Page 29 - Green Building Through Integrated Design

THE RECIPE FOR SUCCESS IN HIGH-PERFORMANCE PROJECTS 7

From an engineer’s perspective, one of the challenges with the integrated design
process (IDP) is a fundamental lack of appreciation of what architects do. I think
what’s different between the training of architects and the training of engineers, from
what I can tell, is that architects are fundamentally trained in the idea of integration.
Architecture is ambiguous and engineering is factual. That’s kind of the way we set up
the discussion but integrated design, out of necessity, needs to have ambiguity. If we knew
the answer we’d already be doing it every single time. But we don’t, so therefore
we have to open up to some notion of ambiguity, which is where architects typically
feel more comfortable than engineers.

If we believe that we have something to offer as engineers, I have yet to find an archi-
tect that isn’t interested in sitting down, when the paper is completely blank and the
opportunities are endless, to bring together the creative process of the architect and
engineer and the other disciplines as well.
Architecture as a profession understands fundamentally that engineering needs to be
part of it, that economics needs to be part of it and that the environment implicitly
needs to be part of it (even if they are not environmental architects). So there’s this
notion within architecture that you need to include everything. I think that’s why, to
a certain extent, architecture has embraced the integrated design process.

There are a few rules that I have: You can’t build what you can’t draw, you can’t meas-
ure what you can’t draw and you can’t cost what you can’t draw. One thing about
drawing a sketch is that it’s universal. When I’m in China, Japan, or Korea, I can draw
a sketch and I don’t have to learn the language. I think the integrated design process
really builds itself around visual tools primarily, with less emphasis on the written
word because the word is subject to interpretation, takes longer to create and can be
edited. Whereas a diagram, image or snapshot frames a possibility very quickly.
In early conversations around what opportunities a certain building presents, a proac-
tive, knowledgeable, up-to-date engineer with a track record would jump to the front
of room and set about sketching an idea. Invariably someone stands up, takes a dif-
ferent color pen and modifies the original idea, improves it, no doubt. And a third per-
son might continue that process. It’s the idea of leading by example. It takes courage
to throw an idea out. It’s all about courage, not brashness; there’s a difference. It’s cer-
tainly not about grandstanding either. If someone is twitching and sitting on their
hands, the facilitator has to be skilled enough to recognize that creative energy and
hand the pen over to that person.
One of the beliefs about integrated design is the whole theory of innovation. One of
the critical aspects of innovation is the ability to be wrong. If you fear being wrong,
you’ll never innovate. The integrated design process has got to make it safe to be
wrong, not just to be right. The ability to be wrong is critical to success because oth-
erwise we’re just going to stick within our comfort zone and just extrapolate the ideas
that we’ve already got, which means probably not getting out of the box.

To me, the first rule of engineering is that you have to know the answers (not all of
my colleagues would agree with me) before you do the calculation. I believe that
we’re going to make the type of change that we need to make [in sustainable design],