Project Delivery

This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Project Delivery and Technical Design for Building Performance Knowledge Community .
-------------------------------------------

As calls grow louder and clearer for closer and earlier collaborations between design professionals on building design projects, the methods of accomplishing this will affect all stakeholders.  Greater early interaction between clients, architects, engineers, landscape architects, LEED experts, and code experts  in clarifying and validating programs, testing concepts for energy use/carbon footprint and first cost, and arriving at validated final concepts will increase the scope and design schedule emphasis in predesign/programming, schematics, and design development phases.  While some overall scope growth may occur resulting from this change, the other side is that more thorough design during early stages should help streamline efforts during the construction documents phases and eliminate common rework risks that can result from limited study and confirmation early on.

In past years, early coordination has focused on preventing change orders, fine tuning scope and code compliance, and developing budgets.  As energy, water, and cost controls take center stage the need to design the building form, fenestration, blocking and stacking, and site orientation with both engineering validations through quick modeling of energy/ water impacts and early cost studies is now becoming critical.

In recent years schedule and scope pressures have resulted in expedited early design, compressed programming, and the near elimination of the entire design development phase on many projects.  The 2030 Commitment and other green initiatives require levels of efficiency and effectiveness in design that have not been achieved on most projects.  Driving down the impacts of energy and resource usage will require more careful programming to eliminate wasted floor area and wasted building volume, greater emphasis on finding the most effective ratio of building envelope to program area, and increased attention to optimizing fenestration to arrive at both the best overall building envelope U-Values and the most effective daylighting solutions.

Current norms such as confirming the energy model results at around 95% construction documents or later are far off the reservation with regard to providing the critical early energy use feedback that design professionals and clients need to validate their ideas at the conceptual level.  Confirming designs more completely earlier in the process will allow design professionals to focus on achieving more thorough construction documents and greater levels of integrated systems coordination since the burden of correcting for deficiencies stemming from less thorough early designs should be driven to record lows.

-------------------------------------------
Drake A. Wauters, AIA
TDBP Advisory Group
Senior Technical Architect
Arlington, Virginia
-------------------------------------------

This is an interesting post, and it is certainly a timely one. 

With the advent of "integrated project delivery" now coming to the front - again but under a new veil, we have come nearly full circle.

In many state universities institutes of higher learning, Architects used to have to take all of the same engineering courses engineers had to take. It was because they were seen as the coordinator of all pieces of a comprehensive design.

The evolution of the practice and consequentially the training, has delegated much of the responsibilities of the past to others more "expert" in the field of their particular engineering or design. And unfortunately, in my opinion, the architect has become as much "reactive" as "proactive" in the design process. While working for a state university in Virginia, I got sick of hearing architects respond with "the engineer, landscape architect, LEED AP, or whomever made, that decision." The architects attitude was one of "hands off." And much of the designs we see today look as if they are a puzzle put together with mismatched pieces.

A turn towards the "team concept" will hopefully bring the team back into the void that has been left by architects who only address their often misshapen part in the puzzle. 

-------------------------------------------
George Jennings AIA
G Booker 3
Tappahannock VA
-------------------------------------------

Structure is basic. If not kept clear, simple and straightforward, it will be useless once it has outlived its originally intended purpose. That it will do so is inevitable.

We find that many "abstract" designs with complex structural systems are prone to leaking. They are cost intensive in construction and operation. Should they reflect a design philosophy that will interest or serve no one in future generations, they are expensive to demolish.

Since most significant historic buildings are based on straightforward structural systems, do you think it is still possible to design a great building without bending over backwards to design or understand the structure?

-------------------------------------------
Karl Hartnack AIA
Component Past President
Hartnack Architecture
Duesseldorf

-------------------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-18-2012 08:59
From: George Jennings
Subject: Early Design Emphasis

This is an interesting post, and it is certainly a timely one. 

With the advent of "integrated project delivery" now coming to the front - again but under a new veil, we have come nearly full circle.

In many state universities institutes of higher learning, Architects used to have to take all of the same engineering courses engineers had to take. It was because they were seen as the coordinator of all pieces of a comprehensive design.

The evolution of the practice and consequentially the training, has delegated much of the responsibilities of the past to others more "expert" in the field of their particular engineering or design. And unfortunately, in my opinion, the architect has become as much "reactive" as "proactive" in the design process. While working for a state university in Virginia, I got sick of hearing architects respond with "the engineer, landscape architect, LEED AP, or whomever made, that decision." The architects attitude was one of "hands off." And much of the designs we see today look as if they are a puzzle put together with mismatched pieces.

A turn towards the "team concept" will hopefully bring the team back into the void that has been left by architects who only address their often misshapen part in the puzzle. 

-------------------------------------------
George Jennings AIA
G Booker 3
Tappahannock VA
-------------------------------------------