20th Century Architectural Historiography Analysis

Research Paper: Architectural Historiography in the 20th
Century
historiography is the writing of history, as well as the process
by which historians analyze and
interpret historical evidence. Therefore, the writing of history
is, by nature, interpretive, and as such it is
highly influenced by the author-historian’s agenda, bias,
cultural context, research method, knowledge (or
ignorance) of source material, selective editing, etc. To this
end, for this research project you will choose a
subject relevant to twentieth century architecture, and you will
compare/contrast various historians’
interpretations of this subject.
First, you will choose one architect, event, movement, period or
theory relevant to twentieth
century architecture. Some possible topics might include: the
Deutscher Werkbund, the Case Study House
Program, Japanese Metabolism, the Bauhaus under Hannes
Meyer, the New York Five, the 1932 exhibit
at the MoMA entitled “The International Style”, Mies van der
Rohe’s work at the Illinois Institute of
Technology, Rem Koolhaas in the 1970s, etc. If you choose to
focus on the work of one architect, you
should narrow your research down to an important period in that
architect’s life (e.g. Frank Lloyd Wright in
the 1930s), or a specific theory developed by that architect (e.g.
Louis Sullivan’s brand of Rationalism).
Your task is NOT to report on the building, architect or event,
but rather to compare/contrast various
historiographic interpretations of it.

You will consult a minimum of five historiographic accounts of
the topic (see the list of examples of
historiographic accounts below), from different author-
historians who express different viewpoints. As you
read and reflect on these accounts, you should ask yourself
• What evidence does each historian cite, and what evidence
does each historian leave out? Why?
How does this decision influence this historian’s narrative of
the topic?
• How does each author-historian use and interpret the
evidence?
• What distinct conclusions has each historian drawn about this
subject?
• How do these conclusions differ? How are they similar?
• How does each historiographic account reveal the historians’
own bias and/or agenda? • How have
perceptions of this subject been affected by the various
historiographic accounts of it? • How does the
author-historian contextualize the topic in the broader narrative
of the history of twentieth century
architecture?
• In what ways does the author-historian’s account of this
subject reveal her/his broader approach to
the history of architecture?
• How have historians affected our understanding of this topic?

Topic Proposal
After choosing a topic, list and analyze each account of the
topic. List the similarities and
differences that you discover between accounts (i.e. as listed
above). Be specific. Then, conduct research
on the author of each account to determine how they chose to
include some information while excluding
other information. Your proposal should also consider/discuss
each author’s bias. I recommend that you
organize this information in table format.
Finally, write a thesis statement and 1-2 paragraphs that
summarize(s) the overall trend, trajectory,
etc. of the historiography of the subject. Do the authors fall into
various “camps”? Do you notice an
evolution over time in the ways this topic has been presented?
Are some authors’ biases more evident
than others?
2/22/2021 ERM: Evolving From Risk Assessment to Strategic
Risk Management
https://www.hfma.org/topics/hfm/2018/april/60137.html 1/9
You have 2 free articles remaining this month.
Tr e n d | E n t e r p r i s e R i s k M a n a g e m e n t
ERM: Evolving From Risk Assessment to

Strategic Risk Management
Apr 01, 2018
By Terry Puchley and Chris Toppi
Changes in the healthcare system are bringing new risks, which
hospitals and health
systems need to manage effectively to remain competitive.
The U.S. healthcare ecosystem represents a $5 trillion market
and is projected to grow to a
$5.5 trillion market by 2025. The exponential growth comes
from several thematic drivers,
including the shift from volume to value and the rise of the
consumer, both of which are turning the
industry on its head as new payment models and greater
expansion of consumer options are being
introduced to the marketplace. Other drivers include evolving
mobile strategies, new entrants, an
aging population, and continued uncertainty in political and
regulatory environments. With medical
device cybersecurity vulnerabilities being reported at record
levels, it is evident that new risks are
constantly threatening the quality of patient care and providers’
long-term prosperity.
As the healthcare market expands and evolves, the inherent

risks also are increasing, as shown in the
sidebar.
(javascript:void(0);)
Expert Reviewed
a (#footnotes)
b (#footnotes)
javascript:void(0);
Risk Management
Sidebar: The Evolution of Risk (/bin/hfma/legacy.60138.html)
Moving Beyond Risk Identification
Traditionally, the healthcare industry has exceled in risk
identification and assessment. The industry
has been less proficient at prioritizing and managing risk,
however, and it has a vital need to tackle
these areas. To do so, healthcare providers must invest more in
building enterprise risk management
(ERM) capabilities.

As a defensive strategy, a focus on avoiding risk may seem to
hold promise, but no hospital or health
system can avoid risk entirely. By giving an organization
insight into how to take the right risks at the
right time, an effective ERM program can help the organization
more successfully execute its strategic
imperatives.
Getting Beyond Basic Effectiveness
Despite the growing importance of programs today, and the
raised awareness of their importance,
many healthcare providers have been slow to adopt a more
sophisticated approach. As shown in the
exhibit below, the current state for most providers falls between
“basic” and “evolving” maturities for
ERM programs.
Levels of ERM Maturity
https://www.hfma.org/bin/hfma/legacy.60138.html
Risk Management

Organizations classified as basic recognize the implications of
risk to achieving the organization’s
objectives and are just beginning to have important discussions
on the topics of risk. Often defined as
hazards and considered only in the context of their adverse
consequences, risks managed at a basic
maturity levels are identified on an annual basis; risk mitigation
and controls are seldom factored in,
and reporting is seldom, most often biannually at best.
Organizations at basic maturity also may have disparate risk
management processes that aren’t
managed in a coordinated method (e.g., compliance, IT/cyber
security, operations, and legal/insurance)
and that exist outside normal management processes or
cadences. Moreover, the internal ERM risk
assessment is siloed from other risk assessments conducted in
the organization.
Components for the risk assessment tend to be seen as
requirements imposed upon the organization
rather than as opportunities for proactive investment in the
organization. As a result, the risk
assessment often lacks substantive data and analysis, misses
measurable monitoring, and does not

align with the organization’s strategic vision and operational
goals. It therefore is not surprising that
ERM programs at the basic-maturity level often suffer from a
lack of value creation in helping the
(javascript:void(0);)
Enterprise risk management Provider Program Maturity
javascript:void(0);
Risk Management
enterprise manage risk to drive performance, and that they are
rarely seen as anything other than
“check-the-box” programs.
Organizations whose ERM programs are classified as
“evolving” are on the way to having more
enabled programs; they are able to conduct annual risk
assessments within their health systems, but
they do so with limited coordination or alignment back to
strategy. Evolving ERM programs typically
seek to help their organizations assess the broader risk universe,
and they tend to drive toward a

manageable list of 10 to 15 top, “enterprise” risks.
Risk owners within the organization are responsible for the
mitigation of risks and development of risk
action plans to do so, but many of them receive little oversight
from an ERM program. Alignment
between the risk management process and the business
management process starts to form but is
limited (usually involving strategy, planning, or finance). Risk-
appetite statements may exist, but such
statements tend to be formulated at a high aggregate level and
may not always be relevant to
management in helping mitigate individual risks. Risks often
have an informal linkage back to strategic
initiatives and performance expectations.
Establishing an Effective ERM Program: Key Components
An effective ERM program will help to drive greater relevance
across the organization, to bring focus
to promote a greater level of operational and strategic
performance, and to build lasting value to the
health system. Where a company focuses its resources and
efforts is, of course, determined by its
existing position and long-term strategy. If there is no process
in place, organizations should begin

working toward the basic level, focusing on building the
foundational elements of a risk management
framework. Those that have already established some risk
protocols should aim for evolving maturity
and concentrate on broadening organizational support and
embedding and sustaining risk
management throughout the enterprise. For example, effective
ERM programs help an organization
understand what must go right if the organization is to achieve
its long term objectives, what the risks
are to achieving those objectives, how well the organization
currently mitigates risks and the identifies
the gaps to continuing to improve on those mitigation efforts,
and how it then can develop oversight
and reporting processes to monitor risk management activities.
Regardless of the initial maturity level, an important starting
point for developing the ERM program is
to clearly define or review the program’s purpose and value
proposition for key stakeholders. This
exercise will help determine whether the current program is
properly serving the organization and is
well-positioned to drive the level of change needed while
managing risk in a dynamic and complex

environment. For example, ERM programs can help drive
standardization in risk assessment
processes, help to bring balance around risks related to business
unit performance expectations as
well as strategic objectives, and start raising the level of risk
acumen in the organization.
To promote this new mindset, the organization must create a
risk culture and governance in alignment
with its strategic planning process and build out risk processes
with the support of governance, risk,
Risk Management
and compliance (GRC) technologies.
These activities, which are fundamental to establishing an
effective ERM program, should have the
following five key areas of focus.
Building a risk culture. When a strong risk culture exists within
a hospital or health system, an ongoing
awareness of risk is naturally embedded in the organization’s
culture, from performance

measurements to a company’s code of conduct, as well as
training programs. Identifying,
understanding, and managing risk is a priority and
responsibility of all members of the management
team.
A health system can be a leader in building a risk culture by
embedding discussions on risk topics into
day-to-day operations, including quarterly performance
reporting, existing committee meetings, and
executive team discussions.
Developing an organization’s risk culture also requires a
companywide effort. Organizational risks
should be defined more broadly than simply as events that result
in challenges and issues that must be
avoided. It is important that all stakeholders within the hospital
or health system understand both the
risks and opportunities presented, and the uncertainties that
need to be balanced to make an
informed decision on whether to pursue the opportunity. For
example, a hospital may be considering a
new form of care delivery that may create a significant revenue
stream and leverage the greater suite
of care facilities across the system but that adds a heightens the
organization’s level of risk. By

understanding what needs to go right to operationalize the new
form of care delivery, what could
prevent the organization from achieving that objective, and
what level of current and future risk
mitigation capabilities are needed, an organization can make a
more well-informed decision on
whether to pursue the opportunity.
Formalizing risk governance. Risk governance is well-defined
when the board, senior management,
and functional management have specific roles within the risk-
management process and recognize
their active roles within the risk-governance process. The
organization also should provide these key
stakeholders with the tools to fulfill those roles, ensuring proper
knowledge and staffing of resources,
including the GRC technology required to facilitate information
sharing and coordination of risk
management activities. All these individuals also should be
accountable for their participation in the
process, and guides and protocols should be created to clearly
define when and how issues of risk are
to be escalated.
For example, accountability in risk governance is a fundamental

aspect of risk management for one
national healthcare provider operating in more than 20 states.
Risk owners are responsible for
developing and monitoring risk response plans and for updating,
identifying, and analyzing new and
emerging risks. The information gathered through this process
then is used to update the risk profile
periodically.
Risk Management
Aligning ERM with strategic planning. Alignment of ERM to
the strategic planning process is critical
for establishing an effective ERM program. One Midwestern
healthcare system, for example, links key
risks to strategic initiatives when evaluating cost and ROI to
determine whether the initiative falls
within the organization’s risk tolerance.
To achieve greater alignment to the organization’s strategic
planning process, organizational leaders
should leverage the results of the risk assessment to promote a

discussion around the implications of
the risk profile. These conversations ultimately could lead to
integration of the ERM processes within
key functions such as planning, mergers and acquisitions, and
program management for strategic
initiatives. Another leading healthcare provider has found it
effective to incorporate the process of
linking all its top risks to the stated company strategy and
underlying objectives, while also tying them
back to risks identified in the company’s Form 10-K filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
Standardizing the risk management process. Efforts in this area
include those focused on maintaining
accountability in risk management processes. For example, the
ERM program at one leading provider
organization meets quarterly with risk owners one on one, with
the goal of capturing changes in risk
activity and discussing the effectiveness of risk action plans.
Data analysis is critical to standard risk management processes.
Analytics define the qualitative and
quantitative impact of risk on an organization’s ability to
accomplish its strategic initiatives and

execute its day-to-day business decisions. Organizational
leaders should review all risk scenarios to
understand the implications of changing business models,
industry events and trends, and the
interrelatedness and combined impact of risk. Using this
information, as well as risk appetite, risk
management professionals can embrace the tolerance changes
over time and drive further resource
allocation discussions.
Leveraging GRC technology to capture and coordinate risk
management activities. As the risk
environment evolves, enhanced and more sophisticated tools
help to support an advancing risk
management process and improve coordination of core risk
management activities. These tools
provide greater access to shared data and information across the
organization and improve resiliency.
To optimize the use of GRC technologies, hospitals and health
systems should identify existing tools by
risk functions and obtain a clear understanding of how these
tools are being used currently. Obtaining
feedback from users on existing tools also can help in
determining their effectiveness. Armed with this
research, leaders can determine which tools will support an

integrated risk management program and
use that information to develop a GRC technology roadmap.
This roadmap also should include a
common framework, structure, and taxonomy to ensure the GRC
technology solution implemented
will support the integration of risk functions to align
compliance, risk management, and operational
initiatives.
The Upside of Risk
Risk Management
Terry Puchley Chris Toppi
As the risk hospitals and health systems face in today’s
healthcare environment increases and
diversifies, these organizations have both an opportunity and a
great need to advance along the
continuum from basic risk management to a well-established
ERM program. Having such an
established program is essential to being able to add greater
value. An effective ERM program

encourages continuous improvement, aligns with strategic
priorities, and enables organizational
leaders to understand and take on the risks their organizations
must assume to succeed, and then to
effectively manage those risks. Such skills are more vital than
ever in our evolving, yet risk-filled
healthcare environment.
Terry Puchley (mailto:[email protected]) is a risk assurance
national health services leader at
PwC, Chicago.
Chris Toppi (mailto:[email protected]) is a director in PwC’s
risk assurance - health services
practice, Chicago.
Footnotes
a. “PwC, Surviving Seismic Change: Winning a Piece of the $5
(https://www.pwc.com/us/en/health-industries/health-research-
institute/publications/pdf/pwc-hri-
health-industry-changes.pdf), September 2016; Johnson, C.Y.,
“Why America’s Healthcare Spending Is
Projected to Soar Over the Next Decade,” Workblog, The
Washington Post, Feb. 15, 2017.
b. PWC, Top Health Industry Issues of 2018: A Year for

(https://www.pwc.com/us/en/health-industries/assets/pwc-
health-research-institute-top-health-
industry-issues-of-2018-report.pdf), 2017.
About the Authors
Advertisements
R E L A T E D T A G S
mailto:[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]
https://www.pwc.com/us/en/health-industries/health-research-
institute/publications/pdf/pwc-hri-health-industry-changes.pdf
https://www.pwc.com/us/en/health-industries/assets/pwc-health-
research-institute-top-health-industry-issues-of-2018-report.pdf
Risk Management
R e l a t e d A r t i c l e s | E n t e r p r i s e R i s k M a n a g
e m e n t
B u s i n e s s P r o f i l e | E n t e r p r i s e R i s k M a n a g
e m e n t
Engaging in risk management to safeguard strategic
priorities

(/topics/hfm/2020/november/engaging-in-risk-management-to-
safeguard-strategic-
priorities.html)
As a hospital or health system, learn what it means to commit to
anticipating, planning for and
mitigating risks going forward, whether those relate to the
COVID-19 pandemic’s continuing
evolution or other large-scale events.
OCTOBER 29, 2020
B l o g | C o r o n a v i r u s
HHS announces Phase 3 CARES Act Provider Relief
Funding
(/topics/coronavirus/hhs-announces-phase-3-cares-act-provider-
relief-funding.html)
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will accept
applications for Phase 3 General
Distributions of provider relief funds Oct. 5 – Nov. 6.
OCTOBER 08, 2020
By Chad Mulvany, FHFMA
B l o g | C o r o n a v i r u s
What's new in the CARES Act Provider Relief Fund FAQs

https://www.hfma.org/topics/hfm/2020/november/engaging-in-
risk-management-to-safeguard-strategic-priorities.html
https://www.hfma.org/topics/coronavirus/hhs-announces-phase-
3-cares-act-provider-relief-funding.html
https://www.hfma.org/topics/coronavirus/what-s-new-in-the-
cares-act-provider-relief-fund-faqs-as-of-aug-.html
Risk Management
R e l a t e d C o n t e n t
as of Aug. 17
(/topics/coronavirus/what-s-new-in-the-cares-act-provider-
relief-fund-faqs-as-of-
aug-.html)HHS failed Aug. 17 to release guidance providers
need to file reports for lost revenue and increased
expenses amid COVID-19; HFMA will continue to monitor its
website.
AUGUST 25, 2020
By Chad Mulvany, FHFMA
C o l u m n | F i n a n c i a l S u s t a i n a b i l i t y
5 factors that will make the next recession different
from 2008

(/topics/financial-sustainability/article/5-factors-that-will-make-
the-next-recession-
different-from-2008-.html)
Hospitals came through the Great Recession relatively
unscathed, but a future recession would likely
pose much more severe challenges. It therefore would be
prudent for hospitals to act now to protect
themselves against future market distress.
AUGUST 20, 2020
By Richard Rollo
https://www.hfma.org/topics/coronavirus/what-s-new-in-the-
cares-act-provider-relief-fund-faqs-as-of-aug-.html
https://www.hfma.org/topics/financial-sustainability/article/5-
factors-that-will-make-the-next-recession-different-from-2008-
.html

20th Century Architectural Historiography Analysis

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Similar to 20th Century Architectural Historiography Analysis

Similar to 20th Century Architectural Historiography Analysis (20)

More from ssusere73ce3

More from ssusere73ce3 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

20th Century Architectural Historiography Analysis