Redefining the Framework of Architectural Design Management

REDEFINING THE FRAMEWORK OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN MANAGEMENT

RIZAL SEBASTIAN
PhD Researcher Department of Real Estate and Housing, Faculty of Architecture Delft University of Technology Berlageweg 1, 2628 CR Delft, The Netherlands Phone : +31-15-2781283, Fax: +31-15-2783171 E-mail: R.Sebastian@bk.tudelft.nl

Abstract
Nowadays, we can note significant role of design management in many industries, such as corporate management, product and graphic design, and manufacturing. In architecture, the demand of an effective design management is highly increasing, mainly due to the escalating complexity of contemporary design projects. Although there are a number of researches to develop architectural design management, they have not yet delivered the expected enhancement in practice, since there is still a gap between the main issue in design that needs to be managed and the existing approaches. This paper argues that the framework for managing building design has to be redefined by ways of accurately understanding the holistic essence of architectural design and establishing the framework on appropriate and solid theoretical foundation. For this purpose, this paper comprehensively discusses about the nature of design, theoretical and empirical formulation of the need for architectural design management, critical appraisal of existing approach, and relevant lessons from other domains. The findings suggest that the new framework should emphasis the social-psychological aspect in architectural design group.

Keywords
architectural design management, design collaboration, multi-architect project, organizational psychology, creativity

1. Introduction
Design management has been widely known and commonly applied in corporate identity, product design, graphic design, and manufacturing. Historically, there have been two mainstreams within the development of design management: the English-Saxon movement, which is strategic-oriented; and the Italian movement, which is more cultural oriented (Thiel, 1998). Basically, the function of design management in these fields is to develop and maintain the visual identity of the organization and educate the individuals toward the enthusiasm for design. In 1975, the Design Management Institute was founded as an international organization that is dedicated to demonstrate the strategic role of design in business and to improving the management and utilization of design. DMI (1998) summarizes the professionals views of the definition of design management as initiating and ensuring the brand strategy to be consistently implemented in the design of all media used to provide en emotional connection (through the product, in this case) to the customer and the personnel. It involves the vision leadership as well as integrating the processes and actors. The facts have shown the high relevance and significant contribution of design management in other industries and the increasing needs for design management in building practice. This is supported by a recent survey1 showing that almost 80% of the British architects subscribe the necessity of a proper management in design project. Respectively, a number of researches have been carried out to develop architectural design management to become a well-defined discipline. In 1980, Paul Nicholson2 coined the concept of architectural management and extended the edges until the entire development process; encompassing the management of the design practice, the co-ordination role, construction project, and dispute resolution. Later writers, such as Gray, Austin and Baldwin, Ballard, Koskela, Lahdenpera, Prins, Den Otter, etc., have defined design management more specifically within the building design context. We will discuss their views in the following sections of this paper.
1 Bradley, J.V.F., Cavanagh, P. (1994), Management as Intermediary, in Nicholson, M.P. (Ed.), Journal of Architectural ManagementPractice and Research, CIB: Rotterdam 2 The Society for the Advancement of Architectural Management (www.archman.com)

Rizal Sebastian, B.Arch., MSc.

For Publication in Journal of Design Research

Redefining the Framework of Architectural Design Management

All attempts are directed to find the best way to manage architectural design. However, current studies have resulted limited success in small experimental fields and thus raising the argument that the framework needs to be reviewed and redefined. Based on this rationale, in this paper I suggest that in order to develop an up-to-date and coherent framework, we firstly need to discover the soul the holistic essence, the core of architectural design management. The strategy can be divided into several steps as structured in this paper. The first part will review the nature and people's understanding of architectural design. The second part will gather the existing formulations of architectural design management by different writers. Actual building projects will be observed to recognize and allocate the main issues encountered during the design phase and how the practice currently deals with them. We will then critically appraise a range of existing design management approaches. We are going to analyze why these approaches are still fragmented and have not yet satisfied the theoretical concepts and practical expectations. Subsequently, we need to discover the core problematic and find the soul, the holistic essence of architectural design management. Finally, we will explore state-of-the-art knowledge in other domains and investigate how it can contribute to architectural design management. Conclusions will be presented and recommendations will be given to proceed with further research to redefine the framework of architectural design management.

2. Understanding the Essence of Architectural Design

There have been many attempts to define what design is, however no single definition is able to describe design adequately. Lawson (1994) realizes that some definitions lead to a narrow and restricted view, while others seem too general and abstract. Having discussed many views from different writers, Lawson concludes that due to the complexity and uniqueness of design and the real differences between design situations, we shall never really find a single satisfactory definition. He presumes that we do not really need a simple definition of design, but the searching itself is more important to help us understand design. Therefore, this paper will rather bring us to comprehend the soul, the holistic essence of architectural design in order to be able to manage it appropriately through architectural design management. With respect to the architectural design management, we can look at design through certain aspects. Den Otter and Prins (2001) distinguish three main aspects, namely: the design object, process, and people. Similarly, Allinson (1997) calls these as the design content, the design process, and the design artistry. The 'content' or 'object' includes the design solutions to the design problems. The 'artistry' or 'people' comprises the individual and group competence and creativity, approach, and actions of the designers. These aspects are inter-related and cannot be isolated from each other. The essence of architectural design can be explained by recognizing the nature of this trinity. Gray and Hughes (2001) agree with Lawson (1990) that design problems cannot be comprehensively stated or statically formulated since design problems deal with subjective perceptions, prejudices, and interpretations of the designers, while the problems are always in dynamic tension with the solutions. Design problems are often both multidimensional, interconnecting all factors, and highly interactive. Design problems are more inscrutable and ill-defined, or ill-structured. They have no clear algorithm because there are non-congruent values of stakeholders and non-congruent dynamics of the subsystems. Moreover, design problems can also be categorized as wickedproblems, because they are not only ill-structured, but also complicated by goal and values conflict among the stakeholders (Barlow, 2000). Since most managers have been trained in rational decision-making with well-structured problems, classic decision making starts with clear consensus about the problem, the facts, and the criteria. Conversely, real design problems are ill-structured and wicked, with constraints and criteria in so many conflicting domains that a clear decision is impossible. One should realize that there is no optimal solution to design problem since design almost invariably involves compromises and trade-offs among the individuals with many conflicting needs. There are an inexhaustible number of different solutions and there will be no end to solving the problem. However, there is a range of acceptable solutions; each is likely to prove more or less satisfactory in different ways and to different designers, clients, and users. To solve this kind of problem, it is important that the designer and manager start by stretching the boundaries of the problem to uncover all factors that may influence the design solution. The trick is to work together in relative disagreement, seeking out all the clarifications and simplifications possible and accepting that consensual clarity is impossible (Barlow, 2000a). At the end, it takes skilled judgment to make the decision considering the trade-offs and compromises.

Rizal Sebastian, B.Arch., MSc.

For Publication in Journal of Design Research

Redefining the Framework of Architectural Design Management

Many writers regard the design process to consist of a problem being stated then analyzed, a solution being synthesized and evaluated, followed by a process of communication or presentation. Lawson (1994) is against this view of design as a sequence of assimilation, analysis, synthesis, evaluation, and communication based on the reason that since design problems cannot be comprehensively stated or formulated, they are not susceptible to a method of thorough analysis. Design is obviously not a linear-running process, but an iterative process. Designers often come to understand the problems through their attempts to solve them, which is known as analysis through synthesis. Design has an irreducible core concerned with issues outside the boundaries of instrumentality (Allinson, 1997). Compared to science, which is predominantly descriptive, design is more a prescriptive activity, suggesting what might be, could be, and should be (Lawson, 1990). Therefore, design process deserves not just ethical, but also moral scrutiny. Unlike scientists, designers are often not free to decide that he needs more information. Trade-offs between multiple, competing criteria from different stakeholders must be made throughout the design process, often with inadequate information and under intense budget and schedule pressure. The characteristics of architectural design process change over time (Gunsteren et al, 2001). To a certain extends, the reason is that design process occurs in a building project, which is increasingly subject to uncertainty due to the pace of technological change, the shift of market opportunities, and the pressure to reduce time and cost (Ballard et al, 1998; Gunsteren et al, 2001). During the design process, there is a set of constraints at any point (Gray et al, 2001). These include internal constraints (i.e. particular style or approach developed by certain designers on which they base their reputation) and external constraints (i.e. the clients needs, the technology, the construction process, and statutory control). Although these constraints may limit the range of solutions, there is still no natural end to the design process. Designers simply stop designing either when they run out of time (or resources) or when, in their judgment, it is not worth pursuing the matter further. Again, experience and skills are essential to know and decide when to stop. We will now turn our attention from the study of design problems, solutions, and process, to those who solve them: the designers. To cope with those characteristics of design object and process, designers are called upon to exercise the specific form of artistry of creative problem solving with critical content, the artistry that is capable to reconstruct the nature of problem as well as reframing it. Referring to Schn (1991), Allinson (1997) and Valkenburg et al (1998) explained this as reflection-in-action, which means the explicit reflection that guides the development of ones knowing-in-action habits. Most designers adopt strategies that are heuristic in nature (Lawson, 1990). Subsequently, Allinson (1997) adds that the artistry of an architect embraces all four professional competences, namely: implementational art (i.e. problem recognition), improvisional art (i.e. problem framing), creative art (i.e. problem finding), and intellectual art (i.e. value forming). Among these four, architectural design exemplifies the creative competence most remarkably. In this sense, design is different from project management which principal emphasis is upon implementational skills (e.g. in terms of planning, monitoring, and control techniques). Lawson (1990) sees creativity with relation to the context, the situation which person perceives the problem and performs the process. The very even balance of convergent and divergent thinking abilities appropriate to the situation which is a challenging task psychologically is needed to produce creative work. Designers work in so called knowledge intensive organizations (Prins et al, 2001), which one of the characteristics is that those professionals are not to be managed by laying down rules and procedures3. Added to this characteristic are the relative autonomy of individual designers and relatively diffused hierarchical stratification. These explain why the organizational structures of design firms are rather vague. In an actual building project, the design team generally consists of professionals from different companies who are engaged on temporary basis in operational adhocracy. The management of such operational adhocracy as design team is supposed to deal with implicit understanding, intuition, and creativity. In this situation, a more adaptive and teaching process is needed to give room for imagination, intention, motivation, and uncertainty. To reach a productive outcome, mutual understanding, respect, and sympathy are essential. Knowing that in any building project, various skills are combined into the project team makes it clear that architectural design cannot be practiced in a social vacuum. The existence of other players, such as clients, users, specialist, and other designers is inevitable and an integral part of the design. Respectively, architectural design goes on in a social context, which influences not only the end product but also the designers (Lawson, 1990). Designers often work in teams, hammering out rather than easily conceiving their ideas, being affected by group behavior as well as influencing the thinking of other members of the group. Gray et al (2001) support this argument by stating that design is a very personal statement of ideas. The whole design project is becoming a
3

Mintzberg, H. (1979), The Structuring of Organizations, Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs

Rizal Sebastian, B.Arch., MSc.

For Publication in Journal of Design Research

Redefining the Framework of Architectural Design Management

combination of the motivation and expressions of many individuals, and the final design is a culmination process that is often driven by personal motivation. In this section, we have recognized the essence of architectural design as a part of our journey to establish the new framework of architectural design management. We understand that design is unique at every situation, so there can never be a single satisfying definition. Similarly, design problems, solutions, and process cannot be comprehensively stated and formulated due to their subjective, ill-defined, and reflective nature. The point about design is its reconstructive, creative content, and its ability to deal with uncertainty and ambiguity (Allinson, 1997). In fact, until recently, design professionals relied almost exclusively on intuitive methods, and design ability was widely held to be innate and largely un-teachable (Lawson, 1990). Design challenges the existing management approaches since it is interactive, reflective, and the process is hard to specify in advance, so that a methodical and analytical approach to management is difficult to adopt (Gray et al, 2001). On the other hand, architectural design is set against the aim of achieving good design, innovation, and high quality, within the limitation of cost, time, and other resources. Thus, the main task of design strategy is the widest possible search for problems and best solutions by using collective design expertise within the limitations. The challenge for architectural design management is to comprehend all of these as it attempts to help the creative process of the design participants and improve the design outcome through the effective management of the design process. In the following section, we will learn how previous writers formulate the purpose of architectural design management based on the understanding of the essence of architectural design, and then compare this to the practical needs and demands from actual building projects.

3. The Purpose of Architectural Design Management

3.1. The Existing Theoretical Formulation
In architecture, the emergence of design management is encouraged by the escalating complexity of building and processes in terms of functional and technical requirements, as well as organizational and juridical settings while at the same time the design process is a complex, creative one (Prins et al, 2001). According to Gray and Hughes (2001), one of the most important reasons behind the complexity is the dramatic increase of specialist knowledge and number of contributors to the design from a wide variety of organizations. The process of specialization and the economic and professional pressure often compound the need for many different disciplines to come together during the design process. Prins adds that there are also more and more attention for soft values such as aesthetics, ethics, culture, and social values. In such situation, designers are being confronted with thousands of alternative combinations of possible sub-solutions at the beginning, but they are often left with too narrow solution space and too few options after the selection (Loon, 1998). For this reason, conventional project management techniques are not automatically applicable and even the most experienced design team can fail to manage this complex situation. Having conducted contemporary research with empirical backing, Koskela et al (2002) indicates without exception that the management of design and engineering is poorly carried out in construction projects. One of the reasons is because appropriate managerial approaches and sound practices for large and complex building projects are fundamentally different from those for small and simple projects (Gunsteren and Van Loon, 2001). However, such complexity should not be avoided, but it is a necessary part of a flexible and responsive industry. It is not the presence of complexity that is a problem, but the inability of project managers to deal with it (Gray et al, 2001). The general purpose of architectural design management is to help designers and engineers to manage their own design process, as well as to help managers who have the task of managing a design team (Gray et al, 2001). It aims at creating values through design, more than just meeting the specified cost and time. The goal is realizing the design as the best solution to stakeholders' requirements and the best architectural value, by utilizing the means and resources effectively and efficiently (Prins et al, 2001). The underlying principle of design manager's function is to optimize the collective design ability to explore design problems and solutions within the design process, which is limited by time, cost, information, etc. It has to translate the competence that produces a design from a blank sheet of paper into a predictable, carefully choreographed and staged process, orchestrated as a performance between quite disparate disciplines. It covers the externalization of creative, intuitive, and re-constructive problem solving into planned, instrumental actions

Rizal Sebastian, B.Arch., MSc.

For Publication in Journal of Design Research

Redefining the Framework of Architectural Design Management

(Allinson, 1997). It concerns with optimizing all available expertise and skills to "unlock" best potentials through design through identifying, deploying, and coordinating the design skills within the organization (Nicholson et al, 1995). Its challenge is to steer the design process by clarifying and defining certain values and constraints while maintaining the innovation and creativity. Thus, architectural design management function takes the knowledge of design artistry, the dynamic of design process, the value concept in design, as well as the management techniques pertinent to architecture. To achieve this, it needs to balance the ratio and passion (Thiel et al, 1998) along with enthusiasm, commitment, and mutual trust for teamwork. In a design project, architectural design management can take position as the management of individual designers or the design team, the management between the design organization and the project management, or as a part of the integral building management. It should reconcile the design and managerial agendas and bridge the different mid-sets and working methods of architecture and management; e.g. architects typically enjoy a tolerance for ambiguity, which is the antipathy of project planning and its anxious pursuit of certainties and fixed outcomes (Allinson, 1997). The design manager must allow the necessary time for reflection, discussion, and consideration, so ensuring that the designer's aims and expectations are met within the terms of the design brief. In this sense, the design manager is in a supportive role, which allows the process to continue. Since design tends to be very personal, it requires special managerial skills to achieve the best performance through compatibility and conflicts (Nicholson et al, 1995). Gray et al (2001) quotes Dumas and Mintzberg4 while describing the influence of the design manager as "silent design" that cannot be ignored. It embraces the decisions taken by non-designers who enter into the design process.

3.2. The Empirical Findings

Having understood that architectural design management has been established to cope with complexity of contemporary design projects, it is necessary to examine the actual practice since in design, knowing (academic research) and doing (practice) become inseparable (Allinson, 1997). It is through some degree of reflection within and during the action, familiar rules, theories, and techniques are mediated as an interactive process that becomes profoundly intuitional. With respect to that, we will assess a sound practice in order to observe the actual problems, evaluate the current approach, and formulize the potential role and contribution of architectural design management. At the end, we will look back to see whether the theoretical formulation of the purpose of architectural design management meets the practical expectations. Most people concern multi-organization design process as various roles played by the participants in relation to the designer, while the designer has been implicitly seen in the singular (Lawson, 1990). However, contemporary large building project involves a whole design team, which consists of multiple world-famous architects from different architectural firms next to various multidisciplinary building specialists. In this integrated form of practice, various skills are combined into the design team. Such projects can be called as multi-architect projects, where the level of complexity is even higher than the common large-and complex project with one architectural form in charge. Due to multi-dimensional complexity of such projects, en effective design management is urgently needed. For this reason, a multi-function urban renewal project in The Netherlands, which involved various international architects among the multidisciplinary design team and multi-organization stakeholders, is selected as a relevant case study. In this project specific problems have arisen from complex functionality requirements and the involvement of a large number of participants. The design has been collectively developed to meet the shared values. The result is a new urban complex in the city center of The Hague, called The Resident, which has been completed in 2001. It is widely acknowledged that a fascinating architecture has been generated through successful design collaboration (Sebastian, 2002b). The study leading to the development of The Resident was initiated by the Dutch government and the city council of The Hague. The conceptual urban design, which later became the master plan, was created by Rob Krier (Austria) in co-operation with four Dutch architects, namely: Sjoerd Soeters, Gunnar Daan, Bert Dirrix, and Peter Drijver, under the supervision of the government architect, Kees Rijnboutt, and alderman, Peter Nordanus. After the master plan was accepted, the design team was expanded with a number of world famous architects such as Michael Graves (US), Cesar Pelli (US), and Adolfo Natalini (Italy), to assure the accomplishment of international architectural quality. Other Dutch architects, Thon Karelse, and a landscape designer, Frank Cardinal, also joined the design team, which since then consisted of ten architects. Rob Krier and Sjoerd Soeters then appointed architect supervisors among the other designers. MAB, a large private development company, represented by Ton
4

Dumas, A., Mintzberg, H. (1992), Managing the Form, Function, and Fit of Design, Design Management Journal, vol.2: 3

Rizal Sebastian, B.Arch., MSc.

For Publication in Journal of Design Research

Redefining the Framework of Architectural Design Management

Meijer, joined the project firstly as an advisor, and later as the project developer. An architectural and civil engineering firm, ARCADIS, was commissioned to provide technical design and was responsible for making and coordinating all detailed drawings during the design development phase towards the construction. It took in total thirteen years, from 1988 to 2001, since the commission of the architect to carry out the urban study until the completion of the total project. The total project comprises 115,000m2 office floor, 4000m2 retails, 315 housing units, and 800 underground parking places. The design of The Resident encountered main challenge of presenting a coherent architecture from a range of variety in forms, functions and activities. Being located in the city center, the project is in direct link to the historical context and architectural tradition of The Hague, as it is aimed to be an urban renewal that reflects the rich quality of European city. On the other hand, the development of a multifunctional complex has to strengthen The Hague's position as an international institutional and business center, as a respond to the global economy and network of world cities. The mixed-use has commercial advantage for a greater long-term appreciation in land and property values. In order to ensure the accomplishment of international architecture quality and to provide added value to the project for marketing, many top international architects were selected. The Resident is a combination of many single buildings, each with high complexity. The degree of interaction between the blocks is very high, including the interconnections on horizontal and vertical levels architecturally as well as structurally and the joints of tram lines, streets, open spaces, and adjacent existing buildings. Each architect has very different design background and method, yet they must strive to generate the unity of the total design. Among the stakeholders, decision-making processes were complicated and politically influenced. The involvement of multidiscipline specialists and advisors may also introduce another problem to the design since they tend to put the attention narrowly on their own specialization. Furthermore, during the long-term development process there were changes of personnel and leaderships as well as political and economical situation. The findings from this case study suggest that human factor and the social process are the most essential aspects for managing the collaborative design successfully. The facts lead to an understanding that the creation of top architecture by collective design cannot be accomplished solely by strictly governed contractual or formal obligations, but by reformulating the design process as an interactive social process between the highly qualified designers and stakeholders. In the design of The Resident, the social process can be differentiated into three kinds, as follow. Firstly, the urban design itself is closely social related, both as a process and as an objective. As a process, urban design is an accumulation of products of decision-making, made by many, over a long period of time. As an objective, large-scale development should be seen as a social organization, which plays a role as catalyst for socio-cultural and economic integration and interaction and promotes an opportunity to create a conducive environment for change/improvement. Secondly, the creative design process is a human social process in nature, as it comprises simultaneous conception and interpretation of ideas either within an individual or being expressed during inter-cultural communication. Collectively, creativity can be defined as the power of imagination that is able to break free from the awareness of at least one unexpressed supposition. Thirdly, the manifestation of the social process can be found within the collaborative design activities. The stakeholders had conflicting interests, yet they urgently needed each other in order to realize the project. Each architect was assigned particular buildings/clusters, yet the collective design process was still maintained intensively since the building complex was closely integrated. Because of this, there were countless negotiations before reaching the decisions, whereby inter-organizational persuasion, influence, and conflict resolutions took place. Achieving the commitment and synergy through social interaction among the designers, and between the multi-disciplinary specialists and stakeholders is essential. Managing a design process with a group of well-known architects and top-experts can be, to a certain extent, compared to directing a movie starred by top artists and supported by experts, in a large movie production. To make a high-quality movie, people cannot rely solely on the script (guidelines, methodology, planning), or on the advance motion picture technology. Actually, the director must encourage the artists to perform their best talents both during individual and group acts. Every actor/actress must play his/her own cast for the collective goal, the movie itself, and avoid competition to dominate the scene. Commitment, dedication, and positive teamwork must be maintained. Creativity, controlled improvisation, and good understanding of art as well as technique must root in all participants.

Rizal Sebastian, B.Arch., MSc.

For Publication in Journal of Design Research

Redefining the Framework of Architectural Design Management

The architect supervisors, who guide the multi-actor design team, play a similar role to a conductor of a big orchestra5. They must understand all skills in the team and optimize this toward a harmonious final result. The musical composition must be played in the right rhythm, involving and expressing the feeling, emotion, and personal senses. The conductors may not be able to play the instruments better than the orchestra members. Their value lies in the ability to bring the players together into a great performance. In the same way, a modern manager succeeds by guiding an orchestra of diverse experts in a process that outputs the beautiful music of realistic and economic design (Barlow, 2000). Unfortunately, unlike most orchestras have melody sheets, which are strictly followed by all members, an architect supervisor works on a more flexible basis, with less authority, in an irreversible building process without any chance of final rehearsal. Since conventional project management was not adequate to manage the collaborative design of The Resident, people have applied specific approach related to the social process of architectural design, i.e. design workshops for high-performance collective design, design supervision that combined ratio and passion, collaboration oriented design guidelines and design integration. Those have contributed positive results. However, people have done this with lack of principal basis, using much of tacit knowledge, experience and professional intuition. Therefore, the practice urgently needs architectural design management to crystallize the scientific and professional knowledge. A coherent design management framework, which can be implemented in contemporary large and complex project, is highly demanded. Apparently, the empirical findings have confirmed the purpose of architectural design management as theoretically formulated. Furthermore, these findings strongly indicate that the architectural design management framework required by current practice must essentially deal with social-psychological approach in architectural design group. This focal point associates very well with the characteristics of design problems, solutions, processes, and actors as we discussed in section two. Due to the subjective and collective aspects of architectural design, the human factor is central to any design processes and objects. Thus, the appropriate architectural design management framework must accurately facilitate the interactive social process in the design through managing the group dynamics, individual and team creativity, and organizational psychology.

4. Critical Appraisal of Current Architecture Design Management Approach

In their attempt to introduce design management approach, Allinson (1997) and Gray et al (2001) begin by analyzing the characteristics of architectural design, design organization, and the principles of management theory. Allinson (1997) compares the paradigm of architectural design and project management, and the form of rationality and competence attached to most architects and project managers. There are some contrasts between the concept of design and management, as design is often considered to be a 'wild card' in the project management pack because its values are poorly understood and its methods are difficult to explain, even by designers. However, in a building project, architects and managers have to meet on a shared vehicle of the ambition to realize the design. Allinson firmly believes that there is no contradiction between these two enthusiasms if the management applied is based on the right understanding of design and how designers work. Such management is required to optimize the design and shepherd the project through a critical period of exposure to risk to the successful completion. Allinson (1997) gives the precise explanation of the unique characteristics of architectural design and designers, and he briefly introduces a broad view including the basic principles of teams, cultures, and commitment. Unfortunately, he does not further advise on any concrete approach to deal with these properties. Once he comes to the methods, he suggests several techniques for managing time, cost, and quality during the design process. In this term, the techniques are very similar to those presented by Gray et al (2001), which are derived from construction engineering. While Allinson discusses project and design management from the architect's viewpoint, Gray tends to explain the management techniques from the engineer's viewpoint. Gray directs the design management practice toward the management of tasks, planning, monitoring, control, and information and communication technology. Gray initially distinguishes building design into the architectural design and the engineering design, and then lists the possible design management actions in every phase, from business case until construction stage.

Koster, E. (2001), Interview met Kees Rijnboutt, BNA-Kubus Winnaar 2001, BladNA , vol.10: October 2001

Rizal Sebastian, B.Arch., MSc.

For Publication in Journal of Design Research

Redefining the Framework of Architectural Design Management

Particularly for the detail design stage, Austin and Baldwin et al (2000) have developed more in-depth research by an analytical design planning technique (ADePT). This planning methodology utilizes a dependency structure matrix (DSM) as it tries to overcome the difficulties caused by traditional management methods that do not allow the effect of variations and delays within an iterative and multidisciplinary design process. The same dependency structure matrix is also used by Lahdenpera and Tanhuanpaa (2000) in their attempt to create a new design management system, which is based on process optimization and proactive strategy. Lahdenpera expects the new system to support proactive design during the process, which means the possibility to anticipate the numerous different informational needs, so that the design process can be optimally maintained. The attention is given on the management of the interdependencies and information flows between tasks. Other researches about design management with engineering foundation have been conducted by Ballard et al (1998) and Koskela et al (2002). They start by realizing that the conventional conceptualization of engineering based on the transformation view tends to become inefficient and ineffective. This conventional view sees design as a transformation of requirements and other input information into products. It is applied through task management with the widely known practices and important project management tools of Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and Critical Path Method (CPM). This view assumes that the work to be done can be divided into parts and managed as if those were independent one from another. Such view results in weak process and weak co-operation. To cope with this weakness, Ballard and Koskela suggest viewing the process simultaneously in three ways: as transformation, flow, and value generation. The flow concept sees the design as a flow of information and it is basically aimed at eliminating unnecessary activities or waste. This concept is applied through flow management with tools such as Design Structure Matrix (DSM). The third one is the value concept, which is exercised through value management by seeking to fulfil the best value for the customers. Ballard and Koskela refer to the workflow management, concurrent engineering, and lean construction as they generate the Last Planner concept. They argue that in design management, these three concepts should be integrated, aligned, and balanced. Building design management approaches as discussed above are based on methods derived from construction engineering, and they are rather suitable for application during the engineering design or detail design stages. They are based on rule-governed rationality towards the technical rationality, and their agenda is concerned with planning, monitoring, analysis, and control. It is in contradiction to the creative and dynamic nature of architectural design, and it confronts the subjectivity, motivational, and interpersonal nature of design teams, as well as the design's mediation between the purposive thinking and the sphere of cultural meanings (Allinson, 1997). Thus, those approaches have not yet penetrated the essence and purpose of architectural design management as theoretically formulated and empirically found, as we have discussed in section three. Considering that the approaches based on construction engineering have not been fully satisfying, we will look to other concepts based on architectural view, which are more oriented toward the application within the architectural design stages rather than the engineering design stages. Design management approaches presented by Prins et al (2001) and Den Otter et al (2001) are within these criteria. Prins starting point to develop architectural design management is the consciousness that design process is iterative, so that the design management should work in a cyclical form, altering between setting-up the strategy, formulating the process layout, and steering the process; in every phase from the conceptual until the design development stage. He also distinguishes design management from regular project management by its emphasis on team building, leadership, the creation of commitment and shared values, and steering of outputs above the specification of activities and the steering of traditional administrative factors as time, cost, quality, and risk. Design management has to maintain the balance between an open, informal, and stimulating sphere within the design team, and a more formal management mechanism to control the progress. The application of design management should lead to the production of adequate designs within the manageable design process6. Adequate design means the generation of architectural value and the realization of the desired outcome for all parties involved, while manageable process means that the results must be achieved within the determined time and cost. Among the functions that Prins et al (2001) suggests is formulating the process layout. This is in accordance to Van Loons (1998) opinion that design management should play the role as process management. Van Loon realizes that in general, a process would have been managed properly only if the results are consistent with the values and characteristics determined beforehand. Since at the outset, the outcome of the design process is vague, management needs to clarify the outcomes step-by-step. Since, moreover, it is not entirely known at the outset

Architectural Design Management System, Stan Ackerman Institute TU Eindhoven

Rizal Sebastian, B.Arch., MSc.

For Publication in Journal of Design Research

Redefining the Framework of Architectural Design Management

how the design process will be structured, management has to focus on setting-up and altering the layout during the process, i.e. changes in phasing, links between the phases, and reallocation of tasks. This design management approach has considered some of the unique characteristics of the architectural design process as being iterative, vague, and dynamic; and addressed the issues a more personal management approach rather than the technical one. It has also linked the management approach to the specific value of architectural design objects. However, although Prins et al (2001) has recommended stimulating sphere among the designers, he has not yet further advised on ways to manage and optimize the creative search for best design solutions on complex design problems by individual and collaborative effort. As the process aspect and object aspect of design are being comprehended, the interactive social aspect has not been fully explored. Gunsteren and Van Loon (2001) and Heintz (1999) take into account the interaction between organizations in design projects as they consider the level of complexity according to multiple stakeholders and players involved in building design project. Gunsteren en Van Loon argue that current project management approach is only suitable for simple and linear projects, and subsequently propose open design and construct management to cope with problematic in large and complex projects. Open design seeks to improve political decision-making processes, multi-party negotiations, and collective goal definitions in building projects. Meanwhile, Heintz looks more specifically at the multidisciplinary design collaboration within the design team. He discovered that the means of design coordination have remained mainly intuitive and informal. Therefore, he builds a systematic tool for coordinating the collaborative design, namely the DeCo tool, which provides the protocols and procedures for the collaborative design activities and planning network. We can notice that some attention has been given to the people aspects of design, in particular the factors related to coordination and collaboration. Unfortunately, this design management approach is limited to rationalizing the decision-making process, and structuring the collaboration process through methodology and tool. Although it is important to consider those factors, the core issues in design, like creativity and value of design objects, are still left unexposed. Having analyzed the existing design management approaches we find that early approaches still essentially refer to project management methods and are largely spin-off of project management instruments. It has been proven though that project management concepts and techniques are incapable of solving the complex design problems, so that the management of the design process can never be successfully carried out by simply combining or modifying project management techniques. The state-of-the-art approaches to design management contain many interesting and seemingly effective new features, but they are fragmented and lack of solid conceptual foundation. These have been the reason behind the poor level of design management practice and have become the barrier to progress (Ballard et al, 1998). Most attempts on managing architectural design offer the criticism and analysis of the end design products, or the mechanism of the design process, while there is lack of concern given on how people generate the new and original design solutions through human creative activities. Different parts and elements of architectural design management have been presented, but the body of knowledge is still missing. Because of this, there remains a gap between current approaches, and the principal purpose and the holistic essence of architectural design management. In order to improve this situation, we need to redefine the framework of architectural design management based on the precise understanding of the essence of architectural design and the principal purpose of architectural design management, upon sound fundamental theories. Lawson (1990, 1994) and Hamel (1990) suggest utilizing psychological theories to learn how designers think. If we can understand the creative thinking and action properly, we can manage this process not only for individual designers, but also for design groups. Theories such as social and organizational psychology, group dynamics, organizational management and behavior are worth to learn. However, since solid theoretical basis and best practices of this knowledge are rare in architecture and construction, we should think outside the box by exploring the knowledge in other disciplines; as Egan7 stated, "We see that construction has two choices: ignore all this in the belief that construction is so unique that there are no lessons to be learned; or seek improvement through learning as much as possible from those who have done it elsewhere."

Egan, J. (1998), Rethinking Construction, Report: Department of the Environment, Transport, and Region, UK

Rizal Sebastian, B.Arch., MSc.

For Publication in Journal of Design Research

Redefining the Framework of Architectural Design Management

10

5. Learning from Other Domains

Many have acknowledged that Schn (1991) has successfully understood the designers thinking and working in spite of his educational background in philosophy. In his work, Schn criticizes technical rationality, the paradigm that is the basis of mainstream design methodology. He argues that tackling unique design tasks is the artistry of design practice with professional knowledge of experienced designers, and this reflection-in-action oriented knowledge is implicit and cannot be described within the prevalent methodological paradigm of technical rationality. This argument has been the basis for other researches to look into other domain to reveal the essence of design process and subsequently improve it i.e. by means of design management. Lawson (1990) and Hamel (1990) show the importance of analyzing the designers creativity through psychology, particularly using the theories of thinking and intelligence, as well as the cognitive behavior in design process. Hamel proposes a descriptive psychological model of the design process by the architects. The model intends to show how architects actually design, comprising the knowledge and information they use, the kinds of cognitive activities they perform, and the sequence of these activities. It is characterized by four levels of scheme, namely: the task scheme, analysis scheme, synthesis scheme, and molding scheme. Within each level, activities for orientation, execution, and evaluation take place recurrently. Since there are many players involved in the design process of any building project, cooperative design with an interactive function becomes a key issue. Cooperative design is based on teamwork and reflects the ad hoc structure of most creative organizations (Gray et al, 2001). It is a part of design managements function to facilitate individual invention to be more representative of group innovation. Design management practice should also aware of the possibility that creativity does not lie only on the inventor, but also includes all those who refine, develop, and realize the ideas (Lawson, 1990). In this sense, both the individual designers and the overall design team can be seen to exhibit group dynamics, comprising collective pattern of behavior and group norms. Using the psychological approach and tracing the development of conceptual framework of group dynamics, Hohn (1999) looks for the conditions that a successful innovative team requires. She concludes that a creative climate always requires room for playing, which means the freedom to have destructive thoughts, challenge, and risk-taking. Basic trust between the team members strongly affects the group performance and centers around levels of effort and reliability of commitments. Upon the successful development of the persons and the group concerning trust, authority, norms, and decision-making, more complex and more difficult tasks can be handled. Another conclusion is that the leadership of innovative and creative teams must alternate between generative and focusing modes to both stimulate and guide the level of freedom to play. The generative mode is the leadership behavior that encourages divergence, foster exploration and originality, which leads to new ideas, while the focusing mode encourages convergence and directs the process to perform the tasks within the given constraints. Architectural design management can thus learn from various methods available in the field of organizational behavior to assess the assumptions and beliefs of organizations. Since such methods are able to measure the organizational creativity, it should be possible to better identify the factors that facilitate the process and perform more effective analysis of the dynamics of collaborative teams. The objective is to achieve deliberate success in collaboration by bringing together the right knowledge into an interaction of adequate complexity and creativity (Barlow, 2000b). A broad study of organizational behavior and management based on social science approach has been presented by Mullins (1996). In his book, we can find concepts that systematically cover the individual and groups in the organization, organization structures, change, and development, and the management in the organization. Meanwhile, the analysis of social-psychological aspects in architectural design group can be underpinned by the theory of organizational-psychology (Rosentiel et al, 1975). The subjects of learning will include the interdependence between individuals and the postulated tasks; the mutual interaction within the organizational roles of supervision, parallel, or subordinate functions; and the inter-relation between the individuals in the group, or groups in the organization. The study area covers motivation for the tasks and the behavior on different level of formality within the organizational scheme; psychology of human relationship; conflict resolution; and group dynamics. In section two, we have discussed that architectural design management is developed to be able to comprehend the high complexity of contemporary design projects. Regarding the teamwork, there are at least two issues that make this complex. Firstly, while individual professionals and disciplines are capable of working with very complex concepts, a new kind of complexity comes into play, in which the truths of different perspectives conflict with each other. Secondly, people not only bring diverse knowledge sets, they differ in cognitive style,

Rizal Sebastian, B.Arch., MSc.

For Publication in Journal of Design Research

Redefining the Framework of Architectural Design Management

11

cultural backgrounds, personality, and values in ways that can quickly destroy all hopes of collaboration. In psychology, the term cognitive complexity is used for the ability to process information, which is not well defined and not internally consistent, such as ill-structured problems. The cognitive complexity of the manager needs to encompass the cognitive complexity of the problem (Barlow, 2000a). Here, design management has to define the creativity as insight, manage the complexity of thinking, and understand team complexity. It may be that these cognitively complex, ill structured, and often wicked problems are addressed by cross functional teams as a way to bring together the relevant areas of knowledge in a conversation of adequate cognitive complexity. Since cross-functional teams deal with cross-functional problems, many of their solutions are cross-functional. The problems are beyond the capacities of any one individual, and can only be understood and dealt with by an assemblage of people who understand the problem from different perspectives. Every member may bring knowledge and processes that cannot be checked in detail by other team members (Barlow, 2000b) Those are the reasons why the complexity of modern design cannot be managed by merging individual efforts as commonly done through the bureaucratic solution, by dividing the design problems into parts for multiple specialists who work under coordination of a manager. The wrong assumption, which has also rooted in the conversion model of project management concepts, is if all the parts are done right independently, they will somehow fit together into an effective whole (Ballard et al, 1998). Actually, the key to success is our capacity to integrate and build synergy from various aspects as people from diverse backgrounds and levels work together. One major task of the manager in this situation is to design work for subordinates which is of a level of complexity to match their abilities, which they process and develop sub-tasks of their subordinates level of thinking (Barlow, 2000a). In order to determine the best management approach, we also need to understand the characteristics of complex projects. We can learn these characteristics from the analysis of technical complex projects as provided by Bruijn et al (1996). A project can be categorized as complex regarding to the following properties: large in size, uniqueness and individuality, low failure tolerance, interference characteristics, and high technical and social complexity. The project is large-scaled, which means extensive in terms of number of players, the required financial, and the (inter)organizational and technical efforts. A lot of technical expertise and creativity are involved in such projects and the implementation usually consists of various sub-projects and different phases. The project is unique and full of challenge. It may mean that very little use can be made of experience from other projects or that performance cannot be measured because there are no levels of comparison. Beside being unique, the project exists as a self-contained entity. This asks for a difference in the choice of success criteria. The failure tolerance of these projects is often low, as an excessive risk can lead to a calamity with potentially disastrous effects. This explains why so much time is invested in expert studies on technical design and safety in a technical complex project. Each characteristic can interfere with one or more other characteristics. Consequently, the splitting of a project into sub-projects can lead to specific problems when coupled with technical dynamics and uncertainty. The interactions between sub-projects can be very complex. The technical aspect of complexity refers to technical uncertainty, technical dynamics and the subsequent uniqueness of a project. If the project is perceived as involving public risks, it is also entitled to social complexity. Social complexity usually manifests itself in the presence of a great many players with divergent interests. The technical dynamics can have implications for the political rating of a project. One-sidedness in the information supplied by various players can lead to negligence or underestimation of certain aspects, which will reappear on the political agenda years later. What we have discussed above are a few examples of the knowledge that we can derive from the domains of social and organizational psychology, management of organization and behavior, and management of technical complex projects. The theories are apparently to be highly relevant to underpin architectural design management. However, they must be firstly translated and elaborated into a more coherent and concrete framework that can be implemented in architectural design projects. For instance, we could build a design management framework for the selection process of players in order to assembly a high performance design team; or for ensuring that effective communication of team members is in line with the human relations view (Gray et a, 2001). Another example is the possible design management framework that addresses several issues in the management of large and complex project, as briefly listed by Gunsteren et al (2001), i.e. goal-setting, leadership, conflict resolution, communication, persuasion of players, divisions of tasks, integration and coordination, and progress of control.

Rizal Sebastian, B.Arch., MSc.

For Publication in Journal of Design Research

Redefining the Framework of Architectural Design Management

12

6. Concluding Remarks
This paper has begun by noticing the significant role of design management in other industries and the effort to develop design management in architecture. Having remarked that current studies have not yet delivered the expected level of enhancement for architectural design, this paper suggests that the framework has to be redefined. In order to do this, we firstly have to understand the essence of architectural design through identifying the nature of design problems and solutions, design artistry and the characteristics of designers, and the value of design products. This paper continues by summarizing how academic formulates the purpose of architectural design management theoretically. It compares this theoretical formulation to the demands from the practice by assessing a case study of a complex design project involving multiple stakeholders, multiple architects, and multidisciplinary specialists. It seems that both professionals and academician agree about the urgent need of a coherent framework of architectural design management, which comprises the social-psychological approach linked to the design creativity in collaborative design process. In this sense, the human factor is central to the design process and outcomes. Following this, this paper critically appraises the existing design management approaches in architecture. It finds that the majority is based on construction engineering view and largely spin-off of project management instruments. Neither have other approaches penetrated the core issue of managing design, which is how innovations for the best design are generated through collective human creativity. The approaches are fragmented and lack of established body of knowledge. Respectively, this paper acknowledges that there is a gap between the holistic essence and purpose of architectural design management and the current approaches. Since the solid theoretical foundation and best practices are rare in architecture and construction, it is recommended to learn from state-of-the-art in other relevant domains, i.e. social and organizational psychology, organizational management and behavior, and other industries such as manufacture, product and graphic design, as well as also aerospace and automotive. Finally, we should carefully re-synthesize the theories in relevance to the core of architectural design management. Based on our investigation in this paper, a design management research is recommended. The focus of the research should be on the social-psychological aspect of architectural design group. The exploration should emphasis human/people factor in large-and-complex projects, and how these can be optimally managed to improve the design team and project performance. Furthermore, the research should put the attention on finding appropriate social-psychological based approaches to be implemented in actual design projects and in the leadership profiles of an acting design manager. Barlow (2000a) gives one of the best descriptions for the problem of complete design as the old story in which blind men encountered different parts of an elephant, and then argued about the true nature of the elephant. It is interesting to note that each blind man is fairly right about the nature or the part they encounter, yet wrong in their total perception. Until they can let go of their conclusions, share their information, and experiment with different perspectives and models, they cannot understand the elephant. Like the blind men and the elephant, different people and fields have diverse, often conflicting perspectives and insights on the design process. These diverse knowledge resources should be brought together in an integrated perspective on this phenomenon that would enable the different fields to build upon each other in the search for more useful knowledge. One way to improve collaborative design process is as a way to increase the probability of accurate creative inventions by making sure that every part of the "elephant" is included in the discussion. After selecting the participants needed to understand and represent the breadth of relevant issues, it is necessary for them to interact effectively, allowing each participant to affect the discussion with their knowledge and be affected by the discussion, reformulating their own perspective on the problem. This should also be considered as the essence of architectural design management framework that goes alongside any research aims at developing a new coherent framework.

Rizal Sebastian, B.Arch., MSc.

For Publication in Journal of Design Research

Redefining the Framework of Architectural Design Management

13

References
Allinson, K. (1997), Getting There by Design: An Architects Guide to Design and Project Management, Oxford: Architectural Press Austin, S.A., Baldwin, A.N., Li, B., Waskett, P. (2000), Analytical Design Planning Technique (ADePT): A Dependency Matrix Tool to Schedule the Building Design Process, Construction Management and Economics, vol.18 Ballard, G., Koskela, L., (1998), On the Agenda of Design Management Research, Proceedings IGLC98 Barlow, C.M. (2000a), Creativity and Complexity in Cross Functional Teams, Proceedings IPC 2000 Barlow, C.M. (2000b), Deliberate Insight in Team Creativity, Journal of Creative Behavior, vol.34: 2 Bruijn, J.A.de, Jong, P.de, Korsten, A.F.A., Zanten, W.P.C.van (1996), Grote Projecten: Besluitvorming en Management, Alphen a/d Rijn: Samson Tjeenk Willink [in Dutch] DMI: Design Management Institute (1998), Executive Perspective: 18 Views on the Definition of Design Management, Design Management Journal, Summer 1998 Graham, R. (1998), Managing the Project Management Process in Aerospace and Construction: A Comparative Approach, International Journal of Project Management, vol.17:1 Gray, C., Hughes, W. (2001), Building Design Management, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Gunsteren, L.A., Loon, P.P.van (2001), Open Design and Construct Management, Delft: Eburon Hamel, R. (1990), Over het Denken vand e Architect: een Cognitief Psychologische Beschrijving van het Ontwerpproces bij Architecten, Amsterdam: AHA Books [in Dutch] Heintz, J.L. (1999), Coordinating Collaborative Building Design, PhD Thesis: TU Delft Hohn, H.D. (1999), Playing, Leadership, and Team Development in Innovative Teams, PhD Thesis: TU Delft Koskela, L., Huovila, P., Leinonen, J. (2002), Design Management in Building Construction: From Theory to Practice, Journal of Construction Research, vol.3:1 Lahdenpera, P., Tanhuanpaa, V.P. (2000), Creation of a New Design Management System Based on Process Optimization and Proactive Strategy, Enginering,Construction, and Architectural Management, vol.7: 3 Lawson, B. (1990), How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified, Oxford: Butterworth-Architecture Lawson, B. (1994), Design in Mind, Oxford: Butterworth-Architecture Loon, P.P.van (1998), Interorganisational Design, PhD Thesis: TU Delft Mullins, L.J. (1996), Management and Organisational Behaviour, London: Pitman Publishing Nicholson, M.P., Jepson, W.B. (1995), Design Management in a Complex World, The International Journal of Architectural Management Practice and Research, vol.10 Otter, A.F.den, Prins, M. (2001), Fast-Tracking by High Performance Design Team, Proceedings CIB World Congress in Wellington Prins, M., Heintz, J.L, Vercouteren, K. (2001), Ontwerpen en Management; Ontwerpmanagement, in Duijn, F.A., Lousberg, L.H.M.J. (Ed.), Bouwmanagement, The Hague: Ten Hagen Stam [in Dutch] Rosentiel, L.von, Molt, W., Bruno, R. (1975), Inleiding tot de Organisatie-Psychologie, Utrecht: Het Spectrum [in Dutch] Schn, D.A. (1991), The Reflective Practitioners: How Professionals Think in Action, Aldershot: Avebury Sebastian, R. (2002a), Enhancing International Multi-Architect Collaborative Building Projects through Architectural Design Management, Proceedings 4th ISAIA Sebastian, R. (2002b), A Critical Appraisal on Design Collaboration of The Resident as a Social Process, Working Paper: TU Delft Thiel, P.van, Michels, W. (1998), De Basis van Design Management: Emotie, Ratio, Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff [in Dutch] Valkenburg, R., Dorst, K. (1998), The Reflective Practice of Design Teams, Design Studies, vol.19: 3

Acknowledgement
This article is a part of the authors PhD Research at the Faculty of Architecture, Delft University of Technology. The author would like to thank Prof. Hans de Jonge, Dr. Matthijs Prins, and Ir. Koos Vercouteren for their enthusiastic and constructive contribution to this research project.

Rizal Sebastian, B.Arch., MSc.

For Publication in Journal of Design Research