What makes a great workplace design client?

Office Politics: A Rise to the Top by Alex E. Proimos, on Flickr

A few weeks ago I wrote a post on if great workplace design was a result of great business leadership.  This generated some discussion on who makes a great client, so I thought I’d consider some points on what I think makes a great client for a workplace design project.

Working with any organisation there is more than one side to the client – there is both the culture of the organisation and the personalities of the individuals involved – and usually we interact with two or three groups of individuals.  Firstly the key client representatives, secondly the wider user consultation groups (or end users they are often termed) and thirdly the executive or approval level (in a smaller organisation it is likely this may be the same person as the client representative). As interior designers it is the client representatives we have the most contact with – usually at least weekly.  So it is usually the key representatives that have the biggest impact on client relationship and also the design of the workplace.  Working with the same client organisation can be quite a different experience if one of the key individuals involved at this level changes.

Most often my client representatives have been project or facilities managers at various levels within an organisation. Sometimes they were going to be working in the new workplace, at other times they will remain based in another office (often even in another city). There is a variety of backgrounds in these client types- whilst there were many with a background in construction or architecture or others who had been in facilities a long time and had much experience if fitout, there were plenty with absolutely no experience of buildings, property, fitout or design. Now in my view this isn’t a problem – as long as they realise this and engage us for an appropriate scope of work.  I have had a client who had no experience of fitout design argue with me over how I knew what size to make a 6 person meeting room and wanted a list of projects where I had used that size room before! (Even with plans demonstrating the setout of the room) At the opposite end of the scale I had a client representative who was actually an interior decorator outside of her 9-5 job.  This didn’t make my life easy either though –  she used to call at least 5 times a day and for over 1 month would drop by the office daily to look over samples because she was so personally involved in the design. At the end of the project she returned a box the size of a removalist carton full of samples. (How do you factor someone like that into your fee agreement?)  So as you can see from the above example a passion for design (or maybe just too much time?) is not necessarily the answer as to what makes a great client.

My top 10 attributes for a great client representative:

  1. Trusts us – Respect our professional advice and opinion. Sometimes a colour or a piece of furniture might not be what you would choose yourself but if you put your trust in your interior designer you’ll generally have a better project outcome. That said, the most successful design is a result of an open relationship between the two designer and the time where the client can question and debate the interior designers proposals.
  2. Understands the organisation and business – Both at the strategic level in terms of company direction and aspirations, and at the operational level in terms of the different functional groups within the organisation.  Understand what the organisation wants to achieve through the fitout and clearly communicate these priorities to the interior designer.  Be able to direct the interior designer as to which business groups have specialised needs, and be able to make the judgements about what the user groups need.
  3. Appreciates design – To me this does not mean that you must have highly developed design of knowledge, education, or aesthetic appreciation but that you appreciate and value that you are paying for an interior design service and that this service offers tangible value to your organisation.  You respect that my time is valuable . And you understand that it is our job to design the fit out not yours – you understand the difference between providing the design team with functional requirements of a space versus designing the space yourself.
  4. Manages the user groups – It is important for the design team to have access to the end users at some point during the design process. They need to be the option to ask questions and gain a further understanding of the way people work especially if there are very specific activities undertaken by certain groups. However as interior designers we need your assistance to manage the user groups. We don’t have the authority within your organisation to tell people what they can and can’t have or what they do and don’t need – you need to do this.
  5. Tells us the budget – Trust us to manage their budget (I’ve blogged a little on this subject before). Allow your interior designer to suggest where money is best spent. Clients can get quite caught up in the price of an individual chair. I think this is because they understand and can relate to the price of a chair – you have bought one before. However you need to look at the cost of the fit out as a whole or of larger components of the budget rather than just at a single individual expensive item. Especially if there are just one or two of those expensive chairs in the reception area. Of course, if it is a task chair the cost will add up – but here we are talking about then the investment in good seating which is an important consideration not just the cost. Understand that your fitout is not just a one of project with a capital cost budget to meet now. The decisions you make now will impact upon operational and maintenance costs, as well as how well your fitout will age or meet changing organizational structures and needs. Maybe you would be better off spending more up front to have more energy efficient lighting for example.
  6. Has reasonable expectations – particularly with your expectations regarding program or scope changes.  Understand that there is a fine balance between cost, time and quality, you can’t reduce your program and expect the same cost and quality.  We probably can’t revise the design in less time than you spent reviewing it.  Agree and stick to the timeframes for your own internal review processes. Manage your team (and your management) that needs to be involved in this process.  If you make changes later, or want more 3D views understand you have to pay for this (refer point 3 again!)
  7. Understands that significant internal resources are required – we need access to a wide range of your staff through user groups, to your executive team for decision making (unless they have delegated this task), you need to manage your inputs and reviews and someone needs to manage the relocation process as a whole – there is a lot more to be done than just designing a new office.  Interior designers usually don’t undertake relocations planning, but may be able to assist with some tasks if this is agreed as part of their scope (for example fire evacuation plans or phone number/seating plans would not usually be part of the scope but an interior designer may be happy to provide these as additional items).
  8. Has the authority to make decisions – you don’t have to be the final decision maker, but you need to understand the priorities and provide the design team with confident direction on all matters relating to design – be they functional, aesthetic or budgetary.  If the interior designer is not in regular (weekly) communications with the decision makers you need to be ensuring they are kept in the loop and we are heading in the right direction.  Otherwise we might waste weeks of both our time.
  9. Isn’t worried about their own corner office – you have the interests of the organisation as a whole in mind and not just a focus on your own office, own team or a particular driver that motivates you. You understand that the workplace design will influence staff motivation and productivity and satisfaction and you care about improving the place you work.
  10. Is part of the team – you understand that the best workplace design will be the a result of collaboration and trust between you as the client and your interior designer.  Your input, and particularly your detailed reviews and feedback are an important and necessary part of ensuring that we have understood and captured your organisational aims, objectives and functional requirements.

This list might seem pretty demanding, but I guess that is part of the point.  For a major office relocation, being the client representative is an important and necessary role that does take up a lot of time.  As interior designers or architects we can’t just walk in and give you an office without an understanding of your organisation.  One thing you will notice though – is nowhere on my list does a job title come into the picture.  To me it doesn’t matter if your real day job is in FM or HR or you are the CEO – its about your approach to your workplace design project, your organisation and the people that work there.

What do you think?  Are there any qualities that I’ve left off the list?  Do you disagree with any of the above – am I expecting too much? If you are client side – what are your qualities for a great interior designer?  (maybe thats another post someday)

Image credits:

Working with Hydraulics Engineers

Blue water... by ERIO, on FlickrIn Australia hydraulic engineering and wet fire engineering (sprinklers/fire hose reels and hydrants) are often the work of a single engineer on smaller fitout projects.    For this reason I’ve decided to cover these two disciplines together in this one post. In other locations people may be more familiar with the use of the word plumbing to cover these disciplines.  In Australia, we also have fire engineers, who undertake work related to overall fire and life safety systems – which I’m not covering in this post. (Perhaps for another blog post – this series seems to keep expanding!)

The extent of hydraulic engineering works on many fitouts can be quite minor – perhaps limited to a single tea room sink.  Sometimes the fact that the hydraulic engineering works are so limited can mean that sufficient attention is not paid to coordinating this discipline.  Due to recent changes to the accessibility standards  in Australia it has become more and more common that a wheelchair accessible toilet facility will also be part of the fitout.  Installing new toilets into existing building structures greatly increases the need for coordination and early planning in relation to hydraulic items.

In my experience there are three major issues that arise again and again in relation to the hydraulic engineering works.

Clashes with existing structural elements
Frequently what needs to be coordinated is not so much the interior design and the hydraulic engineering or pipe work but the pipework or fixture locations and the structure or other impediments below the fixture.  It is important to try and find out at the very early planning stages what is underneath any rooms proposed to have hydraulic fixtures and in particular toilets.

Sometimes it is not possible to gain access to the ceiling below in order to run the pipe work. For example if there is another organisation’s server room below or if there is a fixed plasterboard ceiling – the costs, risks and difficulties of access may mean that it makes sense to move the toilet or kitchen to another location within the fitout.

The other issue is  locations of structural elements. In particular, this has a major impact upon locations for toilets as usually pipework for sinks, basins or showers can be slightly modified or moved to avoid structural elements.  Generally with a toilet waste this is not possible (there may be 2 options an P or an S trap only).  For accessible toilet facilities this becomes a more significant issue as the location of the toilet pan is quite critical and cannot necessarily be easily moved to accommodate structural elements.  If the room is designed to the minimum code dimensions this may prevent any rearrangment of the room to suit the structure. The best solution to this problem is again to try to obtain the information on the structural design early if possible (and import it into your plans/model so you can check and see it during your design process) – although often this isn’t possible with an existing building. In this case in may be necessary to scan the concrete slab to determine the location of beans or post tensioning cables. Another good options if it is possible, is to slightly oversize the rooms to allow for some future flexibility. The final option you are left with if this issue is discovered only when you are on site, is to install a pump. In my opinion and experience this is a very simple solution for sinks and basins and I have no problem recommending it to clients for these applications. However it’s not something to be recommended for toilets – whilst it is possible – it’s not pleasant when it leaks onto the brand-new carpet! (broadloom of course)

The other information that should be obtained early is the location of hydraulic stacks.  In my opinion as an interior designer or architect you can’t let these drive the fitout planning, as you would often end up with kitchen/breakout areas in the most unpleasant parts of the building with no access to natural light, but you should take them into account and be aware where they are located. That way when someone asks you about why the kitchen is not next to the stack you can explain that you considered them, and the reasoning why you located sinks away from them.

The most important thing is to consider these constraints and gather information as early as possible in the planning process.  By the time we get to a client signoff milestone where we have locked in the locations for rooms such as toilets and tearooms we may not yet have a hydraulic engineer on the project. As interior designers and architects we need to take responsibility for this early coordination.  If there is a hydraulic engineer already appointed it is a good idea to have them review approximate fixture locations prior to finalising the agreed layout with the client.

Sprinklers
Sprinklers seemed to be an item which frequently cause trouble on a project. I have never quite understood it but it seems that the sprinkler code in Australia appears to be open to some level of interpretation. I can ask three different hydraulics /fire engineers and get three different opinions as to what the design criteria should be to comply with the code. If anyone else has a solution to this problem and how to manage it I’d like to know!

The other issue that interior designers and architects need to be aware of when it comes to sprinkler design is to ensure that the engineer is aware of any high level elements such as bulkheads, feature ceilings, compactuses or joinery which could impact upon the sprinkler head flow.

Coordination of hydraulic fixtures
Hydraulic fixtures should only be specified once. It does not matter if they are specified by the interior designer or architect or by the hydraulic engineer. However it is important that it is agreed who will select the fixtures and that the other party is given information on what has been selected – and the chance to comment on the selections.

The interior designer or architect also needs to ensure that sufficient space has been left for the hydraulic fixtures including items such as pumps, hot water or boiling water units and the pipework or any ventilation needs associated with these items. Whoever is taking overall responsibility for coordination should also check that the electrical engineer has provided power where required.

The other item that should be checked early on (prior to finalising plans with the client if possible) is if existing fire hose reel locations will be sufficient. If new reels are required ensure to allow space for these too. In Australia, the need for a new hose reel may also highlight that you have an issue with your egress distances so you may need to check these (a hose reel covers 40m – the same distance as the permitted egress path).

Do you have any tips on hydraulic and wet fire coordination? In particular any suggestions on the mysteries of the Australian sprinkler codes? Are there other specific regulatory issues that need to be considered in the countries you work in?

I’m planning further posts on working with sustainability consultants, acoustic engineers and fire engineers – if you have any tips on these topics please email me. As always any suggestions for future blog posts are always welcome too.

Image credits:

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic License  by  ERIO 

Working with Mechanical Engineers

*** by dzarro72, on FlickrAt a glance working with mechanical engineers can seem to present less visible coordination issues for interior designers than electrical engineering (previous blog post here).  However, the results of mechanical engineering (most commonly air conditioning ) are one of the most frequently complained elements of office fitout.   Whilst a lot of the reasons for the complaints about the air conditioning are not strictly due to coordination issues between the interior designer or architect and the mechanical engineer, there are ways that the design team can help to minimise any problems.  In my opinion there are three reasons for the majority of the occupant complaints:
  1. People’s different perceptions of temperature. 
  2. Under design of the mechanical systems compared to the intended use.
  3. The interactions between the base building systems and the fitout systems or modifications made due to the fitout.
Perception of temperature

Individuals perceive temperature and humidity differently depending on many factors.  This is always going to be an issue and if you are dealing with a large number of people in a single space it is difficult to design out.  There are some options now available for individual air flow controls at workstations, or you can allow user override in meeting rooms or offices – however these options generally have to be balanced against increased energy consumption and installation costs and are not necessarily going to be suited to every project or client.

Under design of mechanical systems
Under design of the mechanical systems is the area where the design team have the most influence and control over the functionality of the systems.  As an interior designer or architect you need to ensure that the mechanical engineer is fully briefed on the functions and occupancy of the room. Often mechanical engineers assume certain numbers of people and anticipated occupancy periods based upon the floor plan and the usual use of a room. For example if the floor plan shows a series of meeting rooms with operable walls, drawn with a certain number of meeting tables and chairs, frequently the mechanical design will be based upon the number of chairs on the floor plan. Whilst the mechanical design may take into account the operable walls and allow the space to operate as a single space – it may not take into account that when the operable walls are open the client intends to use the space for a lecture and the occupancy density will be higher. The mechanical engineer needs to understand if spaces are to be used in different ways with different occupancy densities.

I have also found that the mechanical engineer may under design the systems to save money, thinking that the client will not really use the space in this way very often and therefore not want to pay the additional costs – for example a training facility for 60 people which converts to a function room for 250 people. If the mechanical engineer believes that the cost of the briefed functional requirement is unusual or excessive then they need to discuss this with the interior designer/architect and the client.  The client would much rather understand and have the choice to pay the cost up front than to have to modify the system later after everyone has sweltered at the opening party. Particularly if they had asked for a space for 250 people.

Base building issues
One of the biggest issues with the mechanical systems for many interior fitouts is that you are working with, modifying and adding to an existing system. Often no accurate drawings or manuals exist for those systems. Whilst not frequently undertaken, a full site audit of the existing mechanical systems prior to design can be very worthwhile – if the client is willing to pay for this and if there is a way to arrange access (generally this will mean removing ceilings). If not, the involvement of the mechanical engineer during construction stage to work with the air conditioning subcontractor is essential.

The other issue with existing base building systems can be that there is an air conditioning subcontractor responsible for ongoing maintenance. It always makes sense to see if this subcontractor can undertake the fitout modification works as well. At least that way if there are any complaints there is only one responsible maintenance company. Some building owners and facilities managers require that modifications are undertaken by the maintenance contractor.

Other coordination tips
Many of the issues discussed above are not so much coordination issues as design management issues.  So I’ve listed below a few more of my tips on coordination between interior design / architecture and the mechanical engineer:

  1. Ensure the mechanical engineer understands the different partition or wall types in the project. In particular they need to be aware which walls are operable walls and which walls are full height to the underside of a slab or roof above, or which walls have baffling above.  Walls to the slab above or with baffling above impact on the path of return air above the ceiling and need to be taken into account in the design of the mechanical systems. Operable walls change the air flow within the space and again need to be taken into account in the mechanical system design.
  2. Coordinate different types of diffusers and grilles. Ensure that grilles are shown both on architectural and mechanical drawings. Ensure that you understand where the door grilles go and advise the mechanical engineer if there are any problems with proposed locations. For example grilles proposed in acoustic doors , glazed doors or other doors where the visual appearance is important. Similar issues apply to ceiling diffusers and grilles.  Ensure that the selection and style of grille and the colour are co-ordinated suits the interior design and are not specified differently in the architectural documents and the mechanical documents. Also ensure that linear grilles which crossover from room to room and could impact acoustics are considered and detailed appropriately.
  3. Check locations of thermostats and controls. Ensure they are not on operable walls, glazed walls, behind retractable screens or in other functionally or visually unappealing locations.
  4. Consider accessible outdoor space for condensor units and the need for either building owner or authority approvals for any outdoor units or grilles.

All of the above are my tips and suggestions – maybe the mechanical engineers reading this have their own suggestions?  What are your tips for working with mechanical engineers?  Does anyone have any more solutions to managing and coordinating with existing base building systems? Do you have any tips for hydraulic and fire engineering collaboration?

I thought my readers might also be interested in this blog post  on BIM collaboration – what it has to say about collaboration applies to every type of project, not just BIM projects. http://bimfix.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/collaborative-bim-planting-seed.html

Image Credits:
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0 Generic License  by  dzarro72 

Architectural rankings – is it possible to be objective?

The number 1 by WarmSleepy, on FlickrI’m taking a little break today from my series on collaborating with engineers because over the last few days I have been a bit baffled and slightly annoyed by the online chatter in relation to Building Designs annual world’s 100 largest architectural firms list (WA100). The main list ranks architecture firms based upon the numbers of fee earning architectural staff. You can see the list of the top 100 here. Across the globe they also look at the work firms are doing in various industry sectors and regional sectors – less information about these lists is freely available online, but you can find some information on the Australian firms in this article.

However, the big problem with these lists is what do they really mean? ArchDaily has further examined the numbers and dug deeper into the lists in a piece titled “The World’s Largest Firms Have Been Ranked… But Does It Matter?” (although from the web address I believe the article was originally called “…but not in any way that matters”) This article discussed alternative ways of ranking. First identifying one of the other listings found within Building Designs paid compendium – the top five most admired architectural practices and then coming up with their own lists based upon analysis of the WA100 figures . These were the top 5 fee earners, top 5 money makers and top 5 most efficient firms.

In looking at the analysis, ArchDaily makes it clear that a top five most admired architectural practices list will always be quite subjective, whilst “Building Design clearly states that their ranking is an objective resource outlining data on the world’s 100 largest firms.” Based on the ArchDaily article or the Building Design WA100 information I have found online, its not clear how the Top 5 Most Admired List was put together. One assumes it relates to the level of prestige, perhaps coverage in architectural media, architectural awards and similar other factors. 3 of the 6 firms (there were two firms listed at Number 5) don’t even feature in the WA100 list. No one would debate the fact that the top 5 most admired or even top 5 most awarded firms list is always going to be subjective, whatever process is used to achieve the results.

The interesting thing is that Building Design really believes its WA100 list is objective. The publicity behind the list does not mention that the data is self-reported by the architectural firms. And that’s not all. To even be in this list one has to be a subscriber to Building Design. I know this because I made enquires about this list when it came out last year to find out why the firm I worked for wasn’t on it. So this is the first bias of the ‘objective’ data.

The second bias is the self reporting. Architecture is an industry which is frequently identified with big egos. This could perhaps lead to exaggeration of these self reported figures. Architects frequently overstate how many staff they have, how big their jobs are and about just generally how big or great their practice is. Because these figures include not just registered or licensed architects it is pretty difficult for anyone to verify if the actual staff numbers are true. If the company is not publicly listed or undertakes work other than architecture it would also be difficult to verify if the earnings reported are true either. It is also possible that due to differences in services offered or differing fee structures that the figures are impossible to compare – the old saying of trying to compare apples and oranges. So in the end, it becomes a pretty meaningless comparison.

On another interesting point – I personally know that 3 of the top 5 firms listed in Regional highest earners: Australasia have been making staff redundant in the last 12 months. It actually wouldn’t surprise me if it was actually all 5. Its interesting to me that in a time where architecture is still struggling to stay economically viable and there are many architects looking for work worldwide, that firms would actually want to promote these kinds of figures (especially on the internet where all the currently unemployed architects like me have so much time to read and comment!).

Is there any point to architectural rankings at all? I doubt the clients really care if their firm is ranked no #73 in the world on size – they care more about the quality of service they receive. Sure some people will care about if their architect is most admired – but that will mean something different to every single client. Can you think of any worthwhile or objective way to rank architectural or design firms?

At this point I will admit to my personal bias here – as anyone who checks the about section of the website will already know – I worked for one of the firms mentioned in these articles and was made redundant in 2012.

Image Credits:
Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License  by  WarmSleepy