Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Managing Design Integration


Published on

A surprising and intriguing study on management effectiveness.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Managing Design Integration

  1. 1. ARCHITECTURE SCIENCE, No. 4, pp.1~20, December 2011 Managing Design Integration When Architects and HVAC Engineers Collaborate Matthijs Prins1* Koen Kruijne2 1 Associate Professor, Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Real Estate and Housing P.O. Box 5043, 2600 GA Delft, the Netherlands 2 Project Manager, De Comme Bouwadviseurs- en Regisseurs Wielkamp 6 5301 DB, Zaltbommel, the Netherlands * Corresponding author Email: (Received Jun. 15, 2010; Accepted Mar. 4, 2011) ABSTRACT This paper reports on research into the relationship between process design and management, and the level of integration between the design of a building and its HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning) system. To measure the level of integration, a series of projects published in architectural journals was studied. Twelve criteria concerning integration were derived from this study. Professionals from the field were asked to review a range of projects using these criteria to determine the level of integration. There was substantial agreement on the level of integration in almost all cases. The design process of more than 50 other projects was analysed by means of interviews focusing on the intensity of management procedures directed at process integration. The results of these projects were measured at three levels of integration based on the twelve criteria mentioned above. The study showed no significant correlation between management procedures and the level of integration.KEYWORDS : Design Management, Value, Integration, Process Integration, Design Integration,Management Effectiveness 1
  2. 2. ARCHITECTURE SCIENCE, No. 4, December 2011 1 INTRODUCTION Both in the Netherlands and elsewhere, there has been an increasing need in recent years for integrated project delivery in construction as part of national reform programmes for the construction industry (Nicholson, 2004; Pries, et al., 2005; Nijhof, et al., 2008). Ethics, trust, collaboration and conflict resolution often are cited as the main factors for success in this regard, whether related to team integration in general or to integrated contracting in particular (Gray and Hughes, 2001; Baiden, et al., 2006; Wamelink and Heintz, 2007). Theoretical foundations concerning design and process integration are components of management and organisational theories (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967; Galbraight, 1973; Handy, 1986; Mintzberg, 1991), knowledge-management theories on effective knowledge co-creation and sharing in the case of knowledge workers (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Kazi, et al., 2007), design, i.e. computation, theories (Schön, 1983; Achten, 1997; Burger, et al., 2007) and are evident in a more applied sense in Concurrent & Collaborative engineering (Anumba, 2007) and Lean Construction (Womack and Jones, 1996; Ballard, 2000; Alarcón, et al., 2001; Jørgensen and Emmitt, 2007, 2009). Since a design specifies what has to be constructed, real knowledge integration starts with integrated design, which is traditionally the architect’s specific task in terms of ‘coordinating’ the jobs assigned to the parties involved in the process (Dutch Architects Standard Regulations SR 97, DNR 2005), as well as in terms of integrating the various requirements, wishes and constraints into a design. Beyond this, the increasing complexity and differentiation within the construction, i.e. design, sector, both from a technical, functional and organisational point of view, results in an increasing number of parties acting concurrently in the design or consulting process. This growing level of complexity has given rise to the need for a distinct design management function in the design process, specifically with the aim of achieving greater integration in processes and products (Gray and Hughes, 2001). In spite of the theories that have been developed on process integration and management, relatively few methods and instruments are formerly implemented in actual construction practice, especially not where designers are concerned. McAdam and Canning (2001) illustrated and confirmed this in a study that showed that the reasons cited for ISO 9000 certification and the implementation of a quality management system among professionals surveyed in Ireland did not include a drive towards quality improvement as a competitive business strategy, as the literature suggests it should be. Rather, the professionals surveyed were motivated primarily by the perception that certification would improve their market image and their firms chances of procuring work from public sector clients. In a South African study by Munting and Cruywagen (2008) covering nearly 100 architectural firms (of which only two were ISO 9000 certified) it was concluded that the manner in which quality is managed by a large majority of these firms is unstructured and unsystematic, and that they tend to be highly adverse to 2
  3. 3. Managing Design Integration When Architects and HVAC Engineers Collaboratedocumentation and record keeping. The dominant perception among these firms concerning theimplementation of reliable quality assurance methods might be given more credence if the moretheoretical and complex approaches to design integration, i.e. process integration, are taken into account. Generally, we can expect process integration to result in more efficient production, less constructionwaste, improved life-cycle cost performance, faster delivery or even product and sector innovation.Winkelen and McKenzie (2007) is correct in stating that, in the case of innovation, it is difficult tomeasure performance, as there are no benchmarks for the unknown. Petrucianni (2007) states that it isessential to define and formalise success factors if one wants to measure success. However, it might bestated that in doing so in the case of innovation, one measures to a certain extent a self-fulfilling prophecy.Where construction projects are concerned, innovation and cost-efficiency are often assumed to resultfrom the multidisciplinary collaboration of the parties involved in the integrated process, morespecifically the designers and engineering consultants on the one hand, and the construction and supply-side parties on the other (Pries, et al., 2005). In general, most literature simply assumes that enhancedintegration and solid management practices will be effective. In the literature survey carried out for thisresearch project, empirical evidence was rarely found in which these effects are proven, except for ahandful of case-based examples. Kazi et al. (2007) provide a series of these types of case studies, whichnevertheless do not concern the construction industry. An example of this type of study on theconstruction industry is given by Spence et al. (2001). With regard to architectural design, a fewexamples can be found in the proceedings of the CIB W096 commission on Architectural Management(Emmitt and Prins, 2005) and Scheublin et al. (2006). A more specific study on cost savings by reducingdesign uncertainty in construction was published by Riley and Horman (2001). The most extensive studyin this respect is likely to be the US Design Built Effectiveness Report (Civil Engineering), which showedthat integrated contracting often saves time and sometimes saves money, but no strong correlation toquality was found (FHWA, 2006). Other studies not specifically focussing on management and integration show similar results(Vasters, et al., 2010). In a survey study of 131 projects, Swink (2003) found positive effects formanagerial procedures and timesavings. Similar results are also found in other industries (Yeung, et al.,2004). The study by Ahire and Dreyfus (2000) appears to be an exception to the rule. They found a positivecorrelation between implementing managerial quality techniques in general and the resulting designquality, although in their study, too, the primary benefits were identified in the areas of process speed,defect rates and re-work rates. A remarkable study in this respect was conducted by Brown and Adams(2000). Based on 15 case studies concerning the use of construction project management in the UK, they 3
  4. 4. ARCHITECTURE SCIENCE, No. 4, December 2011 concluded that project management fails to perform as expected and that construction project management provides no added value at all. One might expect an integrated building process to result in a more qualitatively integrated product. “Value is generated when knowledge flows” (Winkelen and McKenzie, 2007), seems to be the common expectation. Defining integration in buildings in this respect is a completely neglected area of scientific research. There is a pronounced lack of definitions of integration in terms of product and process, and there is insufficient empirical evidence on how integration might result from integrated processes. In the literature survey for this study we failed to find any evidence for what architects might consider to be one of the most important benefits of process integration: design integration, and this in terms of architectural expression, which is the focus of this study. Research on these ‘soft’ architectural values seems to be an even more diffuse area (Prins, 2009). This might be self-evident to a certain extent in view of Akin’s (1986) notion that designers, especially where these types of ambiguous values are concerned, find themselves confronted with problems that lack clearly defined objectives, methods and evaluation criteria. As Allison (1997) states, design has a problem finding character by nature. Gray and Hughes (2001) state that: “If a decision could be taken purely on objective grounds then there would be no need for professional judgement and the task could be relegated to a technician or a computer”. Even though there seems to be a great deal of common ground between most designers and others in the construction industry, formal definitions on integration as part of the architectural expression of a building are nonetheless lacking and are apparently quite difficult to formulate. This might also be partly explained by the normative and subjective ideas one might have. Looking for instance at the famous Centre Pompidou by Rogers and Piano, one might come to the conclusion that this is the prime example of integration, since the HVAC system is such an essential component of the architectural expression of the building. From an engineering perspective, however, one might argue that there are better and more efficient solutions for the HVAC systems than affixing them to the outside of the building. So whether or not one considers this to be an example of integration depends on one’s professional viewpoint and the criteria applied. Another aspect concerning design integration, which has to be taken into account might be called ‘architectural integrity’. Ludwig Mies van der Rohe’s Barcelona Pavilion features a roof, which is supported by walls as well as columns. At some points in the building the columns are expressly used as spatial structuring elements, suggesting the presence of load-bearing walls. In actuality, the roof is only supported by the columns. 4
  5. 5. Managing Design Integration When Architects and HVAC Engineers Collaborate The columns appear to be solid, but actually they consist of four connected L-shaped steel profilescovered by a chromium plated finishing. The horizontal roofing also seems to be constructed of solidplates, but it is in fact a covered steel structure. Although one might be inclined to say that this Miesianexample of architecture is unique in terms of integrity between its spatial and structural elements, whatone actually perceives is different from reality.2 RESEARCH DESIGN Often design integration is seen as a positive quality in a building. It largely depends on either thearchitect’s ability to integrate the work of the engineers and consultants or/and their talents for adaptingand adding to the architectural concept, or it is the result of an integrated process characterised bycollaboration, trust and mutual understanding (Nijhof, et al., 2008). It is often stated that in the latter case, process complexity demands better design management.Although there are many handbooks available on how to manage architectural design (Allinson 1997;Gray and Hughes, 2001; Boyle, 2003), as stated previously literature is lacking that empirically provesthe effectiveness of managerial procedures in these instances with regard to the resulting architecturalvalue, more specifically when ‘soft values’ are taken into account. Much literature of more recent dateaddresses the issue of integration in the design process from the perspective of developments in IT suchas feature-based modelling, extranets, parametric modelling, Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) andconnected developments in Building Information Modelling (Prins and Owen, 2010). Other authorsaddress the application of specific methodologies such as value management, lean construction andsupply chain management (Austin, et al., 2001; Jørgensen and Emmitt, 2009) more specifically directedat process and product efficiency. Finally, there is a range of literature on the application of ratherspecific tools such as DQI and CABE (Gann, et al., 2003; Prins, 2009), which addresses the topic ofarchitectural value, but often with little or no focus on empirical evidence for their effectiveness whenimplemented. The focus here is on the more classical management interventions and their effects on architecturalvalue. We have not researched the literature further since we were unable to find any research literatureon this topic, specifically with regard to product and process integration in construction and the resultingarchitectural value. The aim of the present study was to discover whether or not a correlation could be found betweenmanagement efforts aimed at process integration and resulting product or design integration, especiallywith regard to ‘soft’ architectural values. 5
  6. 6. ARCHITECTURE SCIENCE, No. 4, December 2011 Due to limited resources for this project, we chose to restrict the research to the design integration of the architectural expression of a building and its HVAC system. Our aim was to formulate a normative definition of design integration by means of a literature survey and interviews, in such a way that integration could be measured in levels. All of what we found in the literature was of a general, abstract and/or philosophical nature, and was based in the domain of architectural theory and history. We did not find any basis for establishing an operational definition derived from the literature that could be used within the context of our specific aim, namely architectural expression related to engineering in general and HVAC systems in particular. Since the literature survey did not lead to a workable definition, the research strategy was altered. Thirty projects were selected from architectural journals. These projects vary in terms of integration level, according to the researchers. The projects were ranked into three categories based on integration level (almost none, average or good integration) by 15 respondents (4 architects, 8 project leaders and 3 HVAC engineers from a total of 5 different companies (2 architectural firms and 3 HVAC engineering consultancies). These were selected since they all could be considered to be so called ‘strong service offices’ (Coxe and Maister, 1987), involved in similar types of complex (in terms of HVAC and functionality) projects in the healthcare sector, thus keeping our case environment homogeneous. Each project was documented by a series of pictures, which were taken from the journals and presented on one A4 sheet of paper. Afterwards the respondents were asked to explain their ranking. Based on these explanations, criteria were developed and design integration was defined in levels based on these criteria. The validity of this approach was tested by asking some of the same respondents to use the criteria to rank 9 different projects according to the defined levels. Again, these projects were selected by the researchers based on their opinion that they fell into the categories mentioned. We reduced the number of projects in this round to save time. We found a rather high consistency between the responses. After having formulated an operational definition of design integration with sufficient validity, we proceeded to define some indicators based on interviews with professionals from the field and a brief, limited literature survey to measure the effect of management intensity on integration. Not surprisingly given the limited results of our literature survey, we failed to find projects in which we could measure the effectiveness of different project management approaches specifically directed at integration. We therefore decided to work with relatively simple indicators mostly influencing the collaboration between the architect and engineer. We used the following hypotheses: A higher level of design integration might be reached by: 1. Early involvement of the HVAC engineers in the process. 2. The existence and implementation of an information plan. 6
  7. 7. Managing Design Integration When Architects and HVAC Engineers Collaborate 3. Frequent face-to-face meetings. 4. A domain-bound specialist, for example an architect, as the project leader. A series of 55 ex-post case studies was conducted in which the above indicators were used to rankthe management intensity based on document analyses and interviews with 7 different project leaders.Again, we used the same companies mentioned above, but this time we used their own projects, as thiswas the only way to obtain reliable process information. Next, the experts ranked the buildings involved in these case studies based on their level of designintegration. Finally we attempted to establish correlations between the indicators of management intensityand the level of design integration.3 TOWARDS DEFINING A CONCEPT OF DESIGN INTEGRATION As illustrated through a few examples in the introduction, it proved difficult to define a systematic,unambiguous definition of design integration that can be shared by all parties involved in the buildingdesign process. This is because the concept of integration in architecture involves subjective andnormative as well as domain-specific elements. This is why this study limits the approach to just a part of the set of elements constituting integrationin design. More specifically we looked at the level of integration reached between architectural designand HVAC system design. To arrive at a set of criteria for assessing this type of design integration, a large series of pictures of30 different projects taken from architectural journals was presented to 15 professionals (4 architects, 8project leaders and 3 HVAC engineers from a total of 5 different companies (2 architectural firms and 3HVAC engineering consultancies). They were asked to rank all buildings into three categories based onthe level of integration (almost none, average or good integration), specifically with regard to theintegration of HVAC systems and architectural expression. They were then asked to explain theirdecision as explicitly as they could. All of these assessments were recorded by the researcher who, basedon the explanations offered, found 12 more-or-less generic criteria constituting integration betweenarchitectural expression and HVAC systems. These criteria are summarised below: 1. The HVAC system is in harmony with the architectural concept. 2. The HVAC system contributes to the quality of the architectural concept. 3. The HVAC system itself incorporates elements that are aesthetically pleasing. 4. The HVAC system contributes to the functioning of the building. 5. A design vision can be elicited based on both the HVAC system as well as from the architecture. 6. The HVAC system is designed to be explicitly visible or hidden. 7
  8. 8. ARCHITECTURE SCIENCE, No. 4, December 2011 7. The HVAC system fits in with the architectural style of the building (from a historical perspective). 8. The design of the HVAC system is consistent throughout the entire building. 9. Aesthetic clashes between the HVAC system and other parts of the building were designed for this specific purpose. 10. No evident mistakes or jury-rigged solutions are apparent. 11. There are no unfortunate solutions concerning HVAC system and building design. 12. There is unity in the expression of the materials chosen for the HVAC system and the rest of the building. In general the idea behind the criteria is that they cannot be weighted, because each depends on the type of architectural design. The more criteria that are positively assessed for a given design, the higher the degree of integration for that design. Using these 12 criteria, the three main categories of integration were redefined. The following descriptions were used to categorise three levels of integration between HVAC systems and architectural expression: 1. High: The HVAC system contributes to a significant extent to the architectural quality of the building. The HVAC system has aesthetic qualities of its own, as well as in relation to the architectural concept of which they are an intrinsic part. 2. Average: The HVAC system is designed to fit in with the building. While not being a dominant visual aspect, it is integrated in a proper way in the building with elegant technical solutions. 3. None: The HVAC system has a purely functional design; it does not directly contribute to the architectural, i.e. visual, quality of the building. To test the criteria for integration and the categories listed above, we selected a range of different projects. We settled on 9 projects that were documented in architectural journals. We asked 12 professional architects (all from the same firm) to assess the level of integration by putting each of the projects into one of the three defined categories based on our twelve criteria. The assessments were remarkably consistent for most projects. One project was categorised as level 1 (high integration) at 82%. Two projects were categorised as level 3 (no integration) at 91% and 73%. The level-2 projects (average) scored 73%, 55%, 73%, 55%, 55%, and 55%. 8
  9. 9. Managing Design Integration When Architects and HVAC Engineers CollaborateTable 1 provides a detailed overview. Table 1 Results of the quick scan concerning the validity of the three categories of integration. While making their assessments, the architects were observed by the researcher, who alsointerviewed them afterward. All respondents reacted very positively to the three categories we haddefined. Remarkably, most of the respondents made their assessment first and only then explained theirassessments using the 12 criteria, and not the other way around as they were requested and expected to do.Respondents were asked if they felt that criteria were missing or poorly defined, but all agreed that thiswas not the case. The researcher observed that aesthetically displeasing projects received a lower ranking forintegration than projects of higher quality, which might indicate a more critical assessment. These samples have helped us to develop a reasonably workable concept for design integration ofarchitectural expression and HVAC systems.4 MANAGING DESIGN PROCESS INTEGRATION, DOES IT WORK? The idea of managing design has long been considered oxymoronic (Nelson, 2006). The prevailingview among designers has been that tampering with the mystical, sacred design process throughmanagement would rob it of its vitality if not destroy it altogether. Despite all the research and work donein recent decades, this view has not exactly disappeared. Although forward-looking practices now call formanagement of the design process more and more. The best way to manage the design process oftenresembles the old question about how porcupines make love: very carefully. The opinion in the academicworld especially is that architectural design needs domain-specific managerial approaches (Prins, 2002).Nevertheless, in practice one observes at best generally straightforward applications of organisational,project and entrepreneurial management as was observed in this research. 9
  10. 10. ARCHITECTURE SCIENCE, No. 4, December 2011 For this study, we attempted to define easily observable indicators of management efforts and intensity, directed at the collaboration between HVAC engineers and architects. Given the limited resources available for this study, we opted to conduct ex-post case studies for which data could be retrieved by means of document analysis and interviews. We evaluated a total of 55 projects from 2 architectural firms (20 and 19 projects respectively) and one HVAC engineering office (16 projects). 4.1 Early involvement of engineers in the design process In the case of integrated design, it is assumed that all parties collaborate during the entire design process to greater or lesser degrees. In traditional procurement types, too, the client - or his project manager - and the architect may opt for early involvement of the HVAC engineers. ‘Within the design team engineers have to play a more important role. Due to the high specialisation grade, early involvement of specialist designers is a necessity’ (Kohnstamm and Regterschot, 1994). The first indicator of management intensity on design process integration that we chose was the moment of involvement of the HVAC engineer in the design process. The most common standardised phasing of building design processes in the Netherlands consists of three main phases: a. Sketch design phase; b. Preliminary design phase; c. Definite design phase. These phases are highly similar to the British RIBA stages D, E and F. Of the 55 projects, which were chosen for this study, the HVAC engineer was involved in 22 projects starting in the sketch design phase. In 24 projects this was the case starting in the preliminary design phase, and in 9 projects starting in the definite design phase. For each project the respondent who provided the case was asked to rank the integration level reached according to our definitions as listed above. (1 high, 2 average, 3 none). See table 2 at the end of this section. No significant correlation was found between the level of integration reached, and the moment of involvement of the HVAC engineer in the process. Although figures differ depending on the firm providing the cases, no significant trends can be identified in these cases. In the subsequent interviews, some professionals made remarkable statements, which might partly explain these results: “HVAC engineers are insufficiently knowledgeable about the development of architectural design to be involved in the early phases.” 10
  11. 11. Managing Design Integration When Architects and HVAC Engineers Collaborate “Practice differs from theory when the early involvement of the HVAC engineer is taken into consideration. The HVAC engineer lacks the creativity and abstract thinking ability needed to join in the process successfully.” “HVAC engineers’ fees are hardly excessive. This, plus the fact that the bulk of their fees are invoiced in latter phases of the process, is no real encouragement for them to get involved in the process at an earlier stage.” “Since the design often changes drastically several times in the early phases, the HVAC engineer’s fee cannot cover the cost of constantly producing new drawings, which would be the case if he were actively engaged as a co-designer in the process.” “In the early phases, an HVAC engineer only provides added value if the architect is facing complex technical requirements which he cannot deal with on his own.” “Most HVAC engineers have a passive attitude towards the design rather than a pro-active stance.” “Architects often cannot comprehend the drawings produced by HVAC engineers, so they have no insight into the quality potential of the HVAC system and what this can mean for the overall design.”4.2 Information plan Design can be defined as an information-generating and information-specifying process (from briefto detailed design and production information). When multiple designers are involved in a project, a solidand reliable exchange of information is vital (Gray and Huges, 2001; Otter, 2005). In this respect, effortsto formalise the exchange of information between design participants might be considered to be anindicator for the intensity of management on design process integration. One indicator in these casestudies that was easy to detect is whether or not a formal information exchange plan is in placeestablished and is actually used. Four levels of management intensity concerning the information plan were distinguished. These are:a. An information plan is formulated at project start and is actively implemented.b. An information plan is formulated at project start but is not actively implemented, according to the respondents.c. The need for an information plan arises later in the process. It is then formulated and implemented as necessary.d. No information plan formulated. 11
  12. 12. ARCHITECTURE SCIENCE, No. 4, December 2011 The same 55 projects were evaluated using the same methodology as described above. In 20 projects an information plan was formulated and actively implemented from the beginning. 22 projects fell into the second category (a plan is formulated, but it is not actively implemented). In 7 projects an information plan was formulated during the process. For 6 projects no information plan was formulated or implemented at all. For each project the respondent who provided the case was asked to rank the integration level reached (1 high, 2 average, 3 none). A weak correlation was found between the level of integration and the availability and implementation of an information plan. All projects with no information plan were categorised in level 3 (no integration). For all projects, the highest percentage of level-2 integration was reached in those cases where an information plan was implemented from the beginning. See table 2 at the end of this section. It should to be noted that this study did not evaluate the information plans themselves based on their content and quality. The researchers were surprised to find that an information plan was implemented in 76% of the cases studied. In the subsequent interviews held as part of this study, some respondents stated rather remarkably that they did not expect an information plan to be of any real influence, while the results show this in fact to be the most significant correlation. From the range of requirements for the information plan found in the project management manuals, respondents stressed aspects of timeliness and information reliability the most. Another remarkable statement was made by an HVAC engineer, who stated that architects often provide too much information on all the various design changes. Also, some respondents stated that information exchange is less important than easily readable drawings. 4.3 Meeting frequency Meeting frequency might be an indicator of conflicts, or of project complexity, but it could also be an indicator of the level of collaboration. Collaboration is considered to be an intrinsic property, if not a synonym, of process integration. With regard to collaboration between architects and HVAC engineers, we assumed that meeting frequency is one of the indicators for the level of commitment to collaborate and to achieve an integrated project result. In the case study based on archived meeting minutes, we measured the number of face-to-face meetings in which architects as well as HVAC engineers were present. A quick scan resulted in three categories: a. Meetings held more frequently than every 2 weeks on average; b. Meetings held on average every 2 weeks; c. Meetings held on average every 3-4 weeks; 12
  13. 13. Managing Design Integration When Architects and HVAC Engineers Collaborate We did not measure informal or formal communication by fax, telephone, e-mail and so on,because these data could not be retrieved for this study. Again, the same 55 projects were studied as described earlier. Only 2 projects had meetings with ahigher frequency than once every two weeks on average. Neither of them reached integration level 1. For24 projects we measured meetings with an average frequency of every two weeks; none of these reachedintegration level 1, 9 reached level 2 and 15 level 3 (no integration). 29 projects had meetings every 3-4weeks on average, with a nearly equal distribution between integration levels 2 and 3. We may concludethat there is no correlation between meeting frequency and the resulting level of integration. The onlymild trend that was observed, if there is one at all, is that less frequent meetings lead to more integration.The results are summarised in table 2. Respondents remarked on this part of the study as follows: “A bad project cannot be turned into a good one through good communication. On the other hand, bad communication can be highly detrimental to a good project.” “It’s not the frequency, but the quality of communication that counts”. “Really essential communication takes the form of informal dialogue”.4.4 Who is in charge? In accordance with the most commonly applied professional standards in the Netherlands, thecoordination and integration of an architectural design process is the domain of the architect. It is awidespread conviction that managing architectural design processes requires domain-specific skills andexperience at the designer’s level. This might explain why so many architects still prefer to take charge ofprojects themselves and why they eschew professional project managers. This is in line with the bulk ofthe comments made by the professionals involved in this case study. Since the topic of who is best atmanaging a project is closely related to the issue of integrated design, we also looked at this aspect in thestudy. The following categories were distinguished:a. The project is managed by the architect.b. The project is managed by a professional construction project manager.c. The project is managed by someone else (client). Again, the same 55 projects were used. Of the 55 projects studied, 36 projects were managed by anarchitect, 13 by a professional project manager, and 6 by others. 13
  14. 14. ARCHITECTURE SCIENCE, No. 4, December 2011 In those cases where professional project managers were in charge of the projects, they are equally distributed in integration levels 2 and 3. Remarkably, 40% of the projects managed by architects resulted in level 3 integration (lowest level). Table 2 summarises the results. Table 2 Overview of research findings Integration level High Average Low Management intensity Moment of involvement Sketch design 1 10 11 Preliminary design 10 14 Definite design 4 5 Information plan Actively implemented from start 13 7 Not actively implemented 1 7 14 Formulated later in the process 4 3 No info. plan formulated 6 Frequency of meetings Greater than every two weeks 1 1 Average every two weeks 9 15 Average 3-4 weeks 1 14 14 Project manager Architect 14 22 Professional project manager 1 6 6 Other 4 2 Some remarkable statements made by the professionals involved in this part of the study include: “Regardless of who the project manager is, we are the managers during the design phase.” (an architect). “The real influence of a project manager starts at the end of the process. Fortunately, most project managers realise that they must play second fiddle during the early phases of the design process.” 14
  15. 15. Managing Design Integration When Architects and HVAC Engineers Collaborate5 CONCLUSIONS AND REFLECTIONS The main research question in this study focused on whether or not good management leads tobetter-integrated products in construction. More specifically, we wanted to know whether this holds truewhen ‘soft’ architectural values are considered. Since soft architectural values are hard to quantify andmeasure, we specifically limited the study on design integration to the level of integration reachedbetween the architectural expression of the building and its HVAC systems. The study defined three levels of integration between the architectural expression of the building andits HVAC systems, loosely based on twelve corresponding criteria. We observed a remarkable level ofagreement among professionals when asked to classify buildings into one of three categories ofintegration as defined. We also observed that the majority classified first, and only consulted thecorresponding criteria when asked to explain their choices. A number of management intensity indicators that are easy to detect and measure were defined.These indicators are based on very straightforward hypotheses. They are: A higher level of design integration might be reached by:1. Early involvement of the HVAC engineers in the process.2. The existence and implementation of an information plan.3. Frequent face-to-face meetings.4. A domain-bound specialist, for example an architect, as the project leader. As mentioned before we did not find any literature specifically dealing with the effects ofmanagement intensity on collaboration and architectural expression with regard to HVAC systemintegration, nor with engineering in general. We studied 55 projects provided by two large architectural firms and one HVAC engineeringconsultancy. In this study no significant correlation could be found between our managerial indicatorsand the level of integration reached. This generally contradicts all project management handbooks andliterature in which it is commonly assumed that project management, when implemented properly, willresult in better finished projects. There are several potential explanations for this, of which the mostimportant are: Management intensity was measured, and not managerial quality. Of the three architectural firms involved, none had a reputation for architecture with high integration levels as referred to in this study. The case study projects were evaluated by those who provided them and who were involved in the projects themselves; the evaluations were therefore not unbiased. 15
  16. 16. ARCHITECTURE SCIENCE, No. 4, December 2011  The study results might had been different if more projects from different firms had been evaluated, or if projects had been chosen in which integration was an explicit ambition of the design team. The methodology and data used do not support the ultimate conclusion that a significant empirical correlation is lacking. The researchers nevertheless consider it to be rather remarkable that not even the slightest trend could be observed that supports what would seem to be a common-sense hypothesis on the correlation between management processes (aimed at enhanced collaboration) and resulting ‘soft’ architectural value in terms of design integration. REFERENCES Achten, H. (1997) Generic Representations, An Approach for Modeling procedural and Declarative Knowledge of Building Types in Architectural Design, PhD thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven. Ahire, S. J. and P. Dreyfus (2000) The impact of design management and process management on quality: An empirical investigation, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 18: 549-575. Akin, Ö. (1986) Psychology of Architectural Design, Pion Limited, London, UK. Alarcón, L. F., J. Friere, and L. Rischmoller (2001) Design process embracing lean principles and its research, International Journal of Architectural Management, Practice & Research, No. 16: 1-17. Allinson, K. (1997) Getting there by Design: An Architect’s Guide to Design and Project Management, Elsevier Architectural Press, Oxford, UK. Anumba, C., J. Kamara, and A. F. Cutting-Decelle (2007) Concurrent Engineering in Construction Projects, Spon Research, Taylor and Francis, Abingdon Oxon, UK. Austin, S., A. Baldwin, J. Hammond, M. Murray, D. Root, and D. Thomson (2001) Handbook for integrated collaborative design, Thomas Telford, Kent, UK. Baiden, B. K. et al. (2006) The Extent of Team Integration within Construction Projects, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24, No. 1: 13-23. Ballard, G. (2000) The Last Planner System, PhD thesis, University of Birmingham. Boyle, G. (2003) Design Project Management, Ashgate Publishing Company, Hampshire, Burlington, UK. Brown, A. W. and J. D. Adams (2000) Measuring the effect of Project Management on Construction Outputs: A new approach, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 18: 327-335. Burger, J., P. Barendse, and P.P. van Loon (2007) Architectural Design/Decision Room, Development of a Tool for Dynamic Interdisciplinary Design Development, In H. A. J. Ridder and J. W. F. Wamelink 16
  17. 17. Managing Design Integration When Architects and HVAC Engineers Collaborate (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference World of Construction Project Management, held at Delft University of Technology, Delft.Emmitt, S. and M. Prins (Eds.) (2005) Designing Value – New directions in Architectural Management. Proceedings of the CIB W096 Conference held in Lyngby, Denmark, 2-4 November 2005, CIB, Rotterdam.Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (2006) Design Built Effectiveness Study: Final Report, Minneapolis, USA.Galbraith, J. (1973) Designing Complex Organisations, Addison Wesley, Massachusetts, USA.Gann, D. M., A. J. Salter, J. K. Whyte (2003) Design Quality Indicator as a tool for thinking, Building Research and Information, Vol. 31: 318-333.Coxe, W. and D. Maister (1987) Success strategies for design professionals: Superpositioning for architects and engineering firms. Mc Graw Hill, New York, USA.Gray, C. and W. Hughes (2001) Building Design Management, Butterworth Heineman, Oxford, UK.Handy, C. (1986) Understanding Organizations, Penguin Business, St. Ives, UK.Jørgensen, B. and S. Emmitt (2007) Integrating Design and Construction from a Lean Perspective Proceedings of the CIB World Building Congress: 1080-1092, Cape Town, South Africa.Jørgensen, B. and S. Emmitt (2009) Investigating the integration of design and construction from a “lean” perspective, Construction Innovation: Information, Process, Management, Vol. 9, No. 2: 225-240.Kazi, A. S., L. Wohlfart, and P. Wolf (2007) Hands-on Knowledge Co-Creation and Sharing: Practical Methods and Techniques, Knowledgeboard, VTT and Fraunhofer IRB Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany.Kohnstamm, P. P. and L. J. Regterschot (1994) De manager als bouwheer (The manager as Building Client), ten Hagen & Stam, Den Haag, Dutch.Lawrence, P. R. and J. W. Lorsch (1967) New Management Job: The Integrator, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 45: 142-152.Mcadam, R. and N. Canning (2001) ISO in the service sector: perceptions of small professional firms, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 11, No. 2: 80-92.Mintzberg, H. (1991) Effective Organizations: Forces and Forms, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 32, No. 2: 57-67.Munting, P. and H. Cruywagen (2008) Quality management in South African architectural practices, Building and Environment, Vol. 43, No. 4: 444-452.Nelson, C. (2006) Managing Quality in Architecture, a handbook for Creators of the Built Environment, Elsevier Architectural Press, Oxford, UK. 17
  18. 18. ARCHITECTURE SCIENCE, No. 4, December 2011 Nicholson, R. (2004) Challenges for Designers, In S. Macmilan (Ed.), Designing better buildings: Quality and value in the built environment: xiv-xv, Spon Press, London, UK. Nonaka, I. and H. Takeuchi (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, USA. Nijhof, A., E. Karssing, R. Wirtz, and T. Bruijn (2008) En nu doorpakken: Gedragsverandering in de Nederlandse Bouwsector (And Now let’s go on: Behavioral Change in the Dutch Construction Sector), van Gorcum, Assen, Dutch. Otter, A. F. H. J. den (2005) Design team communication and performance using a project website. PhD thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven. Petrucciani, P. (2007) Co-creation Methodologies to Identify, Select and Maintain Knowledge Value Indicators, In A. S. Kazi et al. (Eds.), Hands-on knowledge co-creation and sharing: Practical methods and techniques: 197-218, Knowledge Board, Stuttgart, Germany. Pries, F., M. Keizer, P. Kuypers, and N. Mooiman-Salvini (2005) Handleiding voor opdrachtgevers (Manual for Clients), SBR, Rotterdam, Dutch. Prins, M. et al. (2002) Design and Management, on the management of value in architectural design, In C. Gray and M. Prins (Eds.), Value trough design, proceedings of the joint CIB W096 Architectural Management & Design Research Society Conference: 141-155, held in Reading 2001, Rotterdam, Delft, CIB (publication no 280). Prins, M. (2009) Architectural value, In S. Emmitt et al. (Eds.), Architectural Management: International Research and Practice: 3-16, Wiley-Blackwell, UK. Prins, M. and R. Owen (Eds.) (2010) Integrated Design and Delivery Solutions, Architectural Engineering and Design Management, Vol. 6, special edited issue. Riley, D. and M. Horman (2001) The Effects of Design coordination on Project Uncertainty, In D. Chua and G. Ballard (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th IGLC Conference held in Singapore, NUS. Scheublin, F. et al. (Eds.) (2006) Adaptables 2006, Proceedings of the joint CIB, Tensinett, IASS International Conference on Adaptability in Design and Construction, Volume 3, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven. Schön, D. A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner, Temple Smith. London, UK. Spence, R., S. Macmillan, and P. Kirby, (Eds.) (2001) Interdisciplinary Design in Practice, Thomas Telford, London, UK. Swink, M. (2003) Completing Projects On-Time: How Project Acceleration Affects New Product Development, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 20, No. 4: 319-344. 18
  19. 19. Managing Design Integration When Architects and HVAC Engineers CollaborateVasters, R., M. Prins, P. W. Koppels (2010) Does integrated procurement reduce building cost and project time?, Proceedings CIB World Conference, Better Building, CIB, Salford, UK.Wamelink, J. W. F. and J. L. Heintz (2007) Knowledge Based Integration in Design and Construction: A Conceptual Framework to Analyse Design Integration, Proceedings CIB W102 Information and Knowledge Management -- Helping the Practitioner in Planning and Building, Stuttgart, Germany.Winkelen, C. and J. McKenzie (2007) An Integrated Approach to Enabling More Effective Knowledge Flows in an Organisation, In A. S. Kazi et al. (Eds.), Hands on knowledge cocreation and sharing: Practical methods and techniques: 169-180, Knoweldge Board, Stuttgart, Germany.Womack, J. P. and D. T. Jones (1996) Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in your Corporation, Simon and Schuster, New York, USA.Yeung, A. C. L., T. C. E. Cheng, and L. Y. Chan (2004) From customer orientation to customer satisfaction: The gap between theory and practice, Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions, Vol. 51, No. 1: 85-97. 19
  20. 20. ARCHITECTURE SCIENCE, No. 4, December 2011 建築師與冷凍空調工程師合作時之設計整合管理 馬瑅斯‧普林思 1* 寇恩‧庫魯伊那 2 1 荷蘭台夫特科技大學建築學院不動產與住宅學系副教授 荷蘭台夫特 2600 GA 郵政信箱 5043 2 荷蘭 Comme 建築經理及顧問公司專案經理 荷蘭扎爾特博莫爾 5301 DB * 通訊作者 (2010 年 6 月 15 日投稿,2011 年 3 月 4 日通過) 摘要 本文報告關於程序設計與程序管理之間相互關係,及建築設計和其空調系統設計 (含冷暖氣和通風設備)整合程度的研究。 整合程度的測量方法乃是經由審視建築雜誌刊載的一系列建案,歸納出十二項衡 量整合程度的標準,再要求業界專業人士以此標準檢視不同建案的整合程度。結 果在絕大部份的案例裡對於整合程度都獲得大致相同的結論。 另外透過訪談的方式分析其它逾五十項建案,訪談內容主要是判別針對程序整合 所訂定的管理流程的強度高低。再以上述十二項標準分為三級測量這些建案的整 合程度。研究結果顯示管理流程和整合程度並無顯著關聯。 關鍵字:設計管理,價值,整合,程序管理,設計整合,管理效能 20