Download Achievements and Challenges - Interdisciplinary Design for the Built

Interdiscipl
inary Design:
Achievements
andChallenges
TheDesignProfessions
in Transition
TheQueen'sBuilding,
Emmanuel
College,
Cambridge
Friday,12tnSeptember1997
Conference
organisedby
TheMartinCentre,University
of Cambridge
Department
of Architecture
in associationwith
University
of Cambridge
Department
of Engineering
Cambridge
Programme
for Industry
|IHln
t
+l
I
tl
Interdisciplin
ary Design
:
Achievements
andChallenges
The DesignProfessions
in Transition
T h eQ u e e n ' B
s u i l d i n gE,m m a n u eCl o l l e g eC, a m b r i d g e
Friday,12thSeptember
1997
Programme
09:30 Registration,
TheatreFoyer,Queen's
Building
Coffee,
Harrods
Room,SecondFloor
Exhibition,
Seminar
Room,Ground
Floor
10:00 Welcome
RobinSpence,
ReaderinArchitectural
Engineering
University
of Cambridge
Department
ofArchitecture
Introduction
to the Conference
JohnMartin,Conference
Chairman
Chairman
of Trustees,
OveArupFoundation
10:15 Beyondthe environmental
tradition:
Lessonsfrom the pastfor the architectureof the future
DeanHawkes,
Professor
of Architectural
Design,
WelshSchoolof Architecture
'11:00
Coffee,
Harrods
Room
1 1 : 3 0 S e s s i o n1 : C h a n g i n P
g r o f e s s i o nR
a lo l e s
Changingconstructionculture
Richard
Saxon,Chairman,
Building
DesignPartnership
Multidisciplinary
work- a professionalvocation
Michael
Dickson,
Chairman,
BuroHappold
Discussion
13:00 Lunch,OldLibrary
14:00 Chair:Professor
AndrewSaint,University
of Cambridge
Department
of Architecture
Session2: Modelsof Interdisciplinary
Collaboration
Threedifferentwaysof workingand the buildingsthat wereproducedby them
SamPrice,Paftner,
PriceandMyersConsulting
Engineers
Landscape,
climateand materials
JamesBurland,
Architectural
Director,
ArupAssociates
Discussion
15:10 Tea,Harrods
Room
15:30 Session3: CaseStudies
Thatroof etc.
SophieLe Bourva,Structural
Engineer,
OveArupand Partners
Designteamsandhow theywork
GraemeJennings,
Partner,
PToARTS
Discussion
16:30 GroupDiscussions
A) Changing
Professional
Roles:Harrods
Room,SecondFloor
B) Modelsof Interdisciplinary
Collaboration;
Queen'sBuildingTheatre
C) Education
for Teamwork
in Design:SeminarRoom,GroundFloor
1 7 : 1 5 C l o s i n gS e s s i o n
17:30 Conference
ends
- winewillbe serued.
Seminar
Room:Exhibition
openuntil1B:15
Interdisciplin
:
ary Design
Achievements
and Challenges
The DesignProfessions
in Transition
T h eQ u e e n ' B
s u i l d i n gE, m m a n u eCl o l l e g eC, a m b r i d g e
Friday,
12thSeptember
1997
Speakers
Dean Hawkes has been Professorof Architectural
Designat the Welsh School
of Architecture
since1995. Previouslyhe was a University
Lecturerin
Architecture
at Cambridge,Fellowof DarwinCollege,and,from 1980-1989,
Directorof the MartinCentre.His most recentbook. The Environmental
Tradition,
was publishedin 1996.
RichardSaxon is Chairmanof BuildingDesignPartnership,
the multidisciplinary
firm which has been at the forefrontof interdisciplinary
practicesince
the 1960s.He is the authorof two bookson atriumbuildings,
Chairmanof the
ConstructionIndustryBoardGood PracticePaneland Past Presidentof the
BritishCouncilfor Offices.
MichaelDickson has beenChairmanof consulting
engineersBuro Happold
since1996.Sincefoundingthe firmwiththe lateSir EdmundHappoldin 1976,
he has been involvedin a wide rangeof civiland structuralintegrated
commissions,
includingthe Queen'sBuildingin whichthisconferenceis being
held.He has beena CouncilMemberof the lnstitution
of StructuralEngineers,
and is currentlya memberof the lnstitution's
TaskForceon Environmental
Guidelines.
Sam Price is a structural
engineerandjointfoundingpartnerof consulting
engineersPriceand Myers,who haveworkedcloselywith many leadingfirms of
architectsincluding,most recently,MacCormacJamiesonand Pritchardand van
Heyningenand Haward.He is a visitingteacherat the CambridgeSchoolof
Architectureand the IDBECourse.He is a Fellowof the lnstitutionof Civil
Engineers
and an HonoraryFellowof the RIBA.
James Burland has beenArchitectural
Directorof Arup Associatessince 1994.
From1985to 1990he workedwith PhilipCox in Sydney,Australiaon a wide
varietyof projects,includingthe OlympicStadium.Recentprojectswith Arup
Associatesincludethe Manchester
Millennium
Stadium,Johannesburg
Stadium,
a new collegefor DurhamUniversityand new buildingsat StockleyPark.
Sophie Le Bourva is a structuralengineer,whosetrainingin Franceincludeda
three-yearfirstdegreein architecture.
She joinedOve Arup and Partnersin 1989
groupof PeterRice.She has participated
in the BuildingEngineering
in a
numberof high profileprojectsin Franceand the UK, includingthe LilleTGV
Station.She has recentlycompletedthe IDBECourseand is a TechnicalTutorat
the Architectural
AssociationSchoolof Architecture.
GraemeJennings is an architectand partnerof ProArts,an independent
consultancy
specialising
in arts and heritageprojects.Formerlywith DEGW in
Londonand in Milan,he is alsoconsultant
to the BritishCounciland a member
of the panelof assessorsof the Arts Councilof England.He was a memberof
the firstIDBEcohort,wherehis thesisdealtwith DesignTeamWorking.
Interdisciplin
aryDesign:Achievements
andChallenges
Discussion
Groups:16:30to 17:15
GroupA:
Professional
Changing
Roles(HarrodsRoom)
Chair:
Dr Mike Murray(AMEC)
Rapporteur: Paul Kirby(IDBE)
Questions for consideration:
Are professional
too tightlyconstrained?
boundariesand territories
What new or enlargedprofessional
rolesshouldbe considered?
How can changebe facilitated?
Group B:
Models of lnterdisciplinary Collaboration (Theatre)
Chair:
Joannavan Heyningen(van Heyningen& HawardArchitects)
Rapporteur:GilesOliver(IDBE)
Questions for consideration:
Are new modelsuseful- interdisciplinary
firms;partnering;
construction
management?
Or are conventionalmodelsa more effectivemeansto createquality?
What are the barriersto betterteamwork?
GroupC:
Education
for Teamwork
in Design(SeminarRoom)
Chair:
David Owers (DavidOwers Associates)
Rapporteur: RobinSpence(Universityof CambridgeDepartmentof Architecture)
Questions for consideration:
Are currenteducationalmodelsuseful?
What is neededto improvethem?
How can desirablemodifications
intothe existing
be incorporated
processof change?
Interdisciplin
aryDesign:Achievements
andChallenges
Discussion
Groups:16:30to 17:15
GroupA
GroupB
GroupC
ChangingProfessional Modelsof Interdisclipinary Educationfor Teamwork
Roles
Collaboration
in Design
HarrodsRoom
I
9
Theatre
SeminarRoom
Mike Murray,Chair
Paul Kirby,Rapporteur
Joannavan Heyningen,Chair DavidOwers, Chair
Giles Oliver,Rapporteur
RobinSpence,Rapporteur
Tom Barker /
Jean-MarcBarsa^y'
ChristianBeltor;)
'
TrevorButler
^/
AdrianCampbell/
@ine
,/
EmmaCarmichael /
ElainePsyiss ../
MichaelDickson
John Eaton
Paul Evans
"/ '/
Karl Fitzgerald
Neil Francis ,/
Michael Cteeson4
BryanGuttridge ,/
AnthonyHopkins
Paullnnes /
Jim Mellish
ColinMoses
Kevin Myers
David Pearce ./
DanielPhillips{
Tony Rea
AndrewSaint
RichardSaxon
Mike Sharpe
MikaTsuchiya
Andrew Watts r'
RobinWilson
RichardYoung
PaulAkhurst
NigelAtkinson
Sean Billings
PhilipBroadbent-Yale
Lucy Bulivant
James Burland
Chis Croft
RobertDoe
DamianEly
StuartFoley
ChristopherFrench
GarethGardiner
RussellHall
Christopher
Jones
PeterJones
ChristopherLawler
SimonLawrence
SophieLe Bourva
JonathanLouth
MatthewLovell
PhebeMann
JacquieMilham
RichardMoss
DenisOwen
AndrewParker
Sam Price
Paul Redman
Paul Richens
PeterSharratt
PeterSmith
Mark Standeven
John Summerill
Tom Taylor
DeborahThomas
ChristianTopp
RichardBurdett
NigelChallis
RogerChantrelle
DerekClements-Croome
PhilipCooper
Dina D'Ayala
BleddynDavies
KeithDawson
AndrewDerbyshire
Maria Fan
BenedicteFoo
Max Fordham
DianeHaigh
Dean Hawkes
Bruce Huxtable
GraemeJennings
CallumMacBean
PaulMcCombie
SebastianMacmillan
John Martin
RobertRansom
SandiRhysJones
ElizabethSadler
HilarySmyth
MartinSymes
Man Yuen Tsui
PaulWellings-Longmore
AnthonyWillats
InterdisciplinaryDesign:
AchievementsS. Challenges
BEYOND THE ENVIRONMENTAL TRADITION:
LESSONSFROM THE PASTFORTHEARCHITECTURE
OFTHE FUTURE
Dean Hawkes. Universitv of Wales Cardiff
University of Cambridge
Departrnentof Architecture
INTEGRATED DESIGN IN THE BIIILT ENVIRONMENT CONFERENCE
EmmanuelCollege, Cambridge
SeptemberlD7
Beyond the Environmental Tradition:
Lessons from the Past for the Architecture of the Future
Dean Hawkes
Welsh School of Architecture
Universify of Wales Cardiff
Abstract
This paperexaminesthe propositionthat knowledgeof pastdesignsplayl an importantrole
in the designof new buildings. Earlierwork by the author on the idea of the stereotyp€as
an aid to environmentaldesign is reconsideredand the environmentalUpology is extended
to incorporaterecentstagesin the evolution of the office building. The paper concludes
with a discussionof the implicationsfor integrateddesign practisewhich are implied by
the shift in the aims and methodsof environmentaldesignwhich this analysisreveals.
Introduction
For many years, as teacher,researcherand practitioner, I have been preoccupiedby the
relationshipbetween,in convenient,albeit imprecise,terminology, ut and scierrcein the
creationof buildings. In the field of environmentaldesign, where much of my work has
been located, it is particularly important to be clear about this relationship between the
environmentalfunction of the form and fabric of a building - the very material of the ot of
architecture- and the role of mechanicalsystems of environmentalcontrol - which are, in
most manifestations,primarily questions of technology or science. In both my academic
and professional work I have found that these questions are frequently illuminated and
informed by referenceto past instances. In other words that the production, perhaps even
the invention, of solutions to presentproblems benefits from historical understanding.My
aim in this paperis to put this hypothesisto the test.
The Environmental
Tradition
In 1995 I published a collection of essays, on themes in the theory and practice of
environmentaldesign, under the title of The EnvironmentalTradition.. The Foreword to
the book was written by Robert Maxwell who, with more eloquenceand insight than I can
muster, suggestedthat the essays, "never oversimplify in the attempt to assert a general
'oconsciousof the loose fit, that alchitects
theory of scientific design" and that they are,
know only too well, betweenform and perforrnance:a spacein which cultural pressures
can produce strangedistortions."
These observations, in my view, identify something essential in defining and
understandingthe nature of architecture. First, that it is not susceptible to reductivist,
"scientific" theories of design, and, second, that the ostensibly predictable, technicallybasedaspectsof architecture- such as environmentaldesign - are conditioned as much by
"cultural pressures",in the broadestmeaningof the term, as by logical analysisand precise
calculation.Over twenty yearsago I first publishedmy argumentfor the existenceand use
of 'stereotypes'in design. There, referring specifically to the problem of the design of
'Evolutionary Tale' in which I tracedthe
office buildings in the early 1970s,I sketchedan
development of the British office building from the turn of the century through the
descriptionof six distinctstereotypes.
The operationalargumentfor the stereotypeis that, as I wrote all those years ago, "...it is
simply a generatlyheld notion about the natureof a good solution to any recturentdesign
problem..." which plays "... a creativeroleby allowing the designerto begin ".. from a
reasonably confident position." In addition, the definition and characterizationof these
particular office building stereotypes allowed me to make an observation about the
transformationof environmentaldesign in the twentieth century which they reveal. This is
most strongly illustratedby the comparison of the first and last types defined. In the first
the relatively loose relationships between its components - plan form, floor-to-ceiling
heights, window sizes,the type of mechanicalplant, and the broad notion of comfort of the
time - permitted a free adaptationof its broad characteristicsin the design of any specific
'ttteory' of 'Integrated
building. On the other hand the last type - based on the 70s
'scientifically' determinedset of relationships
Environmental Design' (IED), rests upon a
'comfort' which, becauseof its closed logic,
between, form, construction, plant and
prohibits inventive elabonation.
2
'stereotype'lies in, "... the realizationthat the latest
But the most useful function of the
stereotype does not supersedeall others. There is, in fact, a store of accumulated
experiencewhich containsall (new emphasis)previous solutions. This view demandsa
return to earlier stereotypesto see what they offer as potential solutions to present-day
problems... The searchshouldbe for the most appropriatesolution .-. the first step would
be to examine the store of stereotypesrather than simply to accepta single current notion
t',
The emergence of the Modern Movement, with its rejection of history, shifted the
theoreticalground towards the idea that designs could, and should, be based upon the
'scientific' understandingof 'first principles'. But 'hard-line' modernism has long been
under critical scrutiny, as is demonstratedby, for example, Alan Colquhoun's important
'objective', 'systematic'
essay 'Typology and Design Method'. The casefor a wholly
basisfor the productionof architecturenolonger has credencein the theoreticaldiscourse.
We may, therefore, look again to the possibility of history, properly understood and
analysed,playing a part in the production of inventive solutions to the problems which
confront contemporarypractice"
At this point I should stressthat this is not an argumentfor nostalgic revivalism. The
intention is to makethe datacontainedin the historical record availableto the contemporary
practitionerin a way which helps to develop designs which combine effective technical
performancewith an appreciationof the "cultural pressures" which bear crucially upon all
architecfureof significance. I should also say that I am not proposing the establishmentof
an 'Institute of ArchitecturalMorphology', attractive though such an idea might be to
university administratorsin thesedays of ResearchAssessmentExercisesand the likes. I
am mindful of the wisdom in Robert Maxwell's stricturesabout the dangersof "general
theory" and of the needfor "loose fit ... betweenform and performance". The best way to
make the point is through the rnedium of buildings. It is in the realisationof designsthat
the abstractionsof theorv arebest illustratedand validated.
Case Studies
To keepthe discussionwithin reasonablebounds and to give the paper some consistency
of focus I will use examplesof recentdesignsfor British office buildings. My original set
of stereotypespre-datedthe emergenceof the atrium office building. Since the late 1970s
this has becomeone of the most clear cut and effective forms for office design - a potent
demonstrationof the value of the stereotype. In 1978 Richard MacCormac and I published
a short article in the RIBA Jounnl in which we developed the fundamental typological
distinctionof courts and pavilions which l,eslie Martin and Uonel March articulatedin the
1960s, the very cornerstoneof what has now grown into the Martin Centre. By adding a
$azed roof to the court form we demonstratedthat it would be possible to achieve a
configuration of office space which would be comfortable and energy efficient in the
British climate. In essencethe glazed courtyard combines the advantagesof the traditional
narrow plan o{fice building with those of the deep plan type, whilst avoiding their
disadvantages. In addition to this direct reference to Martin and March's theoretical
studies, we were equally influenced by specific buildings, such as Wright's l-arkin
Building and Aalto's RautataloOffice Building, both of which have top-lit centralspaces.
In ottrer words we were searchingthe store of precedent,exactly in the mannerproposed in
'Types, Norms andHabit'.
At aboutthe sametime Arup Associateswere working on their design for Gateway Two at
Basingstoke- proof of the zeitgeist? This is widely regardedas the seminal atrium office
building in Britain. Unlike many of its successorsthis is daylit and naturally ventilated,
with air-conditioningrestrictedto specialisedlocal areas. The project architectat Gateway
Two was Rab Bennetts,who now practisesas BennettsAssociatesand has continuedto
develop and refine the Gateway theme in subsequent buildings.
The Powergen
HeadquartersBuilding at Coventry is a subtle typological transformation of Gateway in
which linear , daylit, naturally ventilatedoffice spacesflank a long atrium. The office
spacesare open to the atrium and the facadesreflect the difference between their northerly
and southerlyorientationsin their detaileddesign.
The point in illustrating the Powergen Building is to show how the stereotypeserves to
inform the production of a design which responds to the specific conditions of programme
and site. The building is securely based on the authority of the atrium type, and on the
technicaland socialattributeswhich it possesses,but it is a creativereinterpretation,not a
slavishrepetition.
The design of comfortable,energy-savingoffice buildings may be approachedin many
ways.
Feilden Clegg's recently completed Building 15 at the Building Research
Establishmentdemonstratesthe continuing validity of the traditional narrow plan office as it
is transformedby the superimpositionof the apparatusand devicesof passive solar design.
4
Again the distinction betweennorth and south is clearly expressedin the design of the
facades, but here the traditional elementsare supplementedby the expressedventilation
stacksand light shelves. In termsof the stereotypeargumentthis building shows how new
knowledge and componentsmay transforrr an existing type, investing it with a new level
of performance. In this, perhaps,we can identify the emergenceof a new stereotype. That
is, indeed, explicitly the intention in BRE's requirement that the design should be
replicable.
Myfinal'Case Study'is theFriary ProjectatMaldonin Essexdesignedby Greenbergand
Hawkes. This project consists of two buildings in the historic centre of Maldon and,
unlike Powergenand Building 15 on their on-urban sites, was conceivedwithin all of the
constraintswhich aretypically imposed in such situations. One of the buildings housesa
branchof the County Library and offices for the County Social ServicesDepartment. The
design of the offices respondsto the specific structure of the department, with a mix of
cellularandopen plan spaces. In itsfundamentalsthe building is a traditionalnarrow plan
type. In comparisonwith both Powergenand Building 15 the facadedesign is much more
conventionalwith regularly spacedwindow openings and a completeabsenceof external
devices. The principleswhich underly the building are those which are codified in the LT
Metlnd of low-energy design, developed in Cambridge by Nick Baker and Koen
Steemers. The aim is to establishthe dimensionsof windows, in relation to the size and
orientationof the spacesthey serve, to optimisethe balanceof energy used for lighting and
spaceheating. In this building thereis a cleardifferencebetweenthe small windows on the
north facade.which serve the cellular offices, and the larger openingsto the south-facing
open plan offices. Incidentally, the LT Method was not directly applied in the design
processof the building, but its principleswere sufficiently understoodthrough many years
of academicassociation with Baker and Steemersfor them fundamentally to inform the
design.
In comparison with Building 15, this design represents a less radical
transformationof the narrow plan stereotype,but is, nonetheless,effective in achieving its
environmentalgoals. In evolutionary terms it is, perhaps, close to the subtle variations
which Darwin detectedin the beaksof his finches. But I suggestthat such small variations
are as valid in architecturalevolution as they are in nature.
5
Conclusion
In conclusion I want to make two principal points, one of practice,the other of theory'stereotype' was written just when the objectives and
My original paper on the idea of the
methodsof environmentaldesign were beginning to be challengedby what we then called
the'energy crisis'. Then the almost unchallengedassumptionwas that the environmental
functions of buildings would increasingly be met by mechanicalplant, rather than by the
form and fabric of the building, and that this would determineand changethe nature of the
relationship between the membersof the design team. It is, in the present context, not
insignificantthatthe last'stereotype'in my original typology was basedon the principles
'Integrated Environmental Design.' Now, after two further decadesof evolution that
of
assumptionis no longer valid. Increasinglywe see, as my threeCase Studiesshow, that
the primary environmental parametersare often again addressedby the uchitectt're of the
building, and that the relationship of fabric and plant is, in such buildings, fundamentally
redefined. This must have d"ep implications for the way in which the design team is
constructed and functions. As I see it the need remains, is actually reinforced, for a
philosophy of integrateddesign,but now this is, or should be, one in which the traditional
distinctions between the professions are dissolved to allow richer and more creative
interaction. Thi s has profound implications for education.
At the end of the twentieth century we no longer acceptthe strict dogmas of the Modern
Movement. kactice and theory are characterisedby a more inclusive view. The
intellectualnecessity,feltby the'pioneers', to escapefromthe historicist confusionsof the
nineteenthcentury has served its purpose and now the value of historical knowledge is
'discipline' of architecture, as an academic
almost universally acknowledged" The
enterpriseis founded upon its history. But for history to be of more than just generalised
value - a kind of colour supplement- it must be brought to bear upon all dimensions of
'Typology and DesignMethod', Colquhounwrote, "In spite of the development
design. In
of the scientificmethod,we must still attribute... socialor iconic values to the productsof
technology and recognizethat they ptay an essentialrole in the generationand development
of the physical tools of our environment ... This fact is concealedfrom us becausethe
intentions of the design process are "hidden" in the overt details of the performance
specifications." What I tried to show is that it is possible to structure the data of the past
in a way which makesthem relevantto the problems of presentday practice.
6
InterdisciplinaryDesign:
Achievements
& Challenges
CHANGING CONSTRUCTIONCI.ILTURE
Richard Saxon,BuildingDesignPartnership
CHANGINGCONSTRUCTION
CULTURE
Paper presented at the Conference:
"lnterdisciplinaryDesign: Achievementsand Challenges"
E m m a n u e lC o l l e g e ,C a m b r i d g e ,1 2 S e p t e m b e r1 g g 7
Richard Saxon*
The UK constructionindustryis in bad shape, but is getting better. We suffer the highest
output prices in Europewith some of the lowestinput costs; our clientsare dissatisfiedand
litigious,makingless use of the industrythan in other advancednations; professionals
and
contractors
are not makingenoughmoney,evenat thesehigh prices. The only goodthingsto
b e s a i da r e :
that UK designersand constructors
are able to producesome of the bestarchitecture
in theworld,
that thereis underwaya deep-seated
changecampaignwhichaimsto revolutionise
the industry.
The British way of designing and constructingbuildingsis unique and looks odd by
internationalstandards.As craftsmanshipin traditionalmaterialswas replacedby knowledge
of new materialsso we in the UK progressively
de-skilledthe main and specialistcontractors
and vestedknowledgeand responsibility
in universitytrainedprofessionals.We developeda
cost controlsystembased on standarddescriptionsof work, robbingcontractorsof initiativein
how thingsare made.
As constructiontechnologyprogressedhowever,this division between the supposedly
knowledgeable
and responsibleand those who actuallydevelopand installsystemsbecame
illogicaland ludicrous.The socialand culturalgulf betweenprofessionals
and tradesbecame
a barrierto collaboration
and the introvertedconcernsof the 400,000businessesin the UK
industrymade us losetouchwith our customersthroughdecadesof publicsectordominance.
As the private sector took the lead in the 1980's client dissatisfactionspawned the new
diversityof procurementpaths,the collapseof professionalfee scales,the rise of the project
manager, the constructionlawyer and the triumph of imported building products. The
depressionof 1990- 1993 put the lid on it, crushingthe life out of the construction
firms and
professionals
and creatinga realisationthat the whole squabblingmess had to be reformed,
root and branch. The Governmentlaunchedthe LathamReviewwith the inspiredrealisation
that unlessclientstook centrestage,the industrycouldnot change. The LathamReviewwas
RGS/CHANGINGCONSTRUCTION CTILTURE
27t08t97
publishedin July 1994 and gave directionto a mass of initiatives.Momentumfor change is
continuingto buildand whilstit may be too soonto say thatwe are intoa new era, I believewe
will soon be ableto say that. The new era is takingshapeand changingthe culture,rolesand
potentialof everyoneinvolvedin that new foundphenomenon,
the SupplyChain.
The TavistockInstituteis workingon a study for the Governmentof barriersto change in the
industrywhich should be publishedshortly. The interim report has been very useful in
identifyingthe multi-foldforces for change and giving them some structure. Tavistock
identifiesfive interlockingfieldsconvergingto createthe comprehensivechange:
Businessand Procurement
concepts.
The trendto collaborative
working.
Designand Construction
Methoddevelopment.
lnformation
Technologyas a driverand enabler.
Human Resourcesissues.
Businessand Procurementchangesare generatedby clientsmorethan by the industryitself.
Clients,especiallythe regularones,have becomeproactiveand have begunto comparehow
they run their own businesseswith how they buy construction.The idea that constructionis
utterly differentto manufacturingor to other science industriesbecause of its one-off,site
based naturehas been largelydiscredited.The lasttwo decadesof thinkingabout business
methodsis now arrivingin construction
with a rush. Amongstthe many aspectsof this, the
Private Finance Initiativestands out. Governmentnow seeks to relateto its propertyas a
charge-paying
tenantwithoutresponsibilities
for upkeepor utilities,concentrating
on its core
business.The PFI providerhas to delivera 30 year supplyof managed,serviced,maintained
space. Not even the mostcaringpropertydeveloperhas ever donethat in the UK, thoughit is
comrnonin the US" Adoptingit is changingprioritiesutterly. Consortiaare forming of facility
managers (a newish but future core profession),designers,financiersand contractorsto
competefor these projects. Lifetimecostingreplacesthe obsessionwith initialcapitalcosts.
designerscan even be equitypartnersto put
Qualitybecomesproperlyvalued. Professional
their interestin the performanceof the productup front. They can sit aroundthe consortium
table and put qualitywhere it counts. I foreseethat conventional
institutional
developmenton
a 2S-year repairing lease will find PFI style propertya serious competitorfor the private
b u s i n e s st e n a n t .
Collaborativeworking is a style adaptedfrom manufacturingand serviceindustry. Insteadof
the single-project,
tender-basedselectionof suppliersto work underan adversorialcontract,
there is a shift to managed"supplychains"with a high degree of trust. Just as Rover now
RGSiCHANGINGCONSTRUCTIONCULTURE
27108197
buys its windscreenwiper from two sourcesrather than the open market,and gets fully
alongsidethe suppliersto ensure the success of the whole, so partnershipsof clients,
consultants,contractorsand suppliersare appearing. For some companies,like Birse,the
conversionfrom carnivorousto herbivorousstyle has been Damascene.Therapistsare
brought in to break the old, confrontational
habits of a lifetimeand teach the win-win
philosophy. What everyoneis seeking is Japanese-style
long termism,coupled with the
continuousimprovementonly committedpartnerscan achieve. lt is not cosy cartelismbut
is restructuring
the industryand
sharp, tough love. ln the processthe alliance-making
again. Suddenly,we are all altruists,concernedfor our customers
redefiningprofessionalism
first,both internaland eXernaltypes.
modeland at the near
Methodsare also lookingat the manufacturing
Designand Construction
parallel of offshore oil construction. In the latter, costs have come down over 30o/oby
workingand concurrentengineering.In the former,Boeingcan now builda firstcollaborative
off plane with no faults, thanks to well managed teamwork and use of 3D modelling.
terms is the reversalof the twentiethcenturytrend to
Concurrentengineeringin construction
the tradeand maincontractor.Bringingthem in at stagesC & D, in
distancingand de-skilling
RIBA terms, enablesgreaterspeed and economyeven in a one-offproject. In a series of
projectsit allows progressiveprocessimprovementto cut costs deeplyand improvequalityat
of specification,
knowledgeengineeringand other l.T. based
the same time. Standardisation
process.The futureof
and integrating
the designand construction
methodsare all re-ordering
design and build,as a procurementpath, is seen to lie with a separationof projectdesign
work, which should not innovate technically,from continuous,off-line research and
stuff.
development.This is revolutionary
InformationTechnologyis the great enablerof most of the other changes. Five key target
conceptsare emerging:
i
the importanceof global,highspeedcommunication
singleprojectdatabases,sharedby all participants..
electronicdocuments,emergingfrom structuredworkflow3
knowledgebasedsystemsas expertadvisorsand automateddesigners'.
object modelling,where both catalogueitemsand one-offdesignsare modelledwith all
and dimensions:
their characteristics
The emergingl.T. basedindustrylinks client,team and site closely,enablesdesignsign-offs
and site assemblywithoutsurprises.lt naturallysupports
based on real clientunderstanding
collaborativeworking, concurrentdesign and predictable performance.
RGS/CHANGINGCONSTRUCTIONCULTURE
27/08/97
The designersittingat a drawing-boardsizedscreen,with web-styleaccessto everythingand
everyoneinvolved,is not far away. Even now, work styles are changingfrom the supportof
paper-basedapproachestowardssomethingnew.
Which bringsus to the Human Factors: Tavistockthinksthat these are crucial,limitingthe
workabilityof some concepts,encouragingothers. People'sskills and attitudesare being
by all these innovations.Customerfocus comes hard to architects;
challengedcontinuously
collaborativeworking seems unnaturalto contractors;project team leadershipis new to
o*\f
clients;design involvementis a challengeto specialistcontractors.Few people under 30 are
at homewith l.T. Mostdo not likethe hoursor stressthat the industryhas demanded.
throughtrainingis colossaland yet
The workloadof re-skillingand attitudereconstruction
trainingis the weakestaspectof the industryand its clients. lt can'tjust be done throughthe
i tnh;a s t o b e d o n e w i t h t h e c u r r e n t p r a c t i t i o n e r s o r t h e b
yw
e ill
educationofthenextgeneratio
retiredearly,perhapsvery early.
To returnto the Latham movement,the processis now in its third stage. After the Review
itselfcame the creationof the ConstructionIndustryBoard and its dozenworkinggroups. The
productsuppliersand the
contractors,
specialists,
CIB is a true forum for clients,consultants,
governmentas industrysponsor.The six are representedby''umbrellas",
organisations
which
and trade bodiesin the industry.The CIB Working
togetherspanthe hundredsof professional
how projec$
be
Groups laboureduntil early this year to produceagreed Oui{qngerorn
E!'rould
should
setupandrunandonhowtheindustry
"n"rn"
O)ffiq#_
The thirdstaseis ted by threeclB Panels,dealingu;n ,:{r,;r""#
"*t&";"}
tomorrow. The Good PracticePanel,which I chair,isjhere-toimflbmentthe new guidanceon
projectstrategy.The Produclivity
Panel h9s thfiob of introducing
the methodologychanges
Panellgntsnl is w.orking
on the methodsof the
whichwill cut real costs. Tbe Research
t
centurywhichwill be futurepractbei
twenty-first
Fvn) , ^,
Dffl
CI*l^ ,."{,J\
Governmentis backingup the push with a host of researchprojects,suggestedby DTI and
DETR. These are focusedby the ProductivityPanel and CRISP and are providingthe toolkit
on how constructioncan adopt the learningprocesswhich manufacturingadopted after the
a resolutelyun-intellectual
Japaneseimpact. lt will be instructiveto see how construction,
industry.
sector,copeswith becominga learning-based
So what are the resultantchangesto the professionallandscape? I see a business-driven
with the academicart-formof architecturetaking its place
end to the cultureof introspection,
RGS/CHANGINGCONSTRUCTIONCLILTURE
27t08/97
D
as a part,but not the core of the discipline.Customerfocuswill determinewhat professionals
offerand what is seento add value.
Therewill be greatchangesin what an engineer,architector quantitysurveyordoes with their
working hours. Processesare being reassessedand the old, uncoordinatedprofessional
plans of work are meltingaway. New maps are emerging,with clientand specialistson the
map.
A concept of the interdisciplinary
team is thus widening. Alliancesbetween groups of
professionals
are likelyto extendto all other membersof the supplychain,and to becomea
strategicweapon in competition.Many professionals
will be workingas or for clientsand
contractorsratherthan as consultants.
The cyber-professional
is emergingas a formidablecreature. He or she can work acrossthe
world or across the countryelectronically
and can have access to the experienceof their
whole firm and indeed of the industry. We have to get used however to the client
e a v e s d r o p p i nogn o u r s c r e e na n d a d d i n gc o m m e n t s .
The new professionalis forcedto take personaldevelopmentvery seriously. \Mthout the
i n t e r p e r s o n aslk i l l s ,b u s i n e s ss k i l l sa n d t e c h n o l o g ys k i l l s r e q u i r e d w
, e are unemployable.
These skillsdate fast and so blocksof time and incomehaveto be set asidefor training,both
gain has to be ploughedback. The
by employerand employee. A lot of the productivity
originalyearsat universityand the originaldefinitionof one'sdisciplinewill fade in significance
quitequicklyas the continuousdevelopment
ethostakeshold.
The lnterdisciplinary
Design Course no doubt originallywas conceived in a relatively
traditionalway. lts future lies on the broad deck acrosswhich lies the whole supply chain.
Our challengeis to learnto pulltogether(Latin:CON-TRACTOR)"
RichardSaxonis Chairmanof BuildingDesignPartnership,
Chairmanof the Good PracticePanelof the Construction
IndustryBoardand
Past Presidentof the BritishCouncilfor Offices.
RGS/CHANGINGCONSTRUCNONCULTURE
27t08/97
InterdisciplinaryDesign:
Achievements
&. Challenges
CHANGING PROFESSIONALROLES:
MULTIDISCIPLINARY WORK . A PROFESSIONAL
VOCATION
Michael Dickson, Buro Happold
InterdisciplinaryDesign: Achievementsand Challenges
The Design Professions in Transition
Ghanging Professional Roles
Multidisciplinary Work - A Professional Vocation
Background Note by Michael Dickson, Partner, Buro Happold Gonsulting Engineers
The traditionalview of advancesin Architecture,Engineeringand the Built Environmentis
encapsulatedin the quotationoriginallyfrom 'ln Search of Man' Andre Missenard(1957)and
quoted in 'Climate and the Energyof Nations' by S F Markham. "Evolutionof civilisationis
closely linked to the potentialities of heating which are dependent, not only upon the techniques
of the apparatus and on fuel resources".
Historically,developmenthas been characterisedby advancementin specific areas in a cyclical
way - in "structure" from masonryto frame buildings,from timber to steel to reinforced concrete
into composite construction. In planningthe environment,windows lead to the chimney,to
Victorian ventilationsystems,to gas lighting,to low energy lighting; coal fires to central heating
and air-conditioningand displacementventilationand chilled ceilings. Reallyit has been a
history of sequential improvementitem by item.
On a worldwide basis we now need to add the concept of sustainabledevelopment. As defined
by the BruntlandWorld Commissionin 1987 on Environmentand Developmentthis is:
"Development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the
future generations to meet their own needs". Truly sustainablearchitecture(small a) requires the
resolutionsimultaneouslyof many complex issues. All interestedpartiesin the entire design,
construction,operationand decommissioningprocess of the built environmenthave to be
concerned with the global environmentalconsequencesof their actions, and to have concern
for their actions throughoutthe projecVbuildinglife (and beyond). lt has to be a much more
interactive process where many disciplines interact with the specific rigorous knowledge
contained(not exclusively)within an individualdiscipline. For the disciplineof structuraV
civil/buildingengineering,the approachto sustainableconstructioncould be defined as:
"The creation and management of a healthy built environment based on resource efficient and
ecological paramefers". Specificallythese issues are:o
Appropriatelocationof development
a
Choice of built form
o
Choice of structural material
o
Minimisingthe effects of constructionand deconstruction
And these issueshaveto be understoodin termsof theireffectson the environment:
Amountof fossilfuel to purchase,process,transportand erect a building(Embodied
Energy)
water)
resources(finitematerials,damageto environment,
Use of nonrenewable
Pollution(COzglobalwarming)(SOzNOx acid rain)(CFC,CL2 etc ozonedepletion)
Once again architecture is moving towards easing the burden on the planet without loss of
pleasure,value or comfort. This is being done by the process of improvingeconomic
performanceas defined by Lower Life Cycle Gosting and stimulated by considerationsof less
EnvironmentalConsequenceas indicated by Life Cycle Assessment.
Often quantificationon cost parametersalone will lead to a radically different outcome in
respect of sustainabilitythan would occur if a qualitativeassessmenton Environmentalgrounds
from cradle to grave were also made. The QueensBuildingis an example of this divergence.
The Master and Fellows of Emmanuelrequired a building of exceptional quality and longevity for
the Queens Buildingin its heritagesetting next to ChristopherWren's C17 Chapel of Ketton
stone. The conventional answer could have been a reinforced concrete frame clad in thin
stone panels with a steel trussed roof fully airconditionedand using ceiling forms to adjust the
acoustic performance. Simplisticallythis involvesquarryingthe limestone,grindingit down, firing
it to create cement which is then added to aggregate and reinforcing bars to create a structural
frame etc. What the Queens building did was to create insulationand mass by using the CAD
possibilitiesnow offered in design for a constructionin individualsolid stones. Also it utilisesthis
thermal mass to reduce peak airconditioningloads, plant and duct sizes as well as improve
acoustic isolation. From a first cost point of view this might not have been the minimum option
because of intensity of labour required by the unusual process but because of longevity,the
possibilityfor reuse and lower energy running cost the building definitely offers a sustainable
design.
The procurementalso requiredan unusuallyinteractiveprocess between disciplines:
Satisfying a heritage environment
Client
Msion and implementation of a timeless design
Architects
Creation of a Performance Space
Acoustician
Organisation of the Procurement Process
Contract Managers
Perfection of the craft of masonry
Stone Masons
Advancement of the Technology of Stone Framing
Structural Engineers
Opportunities of Creating the lnternal Environment
EnvironmentalEngineers
Costings Specification of Work Packages etc
Cost Consultants
Construction of the Works
Builders,fitters etc
Fitting out and furnishing
Computers, Cabinet Makers, Plasterers
Operation of the Building
Fellows, Staff, Students etc
and many other disciplines.
This process is actuallyembodiedformally in that of ConcurrentEngineeringwithin the lndustrial
ConstructionProcess of Partnering.
To gain 'Bruntland'points, clients,designersand users need to go back to fundamentalsof
performanceand examine the standards that have been set by the various Codes of Practice to
which works are constructed and these need to be formulated on the basis of performance
requirementsrather than being purely prescriptive. Additionallythe following criteria among
others are relevant:
e
Qccupiers are really integratorsof a range of stimulations(aesthetic,thermal, acoustic,
light etc) and are more tolerantthan that anticipatedby rigidlydefined,legallyset criteria
of performance.
r
$tudying of solutions from the past together with the use of computing power and
modern technologyto evolve a new languageof the built environment.
e
Qosting needs to be in terms of a total process of activity, adaptability,maintenanceand
o
deconstruction.
pesigns shaped to reflect the availablematerials,what types of physical and
environmentalforces they will be subject to and the socioeconomicculture of the "local"
constructionindustry.
o
fi conscious evaluationof embodied energy within construction(and the non renewable
materialsrequired)in order to create a built environmentwhich during its life time is
effectiveand reduces global requirementfor non renewableenergy.
o
ffiinimisationof Waste by Use, Recovery,Reuse, Recyclingof Materials.
In summary 'Green' architectureis not just a style for altruistic developersto adopt. lt is a
movement gathering pace drawn by compellingeconomic and global reasons. The issues are
very complex and differentfor each building usage so that the languageof sustainable
Architecture,Engineeringand Constructionfor the Built Environmentneeds augmenting
immediately,otherwiseour activitiesas a specieswill be likelyto overloadthe planet.
BackgroundReference: RIBA Profile,April 1997 "The Future Sustainable
Architecture"by Michael Dickson
MD/BT
5 September1997
InterdisciplinaryDesign:
Achievements& Challenges
THREEDIFFERENTWAYSOFWORKINGANDTHE
BUILDINGSTHAT WEREPRODUCEDBYTHEM
SamPrice,Price& Myers ConsultingEngineers
Three different ways of working and the buildings that were produced by thern.
SamPrice MA FICE Hon FRIBA
Partnerin Price & Myers ConsultingEngineers
Before I talk about Models of InterdisciplinaryCollaborationI want to maketwo
generalpoints:
The first is that designis a meansto an end and the purposeof our efforts is to
producegood buildings. We are designingthingsto be made. This shouldperhapsgo without
saying,but I think that in the sometimesintrospectiveheart searchingsthat go on about design
the buildersare quite often forgotten. To producea good building,however"good" is
defined,whetherit meansbeautifulor functionalor economicalor appropriateor honest,or
preferablya happycombinationof all of thesevirtues,one hasto havean aim, an idea,which
must be pursuedsingle-mindedly,
evenwith passion,,
and that passionhasto be understood
and sharedb,vevervoneinvolved and ultimatelyby the builders,who after all, are the ones
who createthe building. "Passion"-ay be an overstatement,
and perhapsI am exaggerating
in order to makethe point, but I think it is often easyto seewhich of the buildingsaroundus
are the result of what I have calledpassionand which are the result of pragmatism.
I saidthat for the buildingto be good the passionhasto be sharedby the builders,by
the craftsmen*S_gp.actually making it - laying the bricks, pouring the concrete,putting in
c,nnlr,sc)V'
the services- and I think it must be acceptedthat in recentyearsit hasbecomegraduallymore
and more difficult for the designersto communicatedirectly with the craftsmen." Builders"
arebecominga thing of the pastand most buildingwork nowadaysis organisedby
"Contractors",who do little or noneof the work themselvesand let it all out as a seriesof
subcontracts.The contractorsare trained in managementand talk about "procurement"and
describethe buildingas the "product". None of this hasmuch to do with passion.I doubt if
passionis on the curriculumof manymanagement
courses!
So the designersare separatedby contract administrationand managementfrom the
peoplewho will build the buildingand it is becomingprogressivelyharderto get the message
across, and this meansthat the messagehasto be clearerand more complete. What I mean
by this is that the designersmust havea strongerand clearerview of how the buildingwill be
built. They can no longer dependon discussingthingswith the builderand if necessary
modifyingthe designas the work proceeds.
Now all this doeshavesomerelevanceto the issueof interdisciplinary
collaboration.
The designmust be convincingand completewhicheverway you look at it - particularlyfrom
the builder'spoint of view The differentdesignersin the team bring differentstrengthsand
weaknesses
to their work and it is at leastpossiblethat the engineersare the oneswho are
most inclinedto be interestedin the actualprocessof building. Engineeringis, after all, all
about making things- it is the practicalsideof science.Architectstend to be ratherfurther off
the ground-whichis of coursea very good thing - somebodyhasto be! It is the engineers
who may have somethingto contributeto the realisationof the gleamin the architect'seye becausethat is wherethe gleamcertainlyhasto start!. So this is one of the greatvaluesof
true interdisciplinarycollaboration- that by working togetherwe havea much better chanceof
achievingthe completeness
of designwhich is necessary
if the passionis to get through to the
men who actuallymakethe building.
My secondpoint concernsthe natureof the interdisciplinary
designteam Nf OiOfor a
time think that this complicatedconglomerationof consultantswas a very poor substitutefor a
singleall-knowingdesignerwho understoodall the criteriafor building. I thought that if we
were all much better and more broadly educatedwe could each carryout the designwithout
the needfor help and advicefrom others. Educationwas clearlythe key. Therewas in fact a
conferencetwo yearsago on DesignEducationfor Engineersat which the chairman,Lord St.
John of Fawsley,expressedthis sameview when he saidin his introduction,"Specialisation
is
the enemy. We shouldbe seekingto rid ourselvesof it. What we want is the Renaissance
engineer..
.." I think that this may very well be the answerto the designof bridges,but I am
now certainthat I do not believethat it is the answerfor the designof buildings. If we are to
dealwith the increasinglydemandingenvironmentaland energy-usequestionsand if we are to
exploit fully the potentialof the manymaterialsthat are now availableto us we must have
who first and foremostare expertsin their own field. No amountof enthusiasmfor
specialists
the generalissueswill makeup for lack of abilityin the specialism.Of coursenothingwill be
achievedby a bunchof expertswho haveno commongroundand no commonlanguage,
which is why the whole idea of interdisciplinary
collaborationis vital to the success.The other
vital ingredientis enthusiasmbecausewithout it we cannotachievedanythingworthwhile, as I
saidat the beginning
Now to the subjectof this session- Models of InterdisciplinaryCollaboration.In
thinking about what I wantedto sayI decidedthat "Models" in this title could eitherdescribe
the methodof working - the set-upin the designoffice or offices- or it could describethe
buildingproduced,as a "Model" of Interdisciplinaryworking. So I havedecidedto describe
and show you three examples:-threedifferentmethodsof working andthreebuildingswhich
were producedby thesemethodsand are all in their ways "models"of interdisciplinarydesign.
I will try to outlinebriefly the successes
andfailures,as I seethem,in the buiidingsand in the
in order to keepto my allottedtime, to leavesomeof this to
teams,but it may be necessary,
the discussionthat will follow JamesBurland'stalk.
My first examplecomesfrom the late 1960s,when I was working in Ove Arup and
Partners Arups had worked for someyearswith architectsSir Basil Spence,Bonningtonand
Collins. Jack Bonnington was keento try interdisciplinaryworking, and had set up his own
in-houseinterior designand servicesteams. He persuadedReynoldsand Young to put a team
of quantity surveyorsin his office and I led a team of structuralengineersfrom Arups. The
organisationof the office spacewas interesting.The architects,interior designers,servicesand
structuralengineerssat in one office spacedividedinto baysby nearlyfull-height partitions,
with eachdisciplineoccupyinga bay. The partitionsdid not separatethe spacesacoustically,
so that we could talk to eachother acrossthe partitions,but there was a definiteimplication of
separatedepartments.The quantity surveyorswere, perhaps,characteristically,more
conservativeand put themselvesin a separateoffice with a front door and a knocker!
The main building that we were working on was the SunderlandCivic Centre,and the
methodof working seemedto me to be very successful.The architects,interior designersand
the structural engineers,particularly,got to know and understandeachother very well, had
lunch together frequently,went to Heals and arguedabout furniture designand light fittings
andgenerallysparkedideasoffeach other. During the developmentof the design,which I will
describein a moment,everythingwent very well, and the job was generallyvery successful.It
was only when the pressurecameon from outside- the contractorpressingfor information,
for example,that the two firms tended,inevitably,to separateandtake up defensivepositions.
The main part of the buildingwas conceivedas afigure-of-eight,forming two irregular
hexagonalcourtyardsbasedon a geometryof 60 degrees.The strip of officessurroundingthe
courtyardswould be eitherabout 12 metreswide wheretherewould be a centralcorridor with
officeseithersideor about i 8 metreswide wherestoragerooms or stairsor lavatories
occurredin the middlebetweentwo corridors.This was the ideaand the questionwas how to
structureit and deal with the interestingand unusualgeometry.
I proposedthat the whole building shouldbe basedon a regulartriangulargrid of 6.0
metre side equilateraltriangles,covering the whole site. The architectspreliminaryplan for
the whole building was so-to-speakpicked up and shakenand with very little difficulty we
then had a building plan basedon the new underlyinggeometrywhich set the rules for the
developmentof the whole design The materialfor the frame was clearly reinforcedconcrete;
therewere load-bearingmullionsat the edgewhich were precast,becausethey were only
125mmthick; all the rest of the concretewas castin-situ; the floor slabswere 2Z5mmthick
flat slabs. In due courseas the detaildesignprogressedwe found that it was easiestand mosr
economicalto reinforce all the slabswith 3-way reinforcement,so in everyway the geometry
of the designwas followed
I can't really pretendthat this very effectiveand satisfactorycoincidenceof planning
and structurecould only havebeenachievedby the methodof interdisciplinary
collaboration
that we adopted. Probablythat fundamentalbreakthroughwould have occurredwith the
structuralengineersworking in their own office. However the subsequent
detaildesignof all
the elements- walls, stairs,claddingpanels,services- was certainlymadeeasierby the
proximity of the architectsand engineers.
At the end of the job I felt that it hadbeena most rewardingexperience,
but that what
had happenedon Sunderland- i e. that the architectsproduceda schemeand the engineers
found a systemfor achievingit - was probablyas far asthe collaborationwould go. One
might wonder what more could be expected,after all the architectsdid adopt completelythe
engineer'sproposaland this is at leastas good as most collaborationsget! However my
appetitehad beenwhetted and I wantedto seeif collaborationcould existat a more
fundamentallevel of design. So I askedto moveto Arup Associates,which was, and is, a
truly multi-disciplinarypracticewith all the necessary
expertsin one firm.
Arup Associateswas at that time organisedinto sevengroups,eachcontainingabout
fifteen to twenty people A typical set up would be four or five architects,two structural
engineers,two mechanicalengineers,one electricalengineer,one plumbing engineer,three
quantity surveyors,maybeone building surveyor,an administratorand a secretary. The
groupssat in open plan officesand usuallynot in professionalgroups. Note that therewere
no draughtsmen,which was unusualfor an engineer's
office at that time. This was becauseit
was felt that the group shouldbe as small as possibleto keep internal communicationscrisp
and to help the whole group to focus on a common aim. There were frequent discussions
within the groups about every aspectof the design. Everyone'sopinion on any subjectwas
valid - if the plumbersaidthat he didn't like the way the architectwas designingthe windows
then the architecthad to be preparedto discussit and explainwhy he wanted them like that.
If you went into anothergroup and talked to the mechanicalengineerhe would be quite likely
to start to explainthe structuralprinciplesof the building he was working on.
In many ways this systemwas fantastic. Firstly, of course,for the client, who only had
one firm to dealwith and was never faced with buck-passingbetweendifferent offices.
Secondlyfor overallcommitmentto thingslike prograrnmeand budget. Thirdly becauseit
allowedpeopleto do what they wanted - for examplethe contractadministrationwas all
carried out by the quantity surveyors,so that the architectswere free to concentrateon design.
During the nine or so yearsthat I worked in Arup Associateswe designedand built a
numberof interestingbuildings. I think that nearly all of them demonstratea fundamental
interestin construction,and do celebratethe materialsthey are made of, and did try to give the
craftsmenthe scopeto show what they could do. In otherwords I think that you can seethe
ideaand the passioncomingthrough. Perhapsthe most interestingis the Lloyds Building at
Chathamwhich is a good exampleof the influenceof group working at every level of the
design
Lloyds wantedan office of about 20,000sq metresand a big undergroundcomputer
room on the old Gun Wharf at Chatham. The site is on the banksof the Medway and is on
three levels,separatedby quite high retainingwalls, the lowest level being the quay besidethe
river The principalarchitectof the group proposeda very simplecube of building standing
on the middle level, rather like the way that Aalto's Enzo Gutzeit building overlooks the
harbourat Helsinki.and fullv air-conditioned.Now this was in the mid 1970sat the time of
the oil crisis,and we were all becomingvery consciousofthe amountof energyusedby
buildings. Therewas a generaldiscussionin the group aboutfundamentals.The site was
large and the air was cleanand there were no obviousreasonswhy a narrow" naturallyventilatedbuildingcould not be got on the site. The group generallyfelt that the architect
shouldreconsiderhis startingpoint. I think this view was expressedmost forcibly by the
who alwaystendedto be the stroppiest.The architectnot surprisingly
structuralen-qineers
took umbrage!( This is certainlyan exampleof one of the problemsof group working - it can
be very painful.) He invitedthe structuralengineersto do their own schemeif that was how
they felt!
So one of the engineersproduceda sketchfor a building,narrow enoughto be
naturallyventilated,with two open courtyards. It was a pretty scrufri effort and certainly
lackedany architecturalquality,but it did makethe point that the ideawas feasible.The
architect,to do him justice,did pick up the sketchandturnedit into a presentable
proposition,
leave- which showsjust how painfulgroup working can be!
althoughhe did subsequently
just how far Arup Associatesmanagedto get in developing
This little episodedemonstrates
the democracyof the group.
The designof the buildingdeveloped- following very closelyPhilip Dowson'sprinciple
of "ConstructionalHonesty". We wanteda squaregrid with vaultedceilingsto give a slow
rhythm and a senseof placein big open-planoffices;no falseceilings;very flexibleservices
distribution;(somemechanicalventilationwas inevitable);and a precastreinforcedconcrete
framefor qualityand speedof erection. As precastconcretehasa long lead-intime we made
the bottom storeyof the building,which containedplantrooms,out of in-situ concreteso that
it could go up while the precastunits were beingmade. As the sitewas largewe precasted
complete7.2m square pyramidson site,while the rest of the frame,includingthe beautifully
finishedcolumns,was castin a factory.
I think that the story of the designand constructionof this building really does
demonstratewhat can be achievedby interdisciplinarycollaboration;and the commitmentof
the group and the belief in what we were doing was impressive.So why, after nine yearsor so
in Arup Associatesdid I want to leaveand set up my own practiceas a structuralengineer?
There area numberof answersand there isn't time now to discussthem all - perhaps
this could be a part of the discussionafter James. I will just say now that I felt that I wanted
to get away for a bit from big organisations,I wanted a changeof scale,and a greatervariety
in the sort of work. I also wanted to try to seewhat it was like to really earnmy own living.
So in 1978Robert Myers and I returnedto the world of pure structuralengineering
and set up Price & Myers. We certainlyachievedthe aimsthat I havejust listed. The scale
changed,the variety increasedenormouslyand we definitelyfound out about earningour own
living - there is somethingvery satisfyingabout sticking your own stampson! But what about
interdisciplinarycollaboration?Well we found, of course,that this variedenorrnously,like the
work, from job to job and designteamto designteam. In the normalconventionalset-upof
separatedesignersfrom different firms coming togetherto designa building the framework for
communicationis almost always set by the architect. The architectis invariablythe first one of
the designersto be appointed,or at anyrate approached,by the client,and the architect
usuallydecideshow soonto involvethe others.Somearchitectslike to get a designsortedand
agreedwith the client beforetalking to anyoneelse;someare happyto bring everyone
together before anythingis decided. We, of course,very much prefer the latter arrangement.
The relationshipsbetweenthe designersdo take time to build up. On the first job
together everyoneis a bit wary of the others,and it is only through developingunderstanding
and finding out how far one can go that a really rewardingrelationshipcan be developed. This
appliesas much, of course,to the multi-disciplinarygroup in Arup Associatesas to the more
usual world of separatedpractices. In fact smallpracticesrealisethat they are vulnerablein a
big, competitiveworld and do feel the needto makegood closefriendshipswith others,so
that in someways the incentivefor collaborationis quite as strongas in the expected,takenfor granted,set up of the multi-disciplinarygroup. Anyway, in Price & Myers we now have
manycontinuingcollaborativerelationshipswith friendsin all the other disciplines- including
the builders!
The buildingthat I havechosenas an exampleof collaborationbetweenmy firm and
othersis the Cricket Schoolat Lords. The architectwas David Morlev" who we had not
worked with before,the Servicesengineerswere Max FordhamandPartners,who we knew
well and had worked with frequently,and the quantitysurveyorswere Davis Langdonand
Everestwho we also knew well
The crucialquestionfor this buildingwas the lighting The MCC wanteda high and
steadydegreeof illuminationand this stronglyimpliedartificiallightingwithin a buildingwith
a solid roof, so that the lighting levelwould be totally independentof the externalweather
conditions.Rrght from the startDavid wantedto usenaturallightingif at all possibleas
artificiallighting would be very extravagantin energy. Max saidhe was convincedthat with
the correct orientationof rooflightsand suitablereflectivescreeningthe very high and steady
degreeof illuminationwould be achievedby naturaldaylightfor a largepart of the year. The
designof the roof - its shape,its covering,the rooflightsandthe structure- thereforebecame
a matterof crucialimportanceand the essenceof the interdisciplinary
collaboration,which
exploreda numberof differentideasin somedetailbeforesettlingon the schemethat was
built. The designthat emergedhasa clarity and a beautythat comeout of fulfilling the purely
functional requirementsof the lighting. Of particularstructuralinterestis the support of this
big roof by spanningthe length,endto end,ratherthan the more obviouswidth, so that the
roof trussesrun with the rooflightsand form the geometryof the profile of the roof covering.
This rhyhm is also relatedto the width of "nets"which are suspended
offthe bottom booms
of the trusses
To summarise,I havetried to show how three different organisationsof peopletackled
the issuesof interdisciplinarycollaborationand how threebuildingswere producedby their
efforts. I am sure that, in the end, there is no one perfectway of going about this. We are all
individualsand we all haveour own ways of working and communicatingwith others. What
is necessary,regardlessof the organisation,is the desireto communicateand the passionto
build somethingthat is good. The analyical part of the designprocessmay comefrom the
head,but the collaborationandthe passioncomesfrom the heart.
SamPrice
August 1997
10
InterdisciplinaryDesign:
Achievements& Challenges
MODELS OF INTERDISCIPLINARY COLLABORATION
JamesBurland,Arup Associates
JAMES BURLAND
M O D E L SO F I N T E R - D I S C I P L I N ACROYL L A B O R A T I O N : -
1 2 S E P T E M B E1R9 9 7
"Arup Associates"
T h e o r e t i c a lM o d e l
Our resourcesconsistof approximately
40oh architects,
lu,lP
,rr( /n/k
10o/ostructuralengineers,20o/oMEP*,2o/oprojectce
ordination,2o/oquantitysurveyors,
2o/ofinancial
management,
2olocombinednew business
research
and
graphicdesign,1oo/onon- technical(secretaries
and
drawingofficeclerks).
We havea theoreticalmodel for the practicewhich is
basedon an empiricalapproachto design,treatingeach
new projectas a uniqueexperimentwith a new brief,site
or client. Designand resources
are adjustedthrougha
programmeof reviews.The officeis organisedthrough
four internalmeetings. A weeklynew businessreviewand
resources
discussion
and a monthlypolicymeeting. This
polariseslong term and shortterm decision-making
related
to about 30 currentjobs and new opportunities,
all at
differentstagesof development.The whole practice
meetsonce a week to sharenews,poliry decisionsand to
overview projects.
* Mechanical,
Electrical
and PublicHealthEngineering
September1, 1997
77/rrrv/1h "rffu/
A R U P A S S OC IA TES
Modelsof Inter-Disciplinary
Collaboration
The long term aim is to maintaina livelyenergetic,multiprofessional
resourcefrom which teamscan be formed
aroundspecifictasksin urbandesign,buildings,interiors
and product design. Teamsvary in emphasisto match the
degreeof structural,architecturaland MEPcontent. But
thesethree disciplines
must be the minimumincludedfor
us to acceptan appointment.We stillmaintainQuantity
Surveying,althoughthis is often rejectedby clients
preferringindependentcost advice. Thiscore team
absorbsother specialist
consultants
whetherinsideor
outsideArupsor in the client'semployment.Thereare
three other essentialpartsof the model: long term
financialdirection,projectco-ordinationand new business
research.All three are linkedwith everystageof a project
to varyingdegrees.
fr'-r
//,&0btuft&\M
,rffi
September1, 1997
/
,'
,r/
441
/hrfoL
/fhl'lrtlft
4M"^r,t4
A R U P A S S OC IA TES
Modelsof lnter-Disciplinary
Collaboration
Finances
are monitoredon all projectsrelativeto each
otherand individually.
Thefinancialdirectorhasa rolein
determiningvalidityof acceptingor chasinga commission
againstavailable
resources
and the long term financial
stabilityof the practice.The projectco-ordinatorreviews
rTv>4.aftunw
t{nh'in
progressagainstforecastedprojectplans. We haveour
own versionof the RIBAplan of work designedto suit our
Urtt / a4/
inter-disciplinary
methods.The business
research
team
providesimportantfeedbackfrom clients.Theyfind out
JurnJfo"r/-J
/
A{drl
fuFfu
why we havewon or lost competitions,competitive
interviewsor bids and ascertainas best they can how the
n/"n4d4^A
'atl'*il
outsideworld perceivesus. Partof their researchinvolves
/'0t4L
gatheringand summarising
designbriefs.Thisprovides
an
objectivestartingpoint for all professions
ratherthan
V'//
/4/tu{r{L
(rry?
projectingan architecturally
biasedview of the client's
In practicethis theoretical'model' is adaptedto the
bhll
tubq
uniquenatureof eachproject. DurhamNew College,
&".h/a,-*"rtrn
StockleyParkEastand GlasgowArenaare examplesthat
illustratea rangeof applications.
4s/w.h*z
qLl,aru
dft;,-'
September1, 1997
E
;tu).\ha"fl'
requirements
onto other disciplines
in the designteam.
Application
,6fri-nJ
b-r
C/4E?raZul'
InterdisciplinaryDesign:
Achievements&. Challenges
THAT ROOE ETC
SophieLe Bourva,OveArup and Partners
IDBE "ACHIEVEMENTS AND CHALLENGES" 12 SEPTEMBER1997
SYNOPSISOF CONFERENCEPAPER
*THAT ROOF ETC'
by Sophie Le Bourva, OveArup and Partners
My participation at the IDBE conferenceresults from a decisiontaken about I I years ago,when I wasjust
finishing my first degreeat the Ecole Polyechnique. This is when I decidedto orientatemy field of studies
from mainly mathematicsand sciencesto building and civil engineering,but as this felt like too much of a
specializationtherl I also decidedto shrdyarchitectureat the szrmetime. My meeting with Peter Rice to whom
I am hugely indebte4 m;vwork in Arup, who was one of the early champions of interdisciplinary desigrr,and
participatingto the IDBE mastercourse were all direct consequencesof this original split personality. Those
subsequentyears and experienceshave been spenttr5nngmore or less consciouslyto use and mergeboth
trainings and keep developing a understandingof the "big picture", being always uneasyabout too much
specialisation.
This presentationwill thereforestart by consideringa few projects in which I was involved at early stages,
urcludingLille fain statior-rexclusivelyin relation with the topic of interdisciplinary designto try to identify
whatwe meanby interdrsciplinarydesignanddiscusssomeof my fundamentalinterrogationsabout it. These
questionsresult largely from the thinking encouragedand fuelled during the IDBE course, and hopefully aim
to generatesomefurther thinking during the discussion.
Campanile, Poris
Theprqect of this 20 mhigh sculpture,at the top of a 30 m high office developmentwas largely carriedout
independentlyof the rest of the buildrng designedby Kenzo Tange.The designteam for the sculpturewas
quite small, including the ambitious and enthusiasticclient representative,the sculptor Thierry Vide, Amp
as structural engrneers,a french practice for the motorisation of the sculpture and the contractor for the
suspendedparts. The relative lack of experienceof the sculptor, who had neverbuilt anythingmuch above
a few metreshigh, had never been part of a building design team and for whom this project was a major
adventure,w6 not without catsing difficulties, and addeda team working challengeto an already technically
challenging exercise. But it did not really request from us to reconsidermethods of working, beyond
accommodating the delays causedby the visual checking by the scupltor which had to be carried out
exclusively by physical models and proto$ping in situ, as drawings did not speakto him. Luckily, we all
agreedon the overall objective ("to help him to build his dreamedsculpture).One of the key to this design
was the integrationof the structurewith the metal meshskirn producing the desiredvisual effects, to the point
of visual disappearanceof the structureif possible. Can we call it interdisciplinary design,evenwhen the
original ideawas designedindividually by the sculptor?
Lava Lamp, NCE Competition
Quitesimilar in scopethan the previous project, the NCE Competition for a 100 feet tower to be locatedin
Birminghamwas the opportunity to carry out a design exercise (we unfortunately did not win) with again a
fairly traditional team, AEM the architectpractice,Arup for stnrcture,cladding and services,Hanscomb
quanntysurveyorand MJ Gleesonas contractorwith specialisthelp from the Glazing contractorT&W Ide
Ltd. The design,a 100 feet lava lamp, was luckily testedfurther by a selectionfor the secondround of the
competition. This secondphaserequired feasibility to be confirmed both for the glazngto be able to take
the hugehydrodynamicpressureand for the fluids to be able to form the blobs rising up the tower. In some
ways, it is difficult to find a better example of successfuland enjoyableteamwork and of interdisciplinary
collaboration in the spirit of Ove Arup's ideas. On the other end, there was little overlap or integrationof
disciplines,specially at the early conceptualstage.So again can we call it interdisciplinarydesign?
TGV Station Roof, Lille ("That Roof')
The TGV station project can be examinedat two levels, as a project in his own rights or as a part in the
overallmasterplan of Euralille.Both levelsare rich of lessonson teamwork and interdisciplinary desigrr"but
I would think that the masterplan level is more interestingas it was dealingwith a rather unusual scaleand
that the organisationhas beenthought through specifically for this project and to deal with this scale.This
is probably all the more relevantthat the trend is for building projectsto get bigger and that firndamental
changesneedto occur to deal with suchprojects.
At the scale of the overall station, the project team organisation was largely following the traditional
organisationfor building prqects in France(seein annexethe descriptionof the typical french organisation).
At close examination, this organisationdemonstratessignificant differenceswith the [JK, but at a detailed
levelwhich I am not interestedin here.Thedesignteamconsistedmainly of the in-housearchitectsof SNCF,
a french Bureaud'Etudes for secondarystructuresand services,Arup for the roof and facadesstructures and
cladding and the civil engineersof the SNCF for the concretestructuresand substructures.
At the scaleof the roof, Arup hadbeengiven the role of "Maiffe d'Oeuwe", that is the prime agentrole. We
therefore put together an interdisciplinaryteam including engineersof different specialities,architectsand
a quantitysurveyor.This team,in accordancewith the generalobjectivesagreedin languagewith the SNCF
architect, elaboratedthe design that was subsequentlybuilt. This is certainly a case of interdisciplinary
design, if not evenof crossdisciplinary design,ie a discipline carrying the work of severalothers.
The Euralilleproject deservesmore than a paragraphin this presentationand should really be studied as an
experimentcarriedout at full scale.The matching of teams'organisationand contractualentanglementwith
the master plan design is an admirableconstnrctionof this project. The designand the procurementof the
design were inseparable.This is for me to the credit of the starting team that they reaLtzeAthatthe scaleof
this prqect requred a jurnp of scalern the methodsand actedon this from the very early days,even if some
of the organisational structureswere inspired from previous caseslike La Defense(SocieteD'Economie
Mixte SEIO The organisationof the competitiontestify of this: it was basedon an interview of the architects
rather than a designand aimedat choosingan approachabout cities rather than a project, which was deemed
impossible to study in a few months. This demonstratesa strategicunderstandingrather than dealing with
architectureas a commodity. This allowed to match the masterplan arrangementwith the arrangementof
organisational and financial mechanics.But we were far from the Latham's objectives, here, smooth
collaboration was not the aim, neither were straight and honest dealings, it was only about getting it to
happen.The conceptboth from the masterplan and attachedorganisationwas nicknamedthe dynamicfrom
hell by the director of Euralille SEM or inspired cynicismby the architect(chaostheory applied to urban
planning and teamwork). The idea was that the different elementsconstituting the masterplan would be
purposefully intricate, so that it would be difficult for one to operatewithout the others, but that they would
be independentprojects. This was matchedby the financial arrangementof the SEM wherethe investnent
came from all the actors on the site in a mix of public and private money, but with a set of independent
architect/clientcoupleschosenby Er:ralille for eachpart.This made it virtually impossible for the key players
to pull out of the arangement.The collaboration betweenRem Koolhaas and Euralille was also undoubtedly
interdisciplinarydesignin action.
So what is interdisciplinary design,if it is not only interdisciplinary collaboration?Can we avoid it?
If the problem of the numberof specialistsis ever increasing(only visit the Pompidou Centre Exhibition "the
Art of the Engineer"'s s@tionon the present/future), it is not new. Renaissance,which is sometimesreferred
to as the lost paradisewhere one professionalhad all the knowledge,is rather the origrn of the first split
between craftsmen corporations and designers.In France, it is probably Phillibert de I'Orme who first
expressedthe notion of "precogitation", ie a purely intellectual anticipation of the future constmction. It is
now virtually impossible to be totally multidisciplinary in oneself,and it might not be desirable.Having
differencesis inevitable and possibly enriching and it seemsthat interdisciplinary design might therefore be
unavoidable. Or should we make a distinction and call it interdisciplinary as opposedto multidisciplinary
only, when the collaboration is successful,or when the disciplinesmerge,or when the collaboration starts
beforethe project designstartsor when it hasgooddesignasits central objective. This quote from Ove Arup
at the Wesftrinster Chamberof Commercein 1965 seemsto sayjust that:
"Successful teamwork requiresthat eachmemberof the team understandswhat the others are doing and
respectsthem, and that they are united in a common purpose: to produce good architecture."
The Euralille project illustrates anotherquestion:it is a casewherethe design and processwere intimately
linked and invented for eachother. Can we say that in more standardcasesthe processand the design are
equally intimately linked? Probably not. Our advocating of interdisciplinary design is based on the
assumption that the processof design has a significant impact on its outcome/result. The hope is that it
would result in better, less costly, more efficient environments.Is there evidenceof this? Interdisciplinary
design or smooth collaboration is probably neither necessary,nor sufficient for good design, even if it
unavoidableanddesirable.Frictionswithin limits is beneficial as it allows to exposemisunderstandings,deal
with them and progressfurther.
For me, in interdisciplinar"v
design,the design,the outcomeis what mattersmost. Interdisciplinarydesignis
not an end in itself, we must neverforget the outcomeof all our work, which is to provide a good environment
to our lives. So we needto agreeon what good environmentis, what good architectureis. The complexity of
expressingwhat good architectureor environment is seemsto have defeatedmost theoricists of architecture
andtoday it doesn'tseemimportantin the architecturalconcerns. But I believe we should be able to express
it, if we want to be able to arguefor it and aim for it. So beyond interdisciplinary collaboration,we need
@rnmonandclearly expressedaims,which must take into accountthe complexity of the environment. These
objectives are the most direct way to influencethe design,beforethe organisationalstmcture.
While prepanngtlus ta[q I wastold by an engineerthat the subjectivity of architecturalobjectiveswas what
madecollaborationso difficult. There is little doubt that architectureor rather constructittgatt environment
is a very complexissue,and appraisinga designis not as easyas in the caseof a boat of the America's Cup
wherethe good designis appraisedon onecriteria: speed.Using onecriteria to drive a building design is quite
inst'fficient to arrive at a balancedresult. Thereforemeaswing the successof the result by only one criteria
can't be sufficient. It can't only be cost or enerry efficiency and one should speakof qualities for building,
maybenot just qualiff.
If thereis oneissuewhich is undeniablyaffectedby the processand specialisation,it is the integration of the
different parts, though less actorsdoesn't alwaysguarantybetter integration (BAA car park).
I think that this rrught be oneof the possible keys to good design: integration of technolory and architectural
concepts is indispensableto achievethe best results. We often use the expressionthat buildings should
amountto more than the sum of their parts, I would suggestthat they rather should be lessthan the sum of
their parts or that. in the sameway as, in interdisciplinary discussion,not all the players have to talk to
influence the design,not all the disciplines haveto show a specific part of the building as theirs. Buildings
arenot only the kit of partsdesignedby different specialistsassembledby the architect,that seemto happen
in increasingnumbers in the recent built environment.lntegration is often assumedto be the task of the
architect, but it should be everybody's aim. So amongst the concerns I would like to see shared by
interdisciplinary teams, I would include these:a concern for the whole rather than eachpart is essential,
researchof the holistic solution ( caring aboutthe tangible and the intangible). We must avoid the hamburger
strategy'.a work built up in layersthat interact as little as possible.
ANNEXE
FACTS ABOT]T THE FRENCH CONTRACTUAL SYSTEM AND PROJECT ORGANISATION
Becauseof the importance of central governmentregulations and of the public sector in France, the
French building industy is significantly different from its UK counterpart and it would be too ambitious
to compareboth in all aspectshere"
It is important in Franceto distinguish betweenthe public and private sectorswith respectto building
procurement.The public sectorclient operateswithin a complicatedframework of codeslike the "Code
desMarches Publics"(Codefor Public Contracts,I993),laws and decreeswhich provide detailed
prescriptions regarding building procurement, including design procurement. The only exceptions are the
"parapublic" companies,like the SNCF (FrenchRailways) which operatewith their own similar set of
regulations.The importanceof the public sector in the Frenchconstnrctionindustry is more significant
than in the UK andjustifies a close examinationof this new text which regulatesthe relations between
public clients and private designteams.The percentageof the public sertor is around 30% of the total
cost of projects for the architectsand aboutzso of the turnover of the building confiactors, ulmountingto
a total of about 116 MF (1993 figures).The private sectoris by comparisonrelatively free of regulations.
The main constraint applied to the private sectoris an obligation to employ an architect for the "permis
de constnrire" (building permit) since 1977, but there is a lot more freedomspecially in relation to the
choiceof contractors( no obligation of competitivetenderingfor example).But, although practice and
proceduresare more varied in the private sector,there are substantialsimilarities, sincethe private sector
tendsto adopt a lot of the proceduresand terminolory of the public regulations.
Typical organisation of teams(doesn'texcludeothers)
In the public sector,the appointmentof the designteam has to be carried out rmder one contract and in
the caseof building projects, for the whole length of the project.
Before tender,the designteam (Maitrise d'Oeuwe) consistsof the architectgenerallyas "mandataire"
(prime agent) and the various "bureaux d'6tudes"(consulting englneers).The "bureau de contr6le"(
checkingauthority), the "economiste"(quantitysurveyor),the "pilote" and representativesof the client
completethe project team. The "pilote" is responsiblefor the prograrn,he chasesprogress,primarily of
the contractors,and generallyis responsiblefor making sure that the site nurs smoothly. During the initial
designprocess,the client has to appoint a checkingauthority whoserole is to checkthe design of the
building for safety, and for proper applicationof the French regulations('Normes"). The design
producedby the Maitre d'Oeuwe is checkedafter APD. The contractor'sdesignis checkedduring the
"Confr6le GeneraldesTravaux" phase(CGT, site supervision).
At the end of tenderphase,the client generallyappointsthe confractorsfor eachseparatepackage("lot")
of work (procurementin "lots separes"). The coordinationof the different contractorsis carried out by
the "Maitrise d'Oeuvre". ln France,in most cases,the contractoris responsiblefor the final desigrr,it is
he who carries out the executionstudies(calculation,constmction drawings, fabrication drawings). In
effect he has to review thoroughly the designwhich was producedby the designteam during APD and
completedetaileddesign and constructiondrawings,togetherwith a set of constnrctioncalculations,that
are submitted to the checking authority and the "Maitrise d'Oeuwe". It is the DCE which the "Maitrise
d'Oeuwe" prepareswhich containsthe specificationsand the description of the above studies.During the
CGT period, the "Maitrise d'Oeuvre"'s role is to check that the studies aremade accordingto the original
designintentions and specifications. The "Maitrise d'Oeuvre" also checksthe executionof the work in
the workshop and on site until completionand hasto give instructions to the contractors.
Comparison
of thework stagesbeforeI afterthe Loi MOP with thenearestBritish equivalent
Loi MOP 1985I 1993
Decretde I'Ing6niene 1973
British "equivalent" phases
Esquisse
Etude de definition
Conceptdesign
APS Avant Projet Sommaire
APS Avant Projet Sommaire
Schemedesign
APD Avant Projet Definitif
APD Avant Projet D6taille
Design development
Projet
DCE Dossier de Consultation
Enfreprises
Tender documents
Assistancepour la passationdes
contratsde travaux
AMT AssistanceMarche
Travaux
Tender
Etudesd'execution/ Visa
CGT Contr6leGeneraldes
Travaux
Final design documents
Direction descontratsde
travaux
CGT Contr6le Generaldes
Travaux
ConstnrctionPhase
Assistancepour les operations
de receptionet de parfait
achdvement
RDT Reception
Snagginglist and handover
InterdisciplinaryDesign:
Achievements
&. Challenges
''THE LAD'SDONEWELL'' . DESIGNTEAMSANT)
HOWTHEYWORK
GraemeJennings,Pro ARTS
G R A E M EJ E N NI N G S
IDBE'ACHIEVEMENTS
ANDCHALLENGES'
12 SEPTEMBER
1997
PAPER
SYNOPSIS
OF CONFERENCE
"The Lads DoneWell"
DesiqnTeamsand How Thev Work
Likefootball,buildingdesignrelieson teamwork.Unlikefootballlittle
is documentedon the performance
of builtenvironmentdesiqn
teams and less still on the techniquesand effectivenessof
interdisciplinarity.
Fortunatelythe shelves of the Cambridge
Universitylibrarygroan with the writingsof behaviouraland
management
scientistson teamworkin otherdesignsectors. In
this post-Taylort worldthe viewsof Handy,Dumasand Mintzberg
et al can beof useto the designersof the builtenvironment.
So I wouldlike to presentsomethoughtsaboutinterdisciplinary
designbasedon the thesisstudiesI carriedout duringthe IDBE
coursehere,my previouswork in Milanat DEGWltalia and the
presentsomewhathybridworkwe carryout at PToARTS.
lnterdisciplinary working results in a better product!
Despitethe lackof evidenceto suppoftthisstatementthe factis that
interdisciplinary
workingis hereto stay.CharlesHandycontends
thatteamsproducelessideasbutthe onesthat are producedprove
moreviable.The increasing
complexity
of projectsdemandsa team
approach.The real questionis how to best use interdisciplinary
working.To answerthis we firstneedto understandmoreaboutthe
mechanics
of interdisciplinary
designteamsandhowto exploitthem.
Whatis an interdisciplinary design team ?
Mostof us haveexperienced
that shiftin perception
from beingjust
participant
one of severalto being a
in a focusedteam. At the
I shouldliketo homein on some teamcharacteristics
conference
in a
'givens',
littfemoredetaillike, teamsize, motivation,the
briefing,
'group-think',
leadershipandmanagement,for widerdiscussion.
lnterdisciplinarity
is a wav of working.lt meanscollaboration
between
intelligent
equals( notclones)usuallyintheformof a team,withdefined
workingin a trustfulatmosphere.lt is unlikelyto mean a
objectives,
groupof individualsthrowntogetherwith an ill definedbriefwho
happento sharethe sameclient.lt can take severalforms,not only
teamsof differingsizes,make-upand rangeof workbut occasionally,
individuals.
In ltaly, wherethe designpracticesare smalland relyon
I workedalongside
collaboration,
designersMicheledelucchiandMario
Belliniwhocouldbe describedas workingin an interdisciplinary
wayon
their own, movingfluidly betweendifferentdisciplines-graphics,
productsandcitydesign-in a typicalworkingsession.
1 Taylorwas the fatherof work and organisationalstudy
At the otherefireme the 600 strongdesign'company'formedfor the
organised
t28 billionChannelTunnelRailLinkhasbeendeliberately
teamsto accomodatechangeaccording
intoa matrixof crossfunctional
to whichpartof the procurement
led projecthaspriority,seediagram.
At the conferencetheseexamplesand the Olivettiprojectdescribed
aboutteam
belowwillbe usedto tracesomeof the findingsresearched
working.
We professionals sharea common language
the professionsfrom the sciences' said Herbert
Design distinguishes
'design'
is alsouseddifferently
Simon.The word
by ditferentdisciplines.
ln 1991| wasaskedto 'manage'the designof DEGWltalia'slargeR &
D projectfor OlivettiG4Ssitedin Southemltaly,see slide.Two design
teamswereinvolved,one in Londonwherethe designoriginatedand
one in Milanto wherethe sketchdesignwas transferred.At first I
thoughtthe co-ordination
weredueto the two languages
used
difficulties
but I realisedthat even everydaytermsin the sarnelanguagecan be
interpreteddifferently.In teamworkit is vitalto clearlycommunicate
aspirations
and allow for all informedopinionif whathas beencalled
resourceis to be avoided.
the rreglected
Change
Designprofessionals
arecommissioned
everydayto formulatebuildings
whichrespondto changewithintheirclients'organisations.
SinceI returnedto the UK in 1992therehavebeenseveralstimuliito
change within our own industry; the Latham report altered the
procurementdebate, the Lottery, ERDF, SRB and PFI funding are
affectingthe balanceof patronage,the impactof Agenda21 on design
objectives,the learningof some home truths via the RIBA'sStrategic
Studies,technology'srelentlessgrowth making us all finally take it
seiously and the shiftof balancetowardsthe 'demand'side reflectedin
paft by the Construction
and HousingBill. But aredesignprofessionals
facingthe changes necessaryto keeppacewiththeirclientsand the
consumersandcan I D workinghelpwiththischange?
Practice
Other countrieshave differentroutesto the completionof a built
project.Sincemyexperience
environment
of practicein ltalyI havetried
projectbasedway. This has been only
to work in a collaborative,
partly successful becauseof the differentculturaland legislative
obligations
operatinghere.
page 2
Whenwe formedPToARTSin 1994 the opportunitywas taken to
stretchthe projectteamto encompassmoreof the strategyandenabling
consultancyworkwhichdeterminesthe courseof projectsand hence
the qualityof our builtenvironbment.
We not only mix businessand
designskillswithina smallofficewe reshape our expertisebase
withotherprofessionals
throughcollaboration
to meetthe needsof the
in
Presently
task hand.
we concentrateon the culturalsectorbut we
hopeto remainadaptableand commissioned
as muchfor our way of
workingas for our knowledge.
To facilitate
thiswe areexploringthe idea
'chambers',
( barristers'
model) in whichindependent
of forminga
differingdisciplinescan co-operatewiththe administrative
structure
necessary.
Recentlysomeof the majorpublicfunders,such as the Lottery,with
the hindsightof sometroubledprojects,are demandingmoreattention
Thisusuallyrequiresawide rangeof
be paidto initialfeasibilitytesting.
expertiseand the co-ordinationof the contributors whether
consultantsor the client'sstaff is criticalto the optionsappraisal.The
of desiqnand proiectskillsare immenselyuseful but
contributions
designitselfit is not likelyto presentthe majorproblemat this stage.
The roleof the designprofessional
is thereforeakinto the 'professional
adviser'describedby Latham.
We are not oftencommissioned
beyondthe 'frontend'stages.For our
interdisciplinary
teamswe needprojectskillsin strateglc
consultancy
design/optionsassessment/
urbandesign,analysisof requirements,
briefing,site / buildingappraisals,partnershipfunding,value
engineering/life cycle costing,co-ordination
and management,
- see examples.These are
sustainablestrategiesand programming
mixedas appropriate
withthe expertiseof economicandorganisational
marketresearchers,
consultants,
aftsagenciesandothers.
It is still early days and we are learningfrom this interdisciplinary
process.Whatdoes seemclearhoweveris that the traditionaldesign
teamcapabilityis oftennotenoughto 'enable'a projectto be realisedor
guarantee
thesuccessof the outcome.
G r a e m e J e n n i n g s , P T o AR T S
London 0181 888 6645
Y ork 01904 656 507
t
I
adfr 9+--"
page
3