Fostering integrated design in an academic environment: process and a method
Abstract
In conventional building design projects architects make pre-design and conceptual design decisions on buildings and hand these down to structural and building services engineers to follow up with design development. It is well known that the conceptual design stage of a project is the point where decisions make the most impact, and changes can be made at least cost. The sustainability and innovation aspects of projects often suffer in this respect. One way of addressing this is through Integrated Design Methods that set out mobilise the full potential of all design disciplines on a project by getting them to work effectively together. This method involves architect, engineers, contractors, and owners/clients in all design phases. The current literature reported fundamental principles and processes of Integrated Design however current industry practices do not fully embrace them. Introducing integrated design studios into university pedagogies is a key step in addressing this. Reports on methods of setting up integrated design studios in a university context are however rare. The aim of this article is to develop and document the underlying settings for such design studios. The principles and best practices for applying integrated design are identified. A specific framework of settings in university context is developed and the justifications presented. This article may be of value for the industry and universities to setup integrated design studios to better foster integrated design education.
Keyword : integrated design process, building design, design studio, sustainability, best practice
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Abell, A., & DeVore, K. (2017, June 24–28). Embracing ambiguity: A framework for promoting iterative design thinking approaches in engineering and design curricula [Conference presentation]. 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Columbus, Ohio.
Amabile, T. M., & Khaire, M. (2008). Creativity and the role of the leader. Harvard Business Review, 86(10), 100–109.
American National Standards Institute. (2012). Integrative Process (IP): ANSI Consensus Standard Guide 2.0 for Design and Construction of Sustainable Buildings and Communities. http://mts.sustainableproducts.com/Capital_Markets_Partnership/DueDiligence/15/15%20IP%20Standard%20Guide%20-%20FINAL%20APPROVED%202-1-12.pdf
Anderson, N., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2004). The routinization of innovation research: A constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 147–173. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.236
Augenbroe, G. (2005). Chapter 7: A framework for rational building performance dialogues. In B. Kolarevic & A. M. Malkawi (Eds.), Performative architecture: Beyond instrumentality (1st ed., pp. 97–110). Spon Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Bahler, D., Dupont, C., & Bowen, J. (1995). Mixed quantitative/qualitative method for evaluating compromise solutions to conflicts in collaborative design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 9(4), 325–336. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060400002869
Blizzard, J. L., & Klotz, L. E. (2012). A framework for sustainable whole systems design. Design Studies, 33(5), 456–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2012.03.001
Blizzard, J., Klotz, L., Pradhan, A., & Dukes, M. (2012). Introducing whole-systems design to first-year engineering students with case studies. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 13(2), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676371211211854
Brunetti, G. L. (2021). Confessions of a technical design reviewer. Fuoco Amico, 37–67.
Casakin, H., & Ginsburg, Y. (2018). Whole-to-part-to-whole: Co-evolutionary and integrative design approach. In C. Storni, K. Leahy, M. McMahon, P. Lloyd, & E. Bohemia (Eds.), Design as a catalyst for change – DRS International Conference 2018, Limerick, Ireland. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2018.213
Darke, J. (1979). The primary generator and the design process. Design Studies, 1(1), 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(79)90027-9
de Wilde, P. (2017, August 7–9). The concept of building performance in building performance simulation – a critical review. In 15th International IBPSA Conference on Building Simulation (pp. 1021–1026), San Francisco, CA, USA. http://www.ibpsa.org/proceedings/BS2017/BS2017_270.pdf
de Wilde, P. (2018). Building performance analysis. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119341901
Fasoulaki, E. (2008). Integrated design: A generative multi-performative design approach [Master of Science in Architecture Studies thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology]. https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/43750/265806046-MIT.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
Kanters, J., & Horvat, M. (2012). The design process known as IDP: A discussion. Energy Procedia, 30, 1153–1162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2012.11.128
Kim, J., & Ryu, H. (2014). A design thinking rationality framework: Framing and solving design problems in early concept generation. Human–Computer Interaction, 29(5–6), 516–553. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2014.896706
Kynigos, C. (2007). Half-baked Logo microworlds as boundary objects in integrated design. Informatics in Education, 6(2), 335–358. https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2007.22
Leoto, R., Herazo, B., & Lizarralde, G. (2014). Limits and scope of innovation and collaboration in integrated design practices. In A. Osman, G. Bruyns, & C. Aigbavboa (Eds.), XXV International Union of Architects World Congress (pp. 500–514). UIA 2014 Durban.
Lovins, A. B. (2010). Integrative design: A disruptive source of expanding returns to investments in energy efficiency. Rocky Mountain Institute.
Lovins, A., Bendewald, M., Kinsley, M., Bony, L., Hutchinson, H., Pradhan, A., & Sheikh, I. (2010). Factor ten engineering design principles (No. 2010-10). Rocky Mountain Institute.
Mahdavi, A., & Wolosiuk, D. (2019, September 2–4). A building performance indicator ontology: Structure and applications. In 16th International IBPSA Conference on Building Simulation (pp. 77–82), Rome, Italy.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.1.14
Pittman, J. (2004). Living sustainably through higher education: A whole systems design approach to organizational change. In P. B. Corcoran & A. E. J. Wals (Eds.), Higher education and the challenge of sustainability (pp. 119–212). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-48515-X_15
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
Rush, R. D. (1991). The building systems integration handbook. American Institute of Architects and Butterworth-Heinemann.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. Basic Books.
Simon, H. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.125
Steemers, K. (2006). Chapter 14: Integrated building design. In M. Santamouris (Ed.), Environmental design of urban buildings: An integrated approach. Routledge.
Ulrich, K., & Eppinger, S. (2015). Product design and development. McGraw-Hill Education.
Valkenburg, R. C. (1998). Shared understanding as a condition for team design. Automation in Construction, 7(2), 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-5805(97)00058-7
Van den Beemt, A., MacLeod, M., Van der Veen, J., Van de Ven, A., van Baalen, S., Klaassen, R., & Boon, M. (2020). Interdisciplinary engineering education: A review of vision, teaching, and support. Journal of Engineering Education, 109(3), 508–555. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20347
Visser, W. (2006). Designing as construction of representations: A dynamic viewpoint in cognitive design research. Human–Computer Interaction, 21(6), 103–152. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci2101_4