THE DANISH BUILDING PROJECT FRAMEWORK
Step 4 Functional goals are turned into design goals/success
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
Sender Academic and company
PhD student
Sweden and Danmark
Knowledge integration Practical method
Leader & assistant Hybrid Equal partners Knowledge-sharing
Theoretical methodology
Motivation
To develop a new integrated method by which actors can attempt to change their institutional environ-ment at the organisational and fi eld level.
Short description
The IDBM proposes to work on both detail and the whole at the same time, where the professions work separated on the same area, and then integrates the diff erent solutions during a 1-2-week design sprint. Extensive analysis of qualitative and quantitative parameters should be performed before the fi rst sketching takes place.
Key persons in the process
A small core group with stewards representing each institution e.g. owner, architect, main engineering disciplines, key subcontractor and/or suppliers. Each representative is responsible for their area, yet it is a team eff ort to include all areas.
A project team consisting of experts can be engaged on an ad hoc basis as required by the core group. The core group is responsible for the integration of knowledge, where the project team is responsible for the in-depth knowledge, which can be used for the core team’s decisions.
Goal
To create new meanings and formal structures for enabling integrated constellations of institutions to improve project coordination and performance.
(industrial Ph.D, Chalmers Technical) Made by
Geography
Level of applicability
Level of knowledge incorporation
Collaborative arrangements
Design process paradigm
IDBM URUP
1st generation 2nd generation 3rd generation
Architect Engineer Contractor Design facilitator Client User Agency (Myndighed) Facilities manager Supplier
Detailed design Initial design Design proposal
Pre-idea
Idea
Design basis
Presentation & off -site production Design development
Building assembly & commissioning
Hand-off , occupancy & facilities management Strategic relation is started before the design project
begins. A business case is made. Starts with a kick-off workshop and ends with review.
Core group fi nds potential members for project team.
Performance criteria, target cost (and how decreases/
increases are shared), coordination strategy, process map and collaboration contracts are developed. Starts with a kick-off workshop and ends with review.
Analysis of users, site, environmental parameters - ob-stacles and opportunities are identifi ed. Starts with a kick-off workshop and ends with review.
Second collaboration contract is made. Building site is prepared and elements produces off -site. Commissioning and hand-off manual is developed. Starts with a kick-off workshop and ends with review.
Sketching begins. The conceptual design is developed parallel to detailed information. Starts with a kick-off workshop and ends with review.
Elements and systems assembled on site. Commissioning all four seasons. Starts with a kick-off workshop and ends with review.
Continue ensuring building is performing as required.
The IDP is divided into phases with described main actions. The actors and more in-depth description on the content is described in general.
The fi rst three phases are information- gathering and sharing by using multiple methods; it is hence a lineary process.
In the design development phase, the process is integrated, with an iterative process, but with clear, lineary sequences of milestones. With each iteration loop, the level of integration between the disciplines increases, which is diff erent from many other IDPs, where the level of detail increases. In Urup’s IDP, the detailed information develops parallel to
the concept.
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 take advantage of the rich opportunities off ered by the rapid advance of BIM and design performance modeling.
Short description
The guide does not provide a method, but insight to energy modeling and how architects should cope with the changes. The idea is that the architect needs to get a working understanding of the energy modeling process, its parameters and benefi ts. This will make the architects aware of the great opportunities that lies within the collaboration and enables more information to the design from the beginning.
Key persons in the process
This guide diff ers from the others, as it focuses on how architects should use energy modeling integrated. This means that mainly the engineer and architect will be active during the diff erent phases, as these are the ones performing and implementing the simulations and their output.
Goal
To adapt the workfl ow of architects to take advan-tage of energy modeling tools.
Made by Geography
Level of applicability
Level of knowledge incorporation
Collaborative arrangements
Design process paradigm
The phase diagram above shows the use of energy (performance) modeling as part of the design process. The diagram shows how energy modelling traditionally is only used late in the design process, but with integrated energy modelling,
it can and should be used through the whole lifetime of the building project. The illustration is adapted from AIA (2012)’s guide.
1st generation 2nd generation 3rd generation