“If structural engineers are not invited to contribute to the architectural design of a building then the design will miss out on an entire domain of expertise.”
Caroline Pidcock - Pidcock
“When we open the door and invite the structural engineer into the design, most of them run away. It is only Cantilever and a handful of others that will enter.”
Melonie Bayl-Smith - Bijl
“We are more than just willing to let the structural engineer contribute to the design, we demand it. We don’t want the design to be prescriptive, we hold a fuzzy vision and ask the team to help us form the solution. That is what design is.”
Toby Breakspear - Breakspear Architects
“We have an obligation as structural engineers to highlight complexity and identify simpler, less expensive and more practical solutions. It is the journeys these conversations trigger which produce great solutions.”
Damian Hadley - Cantilever
The critical creative moment at Pixar comes not when group members diverge but when they synthesize diverse ideas. In particular, the integration of art and technology underlies Pixar films. Attempts to synthesize art and technology create tension, but the resolution of that tension produces novelty.
Sarah Harvey, Creative Synthesis, 2014
Design in the built environment is not one dimensional.
For each challenge there are a myriad of options. And even after the most diligent of explorations, the best option, the option that should be adopted, is rarely obvious. Solutions will have merit for simplicity, merit for buildability and practicality, merit for costs, merit for sustainability (Sustainability is challenging to define. It means different things to different people. Rather than specifically define sustainability it is more productive to use a framework for exploring the ideas encompassing sustainability. The Living Building Challenge is a powerful framework to define sustainability using the 7 Pedals: Place, Water, Energy, Health + Happiness, Materials, Equity, Beauty.), merit for materials (Materials should also include the philosophy of dematerialisation: Reduction, Substitution, Optimisation and Elimination), among many other aspects. Each solution will have different weightings for each of these aspects.
Solutions can also have secondary effects, such as an influence on individual company profits, willingness to compromise, challenges in communication and individual pride and reputation. There are also influential inputs into a problem, such as understanding of builders preferences, understanding of risk, understanding of the materials, understanding of the architectural vision and understanding of the client brief. There are also power dynamics in the group that play a key role in decision making.
How does a designer choose the best solution? What are the processes a designer should use to develop the options? When should the designer stop the exploration of solutions?
This paper explores the idea of co-creation as a methodology for the design process. The core purpose of this methodology, which differs from traditional methodologies, is based on evidence that a co-creation design methodology creates better outcomes by creating more value.
Different methodologies used during the design process sit on a linear scale. On the left of the linear scale is Designer-centric focus. Designer-centric focus is when the design process is centred around the designer and the designer's requirements without consideration for any other contributor to the design. What is ignored is the requirements of the client, the architectural vision, issues of sustainability and dematerialisation. It is completely centred around the self interest of the designer. This may be based on ease of specific tasks of the designer, maximising profit or ease of the designers documentation. It can be seen as a lazy solution.
Sitting in the middle of the linear scale is Client-centric focus. This is where the design team focuses on the requirements of the client and fulfilling the clients expectations.
Co-creation (We use the word Co-creation to refer to “Value Co-Creation” where the ultimate goal of co-creation is to create value for the client using the expertise of the entire design team. It is the client who determines value and it is the responsibility of the design team to identify and understand these values.) is one step beyond client-centric focus. This is where the expertise of all the members of the design team is fully utilised; where each member of the team contributes to the design.
Every holistic decision for a project as a whole, and every granular decision made for each part of a project lies somewhere along this linear scale.
Before we get into the nuance of what occurs inside the Co-creation stage let's start by exploring the environment in which co-creation is allowed to occur.
When they work, ecosystems allow firms to create value that no single firm could create alone.
HBR Mark R. Kramer, Marc Pfitzer, The Ecosystem of Shared Value
Co-creation is not only possible for every project but should be considered manditory. However, some architects, project managers and clients do not let consultants into the space where the design occurs. The consultants are then left being subservient to the design. They ask, often indirectly, that the consultants stay outside the inner design sphere where the design decisions are made and leave the design to them.
This often manifests itself in blatant statements like, “this is what we want to achieve, your job is to achieve it.” Or it may appear in more subtle statements such as, “we would like to achieve this outcome, let us know if we can.” This is asking for a black and white answer: “Yes”, or “No”, where “no” is not an alternative. This is true in a traditional design methodology where the architect is the sole controller of the design.
Co-creation requires some of the team members to relinquish power that exists in the traditional methodology. Co-creation requires an egalitarian ecosystem. Each member of the ecosystem is encouraged to contribute to the design using their expertise. And each member relies on the expertise of others to contribute.
A successful ecosystem which supports co-creation has five key aspects:
Within an ecosystem the architect, for example, provides the guiding principles behind the architecture. They may eventually detail the architectural aspects of the build to a fine detail, but until that point, they can ask for guidance for the architecture from each of the other members within their area of expertise. Likewise the structural engineer provides the guiding principles for the structure and allows others to contribute. What will appear obvious when we frame the design in this way is that the expertise of each individual must be multidisciplinary.Essential to the success of the ecosystem is mutual trust. Trust that we are offering solutions based on them being in the best interest of the client.
A common misunderstanding is that suggestions are made in the co-creation stage for wholly self-serving reasons. It may be interpreted as our suggestions are based around the idea that it is easier for us, or perhaps would make us more profit. These are questions of legitimacy. Adding to this is the common case where suggestions based around the best interests of the client are also beneficial to the self interests of the consultant. Navigating this space may not be straightforward and may be riddled with scepticism.
Misunderstandings come from mistrust.
Trust is developed through communication. Consultants have traditionally feared communication due to protecting their own interests, making mistakes that are difficult to undo and restricting freedom to do whatever they want to do. Letting someone into their interests makes them vulnerable. These attitudes do not foster trust.
Being open about each team member's intentions; communicating that these intentions are centred around the shared goal of achieving the best outcome for the client, is essential (Jim Collins suggests a methodology for gaining trust from others. He suggests that you enter the relationship trusting the other parties. If you enter a relationship with mistrust, the likelihood that you will get the trust of the other party is low. This is because the trust will not be mutual and because they will confirm your preconceived bias of mistrust.).
Take the example of the Balmain Residence. This project had a strong ecosystem which included architect, structural engineer, builder and client. And each was able to contribute to the design using their area of expertise.
Balmain Residence with Andrew Burgess was a CLT building. During the early stages of the project the team explored traditional timber framing, steel skeleton structure and concrete. CLT was chosen as it was the most economical and reasonable solution appropriate for the project.
The preliminary architectural renderings for the project consisted of a flat soffit, flush with the top of the windows without any downturned beams.
Let's use the project to explore the three different methodologies along the linear Design Scale, of Designer-centric, Client-centric and Co-creation.
A Designer-centric focus would simply to make the floor slab thick enough to support the loads from the floor and first floor columns. This has no thought to costs, no thought to efficiency and no thought to simplicity. It is Designer-centric because it is easy, perhaps lazy solution. There would be little controversy, the designer is simply achieving the requirements of the design.
In a client-centric solution, the structural solution starts to consider costs and efficiency. The solution that considered these elements was an upturned timber beam, extending up into the first floor wall. This would achieve the architectural vision of a flush soffit but also take into consideration efficiency and cost. Key to this solution is that there is no compromise to the architectural vision.
This solution goes beyond a designer focus and focuses on the client and architects requirements. In particular the requirement for a flat soffit to the first floor slab.
This is a solution that suits the clients requirements and suits the architectural vision but requires a moderate level of engineering thinking. This solution is potentially a solution that most engineers could determine. It is not controversial. It is quite safe and reasonable.
At this point the designer may be tempted to say that their work is finished. We found a solution. It is client centric, therefore it is the end of their input. But there is another potential step: Co-creation.
Co-creation is premised around the idea that the entire team, including the client, is able to contribute to the design. Sanders and Stappers (2008) define co-creation as “any act of collective creativity, i.e. creativity that is shared by two or more people.” Each team member's contribution is formulated from their personal expertise. The contributors must speak a common language and have skills which span across disciplines.
Their contributions are there to help with the success of the project. The success may be based around project costs, architectural vision, clients needs, sustainability, etc.
Their ability to contribute to the co-creation process is what sets consultants apart.
There are essential ingredients for co-creation to exist by definition. It can be argued that co-creation does not occur if any of these don’t exist:
It is common for the design team to ask individual consultants black and white questions that might be interpreted as requiring specific answers. But this can be used as an opportunity to enter co-creation by avoiding answering the questions directly. After all, there are rarely specific answers and the solution is nuanced around the complexities of the situations. This is one way to enter co-creation.
If the door to co-creation is not opened then a decision should be made about opening it. But entering co-creation is not necessarily straightforward. There are hurdles, barriers, challenges, risks and potential misunderstandings to negotiate.
There are two barriers that you must negotiate when entering co-creation. How to justify the co-creation process to yourself and how to present the co-creation to the design team.
Meeting the client's requirements may be a great outcome. So why would you need to enter into co-creation? At the end of the client focus stage ask yourself these questions:
A different and more holistic approach to these questions is simply to ask, “Is there any information that I am holding back that would allow the team to make better decisions?”
Answering these questions will lead you into the world of co-creation. There is an obligation to let the client know when the solution could be improved; when something is complex and expensive. Failure to fulfill this obligation is failing the client and not doing what is in the best interest of the project.
The second barrier to entry is explaining to the client the purpose for entering co-creation. They may not expect it and they may not want it. Without an explanation the intentions may be misinterpreted.
An example of how to present the argument is to simply make it clear that we are entering co-creation. The words used to do this must be non-threatening, humble and trusting. This could be as simple as saying, “I think what I have given you to date suits the architectural vision. I just want to explore an idea. I think this idea is going to go against the architectural vision that you have given me but I think there is a simpler solution and I just want to get a sense of what you think about it.” Another approach may be to ask specific questions about areas that could be explored such as, “There might be opportunities to reduce the costs here, are you interested in exploring these?
“If structural engineers are not invited to contribute to the architectural design of a building then the design will miss out on an entire domain of expertise.”
“When we open the door and invite the structural engineer into the design, most of them run away. It is only Cantilever and a handful of others that will enter.”
“We are more than just willing to let the structural engineer contribute to the design, we demand it. We don’t want the design to be prescriptive, we hold a fuzzy vision and ask the team to help us form the solution. That is what design is.”
“We have an obligation as structural engineers to highlight complexity and identify simpler, less expensive and more practical solutions. It is the journeys these conversations trigger which produce great solutions.”
The critical creative moment at Pixar comes not when group members diverge but when they synthesize diverse ideas. In particular, the integration of art and technology underlies Pixar films. Attempts to synthesize art and technology create tension, but the resolution of that tension produces novelty.
Design in the built environment is not one dimensional.
For each challenge there are a myriad of options. And even after the most diligent of explorations, the best option, the option that should be adopted, is rarely obvious. Solutions will have merit for simplicity, merit for buildability and practicality, merit for costs, merit for sustainability (Sustainability is challenging to define. It means different things to different people. Rather than specifically define sustainability it is more productive to use a framework for exploring the ideas encompassing sustainability. The Living Building Challenge is a powerful framework to define sustainability using the 7 Pedals: Place, Water, Energy, Health + Happiness, Materials, Equity, Beauty.), merit for materials (Materials should also include the philosophy of dematerialisation: Reduction, Substitution, Optimisation and Elimination), among many other aspects. Each solution will have different weightings for each of these aspects.
Solutions can also have secondary effects, such as an influence on individual company profits, willingness to compromise, challenges in communication and individual pride and reputation. There are also influential inputs into a problem, such as understanding of builders preferences, understanding of risk, understanding of the materials, understanding of the architectural vision and understanding of the client brief. There are also power dynamics in the group that play a key role in decision making.
How does a designer choose the best solution? What are the processes a designer should use to develop the options? When should the designer stop the exploration of solutions?
This paper explores the idea of co-creation as a methodology for the design process. The core purpose of this methodology, which differs from traditional methodologies, is based on evidence that a co-creation design methodology creates better outcomes by creating more value.
Different methodologies used during the design process sit on a linear scale. On the left of the linear scale is Designer-centric focus. Designer-centric focus is when the design process is centred around the designer and the designer's requirements without consideration for any other contributor to the design. What is ignored is the requirements of the client, the architectural vision, issues of sustainability and dematerialisation. It is completely centred around the self interest of the designer. This may be based on ease of specific tasks of the designer, maximising profit or ease of the designers documentation. It can be seen as a lazy solution.
Sitting in the middle of the linear scale is Client-centric focus. This is where the design team focuses on the requirements of the client and fulfilling the clients expectations.