As part of the data collection approach of the case study, a focus group was conducted with the design team of the case project. In the following, the general purpose and scope of focus groups is briefly described. This is followed by an elaboration on the specific focus group session conducted with the design team of the case project and a presentation of the analysis and results. The findings from the focus group are analysed and compared to the findings from the supplementary analysis result of the case study and questionnaire.
How focus groups differ from interviews
Focus groups are similar to group interviews, however there is an emphasis on joint con-struction of meaning within the group (Bryman, 2008). Group interviews are quantitative or semi-structured interviews with several people at a time – “a number of individuals interviewed simultaneously” (Bryman, 2008). A focus group is more like a conversation or discussion of a specific topic or issue, and thus very narrow, where group interviews (and other forms) are usually more widespread in themes and topics. Focus groups are gener-ally suitable for exploratory studies since more spontaneous, expressive, and emotional perspectives can emerge, that from a cognitive, individual interview (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009).
The purpose of the focus group is not for the participants to reach consensus on the topics being discussed, but to have multiple aspects and points of view disclosed (Kvale
& Brinkmann, 2009). The focus group method has a special emphasis on social mecha-nisms, i.e. the patterns of social interaction within the group concerning how the indi-viduals respond to each other’s views. The aim is to discover what the indiindi-viduals see as interesting and important, and thus understanding the topic in focus from the perspec-tive of the participants, i.e. those being studied (Bryman, 2008). “The group interaction will often provide elaborated responses and encourage the sharing of ideas. One comment may serve as a lead-in to other comments or information critical to the areas being explored.”
(DEOMI, 2015)
Conducting a focus group
As opposed to the question/answer mechanism of regular interviews, focus groups are grounded in a group discussion guided by a moderator or facilitator with a minimal amount of intrusion (Bryman, 2008). The moderator can have a topic for the discussion or a more specific set of questions to run through with the focus group. The optimal structure is dependent on multiple aspects, e.g. the experience of the moderator, the de-sired outcome of the focus group, the level of interest or knowledge among participants, etc. The moderator will lead the focus group. It is therefore vital, that the moderator can create a permissive atmosphere, where the individual participants feel comfortable expressing contradicting opinions and personal thoughts and feelings about the subject or issues in focus (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). The moderator needs to keep the group focused while controlling person dynamics of the group and managing dominators, ex-perts, observers, and ramblers, i.e. providing all individuals an opportunity to participate in the session (DEOMI, 2015).
The role of the assistant moderator is to observe participant reactions and interactions - complementary or argumentative. Even though the focus group session is being record-ed, the assistant moderator should take note throughout the session of notable quotes and statements that illustrate particular and important point of views, new concepts, and big ideas. At the end of the session the assistant moderator will share the themes of the important discussions points with the group for confirmation (Krueger, 2002).
Focus group at Studio A
The results from the observations and semi-structured interview during the 9 weeks of the case study fostered the basis for the focus group session. The themes addressed in the focus group are related to tendencies identified from the results of the survey and underlined by observations made during the case study. The focus group is thus an ad-ditional source of evidence.
The purpose of the focus group with the design team at Studio A is to explore the mechanisms behind design decisions and project development. The intent is to gain clarification on the indicators from the questionnaire and findings from the participant observations. As stated in above, the focus group is a qualitative research method and thus a good supplement to the quantitative questionnaire.
Questions should be diverse, open-ended and exploratory, facilitating “open dialogue about positive and negative issues” (DEOMI, 2015). In the beginning of the session, ques-tions should not be very specific, but more general on influences, characteristics, or fea-tures of the themes and topics of the focus group (Krueger, 2002). Follow-up questions
can be utilised “to gain clarity about their initial responses or to get additional information.”
(DEOMI, 2015). Questions that ask for more than one answer, or that addresses multiple themes or ideas should be avoided, in order for the discussion to be more streamlined and easier follow the natural flow of conversation (DEOMI, 2015; Krueger, 2002). Overall, there are five types of questions, (opening-, introductory-, transition-, key-, and ending questions) it is recommended to use multiple types throughout a focus group session (Krueger, 2002). For the focus group at Studio A, possible questions were listed and sort-ed in themes of influence on design decisions, value adding, communication, and collab-oration. The questions were then sorted in the five type categories and divided into main questions and possible follow-up questions, to compile a comprehensive outline for the focus group.
Interviews, especially in quantitative research but also more unstructured qualitative in-terviews, will always reflect the researchers concerns since it is he or she who have made the questions. There will always be a possibility of the researcher not considering a certain point of view, even though it might be an evident point to the interviewee. As the researcher does not include questions about this specific point of view, he or she might miss crucial information, which could bring new knowledge to the table. This new infor-mation could have resulted in adjustment of the emphasis in the research. Quantitative research, but especially focus groups, creates a greater interest in the interviewee’s point of view and perspectives. By using a small number of very general questions to guide the focus group, this allows a free discussion and there is a better chance of gaining access and discovering all aspects of what the individual participants see as interesting and important.
In the following, the interview guide for the focus group is outlined. The first set of ques-tions are general on the topics of design process, design decision making, and the role of technical knowledge and inputs in the early design phases. From the observations of the case study and the results of the questionnaire it is clear, that Studio A regard technical knowledge and input as being of relatively high importance. However, it is not utilised or integrated in the early design phases, at least not on the case study project. Thus it is interesting to have the group discuss how and to what degree they believe technical input should be a part of design decisions in the early phases – whether it should be a design validator, design informer, or design driver (see page 95).
The second topic of the interview guide is specific to the case study project. Since techni-cal knowledge and inputs are not what has driven the design, it is interesting to have the group reflect on which aspects did. In order to explore incentives for design decisions it is relevant to address the (perceived) value added to a project through these design deci-sions. By gaining insight to what is considered as value-adding in a building project, it is then possible to address the implementation of other themes in the design, e.g. technical knowledge, from a similar perspective of value. If a specific discipline, e.g. architects, are able to articulate or quantify their perception of value, it is easier for other disciplines to present input, e.g. technical knowledge, from a value-adding perspective that speaks to the first discipline.
The last part of the interview guide concerns the specific results of the questionnaire.
From the provisional examination of tendencies, there seems to be a correlation be-tween studios with a higher level of internal multidisciplinarity and their ability and desire to collaborate with external partners, such as engineers and contractors, in the early design phases. It is interesting to tap into this, as it can help underpin or discard the finding but furthermore because it can foster a discussion on collaboration in gen-eral among the focus group participant. The result of the questionnaire maps the design process of the studio. It would seem that the design team, and studio in general, are not explicitly reflecting over their design process. Through the extensive research in the field of integrated design over the past decades, it is evident that the early design phases are where the groundwork should be formed. It is thus interesting to have the design team reflect on their personal and studio general design process and the effect this has on the potential for integration of technical knowledge.
Interview guide
Introduction to the focus group, topic and aim in relation to this master thesis.
General opening questions:
> When making design decisions how can technical knowledge add value to the design (processes)/design decision process?
> From your point of view, what role should technical knowledge and inputs play in the early design phases? Scale: Design driver – Design informer – Design validation
Possible follow-up questions:
> How can technical knowledge be implemented in the early design phases?
> How should engineers communicate in order to ensure technical inputs as driver/in-former/(validation)?
> Does physical presence of other disciplines have an influence on the design process?
> Does the timing of technical inputs have an influence on the design process?
Case project specific questions:
> We would like you to each reflect on a design decision made on this project and state which parameters influenced the decision/design development
Possible follow-up questions:
> What type of influence – design driver/informer/validation?
> Please elaborate on the value of the design decision or development
> Is the value somehow quantifiable?
Presentation of the questionnaire profile of Studio A KBH:
> Is there a connection between the studio overall design-process-profile and the studio’s ability/desire to collaborate in the early design phases with engineers and contractors?
Summary of the central topics of the focus group session and the discussion and com-ments
Final thoughts
Analysis of focus group
The social interaction among group members distinguish focus groups from interviews.
Focus group data hence says something about the attitudes towards the research topic (like interviews) but also about the interactions and social mechanisms between the group participants. “Drawing attention to the patterns of interaction within focus groups allow the researcher to determine how group participants view the issue with which they are confronted in their own terms.” (Bryman, 2008).
Immediately after the focus group session, the initial analysis was conducted. Main themes of the session was recorded along with initial thoughts on findings such as
“hunches, interpretations, and ideas” (Krueger, 2002). The main themes of the discussions covered;
> Education
> Need for shift of technical knowledge from validator to informer – not driver
> Design informer/driver vs complexity of building project
> Early phase design workshops
> Personalities and collaboration
> Management, and fee structures
Since transcribing is very time consuming, only relevant parts of the focus group session has been transcribed as part of the analysis process. The full recording can be found in Appendix J. The focus group data, consisting of the recording, partial transcription and video recording, plus ‘field notes’ from the session and debrief, are analysed and inter-preted with a focus on the following (Bryman, 2008; Krueger, 2002);
> Patterns of social interaction, i.e. operation of complementary and argumentative interactions
> Context of responses and comments, i.e. what prompted the response
> Internal consistency, i.e. what caused a change in opinion of a participant
> Frequency or extensiveness, i.e. which topics were discussed more than others and which comments were made more often
> Intensity, i.e. which themes or topics were discussed with particular strong feelings among the participant, e.g. with special words, tone of voice, change in speed of speaking, excitement in voice, etc.
> Specificity, i.e. responses made in first person rather than third based on experience of the individual participant, rather than vague and impersonal
Observations
The following analysis is outlined in themes of discussion topics. Each section is a review of the general outcome of the discussion accompanied by underlining quotes of the participants. For the sake of anonymity, participants are given numbers instead of names.
Four out of six team members participated, where one was one of the key players in the design process. Yet, throughout the session, only three team members were present as the lead architect had to step out for a phone call right after the session began and the landscape architect had to leave the session right when the lead architect came back from his phone call. There was afterwards an obvious shift in the group dynamic. The session went from a dynamic and enthusiastic discussion among the participants, where all contributed opinions and comments, to a more interview based structure, where two participants gave very elaborated answers and comments, and one sat back and hardly said anything. It is clear that the group regards the lead architect as the ’expert’ (DEOMI, 2015). Comments like “you should ask [Name] about that” and “correct me if I’m wrong”
show a clear expectation or attitude that certain questions throughout the focus group session are not meant for debate or discussion, but merely clarification, which is then left up to the lead architect to answer. Out of the three participants, one is therefore an
‘expert’, the second participant is a ‘dominator’, who has something to say about each top-ic and the third parttop-icipant is an ‘observer’, who observes the group but has little to say (DEOMI, 2015). This specific participant changed behaviour during the session, and went from being active in the discussion to appearing shy, quiet, reflective, or tired.
Inexperience of the moderator may have influenced the discussion and social interaction of the participants. Retrospectively, the moderator may have been too enthusiastic about the topics of the focus group to not interfere in the discussions. In combination with group dynamics, where participants perceive one as the ‘expert’ and leaves answering up to him, the session occasionally gained an interview-like structure. However, the partici-pants generally engaged in a fruitful discussion on multiple topics.
Design validator, design informer or design driver
In general, the interactions of the participants were complementary and a high level of internal con-sistency was evident. No heated debates or discussions arose and actual disagreements were few. One example of slight disagreement was the design driver vs design informer question. It was argued that technical inputs as a design driver was damaging for architecture, however another participant argued that for less complex buildings, you often see engineering art where function comes before form.
Participant 1 “Of course, if you make a bridge, it’s a design driver. But if you make… ehm… a little shelter that doesn’t need so much complicated construction. Maybe it’s just a little informative…”
Participant 1 “But I think you can learn a lot from history, how you construct and build buildings. It’s like… everything from wharfs to bridges to railway stations, which all is engineering art…construction. (…) They are there for a reason and they look like that for a reason. And, of course, in combination with this layer of artistic experience or whatever. It’s just to remind ourselves that there should be reason for something to be there. And that’s where the engineer is very, you know, they are very good at just helping the architect, I think, in that sense, to… so that we don’t construct shells only. (…) May-be you don’t always need an engineer May-because some of the information you can find out yourself nowadays. Especially if it’s like, not very complex projects.”
Participant 2 “I’m really sceptical of when some particular technical aspect, whether it’s photovoltaics, or anything else that it becomes the driver of a design. And I suppose that comes from a belief in a sort of multi facet (…) to design, and that is too easy then for things to be optimised only due to measurables. And I think that runs a huge risk of soft values, cultural aspects, aesthetics, historical narratives (...), being pushed aside for one hammer of a reason. (…) It’s got to be bigger than that. Otherwise I think it is in danger of being optimised in a really… ehm… dangerous way.”
Participant 2 “Yeah… I suppose with the design validation, that’s the thing that is all too common (…) Sometimes it [technical knowledge] can be a driver in particular situations, and then other times maybe it’s validation, but I think we need to be moving from validation towards informing.”
The group did not reach an agreement on the topic, but they did agree that the status quo in building projects relies on design validation. They also agreed that the industry needs to move from validating design with technical knowledge, to having a design which is informed. There was disagreement about whether a design could be driven by technical knowledge. One participant believed that technical knowl-edge as a design driver presumably will disregard all the softer values, which is not measureable; sus-tainable design is holistic, and having technical knowledge as a design driver will endanger architecture.
Education
One of the main themes of discussion in this focus group was education, which was brought up in dis-cussions among group participant on their own initiative. The questions of the interview guide did not specifically bring on this topic. The fact that architecture and engineering are separated in the schools and universities adds to the gap between the two professions. This division is part of the tradition in the building industry as described in the introduction (see page 30) and articulated by one of the par-ticipants:
The architecture programs in Denmark are more artistic than in other countries, e.g. Sweden, UK, and France as represented in the focus group participants. In Sweden and France, the architecture students are educated at technical universities. Yet, this does not mean, architects the do calculations, they just consider aspects more logically. Furthermore, the construction architects (bygningskonstruktører) add another fragment in the building project teams.
In Denmark, engineering students are trained by engineers, and architecture students are trained by architects, so the traditions and traditional mind-sets permeate the schools and new generations of engineers and architects too.
Participant 4 “I think there’s something about, sort of the classic conflict between architects and engineers. When I stud-ied we were always told by our professor that we shouldn’t listen to these engineers, we should just tell them what to do!
That’s kind of the sort of traditional… It’s kind of been the narrative of the golden age of the architect. (…) And you don’t create any kind of innovation, you don’t get any further with a project with that kind of dynamics.”
Participant 3 “Maybe it comes from the education in Denmark. It’s much more artistic. And the things are quite divided, you have the ‘konstruktør’ in between. In France, the architect is a bit of everything. Not an expert, but you have to know a little bit.
Benefits and challenges of early multidisciplinary collaboration
There was a general opinion among the focus group participants, that early collaboration and implemen-tation of technical knowledge was beneficial and value-adding. This was clear both from observations and conversation during the case study, but also from several comments made during the focus group.
From observations and conversations during the case study, it was clear that other Studio A Architects offices are much more multidisciplinary integrated.
All focus group participants had examples of previous jobs, which had been much more multidisciplinary, with different disciplines integrated in a design process.
Participant 2 “The more successful experiences I’ve had, where it’s been integrated is when, very early on there are loose and creative based workshops. So, it’s not separately and then the architect coming with a set of drawings and saying;
‘Can you, kinda, make that work?’. And architects are guilty of this but engineers as well. I’m thinking particularly of structural engineers here, where they just will not do anything – nothing nothing nothing – until they’ve got a set of CAD drawings. They won’t lift a pen. I’m not saying there’s some silver bullet but when it has been more successful there’s been some sort of charrette or workshop early on about principles, where things are still very…extremely open, actually.
And there’s been then a way of optioneering in a less precise CAD’ed up kind of way.”
Participant 2 “Some of these engineers, who do really pride themselves on performance and being part of that team, it’s fantastic to work with them because they’ve got some ego about it.”
Participant 4 “A very creative engineer can be very valuable in an early design process and a not so creative engineer can be maybe more obstructing the creative process.”
As stated in the previous section, the group reached an agreement on the industry needing to go from de-sign validation to dede-sign informer. There is a need for a shift in the traditional ways of doing projects. The group talked about how the informing of design in the early design phases relies heavily on the quality of workshops in the beginning of projects. Start-up workshops can be successful, however, the success of these are highly dependent on factors like personality of team members.
The other participants agreed to this, and that a creative engineer is needed in the early phases: