When have architects stopped being visionaries and why are we no longer triggering innovation by design?(Part 1)

After spending the last 10years in the field of architecture and, especially, after founding the start-up @theibdcompany, I could not help but notice that the field has failed to keep up with globalization and the job of an architect is now threatened to disappear. But what has caused the architecture field to fall behind and be qualified as  "old fashion"?

Architecture has been for centuries the centre of human evolution and innovation. It all started during the Paleolithic era, when it was able to provide us with our first shelter. This enabled humans to stop worrying about finding a safe place to sleep at night and, instead, start discovering new innovative things such as fire and tools to hunt. During the Roman Empire, architecture was key to providing revolutionary infrastructures and integrated engineering, which permitted to stop worrying about severe deceases and focus instead on art, medicine and engineering. Architecture was also, for example, the ultimate facilitator of the industrial revolution, thanks to the design of the first flexible buildings, which allowed to host heavy machinery work and focus on innovating the production processes.

All of this to say that architecture has always been visionary and has taken away human struggles in order for people to focus on progress. The status of the architect was therefore powerful and important for society, as he/she would envision the future.

But what is happening now? Well, now, architecture is no longer a tool or a trigger of innovation. The field seems somehow to be stuck in time and struggles to follow a world which is changing fast due to globalization. How have we been falling behind?

As @SebatianErrazuriz warned us, if the architecture field does not catch up with the world (artificial intelligence and technologies) it is "doomed" to fail. "I think it's important that architects are warned as soon as possible that 90 per cent of their jobs are at risk," he said.

So what is the situation now?

As @BjarkeIngels explained in the podcast "Time sensitive", it takes 5 to 10 years from the moment the architect draws the first sketch until the delivery of the building. Considering that the construction takes between 18 months and 3 years, why is the process until then so slow? How can we spend more time in the decision making than on-site building the project? What are the real struggles of our field? The invention of BIM was meant to shorten this time frame but all it did was making the 3D model of the project more accurate and be allowed to reduce the risks on the construction site. However, we can definitely not say that it has helped to innovate architecture or to shrink the number of decisions to be made. No, because the problem is actually not a technical issue but a human problem, a mentality problem.

We, somehow, have stopped questioning our design process and we have been playing it safe. Therefore, we continue struggling every day, going from a meeting to another, discussing issues with the client and all parties, and of course, changing our BIM model accordingly. But we never question how do other fields do it? You would think that the process to build a spaceship would be far more complex and long than to build an average building, but somehow the architecture field takes the same time to complete a simple residential flat that the NASA takes to build a spaceship.

The Design Process being so long and difficult to manage, it takes away our focus on innovation and technologies. We are no longer visionary, we are designing without thinking about how the world may look in 50 years’ time.

Instead, we decide to be on the safe side and design in the same way as 5 to 10 years ago. How many times have I heard "let's just do it like in our reference project x, that was working fine wasn't it?'. Except that, users' requirements are changing and we are no longer triggering innovation by design. Start-ups are now making architecture "futureproof" by fitting/plugging-in technologies in newly built buildings in order to improve their performance. However, these solutions should be integrated into the design since the start.

Part 1: innovating the Design Process

How can the architecture field catch up with globalization and be a trigger of innovation again? In this Part 1, we will concentrate on the necessity to innovate the Design Process, while next time we will talk about innovating the Business Development and Marketing of architecture practices.

In order for architecture to become again the trigger for innovation we need to innovate our Design Process and in order to achieve this goal, we need to start thinking outside the box. The reason why our process is so slow is that, for each project, we set up an endless amount of meetings to decide on an endless amount of design options which are subjective rather than tested. Since the design decisions are made according to a person's preference instead of a conclusive test of the idea, design changes are recurrent until we run out of time.

Therefore, with @theibdcompany we came up with several ways to shrink the Design Process timing in order to make our clients more performant compared to their competitors.

• Lean Design to test design ideas

If anyone is familiar with the concept of "Lean Start-up" by @EricRies, @theibdcompany has adapted it to the architecture field. The goal is for the architect to figure out the right thing to design (and the build) that users want and clients will pay for. The first step is to confirm that the design creates value for the users. Every design idea becomes an experiment, which we call a "Minimum Viable Design", to be tested and validated. The successful way of experimenting MVD is to observe- and not ask- what the user or the client wants. We have identified 3 types of MVDs:

a. The VR technology MVD: the architect validates his design idea by showing the client/user through Virtual Reality experience. This helps anyone who is not a design specialist and who is not used to read plans and sections to understand the design and take quick decisive design decisions.

b. The Concierge MVD: it is aimed for projects where the client/user has to have an emotional response/experience through design (i.e. villas, cultural buildings, pavilions...). This technic focuses on the customer and the architect learns everything about his or her preferences and adapts the design accordingly.

c. The Wizard of OZ MVD: this option is used in order to validate small design variants by asking the client to choose between ONLY two options. If the client gets proposed more options, he will not take quick decisive decisions.

• Tailored Design Workshops where decisions are actually being made

Usually, throughout a project, a meeting is set up every week between the design team and the client. Most of the times, however, these meetings are inconclusive, and sometimes even, we go back on some decisions which were made previously. So what causes these communications issues to come up with design decisions?

a. First of all, you need to have the right people, in the right meeting, making the right decisions. Very often, the design meetings take place with the client and the project leaders of the design team (which of course is normal because they have the authority to make the right decision). However, it is also important to include people who have dived in detail into the design proposals. They will be the only ones to be able to explain which option works or not and why, in order for the project leaders and clients to take the right decision. It is extremely common that once the design meeting is over and the project leader goes back to the office, that he gets told by the internal team that the decision which was made was tested before but was not working. You can, therefore, prevent this from happening by having a clear agenda for each meeting and select wisely the members of the team who should be present to make the right decisions. Never underestimate the knowledge that the internal team has, whether they are seniors, juniors, or even interns who dive into the project in detail.

b. Believe it or not, most of the time, the client can have difficulties making a design decision because he/she is not familiar with reading plans, sections and even sometimes 3D drawings. Representation is key to communicate clearly what you wish to decide on! VR, for instance, can be a good solution as it gives an accurate representation of architecture for anyone who sees it.

c. Finally, make the meeting a constructive workshop rather than a battle of egos and for this, you need a mediator. A person which stands in between parties and that is able to have a fair opinion on the design decisions which are made. Usually, this person is the architect advising the client. He understands the client's requirements and risks but also the design team's pain. This mediator is also in charge of keeping an eye on the agenda and verifying that all points are discussed within the timeframe of the meeting.

@theibdcompany is currently working on designing a workshop framework which can be used by design teams in order to be more efficient and successful throughout the design process and tap on to the right issues in a limited amount of time.

{ if you would like to know more about @theibdcompany workshop framework drop us an email at info@theibdcompany.com }

• Introducing AI in the design process

Imagine being able to map out the users' needs and their feedbacks on existing designs. @theibdcompany is currently investing in Research and Development in order to introduce AI to the architecture field. If we were able to collect data points on the users we would be able to predict their future behaviour thanks to algorithms. This would mean that the architect would be able to anticipate the user's preferences and integrate them directly within the design. It would enhance the quality of architecture as spaces would be shaped according to the different needs of the stakeholders. Furthermore, it would result in a considerable optimization of the design and decision-making process that architects have to go through as well as the quality of the design itself.

Imagine being able to map out the client's requirements. If we were able to collect the data of all the requirements given by clients and turn them into algorithms, we would be able to predict what they wish for the next tender. For example, if we were to analyze past projects from one single client (a government, a private developer, a single investor etc..) we could probably identify some similarities between all of them in terms of program, but also, we would be able to collect data about the way design decision were made. This would allow the architect to be able to anticipate on the requirements of the client.

From this data, it would then be possible to generate an algorithm and apply it to future tenders in order to determine design options which would be more likely to be validated by the client. This would mean not only a shorter design process than what we are used to, but we would also be able to beat potential competitors according to the algorithm accuracy. The downside would be, however, that on a longer timeline, some projects may start to look-a-like and lack in innovative prospective and there would also be a risk of a monopolized market.

{please do not hesitate to drop us an email at info@theibdcompany.com if you want to get involved in this R&D project}

• Integrating start-up to the design processes

The way we build buildings nowadays is very similar to 50 years ago. However today the world is changing rapidly and people live more and more surrounded by technologies. Therefore, many start-ups and companies are now inventing devices which are plugged into the architecture of the building in order for it to perform better and to be controllable from a distance. Why are these technologies being fitted after the delivery of the building? Why are these start-up not part of the design process to help us improve our design? For years we have tried to integrate environmental technologies to our design (i.e. solar panels) but this innovation should continue and adapt with the future use of the population.

As a conclusion, Architecture has always been visionary and has taken away human struggles in order for people to focus on progress. Now, @theibdcompany is working on taking away the architecture practices' struggles in order for them to concentrate on innovating design. Today we spoke about how to improve the Design Process, next week we will talk about innovating the Business Development and the Marketing of architecture practices, in order to secure business opportunities. This will lead to a decrease of the struggle of finding new projects in order for architects to focus more on Design.

to be continued... Giulia de Mauro