincludes the addition of a front wing (Figure 9) –highlights these aspects clearly by calling for twotypes of design response:

● the organization of levels and horizontal platesaccording to specific hospital functions, and

● the resolution of building connections to thestreet and to the old hospital.

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 49–64

60 P. TOMBESI, B. DAVE, B. GARDINER AND P. SCRIVER

Tombesi 6/13/07 10:18 AM Page 60

Page 62: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

Accordingly, the template defined for the test (Figure 10)consisted of:

● the overall floor plan of a ward with particularcirculation characteristics and prescriptiveadjacencies

● a detailed plan of an in-patient unit with all theright clearances

● a main elevation featuring fenestration strategiesfor the ward

● two side elevations showing their connection tothe main new front and to the volume of theexisting hospital at the rear

● a collection of horizontal corner assembly detailsfeaturing construction system differencesbetween the various sides of the building, and

● conceptual vertical assembly details of theoriginal brick and new curtain walls.

The three examples clarify both the importance andthe relativity of the evaluation categories defined inFigure 4. As both expected and natural, the notationalcorrectness of each item drawn under outsourcingarrangements (i.e. the ‘vocational’ skills of the chart)is a common requirement for all firms. For anylanguage to be understood, its words must be spelledproperly. The relevance of ‘professional’ parameters,however, changes according to the firm, except forthe support of design intent.

Technical sophistication, cross-referencing andscale integration are very important to firm A. Theability to detect and correct inconsistencies is alsocritical to its collaborative horizons (although difficultto acquire straight away), because discrepancies mayoccur, with major negative repercussions, acrossdifferent systems and layers of information.

The same discrepancies are more likely to appearin firm B’s work – easier but not as important todetect – because the scope-defining nature of thegraphics implicitly acknowledges an additional layerof documentation for construction. In this case, thedrawings set an agenda at each scale that will beactualized later on.

With firm C, this luxury disappears, since thenature of its work requires careful preliminaryplanning of overall and detailed solutions as theseimpinge directly on project scope viability, budget andconstruction procurement paths.

Also, locational vertical sections are particularlyrelevant to the documentation of firm B, whereasfloor plans and assembly drawings remain centralto the practice of firms A and C. Implicitnormative requirements play an important role ineach firm’s document production, although indifferent ways:

● with firm A, they inform the combination oftechnical systems and building components

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 49–64

Rules of Engagement 61

FIGURE 9 Firm C’s original project as built

Tombesi 6/13/07 10:18 AM Page 61

Page 63: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

● with firm B they enter the spatial detailing of thesections

● whereas with firm C they concern the feasibilityof the entire proposal.

In spite of all the differences highlighted, the successof hypothetical drawing alliances would seem toreside in collaborators’ ability to understand andcontribute to the ‘documentation’ design intent of

each firm – a concept not further definable intheory but only discernible on the basis of itspractice.

CONCLUSION: ESTABLISHING SPECIFICCOLLABORATION PROFILES At the time of writing this article, the varioustemplates are about to be sent out to the four groupsof distant providers indicated earlier, to assess their

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 49–64

62 P. TOMBESI, B. DAVE, B. GARDINER AND P. SCRIVER

FIGURE 10 Collaboration template for firm C

Tombesi 6/13/07 10:18 AM Page 62

Page 64: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

performance and see whether this changesaccording to different degrees of parity and familiaritywith the specific professional cultures of thecommissioning firms. The results of theseexperiments will be communicated in due course.Thus far, however, the experience of this researchproject has already provided us with one importantlesson: the underpinnings of distant collaborationschange drastically according to the specific (albeitusually underplayed) documentation needs of firms.Consequently, given the broad professional variancein the market of potential subcontracting entities, thelatter must be selected on the basis of a preciseunderstanding of their technical role. This role canonly be assessed by reflecting carefully on thecontracting party’s work.

The dialogical nature of this relationship hascertainly been described before. The passages fromMarx and Ruskin quoted at the beginning of thisarticle resonate powerfully with such insight. But inthe interim between their critical observations ofproduction in the first machine age and thetechnological hyperbole of our third (digital) machineage, it has too often been imagined that the cognitiveand cultural complexities of human work haveultimately been reduced. Treating distant serviceproviders as generic (and therefore allegedly efficient)automata may not pay off in the end because it isthe work contracted out in the first place thatcannot be generically developed. Successful distantalliances require the design and assessment of bothpartners’ contributions, based on the specificinstance of the collaboration rather than respectiveindustrial profiles.

‘Lest to be put to shame by bees,’ as Marxwrote, the purpose of the work must be clear. It isnot only the structure of the building but also thestructure of the professional collaboration thatmust be raised in imagination before being erected inreality.

AUTHOR CONTACT DETAILSPaolo Tombesi (corresponding author): Faculty of Architecture,

Building and Planning, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria

3010, Australia. Tel: +613 8344 8981, fax: +613 8344 5532,

e-mail: [email protected]

Bharat Dave and Blair Gardiner: Faculty of Architecture, Building

and Planning, University of Melbourne.

Peter Scriver: School of Architecture, Landscape Architecture and

Urban Design, University of Adelaide, South Australia 5005,

Australia. Tel: +618 8303 4586, fax: +618 8303 4377,

e-mail: [email protected]

NOTES1 The protocols and technology for transferring electronic files were

developed in 1973, and adopted by the pioneering architectural offices

to exchange information between their distributed offices (Kemper,

1985). With the expanding coverage and connectivity of global

networks, especially after the popular reception of the World Wide Web

in 1992, electronic exchange of information increasingly became the

default (and preferred) option for professional communication. These

very technologies also made possible the development of ‘virtual

studios’ linking teams across different geographic locations and time

zones. The technological vision and social implications of these

developments were presaged (even before the technologies were

developed) in As We May Think by Bush (1945).

2 A survey conducted for the Boston Society of Architects in 2004

revealed that 20% of architects surveyed used offshore services and half

the respondents were considering use of these services (Hillman, 2005).

3 See, for instance, Production Information: A Code of Procedure

for the Construction Industry (2003), available at:

http://www.productioninformation.org/final/contents.html.

4 P. Tombesi, B. Dave, B.M. Gardiner and P.C. Scriver, 2005, Digital

Outsourcing in Architecture: Opportunities for Australian Firms or Perils

for Australian Workforce? Australian Research Council Discovery Grant

DP0558568.

5 The distinction between vocational and professional skills resembles the

categories introduced in 1991 by Robert Reich, then Harvard academic

and future secretary of Labor under the first Clinton administration. In

The Work of Nations, Reich divides mobile workers into ‘routine

producers’ and ‘symbolic analysts’. Routine producers are those who

process data by following instructions. They perform repetitive tasks

and respond to explicit procedures, no matter how articulate these are.

Symbolic analysts, by contrast, intervene on reality by reducing it to

abstract images, manipulating these images, communicating them to

other specialists, and coordinating their work. They are involved with

independent problem-solving, problem-identifying and strategic-

brokering activities, and make decisions based on critical judgement

sharpened by experience. When applied to architectural practice,

symbolic analysis suggests an obvious affinity with design

responsibilities and professional skills, while routine production

connotes documentation and vocational tasks.

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 49–64

Rules of Engagement 63

Tombesi 6/13/07 10:18 AM Page 63

Page 65: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

REFERENCESBaker, K., 1999, ‘Architects and the “New Economy”’, in AIArchitect,

September, http://www.e-architect.com/news/aiarchitect/sep99/

newecon.as, accessed October 2000.

Bush, V., 1945, ‘As we may think’, in The Atlantic Monthly,

176(1), 101–108.

Coxe, W., Hartung, N.F., Hochberg, H., Lewis, B.J., Maister, D.H., Mattox,

R.F. and Piven, P.A., 1987, Success Strategies for Design Professionals:

Superpositioning for Architectural and Engineering Firms, New York,

McGraw-Hill.

Dalal, P., 2000, ‘Internet use at firms accelerates’, in AIArchitect, June, .

http://www.e-architect.com/news/aiarchitect/jun00/netuse.as,

accessed October 2000.

Hillman, K., 2005, ‘Drawing on offshoring’, in Boston Business Journal,

July 25, 2005.

Housley Carr, F. and Krizan, W., 1988, ‘Offshore design soaring?’, in

Engineering News Record, 220(3), January 21, 20–22.

Kemper, X., 1985, Pioneers of CAD in Architecture, Pacifica, California,

Hurland-Swenson Publishers.

Klein, J., 2003, ‘Drawing on resources abroad’, in Architecture,

92(6), 76.

Korman, R., 1995, ‘Shifting jobs where pay is low’, in Engineering News

Record, 235(25), December 18, 15.

Lyall, S., 2004, ‘Hidden sources’, in The Architects’ Journal, 219(7),

February 19, 44–47.

Marx, K., 1887. Capital, A Critique of Political Economy. Book I, Part III,

Chapter VII, 174, London, Lawrence and Wishart, 1954; reprint of the

first English edition edited by F. Engels,1887.

PMA (Practice Management Associates), 2001, PSMJ A/E Automation

and Information Technology Survey, Dedham, Massachusetts, PMA.

Reich, R.B., 1991, The Work of Nations, New York, Alfred A. Knopf.

Rubin, D.K., Reina, P., Powers, M.B. and Illia, T., 2004, ‘As cost pressures

mount, offshoring is making the world go round’, in Engineering News

Record, 20(2), 20–24.

Ruskin, J., 1853. The Stones of Venice, Volume II, Garland Publishing,

New York and London, Garland Publishing, 1979, 161; reprint of the

original edition by Smith, Elder and Co, London, 1853.

Solomon, N. and Linn, C., 2005, ‘Are we exporting architecture jobs?’, in

Architectural Record, 193(1), January, 82–90.

Styles, K. and Bichard, A., 2004, Working Drawings Handbook, Oxford,

Elsevier/Architectural Press.

Tombesi, P., 2001a, ‘A true south for design? The new international division of

labour in architecture’, in Architectural Research Quarterly, 5(2), 171–180.

Tombesi, P., 2001b, ‘Shifting geographies? The new international division of

labour in architecture’, in S. Bozdogan and U. Berke Çopur (eds.),

Oriental-Occidental Geography, Identity, Space, Proceedings 2001 ACSA

International Conference, ACSA, Washington, 443–446.

Tombesi, P., Dave, B. and Scriver, P., 2003, ‘Routine production or symbolic

analysis? India and the Globalization of Architectural Services’, in The

Journal of Architecture, 8(1), 63–94.

Tombesi, P., Dave, B., Gardiner, B., Scriver, P., 2005, ‘Evaluating the industrial

potential of digital outsourcing in architecture: Methodological challenges

and choices’, in S. Emmitt and M. Prins (eds.), CIB W096 Architectural

Management Meeting, Designing Value: New Directions in Architectural

Management, Danish Technical University, Lyngby, 441–450.

Wilkins, C. and Tombesi, P., 2005, ‘Introduction to globalization and

architectural education’, in Journal of Architectural Education, 58(3), 1–4.

Young-Pugh, R.G., 2005, ‘Architectural practice and education in South

Africa: From local transformation to global participation’, in Journal of

Architectural Education, 58(3), 33–41.

ZweigWhite, 2001, ZweigWhite Successful Firms Survey of A/E/P and

Environmental Consulting Firms, Natick, Massachusetts: ZweigWhite.

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 49–64

64 P. TOMBESI, B. DAVE, B. GARDINER AND P. SCRIVER

Tombesi 6/13/07 10:18 AM Page 64

Page 66: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

■ Keywords – Architectural practice; collaborative culture;knowledge exchange

INTRODUCTIONMore and more people acknowledge that the activityof designing involves some kind of knowledgeproduction. This directly follows from the type ofknowledge that designing relies on (Heylighen andNeuckermans, 2000), which is largely tacit (Polanyi,1967) and embedded within the design process(Schön, 1983).

At the same time, the relatively recent trendtowards academic research in architecture is

producing a growing body of knowledge, which hardlyfilters down to practising architects (Neuckermans,2004). A survey among practitioners and academics inarchitecture revealed an evident lack of networkingbetween both communities (Watson and Grondzik,1997). Doctoral dissertations, for instance, havebecome everyday food in most architecture schools,but their implications for professional practice, andultimately for architecture as a built environment, haveyet to be demonstrated.

Together, these observations suggest that thechallenge architecture is facing today should be seenless as a need to generate more knowledge, than of

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 65–74

65

AbstractSince architects deal with unique projects, their knowledge is largely experience-based, tacit and embeddedwithin the design and construction process. Nevertheless, few consistent and systematic mechanisms existthat try to establish and maintain access to the profession’s knowledge. Effectively capitalizing on thisknowledge thus seems as pressing a problem as producing more knowledge. Building Stories, anexperimental course at University of California – Berkeley, started with a carte blanche opportunity andgenerous support from leading architecture firms in the San Francisco Bay Area, to try to unlock theknowledge capital of architectural practice through storytelling. This paper is about creating a discussionforum for dialogue about the nature of knowledge in architecture, how it can be captured and disseminated.More importantly, the paper illustrates how designers and other participants in the design and making ofarchitecture can share their experiences through the method of storytelling. The paper looks back on theoutcomes of Building Stories over the past five years, and on how it has evolved into an inventivemethodology for catalyzing knowledge sharing between projects, between individual architects andarchitecture firms and, finally, between practice and academia. After briefly recalling the underlying ideas ofBuilding Stories and their implementation as an operational methodology, the paper reports on its recentin-depth evaluation involving former participants from various contexts – young and seasoned professionalsin practice, students and researchers in academia. Besides valuable feedback on Building Stories as such,this assessment provides more general insights regarding current ideas and practices of knowledgeproduction and sharing in architecture.

ARTICLE

Building Stories Revisited: Unlocking theKnowledge Capital of ArchitecturalPracticeAnn Heylighen, W. Mike Martin and Humberto Cavallin

Martin 6/13/07 10:19 AM Page 65

Page 67: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

making effective and equitable use of what is alreadyavailable. In view of this, our research aims to developa more profound understanding of the characteristicsand roles of knowledge in architectural design, andto use this understanding as a basis for developingideas about more efficient knowledge exchangebetween architectural practice and academia(Heylighen et al, 2005a).

CAPITALIZING ON ARCHITECTURALKNOWLEDGETrying to improve knowledge exchange inarchitecture raises the question: what is knowledgein the first place? In the literature, knowledge appearsas a concept with many facets and layered meanings.Rather than by formulating precise definitions,knowledge tends to be addressed by making all sortsof distinctions between different knowledge types,such as between declarative and proceduralknowledge (Ryle, 1949) or between explicit and tacitknowledge (Polanyi, 1967).

Tacit knowledge represents knowledge based onthe experience of individuals. It expresses itself inhuman actions in the form of evaluations, attitudes,points of view, commitments, motivation, etc.Usually, tacit knowledge is difficult to express directlyin words and often the only ways of presenting it arethrough metaphors, drawings or other methods ofexpression not requiring a formal use of language. Onthe practical level, many experts are often unable toarticulate all they know and are able to do, and howthey make their decisions and come to conclusions.Polanyi (1967: 26) captures the essence of tacitknowledge in the phrase ‘We know more than we cantell’ and further clarifies the concept in commonplaceexamples like the ability to recognize faces, ride abicycle or swim without even the slightest idea ofhow these things are done. Rosenberg’s (1982: 143)description of traditional technological knowledge,accumulated in crude empirical ways without relianceupon science, provides a good definition of tacitknowledge in technology companies: ‘Theknowledge of techniques, methods and designs thatwork in certain ways and with certain consequences,even when one cannot explain exactly why.’

More generally, a distinction can be madebetween, on the one hand, traditional epistemology,

which emphasizes the absolute, static and inhumancharacter of knowledge and, on the other hand, themore recent theory of knowledge creation, whichconsiders knowledge as a dynamic human process inwhich personal convictions are justified in a searchfor the truth (Nonaka, 1994). In the latter view,knowledge differs from information in that it onlyexists in the heads of people, whereas informationexists outside the human mind and can be embeddedin any attribute involved in communication (e.g. text,speech or images) (Coenen, 2005). Sendinginformation between people may cause a change inthe receiver’s knowledge i.e. it may lead toknowledge transfer. Yet, this transfer never producesan exact replica of the sender’s knowledge in thereceiver’s mind, since the latter’s memory is differentwhen receiving the information and knowledge isprecisely created by assimilating the informationreceived in memory. Indeed, we understand when wetry to integrate new things we encounter with whatwe already know (Schank, 1982).

In a professional context, a similar distinction ismade between, on the one hand, the ‘knowledgebase’ i.e. the formal and codified domain expertiseclaimed by a profession (Habraken, 1997) and, onthe other hand, the practitioner’s ‘knowing-in-practice’, which – as Schön (1987) has taught us –is largely implicit and learned by doing. Medicaldoctors, for example, obviously must know aboutthe human body, but if they are to diagnose anillness and cure the patient, this knowledge as suchwill not do. Similarly, lawyers must know more thanthe law if they want to apply it successfully in realcases.

Having more or less an idea of what types ofknowledge exist, the second question to beaddressed is: what, if anything, is specific aboutarchitectural knowledge? In other words, why do wethink that architectural knowledge is special and thusneeds special treatment? According to Lawson(2004), a first clue that may help us answer thisquestion is that design education looks different tomuch else of what goes on in universities around theworld. If you go into schools of design, you will seetime and again a very similar pattern grounded in thetraditional master–apprentice model: studentsworking in the design studio on limited, yet realistic

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 65–74

66 A. HEYLIGHEN, W.M. MARTIN AND H. CAVALLIN

Martin 6/13/07 10:19 AM Page 66

Page 68: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

design projects tutored by more experienceddesigners. The studio setting offers students atransitory space (Winnicot, 1971) on their way toarchitectural practice, where they learn through thepractice of designing without being aware of what islearnt (Schön, 1983, 1985).

In the case of architecture, the commonness ofthe studio format should not come as a surprise. AsHabraken (1997: 267) points out: ‘[o]f all theprofessional fields, architecture is where the virtue ofa knowing-by-doing is most readily accepted by itspractitioners’. In fact, this exceptional cultivation ofknowing-in-practice may point to a second clue:architecture’s failure to claim a common knowledgebase. In Habraken’s view, the problem is notnecessarily that architecture does not codify itsknowledge base formally, as other professions suchas law or medicine do: ‘Granted implicitness,however, there should be some evidence thatknowledge is shared among architects at all, becauseit is only by sharing that a professional knowledgebase can be claimed’ (Habraken, 1997: 268). And thisis where the shoe seems to pinch: the architecturalprofession not only tends to be highly secretive, italso fails to incorporate knowledge managementtheories and methodologies that have gainedwidespread acceptance in other fields (Doctors,2004). In fact, even the modest requirement ofsharing a vocabulary is not met. As Habraken (1997)convincingly illustrates, architecture does not have acommon language of general significance. Architectshave an alarming tendency to coin a personalvocabulary and to give things new names every time.

A third and final clue may be found in theinnovation literature (that is, outside the architecturalliterature), which relatively recently complementedthe classical distinctions mentioned above bydistinguishing between component and architecturalknowledge (Henderson and Clark, 1990). The latterterm is introduced to denote ‘knowledge about theway in which components are integrated and linkedtogether into a coherent whole’. This reference toarchitecture seems to derive from the fact that thedifferent issues architects must take into accountnecessitate the continuous importation andintegration of ideas from other disciplines to helpguide the design process. Because architecture lacks

a clear epistemological basis, the specificity ofarchitectural knowledge thus seems to lay not somuch in a particular set of ideas, themes, informationand theories, but rather in how these are workedthrough to produce architectural artefacts (Hoque,2004). In this view, the notion of knowledge isredefined as an active process, as a performativerather than a static concept. Austin (1975) identifiescertain statements in English that cannot becharacterized as imperatives, because to utterthem is:

Not to describe the doing of what is to be said,but in so uttering to be doing .... The nameperformative is derived from ‘perform’, the usualverb with the noun ‘action’: it indicates that theissuing of the utterance is the performing of anaction.

Unlike ordinary practical knowledge, performative isan intellectual operation where (like knowledge-in-action) knowing is in the doing.

STORYTELLING: AN ENGAGEMENT OFEXPERIENTAL KNOWLEDGE Given this intimate relationship between knowing anddesigning in architecture, it is perhaps not sosurprising that, apart from a few isolated pilotinitiatives, there are hardly any consistent andsystematic mechanisms to establish and maintainaccess to the profession’s knowledge base, let aloneto extend its potential reach. (Two examples of suchinitiatives worth mentioning here are a recent attemptto capture the rationale behind decisions as they aretaken during the design process (Cerulli et al, 2001)and the nationwide case study documentationprogramme set up by the American Institute ofArchitects (AIA) to help improve US practiceeducation (AIA, 2004).) Indeed, capturing and sharingsomething as complex and dynamic as architecturalknowledge seems extremely difficult at first glance.(Some knowledge is recorded by the resultingconstruction documents or the built form itself(Habraken, 1997: 284), yet neither the documentsnor the built form can reveal the constantly changingconditions that actually structure the process ofdesigning (Brown and Duguid, 1996).) This

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 65–74

Building Stories Revisited 67

Martin 6/13/07 10:19 AM Page 67

Page 69: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

expectation, however, is not confirmed by everydaylife. People manage to cope with and sharephenomena of a very complex nature fairly well. Thenatural way in which they seem to do so is by tellingeach other stories.

In his book The Springboard (2001), Denningconvincingly explains, and at the same timedemonstrates through his own stories about the WorldBank, how knowledge can be transferred effectivelyby storytelling, not so much through transferring largeamounts of information, but as a means to catalyzeunderstanding. Denning (2001: xiv) notes:

Storytelling gets inside the minds of the individualswho collectively make up organizations and affectshow they think, worry, wonder, agonize and dreamabout themselves and in the process create –recreate – their organization.

In addition to the benefits of using narrative,storytelling is non-adversarial and non-hierarchical. Assuch, it provides an opportunity to cut through thedefence mechanisms so prevalent in the reality ofcreative work like architecture, where ideas andoutcomes have major meaning and importance interms of ownership and recognition. Storytelling isnot a replacement for rigorous analytical thinking, butit complements our understanding of a phenomenonby bringing alternative perspectives and world views.The critical point, however, is that storytelling allowsfor several important issues to be addressed in termsof the complexity of architectural design and making.Stories are not only direct, easy to read andentertaining; they respect the intricate relatedness ofthings in a way that makes them easy to rememberafterwards. As such, the story format provides adense, compact way to deal with and communicatecomplexity in a short period of time. Their outcomesprovide the reader of the story with ownership accessby connecting the story being told to their ownpersonal experience. The outcome is not about thefacts, but about the ideas, processes, decisions andimplications of the interactions embedded in thestory. According to Denning (2001: xix-xx), stories thatare successful have certain characteristics: thesestories are told from the perspective of a protagonistwith a predicament that is prototypical of an

organization; the explicit story is familiar to theaudience and has a degree of strangeness orincongruity for the listener; the story is told as simplyand briefly as possible; it sparks new stories in themind of the listener; and, finally, as in all stories, itmust have a happy ending.

In order to demonstrate the applicability of storiesto architecture and the building industry, the followingsections focus on Building Stories, an attempt tounlock and explore the knowledge capital ofarchitectural practice through storytelling. Afterbriefly recalling the ideas underlying Building Storiesand their implementation as an operationalmethodology, a recent in-depth evaluation involvingformer participants is reported. Besides valuablefeedback on Building Stories as such, thisassessment provides more general insights regardingcurrent ideas and practices of knowledge productionand sharing in architecture.

BUILDING STORIES IN A NUTSHELLBuilding Stories is a programme developed at theUniversity of California – Berkeley to capture andexplore the tacit knowledge embedded in real-worldbuilding projects (Martin et al, 2003). Inspired by thepower of storytelling as a vehicle for tacit-to-tacitknowledge transfer, temporary teams of students,interns and professionals build stories about projectsthat are in the process of being designed and/or built.So far, the Building Stories methodology has beenapplied in two different ways: the original, all-inversion, which constitutes the focus of this paper,takes shape in an experimental course spanning anentire semester; the ‘light’ version consist of a one-week workshop, which essentially squeezes theactivities of the original version into five intensive days.

AN EXPERIMENTAL COURSE‘Building Stories: A Case Study Analysis of Practice’ isan experimental course offered in the Architectureprogramme at the University of California – Berkeley.It crystallizes the Building Stories methodology byengaging teams of architecture students, architecturalinterns and seasoned professionals in exploringthe knowledge capital embodied by the bestpractices of significant architectural firms in the SanFrancisco Bay Area.

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 65–74

68 A. HEYLIGHEN, W.M. MARTIN AND H. CAVALLIN

Martin 6/13/07 10:19 AM Page 68

Page 70: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

Each team is composed of two students, oneintern and one project adviser provided by the firmdesigning the project. The student faction contains atleast one Master of Architecture student and tworecent graduates serving as interns in an architecturalpractice. The project adviser acts as a conduit foraccess to the materials for the project under study. Inaddition, the firm, at its discretion, may introduceteam members to consultants and other professionalsinvolved in the design, management and constructionof the project. Professional students are given formalIDP (Intern Development Programme) credit towardtheir requirements for internship and licensure. Theproject adviser and other major participants of the firmreceive AIA continuing education learning units fortheir involvement.

The course combines a guided set of activities ina case-based method of instruction. Students andinterns enrolling in the course follow two parallel andcomplementary learning agendas. One provides atheoretical and methodological framework forundertaking a case study through storytelling. Thesecond constitutes active engagement in buildingone or more stories about a selected project byanalyzing primary source documents and interactingwith practitioners responsible for it. Weekly lectures/discussions make students and interns familiarwith the materials of the Building Stories approachand with critical questions to explore the richnessembedded in real-world projects, while opening upa dialogue on the rigorous study of broaderaspects of the profession. In addition, students andinterns team up with their project adviser on aregular basis, to discuss key issues of the projectthat address general aspects of the profession,and to evaluate progress of their investigation andstories.

During the first seven weeks, each teaminvestigates the – up to then – entire history of theirproject, using six categories as guidelines to organizeand direct their investigations:

● project definition and clients’ aspirations ● marketing process, project team organization and

work plan ● design process from schematic design to

construction documents

● project construction management andadministration

● commissioning, measuring of project success,post occupancy evaluation

● examples of practice innovations.

This first half of the course concludes with an interimreport and presentation covering the specific detailcharacteristics noted above. In addition, each teamidentifies a series of issues or threads that provide anopportunity to build stories during the second part ofthe course. These represent themes such as uniqueclients’ circumstances, special financial conditions orparticular organizational structures that give directionto unfolding a specific story.

The second half of the course concentrates on‘putting flesh on the skeleton’ i.e. formallyconstructing the story details. The story is developedmuch in the same manner as one would write a novel.The plot or thread is positioned – a failed bond issue;the characters are illuminated – the introduction of aconstruction adviser as the client; and the settings ofthe actions established – a revised firm organizationto value engineer the originally proposed scope,schedule and budget. Over the next six weeks, newchapters are added, giving meaning andunderstanding to the story. The final report includesthe stories produced by the team, along with theinformation collected during the investigation.

OUTCOMEAt the end of the semester, the final reports areposted on a public website, making the experienceand insights they capture accessible worldwide. Sofar, the website features more than 22 stories about12 different cases, ranging from the San FranciscoZoo (designed by Field Paoli Architects for the City ofSan Francisco) and the Mount Zion Outpatient CancerCenter (by SmithGroup for UC San Francisco), to thenew De Young Museum (by Herzog and de Meuron incollaboration with Fong and Chan Architects for theCorporation Of the Fine Arts Museums). It servesboth as a repository of stories about design practiceand as a foundation for further research on theprojects in future courses.

As such, Building Stories could potentially serveas a means for sharing insights and experiences from

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 65–74

Building Stories Revisited 69

Martin 6/13/07 10:19 AM Page 69

Page 71: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

practice with students, educators and researchers,but also with contemporary and future colleagues(Heylighen et al, 2004; Martin et al, 2005). The latter ismore spectacular than first meets the eye given thenotorious nature of the architectural professionsketched above.

However, the growing on-line story repository isbut one mechanism of knowledge sharing in theBuilding Stories programme. An additionalmechanism derives from the fact that Building Storiesteams are inherently heterogeneous in terms of theskills and experience team members bring to it(Heylighen et al, 2005b). At the end of the programme,the temporary network of students, interns andprofessionals dissolves. Yet what they have learnedfrom each other creates a competence that becomeshighly valued in their respective environments, be itpractice or academia. The expertise and hands-onexperience of the professionals in the team enablesstudents and interns to develop a criticalunderstanding of the issues and tasks of designpractice. In return, the participation of studentsassures a continued supply of competencies trained inthe latest research skills and techniques. Moreover,the (academic) knowledge networks they have accessto, and the time and energy they can invest, makethem highly attractive to design practice. Judgingfrom our observations during the past five years, thisnewly acquired competence – the skills, attitudes andperspectives that follow team members to otherprojects and contexts – seems at least as importantand valued a form of sharing as the on-line storyrepository.

BUILDING STORIES REVISITEDIn autumn 2004, a seminar named ‘Building StoriesRevisited’ was organized to create a platform forstudying the process and outcome of Building Storiesin previous years in relation to the more generaldiscussion on knowledge in architecture and howthis knowledge could be unlocked. Through theseminar, we tried to substantiate our first observationsand verify to what extent the programme manages tounlock the knowledge capital of architectural practice.The seminar largely took place around fourroundtables – the first three with students, interns andprofessionals who participated in Building Stories in

previous years and the other one with principals ofmajor design firms in the San Francisco Bay Area. Theaim was to get a more articulate understanding ofwhat participants take home from Building Stories,and of its position in relation to the larger phenomenaof knowledge production, management and exchangein architectural practice and the importance ofstorytelling to this process.

STUDENTSFor the undergraduate students, some of which werepart-time interns in the firm sponsoring their case,working on a Building Story gave them a betterpicture of what really goes on in an architecture firm.They gained insight into a lot of technical issues, butalso into how different players work together to forma team, and how the nature of the team and the modeof communication within it affect the resultingbuilding. As one student put it:

The case study touched on parts that I would havenever experienced with internship alone. I wasable to better understand the complicated processof getting a design built to finish, which I can applyto what I learn in classrooms and result in even agreater comprehension of the architecture world. Ifeel I have become less of an ignorant student,who has no idea or even cares about how work isdone in real life, and have grown moreconsideration and admiration for the workarchitects, as well as all the different players withina project team, do.

Another former undergraduate especially expressedadmiration for the multitude of roles architects playbeyond designing, roles he did not even think ofwhen coming out of school.

In addition to this ‘reality check’ – and for someeven ‘shock’ – one graduate student appreciated theopportunity to effectively conduct interviews beforestarting her master’s thesis. In her view, BuildingStories should be marketed as a ‘flight simulator’ forpractising research methods to any student planningto conduct qualitative research on architecturalpractice. Moreover, since her participation in theclass, she regularly draws on the story repository as amine of information for various purposes.

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 65–74

70 A. HEYLIGHEN, W.M. MARTIN AND H. CAVALLIN

Martin 6/13/07 10:19 AM Page 70

Page 72: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

INTERNS/YOUNG PROFESSIONALSThe young professionals, for their part, turned out atleast as enthusiastic about Building Stories as thestudents, yet had more difficulty explaining why:‘What you’re getting out of it is ephemeral, it’s notclear-cut knowledge.’ One of them originally intendedto present his experience to his colleagues in thefirm, but never did so because ‘they wouldn’tunderstand it; they almost have to go throughthe process themselves’. When asked again whatmade this process so interesting, he mentioned theopportunity to trace as an outsider all the influencesthat shape a building. What happened to this projectcould happen again in his career later, hence hisinterest in how they solved it. Another youngprofessional wanted to participate in Building Storiesbecause he had always admired the architectdesigning the building under study. Unlike what hehad hoped for, however, his participation did notprovide the magical insight into how his idol createsgood design. What it did provide was a bit ofgrounding, and a more realistic picture of what asuccessful architect does: ‘It’s not because he [hisidol] is an excellent designer that he got to dictate thewhole project.’ Moreover, he no longer felt it was soimportant to work for this specific architect, becausehe saw how his work translated to everybody’s work.

ARCHITECTURE FIRMSLet us now consider the architects, the seasonedpractitioners, themselves. Did participating in BuildingStories have something to offer them and their firms?One of them appreciated above all the opportunity todraw on ‘that resource on campus’ and to get ‘a peakthrough a younger lens’. His colleague also enjoyed theopportunity to provide young people with a window onthe collaborative effort of design practice, the partof the profession he loves most. An adviser fromanother firm especially valued the larger perspectiveprovided by the case study, as opposed to the detailed,day-to-day view practitioners tend to have:

It’s beginning to start a process for myself to analyzewhat happened, how the project evolved ... Ienjoyed going back through the documents andrealize: ‘Oh my God, we really did this. I have toremember this for the next project!’

By way of summary, the principal of a firm whoparticipated many times in the past five years placedBuilding Stories’ value on three different levels.

● First, it equips the firm as a whole to be self-critical in an entirely new and systematic way, andto reflect on and record its process of creation forfurther refinement. The Building Stories teams didnot only bring up many issues that clarified howthe firm works, they also came away with a goodfeeling that this way of working actually hassome validity.

● Second, at the level of the individual employees,young professionals in the firm get an opportunityto see what other firms are doing ‘without havingto put together their portfolio’.

● Finally, and perhaps most spectacularly, BuildingStories makes collaboration and sharing a realityin a profession that is known to be highlysecretive.

RESEARCHERSAfter the roundtables, the students who wereenrolled in the seminar (all of whom were PhDresearchers) were given several assignments toconnect the topic of the seminar to their thesissubject. Throughout several papers they were askedto discuss the role of knowledge, as related to theirthesis subject: in the projects reported on by thestories available on-line; in Building Stories, both asprocess (approach, methodology) and as product (thestories); and in architectural practice and education atlarge.

At first, the researchers were highly scepticalabout the capacity of the stories as vehicles forknowledge transfer. Yet, eventually, the storycollection turned out to be a surprisingly valuableresource for their PhD research.

One researcher investigates the variablesignification of collaboration in the architecturalprofession (Doctors, 2004). Collaboration is a culturalpractice of two or more individuals working togetheron a task or project, and intrinsically provides aframework for producing, sharing and contestingknowledge. Many disciplines commonly employcollaboration and have studied its efficacy fromsocial, economic and cultural perspectives. In

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 65–74

Building Stories Revisited 71

Martin 6/13/07 10:19 AM Page 71

Page 73: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

architecture, however, the use of the term is oftenmisleadingly interchanged with that of coordination,cooperation or communication. Moreover, it rarelyevidences consideration for the wide variabilityspanning from the utopian Ruskinian interpretation ofmedieval-era trade guilds to its polemical challenge ofthe architect-hero paradigm.

Analysis of Building Stories revealed both theprocess and the product to be peppered withinstances of collaboration (whether or not termedcorrectly). Key to the methodology is the participationof students, interns and professionals workingcollaboratively towards shared authorship of tacitknowledge derived from a story. In this collaborativeprocess, the roles and rules for engagement are mostlikely to be more implicit than explicit, and theresponsibilities are largely distributed according toeach participant’s skill set, interests and availability.Yet, while working in this horizontal decision-makingmodel, participants are learning about the various(other) shapes collaboration can take. The storiesabout the new De Young Museum project, forinstance, provide unique insights into the tacticalchallenges of establishing a workable organizationalstructure and methodology to compensate forgeographical and cultural differences among non-collocated team members.

Another researcher studies design ethics inpractice. Although she described her interest in ethicsas mainly theoretical, the process of looking atpractice turned out to be very fruitful. While revisitingBuilding Stories, she identified various points in thestories where decisions have been made and otherpoints where they could be made, if there were to bea level of explicitness and consciousness aboutopportunities for ethical consideration in the designprocess (Becker, 2004). A case in point is the PotteryBarn. From the start of the project, politically activecommunity groups expressed concern about anational chain store and its impact on the future ofthe neighborhood, which drew a lot of mediaattention and triggered attempts to influence theapproval process. In the Berkeley High School story,conflict arose between those wanting to generateincome for their business and those having a deepersense of historic preservation and life outside themargins of a project’s financial gain. The researcher

came to realize that moments like these – wheremultiple interests conflate and conflict, or even whereone begins to sense conflict, moments in which theprogress of a project is threatened – are precisely thepotentially deliberative moments, those in whichethics would logically be addressed. Clarifying themultiple points of conflict that became (or could havebecome) sites of reflection within the Building Storiesmay become a first step towards establishing a newmodel for ethics in practice.

The third researcher explores the nature ofprofessional knowledge in architecture (Hoque, 2004).Extensive literature study inspired the hypothesis thatarchitectural knowledge is performative (Austin,1975): it does not consist of a particular set of ideas,themes and theories, but rather of how these ideas,themes and theories are worked through to producearchitectural artefacts. Confronting this hypothesiswith the Building Stories collection revealed the notionof performativity to be very apt in describing whatoccupies the architects involved in various projects,such as Berkeley High School, UCSF MedicalEducational Research Center and the Golden GateParking Structure. The latter project, for instance,involved several different parties who are notarchitects or designers. The architects’ task was totake their various views and needs, to translate theseinto a common language and represent them in thecontext of architecture and construction, whichperfectly illustrates the performative actionsmentioned above. At first, the researcher found it verydifficult to distinguish information from knowledge inBuilding Stories, but by addressing the stories interms of performativity, she was able to identify muchmore clearly the instances of knowledge production.As such, the stories turned out to be valuable for herresearch because they provided her with real-worldexamples to work with.

DISCUSSIONAccording to Habraken (2003: 7), ‘a profession’sidentity is defined in terms of knowledge and skills. Itwill be asked: What is it your profession knows thatothers do not? Do you have the skills and methods toapply that knowledge successfully?’ As pointed outabove, the architectural profession seems to combinean alarmingly absent knowledge base with an

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 65–74

72 A. HEYLIGHEN, W.M. MARTIN AND H. CAVALLIN

Martin 6/13/07 10:19 AM Page 72

Page 74: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

exceptional cultivation of ‘knowing-in-practice’ i.e.knowing how to integrate multiple elements fromvarious sources and disciplines into one coherentwhole. In view of this, Habraken (1997: 284–285)argues for a revaluation of the shared knowledge ofspace and built form, to the extent that it reflects theagreements honoured by those acting on it. He feelsthat the implicit way in which this knowledge used topresent itself in systems, styles, patterns and types,no longer suffices and calls for deliberate study onhow its application (or lack thereof) impacts thehealth and quality of the environment. In essence,Habraken’s proposal comes down to (re)establishingarchitecture’s knowledge base by studying theoutcome of architects’ knowing-in-practice.

Building Stories adopts a similar, yet significantlydifferent, approach in that it proposes to (re)establishthe former by exploiting the process of the latter.Through storytelling, it tries to capture and sharearchitects’ knowing-in-practice as it presents itself indesigning and building projects and, as such, to dojustice to the performative nature of architecturalknowledge. As far as the capturing part of BuildingStories is considered, further work is needed in orderto improve and guard the quality of the resultingstories. Interestingly enough, however, this does notseem to hamper the sharing part. The outcome of theseminar reported on above strongly suggests thatBuilding Stories is particularly successful in creatingentirely new opportunities and interfaces for exchange.Judging from the roundtables and the PhD students’research papers, the initiative seems to provide aninventive methodology for catalyzing knowledgesharing between projects, between individualarchitects and architecture firms (through the on-linestory collection, but also through the participation ofyoung professionals); and between practice andacademia (equipping design firms to draw on ‘thatresource on campus’ and vice versa). As such, BuildingStories offers architectural education a usefulpedagogical device, provides architectural practicewith an effective vehicle for self-critique, and even mayserve as a valuable resource for architectural research.

The latter may sound somewhat surprising atfirst. Indeed, advancing storytelling as a vehicle forstudying architecture and architectural design lookssuspiciously like dragging the Trojan horse into the

walls of research. For inside these walls, storytellingis often viewed as, if not suspect, then at leastdisputable, and in any case of no more thansecondary importance, at best useful for illustrativepurposes. However, the outcome of our evaluationstrongly suggests that initiatives such as BuildingStories may have relevant and importantcomplementary contributions to make to theunderstanding of architectural design and the natureof design activity. As Bucciarelli (2001) contends, agood story is a truthful story and, like a scientifictheory, can be put to the test, making sense to theparticipants as well as to ‘outsiders’. It relies onthe facts observed as well as metaphor and, as such,is open to different interpretations. This does notnecessarily mean, however, that it is ‘unscientific’:

The claim here is that a good story which hasdepth ... in allowing for varied interpretations,avoids the over-simplification of a behaviorist’smodel or cognitive scientist’s mapping and assuch is in closer touch with reality – howeverthat is construed. (Bucciarelli, 2001: 300)

In summary, this retrospective view of BuildingStories revealed the content of the story repository tobe a rich source of knowledge in its own right. It was,however, the process of constructing and telling thestories that was the most important outcome. Eachof the participants i.e. undergraduates, graduates,interns, seasoned professionals and researchersacknowledge the power of storytelling as amethodological approach to uncovering specificknowledge through experience. It is safe to say thatthis effort of using storytelling is ‘closing the gapbetween knowing and doing’ in the design andmaking of architecture.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe William Wurster Society sponsors have providedsupport in the form of access to active projects intheir firms and base funding for the development ofthe Building Stories course at UC-Berkeley. Theauthors would like to thank all who participated inBuilding Stories and/or the seminar ‘Building StoriesRevisited’ and Sam Michiels for his invaluablecomments on earlier versions of this text.

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 65–74

Building Stories Revisited 73

Martin 6/13/07 10:19 AM Page 73

Page 75: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

AUTHOR CONTACT DETAILSAnn Heylighen: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Department of

Architecture, Urbanism and Planning, Kasteelpark Arenberg 1,

B-3001 Leuven, Belgium. Tel: +32 (0)16 321741 fax: +32 (0)16

321984, e-mail: [email protected]

W. Mike Martin: University of California – Berkeley, Department

of Architecture, 232 Wurster Hall, MC #1800, Berkeley, CA

94720-1800, US. Tel: +1 510-642-4942 or +1 45-3532-3913 fax:

+1 510-643-5607, e-mail: [email protected]

Humberto Cavallin: Escuela de Arquitectura, Universidad de

Puerto Rico, Recinto RÌo Piedras, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00931.

Tel: +1 787 7640000 (ext 2114), fax: +1 787 7635377, e-mail:

[email protected]

REFERENCESAIA (American Institute of Architects), 2004, Case Studies Starter Kit,

Washington DC, AIA.

Austin, J.L., 1975, How to do Things with Words, Cambridge, Harvard

University Press.

Becker, L., 2004, ‘Building (Ethical) Stories: A Meta Perspective’,

unpublished paper.

Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P., 1996, ‘Organizational learning and

communities-of-practice’, in M.D. Cohen and L.S. Sproull (eds),

Organizational Learning, London, Sage Publications, 58–82.

Bucciarelli, L., 2001, ‘Design knowing and learning: a socially mediated

activity’, in C. Eastman et al (eds), Design Knowing and Learning:

Cognition in Design Education, London, Elsevier, 297–314.

Cerulli, C., Peng, Ch. and Lawson, B., 2001, ‘Capturing histories of design

processes for collaborative building design development’, in B. de Vries

et al (eds), Computer Aided Architectural Design Futures 2001,

Proceedings of the 9th International Conference, Eindhoven, July 2001,

Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic, 427–438.

Coenen, T., 2005, ‘How social software and rich computer mediated

communication may influence creativity’, in P. Kommers and P. IsaÌas

(eds), Web Based Communities 2005, Proceedings of the IADIS

International Conference, Algarve, February 2005, IADIS Press, 255–261.

Denning, S., 2001, The Springboard, Boston, Butterworth-Heinemann.

Doctors, S., 2004, ‘Knowledge and Collaboration’, unpublished paper.

Habraken, N.J., 1997, ‘Forms of understanding: thematic knowledge and

the modernist legacy’, in M. Pollack (ed), The Education of the Architect,

Cambridge, MIT Press, 267–293.

Habraken, N.J., 2003, ‘Questions that will not go away’, keynote address

at the 6th meeting of Heads of European Schools of Architecture,

Hania, September 2003.

Henderson, R. and Clark, K., 1990, ‘Architectural innovation’, in

Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 9–30.

Heylighen, A. and Neuckermans, H., 2000, ‘Design(ing) knowledge in

architecture’, in S. Hanrot (ed), Recherche et Architecture/Research and

Architecture, European Association of Architectural Education

Transactions on Architectural Education No. 09, Leuven, EAAE, 231–241.

Heylighen, A., Martin, W.M. and Cavallin, H., 2004, ‘From repository to

resource: exchanging stories of and for architectural practice’, in

Journal of Design Research, 4(1), http://jdr.tudelft.nl/articles

/issue2004.01/Art3.html (accessed February 13, 2007).

Heylighen, A., Lindekens, J., Martin, W.M. and Neuckermans, H., 2005a,

‘Mind the gap: toward knowledge exchange between practice and

academia’, in Proceedings of The Unthinkable Doctorate, Brussels, April

2004 (forthcoming).

Heylighen, A., Cavallin, H. and Martin, W.M., 2005b, ‘The student, the

architect, his intern and her knowledge’, in B. Grimes (ed), Between

Research and Practice, European Association of Architectural Education

Transactions on Architectural Education No. 23, Leuven, EAAE, 111–119.

Hoque, S., 2004, ‘Building Stories’, unpublished paper.

Lawson, B., 2004, What Designers Know, Oxford, Architectural Press/Elsevier.

Martin, W.M., Heylighen, A. and Cavallin, C., 2003, ‘Building2 stories: a

hermeneutic approach to studying design practice’, in 5th European

Academy of Design Conference Proceedings, Barcelona, April 2003,

EAD, http://www.ub.es/5ead/ (accessed February 12, 2007).

Martin, W.M., Heylighen, A. and Cavallin, C., 2005, ‘The right story at the

right time: towards a tacit knowledge support for (student) designers’,

in AI and Society, 19(1), 34–47.

Neuckermans, H., 2004, ‘Nurture and nature of research in architecture’, in

Fontein, L. and Neuckermans, H., (eds), ARCC/EAAE Montreal

Conference on Architectural Research Proceedings, Montreal, May 2002,

Leuven, EAAE, 23–29.

Nonaka, I., 1994, ‘A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation’,

in Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.

Polanyi, M., 1967, The Tacit Dimension, Garden City, Doubleday.

Rosenberg, N., 1982, Inside the Black Box. Technology and Economics,

Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Ryle, G., 1949, The Concept of Mind, London, Huchinson.

Schank, R.C., 1982, Dynamic Memory, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Schön, D.A., 1983, The Reflective Practitioner, New York, Basic Books.

Schön, D.A., 1985, The Design Studio, London, RIBA Publications.

Schön, D.A., 1987, Educating the Reflective Practitioner, San Francisco,

Jossey-Bass.

Watson, D. and Grondzik, W., 1997, ‘Strategic research agenda: an

informal survey’, prepared for Architectural Research Centers

Consortium Spring 1997 Research Conference, Atlanta, April 1997,

Tempe, Herberger Center for Design Excellence.

Winnicot, D.W., 1971, Playing and Reality, London, Tavistock/Routledge.

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 65–74

74 A. HEYLIGHEN, W.M. MARTIN AND H. CAVALLIN

Martin 6/13/07 10:19 AM Page 74

Page 76: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

CONSTRUCTION PARTNERING ANDINTEGRATED TEAMWORKINGGill Thomas and Mike Thomas.Blackwell (2005). REVIEWED BY STEPHEN EMMITT

There is growing interest in relational forms ofcontracting and closer cooperation betweenconstruction project partners. Project partnering,strategic partnering and alliancing are growing inpopularity and are being implemented with varyingdegrees of success. These approaches rely on thesuccessful interaction of individuals within andbetween organizations, where effectivecommunication, trust and the desire for continualimprovement are paramount. Integrated teamwork –assuming that we are able to adequately define theconcept – is, however, very difficult to achieve inproject-based organizations. It is an area in whichclear, well-informed advice is required.

Construction Partnering and IntegratedTeamworking aims to provide guidance topractitioners interested in applying partnering andintegrated teamwork methods. The argument is for astructured approach to value enhancement and theauthors do a good job in promoting the drive towardsa value-based culture in construction. The bookcomprises 38 short chapters that collectively dealwith the need for a culture change, the developmentof an integrated team, advice on workshops and theimplementation of best value. Inspiration for thebook comes directly from the Latham and Eganreports. The style of writing is clear and positive, andthe use of short, relatively concise chapters helps tomake the book accessible. Throughout the text, thereare a number of small case studies and practicaltools to assist with team-building activities.

Construction partnering is dealt with in a logicaland pragmatic manner and represents a usefulprimer for readers unfamiliar with the main concepts.The first 10 chapters explore the main issues andhelp to clarify the differences between facilitatorsand advisers. A distinction is made betweenpartnering and partnerships, but clear definitions ofproject partnering, strategic partnering, integratedteams and value are missing. Chapters relating toworkshops provide some practical advice for readerswith limited experience of workshop methods.Similarly, the chapter on issue resolution (Chapter 17)provides sound advice. Unfortunately, some of thelater chapters fail to add much value. Most notablythe topics of lean thinking, sustainability, whole lifecosting and innovation deserve much bettertreatment than they are given. Short chapters maywork well in a workshop environment but, read inisolation, many readers will be left wanting moreexplicit guidance.

The interaction of actors is a highly complexsocial phenomenon. Some of the underlying issues,such as communication and trust and riskmanagement are rather superficial in their treatment.The chapter on trust briefly deals with the initiationof trust, the building of trust and maintaining trust.However, the authors fail to discuss equallyimportant facets such as the boundaries of trust andthe importance of personal contact. The importanceof social interaction is mentioned, but is notexplored in sufficient detail, and the book paints anoverly simplistic picture of team development andimprovement. Challenges and opportunities ofintegrated teamworking are not adequately explored.The authors note that there are opportunities forimprovement in communications, a claim few wouldargue against, but then make some rather general

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 75–77

75

Book reviews

Book review 6/13/07 10:20 AM Page 75

Page 77: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

statements. Given that the concepts promoted inthe book rely on interpersonal communication fortheir success or failure, this is a major weakness.

Project partnering and integrated teamworkinghave been given a lot of press coverage inprofessional journals and many readers may feelfrustrated that this book makes no attempt to addanything new to our knowledge base. Perhaps thebiggest disappointment is the rather scant attentionto the challenges inherent in partnering-typearrangements. There is a brief description of someof the pitfalls of partnering, but this is not sufficient.Recognizing some of the problems would havehelped to provide a more balanced view and wouldhave added real value to the book. Similarly, theconsiderable challenges of creating and maintainingintegrated project teams are not addressed. Theway in which groups form and become effective, orconversely fail, are not explored, nor is the problemof groupthink – a well recognized ‘pitfall’ ofcollaborative arrangements and teamwork. It isdisappointing that the authors have not includedmore examples of instances where partnering failedto meet the commonly shared objectives and thedifficulties of making teams and groups workeffectively. The reasons for poor performance areoften very subtle, and some description of theproblems and how to mitigate the negative effectswould have been insightful. Practitioners know thatreal life is messy and success or failure usuallycomes down to the people charged withimplementing initiatives.

VALUE AND RISK MANAGEMENT:A GUIDE TO BEST PRACTICEMichael F. Dallas. Blackwell (2006).REVIEWED BY STEPHEN EMMITT

Value or, more specifically, the management of valuein construction is growing in popularity with a widerange of stakeholders. Although value and valuesremain difficult concepts to quantify and qualify,there is clear evidence of a shift towards a value-based approach to design and construction. Valuemanagement techniques are increasingly being usedin practice across a wide range of project types andsizes. Parallel to this is the development of the theory

behind a value-based approach to projects, which isstarting to mature and provide some elegantapproaches. Within these models, the importantissue of risk can be addressed as part of the valueagenda. Risk awareness and the management of riskhave also developed rapidly over recent years,providing practitioners with a range of practical toolsto identify and manage risks, both within projectsand project-based organizations.

Value and Risk Management: A Guide to BestPractice takes an original approach to the subjectand, at nearly 400 pages, provides a lot ofinformation. Attempting to combine value and riskmanagement in one book is an intriguing prospectand, on reflection, a rather obvious thing to do.Dallas makes a good argument for combining valuemanagement techniques with risk management andin doing so provides sound practical advice to thereader. The book comprises 12 chapters, whichcollectively provide an interesting journey from whysuccessful projects need value and riskmanagement (Chapter 1) through to acomprehensive ‘toolbox’ of checklists, forms andtables (Chapter 12). Value management and riskmanagement are clearly and concisely described inseparate chapters before dealing with the mostfruitful part of the book, the need for an integratedapproach to value and risk management (Chapter 4).The argument is simple, it is wasteful trying tomaximize the value of a project without dealing withthe risks that are likely to materialize and hencedestroy the value. The emphasis is not on trying toavoid risks, but on the necessity to take risks tomaximize value within a structured and managedframework. This approach is refreshing and takesthe reader away from the misconception that riskmanagement stifles creativity and innovation. Theauthor should also be congratulated for recognizingthe impact that people have on project success.Chapter 5 explores the role of people withinprojects, dealing briefly with communication,selection criteria, styles of leadership anddifficulties that may be encountered during valueand risk management exercises. Look out for whatDallas calls the ‘spectator’ (reluctant contributor),the ‘windbag’ (likes the sound of their own voice),the ‘rambler’ (poor orator) and the ‘squatter’ (fixed

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 75–77

76 Book reviews

Book review 6/13/07 10:20 AM Page 76

Page 78: Architectural Engineering and Design Management

views, stifles innovation). Chapter 6 affordscomprehensive coverage of concepts, standardsand qualifications.

Of the 12 chapters, ‘Learning from Others’(Chapter 7) is perhaps the most curious. I wasexpecting a chapter on knowledge transferbetween projects and organizations andassociated material; it appeared to be a logicaldevelopment of what went before. Instead, thechapter includes short contributions from sevenguest authors to help broaden the debate. Thesefascinating interjections do indeed raise a numberof issues, although the majority of thecontributions are rather short and may have theresult of leaving the reader slightly frustrated. Forexample, the section on soft value management(by Professor Stuart Green) starts to take thereader to another (arguably higher) level, butstops prematurely, leaving the reader wantingmore. Collectively, the contributions come over aslittle more than sound bites, which offers too littlevalue. Some critical contributions would have beenwelcome at this juncture; the book is robustenough to accommodate a more balanced view.

Chapters 8 through to 12 deal with the practicalissues of study types, techniques for value and risk,value management techniques and risk managementtechniques, concluding with the ‘toolbox’ chapter. Allof this material is well presented, clearly explainedand of considerable practical value to the reader. Theillustrations, tables and checklists are clear and helpto get the message across. Space does not allow fordetailed description of these chapters, other than to

say that the information contained within iscomprehensive and more than sufficient for theneeds of most readers.

Compared with Construction Partnering andIntegrated Teamworking, the writing is not as lucid,but the book offers considerably more factualinformation and hence represents much better valuefor money. Value and Risk Management: A Guide toBest Practice is a worthy addition to any library. Thebook would also make a welcome desktopcompanion to practitioners and represents a usefulsource of information and inspiration for studentsstudying the built environment.

Approaches such as partnering, integratedteamworking, value management and riskmanagement can help to bring people together, butwhether or not the actors subsequently act asan integral whole is another matter. Complexinteractions within project teams and project groupswithin multi-project environments is an extremelycomplex field, as highlighted in the papers selectedfor this special edition. More attention to suchissues in textbooks would be a welcomedevelopment.

REVIEWER CONTACT DETAILSStephen Emmitt PhD: Hoffmann Professor ofInnovation and Management in Building, Departmentof Civil Engineering, Building 115, TechnicalUniversity of Denmark, DK-2800, Kgs Lyngby,Denmark. Tel: +45 4525 1660, fax: +45 4588 5582,e-mail: [email protected]

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2007 ■ VOLUME 3 ■ PAGES 75–77

Book reviews 77

Book review 6/13/07 10:20 AM Page 77