Who are we designing for…….

We often fail to realize how various stakeholders lay claims to a design, obviously each one from their specific perspective. How does each stakeholder define the success of a project? How are the needs of stakeholders balanced with issue of context, site and language? These are primary episodes :-

In the second part of the series on people centric design, we look at how various stakeholders in the project define project success differently. The article also deals with how we need to address the concerns of responsive design by focusing on client, user and society and not taking any of these stakeholders of a building lightly. It means handling their needs and the overall context while juggling with various aesthetics constructs.

As in the diagram, the various parameters that make buildings people friendly in both the short and long run are interlinked and are subsets of sustainability parameter. This is simply to preserve what we have, even while moving forward we need to build with care to the cultural context and the environment. We can ask ourselves questions about the relevant concepts to the project and make our assumptions based on the answers. Then we get closer to what seems the best way to design sensibly.

Parameters of responsive design.

When it comes to individual projects these assumptions are harder to pin down because context is in the formation of responsive design. So sustainable design changes constantly, as do the design assumptions and criteria for success of a project.

These parameters vary in importance depending on project’s particular needs. The other factors that influence people centric design are typology and the particular group of stakeholders. So, only a broad analysis is possible and it leads to some generalizations.

Typology : Civic/ public architecture, liabilities, courts, transport terminals etc.

Stakeholder : Owner – government, staff, visitor, society.

Criteria for success : Functionability, spaces that are safe and community – friendly,

Convenient, cost, image and flexibility.

Typology - Institutions, schools, religious buildings etc.

Stakeholders – Students, teachers, staff, worshippers, users, society.

Criteria for success - Functionability, flexibility, spaces, promoting health, cost, image.

Typology - Offices.

Stakeholders – Clients, staff, visitors.

Criteria for success – Functionability, image, spaces, conducive for work, cost, flexibility.

Typology – Residential

Stakeholders – Owners/ Clients, family, occupants/ tenants.

Criteria for success – Funtionability, cost, image, homliness.

After making responsible assumptions, architects have to get on with the real business, the two distinct functions of design and project management. While designing, architects often realize the interconnections of these factors when a set of drawings change due to change in one of these concepts and this has a snowballing effect on the assumptions. What architects can miss is that it is wasteful to see these assumptions as separate entities when we can perceive their interconnections. There is also an interconnection between what various stakeholders need and aspire to a project. The architect must be able to understand how these parameters and requirements can intersect and priorities various assumptions.

This relationship between different design assumptions is what makes a design successful in the eyes of all stakeholders. By isolating each factor into a specialization, the concept of interconnection becomes a project management issue rather than the very basis of design. In this scenario, responsive concepts do not permit to the rest of the team but dissipate across various specialized sub consultants. Architects then control progress of the project and details for constructions, bids, etc., but the design concept and assumptions lose their conceptual strength by becoming completely lopsided or fragmenting the original vision and the project takes on exaggerated proportions. For instance, ‘external green design’ when viewed in a local context that has neither the material nor the techniques to support very advanced technology will result in materials and labor being brought in from far away. This is neither sustainable nor economical. Specialization while recognizing the technical complexities of a large multi – dimensional project make architects lose perspective as to what the occupants and clients would find comfortable.

Super specialization has also led to standardizing layouts and details. While all this serve to deliver faster constructions, we need to appreciate that standardization with unsound or incompatible assumptions spread irresponsible and unresponsive design. It is impractical not to have standardization in most architectural practices. But building a standard blocks library in CAD becomes problematic while the variations in the projects, the needs of occupants and change in context are realized; not to mention the costs of rework and schedule overruns either in final design phase, or worse, in the construction phase. The standard library has to extend itself to reflect responsive design. The information these blocks carry can be expanded to include information on anthrometics, energy consumptions, etc. this allow whole team to appreciate the need to focus on people.

Personal interest and effort has led some architects to overcome these glazing omissions.

But by and large, practicing architects devote significant time to construction details, architectural standards and building codes and much time to user needs. The architectural standards and building codes and not much time to user needs. The architectural standards are generally from the U.S. and they are context specific, so why does an architect practicing right across the world use them? More often than not the answer is convenience (due to pressures of cost and time). This situation exists also because of relatively low priority assigned to human needs and comforts.

We have to realize the interdependence of stake holder aspirations and people centric design assumptions. Practices specializing in particular aspects of architecture can thrive but designers need not always be holistic where all human factors in design are addressed.