Tremendous effort is being spent trying to figure out how we need to be working together, motivated by the belief that there is a better way to do things. Nowhere is this effort more apparent, and visible, than in architecture design (though it is abundantly visible in a number of other creative efforts). The whole notion of trying to find a better way to do things sounds quaint, but it is actually quite serious. In the world of the built environment there are giant gaps between design teams and manufacturers of building materials and technologies… and these gaps negatively impact all sorts of variables related to successful projects, the most obvious being timelines and budgets. This has a dramatic effect on the ability to meet the needs of clients and deliver solutions that create value, preventing teams from breaking the mold of convention and unhinging the negatively controlling aspects of process. When you have to bridge great distances every time you initiate a project or seek true innovation for solutions, you are forced to redundantly cover territory that should be innate to project success. This perpetual backtracking is like an anchor that restrains project momentum and creative impetus.
Big questions come out of this reality. What if you could eliminate this distance between designers, manufacturers, and fabricators? What if manufacturing processes could be influenced at the front end of a project to provide solutions that are custom to the problems faced by the project and client teams? With these questions in mind, is there a collaborative model that supports creativity and helps in identifying opportunity? It would seem obvious, at least it is to me, that if you could support a more holistic, integrated approach to solving design problems you stand to go a great distance to finding the answers to these questions, and probably a lot more along the way.
I have fairly strong feelings about this, and have been working through the understanding and analysis of these issues with a close colleague (Stephen Knowles, AIA) for a number of years (five, to be exact). Stephen and I have been exploring and experimenting with the concept of the “Action Network,” and how this network serves to cohesively pull all actors together to support problem solving, creativity, and the opportunity for innovative results. The Action Network is about mutual participation and it is about the contribution of expertise when that expertise is most needed, not after the fact in a reverse engineering exercise. It is also about how projects are coordinated, and ensuring that this coordination, or design management, serves to efficiently and effectively bring the best talents and expertise to bare. All of this, on its surface, sounds absolutely obvious. Yet organizations struggle to make this happen. They struggle to change even the smallest aspect of how they approach these issues and seem to refuse to engage a concept of continuous improvement. This is partly due to the domination of process in the design world, but it is also because of fear. This is a different approach to design. It invites different people to the table and asks them to contribute their perspectives, experience, and ideas. Design, and architecture especially, are interesting insofar as they train people to resist this collaboration (though they love to claim collaboration as their own). It is not about the power of THE idea, it is about the power of MY idea… so to speak.
Our investigations into an Action Network, at least for the most part up to now, have been about identifying and engaging individuals and organizations that share our feelings on this matter and believe that there is a better way to do things, to work together. We have been very fortunate, and have been surprised by the reception of some pretty key players in the design world for considering an approach of this nature. The odd thing, and this was pointed out to me recently during a meeting of people/companies dedicated to this type of an approach, is that outside of design there are people desperate to get on with this approach to collaboration. These people already understand that there are better ways to solve problems, and they are ready and willing to collaborate to do so. Their companies are willing to do so. What is interesting is the legacy, territorial approach to design that gets in the way. Some of this is driven by individuals, but most if it is driven by cultures. Technology and the opportunities created by it, especially related to materials and manufacturing, are demanding that we work closely together to maximize what is possible, to liberate ideas from the restrictions of process. The Action Network is one of many ways to achieve this.
The concept of the Action Network is really very simple. Bring the best expertise and knowledge to the project at the best possible time. Anticipate project constraints, and ensure that the right talent is there to overcome them. Share in the collaborative problem solving at the front end of a project, and share in the design opportunities. Create a culture around knowledge sharing, and acknowledge the importance of a diversity of contributors to the success of the project. The size of a team will flex given the design issues at hand, supporting the need for expertise and for allowing ideas to go beyond the expected, or beyond what was even thought possible. The network is there to support the power of the idea, and to work to make this idea a reality. Ultimately, an Action Network is the ultimate manifestation of value creation. This is value creation on behalf of our clients, and the meeting of their goals, but also for the team and the desire to not limit the creativity and innovation that leads to great solutions.
