Architectural Practice as Collaborative Practice
When I first learned about the concept of parametric design¹ in graduate school, I tried to automate everything. I would spend hours forcing the computer into executing what was in my head or my sketchbook. A few years later, while trying to develop a convoluted process to realize a design idea on a large housing project in Harlem, I realized that drawing it by hand was a faster and easier method of executing that idea. Since that day, I have often asked myself, “what are computers good at, and what are humans good at? What do I, as a designer, want to delegate to the computer? What do I actually want to achieve?”
My thoughts on the architectural practice have continuously evolved since that day, and the idea of taking ownership of different aspects of the design process versus delegating is something I’ve thought long and hard about. My initial background was in construction, where I translated drawings into built objects. I got into architectural design later in life, but I carried with me the value of collaboration and trust between construction teams across the various workstreams of a building’s creation. The coordination of a building is quite beautiful when done well, with groups of plumbers, engineers, electricians, framers, designers, clients, and many others all working together towards a common goal.
Ultimately, I became a licensed architect in New York. What attracted me to architecture is that it is the merger of creative and technical thinking. It is art with constraints (thanks, gravity). Design is messy, quick, and iterative, but buildings as a product must be deliberate and refined. If the process of designing buildings is not deliberate and refined, it may have disastrous consequences. The most extreme negative outcome would be an unsafe or non-functional building. Alternatively, an inefficient design process at a business level can lead to poor results or a negative balance sheet. I have been a part of projects that spent dozens of weeks and thousands of hours preparing for design pitches that never happened. It’s not fun for anyone, and it’s certainly not fun for those responsible for a project’s profitability.
There are, unfortunately, no bug fixes or patches available if the product fails. This quandary poses an exciting challenge — how can architects deliver beautiful, safe, and efficient projects in a cost-effective, profitable, streamlined manner? Fortunately, there is no one-size-fits-all approach, which means every architectural project is a new adventure. That’s what I love about this profession. Architects driven by collaborative practice methodologies will be able to visualize the whole playing field and make technology-driven connections across all disciplines of the building practice and industry.
A Case for Vertical Integration
Certain aspects of a building’s development life can seem like a marathon when they should be a sprint. Changes in a project design can feel like navigating a barge through the Suez Canal. As projects grow in size, complexity, and number of parties involved, it becomes increasingly difficult for architects to streamline the design process. Some factors that are putting strain on this process include ever-increasing client expectations and the industry struggling to catch up with the accelerated pace of growth in a rapidly globalizing world.² In addition to the slow development of internal design processes, the number of agencies involved in building approval has increased, as has the amount of documentation and meetings required for those reviews and approvals. As a result, the average amount of time it takes to construct a building has almost doubled since the 1970s.³ It is not a good sign that design and construction are slowing down as the rest of the world is rapidly evolving and accelerating.
There are examples of more collaborative models being successfully deployed that include design/build, design/develop, design-assist, and integrated project delivery. These are all alternatives to the traditional design/bid/build model. Frequently, these are contractual arrangements, but other times they are informal relationships that develop between companies with a high level of trust and an understanding of how to work together more collaboratively.
The most extreme example of a collaborative model is vertical integration, where one company does most, if not everything, required to deliver a project. There are some challenges to vertical integration, and the recent collapse of Katerra indicates how this can be a dangerous approach.⁴ It isn’t easy to prop up and support a business that requires so many different areas of expertise. In addition, clients often bristle at the lack of accountability in the process. That being said, I am a massive advocate of this process for many reasons if it is planned and executed strategically.
The first reason vertical integration is a better approach is that it streamlines the convoluted communications process in our industry. Second, it allows for better-informed decision-making to occur earlier and allows for decision-making that can be analyzed at multiple project levels, not just within the silo of that specific discipline. Finally, and most importantly, it empowers the architect to create their projects rather than waiting for clients to come to them; become more versatile in our project delivery methodologies; and realize our vision by controlling the process from start to finish. Firms striving to innovate within the design and construction industry are overwhelmingly choosing to vertically and horizontally integrate.⁵ To successfully leverage vertical integration, we must trust the expertise of those outside the typical silo of our practice, iterate quickly, and rely heavily on solid systems thinking.
Trust Expertise, but Don’t Trust Tradition
One of the most successful strategies for successful project execution I’ve experienced is the benefit of getting as many stakeholders involved as early as possible, leveraging their expertise, and checking in with them as a project progresses. This list, at a minimum, should include technical oversight, design visioning, various engineering teams, design technologists, and constructability experts. The counterargument to this is the expense associated with this expertise. Usually, experts who convey this valuable knowledge have pretty high billing rates. I’ve heard the phrase “this is an expensive meeting” way too many times in my career. The cost of not having that “expensive meeting” can be catastrophic to a project if a team paints themselves into a corner because of a lack of valuable insight early in a project. A minor code oversight or legal issue can sink a project or lead to hundreds of hours of revisions. Also, you usually do not need a large amount of time from these experts, as they can often rely on their years of experience to quickly identify potential roadblocks or valuable opportunities.
This mindset could extend beyond the architecture firms’ doors and the traditional delivery methods of our industry. Consultants, who are part of the design team, are often looped into this process early, but contractors, who are part of the construction team, are not. This delivery method is a framework intentionally set up to segment these two aspects of project development. However, this traditional method of separating these disciplines often leads to conflict and disagreement. The most successful complex projects I have worked on involved contractors’ expertise early on. Their knowledge of logistics, supply chains, and pricing can enrich a project’s outcome and allow the design team to make better-informed design decisions early and can be critical in truly realizing a vision.
Architects could leverage the skills they have acquired in architecture school, internships, and professional life into various areas of the construction industry that have a significant impact on financial decisions. Alternatively, architects could help developers make better informed financial decisions or even act as developers themselves by being proactive. An extreme example of this is SHoP Architect’s Porter House. SHoP was so confident in the design decision-making that they took financial upside in the project in exchange for a lower fee. Most would say this is risky. However, suppose architects have a better understanding of how their decisions impact finances. In that case, they could make better decisions about a project early on, and this would, in turn, ‘de-risk’ a project, as in the example of Porter House.⁶ SHoP themselves profited from that financially driven decision-making while still executing on visionary design.
Fail Faster, Learn Quicker
One of the most potent things a designer can do is realize when an idea is not good. The quicker they can do this, the faster they learn from their mistakes and move on to better solutions. Getting expert input early on is an excellent way to determine if something is unsuitable quickly. It is also a great way to figure out alternatives or resolutions.
Buildings don’t have the luxury of multiple releases or product life cycles. In app development, you can release a new feature or fix a bug almost as quickly as an issue pops up. For example, Apple is continuously releasing updates to its iOS due to flaws that create openings for security breaches.⁷ In construction, once it’s built, it is virtually impossible to change without tremendous headache or expense. Lack of coordination or errors and omissions are cited as the most significant driver of change orders, which can drive the cost of a project up 10% or more.⁸ So, what architects do to mitigate this, is spend an enormous amount of time visualizing design ideas. This time results in the form of drawings, polished renderings, physical models, or mock-ups. By the time a presentation is “client-ready,” there has already been a tremendous amount of time and money spent preparing. These design ideas are often rejected or drastically reconfigured after these client presentations, and the cycle begins all over again. Also, clients often sign off on design direction without genuinely understanding what that direction is, which is also cited as a common cause of change orders. This haste to sign off on an idea leads to confusion and more changes later in the process when revisions are more costly and time-consuming. Depending on which resource one uses, the fee for schematic design encompasses only 10% to 25% of the total project fee, with construction documents ranging from 35% to 50%.⁹ This billing breakdown, in theory, makes sense because there is a substantial amount of time required to finalize construction documents. However, most major design decisions are made during schematic design. They are usually the most significant decisions and the hardest to change once the project progresses to the next stage.
It is crucial to determine the best and most appropriate methodology for conveying design ideas to be shaped faster by various discipline constraints. Vertical integration can assist with this by allowing a better planning process that evaluates all aspects of a project, not just design. First, this means determining the best and most appropriate methodology for conveying design ideas. Second, it means selecting the most efficient method for generating the content required to receive approval and move forward. The history of architecture suggests that this is typically done on the backs of interns and junior designers who work countless hours on presentations and various iterations. There is no urgency to do this efficiently because large firms are getting the extraneous aspects of this process done at little to no expense — it’s all unpaid overtime or unpaid internships. Junior architects at large firms often work 50 hours a week on average and up to 70 hours a week leading up to deadlines. Sometimes, these design sprints are for competition entries, which may result in little or no fee returning to the firm. There is talk of unionization at architecture firms, and blatant disregard for decent labor practices is being exposed.¹⁰ Leaders within the architecture industry are responsible for making our process more efficient and considerate of their staff’s time.
One emerging methodology to help convey design faster and clearer is leveraging advanced, immersive visualization platforms. This methodology is the definition of ‘failing’ fast. If you can quickly translate a low detail 3D model into a spatial experience for a client, they will immediately know whether or not they enjoy being in the space. There are robust systems for generating high-quality immersive experiences, but these are just as time-consuming as the endless presentations I mentioned above. Architects need first to determine the appropriate decision-making that needs to occur at that design stage. Then, they need to leverage transparent methodologies that allow clients to provide pointed feedback and quickly make those decisions.
Architecture students are taught the medium of 2D plans, sections, and elevations, and this method is nurtured in practice. However, most clients don’t have this literacy and are more likely to understand other forms of design communication. In a world where VR is becoming more prevalent, the inherent nature of a still rendering can feel static and leave the viewer wanting more. The decision-makers in the world are increasingly skewing towards a generation that grew up on Playstation and are used to experiencing incredibly high-quality spatial experiences. New forms of media are becoming increasingly popular, as are new methodologies exploring those media. The global virtual reality market share is expected to grow 18% annually over the next six years.¹¹ The next generation will have grown up on Oculus and the Metaverse.
Implement Systems-Based Thinking
“Some developments may only come through trial and error because their consequences are non-intuitive and hard to predict” — Rise of the DEO: Leadership by Design.
In my view, the architectural profession would benefit from moving away from service-based thinking and implementing more systems-based thinking. By leaning on more collaborative practice methodologies, it could also implement more streamlined systems within daily processes to improve workflow. Architecture professionals could also strategically reuse processes in the same way they strategically reuse (and edit) details. This means there is no one-size-fits-all approach. For example, I would not use a set of details for a steel-framed building on a concrete framed structure. However, there may be facade connection details on the former that I may be able to reuse (with edits) on the latter.
In the same way, processes developed for a large, rural site shouldn’t be used in a low-density zoning district on a tighter, high-density urban site. However, that process may have elements, like circulation (or movement through space) analysis or solar analysis, that can be edited and reused from project to project. I am an advocate for the idea of a Library of Process, in a similar way architecture practices usually create a library of details.
As I mentioned above, there is no one-size-fits-all approach for every building project. The most essential skill architecture professionals can use to accelerate the design and building process is determining the best tool for each job. This changes depending on what one is trying to do — no one platform or methodology is perfect for every project and not even for every design exercise within that project. The drawing process allows one to think through and resolve issues. I’m an advocate for changing software partway through the process and also going back and forth. Repetition is good as long as it is strategic, iterative, and quick. However, repetition can come back to bite us if we do not have streamlined methods of implementing design change from one platform to the next and end up creating software dead ends. Iterative processes between disciplines are also instrumental, and within a vertically integrated system, those processes become more seamless and efficient.
Parametric software helps bridge the gap between design and analytical thinking, and analytical thinking helps accelerate and confirm decision making. However, architects also need to be strategic to determine which processes generate results — a process for the sake of a process isn’t helpful. The low-hanging fruit in this area is the automation of certain aspects of the design process, which can be as simple as counting quantities. For example, take-offs and seat counts can suck up endless hours of a designer’s time when, if all of this is done leveraging a collaborative process, it can be extracted from the project instantaneously.
Finally, architects should learn to code (or at least determine what code is capable of). I love to say that software is not the answer. Software comes and goes, and different people in different firms have proclivities towards specific programs. I can buy a platform that helps me visualize and schedule construction logistics. Still, I can also develop a tool that leverages Excel, Rhino, and Revit to do the same. It all depends on resources, expertise within the firm, and long-term implementation of that process.
Process is king, and determining the best way to execute that process is up to the architects of the future. There is no singular building, and the constraints of the real world will not allow for that. There are too many jurisdictional, environmental, and site conditions to allow for a singular product. Therefore architecture practitioners must focus on process as the driver for large-scale change in architectural design. Experienced architects will realize the need for an expanded process, and collaborative practice-driven architects will determine the best method of developing and implementing that process.
[1] “Parametric design — Wikipedia.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parametric_design. Accessed 22 Mar. 2022.
[2] “Measuring Construction Efficiency — by Brian Potter.” https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/measuring-construction-efficiency. Accessed 22 Mar. 2022.
[3] “Average Length of Time from Start to Completion of New Privately ….” https://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/pdf/avg_starttocomp.pdf. Accessed 22 Mar. 2022.
[4] “How a SoftBank-Backed Construction Startup Burned Through $3 ….” 29 Jun. 2021, https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-a-softbank-backed-construction-startup-burned-through-3-billion-11624959000. Accessed 22 Mar. 2022.
[5] “White Paper A Preliminary Overview of Emerging Trends for ….” https://autodesk.blogs.com/pullen_et_al._-_2019_-_a_preliminary_overview_of_ic_in_the_us.pdf. Accessed 22 Mar. 2022.
[6] “The Porter House — SHoP Architects.” https://www.shoparc.com/projects/porter-house/. Accessed 22 Mar. 2022.
[7] “Apple releases iOS 15.3 with fix for ‘actively exploited’ iPhone flaw.” 26 Jan. 2022, https://techcrunch.com/2022/01/26/apple-ios-actively-exploited/. Accessed 22 Mar. 2022.
[8] “Evaluation of change management efficiency of construction ….” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1687404813000060. Accessed 22 Mar. 2022.
[9] “Guide to Architectural Design Phases — Monograph.” https://monograph.com/blog/guide-to-design-phases. Accessed 22 Mar. 2022.
[10] “Architects Are the Latest White-Collar Workers to Confront Bosses.” 21 Dec. 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/21/business/architects-white-collar-union.html. Accessed 22 Mar. 2022.
[11] “Virtual Reality Market Share & Trends Report, 2021–2028.” https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/virtual-reality-vr-market. Accessed 22 Mar. 2022.
