IN BUILDING DESIGN PROCESSES
Optimisation of integrated design processes
from theoretical methodologies to practical concepts
Master thesis in Architectural Engineering, Technical University of Denmark
Birthe Wohlenberg & Signe Skovmand Jakobsen
Collaboration and Integration of Engineering in Building Design Processes
Optimisation of integrated design processes from theoretical methodologies to practical concepts
Master thesis, July 2017 2 x 30 ECTS credits Architectural Engineering Technical University of Denmark Department of Civil Engineering
Authors:
Birthe Wohlenberg & Signe Skovmand Jakobsen Main supervisor:
Lotte Bjerregaard Jensen Co-supervisor:
Mathilde Landgren
We would like to thank to our main thesis supervisor, Lotte Bjerregaard Jensen, for her enthusiastic and exceptionally extensive guidance throughout this thesis and the en- tire course of our studies at DTU. We would also like to acknowledge our co-supervisor, PhD student Mathilde Landgren, for her contributions to the questionnaire and general discussions. A great debt of gratitude is also owed to everyone at Studio A for taking interest in our work and including us in the design team during our case study. A special appreciation go to the Queen of Research and Sustainability Lady at Studio A for her time and curiosity.
We wish to thank Sweco for letting us make use of the office facilities. A great thanks to our colleagues for being available with sparring, motivational cheers, annoyingly critical and eye-opening questions and providing for sugar rushes on lengthy days; especially Camilla Dyring, Henriette Menå Grud, Sanne Bauer and Camilla Visted Nielsen. A special appreciation to Maria Møller Skovgård for her very valuable comments on this thesis.
A great thanks to Anna Skovmand Jakobsen for providing inputs to the communicative aspects of this thesis and to Mathias Møller Mortensen for his guidance on social re- search, and for putting up with us occupying his living room for five months.
Lastly, we would like to thank our family and friends for their invaluable encouragement, interest, and support.
Thank you!
Birthe Wohlenberg & Signe Skovmand Jakobsen
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Parties in the building industry struggle with coordination, communication and collab- oration. Increased complexity in building projects calls for early multidisciplinary col- laboration and integrated design. The concept of integrated design is a way to ensure a sustainable, well-coordinated building design of high quality. The aim of this thesis is to explore how the early design processes within Danish building projects can be opti- mised, and to formulate a palpable concept for an integrated design process.
Optimisation potentials have been investigated through an extensive literature study, a case study, questionnaires and a focus group.
The challenges of integrated design processes are related to traditions and circumstanc- es on an operational level as well as on an overall management and regulatory level. The root cause of the challenges is of a social and managerial nature.
A number of challenges on an overall managerial- and regulatory level need to be over- come in order to ensure the feasibility of early collaboration in an integrated design pro- cess, to optimise the early design phases, and enable exploitation of the full potentials of integrated design. This thesis proposes adding a design process coordinator to projects, prolonging early design phases, changing traditional fee structures, and adjustments to educational programs curriculum to break with traditions.
The research in this thesis provides a solid base for scoping a tangible and practically applicable method for an integrated process.
ABSTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Forewords 11
Introduction 19
Aim and Objective 20
Problem statement 20
Collaboration and time span 21
Methodology 22
Framing of thesis objective 22
Sustainability and Climate Change 24
The global challenges 24
The building industry must adapt to changes 25
Theorising Design Process Methodologies 28
Development of design methods - A historical view for Integrated Design 28
Design process types 33
Part 1 41
The Danish building project framework 43
Description of Services for Building and Planning 43
Sustainability certifications 55
Findings from Danish Building Project framework 60
Integrated Design Process Guides 61
Method 62
Selection of Integrated Design Process Guides to investigate 64
Strengths and weaknesses of iDP guides 84
General findings in the IDPs 87
Integrated Energy design 88
Findings from IDP mapping and IED 92
Recap part 1 96
Sub-conclusion part 1 98
Part 2 101
Social research and data collection 103
Case study 105
Thesis specific theory & method 105
Studio A 107
Course of the case study 108
Case project facts 109
Observations 112
Examples of inputs and communications 114
Presentation material 124
Findings from case study 130
Questionnaire 135
Intro 135
Theory and method 137
Analysis 146
Studio tendencies 150
Results of questionnaires 152
Findings from Questionnaire 155
Focus group 157
Conducting a focus group 158
Observations 163
Findings from focus group 170
Recap part 2 172
Sub-conclusion part 2 174
Part 3 179
Danish Framework is part of the problem 180
Opportunities within the Danish framework 182
Rethinking of business models 183
Process management 185
Education can be part of the solution 188
Sub-conclusion part 3 190
Conclusion & future research 191
Conclusion 192
Concluding the statements in the hypotheses 194
Further Research 196
References 197
Appendix
LIST OF FIGURES
All figures are produced by the authors for this thesis unless something else is stated.
Figure 1 - Initial idea and concept of Køge Sygehus 11
Figure 2 - Final building design of Køge Sygehus 11
Figure 3 - Example of technical guideline from Sweco 15 Figure 4 - Graph of the Danish building codes from 1961 to present 25
Figure 5 - Concept of BIM BAM BOOM 27
Figure 6 - Timeline of the first, second and third design methods 29
Figure 7 - The linear design process 33
Figure 8 - The liner design process 34
Figure 9 - The iterative design process 35
Figure 10 - The integrated design process 37
Figure 11 - Gantt chart of the participating actors in the different sub-phases of the Danish Description of Services 45 Figure 12 - Contractural organisation and project organisation in design-build projects 47
Figure 13 - Contractural organisation in partnering projects 48 Figure 14 - Project organisation in partnering projects 49 Figure 15 - Overview of American and Danish phases and milestones, and how they corresponds 63
Figure 16 - Course of the case study and the technical scientific information infused in the design process by the authors 108
Figure 17 - The Case project as presented in the latest portfolio 109
Figure 18 - The Case project as presented in the latest portfolio 109
Figure 19 - Overview of the development of the Case project 111
Figure 20 - The universal isometric representation of the entire building 125 Figure 21 - Overview of the questionnaire design and the type of scale for each question 145
Figure 22 - Reading guide for the profiles of the studios 147 Figure 23 - The project type based business model is shown to the left, and the profession based business model to the right 183
Figure 24 - Project structure, where team members are consistent through phases 185
Figure 25 - Project structure, where the team members are changed between phases 185
Figure 26 - Suggestion for division of services of Design Management 187
READING GUIDE
The introduction outlines the aim and objective of this Master Thesis, along with specifi cation of the research topic. Furthermore, the overall methodology is described in short, as the specifi c research methods are outlined in the associated sections in Part 1 and 2. To frame the thesis topic a broader recap on environmental issues and design- methods are outlined in the introduction.
The foreword outlines the background and motivation behind the choice of topic for this Master Thesis.
FOREWORDINTRODUCTIONPART 1PART 2PART 3CONSLUSION
READING GUIDE
Part 2 is a case study and questionnaire survey of an architectural studio and attitude towards integrated design, and the level of knowledge and approach to technical knowledge in the design process.
Part 3 is an elaborate discussion of the reasons for diffi culties with integrated design in the building industry in general and the feasibility of initiatives within a Danish framework.
The last section of this Master Thesis contains a conclusion on the hypothesis and research question and a discussion of topics for further research.
Part 1 is a mapping of existing guides for Integrated Design Process and an analysis of the Danish building industry in regards to obstructing mechanisms and potential optimisation areas in the early design phases.
In the building industry, the need for early collaboration on building projects is generally recognised. The concept of ‘integrated design’ is known as a way to optimise collabo- ration in the design process and thus ensure a sustainable, well-coordinated building design of high quality. Integrated design is (allegedly) practised throughout the entire building industry. However, building projects still struggle as communication and collab- oration between the parties in the building industry go sideways.
An example from the Danish building industry is the case of Køge Sygehus; a hospital project where poor planning and coordination between the architects and engineers, has not only resulted in delays and increased costs, but a final building design so far from the initial idea and concept, that it has not been approved for construction.
This example is an extreme case, however it is still symptomatic for the overall picture of the challenges in the building industry.
The intent of this thesis is to explore why the concept of integrated design has not yet been unconditionally successful, and what could be done in order to succeed.
The following pages describe the background and incentive for the topic of this thesis.
It is based on our experience from jobs at a consulting engineering company, our edu- cational background and a prelude case study in visual communication of engineering know-how.
FOREWORDS
Figure 1 - Initial idea and concept of Køge Sygehus
Figure 2 - Final building design of Køge Sygehus
Background and incentive for this thesis
The topic of this thesis, collaboration and optimisation of integrated design processes, has emerged from our specific educational background in architectural engineering as well as our experiences from internships and student jobs in a large architecture studio and a large engineering consultancy. The research in this thesis is a product of reflectiveness, which is, of course, formed based on our background and knowledge. The business school professors Alvesson & Sköldberg write that all reflective research is a product of the researcher’s sub- jective interpretation (Urup, 2016). It is therefore important to address our subjectivisms as researchers, as well as what influence it might have on our thesis. Thus, in the following we will explain our background and motivation for taking on this research topic.
Firstly, we both hold a Bachelor of Engineering degree (Diplomingeniør) in architec- tural engineering from the Technical University of Denmark (DTU). The whole concept and backbone of the programme is integrated design, in which architects and engineers teaches in unison. The idea that the two disciplines have a symbiotic relationship in an integrated design process is natural in the perception of an architectural engineer.
During our 3.5 years in the B.Eng. programme, our education has revolved around multi- ple disciplines such as structural engineering, material physics, building energy and in- door environment, urban design and planning, architecture history and design methods.
This enables us to identify interfaces between the disciplines and understand the needs of different disciplines, and furthermore, this has taught us to understand the importance of communication skills. With successful communication amongst stakeholders as well as technical disciplines in a building design process, it is possible to elevate the building design to become more holistic and integrated. The building technology professors Kim, Azari and Angeley argues that a higher level of integration results in a higher quality end result - a better building (Kim, Azari, & Angeley, 2016).
Our most important output from the architectural engineering programme is the crucial ability to regard projects in their entirety instead of in bits and pieces. As researchers working on this thesis, we have insights and the right tools to address complex situa- tions and problems between the disciplines using creative methods and an efficient set of communication skills.
This is why we are able to understand how to establish a good design process.
Secondly, here at the end of our master degree in architectural engineering, we are both specialised in sustainable building design. During our two years at the master pro- gramme, we have further developed our technical skills within energy design, daylight and indoor environment and sustainability, and have become increasingly aware of the interactions between these elements in building design. The technically specialised en- gineers tend to focus on the detailed design phases. Thus, our primary focus is the early phases of the building design process as we can contribute the most to the quality of the final outcome by applying our knowledge of multidisciplinary communication at an early stage.
Throughout our studies, we have had multiple opportunities to test holistic approaches and creative methods in multidisciplinary school projects and voluntary, extracurricular projects such as Solar Decathlon and MADE (MADE, 2016; Solar Decathlon, 2017). We have thus experienced integrated design processes during our time of study and have experienced how smoothly and efficient processes can run, if everybody has an open mind-set and aligns expectations for the project and the collaboration prior to the proj- ect’s start. However, there is no economy mixed into in the expectations and there is no budget limit in regards of work hours or meeting hours when doing a school project.
Thirdly, we both work in a large engineering consultancy, Sweco, where our focus, among other things, is the vital collaboration between external architects and consultants, as well as internal specialists, in the early design phases of large-scaled projects. The ini- tiative in Sweco for early collaboration is called ‘Game Changer”’ which addresses collab- oration, communication and a mind-set of knowledge-sharing. We have witnessed how engineers try to approach the architects and contractors in the early design phases, and have seen how difficult this can be - especially when early collaboration is not part of the client’s demands. Yet, everybody can agree that early collaboration results in more optimised processes and thereby more optimised buildings (Urup, 2016), but there ap- pears to be a lack of motivation or knowledge of how-to to challenge the traditions and try different approaches.
Having experienced the complications of integrated design from the engineering side of the table, we wish to know more about the mechanisms that control the design process- es of the architects involved. If we understand the motivations and reservations of archi- tecture studios as businesses and of individual architects as designers, we as engineers have a great advantage when communicating inputs in a collaborative design process.
This is, of course, only one bead on the string towards a realisation of co-creation and real integrated design. But nevertheless: An important one.
Lastly, the master thesis is, for now, our last academic accomplishment and opportunity to add to our academic knowledge and skillset. The topic of this thesis is a vital ele- ment in our professional knowledge base as architectural engineers - to understand the mechanisms that complicates the design approach and process, which we have been schooled to think is the most natural and optimal. Design processes involving multiple professions in close collaboration is a fascinating field. Due to our education, we regard integrated design processes as a natural and optimal way of working. Through this the- sis, we explore the underlying mechanisms, which complicates the design approach and processes. We want to explore how this idea of integrated design can be widely applied and how we, as architectural engineers, can contribute in order to ensure the success of multidisciplinary integrated building project of high quality.
Prelude to thesis
As a prelude to this thesis, we conducted a case study focusing on how engineers commu- nicate with architects through visual guidelines in the early design phases. The company at focus was the Danish department of Sweco, an international consulting engineering company.
The outcome was a report on ‘Visual Communication of professional engineering knowhow as a tool in integrated design processes’ (Jakobsen & Wohlenberg, 2016). From this prelude, the interest for investigating the collaboration methods and design processes in building design projects arose. As the following section will describe, the prelude has provided us with insight in the way of visually communicating as engineers.
The case study revealed an initiative within Sweco, which urges employees to participate early in the design process, and always be ready to think in alternative solutions instead of turning not durable ideas down at first glance. One of the main tools to accomplish this is visualising generic and project specific guidelines instead of writing extensive, complicated and detailed technical guidelines. According to engineering education ex- pert Riemer, reports are for experts, and not everyone on a team needs to understand
every single technical detail of all disciplines - they need to understand the consequenc- es for the overall project (Riemer, 2007). This is where interfaces between disciplines are evident. Based on this idea, so-called ‘technical guidelines’ have been developed within Sweco. The guidelines were initially meant for external purposes e.g. the engineer could bring it to a meeting and engage in dialogue by describing pros and cons of different alternatives. The guidelines have later shown to be a great internal coordination tool too. The illustration below shows an example of such a technical guideline - this one concerning the placement of toilet groups on multiple floors.
The guideline shows three alternatives; one where the toilet groups are placed differ- ently on each story; one where they are placed right on top of each other; one where they are placed slightly scattered yet within an overall vertical line. A yellow colour on the guideline shows the area of concern, which in this case is the piping ducts between floors, and a pink colour shows the consequences of the alternative solutions. The conse- quences of the placement of the toilet groups is to either lower the suspended ceilings, hence reducing the room height to make room for horisontal ducting or to simply have the ducting in a straight line, which limits the floor planning layout as the toilets can only be placed in a limited area. The guideline then describes pros and cons of the three alternatives, and lastly a list of professions and interfaces, which the placement of toilet groups on different stories affect.
The guidelines have proven useful as a collaboration tool, as issues are articulated and Figure 3 - Example of technical guideline from Sweco
alternative solutions are visually presented. However, the guidelines cannot stand-alone.
According to PhD in sustainable architecture, Marureen Trebilcock, the best design advise is often expert advice (Trebilcock, 2009). She writes that this is the case with challenges, which are so specific that designers are unlikely to find a guideline or rule-of-thumb with a proper solution. “It also places expertise and interdisciplinary collaboration in parallel to the use of tools” (Trebilcock, 2009). Having an expert-oriented approach is a bottom-up approach, whereas guidelines are tool-oriented and top-down. When applying a top- down approach, it might be perceived by employees as a pre-fabricated and limited space of solutions, where a bottom-up expert advice, approach could present itself like an enrichment through collaboration.
From this case study, it is seen that the visual guidelines are not efficient as tools with- out the dialogue with the expert, but have proven a good tool for dialogue. Without the dialogue, the visual guidelines lose their meaning.
The most effective way of adapting the guidelines have been through dialogue meetings and workshops. When the design starts to touch upon crucial aspects of interfaces, the engineers can present their alternatives - supported by the visuals.
The social skills of a person determine how this person will act in a dialogue or work- shop. For example, an extroverted person would have no problems with interaction and idea generation with other people, whereas an introverted person might feel more com- fortable in dealing with specific tasks in a calmer, more individual environment. Different personality types have different qualities; however, in a collaboration-based project an introverted approach is not desirable.
When a dialogue- and workshop-based approach is found most efficient, it could be concluded that social interaction plays a major role in a building design process. The personality of the engineer is of great importance, since the presentation and communi- cation of technical input has great impact on how the information is perceived. Emotion- al intelligence (EQ) might be more important than the IQ, since skills in communication enables a person to transfer their knowledge onto other humans. According to Riemer, the “EQ contributes to identifying the needs of others and to identifying those projects that are more important to the task at hand” (Jakobsen & Wohlenberg, 2016; Riemer, 2007).
This means that some people are better at identifying their target group and convey thereafter. Others have an acquired EQ and thereby know how to act and what to look for, e.g. through education.
Based on the case study prelude, it can be concluded that especially introvert people can
be supported by visual guidelines when explaining their inputs to other team members.
Extrovert people can also be supported by visual guidelines, as issues with alternative solutions become more tangible when presented visually. When everyone on a design team understands, and acknowledge, the issues with alternative solutions, everyone can focus on how to move forward. It becomes a shared problem instead of the engineer’s.
Thus, the personality and social skills of the engineer is of great importance, as a great part of communicating is embedded therein.
From this case study prelude, the keen interest for investigating the collaboration meth- ods and design processes in building design projects arose. The case study prelude gave an insight into the way of visually communicating, and communicating generally, as en- gineers. To gain a deeper insight into the holisticity of design processes, we wish to investigate in this thesis how the collaboration, communication and design processes appear from the point of view of the architects.
“ Coming together is a beginning, staying together is progress, and working together is success.
- Henry Ford
AIM AND OBJECTIVE
Problem statement
Research show that a lot of the potential of integrated design lie within the early design phases. Therefore, the overall objective of this thesis is to investigate existing integrated design processes executed in the building industry and analyse the mechanisms that influence and control the early phase design processes in regards of implementation of technical knowledge early in the process.
The aim is to research possible optimisation potentials for integrated design processes, and formulate a palpable concept for an integrated design process.
To do this, three hypotheses has been defined, based on the described experiences in the forewords:
1. The challenges of multidisciplinary collaboration within the building industry are related to traditions and mind-set of individual professionals
2. Technical knowledge as a design driver in the early design phases depends on the presentation and clarity of communication of technical scientific knowledge 3. There is a connection between the architectural studio’s overall design-process-pro-
file and the willingness to collaborate with engineers in the early design phases
The study of how the Danish building industry can benefit from integrated design processes has been conducted numerous times. Yet, the authors of this thesis believe that the question of how to succeed with it is still unresolved. Therefore, the research question is:
How can the early design processes within the Danish build-
ing industry be optimised to a level where the potentials of
integrated design are exhibited and realised?
The research question is accompanied by three related sub-questions, which elaborate on different topics. Each of these sub-questions constitute its own part in the thesis to ensure a clear structure.
Sub question 1
Which aspects influence the design processes and collaboration in the Danish building industry, and which methods and principles from integrated design guides can be ap- plied to the design process resulting in a better building?
Sub question 2:
How can technical knowledge in the fields of urban microclimate comfort, daylight and energy performance be implemented and add value to the design processes?
Sub question 3:
How could a palpable concept for integrated design processes be scoped in order to secure implementation of technical knowledge and ‘a good design process’ within the Danish building industry?
Collaboration and time span
This thesis project was carried out as part of the Master programme of Architectural En- gineering at the Department of Civil Engineering at the Technical University of Denmark (DTU).
The case study in this thesis was conducted at an architectural studio, which will be re- ferred to as ‘Studio A’. . It will be accombanied with with reflections on earlier experiences at Sweco A/S.
Main supervisor Lotte Bjerregaard Jensen, associate professor at the Department of Civil Engineering at DTU, has contributed to the general discussions on the topics of this the- sis project as well as providing guidance.
Co-supervisor Mathilde Landgren, PhD at the Department of Civil Engineering at DTU, has contributed to the data collection process associated with the questionnaire in this thesis.
The time span of the thesis was February 1st 2017 to July 1st 2017, which correlates to 2x 30 ECTS credits.
Framing of thesis objective
The research question, sub-questions and thesis hypothesis have been based on the authors’ practical insight in multidisciplinary collaboration and integrated design pro- cesses, through education in Architectural Engineering and professional experience from internships and student jobs. The practical insight has been supplemented and substan- tiated by a literature review of the development and state of the art of the integrated design process.
To frame the thesis topic and its relevance to the building industry and society in general, a broader recap on environmental issues is outlined in the introduction. The historical development of design- methods and processes are investigated to put the current de- sign processes of the building industry into perspective.
Part 1 – Literature study on Danish framework and mapping of inte- grated design process guides
Which aspects influence the design processes and collaboration in the Danish building industry, and which methods and principles from integrated design guides can be ap- plied to the design process resulting in a better building?
Several integrated design process guides have been investigated, where the eight most significant are analysed and categorised within a number of aspects. The results of this mapping should be seen as a background to understand the design process of the case study project addressed in Part 2.
To frame the approach to the integrated design process, and make the research relevant in the Danish building industry, an extensive literature study of the Danish framework has been conducted. This have created a backdrop for the possible optimisation poten- tials within the framework, which all Danish projects are subject to. The literature study on the Danish framework for building projects include the Description of Services and other publications from the Danish Association of Consulting Engineers (FRI), the Danish Association of Architectural Firms (DANSKE ARK), and Værdibyg, combined with informa- tion from various Danish authorities within building, such as the Danish Building and Property Agency (bygst) and Molio (formerly known as bips).
METHODOLOGY
Part 2 – Case study on implementation of engineering knowledge
How can technical knowledge in the fields of urban microclimate comfort, daylight and energy performance be implemented and add value to the design processes?
A case study on implementation of engineering knowledge has been conducted at a large architectural studio. The authors were working in the architectural studio along- side the project team over the course of 9 weeks. To provide context for the observations and findings from the case study, the authors compiled a questionnaire survey mapping the level of knowledge on technical aspects and the approach to design in terms of holisticity and multidisciplinarity in a number of different architectural studios. Lastly, a semi-structured interview and a focus group has been held to analyse the observations and questionnaire results. The detailed methods of the case study, questionnaire and focus group will be described in the associated sections along with the presentation of results and findings.
Part 3 – Discussion of tools and initiatives for an integrated design process in the Danish framework
How could a palpable concept for integrated design processes be scoped in order to secure implementation of technical knowledge and ‘a good design process’ within the Danish building industry?
The findings of Part 1 and 2 regarding the problems associated with integrated design processes in the Danish building industry and suggestions for potential optimisation are elaborated and discussed in Part 3. The discussion of pros and cons of different initiatives along with the findings of Part 1 and 2 lead to a conclusion on the research question and associated hypothesis.
SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE
As a means to mitigate to climate change, buildings become increasingly sustainable.
Consequently, the complexity of buildings is increasing due to extensive requirements in re- gards to material usage and energy performance. This section will address, how the energy consumption is contributing to climate change, and how the building industry try to adapt by applying stricter energy performance requirements for new buildings.
The following section is a backdrop setting for the incentives of changing the way building projects are traditionally executed, in order to secure more sustainable buildings of a higher quality.
The global challenges
Climate change is partly driven by greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by human activities.
Man-made global warming and a need for change was broadly acknowledged with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) of 1992 at the Earth Summit followed by the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. The changes are already affecting every country on every continent, and research predicts the emission levels are only con- tinuously increasing hence the situation will only worsen (UN, 2017).
All industrial sectors must strive to minimise GHG emissions and lower the speed of cli- matic changes including the building industry. This means both changing habits to lower energy consumption, but also limiting dependency on coal, oil and natural gas.
Combating climate change is one of the UN 17 goals to transform the world; ‘Goal 13:
Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts’. Climate change is a global issue as “Emissions anywhere affect people everywhere” (UN, 2017), which requires inter- national action to move toward a low-carbon economy. According to the goals of the European Union (EU), developed countries should collectively reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases by 60% to 80% by 2050 (Intelligent Energy Europe, 2009).
In Denmark, the build environment is responsible for approximately 40% of greenhouse gas emissions (Koch & Buhl, 2013) and approximately 35% of the total energy con- sumption (Dansk Byggeri, 2017). The current political energy agreement in Denmark was formed in 2012 and upholds until 2020. The political goal is to be fossil free in 2050 and energy consumptions in buildings are one out of four main issues in the current climate policy (Dansk Byggeri, 2017). In the coming fall of 2017, a proposal for the new energy agreement of 2020 will be presented by the government.
The building industry must adapt to changes
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) uses two sig- nificant terms when responding to climate change; mitigation and adaption. Mitigation is to aim at reducing emissions to minimise global warming, whereas adaption is to prepare for the effects of climate change.
The more successful the mitigation, the less the adaption is needed (Kropp & Scholze, 2009).
One way to secure lower energy usage in buildings is to lower the allowed limit of ener- gy consumption through authorities and regulations. By lowering the energy demand for building operation there will, of course, be a lower GHG emission. The Danish Building Regulations are continually updated with stricter requirements for annual energy con- sumption.
Over the past decade, requirements have been restricted twice, in 2010 and 2015 re- spectively (Br10 and Low Energy Buildings 2015). An additional restriction is due in 2020 with Building Class 2020. Figure 4 illustrates the decrease in maximum allowed energy demand per year per square meter for residential buildings from 1961 to 2020. A similar decrease is also applicable for other types of buildings.
“…The best way of cutting emissions is not to generate them in the first place. Avoiding the waste of energy translates directly into emissions reductions, and cost savings. So instead of
‘megawatt’, companies should be thinking in terms of ‘negawatt’.”
Quote by US environment ‘guru’ Armory Lovins (Intelligent Energy Europe, 2009).
0 50
1961
350 185 116 84.7 63.5 36.7 20 1979 1995 2006 2010 2015 2020 100
150 200 250 300 350
kWh/m2/year
Figure 4 - Graph of the Danish building codes from 1961 to present.
Adopted from Energistyrelsen (Danish Energy Agency, 2013)
Through higher demands for building performance, building design becomes inevitably more complex. Regarding the energy consumption of buildings, there is only so much that can be done on component optimisation level, and the energy efficiency of individ- ual components and systems cannot be optimised more than they already have been to reduce energy consumption (Brunsgaard et al., 2014). Therefore, energy goals cannot be reached by adding technology to a finished architectural design, as the building per- formance in regards of energy performance and indoor comfort is highly related to the architectural design of the building and user behaviour.
The focus is now on how to optimise the way different systems work together to increase building energy performance. This calls for a holistic design approach that takes multi- ple aspects of different disciplines into consideration. The performance of a building is influenced by decisions made in the early design phases, e.g. orientation, overall geom- etry, fenestration etc. This means the competences of engineers need to be utilised in the early design phases and the traditional approach to design process are challenged (Brunsgaard et al., 2014; C. Koch & Buhl, 2013).
Operation of buildings is the most costly phase in a life cycle perspective, both financially and environmentally. The concept of BIM-BAM-BOOM addresses the financial aspect; the concept describes the relation of cost between the different phases of a building project.
Figure 5 illustrate how the design phase of a building, here in the context of Building Information Modelling, is responsible for a small part of the overall cost. The cost of assembly of the building, the BAM (Building Assembly Modelling) is 20 times larger. The BOOM (Building Operation Optimisation Model) is 60 times larger (Rosenfield, 2012).
New buildings will be in operation for future decades, and must therefore be energy efficient. Looking at the entire lifespan of a building project, potential cost savings are biggest in the operation phase. Operation cost can be minimised with a good building design hence investing more in the early design phases, the overall cost can be reduced.
Besides legal regulations on energy performance, developers, building owners, and ten- ants have increasingly higher demands. These include sustainability ambitions, the use of BIM, timeliness, and budgeting of construction. These demands increase the complex- ity of building projects hence, a higher focus on coordination and collaboration in the building industry is necessary (Intelligent Energy Europe, 2009; Urup, 2016).
The “Traditional Design Process” (TDP) cannot facilitate the very complex task of opti- mising a building in its whole (Brunsgaard et al., 2014; Busby Perkins +Will & Stantec Consulting, 2007; Intelligent Energy Europe, 2009; Kanters & Horvat, 2012; C. Koch &
Buhl, 2013; Larsson, 2009; Urup, 2016).
In order to enforce optimisation of buildings, a different type of design process is called for. It has to deal with the higher level of complexity and technical input in early design phases. An ‘Integrated Design Process (IDP)’ covers the above described, which will be elaborated in the following.
0 20 30 40 50 60
BIM BAM BOOM
Figure 5 - Concept of BIM BAM BOOM
THEORISING DESIGN PROCESS METHODOLOGIES
A specific design method, i.e. an approach to design, will affect the progression of the design development and the design process. An understanding of different design methods is thus important when analysing the mechanisms that influence design processes and possible obstructions towards integrated design. Challenges with regards to collaboration with- in building projects may link back to different design methods of different disciplines. In order to approach the current issues, it is vital to understand the origin of these. Hence, the following outlines the history of design methods used through the last centuries to set the current situation into perspective. The general description of design methods is followed by a description of the most common design processes in building projects today; the linear-, iterative-, and integrated design process.
Development of design methods - A historical view for Integrated Design
Today, the first and second generation of design methods are mostly common in the building industry. The engineers are mainly working with the first generation of design methods and architects with the second. The two generations have opposite views on how to arrive at a solution; The first generation is problem-oriented, and based on sci- entific knowledge; The second generation is solution-oriented, and based on empirical knowledge. An elaboration of the two are described in this section.
The third generation design method is a reaction to the traditional approaches. It states that defining problems and developing solutions are parallel activities, which supports each other. The third generation applies problem solving to design – it is an exploration of how architecture was done before the two first generations were described (Hybert- son, 2009). To get an understanding of the origin of the integrated design process, the first- and second generation of design methods is described in the following.
The integrated design process is a product of decades of interest in design processes and optimisation of these, within different fields. The integrated design process share some similar concepts with the third generation of design methods, which is mostly used in systems-engineering (Hybertson, 2009). Yet, the integrated design process is a concept of its own within the building industry, and it is therefore interesting to study the historical view on design method developments in order to get an idea of the foundation for the integrated design process.
First generation of design methods
In the beginning, building design was a craft and experience-based approach, which was sufficient, as buildings at that time only needed to fulfil a limited number of needs. With the rising demands from users, regulatory requirements, and technology, the building de- sign became a much more complex task and new methods of design thinking was need- ed (Petersen & Svendsen, 2008). Architectural design has been around for thousands of years, but as (Hybertson, 2009) argues, all books and knowledge on the topic purely focuses on designs and not on the process of creating them, hence the design process was not part of the way of thinking.
Design processes are rooted in the design method movement of the 1960s. Here, a clas- sic scientific methodology was used to justify design as an academic, scientific discipline.
The design method movement was anchored in the mechanical engineers’ approaches for the industrial design. Many new design methods were developed to manage the rapid demand for development of new techniques, and all these new methods had a scientific approach to design, which emphasised rationalism. The most symptomatic expression for the building projects of this time is Louis Sullivan’s “Forms follows Function”. The quote from 1896 became the mantra of the designers in the 1960s, and explains how the focus was on the functionality rather than the shape and aesthetics. Overall, the first-genera- tion design methods aimed to quantify architecture, and architects needed to clear their mind of preconceptions. The process of analysis and synthesis was meant to rationalise architectural design, with emphasis on user requirements, and more open-ended design and options (De Vries, Cross, & Grant, 1993; Hybertson, 2009; Petersen, 2011; Shani &
Noumair, 2015).
Figure 6 - Timeline of the first, second and third design methods First generation
Analysis/Synthesis (A/S)
Second generation Conjecture/Analysis (C/A)
Third generation Conjecture/Refutation (C/R)
1960’s 1970’s 1990’s
Second generation of design methods
In the 1970s, the very same method developers started disassociating themselves with the design methodologies they had created in the 60s. This rejection of method might be due to lack of success in the application of scientific methods to design (De Vries et al., 1993). The rational definition of reality, as described in the first generation, was not fit for design problems. According to the professors and design theorists Rittel and Webber, the methods developed in the 60s had only been the first generation of design methods, and now a new, second generation was about to emerge. Rittel and Webber characterised design and planning problems as ‘wicked’ problems, which were completely unmanage- able by techniques of science and technology, as they dealt purely with ‘tame’ problems.
‘Wicked’ problems have no stopping rules, and are fundamentally indefinable. When a design problem is indefinable, there is no possible way of determining whether a design problem is solved or not; solution are never true or false, they are only good or bad (Bu- chanan, 1992; Strømann-Andersen, 2012).
Whereas the first generation was based on the application of rational, scientific methods, the second generation would be based on empirical knowledge, have an argumentative process and be full of intuitive leaps (Petersen, 2011; Strømann-Andersen, 2012). The latter contained a new view on the roles in design; previously, an expert designer had been more knowledgeable than other stakeholders had, and the ideas coming from her/
him was a pronouncement from an expert at face value. Now the designer should act as a coordinator in a design committee, and the argumentative process created a space, in which ideas were open to discussion and could be challenged by anyone (Buchanan, 1992).
Paradigm theories
Generally, the first generation of design methods is based on rational knowledge and applies a systematic approach towards a problem. It begins with analysis, then synthesis and lastly evaluation, which occur in sequence (Bamford, 2002). In the analysis phase, the problem is dismantled into fragments, which can be solved independently. In the syn- thesis phase, a response or solution for the problem is attempted created. Lastly, in the evaluation phase, the suggested solutions are compared to the objective identified in the analysis phase. Trebilcock therefore puts the first generation under the label ‘analysis/
synthesis’ (A/S) based on Bamford’s work (Petersen & Svendsen, 2010; Trebilcock, 2009).
The second generation of design methods is based on an argumentative process and empirical knowledge. Contrary to first generation of design methods, it begins with a tri- al-and-error idea phase followed by iterative refinement of both form and function. The idea is to obtain a better understanding of a given problem by applying an trial-and-er- ror approach, and then refine it until a point of harmonious coexistence is created in a
“so-called satisfactory solution” (Rittel H. 1973 as in (Petersen & Svendsen, 2008)). The second generation of design methods are created on the basis of “the idea of conjectur- ing approximate solutions much earlier in the process than A/S allows the designer to structure an understanding of the problem.” (Bamford, 2002; Trebilcock, 2009). This leads Trebilcock to label the second-generation method as ‘conjecture/analysis’ (C/A) (Trebil- cock, 2009).
Both the first and second generation are regarded with criticism. Some of the main points of the critique are outlined in the following;
> The first generation does not support an actual process as it focuses on parts in- stead of a whole. Each problem is a part of a puzzle, hence the whole is only visible towards the end (Bamford, 2002; Trebilcock, 2009). The scientific objectivity and the positivistic view on design enables a true or false in design decisions, which can be verified through science. The first generation design methods are mostly prescrip- tive (Trebilcock, 2009), and very unilateral; some aspects of a building project will be favoured merely because they can be proved scientifically.
> The second generation consists purely of unspoken knowledge, which can never be justified objectively, as there is no true or false, only good or bad decisions on de- sign. Some critics claim this is an attempt to mystify the design process; hence, the design gains power over other disciplines. This is like trying to complete a jigsaw puzzle with no single right or wrong outcome (Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Com- mission, 2014; Petersen & Svendsen, 2010). The empirical knowledge on design mystifies the design decisions of the building project; the designers are given too much power over the design, as there is no right or wrong to the solution; this is only visible when built (Hybertson, 2009). The second-generation design methods are mostly descriptive (Trebilcock, 2009), which in its own way makes it unilateral too, as the decisions are based on unspoken knowledge.
State of the art
Roozenburg and Cross argues that architecture and engineering started diverging from each other during the development of the second generation of design methodology in the 1970s and 80s, which was a loss for both (Cross, 1993).
The distinction between the two approaches put an end to the development of the first generation instead of adjusting the inadequacies. It is deemed likely, that this might have had great impact on the way design methods are viewed today. The clear definition and separation of the two generations might even have created a polarised concept of the two.
There have been many attempts to refine both generations and create new versions. In 1989, Cross wrote that “perhaps a third generation of the 1990s might be based on a combination of the previous two; or, as in the model proposed by Cross (1989), on under- standing the ‘commutative’ nature of problem and solution in design.”
As Cross predicted, many new design methodologies would try to embrace both ap- proaches of the two generations by placing the engineer within the A/S paradigm and the architect within the C/A paradigm and forming a process based on this view. The competing visions of being problem-oriented and solution-oriented are sought com- bined, yet still within the traditional ideas of how engineers and architects think and work in two fundamentally different ways.
As Cross also predicted, some design methodologies would be based on a correlation between the problem and solution. In 2002, Hybertson wrote that “the third-generation process that followed owes much to the philosophy of Karl Popper, and is called the conjecture-refutation model” (Hybertson, 2009).
With the definition from Hybertson, the third generation of design methods is based on a having the problem and development of the solutions as simultaneous activities that support each other. As Hybertson states, the third generation method is called the ‘con- jecture/refutation’ (C/R) model. The whole and details are developed in parallel, where the problem and solution emerge together in synergy.
Design process types
As stated above, design methods and design processes are connected. The above de- scribed generations of design methods are the underlying foundation of how different professions approach design. Yet, the methodologies are a theoretic description of the design method and do not describe how the design process works. The following section will elaborate on design process types relevant to building projects; the linear, the iter- ative and the integrated design process.
Linear Design Process
The linear design process is a sequential model, which can be compared to the Water- fall model in the software industry. In the Waterfall model, the output of one phase is the input in the next. It is a common used management tool, which is ideal for small, well-defined problems in a stable context. The general idea is to minimise rework by getting everything right in one phase, before progressing to the next (Glushko, 2008).
According to PhD in Architecture and Civil Engineering and Construction Management Lea Urup,
the traditional design process is a linear process (Urup, 2016). The features of the ‘con- ventional’ design process is described in the following:
> The architect and the client agree on a design concept, consisting of a general massing scheme, orientation, fenestration and, usually, the general exterior appearance as deter- mined by these characteristics;
> The mechanical and electrical engineers are then asked to implement the design and to suggest appropriate systems to achieve acceptable indoor climate (Intelligent Energy Europe, 2009).
This is supported by Strømann-Andersen, who writes that the traditional design process is like a ‘baton’, which is continuously passed from one specialist to another, hence the knowledge is applied in series (Strømann-Andersen, 2012).
Figure 7 - The linear design process
Adopted from (Brunsgaard, Knudstrup, & Heiselberg, 2009) Concept
design Pre-
design Schematic
design Design
proposal Detailed
design Con-
struction
Architect
Client Architect Architect/
Engineer Architect/
Engineer Con- tractor
Concept design
Schematic design
Design proposal
Detailed design
This creates a linear structure due to the successive contributions of the members of the design team. When the decisions are made in series with single professions, the oppor- tunity for common advantages are lost, and the cost will increase (Strømann-Andersen, 2012). This also limits the possibilities for optimisation during the design process, and optimisation in the later phases of the process is often troublesome or even impossible (Intelligent Energy Europe, 2009).
As the energy regulations regarding buildings in Denmark become more strict, more pa- rameters need to be addressed compared to standard buildings. The linear phase model results in difficulties when optimising the design according to e.g. energy and indoor environment, as the engineering expertise is brought in late in the process (Brunsgaard et al., 2014). The outcome of the sequential structure is often high operating costs and a sub-standard indoor environment (Brunsgaard et al., 2009; Larsson, 2009)
The linear design process is the most commonly used method in Danish building proj- ects (Urup, 2016) as it:
> is a taken for granted norm of how to do projects (Urup, 2016)
> seems simplistic, as there are few active actors and the different professions are implemented linearly (International Energy Agency, 2003)
Figure 8 - The liner design process adopted from (Nielsen, 2012)
‘Loops of iteration’
Iterative Design Process
Contrary to the linear design process, rework is inevitable and desired in the iterative de- sign process, as each step only ends, when enough information is obtained to know what step to take next (Glushko, 2008). First, an idea emerges, which is then developed and tested, before being either refined or discarded in favour of another idea. The iterative process is therefore defined as a process, where a repeating set of steps are taken until a desirable result is achieved (Malin, 2004; Sakikhales & Stravoravdis, 2015).
In the iterative process, it is therefore difficult to plan milestones, as the decisions of which milestones to fulfil, evolve with the level of knowledge. Also, in the iterative pro- cess, it is possible to return to earlier phases and adjust the decisions to embrace the newly found knowledge (Bejder, Knudstrup, Jensen, & Katic, 2014).
The iterations can be very beneficial in design developments, especially when involving multiple disciplines. It is often seen that iterations are performed within each area of expertise, where e.g. the architect designs the massing, layout and façade of the building until a desired result is reached. The design is then passed on from the architect to the structural engineer, where a new iteration of the design can start, with a focus on the structural system. The outcome of this new iteration can either be a refinement of the design or a discarded solution. Depending on the amount disciplines involved, this can lead to a great number of iterations before everyone reaches a desired solution (Malin, 2004).
Figure 9 - The iterative design process adopted from (Nielsen, 2012)
Integrated design process
There is a broad consensus of how integrated design processes differ from the tradi- tional design process. However, there are still as many variations of how to practice the integrated design process (IDP) as there are IDP practitioners (Busby Perkins +Will &
Stantec Consulting, 2007).
An IDP is most commonly identified by the following parameters (Brunsgaard et al., 2014; International Energy Agency, 2003)
> An iterative process, which is subject to a linear sequence of milestones
> Considers and optimises the building as an entire system including its aesthetic and functional aspects, technical equipment and surroundings
> All actors of the project cooperate across disciplines and agree on far-reaching and crucial decisions jointly from the beginning
> The design concept is subject to iterations early in the process, which is performed by a coordinated team of specialists
The term integrated design process (IDP) was first used in the early 1990’s in a Canadian project to describe a holistic approach to building design (Larsson, 2009). Today, con- cepts of integrated design are seen in both academic literature as well as in companies’
branding of competencies. There are many different versions of IDP both on internation- al, national and company level and with different emphasis on process methods, actors, actions, responsibilities or technology, as well as whether the scope is applicable for a project approach or industry approach (C. Koch & Buhl, 2013).
According to associate professor in architecture and design, Camilla Brunsgaard, all inte- grated design processes focus on the importance of integrating architectural and engi- neering aspects in a shared holistic synthesis (Brunsgaard et al., 2009).
Strømann-Andersen defines the overall characteristics of an Integrated Design Process as a series of design loops in different phases of the design, which are separated by mile- stones. In each design loop, relevant design team members participate (Strømann-An- dersen, 2012). This description is backed by (Nielsen, 2012), who describes integrated design processes as a combination of the linear- and iterative design process.
Shared objective Review Review Review ReviewConcept
design Schematic
design Design
proposal Detailed
design
The following illustration shows how the integrated design process is partly linear, partly iterative:
In the following, the integrated design process will hence be defined as an iterative design process with multiple disciplines working together, with predefined sequential milestones.
Collective intelligence is important, when the main objective for a team is to develop a solution to a given problem as it is in the integrated design process. Within the design team, an adequate level of coherence should occur. This is not possible within traditional planning environments as the available band-width among team members is insufficient for them to share the same knowledge. Sharing the same knowledge is a prerequisite condition for collective intelligence. However, all relevant knowledge available for the team members is not necessarily utilised when making decisions. Therefore, a complete shared knowledge is not required for a group to achieve collective intelligence (Forgber, Kohler, Koch, Schmidt, & Haller, 2009). In (Jakobsen & Wohlenberg, 2016), this is termed
‘information overload’: Too much information sharing leads to no information being implemented at all as there are too many inputs and no way to navigate in it. Hence, not everyone on the team needs to know the theories and equations, yet the underlying reasons for a certain solution must be shared. This is possible through iterations, yet with a clear delimitation in time-span, i.e. an integrated design process.
Figure 10 - The integrated design process adopted from (Nielsen, 2012)
The link between design- methods and processes
Architects and engineers have a history of misunderstanding each other. The problem seems to be mistaken communication, and the fact that the two professions operate on different traditions and methods. The engineers come from a positivistic tradition, where the architects are from a humanistic, hermeneutic, tradition.
“The architect focuses on senses and subjectivity where the engineer focuses on measurable results and objectivity” (Hansen & Knudstrup, 2005).
In a multidisciplinary project, the team members tend to have either a problem-oriented approach through analysis or a solution-oriented approach through conjecture, respec- tively. Engineers therefore often work in an analysis/synthesis approach, which means that a problem is broken down into fragments to solve each problem independently. This approach tends to foster a linear process. The given problem might not be solved in the first try, but the overall solution is interchangeable. Architects, on the other hand, work in iterations to identify other problems as one decision might influence earlier decisions.
There is a loop from each function to all proceeding functions. The solution therefore can change as more and more problems are sought solved.
Overall, the engineer and architect deal with design in two different ways, which is why communication and collaboration might be difficult, yet essential. The two methods en- tail two different theoretical languages, yet working as a team requires a common lan- guage. This is possible through an integrated design process, where all team members get involved early in the process (Hansen & Knudstrup, 2005; Nielsen, 2012; Swann, 2002; Trebilcock, 2009).
The three design methods outlined on page 28 will lead to different design processes, as the different approaches to design - problem or solution orientated – are fundamentally different. However, the different design processes connected to each method will hold elements of both linear and iterative processes. Concepts of integrated design processes recognise the need for a third generation of design methodology, that allows and sup- ports engineers and architects to work efficiently together in the initial phase of a build- ing design project and going forward. However, as stated above, an integrated design methodology has not been sufficiently formulated. The desired design process has been thoroughly described, however methods for obtaining this process are lacking.
discuss aesthetics and architects study what cranes do, we are on the right road
- Ove Arup
“
applied to the design process towards a better building?
Literature study on Danish framework and mapping of integrated design process guides
The following chapter contains a description of how building projects are conducted in Denmark, with a focus on aspects, which influence project process and collaboration, such as contractual structures and sustainability certification schemes.
Furthermore, the chapter address research within integrated design processes conducted over the past two decades. An extensive literature study of the existing guides for integrated design process in building projects was conducted as part of this Master Thesis. The aim of the literature study was to map the state of the art and collect best-practise for integrated design processes, but also to identify gaps and insufficiencies in the guides, that may be the cause of some of the difficulties the building industry is experiencing in relation to integrated design. In the following, the method and outcome of the literature study is presented.
The last part of the chapter contains a recap on the entire content of the chapter and a sub-conclu- sion on the investigated research sub-question 1.
ROADMAP FOR PART 1
RECAPFINDINGS
PAR T 1 SUB- CONCL USION PAR T 1 SUB- QUESTION
INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESSES DANISH BUILDING
PROJECT FRAMEWORK
DESIGN PROCESS PROFILES INSIGHTS
Which aspects infl uence the design processes and collaboration in the Danish building industry, and what methods and principles from integrated design frameworks can be applied to the design process towards a better building?
LITERATURE STUDY
The following section outlines key aspects, which influence the building project process in a Danish context. Regulatory frameworks and traditions in building differ from country to country. In order to explore potentials for optimisation of integrated design processes, with the aim of formulating a palpable concept, it is necessary to analyse the mechanisms that influence and control the design process. Hence, it is necessary to know and understand the context in which the design process take place. The following is thus a description of the Danish building project process and associated services required by different disciplines of profession, followed by a description of different existing contract types that support early collaboration and which fit in a Danish framework. The last part of this section is a descrip- tion of initiatives for better building projects, which can also influence a design process. The initiatives are ICT, Værdibyg guides, and sustainability certification schemes.
Description of Services for Building and Planning
Building projects in Denmark follow the Danish Description of Services for Building and Planning (Ydelsesbeskrivelser for Byggeri og Planlægning) (DANSKE-ARK & FRI, 2012).
In the following, this will be referred to as ‘Description of Services’. Therefore, it is essen- tial to investigate this framework, in order to understand the process of Danish building projects.
The Description of Services serves as “a basis for providing consultancy in connection with building and planning” (DANSKE-ARK & FRI, 2012). The description outlines the services that are required by building designers in each of the phases of a building project. In general, there are four main phases in a building project; initial design, detailed design, construction, and in-use (Koch, 2011). The early design phases, i.e. pre-, concept- and schematic design, are not named in the Description of Services, only the outcome of these are described. However slightly varying, other sources describe and name the ini- tial phases of building projects. In this report, the following naming of phases and sub phases are used. The content of the initial phases are adopted from (Teisen, Tolstrup, &
Due, 2013) and the English naming is adopted from (AIA, 2007). The phases are shown on the following page.
