Review: Design Thinking

The following was submitted to the University of Pennsylvania's School of Design as part of the Systems Thinking elective in Fall 2013.

Design Thinking: Understanding How Designers Think and Work (2011) provides an introduction to the field of design thinking, the “core creative process for any designer”. (1) The author, Nigel Cross, has chosen to structure the book around a series of in-depth case studies, across a range of design disciplines, including architecture, product design and sports engineering. By drawing upon an extensive range of existing empirical studies, comparing and contrasting them, Cross is able to draw out patterns and common themes that provide the basis for design thinking practices.

Design Thinking: Understanding How Designers Think and Work
(Bloomsbury Academic, 2011)

Nigel Cross is Emeritus Professor of Design Studies at the Open University, UK, where he teaches courses in design and technology at undergraduate level. With a background in architecture and industrial design, he has been engaged in design research, with a focus on design methodology and design epistemology, since the nineteen-sixties. His primary interest is in “design cognition, analysing the cognitive activities and abilities of designers, through protocol and other studies.” (2) Design Thinking is the latest publication from Cross and follows on from Designerly Ways of Knowing (Springer, 2006) and Engineering Design Methods: Strategies for Product Design (Wiley, 2008). In 1991 he initiated, alongside Norbert Roozenburg and Kees Dorst of Delft University of Technology, the Design Thinking Research Symposia.

It is this authoritative background that Cross brings to bear on the subject of design thinking and whilst by Cross’s own admission the book cannot be said to extend the field theoretically, (3) it largely succeeds in its aim of “revealing what designers do during the activity of designing, and on building an understanding of the nature of design ability.” (4)

Structure and Approach

The book is divided into eight chapters, with half of those chapters focused solely on in-depth case studies and the remainder concerned with making sense of the observations made in those studies. A pattern quickly emerges wherein Cross outlines two case studies, before comparing and contrasting them in the proceeding chapter, and then repeats this process. Whether knowingly or not Cross has provided a manifestation of the iterative design processes he sets out in Chapters 1 and 8 within the very structure of his book, taking a set of concepts, testing them, refining them and building upon them to provide clarity to the situation. (5) Early on Cross outlines the three main methods of researching the act of ‘design’: empirical studies; reflection; and theorising.­­ Whilst not rejecting the second and third approaches, Design Thinking relies heavily on the various different methods of empirical studies to establish it’s arguments so that the author can “build an evidence-based understanding of how designers think and work.” (6) Of the four general categories of empirical studies—interviews, (7) observations and case studies, (8) experimental studies, simulation—Chapters 2 and 3 are interview-based and Chapters 5 and 6 experiment-based. Although Cross makes use of numerous other sources to develop his arguments where possible he attempts to remain within the boundaries of the extensive case studies presented in Chapters 2, 3, 5 and 6, only over stepping these boundaries and making use of other examples where absolutely necessary.

Following a brief, separate introduction, Chapter 1 itself is very much a general introduction to the topic of design thinking, introducing all of the main themes and concepts that will be discussed throughout the later chapters, including the wealth of other authors Cross will be drawing upon in order to reinforce his own observations. This general, all-encompassing approach, can leave the reader feeling a little over whelmed, with the number of themes discussed contributing to this being the longest chapter, however this is a necessary step as it enables Cross to distil these themes into a narrow, more concentrated band. (9)

The interview-based case studies follow, with Chapter 2 discussing the accomplishments of Gordon Murray, a highly successful Formula One racing car designer, and Chapter 3 focused on Kenneth Grange, a product designer who has worked on everything from the design of sewing machines to high speed trains. Drawing upon the similarities of both Murrary and Grange design processes, Cross outlines ‘How Designers Think’ in Chapter 4, adding detail to the concepts first introduced in Chapter 1 and defining a series of lists that includes three strategic aspects of design thinking: “taking a broad ‘systems’ approach to the problem … 'framing' the problem in a distinctive and sometimes rather personal way … [and] designing from first principles.” (10) A possible fourth aspect, conflict, is also alluded to. Furthermore, Cross sets out the shared features of successful, innovative design (11) with a distinction between personality characteristics and methods and approaches, the implication being that while the latter can be taught, the first set cannot. (12)

In Chapters 5 and 6, the experiment-based base studies, a design project is tackled by an individual ‘expert’ designer and a three person team of experienced designers; each is conducted in a recorded, laboratory situation with the individual designer encouraged to vocalise his thoughts throughout. (13) These exercises are an example of protocol analysis—an empirical, observational research method for analysing design activity—which is “regarded as the most likely method to bring out into the open, at least to some extent, the mysterious skills of design thinking.” (14) Chapter 7, ‘How Designers Work’, compares the findings of the two experiments; the idea of ‘scheduling’ a design process is key to the discussion. Cross demonstrates that a similar design process is followed in both cases; first the task is clarified, second they search for concepts and third the concept is fixed. Thus design is portrayed as “an ongoing interactive exploration of both the problem and solution” which is described by Dorst and Cross as “the ‘co-evolution’ of problem and solution” or “a strategy of incremental development” by Goel. (15)

Cross sets out the argument for a seventh form of intelligence, design intelligence in the eighth and final chapter, ‘Design Expertise’. Six ‘traditional’ forms of intelligence are described—linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily-kinaesthetic, and personal—however Cross is of the opinion that “Aspects of design ability seem to be spread through these various forms of intelligence in a way that does not always seem entirely satisfactory.” (16)  The only “reasonable” solution for him is to separate design intelligence out as a seventh separate intelligence, defined as one that “involves an intense, reflective interaction with representations of problems and solutions, and an ability to shift easily and rapidly between concrete representations and abstract thought, between doing and thinking.” (17) A short final case study is used as a demonstration of the high-level cognitive functions that determine design thinking, with a simple design problem presented to a healthy control subject and a patient who has suffered neurological damage. Whilst the patient can recognise that this is a simple exercise, based on his extensive personal experience as a designer, he is unable to complete the exercise. Cross though is keen to stress that “like other forms of intelligence and ability, design intelligence is not simply a given ‘talent’ or ‘gift’, but can be trained and developed.” (18)

The book ends with a slightly disappointing discussion on how these skills can be developed, with comparisons drawn between the ‘depth-first’ design approach of the novice (the student) compared to the ‘breadth-first’ design approach favoured by the expert; the topic seems slightly rushed within the wider context of the book and would have justified a separate chapter. (19) However, it is important to note that Cross never sets out to provide a ‘how-to’ book. The more likely  reason for this discussion being is that it provides a demonstration of how it is only with time that designers can accumulate experience and add to their personal ‘design domains’ which are key to formulating solution-concepts.

The focus of this paper will now shift slightly from a broad over view of Design Thinking to further analysis of the key themes that run throughout the book.

Representations

Early on in Chapter 1 Cross introduces the idea that design cannot be conducted as a purely internal mental process, rather “the designer needs to interact with an external representation … [and] engage with the exploration of both the problem and its solution.” (20) The concept of ‘designing’ was originally not separate from the activity of ‘making’ and this is still evident in traditional, craft-based societies today. (21) Although Cross does not go into the context behind this separation, the introduction of a prior activity of drawing or modelling an artefact subtly shifts the focus so that in many cases the mere act of designing can become an end in itself, as witnessed by the practice of ‘paper architecture’. However, there is a clear distinction between the act of representing something that will be realised as an artefact and the representation being the artefact in its own right.

Drawing, alongside examining and thinking, is one of three design activities identified by Cross in Chapter 7. The activity of ‘drawing’ is not in itself key to the argument, Cross is using it as a simplification, a means to describe any activity that enables the designer to make a physical representation of the real world. This is demonstrating most vividly in Chapter 2 where Gordon Murray uses sketches to portray his thinking, an iterative process of sketching one concept, focusing on the successful component and redrawing it and then repeating this process until 90% of his prior sketches are redundant. All designers it seems use representations as “a means of ‘thinking aloud’, or ‘talking to themselves’, as Gordon [Murray] put it.” (22)

Uncertainty

A recurrent theme in the observations made about the case studies is the importance of “’uncertainty’ and is best summarised by Ted Happold who is attributed with saying that “Coping with uncertainty … seems to be a key factor in design ability.” (23) As the ideas in the book develops the notion of risk taking is also brought into the discussion as “the difference between the innovative and non-innovative designer.” (24) It is the uncertainty of the outcome that creates the risk. Designers must come to “tolerate and work with uncertainty” and it is perhaps for this reason that they are more willing to take risks. (25) By embracing uncertainty and risk a designer is also opening him- or herself up to the possibility of failure: “The innovative designer is prepared to fail (occasionally), but is not afraid of failure, and of course seeks fanatically to avoid failure.” (26)

Collaboration

The importance of collaboration in design is demonstrated most clearly by Cross through the experiment-based case study in Chapter 6. Cross states in the Introduction that he is interested in taking an interdisciplinary approach to design it is therefore unsurprising that he devotes a large portion of Design Thinking to the concept of teamwork. (27) Nevertheless numerous studies have shown that design is in fact a collaborative act, as Cross demonstrates when quoting Dianne Murray “Design is not hidden, it is constructed in public so other people can read it, and accepting commentary on it from anybody else is part of a tradition they embody.” (28) For Larry Bucciarelli “the process of designing is a process of achieving consensus among participants with different ‘interests’ in the design” furthermore “the social nature of designing, he suggested, results in acknowledging the inevitability of uncertainty and ambiguity” (29)

The case studies, primarily, would seem to support these propositions and it could be argued that a team can consider more problems at once than a lone designer, dealing with increased complexity.  Key to a successful team is how they are able to ‘negotiate difference’, that is how do they cope with there is a conflict between different views in the team. This negotiation allows teams to “accumulate the discourse” and “to make a constructive contribution that focuses the previous discussion onto a type of solution concept that suggests a way forward.” (30)

Care must be taken however to ensure that information is shared properly between all members of the team so that a common shared understanding can be developed. The more coherent a team is, avoiding non-committal apparent agreements, the more successful that team is likely to be. (31)

A personal exercise

Despite the emphasis on team working and collaboration, design remains a deeply personal exercise, with a team members ability to draw upon personal experiences of utmost importance. It is of course also “quite normal for designers to become emotionally involved with their ideas; their design concepts are not merely abstract ideas, but personal insights that emerge as a result of some considerable cognitive effort.” (32) Successful or innovative designers also share common characteristics, including a very high personal motivation and are “steeped in the knowledge and expertise of their domains.” (33) This knowledge can only be developed over time, allowing designers to eventually develop “schemata”, based on the precedents they are able to draw upon, which enables them to draw patterns between data sets more quickly. (34)

Insight follows immersion

Comparative studies into the different working methods of designers have revealed a common thread: insight follows immersion. This immersion typically takes the form of quickly switching between the three types of design activities, for an extended, concentrated period. It would seem that design ‘inspiration’ (if there is such a thing) comes when the mind is preoccupied, allowing the sub-conscious to think through a problem and ‘join up the dots’. This ‘insight’ will often occur when a designer then steps away from the problem, during a period of relaxation, so that “the solution details then cascade from the concept.” (35)

Solution-focused, not problem-focused

For much of the book the focus seems to be that designers are problem-focused, and it could perhaps come as a surprise when Cross, in Chapter 8, states that “designers are solution-focused, not problem focused.” (36) The explanation behind this statement is that designers do not take an initial problem, rather they reframe the boundaries of the initial problem, pushing it to the limits where before there was a safe buffer zone between the ‘accepted solution’ and the rules which defined it. (37) For this to happen both problem and solution must ‘co-evolve’ and go back to ‘first-principles’. In so doing designers construct their own solutions: “In a sense they are genuine explorers.” (38)

Everyone can design

The final concept that is central to Cross’s discussion on Design Thinking is one he makes at the very start of Chapter 1, that “Everyone can – and does – design.” (39) What this statement seeks to do is open up the realm of ‘design’ to everyone. Cross goes on to add that “Although everyone can design, designing is one of the highest forms of human intelligence.” (40) The level of cognitive skill, demonstrated clearly in Chapter 8, is based on synthesis or abduction, as opposed to the two conventionally understood forms of reasoning: deduction and induction. (41) As designers learn through the six phases of development, described by Hubert Dreyfus, they develop a “boader and more complex understanding of what has to be achieved.” (42) Whilst everyone can design, it is only through repetition of ‘design’ as a creative act that design thinking can be improved; “Like learning a language, it is a matter of immersion and internalising different levels of understanding and achievement.” (43)

Formulating design in a construction context

In summary it seems that designers should pay closer attention to the processes by which they design and the way in which they Think about design. In architecture this is often achieved through design process maps, flowcharts or diagrams, including the RIBA Plan of Work. What all of these attempt to do is ‘flatten’ the Design Thinking described by Cross--essentially an iterative process although he does not call it such.

Process maps, including the RIBA Plan of Work 2013, 'flatten'
the iterative design process into a number of stages and activities.

The difficulty of course lies in planning for the “unplanned, ad hoc exploratory activities to be pursued when they are perceived as relevant by the designer.” (44) A designers skill must also lie in knowing how to both make use of “opportunistic behaviour” and step forward to progress their design solutions.

Notes

The following was submitted to the University of Pennsylvania's School of Design as part of the Systems Thinking elective in Fall 2013.

1. Cross, N., Design Thinking (2011), Blurb

2. Nigel Cross Profile, The Open University, http://design.open.ac.uk/cross/, 17th December 2012 [Accessed: 11th September 2013]

3. Book Comment: Nigel Cross Design Thinking, http://transground.blogspot.com/2011/05/book-comment-nigel-cross-design.html, 20th May 2011 [Accessed: 11th September 2013]

4. Cross, op. cit., (2011), p. 1

5. The author of this paper believes this is a deliberate, conscious act by Cross.

6. Cross, op. cit., p. 134

7. For examples of interviews with architects see Hans Ulrich Obrist’s ‘Conversation Series’.

8. For observations and case studies see Albena Yaneva’s research “An Ethnography of Architecture, including her book “Made by the Office for Metropolitan Architecture: an Ethnography of Design”. Presents the everyday practice of architects OMA as an enquiry into architecture-in-the-making, based on participant observation, extensive interviews and photo-documentation of various projects, such as: the Seattle Public Library; the Whitney Museum of Modern Art, New York; China Central Television (CCTV) and La Casa da Musica, Porto.

9. This is not too dissimilar to Gordon Murray’s personal design process described by Cross in Chapter 2 as being “based on starting with a quick sketch of a whole idea, which is then developed through many different refinements.” Cross, op. cit., p. 51

10. Ibid., p. 75. Whilst examples of these three key strategic design aspects of design thinking being applied in architecture and urban planning are numerous, the proposal by Norman Foster for a new Thames Estuary Airport to serve as a major transport interchange in the UK provides a clear demonstration. Beginning with the ‘problem’ of airport capacity in the UK, Foster quickly takes a broad, systems-based approach to redefine the problem as one that must tackle issues of  rail, freight logistics, aviation, energy and its transmission, flood protection and regional development.  With the problem ‘reframed’ the design team then sets about providing a design solution based on ‘first principles’ that results in a highly integrated, innovative, design.

11. There is an interesting distinction here being made that implies ‘innovative’ design is the desired state of design and that which should be aimed for, a focus on bringing out ‘originality’.

12. Ibid., p. 73-5

13. The verbal account provided by the individual, ‘expert’, designer has some similarities the approach taking in design studio ‘crits’ wherein a tutor encourages a student to talk through a proposal and explain way they have taken certain design decisions. Unlike an interview  however the student and tutor are reflecting on the design and it is open to the possibility of change throughout the ‘crit’ The key difference here of course is that the ‘expert’ is being prompted whilst in the ‘act’ of designing, whereas the studio ‘crit’ is primarily concerned with review. This ‘reflective’ practice is dealt with by Donald Schön in “The Reflective Practitioner”, what is not clear from the experiment is how much the very act of ‘talking out loud’ encourages reflective action and as such could be seen to be ‘interfering’ with the ‘expert’ designers process of design thinking.

14. Ibid., p. 80 It is interesting to note that even after all of the observations made in the previous chapters design thinking is still regarded as being ‘mysterious’. This may in fact be more attributable to a commonly held belief (or misconception) that fails to take account of the growing body of evidence to support the opposite notion.

15. Ibid., p. p. 123-5 On Goel, Cross adds “…’as partial, interim ideas and solutions are generated, they are retained, massaged and incrementally developed until they reach their final form. Very rarely are ideas or solutions forgotten or discarded’.”

16. Ibid., p. 135

17. Ibid., p. 136

18. Ibid., p. 140

19. Ibid., p. 145

20. Ibid., p. 12

21. Ibid., p. 4

22. Ibid., p. 71

23. Ibid., p. 15

24. Ibid., p.. 69

25. Ibid., p. 26

26. Ibid., p. 73

27. Ibid., p. 2 He later goes on to add that “Teamwork is of considerable importance in normal professional design activity, and has become of even greater importance as design becomes a more integrated activity involving collaboration among many different professions.” p.91

28. Ibid., p. 20 Interestingly in design schools students often try to hide their design work at first and they have to be encouraged (learn) to accept outside influences.

29. Ibid., p. 20

30. Ibid., p. 118-9

31. Ibid., p. 119

32. Ibid., p. 111

33. Ibid., p. 72

34. Ibid., p. 146

35. Ibid., p. 74

36. Ibid., p. 147

37. Typical examples of this situation are cited when a winning design entry is said to ‘have broken the rules’. For example, BIG’s winning proposal for the new Danish Maritime Museum in 2007. happening

38. Cross, Op. Cit., p. 134-5

39. Ibid., p. 2

40. Ibid., p. 8

41. Ibid., p. 27

42. Ibid., p. 143

43. Ibid., p. 147

44. Ibid., p. 92

The Dualities of the Profession

The following extract is taken from Chapter One of The Architecture of the Profession, a thesis project submitted to the Manchester School of Architecture as part of the MA Architecture and Urbanism course 2010-2011. For information about how to purchase a copy of the research please follow this link.

Contradictions of Practice

One of the most enduring questions that architects have faced throughout their history is whether what they practise should be defined as an art or a profession. The two are treated as incompatible opposites. We are told that this practice is a blend of fine and applied arts, of sciences and humanities but the exact mix of these is never agreed upon. The contested nature of architectural practice can be extended to the make up of architects themselves; they are the site of contested values that provoke heated debate.

Dialectical Tension Diagram based on the work of Dana Cuff.

The architect, and thus by extension the architectural profession, can be defined by a series of “dialectical dualities” (1) that are in a constant state of tension but, more often than not, one of these ‘poles’ will be favoured more heavily than the other. In this model the two positions are pictured as being at the opposite ends of a spectrum and if one extremity is favoured over the other it can only be to the detriment of the opposite. The internal dualities can even be extended to the meaning of the word “architecture”, as it refers to both the practice of a professional activity and also to the outputs of that activity. (2) Attempts to examine architecture as either an art or a science, or an art or a profession have been labelled as “inadequate” methods with which to judge such a complex entity. (3) Moving towards a model that accepts the tension between these dialectics enables the complexities of the profession to be properly considered whilst it also offers an opportunity to rebalance these tensions and find a state of equilibrium that is beneficial to all concerned in the built environment.

In her explanation of these dialectics Dana Cuff identifies four sets of dualities that embody the contradictions within the profession; in many cases “practitioners recognise the inescapable links” between the extremities but ”it is by no means a happy marriage.” (4) First, is the contrast between the autonomous artist and the collective team of professionals required to bring a project to completion. Second, is the separation of design and art from business and management concerns. Third, is design as decision marking versus design as making sense of a situation, this includes the way in which architectural problems are constructed. Finally, is the image of the architect as a generalist countered by a movement towards specialisation within the built environment industry. (5)

The modern incarnation of these contradictions can be traced back to the origins of a profession that was attempting to distinguish itself amongst a maelstrom of change. Positions taken two hundred years ago are still defining the British architectural profession today and to better understand the origin of these dualities further discussion is required.

The Rise of the Professional

In the 19th century the profession of architecture was formalised and consolidated, bringing to an end a period of patronage that that had persisted for hundreds of years. In an act of self-protection groups of architects banded together, in the face of new competitors and vociferous criticism from a rapidly changing construction industry, (6) to present a unified approach and be identified with a service of quality. Claiming to present a “uniquely impartial and independent service”  these groups hoped that by having professional status their services would be differentiated from builders, surveyors (who also professionalised in the 19th century), (8) and other specialists that were emerging. Although “a long process recognizable in outline but blurred in detail” (9) the route to professionalisation can be traced back to two primary factors: the transition from medieval to modern processes of thought that gave rise to the “inter-disciplinary character of the modern architectural designer”; and the industrial revolution (which shifted society from agrarian to a capitalist-based model) and resulted in the “professional organization through which [the architect] fulfils an increasingly specialist role.” (10) These two factors were a source of major conflict for the embryonic architectural profession and remain so today.



The origins of professionalism in Britain begin in the 18th century as the informal relationship between patrons, their advisers and craftsmen was formalised in the wake of economic growth and the emergence of both new building typologies and larger buildings. The aristocratic patrons of the previous era were being replaced with building committees of “middle-class laymen” that in turn forced architects into more clearly defined roles, selling their ideas and designs in direct competition with their peers. (11) Furthermore, the skills required to erect these buildings were “too diverse and technical for the old habits to deal with” so new specialists began to emerge alongside a new breed of general contractors and professional builders. (12) At the forefront of the specialisation in building were figures like Sir William Chambers and Sir John Soane (13) whilst professional builders like Thomas Cubitt offered early versions of ‘design and build’ services. (14) It was not just builders who laid claim to areas previously under the architects sphere of influence but also engineers, surveyors, cabinet makers (who in some cases developed into fledgling interior designers) and house agents.

Sir John Soane, painting by Thomas Lawrence
(Image: Sir John Soane's Museum)

From 1750 onwards a number of groups brought together architects (and artists), one of the earliest being the 1761 The Society of Artists, which included Sir William Chambers as one of its directors. (15) This first group was followed by the Royal Academy of Arts, after quarrelling between Chambers and James Paine, and was founded by 34 individuals (four of whom were architects, including Chambers) who “were determined to achieve professional standing for British art and architecture.” (16) The role of architects in the Royal Academy though was nominal (with the exception of Chambers who acted as Treasurer) and of far greater significance for the future of architects was the Architects’ Club established in 1791. This was a highly exclusive group, with membership restricted to Royal Academicians, holders of the Academy’s Gold Medal, and members of distinguished foreign institutions, and various topics were discussed at the dining table over the Club’s thirty year existence, including professional qualifications, fire-proof construction, and professional fees. (17)

It was, however, the formation of the Institute of British Architects in 1834 that was the “first major act of exclusion and prime move towards professional solidarity”. The institute, awarded its Royal Charter in 1837 (but not formally bestowed until 1866 to become the Royal Institute of British Architects – RIBA), was “founded for facilitating the acquirement of architectural knowledge, for the promotion of the different branches of science connected with it, and for establishing an uniformity and respectability of practice in the profession.” (18) It is worth here observing that in the title of the Institute the “A” stands for “Architects” and not “Architecture” yet the charter sets forth the advancement of architecture. Jeremy Till states that this has created a curious instance of circular logic where “the knowledge as to what constitutes architecture is defined by architects, who in turn are therefore deemed to be the only people capable of delivering that self-defined architecture.” (19) Although all professions are established on the basis of self protection he is highly critical that “under the worthy cloak of the charter…there is a barefaced cheek in hiding the expediency of private gain behind the mask of public good”. (20)

The early Victorian profession had a preoccupation with business ethics, formulating rules for fees, practice and conduct. This new codified profession was also highly concerned with the architects’ status. Members were classified as either fellows, associates or honorary fellows, this third type, crucially, were to be gentleman “unconnected with any branch of building as a trade or business” and served to underline the tension between architects and the rapidly expanding building industry. (21) In the formation of the RIBA the long association between architects and artists was also ruptured, where they were once considered the same, being part of the same organisations, architects now positioned themselves separately. However despite this self imposed professional isolationism architects still wanted to be considered artists and clung to the autonomy that patronage had brought them since the Renaissance.

In the first half of the 19th century the profession could not be kept afloat on design work alone, there were too few large buildings and projects, so they continued with a range of other laborious activities such as arranging leases, assessing rents, measuring property or taking out quantities, to ensure a guaranteed income in an otherwise highly competitive field. However, as populations boomed, there was an “unparalleled expansion of professional functions” (22) and new building typologies, so that “as fast as they could afford to do so, architects shed their less congenial tasks” (23) in favour of the highly esteemed, literate, skill of design.

During this period of change, Architects at the ‘top of the tree’ found security in “the idea of art in building as the special province of the architect” and this would trickle down though the ranks of the profession. (24) However as the muddied water of professional responsibilities cleared in the second half of the 19th century, and architects found it easier to make a living, the importance of art or learned design skills persisted, to the point that architects could trade solely on their skills as an ‘artist’. As Andrew Saint observes “this widening rift between ‘art’ and ‘professionalism’ was a feature in some degree peculiar to Britain, and it had large consequences for British architecture.”  (25) This question of ‘art’ remains a “red herring” in architectural politics to this day. (26)

The Royal Institute of British Architects Headquarters
in Portland Place, London (Image: Luke Butcher)

Attempts to legislate the architectural profession began in the late 1880s and early 1890s with registration seen as a way to create a closed and more regulated profession. A group of young architects, suspecting the RIBA of dragging its heals on the issue, formed the Society of Architects in 1884 and introduced the first registration bills to Parliament in the 1880s. Although unsuccessful the RIBA was forced to adopt registration as its official policy in 1890. (27) It would take until 1931 though for the title of ‘Registered Architect’ to be granted legal protection and a ‘Register of Architects’ drawn up to be handled by a statutory body, the Architects’ Registration Council of the United Kingdom (ARCUK). The subsequent Architects Registration Act of 1938 changed the protected title to simply ‘Architect’ and it wasn’t until 1997 that there were any serious changes in the regulation of the architects’ profession in the UK, such as ARCUK being replaced by the Architect’s Registration Board (ARB). (28)

That it took over forty years for the first Act to be passed was in part due to “a reluctance to legislate over the ability to design” (29) as well as groups who opposed registration on “eccentric grounds that art and professionalism were incompatible”. (30) These opposition groups included Thomas Graham Jackson and Norman Shaw, who authored ‘Architecture, A Profession or an Art’ in 1892 and those who feared that registration would lead to further fragmentation of the building industry. Opponents like Shaw were not members of the RIBA and by the end of the 19th century RIBA membership accounted for only ten percent of the profession. These figures increased to roughly one quarter in 1911 and by the 1920s an organization that had previously been dismissed as nothing more than “a highly respectable trades union”, by The Times in 1870 accounted for half of all architects in Britain. (31) Once the RIBA could be seen to represent the majority of architects it “took up cudgels in earnest” and legal registration soon followed with little opposition. (32)

Having achieved protection of title, architects would appear to have successfully demarcated the area of architectural knowledge for themselves and thus the practice and end product of architecture. However in Britain protection of title is just that, a title, there is no legal protection afforded to an architect’s function or the services they offer. The ARB is simply charged with protecting the consumer (the public) by recognising the qualifications needed to become an architect and ensuring that those on the register meet a set of prescribed standards for conduct and practice. (33) In many ways this leaves the profession just as weak and vulnerable to intrusion from other disciplines as it was in the 19th century; there is nothing in the statutory regulations to stop an individual (or indeed profession) offering the services of an architect, as long as that individual does not call themselves an architect.

Professions are built on the basis of practising expert knowledge and architects are not alone in trying to self perpetuate their own knowledge base however, unlike doctors or lawyers, architects have no control of that knowledge base. This weak position has come about in part because architects have attempted to tie themselves to architecture through a system that “conflates architect (as expert) with architecture (as profession) with architecture (as practice) with architecture (as product).”  (34) The final link in this sequence, the buildings or products of architecture, is too complex to come under the control of architects because it is dependent upon other external forces, from society to politics, including other professions who also established their own areas of expertise in the 19th century. In the end this results in a conflicted profession and a professional organisation, the RIBA, that is forced to wear so many hats at the same time it doesn’t know what or who to represent; is it a body responsible “for the direction and maintenance of the national character for taste” (35) or a learned body to promote the knowledge of its experts or is it a trades union? A professional body should be a representation of its members; the RIBA’s conflicts are certainly representative of those architects face daily.

The Educated Architect

Closely tied with the rise of professionalism is how future architects are trained and educated. Formalising education allows the profession to ensure levels of competence within its’ rank and file and also, by dictating what is taught, what tasks those professionals are trained to carry out and thus the tasks the profession is skilled at doing.


One of the earliest forms of formal architectural education was Jean-Baptiste Colbert’s Académie de L’Archtiecture in 1671 (extended to an adjunct in Rome in 1720). The atelier system at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts in Paris, established by J.F. Blondel in 1743, later augmented this style of education. (36) Until its closure in 1968, the Ecole was the oldest school of art and architecture north of the Alps and “maintained a remarkable continuity of style and teaching methods throughout the years of its existence.” (37) A centralised, government-supported school, it had a well-organised curriculum where students progressed from the entry examination to becoming diplômé par le gouvernement by winning design competitions worked out in the atelier or studio, which was led by practising architects, before a period of practical experience. “Beaux-Arts” itself means fine art and the school is associated with architects “who firmly believed that architecture was an Art”. (38) By advocating that any intelligent person could be systematically taught a series of universal principles that underlined architecture it attracted attention from those outside of France, principally students from the United States who exported the methods back there, widening its influence as a teaching style.

In Britain, however, the emerging practice of articled pupilage in an architect’s office was the only formal training available to aspiring architects, a form of apprenticeship, it was originally introduced by Sir Robert Taylor. (39) Although there was some formal architectural training offered through the inception of the Royal Academy Schools in 1768, the irregular standards of articled pupilage, augmented by lectures at the Royal Academy and travel abroad (principally the Grand Tour), continued well into the 19th century as the mainstay of British architectural education. (40) Pupilage traditionally started at fifteen or sixteen, with pupils “expected to have a background in languages and some knowledge of mathematics, geometry and drawing,” it would last between three and seven years although five to six years were most common. All pupils were expected to be trained in measuring, site work and the general running of the office and the articles “merely stated that the pupil was to learn the ‘art of profession of an architect’.” (41) However, because it was unregulated the pupilage system was prone to exploitation, which led to fictional accounts of particularly bad pupilage such as those experienced by the character Pecksniff in Charles Dicken’s Martin Chuzzlewit (1844). By the time that the RIBA issued a model form for articles in 1890 new formalised methods of institutional education were emerging.

The first serious attempt to provide specialised instruction took place in the 1840s at King’s College and University College, London. In 1841, T. L. Donaldson, first Secretary of the RIBA, was appointed Professor of Architecture at University College and gave two courses of lectures for part-time students – “Architecture as a Science” and “Architecture as an Art”. (42) However, on the whole the leaders of the Victorian profession were indifferent to the need for educational reform, so it was the students themselves who championed this reform. Pressure came in the form of the Association of Architectural Draftsmen in 1842 (becoming the Architectural Association – the AA – in 1847), a group of junior architects excluded from the RIBA for not having been in practice for the requisite number of years, who campaigned for an equivalent of the French Diplôme d’Architecte. Eventually the RIBA was persuaded to hold the first voluntary examination for entry to its Associate Membership in 1863, with the AA setting up a “Voluntary Examination Class” that established for the first time “the modern concept of systematic study test by examination as the basis of the architect’s education” in Britain. (43) The RIBA systemised its examination into three parts—Preliminary, Intermediate, and Final—by 1887, with the last being obligatory for Associateship, with a full-time three year course in architecture starting at King’s College, London five years later in 1892. Liverpool was the first provincial school, opening in 1895, and it offered a BA Honours course from 1900 that exempted students from the RIBA Intermediate examination, followed by a five-year course in 1920 that gave full exemption from the RIBA examinations. (44) In between the two World Wars numerous other schools were established and by this point a considerable proportion of entrants into the profession were receiving training in a full-time, formal environment.

Architectural education in Britain has not been stagnant since then; it has obviously changed and adapted to suit the needs of the situation it finds itself in, much like the wider architectural profession. Notable forums on architectural education in Britain looked at changing aspects of it, including the 1924 Congress on Architectural Education, noting that “the pupilage system has practically passed in most of the larger centres of population” and placing an emphasis on full-time training in schools, and the 1958 Oxford Conference on Architectural Education that set forth a number of recommendations to maintain the relevance of that education. (45) In 2008 a second Oxford Conference aimed to ‘reset the agenda’ for architectural education that had been established over fifty years previously. (46) Debates about architectural education also included those of British Government when, in the early 1990s, they considered cutting funding for architectural education to a maximum of four years, although this ultimately didn’t take place. (47)

Despite these changes there is still an ongoing debate about whether or not the academic environment is the correct one in which to educate future architects. The current climate of budget cuts to higher education spending and rises in tuition fees have heightened this debate at present, with students and architects alike calling into question the value of spending five years in full time education, particularly when salary levels are so low. Some practitioners want ‘oven ready chickens’, trained in the latest piece of computer software, whilst the educationalists see the academic environment as a place to foster creativity and ‘design thinking’ – there is a tension between education as training and education as academic learning. One of the main issues is that in its current guise the design studio is treated as a replica of an architectural office when in fact “there is little in common between them not least because [one is] in the business of learning, and not earning”. (48) The relationship between the profession and education is more complex than one simply being equivalent to the other, despite how much either side might like it to otherwise because “the actions of the academy do not directly influence the profession and the profession does not directly control education.” (49)

Desks at the Yale Art and Architecture Building
(Image: Creative Commons / Ragesoss, 29th Sept. 2008).

If architecture is a quasi-vocational subject to be taught as a mixture of arts, sciences and humanities further questions are raised when you consider how architectural schools fit into the academic structure. An analysis of architectural schools across  reveals a wide range of different faculties and departments in which architecture is placed. The majority of UK institutions have an 'Architecture School/Department' with a number of these operating as independent faculties in their own right. However, there are also a number of institutions with no architecture department and instead it sits, as a subject, within a wider faculty, for example 'Art, Architecture and Design'. Further divergence is also revealed in the degrees offered by institutions, either a Bachelor of Arts or a Bachelor of Science for undergraduate level, and although architecture is not unique in lacking a unified and sole degree classification, the range of degrees on offer to students is another sign of the difficulties in defining architectural education academically in the UK. As Necdet Teymur, in his series of papers on architectural education in 1992, observes "the desire to identify architecture as, say, technology and/or craft and/or science and/or art throughout the centuries betrays the very paradox of the idea of architecture both as a multi-disciplinary, multi-skilled, multi-dimensional and multi-media practice and a self-sufficient profession that behaves as if it already possess all the knowledge that it needs." (50)

Unhelpful Oppositions

The contradictions that exist within architectural practice are something that modern day practitioners have to learn to deal with daily but whilst they are perceived to favour one extreme over another they can never hope to deal with these tensions. The unhelpful 19th century oppositions that persist to this day have come to define architectural practice or at least how it is perceived. Like the self serving circular logic of ‘expert equals profession equals practice equals product it is perceptions of the architect as an autonomous individual that perpetuates this in the educational setting, which encourages this autonomy when those students enter into the profession, unprepared for the collective actions required to shape the built environment. Education and the profession may not directly influence one another but one can see how the profession can inform education which in turn informs the profession.

The duality of the individual versus the collective can be seen in the move to cordon off the architectural profession from the rest of the building industry in 1834. Architects though were also all too willing to shake off tasks in favour of ‘specialising’ in design but then why do many people still consider them to be generalists? Or why in education is the individual championed when in practice architects, particularly on larger, more complex projects, work in teams. Generalising that the root of all the architectural professions problems lies in the 19th century and the initial formation of the ‘modern profession’ of course fails to fully comprehend the complex nature of architecture. What it does do, however, is highlight that the issues facing architectural practice today are not new and in fact are all a wide set of shared experiences. These issues have been tackled for two hundred years, and whilst some progress has been made no resolution appears to be imminent. The first step though must surely be for architects, the wider profession, the academy, and the public to acknowledge that architecture can not simply be one or the other but it can oscillate between both positions quite comfortably. There are surely plenty of architects out there who would happily call themselves artists and businessmen, so why must we always be forced to perceive architects as one or the other, why can’t they be both? What has not yet been considered though is why anyone would want to enter into such a conflicted profession in the first place.

Notes

The above extract is taken from Chapter One of The Architecture of the Profession, a thesis project submitted to the Manchester School of Architecture as part of the MA Architecture and Urbanism course 2010-2011. For information about how to purchase a copy of the research please follow this link.

1. Dana Cuff, Architecture: The Story of Practice, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992), p. 11.

2. The Oxford English dictionary gives the following definitions of architecture: i. The art or practice of designing and constructing buildings; ii. The style in which a building is designed and constructed, especially with regard to a specific period, place, or culture. Oxford English Dictionary Online, architecture, 2011 [retrieved 10th August 2011], http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/architecture.
3. Gary Stevens, The Favored Circle: The Social Foundations of Architectural Distinction, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998), p. 82. cited in Jeremy Till, Architecture Depends, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009), p. 156.
4. Cuff, loc. cit.
5. Ibid., pp. 11, 250.
6. “Allegations of deficient or fraudulent practice were often vociferously expressed by the emerging new species of client industrialists, entrepreneurs, corporations and boards of guardians, some of them less than scrupulous.” Sarah Lupton (ed.), RIBA Handbook of Practice Management, (London: RIBA Publishing, 7th edition, 2001), p. 235.
7. Ibid.
8. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, founded in 1868 and granted it’s Royal Charter in 1881, now claims that it is “the mark of property professionalism worldwide.” Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Home Page, 2011 [retrieved 10th August 2011], http://www.rics.org. The RIBA by contrast has this to say about itself “The Royal Institute of British Architects champions better buildings, communities and the environment through architecture and our members.” Royal Institute of British Architects, About Us, 2011 [retrieved 10th August 2011], http://www.architecture.com/TheRIBA/AboutUs/AbouttheRIBA.aspx.
9. Andrew Saint, The Image of the Architect, (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983), p. 57.
10. John Wilton-Ely, The Rise of the Professional Architect in England, in Spiro Kostof (ed.) The Architect: Chapters in the History of the Profession, 2nd ed. (Berkley, CA: University of California Press, 2000), p. 180.
11. Ibid., p. 195.
12. Saint, loc. cit.
13. “They stand at the head of a vast diversification and fragmentation in building organization which has gathered pace from that day to this.” Ibid.
14. Osborne House, built directly for Victoria and Albert in 1845-50 by Thomas Cubitt, is one example which used these ‘design and build’ services without an independent architect. Other professional builders included William Cubitt and Company, C.J. Freake and William Willett. They ran “capable” architectural offices within their businesses. Ibid, p. 60.
15. The Society of Artists held a series of public exhibitions of work carried out by living painters, sculptors, architects and other artists, similar to the long established Paris salons. The exhibition included a charitable endeavour to support artists whose “age and infirmities, or other lawful hindrances, prevent them from being any longer candidates for fame.” W. Chambers is listed as one it’s directors and it is assumed that this was in fact William Chambers. Algernon Graves, The Society of Artists of Great Britain, 1760-1791; the Free Society of Artists, 1761-1783: a Complete Dictionary of Contributors and their Work from the Foundation of the Societies to 1791, (London: G. Bell and Sons, 1907), pp. 303-5.
16. Royal Academy of Arts, About the Royal Academy of Arts, 2011, [retrieved 10th August 2011], http://royalacademy.org.uk/about.
17. The Architects Club was established by George Dance, James Wyatt, Henry Holland, and S.P. Cockerell, later joined by Chambers, Robert Adam, and others. Wilton-Ely, op. cit., p. 192.
18. Ibid. The RIBA’s website states that it was founded for “…the general advancement of Civil Architecture, and for promoting and facilitating the acquirement of the knowledge of the various arts and sciences connected therewith…” Royal Institute of British Architects, Our History, 2011 [retrieved 10th August 2011], http://www.architecture.com/TheRIBA/AboutUs/Ourhistory.aspx.
19. Jeremy Till, Architecture Depends, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009), pp. 153-4.
20. Ibid.
21. Wilton-Ely, op. cit., p. 193.
22. Ibid., p. 197.
23. Saint, op. cit., p. 58.
24. Ibid., p. 66.
25. Ibid., pp. 63, 66.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid., p. 66.
28. The Architects Act 1997, (London: HMSO).
29. Wilton-Ely, op. cit., p. 203.
30. Saint, loc. cit.
31. Wilton-Ely, op. cit., pp. 202-4.
32. Saint, The Image of the Architect, (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983), p. 66.
33. Architects Registration Board, About Us, 2011 [retrieved 10th August 2011], http://www.arb.org.uk/about_us/ .
34. Till, op. cit., pp. 154-5. This sequence can even be found in the RIBA’s domain name—www.architecture.com—if you want to find an architect you need to find architecture first.
35. Royal British Institute of Architects, Transactions of the RIBA, vol. I/I (London: John Weale, 1836), p. vii cited in Jeremy Till, Architecture Depends (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009), p. 154.
36. The return of the term atelier or studio has once again become increasingly popular among architects as opposed to office. Cuff, op. cit, p. 28.
37. Joan Draper, The Ecole des Beaux-Arts and the architectural Profession in the United States: The Case of John Galen Howard, in Spiro Kostof (ed.) The Architect: Chapters in the History of the Profession, 2nd ed. (Berkley, CA: University of California Press, 2000), p. 209.
38. Ibid., p. 210.
39. Wilton-Ely, op. cit., p. 191.
40. Ibid., p. 197.
41. Mark Crinson and Jules Lubbock, Architecture—art or profession?: Three hundred years of architectural education in Britain, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994), p. 45.
42. Wilton-Ely, op. cit., p. 198.
43. Ibid., pp. 198-9.
44. Ibid., p. 204.
45. Leslie Martin, RIBA Conference on Architectural Education: Report by the Chairman, Oxford, April 11th-13th 1958. Available at http://www.oxfordconference2008.co.uk/1958conference.pdf [retrieved 10th August 2011].
46. The Oxford Conference 2008 was held on the 22nd-23rd July 2008. Oxford Conference 2008, Home Page, 2008, [retrieved 10th August 2011], http://www.oxfordconference2008.co.uk.
47. Francis Duffy and Les Hutton, Architectural Knowledge: The Idea of a Profession (London: Spon, 1998), pp. 190-3.
48. Necdet Teymur, Architectural Education: Issues in educational practice and policy, (London: ?uestion Press, 1992), p. 35.
49. Till, op. cit., p. 17.
50. Ibid.

The Architecture of the Profession

At some point during the third year of my architectural education I was confronted with a difficult question: “Do we need architects?” Initially my response had been “yes” but given time to ruminate upon this troubling statement I was less confident and I began to consider my own personal experiences with architects or lack there of. In truth, outside of the academic setting, my encounters with architects, at that point, had been limited to sixth months shadowing a solo practitioner, for one afternoon a week, and a further two months, between the second and third year of my undergraduate studies, in an office belonging to an international practice with a reputation for being commercially-driven. I had grown up surrounded by the various trades involved in the physical construction of buildings and my education in the built environment industry had started young, with small-scale residential projects, little of which were designed by architects, working with my father who is a carpenter by trade. From what I could see it didn't seem to matter that there were no architects involved but I was unsure if the products of this process constituted architecture. I was unwittingly distinguishing between works of architecture and building, arguments that I am now more conscious of, however I was increasingly aware of huge swathes of the built environment that were not designed by architects but were still considered architecture. It seemed too simplistic to state that architecture was solely the work of architects or that in the absence of architects it would be impossible to create works of architecture. I had found myself facing the two of the oldest dilemmas of professional architectural practice; what exactly are architects for and what differentiates architecture from building?

Of these two positions it was the first that bothered me the most. I believe the differences between architecture and building are subjective and discussing these differences requires an element of philosophical meandering that I am less interested in. The term built environment seems to be a more useful phrase when discussing the human-modified environment, with awareness that this environment is a perturbed concoction of architecture and building. This first position then is the crux of the original question but it is perhaps more useful to expand it: “Do we need architects to shape our built environment?” Furthermore if architects are not always necessary then what other forces are at play? This was my first encounter with another uneasy professional position that underlies so much of the work of architects—the inherent dependency upon others.

These burgeoning interests underpinned the third year of my undergraduate studies, progressed during a year of professional practice, where I became acquainted with the intricacies of multi-disciplinary practice, and led me to pursue a Masters degree at the Manchester School of Architecture. I originally set out on the Masters programme with the intention of interrogating the social, economic and political forces currently acting upon the construction industry, with a belief that understanding these processes will be crucial in the creation of the future built environment. As the research advanced it became clear that the optimum site to focus my studies upon was the architectural profession itself and whether or not architects have a role to play in shaping the built environment of the 21st century.

There is currently a heightened level of debate surrounding the possible future role of architects and this research can be seen as part of this wider discourse, drawing upon these various commentaries in its construction. These discussions can be categorised in broadly two camps: manifestos, solely concerned with redefining the role of the individual architect; and descriptions of practice organisation, with which this project is more closely aligned. To date little has been written about how either of these would impact on the built environment and this research hopes to address this by not only speculating on the make up of practice but also how the built environment would be shaped, what new systems might be employed and how architects could fit within these.

The RIBA Building Futures debate in Manchester. (Image: Carrie Bayley)

The research project did not set out to provide a set of definitive answers but instead speculate on future trajectories for the architectural profession. By extrapolating from historical trends and expanding upon current discourses in the field this conjuncture also hints at possible future scenarios for the built environment. Existing discourse has been expanded upon through an extensive survey of over 100 individuals, on both the demand and supply side of the built environment industry, interviews, round table discussion groups, case studies, and my participation in a debate organised by the Royal Institute of British Architects’ Building Futures research group. Furthermore, it was important that, at all times, the research remained grounded in the pragmatics of the real-world and kept a practice orientated perspective in which the architect is just one agent amongst the dynamic forces of the design and construction process.

The Architecture of the Profession presents the research in three parts, a book that runs to over 130 pages, with a further 40 pages of notes. In Part I (Purpose) the role and motivations of architectural practice are investigated. This draws upon the work of Kostof (1977) and Saint (1983) to provide a historical context, and studies by Blau (1984), Cuff (1992) and Yaneva (2010), to offer a sociological understanding of practice, and analysis of the shifting obligations and responsibilities of the profession from antiquity to the present day. Part II (Practice) deals more specifically with the practice of architecture and how buildings are made. Using two projects designed forty years apart by the same practice, the stories of how each project was shaped and constructed reveals the changes that have taken place and suggest how things might continue changing. Finally, Part III (Prospects) deals with emergent forms of architectural practice, with these futures framed from the perspective of architectural production.

It is then the culmination of twelve months spent studying the complexities of the architectural profession, but is informed by 36 months worth of curiosity into these issues, and an even longer interest in architecture. It is hoped that the book moves beyond a simple description of the architectural profession and instead turns attention to the architecture of that profession. Below is a more detailed description of the three parts that constitute the final volume.

The Architecture of the Profession (Copyright: Luke Butcher)

PART I - PURPOSE

Part I examines the purpose of architectural practice, providing a general overview of the issues facing both architects as individuals and as a collective group. Chapter 1 (The Dualities of the Profession) begins with a condensed history of professionalism within British architectural culture, specifically the developments in the late 18th and 19th centuries that saw the role of architects within the shaping of the built environment change. Chapter 2 (Motivations of Practice) questions the key motivations of practice by first looking at the reasons for students entering into architectural education today and then how these impact on the future motivations of practitioners. Chapter 3 (Ethics of Practice) raises issues of ethics in architectural practice through the divergence of what architects feel they are responsible for and what they are legally obliged to do. Chapter 4 (The Valued Servant) is concerned with questions of value within architectural practice and the built environment, working through the perspective of clients, society and architects.

PART II - PRACTICE

Part II is concerned with the methods and organization of architectural practice, specifically the involvement of architects at the various different stages in the development of an intervention in the built environment. Chapter 5 (Someone Else's Questions) deals with a project in it’s infancy, when the idea of something in the built environment is first discussed and plans are made to intervene in that environment. Chapter 6 (Procedures of Practice) tackles the organisation of architectural projects from the initial vision through to executing that vision on site. Chapter 7 (Tools of Practice) looks at the various tools used by architects throughout their practice and how new tools have the potential to change the design process. Chapter 8 (Reflective Practice) asks what happens to a project once it is finished and whether architects can develop systems of evidence-based practice to benefit both their own practice and the built environment. Each of these chapters calls on observations made about two architectural projects undertaken by Building Design Partnership (BDP): the Head Office for Halifax Building Society, completed in 1974; and the Shafton Advanced Learning Community (ALC), due for competition in early 2012. Both projects share a number of similarities that enable comparisons to be drawn about changes in practice over the last forty years, and have been informed by interviews with members of the original design teams.

The BDP designed Halifax HQ was used as a
case study for the research (Image: BDP).

PART III - PROSPECTS

Part III deals with the future of architectural profession, speculating on the trajectory of emergent trends within the profession and in wider society. Chapter 9 (What Now?) questions what the future will hold, dealing with issues of uncertainty that make long-term forecasting particularly difficult before evaluating the key drivers of the profession in the near-future. Chapter 10 (Integrated Practice) introduces the concept of architects working in large, fully integrated firms tasked with full service provision through inception, design, execution and occupation of the built environment. Chapter 11 (Expert Practice) takes earlier signifiers of gradual disintegration of the architect as generalist to question the new role of the expert, specialist practitioner. Chapter 12 (Networked Practice) is concerned with the concept of networked practice as a model through which small to medium sized practices and other consultants can work collaboratively so that small-scale practice can carry out large-scale change. The RIBA Building Futures group’s recent research into the future of the profession has been used as a starting point in these investigations, principally the practice types identified in the report that show potential for growth, some that are under threat and others that are unlikely to change in the future.  Each of these was used as a basis from which to extrapolate future models of practice, interrogating and evaluating them against a range of criteria such as the size of practice, the types of tasks an architect in that practice would undertake, the clients they would work for and how that practice is likely to be perceived externally. Numerous other speculations about the future of architectural practice, including the findings from the authors own survey of the profession, have also been taken into consideration when developing these models. Thus the initial types identified by Building Futures have been consolidated into fewer practice models and in most cases considerably altered or expanded, so that they signal new ways of practising architecture. These evaluations were also read in conjunction with other observations about the architectural profession (Part I) and the processes involved in shaping the built environment (Part II), from which new trends became clear. Attempts have been made to refer each practice type to project scenarios, from the perspective of the architect, as an attempt to evaluate their impact on the future built environment.

Extracts from the book will be released over the coming weeks on this blog (Chapter 1, Chapter 7 and Chapter 9) to provide a taster of the ideas explored within it. The book will be available for sale via Lulu from Tuesday 4th October 2011 (further details to be announced on Luke Butcher Online and this blog). I will be giving a presentation about the research on Thursday 6th October 2011 at the RIBA Hub in Manchester, starting a 2pm, as part of the MA Architecture and Urbanism Colloquium 2011.

‘Tough Times’ Student Forum

The RIBA’s ‘Tough Times’ student forum (21st June 2011), held at its Portland Place Headquarters in London, was an attempt to gather the opinion of students about the issues they are currently facing. 26 students attended the event, representing architecture schools from across the country, and although not every school was represented 6 main themes (highlighted by the post-even report prepared by Laura Broderick, Special Projects Co-ordinator, RIBA) were common concerns: finding a job, the cost of course related materials, relationship between practice and academia, low salaries, high tuition fees, and employability skills. Also present were the 6 external speakers, the RIBA President Ruth Reed, President Elect Angela Brady, RIBA student reps, the chair of Archaos and journalists from both The Architect’s Journal and Building Design.

Niall McLaughlin, Principal of Niall McLaughlin Architects and a visiting professor at UCL, chaired the forum and began with his own personal story – his father, a chartered accountant, discouraged him form a career in architecture as he believed that as a profession it was low-paid, ‘weak’ and struggled to define what it does and they value it adds. Now running his own successful practice Niall sees architects as “synthesisers” and that this is their unique selling point.  He also drew on his experience in academia, referring to the acronym ‘PTT’ (Portfolio That Thick!) with students under pressure to produce copious amounts of work and that there was a gap in expectations between graduates – who want experience on site – and practices – who want ‘CAD monkeys’ or read-made technicians.

Following the introduction Laura Broderick and Joanna Parry, RIBA Professional Education Manager, gave a presentation on recent RIBA initiatives designed to further understand and improve students professional experience: RIBA Student Destinations Survey, ‘Part of the Picture’ case study project, and changes to practical experience rules. Of particular interest is the new RIBA Appointments project called 'Part of the Picture' that attempts to demonstrate graduate value. The case studies show a sample of architectural assistants working in practice today. They highlight the contribution young professionals make to the successful delivery of architectural projects, small and large.

A panel discussion about the culture of architectural practice brought together Dale Sinclair, Dr Rachel Smart and Chris Hildrey. After an opportunity for each panellist to share his/her perspective on the culture of architectural practice discussions moved onto the importance of BIM. Instigated by Dale Sinclair, an architect with the global architectural firm Dyer and chair of RIBA Large Practice Group, he told students that “We know you can design but how are you going to deliver?” He said that students need to understand processes more and that BIM begins to question the status of the architect. Dr Rachel Smart, a management consultant educated as a designer, said that students “need to show imitative” and to “open [their] minds to what it means to be a professional architect”. Agreeing with Dale Sinclair she stressed the importance of understanding the architectural process and that students shouldn't “wait until your Part 3” to start doing this. She added that “Architects are problem solvers” and students should “use [their] design skills to tackle business and processes”. Students should also show an awareness of contract administration and management because architecture is a “synergy” of design and excellence in business. Chris Hildrey, a post Part 2 Architectural Assistant at Jestico + Whiles who is currently undertaking a piece of post-grad research at the Bartlett tracing the causes of unpaid overtime within architecture, spoke about the deficit of the cost of producing architecture and its value to/on the market. He said that as technology and systems advance different services are split apart, shrinking the remit of architects. In the past fees covered these ‘other things’ (an architect would ‘make back’ lost fee from the value-added process at the beginning of projects through drawing production information), but now architects are “just left with design”. In Chris’s opinion we now have ‘architects of systems’, with a focus on the construction side of the process and how can we design these systems. He closed by saying that the education system currently allows you to leave and become a ‘designer’ or become an ‘architect’.

The next session was focused on policy, pay and conditions, with Ruth Reed giving a presentation that aimed to provide attendees with a better understanding of the national policy context; hear what is happening at a government level with internships and student fees, and what the RIBA is saying to decision-makers. Ruth Reed explained that it now costs more to become an architect than any other profession and that the profession needs to try and remove the ‘self-imposed’ costs of the education system (models, presentation, ‘free work’, etc), this would require change within the profession, especially with regards to internships. She felt that for the profession and designers “creative thinking is our big export” but that “architects [in the UK] have consistently undersold themselves … forever”. She also spoke about a need to “rethink our obsession with vocational education”. Advocating BIM she said that it “leads to an integrated team working together much earlier on in the design process” and that this is a ‘complete game-changer’ for projects/architectural practice. It was during this presentation that she also voiced that apparently there is an opinion in the UK government (through conversations with civil servants) that ‘there are too many architects’. Ruth Reed explained that this was a very short sighted view as whilst there may be a surplus at present, as the economy recovers demand for their services increases. These comments were reported the following day in The Architect’s Journal the following day by Merlin Fulcher, at the expense of other discussions that had been taking place at the forum.

ZAP have been carrying out a survey into the cost of
architectural education in the UK

Led by Joanna Scott, RIBA Education Projects Co-ordinator, and Zohra Chiheb and Pol Gallagher, ZAP Architecture, students then took part in table discussions about ways to reduce costs in architecture education, topics included: model-making, printing, study trips, part-time work, portfolios and presentations. Students fed back ideas to the rest of the forum. ZAP, architectural design partnership led by Chiheb and Pol, are currently working on the ‘Pavilion of Protest’ project to uncover and share how architecture students feel about the cost of their studies.

Professor David Gloster gave the last presentation, emphasising the importance and benefits of an architectural education, speaking about initiatives, such as Polyark, that are designed to bring various schools of architecture together to work collaboratively. He also spoke about how design isn't just spatial and formal but it is everything needed to go from a hole in the ground to a building (doors, specifications, contracts, etc). Students, in his opinion, need to be “thinking politically and acting architecturally” and there is a need for a forum for “a call to ideas to empower ideas”. At this point the discussion was opened up to the floor and there was some debate amongst the audience about possible ways forward to ‘empower students’. Caine Crawford, Chair of Archaos, spoke of Archaos’ successes but also the difficulties it had faced in recent years. The two RIBA student reps felt that they were in the best position to directly interact with the RIBA although there was concern about why this wasn’t happening at present and whether just two students could be representative of such a large student body. The Architecture Students Assembly that had taken place in Manchester the day before (20th June 2011) was also raised (see previous post here).

The forum was closed with a brief statement form the chair and some closing comments from others who had attended the event. Their was a sense that the architectural community needs to work more closely together to support students during these ‘tough times’ but also, as James Benedict Brown put it in his piece in Building Design about the forum, “that students want a national student body with a wider membership; perhaps somewhere between the alluring summer school of the EASA in Europe and the well-funded political campaigning of the AIAS in America”. The RIBA Education team, following the event, has said that they will support any future initiatives and will look into the scope for the RIBA to establish an e-platform for students to communicate/debate issues with each other and the institute. Following the event in Manchester and the RIBA instigated forum there is perhaps the beginnings of new framework that will provide students with a platform to raise concerns, voice their opinions and take action.

The First Architecture Students Assembly

The Architecture Students Assembly aims to be a new independent network of student representatives from the schools of architecture within the United Kingdom. It came about as a legacy project from the European Architecture Students Assembly (EASA) who last year (2010) held their annual event in Manchester. During the two weeks conversation with the Standing of Heads of Schools of Architecture (SCHOSA) took place, principally at the SCHOSA Summer Meeting on Friday 6th August 2010 that was held in Manchester, about the establishment of a new student network (and issues of European mobility). The conference on Monday 20th June 2011 was the next step in this process, having been instigated by the EASA organisers of the 2010 event and members of SCHOSA. Manchester was chosen as the venue for the event as part of the EASA legacy and because the Manchester School of Architecture were willing to provide a co-oordinator/secretary to help stage the event. Invitations were sent to every school of architecture in the UK, via SCHOSA, calling for two representatives from every school to attend the event.

Colin Pugh spoke about how SCHOSA was
eager to support an active student network.

Eleven students attended the conference, an additional 5 students who had expressed an interest in attending the event were unable to, and representatives from SCHOSA, Archaos, RIBA Education and EASA. The event began with a brief introduction from Tom Jefferies, Head of the Manchester School of Architecture, and Luke Butcher, a student at the Manchester School of Architecture who was chairing the event. Sam Patterson, a UK National Contact for EASA, gave a presentation that outlined the nature and scope of EASA, highlighting the sort of event that can result from communication between students across Europe. Colin Pugh, a Principal Lecturer at the Manchester School of Architecture and a representative of SCHOSA, then outlined how SCHOSA would be able to support the new student network and how they would like to see a durable network that would offer a point of reference of harness student opinion.

Following a lunch break, where students were able to view the Manchester School of Architecture End of Year Degree Show, the afternoon was a three hour discussion about the nature of this new independent network, what its aims should be, its structure and organisation. The original intention of the day had been to draw up a charter or constitution during this session but as the afternoon progressed it became clear that this would be an ambitious task. James Benedict Brown documented the discussion through two mind maps that were presented ‘live’ on a screen in the room, providing a live ‘map’ of the discussion.

Caine Crawford, a co-chair of the national student body Archaos, gave a brief presentation during the afternoon session about the role of Archaos and its achievements in its ten years of existence. Caine explained how he thought that the time may be right for Archaos to be refreshed by a new body of students and made an offer to the students that the new student network could take on the Archaos brand, 10 years worth of research and papers, website and funding.

A series of key aims were decided on however it was agreed that this would need wider discussion with a wider audience and that this would take place at a second event to take place in October, again in Manchester due to the financial support (in the shape of coordinator/secretary) being offered by that institution. The name of the network was also debated. The discussion about whether the new student network should be agenda or event based, or a combination of both, was mainly unresolved. Despite being unresolved the discussion and debate were both positive and constructive and it is important that this continues so that the new student network can gain momentum.

Moving Forward

With the first conference complete there needs to be continued discussion amongst those who attended the day and a wider audience who were unable to attend. A method/forum for this needs to be arranged.

A number of attendees were present at the RIBA’s ‘Tough Times’ Students Forum on Tuesday 21st June 2011 in London. The Monday conference was mentioned by Professor David Gloster in a talk about communication, raising awareness for the idea. Some members of the student audience, principally the RIBA Student Representatives believed that any new network should make use of and build upon the RIBA Student Representatives however others felt it should remain independent.

The conference was mentioned in Building Design Online in the following article from James Benedict Brown – ‘Could tough times spell the end of Archaos?’ – 22nd June 2011

A date for the next event will be announced in due course but in the meantime there needs to be more discussion about the agenda for that event. If you are interested in taking part or finding out more you can contact the Manchester Student Society of Architecture via email.