Integrated Project Design: From Academia to the AEC Industry 3031324242, 9783031324246

Citation preview

Digital Innovations in Architecture, Engineering and Construction

Bárbara Rangel Ana Sofia Guimarães Jorge Moreira da Costa João Pedro Poças Martins   Editors

Integrated Project Design From Academia to the AEC Industry

Digital Innovations in Architecture, Engineering and Construction Series Editors Diogo Ribeiro , Department of Civil Engineering, Polytechnic Institute of Porto, Porto, Portugal M. Z. Naser, Glenn Department of Civil Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA Rudi Stouffs, Department of Architecture, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore Marzia Bolpagni, Northumbria University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK

The Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) industry is experiencing an unprecedented transformation from conventional labor-intensive activities to automation using innovative digital technologies and processes. This new paradigm also requires systemic changes focused on social, economic and sustainability aspects. Within the scope of Industry 4.0, digital technologies are a key factor in interconnecting information between the physical built environment and the digital virtual ecosystem. The most advanced virtual ecosystems allow to simulate the built to enable a real-time data-driven decision-making. This Book Series promotes and expedites the dissemination of recent research, advances, and applications in the field of digital innovations in the AEC industry. Topics of interest include but are not limited to: Industrialization: digital fabrication, modularization, cobotics, lean. Material innovations: bio-inspired, nano and recycled materials. Reality capture: computer vision, photogrammetry, laser scanning, drones. Extended reality: augmented, virtual and mixed reality. Sustainability and circular building economy. Interoperability: building/city information modeling. Interactive and adaptive architecture. Computational design: data-driven, generative and performance-based design. Simulation and analysis: digital twins, virtual cities. Data analytics: artificial intelligence, machine/deep learning. Health and safety: mobile and wearable devices, QR codes, RFID. Big data: GIS, IoT, sensors, cloud computing. Smart transactions, cybersecurity, gamification, blockchain. Quality and project management, business models, legal prospective. Risk and disaster management.

Bárbara Rangel · Ana Sofia Guimarães · Jorge Moreira da Costa · João Pedro Poças Martins Editors

Integrated Project Design From Academia to the AEC Industry

Editors Bárbara Rangel Civil Engineering University of Porto Porto, Portugal

Ana Sofia Guimarães Civil Engineering University of Porto Porto, Portugal

Jorge Moreira da Costa Civil Engineering University of Porto Porto, Portugal

João Pedro Poças Martins Civil Engineering University of Porto Porto, Portugal

ISSN 2731-7269 ISSN 2731-7277 (electronic) Digital Innovations in Architecture, Engineering and Construction ISBN 978-3-031-32424-6 ISBN 978-3-031-32425-3 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32425-3 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Contents

Master Course in Integrated Building Design and Construction: A Project-Based Learning Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ana Sofia Guimarães, Bárbara Rangel, João Pedro Poças Martins, and Jorge Moreira da Costa Educating Future Professionals for Decarbonization and Digitalization Through Integrated Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Arno Schlueter and Krishna Bharathi Drawing in the University Today: A Tool to Think in Engineering . . . . . . Sílvia Simões and Pedro Alegria Learning from the Smithson’s “Project-Theory”: An “Integrated Project Design” “Avant la Lettre” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . João Cepeda, Nuno Brandão Costa, João Pedro Serôdio, and José Miguel Rodrigues

1

19 53

85

Kinetic Bistable Shading Screens: Comparing Brute Force Enumeration with Algorithmic Sampling Methods for Selecting High-Quality Design Configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Paniz Farrokhsiar, Elena Vazquez, Nathan Brown, and Jose Pinto Duarte Integrated Project Design to Reach the Net-Zero Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Didier Lootens The Path to Integrated Project Design (IPD) Through the Examples of Industrial/Product/Engineering Design: A Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Vitor Carneiro, Bárbara Rangel, Jorge Lino Alves, and Augusto Barata da Rocha

v

Master Course in Integrated Building Design and Construction: A Project-Based Learning Approach Ana Sofia Guimarães , Bárbara Rangel , João Pedro Poças Martins , and Jorge Moreira da Costa

Abstract Construction projects are increasingly complex endeavours. New building systems, components and materials are available, while market and legal requirements have evolved, requiring interdisciplinary teams throughout the construction lifecycle. In the design process, Architects and Engineers must work together from the beginning of the process to sustain each other decisions, responding to various project assets, the Integrated Project Design (IPD). Post-graduate education in both areas must give students tools to capacitate them to work in interdisciplinary teams. Adequate methods, tools, and languages must be learned at the Higher Education level to capacitate them in professional life to support the inevitable interactions between the two complementary disciplines and to answer to the real needs of the Construction Industry (CI) stakeholders. This paper presents an example of implementing Integrated Project Design methodology in a project-based learning approach to a three-year Master’s in Integrated Building Design and Construction (MPRINCE) in the Faculty of Engineering of the University of Porto. An overall description of the degree and case studies are presented, where students with different academic backgrounds worked collaboratively on real projects with the participation of companies and other stakeholders. The best proposals are implemented within the thesis research at the end of each academic year.

A. S. Guimarães · B. Rangel (B) · J. P. Poças Martins · J. Moreira da Costa CONSTRUCT Institute for R&D in Structures and Buildings, Faculty of Engineering of University of Porto (FEUP), Porto, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] A. S. Guimarães e-mail: [email protected] J. P. Poças Martins e-mail: [email protected] J. Moreira da Costa e-mail: [email protected] B. Rangel CEAU Centre for Studies in Architecture and Urbanism, Faculty of Architecture of University of Porto (FAUP), Porto, Portugal © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 B. Rangel et al. (eds.), Integrated Project Design, Digital Innovations in Architecture, Engineering and Construction, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32425-3_1

1

2

A. S. Guimarães et al.

Keywords Integrated project design · Engineering and architecture · Real case studies in education

1 Introduction Construction 4.0, an adaptation of the Industry 4.0 principles to the Architecture, Engineering and Construction sector (AEC), is revolutionising how buildings and other infrastructures are developed and used [1]. New technologies such as the Internet of Things (IoT), cloud computing and analytics, AI and machine learning are increasingly common in construction project development and asset management [2, 3]. Indeed, Digital Construction has become the primary keyword in academic and technical forums, alongside others such as sustainability, energy efficiency, and circularity [1, 4]. As a result, the need for an interdisciplinary approach between all the design disciplines, from engineering to architecture, becomes evident. The requirement for high levels of building efficiency and the optimisation of the building process is increasing demands on the accuracy of designs [5]. Project delivery cannot be regarded as a sum of contributions but rather as a methodology that combines the answers to the different building requirements, an Integrated Project Design [6]. This design methodology is only feasible if implemented from the early stages of the design process. So, higher education institutions must promote this methodology by proposing collaborative projects to groups of students that fulfil roles as different construction disciplines [7, 8]. In this chapter, after establishing the definition of Integrated Project Design (IPD, sometimes also refered as Integrated Project Development), an example of implementing this methodology for project-based learning is in the Master Course in Integrated Building Design and Construction (MPRINCE) course designed for architects and engineers at the University of Porto.

2 Integrated Project Design (IPD) Concept Tracked by the constant advances in science and technology, the construction requisites are evolving exponentially in recent decades due to the consumer demand for better quality, lower price, better performance and smaller delivery deadlines [9]. This trajectory is making changes in the construction processes, leading to more responsibilities and expertise growth within the design team [10]. The projects are more detailed and performance-oriented, directing the knowledge to specific specialisations. The expert possesses more in-depth knowledge about fewer subjects. However, this may tend towards understanding the project as separate parts, where knowing a lot of a small fraction results from a fragmented intelligence [11]. The design has to gather this diverse expertise and create a holistic answer resulting from the interface

Master Course in Integrated Building Design and Construction …

3

of the distinct areas, attenuating the frontiers of the knowledge [12]. Designing a product, a building, or an infrastructure is, in its essence, interdisciplinary. Various disciplines are involved in the process, from economy to architecture and design to several engineers. The decision of each discipline depends on and interferes with the others. It needs information from other disciplines/areas of knowledge, different domains and multiple socio-technological dimensions. Thus, any discipline involved in the design cannot operate individually as it articulates these various decisions. On the contrary, each discipline’s work can be enhanced through various experiences of a broad and interdisciplinary understanding. Thus, crossing information among the different areas is fundamental and inevitable for a coherent common and integrated answer [13]. As Bürdek states, referring to Lutz Göbel: “[…] companies increasingly need neither specialists (people who know a lot about a little) nor generalists (people who know a little about a lot) but rather integralists (people who have a good overview of various disciplines with deeper knowledge in at least one area). These people must be especially capable of thinking about and acting on issues in their entirety” [14]. For the design teams, the challenge is now to articulate the information so that the other’s knowledge supports their discipline’s decision. Lateral thinking and new methodologies more appropriate to this context arise from Interdisciplinarity, not meaning a refusal of specialisation but rather a constant questioning of the knowledge established by it [15]. It is defined as a methodology of knowledge integration from two or more disciplines so that the work of each one is mutually enriched by the other [16]. On this basis, the decision process is constantly fed by the validation of other areas, thus allowing for deepening the level of detail of the project within each area. To achieve that complicity in different fields of study, the decisions are complemented not only by the identification of knowledge from other disciplines but also through ownership of such knowledge, i.e. through a mutual combination of such know-how, thereby taking joint decisions that are built on a technological basis [15, 17]. Unlike the multidisciplinary, where multiple disciplines are employed both in a sequential or juxtaposed mode [18], interdisciplinarity aims to ensure the construction of knowledge through the transference of methods from one discipline to another [10]. This knowledge interaction is the reverse of multidisciplinary, where the idea is ruled by fragmentaction, scattered into diverse areas, often preventing a link between parts and the whole [17]. Interdisciplinarity does not mean the refusal of specialism but rather constantly questioning the knowledge established by it [15]. It is a project coordination methodology of crossing information where “everything is done in a constant dialogue and constantly evaluated” [19]. Hence, the IPD pretends to break boundaries among disciplines where integration and interaction among the various areas are necessary and desirable [20]. In Industry, many companies have successfully implemented IPD since its formal emergence in the 1990s [21]. However, resistance and reluctance exist to implement it in the AEC sector [22]. At IDEO, which pioneered the Concurrent Engineering version of the design [23], the lone genius myth undermines the company’s efforts at innovation and creativity. The teams at the heart of the whole process are composed of elements from various divergent fields, such as electrical

4

A. S. Guimarães et al.

and mechanical engineering, industrial design, ergonomics, cognitive psychology and information technology, working towards the same goal. At Virgin Atlantic Airways, the project development phase involves a series of meetings with manufacturers to present the project and get their feedback. At Whirlpool, the innovation and product development process begins in the Platform Studio, where designers, advanced manufacturing process experts and engineers work together to develop the product. This breaking of barriers between design and production, is the fundamental key of IPD, whose benefits include accelerating the resolution of problems during the project, potential problems and bottlenecks are identified early, and possible delays are addressed [24]. Design is not an individual and isolated exercise because its interdisciplinary nature suggests doing something that cannot be done individually and is not initiated by a single subject [25]. More than creativity is needed to carry out a design project, it is necessary to articulate the responses of all the specialities involved in the design. It should always be accompanied by a team of the most diverse areas, guided by a holistic and integrative vision, where the whole is more important than the sum of its parts [8, 26]. Among the various areas, architecture will be the one that offers a holistic vision of the proposal, articulating all the answers IPD structuring a single response. Crossing this information between architecture, engineering, construction, and other areas is inevitable and fundamental for a coherent, integrative and optimised response [27]. This jointly trodden path is only possible if there is the familiar territory from early on, the IPD [28]. Concurrent Engineering [29], Collaborative Engineering [30], Collaborative Design [31], Collaborative Engineering Design [32], Integrated Design Process [13], Integrated Product Development [33] and Integrated Project Delivery [34, 35] are some of the designations assigned to the same methodology. Despite the different names, they all have the same goal: the search for coherent solutions through interdisciplinary teams, which requires everyone to work compulsorily together from an early stage in a constant and inclusive dialogue. It is like an orchestra where everyone is focused and linked to a shared goal [35]. No one can be excluded, and everyone speaks a common language [13]. Unlike traditional development processes, more time is allocated in the initial phase of the project to avoid correcting mistaken assumptions at a later stage, where the opportunity to make changes decreases significantly. Costs for changes increase exponentially with the advancement of the process [36] (Fig. 1). Although there is no single definition for IPD it differs in intention and emphasis from the conventional design process in the following aspects, which can be an asset to the project methodology in design following these various concepts: Interdisciplinarity, creating through the intersection of knowledge among areas/disciplines; Goal-driven: the goals and objectives are defined with all members who must demonstrate commitment instead of compliance; Problem-solving and decision-making, based on information from different sources and areas of the various disciplines involved. Most problems can only be understood when seen on a familiar panorama among multiple areas: Collaborative working: everyone, from the client to the operator, has something important to contribute to the improvement of the function and

Master Course in Integrated Building Design and Construction …

5

Fig. 1 The importance of decisions in the earlier stages of product development (adapted from [37])

performance of the final answer; The architect is not the “form-giver”. The architect is not just the “form giver” but an active participant in exploring ideas within an interdisciplinary team where everyone plays an active role since the beginning of the process. In turn, is who knows a little about everything but does not know everything about anything. Holistic thinking: where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The isolated development of the components leads to worse results for the entire system because they tend to work against each other. Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DfMA) must be driven by production optimisation to produce better-quality products and lower costs. Cyclical design phases unlike the traditional design methods, in which phases are organised linearly and sequentially, IPD phases are cyclical and interactive (Fig. 2) [19, 35, 36]. The IPD methodological interaction combines approaches of diverse disciplines, thus creating a common strategy to achieve more comprehensive and rigorous final results. However, to ensure these methodological interaction, all actors shall articulate their work processes [38–40]. The traditional project methodologies include three main stages: (i) Definition of the problem: describes the purpose and the main objectives to be achieved by creating a new product that matches the specific needs of the users and brings advantages as compared to existing competing products; (ii) Definition of concepts: ideas are proposed to meet the objectives taking into account the technical and aesthetic requirements; (iii) Development: at this stage,

Fig. 2 Traditional sequential development method (left) versus integrated project method (right) [38]

6

A. S. Guimarães et al.

Fig. 3 Integrated design process under the IPD approach [28]

the project is developed, from its initiation and design of specifications for each component to testing of the various components, to optimise the product as a whole, increasing their performance and analysing the underlying costs. This method has also been defined as a heuristic process [41] since designers use previous experience, general guidelines and golden rules to define the most appropriate direction, despite not guaranteeing its success [39]. IPD aims to respond to this illogical approach to accomplishing a project that is often long and very expensive to develop and build; it promotes a holistic vision of the problem based on integration. The change in the intervention model to an IPD approach is translated in Fig. 3 [42]. This figure shows that all actors are equal members of the team, and all ideas should be proposed as soon as possible so that what should and will be translated into design and Construction can have the highest chance of being the best solution, agreed upon by all and using the available resources to its maximum [43]. This does not mean that, in the design stage, every discipline will begin work simultaneously. Structural design is only developed after an architectural scheme design has been discussed among the team, and so on for most of the other experts [44]. However, the requirements for each—derived from current design options or needed to allow the introduction of a more effective solution—will be known and understood from the onset [45]. Each designer will be aware of those constraints when the time comes for that specific discipline design to start. They will find that the other team members that had to start their work earlier—such as Architects—have accounted for what has been asked for in the beginning of the process [46]. It is also important to ensure the Contractor’s involvement in the early stages, when possible. This early involvement will allow for specifications that will use the Contractor’s capabilities, experience and resources to the most, instead of developing a design for an unknown and indistinctive agent, avoiding the design of more particular solutions that may be difficult to implement [45, 47, 48]. This change of mindset towards IPD has to start in the University of both architects and engineers.

Master Course in Integrated Building Design and Construction …

7

3 The Master’s Course in Integrated Building Design and Construction (MPRINCE) and IPD in the Classroom The Master’s Course in Integrated Building Design and Construction (MPRINCE) aims to emulate this approach in the classroom. First, by using a challenge connected to the real world, presented by a genuine “client”, teams are organised, always with engineers and architects, and encouraged to find their proposal for solving the problem that was put forward. By using this mixture of background and mindset, the primary goals are: • To help engineers move away from their traditional way of thinking, where finding a precise and proven solution is the main objective. To make the engineers think “out-of-the-box” more frequently, exploring options without too much worry (for now) about the mathematical models that will describe them. That will come in its time; technology is there to be used and is ever-expanding. • To help Architects understand that there is a time to explore-explore-explore, that the shape of a room is as essential as the needed size of a column or an AC shaft, but, at a point, a decision must be made balancing requirements, performance, budget and time. “Out-of-the-box” for some time but growing steadily into the necessary and effective box. The MPRINCE was partly inspired by the MSc in European Construction Engineering (MSECE), which began in 1991 and lasted until 2019. This course was developed in partnership with several European universities (among them, the Faculty of Engineering of the University of Porto (Portugal), Universidad de Cantabria (Spain), Universidad Politecnica de Valencia (Spain), Universidad Jaume I (Spain), THM Technische Hochschule Mittelhessen (Germany), Politecnico di Bari (Italy), VIA University College (Denmark), Coventry University (UK)). The MSECE followed an approach that had much in common with IPD. The universities/teachers team partnered to define a course plan that would use their individual and collective expertise, perspectives, know-how and hindsight about how and what should be taught, collaborating towards the development of teaching strategies that would be valuable for the students, as well as an environment for continuous learning and updating of knowledge and by the involved staff. The teaching approaches followed by engineering (mainly civil) and architecture schools are typically very different. Connecting engineers and architects in a postgrad course is the best way to overcome the traditional two-sided attitude of these two areas of work that, in the end, should provide a coherent and unique output. There is no such thing as a building with “good” architecture or a “good” structure, or even a good “energy performance”. One aims to attain a fine building where all these perspectives are looked after and performed efficiently. This can only be achieved through Teamwork, Integrated Work, starting in the universities’ classrooms.

8

A. S. Guimarães et al.

4 The Master’s Course Overview The Master’s Course in Integrated Building Design and Construction is a two-year programme (120 ECTS) offered by the University of Porto. In the first semester, the students receive information on various subjects related to both areas, like sustainability, Acoustic, Fire Safety, Project Management and others. In the second semester, a project is developed in interdisciplinary teams applying the knowledge gained before in the IPD subject. Also, in this second semester, BIM and construction management are welded to help the development of the case study. Students develop dissertations or a project/internship during their second year (Table 1). The proposed modules aim to provide theoretical and applied knowledge of various scientific and technological fields that contribute to implementing an integrated building design approach. The IPD module, which takes place in the second Table 1 Master course in integrated building design and construction study program Scientific area

Contact hours

ECTS

Concepts and assessment methods of sustainability in construction

Civil engineering + architecture

42: 14 T + 28TP

6

Hygrothermal behaviour of buildings

Civil engineering

42: 14 T + 28TP

4.5

Buildings technologies and systems

Civil engineering

42: 14 T + 28TP

6

Building facilities

Civil engineering

42: 14 T + 28TP

4.5

Fire safety engineering

Civil engineering

42: 14 T + 28TP

4.5

Building acoustics

Civil engineering

42: 14 T + 28TP

4.5

Integrated project design

Civil engineering + architecture

84: 56PL + 14TC + 14S

12

Construction information systems and BIM

Civil engineering + Architecture

42: 14 T + 28TP

4.5

Project management in construction

Civil engineering

42: 14 T + 28TP

4.5

Construction design and technology

Civil engineering + architecture

42: 14 T + 28TP

4.5

Management of buildings in use

Civil engineering

42: 14 T + 28TP

4.5

Civil engineering + architecture

21 TP

3

Dissertation/internship/project Civil engineering + design architecture

40 OT

57

Curricular unit 1st year—1st semester

1st year—2st semester

2st year Research methodologies

Master Course in Integrated Building Design and Construction …

9

semester, has the highest number of class hours and credits. This module includes seminars delivered by recognised experts in Architecture and Civil Engineering.

5 Objectives and PBL Adequation as an Educational Project The current construction panorama, with increasing demands for sustainability, as exemplified by the requirement for the adequate energy performance of buildings, has confirmed the need for an interdisciplinary professional and scientific level within civil engineering and architecture [49]. On the one hand, the specialisation in each subject area has increased to respond to all building performance requirements; on the other, the intersection of all the disciplines involved in Construction has become essential for this response to fit in a set of more integrated and coherent solutions. Concerns about the efficiency of production processes and performance increase demand for the accuracy of the design. Therefore, the Master’s Course in Integrated Building Design and Construction aims to complement the knowledge of both architects and engineers, providing integrated technical and scientific training to enable multidisciplinary teams to develop and coordinate integrated projects. The study program (SP) provides the following: • The ability to systematically understand the scientific and technological fields relevant to the design and development of integrated and sustainable solutions; • Professional and scientific skills associated with the area of building processes and systems; • Mastery of tools and methodologies for managing Integrated Project Design. The Master’s Course is designed for an international audience, and most students in previous years have been from abroad. The program is intended to ensure that students obtain the following: • Updated knowledge involving, in particular, scientific and technological fields under fast development (Sustainability of the construction process, Efficiency during operations, Information Technologies and BIM, Integrated Project Design Development); • Skills for the definition of integrated strategies for the development of designs and selection between the various conceptual and technological alternative options offered by the market; • Skills that will enable them to organise multidisciplinary project teams, define information circuits, work packages and milestones for the various involved parties, and manage and coordinate the respective activities and absolute control of their output, with a good framing to the objectives defined by the stakeholders. The mission of the Faculty of Engineering of the University of Porto mainly concerns the fields of engineering and related areas, having as its main dimensions

10

A. S. Guimarães et al.

academic education, research, development and innovation in close connection with the second and especially the third study cycles and also activities that are important for the achievement of the whole mission of the University, including the transfer of knowledge and technology, the provision of services, the provision of training, participation in national policy discussions and involvement in the economic, cultural and social development of our region and country. The cultural, civic, and humanist formation of the FEUP community, respect for the environment and the heritage and preservation of the institution’s memory should be seen as an integral part of these dimensions in their complementarity. With the changes to Higher Education decided in the European Union (Bologna), there are now three degrees: Bachelor’s (3 years), Master’s (2 years) and PhD (34 years). The MPRINCE is aimed primarily at architects and civil engineers who have completed the 2nd study cycle of the Bologna model (or who have completed 300 ECTS) and wish to obtain additional training leading to a master’s degree. Candidates with a complete first cycle (180 ECTS) in related fields may also be admitted. Over the years, FEUP and its Civil Engineering Department have gained considerable prestige amongst the scientific and professional community resulting from the training given to its graduates. However, with the changes that the Bologna Declaration has introduced in higher education—in particular, the reduction of the number of classes and the subsequent reduction of themes that it is possible to address and train—together with less willingness of the professional milieu to follow new professionals, it has been possible to identify the importance of offering an additional programme with a more operational profile and broader contact with the professional environment where this new context could be reflected, a more complex and multidisciplinary one, in which the development of building design projects should gravitate. This programme, therefore, aims to give students an additional set of abilities based on skills and competencies they have already developed in an essentially academic environment (possibly with some professional experience already). These abilities will enable them to face or continue their professional activity having assimilated a set of knowledge and skills that is part of the most dynamic research and development lines in the various aspects of the construction industry, applied and trained in a collaborative framework and interacting with elements coming from the business community. This strategy for the programme will allow the components related to basic scientific research to merge with their application to the resolution of real problems, aligning with the position that FEUP has always sought to occupy, one of the notable schools in the different scientific areas but not forgetting that the main goal for most of the students enrolling here will always be to obtain an education that will enable them to assume important positions in companies, both in terms of conceptual development and innovation and the choice and development of the technological options to be integrated into the final products.

Master Course in Integrated Building Design and Construction …

11

6 Integrated Project Design in MPRINCE 6.1 Overview and Syllabus The idea is to provide students with a more excellent operational capability of design development, coordinated with the various specialisms involved in building construction. Students can coordinate decisions in a structured way in all subject areas supporting the conceptual and technological options at every moment of design development. The development of an Integrated Project Design allows students to identify the requirements that determine the architectural and constructive criteria, not only to optimise the whole process but also to enhance the balance between architectural language and efficiency in the use of the building. After assimilating this design approach, students cannot only justify technological options but also understand the importance of each in the performance of the building as a unique and whole system. In the Integrated Project Design unit course it is supposed to follow the subsequent Syllabus: 1. Introduction and Framework 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4.

Fundamental concepts of Integrated Project Design (IPD) Project Management/IPD Integrated Design/Optimisation of the Construction Process The building as an Integrated System.

2. Current Methodologies of Application of the Integrated Project Design Approach 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4.

RIBA Architect’s Handbook Integrated Project Delivery AIA Integrated Project Design Methodology FEUP/BR. Design fo Manufacturing, Assembly and Disassembly, DfMAD

3. Design Quality Evaluation Methods 4. Requirements as criteria for design decisions in an Integrated Project Design 4.1. Criteria Design 4.2. Definition of criteria at each stage of the design 4.3. Harmonisation of Concept/Design/Requirements/Technological Options. 5. Integration of IT Tools for Expertise Coordination 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4.

Detailed Design Virtual Modelling Design drawings/Management tools Concurrence with the constructive process.

6. Practical Applications 6.1. Integrated Design examples

12

A. S. Guimarães et al.

6.2. Development of Integrated Design in its different stages. This module is planned to demonstrate how the development of an Integrated Design is reflected not only in the design optimisation process but also in the construction process as a result of a coordinated approach to the various disciplines involved, from architecture to the various engineering disciplines. With the development of applied work in multidisciplinary groups, students can test and internalise that “common language” that should be adopted throughout their professional life. To do so, the different methodologies and tools available will be presented during the semester to be applied in the design under development. With the support of the other modules, the tools will be used. Knowledge will be added in the practical application of real-world examples, integrating the various scientific and technological components addressed throughout the course, considering their specific conditions, and simulating the effort and primary objectives that should be the outcome of the work of a multidisciplinary design team. There are practical assignments of different complexity in which integrated design concepts may be applied. The assignments are based on actual project designs and are conducted by multi-disciplinary student teams. Whenever possible, these projects are undertaken in partnership with companies. The Stakeholder carries out the presentation of the project. There is one interim and one final assessment. In the midterm assessment, the stakeholder, architects, and engineers, whether tutors on the course or not, are invited to evaluate the concepts developed for the design so that it may be continued with the expected confidence. In the final presentation, a public display is made for the guests referred to above and the entire academic community.

6.2 Teaching Methodologies Versus Curricular Unit’s Learning Outcomes This module provides the student with fundamental technical and scientific training in construction systems applied to developing several designs involved in building construction, whether from the point of view of architecture or engineering. Articulating the tasks„ criteria and requirements of the different experts involved in the construction of a building as architecture, civil engineering, in particular, the disciplinary areas inherent to interior comfort (acoustics, hygrothermal behaviour), fire safety, building facilities and structures students can compare and evaluate the design options that might be adopted. The practical application of such knowledge in a specific project design, under the Project Based Learning (PBL) methodology, allows students to understand the professional framework [50, 51]. In this way, the integrated project design development is understood not as a simple sum of the designs from the different areas but as a single integrated design addressing the different requirements and a complex system, the building, as an integrated system. As mentioned above, this module has a 6 h teaching schedule divided into two 3 h periods. Each

Master Course in Integrated Building Design and Construction …

13

week, a theoretical lecture on a theme is given to be applied in the practical exercise of integrated design, which two tutors supervise from the scientific fields of Architecture and Civil Engineering. The main assessment factors are: quality of the design solution, considering the integrated design methodologies;, quality and technical feasibility, consistent with the architectural design concept and bearing in mind the optimisation of the construction process;, capacity for synthesis and argumentative response to the challenges. Two x three-hour seminars led by engineers and architects are offered each month to support the development of designs. These sessions may be on particular interest themes to support the design development or conferences delivered by design teams using the integrated design approach in their practices. The intention is that, at the end of each session, the guest speakers can review the students’ work. Various housing, services, trade, or cultural construction programmes are covered. The exercise continues throughout the semester to address different formal and constructive project design implementation scales. The study programme is part of the educational offer of FEUP, so students will have at their disposal all the College infrastructure (computer network and WIFI, study rooms and computers, library and subscribed bibliographic databases available in full text); the allocation of classrooms is organised in conjunction with the other UCs of all other cycles taught at the institution. For a more efficient implementation of the Integrated Project Design module, which aims to create sufficient conditions for collaborative and group work, it might be a workplace of choice for students of this programme. All existing infrastructure for the various FEUP programmes is also available to students of this programme. It is worth stressing the possibility of using the infrastructure and expertise of the three laboratories linked to the Building Division Acoustics, Building, Physics and Systems and Components—these are particularly relevant to the scientific and technological exploration of materials and constructive solutions. Equipment for hygrothermal measurements, for the performance of tests for the characterisation of the physical properties of materials, tests for mechanical, thermal, and acoustic characterisation of components, ageing chambers to study the durability of materials and systems, acoustic chambers, etc., are all available in these laboratories.

7 SWOT Analysis The main strength of the proposed study programme is its innovative character conferred by the integrated approach adopted. Integrating the various specialities involved in building design offers students a comprehensive and potentially more efficient view of the tasks that await them in their future professional activity. The Integrated Project Design Curricular Unit allows them to learn by doing, following a project-based learning approach. Implementing an integrated project approach requires the participation of students and staff from different professional backgrounds and different countries. It is difficult to establish a level playing field in several teaching modules in this environment,

14

A. S. Guimarães et al.

as students’ perception of the content in each module can range from “very familiar” to “completely unknown”. This situation is desirable. Indeed, some of the design of modules, such as Integrated Project Design, can be challenging in other modules that some students in previous study programmes have partially covered. This study program has attracted candidates with a different profile from those seeking AEC-related degrees at the University of Porto. New talent attraction provides clear opportunities for future research and knowledge transfer. Increased interaction with the Industry as a result of programme activities also provides mutual benefits to students who contact subjects, processes, and tools that are useful to their professional activities and companies with access to academic resources and results. The demand for higher education in the AEC domain has always been highly dependent on the economic situation, especially public and private Construction investment. This threat has been mitigated effectively by advertising the degree to an international audience. A strong relationship with the Industry is significant for some Curricular Units. As the motivation of AEC companies to engage with academia can also change with the economic climate, this can raise difficulties in the future. This threat is one of the points of greater attention and effort from the Board and the teaching staff, so local companies and professionals are involved in regular activities in this degree.

8 IPD as a Methodology in MPRINCE, a Case of Complicity Between University and Industry Universities finally realised that it is essential to train professionals instead of researchers. When they finish their carrier, most enter the labour market, and only a few stay in the university or research centres. During their training, it is essential to give the students this perception. Therefore, working in a natural context is fundamental to training in the labour market needs [53]. Nowadays, the complex industry panorama confirms the need for interdisciplinarity at a professional and scientific level. The production processes’ efficiency and the products’ performance are demanded in all areas of activity. As discussed before, knowledge is no longer organised on different shelves, and all disciplines have to contribute to the efficiency of the product. The team is getting larger: besides designers and engineers, end users and industrial technicians are fundamental to optimising all the product development. The need to open the academy to the industry reality has changed the teaching pedagogy in some engineering Field courses [54– 57]. Bringing this reality to the university has been a priority in MPRINCE, developing projects in a natural context. Learning by doing is a methodology where the participants, students, teachers and “clients” discover new paths to achieve a solution. Introducing concrete cases with real “clients” intends to establish a relationship

Master Course in Integrated Building Design and Construction …

15

between these two worlds, allowing the student to perceive the problems in the “reality” [6]. Students are allowed to communicate directly with companies and understand the production systems. Companies can develop ideas for problems which is not possible in daily life. This direct relation with real problems results in extra motivation and dedication to the possibility of job offers or projects being implemented in the market. Some of the projects developed are available in the following link https:/ /mastermprince.wixsite.com/my-site/trabalhos-dos-estudantes.

9 Conclusions Giving the students a design studio scenario, the curriculum of Integrated Project disciplines, in both academic years, is developed under the Integrated Project Design Thinking, taking advantage of the knowledge provided by the two scientific areas, civil engineering and architecture. In a serial connection with the market, the projects are developed naturally for real clients, thus simulating all the tasks and stages undertaken in a Design Company. At the end of each exercise, the best students’ concepts are developed together with the industry in response to the market need, which is a job experience opportunity in the partner company. This approach seems to be well received by the students. Every semester, the students are asked to answer to a survey that assesses several dimensions, regarding both the scope and delivery of the modules as well as the interaction with teachers. In what concerns the Integrated Project 1 module, the results for last year are presented in Fig. 4, using a Likert-scale from 1 = very poor to 7 = excellent. The other modules have received a similar appreciation.

Fig. 4 Survey Results for IP1 2021/2022 (from top to bottom: Teacher dimensions = Support to autonomy, Consistency and help, Organisation and Structure, Relationship; Module dimensions = Involvement of students, Precision and Clearness, Assessment, Difficulty, Effects of the module)

16

A. S. Guimarães et al.

As it stands, all dimensions are highly rated by the students with ratings of 6+; the only outlier is “Difficulty” which may reflect some uneasiness towards the different work environment that the module puts the students in, therefore one should look at it not at face value but, in some sense, as a positive result. Working under an Integrated Project frame of mind is, undoubtedly, difficult. The proposed study program will contribute to effective coordination between the work of architects and civil engineers in the design of buildings, towards greater integration of different specialities, greater efficiency in execution and better process management. Acknowledgements Base Funding financially supported this work—UIDB/04708/2020 of the CONSTRUCT Instituto de I&D em Estruturas e Construções and UIDB/00145/2020 of the CEAUCenter for Studies in Architecture and Urbanism—both funded by national funds through the FCT/ MCTES (PIDDAC).

References 1. Alaloul, W. S., Liew, M. S., Zawawi, N. A. W. A., & Kennedy, I. B. (2020). Industrial Revolution 4.0 in the construction industry: Challenges and opportunities for stakeholders. Accessed January 26, 2023. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85073567446&doi= 10.1016%2fj.asej.2019.08.010&partnerID=40&md5=488fdb4c0c9e4033f09b862471d7d4ec 2. Kong, L., & Ma, B. (2020). Intelligent manufacturing model of construction industry based on Internet of Things technology. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 107(3–4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-04369-8 3. Shah, S. F. A., et al. (2022). The role of machine learning and the internet of things in smart buildings for energy efficiency. Applied Sciences, 12(15), 7882. https://doi.org/10.3390/APP 12157882 4. Çetin, S., et al. (2021). Circular digital built environment: An emerging framework. https://doi. org/10.3390/su13116348 5. Zou, Y., Zhan, Q., & Xiang, K. (2021). A comprehensive method for optimizing the design of a regular architectural space to improve building performance. Energy Reports, 7, 981–996. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EGYR.2021.01.097 6. Rangel, B., Guimarães, A. S., Vaz Sá, A., & Alves, F. B. (2016). Integrated design concept in civil engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 32(3), 1279– 1288. 7. Rangel, “Integrated project design in civil engineering master oporto university”. 8. Carvalho, B. R., & Abrantes, V. (2013). Proposta metodológica para o desenvolvimento do projeto integrado de habitação evolutiva em Portugal. Porto. https://hdl.handle.net/10216/ 84938 9. “The future of manufacturing|Deloitte Insights.” https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/ind ustry/manufacturing/future-of-manufacturing-industry.html. Accessed January 26, 2023. 10. Senaratne, S., & Gunawardane, S. (2014). Application of team role theory to construction design teams. 11(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2013.802980 11. Herrera, R. F., et al. (2020). Understanding interactions between design team members of construction projects using social network analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 146(6), 04020053. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001841 12. Atman, C. J., Adams, R. S., Cardella, M. E., Turns, J., Mosborg, S., & Saleem, J. (2007). Engineering design processes: a comparison of students and expert practitioners. Journal

Master Course in Integrated Building Design and Construction …

13.

14.

15. 16. 17.

18.

19. 20.

21.

22.

23. 24. 25.

26.

27.

28. 29.

30.

31.

17

of Engineering Education, 96(4), 359–379. https://doi.org/10.1002/J.2168-9830.2007.TB0 0945.X Magrab, E. B., Gupta, S. K., McCluskey, F. P., Sandborn, P. A., & Magrab, E. B. (2023). Integrated product and process design and development: The product realization process. https://www.routledge.com/Integrated-Product-and-Process-Design-and-Development-TheProduct-Realization/Magrab-Gupta-McCluskey-Sandborn/p/book/9780367385378 Bürdek, B. E. (2005). Design. history, theory and practice of product design by Birkhäuser Issuu. Birkhäuser,. Accessed: January 26, 2023. https://issuu.com/birkhauser.ch/docs/design._ history__theory_and_practic Fontoura, A. M. (2011). A interdisciplinaridade e o ensino do design. Projetica, 2(2), 86–95. https://doi.org/10.5433/2236-2207.2011V2N2P86 Domik, G. (2008). Teaching visualization in multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary mode. Borrego, M., & Newswander, L. K. (2008). Characteristics of successful cross-disciplinary engineering education collaborations. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(2), 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1002/J.2168-9830.2008.TB00962.X Álvares Correia Dias, B., Regina, M., & Gontijo, A. (2006). O conhecimento disciplinar do Design e suas contribuições para a teoria interdisciplinar. Revista Design em Foco, III(2), 49–66. Accessed January 26, 2023. http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=66111515005 Bárbara Rangel, J. P. M. (2009). Vítor Abrantes, José Amorim Faria, Cadernos d’ Obra 1 Eifício Burgo. Porto Chew, E. (2006). Imparting knowledge and skills at the forefront of interdisciplinary research— A case study on course design at the intersection of music and engineering. Proceedings— Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE, pp. 27–32. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2006.322575 Dekkers, R., Chang, C. M., & Kreutzfeldt, J. (2013). The interface between ‘product design and engineering’ and manufacturing: A review of the literature and empirical evidence. International Journal of Production Economics, 144(1), 316–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPE. 2013.02.020 Li, Z., Tian, M., Zhao, Y., Zhang, Z., & Ying, Y. (2021) Development of an integrated performance design platform for residential buildings based on climate adaptability. Energies (Basel), 14(24). https://doi.org/10.3390/EN14248223 Du, X. (2021). IDEO product development case analysis. BCP Business & Management, 13, 396–401. https://doi.org/10.54691/BCPBM.V13I.116 Eleven lessons: managing design in eleven global brands. Accessed January 27, 2023. www. designcouncil.org.uk Lapinskien˙e, V., & Motuzien˙e, V. (2021). Integrated building design technology based on quality function deployment and axiomatic design methods: A case study. Sustain Cities Soc, 65. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCS.2020.102631 Reed, W. G., & Gordon, E. B. (2000). Integrated design and building process: What research and methodologies are needed? Building Research and Information, 28(5–6), 325–337. https:/ /doi.org/10.1080/096132100418483 Emdanat, S., Christian, D., & Forbes, L. H. (2020). The Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) method. In Lean project delivery and integrated practices in modern construction, pp. 228–267. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429458989-13 The American Institute of Architects AIA. (2007). Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide (Version 1) Sapuan, S. M., & Mansor, M. R. (2014). Concurrent engineering approach in the development of composite products: A review. Materials and Design, 58, 161–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/ J.MATDES.2014.01.059 Borsato, M., & Peruzzini, M. (2015). Collaborative engineering. In Concurrent engineering in the 21st century: foundations, developments and challenges, pp. 165–196. https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-3-319-13776-6_7/TABLES/2 Voogt, J., Laferrière, T., Breuleux, A., Itow, R. C., Hickey, D. T., & McKenney, S. (2015). Collaborative design as a form of professional development. Instructional Science, 43(2), 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9340-7

18

A. S. Guimarães et al.

32. Jing, N., & Lu, S. C. Y. (2011). Modeling co-construction processes in a socio-technical framework to support collaborative engineering design. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics Part C: Applications and Reviews, 41(3). https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCC.2010. 2092426 33. Uemura Reche, A. Y., Canciglieri Junior, O., Szejka, A. L., & Rudek, M. (2022). Proposal for a preliminary model of integrated product development process oriented by green supply chain management. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042190 34. Kahvandi, Z., Saghatforoush, E., Ravasan, A. Z., & Viana, M. L. (2020). A review and classification of integrated project delivery implementation enablers. Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, 25(2). https://doi.org/10.21315/jcdc2020.25.2.9 35. Bárbara Rangel, J. P. M. (2013). Vítor Abrantes, José Amorim Faria, Cadernos d’ Obra 4 Museo os Coches, Cadernos d. Porto: Cadernos d’Obra. https://www.barbararangel.com/_files/ ugd/82909b_81de90d54dc649a88f43434422a8fbe1.pdf 36. Zimmerman, A., & Objectives, P. E. (2023). Integrated design process guide. Accessed January 27, 2023. http://www.smartgrowth.org 37. Kane, G., Stoyell, J. L., Howarth, C. R., Norman, P., & Vaughan, R. (2000). A stepwise life cycle engineering methodology for the clean design of large made to order products. Journal of Engineering Design, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820050034268 38. Gomes, Â., Rangel, B., Carneiro, V., & Lino, J. (2018). ‘Learning by Doing’ integrated project design in a master program on product and industrial design. Contributions to Higher Engineering Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8917-6_5 39. Chakrabarti, A. (1995). Engineering design methods: Strategies for product design. Materials & Design, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-3069(95)90023-3 40. Culley, S. J. (1994). The mechanical design process. Des Stud, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0142-694x(94)90041-8 41. Lobach, B. (2017). Diseño Industrial guía metodológica. Predica, 91. 42. AIA. (2007). Integrated project delivery: A guide. The American Intitute of Architects, 1(1). 43. Jorge Moreira da Costa, “Métodos de Avaliação da Qualidade de Projectos de Edifícios de Habitação.” 44. Mihic, M., Sertic, J., & Zavrski, I. (2014). Integrated project delivery as integration between solution development and solution implementation. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.062 45. Forbes, L. H., & Ahmed, S. M. (2021). Learning from projects and enhancing lean project delivery and IPD. Modern Construction. https://doi.org/10.1201/b10260-20 46. Ghassemi, R., & Becerik-Gerber, B. (2011). Transitioning to integrated project delivery: Potential barriers and lessons learned. Lean Construction Journal, 2011. 47. Gutman, R., & Haviland, D. (1992). The architect’s handbook of professional practice. Journal of Architectural Education (1984-), 45(2). https://doi.org/10.2307/1425280 48. Forbes, L. H., & Ahmed, S. M. (2010). Lean-based project delivery methods. Modern Construction. https://doi.org/10.1201/b10260-12 49. Lin, K. Y., Wu, Y. T., Hsu, Y. T., & Williams, P. J. (2021). Effects of infusing the engineering design process into STEM project-based learning to develop preservice technology teachers’ engineering design thinking. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1). https://doi.org/ 10.1186/s40594-020-00258-9 50. de Los Ríos-Carmenado, I., López, F. R.,& García, C. P. (2015). Promoting professional project management skills in engineering higher education: Project-based learning (PBL) strategy. International Journal of Engineering Education, 31(1). 51. Rodríguez, J., Laverón-Simavilla, A., del Cura, J. M., Ezquerro, J. M., Lapuerta, V., & CorderoGracia, M. (2015). Project based learning experiences in the space engineering education at Technical University of Madrid. Advances in Space Research, 56(7). https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.asr.2015.07.003

Educating Future Professionals for Decarbonization and Digitalization Through Integrated Design Arno Schlueter and Krishna Bharathi

Abstract The disruptive potential of both decarbonization and digitalization to professional practice underscores the significant challenges ahead in educating future practitioners in the design, planning, and construction sectors. This chapter outlines the impacts of these interlinking trends on European higher education institutions, summarizes effective pedagogical approaches and competences identified in the literature, and follows by introducing an example of a Swiss response—the specialized Master in Integrated Building Systems (ETH MSc IBS or MIBS). Developed to meet changing demands in the workforce, this interdisciplinary program was initiated in 2013 by ETH Zurich in collaboration with the Swiss Society of Engineers and Architects (SIA). A brief history of the program and overview of the curriculum are provided, followed by a detailed example of project-based teaching within the study program—the Integrated Design Project (IDP). Detailed course design and examples of student work are presented. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the outlook of program and curriculum development within the context of these broader trends. Keywords Decarbonization · Digitalization · Workforce trends · Competences · Pedagogy · Integrated design · Ecological building · Design integration · Low-carbon building · Low-energy building · Zero emission building

A. Schlueter · K. Bharathi (B) Department of Architecture, Institute of Technology in Architecture (ITA), Chair of Architecture and Building Systems, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Stefano-Franscini-Platz 1, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected] A. Schlueter e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 B. Rangel et al. (eds.), Integrated Project Design, Digital Innovations in Architecture, Engineering and Construction, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32425-3_2

19

20

A. Schlueter and K. Bharathi

1 Introduction Now widely recognized as one of the largest contributors to climate change, the focus on topics of decarbonization of the building stock and the awareness of the changing skillsets needed to tackle these challenges is increasing [1, 2]. In parallel, emergent digital tools and workflows, which have already disrupted many industries, have also reached the design, planning, and construction fields and suggest a high potential to act as important factors in the push toward decarbonization and the education of future professionals capable of facilitating it. Critically, these trends indicate potentially drastic changes in practice for processes and methodologies. The following chapter discusses how these shifting priorities are changing the way the interlinking topics of the production and operation of the built environment are currently being taught in higher education. Sequentially, the sections outline the challenges that the trends of decarbonization and digitalization pose, and the need for effective pedagogical approaches building up the required diverse competencies. This is followed by the introduction of the specialized master program in integrated building systems (ETH MSc IBS or MIBS) [3], which has been designed and developed to respond to these challenges through its structure, curriculum and teaching formats. One of the capstone group projects in the curriculum—the Integrated Design Project (IDP) course is presented in greater detail as an example of project-based teaching and learning, designed to address both decarbonization and digitalization. To conclude, selected results achieved after eight years of running the program are presented, as well as a discussion of the challenges faced, the outlook for future program development, and the relevance and novelty of the integrated building systems curriculum approach in current higher education.

1.1 Decarbonization Globally, 38% of total greenhouse gas emissions can be accounted to buildings [4]. This includes direct and indirect emissions for the operation of buildings, as well as their construction and materials. Though there have been advances toward reducing carbon emissions, the total global growth of dwelling floor area has led to rebound effects that contribute to increasing emissions, despite improvements in energy efficiency. In parallel, ongoing urbanization is further concentrating energy use and emissions in growing cities. Already today, 80% of primary energy is consumed in urban regions. The response around the world has been that nations, cities, and communities have pledged to reduce their environmental impact [5]. This includes strategies and measures such as energy retrofit, urban greening, mixed-use settlements featuring short distances between work, leisure and commercial activities, as well as promoting more sustainable ways of transport such as bikes and electric mobility. These measures run in parallel to the ongoing transformation of national

Educating Future Professionals for Decarbonization and Digitalization …

21

energy systems from fossil fuel-driven electricity generation to increased shares of renewables. Switching to renewables initiates a key structural change in the energy system from centralized to decentralized and local, which has strong implications for managing building energy demand and supply. Within a network perspective, buildings are becoming nodes in this decentralized energy system, changing from being isolated consumers to becoming prosumers that use and generate electricity, as well as store and exchange it locally. Critically, such a networked relationship also allows buildings to benefit from local environmental or waste heat sources. To reduce direct carbon emissions of buildings, heat generation in buildings is moving away from fossil fuel-based conversion to electricity, driving heat pumps, and compression chillers. Electricity for their operation is increasingly sourced from photovoltaics, which has become the cheapest source of electricity generation in many countries across the globe [6]. Its integration into the building envelope in the form of BIPV allows for the use of existing surfaces in combination with building retrofitting measures [7], linking energy production to building form and architectural design. Additionally, assessing the environmental impact of buildings and construction itself is experiencing a rapid shift from operational energy and emissions pivoting toward life cycle perspectives and circular economy. Supported by frameworks such as LEVELS initiated by the European Union [8] and national labels such as DGNB [9], building designers, engineers, planners, and developers are increasingly required to assess not only the energy performance of a building but also its material consumption and associated emissions. This also calls for a more detailed chronological perspective, as it is no longer sufficient to only address the total amount of emissions caused by a building over its lifecycle. Meaning, in the context of the ongoing decarbonization of the energy grids, it has also become relevant when those emissions occur in a building life cycle.

1.2 Digitalization Access and use of data, digital processes, and tools are impacting the construction industry on two levels. Digitalization aims at converting existing processes from manual to digital tools. The aim is to increase productivity, reduce errors and costs by establishing a ‘digital chain’ from concept to construction to operation and maintenance. The digital transformation reaches further, as it aims to establish new processes and services only possible through digital workflows and data-driven approaches. Critically, digital transformation has the potential to “improve communication between decision-makers…by reducing the complexity of technical knowledge, simplifying data processing, illustrating results in a more intuitive way, and making participation more attractive” [10]. Both digitalization and digital transformation allow for addressing the entire building lifecycle, from design to operation though demolition to reuse. Central to this is the concept of a Building Information Model (BIM) as a data repository. The

22

A. Schlueter and K. Bharathi

data model, when enhanced for example by dynamic features and synchronized with physical processes in a physical environment [11] is also called a digital twin. Digital twins are established across different scales, from components to cities. The aim of private and public stakeholders is for digital twins to act as living and growing data repositories which can be harnessed for a multitude of services over the building lifecycle [12]. Being used for assessing building energy performance for over a decade [13], recent research identifies information management to become key to map and track usage of construction materials and components over its lifecycle [14] to move towards a circular economy [15]. In early-stage architectural design, parametric and generative techniques [16] strongly complement building information modeling by embedding environmental assessment into geometry modeling [17, 18]. This approach allows designers to more quickly analyze the physical properties and the environmental implications of their building proposals. As a result, digital methods and tools are becoming enablers for integrating environmental targets into the design. In addition, digital fabrication supports the transformation of digital models into physical artifacts, introducing new construction techniques and novel architectural expression. Augmenting manual labor, these techniques suggest the potential for increased productivity through automated processes, which involve less time and cost for construction [19]. From an architectural perspective, techniques such as 3D printing and robotic assembly not only introduce opportunities in design [20], but also offer new pathways for highly integrated building components such as facades and floors with multiple performative properties [21]. Not least, becoming an important a field of its own, building controls is another domain where digitalization can improve the operation of buildings by using data from sensors and systems in buildings and infrastructure to allow for novel and more effective approaches. Initiated over 20 years ago, data collected in buildings allows for new data-driven methods and tools for building controls that utilize data analytics, machine learning, and neural networks [22]. Such approaches offer the possibility to better represent the real complexity of interactive urban systems and buildings [23–25], as well as facilitate new insights and understanding. To conclude, digitalization and even more so, digital transformation, implies ongoing fundamental shifts in how to design, plan, construct, operate, and even, demolish and reuse buildings. Transcending domains and process stages, new methods underline the systemic character of the production of buildings by integrating and linking multi-domain information. These links can be of course utilized with the intent to increase productivity and reduce the costs of building production. However, with a focus on decarbonization, such approaches provide powerfully effective means for evidence-based decision-making to increase the environmental performance of the building stock and reduce carbon emissions across its lifecycle.

Educating Future Professionals for Decarbonization and Digitalization …

23

1.3 Implications for Higher Education The disruptive potential of both decarbonization and digitalization highlights the significant challenges ahead in educating future professionals in the design, planning, and construction sectors. In Switzerland, the Federal Office of Energy has been promoting a broad eco-system of programs to support the education of current and future professionals in the energy and building sectors across different levels of education, ranging from the vocational level to higher education programs [26]. Simultaneously across Europe, higher education institutions in particular, are wellpositioned to contribute significantly to decarbonizing the built environment. Specifically, higher education institutions uniquely offer the conditions to blend the research findings of different disciplinary domains in learning environments intended to cultivate novel perspectives on shared societal challenges. The potential of higher education institutions to foster competencies in the future workforce is broadly acknowledged as necessary to fully leverage the societal benefit of digital tools and workflows [27]. To this end, positioning documents on the potential of higher education institutions have been produced by the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan), which since 2007 is a central tool to align EU policy with national research policy in this domain. Additionally, as part of the SET-Plan, the Universities in the SET Plan (UNI-SET) program was also initiated. Intended to capture the innovation, research and education potentials of the institutions involved, the UNI-SET is coordinated by the European University Association (EUA). In its 2017 report titled, ‘Energy Transition and the Future of Energy Research, Innovation and Education: An Action Agenda for European Universities,’ [28] and “Energy Research and Education at European Universities: The UNI-SET Universities Survey Report,” [29] the EUA summarizes a number of highly relevant findings linked to master level program design which responds to European workforce demands to meet the digitization of its energy system. Key report recommendations include that energy-related master’s programs should train energy professionals able to work in or lead multidisciplinary teams and to use up-to-date digital tools. Additionally, master’s level study programs should be designed to be more challenge-based and move away from single focus topics. Also, curriculums should build on holistic perspectives and operate between established disciplinary engineering and planning specializations, but also include the management sciences, social sciences, economics, policy perspectives, and facilitate regular exposure to interdisciplinary dialogue. Programs should also include often missing, systems perspectives and integration aspects of how different renewable sources interact with the energy system, as well as with society and the wider environment from both technical and social perspectives. Not least, contextual and background material that exposes participants to a broader overview of the energy challenge in addition to their chosen field of study should also be included in curriculums to supplement the required core skills development specific to the respective study program focus [30].

24

A. Schlueter and K. Bharathi

More specific to higher education programs focused on building design, planning and construction, a stronger curriculum focus is needed on the systemic aspects of building production that stress the dynamic links between: accepted disciplinary domains [31], phases of a structure’s life, the interaction of differing technologies, as well as their impact and interaction with local context [32]. By foregrounding decarbonization and digitalization, the conception of the built environment must necessarily move away from the notion of buildings as isolated artifacts with the building stock reimagined as an interconnected, partially complex system.

2 Models and Competencies In order for higher education institutions to effectively train the needed workforce of the future, sustainable design methods for decarbonization that utilize the full potential benefits of digitalization is needed. However, this goal can only be achieved if it is rigorously implemented throughout the entire building workflow—from spatial concept, technical design, construction, operation, and maintenance, as well as beyond to demolition and reuse. As a response to the increasing complexity of the design and manufacturing of buildings, the industry has become increasingly fragmented, creating an extensive set of specialized expertise that are typically distinguished between different spatial scales (e.g. regional, urban, and building scale), processes (e.g. construction management), and technical domains (e.g. civil, electrical, mechanical, architectural, etc.). Further reinforced in regulatory and professional norms linked to contractual liability, these specializations have frequently resulted in siloed mindsets with often differing agendas that lack sufficient interlinkage. This has resulted in further reinforcing linear and stepped processes, diverging methods and tools, as well as low levels of digitalization [2], all of which force design and construction teams to revert to standard modes of coordination that are inadequate to support more highly intertwined approaches to systems and spatial design. Currently, a challenge of digitalization and decarbonization is that they also create new areas of specialization, which introduce new professional profiles such as BIM coordinators, digital design experts, and environmental analysts. These trends also contain the risk of further fragmenting design and planning processes, while increasing the necessity for additional communication and coordination. However, if utilized in an integrated process, digital approaches offer the potential to better manage inherent complexity and act as a medium to coordinate the respective scopes of work of many different specialists to allow for more holistic approaches.

2.1 Educating for Integrated Design Often used interchangeably in the literature and professional practice, but linked to a variety of divergent workflows, it is relevant to clarify how the terms ‘integrative,’

Educating Future Professionals for Decarbonization and Digitalization …

25

‘integrated design,’ or ‘integration’ are used in this chapter. Specifically, on a process level the concept is discussed in two ways. First, understood as cross-disciplinary integration, it often denotes the presence of a diverse group of specialists collaborating in a project over various stages, ideally throughout the lifecycle of a building. The second reading of integration denotes an individual’s capacity to think and act across different domains and synthesize them within a project. For more than a decade, there has been a growing awareness of the necessity to adapt the educational landscape to build relevant integrative competencies in the workforce in support of the shared, societal goals of decarbonization. Examples such as the EU Project IDES EDU, funded by the Intelligent Energy Europe program, highlight this trend and were conceived in the context of the European Building Performance Directive (EBPD) with the objective to educate, train, and deliver future professionals with a cross-disciplinary profile and competency in integrated, energy-efficient design [2]. Developed from the departure point that improving the energy performance of a building while maintaining comfort requires an integrated approach and crossdisciplinary collaboration, the project supported the development of new pedagogical approaches to address the significant need for professionals that are educated to work in cross-disciplinary teams and apply integrated design processes. Specifically, the integrated process envisioned by the 15 European higher education institutions involved would engage novice architects, engineers, and building specialists in cross-disciplinary teams from the very beginning of a design task. Studying the state of the art in education for energy-efficient design in participating institutes of higher education in seven EU countries revealed that although the relevance of such a program was widely acknowledged at that time, only a few had actually initiated specific programs yet. Most often, the content was added to existing programs, which did not always yield the desired result. Universities that had successfully initiated integrated programs stated that the candidates are highly sought out in the building industry. To address the shortcomings of the traditional, linear design process lacking a holistic perspective, an integrated design process was defined as being characterized by its iterative nature, informed by specialist knowledge, and one which considered the entire building and its environment as a system and interactions between the different project stakeholders for decision making from the very beginning. As a result, a four-semester master course on Integrated Energy-Efficient Building Design in the context of the EU EPBD was designed. The course consisted of fundamental, theoretical, and practical packages across different domains such as architectural, civil, environmental, and mechanical engineering. With the intention to make the course adaptable to the different educational and local contexts, a ‘Multimedia Teaching Portal’ was proposed to accompany and facilitate the learning and teaching process. As part of the ‘practical package’, cross-disciplinary teamwork of students to apply knowledge, method, and tools in project work [2]. Although not explicitly described in the course design, the practical work packages address especially method-specific, social, and personal competencies required to successfully execute an integrated approach.

26

A. Schlueter and K. Bharathi

In another example highlighting the current state of the European educational landscape, 390 educators working at the university level were surveyed and asked to reflect on the connections between pedagogical approaches and their capacity to develop relevant competencies to investigate how topics in sustainability and sustainability competences are being taught in Europe. The study found that in European higher education, there is a “better coverage of competences than the use of pedagogical approaches” [33]. Also notable was that of the 12 pedagogical approaches studied, 3 were recognized by educators as “more likely” to support the development of the “most” sustainability competences. Interestingly, all 3 competences most highly ranked for correlated pedagogic effect: project- and/or problem-based learning, community service learning, and eco-justice and community, were focused in the more practical domain. That is, centered around projects, their stakeholders, and the community. Not least, while certain approaches indicated higher potentials to facilitate sustainability competences, the researchers noted that a mix of pedagogical formats are necessary to address the relevant the wide breadth of sustainability topics and foster competences effectively in students [33]. Following this trend in the context of the integrated design studio, researchers recognize that in order to implement a coherent, effective pedagogical approaches, where students and professionals from both architectural and engineering backgrounds learn and develop the necessary skillsets for decarbonization, a set of dedicated design principles and methods should be systematically defined and followed [34] to facilitate role changes within design teams [35]. One example of a joint studio between respective architecture and engineering faculties, which focused on zero-carbon design in a realist setting, also involved a client and external subject matter experts. A key finding in this study was that all of the stakeholders involved— from the students, the university team, the external consultants, and clients—recognized that the integrated studio approach improved the “functional, aesthetic, and technical design” of the projects. Another relevant finding was that administrative coordination across different departments in terms of teaching formats and course credit weights was a challenge that required the creation of new “bespoke” course formats and curriculums to align with the “architectural subject” while “still satisfying engineering accreditation requirements” [34]. The need for integrated approaches to tackle decarbonization and the challenges of digital transformation are closely linked. Both are strongly connected to the necessity to develop broader building design competencies in the workforce, as well as the need to create a digital infrastructure to manage the building stock. Another European focused study highlights that workforce skills should be jointly defined by industry and academic sectors focused on digital approaches in order to improve the design, construction, and operation of buildings [36]. While the researchers acknowledge the enabling role of technology and processes that have the potential to blur the boundaries between which roles or professions execute which activity, competency and its dynamic evolvement are highlighted as an even greater challenge. Currently in practice, the inclusion of specialists capable of supporting process of evidencebased decision-making early in design processes is typically lacking. Specifically, the authors state that with regards to workforce training, upskilling and reskilling,

Educating Future Professionals for Decarbonization and Digitalization …

27

a “multidisciplinary approach to competency-based management across sectors, disciplines, professions, etc., matters more than targeting productivity improvement through rapidly changing technologies” [36]. This is also noted as relevant to developing workforce competence profiles that are recognized in the job market. Notably, the study findings underscore the need for industry to actively manage and develop their workforce definitions and hiring profiles in order to “to identify, assess, match, foresee, control and assure competency at work,” and that, “competency management is equally applicable to upskilling and reskilling,” both of which “are required to address potential future imbalances” in the workforce [36]. Additionally, three key questions that the study identified were linked to competence management in the labor market, how curriculums could support ‘collaborative’ competence management, and not least how curriculums could support the transition between competence profiles [36]. In line with the aggregate findings summarized in this section, the ETH MIBS program has developed its interdepartmental education and training approach to systematically provide students with fundamental knowledge, core skills, and exposure to a range of facilitated team processes for each individual to utilize and emulate in their applied practice. While offering a wide range of teaching formats (e.g. lecture, workshop, online digital formats, etc.) the high value of project-based work, which replicates realistic project settings and team dynamic management, is central to the program approach. Additionally, the students’ program facilitated exposure to local industry through their coursework supports them in upskilling and reskilling their competency profiles.

2.2 Required Competencies As identified in the previous section, systemic perspectives are an important element to attaining the goals of decarbonization and digitalization. Future professionals will need to be familiar with the conceptual and methodological approaches of various disciplines to successfully develop and apply integrated approaches. In addition, they must also become comfortable enough with the ‘languages’ of different knowledge domains to be able to effectively understand and communicate with the increasingly diverse stakeholder groups involved in the process. Following this, creating a curriculum to foster systemic, integrated approaches requires an adequate understanding of the interconnections between existing knowledge domains and the capacity to prioritize them according to the problem context. To be effective, such a curriculum needs to blend and harmonize differing pedagogical approaches and methodological perspectives from architecture and engineering fields.

28

A. Schlueter and K. Bharathi

Such a range of abilities, according to the general competence framework of the ETH [37], can be distinguished between the categories of subject-specific, methodspecific, personal, and social competencies. In the following sub-sections, the relevant competencies for educating future professionals for a changing design, planning, and construction domain are outlined. Subject-specific competencies. Theoretical, conceptual and technical subjectspecific competencies from the knowledge domains of architecture, engineering, renewable energy technologies, building physics, as well as management and economics serve as an important foundation. For an integrated approach, the array of relevant subject-specific competencies is rather large, and different domains need to be strategically interlinked in different course formats and delivery methods. Notably, the acceptance and diversity of online education delivery formats has been greatly expanded at ETH Zurich, as well as worldwide due to the COVID pandemic, which has required higher education institutions to adapt in terms of offering greater online content options for students. Method-specific competencies. Method-specific competencies address application, the knowledge of how to solve problems and achieve results. For sustainable architectural design and engineering, the processes involved in integrated design and their methods highlight a variety of approaches to assess performance across various metrics, although primarily through modeling and simulation. In light of digitalization, method-specific competencies become especially relevant. This includes digital and data-driven workflows and tools to be applied throughout the design, planning, construction and operation of a building, where two aspects are critical. First, the fast-paced development of tools requires students, as well as professional must learn new tools often and fast. This effort can be alleviated by experience in navigating certain tools for simulation or modeling. Second, digital method-specific competencies need to go beyond using existing tools toward developing one’s own models, methods, and tools using scripting or programming environments. Therefore, students must acquire at minimum a basic understanding of the underlying computational methods. Personal competencies. Closely linked to social competencies, personal competencies are becoming increasingly important, especially for teaching and learning that involves online and asynchronous formats. Students need to self-organize their learning and acquire new subject matter and skills fast and independently. Adaptability and flexibility are key in group work and require a high degree of selfreflection on one’s own work and work process. This is especially important due to the complexity of problem contexts students are presented with that yield solutions from multiple assessment criteria, and where the one perfect solution is no longer exists. Social competencies. As buildings and cities grow more complex through interconnected systems, collaboration in teams requires greater interdisciplinary approaches. In this context social competencies are critical to effectively communicate and collaborate within and across teams and stakeholder groups. Especially in the MIBS Integrated Design Project (IDP, see Sect. 4), collaboration as a team is key to the successful delivery of the project work. This includes being able to

Educating Future Professionals for Decarbonization and Digitalization …

29

structure and communicate teamwork and results, but also each individual carving out their own leadership role and responsibilities. As design tasks are characterized by competing objectives and trade-offs, this also includes negotiation skills both within the team and with external stakeholders. Critical thinking, balanced with social competence supports the reasoned evaluation of solutions for their feasibility and appropriateness (i.e. balancing between environmental, economic, and social criteria). The curriculum of the Master in Integrated Building Systems, which is introduced in the following section, has been designed to address this diverse set of competencies necessary to facilitate higher education for a changing building and construction industry.

3 Specialized Master in Integrated Building Systems (ETH MSc IBS or MIBS) Initially chartered in 1855 as the Federal Polytechnic School, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule) or ETH Zurich from 1915 onward has been throughout its history a constant driver of industrialization in Switzerland. As outlined in its institutional mission the ETH is focused on “…the common good and the preservation of societal well-being, natural resources and the environment…together with our partners.” Grounded in stable relationships with government, governance, and industry, the university’s steady focus on both applied and fundamental research, which has increasingly been recognized as relevant to education, has always been balanced by the mandate of its leadership to develop an impactful workforce of experts and relevant strategic expertise. ETH Zurich is currently host to over 23,400 students from 121 countries, of which approximately one-third of the overall student body is female. In 2020 ETH recorded a total of 3,357 new Bachelor’s entrants, with mechanical engineering being the most popular study program, followed by computer science and architecture [38].

3.1 Program Background Within the last decades ETH leadership has recognized that global developments such as computer-assisted data driven analyses and the far-reaching consequences of globalization have placed ever-increasing demands on universities, which has led to new forms of interdisciplinary research, institutional organization and consequently, new study programs to cultivate relevant competencies in future professionals. One driver of this has been the broader acknowledgement of buildings and urban agglomerations for the role they play in climate change as one of the largest contributors

30

A. Schlueter and K. Bharathi

to global greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, buildings have also been increasingly recognized for their impact on indoor environmental air quality, as well as on phenomenon such as urban heat island effect and their subsequent health impacts. In response to these challenges, in 2013 the ETH office of the Rector in close partnership with the Swiss Society of Engineers and Architects (SIA), which is the professional association for construction, technology and environmental specialists in Switzerland, proposed to develop a new interdepartmental, interdisciplinary specialized master level study program to meet changing demands in workforce expertise. From these discussions, the Master in Integrated Building Systems (MIBS) was created. Organized across different departments of ETH Zurich, the program has been designed to cultivate relevant competencies in future professionals working in the design, building planning, and construction sectors. Not least, with English as the main language of instruction, the program has been positioned to simultaneously attract a culturally diverse student body, support the international mobility of domestic talent, and not least, to leverage the wide range of expertise offered by the international researchers housed within the ETH domain. Five departments were initially approached to act as a steering group for curriculum development and included professorships from (1) Architecture, (2) Civil, Environmental and Geomatics Engineering; (3) Mechanical and Process Engineering; (4) Management, Technology, and Economics; and (5) Information Technology and Electrical Engineering. Through these interdepartmental discussions, a 120 credit, four semester, non-consecutive degree program called the ETH Master in Integrated Building Systems (MSc IBS or MIBS) was developed to provide graduates with a science-based education in building systems and technologies with a strong emphasis on the energy performance and the environmental impacts of buildings. Teaching in the program is structured to focus on the integration of sustainable energy technologies at building and urban levels, the methodology and tools to master the complex design of integrated building systems, as well as the operation and management of buildings. Interdisciplinary by design and grounded in real-world problem contexts, the program was envisioned to combine methods and insights from the disciplines of architecture, socio-economics, management, civil, mechanical, environmental and electrical engineering. Annually the program accepts a maximum of 30 students every fall semester to maintain a low instructor to student ratio.

3.2 Program Structure When MIBS students begin their studies, each student defines an individual study area of focus. Based on their interests, each student is assigned a program-affiliated ETH Professor who is designated as his or her primary tutor. The role of the primary tutor is to act as an academic advisor and support the development of each student’s personal curriculum through the supervision of the student’s Learning Agreement (LAG), which is subject to tutor approval. This system provides students the opportunity

Educating Future Professionals for Decarbonization and Digitalization …

31

to develop a mentee-mentor relationship. Additionally, the structure of the MIBS program allows students the opportunity to engage in the expertise of all the MIBS tutors via their core and elective coursework. Not least, students can conduct their individual project work with any ETH professorship or industry partner relevant to the aims of the master program. This feature of the program also allows for bottom-up development of the course curriculum as students themselves identify coursework and experts relevant to the teaching aims of the program. As student progress in their coursework, the structured, but flexible design of the ETH MIBS study program uniquely allows students: (1) ease of access to fundamental and core knowledge in topics they would like to gain greater depth and were not exposed to in their previous studies; (2) greater self-determination in higher level specialized study topics; as well as 3) the ability to gain hands-on practical experience in multiple knowledge domains in their project courses. To ensure the relevance of their selections to the goals of the program, oversight of each student’s study program is regulated through an ETH Learning Agreement or LAG which is co-developed by each student with his or her program tutor, which is another unique dimension of this specialized ETH study program. Curriculum. The 120 credit MIBS program is split between a high percentage of project course hours (40%, 48 credits) (Fig. 1) and those which are lecture-based (60%, 72 credits). Lecture courses also include a wide variety of format options for students to participate in such as hands-on workshops, site visits to construction and manufacturing sites, and flipped classroom settings. Although the program is clearly structured by course format types students must take to fulfill the degree requirements, the curriculum offers a very high level of flexibility with the possibility for students to specialize in areas of their choice with only 32.5% or 39 credits of lecture and project coursework being topically predetermined or obligatory. This means that with the guidance of their program tutor, students can choose coursework that reflects their individual areas of interest for the remaining 67.5% or 81 credits of self-elected project and lecture topics. As self-elected course topics in higher education study

Fig. 1 ETH specialized master in integrated building systems—curriculum credit breakdown

32

A. Schlueter and K. Bharathi

programs has been shown to be increasingly important in developing field specific competences [39], the program has been explicitly refined with obligatory fundamental and core coursework located only in the first and second semesters to allow for more self-elected course topics as students progress in the program sequence (Fig. 2). Fundamentals. The fundamental coursework category covers topics in mathematics, energy conversion, spatial development, as well as design and building process. Core. Core coursework focuses on building systems, technology, building physics, simulation techniques, lean and integrated project delivery, life cycle analysis, materials, building controls, innovation management and microeconomics. Additionally, core coursework is divided into obligatory courses that must be taken by all students in the program as prerequisites for project work courses, while other core courses are designated elective. Specialized and Science in Perspective (SiP). To fulfil their specialized and science in perspective (SiP) elective requirements, students are offered a curated selection of 25+ relevant options per semester across all ETH departments, which they can chose. Alternatively, students can propose courses relevant for their elective coursework study goals under the supervision of their program tutor. Projects. Project coursework begins with the second semester Innovation Leadership (IL) course which embeds student teams within local companies and focuses on topics of management, economics, and innovation within a highly reflective course feedback structure, where students outline their own learning goals and objectives. Additional key project course focuses on topics in lean, integrated and digital project delivery and uses a flipped classroom model, and the capstone third semester Integrated Design Project (IDP), which will be discussed in greater detail in later sections

Fig. 2 ETH specialized master in integrated building systems—curriculum sequence

Educating Future Professionals for Decarbonization and Digitalization …

33

IDP, and the mini-research semester project require that students apply the crosssection of knowledge gained in the first year of coursework in a team design project. The capstone master thesis projects requires that students engage in a research project of larger scope than the semester project with a duration of six months.

3.3 Aggregate Student Demographic Trends (2014–2021) Mobility. From 2014–2021 EU applicants made up the majority of the students attending the program at 33.3%. Students of Swiss origin came next at 25.6%, and East Asian applicants followed at 18.6%. South, South East, and Central Asian students made up 5.4% of the aggregate class mix with North American representation at 6.2%. All other represented regional categories of Non-EU Europe, South America, the Middle East, Oceana / Australia and Africa were under 5% respectively. To date, forty-four nationalities are represented in the MIBS program. Gender. In aggregate from 2014 to 2021, the program accepted 50.4% of qualified females and 49.6% of qualified male applicants. When reviewing the gender trend in students who actually attended the program, this balance is flipped, with 56.6% male attendance to the program and 43.4% of women in attendance, which still reflects a female percentage higher than the reported ETH wide 33% average. Educational Background. The aggregate education profile of accepted applicants (n = 241) from 2014 to 2021 in descending magnitude was: Civil Engineering (30.0%); Architecture (29.8%); Environmental Engineering (13.1%); Mechanical Engineering (10.3%); Architectural Engineering (6.7%); Energy Systems Engineering (7.1%); Climate Engineering (1.3%); with Electrical Engineering, Physics, Industrial Engineering, and Management each under 1% respectively. Alumni in the Workforce. Currently, the total program student body size is stable between 50 and 65 students in varying stages of program completion at any given semester. This is due to the trend that although the study program is organized so that it can be competed in 4 semesters, many students opt to complete the program in 5–6 semesters to take additional specialized coursework or to take a semester leave and work in industry. To better understand how MIBS graduates were being placed in the workforce and gather feedback on the program curriculum, in November 2020 an online alumni survey was conducted. Forty-five of forty-nine program graduates (91.8%) responded to the survey and findings regarding employment outcomes are summarized here. Preliminary findings indicate that employment outcomes for MIBS graduates are high with 88.9% currently employed (n = 45). Of those, 82.5% were in permanent positions, 7.5% in PhD positions, 5% were self-employed and the remaining 5% in paid internships (n = 40). Following graduation alumni have spread around the globe with the highest concentration retained in Switzerland (66.7%), followed by the EU (20.5%), North America (5.1%), East Asia (5.1%) and Australia/Oceana (2.6%) (n = 39).

34

A. Schlueter and K. Bharathi

4 The Integrated Design Project Course A critical aim of the MIBS curriculum is to cultivate future professionals with the perspective that all of the disciplines included in the design process are co-designers. Therefore, the IDP course format explicitly does not instruct students to follow what in current building design practice is often called ‘integrative’ or ‘whole systems design’. Typically, such design methodologies optimize “each component of a system independently,” leading “to non-optimal complete systems, especially when energy efficiency sustainability becomes a goal” [35]. To recap, in this chapter, the terms ‘integrative,’ ‘integrated design,’ or ‘integration’ is used on a process level in two ways. First, understood as cross-disciplinary integration, it involves the active collaboration of a diverse group of specialists over various stages in a project, and ideally, throughout the lifecycle of a building. The second use of integration denotes an individual’s capacity to think and act across different domains and synthesize them within a project. In the MIBS program every student cohort is a multi-disciplinary group by design, and therefore, from the start of their studies must necessarily consider the perspectives of their fellow students coming from different educational backgrounds. Prior to IDP, students in the program have been encouraged in their interdepartmental MIBS coursework to reconsider what genuinely integrative and sustainable design approaches entail on differing scales and critically, from many different disciplinary perspectives. This section outlines the Integrated Design Project (IDP) course, which is one of the project-based learning elements central to the MIBS program curriculum. In this course, students work in groups to tackle a real-world design problem, usually the design and concept development of a group of buildings in an urban context. The task resembles a typical large, open and complex problem, which requires the students to deal with characteristics as they are found in real design and planning settings. This includes: unclear and varying spatial, temporal, and domain boundaries; different types of often incomplete information; a large design space of possible solutions; mixed-disciplinary student teams of varying knowledge and competencies; and not least, the diverse agendas of different stakeholders.

4.1 Preparatory Coursework In the first and second semesters leading up to the IDP course, students develop relevant competencies through fundamental, core, project, and specialized coursework. A strong foundation is created through subject-specific competencies on a wide range of topics including building systems, renewable energy, building physics, spatial development, and building process. This includes courses that address concepts, tools, and technology, in for example, energy systems, HVAC systems, building controls, economics, and innovation management. Additional courses focus on simulation such as building simulation and computer fluid dynamics, as well as data analytics

Educating Future Professionals for Decarbonization and Digitalization …

35

and machine learning, to supports students in obtaining relevant methods to analyze problems and effectively visualize the results. In the second semester Innovation Leadership (IL) project course [40], students develop their reflective capacities, personal goal setting abilities, and social competences by collaboratively developing a business case within a real company. Over the course of the semester, the groundwork for effective interdisciplinary collaboration is explicitly fostered. Specifically, students set their own learning goals and are coached in 1-on-1 settings on how to communicate with colleagues from different educational and cultural backgrounds, cultivate a greater level of self-reflection, and pro-actively develop solution-oriented strategies to resolve conflicts within working groups over the course of the semester.

4.2 IDP Course Design and Program The IDP course primarily focuses on deepening method-specific competencies that build upon subject-specific competencies. Method-specific competencies are expanded by learning and applying new methods such as information retrieval, building simulation, data analysis and visualization. Additionally, in IDP students are asked explicitly to grapple with ill-defined boundary conditions in relation to time constraints and resource limitations within a team setting, an approach which fosters social and personal competences. For example, students must develop good self-management skills and group-management strategies to factor in the time needed to run different simulations to explore their design proposals, very similar to what they will experience outside of academia in practice. This also requires that students individually and within their teams make decisions regarding the type and resolution of modeling and simulation they prioritize for to support and develop their joint project work. Task. In IDP the design task provided to the students is either a real or a simulated case of a larger design task. Selection criteria for the task are its design scope, its boundary conditions, and the availability and involvement of stakeholders. The design scope is set for ‘zero emissions,’ meaning that the students are asked to develop a design with minimal operational and embedded carbon emissions. This entails considering energy demand, energy supply systems, occupancy, and choice of construction and materials. The spatial scale chosen varies between three and 40 buildings to also capture the urban context as well as potential interdependencies between buildings regarding their energy consumption and supply systems. Projects are then evaluated on a total lifecycle carbon perspective that includes operational, embedded, avoided, stored carbon, using a carbon accounting framework in coherence with WSBC [41]. At the beginning of the semester, students are provided with the site and a first rudimentary building design, which sets base parameters such as site setting, orientation, building use, and floor area ratio. This is complemented by a site visit and a first stakeholder meeting with the client and the executing architect. At the beginning of

36

A. Schlueter and K. Bharathi

the integrated design task stands the reflection of the design target ‘zero emissions’, which immediately prompts discussions about boundaries and how to account for different types of carbon throughout the building lifecycle. Students are provided with definitions and methods for carbon accounting as a suggestion for their design work but are asked to critically reflect on these throughout their design. Exercise Structure. The design task of the students is structured in five interlinked modules, four of which are given, plus one elective module out of a set of 4–5 options. In the four mandatory ones, students are asked to execute all the relevant steps for an integrated project design. The design group work starts with assessing the local climate and renewable energy resources. Based on an understanding of the local context, students then explore relevant initial design parameters such as massive versus lightweight construction, façade opening ratios, glazing properties, and others and their impact on energy demand and comfort. After setting the building properties, students then assess the building energy demand for heating, cooling, ventilation, and additional electricity for appliances and lighting. In a subsequent step, the supply systems are defined and dimensioned to investigate interdependencies with building parameters such as envelope surfaces and properties and linking back to the initial assessment of renewable energy resources assessed in the first module. After fully defining the building, its design, construction, HVAC and energy supply systems, the total carbon is assessed. Aggregating operational, upfront and stored carbon, students investigate the impact on their design decisions over the building lifecycle. As residual carbon emissions are unavoidable, strategies to avoid or capture additional carbon outside of the building boundary are critically reflected and, if coherent with the overall design concept, included. Group Work. The students work in interdisciplinary groups of varying size. Due to the interdisciplinary nature of the program this means collaborating with team members coming from different backgrounds such as architecture, management, or engineering fields such as civil, mechanical, electrical, or environmental sciences. Different group sizes between two and eight students have been explored during the different iterations of the course. Large group sizes were used during the initial research phase, which aimed at acquiring the relevant background information and boundary conditions valid for all students in the following design task. Over the years, groups sizes have been gradually reduced as the collaboration has proven to be more effective in smaller groups, and to reduce coordination efforts for the students. Supervision. The student groups receive weekly supervision by an interdisciplinary teaching team, as well as three feedback meetings with stakeholders, with the teaching team and professors involved. For two meetings, the mid-term and final reviews, students prepare their current state of work and their final designs, respectively. Throughout the design course, a digital collaboration platform is used for the students to upload and display their design development. This can be accessed by all student groups, the teaching team, and the stakeholders. The layout templates provided through the platform can also be used to present during mid-term and final reviews. Challenges. Over the course of the semester, regular and frequent design reviews with course teaching assistants and external stakeholders, support each student team

Educating Future Professionals for Decarbonization and Digitalization …

37

to effectively prepare and present their concepts, designs, and analyses to a varying group of stakeholders, who range from interested non-experts to subject experts. By mid-term and final presentations, student teams are guided to weave their extensive work into a complete and coherent project, building a strong narrative that is supported by their analyses. Specifically, their analyses include, but are not limited to 3D models, physical mock-ups, data visualizations, and conceptual schematics. The main teaching frame for students in the IDP course consists of being exposed to a large, complex problem to solve with many open questions while lacking information and a limited amount of time in a student team with mixed educational backgrounds. For the majority of the students, this is the first time they face iterative problem solving within a group setting more akin to how design projects are approached in the studio. Throughout the course, all of the students need to develop their own approach to the work, while synchronizing their efforts within their respectively diverse teams. Also, often additional skills needed to answer project-specific questions are acquired independently by team members with little support. For some of the students with engineering backgrounds, who are not familiar with studio and design culture, the regular, fast-paced presentation and feedback cycle on their work is a new and sometimes challenging learning environment, given the large effort students invest in their projects. For some students coming from an architecture background, the need to freeze design states at various points during the design process to allow quantitatively assessing them can be frustrating.

4.3 Design Platforms and Tools As outlined in previous sections, digital design, simulation, knowledge management, and presentation tools not only play an important role in the IDP course, but also throughout the course and the MIBS program. The idea behind this is that students obtain digital literacy and method-specific skills on how to navigate through different types of digital environments in order to use the productively during a challenging and time-constrained design task. This way, students learn which tools are compatible with their workflows, and which data can be interchanged between different domains and processes. While choosing the right mix of toolsets is left to the students, support from the teaching team is provided in the selection of tools. In courses leading up to the IPD, students have been already been using digital tools for specific tasks. This includes various tools for building energy demand, HVAC and solar systems design, and life cycle analysis. Some of the students have furthermore acquired additional computational skills for more detailed energy and climate systems design, for example via toolsets based on the 3D Modeling platform Rhino / Grasshopper such as Ladybug tools, [42], HIVE [17], the City Energy Analyst [43] or climate studio [44]. In terms of format options to support student learning, a digital knowledge platform embedded in a learning management system (LMS) is provided as a central teaching repository. This platform provides subject-specific and method-specific

38

A. Schlueter and K. Bharathi

information in the form of course material and a repository of case studies, which are documented in high detail. To provide guidelines on the process, an integrated design process walk-through is provided, which directly links and embeds a variety of tools to be used at designated steps in the process. Additionally, students have access to variety of open online courses (MOOC), where they can acquire tool-specific skills and also earn course credits. One current example of this is HIVE [45], a low-barrier building energy modeling tool embedded in the 3D modeling environment Rhino/ Grasshopper.

4.4 Example of Student Results An exemplary result of a student group of the Integrated Design Project (IDP) course from the Fall semester of 2021 is shown in Fig. 3a–f. The modules follow a stepped, integrated design process, adding information at each stage necessary for decision making in the next stage. As a result, students have analyzed the climatic conditions, energy and material potentials on side, estimated the energy demand, have designed supply systems for energy, heat, cold and air, and have assessed their design regarding carbon neutrality. The latter is expressed in delineating different types of carbon such as upfront carbon, stored carbon through biomass, operational carbon and residual carbon to be offset. To achieve the results, they apply a multitude of digital tools for modeling and simulation. Receiving training on data visualization in previous courses they utilize suitable representations to present their findings to stakeholders and peers. The variety of representations includes 3D graphics, schematic diagrams, different graph types, hand sketches, etc.

5 Discussion This chapter outlines the potential of both decarbonization and digitalization to radically shift how the industry conceptualizes and practically manages the entire life cycle of the building stock from planning, construction, and operation through the end of life to reuse. Focused on how these trends shape the challenges involved in educating future professionals, the role of higher education in developing effective pedagogical approaches and fostering a range of competencies—subject-specific, method-specific, personal and social—is acknowledged as central to responding to these demands. For more than a decade, educating for integrated design has been an ongoing aim within professional practice approaches to upskilling and the European higher education landscape. While a mix of pedagogical formats are recognized as necessary to address the wide breadth of sustainability topics and foster competences effectively in students, project- and/or problem-based learning was one of the three most highly ranked for correlated pedagogic effect and notably focused

Educating Future Professionals for Decarbonization and Digitalization …

39

40

A. Schlueter and K. Bharathi

◄Fig. 3 a IDP Student Work, Module 1 (2021) Students: Leonard Schoenfelder and David Morroni, A/S Teaching Assistants: Bharath Seshadri, Valeria Piccioni; Project Architect: JOM Architects, Stefan Oeschger; Client: Regionalwerke Baden (RWB). b IDP Student Work, Module 2 (2021) Students: Leonard Schoenfelder and David Morroni, A/S Teaching Assistants: Bharath Seshadri, Valeria Piccioni; Project Architect: JOM Architects, Stefan Oeschger; Client: Regionalwerke Baden (RWB). c IDP Student Work, Module 3 (2021) Students: Leonard Schoenfelder and David Morroni, A/S Teaching Assistants: Bharath Seshadri, Valeria Piccioni; Project Architect: JOM Architects, Stefan Oeschger; Client: Regionalwerke Baden (RWB). d IDP Student Work, Module 4 (2021) Students: Leonard Schoenfelder and David Morroni, A/S Teaching Assistants: Bharath Seshadri, Valeria Piccioni; Project Architect: JOM Architects, Stefan Oeschger; Client: Regionalwerke Baden (RWB). e IDP Student Work, Module 5 (2021) Students: Leonard Schoenfelder and David Morroni, A/S Teaching Assistants: Bharath Seshadri, Valeria Piccioni; Project Architect: JOM Architects, Stefan Oeschger; Client: Regionalwerke Baden (RWB). f IDP Student Work, Module 6 (2021) Students: Leonard Schoenfelder and David Morroni, A/S Teaching Assistants: Bharath Seshadri, Valeria Piccioni; Project Architect: JOM Architects, Stefan Oeschger; Client: Regionalwerke Baden (RWB)

in the more practical domain. The need for integrated approaches to tackle decarbonization and the challenges of digital transformation are closely linked. Both are strongly connected to the necessity to develop broader building design competencies in the workforce, as well as the need to create a digital infrastructure to manage the building stock. A key aspect of the review literature presented here highlights that competences can only truly be acquired through repeated application in professional practice. Strongly in line with this perspective, the ETH Zurich’s Master in Integrated Building Systems (MSc IBS or MIBS) program has developed its interdepartmental curriculum and overarching pedagogical approach to systematically provide students with fundamental knowledge, core skills, and exposure to both self-organized work, as well as facilitated team processes that each individual to utilize and emulate in their applied practice. This underscores a varied course format approach, but also the high value of project-based, integrated design work, which replicates realistic project settings and team dynamic management in safe learning spaces. MIBS is a program explicitly designed to flexibly address these challenges. In this section, observations are shared from the authors’ involvement with the MIBS program and its students.

5.1 Challenges of Interdisciplinarity in Practice The MIBS program was created together with stakeholders from practice in Switzerland to respond to a demand for interdisciplinary and systemic competence. Despite the reported high retention rate of MIBS graduates by alumni within Switzerland, when the first graduates entered the job market, Swiss employers initially struggled with how to place program graduates within existing engineering or design categories and hiring practices. As one graduate who responded to the November 2020 alumni survey observed:

Educating Future Professionals for Decarbonization and Digitalization …

Fig. 3 (continued)

41

42

Fig. 3 (continued)

A. Schlueter and K. Bharathi

Educating Future Professionals for Decarbonization and Digitalization …

Fig. 3 (continued)

43

44

Fig. 3 (continued)

A. Schlueter and K. Bharathi

Educating Future Professionals for Decarbonization and Digitalization …

Fig. 3 (continued)

45

46

A. Schlueter and K. Bharathi The Swiss market was (I am not sure to which extent this changed in the last years) not really open to the idea of our Master, compared to more conventional and direct studies. Somehow [it was] very often confused with a BIM specialist (maybe because of the name). I finally found what I was looking for but [it] wasn’t so easy. I feel that outside Switzerland there are more opportunities.

While another alumni responded: I loved studying in the MIBS program: it was diverse and meaningful! But now that I’m looking for a job, I realize that the market is not ready for our skills and knowledge sets.

Notably, despite an expressed need, Swiss industry initially had no experience with the competence profiles of MIBS graduates and their capabilities, nor a suitable frame of reference. This observation is consistent with the European trends, where evolving competency management in the labor market is recognized as a critical issue for an upskilled or reskilled workforce to be able to successfully apply their knowledge toward meeting the challenges of decarbonization and digitalization. However, this is improving as observed by another graduate who responded to the survey: The program offers the students various possibilities and options for their professional career, depending on their background. This is clearly depicted in the fact that people from my year are working in a wide pool of companies, from planning and technical offices to consultancies or even banks.

To date, MIBS graduates have been employed to start new and experimental teams in design and engineering firms heavily linked to new digital processes and innovation, with some local firms having recruited entire groups of graduates. Local domestic employers are also now placing job advertisements specifically requesting MIBS graduates to apply. Additionally, many graduates have been recruited to work in a variety of international engineering and consulting firms, software companies, and planning offices, whereas others have remained in academia, pursuing research, or their own independent consultancies.

5.2 Concluding Remarks Running the ETH MIBS program for eight years has allowed for preliminary observations about interdepartmental study programs and integrated design coursework as vehicles to tackle the challenges outlined in this chapter. On a broader curriculum level, similar to findings from other European institutions, interdepartmental coordination has sometimes been challenging to harmonize differing departmental credit weightings of courses, as well as pedagogical approaches, an issue that became more visible with the need to create courses tailored to meet the needs and mixed skillsets of students coming from architecture and engineering backgrounds. Additionally, as the program begins to mature, the need to develop a process to proactively develop new bespoke MIBS project courses has been recognized. In contrast, regularly updating the MIBS specialized, core, and fundamental course offerings

Educating Future Professionals for Decarbonization and Digitalization …

47

from the wide offering of excellent courses across ETH Zurich has been relatively straightforward to implement. Additionally, in line with the notion of collaborative competence management and the role curriculums play in supporting the transition between competence profiles, next steps for the program would involve the development of a process to regularly evaluate the MIBS curriculum and its integrative approach in order to further develop and refine it [46]. Specifically, via survey and interview methods program efficacy in training relevant competences for integrative design could be verified and potentially corelated to workforce trends and perceptions. It is understood that the current iteration of the program curriculum will likely need to be modified in the years ahead to continue to respond to the changing needs of decarbonization and digitalization. Therefore, proactive, strategic steps to support the program’s ability to anticipate and adapt in terms of curriculum offerings and organizational structure should be taken. In terms of the Integrated Design Project (IDP) course discussed in this chapter, it was observed that effective integrated designers require (1) an understanding of enough heuristic knowledge to grasp key interdependencies, as well as (2) enough applied experience of knowledge to effectively break down the complexity of the design problem. Both are types of knowledge which novices typically lack. As noted previously, the terms ‘integrative,’ ‘integrated design,’ or ‘integration’ are used in this chapter on a process level and deployed in two ways: (1) as a cross-disciplinary team of specialists collaborating in a project over various stages, and (2) in an individual capacity to synthesize different knowledge domains within a project proposal. In many classes of the IDP, it has been observed that some student groups apply the first concept of integration, while other groups, apply the second. The first definition followers, the group of specialists, require both a strong joint goal or robust vision of the group, as well as a high degree of openness towards one another to accept the contributions of the other team members. If either requirement is no longer met during the course of the semester or communication within the group is lacking, there is a risk of members reverting to their respective silo of interests and skills, and the potential of project integration—to become more than the sum of its optimized parts—is often not realized. The second definition followers approach integration in an individual capacity, which is very challenging, but bears the highest potential for excellent results. For the conceptual and early design stages this can be done by a single person or in small teams. In such groups, each participant fully understands the entire scope of the task, its interconnections and dependencies or is capable to share expertise within the team to develop a joint understanding of the problem. For the detailed design stages, each team member focuses on a specific part of the co-defined task without losing perspective on the overall project. This focus can be based on specific strengths or interests of the team members. Currently at the ETH Department of Architecture, the Chair of Architecture and Building Systems has been exploring other alternative formats to facilitate integrated design processes, spanning from semester long coursework formats with advanced architecture design students (i.e. Integrated Design Studio or ID; ARCH Focus Work), as well as weeklong workshop formats that mix MIBS students with architecture students (i.e. BIPV workshop). The aim of these diverse course formats

48

A. Schlueter and K. Bharathi

are to encourage students to apply knowledge previously acquired in architectural design studios within a clearly guided process composed of sequentially linked tasks. While architecture students start with a basic set of subject-specific and methodological competencies in sustainable construction, building physics, building technology, comfort and carbon accounting, these courses (i.e. ID, ARCH focus work, BIPV workshop) are their first integrated exercise outside of the respective subject-specific classes, and students cannot solely resort to the heuristics they have learned in those formats. Notably similar to the MIBS IDP course presented in this chapter, it has been observed by the instructors of all of these formats that students highly benefit from well-structured, interconnected exercises; regular, constructive feedback; options for self-driven online learning; as well as access to relevant, low-barrier tool sets to support evidence-based decision making throughout the design process. For the students participating in these teaching formats, often the most challenging step is to develop the initial idea and to create the conceptual narrative of how to synergistically link the fields of architectural, urban design, and planning to the diversity of approaches and options to achieve decarbonization. While recognizing the scale and complexity of the design problems given to students are challenging in scope, it is likely that this is also due to the reality that discussions of decarbonization and its implications on almost every aspect of architectural design have not yet been fully established throughout architectural curriculums. Currently offered as a specialized degree within an architectural department, the creation of the MIBS program reflects an effort to meet this educational gap. However, as long as its curriculum is treated as specialized knowledge by the design, planning, and construction fields, rather than as fundamental building blocks to facilitate integration—the possibilities to develop future-proof architectures will be limited. Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge foremost, ETH rector Prof. Dr. Sarah Springman and the entire ETH executive board for their strong support in the creation of the MIBS study program. Furthermore, we would like to acknowledge all of the tutors, instructors, and administrative team members who make excellent teaching, program development and delivery in the MIBS program possible. It is very much an interdepartmental effort. Additionally, a special thanks to the 2014-2021 teaching team of the Integrated Design Project (IDP) course for their incredible work and dedication to making this course a success: Dr. Jimeno Fonseca, Dr. Amr Elesawy, Stefan Caranovic, Bharath Seshadri and Valeria Piccioni. Lastly, many thanks to Prof. Dr. Guillaume Habert for his valuable input to IDP.

Educating Future Professionals for Decarbonization and Digitalization …

49

References 1. European University Association. Energy Transition and the Future of Energy Research, Innovation and Education: An Action Agenda for European Universities. Brussels, Belgium: European Platform of Universities in Energy Research & Education. (2017). https://eua.eu/downlo ads/publications/energy-transition.pdf 2. Brunsgaard, C., Dvoˇráková, P., Wyckmans, A., Stutterecker, W., Laskari, M., Almeida, M., Kabele, K., Magyar, Z., Bartkiewicz, P., & Op ’t Veld, P. (2014). Integrated energy design— education and training in cross-disciplinary teams implementing energy performance of buildings directive (EPBD). Building and Environment, 72, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv. 2013.10.011 3. ETH MSc Master in Integrated Building Systems Homepage. https://master-buildingsystems. ethz.ch. Accessed 01 March 2022. 4. United Nations Environment Programme. (2020). 2020 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction: Towards a Zero-Emission, Efficient and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector. Nairobi. 5. C40 Cities—A Global Network of Mayors Taking Urgent Action to Confront the Climate Crisis and Create a Future Where Everyone Can Thrive. C40 Cities. https://www.c40.org/. Accessed 27 April 2022. 6. IEA. World Energy Outlook 2020’ Paris: IEA. (2020). https://www.iea.org/reports/world-ene rgy-outlook-2020. 7. Saretta, E., Caputo, P., & Frontini, F. (2019). A review study about energy renovation of building facades with BIPV in urban environment. Sustainable Cities and Society, 44, 343–355. https:/ /doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.10.002 8. European Commission and Directorate-General for Environment. (2021). Level(s), A common language for building assessment. Publications Office. https://doi.org/10.2779/34137 9. DGNB e.V.—Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen, https://www.dgnb.de/de/ind ex.php. Accessed 2022/04/28. 10. Deckert, A., Dembski, F., Ulmer, F., & Ruddat, M. (2020). Digital tools in stakeholder participation for the german energy transition. Can digital tools improve participation and its outcome? In The role of public participation in energy transitions (pp. 161–177). Academic Press. https:/ /www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978012819515400009X 11. Jones, D., Snider, C., Nassehi, A., Yon, J., & Hicks, B. (2020). Characterising the digital twin: A systematic literature review. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, 29, 36–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2020.02.002 12. Lydon, G. P., Caranovic, S., Hischier, I., & Schlueter, A. (2019). Coupled simulation of thermally active building systems to support a digital twin. Energy and Buildings, 202, 109298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.07.015 13. Schlueter, A., & Thesseling, F. (2009). Building information model based energy/exergy performance assessment in early design stages. Automation in Construction, 18(2), 153–163. https:/ /doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2008.07.003 14. Chen, Q., Adey, B., Haas, C., & Hall. D. (2020). Using look-ahead plans to improve material flow processes on construction projects when using BIM and RFID technologies. Construction Innovation, 20(3), 471–508. https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-11-2019-0133 15. Çetin, S., De Wolf, C., & Bocken, N. (2021). Circular digital built environment: An emerging framework. Sustainability, 13(11), 6348. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116348 16. Shi, Z., Fonseca, J., & Schlueter, A. (2021). A parametric method using vernacular urban block typologies for investigating interactions between solar energy use and urban design. Renewable Energy, 165, 823–841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.10.067 17. Elesawy, A. (2018). HIVE parametric tool—A simplified energy simulation tool for educating architecture students. In Kepczynska-Walczak, A., Bialkowski, S. (Eds.), Computing for a better tomorrow—proceedings of the 36th ECAADe conference (vol. 1, pp. 657–666). Lodz University of Technology, Lodz, Poland, (19–21 September 2018). CUMINCAD. http://pap ers.cumincad.org/cgi-bin/works/2015%20+dave=2:/Show?ecaade2018_297

50

A. Schlueter and K. Bharathi

18. ClimateStudio—Advanced Daylighting, Electric Lighting, and Conceptual Thermal Analysis. https://www.solemma.com/climatestudio. Accessed 28 April 2022. 19. García de Soto, B., Agustí-Juan, I. Hunhevicz, J., Joss, S., Graser, K., Habert, G., & Adey, B. T. (2018). Productivity of digital fabrication in construction: cost and time analysis of a robotically built wall. Automation in Construction, 92, 297–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aut con.2018.04.004 20. Dillenburger, B., & Hansmeyer, M. (2014). Printing architecture: Castles made of sand. In F. Gramazio, M. Kohler, & S. Langenberg (Eds.), FABRICATE: Negotiating design & making. ETH Zurich. 21. Jipa, A., Barentin, C. C., Lydon, G., Rippmann, M., Chousou, G., Lomaglio, M., Schlueter, A., Block, P., Dillenburger, B. (2019). 3D-printed formwork for integrated funicular concrete slabs. In Proceedings of IASS Annual Symposia (pp. 1–8). International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures (IASS). 22. Mozer, M. C., Hodier, R. H., Anderson, M., Vidmar, L., Cruickshank III, R. F, Miller, D. (2013). The neural network house: An overview. In Current trends in connectionism: Proceedings of the 1995 Swedish conference on connectionism. Psychology Press. 23. Schlaepfer, M., Chew, H. J., Yean, S., Lee, B. Using mobility patterns for the planning of vehicle-to-grid infrastructures that support photovoltaics in cities. [Cs, Eess], December 30, 2021. http://arxiv.org/abs/2112.15006 24. Peng, Y., Rysanek, A., Nagy, Z., & Schlueter, A. (2018). Using machine learning techniques for occupancy-prediction-based cooling control in office buildings. Applied Energy, 211, 1343– 1358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.12.002 25. Wu, A. N., & Biljecki, F. (2021). Roofpedia: Automatic mapping of green and solar roofs for an open roofscape registry and evaluation of urban sustainability. Landscape and Urban Planning, 214, 104167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104167 26. Energieschweiz Homepage. https://www.energieschweiz.ch/bildung/bildungsoffensive-geb aeude/. Accessed 12 April 2022. 27. European University Association (UAE). Energy Research and Education at European Universities: The UNI-SET Universities Survey Report. Brussels, Belgium: European Platform of Universities in Energy Research & Education. (2017). https://eua.eu/resources/publications/ 289:energy-research-and-education-at-european-universities.html 28. European University Association (UAE). Energy Transition and the Future of Energy Research, Innovation and Education: An Action Agenda for European Universities. Brussels, Belgium: European Platform of Universities in Energy Research & Education. (2017). https://eua.eu/ downloads/publications/energy-transition.pdf 29. European University Association (UAE). Energy Research and Education at European Universities: The UNI-SET Universities Survey Report. (2017). 30. Pg. 17, European University Association (UAE). Energy Research and Education at European Universities: The UNI-SET Universities Survey Report. (2017). 31. Bharathi, K. (2013). Engaging complexity. Design Issues, 29(4), 82–93. https://doi.org/10. 1162/DESI_a_00232 32. Bharathi, K., & Nicol, L. A. (2013). Between research and practice: Experts on implementing sustainable construction. Buildings, Special Issue: Environmentally Conscious Architecture, 3(4), 739–765. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings3040739 33. Lozano, R., Barreiro-Gen, M., Lozano F., & Sammalisto K. (2019). Teaching sustainability in European higher education institutions: Assessing the connections between competences and pedagogical approaches. Sustainability, 11(1602), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061602 34. Aye, L., McNiven, B., & Holzer, D. (2022). Fostering integrated design in an academic environment: Process and a method. Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, 46(1), 1–10. https:// doi.org/10.3846/jau.2022.14948 35. Zeiler, W. (2015). Integral design: The new roles for architect and engineers for developing nearly zero energy buildings. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 9(2), 137–156. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJISD.2015.068786

Educating Future Professionals for Decarbonization and Digitalization …

51

36. Simpson, M., Underwood, J., Shelbourn, M., Carlton, D., Aksenova, G., & Mollasalehi, S. (2019). Pedagogy and upskilling network: Evolve or die - transforming the productivity of built environment professionals and organisations of digital built Britain through a new, digitally enabled ecosystem underpinned by the mediation between competence supply and demand. Pedagogy and Upskilling CDBB Network. Centre for Digital Built Britain (CDBB), University of Cambridge. https://www.cdbb.cam.ac.uk/news/publication-final-report-pedagogy-andupskilling-network 37. ETH Competence Framework. https://ethz.ch/en/the-eth-zurich/education/policy/eth-compet encies-teaching.html. Accessed 19 April 2022. 38. ETH Zurich Homepage. https://ethz.ch/en/the-eth-zurich/portrait.html. Accessed 12 April 2022. 39. Ghonim, M., & Ewed, N. (2018). Investigating elective courses in architectural education. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 7, 235–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2018.03.006 40. Course Website Innovation Leadership, Chair of Technology and Innovation Management (TIM). http://www.vvz.ethz.ch/lerneinheitPre.do?semkez=2021S&lerneinheitId=150 771&lang=en. Accessed 27 April 2022. 41. World GBC Net Zero Carbon Buildings Commitment Expands to Include Embodied Carbon. n.d. World Green Building Council. https://worldgbc.org/news-media/commitment-includesembodied-carbon. Accessed 01 May 2022. 42. Ladybug Tools|Home Page, https://www.ladybug.tools/. Accessed 05 May 2022. 43. City Energy Analyst (CEA). https://cityenergyanalyst.com. Accessed 01 May 2022. 44. ClimateStudio—Advanced daylighting, electric lighting, and conceptual thermal analysis. https://www.solemma.com/climatestudio. Accessed 28 April 2022. 45. Course Website Climate Responsive Architecture with Hive, Chair of Architecture and Building Systems. http://www.vorlesungsverzeichnis.ethz.ch/Vorlesungsverzeichnis/lernei nheit.view?lang=en&lerneinheitId=160038&semkez=2022S&ansicht=LEHRVERANSTA LTUNGEN&. Accessed 30 April 2022. 46. ETH Educational Development and Technology (LET) Website. https://ethz.ch/en/the-ethzurich/organisation/departments/educational-development-and-technology.html. Accessed 03 May 2022.

Arno Schlueter is the Director of Studies of the Specialized Master in Integrated Building Systems program at ETH Zurich and leads the MIBS Integrated Design Project (IDP) course. He holds a degree in architecture from the Technical University of Karlsruhe, Germany, as well as a post-graduate degree in computer aided architectural design and a Ph.D. in building systems from ETH Zurich, Switzerland. In his research, he and his interdisciplinary team focus on energy and environmental technologies and systems, and their synergetic integration into buildings and cities using computational approaches for modelling, analysis, and control. He is a full professor of Architecture and Building Systems at the Institute of Technology in Architecture (ITA) at ETH Zurich. Krishna Bharathi is the Program Director of the Specialized of the Master in Integrated Building Systems program at ETH Zurich. A practicing architect registered in the United States and Switzerland, she holds a Bachelor of Psychology from the University of Chicago, a Master of Architecture from the University of Washington, and a Ph.D. in science and technology studies (STS) from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway. Her academic work focuses on judgment and decision making within groups, with a specific focus on pathways for knowledge transfer between academia and practice within the construction and design domains. She is the Executive Director of the Zero Carbon Building Systems Laboratory at ETH Zurich.

Drawing in the University Today: A Tool to Think in Engineering Sílvia Simões

and Pedro Alegria

Abstract This text outlines some considerations on the use of drawing and its diverse capabilities as a tool for thinking, in the context of a university education. We present a case study from the University of Porto, focusing particularly on the study of engineering and its direct involvement with drawing issues. We discuss the concept of drawing and the respective mechanisms of divergence and convergence that are enmeshed in the methodologies used in projectual processes and in which drawing is an instrument of conception and mediation, a tool, and a means of graphic communication. We analyse the importance of the use of digital technologies in the processes of construction/representation of drawing images, assess their impact on teaching methods, and insist on the teaching of drawing as formative discipline. We outline the development of drawing from an artistic activity to a synthetic knowledge organizing tool that brought us to the functional separation between artistic and technical drawing, to understand its capabilities as a teaching tool in the classroom both as a creative and as a synthetic instrument. Keywords Drawing · Borders · Communication · Knowledge · Engineering

1 Introduction The current Industry 4.0 framework aims to reduce lead times for building components and optimize production processes to encourage industrial production. The need for a higher degree of detail accuracy is a force for changing project design methodologies and project digitization methods. The increasing industrialization of construction processes has been changing the way building design is done, introducing new technologies such as 3D printing, 3D big data acquisition and high-speed S. Simões (B) · P. Alegria i2ADS/FBAUP, PT, Porto, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] P. Alegria e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 B. Rangel et al. (eds.), Integrated Project Design, Digital Innovations in Architecture, Engineering and Construction, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32425-3_3

53

54

S. Simões and P. Alegria

communications. To this end, the agents involved must rely on advanced education in technical schools that enable students to deal with the present, but also with future technologies. The University is at the forefront of this process and therefore accessing its position requires direct observation of real cases, which is the aim of the research project currently underway called DRAWinU, researching the activity of Drawing as a universal tool that can be a catalyst to change. Although technology has changed the forms of production and execution of objects, understanding whether the nature of drawing as project is maintained throughout the ages and can be traced back to ancient times is of considerable interest and instrumental to the understanding of its present potential. The same must be said about understanding how drawing came to be a tool for thinking and asking questions, besides its role as a way to communicate that which comes from the world of ideas. This study aims to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of the relationship of students, researchers and teachers from the University of Porto with the activity of drawing. It seeks to understand its uses and operative modes for the development of new learning strategies and research competencies in Higher Education. It focuses on the impact of learning, the promotion of creative thinking, visualspatial reasoning, project methodology and the dissemination of knowledge through drawing. The physical location of this study is the research centres and classrooms of the Faculties of the University of Porto (UP), providing a context where drawing can be evaluated in a common framework of Art and STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics). This coexistence facilitates the realization of their differences but also enables us to find their common ground. In this text we aim to set up the background for the development of the context of drawing that evolved from a generic artistic activity to a synthetic knowledge organizing tool that it is in the STEM disciplines, but that retains its power as a creative tool. We will build this background around the historical and conceptual standpoints to clarify the character of technical drawing which established it as a very important tool, not only to convey information but also as a teaching resource. Its use as a learning tool is the focus of the project DRAWinU: so we will describe it by presenting examples from teachers and students of Porto University. We will start with an example comparing the drawing produced by STEM and Art students to evince their differences. Then we will go through a historical survey that tries to explain how these differences came to be a fact in the present day and that are related to the communicative nature of drawing in project process and that are fundamental to understand the role of drawing in the general scientific endeavour and in the learning processes that concern us here. This will set up a basis to understand its nature and its fundamental role in the learning process in STEM that will be discussed next. In the last part of this text, we will detail our current project DRAWinU and its current results.

Drawing in the University Today: A Tool to Think in Engineering

55

2 Drawing as a Learning Tool The scientific observation of reality is a reductionist one: the analysis of the world is done to isolate the relevant variables and then to model how they affect the system outcome. Therefore, the observation of the world and producing a synthesis of its relevant aspects is paramount to the subsequent comprehension of its workings and development of theories. Drawing is a tool that, by its intrinsically interpretative and finite nature, is exceptionally well suited for this synthetic process. Schematics and diagrams have obviously a synthetic nature, but, less obviously, observation drawings, irrespective of their detail also have this quality. The production of a figure of an object is not just a visual achievement but an intellectual one. Learned knowledge that is pre-existent will affect the result as it affects the interpretation of what one sees and informs the selection of the relevant parts. Knowledge is also important in the evaluation of the result and influences the way the object is seen. This virtuosic circle, seen in Fig. 1, is an important base for the scientific learning process. As the production of drawings is always a production of abstract reductionist discourse, in the classroom, when a student produces a drawing, she is making choices, selecting the relevant variables and can be evaluated in this task and steered, if needed, in the right direction. As can be seen in the example in Fig. 2 the student is drawing only select information and not the whole image as a photo would entail.

educated observation

OBJECT

Previous /learned knowledge

thinking

FIGURE

Fig. 1 Drawing in the learning process

synthesis (interpretation)

drawing (selection)

56

S. Simões and P. Alegria

Fig. 2 Student making a drawing from a microscope observation, Univ. Porto, 2022

As we can see in Fig. 3, the student must use all its observational powers and apply the knowledge she has acquired previously to select what to draw and provide the identification of the relevant parts. This drawing can then be used by the teacher to perceive what is present and what is missing and make corrections. The drawing reflects simultaneously the knowledge of the student of the matter in hand and her capacity of selection when confronted to a real case scenario. The comparison between the results of a student who has the relevant background knowledge about the object and one who does not have that knowledge, in Fig. 4, is very clear in showing the capabilities of drawing as a tool of expressing that knowledge and of evincing the selective powers that knowledge enables. The image on the left, made by a biology student, clearly has a more synthetic nature than the image on the right drawn by an art student. The art student, oblivious of the relevant knowledge draws what she sees, whereas the biology student knows what she is looking at and, therefore, only draws the relevant parts. This comparison between the results obtained by an art student and a biology student when drawing the same physical object makes us realize the difference between the two approaches and the importance of drawing as a way of expressing knowledge and organizing the reality.

Drawing in the University Today: A Tool to Think in Engineering

Fig. 3 “Mouse” (excerpt), Matilde Gomes (student, ICBAS, Univ. Porto), 2018

Fig. 4 Rabit’s ovary, Ana Rocha (left), Mariana Maia (right), 2022

57

58

S. Simões and P. Alegria

In our own time we come to see as natural the difference between a drawing produced by a scientist and one made by an artist. It seems that this separation as somewhat natural, but this came to be true only recently. In fact, up until the XVIII century there was no functional distinction between artistic and scientific drawings. How this came to be is the story we will trace in the next section. We will look to what came to separate technical and artistic drawing, and, in this process, try to perceive what the differences are and what makes technical drawing an important tool in the STEM.

3 From Drawing to Technical Drawing Since ancient times humankind left messages for the people of the future. Scribblings and drawings done upon non-perishable materials became a testimony of their very existence, through the historical record as we can see in Fig. 5. These drawings were mostly mimetic in nature, that is, people drew thing as they saw them. The principles of design to optimize function must underlie all use of tools and therefore, being somewhat natural, there is no need for special methods of transmission. This can be done simply by copying behaviours of more savvy individuals. As humans develop more complex tools more sophisticated design procedures must emerge like optimization, to make the tool more efficient, easy and economical in its production [19], p. 19. These requirements increasingly made it unfeasible to just produce by imitation, and new methods for the transmission of knowledge were

Fig. 5 Coa Valley, stone carving, Portugal, Upper Paleolithic (drawing by the author)

Drawing in the University Today: A Tool to Think in Engineering

59

devised. This can be done by two main avenues: discourse and visual representations. The former lead to writing, the second lead to drawing. Ancient civilizations left us marvellous texts in a myriad of languages. They also left us images of great historical, scientific and socio-cultural value. These act as their voice showing us who they were and what excellent feats have they done. As we are interested here in drawings of a technical nature, we will be focusing our attention on images of machines, construction, etc. We will make a brief walkthrough of drawings of machines and systems, such as the one that can be seen in Fig. 6. Here we can see Trajan himself with his hand on the rudder of a boat. The representation is full of detail, about the vessel’s construction, sailing technique or nautical accessories. This example highlights the important role of representation and early attempts to draw machines faithfully. Up until the Renaissance these representations weren’t made in any systematic way, but there are many attempts to represent reality in an objective way as we can see in Fig. 7. In this twelfth century image, albeit being a heavily theological representation, we can see a detailed representation of a wine making press, complete with screw, adjusting pegs and piston.

Fig. 6 Trajan’s Column, scene 34: Trajan at the helm, 113 CE

60

S. Simões and P. Alegria

Fig. 7 “Reap and Harvest” scene (detail), Apocalypse of Lorvão (pp 172v), Portugal, twelfth century, “Torre do Tombo” National Archive, Lisbon, Portugal

Or in the representation bellow of a northern Portuguese castle, where we can observe the double walling, the tower, the barbicans, the orography, and other buildings and agricultural fields (Fig. 8). These are examples of early technical representations, but are partial and dependent on the author’s interpretation of the way a scene is to be represented. We must wait until the Renaissance to get the first attempts of clarification and a fuller description of technical items (like central point perspective). It is, nevertheless, undeniable that up to the Middle Ages people designed and operated complex machinery, like weapons, siege towers, cranes, lifting machines and built some of the most iconic architectural examples we have such as the Pantheon or Gothic Cathedrals, which are built on a massive scale. Even so, these wondrous realizations had no theoretical basis for they were made using empirical methods, based on experience, and trial and error. Therefore progress was slow. The Renaissance brought about a coming together of science and technology. Technology became increasingly based upon scientific thought. At the same time, better technology allowed for better instrumentation, better observation, and therefore better scientific theories. This virtuous circle started in the Renaissance and set the basis for the progress of the enlightenment centuries [19], p. 31. Although learning in workshops was the established method of technical knowledge transmission since ancient times, it was in this period that these workshops began to produce drawings and representations combining an artistic interpretation with ones of a more abstract and diagrammatic nature, like, for example, the pages of

Drawing in the University Today: A Tool to Think in Engineering

61

Fig. 8 Monção Castle, “The Book of Fortresses”, Duarte de Armas, 1509–1510

Leonardo da Vinci annotated manuscripts, where the focus is on explaining each of the components and how it contributes for the efficiency of the machines. These drawings can be considered precursors of the modern technical drawings as the emphasis is on the technical aspects of the object drawn rather than on artistic preoccupations. In this epoch the Treatise also made its appearance [19], p. 32. As a product of the availability of the new printing technology and the need to organize information, Treatises integrated text and images, often very beautiful ones, as can be seen in the example of Fig. 9. These books aimed at a clear communication to the peers and the integration of the knowledge that derived from the contemporary progress of the sciences, such as anatomy, zoology, botany, and geology, etc., and relied upon great immediacy between text and image. The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries saw an acceleration of the scientific endeavor and the use of drawing as a technical or scientific tool became increasingly important as a means to document their creations and communicate knowledge. The first technical drawings appeared in this period and, in some cases, they were the first to have transmitted technical information [19], p. 62, such as, e.g., dimensions, to be drawn to scale, as can be seen in Fig. 10, or the use of a ruller for scale as in Fig. 11, or legends referenced with letters as can be seen in Fig. 12. In the end of the eighteenth century Gaspard Monge introduced his method of using orthographic projection to describe objects in an objective and unambiguous way as can be seen in Fig. 13. Descriptive geometry became an invaluable tool to scientists, encyclopedists and engineers, as a way to geometric construct views of three dimensional objects. These objects could be real or imagined,

62

S. Simões and P. Alegria

Fig. 9 “Sphaera mundi/[coment.] Cecco d’ Ascoli, Franciscus Capuanus, Jacobus Faber Stapulensis. Theoricae novae planetarum / Georgius Purbachius; [coment.] Franciscus Capuanus” (p.50), Venice, Ed. Simone Bevilacqua, 1499

describing a existing world or a future one, but in a clear way and maintaining internal congruence that made sure that object could be produced as designed. This method produced complete, univocal representations and quickly became essential to technical representation. At this time institutionalized technical teaching became important and representations were often used to teach and, through magazines and popular books, communicated to a wider audience as in Fig. 14. Drawings and projections of machinery, instruments, buildings, real or imagined, could be easily described to scientists or lay persons in ways explanatory of form and function, fulfilling an important didactic and popular means of knowledge transmission. In the nineteenth century there is an enormous industrial development, and the requirements of optimization of processes became even more necessary. The clear and efficient communication of the specifications of machinery and objects made the use of technical drawing pervasive. The need to make these drawings in a standard way, independent of the author’s own idiosyncrasies or style, was a tendency that gained importance throughout this century. The attribution of patents and the first foundation of standardization institutions came about in the twentieth century. The development of a standard way to draw became necessary as a set of rules expressing graphically the construction of objects and organizing information coming from

Drawing in the University Today: A Tool to Think in Engineering

63

Fig. 10 “Old part of Via Appia”, in “Le Antichità Romane” Tom. III tavola III, Giovanni Battista Piranesi, 1756–57

diverse knowledge fields. This standard became known under the term technical drawing. Attempts to use standards are very ancient but they were usually done at a local level, for example, the Portuguese King D. Manuel, introduced in 1521 a weights system that fitted neatly in a box and applied to territory under his rule. This system can be seen in Fig. 15, and was distributed to every district capital city. The introduction of the metric system and the emergence of organizations dedicated to standardization and measurement in all European countries is a phenomenon of the early twentieth century. Such national institutions published standards valid in their country, causing drawing standards to be different across countries. These national organizations coalesced after WW2 into international organizations like the ISO (International Organization for Standardization), which developed international technical drawing regulations. In the 1920’s the world’s first national standards were being published: the DIN 6 was published in 1922 and the BS308 in 1927 [9], p. 3. ISO 128 evolved in dialog with these and other national norms and had its last major revision in 2020. Teaching also became more sophisticated and complex, and the learning was organized in technical schools. Technical drawing provided a transnational base of knowledge sharing and of homogenization of curricula and technical background, as the example in Fig. 16 from a specialized textbook on technical drawing shows.

64

S. Simões and P. Alegria

Fig. 11 “The Portuguese Engeneer”, Book 1, Picture 9, p.633, Manuel de Azevedo Fortes, Lisbon, 1728

Later in the twentieth century Computer design systems started to change the way drawing is made. This change began in the military in the 1950’s and then spread gradually into industrial applications. In 1982 AutoDesk introduces the first AutoCAD System for PCs and has since become the most popular and widely used CAD software. The capacity to use libraries, built upon existing drawings, 2D and 3D tools, made drawing exponentially faster to make and allowed for levels of drawing complexity impossible to achieve in manual drawings. And at the same time maintaining high levels of standardization, communication and sharing among technical agents.

3.1 Evolution of the Concept of Drawing Drawing is a tool used since ancient times. For the greater part of human history there was no distinction between drawing used for technical purposes or drawings made for artistic or other purposes. It is therefore of capital importance to identify why this distinction came to be and why, in the present day, there is a very clear difference in the nature of technical and artistic drawings. These types overlapped each other in ancient times. Their separation is a modern phenomenon. The same overlap marked

Drawing in the University Today: A Tool to Think in Engineering

65

Fig. 12 Tábula VI, “Dictionary of Natural History technical nomenclature”, Domingos Vandelli, Real Officina da Universidade de Coimbra, 1788

66

S. Simões and P. Alegria

Fig. 13 “Planche V”, “Traité de Géométrie descriptive”, Gaspard Monge, 1799

Drawing in the University Today: A Tool to Think in Engineering

67

Fig. 14 “The Construction of an electrical oven”, in “Electricity and Mechanics: practical magazine of engineering and technical teaching”, Luiz de S. Oliva Junior, Year 9, Nº 202, 1918, Lisbon

the existence of artists and technicians, as the same individual frequently played both roles. The famous case of Leonardo da Vinci is exemplary: in a letter to Ludovico Sforza he fashions himself extensively as a hydraulic and military engineer, referring only briefly to his ability to “[…] execute sculpture in marble, bronze and clay. Likewise in painting […]” [11]. Throughout the ages the activity of drawing reflected the dominant thought paradigms of the time. There were four major moments in western thought since antiquity: The first can be identified with Platonism and has a rationalist/idealist basis which corresponds roughly with heavy neo-platonic church views up until the Renaissance. During this period, drawing, painting aimed mainly at representing ideas and not focus on the representation of concrete objects, which is why we find highly stylized figures in churches. This is because the real world was taken to be corrupt and not a good motif to represent. Reality is conceived like Euclidean geometry, based upon ideal premises taken to be true in the “real world”, that is, the world of ideas. The second moment can be identified with Aristotelian views, which were rediscovered by western thought through the Islamic world at the end of the Middle Ages and decisively influenced the Renaissance intellectuals, giving them a more empirical bent. Importance was bestowed upon the real world and its trivial objects. Drawing

68

S. Simões and P. Alegria

Fig. 15 Portuguese weight standard equipment, 1521 [15]

Fig. 16 Example of an up to standard way to draw a “Removed Section”, [22], p. 63

Drawing in the University Today: A Tool to Think in Engineering

69

practices reflected this paradigm change seeking to represent the world faithfully: proportion, anatomy, perspective were (re)discovered. Central point perspective can be taken as a metaphor to the contemporary elevation of the individual, of earthly things, as an egocentric construction reflecting the attitudes of that time [17], p. 154. Measurement of distances and points relative to the “observer” made the individual the judge of the accuracy of the representation. This belief in measurability is bound with rationalist and mathematical criteria. This empirical tendency still influences both the sciences, and drawing, until the present day and was on its utmost height during the enlightenment and its Positivist offshoots in the nineteenth century. In the eighteenth century the confidence that the achievement of knowledge was within the grasp of individuals reached its highest point. In drawing and representation this confidence is still very present in John Ruskin’s teaching based on the concept of the “innocent eye” which assumed an objective observing power that “the perception of these flat stains of colour, merely as such, without consciousness of what they signify- as a blind man would see them if suddenly gifted with sight.” [20], p. 3. Betty Edwards explained this position based on the neuro-biological functions of the brain’s hemispheres [17], p. 156. By the end of the nineteenth century a more pragmatic ethos came into play influenced by socialist movements and psychological sciences that recognized the individual as a force to be reckoned with that influences everything. These views also came to have a great influence. The very realization that the representation depended on how it had been made, and thus could be somehow untrue, or subjective, prompted the search for “objective” methods of representation. Hence the enlightenment efforts that culminated in the geometric representation methods like the Géométrie Descriptive of Gaspard Monge. In science, the myth of the impartial observer or of the existence of closed systems got weakened and by the middle twentieth century a more human view of the construction of science came to be accepted. Subjective expressionism was born: the expression of one’s identity and individuality in a background of mass movements became a driving force for artists. The elevation of subjectivity above objectivity gave rise to the acceptance of drawing with distortions as a truer reflection of the individuality of its author. The artistic movement known as Modernism is born by removing itself from the imperative of accurate representation of the visual world—and adopted the idea of art as a truer representation of the individual. Of course these events were detrimental to communication, clarity and standardization and so began the separation of technical drawing from artistic drawing, as reflection of the separation between art and the sciences. The twentieth century brought about structuralism and its post-structuralist offshoots that cast doubt over the possibility of something being known in any objective way. This is commonly known as a constructivist view, according to which only interpretations of the world can be achieved. Relativism and semiotic dialog are present at every moment of one’s representation of the world, and must have to do not only with one’s inadequacies to perform the task but with cross cultural practices of others that must be recognized as legitimate. Although in the twentieth century several attempts were made to tackle this question by Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend and Bunge, they only served to make us ware of

70

S. Simões and P. Alegria

blind spots and did not substantially change scientific everyday activities, except in the ethics of science field. In the twenty-first century nobody can claim the innocence of the eye and the impact of one’s actions on others must always be taken into account, but the search for objectivity in technical drawing, like science, continues in a largely pre-constructivist ethos.

3.2 The Autonomization of Technical Drawing This separation of technical and artistic drawing follows the same lines that separated Art and Science. The relationship between art and science is ancient. Bacon, in the seventeenth century, sees them as partners in experimentation as an exploration of the world. This partnership was possible because the value function of science and art was the same: the accurate representation of nature. In fact, there was no explicit separation until after the Enlightenment, caused by the refinement of the epistemological demands of science that were not matched in art. After that, the separation became deeper, culminating in the recognition of the “two cultures”, in 1959, by C.P. Snow [23], who affirmed their existence in distinct, independent and in permanent confrontation. This was unavoidable after Art’s psychological turn in the late nineteenth century that valued the subjective above the objective as an instrument to access one’s own conscience. The immediate consequence of this is that only oneself can access the value of the product of our own mind. This notion is still very tainted with the romantic concept of genius and denies power of jurisdiction to others. Only the artist can ascertain the artistic value of the object. This is of course an exaggeration of what happened because the artist never really had the power to singlehandedly elevate something to the status of art as a social construct. But even a little of this power is poisonous to the scientific endeavor where the power of adjudicating scientific value lies always 100% with others: the peers, the scientific community, etc. A technical drawing aims to represent something objectively. As such it is always possible—it is its purpose—to be evaluated by others. There is always an external judgment that will fall on the drawing. Any competent person can evaluate a technical drawing and classify it as good or bad based on external independent criteria. Not so for an artistic drawing for the reasons adduced above. Technical drawing partakes in the reductionist project of science and therefore always produces a synthesis of the reality. Thus, it brings to the foreground the important variables to the thinking process and seeks clarity. It rids itself of anything spurious, extra, unnecessary. Therefore, any preparatory or auxiliary lines without explanatory power are deleted, even if those lines were instrumental to the thought process. If they reveal themselves not to be necessary, they will surely not appear in the final drawing. Again, not so in an artistic drawing, where the residue of what lies beneath is usually valued as an expression of the artistic self. Hence a lot

Drawing in the University Today: A Tool to Think in Engineering

71

of unnecessary information, semi-deleted, confusing parts can coexist in the final drawing. Molina [14], p. 59 bestows upon artistic drawing three characteristics: (1) Since Cennini [6], in the fourteenth century, who was apparently the first to use the word drawing with the modern double meaning of drawing and project, the word drawing refers both to the physical object product of the manipulation of a medium to leave a mark on a support, but also to the mental-material constructive process that leads to a desire to do something from its beginning to its satisfactory outcome. So, the first aspect that something must have to be called a drawing is this process-of-recording nature of the process-of-thought: drawing is the graphic representation of an idea. (2) The second aspect comes from the temporal record of the process that remains in the final product. The act of drawing is itself an investigative process that promotes the search for the concept manipulated by the mind. The practical side of the drawing process: the very act of drawing, which takes place in time, is essential for the final tuning of the mind-image pair. Drawing is the record of the very act of presenting and making visible what the drawing is about. The final image thus brings together a story: the record of the construction of thought over a piece of time—the time of drawing, which can be clearly seen in, for example, the drawing “The Artist’s Mother” by Alberto Giacometti, 1950. (3) The third aspect is the ability to transcribe the artist’s inner Self. Juan Molina states that what gives value to an artistic drawing is its connection to the process in which the artist transforms it into a part of himself, that is, the record of himself: the inevitability of the artist representing himself in his constructions. Savonarola, on the other hand, emphasizes that a painter produces figures according to his personal “concetto” as an invariable phenomenon, an innate characteristic of the painter, a characteristic of painting that the artist cannot fail to produce [26], p. 142. So, technical drawing and artistic drawing have the first aspect (1), the communication of an idea, as a common aim, and differ on the others as can be seen in the Table 1. This sets the background for the present uses of technical drawing. It is an activity that owes its ethos mainly to the pragmatism of the late nineteenth century although the tools it uses are increasingly more sophisticated. The constructive turn of the Table 1 Artistic versus technical drawing (1) Communication

Of an idea formed in the mind

Technical

Artistic

X

X

No (2) Preservation of clarity

Yes

X

Maintaining the testimony of the process and its duration (3) Reflection of its author

Objective and independent of author’s style. Standard Reflection of the author’ s self

X X X

72

S. Simões and P. Alegria

twentieth century that brought to light some ethical preoccupations that were only in part acknowledged. This was to be inevitable as the constructive turn focused mainly in discoursing over ethical and epistemological aspects of sciences and less specifically on technology itself. But awareness of these subjects is increasing and the student of technology should be confronted as early as possible with some of the ethical and epistemological problems that he is ignoring at his own peril, as the recent introduction of social networks have shown us. So, this should be taken as an opportunity by school managers in a world with increasing value set upon these matters.

4 The Communicative Nature of Drawing in Project Process Several factors contribute to the ambiguity of the definition of what is understood by drawing. Much of this ambiguity comes from the diversity of its functions, the area of knowledge in which it works, the materials and supports that it uses and of its purpose. Not all drawings have the same intention, nor do they all start from the same statement, which means that different results can be expected. It is therefore important first to define what we are talking about when we refer to drawing in the context of this text, and in what we are interested in bringing forward in its relationship with the engineering area. How is communication established and how we communicate using drawing in the arts and engineering in so different ways? Drawing is a graphic medium with which we embody ideas from the conceptual world common to various areas of design, providing a link between representation and presentation. Over the centuries drawing achieves a position within the visualization of artistic, scientific, and theoretical exploration that distinguishes it from other forms of communication. The possibility of using images of what we construct mentally means that drawing is summoned to register and inscribe ideas without having to obey a grammatical structure or syntax and can be organised as a non-linear alternative to more discursive ways of communicating, maintaining, nevertheless, the degree of objectivity and pertinence. As previously mentioned, not all drawings have the same origin. Some arise from the need to write down ideas as if they were notes; others have the purpose of solving the problem of the construction of an object like a sculpture or a house. Another type of drawing arises as a need to produce new images in which the record of the process itself and of the action in the production of the image are sought as the result. Drawing is not only the instrument through which we look for answers to problems, but also often the instrument of making thought visible. It can be used to structure new problems, giving space to new knowledge, and functioning as a “search engine” which launches questions and tries to get answers. Fergusson [7] tells us about the relationship between thinking with images, the Mind’s eye, in the engineering field

Drawing in the University Today: A Tool to Think in Engineering

73

and the need for drawing to translate those brain images into images visible to all. He states that most of the information that is thought in engineering is conveyed by drawings. In engineering and architecture or design, where the message must be transmitted objectively, drawing is assumed to be a language capable of translating and communicating thought into the image. Broadly speaking, we can state that limiting drawing to the definition of the graphic record produced on a two-dimensional support, as succinct and synthetic as it is, eliminates much of the important data for understanding the word drawing. The very derivation and evolution of languages contributes to the different meanings of the word, as Luís Martins presents in his text on the etymology of the word [12]. The word comes from the Italian disegno, a word which appeared in the mid-fourteenth century and gave rise to the provincialisms used in other languages, such as dessin in French, diseño in Spanish, design in English and Portuguese desenho. The words in Italian and Portuguese have basically retained a broader meaning linked to the original concept, one that referred not only to a procedure, an act of producing a mark, a sign (de-signo), but also, and mainly, to the thought, the design that this mark projected. In the English language drawing retains the meanings of its original Old English Dragan, meaning to pull or drag [21]. The word draw and other closely-related words like drag, draft and draught all have meanings which come from the idea of pulling something. Like drawing the curtains, or drawing water from a well, or, by opposition: withdrawal. The current word draw retains the meaning of selecting one from a number, like in drawing lots. It retains the sense of bringing by inducement or attraction as in drawing an audience. The action of pulling is paramount to the word drawing and is extended metaphorically in phrases like drawing ideas or drawing inspiration, drawing someone’s attention or drawing a conclusion. So, the word drawing retains a double meaning of pulling, and selecting something in particular from a bigger set. The meaning of forming or tracing a line is from late fifteenth century, and that of a picture or representation is from seventeenth century, and probably stems from the idea of “pulling” a line from the beginning to the end as a kind of registration of the performative act itself. So, in English, as in the Romance languages, the word draw retains the sense of the actual act of producing a mark on a medium, and of selecting something from the world of ideas—the sense of a project. Considering drawing both as a conceptual structure and as a material structure, we can say that drawing is the action of establishing knowledge, simultaneously occupying the space of conceptualisation, formalisation and communication, whose intention is to embody, formalise, concretise, and ultimately to show an image. To draw is, in a broad sense, to present, to represent, to make present, to make visible through the use of graphic signs. In fact, this hybrid quality of drawing, of which the undefinition of its limits and boundaries are part and parcel, requires, for better understanding it, a reflection upon the problem of the meaning of drawing when we refer to it in this text. Drawing is considered as a graphic means of inscription/ transcription [13] of thought into an image, which is defined in the context of a determined practice.

74

S. Simões and P. Alegria Visual thinking is necessary in engineering. A major portion of engineering information is recorded and transmitted in a visual language that is in effect the lingua franca of engineers in the modern world. In this language that permits “readers” of technologically explicit and detailed drawings to visualize the forms, the proportions, and the interrelationships of the elements that make up the object depicted. It is the language in which designers explain to makers exactly what they want them to construct. [7], p. 41

As an instrument that mediates graphically and at the disposal of visual thought, it has the availability to encourage and develop critical reflection on the process itself and exercises a fundamental pedagogical function in critical and creative development. To draw is to think, and to teach how to draw is to teach to search, to doubt and to question, and the boundaries between the verbs are not always clear. Visual thinking begins not with drawing on paper, but with seeing. This, contrary to what we might think, does not depend on our aptitude for drawing, but on our ability to see. To see, consciously or unconsciously, is an act of organising and establishing relationships. Most of us have this ability and have always used it to understand and grasp our surroundings. This understanding and the identification of patterns in what we see and allows us to establish relations of what we see with what we don’t see, making possible the opening of the imaginary, ending this cycle with the result of the previous phases: seeing, understanding, imagining, and presenting or communicating. Communication takes place with oneself and with others, depending on the function for which we are using the drawing. This assumes itself as a vehicle, which, like other forms of communication, is dependent on several variables such as capacity, competence, knowledge, how, for what and to whom we intend to represent our ideas, concepts and even our understanding of the world. We are aware that we are conditioned by a set of factors that decisively interfere with the scope of our communication, limiting our ability to transcribe the world of ideas into the world of presentation.

4.1 The Teaching of Drawing Although in the previous paragraph we have presented the phases of visual thinking: seeing, understanding, imagining, and presenting, in a sequential way, in fact, this whole process is far from being linear and sequential as illustrated in Fig. 17 depending on the moments in which perception and representation appear simultaneously in an intuitive way, in a close relationship between thinking and representing, the drawing is constructed as a dialogue between what we represent, what we accept and what we refuse. It is this breadth of drawing that, according to its function and purpose, allows us to have a perceptive, formative, and communicative understanding of thought. Drawing is one of the most transversal disciplines and because of its flexibility; it is also one of the most requested by other areas, including engineering. If we look briefly at the uses of drawing in areas of knowledge with a projectual nature such as

Drawing in the University Today: A Tool to Think in Engineering

75

Fig. 17 Cloud of relations between the actors involved in the design of a project

Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering and Robotics, it is easy to find drawing as a way of thinking, designing, and communicating. However, we are aware that in the digital society in which we live there are new platforms that mediate the way we relate to the world, and that constant change causes significant transformations in our relationship with images, with language, and the way we conceive and represent reality. New possibilities of creation, new work processes and other realities have arisen. Hitherto unknown processes of image construction have been generated, involving both producers and consumers of images. Within this framework, new demands arise from technology. Practices are being changed, and new ways of thinking and doing are being incorporated. If drawing is to represent and think, as we argue, how do our students, called digital natives, think, and represent with drawing? As a result of an increasingly technological society, where the speed of technological change is rampant, we wonder how the teaching of drawing has responded to this challenge of speed, the virtual, the external memory, as opposed to the time of observation, reflection, correction, error, implicit in the act of drawing. Aware that thinking about technology also means thinking about the issues of our time, thinking about thought, as Mackenzie [10] states, it is urgent to check whether the teaching models of reference in a context in which digital technology is increasingly present in the means and instruments of representation, as a means of training and communication, promote transformations in the teaching/learning models, beyond changes in

76

S. Simões and P. Alegria

operational models. Does it make sense to keep insisting on the teaching of drawing? Can one draw without knowing how to draw? What are these drawings that we talk about and teach? Many of the questions arise from our teaching experience and our interest in the teaching and learning of drawing. It was also to answer these questions that we structured the DRAWinU project. To find in the academic context transversal uses of what is meant by drawing and what the boundaries are between drawing in art and drawing in science.

4.2 Contribution to Teaching Whoever draws intends, through drawing, to solve a set of problems, to find hypotheses and answers. To start this process, we must first recognize that the problem it exists and try to understand it. Then, we can then determine a set of actions and strategies that allow us to make decisions that will lead us to a solution. As students our tasks are made easier. The problem is posed by the teacher and the strategies are mostly delimited both in time and objectives. It is up to the student to organize himself in such a way as to be able to develop the work plan within a certain time period. On the one hand, we intend to lead the student to apply the acquired knowledge in the most favourable way possible, exercising the mind for future experiences, but, on the other hand, we intend that the student is capable of inverting and speculating about the models presented to him, being able to create new proposals. Here, of the different ideas that arise in the mind, drawing comes in as a vehicle for the expression of the imaginary and conceptual: the sketch that translates a thought into something visible. Interrelations that we can find in conceptual maps, in which we commonly use relations between words and concepts, and that in drawing we can see, translated into diagrams and sketches, graphic notes that synthetically embody the ideas that live in the brain and that when physically incorporated can motivate other ideas. Drawings that are made to communicate with us, intimate, that most of the time are only understood by us. Drawings that describe an autonomous, speculative process that expands our options, a divergent tool that tries to broaden our mesh of options and approaches. Ideas that come to us and that we try to fix on paper, this embryonic phase, in which they are accompanied by our rational side, or vertical thinking [5], which tracks ideas entering a selection process, which although empirically it is always present throughout the process, appears more assertively at certain moments when we need to make decisions. In a phase in which certainties are more than doubts, in which we begin to converge towards a solution, drawing operates in the sense of anticipating reality by simulating it in a credible manner, using instruments of rigor and precision, colour and, in recent times, digital means, which although they may be present throughout the process,

Drawing in the University Today: A Tool to Think in Engineering

77

assume a relevant importance at this stage due to the potential for simulation and manipulation of the objects of work. In order to understand how exploratory or transformative the creative process can be, we should know what conceptual space it occupies and what kind of spaces it might explore and transform, what types or styles of thinking the creative process fits into, and what model of thinking and practice it encapsulates. There is a consensus among the referenced authors, [5, 18] and [4], on the idea that the mastery of knowledge is necessary for creativity. Contrary to what one might think, being creative or having creativity is not an isolated faculty that is born with us; to develop, it needs to be worked on taking into account the context in which it is inserted. In this way, creativity as a faculty which allows us to have varied points of view and new ways of thinking, which transform us and contribute to a global transformation, is possible to be worked on and exercised bearing in mind four fundamental elements [18]: the importance of the environment, the need to control the environment which is used, to do and to risk, and finally, to have the capacity to judge. Throughout the process we have practice combined with reflection. Creativity involves a set of combinations, from individual characteristics to the social, economic, and cultural context where it is integrated. What we can say is that creativity is a process made up of certain dynamics that can be worked on in such a way as to enable us to have new approaches, new understandings, and new answers to problems. What Bono [5] and Robinson [19] see as the strategy of divergent thinking, in which the expansion and explosion of concepts allows an opening for new approaches and answers, Boden sees as a combination of ideas which may occur between familiar or individual concepts which, when combined and related, allow new approaches. These authors agree on the idea that the greater our range of establishing relationships between ideas and concepts the greater our capacity to obtain creative answers. Another dynamic inherent to creativity is the exploration of those same concepts in different fields of action. Expanding the networks of our knowledge by forcing it out of our comfort zone allows us to open to new fields of knowledge, activating and expanding our creative structure. Finally, Boden [4] presents the capacity for transformation as another of the dynamics required for creativity. Without transformation it is not possible to change, to create. It takes an addition, a change for some result to emerge from our creative process. Ultimately our contribution to creative knowledge is the capacity to change something, adding to and expanding our experience and knowledge. Drawing is a visual process, so it provides a perceptive relationship between what is thought and what the operative capabilities that allow us to represent. Drawing works as a process that produces analogies between different types of knowledge and that moves between the mind and the support. What is on the paper is itself an analogy of what is in the mind. This process of recurrent analogy is always active during the drawing activity, creating a mental/physical space that enables the expression of the dynamics involved in the creative process. These dynamics can be referred to as an analog thinking process. It takes place through comparison, analysis and relationship

78

S. Simões and P. Alegria

of data, and less through causal/linear or propositional thinking. Drawing becomes a space where analogy serves simultaneously as a synthesis and as a leap to the next line of thought. For all these reasons, we corroborate the idea that drawing, as a discipline, is fundamental within higher education, due to the proximity that we find between the procedures for searching and gauging critical knowledge. We find elements of proximity between the process and practice of drawing regarding the research method, in the sense that both practices promote the development of knowledge and creative thinking, question and propose new paths, new solutions and new approaches. Perhaps, therefore, one of the main merits of drawing applied to instruction, or rather education, is even the role it assumes as a reflective competence. Knowing the learning strategies necessary for the expansion of knowledge, foreseeing, although without guarantees that they will be used when appropriate is our goal as educators and trainers.

5 Current Investigation: DRAWinU In the context of the ongoing research project—DRAWinU—which aims to carry out an exhaustive study of how and why drawing is used in the various faculties, departments and research centres of the University of Porto, we began a study of the relationship between students, teachers and researchers and the activity of drawing, from which we have tried to demonstrate with some examples of the work carried out. This project is only in its the first phase, which includes the survey and documentation of drawing activities that are used in learning and research at the University. This work includes data collection, interviews with teachers and researchers, literature review and the creation of workshops. The examples presented throughout this text are the result of some of the activities already completed. We have started the collection of the drawings that will be part of both a digital and a physical archive. We have also started a set of workshops—“Seeing and understanding with and through drawing”—where we present observation and representation of drawing techniques to students from different STEM areas. We have begun a series of actions that will allow us to observe the activities in classrooms and research centres and to record interviews. From these we expect to retrieve a set of information from which follows a better understanding of the transversal role of drawing as a lingua franca, a means of visually communicating data, a way of synthesising information, a design tool and appreciate its nature as a speculative means of visualising what goes through our minds. The growing proliferation of drawing-based research means that new approaches have been developed within STEM areas [2, 8, 25] to integrate drawing into the university training curriculum as a way to support decision-making processes and promote observation strategies through notation. It is the primary objective of the DRAWinU project to understand the role of the use of the image in the various

Drawing in the University Today: A Tool to Think in Engineering

79

Fig. 18 Workshop with arts and medicine students, UP, 2022

sciences, whether as a design tool, illustration, teaching or learning material, or research aid fulfilling differentiated functions. Either alone or in dialogue with other visual images, this project is focused on investigating the impact of the drawing activity on learning, creative thinking, visualspatial reasoning, project methodology and dissemination of knowledge. The University of Porto (UP) provides the context where Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics (STEM) and Art and Humanities coexist. The research group is composed of artists, researchers and teachers with a common goal of developing design-based strategies for research in art and science, seeking to overcome the barriers that define the two cultures within the University. As this project is not expected to be completed before the end of 2022 and a full report is then expected, here we will only outline the project’s current status and present some examples of the activities already completed and that can be seen in Figs. 18, 19, 20 and 21.

6 Discussion and Future Work In the text we have outlined the background for the development of drawing from an artistic activity to a synthetic knowledge organizing tool that it is in the STEM disciplines. We have also discussed the framework that brought us to the functional separation between artistic and technical drawing to bring forth the differences that

80

S. Simões and P. Alegria

Fig. 19 Schematic diagram produced by a mathematics student, FCUP, 2022

Fig. 20 Whiteboard made by Prof. Ana Guimarães in a classroom, FEUP, 2022

Drawing in the University Today: A Tool to Think in Engineering

81

Fig. 21 Drawing from mechanical construction exam problem, Prof. José Almacinha, 2017, [1]

characterize both and to understand its capabilities as a teaching tool in the classroom both as a creative and as a synthetic instrument. We have outlined some considerations on the use of drawing and its diverse capabilities as a tool for thinking, in the context of a university education. We discussed the concept of drawing and the respective mechanisms of divergence and convergence that are enmeshed in the methodologies used in projectual processes and in which drawing is an instrument of conception and mediation, a tool, and a means of graphic communication. We analysed the importance of the use of digital technologies in the processes of construction/representation of drawing images, assess their impact on teaching methods, and insist on the teaching of drawing as formative discipline.

82

S. Simões and P. Alegria

We have also presented here the project DRAWinU, as case study from the University of Porto, focusing particularly on the study of engineering and its direct involvement with drawing issues, and described its aims and current results. The first part of the project is almost completed: literature review, data collection and interviews with learning actors and researchers. The following phase of the project is focused on practice-based research will be carried out by artists-researchers within the project. Its purpose is to confront the conjectural space of art and science through drawing and address the speculative means of these ways of knowing in an experiential way. Two purposes drive this part of the project: one is the creation of Collective Drawing Labs based on the visual-spatial and causal content of STEM areas, to develop new reflexive approaches to address learning outcomes through drawing activities; and another is the development of common drawing research activities between Art and STEM [3, 16]. Finally, the last phase of the project aims to understand the reasoning and communicative processes underlying drawing’s approach to visual-spatial and causal content in STEM areas in UP. Using a backward design approach, we will analyze how drawing conveys complex knowledge and generate an active engagement with scientific content. This approach is framed by practice-based research, visual participatory methodology, psychology of perception [24] and gestural studies.

References 1. Almacinha, A. J. (2022). Breves referências à evolução do ensino na área do “Desenho” no Curso de Engenharia Mecânica no âmbito da Universidade do Porto. PSIAX#5, pp. 49–64. https://i2ads.up.pt/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Psiax-5_web.pdf 2. Anderson, G. (2017). Drawing as a way of knowing in art and science. Intellect Books. 3. Anderson, G. D. (2019). Philosophy of biology: Drawing and the dynamic nature of living systems. eLife 8, e46962. 4. Boden, M. (2004). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. Routledge. 5. Bono, E. D. (1999). Six thinking hats. Back Bay Books. 6. Cennini, C. (1400). Il Libro Dell’arte, O Trattato Della Pittura. 7. Fergusson, E. (2001). Engineering and the mind’s eye. MIT Press. 8. Gansterer, N. (2011). Drawing a hypothesis: Figures of thought. Springer. 9. Griffiths, B. (2003). Engineering drawing for manufacture. Elsevier Science & Technology Books. 10. Mackenzie, A. (2002). Transductions: Bodies and machines at speed. Continuum. 11. Marshall, C. (2022, June). Leonardo da Vinci’s Handwritten Resume (1482). Retrieved from OpenCulture: https://www.openculture.com/2014/01/leonardo-da-vincis-handwrittenresume-1482.html 12. Martins, L. (2007). Etimologia da palavra Desenho (e Design) na sua lingua de origem e em quatro de seus provincianismos: Desenho como forma de pensamento e conhecimento. Retrieved from Intercom: http://www.intercom.org.br/papers/nacionais/2007/resumos/R18661.pdf 13. Michaud, P. (Ed.). (2005). Comme le rêve le dessin. Dessins italiens des XVIe siècles du Musée du Louvre. dessins contemporains du Centre Pompidou. Louvre et Centre Pompidou. 14. Molina, J. J. (2007). Dibujo y profesión. In J. J. Molina (Ed.), La representation de la representacion (pp. 13–87). Cátedra.

Drawing in the University Today: A Tool to Think in Engineering

83

15. Neves, A. (2022, June). A Reforma Metrológica no reinado de D. Manuel I. Retrieved from IPQ: http://www1.ipq.pt/pt/site/espacoq/diversos/documents/a_reforma_metrologica_ no_reinado_de_dom_manuel_i.pdf 16. Ribas, J. (2013). In the holocene. Sternberg Press. 17. Riley, H. (2008). Drawing: Towards an intelligence of seeing. In S. Garner (Ed.), Writing on drawing: Essays on drawing practice and research (pp. 153–168). Intellect Books. 18. Robinson, K. (2010). Changing education paradigms. Retrieved 07 2022, from https://www. ted.com/talks/sir_ken_robinson_changing_education_paradigms 19. Rovida, E. (2013). Machines and signs: A history of the drawing of machines. Springer Science+Business Media. 20. Ruskin, J. (1912). The elements of drawing. E.P. Dutton & Co. 21. Schuerman, J. (2018). The etymology of draw and related concepts. Retrieved 07 2022, from https://www.khncenterforthearts.org/sites/default/files/files/john_schuerman_dra wing_a_stone_etymology.pdf 22. Simmons, C., Maguire, D., & Phelps, N. (2009). Manual of engineering drawing. ButterworthHeinemann. 23. Snow, C. P. (1998). The Two Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 24. Theron, L., Mitchell, C., Smith, A., & Stuart, J. (Eds.). (2011). Picturing research—Drawing as visual methodology. Sense Publishers. 25. Tversky, B. (2010). (2010). Visualizing thought. Topics in Cognitive Sciences 3(3), 499–535. 26. Zöllner, F. (1992). Ogni Pittore Dipinge Sé. In M. Winner (Ed.), Internationales Symposium der Bibliotheca Hertziana (pp. 137–160). Weinheim.

Learning from the Smithson’s “Project-Theory”: An “Integrated Project Design” “Avant la Lettre” João Cepeda, Nuno Brandão Costa, João Pedro Serôdio, and José Miguel Rodrigues

Abstract As society (never-ending) progress advances, the search for a growing optimization of the whole building project lifespan (design, construction, and maintenance) has, somehow, been placing digitally-driven technologies evolution as primekeystone actors in design and construction fields. However, if the advantages that these (always evolving) developments, machineries and softwares bring to building research-practice remain indisputable—namely regarding production, coordination and communication processes –, the (often widespread) notion that these new tools and procedures constitute, “per se”, the core-driving elements in fostering a welldesigned project, (still) seems fairly questionable. Based on these indications, this article focuses on the mid-twentieth century British architects Alison and Peter Smithson, to discuss a different perspective: in short, shouldn’t the quest for an optimized ‘integrated design’ rely, firstly, mostly and inevitably, on the designers’ correct conception-approach? Long before the (currently trendy) ‘Industry 4.0’, this article argues that, in establishing the right fundamental principles from the very first level of the design-process (such as building rationalization, or sustainable concerns, among others), the Smithsons may be regarded as a past-historical model of tackling the ‘integrated’ philosophy in the proper way—it is the designers accurate purpose-intentions which (first) model appropriate ‘integrated’ methodologies and instruments, and not the other way around. By driving attention to their thinkingpractice, and critically surveying their archives, two of their most renowned works (the Economist, and Robin Hood Gardens) are (predominantly) addressed, essaying that their “project-theory” may constitute a true cornerstone disciplinary source for a correct ‘integrated project design’ approach, which is still valuable today. J. Cepeda (B) · N. Brandão Costa · J. P. Serôdio · J. M. Rodrigues Faculty of Architecture of the University of Porto, Porto, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] N. Brandão Costa e-mail: [email protected] J. P. Serôdio e-mail: [email protected] J. M. Rodrigues e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 B. Rangel et al. (eds.), Integrated Project Design, Digital Innovations in Architecture, Engineering and Construction, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32425-3_4

85

86

J. Cepeda et al.

Keywords Integrated project design · Project-theory · Smithsons · Economist · Robin Hood Gardens

1 Introduction: Prologue—Design and Technologies, an Initial View To put design and technologies into (appropriate) perspective, Heideggerian assertions (still) appear rather adequate today. The German philosopher’s consideration that the essence behind technologies is “(…) by no means, anything technological” [1], but a (human) way of creating that prioritizes the manipulation of several entities in order to increase efficiency and productivity, seems to suitably set initial terms, with regard to reasoning on the theme. As a matter of fact, frequently, ‘design’ is a term that is commonly mistaken for ‘planning’ (and for its respective technologies, equipments or instruments). Whereas ‘planning’ is the undertaking of developing a scheme, program, or method, commonly linked to organization, realization, and execution, which is previously thought of for the achievement of a goal; on the other hand, ‘design’, at its root, stands as the initial (and then ongoing) conceptual activity involving the formulation and conception of an idea, which one intends to express in a tangible form, or to bring into action. In fact, it is undeniable that any technology used or applied to an efficient operation or idea, will magnify its efficiency. Nonetheless, reversely, any technology used or applied to an inefficient operation or idea, will magnify its inefficiency. But if the design prior to technology is fit and adequate, then planning, and its technology—as a human activity which stands as a means to an end—, will certainly provide optimized successful achievements. Therefore, in providing the conceptualization and construction of a mental idea (like an abstract image that conceptually builds throughout the process), the ‘design’ stage should also (ideally) comprise the conceiving and outlining of the key features of a project plan. Hence, the consequent (and inherent) ‘planning’ definition always follows the ‘design’ principle(s): succeeding it, and finally, integrating it, generating one consolidated entity—a united design project strategy, which symbiotically combines both actions.

2 Traces of the ‘Integrated Project Design’ Philosophy Architecturally, engineeringly, and building-wise, the whole present undertaking of conceiving a project, constructing a building, and calling for its optimized sustainable future performance during its “lifetime”, appeals, nowadays more than ever, for the

Learning from the Smithson’s “Project-Theory”: An “Integrated …

87

project’s extreme accuracy and effectiveness—and therefore, for the design (and the designer’s) right approach. The old conventional attitude that undertook the building design and practice context as a mere (and almost “blind”) adding of the different projects and specialties involved, is—or should be—long bygone. Consequently, in order to suitably design a quality project—but also to come along with contemporary current needs to optimize management, minimize resources, and reduce time and investments—, it is essential to raise and foster, right from the very first scratch, a close connection and permanent coordination with the different necessary disciplines, constantly articulating their respective complementary expertise within the design. This multidisciplinary reciprocity and common mutual-supportive approach, builds the crucial foundational basis of what, today, is currently named as ‘integrated project design’. Taking on this integrated tactic and methodology endeavor presumes the integral monitoring of the entire project and sharing of responsibilities by all those involved, promoting a continuous communication throughout the diverse phases of design and construction, and making it possible for a fittingly development-definition of design throughout the full process—ensuring, thus, in this way, the correct sensible integrated strategy.

3 The (Greek) Paradox of ‘Design’: Anticipating the Future, Beholding a (Lost) Past Digesting and combining all these suggestions together, it is particularly interesting to additionally scrutinize on some of the etymological origins of the word ‘design’. In ancient Greek, ‘design’ comes from the word ‘schedio’, which is resultant from the root ‘schedon’, that means “almost, nearly, or approximately”. Thus, from its Greek hereditary meaning, ‘design’ relates to incompleteness or indefiniteness, but also to possibility or anticipation. Roaming even further back into the source of the term ‘schedon’, one discovers it is derivative from the word ‘eschein’, which means “to have, hold, or possess”, but in the past tense form—so, “to have had, have held, or have possessed”. Thus, surprisingly enough, one can affirm that the (Ancient Greek) notion of ‘design’ somehow seems to be also about something we once have had, but presently have no longer. If, nowadays—generally speaking, at least in the broad Western cultural sense—, the term ‘design’ is used when approaching a vision into the future, as a pursuit for new processes, entities or forms, this Greek semantic-linguistic connection root seems to unveil a different, paradoxical, almost contradictory outlook perspective regarding the meaning of ‘design’.

88

J. Cepeda et al.

As a matter of fact, according to these ancient origins, ‘design’ seems to be also somewhat linked to the past, to a sense of loss, and a consequential search for a kind of past or forgotten memory state. Basically, to Antique Hellenics, to ‘design’ meant to anticipate the future, while beholding the past. And this is exactly where—in our perspective and interpretation—the focus on the (past) example of Alison and Peter Smithson arises with absolute pertinency.

4 The (Past) Example of Alison and Peter Smithson The decision to focus our regard on the well-known British architects Alison (1928– 1993) and Peter Smithson (1923–2003)—commonly known or referred to as “the Smithsons”—arose as an (almost) obvious choice, for a number of different reasons. Tremendously ambitious and defiantly “avant-garde”, the pair’s impact in Britain was enormous. Nevertheless, it is, firstly, important to acknowledge that the fact that these architects constituted celebrated widely recognized names in the world’s architectural history and scene, was not the main relevant factor in choosing their example for this article. The one (very) specific primordial criterion that traced the choice of this couple relied, yes, on the following question: the hypothesis that these authors’ design seems to contain some architectural theories and achievements that, in their own way, raise, translate or represent the current concerns of an ‘integrated project design’ approach. This important premise—the fact that the Smithsons have pursued various theoretical-practical design researches concerned with this scope (some built, and the vast majority unbuilt)—, constituted a critical parameter on determining to concentrate our attention towards the Smithsons (Fig. 1). One (of other) complementary and subsequent criteria that, cumulatively with the former, seemed to further consolidate the adequacy and relevance of this duo to the addressed theme, relates to the (recognized) fact that they were also examples of architects who exhaustively wrote about their own work, almost building their reputation on the back of relentless (self) publication—a fact, equally, of the upmost relevance, due to the manifest relationship between theory and practice, an also key implicit focal point of this essay: “(…) For us, a book is a small building.” [2]. Rather than searching to impose or enforce any type of “doctrinal” methodology, but purely looking to offer a particular seminal past example on what—in our perspective—might (still) be an appropriate approach, relevant today, for the present building panorama and for the current and emerging design practices, this article will center its regard on what will onwards be designated as the Smithson’s “project-theory”. Afterwards, this article will focus its attention on two of Alison and Peter Smithson’s most distinguished design projects—the Economist Building (1959– 1964) (Fig. 2), and the Robin Hood Gardens (1966–1972) (Fig. 3), with the exception of a few other projects which will be more briefly addressed further on.

Learning from the Smithson’s “Project-Theory”: An “Integrated …

89

Fig. 1 Alison and Peter Smithson. (© retrieved from wikimedia, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via wikimedia commons)

In order to choose this specific pair of design projects from their architectural work career as a whole, some premises were taken into consideration. Finally, the option fell, then, on selecting two works of their authorship that, although being highly representative of their practice, and having similar design precepts, observed very diverse programmatic and contextual circumstances. As such, while The Economist Building comprises a mixed-use program of offices, a (small) portion of housing, and services, located in central London, for a private client; on the other hand, Robin Hood Gardens covers a (social) housing scheme, situated in the peripherical East zone of England’s capital city, designed for the public local government “Greater London Council”. Furthermore, both starting from the same general design ideas, they end up creating very different urbanities—finally challenging the (erroneous) impression from which similar design precepts, (always) produce systematic homogeneous responses. Thus, by taking on an in-depth review examination of their personal archival collection (located and stored at two different institutions—the Graduate School of Design of Harvard University (at Cambridge, USA), and the HNI—Het Nieuwe Instituut (the former Netherlands Architecture Institute, at Rotterdam)—, both

90

J. Cepeda et al.

Fig. 2 The Economist Building (1959–1964). (© Alison and Peter Smithson Archive. Folder BA072. Courtesy of the Frances Loeb Library, Harvard University Graduate School of Design)

hosting different parts of “The Alison and Peter Smithson Archives”), various of the Smithson’s design strategies and concerns which are “hand-to-hand” connected or related to an integrated view and ‘modus operandi’ of the project design will be further addressed individually, case by case, taking the two above mentioned architectural works as primary examples, facing each other, pair by pair.

Learning from the Smithson’s “Project-Theory”: An “Integrated …

91

Fig. 3 The Robin Hood Gardens (1966–1972). (© retrieved from wikimedia, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via wikimedia commons)

4.1 An Integrated View—or “In Praise of Content” Scrutinizing through the Smithson’s former office and personal archives, and undertaking a careful review of their theoretical and practical works, a crucial previous comprehension comes out naturally verifiable, in a very straightforward manner: the evidence that an integrated involvement of all the specialties of a project through all the phases of its development—from the very first diagnosis, to the very last detail of its execution—was a factor that, somehow, transversally ran through all of the Smithson’s thinking-practice. As an architectural partnership of the latter half of the twentieth century that were among the first to question, challenge and theoretically revise the more dogmatic and “internationalized” (Modern Movement) approaches to design and urban planning, being directly associated with the creation of the so-called “New Brutalism” ‘credo’, the Smithsons seem to, somehow, have been exemplary antecedent precursors of the present-day ‘integrated’ prevalent thinking-practice.

92

J. Cepeda et al.

Seeming to almost anticipate this interdisciplinary approach ahead of its time, Alison and Peter Smithson often directed their design intentions enormously at several of its related ecological sustainability concerns and efficiency issues, which inevitably arose from (and called upon) a multidisciplinary design integration, namely at the level of the design process aspect—and which will be tackled up further next. Concerning this specific thematic, it is particularly interesting to note these Peter Smithson’s assertions, regarding the notion of what here he names as ‘process’, in the context of his view on their architectural approach and creations: “(…) the ‘process’ (…) has overtones of collaboration, co-operation between various related techniques and teams, and so on.” [3] Peter Smithson goes on adding that, naturally, “(…) architecture (…) is involved in this (…), it cannot be separated from the ‘process’.” [3]. Moreover, the British architect relevantly argues that the architect’s design “(…) transforms the ‘process’, by originating it, or by taking part in it.” [3]. These noteworthy statements give us, briefly, a precise synopsis on what were the Smithson’s general assumptions of modern building design work processes, and on their assessment of how an appropriate (integrated) design approach should act. Finally, a last declaration of this Peter Smithson discourse on design processes cannot—in our view—go by unnoticed, or be, in any way, overlooked or disregarded: “(…) To say that you can evolve a design from merely a (…) program, (…) an analysis of the situation (…), (…) or any given technology (…), is meaningless, because any analysis without the proper (…) content—the architect’s particular specialization—, has the one key factor missing from it.” [3]. As of consequence, Alison and Peter Smithson considered project design as an endeavor which, in the modern world, calls for an inevitable and complex integration of disciplines right from scratch, but whose final integrated approach cannot be proclaimed simply by itself, or through the sole use of any “aprioristic” methodology or cutting-edge technology. Instead, the integrated project design, putting it in our terms, must be born—and shaped—out of the appropriate ‘content’ given from the main designer—which Peter Smithson here declares as being the architect. This simple (but bold) affirmation which, to some, may be rather thoughprovoking, offers a clear view on the Smithson’s “project-theory” regarding the addressed topic of an integrated project design and its proper processing, which can be summarized (or translated) in these shorter straighter terms: ‘content’ before ‘instruments’; ‘content’ before ‘technologies’; or ‘content’ before ‘methodologies’— and not the other way around.

Learning from the Smithson’s “Project-Theory”: An “Integrated …

93

4.2 Repetition/Modularity/Systematization: Prefabrication—Accepting Emerging Technologies, (but) Researching on its Appropriateness If, by ‘content’, the Smithsons meant to reason upon what, for them, represented the actual (and primordial) key factor on correctly approaching a design mission—the (good) purposes, resolutions and strategies from the designers—, this article will now analyze one of Alison and Peter Smithson’s chronical design imprints. Grasping all of the above referred traces together so far, and searching to bring them thoroughly in an overall manner through the Smithson’s architectural “projecttheory”, we’ll start, then, by focusing on one of the numerous subjects which frequently guided Alison and Peter Smithson’s approach, which is directly linked to the very nature of an integrated design regard upon a project, and its design process, usually concerned on researching with prefabrication methods and its many construction efficiency benefits. In fact, it is no surprise the acknowledged design theorist Reyner Banham hailed Alison and Peter Smithson as pioneers of the already referred “New Brutalism” [4], as its fresh, novel ethical foundations nurtured a general use of mass-produced and prefabricated materials, and the underlying idea of no waste, or minimized (unwanted) leftovers. Nonetheless, the Smithsons awareness emerged not only from these somewhat ecological [5] (and technological) preoccupations, but largely from a somehow new formal and spatial paradigm, progressively propelling their theories—the one of authenticity and directness, veracity and immediateness, both in structures and materials, as in its spatial experiences and effects: the idea of pure and factual, strong and straight truth. Ultimately, their profound interest on actual construction, and its inherent reflection (and understandability) in architecture—whether referring to building processes or materials—was the key bedrock sustaining their thinking-practice. “(…) For us, an architecture which is (…) thought out in terms of its actual materials, its actual processes of fabrication, and its means of assembly (…), is the most pleasurable of all.” [6]. “(…) For the seeing of the means of assembly and the practical reasons for the size of the blocks or beams, the proportioning of part with part within the formal language, adds to our enjoyment of an architecture that has been made in the mind first, then carried out with all possible attention.” [6]. However, the Smithsons also argued that “(…) rhetoric discussions on prefabricated architecture were misinformed, because (…) before pursuing optimized quantity and quality in prefabricated buildings, (…) architects should first ask the question of what to fabricate.” [7] Furthermore, Alison and Peter Smithson explained that many building projects based on prefabricated standardized parts “(…) have failed to develop an appropriate language to fully communicate (…) or investigate the aesthetic implications of (…) technology” [7], urging architects “(…) to

94

J. Cepeda et al.

find a language and an appropriate expression for architecture in the emerging technological society.” [7]. As such, the British architects often strived for this accomplishing of buildings which—beyond taking advantage of modern-day technologies and techniques— reflected, in the clearest way, the mental design process and philosophy behind them. In order to do so, an inevitable integrated design strategy together with several engineering disciplines and building teams was outlined from the very first moment of any project. Hence, over time, throughout their researches, Alison and Peter Smithson gradually founded the core tenets of their “project-theory” approach on embracing what they considered as unavoidable changes, for instance, very precise matters like lowcost modularity, purity, repetition, systematization, standardization, and material focus (among others). Regarding the Smithson’s reputed Robin Hood Gardens residential estate project in Poplar, East London, some of the above-mentioned design traits ended up distinguishably embodying its scheme, being clearly traceable and, thus, of special noteworthy attention. Comprising the first major housing arrangement built by the Smithsons, this project allowed the architects to build, on a substantial urban scale, the kind of (progressive social) housing new form they had theorized for years—that they hoped would be a beacon of modern housing design. Their theory proclaimed that buildings were not the fundamental elements of architecture—those were the network of pathways. Hence, they didn’t usually place buildings on fixed rectilinear grids (as was normal for modernist edifices), but on pathways used by the residents. As such, in order to take their chance to prove this radical vision which they viewed as a demonstrative model of a more enjoyable way of living, they put an extraordinary amount of research into understanding the urban context of the site, as well as the programmatic conditions required by the local government. Finally, Alison and Peter Smithson’s proposal defined a council social housing estate with homes spread across (what the Smithsons named as) “streets in the sky”: meaning, housing characterized by broad wide aerial walkways, which served as access decks to the homes (Fig. 4). These were designed lengthways to two long mid-rise concrete slab horizontal blocks that, twin but not identical, and slightly bended-zigzagging, faced each other (Fig. 5), being built with different heights (ten-storey to the east boundary, and seven-storey to the west), in order to allow more southern light in. In addition, these two concrete structures “shielded” a big mounded central green space in-between them (Fig. 6), topologically landscaped, with the buildings being positioned in order to allow for the living spaces to look onto this inner park, so families could watch over their children when they used this communal green area. To some authors [8], this Smithson’s conception may have been (perhaps) informed by (and in reaction to) Le Corbusier’s Unité d’Habitation de Marseille, also following its efficiency and density precepts.

Learning from the Smithson’s “Project-Theory”: An “Integrated …

95

Fig. 4 The “streets in the sky” of the Robin Hood Gardens design. (© retrieved from wikimedia, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via wikimedia commons)

Fig. 5 The Robin Hood Gardens site plan. (© Alison and Peter Smithson Archive. Folder A070. Courtesy of the Frances Loeb library, Harvard University Graduate School of Design)

96

J. Cepeda et al.

Fig. 6 The mounded central green space in-between the buildings of Robin Hood Gardens. (© Alison and Peter Smithson Archive. Folder BA197. Courtesy of the Frances Loeb library, Harvard University Graduate School of Design)

Nonetheless, the British architects’ true ambition was to encourage sentiments of belonging and neighborliness, rather than isolated slab-like towers. This intention is clearly perceivable in that referred “streets in the sky” concept (Fig. 7)—every third level of the buildings, those expansive concrete balconies projected off towards the center of the site, overlooking the garden, were actually “(…) wide enough for multiple people to walk by, and for children to play.” [9] The Smithsons even theoretically proposed that these galleries, in providing new public space which would possibly encourage interaction, could be seen as the new neighborhood streets of these housing units, “(…) emulating the terraced housing from the Georgian period” [9].

Learning from the Smithson’s “Project-Theory”: An “Integrated …

97

Fig. 7 The Robin Hood Gardens “streets in the sky”. (© Alison and Peter Smithson Archive. Folder BA196. Courtesy of the Frances Loeb library, Harvard University Graduate School of Design)

Henceforth, the Robin Hood Gardens design is a true monument of the Smithson’s architectural theories, but also a perfect epitome of their “obsessive” attentiveness and concern on construction matters, and on the searching for their appropriate expression and translation on their architecture practice—namely, using (mass-production) prefabrication methods. As usual in their approach, an integrated project design philosophy was assumed right from the start, being crucial on this (and other) particular aspect(s). Firstly, together with the different disciplines, concrete was decided as the main material. At that late post-war time which (still) summoned some reconstruction effort, the relative ease with which concrete could be made and used—as the necessary materials to create it were widely available, making it easy to produce –, allowed for a perfect fulfilment of the Smithson’s dreams and “ethos” of rapid mass-housing and urban renewal, as it was a relatively cheap and truly strong versatile (“fast”) material. However, for the Smithsons—who were highly concerned with how materials affected the wellbeing of the inhabitants of a building—, concrete was not just an economic advantageous motif, but rather quite on the contrary—it was an answer which enabled them to explore, translate and express the (post-war) modern aesthetic, while (still) appropriately portraying their functional philosophy and ideology. Additionally, at the beginning of the design process, Alison and Peter Smithson also decided to go forth with an overall pre-cast construction system (Fig. 8), instead of the (typical) “in-situ” concrete box frame: “(…) during the initial working drawing period, the structure became more and more suited to being cast in large pieces, so

98

J. Cepeda et al.

Fig. 8 The Robin Hood Gardens during construction. (© Alison and Peter Smithson Archive. Folder A070. Courtesy of the Frances Loeb library, Harvard University Graduate School of Design)

(…), together with the engineers, the suggestion was therefore to look at casting systems, which would give a higher standard of tolerances and finishes, and, in consequence, allow plaster on ceilings and cross-walls as well as floor-screeds, to be done away with.” [10]. Hence, together, the design teams reached this (integrated) decision, trusting on the several numerous advantages it carried. On an endeavor of such scale and nature, “(…) in that one has to deal with the problem of repetition” [6] (Fig. 9), as Peter Smithson himself acknowledges, this integrated project design final assessment and verdict, obviously ended up radically affecting the Robin Hood Gardens building process configuration. In actual fact, a specialist contractor was employed to make the castings designed by the architects, which were subsequently brought to the site (Fig. 10). The two blocks were, then, built from a pre-cast structural frame (Fig. 11), and its (inherent) repetition—pre-cast concrete slab panels. In conclusion, the sole decision on using concrete allowed, “per se”, for prefabricated construction elements to be created in offsite factories. Consequently, this permitted a standardization of numerous components (such as pre-cast mullions, spandrel panels and balustrade cappings, among many others)—, and thus, a considerable speeding up towards quicker and simpler building processes. Finally, in this undeniably fundamental piece of Great Britain’s architectural modernist history, an extra additional integrated design project characteristic is to

Learning from the Smithson’s “Project-Theory”: An “Integrated …

99

Fig. 9 An elevations study of the Robin Hood Gardens (modularly-repetitive) facades. (© Alison and Peter Smithson Archive. Folder A068. Courtesy of the Frances Loeb library, Harvard University Graduate School of Design)

be noticed, related to the Smithson’s ecologically-driven internal garden which the two buildings wrap around them. As a matter of fact, the rising man-made green hill mound which ascents inbetween (Fig. 12), was decided to be made from the remnants from the construction: “(…) [it was made] from the demolition ‘spoil’” [2], “(…) the demolition and excavation materials were not removed off-site, but placed, instead, in the central mound, making it as big as it came.” [2] (Fig. 13). On a different perspective—that, however, entails some similarities—, the famous Smithson’s Economist Building project also deserves particular significant consideration—namely, concerning its design repetition and rigorous modularity. In 1959, in order to expand its headquarters, and stipulating a mixed-use ratio of offices, housing and services, the eminent English magazine “The Economist” promoted the redevelopment of an entire block at the heart of central London, near the Piccadilly area. Ultimately being assigned to design the project (Fig. 14), Alison and Peter Smithson idealized, basically, three separate independent towers set around a small square, and lifted above a car park, getting, then, their first major commission (Fig. 15). With basically very similar plans, the Smithsons divided the demanded program into each of the three towers, adjusting the heights and ground positionings of each building to their surroundings and to the fine scale of that historical urban tissue, filled with existing conventional buildings and also neoclassical exemplars (Fig. 16). Despite those evident differences in their heights and programs, all three buildings basically followed the same spatial principle: roughly square plans, all organized

100

J. Cepeda et al.

Fig. 10 Pre-cast skin components of the Robin Hood Gardens being assembled on site. (© Alison and Peter Smithson Archive. Folder A070. Courtesy of the Frances Loeb library, Harvard University Graduate School of Design)

around a central communications and services core, with a loop of main spaces around it, and (occasionally) recessed ground levels, and canted corners. They’re all given a uniform external treatment: their basic skeleton follows the bold honest structural approach of the Smithsons, being rendered in raw exposed concrete with great simplicity—and thus, openly revealing its spatial and structural truth (Fig. 17). However, had the original intentions of the Smithsons been followed, this raw appearance would have been directly seen also on the exterior. The clients, however, desired to clad the concrete structure in Portland stone—the traditional representative London material. Loyal to the authenticity, directness and vitality of “Brutalism”, the Smithsons did not give up, and eventually agreed on a compromised solution: a messy, rough (and less valued) cheaper variant of the Portland stone, the so-called “Portland roach”, of a grainier, uneven, rougher but lively porous texture, with small holes and traces of marine fossils—a material that possessed, to their view, more attractiveness and significance, and had the significant advantage of being cheaper. Thus, this dynamic yet subtle stone ended up cladding the outer concrete of all the buildings (Fig. 18).

Learning from the Smithson’s “Project-Theory”: An “Integrated …

101

Fig. 11 Pre-cast construction elements on the Robin Hood Gardens facades. (© retrieved from wikimedia, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via wikimedia commons)

However, apart from this material consciousness, the fundamental principles which, for the sake of this article, are of main interest here, are the design’s systematized grid and module repetition. In fact, there is a constant modular replication (quite noticeable from just observing the exterior facades) which evidently eases design processes, construction methods and building assembly (Figs. 19 and 20). However, although in its global appearance this structure remains the same all the time, its modular precision and discipline develops subtly little variations, resulting from the towers’ different functional needs: whereas the module of the smallest and tallest towers is the same (3.20 m horizontally, the widest), the height of the floors varies in the smallest one; while in the tallest one, the module is divided in half, in the upper office floors. As for the “middle” residential tower, on its hand, it has a reduced module throughout of 1.60 m, with all floors equally heighted (Fig. 21). Expressing a remarkable fusion of Brutalist starkness and rigor, with a contextualist awareness of history and place, Alison and Peter Smithson reached in the Economist project a design achievement of the highest order, which somehow offers us subtle intimations of the Greek “agora”, the Italian “piazza”, or the legacy from the courts and alleys of Georgian London (Figs. 22 and 23). Showing great restraint, and demonstrating particular sensitivity to an area that managed to resist the impulse of an aggressive commercial monumentalism which

102

J. Cepeda et al.

Fig. 12 Perspective section of the Robin Hood Gardens buildings, and the green central hill. (© Alison and Peter Smithson Archive. Folder A183. Courtesy of the Frances Loeb library, Harvard University Graduate School of Design)

invaded other London areas, the controlled complexity of this fine modular grid game, and skillful repetition and manipulation of proportions, just confirmed the (already) proven Smithson’s skills, concerning a target-optimized design approach. Around 1971—in a time when the Robin Hood Gardens design was nearly finished—, Peter Smithson published a curious text, which he entitled “Simple Thoughts on Repetition” [11]. In it, he describes ‘repetition’ as “(…) the natural discipline of the eighteenth and nineteenth century” [11], praising on the aesthetic effects of historical buildings, such as the ones existing in “Rue de Rivoli”, in Paris, or in Park Crescent, in London. While pre-cast “ensembles” were, not so infrequently, criticized exactly for their modulating repetitiveness, the Smithsons hoped, by their sensitivity to the past, to learn and apply methods that would make ‘repetition’ to be seen as a positive quality. Eventually, all these referred design principles (also) became, somehow, the underlying central ‘canons’ of “New Brutalism”: “(…) [New] Brutalism tries to face up to a mass-production society, and drag a rough poetry out of the confused and powerful forces which are at work.” [12].

Learning from the Smithson’s “Project-Theory”: An “Integrated …

103

Fig. 13 The green central mounded hill, built from the construction remnants. (© Alison and Peter Smithson Archive. Folder BA196. Courtesy of the Frances Loeb library, Harvard University Graduate School of Design)

Curiously (or not), this Alison and Peter Smithson extremely interesting affirmation may be seen as very approximate (or almost a paraphrase) to Mies van der Rohe’s widely-known declaration: “(…) to create order out of the desperate confusion of our time.” [13]. Naturally, looking (as the Smithsons did) for the perfection of orderly, efficient, systematic industrialized systems of production and their productivity, eventually became very popular, especially in public building and social housing estates such as the Robin Hood Gardens. On the one hand, the acceleration of the building practices streamline, with a view to eventual design cost-savings and construction processes which are less timeconsuming and more profitable; and on the other hand, through prefabrication, the

104

J. Cepeda et al.

Fig. 14 Perspective of the Economist design project. (© Alison and Peter Smithson Archive. Folder BA072. Courtesy of the Frances Loeb library, Harvard University Graduate School of Design)

Learning from the Smithson’s “Project-Theory”: An “Integrated …

105

Fig. 15 Model of the Economist design project. (© Alison and Peter Smithson Archive. Folder BA072. Courtesy of the Frances Loeb library, Harvard University Graduate School of Design)

facilitation of the quality control of the building materials and components, and of the execution procedure, generated a reigning overall consensus regarding one clear global benefit: a more healthy and integrated efficient process of design cooperation between the various players in the building activity: designers, components manufacturers and construction companies.

4.3 Urban Approach—“Interval”/“Objects in a Void” One often forgotten (or overlooked) characteristic of a desirable ‘integrated’ project methodology, lays in the fact that design, whether in architecture, engineering, or building practice in general, also (naturally) carries inherent larger and extremely significant broader “functions” and implications—namely, territorially-wise, or urban-wise, and, also inherently, culturally and socially-wise. Beholding into account the (already referred) endless contemporary modern requirements of a generalized mass-production society, of economical optimized results, environmental impacts and building efficiency, it should not, however,

106

J. Cepeda et al.

Fig. 16 Photomontage of the Economist design project within the existing urban tissue. (© Alison and Peter Smithson Archive. Folder BA072. Courtesy of the Frances Loeb library, Harvard University Graduate School of Design)

be possible—or even advisable, in our interpretation—to fully homogenize and systematize padronized constructions and/or architectural approaches and solutions. As such, with regard to these specific referred urban intrinsic repercussions, the desired methodology should lay on one simple exact (and apparently contradictory) attitude: the real true sustainability should come from achieving a harmonious combination between these modern-day demands, and a thoughtful individual approach, case by case. In short, each design or building should be conceptually comprehended as a singularity, as it reacts to, and is conditioned by different specific socio-spatial contexts— and this sensitive urban ideology, which inevitably demands, requires and calls for a multidisciplinary design integration, agreement and compromise with several public, private and political entities, was also comprised in the several primordial design tenets of the Smithson’s approach. Actually, as active younger members of CIAM (“Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne”) and, by 1956, as founding vigorous members of “Team 10”, Alison and Peter Smithson were at the heart of the debate on the future course of modern architecture, deeply worried about the way in which post-war Europe was being reconstructed in the 1950’s—and mainly, always demonstrating a broad

Learning from the Smithson’s “Project-Theory”: An “Integrated …

107

Fig. 17 The initial construction phase of the Economist Building design. (© Alison and Peter Smithson Archive. Folder BA072. Courtesy of the Frances Loeb library, Harvard University Graduate School of Design)

concern in advocating for buildings that were specific to their location and purpose, and to their social environment, which would be capable to reflect and foster a “community” sense within their inhabitants. Moreover, one of the major interesting aspects of this specific urban concern of the Smithson’s “project-theory” seems to be of worthy attention: their often stressing upon the necessity, importance and existence of ‘urban voids’, as an imperative solution that, in their vision, could beneficially effect the sustainability of modern cities evolution, and prevent overly densified urban grids. In fact, the Smithson’s theorized immensely around this concern, regularly appealing for the need of designing respectable quality urban public spaces when conceiving a building design, and for an “emptiness” which—in their opinion—triggered that quality, using suggestive expressions like “objects in a void”, “interval”, “stress free zones”, “breathing areas”, “charged void”, or “space between”, among others: “(…) The charged void has special presence, more awesome than object presence (…).” [14]. Regarding the Economist design, the architects start by announcing that their sensitive urban approach was, in this case, inspired by the narrow unfilled and vacant

108

J. Cepeda et al.

Fig. 18 The “Portland roach” stone that uniformly clads the Economist Building design. (© Alison and Peter Smithson Archive. Folder BA072. Courtesy of the Frances Loeb library, Harvard University Graduate School of Design)

courtyards of the old city of London: “(…) A family of particularly English city scales is achieved in the Economist Building (…).” [6]. In grouping the three towers of different scales and varying heights arranged around an elegantly raised public pedestrian plaza, their Economist project marked a significant breakthrough in tall building design, replacing the traditional standard offices street front of a podium adjacent to a tower—“(…) a type that was actively destroying traditional urban space” [15]—, with a set of stairs and a ramp that, raised about one-storey high from the street level, lead access to a spacious elevated plaza, from which the trio of finely detailed towers rise (Fig. 24).

Learning from the Smithson’s “Project-Theory”: An “Integrated …

109

Fig. 19 One of the elevations of the Economist design project facades. (© Alison and Peter Smithson Archive. Folder BA072. Courtesy of the Frances Loeb library, Harvard University Graduate School of Design)

Fig. 20 “Portland roach” stone facing slabs and stove-enameled aluminum rain-run-off jointing elements, stacked on the site of the Economist Building, before assembly. (© Alison and Peter Smithson Archive. Folder BA072. Courtesy of the Frances Loeb library, Harvard University Graduate School of Design)

110

J. Cepeda et al.

Fig. 21 The Economist Building modular design. (© Alison and Peter Smithson Archive. Folder BA072. Courtesy of the Frances Loeb library, Harvard University Graduate School of Design)

“(…) The plateau of the plaza raised above the surrounding streets offers a pedestrian pre-entry space in which there is time to rearrange sensibilities preparatory to entering the building (…), as places can only be comprehended by the nature of the spaces within them. (…) Another sort of intermediary place is contributed to the city, (…) [and] the man in the street can [therefore] choose (…) this way (…), and develop further urban sensibilities (…).” [6] (Fig. 25). If truth be told, in a time where architects usually conceived buildings as freestanding objects, and clients sought to realize the maximum profit out of the most rentable value of the last centimeter of a site—a fact that is still typical today –, it

Learning from the Smithson’s “Project-Theory”: An “Integrated …

111

Fig. 22 The Economist Building design project ‘as built’—view from the street. (© Alison and Peter Smithson Archive. Folder BA072. Courtesy of the Frances Loeb library, Harvard University Graduate School of Design)

Fig. 23 The Economist Building today. (© retrieved from wikimedia, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via wikimedia commons)

112

J. Cepeda et al.

Fig. 24 The elevated plaza of the Economist Building. (© Alison and Peter Smithson Archive. Folder BA072. Courtesy of the Frances Loeb library, Harvard University Graduate School of Design)

was a rather striking surprising design solution to create an (empty) public space of that nature—a void that extends the pedestrian network in a more enclosed manner. This valuable empty platform for public social life and daily urban dynamics was, thus, protected from the busy rhythm of the surrounding city, having the Smithsons created a separate, calmer and more ceremonial pedestrian zone, with a specific status, mood and character—an almost mystical atmosphere. In fact, the Economist plaza podium that the Smithsons luminously designed provides a transitional “interval” area in-between the buildings, like an interstitial spatial fissure, which is crucial for the urban outset arrangement of the complex, “(…) offering a fundamental (…) necessary pause-space (…) that allows a person to sense where he is and what he is about.” [6]. In addition, the open colonnade of the Economist Tower was also planned thinking on its spatial impacts on the plaza plateau’s spaciousness and openness, as “(…) it allows one to see through the gaps (…) and the surrounding buildings (…)” [16], making “(…) the space (…) enlarged to include everything (…).” [16] (Fig. 26). Considering, in turn, the Robin Hood Gardens project, one can also perceive the extreme care the Smithsons drove upon the urban arrangement design, namely concerning its ecological side, and its environmental quality (Fig. 27). Here, the two long building blocks appear facing each other, “staring” (and separated by) a large central, topographically-morphed green (artificial) mound space between them. “(…) It was the intention from the beginning to give as much green space as possible to the central ‘stress-free-zone’ in the form of a protected area, shielded from urban traffic, yet open to surveillance from the surrounding flats.” [2].

Learning from the Smithson’s “Project-Theory”: An “Integrated …

113

Fig. 25 The void in-between the buildings of the Economist design. (© Alison and Peter Smithson Archive. Folder BA072. Courtesy of the Frances Loeb library, Harvard University Graduate School of Design)

As a matter of fact, this architectural urban design is striking also in its sense of livelihood, having been planned with an ambition for human interaction and association (Figs. 28 and 29). At the heart of the conception of Robin Hood Gardens, there was a profound belief that the architectural urban design gathering could frame and protect a quality internal urban landscape from the city’s unexpected and unpredicted caprices: “(…) To achieve a calm center, the pressures of the external world are held off by the buildings and outworks.” [6].

114

J. Cepeda et al.

Fig. 26 The open colonnade of the Economist project design. (© Alison and Peter Smithson Archive. Folder BA072. Courtesy of the Frances Loeb library, Harvard University Graduate School of Design)

Moreover, one of the mandatory pre-requisites—given the underprivileged site location in terms of the amount of traffic—was to deal with the problem of sound. As such, this positioning of the buildings came also as an answer in order to create layers of noise and air pollution protection for that in-between empty breathing area. Taking, in this case, and accordingly to the British pair, inspiration from the traditional Georgian crescents and circuses in Bath housing and landscaping schemes, in reality, the Smithson’s “project-theory” was permanently a hugely inventive one, always driven by a collective ecological purpose, with the capacity for real humanity. And that is also one of the reasons why, for Alison and Peter Smithson, it was vital to supply the tenants of these blocks with an enjoyable large green garden next to their homes: “(…) Perhaps for the first time, many of the people in the dwellings (…) could look out of their windows at a slope of rising grass—a remarkable experience for Londoners.” [2] (Fig. 30). Furthermore, and again, in this design, the (empty) “interval” urban spaces between and around the constructed buildings seem as important as the buildings themselves. Surprisingly enough (or not), even scrutinizing a vast majority of their (self)published “oeuvres”, it is, someway, striking how the Smithsons end up

Learning from the Smithson’s “Project-Theory”: An “Integrated …

115

Fig. 27 The Robin Hood Gardens urban design arrangement. (© Alison and Peter Smithson Archive. Folder BA197. Courtesy of the Frances Loeb library, Harvard University Graduate School of Design)

spending much more time exploring and highlighting their design of this immense gap between the buildings, than the buildings itself. Whether in the detailed drawings, the photographs, diagrams or other documents presented by the architects, what seems relevant and of deep interest to them is, actually, explaining that absence between the forms, and not the forms themselves, specifically—what is not built, what is absent from the construction emerges as the fundamental factor in the urban design process (Fig. 31). The (still pertinent) challenge and question that Robin Hood Gardens urban design really presents lays in all the generalized reluctance to protect these types of “interval” areas—because, to most eyes, it is simply just a matter of a waste of space (and money). Representing a huge anathema to the high land values of the contemporary urban areas, it is still worth emphasizing the way in which, through a thorough integrated approach which was capable of compromising all the stakeholders in action (not only the politicians), the Smithsons could get away with their design intentions.

116

J. Cepeda et al.

Fig. 28 The Robin Hood Gardens in-between void green space. (© Alison and Peter Smithson Archive. Folder BA197. Courtesy of the Frances Loeb library, Harvard University Graduate School of Design)

Of course, the site could accommodate far more apartments, but to Alison and Peter Smithson’s sense, that would only expose its future inhabitants to a more congested and, by definition, stressful environment. Creating different types of “city” —the timeless design of the Economist Building, a more classic and monumental one, and the “modernist” urban design of Robin Hood Gardens, a more ecological-friendly one—, both projects seem to arise from the same “interval-void” urban approach: “(…) it is the lock between the built form and the unbuilt counterpart [empty] space which produces the sense of place.” [11]. However, each respond in its own way to its specific context and to different sustainability concerns—which inexorably called upon early and comprehensive integrated design approaches. “(…) Buildings are objects in a void. Is it a luxury to experiment an empty space? No. Life takes place in-between, in the void. So, we have to build that in-between.” [17].

Learning from the Smithson’s “Project-Theory”: An “Integrated …

117

Fig. 29 The Robin Hood Gardens in-between void green space—a “stress-free-zone”. (© Alison and Peter Smithson Archive. Folder BA197. Courtesy of the Frances Loeb library, Harvard University Graduate School of Design)

Fig. 30 The central green landscape that Robin Hood Gardens design offered to the city. (© retrieved from wikimedia, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via wikimedia commons)

118

J. Cepeda et al.

Fig. 31 A Smithson’s axonometric perspective of the urban design of Robin Hood Gardens, in order to illustrate the intermediate empty “interval” area in-between the buildings. (© Alison and Peter Smithson Archive. Folder A080. Courtesy of the Frances Loeb library, Harvard University Graduate School of Design)

4.4 Evolutionary Architecture: a brief take on other Smithson’s Designs—a Promise Forever Unfulfilled Finally, one last common feature that seemed to be somehow recurring in the Smithson’s “project-theory”, and which is, in a certain way, related to an integrated project design methodology, is the idea of an ‘evolutionary’ architecture—specifically, ‘evolutionary’ housing.

Learning from the Smithson’s “Project-Theory”: An “Integrated …

119

The purpose of this expression—‘evolutionary’—comes from the aim (or possible future perspective) of something which is expectable of being transformed over time. This evaluation arises not merely because of spatial and/or functional reasons, but mainly from the necessity that (predicted) future changes would not compromise the architecture’s good functioning. As such, these transformations need to (and must) be imagined and addressed in the design approach, in the best possible manner. This anticipation process calls, once and again, for an integrated multidisciplinary approach. To this respect, although most of Alison and Peter Smithson’s design projects were never actually built, its methodological value remains of deep current interest, and are, without doubt, worth mentioning by. Firstly, the visionary project of the “House of the Future” (1955–1956), a “patio house” that envisioned the future 1980’s lifestyle housing, and that could be organized in compact urban modular units (Figs. 32 and 33). Distributed throughout a central patio, each compartment constituted a “functional unit” which was capable of being moved autonomously, while all of the equipment and infrastructures were integrated into the main walls. In fact, the key to the success of this type of processes of integrating the different parts of the design lays in its flexibility—or, in other words, in its ability to respond efficiently and effectively to the changes that are necessary to be implemented in the project. Additionally, the “Appliance Houses” evolutive design (1956–1958) were based (again) on prefabrication methods, but also on the housing functions mechanization. Also, almost equally to biological human cells which gradually transform into molecules, the interior design of the houses was envisaged to agglutinate in a particularly organic fashion: as such, the evolution of some of the “Appliance Houses” would be simply by gradually building itself throughout time, adjoining more and more cells as necessary, around its outer circular limit (Fig. 34). Moreover, these houses also provided future possibility of a pattern grouping growth: “(…) The program for the Appliance House is (…) to be capable of massproduction in today’s technology; (…) and to be able to group in any series of numbers.” [6] (Fig. 35). Lastly, the “Strip House” design (1957–1958), which was one of the latter studies born from the “Appliance Houses” research, defined evolutionary houses that, similar to those of the traditional English suburbs, could be attached together like band terraced townhouses in rectangular lots, framing new urban settings in “neighborhood units” fashion (Figs. 36, 37 and 38). Likewise, “(…) the Strip House attempts (…) the economical layout (…) and the mechanization of building processes.” [6]. As to their interior design, with no more than single site floor and roof slabs, which were disposed side by side, only the humid areas of the kitchen and bathrooms were previously defined—the other interior compartments would be built according to the residents will and use, evolving within each lot’s area.

120

J. Cepeda et al.

Fig. 32 The “House of the Future” design—perspective. (© retrieved from wikimedia, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via wikimedia commons)

In fact, if design should be (advisably) sustainable, and if that (future) sustainability may be additionally forecast, conjectured and enhanced by a cultivated ‘evolutionary’ perspective, then, an integrated project design which, right from the outset, can merge all the necessary disciplines in working on the predictable evolution of the building life, is not only logically prudent, as it is surely sagaciously desirable—and that is repeatedly what Alison and Peter Smithson, through their “project-theory” and these countless design researches, always ventured on. Somehow, the designer’s unpretentious self-acceptance that a design of his can (or may) change and evolve in the future, is, in a way, to consent that his creation is, to begin with, always something that, to some extent, may be imperfect or incomplete.

Learning from the Smithson’s “Project-Theory”: An “Integrated …

121

Fig. 33 The “House of the Future” design—interior plan. (© retrieved from wikimedia, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via wikimedia commons)

Still, this self-awareness should not be seen as a destructive perception, but precisely the contrary. After all, reminding ourselves of design’s Greek etymological root ‘schedon’, that is (also) exactly what design, as an action, always presupposes and implies— incompleteness, indefiniteness and anticipation. Like a promise forever to be fulfilled. “(…) A [building] structure should always be prepared to welcome its appropriation by inhabitants, and their patterns of use—their art of inhabitation.” [18].

122

J. Cepeda et al.

Fig. 34 One of the “Appliance Houses” model evolutive design scheme—sketch. (© retrieved from wikimedia, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via wikimedia commons)

Learning from the Smithson’s “Project-Theory”: An “Integrated …

123

Fig. 35 Study of possible urban evolution of one of the “Appliance Houses” design scheme. (© retrieved from wikimedia, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via wikimedia commons)

124

J. Cepeda et al.

Fig. 36 The “Strip House” design—perspective. (© retrieved from wikimedia, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via wikimedia commons)

Fig. 37 The “Strip House” design—interior plan. (© retrieved from wikimedia, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via wikimedia commons)

Learning from the Smithson’s “Project-Theory”: An “Integrated …

125

Fig. 38 Study of possible urban evolution of the “Strip House” design scheme, arranged in the form of band terraced townhouses. (© retrieved from wikimedia, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via wikimedia commons)

5 Conclusion: Epilogue—an ‘Integrated Project Design’ “avant la lettre” (or “ an architecture that has been made in the mind first”) Building upon the assumption which, we believe, was somehow postulated by Alison and Peter Smithson’s “project-theory”, this article balanced the theme of an ‘integrated project design’—a common methodological approach which, in the present-day, is, in one way or the other, currently adopted among several design practices. However—and regarding building research context –, one of the (in our interpretation) presently misleading recurring trends of our modern ‘digital age’, tends to turn the attention (sometimes, exclusively) towards contemporary digitalized procedures, exceedingly focusing the argument on technology-wise, or on the newly-capable evolving instruments at hand—and their (supposed) ability of, by itself, shaping methodologies, or even design. Rehearsing design as a conception process, and focusing on the Smithson’s theoretical-practical assessment, the discussion is somehow (re)centered on the (previous) contents of design, and on the respective designer’s purposes pertaining to each project. Taking on Alison and Peter Smithson’s holistic attitude and multidisciplinary collaborative principles, makes up for the evident benefits of having a correct integrated view of the entire construction endeavor, from the very initial phase of the design process—together with all the necessary actors and disciplines involved in constructing a building.

126

J. Cepeda et al.

Never conditioning, but informing instead, this integrated design implicative of different disciplines also shows, in the Smithson’s exemplary achievements, how building, engineering or architecture itself may be fairly transcended, merely serving to reach a single higher underlying motive—the excellence of rewarding urban reconfigurations. In a way, the past paradigm of the Smithson’s measureless research suggests that design, construction and technologies should never be taken individually, or “per se”, but rather as a process of complicity—yet never undermining (or removing) the initial conception intentions, and its accuracy. Concluding, the Smithsons recurringly spoke about the Greeks (following, perhaps, in a way, the modern sense of ‘tradition’ that Carlos Martí Arís so eloquently describes [19]). Thus, if through all the indications referred, the past example of the Smithsons becomes, finally, (almost) self-explanatory on its relevance to the theme, the Greek (paradoxical) etymological root of the word ‘design’ adds to its pertinence. If ‘design’ comes from a recollection that, according to the Greeks, is about something that we had, but do not have any longer—then it must be lost somewhere in the past. Pre-Socratic philosophers (like Parmenides, for instance) give us the missing connecting link—the Greek philosophic assumption that nothing comes out of nothing [20]. Therefore, and following this logic, ‘design’ as a mental process of creation, can only be restricted by one simple rule: any newly conceived theory, practice, or form, is nothing but a reordering of past previous ones. And that is why that, having, somehow, anticipated the current integrated design process, the Smithson’s model appears to epitomize a past work hypothesis whose appropriateness (still) seems perfectly up-to-date—“(…) an architecture that has been made in the mind first.” [6].

References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology and other essays. Harper & Row. Smithson, A., & Smithson, P. (2005). The Charged Void: Urbanism. The Monacelli Press. Heuvel, D. (2013). Alison and Peter Smithson: A Brutalist Story. T. U. Delft. Banham, R. (1955). The New Brutalism. Architectural Review (pp. 33–53). Heuvel, D. (2020). Habitat—Ecology Thinking in Architecture. nai010 Publishers. Smithson, A., & Smithson, P. (2001). The Charged Void: Architecture. The Monacelli Press. Smithson, P. (1961). Untitled. Architecture of Technology. Banham, R. (1966). The New Brutalism: Ethic or Aesthetic? University of Michigan. Smithson, A., Smithson, P. (1970). The Smithsons on Housing. B. S. Johnson, London. Powers, A. (2010). Robin Hood Gardens: Re-visions. Paul Holberton Publishing. Smithson, P. (1971). Simple thoughts on Repetition. Architectural Design. 480. Smithson, P. (1957). Thoughts in progress: The New Brutalism. Architectural Design. 113. Zimmerman, C. (2015). Mies van der Rohe. Taschen. Smithson, A., & Smithson, P. (1993). Italian thoughts. International Laboratory of Architecture and Urban Design. 15. Crinson, M. (2020). Alison and Peter Smithson. Historic England.

Learning from the Smithson’s “Project-Theory”: An “Integrated …

127

16. Smithson, A., Smithson, P. (2017). The Space Between. Walther Konig. 17. Smithson, P. (2005). Conversations with students. Princeton Architectural Press. 18. Smithson, A., & Smithson, P. (1994). Changing the art of inhabitation. Princeton Architectural Press. 19. Arís, C. (1999). Silencios Elocuentes. Edicions UPC. 20. Anscombe, G. (1981). From Parmenides to Wittgenstein. University of Minnesota.

Kinetic Bistable Shading Screens: Comparing Brute Force Enumeration with Algorithmic Sampling Methods for Selecting High-Quality Design Configurations Paniz Farrokhsiar, Elena Vazquez , Nathan Brown , and Jose Pinto Duarte

Abstract In recent years, researchers have focused on improving the design of building envelopes to enhance their environmental performance using kinetic systems, such as kinetic shading screens. Research has shown that these systems can effectively control and improve daylight illuminance in a room (Fiorito et al. in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55:863–884, 2016). However, finding their best configuration for given conditions is challenging because it depends on a variety of factors such as room size, orientation, and use, as well as the design parameters of the screen itself. This chapter describes research that compares two different approaches to the problem considering daylight performance and design variety. Focusing on a case study, it uses a simulation model to calculate the performance of configurations on four days of the year—equinoxes and solstices. The first approach is to create a catalog through brute-force enumeration from a limited space of possible design configurations and then select the best for every hour of the day. The second approach is to consider a larger design space, but sample possibilities using a smaller set of master variables that algorithmically control the states of multiple flaps. The performances of configurations identified by both approaches are compared, and then the benefits and challenges of each are discussed. The study concludes that the second approach (algorithmic sampling) can search a wider and P. Farrokhsiar (B) · E. Vazquez · J. Pinto Duarte Stuckeman School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA e-mail: [email protected] E. Vazquez e-mail: [email protected] J. Pinto Duarte e-mail: [email protected] N. Brown Department of Architectural Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, United States e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 B. Rangel et al. (eds.), Integrated Project Design, Digital Innovations in Architecture, Engineering and Construction, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32425-3_5

129

130

P. Farrokhsiar et al.

more diverse space of solutions and find configurations with better performance. In addition, although it takes more time, it is more efficient, considering the size space being browsed. Keywords Kinetic shading screen · Responsive façade · Emerging materials · Smart materials · Optimization

1 Introduction Kinetic building envelopes can enhance the environmental performance of buildings, improving daylight or energy requirements as they adapt to changing environmental conditions. There is a growing body of literature on shading screens, a part of kinetic envelopes, focused on design, implementation, and performance [1, 2]. One challenge, however, is to find adequate design configurations for kinetic shading screens, that is, to find which state (open, closed, or in between) the screen must adopt in response to a set of given conditions. While studies have sought to find adequate design configurations of kinetic screens, little is still known about which methods are better suited for the task. This study compares two approaches to find the best design configurations for a bistable kinetic shading screen throughout the year. The first approach is browsing a full catalog of a limited design space that has been simulated for daylighting performance, in which screen flaps are controlled by columns (brute-force enumeration). The second approach is a sampling algorithm that selects design samples from a dimensionally reduced set of variables that control flap states based on underlying equations. While it has fewer variables, it enables a more visually diverse design space. In both methods, it is possible to view the existing dataset to select the best configurations. This study forms part of a larger research agenda aimed at developing and optimizing a bistable kinetic screen for daylight control. In a previous study, it was described the development and testing of a full-scale kinetic screen [10, 11]. It also was validated the digital daylight model by comparing simulation data and experimental data. This study is concerned with the problem of finding adequate configurations for the screen, which is composed of 28 units that can open and close on demand. Using case study and simulation research, the study compares the two approaches mentioned above and discusses the limitations and affordances of both methods. Results show that the main difference between the two computational approaches is in the time they take to find the best configuration for a given hour. The limited design space of the first catalog (Method 1) means that it takes less time than the later algorithmic sampling (Method 2), which searches a wider space. However, in Method 2 the larger design space is covered more freely, which permits the generation of more diverse screen configurations. In addition, the comparison of configurations whose performance is in the above 5% range, show that Method 2 tends to generate a higher number of solutions in this range, and that their performance tends to be

Kinetic Bistable Shading Screens: Comparing Brute Force Enumeration …

131

better. This also has the advantage of offering a wider and more diverse selection of configurations to select from based on aesthetic considerations.

2 Background The literature is reviewed in two parts. The first focuses on the use of shape memory alloys (SMAs) for kinetic architectural design systems, with the goal of identifying design strategies and findings. The second part analyses projects that seek to find the best configuration for building envelopes. Kinetic systems in architecture can dynamically adjust for improved performance. These systems can be fabricated using motor actuators or smart materials, such as shape memory alloys (SMAs). Researchers have developed kinetic systems using linear actuators for daylight control, demonstrating the potential of dynamic architecture in creating building systems that can adapt to different contextual conditions [3, 4]. Figure 1a shows a kinetic design that has a linear hydraulic actuator that opens and closes oriented strand board (OBS) panels. However, more recent efforts have transitioned from complicated mechanical systems to the use of smart materials, such as SMAs, which allow researchers to reimagine kinetic systems without expensive motors and gears typically hard to maintain. Shape memory alloys present two phases: an austenite state that is stable at high temperatures and a martensite state that is stable at lower temperatures. SMAs go through a memorization process after which they can return to their original condition, depending on the temperature level. SMA springs are commercially available, so they are one of the most used smart materials in kinetic architecture applications [12]. Examples of their application in kinetic architecture include a kinetic tensegrity skin actuated with SMA springs [6] and a kinetic textile skin [9]. Figure 1b shows an adaptive textile façade that is actuated using shape-memory wires that open and close a textile band. Our work adds to the literature on kinetic architecture by presenting a kinetic system that combines bistable flaps and SMAs. Once a material system is defined for kinetic envelopes, a significant challenge is finding adequate configurations, that is, the configuration of the system that maximizes its performance according to the selected goal, for instance, to attain a certain

a

b

Fig. 1 Approaches to kinetic architecture: a kinetic skylight by Henriques et al. [3] (a), and an adaptive facade by Schneider et al. [9] (b)

132

P. Farrokhsiar et al.

lighting level indoors. There are several approaches to finding optimal configurations for kinetic envelopes. The first method is to create a catalog of all the possible options and then choose the one that best fits the current context. The second method uses an optimization algorithm to explore the design space and find the best configuration based on the selected objective(s). In both approaches, a significant problem is to find a suitable, potentially optimal, configuration in proper time, before conditions change and require another design configuration (Table 1). As an example of a catalog approach, Nagy et al. [8] presented a prototype of an adaptive solar facade (ASF) based on photovoltaic panels. The goal of their adaptive façade was to attain desired thermal comfort and lighting levels, as well as address the shading needs of users. In addition, the system could generate energy through PV (photovoltaic) panels when user specifications allow it. As the work was in a preliminary design stage, the system still included many variables and possessed significant flexibility to take many different configurations. As such, they had to limit the number of variables and create a catalog of all the possible configurations (324). Then they could calculate their performance using DIVA and analyze the resulting data with Energy Plus, to identify the optimal configuration. A similar approach is the work by Jayathissa et al. [5], who reported on a more developed prototype of a kinetic facade of PV panels that was built and implemented in an office space. Although each panel could rotate independently in any direction, they had to group the panels so that they rotated in the same direction at the same time, in order to be able to generate a catalog of all possibilities. The optimal configuration could then be selected based on minimizing the building lighting, heating, and cooling demands, while maximizing energy generation. Creating a catalog allows the designer to evaluate system performance by getting an overview of how all possible configurations from a limited design space meet the objectives. In these projects, all the panels have the potential to independently move in all directions at any angle which could result in a potentially very large number of possibilities making it unfeasible to generate and assess them. The design space can be limited, for instance, by orientating all the panels in the same way, as in the example above. The main advantage of this approach is that it simplifies the task of finding optimal configuration by reducing the design space. The drawback is that the system’s potential is not fully explored. The second approach uses optimization algorithms to find the best configuration of a kinetic facade. In their project, Le-Thanh et al. [7] aimed to design an Origami-inspired shading screen to improve the building’s performance in terms of Table 1 Examples of projects concentrating on finding optimal configurations of kinetic envelopes by categorizing them based on the performance goal Approach

References

Performance goal

Catalog

Jayathissa et al. [5]

Energy performance, energy generation

Catalog

Nagy et al. [8]

Energy demand, electricity generation

Optimization

Le-Thanh et al. [7]

Daylight performance, energy consumption

Kinetic Bistable Shading Screens: Comparing Brute Force Enumeration …

133

daylight and energy consumption. To investigate the potential of this system, they studied the performance in eight different orientations, integrating DIVA daylight and energy simulation with an optimization method called Balancing Composite Motion Optimization (BCMO). The optimization approach brings flexibility in defining the design variables and makes it possible to explore the design space more freely and find more diverse optimal solutions. In optimization problems defining the right parameter is essential in creating an accurate model of the problem. However, as the authors mention, the optimization algorithm used in this project was parameter-free BCMO, making it even easier to work on optimization problems without worrying too much about defining the right hyper-parameters. There are still complications in using this method as the authors claim this type of optimization process could be very time-consuming and computationally expensive. It is possible to utilize this method to calculate optimal solutions a priori. Still, in the case of real-time simulation and optimization, it might not be a very efficient method to use, as environmental conditions can change faster than the optimization algorithm can find the best solution.

3 Methods In this research, we implement two different approaches to find the best configuration of a kinetic shading screen for a given date and time. Method 1 (brute-force enumeration) is creating a catalog with a limited design space and then simulating daylight illuminance performance of each solution in the catalog, and Method 2 (algorithmic sampling) is coupling sampling with dimensionally reduced variables that control multiple states. This study adopts a case study set with the goal of finding optimal configurations for a bistable kinetic shading screen placed inside a test room. Figure 2 shows the test room setting (left) and the designed kinetic system (right), which is modular and composed of holder units that have four bistable flaps. The bistable flaps are made by layering unidirectional carbon fiber prepregs with opposite fiber orientation and curing them in the oven under vacuum. The flaps are actuated with Shape Memory Alloy (SMA) actuators. The SMAs actuators contract when heated, pulling in strings that snap the bistable laminates into their open or closed position. A detailed description of the prototype development can be found in [10]. Although each flap could independently acquire an open or close status, we limited the movements of the flaps in each module to either all close or all open. With this simplification, we have two states for each holder unit which are either fully open or fully closed, thereby decreasing the number of solutions from 2112 to 228 . The purpose of the study is to find the optimal configuration of the modules in terms of daylight illuminance. The test room of this study is an office room that measures 2.75 m by 4.95 m, with a south-facing window located in State College, PA, United States. The designed kinetic shading screen is composed of a grid of four by seven bistable holder units that covers the 1.20 m by 2.72 m window entirely.

134

P. Farrokhsiar et al.

Fig. 2 The designed bistable kinetic system: room settings with the screen (left), and schema of the actuation mechanism (right)

To define the design space of possible screen configurations, we assigned 0 and 1 to each module’s open and closed states. We generated the patterns of combinations of zeroes and ones to define the grid configuration of the kinetic modular system. For the brute-force approach (Method 1), the design space was further limited by constraining each column of holder units to adopt the same open or closed state, as shown in Fig. 3a, where the same combination of zeroes and ones developed for the top row (dark grey) was applied to all the rows (light grey). The number of design solutions was thus limited to 128. For the algorithmic sampling approach (Method 2), each module can independently adopt an open or closed position, as shown in Fig. 3b. The number of possible design configurations is then 228 . The logic of pattern generation for different configurations in this approach is fundamental. To simplify pattern generation in this approach, we assigned a sinusoidal function to each row of modules, as shown in Fig. 3c, where an example of this function assigned to the top row of the grid is shown in dark grey. The remaining rows have assigned other variation of the sinusoidal function, thereby generating different combinations of zeroes and ones. In Method 1, the design space is completely assessed, whereas in Method 2 the algorithm selects specific number of sample configurations to assess and decisions of where to search in the design space is made randomly by the algorithm to find the best configuration. In both cases, once the best configuration for a given day and time is pre-identified, it is possible to quickly retrieve it later for the screen to adopt it at that time of that day. The 3D modeling of this project was done in Rhino and Grasshopper, which allows one to implement different computational workflows to simulate and analyze the performance of the defined system. For daylight simulation, a grid-based daylight simulation for a given point in time was developed using Honeybee. Honeybee is a plugging for Grasshopper that uses RADIANCE to conduct daylight simulations. The simulations described in this study were conducted for four days of the year at each hour, from 9 am to 5 pm. The selected days were March 21st, June 21st, September

Kinetic Bistable Shading Screens: Comparing Brute Force Enumeration …

a

b

135

c

Fig. 3 Strategies to generate open and closed patterns for the kinetic shading screen: algorithm to generate a reduced design space of 128 configurations in the brute-force approach (Method 1, a); algorithm to generate all the configurations in the design space of 228 possible configurations (b); and algorithm based on sine functions used to generate diverse configurations out of the 228 in the algorithmic sampling (Method 2, c)

22nd, and December 21st. These dates correspond to the solstices and equinoxes and were chosen to present a wide variety of conditions in terms of solar position throughout the year. The performance evaluation data was calculated considering the percentage of the room’s floor area receiving an illuminance between 200 and 300 lx, which is considered adequate for office work. In this context, the higher the percentage the better the performance. As mentioned above, the design space of screen configurations was different in the two studied approaches. In Method 1, the design space was simplified to make it possible to generate all the possible configurations and evaluate their performance to find the best solutions. In Method 2, prior to landing on our sampling method different algorithms and optimization plugins in Grasshopper were explored. The Opossum was one of the most promising optimizations algorithms for the design problem under consideration, as it uses a machine learning algorithm to explore the design space instead of a gradient-based algorithms or revolutionary algorithms. However, as the goal was to have increased control over the design configurations explored in the process, a Design Space Exploration workflow using the DSE plugin was developed, which permitted to control the opening and closing pattern of all modules across the shading screen. The patterns were defined by assigning sinusoidal functions to each row of modules. Two numerical inputs determine the wavelength and amplitude of the function for each row, and the output is a pattern of zeroes and ones. There is a total of eight input parameters for the four rows, which generate a variety of patterns. The DSE algorithm samples these pattern-based configurations and identifies the best ones considering the same goal of maximizing the area of the room with an illuminance between 200 and 300 lx.

136

P. Farrokhsiar et al.

4 Results: Method 1 (Brute-Force Enumeration) In this approach, all the possible configurations of the shading screen were generated, and their illuminance performance simulated for each of the considered nine hours of the four days. The screen has 28 modules, and each module has two stable states, resulting in two to the power of 28 possible configurations. This number was too large for creating and simulating the catalog of solutions, so the design space was simplified by limiting the opening and closing states of the modules in each column so that they are all open or closed, thus leaving just 128 different configurations, as mentioned above. We then performed simulations for all the configurations at each hour in the defined period for the four selected dates. The solutions whose performances were in the top 5% of the scale were considered the best for that date and time, with the scale being defined by the worst and best possible performance. Figure 4a–d shows the numerical results of the objective space. The horizontal axis lists the 128 configurations in the design space, and the vertical axis indicates their performance in terms of percentage. Each graph line shows how all the configurations performed for a given hour of the day, from 9 am to 5 pm. By comparing the nine graphs, it is possible to observe that performance varies throughout the day. On March 21st, performance ranges from five to 21%, on June 21st from five to 18%, on September 22nd from five to 26%, and on December 21st from five to 19%. Configurations with a performance in the top 5% of the variation range were considered the best ones. In some cases, this includes only one configuration, which means that such configuration has a considerable higher performance than the rest of the design space. In other cases, there are multiple configurations with similar performance, each of which can be chosen as the best design. The design space for 12 pm on March 21 is shown in Fig. 5, and the corresponding performance space is shown in the same order in Fig. 6. The configuration patterns are organized from the best to the worst performance for the selected hour and date. As can be seen, the configurations with the highest number of open modules are the best, and as this number decreases, the performance deteriorates.

5 Results: Method 2 (Algorithmic Sampling) In this approach, the idea was to explore the design space more freely and create various design options that were not limited to modules in the same column being in the same state. However, the generation of patterns was also constrained to limit the search space. The constraint was imposed by assigning a sinusoidal function to each row in the shading screen to determine the state of its modules. Two numerical input variables controlled each function, determining its wavelength and amplitude for each of the four rows, meaning that a total of eight inputs determined the configuration patterns of the shading screen. After limiting the design space, random generation of samples with different populations of 10, 100, 1000 and 5000 was used to determine

Kinetic Bistable Shading Screens: Comparing Brute Force Enumeration …

137

a

b Fig. 4 Daylight performance results for 128 catalog configurations on March 21st (a), June 21st (b), September 22nd (c), and December 21st (d)

138

c

d Fig. 4 (continued)

P. Farrokhsiar et al.

Kinetic Bistable Shading Screens: Comparing Brute Force Enumeration …

139

Fig. 5 Design space of the brute-force approach (Method 1), with configurations listed from 1 to 128, from left to right and top-down based on the best to worst performance approach for 12 pm on March 21st

140

P. Farrokhsiar et al.

Fig. 6 Performance space of the 128 configurations in the brute-force approach (Method 1) for 12 pm on March 21st, listed from 1 to 128 from left to right and top-down

Kinetic Bistable Shading Screens: Comparing Brute Force Enumeration …

141

the appropriate number of configurations in a sample for this to be representative of the design space. The 10 and 100 samples are very small numbers that do not cover an adequate range of the design space. Although the 5000 samples resulted in better performances than the 1000 samples, considering the difference between the two performances and the time it takes to simulate 5000 samples in comparison to 1000 samples, the selected number of samples for each hour of the day was the 1000 random configurations. One thousand samples were created using the DSE plugin in Grasshopper. Daylight simulations were conducted for all the generated samples. The best results were chosen based on the same objective, that is, the percentage of floor area with an illuminance between 200 to 300 lx. The performance of the sampling process is shown in Fig. 7a–d for each hour, from 9 am to 5 pm, of each of the selected four days of the year. Each graph shows the performance for one day and each graph line represents an hour of the day. The one thousand generated designs are shown on the horizontal axis, and their performance, in terms of percentage of the area with an illuminance level within the adequate range, is indicated on the vertical axis. The performance range for some of the selected dates is wider than in the catalog approach. On the March 21st, performance varies from four to 22%, on June 21st from five to 18%, on September 22nd from five to 27%, and on December 21st from 5 to 20%. Method 1 and Method 2 are compared in more detail in the next section.

6 Comparison The performance results of Method 1 (brute-force approach) and Method 2 (algorithmic sampling approach) for the four selected dates are compared in Fig. 8. Each graph shows the mean performance of the configurations whose performances were in the top 5% for each hour of the selected four days, with performance indicated on the vertical axis and the hours on the horizontal axis. Recall that performance is measured in terms of the percentage of the area of the room with an illuminance between 200 and 300 lx. The results show that Method 2 presents overall better daylight performance than Method 1 for all four days of the year. For each day and hour there might be multiple configurations whose performance falls within the acceptable percentage of the floor area with 200–300 lx illuminance. The best design configurations for 12 pm on December 21st, which include those configurations whose performance is in the top 5%, are shown in Fig. 9. These include three configurations output by Method 2 with a higher number of open modules on the upper side, and two configurations identified by Method 1 with a higher number of open modules on the right side. Although the difference in terms of performance between the configurations identified by each approach is not significant, it is noticeable that Method 2 tends to lead to better performance results than Method 1. In addition, results show that Method 2 generates better performance results when the range of adequate daylight performance is widened. Figure 10 compares the

142

P. Farrokhsiar et al.

a

b Fig. 7 Daylight performance results for the one thousand sampled configurations in Method 2 (algorithmic sampling) on March 21st (a), June 21st (b), September 22nd (c), and December 21st (d)

Kinetic Bistable Shading Screens: Comparing Brute Force Enumeration …

143

c

d Fig. 7 (continued)

performance results of Method 1 and Method 2 for 10 am on March 21st. In this study, the objective range of adequate daylight was widened to 200–500 lx. The vertical axis indicates the performance in terms of percentage of room area with adequate daylighting and the horizontal axis lists the configurations. The difference in performance of the best designs of each approach is 15%. A likely explanation for

144

P. Farrokhsiar et al.

Fig. 8 Comparison of the performance of the brute-force approach (Method 1) and the algorithmic sampling approach (Method 2) for the four selected dates

a

b

Fig. 9 Best design configurations for 12 pm on December 21st: Algorithmic sampling approach (Method 2, upper row), and brute-force approach (Method 1, lower row)

this difference is that Method 2 generates a greater variety of design configurations, which eventually leads to better performance. Conversely, Method 1 considers a limited design space which translates into worse daylight performance. It is important to note that the catalog approach is constrained by requiring the columns to have the same open/closed state. If the catalog was organized by rows, the results could be different. Nevertheless, having a more extensive design space seems to be better.

Kinetic Bistable Shading Screens: Comparing Brute Force Enumeration …

145

Fig. 10 Two examples with the same performance score (same area with a lighting level between 200 and 300 lx) but very different overall lighting levels: over lit (left) and under lit (right)

On the other hand, in both approaches we observed completely different configurations with same numerical objective. As shown in Fig. 10, there could be a design configuration with a completely open pattern in which most of the room area is over lit and receiving more than 300 lx and another design configuration with a more closed pattern which results in the room would be under lit, that is, with most of the surface area receiving less than 200 lx. It is noteworthy that over lit and under lit configurations might have the same numerical performance, that is, they might have the same percentage of surface area with the same illuminance, with the remaining area being under lit or over lit. By changing the upper bound of the desired illuminance from 300 to 500 lx, it is possible to differentiate better between such design configurations and obtain solutions whose performance (area with the right illuminance level) is higher, as shown in Fig. 11.

7 Discussion and Conclusion Kinetic screens can help improve daylight conditions in buildings. However, finding adequate design states throughout the day and the year represents a challenge. The goal of kinetic screens is to adapt its configuration to changing outdoors environmental conditions (position of the Sun, weather conditions) to achieve given target performance values indoors. This signifies the ability to find an optimal or, at least, an appropriate configuration in real time. This paper seeks to find optimal design configurations for a bistable kinetic screen by comparing a brute-force approach (Method 1) with an algorithmic sampling approach (Method 2). The problem was simplified in this study as it only considered the hour and time of the day, that is, the position of the Sun, and not weather conditions, like a cloudy sky. Even in this

146

P. Farrokhsiar et al.

Fig. 11 Comparison of the optimization and the catalogue approaches performance with an objective range of 200–500 lx at 10 am on March 21st

simplified context, the long time required by both studied approaches to find the best configurations rendered them inappropriate for real time use as by the time the best configuration is found, conditions would have already changed. The solution in these circumstances is to use one of these approaches to pre-identify the best solution for each hour of the day and then select it at the right time. In this context, it is important to compare the two approaches. The main advantage of Method 1 is that the entire design space can be assessed. The drawback, however, is the time to estimate the performance of all the design options. Method 2, with 1000 design configurations, took about six hours for each selected hour of the day, while the generation and simulation of the Method 2 with 128 design configurations took about two hours. Method 1 is faster but considering the number of design options generated and simulated overall, Method 2 for the same number of design options would be a quicker approach. Nonetheless, none of the approaches can be used to find in real time a solution for the problem of identifying the best configuration for a given hour and day. In this limited context, the issue becomes which approach leads to the best configurations. Results suggest that Method 2 (algorithmic sampling) helps find designs with better performance. The difference between the best-performing designs of the two approaches increases when the range of daylight target rises. Results imply that having more design flexibility, i.e., a larger design space, results in improved performance of the kinetic screen. Future studies can increase the design space of the kinetic screen by allowing each flap to move independently to assess and compare the daylight performance. In addition, from an aesthetic point of view, there is limited variety for specific points in time and throughout the day in the Method 1 approach. For instance, there might be the same best result for more than two consecutive hours of the day. On the other hand, there are more design configurations to choose from

Kinetic Bistable Shading Screens: Comparing Brute Force Enumeration …

147

for each hour with the Method 2 approach. In addition, as different random selections are made for each hour, there is a wider variety of configurations throughout the day. The study also showed that the percentage of floor area with adequate levels of illuminance does not significantly change for the best configurations of each approach. For instance, on March 21st, the percentage of the area within the desired daylight performance of 200–300 lx for the configuration with the best performance in the Method 1 is 15% and in Method 2 is 20%. The reason might be that due to their design the kinetic modules cast shade even when they are in the open position. The design of the shading device can be improved in the future to increase the amount of daylight filtered through the screen in its open state by making the bistable flaps larger and/or the holder structure smaller. This work contributes to the existing knowledge of kinetic envelopes by comparing two approaches to finding optimal configurations of a kinetic bistable screen. A limitation of the study is that we only looked at daylight performance. Kinetic screens could adapt to improve contradicting performance requirements, such as daylight and glare control, or energy performance and views, although research is needed to confirm this hypothesis. Notwithstanding these limitations, this study suggests that a algorithmic sampling approach is suitable for finding optimal design configurations for kinetic screens. In addition, while this paper was limited to the two described strategies, other approaches such as machine learning can also be tested in hopes of finding a way to identify adequate configurations in real time. Future work will be concerned with testing such approaches.

References 1. Barozzi, M., Lienhard, J., Zanelli, A., & Monticelli, C. (2016). The sustainability of adaptive envelopes: Developments of kinetic architecture. Procedia Engineering, 155, 275–284. 2. Fiorito, F., Sauchelli, M., Arroyo, D., Pesenti, M., Imperadori, M., Masera, G., & Ranzi, G. (2016). Shape morphing solar shadings: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 55, 863–884. 3. Henriques, G. C., Duarte, J. P., & Leal, V. (2012). Strategies to control daylight in a responsive skylight system. Automation in Construction, 28, 91–105. 4. Henriques, G. C. (2012). TetraScript: A responsive Pavilion, from generative design to automation. International Journal of Architectural Computing, 10(1), 87–104. 5. Jayathissa, P., Luzzatto, M., Schmidli, J., Hofer, J., Nagy, Z., & Schlueter, A. (2017). Optimising building net energy demand with dynamic BIPV shading. Applied Energy, 202, 726–735. 6. Khoo, C. K., & Salim, F. (2013). Responsive Materiality for morphing architectural skins. 7. Le-Thanh, L., Le-Duc, T., Ngo-Minh, H., Nguyen, Q-H., & Nguyen-Xuan, H. (2021). Optimal design of an Origami-inspired kinetic façade by balancing composite motion optimization for improving daylight performance and energy efficiency. Energy, 219, 119557. 8. Nagy, Z., Svetozarevic, B., Jayathissa, P., Begle, M., Hofer, J., Lydon, G., Willmann, A., & Schlueter, A. (2016). The adaptive solar facade: From concept to prototypes. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 5(2), 143–156. 9. Schneider, M., Fransén Waldhör, E., Denz, P. R., Vongsingha, P., Suwannapruk, N., & Sauer, C. (2020). Adaptive textile façades through the integration of Shape Memory Alloy.

148

P. Farrokhsiar et al.

10. Vazquez, E., & Duarte, J. P. (2022). Bistable kinetic shades actuated with shape memory alloys: Prototype development and daylight performance evaluation. Smart Materials and Structures, 31(3), 034001. 11. Vazquez, E., & Duarte, J. P. (2022). Exploring geometry and fiber arrangements for bistable kinetic building shadings. 12. Vazquez, E., Randall, C., & Duarte, J. P. (2019). Shape-changing architectural skins: A review on materials, design and fabrication strategies and performance analysis. Journal of Facade Design and Engineering, 7(2), 93–114.

Integrated Project Design to Reach the Net-Zero Building Didier Lootens

Abstract The construction industry has never faced more challenges with, at the same time, a constant decrease in productivity for decades, an increase in raw materials prices and energy, and the explicit consideration to be responsible for the most significant emanation part of greenhouse gas, involving a dramatic global growth of the planet’s temperature. Rapid solutions should be implemented to solve this complex equation. The net-zero targets of 2050 required a drastic reduction of carbon emissions and, at the same time, a decrease in global materials consumption by a factor of two. With 40% of the worldwide greenhouse gas emission divided into two main parts: the grey energy generated by the large volume of materials used and the direct energy required for the operation of the building, construction would be the faster way to decrease our carbon footprint significantly. Energy efficiency improvement of the buildings, as well as the reduction of the materials required, is necessary to reduce the carbon bill. The Integrated Project Design is needed to handle the innovations’ complexity and reduce cost and execution time. This chapter demonstrates how a net-zero house requires fewer resources during the construction and service and can be more economical with the combination of Integrated Project Design and innovative solutions.

1 Introduction The greenhouse gas (GHG) emanation involves the global increase of the planet’s temperature and weather perturbations. The critical global increase of two-degree Celsius temperature was already reached the land surface [1], involving dramatic evolutions such as drought increase in seawater level due to the rapid increase of pole temperature [2]. Rapid solutions should then be implemented to slow down this evolution. The net-zero targets fixed for 2050 required the reduction of GHG emissions to zero and, at the same time, a decrease in materials consumption by a factor of two [3]. Global greenhouse gas emission is created by 70% from fossil D. Lootens (B) Sika Technology AG, Tüffenwies 16, 8048 Zurich, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 B. Rangel et al. (eds.), Integrated Project Design, Digital Innovations in Architecture, Engineering and Construction, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32425-3_6

149

150

D. Lootens

fuel and industry processes and 35% by agriculture and biomass destruction, which mainly means the production of food, feed, and deforestation [4, 5]. The equivalent carbon emission of the industry is now reaching 35 GT a year, and if nothing is made, it could double by 2050 [6]. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions requires changing how industries produce goods or reducing the surface needed for agriculture by implementing new forests capturing more carbon. Construction is responsible for a large part of the greenhouse gas emission, with 25% of the entire industry for heating, cooling, and other operational energy [7] and 10–15% of embodied energy generated by the large volume of materials required. The improvements in buildings’ energy efficiency and the reduction of materials needed are then required to reduce the carbon bill. The fourth industrial revolution has taken place for years and started in the construction industry by combining new technologies, better resource management with a lifecycle assessment, and multidimensional sustainability [8]. Industry 4.0 is also expected to improve the quality and productivity of construction and, at the same time, attract domestic and foreign investors. The Integrated Project Design (IPD) first aims to link the architect, contractor, and client to be involved in mutual success with the improvement of the project organization, therefore, reducing cost and execution time in line with the improvement of the energy performance of buildings stated in the new LCA standard such as EN 15,978 [9]. Building information modeling (BIM) is the core of the system, from the physical planning to the lifecycle of the building, considering the schedule and cost and financial [10]. The improvement of the organization and cost with digital tools allows for quantifying the resources needed during and after the construction and optimizing them, reducing the carbon footprint of the building but also the construction and maintenance costs. The improvements are multidimensional and require a global vision of the building and an extended analysis in the conception phase with the collaboration between the architect, engineer, constructors, and investors. The growing number of building rating systems worldwide, but also mainly building energy codes and, more recently, green standards, are driving the construction towards new standards dealing with the reduction of embodied and operational energy. We show in this chapter how the complexity of green retrofitting and new building conception can be handled with the IPD tools in order of magnitudes from energy saving and the construction to the services. Collaboration and autonomous synchronization systems can automate the design and construction processes, reducing materials and equipment and simultaneously reducing the building costs and carbon footprint.

2 Building Rating Systems: Social Improvement The initial goals and interests of the IPD were to link the architect, contractor, and client to improve the organization and efficiency of the building, from the design process to the service use and maintenance. It is now used mainly for constructing energy-efficient or passive buildings, which require more sophisticated designs adapted to the external weather conditions [11]: the building specifications being

Integrated Project Design to Reach the Net-Zero Building

151

different in the hot and humid tropics from cold and dry conditions. The construction of a passive building requires better synchronizations between the parties involved to reduce investment and material consumption. A growing number of green building rating systems (GBRSs) have appeared since the 90th, starting with BEEAM in the UK, followed by LEED in the US or Minergie in Switzerland. Today, sustainable certifications are present in most countries worldwide, as shown with the green labels in Fig. 1. The IDP is primordial to forthfill the specifications each certificate requires as most of the certificates are based on a point system based on a different set of criteria, mainly based on environmental and social dimensions. German standard DGNB is one of the few standards focusing on the economic aspect; otherwise, the GBRSs are missing the economic dimension, and most of the buildings made with the certificates are demonstrating an increase of the cost up to 10% from not certified building [12, 13]. Outside of the evident gain of social dimensions appearing with the certification of the building, rising criticism has been given to the energy aspects of the GBRSs [14], making no link between certifications, energy optimization, and heterogeneity of current GRBSs, giving different scores for the same building [15].

Fig. 1 Some green building rating Certifications around the world: BREEAM United Kingdom (1990), LEED United States (1993), Minergie Switzerland (1994), Green Key Canada (1998), EEWH Taiwan (1999), KGBC South Korea (2000), Casa Clima Italy (2002), Green Star Australia (2003), CASBEE Japan (2004), BCA Green Mark Singapore (2005), DGNB Germany (2007), LOTUS Vietnam (2008), GreenSL Sri Lanka (2009), IGBC India (2009), Pearl Abu Dhabi (2009), Berde Phillipines (2009), BEAM Plus Hong Kong (2010), Home Star New Zealand (2010), GBI Malaysia (2011), Greenship Indonesia (2011), Three Star China (2012), ARZ BRS Lebanon (2012), Built Green Canada (2012), ÇEDBIK-Konut Turkey (2013), GBC Brazil Casa Brazil (2014), HPI Ireland (2016), Active House Denmark (2017), Casa Columbia Columbia (2017)

152

D. Lootens

3 Building Energy Codes: A Tool for Green Retrofitting The IPD is not only used to ease the attribution of green building certifications, but it can quantify the economic and environmental impacts of the construction with the analyses of single attribute certification, such as the energy performance of the building, which is now mandatory in more than 70 countries. Building energy codes are implemented by governments to minimize the energy used, demonstrating efficiency improvement of the building and, consequently, their decarbonization. The constructions can be separated into two categories: (i) refurbishment and (ii) new build. In the first case, the main goal is the retrofitting of the building, which requires an analysis of the possible saving, costs, and payback [16]. The World Commission on Environment and Development sustainability from the United Nations in 1987 defined sustainable development as the “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [17]. This definition well considered that our current needs should also consider the needs of the future, keeping the environment in the same state and without forgetting that all resources are limited and should be either renewable or recycled. Taking into account that the floor areal growth of buildings is less than 2% per year [7] and that the growth of new green building constructions is only a proportion of it, it will be impossible to overcome the negative environmental impact of the buildings without green retrofitting [18, 19]. Retrofitting is about improving energy efficiency, mainly by improving thermal insulation and installing energy-efficient heating, cooling, lighting, and ventilation technologies. It also leads to the improvement of building comfort with social and economic considerations. Retrofitting presents significant advantages but also drawbacks: it allows to keep the city’s history and character, improves the building’s life cycle, limits waste generation, and saves green energy; on the other hand, it is a complex procedure as each building should be analyzed separately, required a complex compatibility study with the building materials [20], which could lead to a rapid deterioration of the building, mainly due to humidity issues. Retrofitting also requires skilled labor, which is dramatically missing in the construction industry. It also does not allow for an increase in the city’s compactness, which is one of the critical issues in limiting soil consumption, with an optimization of the energy and transport made possible with the distance reduction. The decision of destruction or retrofitting requires an extended analysis of the cost and environmental impact on energy optimization and urban compactness [21]. Integrated Project Design is the process that delivers the building design, processes, and system to fulfill the goals set by all parties involved with the need for a systematic approach in sustainable retrofits [22]. The efficiency of Integrated Project Design for retrofitting has been proven to be far above traditional retrofitting, with a reduction of more than 80% of the building energy requirement and a substantial upgrade to the building envelope that prolongs the useful life of the building. The Integrated project design retrofitting cost is higher than traditional retrofitting. However, considering that all partners are involved in the process, a typical payback of 20 years is reasonable for the investors. Extended retrofitting can

Integrated Project Design to Reach the Net-Zero Building

153

CO2 per m2 (t)

be defined as a medium-term investment considering the energy price increase. The increase of the capital with the reduction of buildings’ service costs and an increase of LCA with less maintenances are increasing the economic advantages of the IPD retrofits. Energy saving is a significant economic payback of the retrofitting, quantified with the Integrated Project Design. The energy efficiency rating of the building is available in Europe, making a classification from G, where more than 400 kWh/ m2 per year is consumed, to less than 12 kWh/m2 per year for a passive building, as shown in the left graphic of Fig. 2. The ecological and economic costs of the building are calculated by taking into consideration the cost per kWh, in Europe of about 0.25 e in 2022, with a carbon footprint of 0.3 kg (an average of 0.4 kg per kWh worldwide considering the ratio of coal and gas in electricity production [23]). Based on these numbers, 40 years building generally rated G costs 100 e of energy and 120 kg of CO2 per square meter and year, whereas a 10-year-old building classified D costs about 62 e for the energy and produces 75 kg of C02 per year. These values should be compared to those of a passive house where the economic and ecological bills are reduced to less than 4 e and less than 8 kg of carbon dioxide per quadrat meter and year. The difference is more than a factor of 25 for an old building, and 7 for most of the buildings made ten years ago. For the environmentalist, the equation is straightforward: all buildings of more than ten years should be retrofitted. The financial equation must be taken into account: with a retrofitting cost average of 1000 e/m2 , the payback is of 10 years only with the energy saving for the building classified G and about 15 years for the class D, and this without taking into account the inexorable cost increase of the energy. The energy efficiency rate impact of a building on the economy and environment is tremendous, as we can see on the right graphic of Fig. 2: on a life cycle of 50 years, an old building rated G will consume about 7 t of CO2 , reduced to about 4 t for a 10year-old D building, 2.5 t for a B and less than 1 t for a passive building. A graphical representation of the carbon life cycle as a function of the building efficiency rate is represented in Fig. 3. The surfaces of the 2D circles are proportional to the quantity of carbon dioxide required for the building’s construction, destruction, and service. 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0

10

20

Years

30

40

50

Fig. 2 Left: energy efficiency rating of a building. Right, equivalent carbon dioxide production with an average of 0.3 kg CO2 production per kWh and an initial carbon footprint of 0.7 t per m2 , curves from top to bottom: buildings classified G, D, B, and Passive

154

D. Lootens

Fig. 3 The carbon footprint of building classified G, D, B, A, and Passive. The areal corresponds to the amplitude generated in a Lifecycle of 50 years. The construction and destruction carbon costs are kept constant at 0.7 and 0.1 t/m2 for each building class

Literature offers general statements on the carbon production ratio of 80–90% for the building operation and 10 to 20% for the production, maintenance, and end-of-life [24, 25]. These numbers are correct for buildings having an energy efficiency rating from G to D, as seen in Table 1, considering an average CO2 generation of 0.7 and 0.1 t/m2 for the construction and destruction processes, respectively. The ratio between the carbon dioxide produced by the construction and service use of the building only depends on its energy efficiency. The energy cost of the building LCA is linked with the energy efficiency, as shown in the last column of Table 1, calculating the payback of the energy bill compared with a typical retrofitting cost of 1000 e/m2 . Efficient buildings rated A and passive have an embodied carbon representing a significant part of the carbon footprint of the building. Due to limited resources and environmental considerations, the type of construction should now be integrated Table 1 Repartition of the carbon footprint in t/m2 and the percentage of the different energy rating buildings on the LCA of the building. Repartition in three parts: construction, destruction, and services. The total cost is calculated only on the service over 50 years, based on a kWh of 0.25 e and a kWh generating 0.4 kg of CO2 Construction

Destruction

Service (50 y) (%)

CO2 (t/ m2 )

Cost (e/ m2 )

Rate G (t/ m2 )

0.7

10.3%

0.1

1.8%

6.0

88.0%

6.8

5000

Rate D (t/ m2 )

0.7

15.3%

0.1

2.6%

3.8

82.1%

4.6

3167

Rate B (t/ m2 )

0.7

26.0%

0.1

4.5%

1.9

69.6%

2.7

1583

Rate A (t/ m2 )

0.7

44.6%

0.1

7.6%

0.8

47.8%

1.6

667

Passive (t/ m2 )

0.7

67.0%

0.1

11.5%

0.2

21.5%

1.0

167

Integrated Project Design to Reach the Net-Zero Building

155

into the industrial planning and decision-making processes allowing a significant reduction in the grey energy, resource, and waste, increasing resource recovery and recycling processes.

4 Embodied Energy: Greener is Cheaper Building energy optimization demonstrates a decrease of the carbon footprint from several tons per quadrat meter to less than one for a passive building, and thus at a cost with a payback ranging from 10 to 20 years. For energy-efficient buildings, the construction and destruction phases are responsible for a significant part of the entire carbon footprint of the building. All new constructions should consider a reduction of their carbon footprint in the initial planning phases, reducing the embodied or grey energy: the energy used to produce the construction material. Whereas energy optimizations of existing buildings with green retrofitting involve further costs with payback performed with energy saving, the construction of passive greenhouses is not necessarily more expensive than traditional houses [26]. It is, in fact, the contrary: greener is always cheaper, and the statement to have more with less is correct. Raw materials prices and carbon footprint are directly related [27] to the costs, and embodied carbon is related to the energy needed to extract and proceed with the materials. The construction materials follow the same rules as shown in Fig. 4, representing the relation between the cost of a large set of construction materials calculated from the energy and then the carbon dioxide generated as a function of the price per ton. The line corresponds to the one-to-one relation, where the cost of the material would be only given by the cost of the energy required to obtain it. The production cost was made with an average of 20 c per kWh and a carbon footprint per kWh of 0.4 kg. The price of the construction materials is then mainly based on the energy cost to produce them, which is directly proportional to their carbon footprint. A general statement is that building costs are half related to the raw material price, which means that reducing the quantity of material used impacts half of the total cost. Reducing the quantity or carbon footprint of material directly impacts the cost of the building, demonstrating that building greener is cheaper! Raw materials extraction produces around 11 GT of CO2 [28], with about 50% used in construction [29]. With the growing urbanization, these numbers may double by 2050 [30]. In addition to ecological consideration with the use of raw materials, the limited available quantities should also be considered: not only energy is limited, but also reserves of each material, especially metals [31]. The quantity of renewable raw materials such as wood is also limited from the surface of the forest: with a total surface of 4 billion hectares, the entire wood production is limited to 2 GT per year, where half is used for combustible. As defined by the United Nations, the use of materials should be limited for environmental and sustainable reasons. In order to limit our material consumption in construction, we should first consider how much we use and for which reasons.

156

D. Lootens 10000

Price of energy (€/t)

Aluminium Membrane Steel PP

1000

Gypsum

100

CMU Concrete Limestone

Flashing

Glass Wood Brick Plaster

Slate

10 10

100

1000

10000

Price per ton (€)

Fig. 4 The relation between construction materials prices is calculated from the carbon footprint, taking into account that 0.4 kg of CO2 is generated with one kWh, which costs 20 c, as a function of the prices of the materials. The line represents to one-to-one relation

5 What is the Weight of Your Building? Integrated Project Design brings the possibility to calculate the quantity of materials used and, as a consequence, is a tool to optimize it, for the good of the environment and investors. Carbon dioxide per quadrate meter has been studied [32, 33] and presented in standards such as the RE 2020 in France [34]. Each quadrate meter represents a generation of about 600–800 kg carbon dioxide, where 300–500 kg is due to the embodied energy of the materials [35, 36], and 200–300 kg/m2 due to transport/ electricity, cladding, equipment, and outfit. The number of raw materials used per building is well known in Integrated Project Design, which allows the determination of the Life cycle assessment of the buildings, calculating the carbon emission with each of the four building phases: production, construction, operation, and end of Life. A recent exhibition performed in the Pavillon de l’Arsenal in Paris [37] listed a series of light and low carbon construction, showing, with examples, our capacity to build with the minimum materials quantity. However, the concept of the net zero houses is questionable: as energy means carbon, at least for a large part of it, how can we build without energy? Raw materials are produced with energy, and concrete, glass, bricks, or wood are needed; all require a certain level of energy to be proceeded with an equivalent quantity of carbon generated, as shown in the graphic in Fig. 5. A building made only with wood has not a net zero carbon footprint, as each ton of construction wood generates about half a ton of carbon dioxide [38]. As for the energy, the quantity should be first reduced as the weight of the building, leading to the limitation of the equivalent carbon dioxide generated. The BIM tools integrated into the Project design contain all the information required to optimize the building’s embodied energy. The weight and embodied energy was calculated on a 100 m2 house built with concrete, mortar, brick, steel, wood, tiles, plastic, windows and doors (opening), paint, and insolation in the proportion weight summarized in Table

Integrated Project Design to Reach the Net-Zero Building

157

mortar

mortar

concrete

concrete

bricks

bricks

steel

steel

wood

wood

tiles

tiles

plastics

plastics

windows/Door

windows/Door

paint

paint

insolation

insolation

Fig. 5 The ratio of the construction materials in weight (left) and carbon generated (right) for a 100 m2 house

2. Analyzing each component’s carbon footprint allows calculating the structure’s total weight, carbon footprint, and percentage equivalents. The current house weighs 126.7 t, leading to a 1.26 t/m2 of materials and an embodied carbon footprint of 463 kg/m2 , in the average of the current building made [37]. The percentage ratio of the material weights and carbon produced calculated in Table 2 are represented in the two graphics of Fig. 5. The concrete, mortar, and bricks represent more than 80% of the house’s weight but less than 40% of the carbon content, which is more distributed with a significant contribution of the steel, rock wool insulation, plastic, or wood. The embodied carbon of the building should be compensated with the same among of carbon capture, and in fact, all buildings behave as a carbon sink, compensating the embodied carbon partially from the lifecycle and, thus, for an extended period to provide efficient carbon sequestration. Wood and plastic produce a significant amount of embodied carbon in the range of 300–500 kg/t and 2000–3000 kg/t respectively [38]. Both are carbon-based and are also natural or artificial carbon sinks with carbon storage capacities [39, 40], representing about 4.5 t of carbon dioxide equivalent stored in this example. The natural carbonation of the cementitious materials currently represents around 0.2 GT of carbon sink per year [41]: 40% of the total carbon produced by cement has been sequestrated naturally along the LCA of the building [42]. With an average cement content of 10% for concrete and 30% for mortar, a carbon dioxide sequestration of 4% for concrete and 12% for mortar is calculated. The total storage carbon dioxide equivalent of the house is about 16.8t, representing 127 kg per quadrat meter, for 463 kg produced, or 36% of sequestration from embodied carbon dioxide. Whereas cementitious materials absorb naturally carbon dioxide during the carbonation process, wood and polymer materials can deliver CO2 again if burnt at the end of life. It is then primordial to have the most extended life possible or to recycle them to avoid or postpone the carbon restitution.

2.9

400

1.1

2.3

2.5

0.3

Weight (t)

CO2 (kg/t)

CO2 (t)

Weight (%)

CO2 (%)

Storage (t)

Mortar

3.5

23.0

69.9

10.6

120

88.6

Concrete

0

9.3

11.3

4.3

300

14.3

Brick

0

16.2

2.4

7.5

2500

3.0

Steel

8.6

6.2

4.5

2.9

500

5.7

Wood

0

1.9

2.3

0.9

300

2.9

Tile

4.4

13.9

1.7

6.4

3000

2.1

Plastic

0

6.2

1.1

2.9

2000

1.4

Opening

0

2.5

0.1

1.1

8000

0.1

Paint

0

18.5

4.5

8.6

1500

5.7

Insolation

16.8

100

100

46.3

126.7

Total

Table 2 Calculate the different materials weight and percentage used for a 100 m2 house made of concrete, mortar, brick, steel, wood, tile, plastic, opening (doors and windows), paint, and insolation, with the equivalent carbon produced. The carbon dioxide stored is calculated for concrete, mortar, wood, and plastics

158 D. Lootens

Integrated Project Design to Reach the Net-Zero Building

159

6 Weight and Carbon Optimizations The required net-zero goals of 2050 imposed a drastic reduction of materials used and carbon dioxide production during the construction, service, and destruction of the building. Optimizing the energy efficiency of the passive house required the need of using solar panels, for example, transforming the building into a positive energy generator [43]. The embodied energy reduction requires the diminution of the quantity and carbon footprint of construction materials but not at the price of extensive equipments which are also generating CO2 . The net-zero goal can only be reached with the consideration and the need for carbon dioxide storage through the materials used. The material contents and carbon footprint are optimized thanks to the BIM tools, giving the quantity of materials used with the equivalent carbon footprint. For this purpose, two kinds of optimization have been performed, one with a wood house and one with a lightweight house built with cellular concrete. The total material, carbon dioxide generated, and stored weights of the three houses, as well as the equivalent values per quadrate meter, are summarized in Table 3. A weight reduction of 49% is reached with both lightweight and wood houses, whereas a carbon footprint reduction of 37 and 32% are reached, respectively, with the wood and lightweight structures. The main advantage of the lightweight structure is to reduce the consumption of wood, which is limited to all construction materials. Graphical representations of the weight and carbon footprint distributions of the main construction elements are represented in the graphics of Fig. 6. The size of the 2D circle diagrams is directly proportional to the absolute weight, giving a visual reduction. The weight reduction is mainly reached with a reduction of the concrete materials for both wood and lightweight structure. A reduction of the insulation material is also made possible as wood and cellular concrete have better insulation properties, reducing the needed thickness and quantity of insolation. This improvement also beneficially affects the surface available, with more than 5 m2 surface increase with a decrease in the wall thickness and better insulation properties of the structure. In both cases, wood and plastic materials represent almost 50% of the total embodied carbon and most of the carbon stored. The weight and carbon footprint improvement can be reached with hybrid solutions. Table 3 Materials weight and percentage used for 100 m2 houses: (i) benchmark as described in part 3, (ii) wood house, and (iii) lightweight house. The production of carbon dioxide and carbon storage are expressed for the house in tons, kg/m2 and percentage increase or decrease (Delta %) Weight

CO2 generated

t

kg/m2

Delta

Benchmark

126.7

1267

Wood house

64.7

Light weight

64.4

CO2 storage

t

kg/m2

Delta

t

Kg/m2

Delta

0

46.3

463

0

16.8

168

0

647

−49%

29.1

291

−37%

36.8

368

+ 120%

644

−49%

26.5

265

−32%

31.8

318

+89%

160

D. Lootens

Fig. 6 The ratio of the construction materials in weight (bottom) and carbon generated (up) for a 100 m2 house built from left to right: benchmark, wood structure, lightweight structure. The sizes of the 2D circles are proportional to the weight reductions

Reducing the building weight reduces material consumption and carbon footprint, which can be considered positive with the carbon stored in the different building materials. The outfit, equipment, transport, and construction energy add about 200 to 300 kg/m2 CO2 . The main cost comes from the heating and cooling systems requiring large quantities of metals and freezing liquids and representing a carbon footprint of about 100 to 150 kg/m2 . The advantage of a passive house also resides in reducing the needed equipment.

7 Passive and Positive Energy Building: Building Automation System Integrated project design is analyzing the project life cycle, including the materials, the construction, and operation, but also strategic planning in this collaboration of the different steps with the integration of an autonomous synchronization system. The payback of all parts can be precisely calculated, making the advantages of installing better quality materials with higher lifetime, reducing at the same time the construction’s complexity and the operational energy. During the twentieth century, construction efficiency never stopped decreasing with the increasing installation of layers and types of machinery supposed to improve the comfort of a building. This building strategy leads to poor building envelope performance, compensated by a broad range of mechanical equipment generating both embodied and operational GHG emissions. Passive constructions are achieved with efficient insulation and

Integrated Project Design to Reach the Net-Zero Building

161

thigh envelope, leading to energy and ventilation efficiency, and limiting the need for mechanical equipment to the minimum. The building design is directly optimized from the conception, using at the best, direct solar energy with the windows orientation and automatic stores controls. The building Automation System (BAS) brings a novel optimization to achieve a further reduction of up to 40% in energy consumption and, at the same time, an improvement of indoor quality with the regulation of the ventilation, lighting, and shading systems [44]. Integrated project design tools are reducing the building complexity bringing the synergy between the building envelope, materials needed, and energy consumption. The building can then be smart, reaching full automation with the Internet of Things, adaptations of the ventilation [45, 46], and shading, taking into account the building occupancy, humidity, carbon, and particle concentration with the external weather conditions.

8 Synergy Between Materials and Outfit: The Solar House The integrated design considers the relationship between the various building elements and the wished interior environment. The main issue is the relationship between building components and their environment, considering the impact of natural solar energy variation around the year and depending on the latitude. As the efficiency of solar panels is below 30%, they should never be used for the climatization of the house, which requires the most energy. The external temperature variations must be buffered with the design’s adaptation of the building envelope. The sunlight energy should then be used as a passive solar gain and light source during the day. A series of principles are required to contribute to the passive heating and cooling of the house: (i) with the correct solar exposure, (ii) the location of the windows on the south side, minimizing the windows on the other sides, (iii) providing overhangs and shading to regulate the solar gains with the seasons, (iv) provide insulation and thermal mass and (v) seal the house and proper air exchange [47]. The use of solar energy is required to reach the net zero goal: heating the house with the windows placed on the south or heating the water from the roof. While insulation reduces energy losses from the building, it loses solar radiation, which cannot penetrate the surface construction. Improving the building shell has the advantage of reducing the total cost and the need for wiring and piping systems and limiting renewable technologies like solar water heaters, solar panels, or geothermal systems. The carbon footprint of the building outfit is also limited to the minimum, having more with less. The development of a passive house reduced the needed equipment so that even a warm pump system is not required, as demonstrated with the 2226 Building [48] shown in Fig. 7. The building temperature is kept at 22 to 26 °C, with an operating system regulating humidity and CO2 content via sensor windows opening controls. Thermal inertia requires thick walls: 80 cm made of ceramic elements for the 2226 Building to ensure the insulation and thermal mass simultaneously, meaning that a large quantity of materials has been used. With a total surface of about 3200 m2 on six

162

D. Lootens

Fig. 7 b + e 2226 building in Vorarlberg. Photo © Eduard Hueber + Ines Leong/Archpho

floors, the extra thickness of the wall, needed for the building’s high thermal storage capacity, reduces the surface to about 200 m2 compared to a standard 40 cm wall thickness of a well-isolated building. The reduction of the surface due to the large walls is partially compensated with the reduction of the building services surface of about 80 m2 , as no ventilation and heating system is needed. In total, the building is saving on the installation of the heating, cooling, and ventilating system, reducing more than 20% of the building cost and 50% of the operational cost [49]. With facades of more than 80 cm and high ceilings, the 2226 building is reaching a 1900 kg/m2 , with embodied carbon emissions of all materials reaching 404 kg/m2 in the average of concrete building [46], resulting in around 150 kg more than optimize wood house and lightweight concrete. The mass of material used is also three times more than for the optimized house at about 600 kg/m2 , as shown in the left graphic of Fig. 8. The comparison of the carbon footprint between the benchmark, wood, lightweight, and 2226 house represented in the right graphic of Fig. 8 also demonstrates that the 2226 House presents better performances than the benchmark building but about the same carbon footprint as the optimized wood and lightweight house, taking into account a total of 200 kg/m2 for the technic. In contrast, it is limited to 50 kg/m2 for the 2226 building. The carbon sink is also similar to the benchmark building as the bricks used for the walls do not store carbon like wood or bio-sourced materials, and do not absorb CO2 with time like concrete and mortar. Further optimization of the building could be possible by using alternatives to brick. Wall insulation reduces heat loss and prohibits the transmitted energy from the sun, which can only be made with the windows. New materials like Transparent Insulation Material (TIM) have been developed to provide at the same time insulation from heat loss and transmittance of solar energy [50]. The combination of TIM with concrete wall allows the creation of so-called solar walls with solar energy transmitted and stored in the concrete mass and, at the same time, a heat loss reduction with the insulation property saving up to 200 kWh per year and per quadrate meter of collector wall [50]. In a solar house, the envelope should be at the same time used as

Integrated Project Design to Reach the Net-Zero Building

163

Fig. 8 Comparison of the weight (left) and carbon footprint (right) of the Benchmark, Wood, light weight and 2226 House. The carbon footprint is divided into 3 parts: embodied, sink and technic

thermal insulation but also for energy transmittance and biosourced. Once again, the IPD allows us to make plans for the entire system: not only the technics should be reduced, but also the building envelope should be limited to the minimum quantity to reduce the embodied energy.

9 Conclusion Construction, responsible for 40% of the GHG emissions, is also the field that can reduce its carbon footprint quicker with a combination of existing solutions through the IDP. The primary outcome lies in organizing the changes that must be made. With the growing number of building rate systems, the building energy codes, and recently with the green building construction codes, construction is driven from nice to have to the obligations reaching the net zero goals. The complexity of the modifications required can be only handled with a proper organization made with the Integrated Project Design, which links innovative solutions available and their implementation by engineers working together with architects to improve the building energy efficiency with materials having the lowest embodied carbon footprint. The analysis of the entire system, from materials selection to building principle, is first needed to optimize the number of materials used, leading to the reduction of the structure weight with optimization of the building enveloped for better indoor climate control. Improving the building envelope is one of the keys, either in retrofitting or for new buildings, to reach the net-zero goals of service use from a building. Reduction is not only in carbon saving but also in the maintenance costs with a payback always faster with the increase of energy cost. The Integrated Project Design can then be used either for retrofitting or new buildings to demonstrate to gain to the investors with the new dimension that greener is also always cheaper. The saving on materials quantity brings a second dimension to the analysis. Building lighter has the advantage of improving insulation and reducing construction material consumption with greater diversification and significant cost savings. The latest dimension is the impact of

164

D. Lootens

the improvement of the building enveloped from Passive building on the machinery required: reducing it to its strict minimum, saving up to 200 kg/m2 of CO2 by limiting the house equipment to it strict minimum. Altogether, it is already possible to reduce by half the weight of the building and its embodied carbon footprint with hybrid solutions, reducing the building cost and construction time. All these improvements can be easily implemented with the Integrated Project Design, where the digital tools calculate the optimal building envelope adapted to the outdoor conditions.

References 1. https://www.berkeleyearth.org/global-temperature-report-for-2021/ 2. Jacobs, P., Lenssen, N., Schmidt, G., & Rohde, R. (2021, December). The arctic is now warming four times as fast as the rest of the globe. In AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts (Vol. 2021, pp. A13E-02). 3. Swilling, M., Hajer, M., Baynes, T., Bergesen, J., Labbé, F., Musango, J. K., Ramaswami, A., Robinson, B., Salat, S., Suh, S., Currie, P., & Tabory, S. (2018). The weight of cities: Resource requirements of future urbanization. IRP Reports. 4. Yoro, K. O., & Daramola, M. O. (2020). CO2 emission sources, greenhouse gases, and the global warming effect. In Advances in carbon capture (pp. 3–28). Woodhead Publishing. 5. Edenhofer, O. (Ed.). (2015). Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate change (Vol. 3). Cambridge University Press. 6. https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions 7. Hamilton, I., Rapf, O., Kockat, D. J., Zuhaib, D. S., Abergel, T., Oppermann, M., Otto, M., Loran, S., Fagotto, I., Steurer, N., & Nass, N. (2020). Global status report for buildings and construction. United Nations Environmental Programme. 8. Balasubramanian, S., Shukla, V., Islam, N., & Manghat, S. (2021). Construction industry 4.0 and sustainability: an enabling framework. IEEE transactions on engineering management. 9. EN 15978-1. (2021). Sustainability of construction works—Methodology for the assessment of performance of buildings—Part 1: Environmental Performance. 10. Kulkarni, S. B., & Mhetar, G. (2017). Cost control technique using Building Information Modeling (BIM) for a residential building. International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology, 10(1), 324–330. 11. Schnieders, J., Eian, T. D., Filippi, M., Florez, J., Kaufmann, B., Pallantzas, S., Paulsen, M., Reyes, E., Wassouf, M., & Yeh, S. C. (2020). Design and realisation of the Passive House concept in different climate zones. Energy Efficiency, 13(8), 1561–1604. 12. Gonzalez-Caceres, A., Karlshøj, J., Vik, T. A., Hempel, E., & Nielsen, T. R. (2022). Evaluation of cost-effective measures for the renovation of existing dwellings in the framework of the energy certification system: A case study in Norway. Energy and Buildings, 264, 112071. 13. U˘gur, L. O., & Leblebici, N. (2018). An examination of the LEED green building certification system in terms of construction costs. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 81, 1476– 1483. 14. Amiri, A., Ottelin, J., & Sorvari, J. (2019). Are LEED-certified buildings energy-efficient in practice? Sustainability, 11(6), 1672. 15. Sánchez Cordero, A., Gómez Melgar, S., & Andújar Márquez, J. M. (2019). Green building rating systems and the new framework level (s): A critical review of sustainability certification within Europe. Energies, 13(1), 66. 16. Regnier, C., Mathew, P., Shackelford, J., Lee, S. H., Robinson, A., & Walter, T. (2022). Multitechnology building system retrofits for utility incentive programs: Savings, costs and baseline considerations. Energy and Buildings, 270, 112270.

Integrated Project Design to Reach the Net-Zero Building

165

17. World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford University Press. ISBN-13: 978–0192820808. 18. Yu, S. M., Tu, Y., & Luo, C. (2011). Green retrofitting costs and benefits: A new research agenda. Institute Real Estate Studies Working Paper Series, the Department of Real Estate, National University of Singapore, Singapore. 19. Jagarajan, R., Asmoni, M. N. A. M., Mohammed, A. H., Jaafar, M. N., Mei, J. L. Y., & Baba, M. (2017). Green retrofitting–A review of current status, implementations and challenges. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 67, 1360–1368. 20. Hunt, R., & Suhr, M. (2019). Old house eco handbook: A practical guide to retrofitting for energy efficiency and sustainability. Frances Lincoln. 21. Fatone, S., Conticelli, E., & Tondelli, S. (2012). Environmental sustainability and urban densification. In Sustainable city VII: Urban regeneration and sustainability (pp. 217–228). 22. Ma, Z., Cooper, P., Daly, D., & Ledo, L. (2012). Existing building retrofits: Methodology and state-of-the-art. Energy and buildings, 55, 889–902. 23. https://ourworldindata.org/low-carbon-electricity 24. Peng, C., & Xiao, W. (2015). Case study of carbon emissions from a building’s life cycle based on BIM and Ecotect. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, 2015. 25. Wasim, J., & Nine, A. (2016). Climate Change and Low Carbon Emission Green Building. Military Institute of Science and Technology (MIST). 26. Hu, M. (2019). Does zero energy building cost more? An empirical comparison of the construction costs for zero energy education building in United States. Sustainable Cities and Society, 45, 324–334. 27. Gutowski, T. G., Sahni, S., Allwood, J. M., Ashby, M. F., & Worrell, E. (2013). The energy required to produce materials: Constraints on energy-intensity improvements, parameters of demand. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 371(1986), 20120003. 28. Hertwich, E. G. (2021). Increased carbon footprint of materials production driven by rise in investments. Nature Geoscience, 14(3), 151–155. 29. Lamb, W. F., Wiedmann, T., Pongratz, J., Andrew, R., Crippa, M., Olivier, J. G., Wiedenhofer, D., Mattioli, G., Al Khourdajie, A., House, J., Pachauri, S., & Minx, J. (2021). A review of trends and drivers of greenhouse gas emissions by sector from 1990 to 2018. Environmental Research Letters, 16(7), 073005. 30. Swilling, M., Hajer, M., Baynes, T., Bergesen, J., Labbé, F., Musango, J. K., Ramaswami, A., Robinson, B., Salat, S., Suh, S., Currie, P., Fang, A., Hanson, A. Kruit, K., Reiner, M., Smit, S., & Tabory, S. (2018). The Weight of Cities: Resource Requirements of Future Urbanization. A Report by the International Resource Panel (IRP). United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. 31. Moreau, V., Dos Reis, P. C., & Vuille, F. (2019). Enough metals? Resource constraints to supply a fully renewable energy system. Resources, 8(1), 29. 32. Collings, D. (2020). Carbon footprint benchmarking data for buildings. The Structural Engineer: Journal of the Institution of Structural Engineer, 98(11), 10–13. 33. Wilberforce, T., Olabi, A. G., Sayed, E. T., Elsaid, K., Maghrabie, H. M., & Abdelkareem, M. A. (2021). A review on zero energy buildings–Pros and cons. Energy and Built Environment. 34. Décret n°2021–1004 du 29 juillet 2021 relatif aux exigences de performance énergétique et environnementale des constructions de bâtiments en France métropolitaine. https://www.legifr ance.gouv.fr/eli/decret/2021/7/29/LOGL2107361D/jo/texte 35. Luo, Z., Yang, L., & Liu, J. (2016). Embodied carbon emissions of office building: A case study of China’s 78 office buildings. Building and Environment, 95, 365–371. 36. Fenner, A. E., Kibert, C. J., Woo, J., Morque, S., Razkenari, M., Hakim, H., & Lu, X. (2018). The carbon footprint of buildings: A review of methodologies and applications. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 94, 1142–1152. 37. Rizzotti, P. (2022). Housing Footprint—Light and low Carbon Construction. Éditions du Pavillon de l’Arsenal 38. Ashby, M. F. (2022). Materials and sustainable development. Butterworth-Heinemann.

166

D. Lootens

39. Miller, S. A., Van Roijen, E., Cunningham, P., & Kim, A. (2021). Opportunities and challenges for engineering construction materials as carbon sinks. RILEM Technical Letters, 6, 105–118. 40. Aresta, M., & Dibenedetto, A. (2007). 7 Artificial carbon sinks: Utilization of carbon dioxide for the synthesis of chemicals and technological applications. Greenhouse Gas Sinks, 98. 41. Friedlingstein, P., Jones, M. W., O’Sullivan, M., Andrew, R. M., Bakker, D. C., Hauck, J., Le Quéré, C., Peters, G.P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Sitch, S., & Zeng, J. (2022). Global carbon budget 2021. Earth System Science Data, 14(4), 1917–2005. 42. Xi, F., Davis, S. J., Ciais, P., Crawford-Brown, D., Guan, D., Pade, C., Shi, T., Syddall, M., Lv, J., Ji, L., Bing, L., & Liu, Z. (2016). Substantial global carbon uptake by cement carbonation. Nature Geoscience, 9(12), 880–883. 43. Brimblecombe, R., & Rosemeier, K. (2017). Positive energy homes: creating passive houses for better living. CSIRO PUBLISHING. 44. Aste, N., Manfren, M., & Marenzi, G. (2017). Building automation and control systems and performance optimization: A framework for analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 75, 313–330. 45. Korsavi, S. S., Jones, R. V., & Fuertes, A. (2021). The gap between automated building management system and office occupants’ manual window operations: Towards personalised algorithms. Automation in Construction, 132, 103960. 46. Halderaker, I. D. (2016). Design and energy analysis of natural and hybrid ventilation strategies for Norwegian office buildings (Master’s thesis, NTNU). 47. Chiras, D. D. (2002). The solar house: Passive heating and cooling. Chelsea Green Publishing. 48. Maierhofer, D., Röck, M., Saade, M. R. M., Hoxha, E., & Passer, A. (2022). Critical life cycle assessment of the innovative passive nZEB building concept ‘be 2226’ in view of net-zero carbon targets. Building and Environment, 223, 109476. 49. https://www.2226.eu/en/revolution/ 50. Sun, Y., Wilson, R., & Wu, Y. (2018). A review of Transparent Insulation Material (TIM) for building energy saving and daylight comfort. Applied Energy, 226, 713–729.

The Path to Integrated Project Design (IPD) Through the Examples of Industrial/Product/Engineering Design: A Review Vitor Carneiro , Bárbara Rangel , Jorge Lino Alves , and Augusto Barata da Rocha

Abstract Nowadays, product or building performance requirements impose increased responsibilities on the design project teams. The design must be more detailed in its various fields, and more knowledge is demanded on each discipline involved. Therefore, the project can no longer be the result of a sum of the multiple contributions but is collaboratively developed following an Integrated Project Design (IPD) approach. However, ensuring coordination among the various actors in the different project stages is the most significant difficulty, not only among the project design team members (architects, designers, and engineers) but also between project areas (project design team, manufacturing, marketing, etc.). Thus, defining the project parameters together and working simultaneously is essential to achieve the expected performance. In this chapter, a literature review on design methodologies in architecture, engineering design, and industrial/product design is done to understand how the various design methodologies developed can support this new paradigm. It is possible to verify a general consensus on the most common stages in the design process. Crossing these stages with the disciplinary fields of the project’s interface (marketing/sales, project team, manufacturing and project management, quality, purchasing, legal and financial), a support framework is developed for the integrated development of design projects. In this framework, for each stage of the development process, the objective, the outcome, the key activities to be carried out, and the responsibilities of the organization’s different functions are indicated.

V. Carneiro (B) Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] B. Rangel CONSTRUCT, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal J. Lino Alves · A. Barata da Rocha INEGI, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal B. Rangel CEAU, Faculty of Architecture of University of Porto, Porto, Portugal © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 B. Rangel et al. (eds.), Integrated Project Design, Digital Innovations in Architecture, Engineering and Construction, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32425-3_7

167

168

V. Carneiro et al.

Keywords Literature review · Design methodologies · Integrated project design · Integrated methodology · Integrated development · Product development

1 Introduction The methodology is derived from the word “method,” which means “theory of method” or “science of method.” In turn,”method” comes from the Greek word ´ (meta) and “oδ´oς” “μšθoδoς” (methodos), which is composed of the words “μετα” (odos) [1]. “Meta” means: between, medium, interim, and intermediate; and “Odos” has three different meanings: (1) path, way, street, road, track, route, highway; (2) journey, trip, voyage; and (3) procedure, way of doing something [2]. Furthermore, “way” also means the course taken or to be taken in getting from one place to another [3]. From its etymological origin, “method” is an established way to achieve a specific end or to mediate between an initial and a final state. In the words of Bunge [4], the methodology is the set of methods, rules, and postulates practiced in a given field/ area/discipline for producing knowledge or problem-solving. Speaking specifically about design, Bürdek [5] explains that each artifact (product) is the result of a development process allowing to reach a solution for a given problem. This development process, which can be understood as a methodology, is determined by conditions and decisions and not by a simple configuration of the artifact or inspiration of the design professional [6]. Roozenburg and Eekels [7] state that the design methodology allows the design professional to know the stages in the design process and critically study the structure, methods, and rules to execute projects and optimize results. Design theory and methodology reflect the efforts to optimize methods, procedures, and criteria. With their help, the design process can be evaluated and improved [5]. Understanding the origin of design methodologies, how they have evolved, and in which direction they are heading, namely integrated development of the design project, is an urgent need for academic research and business practice. Developing products is a complex and interdisciplinary process. Therefore, trying to address different types of design problems and different process issues can affect the success of the new product development. In industry, product development companies are under pressure to produce high-quality products. This requires improving the efficiency and effectiveness of their product development processes [8]. This is a challenging task, so IPD methodologies are necessary to support these companies in improving their product development processes [9]. This chapter seeks to gather design process methodologies, from their origins to the present, and offer an analysis and a comparison of the most relevant ones that could serve as a basis for a support framework for the integrated development of design projects. Herewith, the debate about the design process is encouraged. This can have practical goals for product development, namely, increase the probability of success and decrease the risk, reduce uncertainty and fear with a better definition of expectations, and increase repeatability in the development process. Even because ad hoc development processes are not efficient, effective, or repeatable, and their

The Path to Integrated Project Design (IPD) Through the Examples …

169

costs are not sustainable. According to Dubberly [10], “the success [of the design process] depends on defining roles and processes in advance, documenting what we actually did, and identifying and fixing broken processes.” This chapter proceeds as follows: the next section presents the background on the origin of design methodologies, followed by analyzing some relevant classification frameworks for design process methodologies. Then, the investigation process adopted is presented, followed by a description, discussion, and comparison of the most relevant methodologies. By crossing the design process stages from the different methodologies with the fields of the disciplinary interface, an integrated project development framework, the IPD, is presented. This framework comprises the objective, the outcome, the key activities, and the responsibilities of the organization’s different functions during each stage of the product development process. Finally, the contributions are reflected, and the conclusions are presented.

2 Origin of Design Methodologies According to Upitis [11], the popularity and promotion of design, mainly of design methodologies, were only possible due to the interest of those who defended the emerging discipline of ergonomics. During World War II, for the first time, there was a systematic combination of efforts between technology and the human sciences. Physiologists, psychologists, anthropologists, physicians, and engineers worked together to solve the problems caused by the operation of military equipment, which, due to the speed of technological advancement, had ever-greater levels of complexity [12, 13]. The results of this interdisciplinary effort were so fruitful that industry used them in the post-war period. It was in the 1950s that research focused on design methodology found favorable ground for its formalization. Based on post-war scientific research, engineers responsible for the projects began to apply new techniques in project development to improve the quality of the process and its products [14]. Names like John Christopher Jones and Bruce Archer, who defended ergonomic methods and promoted design and a methodology for industrial projects, were responsible for improving the links between design and ergonomics. In addition to ergonomics, two other areas from this period contributed to design methodologies: operational research and systems theory [15]. Operational research initially emerged as a proposal for solving problems related to logistics, strategy, and industrial administration [15]. On the other hand, systems theory was born from a new perception of the role of machines within industry, which would come to be understood as integrated instruments of a complex system [16, 17]. Such studies contributed to industrial automation processes in which the machine is emphasized as a substitute for man as an instrument of control. It should also be noted that the Ulm school, first with Bruce Archer and later with Tomás Maldonado, contributed considerably to the development of design methodologies by emphasizing the primacy of science and technique in design education, as opposed to the artistic experimentation present at the Bauhaus [5, 18, 19]. Bruce Archer suggested that the designer’s work, which

170

V. Carneiro et al.

should combine intuition with cognition, with a formalization of the creative process based on methodologies, would tend to make the work more scientific and possible to be understood and replicated [18]. This school’s interest in teaching a Science of Design would be demonstrated later, in 1964, in an article by Tomás Maldonado and Gui Bonsiepe titled “Science and Design” [20]. As stated by Bürdek [5], “Of all the fields, that of design methodology, without the [school of] HfG Ulm, would not be imaginable. Systematic thinking about problematization, the use of methods of analysis and synthesis, the justification and choice of project alternatives—all of this together, today, has become a repertoire of the design profession. HfG Ulm was the first design school to organize itself in the historical-intellectual tradition of the moderns consciously.”

3 Classification of Design Process Methodologies Different authors have proposed theories, frameworks, and models to describe the design process. This area of the literature is known as “design methodology” and, in the words of Cross [21], is focused on “[…] the study of how designers work and think; the establishment of appropriate structures for the design process; the development and application of new design methods, techniques, and procedures; and reflection on the nature and extent of design knowledge and its application to design problems.” Design is known as a pernicious and ill-structured problem [22], so it is difficult to describe the design process satisfactorily. It is also very challenging to describe the relationships between the different methodologies in their various aspects. Several classification frameworks have been developed to frame discussions and analyses. Due to their usefulness, three classification frameworks are highlighted in the next section.

3.1 Stage-Based Versus Activity-Based Methodologies To provide a consistent terminology for comparing design process methodologies, Blessing [23] classifies design methodologies using four categories (see Fig. 1). This framework is based on Hall’s theory [24], later developed by Asimow [25] who transferred Hall’s ideas from the field of systems engineering to the field of design. Blessing [23] refers to these methodologies as stage-based and activitybased (Fig. 1a, b). A stage is a division of the design process according to the state in which the product under development is and can cover an extensive period of time. Generically, three stages can be identified in most methodologies: problem definition (set of requirements); conceptual design (concept of solution principle); and detail design (complete product description). Design activity is a division of the design process related to the problem-solving process. Compared to the stage, it is a finer division, covers a shorter period of time, and occurs several times in the

The Path to Integrated Project Design (IPD) Through the Examples …

171

Fig. 1 A typology of design process methodologies. Redrawn based on [23]

design process [26]. Blessing [23] also mentions the existence of combined models that prescribe well-structured iterative activities within each stage (Fig. 1c). Purely stage-based methodologies only indicate the possibility of rework using feedback loops between the stages. Some combined methodologies demonstrate convergence in the design process by proposing progressively more concrete activities at each stage (Fig. 1d).

3.2 Solution-Oriented Versus Problem-Oriented Another framework classifies the design methodologies into one of two categories according to the strategy that the author proposes to reach the design project goal [27, 28]: • Problem-oriented, in which the focus is on a detailed and meticulous analysis of the problem structure before generating a set of possible solutions; • Solution-oriented, in which an initial solution is proposed, analyzed, and then successively modified as the design and requirements are explored together. However, it is generally acknowledged that designing requires the application of both strategies at one point or another, depending on the nature of each problem the designer encounters [29]. Stage-based methodologies usually adopt a problemoriented approach, while activity-based methodologies can be a problem- or solutionoriented [30].

172

V. Carneiro et al.

3.3 Abstract Versus Procedural Versus Analytical Approaches To offer a universal framework, Wynn and Clarkson [30] propose a classification framework for design methodologies based on three dimensions: • Abstract Approaches: describe the design process at a high level of abstraction. Although relevant to a wide range of situations, they are methodologies that do not offer specific valuable guidance for design process improvement. • Procedural Approaches: these are more concrete than abstract approaches, as they focus on specific aspects of the design process. They typically incorporate more stages and focus on a particular sector or industry. These approaches are divided into two categories according to their focus: Design-focused, which supports product development through the application of prescriptive methods and models to the design process, and Project-focused, to support, help and improve management of the design project, project portfolio, or company design process; • Analytical Approaches: describe, analyze, and improve specific aspects of the design process (for example, critical path analysis: a set of techniques for analyzing a process to determine the consequence of delays in individual tasks). These approaches consist of two parts: a modeling framework to describe aspects of a process; and tools, procedures, or techniques to support the investigation or improvements of that process. For this research, the classification scheme of Wynn and Clarkson [30] was adopted and will focus only on methodologies that fall into the category of procedural approach methodologies. While abstract approach methodologies do not offer helpful specific guidance for improving the design process, the procedural approach methodologies are intended to guide the designer/company during the product development process and support the interaction between all parties involved [31].

4 Design Process Methodologies Several methodologies of product development processes were collected from different fields of knowledge: industrial and product design; mechanical engineering; architecture; software development; and design/engineering/architecture teaching. They range from mnemonic schemes, such as the 4D’s (define, design, develop, deploy), to much more elaborate schemes, such as Bruce Archer’s 6-stage, 239activity “Systemic Method for Designers.” Different sources of information were used, such as research articles, review articles, conference proceedings articles, and book chapters, as well as sources with less scientific rigor, such as monographs, magazines, etc. A total of 47 design methodologies divided by the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s were gathered. However, 15 methodologies classified as abstract approaches (see Appendix 1) were removed, resulting in a final sample of 32 methodologies (Table 1).

The Path to Integrated Project Design (IPD) Through the Examples …

173

Table 1 Compilation of procedural approach design process methodologies Year

Author

Methodology

Area of domain

Classification

1962

Arthur Hall

A methodology for systems engineering

Engineering Design

Procedural: Design-focused

1962

Bruce Archer

Systemic method for designers

Design

Procedural: Design-focused

1962

Morris Asimow

Morphology of design

Engineering design

Procedural: Design-focused

1964

Mihajlo Mesarovic

Iconic model of the design process

Design

Procedural: Design-focused

1965

Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA)

Architect’s plan of work

Architecture

Procedural: Design-focused

1969

William Pena and Steven Parshall

Programming and designing

Architecture

Procedural: Design-focused

1970

John Chris Jones

Value analysis

Design

Procedural: Design-focused

1975

Bernhard Bürdek

Einführung in die designmethodologie

Design

Procedural: Design-focused

1976

Carl Briggs and Spencer Havlick

Scientific problem solving process

Teaching

Procedural: Design-focused

1982

Vladimir Hubka

General procedural model of design engineering

Design

Procedural: Design-focused

1984

Gerhard Pahl and Wolfgang Beitz

Design process

Engineering Design

Procedural: Design-focused

1985

Michael French

Engineering design process

Engineering design

Procedural: Design-focused

1986

Barry Boehm

Spiral model of software development

Software

Procedural: Design-focused

1986

Paul Rook

V model

Software

Procedural: Design-focused

1987

Jay Doblin

Matching process to project complexity

Design

Procedural: Design-focused

1987

Mogens Andreasen and Lars Hein

Integrated product development

Engineering Design

Procedural: Project-focused

1987

Project Management Institute (PMI)

PMBOK (Project Management Body of Knowledge)

Project Management

Procedural: Project-focused

1987

Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (VDI)

VDI 2221: System Engineering Design approach to the design of technical systems and products

Procedural: Design-focused

(continued)

174

V. Carneiro et al.

Table 1 (continued) Year

Author

Methodology

1990

Stuart Pugh

Product development Engineering Design process

Area of domain

Procedural: Design-focused

1995

Jane Wood and Denise Silver

Joint application development

Procedural: Design-focused

1995

Steven Eppinger and Karl Ulrich

New product Engineering Design development process

Procedural: Project-focused

1997

Richard Buchannan

Design process and practice

Teaching

Procedural: Design-focused

1999

Vanguard Group

Web development process

Software

Procedural: Design-focused

2000

Don Wells

Extreme programming (XP) process

Software

Procedural: Design-focused

2001

Alan Cooper, Robert Reimann, David Cronin, and Chris Noessel

Goal-directed design Software process

Procedural: Design-focused

2002

Chris Pacione

BodyMedia product Software development process

Procedural: Design-focused

2003

Clement Mok and Keith Yamashita

Process of designing solutions (AIGA)

Graphic design

Procedural: Design-focused

2003

Phillippe Kruchten

Rational unified process (RUP)

Software

Procedural: Design-focused

2003

Vijay Kumar

Innovation planning

Design

Procedural: Design-focused

2004

Crispin Hales and Shayne Gooch

Design process in context

Design

Procedural: Project-focused

2004

IDEO

Design thinking

Design

Procedural: Design-focused

2008

Nelson Back, André Ogliari, Acires Dias and Jonny da Silva

Integrated product design

Design

Procedural: Project-focused

Software

Classification

4.1 An Overview of Design Methodologies It is impossible to exhaustively review the entire nature of the design methodologies literature. In this sense, this section provides an overview of the most relevant design process methodologies. The origin of design methodologies takes place in the mid1960s, in the post-war world. The essence of those methodologies lies in structuring the design process in well-defined stages. These stages are generically described as understanding and defining the problem, gathering information, analyzing the information, developing concepts of alternative solutions, evaluating the alternatives

The Path to Integrated Project Design (IPD) Through the Examples …

175

Fig. 2 The 2020 “Architect’s Plan of Work” by RIBA. Redrawn based on [34]

and selecting the solution, testing, and implementing. The bases of these methodologies are in the Cartesian method for understanding the problem and reducing its complexity to approach it properly [18]. Architecture Methodologies. Some of the first design methodologies emerged in architecture [32, 33], but some were never instituted in practice, remaining only in the theoretical domain. Others are still a reference in the field today, such as the “Architect’s Plan of Work” by the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) [34]. The RIBA’s plan of work, updated over the years, is a comprehensive guide to the processes involved in successfully delivering a construction project. It provides a framework for project management and is designed to ensure that all parties involved are aware of their responsibilities and obligations. The current plan of work is divided into eight stages: (1) strategic definition; (2) preparation and briefing; (3) concept design; (4) spatial coordination; (5) technical design; (6) manufacturing and construction; (7) handover; and (8) use (see Fig. 2). Each stage is divided into tasks, which are the specific activities that need to be carried out for the project to progress. The Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DfMA), a design principle widely used since the 1980s to simplify products design and increase cost efficiency and time in the manufacturing and assembly process [35, 36], is an emerging approach in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry [37]. In 2013 RIBA published a Plan of Work for DfMA, defining DfMA in the AEC context as an approach that minimizes onsite construction and facilitates offsite construction [38]. There are two components in the DfMA: design for manufacture (DfM)—concerned with manufacturing individual components, and design for assembly (DfA)—which addresses the means of assembling the components [35, 39]. In construction, DfM is designed to enable specialist subcontractors to manufacture significant design elements in a factory environment. In turn, the DfA is to consider how aspects of the design project can be designed to minimize work on-site and, in particular, avoid “construction” [38]. RIBA categorized DfMA into five levels: (1) component manufacture; (2) sub-assembly; (3) non-volumetric preassembly; (4) volumetric preassembly; and (5) modular building [40]. The “Architect’s Plan of Work” is an invaluable tool for architects, providing a clear and structured approach to managing a construction project. It ensures that all parties know their responsibilities and obligations and that the project is delivered on time with the highest standards. Engineering Design and Industrial/Product Design Methodologies. In engineering design and industrial/product design, a considerable number of methodologies were formulated in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. Some of these methodologies were further developed and serve today as the basis for more recent methodologies.

176

V. Carneiro et al.

Roozenburg and Cross [41] state that early design process methodologies from the 1960s and 1970s were similar. Bruce Archer systematized one of the first descriptions of the design process in 1962. He suggested that the designer’s work combines intuition and cognition and tends to be more scientific with the formalization of the creative process [18]. The methodology of the design process proposed by Bruce Archer, the “Systemic Method for Designers” [33], contains phases in which different approaches are necessary: observation, measurement, and inductive reasoning in the analytical phase and evaluation, judgment and deductive reasoning, in the creative phase (see Fig. 3). At the same time, Morris Asimow proposed the “Morphology of Design” methodology [25], which already considered the product life cycle (see Fig. 4). Starting from the analysis of needs, it went through the feasibility study before entering the project’s stages (preliminary design and detailed design). Then follows the production, distribution, consumption, and retirement stages. This methodology can be considered a predecessor of stage-based product development methodologies from the 1980s. The stage-based methodologies were developed simultaneously in the academic and business environment to reduce uncertainty in new product development. Perhaps the most well-known are those of Michael French in 1985 and Gerhard Pahl and Wolfgang Beitz in 1984 [18, 30]. Michael French’s methodology, “The Engineering Design Process” [43], is a comprehensive approach to engineering problem solving (see Fig. 5). It is based on the principles of systemic thinking, which emphasizes the importance of understanding the entire system and its components to solve complex

Fig. 3 The “Systemic Method for Designers” by Bruce Archer. Redrawn based on [42]

Fig. 4 The “Morphology of Design” methodology by Morris Asimow

The Path to Integrated Project Design (IPD) Through the Examples …

177

Fig. 5 The “Engineering Design Process” by Michael French. Redrawn based on [43]

problems, and consists of four stages: (1) need and analysis of the problem; (2) conceptual design; (3) embodiment of schemes; and (4) detailing. The process begins with identifying a need and defining the problem and its context, subsequently translating into a list of requirements the product must fulfill. This is followed by the conceptual design, where several concepts (schemes) meeting the defined requirements are generated. These concepts are then compared and evaluated, and the selected one(s) moves forward to form the basis of the final design solution. The abstract concept is transformed into a definitive layout in the embodiment stage, and the chosen product architecture is solidified. Finally, the remaining details are decided to remove any ambiguity from the project, resulting in technical drawings and all other documentation necessary for production. The methodology proposed by Gerhard Pahl and Wolfgang Beitz [44] has been used in several fields, including engineering, industrial and product design, and architecture [30] (see Fig. 6). The authors established the design process in four main stages: (1) planning and clarifying the task; (2) conceptual design; (3) embodiment design; and (4) detail design. Each of the four stages prescribes the work steps that the authors consider the most helpful strategic guidelines for design. Following these steps ensures that everything relevant is addressed, leading to a more accurate schedule and resulting in solutions that can be more easily reused. Although many other design-focused methodologies can be found in the literature (such as the “VDI 2221: System Approach to the Design of Technical Systems and Products,” by Verein Deutscher Ingenieure in 1987, or the “Product Development Process,” by Stuart Pugh in 1990), Cross and Roozenburg [45] describe how the majority converged to the consensus form exhibited by the methodologies of Michael French and Gerhard Pahl and Wolfgang Beitz. The methodologies described above are considered sequential; that is, the activities of the project development process are carried out in series (one only starts when the previous one is finished), both by schedule and by the disciplines/areas involved in each stage. First, the marketing team prepares the list of needs for the product, considering the target market; later, the project team develops the product, and the documentation is subsequently handed over to production to plan the production process, and so on. Several criticisms and problems have been pointed out to methodologies of the sequential type [46]. The first step to mitigating these problems was taken with the “Integrated Product Development” methodology by Mogens Andreasen and Lars Hein in 1987 [47] (see Fig. 7), with one of the first integrated development methodologies to support and improve design project management and company project portfolio. It is a comprehensive approach to product development

178

V. Carneiro et al.

Fig. 6 The “Design Process” by Gerhard Pahl and Wolfgang Beitz. Redrawn based on [44]

(and one of the first procedural project-focused approaches) that focuses on integrating all aspects of the development process and establishes the integration between the project and management, including the need for ongoing product planning. This methodology is based on four key pillars: • The importance of collaboration between the different project participants, including the user, project team, production, marketing, suppliers, and other partners;

The Path to Integrated Project Design (IPD) Through the Examples …

179

Fig. 7 The “Integrated Product Development” by Mogens Andreasen and Lars Hein. Redrawn based on [47]

• The need for a clear understanding of the user’s needs and requirements, as well as the need for a comprehensive plan that outlines the necessary stages to develop a successful product; • The importance of testing and validation throughout the development process, as well as the need for continuous improvement, and; • The need for a clear understanding of the product’s lifecycle from concept to launch. According to Andreasen and Hein [47], the activities related to marketing and production must be developed simultaneously and in collaboration with product engineering activities in five distinct stages: • In the first stage, the basic market needs and the type of product that can satisfy those needs are determined. Some considerations regarding the type of production process to be used can be made at this stage; • In the second stage, the user is identified and the subject of detailed research. The product and its general principles are clarified, and the necessary production process(s) is also determined; • In the third stage, the product is developed, costs are sensibly determined, the market is investigated, and the principles of the production process are developed and determined; • In the fourth stage, the processes are entirely defined. The sales system is defined, and the best dynamic between sales and production is planned to guarantee the best product launch. Adjustments to the product are made, and its manufacturability is confirmed by the production of a pre-series (pilot batch);

180

V. Carneiro et al.

• In the fifth and last stage, the production and sales of the product begin. Adaptations of the product to the market may occur. The “Integrated Product Development,” in essence, includes all topics of the product development process, product lifecycle considerations, human reasoning and working methods, teamwork, holistic methods of organization, application of innovative technologies, and expanded forms of communication and information [48]. It is undoubtedly one of the first precursors of integrated project methodologies. In the 1990s, Steven Eppinger and Karl Ulrich developed the “New Product Development Process” [49], a systematic methodological approach to developing new products and services and respective project management, which marks a change in the paradigm of development processes. Cooper [50] describes development processes in three generations (see Fig. 8). In the first generation, the stage relationship is mainly a “supplier-to-customer” relationship [51]. In the second generation, the stages are separated by gates, which the project must go through to confirm that the stage has been completed and to determine whether the project continues. The third generation replaces the stage-gates with fuzzy-gates (designed to speed up the product development process by giving a conditional Go for the next stage to begin). Steven Eppinger and Karl Ulrich’s methodology is perhaps one of the most adopted stage-gate methodologies for the development of physical products [52], and it consists of six stages: (1) planning; (2) concept development; (3) system-level design; (3) detail design; (5) testing and refinement; and (6) production ramp-up (see Fig. 9). The prescribed stages and criteria for transitioning from one stage to the next provide helpful guidance for practitioners using the process. Software Methodologies. Methodologies for software development are from a later date than those in architecture and engineering design and industrial/product

Fig. 8 The three generations of product development processes methodologies. Redrawn based on [50]

The Path to Integrated Project Design (IPD) Through the Examples …

181

Fig. 9 The “New Product Development Process” by Steven Eppinger and Karl Ulrich. Redrawn based on [49]

Fig. 10 The “Spiral Model of Software Development” by Barry Boehm. Redrawn based on [53]

design, having been formulated in the late 1980s and beyond. One of the first methodologies was the “Spiral Model of Software Development” by Barry Boehm [53] (see Fig. 10). It is a risk-driven process methodology that combines design elements of both design and prototyping-in-stages in an effort to combine the advantages of topdown and bottom-up concepts. It is intended to help manage the risk of large and complex software development projects by breaking the project down into smaller pieces and allowing for changes in requirements as the project progresses. The methodology combines iterative development with the systematic and controlled aspects of the waterfall models. It starts with a small set of requirements and a prototype developed iteratively. Each iteration involves a series of activities, including risk analysis, design, engineering, and testing. Understanding that software development is a continuous and evolving process that needs a structured approach, Paul Rook, a software engineer, developed the “V Model” [54] (see Fig. 11), which combines the waterfall model with the interactive and incremental development approaches for software development. Based on the V-shaped life cycle and on the idea that each stage of the development process should

182

V. Carneiro et al.

Fig. 11 The “V Model” by Paul Rook. Redrawn based on [54]

be verified, through testing and validation, before moving on to the next stage, the “V Model” is a visual representation of the development process, with each stage represented by a point on the V. The left side of the V represents the requirements gathering and design stages, while the right represents the implementation and testing stages. The apex of the V represents the integration and deployment stage. By providing a clear, structured, flexible, efficient, and scalable approach to the software development process, emphasizing user feedback and continuous improvement in the process, the “V Model” has become a popular methodology. With an approach that the best way to design a successful product is to understand the user’s goals and needs and then design a product that meets those goals, Alan Cooper, Robert Reimann, David Cronin, and Chris Noessel developed the methodology “Goal-Directed Design Process”[55] (see Fig. 12). They put users at the center of the design process, with a heavy emphasis on understanding those users’ needs and goals. Then those goals are translated into tasks and activities, and finally into a final product the user approves of and keeps using. Cooper et al. [55] distinguish goals and tasks. Goals are motivations for the user and describe what they are trying to achieve, while tasks are the steps to help him reach that goal. The “Goal-Directed Design Process” is divided into six stages that comprise interactive research and analysis of user behavior: (1) research; (2) modeling; (3) requirements definition; (4) design framework; (5) design refinement; and (6) design support.

Fig. 12 The “Goal-Directed Design Process” by Alan Cooper, Robert Reimann, David Cronin, and Chris Noessel. Redrawn based on [55]

The Path to Integrated Project Design (IPD) Through the Examples …

183

4.2 The Design Process: A Comparison Understanding the design process is essential to manage the design activity properly and to help improve products and the efficiency of the product development process in companies. Providing a concise overview of the numerous procedural approach design process methodologies would not be viable. Instead, to provide adequate information for discussing the design process, the stages of the most prominent architectural, engineering design, and industrial/product design methodologies are summarized and compared in Table 2. These comparisons are scarce in the literature. When comparing different methodologies of the design process, it is relevant to remember that they have been developed at different times, cultures, and fields of knowledge. It is not possible to take this complexity into account in this analysis. Although the various methodologies present a significant variation in the elements they consider part of the design process, the column headings in Table 2 demonstrate the authors’ general consensus on the most common stages and are often referred to as synonyms. Distributed by three project macro-stages (Project Planning, Project Design, and Project Implementation), the table’s six headings comprise the main stages of the design process. In the Planning stage (which makes up the Project Planning macro-stage), the driver for the project is recognized, processed, and structured. This is followed by the Conceptual Design, Preliminary Design, and Detailing Design stages, which form the Project Design macro-stage where the product is developed. Lastly, the macro-stage Project Implementation explains what happens when technical drawings and instructions are completed and comprise the Product/Process Testing and Refinement and Launch stages. This six-stage design process framework, with its strong links to design process representations from various methodologies, can be extremely useful for an integrated project development approach to the design process, as discussed in the next section. Although all the methodologies presented in Table 2 have some stage in the macro-stage Project Planning, they differ in terms of what they define as the end of the design process. For example, while the methodologies of Bruce Archer, Mihajlo Mesarovic, Gerhard Pahl and Wolfgang Beitz, Michael French, and Verein Deutscher Ingenieure end up in the macro-stage Project Design (with product definition and respective documentation for production), the remaining methodologies contemplate some stages in the Project Implementation macro-stage: some refer to the production stage (Vladimir Hubka’s methodology); others go a little further and consider the sales/distribution stage (RIBA, Mogens Andreasen and Lars Hein, Stuart Pugh, Steven Eppinger and Karl Ulrich, Crispin Hales and Shayne Gooch, and Nelson Back, André Ogliari, Acires Dias and Jonny da Silva methodologies); and, finally, others contemplate the product life cycle by considering the product disposal/retirement stage (Morris Asimow’s methodology).

Conceptual design

Definition of need

Strategic definition

Design specification

Planning and clarifying the task

Need

Mihajlo Mesarovic (1964)

Royal Institute of British Architects [RIBA] (1965)

Vladimir Hubka (1982)

Gerhard Pahl and Wolfgang Beitz (1984)

Michael French (1985)

Mogens Andreasen Recognition and Lars Hein (1987) of need

Functional structure

Feasibility study

Morris Asimow (1962)

Investigation of need

Analysis of problem

Preparation and briefing

Feasibility study

Programming

Bruce Archer (1962)

Data collection

1. Planning

Methodologies

Project planning

Detail design

Preliminary layout

Synthesis

Product principle

Conceptual design

Embodiment design

Concept

Concept design

–

Analysis

2. Concept design

Product design

Embodiment of schemes

Dimensional layout

Spatial coordination

Preliminary design

Preliminary design

Development

–

Production planning

–

5. Product/ process testing and refinement

Product preparation

Detailing

Detail and assembly drawings

–

–

Production planning

Technical design –

Detail design

Detailed design

Communication

3. Preliminary 4. Detail design design

Project design

Table 2 Comparison of the design process stages defined in several procedural methodologies

Execution

–

–

Production

Manufacturing and construction

–

Distribution planning

–

Handover

Consumption planning

Project Implementation 6. Launch

(continued)

Use

Retirement planning

184 V. Carneiro et al.

Specification

Brief

Project planning

Crispin Hales and Shayne Gooch (2004)

Nelson Back, André Ogliari, Acires Dias and Jonny da Silva (2008)

Informational project

Task Clarification

Concept design

Market

Planning

Stuart Pugh (1990)

Steven Eppinger and Karl Ulrich (1995)

Conceptual design

Planning

Verein Deutscher Ingenieure [VDI](1987)

Conceptual project

Conceptual design

Concept development

Embodiment design

2. Concept design

1. Planning

Methodologies

Project planning

Table 2 (continued)

Preliminary project

Embodiment design

System-level design

Detailed project

Detail design

Detail design

Detail design

Detail design

3. Preliminary 4. Detail design design

Project design

Process planning

Testing and refinement

–

5. Product/ process testing and refinement

Production preparation

Launch

Production

Production ramp-up

–

Manufacture

Project Implementation 6. Launch

Validation

Distribution

Sell

The Path to Integrated Project Design (IPD) Through the Examples … 185

186

V. Carneiro et al.

5 The Path to Integrated Project Design The direction in which design methodologies are moving is to make the product development process more efficient, agile, and innovative. A new paradigm in the design process is integrated product development, which considers that product development should be carried out by a multidisciplinary, collaborative, flexible, and responsive team, connecting design to manufacturing, marketing and sales, finance, etc. [46]. A wide range of requirements, constraints, and solutions, throughout all stages of the process, must be considered and thought through by all functions of the company (marketing/sales, project team, manufacturing, quality, purchasing, legal, financial, project management) needed by the project [56]. This concept is based on evidence that demonstrates that it is easier and less costly to intervene in the project during the initial stages to avoid correcting erroneous assumptions later in the process, where the opportunity to make changes decreases significantly and the costs for changes increase exponentially as the process progresses (see Fig. 13) [56–58]. This approach has been increasingly used in business practice [59], as it allows all elements of the process to be considered and worked together in such a way that the product development and the results of the corresponding process impact with a minimum cost and high profitability, quality products, shorter time to introduce the product in the market and lower development cost [56, 60], responding to new user needs systematically and cohesively, based on information from different areas. This breaking down of barriers, for example, between design and production, is

Fig. 13 The importance of decisions in the earlier stages of product development. Redrawn based on [57]

The Path to Integrated Project Design (IPD) Through the Examples …

187

the fundamental key of this approach, whose benefits include speeding up problem resolution during the project, where potential problems and bottlenecks are identified early, and potential delays are addressed [61]. According to Dekkers et al. [59], research on this subject highlight the importance of multidisciplinary coordination and collaboration. Ensuring coordination between the various actors in the different project stages is the most significant difficulty in this approach. Crossing the stages of the design process of the different methodologies (that converge to a common structure as seen in the previous section) with the disciplinary fields of the project interface [10, 46, 49, 62, 63], it was possible to identify and outline the objective and outcome of the stage and the key activities and responsibilities of the different functions of the organization during each stage of the design process, as illustrated in Table 3. Marketing/sales, project team, manufacturing, and project management functions are continuously involved throughout the entire process. The remaining functions, quality, purchasing, legal, and financial, also perform important tasks in more specific stages of the process. The six stages of the Integrated Project Design are as follows: 1. Planning: Also called “stage zero” because it precedes the beginning of the product development process [49], this stage begins with the identification of an opportunity according to the organization’s business strategy, defines the objectives, establishes the project’s specifications, requirements and constraints, identifies the target market, specifies the human resources required for the project, sets a budget and establishes a schedule. This stage has three outcomes: project design brief, project budget, and project risk analysis. The project design brief specifies the purpose of the project, the target market, the specifications and requirements, and the schedule. 2. Concept Design: In this stage, product concepts are generated and evaluated considering project specifications, target cost, development risks, etc. In the words of Ulrich and Eppinger [49], “a concept is a description of the form, function, and features of a product and is usually accompanied by a set of specifications, an analysis of competitive products, and an economic justification of the project.” The outcome of this stage is an approved product concept aligned with the project design brief. 3. Preliminary Design: In this stage, the product layout is defined with (1) the definition of the preliminary structure of the product (geometry, dimensions, ergonomics, material, components to be purchased, developed by suppliers or developed internally, etc.); (2) the breakdown of the product into sub-systems and components; and (3) the preliminary process flow diagram of the final assembly process. The first prototypes (alpha)—not necessarily manufactured with the processes of the final product—are produced to determine if the product will work as designed and meet the user’s needs. The outcome of this stage includes the product layout and analysis of technical and economic viability. 4. Detail Design: In this stage, the product design is detailed and optimized and is intended to finalize the component’s specifications, detail the manufacturing process, and test the beta prototypes internally and externally (for example, by

• Define project needs and goals

(and their responsibilities during the stage)

Marketing and • Define users/ • Identify lead sales customers and market users; • Collect, size; analyze, and • Describe the document competitive features customer and benefits of the needs; new product; • Identify target cost • Identify and price competing products; • Review concepts with users

Actors

• Product concept approved and aligned with the design brief

• Develop product concept

2. Concept design

1. Planning

Stage outcome • Project design brief, project budget, and NPD risk analysis

Goal

Project design

Project planning

• Develop a plan for product options and extended product family

• Product layout and technical and economic viability

• Create a preliminary detailed product design

3. Preliminary design

5. Product/Process testing and refinement

Project Implementation

• Develop marketing and sales plan

• Perform product field trials; • Finalize pricing and sales forecasts; • Initiate sales and service training; • Develop promotional and launch materials

• Product • All design information control required to manufacture and documentation launch the product is completed

• Detail and • Demonstrate product and optimize process performance product design

4. Detail design

Table 3 The Integrated Project Design process: stage goal and outcome and the tasks and responsibilities of each key business function

(continued)

• Complete sales and service training; • Place early production with key customers

• First production batch

• Launch the product on the market

6. Launch

188 V. Carneiro et al.

Project team

2. Concept design

• Assess new • Develop and technologies; select product design • Identify project risks; concepts; • Define project • Investigate the specifications feasibility of product concepts; • Review concept selection; • Build and test experimental prototypes; • Create functional specification and performance metrics; • Identify critical specifications for quality; • Evaluate technical failures modes; • Update project risks

Project design

Project planning

1. Planning

Table 3 (continued)

• Develop product architecture; • Define the main subsystems and interfaces; • Refine the industrial design; • Preliminary components engineering; • Perform a preliminary design review; • Build and test alpha prototypes; • Evaluate product failure modes

3. Preliminary design • Define part(s) geometry; • Choice of materials; • Assign tolerances; • Freeze hardware and software design; • Technical product documentation; • Bill of Materials (BOM); • Build and test beta prototypes

4. Detail design

Project Implementation

• Test overall performance, reliability, and durability; • Assess the environmental impact; • Implement design changes; • Finalize design documentation; • Apply and obtain regulatory approvals

5. Product/Process testing and refinement

(continued)

• Evaluate initial production output

6. Launch

The Path to Integrated Project Design (IPD) Through the Examples … 189

Quality

• Estimate production costs; • Evaluate production feasibility

2. Concept design

Manufacturing • Identify production constraints

Project design

Project planning

1. Planning

Table 3 (continued) 4. Detail design

• Create a preliminary test plan

• Test beta prototypes for quality purposes

• Identify suppliers of • Define key components; piece-part • Perform a preliminary production review of the processes; production process • Tooling design; • Begin procurement of long-lead tooling; • Define quality assurance processes; • Develop production control plans

3. Preliminary design

Project Implementation

• Complete quality assurance tests; • Perform process verification tests

• Refine production and assembly processes; • Refine quality assurance processes; • Training the workforce; • Run production pre-series

5. Product/Process testing and refinement

(continued)

• Begin the production

6. Launch

190 V. Carneiro et al.

• Asses team • Prepare stage skills; deliverables and • Prepare stage submit for approval deliverables & submit for approval

• Identify human resources required; • Plan product development schedule; • Assign project manager

Project management

• Review/update economic analysis

• Refine economic analysis

• Provide economic goals and analysis; • Prepare project budget; • Identify sources of financing

Financial

Project Implementation

• Assure trade compliance

• Verify supply chain readiness

5. Product/Process testing and refinement

• Prepare stage • Finalize all deliverables; deliverables • Finalize launch plans and and submit for documentation approval

• Prepare patent application(s)

• Identify potential patent infringements

• Patents research; • Identify trade compliance issues

4. Detail design

Legal

3. Preliminary design • Create a supplier • Identify items participation matrix; with long lead • Evaluate suppliers for times certification

2. Concept design

Purchasing

Project design

Project planning

1. Planning

Table 3 (continued)

• Conduct post-project review

6. Launch

The Path to Integrated Project Design (IPD) Through the Examples … 191

192

V. Carneiro et al.

users). The outcome of this stage is the product control documentation, which includes: (1) drawings or computer files specifying the geometry, materials, and tolerances of each product component; (2) identification of all standard components to be purchased from suppliers; and (3) plans for product manufacturing and assembly 5. Product/Process Testing and Refinement: In this stage, pre-series of the product are carried out to prepare and refine the manufacturing and assembly processes and train and qualify the workforce. The outcome of this stage is the conclusion of all the required documentation for the manufacture and launch of the product on the market. 6. Launch: In this stage, the initial batch is produced, and the product is launched on the market. A post-launch project review may take place and includes an assessment from both a business and technical point of view and is aimed at identifying ways to improve the development process for future projects.

6 Conclusion A new paradigm in the design process methodologies has gained more relevance and prominence nowadays, the integrated development of the design project. This approach considers that product development must co-occur with a multidisciplinary, collaborative, flexible, and responsive team from the beginning. However, ensuring coordination between the various actors in the different project stages is the most significant difficulty in this approach. Setting the project parameters jointly and working simultaneously is paramount to achieving the expected performance. With a literature review on design methodologies in the fields of architecture, engineering design, and industrial/product design, it is possible to verify that there is a general consensus on the most common stages in the design process that converges to a single structure of six stages: (1) planning; (2) concept design; (3) preliminary design; (4) detail design; (5) product/process testing and refinement; and (6) launch. By crossing these six-stage design process with the disciplinary fields of the project interface (marketing/sales, project team, manufacturing and project management, quality, purchasing, legal and financial), a support framework for the integrated development of design projects was developed. In this framework, for each stage, the objective, the outcome, the key activities to be carried out, and the responsibilities of the organization’s different functions during each stage of the development process are indicated. This deeper understanding will allow, in the academic domain, to deepen research in this field, and in the business domain, hopefully, help companies to make their development process more effective and agile. Acknowledgements Vitor Carneiro acknowledges the financial support by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, FCT (PD/BD/142875/2018), and the European Social Fund (ESF). Base Funding financially supported this work—UIDB/04708/2020 of the CONSTRUCT Instituto de I&D em Estruturas e Construções and UIDB/00145/2020 of the CEAU-Center for Studies in Architecture and Urbanism—both funded by national funds through the FCT/MCTES (PIDDAC).

The Path to Integrated Project Design (IPD) Through the Examples …

193

Appendix 1 Compilation of Abstract Design Process Methodologies Year

Author

Methodology

Area of Domain

Classification

1962

Christopher Alexander

Unself-conscious and self-conscious design

Design

Abstract

1967

JJ Foreman

Problem, solution

Design

Abstract

1969

Thomas Marcus and Thomas Maver

Design process

Design

Abstract

1972

Don Koberg and Jim Bagnall

Seven-step process as a cascade with feedback

Design

Abstract

1978

Jane Darke

Design process

Architecture

Abstract

1980

Bryan Lawson

Creative process

Architecture

Abstract

1984

Lionel March

Design process

Design

Abstract

1996

Atila Ertas and Jesse Jones

Engineering design process

Engineering Design

Abstract

1996

Bela Banathy

Dynamics of divergence Design and convergence

Abstract

2000

Nigel Cross

Overall, the design process must converge

Design

Abstract

2000

Nigel Cross

Four-stage design process

Design

Abstract

2004

Alan Cooper

Idealized process of developing buildings

Architecture

Abstract

2004

Alan Cooper

Idealized process of developing software

Software

Abstract

2004

Philippe Kruchten

Waterfall lifecycle

Software

Abstract

2007

Design Council

Double diamond

Design

Abstract

References 1. Weekley, E. (1967). An etymological dictionary of modern english. Dover Publications. 2. Yarza, F. I. S. (1999). Diccionario Griego-Español. Sopena Espaola. 3. Watson, O. C. (1972). Larousse Illustrated International Encyclopedia and Dictionary. World Pub, Des Plaines. 4. Bunge, M. (2014). La Ciencia. Su Método y su Filosofía. Laetoli, Pamplona. 5. Bürdek, B.E. (2006). História, Teoria e Prática do Design de Produtos. Edgard Blücher, São Paulo. 6. Munari, B. (2017). Das Coisas Nascem Coisas. Lisbon. 7. Roozenburg, N. F. M., & Eekels, J. (1995). Product design: fundamentals and methods. Wiley.

194

V. Carneiro et al.

8. Jagtap, S., Warell, A., Hiort, V., Motte, D., & Larsson, A. (2014). Design methods and factors influencing their uptake in product development companies: a review. In International design conference (Design 2014) (pp. 231–240). Dubrovnik, Croatia. 9. Blessing, L. T. M., & Chakrabarti, A. (2009). DRM, a design research methodology. Springer. 10. Dubberly, H. (2004). How do you design? A compendium of models. Dubberly Design Office, San Francisco, USA. 11. Upitis, A. (2008). Nature normative: The design methods movement, 1944–1967. http://dsp ace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/45943 12. Dul, J., & Weerdmeester, B. (2004). Ergonomia Prática. Edgard Blücher, São Paulo. 13. Murrell, H. (1965). Ergonomics: Man in his working environment. Chapman and Hall. 14. Sobral, R., Azevedo, G., & Guimarães, M. (2017). Design methods movement: As Origens das Pesquisas Sobre Métodos de Projeto. In: A. J. V. Arruda (Ed.), Design & Complexidade (pp. 27–42). Edgard Blücher. 15. Archer, B. (1999). Design, innovation, Agility. Design Studies, 20, 576–571. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0142-694X(99)00025-3 16. Ackoff, R. L. (1979). The future of operational research is past. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 30, 93–104. https://doi.org/10.2307/3009290 17. von Bertalanffy, L. (2015). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. George Braziller. 18. van der Linden, J. C. D. S., de Lacerda, A. P., de Aguiar, J. P. O. (2010). A evolução dos métodos projetuais. In Congresso Brasileiro de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento em Design (P&D Design) (p. 13). São Paulo. 19. Bonsiepe, G. (1978). Teoría y Práctica Del Diseño Industrial: Elementos Para Una Manualística Crítica (Comunicación Visual). Editorial Gustavo Gili. 20. Broadbent, G. (1976). Diseño Arquitectónico. Arquitectura y Ciencias Humanas. Gustavo Gili. 21. Cross, N. (1984). Part one: The management of design process—introduction. In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in Design Methodology (pp. vii–x). Wiley. 22. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1984). Planning problems are wicked problems. In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in design methodology (pp. 135–144). Wiley. 23. Blessing, L. T. M. (1994). A process-based approach to computer-supported engineering design. 24. Hall, A. D. (1962). A methodology for systems engineering. Van Nostrand Reinhold. 25. Asimow, M. (1962). Introduction to design. Prentice-Hall. 26. Gericke, K., Blessing, L. (2011). Comparisons of design methodologies and process models across disciplines: A literature review. In S. J. Culley, B. J. Hicks, T. C. McAloone, T. J. Howard, & B. Ion (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th international conference on engineering design (ICED 11): Vol.1 Design Processes (pp. 393–404). Design Society, Copenhagen. 27. Lawson, B. R. (2005). How designers think—the design process demystified. Architectural Press. 28. Birmingham, R., Cleland, G., Driver, R., & Maffin, D. (1996). Understanding engineering design: Context. Theory and Practice. Prentice-Hall. 29. Frost, R. B. (1992). A converging model of the design process: Analysis and creativity, the ingredients of synthesis. Journal of Engineering Design, 3, 117–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09544829208914751 30. Wynn, D., Clarkson, J. (2005). Models of designing. In: J. Clarkson, & C. Eckert (Eds.), Design process improvement: A review of current practice (p. 571). Springer. 31. Eckert, C., & Stacey, M. (2010). What is a process model? Reflections on the epistemology of design process models. In P. Heisig, J. Clarkson, & S. Vajna (Eds.), Modelling and management of engineering processes (pp. 3–14). Springer. 32. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730 33. Archer, B. (1965). Systematic method for designers. Council of Industrial Design. 34. Royal Institute of British Architects [RIBA]. (2020). RIBA Plan of Work 2020: Overview. RIBA, London

The Path to Integrated Project Design (IPD) Through the Examples …

195

35. Bogue, R. (2012). Design for manufacture and assembly: Background. Capabilities and Applications. Assem. Autom., 32, 112–118. https://doi.org/10.1108/01445151211212262 36. Langston, C., & Zhang, W. (2021). DfMA: Towards an integrated strategy for a more productive and sustainable construction industry in Australia. Sustainability, 13, 9219. https://doi.org/10. 3390/su13169219 37. Lu, W., Tan, T., Xu, J., Wang, J., Chen, K., Gao, S., & Xue, F. (2021). Design for manufacture and assembly (DfMA) in construction: The old and the new. Architectural Engineering Designing Management, 17, 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2020.1768505 38. Royal Institute of British Architects [RIBA]. (2013). RIBA Plan of Work 2013: Designing for Manufacture and Assembly. RIBA, London. 39. Gao, S., Jin, R., & Lu, W. (2020). Design for manufacture and assembly in construction: A review. Building Research and Information, 48, 538–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218. 2019.1660608 40. Razak, M. I. A., Khoiry, M. A., Badaruzzaman, W. H. W., & Hussain, A. H. (2022). DfMA for a better industrialised building system. Buildings, 12, 794. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildi ngs12060794 41. Roozenburg, N., & Cross, N. (1991). Models of the design process: Integrating across the disciplines. Design Studies, 12, 215–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(91)90034-T 42. Rowe, P. G. (1991). Design thinking. MIT Press. 43. French, M. J. (1999). Conceptual design for engineers. Springer. 44. Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., & Grote, K.-H. (2007). Engineering design: A systematic approach. Springer. 45. Cross, N., & Roozenburg, N. (1992). Modelling the design process in engineering and in architecture. Journal of Engineering Design, 3, 325–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/095448292 08914765 46. Back, N., Ogliari, A., Dias, A., & da Silva, J. C. (2008). Projeto Integrado de Produtos: Planejamento, Concepção e Modelagem. Editora Manole, Barueri. 47. Andreasen, M., & Hein, L. (1987). Integrated product development. IFS. 48. Vajna, S., & Burchardt, C. (1998). Dynamic development structures of integrated product development. Journal of Engineering Design, 9, 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/095448298 261633 49. Ulrich, K. T., & Eppinger, S. D. (2012). Product design and development. McGraw-Hill Irwin. 50. Cooper, R. G. (1994). Third-generation new product processes. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11, 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.1110003 51. Albers, A., & Meboldt, M. (2007). IPEMM—Integrated product development process management model, based on systems engineering and systematic problem solving. In Proceedings of ICED 2007, the 16th International Conference on Engineering Design. Paris. 52. Li, Y., Roy, U., & Saltz, J. S. (2019). Towards an integrated process model for new product development with data-driven features (NPD3). Research in Engineering Design, 30, 271–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-019-00308-6 53. Boehm, B. (1988). A spiral model for software development and enhancement. Computer (Long. Beach. Calif). 21, 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1109/2.59 54. Rook, P. (1986). Controlling software projects. Software Engineering Journal, 1, 7–16. https:/ /doi.org/10.1049/sej.1986.0003 55. Cooper, A., Reimann, R., Cronin, D., & Noessel, C. (2014). About face: The essentials of interaction design. John Wiley & Sons Inc. 56. Magrab, E. B., Gupta, S. K., McCluskey, F. P., & Sandborn, P. A. (2009). Integrated product and process design and development: the product realization process. CRC Press. 57. Norman, G. (1990). Life cycle costing. Property Management, 8, 344–356. https://doi.org/10. 1108/EUM0000000003380 58. Zimmerman, A. (2006). Integrated design process guide. Canada Housing and Mortage Corporation.

196

V. Carneiro et al.

59. Dekkers, R., Chang, C. M., & Kreutzfeldt, J. (2013). The interface between “Product Design and Engineering” and manufacturing: A review of the literature and empirical evidence. International Journal of Production Economics, 144, 316–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013. 02.020 60. Friel, T. (2000). A dramatic method to demonstrate concurrent engineering in the classroom. Journal of Engineering Education, 89, 265–267. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2000.tb0 0523.x 61. Council, D. (2007). Eleven lessons: Managing design in eleven global brands. A Study of The Design Process. 62. Howard, T. J., Culley, S. J., & Dekoninck, E. (2008). Describing the creative design process by the integration of engineering design and cognitive psychology literature. Design Studies, 29, 160–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2008.01.001 63. Oosthuizen, L., & Vlok, P. J. (2016). The absence of a creative focus in the conventional engineering design process: identifying research opportunities to address this. South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, 27, 137–150. https://doi.org/10.7166/27-1-1297