Author Archives: ceilidhhiggins

Workplaces of the Future: Will the office look like my son’s bedroom?

Posted on by
2

Oliver’s ’Big Boy’ Room by Jug Jones, on Flickr One of the questions raised at the Green Building Council’s Workplaces of the Future Summit held on 12 April, was will my office look like my son’s bedroom? The answer is apparently Yes. Now I like to think that this relates to all those cool crazy things like the car bed pictured, and not the mess of a teenagers room, but possibly it could be either! Today I’m covering the second half of the summit, if you missed my post on the first half of the Summit – Freerange Working, click here.

Psychology and the Workplace
Natalie Slessor – Lend Lease
Natalie is an environmental psychologist and talked about what is needed to design places that connect with people, attract staff and promote well being. The workplace should to be synonymous with the organisational culture and values.

Using clever groups of three words beginning with the same letter Natalie identified key issues in designing workplaces to achieve these outcomes.

Competence, Control, Confidence – does the environment facilitate work/productivity, can the occupant control the environment, does the environment make the occupant comfortable, safe and give confidence.

What is the vision? What is the experience? What is the question we need our workplace to help us answer?

End State, Engagement, Evidence – understanding and addressing both organizational and individual drivers and fears, honesty is important as part of the engagement strategy, strength of evidence based research to help in decision making.

Bruce Precious – GPT Group
Bruce was a self admitted naysayer of activity based working – until GPT moved into their own refurbished offices in the MLC Tower, and now he is a dedicated convert.

As a major property owner and landlord, GPT Group embarked on a major fitout of its own space within the MLC tower to demonstrate that existing buildings can indeed keep up, with a showcase fitout designed by Woods Bagot. Bruce spoke on the process of behavioural change management, moving from an environment which housed “more paper than people”. There were certainly many staff for whom the move to non allocated desking and only 1m of storage  space provoked fear and anxiety, Bruce himself among them. However by starting the conversation with staff early and the CEO taking a leading role, the shift has been successful. Within the first 3 months, 88% of employees would not have gone back to the previous environment. The idea of the ‘biggest loser’ competition where staff competed to reduce paper/storage brings some fun into the change management process (I wonder if ‘gamification’ could perhaps be taken further in the context of stakeholder management?)

Whilst research suggests that an office environment in itself might not be motivating it can be demotivating according to well known psychologist and “pioneer of job enrichment” Frederick Herzberg. After the staff had moved in extensive post occupancy studies were undertaken using BUS occupancy survey method and compared to previous studies for the old GPT offices (also in MLC but on different floors). GPT now rank as the most satisfied office occupants out of the offices surveyed in Australia! Bruce believes the GPT fitout may not be motivating but it is certainly inspiring.

GreenStar Interiors – Beyond Office Interiors
Jorge Chapa – GBCA
The uptake of the GreenStar Office Interiors tool and its impact on the market for environmental products has been significant. However rather than just update the existing tool, the GBCA has extended the reach of this rating tool with the release of the new GreenStar Interiors Tool. The new tool takes GreenStar interiors to other environments beyond the office being applicable to any type of interior – education, healthcare, retail, industrial (I must say I was left wondering what an industrial fitout might be?) and is currently in pilot version.

The new Interiors tool focuses on sustainability for people. It is also a simpler tool with less documentation and instead of prescriptive metrics defines criteria that design teams can use to find solutions to suit their projects.

Brett Pollard – HASSELL
The new HASSELL Sydney Studio fitout is aiming to be the first project certified under the new GreenStar Interiors tool. The new tool has a more human centric focus and will help improve a wide varitety of work environments. A wide range of spaces such as healthcare buildings, retail environments and law courts are covered by the tool – and are all workplaces too.

HASSELL has long been a supporter of the GBCA and have designed many GreenStar projects including SA Water House, which achieved a 6 star rating for both Office Design and Office Interiors tools. HASSELL has also obtained ratings for its own studios in Melbourne, Brisbane and Shanghai (LEED rating), which are also located within refurbished industrial buildings rather than new building stock.

Brett spoke of the human need for choice and how we can design the likely choices to be more environmentally friendly, ideas coming from the book Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness (by Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein).  This book uses the term ‘choice architecture’ to describe how human choices can be ‘nudged’. For example if we design the default settings for a meeting room to have the lights and air conditioning off instead of on,  many users will then simply leave it off, only turning on if needed, resulting in energy savings.

Amanda Steel – Stockland
Amanda spoke of how the use of retail space is changing and already includes spaces such as art galleries and community rooms. Shopping centres have become a social hub and are no longer just for shopping. All Stocklands Centres now include community rooms which are used for a wide variety of purposes. Wifi in shopping centres is essential. Shopping centres may already act as a third workspace, and in the future it is likely that coworking spaces will also become part of a retail environment (I am aware of The Milkbar in Canberra which is a coworking space in a former retail space/strip, not in a centre).

25% of people are in shopping centres to do something other than buy a product. Unlike in office spaces, the outcomes of sustainability and human centric measures in shopping centres are easily measured in terms of sales and time spent in centre. For example with an increase in daylight, shoppers will increase time in the centre by 30%.

Image Credits:

Workplaces of the Future: Freerange Working?

Posted on by
2

Chickens by Richard Elzey, on FlickrOn Friday I attended the Green Building Council of Australia’s Workplaces of the Future Summit in Sydney. I thought I would share with you some of my notes and thoughts for the day. One of the key messages from the day is that the workplace is changing and there is a big focus on the experience of the user – many of the presentations dealt with this issue and it forms a larger part of the new GreenStar Interiors tool (which is now is pilot version). A number of the speakers used the term ‘freerange working’ to describe a new way of working where the user has more choice and space in which to move as well as a more enriched workspace experience.  The summit was a fantastic opportunity to hear from a wide range of speakers including designers, occupants and researchers.  As I have so much material, this will be a two part post.  Part 2 next week will include an update on the GreenStar Interiors Pilot tool. (Part 2: Will the office look like my son’s bedroom?)

Bilophilic Design – Dr Stephen Kellert (Yale)
Dr Stephen Kellert is a Professor Emeritus of Social Ecology from Yale and was the keynote speaker of the summit. His presentation was an introduction to biophilic design, what it is and a summary of research showing why biophilic design is beneficial to building occupants.

Biophilic design is based upon the idea that we are biologically predisposed to attach meaning to the natural world and therefore incorporate nature into buildings and urban spaces to improve the human response to the built environment. The design can include the incorporation of the actual natural environment through plants, water views or the like, or by the influence of nature through patterns, complexity and variation of design and the use of natural materials. Much of the world’s most famous architecture – for example Gothic Cathedrals or the Sydney Opera House exhibit principles of biophilic design.

Dr Kellert also discussed a number of studies which have shown that such environments improved outcomes for human health and productivity. These studies included healthcare, social housing and factory settings.

Those interested in finding out more should visit http://www.biophilicdesign.net/ where you can purchase the film Biophilic Design: The Architecture of Life or various books written by Dr Kellert.

The Workplace Diaspora
Sarah Kay (Woods Bagot)
Sarah spoke of the “Google Generation” – those born after the mid nineties, who have grown up with the internet – and the impact their coming into the workforce in coming years will have. Sarah described this generation as always on with a need for stimulation and choice, access to information and an ease with technology and virtual communications. As a result the office space is likely to become more of a place for physical collaboration.

The “Google Generation” are also used to being switched on and communicating 24/7 and as a result working hours are likely to shift and line of sight management may become a thing of the past. This will lead to the physical space of the workplace being utilised more intensively both in terms of utilisation (which we are already seeing), but also in terms of hours of working. Trends such as Activity Based Working, Real Time Working, Agile Working and Alternative Working Solutions are already heading in this direction and Australia has seen a number of high profile examples including Macquarie Bank, National Australia Bank and GPT.

Lauren Haas (Brookfield Mulitplex)
Lauren spoke on the need for developing high performance buildings, which she defined as buildings where the value of the built environment can be objectively demonstrated through independent research.

Lauren looked at the changing design of zoos from providing an environment where animals simply survive in small bare enclosures to today’s zoos where animals thrive in environments that are designed to mimic nature and provide stimulation [I thought this was a fantastic analogy!]. This would lead to higher performance of our building stock. The focus of building performance measures to date has been on energy efficiency, rather than the benefits to the human capital of the business. As salaries and the costs of turnover make up such a high percentage of business costs then the cost benefits to be reaped by improving the environment for the human capital through increased productivity, health and well being are huge.

Lauren was involved in the World Green Building Council report “The Business Case for Green Building”, in the chapter on Workplace Productivity and Health, summing up some of the key research undertaken in this field.

Paul Auglys (Commonwealth Bank of Australia)
Paul spoke on the process of change management in the Commonwealth Bank move to Activity Based Working at Commonwealth Bank Place.  Key elements in the decision for a fairly conservative organisation to make the move to ABW were to visit a number of other projects (Microsoft and Interpolis being key influences) and to prepare a business case identifying benefits across employee engagement, productivity and customer service, environmental and space utilisation measures. It was also important to find the ABW that suits the individual business model.  For  the CBA, the concept of staff having home zones rather than a totally free desking environment forms an important part of their ABW implementation.

After making the decision to move to ABW, key to the successful implementation of the project were the intensive stakeholder engagement process, the construction of a large pilot project were 200 staff worked and an integrated project team including Property, IT and Change Management.

Paul’s advice for other organisations looking at moving to ABW:

  1. Don’t underestimate the amount of change, provide support for change and ongoing training.
  2. Technology is a key aspect and must support the environment.
  3. Tailor ABW for your business – connect your ABW with the culture you want to build.

Carol-Ann Pickvance (HASSELL)
Carol-Ann spoke about the future of work beyond activity based working.  ABW is rapidly moving towards the mainstream in Australia and likely to become the norm.  Workplace trends beyond ABW inlcude coworking and codesign.

Coworking is a rapidly growing way of working where members rent space within shared office environments. Originally envisaged as spaces for start ups and individuals looking for work communities, corporate memberships are growing as the coworking space is seen as an environment which offers different opportunities for collaboration or innovation than the traditional corporate workplace. The Hub in Melbourne is an example of a coworking space. Key to the coworking space is that the workspace needs to attract people to it, the space is self organising and user appropriated (everything is on castors for instant rearrangement) and merges the facilities and atmosphere of traditionally different typologies – coffee shop, education space, workspace. The other concept from the coworking space that offers users additional benefits is the concept of the host, who not only manages the space but also seeks to understand the different projects and people and assist in connecting members and creating networks.

Carol-Ann also discussed the role of technology, and identified that the speed of change means that many corporations are just unable to keep up. Frequently consumer technology at home is ahead of corporate technology. The coworking space is based upon bring your own device and therefore the only technology must is wifi. However in some places coworking spaces are also offering members the benefits of shared high end technology such as telepresence.

Carol-Ann believes that many of the elements of coworking will become important in all workplaces, and in particular the element of user choice. The idea of codesign takes user consultation to the next level incorporating the workplace user group in not just the functional requirements but the whole design process and aesthetic. This could be quite confronting for interior designers and changes the focus and process of design.

I will be going back to discussions on the business of architecture and interior design, but the next few weeks posts will focus on a number of conferences I am attending. As well as part 2 on the Workplaces of the Future Summit, in coming weeks I am attending TEDx Sydney (May 4) and attending and presenting and the Revit Technology Conference in Auckland (May 16-18) and will blog further on topics of interest from these conferences.
Image credits:

The art (or is that science?) of architecture and interior design fees

Posted on by
11

3047006771_a9cbf5d2e9_b_bwWow. I was so surprised at the popularity of my last post – Architecture and Interior Design is a business, isn’t it?  I’ve had more visitors to my website in the one week since I published this post than in the 2 months since I launched this blog!  Is there a thirst out there for more discussion of architecture and interior design business and practice issues? Or were you all thinking that I was going to say no, architecture is not a business? Or was it just that cool money clock image? I’m going to go with the first choice, you all want to think and talk more about the business of design – but please feel free to let me know if I’m wrong.

One of the reasons I decided that my blog would be on design practice issues was that I felt there was something of a gap in the market for discussing how we actually practice design – as opposed to blogs covering great projects, new products or current events of which there are many.  There is a real lack of discussion and education both at student and professional development level about how we practice.  In particular the subject probably least discussed is fees – how we calculate them and how we spend them, let alone how much they are – so today I’m going to look at architectural and interior design fees and the various methods I’ve seen for calculating them.

I’m going to focus this discussion on the methods used for calculating lump sum commercial fees because in my experience this is the most common fee basis expected by most government, institutional and commercial clients – even in situations where they would actually benefit from using hourly rates. For some reason there is a perception amongst clients that the architect or interior designer charging hourly rates is only doing so in an effort to rip them off. Which makes no sense given that the supposed basis for calculating a lump sum feet should also be the hours of work that it will take the architectural or interior design firm to complete the project.

Over the years I’ve seen quite a number of ways of calculating architectural or interior design fees. Ranging from back of envelope scratchings through to enormous spreadsheets. This variations seems to me to be mostly personal preference and is not always necessarily a guide as to how the project will actually perform financially. I certainly don’t remember learning much about calculating fees when I was at uni. I do remember we had a course about calculating chargeout rates and multipliers, but I can’t actually remember anything about how to determine fees for an architectural project. If it was there I think it must’ve been something quite simple such as calculate how many hours you think it’s going to take you. Easy right?

I certainly discovered it’s not so easy in the real world. Back in the day when the Institute of Architects set mandatory fee scales it probably was.   This thought took me off an interesting research project on the net.  I wondered when the fee scales had been made illegal, the thought being that maybe  most architects today were trained to use the fee scales.  So I discovered that both in Australia and the UK the story is similar.  I couldn’t find the date for the withdrawal of the mandatory fee scales, but I believe it was in the 70’s or perhaps 80’s (readers please correct me if I’m wrong on this)  but that published fee scales were still available and published until after 2001, and only since have been withdrawn (on the basis of competition for the consumers benefit).  Now I do recollect these fee scales, and assume that this is actually what I was taught about at uni in around 2000.  These fee scales can still be found on the web, however, by now they are obviously hopelessly out of date. The scary thing is that usually you get paid less now!

So basically this means that architects really only had to calculate fees for the last 10-15 years – although I’m sure many would also have been doing this before the fee scales were withdrawn. As far as I know there were never any interior design fee scales (again if someone knows differently please let me know).

There are a number of well known methods for determining architectural fees, discussed on the net and used in practice and below I’ve provided some comments on the pluses and minuses of each of these methods.

 

 Percentage based fees
A percentage based fee is basically the same as using the old scale of rates. The fee is calculated based upon the percentage of the construction cost and the type of project. These days the actual percentage could be calculated in a very scientific manner – based on records of projects the firm has undertaken or of records of winning tender prices ( where clients have to publish the winning price).  Obviously for this to work one needs to have decent records (is all that free overtime recorded?) and you have to have worked on enough projects to have sufficient records.

However percentage based fees can still also be an art – rather than records there are plenty of architects who consider the percentage based fee based upon a gut feel or a perception of where the market sits.

One of the biggest benefits of a percentage fee is that it doesn’t take much time to figure it out. The downside can be that it doesn’t take individual project factors such as contract conditions, scope of work, program or client into account.  The other issue is that you may not know the project budget or, particularly with interior design, debate can arise over what is included in the construction cost.  For these reasons percentage fees are often used as a sanity or double check on another type of fee calculation.

Note that percentage based fees can also be used as a contract type (as opposed to using a percentage to determine a lump sum) – meaning that the client will pay a fixed percentage based upon the construction cost, but this type of contractual arrangement is much rarer – clients see it as encouraging the architect or designer to design a more expensive project.

Number of drawing sheets
This approach is to make a list of drawings you expect to produce for the project and then assign a cost – either to each drawing individually or even just a lump sum price per sheet. Personally I’ve always found this method quite bizarre. There is a hell of a lot to an architecture or interior design project that is not a drawing.  Especially when that we started using Revit for documentation, I found this approach had no real meaning whatsoever. So the next logical step becomes a work breakdown structure, looking at costs of all activities.

Work breakdown structure
This is a method that seems to be loved by project managers. Rather than just making a list of the drawings you expect to produce, you make a list of everything you expect to produce and all the activities to be undertaken on the project. This can be interpreted at different levels. Some people would take this down to individual tasks that may take 1 to 2 hours – such as select door handles.  Other people may keep this as big tasks such as prepare specifications. Certainly if you get down to the very small level of 1 to 2 hours this becomes a mammoth spreadsheet. And potentially with very little benefit.

The problem with this detailed fee basis in architectural or interior design is that different projects can have different needs. It is often not until you win the project and get into the concept design that you’ll understand how much time is required for certain aspects. For example, I might not know if a project has operable walls or not until I’ve done the concept design.  Therefore I don’t know if I need to allocate time to selecting and detailing an operable wall system.

If you allow in your fee for every possibility that could occur at your fee will obviously be too high to be competitive, and indeed even becomes ridiculous.

I also have wondered if there is much accuracy or benefit in producing something so detailed and then not tracking against it during the project. I have actually tried to do this on a couple of projects, but I ended up feeling there was no great benefit.  The problem is that this level of detail just becomes too much time and effort.  This method appears to fall into the category of science, with all its figures and spreadsheets, but really in the end the actual figures in the spreadsheet are something of an art – and I think would remain so even if you had accurate detailed records of previous projects.

Program (time schedule) based fee
My own method for calculating fees is something of a combination of art and science and in some ways takes a little from many other methods.  I have found that the biggest project cost risk is in project program overruns. The more time the design team or the client has on the project the more money that we can spend designing, either because we can spend more time resolving details or because the client is spending more time wanting more information to make up their mind or making design changes.

For me the starting point is to identify the project program. This may be either the program required by the client or, if they have no specific requirement, our determination of what is a reasonable program in order to undertake the scope/project type. The program will then be broken up into the various design stages. For each stage, the type and number of staff and the percentage time commitments are identified. This is something of an art roughly thought out based on previous similar projects. The fee is then calculated based on these hours by the number of weeks for each program.

As well as the program I would also look at the project works scope and our assumptions.  Potentially additional lump sum fees would be added for major tasks outside of our normal scope (for example if no existing drawings were available).  Then the next step would be to review the fee against previous jobs or similar size and scope.  Finally, I do have to admit to going back to the old percentage based fee as a final sanity check, and comparing to recent tenders we knew pricing for.

Did you learn about fee at uni? Do you have other methods for calculating fees? Can our fees be scientific or will there always be an element of art to fee calculations? Should fee scales be brought back? And would it be better for our clients?

Ps. Whilst I was about my research for this post, I came across a couple of interesting items I’m going to share with you – the first is a great article by Angela Ferguson from Futurespace.  This deals with the subject of competitive fee bidding and ‘the race for the bottom‘, whilst you reading it – take note that it was written back in 2006.

The other is a book on fee bidding – Architects’ Guide to Fee Bidding by M Paul Nicholson, written in 2003.  I haven’t read it yet, I’ve downloaded a sample to my kindle – and may have more to say on this subject once  I have. You can find it here on Amazon, either ebook or hard copy.

If you have any suggestions of articles, books or blogs on this topic I’d love to know.

Image credits: Original image by
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic License  by  Lisa Brewster 

Architecture and Interior Design is a business, isn’t it?

Posted on by
8
Time is Money by Tax Credits, on Flickr

My last post on what makes a great workplace client generated some discussion on one of the linkedin groups about if both clients and designers understanding that design is a business. Whilst no one studies interior design or architecture intending to get rich, I think we all like to get paid at least enough to reasonably live on (and for me – buy shoes) without having to work a second job on the weekends to fund our design work. However for us to get paid (and keep our jobs) then the firms we work for have to make money. Meaning our clients have to pay for our time. Pretty simple really. Time = money. So where is the problem? Why do our clients not always appreciate this? Is it because so many interior designers an architects don’t seem to get it themselves?My observations and thoughts on this topic is that there are a number of issues behind this problem. The first is that so many architects and interior designers are passionate about what they do. They have chosen to work in this field because they believe architecture and design makes the world a better place and they love creating. As I said, not for the money. So because you are doing something you love and that can completely engross you, you are prepared to stay up all night when you at uni, and possibly when you are at work too. You are certainly prepared to give away some of your own time when you feel this way, and especially when there is a knotty design problem or detail that you just have to perfect before those documents are issued for construction.

The problems arise if this attitude becomes the standard for how we work. The first problem is that employers may expect us to work these kinds of hours all the time. As profession we have demonstrated that we are prepared to give away our time to our employers for free, so in some cases the fee models have come to depend on this – more on this later.

The second problem is that some architects and designers come to believe that design takes however long as it takes and seem to be incapable of working within any fee structure. Whilst in some ways it appears these architects and designers do not understand or place any monetary value on their time, I believe that it is probably more accurate to describe these designers as believing good design is above money, so valuable it can’t be considered in such a coarse wordly way. This can begin to place architecture and design in the sphere of art, rather than as part of the practical and functional world of which it must be a part if it is to be a business, and if it not to be relegated to a luxury item for the wealthy.

I believe it is these attitudes that have contributed to the way that clients view design services. Why would our clients value our services if we don’t? If our architecture and interior design teams don’t see and approach their work as a business, then perhaps it is no surprise our clients don’t either. I recently came across an interesting article discussing how interior design as a profession is judged by outsiders based upon the terminology we use.

Many large institutional or corporate clients deal with a number of architecture and design firms, and the attitudes of some architects and interior designers influences the attitudes of the clients to the industry as a whole. I have had one client representative question why I would limit the number of user consultation meetings on a small project to 3 or 4, he asked, “but what if it takes 20?” I asked the client if they would want me to charge them for 20 if only 3 were required. He seemed most perplexed – even though this was a full time property client with years of experience – that I needed to charge for our services based upon the time we spent.

Historically architects and designers are also not good at asking for more money, in the form of variations. Our clients expect to pay for contractor variations, but not for design variations. Part of this is because architectural services are so much harder to define, our scope is much more open ended than a contractors lump sum tender scope. However even when we try to define our services it can be hard to manage the process of developing a brief and a design. I would frequently limit the number of design options to be provided – but do have to admit to usually doing a few extras just to be sure I had done sufficient exploration if the design to satisfy myself of the robustness of the solutions I presented. One client put their project on hold after this concept options stage and then questioned my bill (again a client with industry knowledge and understanding of the design process). They felt that because they had not made a decision on a preferred concept they should not pay in full for the concept stage. I then went through our fee proposal scope and what services we had promised to provide during concept stage, and asked the client had we provided each one. They agreed we had done everything we said we would, including providing 4 options that meet their brief (our proposal had offered 3 options so in fact we had over serviced them!) So I asked, why should we not be paid because you have found that your brief might not be what you want? The initial concepts had identified that the client would have to reduce spatial allocations somewhere or rent additional space and provided for various possibilities of how this could be achieved, which made the decision making more complex than the client had expected. We got paid.

You generally don’t expect to see a doctor for a free assessment of your problem, but we frequently spend significant time and money on proposals and tenders, even if we are not providing free design services, these documents are usually expected to provide an individual approach and analysis of the clients needs before we are even guaranteed a single dollar in fees. Whilst many clients take into account a wide range of issues in choosing their architect or designer, and not just fees, frequently the fee structure is a heavily weighted part of this decision. This process is a significant waste of our industry productivity and another indicator of how poorly our clients value our time and resources.

It is these kinds of client attitudes that then lead to the downward pressure on our fee structures which leads to lower qualities of service and design – and this is not good for either our clients or our industry. The lower fees then lead firms to a point where staff have to work additional hours for free to deliver the projects. In the eight years I have been involved in preparing fee proposals, fees in some of the sectors I work in have halved. Salaries and rent has not halved, and whilst tools like BIM can increase our efficiency, they have not halved our workload. Firms have reduced fees during the tough financial items of the last few years, in efforts to maintain sufficient workload to keep staff employed. The problem is that now they are down so low, do we really think they will go up again? So many clients have now come to expect fees so low that the client representatives know that they are ridiculously unsustainable and will either result in poor service or firms going under (or both). But there is often pressure within the client organisation not to spend any more than last project. Unfortunately the only likely thing to change is is if projects go significantly wrong that clients see the value in paying more for design. As long as architects and interior designers are prepared to work for free…of course we ensure this doesn’t happen.

For all architecture and interior design firms to remain viable business and our industry to exist, all architecture and design staff need to contribute to the perception in our industry and beyond that what we do is a valuable service and worth paying for. And of course we need to make sure that we provide a level of service and design to justify this. Architecture and interior design is a business – do you think so? How do we balance the artistic and creative side of what we do with making money? How do we educate our clients and the public to value and understand the services we provide? How do we manage the design process and its very nature of change in order to satisfy our clients, produce great design and still make money?

Image credits:
Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License by Tax Credits

http://taxcredits.net/

What makes a great workplace design client?

Posted on by
Reply

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

Posted on by
2

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

Posted on by
2
*** 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?

Posted on by
Reply

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 

Working with Electrical Engineers

Posted on by
Reply

IMG_0570_ps_v24jpgIn my series on engineering collaboration, I’ve decided first to focus on collaboration between interior design and electrical engineering.  (See here for general engineering collaboration tips if you missed it), For interior design projects the most obvious area of coordination (or lack thereof)  is generally with the electrical items – which on even a straight forward office fitout project could include lighting, audio visual, information and communications technology and security as well as general power.  On a more complex interiors project there may be multiple engineers involved in designing and specifying these systems.

This week, cost overruns and time delays due to ICT and security made news in relation to the new office fitout for the Australian Prime Minister. Whilst its not clear what the problem was with the Prime Minister’s office fitout it’s clear that somewhere along the line there was a breakdown in communication which lead to significant budget overruns and time delays for the whole project due to these disciplines. Regardless of why this occurred the results highlight the importance or the impact that electrical engineering disciplines can have on a fitout costs and program.

Not only do electrical systems have a big impact on project cost, they are often ones that the client has a high level of interest in – generally clients care much less about their office air conditioning (as long as it works at the times they want it to) than they do about the operation or location of controls for audio visual or security systems, or even lighting in a board room.

Finally  lighting forms a highly visible element of the fitout, contributing to the overall experience of the space.  A great fitout can be ruined by poor choice of lighting.  Good lighting design will not work in isolation – it has to be a collaboration between the interior designer or architect and the engineer so as to suit the fitout aesthetics, budget, the spatial functional requirements and the lighting functional and performance requirements.

So some tips from Ben Murhpy, GHD Canberra  Building Engineering Manager,  on coordination between architecture or interior design and electrical services (Ben’s comments in italics with some further comments by me after each one):

  1. Allow for comms racks and switchboards. These items are not large, but do have significant access requirements to comply with code requirements, which leads to large rooms/spaces. Plan them early or risk having them exposed on walls or taking up entire rooms earmarked for “storage”. In Australia (and maybe other countries too) be aware that a server room must comply with the requirements for disabled access which means that they will appear to be huge and must have a ramp if they have an access floor.
  2. Cables require space too!!!! It is assumed these are small and therefore don’t need any space. We actually need to consider the route for every cable from the switchboard/comms rack to the final GPO/comms point and ensure it can be installed, maintained and look nice. The alternative is aussie duct or surface conduit. In particular look at how power and data will get from freestanding reception desks or workstations to the duct/ceiling. No good if your pretty island of a reception desk has to have a power pole added at the last minute because you couldn’t get access from the tenancy below to core hole for your cables.
  3. Selection of lighting should be broad concept from architect, but leave actual fitting selection to engineers with approval by architect. Architects picking fittings doesn’t often work as the fittings selected don’t meet the performance, maintenance, energy efficiency requirements. Much better to provide the engineer with a general brief of types of things you want to see in each area. Now I have to admit to differing in opinion from Ben on this one. Lighting is a key element for interior design, it really can make or break your space, and therefore needs to be carefully integrated with other design elements. For me it depends on how critical the fittings are to the design intent and how well I know the lighting engineer. If the fittings are critical to the design I will put forward the fittings and unless there is a pretty good reason I expect the electrical engineer to design around them. That said, I also know I can’t do this for the whole fitout and that there might be a good reason for the engineer not to use them. In that case I am happy to work with the engineer on alternatives. But we have to talk about it.  If the fitting is not critical to the design, then I can just say something like linear suspended fitting and expect the engineer to make some suggestions.

The final tip I would add to this is to consult with the client over their systems needs.  As a first step find out what areas they expect to have involvement and input into.  Then build their input into the program identifying dates the information must be provided by to meet design deadlines.  If there are numerous client stakeholders it can also be useful to hold workshops to address specific topics such as audio visual or ICT.  The client should review final documentation for any systems where they have significant inputs,  design involvement or performance expectations.

What are your tips for working with electrical engineers?  Would you agree that areas such as security and IT are often the most complex to resolve with the client?  Do you have any tips for mechanical or hydraulic engineering collaboration?

 

Collaborating with Engineers (or play nice in the interior design sandpit)

Posted on by
1

iStock_000000252654SmallI thought I might put together a series of posts on the topic of playing nice with the engineers on interior design projects.  In the spirit of collaboration I asked some of my former colleagues over at GHD to provide some comments on collaboration. Thanks to Ben Murhpy, GHD Canberra  Building Engineering Manager for some great inputs across all the building services/MEP disciplines.  Over the coming weeks I’m going to focus on each discipline but for today I’m just going to look at some coordination and collaboration issues that cross all disciplines.

Engineers and interior designers or architects often don’t get along very well.  They seem to think that their project aims will forever be in conflict.  However I have found working in the interiors space that most engineers who regularly work in fitouts do actually want similar outcomes to the interior designers and architects.  They don’t want the engineering components of the fitout to stick out either.  The problem more often seems to be one of engineers and interior designers or architects actually communicating and working together, collaborating for the best solutions – rather than each thinking that only their way or solution is the best or only way.  The best way is going to be the best for the project or client and end users, which is often found by the different disciplines working together to solve the issues.  This collaboration can happen regardless of if the engineering and architecture teams are in 1, 2 or more offices.  While I worked in an integrated practice, I also frequently worked with other engineering consultants or teams in remote locations and found that the same issues apply – the need to communicate with one another.

Although engineers often blame the interior designers and architects for not telling them things or changing the design, when asked to provide comment Ben added that “Engineers don’t seem to want to ask questions of architects for some reason???”  I’ve also found many engineers don’t seem to like asking the client questions either.  I’m not quite sure if this has something to do with the personalities of many engineers, for it is certainly true that there are many engineers who are very good technically but for a variety of reasons are not very good communicators.  Now this post isn’t meant to be an engineer bashing post at all (many of my very good friends and favourite colleagues are engineers), but I will start out with this point to engineers – ASK QUESTIONS!  Actually the same point applies to everyone working on the project, whatever the discipline.  In my view the only dumb question is one that you have asked before.  I recently worked on a project where the engineering consultants sent a list of about 50 questions before starting work, some were for us and some had to be answered by the client.  I would say it was a standardised list they had developed for fitout work and then they reviewed and customised for each project.  I thought this was a great idea.

These are my tips for working with engineering consultants:

  1. The interior designer or architect needs to allow space for engineering services from the very earliest stages.  Early on before you are sure of requirements, its better to allow a bit too much space than none at all.   Whilst it is possible to be excessive with space, I find usually the extra space is needed for something wasn’t thought of at concept stage. If you don’t allow space for the services you will end up with a switchboard or fire hose reel right next to your main entry or taking up all your allocated storage space.  More will follow on this in later posts.
  2. The engineers need to be given a brief.  They don’t know how many power points to put in each room or how many people will occupy it, unless someone tells them, they can only guess.  I am a big fan of Room Data Sheets (or something similar) to agree with the client the details of what goes into each room and then as a tool for briefing the whole team – interior designers or architects and engineers.
  3. Following on from point 1 above – give the client the opportunity to have input into how the lighting or audio visual systems etc work.  Some won’t care, but others have very specific requirements or expectations.  And in the end they are the ones that have to operate the systems installed.
  4. Interior designers and architects need to try to understand a little bit of engineering.  It is important to know what areas might be key or what issues might be non negotiable from a technical view.  This is also important from a cost management perspective, as I’ve talked about previously.   Engineers should also make the effort to understand the design intent and not see aesthetic issues as interfering with technical solutions but as a new challenge.
  5. Regular team meetings are a must.  These can be face to face or teleconferences, video conferences, web conferences or anything else.  The point is to open up conversation and encourage all team members to raise issues.  Whilst sometimes team meetings can seem like a waste of time when people are busy, if they are kept focussed and actions recorded and followed up they can save a lot of trouble later in the project.  It is much easier to get things right the first time than have to rework.  I also believe that all team members should be involved not just one or two senior staff.  I also find that a final coordination workshop at around 90% project completion is very useful, preferably run by a senior staff member who hasn’t had day to day involvement in the project and who is experienced in coordination issues.
  6. The interior design team needs to check the engineering documentation.  Mistakes happen, thermostats end up on glazed or operable walls.  Lighting is missed from a joinery unit.  Just as you check the interior design documentation, someone on the project team needs to check that the engineering documentation is coordinated with the interior design and matches the client brief/room data sheets.
  7. Establish and agree a program/time schedule and a scope of work before you begin.  Agree when engineers will provide the interior designers with certain deliverables, at the same time agree when the interior designers or architects will provide the engineers with information – such as final ceiling types.  This program also has to tie in with the program for client approvals.
  8. Everyone in the team needs to take responsibility and feel ownership for the project no matter which discipline.  Everyone is responsible for coordination.

Over the coming weeks I’ll expand with more particular tips for each engineering discipline.  What are your tips for working with engineers?  Why do engineers dislike asking questions?  Does your interior design team work collaboratively with your engineering team? If you are an engineer, feel free to email me with tips to include in future blog posts.

Image Credit: iStock_000000252654