CATEGORISATION

a. The first scale shows the level of applicability, which ranges from ‘Theoretical methodology’ to ‘Practical method’. A ‘theoretical methodology’ explains why a certain method should be applied, but not how. A ‘prac-tical method’ describes in detail how an integrated process should be performed, as a thorough guide where nothing is left for interpretation or misunderstandings by the reader.

b. The second scale shows the level of knowledge incorporation, which ranges from ‘Knowledge sharing’ to

‘Knowledge integration’. ‘Knowledge sharing’ is when it is stated that knowledge should be shared, but not how it should be ensured, that this knowledge is incorporated in the building design. In other words, ‘knowl-edge sharing’ means, that one person shares his/her expert knowl‘knowl-edge, but that does not by default mean that the receiver understands the significance, sees the value and incorporates it in the design. It is a monologue with information - unidirectional. ‘Knowledge integration’ is when it is explained how different people with expert knowledge should communicate and collaborate to understand and see value of each other’s work. It is a dialogue with information – multidirectional.

c. The checkboxes categorise the collaborative arrangements of the guide. ‘Leader and assistant’ means that there is one actor, which is deemed higher than the others; information is asked for and delivered. ‘Hybrid’

is the idea of having multi-disciplinary professions – everyone is half engineer, half architect. The traditional engineer and architect “boxes” full of conceptions are rejected, and everyone are hybrids. ‘Equal partners’ mean that the collaboration has a “flat structure”, where each profession and discipline is ranked equally.

d. The checkboxes categorise the design method paradigm. The ‘first-generation’ method means the analysis/

synthesis paradigm is applicable. The ‘second-generation’ method means the conjecture/analysis paradigm, and the “third-generation” means the conjecture-refutation paradigm.

When a specific content is not evident nor apparent through the scrutiny of the integrated design processes, the authors will not interpret or assume the underlying content in order for the content to fit with the mapping structure. If the content is missing in the integrated design process and not apparent to the authors of this thesis, it will not be apparent for other readers. This will be shown in the IDP guide mapping as a cross out of the title of the specific category.

Based on authors of this thesis’ assumptions and interpretations.

disciplines. An elaboration on the interpretations is found in appendix B.

In the Gantt chart, the mandatory actors are marked with the darker colour.

The optional actors are marked with the lighter colour.

> The mentioned actors are the most commonly described, which is why the mapping contains only these nine, even though more actors may be included in building projects.

› Architect: Interpreted as both trained architects and landscape architects. Landscape architects are not mentioned in the IDP guides, yet they are very well described in the Danish framework.

To simplify and minimise the number of actors, the two are merged under the ‘architect’ category.

When the word “Designer” is used throughout many IDP guides, this is interpreted as architect.

› Engineer: All typical engineering disciplines in building projects, i.e. structural, fire, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, HVAC, acoustic, environmental, energy, etc.

› Contractor: The builder

› Design facilitator: A person, who facilitates the work and knows about the interfaces of profes-sions, collaboration and communication.

› Client: The orderer, who pays for the building project and owner of the completed project.

› User: The people, who are going to occupy the building e.g. Tenants.

› Agency: A governmental instance, who ensures that the built fulfils all legal requirements.

› Facilities manager: The management of services, systems and processes of the building in opera-tion.

› Supplier: The companies that deliver parts and elements to the contractor.

6. Phase descriptions

Description of the phases of each IDP guide. The phases are with guide specific terms.

7. Process diagram

The process diagrams show the fundamental process of each IDP guide.

> The process can be linear, iterative, integrative or be a combination of different processes. Each phase can only have one design process, but the process can change between phases. Each phase can also be linked to the next, havev a review with evaluation of the design and the IDP design goals, and design decisions can require rethinking of previous design decisions.

> Many guides illustrate their process themselves – when this is the case, this is shown. When a guide only describes its process and approach to design problems, an interpreted process will be illustrated.

Linear design process Link between in integrated phases

Iterative design process Review with evaluation

Integrated design process Rethinking of previous decisions

Sender Institute

(The American Institute of Architects) Architects

United States of America

Knowledge integration Practical method

Leader & assistant Hybrid Equal partners Knowledge-sharing

Theoretical methodology

Motivation

To follow the rapid change in the construction in-dustry, where there is an on-going demand for more eff ective processes.

Short description

The guide provides a framework which can contain an integrated design process, but not guidelines on how this process should be executed. The focus lies on the managemential elements and not operational.

The guide provides information and guidance on principles and techniques of integrated project delivery (IPD).

Key persons in the process

The owner has a larger role than usual and the contractor participate at the early stages of the design process.

There is no one group leader, however the architect is responsible for the process progress. All decisions should be unanimous by a decision-making body. In the project team, there are two types of team members: The primary participants, who have substantial involvement and responsibilities throughout project, from beginning to end (owner, architect and contractor in a traditional project) and the key supporting participants, who are brought in when needed, such as design consultants and sub-contractors.

Goal

To create a framework in which an integrated design process can be facilitated.

Made by Geography

Level of applicability

Level of knowledge incorporation

Collaborative arrangements

Design method paradigm Project dependent.

AIA 2007

Architect Engineer Contractor Design facilitator Client User Agency (Myndighed) Facilities manager Supplier

Detailed design Initial design Design proposal

Conceptualisation

Criteria design

Detailed design

Implementation documents

Buyout

Agency review

Construction

Closeout Performance goals are developed by the team,

methodol-ogies and technolmethodol-ogies are agreed upon as well as level of detail development by phase.

Scope, form and adjacencies are determined, the initial design of systems are selected (structure, HVAC etc.) and cost estimates are calculated as well as a schedule.

The building is fully and unambiguously defi ned, co-ordinated and validated; building systems are defi ned, elements are engineered and coordinated.

The fi nished design is turned into documentation for the construction phase.

IPD assumes early involvement of key trade contractors and vendors, so buyout of work packages they provide occurs through development of prices throughout the design phases.

Use of BIM and early involvement and validation by agen-cies shortens the fi nal permitting process.

The benefi ts of the integrated process are realised.

An intelligent 3D model can be delivered to the owner Divided into phases with actors, actions and outcome. Descriptions of communication and collaboration are general

Unclear to state a process, as the process is not described due to being project dependent. Concurrent and multi-level;

early contributions of knowledge and expertise; information openly shared; stakeholder trust and respect.

Sender Institution

(International Energy Agency) Experts from all over Europe Europe

Motivation

To break with the traditional design process, hence making solar and other regenerative strategies and systems an integrated part of the design instead of a traditional add-on

Short description

The framework is one of the fi rst thorough descriptions of integrated design and explains the process as a se-quence consisting of; Establishing performance targets and developing strategies to meet these.

Key persons in the process

The client has a more active role than usual, the architect is a team leader and the diff erent engineers take a more active role. It is possible to have a Design Facilitator (DF) which will manage and have an overview of the process and a core team of architects and engineers. He/she should have a broad knowledge of both architecture and engineering, and skills in communication, team management and mediation (Brunsgaard, 2009)

* The design process paradigm is assumed to fi rst look at the whole, then the parts and then the whole again. This is what is described in words, even when illustrations show a clear analysis/synthesis paradigm, where all problems are fragmented into smaller problems, and then solved independently before put together to a whole.

Made by Geography

Knowledge integration Practical method

Leader & assistant

1^st generation

Hybrid

2^nd generation 3^rd generation Equal partners Knowledge-sharing

Theoretical methodology Level of applicability

Level of knowledge incorporation

Collaborative arrangements

Design method paradigm Goal

To be able to design buildings with a markedly high-er level of environmental phigh-erformance. (Brunsgaard,

2009) *

TASK 23

Architect Engineer Contractor Design facilitator Client User Agency (Myndighed) Facilities manager Supplier

Detailed design Initial design Design proposal

Basics

Pre-design

Concept design

After the Design Development phase Design development

Set-up of team, where competences and communication qualities are considered. The fi rst analysis of site, build-ing programme and feasibilities are discussed.

Goal set-up for the project; Client formulates the objec-tives and design team translates the demands into pro-grammatic requirements, performance goals and design criteria. Potentials of site and climate is explored. Budget and cost are set and evaluated during the whole process.

A range of designs is developed and constantly investi-gated and evaluated against requirements, performance goals and objectives, supported by design assessments and simulations tools. Preliminary building designs are developed.

The process continues with construction documents, con-tracting, building execution, supervision, hand-over etc.

The fi nal design is found. Detailed drawings, simulations and calculations are evaluated with regard to the require-ments and against benchmarks, which were identifi ed early in the project including cost demands.

Divided into phases with actions and actors.

Descriptions of communication, collaboration, risk, payment etc. are general

The basic phase is linear, and the rest are integrated. The process of the integrative phases are iterative, yet with a linear sequence of milestones. Before each of the integrated phases can pass on to the next, a review with comparison

to programme goals and objectives are mandatory.

Sender Institution

(IEE funded by European commission) Architects and engineers from indus-try, academics and agencies

Europe

Knowledge integration Practical method

Leader & assistant Hybrid Equal partners Knowledge-sharing

Theoretical methodology

Motivation

To follow the demand for high-performing buildings within the building industry.

Short description

The framework describes the concept of integrated energy design (IED) and concludes that every building proj-ect is unique, hence it is impossible to device a recipe of how to carry out an optimal IED process. However, the framework describes the main activities that are likely to be useful in most IED processes.

Key persons in the process

A multidisciplinary core team, who make the overall decisions, and they are assisted by experts, who can be brought in when needed. An architect is part of the core team from beginning to end, and diff erent engineers/

experts can be part of the core team and replaced in between phases depending on the requirements in the diff erent phases.

Goal

To create a process, where it is possible to achieve high-performance buildings with low energy con-sumption and good indoor environment, without sacrifi cing architectural quality or result in excessive costs.

Made by

Geography

Level of applicability

Level of knowledge incorporation

Collaborative arrangements

Design method paradigm

INTEND

1^st generation 2^nd generation 3^rd generation

Architect Engineer Contractor Design facilitator Client User Agency (Myndighed) Facilities manager Supplier

Detailed design Initial design Design proposal

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Step 5

Step 6

Step 7

Step 8

Step 9

In document COLLABORATION AND INTEGRATION OF ENGINEERING IN BUILDING DESIGN PROCESSES (Sider 66-73)