Workflow 2010: Designing Industry

Icon

Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation Scott Marble, instructor, with Julie Jira

Jason Roberts

Link to final multi-page PDF presentation here.

——————————————————————————-

Revised diagram [above] also as a PDF. See notes in discussion section for comments about diagram descriptions.

Also, a rough draft of my mutli-page PDF presentation can be found here.

———————————–

Diagram descriptions:

Future practice:
My ideal future practice builds on the concept of Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) and makes it more flexible and more scalable, maximizing the range at which this system could operate while maintaining the quality and efficiencies inherent in the IPD workflow. In this practice, the architect (or the architecture firm) teams up with other like-minded professionals (either individuals or entire firms) to form a core project team that shares risk (liability), rewards (bonuses), and digital information (BIM models and the like). Unlike IPD, the client remains a separate entity outside of the core project team. These teams, by combining their skills, would reduce both overhead and duplicated work. In the same way a screenwriter, an actor, and a director may team up to pitch an idea for a movie to a studio, the core project team would pitch project proposals to potential developers, using their more streamlined workflow as an incentive to the potential client who would, theoretically, receive a higher quality product (because it is initiated and conceived of by the project team) and a higher rate of return (because the project team wants to complete the task as efficiently as possible to maximize their reward). This workflow would structure projects of all scales and scopes from small material research ventures all the way up to massive projects, such as a multi-building developments.

Studio:
My studio diagram looks at how information is shared between my partner and me as we work through our design problem throughout the semester. Primarily organized by time (left to right), the intention is to show how, while we are both working toward the same goal, we are often working on different items or phases at different times because our workflow has been developed in such a way that work can be passed between the two of us seamlessly. This diagram is still under development.

PDF link.

Also as a PDF link.

3 Responses

  1. Scott says:

    Jason
    Here are some comments on your Future Practice Diagrams. The questions are intended to help you refine the diagram and text.

    This is a very thorough diagram with a lot of information. The most unique aspect of what you are doing is that the design/construction team develops the project and then tries to find a client (this is the influence of the film industry model). This also makes me think about venture capital firms who search for the next big idea and then invest.
    – With this in mind, should the team that develops the idea of the project be different that the team that executes the project? This also seems very close to what a typical developer would do…they find sites, do market research to develop programs, secure funding, and then get an architect and builder to realize the project.
    – The project itself seems to be missing from your diagram. It seems like this would be where you have “Proposed Budget”. In your model, the project would be very important in terms of how much up front effort would be necessary to make a convincing pitch to a client. What is the incentive for a team of designers to put in time for this work prior to any commitment to pay for it? See Adam Gerber’s diagram as an example where the project is more clearly defined.
    – Fabrication seems to play an important role in your diagram. Should the project be related to this?…for instance, physical building products or components. Many product manufacturers have developed SmartBIM products in response to move toward object oriented parametric modeling so you might look quickly at this.
    – Should there be a part of the diagram that shows what is necessary to get a client and then another version that shows the project execution? This might be closer to your earlier versions (the pitch, the independent film, the hybrid traditional). I think you should show all of these versions when you present.
    – The more I study your diagram, I don’t see the need to reference IPD as an influence – the movie industry reference is much more relevant.
    – The consultants in the rings around the Architect/Contractor center seem very conventional for what you are suggesting so rethink these. You could combine most of these into one circle labeled “Base Consultants”.
    – The flow of design information should also show up somewhere in your diagram.

  2. Looking forward to speaking on Monday as I’m running into a few walls with the diagrams. To answer your questions above:

    1. No, the idea is that if you’re developing the project, you’re integral to its execution. This slims down overhead on projects (as people are assigned to projects on a case by case basis) and you can manage your individual commitment to each base on the risk/reward structure assigned to each project (this will show up in the final presentation as a slide).

    2. I’ve tried to more clearly define what constitutes the “concept” and how that the core team would split the expense based on a structure that would later be reflected in the returning reward.

    3. I’m not sure how much fabrication should be shown. It is integral, but so is everything inside of that core group bubble. Maybe I should expand on the inner workings of that?

    4. Project execution… I don’t know how much there would be to show. My concept is more about a different way to conceptualize projects and execute them to the advantage of the designers. I don’t know if I’d be showing something that is that much different.

    5. I’ve removed IPD references.

    6. Condensed the consultant ring.

    7. I’m not quite sure hoe that would work since it is contained within the core team so much. See #3 above.

  3. Scott says:

    FINAL REVIEW
    – The film industry is a useful analogy to position your concept
    – Kick Starter – product development website
    – Tech Startup collaboratives in NYC as example

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: