Designing Interfaces Part I: How to Streamline Collaboration Across Disciplines
In a previous article, I described the issues within the design process of an architecture project, many of which stem from inefficient workflow between the different project disciplines. Poor communication, decentralized management, fragmented documentation, and inconsistent processes often lead to substandard results. These manifest themselves in delays and budget overruns. Likewise, many young and emerging architects are well-versed in advanced techniques, and established firms are not keeping pace with this valuable knowledge base. Therefore, there is a disconnect and discontent between the tech-savvy, highly-connected next generation of architects and their entrenched peers.
This article is a pragmatic guide for establishing a more collaborative architectural practice, which can increase a building project’s efficiency, productivity, and profit from concept to construction phases.
Accelerated Collaboration
Vertical integration is, in my view, the ultimate methodology to streamline an architecture project’s development, design, and construction process. Vertical integration, in the context of architecture, involves coalescing the aspects of project delivery not typically associated with architectural services into one unified company or organization. This integration would first extend into services like engineering, interior design, and branding, and in a more extreme example, involve development and construction.
Before joining my vertically integrated practice, I was part of outstanding architectural teams that strived to leverage technology and workflow to supercharge their practice. Many firms are already established from a business structure and service offering standpoint. Part I of this article will focus on ways existing firms can improve their cross-discipline workflows without drastically altering their business models. Three ways that existing architectural practices can collaborate more proactively are:
- Engage with like-minded consultants and contractors
- Establish cloud-based modeling techniques and workflows
- Re-think restrictive contractual relationships
The first and most important method for establishing a more accelerated collaborative workflow is engaging with like-minded and receptive consultants and contractors. This is a no-brainer. If you are working with teams that don’t understand the workflow processes you are trying to implement, you will never be able to establish advanced project delivery methodologies. Architects should also encourage cross-company knowledge sharing and not shy away from educating their consultants.
I understand that information and intellectual property are valuable, but what is even more valuable is the ability to execute and deliver projects to clients. Honda has a policy in which they work with their suppliers to share knowledge and processes to increase the suppliers’ efficiency and productivity. This, in turn, reduces delays and manufacturing issues. If a supplier cannot deliver to Honda, then Honda cannot deliver to their buyers. Sure, these suppliers may leverage the process that Honda is sharing with them to benefit other car manufacturers by increasing efficiency in supplying to them. Still, Honda doesn’t care because, ultimately, their ability to deliver cars more efficiently outweighs any benefits their competition may receive¹. Architects can take a page from Honda’s book and learn to elevate the skill set of valuable collaborators to deliver superior design for their clients. Some of the most successful projects I have ever been a part of are those in which we shared not only the project information but also the workflow and process.
Second, we must move past the antiquated method of drawing background exchange.² Traditionally, an architect issues a set of backgrounds to their consultants at an agreed-upon interval, and then the consultant begins work on their design scope. There is next a period of time in which the consultant starts the design of their system, be it structural, mechanical, or other. Finally, they return those drawings to the architect for implementation into their design. And so, the cycle continues. This process occurs throughout the project until it is completed. There are many pitfalls to this process. It often leads to consultants working off of out-of-date information as the design progresses quicker than the next cycle of drawing exchange does. It also typically does not consider a more integrated systems design, and each consultant is working in a bubble and unable to respond quickly to feedback from other teams.
Other highly collaborative methodologies are readily available, and with a shift in their mindsets and workflows, architects can immediately leverage them. Cloud-based model platforms can allow all members of the design team to see updates to the project instantaneously. At a modeling level, platforms like Autodesk Construction Cloud (formerly BIM 360) allow design teams across the globe to see model updates in real-time as dozens of designers are working concurrently. Other platforms, like Miro (which exploded during the pandemic), are almost infinitely flexible and allow distributed teams to work along the spectrum from messy and iterative to polished and final.
There is no longer a delay in information sharing, and teams can coordinate and work through design issues in real-time rather than waiting for the background exchange cycle to work its way through. Also, many firms use internal communication and chat tools, like Slack, but they rarely extend this communication method beyond their own office’s virtual walls. So, in the same way that we would communicate directly and quickly with members of our own firms, why not leverage this more responsive communication method with our consultants?
Finally, a significant roadblock to many of these collaborative methodologies is the current contractual frameworks that many practices rely on. The most commonly used are AIA documents. They have evolved for decades to limit liability and push risk from one party to another, leading to more restrictive lines of communication and collaboration, especially between an architect and a contractor. Similar to the drawing background exchange, the amount of paperwork and bureaucracy required to communicate during a project is often redundant, restrictive, and outdated. The most successful projects I have worked on have allowed a more streamlined approach to communication and information sharing, which requires a bit of an acceptance of more liability but allows the cohesive team to manage risk better.
An unfortunate assumption that is baked into the profession is that the relationship between an architect and a contractor is adversarial. I’ve heard many anecdotes about this adversarial relationship. It is also often joked about and openly discussed on both sides of the equation. But, even if done jokingly, it does breed a sense of distrust. Now, there is probably a bit of a chicken or an egg situation going on here. Did the contractual relationships evolve due to suspicion? Or did the relationships themselves breed that distrust? It is probably a little bit of both, but regardless, we must rely more on less restrictive contractual relationships, which encourage more seamless collaboration and help manage and mitigate risk. We must also leverage more collaborative ways of working directly with builders and fabricators. This proactive approach can leverage construction expertise earlier regarding cost, logistics, schedule, and feasibility.
The bottom line is that there are methodologies to help build a more collaborative process that can implement into existing practices almost immediately without a complete restructuring. In my next article, I will discuss how to strategize and build a company around vertical integration.
[1] Rothfeder, Jeffrey. Driving Honda: Inside the World’s Most Innovative Car Company, Portfolio/Penguin, New York, 2015, pp. 223–224.
[2] The drawing background exchange is a methodology by which architects exchange information with their consultants. It’s antiquated and does not allow for responsive and efficient design.
