Stay Informed
Follow us on social media accounts to stay up to date with REHVA actualities
In the last
50 years, the world has changed enormously: instead of 3.5 billion people on
earth, now there are more than 7 billion with more than 5% living in cities
with an enormous increased standard of living. The demands for more comfort in
buildings as well as more insight in the relevance of Indoor Air Quality
towards health, led to more Building Services installations in buildings. This
coupled with higher demands in relation to sustainability led to a development
of more effective and efficient Building Services installations. In the past,
the Building Services made out less than 10% of the budget and were rather
simple systems. Nowadays, the Building Services have become quite complicated
systems and form at least 30% up to 50% (hospitals) of the budget. The
Architecture, Engineering, Construction (AEC) industry has become a knowledge
intensive industry which should create sustained organizational and societal
values [1]. It is difficult for different disciplines in the design phase to
give adequate answers on the built-environment-questions from society.
Inadequate design processes result in a productivity loss in the Dutch building
design processes of approximately 10% of the total Construction Costs per year
[2]. To reduce these failure costs, collaboration between different design
disciplines becomes of considerable importance. One of the complicating aspects
in building practice is the different cultural backgrounds of architects and
engineers and their different approaches to design [3]. As a result,
miscommunication occurs caused by not speaking a common language. Already in
1960, the necessity for improved cooperation between the architect and the engineer
was recognized by the famous architect Le Corbusier, see Figure 1
[4].
Figure 1.
The necessary relation between architect and engineer by Le Corbusier.
Le
Corbusier explains the roles of the architect and the engineer [5]: “Under the
symbolic composition I have placed two clasped hands, the fingers enlaced
horizontally, demonstrating the friendly solidarity of both architect and
engineer engaged, on the same level, in building the civilization of the
machine age” [4]. The architects and the engineers should work together from
the very start of a design project and must aim to reach synergy by combining the
knowledge and the experience of all disciplines already in the early stages of
the conceptual design. To make this possible, an integral approach is needed
which represents a broad view on the world around us that continuously needs to
be adapted and developed from sound and documented experiences that emerge out
of interaction between practice, research and education.
Traditionally
practitioners in building industry were only educated on a middle level with
only a few that have earned a degree of an institute of higher education, but
no one on academic level. However, more and more there was a clear need for
professionals who are able to solve difficulties on an academic level. Thus, in
the late nineties, there was a strong urge from the Dutch industry to the universities,
to start with initiatives in order to change the worrying situation of the
rather low educational qualified people in the Building Services industry. The
MSc Building Services has been established in 2002 as result of a strong
initiative from the Dutch Building Services industry, especially the Dutch
Society of Building Services Engineers (TVVL), the foundation for stimulating research
and education in building services (WOI) and the professional society for
building service companies (UNETO-VNI). Both employer and employee have the
same professional goals to achieve in the future and have a clear vision of how
to share and implement the academic knowledge of the university. In 2011, the
MSc Building Services became integrated in the master track Building Physics
and Services as part of the MSc Built Environment. The teaching is done by the
staff members of the unit Building Physics and Services which exists out of 6
chairs: Building Services, Building Materials, Building Performance Simulation,
Building Acoustics, Building Lighting and Building Physics. Through this unique
combination of design of systems, simulation and physics, the educational
program is broad and technical as well as fundamental oriented.
In building
design, one should work with ill-defined design problems where the solution and
the problem itself develop almost in parallel at the early stages of the design
process. In addition, the amount of relationships and dynamic social
interactions makes design increasingly complex. Therefore, a method is needed
to structure would-be design solutions. In the early
1960s, researchers and practitioners began to investigate new design methods to
improve the outcome of design processes. Since then, there has been a period of
expansion through the 1990s right up to the present day. However, there is
still no clear picture of the essence of the design process and many models of
designing exist. After studying different design methods, it was decided to use
a method derived from the General System theory [6]. This methodical design
method has as a distinctive feature the step pattern of activities (generating,
synthesizing, selecting and shaping), see Figure 2, that
occur within the design process.
Figure 2.
The four-step pattern of Integral Design.
The methodical
design method was expanded to a multi-disciplinary design method, Integral
Design, through the intensified use of morphological charts developed by Zwicky
[7]. This to support design team’s activities in the conceptual building design
process [8,9] and especially the use of a morphological overview built from the
individual design team member’s morphological charts. A morphological chart is
a kind of matrix with columns and rows which contains the aspects and functions
to be fulfilled and the possible solutions connected to them, see Figure 3.
The functions and aspects derived from the program of demands. An example of a
morphological chart created by an architect is depicted in Figure 4.
In principle, overall solutions can be created by combining various
sub-solutions to form a complete system solution combination [10], see Figure 5.
Figure 3.
Concept of a morphological chart
Figure 4. An
example of a morphological chart by an architect.
Figure 5.
Morphological chart and the possible solutions on the horizontal rows of the
chart, with the lines representing 2 possible solution combinations
The
morphological overview of an integral design team process is generated by
combining in two steps the different morphological charts made by each
discipline. In the first step of the integral design method, the individual
designer has to make a list of what he thinks are the most important functions
that has to be fulfilled based on the design brief. This is derived from their
own specialist perspective. The morphological charts are formed as each
designer translates the main goals of the design task, derived from the program
of demands, into functions and aspects and is then put into the first column of
the morphological chart, see Figure 6. In the second step
of the process, the designers add the possible part solutions to the related
rows of the functions/aspects of the first column. So, functions and aspects
are discussed and then the team decides which functions and aspects will be placed
in the morphological overview. Then, after this first step, all participants of
the design team can contribute their solutions for these functions and aspects
by filling in the rows within the morphological overview.
Based on
the given design task, each design team member perceives reality due to his/her
active perception, memory, knowledge and needs. The morphological charts
represent the individual interpretation of reality, leading to active
perception, stimulation of memory, activation of knowledge and defining of
needs.
Figure 6. The
first two design steps of the design process cycle, interpreting the design
brief and list the functions in the first column of the morphological chart and
add the related sub solutions [11].
These
individual morphological charts can be combined by the design team to form one
morphological overview, see Figure 7. Putting the
morphological charts together enables ‘the individual perspectives from each
discipline to be put on the table’, which in turn highlights the implications
of design choices for each discipline. This approach supports and stimulates
the discussion on and the selection of functions and aspects of importance for
the specific design task.
Figure 7.
The second phase generating the morphological overview from the individual
morphological charts [11].
Since 2000
together with the Dutch Royal society of architects (BNA), the Dutch
Association of Consulting Engineers (NLingenieurs), the Dutch Society of
Building Services Engineers (TVVL) and different Roofer associations in total
14 series of workshops were organized in which in total more than two hundred
experienced professionals, with at least 10 years of experience, from these
organizations, voluntarily participated. After extensive experiments with
different set ups for implementing the Integral Design approach, in which well
over one hundred professionals participated, it was concluded that a good way
to test our design approach was a workshop setting for professionals. Therefore,
workshops were arranged as part of a training program for architects and
consulting engineers (structural engineers, building services engineers and
building physics engineers) [8], as well as for architects and contractors [10].
These design exercises were derived from real practice projects and as such
were as close to professional practice as possible. The design tasks during the
two days are on the same level of complexity and have been used in all
workshops. In the workshops, stepwise changes to the traditional building
design process type, in which the architect starts the process and the other
designers join later in the process, were introduced in the set up of the
design sessions. In the final series of the research focussing on the
interaction between architects and engineers during the conceptual design phase,
three different design set ups of participants were tested in four sessions [8].
In
connection with the Integral design research project for professional in the
Dutch building industry, we developed an educational project, the master
project integral design. Interaction between practice, research and education
forms the core of the ‘integral approach’. Therefore, the concept of the integral
design workshop for professionals was implemented within the start-up workshop
of our multidisciplinary masters’ project. The basis of this project, which
serves as a learning-by-doing start-up workshop for master students, is the
Integral Design method with its use of morphological overviews. The different
design assignments were related to the design of zero energy buildings. These
complex tasks require early collaboration of all design disciplines involved in
the conceptual building design. Master students from architecture, building
physics, building services, building technology and structural engineering
participated in these projects. The master project Integral design was
initiated by the chair of Building Services in the 2005/06 academic year and
since then, it has been held every year. The master students from architecture,
building physics, building services, building technology and structural
engineering were offered the opportunity to participate. The specific aspects
of the office building design assignments were to realise ‘sustainable
comfort’, a net Zero Energy Solution on different locations. Bearing in mind that
in the current situation, 40% of primary energy consumption is due to built
environment such a task is highly complex. It requires early collaboration of
all design disciplines involved in the conceptual building design. Development
of knowledge, skills and the ability to realise this aim are the main tasks of
the multidisciplinary masters’ project ‘Integral design’.
The participants
of the workshops were master students of the faculty of architecture, building
and planning (architects, structural design, building technology, building
physics and building services) and had an average age of 22 and no working
experience. Since 2005 around two hundred and fifty students participated in
MIO projects. The workshops were developed since they had their final form.
Central
element of the Integral Design process is the use of morphological charts by
individual designers which were combined into one morphological overview by the
design team. By making combinations within the morphological overview of
possible sub solutions and combining them to overall solutions, the teams
generate their solutions. The number of functions and sub solutions mentioned
by the designers in their morphological charts were counted and the average
numbers of functions and solutions as mentioned by the design teams are
represented in Figure 2. The same was done for the sub
solutions mentioned by the design teams in their morphological overviews. Here
only a brief selection is given of all the results of the preliminary professional
workshops Integral Design. More results and information were presented by
Savanovic [8]. There was a clear increase in the number of mentioned functions
(+62%) as well as the number of mentioned sub solutions (+105%) in the
workshops for professionals as well as in the workshops for students functions
(+30%) and sub solutions (+57%), see Figure 8.
Figure 8. Results
workshops Integral Design for professionals and students.
Given the
existing disparities in the construction industry, King [12] stated that, to do
something meaningful in terms of moving to low carbon society, there is a need
for a consistent framework within which knowledge can be applied as embodied in
a design team. By structuring the interactions of designers from different
disciplines in the conceptual phase of building design, it is possible to
support members of every discipline to handle tasks and to supply information
from other disciplines. The Integral Design methodology was tested through
workshops with industry professionals from the Royal Institute of Dutch
Architects (BNA) and the Dutch Association of Consulting Engineers (NLingenieurs).
After this, it was implemented in the educational program of the university.
Putting the
morphological charts together makes possible to ‘put on the table’ the
individual perspectives from each discipline about the interpretation of the
design brief and its implications for each discipline. This enables, support
and stimulates discussion on the selection of functions and aspects of
importance for the specific design. In step two, the functions and aspects are
discussed and decisions are placed by the team in the morphological overview.
Structuring design (activities) with morphological overviews as the basis for
reflection on the design results stimulates the communication between design
team members. Thus, integral design helps the understanding within design teams
and stimulates collaboration to come forward with new design propositions.
Through visualizing the individual contributions within a design team,
morphological overviews based on the individual morphological charts stimulate
the understanding of different perspectives within design teams.
Workshops
are a self-evident way of work for designers that occur both in the practice
and during their education. There are a number of advantages that workshops
have with regard to standard office work, while at the same time retaining
practice-like situation as much as possible: the possibility to gather a large
number of designers in a relatively short time, manipulation of design team
formation, repetition of the same assignment and comparison of different design
teams and their results. The suitability of workshops for integration of design
team activities, together with suitability of morphological overviews for
structuring knowledge of design team members, forms the basis on which the
education design method is built.
Our
presented approach of combining research for education for students based on
experience with professionals is quite unique. Interaction between the
practice, research and education forms the core of our integral approach; we implemented
the same workshop pattern and methodology within our multidisciplinary masters’
project at the university.
The unique aspect of the academic HVAC educational program at the Technische
Universiteit Eindhoven is the context within the Faculty of the Built
Environment and the close relation with Building Physics within the master track
Building Physics and Services. Furthermore, the close relation with industry
and their interaction within the educational structure through the research and
education in relation to Integral Design is a strong aspect.
The
workshops and the multidisciplinary projects provided us with many insights,
some of which were discussed in this paper. Building design processes can be
improved through improving process communication understanding, sharing and
collaboration. The use of the morphological chart is an excellent way to record
information about the solutions for the relevant functions and aid the
cognitive process of understanding, sharing and collaboration.
TVVL, BNA
and TU Delft have financial supported the Integral Design project. TU
Eindhoven, Kropman, the Foundation WOI and the Foundation ‘Stichting Promotie
Installatietechniek’ (PIT), supported the research focused on introducing the
design method from industry back into university.
1.
Rezgui Y., Hopfe C., Voarkulpipat C., 2010, Generations of knowledge management
in the architecture, engineering and construction industry: An evolutionary
perspective, Advanced Engineering Informatics 24: 219-228.
2.
USP Marketing Consultancy, 2004, Vernieuwing in de bouwsector, wie durft?
(Dutch), English translation: Innovation in building sector,
who dares? June 2004, http://www.businessissues.nl/?ContentId=2748&BronId.
3.
Cross N., Roozenburg N., 1992, Modelling the Design Process
in Engineering and in Architecture. In: Journal of Engineering Design,
no. 4/1992, pp. 325-337.
4. Le
Corbusier, 1960, Science et Vie, August.
5.
Popovic Larsen O., Tyas A., 2004, Conceptual Structural
Design: Bridging the Gap Between Architects and Engineers, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Thomas Telford Ltd.
6.
Zeiler W., Savanović P., 2009, General Systems Theory based Integral
Design Method, Proceedings ICED’09, Stanford, US.
7.
Zwicky F., The Morphological Method of Analysis and Construction, Courant
Anniv. Vol., New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1948.
8.
Savanović P., 2009, Integral design method in the context of sustainable
building design, PhD thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.
9.
Quanjel E.M.C.J., 2013, Collaborative Design support, PhD thesis, TU Eindhoven.
10.
Ölvander J., Lundén B., Gavel H., 2008, A computerized optimization framework
for the morphological matrix applied to aircraft conceptual design, Computer
Aided Design 41(2): 187-196.
11.
Zeiler W., 2015, Integral design: the new roles for architect and engineers for
developing nearly zero energy buildings, Int. J. Innovation and Sustainable
Development 9(2): 137-156.
12. King
D., 2012, Holistic Approach, CIBSE Journal January
47-49.
Follow us on social media accounts to stay up to date with REHVA actualities
0