Designing Processes: A Strategy for the Future of Construction 9783035615692, 9783035615845

Table of contents :
Content
PREFACE
PART I
1. INTRODUCTION
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
PART II
3. ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION
4. DEFINITION OF THE TARGET SITUATION
PART III
5. ANALYSIS OF INTERNAL APPROACHES
6. ANALYSIS OF EXTERNAL APPROACHES
PART IV
7. STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
8. LOOKING FORWARD
APPENDIX
BIBLIOGRAPHY
LIST OF FIGURES
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Imprint

Citation preview

DESIGNING PROCESSES

DESIGN ING PRO CESSES A STRATEGY FOR THE FUTURE OF CONSTRUCTION

CHRISTIAN BERGMANN

BIRKHÄUSER BASEL

9 PREFACE

PART I

13 1 INTRODUCTION 14 1.1 Architecture as a Reflection of Society Sustainable Development as a Guiding Principal The Significance of Construction: The Transformation of the World A New Era: The Digitalization of the World 17 1.2 Thinking in Terms of Interrelationships Construction as a System – Built Environment as a System From Design Process to Process Design The Beginning of a New Avant-Garde Objective and Structure of this Book 23 2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 24 2.1 The Term Process: A Definition Processes in Management Reengineering Architecture: A New Approach Perspectives from the History of Philosophy The Concept of a Process in Construction Parameters: Values, Materials, Commodities Construction as a Feedback-Enabled Process 35 2.2 The Term Strategy: A Definition Meaning, Type, and Content of a Strategy Strategy Levels: Vision, Mission, and Objectives 37 2.3 Basics of Organization Handling Scarce Commodities: Specialization Shortcomings at the Interfaces: The Role of the Coordinator Systematization and Standardization Construction with Systems – Construction as Part of a System 42 2.4 Systems Thinking, Communication, and Knowledge Systems Theory: An Introduction Cybernetics: The Principle of Circularity Technical, Social, and Sociotechnical Systems Communication of Information: Difference Theory 49 2.5 Innovation and Sustainability Innovation as the Key to Sustainable Construction Heuristic Concept: The Innovation System The Term Innovation: A Definition Innovation Potential in Construction: A New Horizon

PART II

63 3 ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION  64 3.1 Organization of Construction: Theory and Practice The Fee Structure as a Basis for the Process Service Phases and Service Scopes in Building Design Service Scopes for Specialist Engineers and Designers Chronology of Process Content 71 3.2 The Participants: The Individuals Professionally Involved in Construction Overview According to Phases of the Life Cycle The Classical Participants The New Participants 80 3.3 Deriving Insights Explicit and Implicit Performance Problems Systematic and Systemic Categorization 89 4 DEFINITION OF THE TARGET SITUATION 90 4.1 Requirements for the Construction Industry of the Future Fragmentary Approaches to Sustainability Holistic Approaches: Triple Zero and Cradle to Cradle 93 4.2 Fully Recyclable Building Initial Situation and Required Action Disassembly and Recycling The Building as a Technical System Materials Selection and Connection Techniques Disassembly Process: Base Component and Platform Principle Recycling-Friendly Design



PART III

105 5 ANALYSIS OF INTERNAL APPROACHES 106 5.1 The Quantifying of Quality The Term Quality: A Definition Architectural Quality: Quality of Sustainability The Certification of Quality Critical View 112 5.2 Integrative Process Models Construction Team (Bouw Team) Models Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) Critical View Insourcing: Architecture as a Brand 120 5.3 The Digitalization of Construction Parametricism vs. Performance Digital Processes Digital Design Technologies 125 5.4 Information-Based Modeling Building Information Modeling (BIM) Effects on the Process BIM as a Tool for Sustainability Critical View 137 6 ANALYSIS OF EXTERNAL APPROACHES 138 6.1 Evolution of Automotive Manufacturing From Mass Production to Divisionalization From Taylorization to the Platform Principle From the Classical to the Digital Process From Process to Strategy Level 144 6.2 Synergy Effects in Related Disciplines Mobile and Immobile Construction Influence of Shipbuilding 146 6.3 Deriving Insights Societal Parameters Systematizing the Conclusions Drawn 150 6.4  Conclusions for the Process in Construction Possibilities for Transferring Concepts Critical Examination



PART IV

157 7 STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT 158 7.1 The System-Environment Model in Construction Material and Immaterial Resources Parameters: Mechanisms of Control Resource Cycles: Project as Interface Knowledge Cycles along the Material Cycle 165 7.2 Strategy Levels Vision and Mission Guiding Principles and Objectives 168 7.3 Effects on Job Profiles The Responsibility of Architects and Engineers The Situation of Architects Designing Appropriate Training for Architects The Role of the Architect in the Future Societal Perspective 177 8 LOOKING FORWARD 178 8.1 Impermanent Construction: A Future Scenario Flexibility vs. Individuality Deliberately Shortening the Life Cycle 186 8.2 Summary Conclusion Future Research 191 APPENDIX Bibliography List of Figures About the Author Imprint

AN OVERHAUL OF PROCESS CHAINS WITHIN CONSTRUCTION IS URGENTLY NEEDED Up until now, discussions on how to increase the sustainability of the built environment have concentrated almost exclusively on reducing the consumption of (fossil fuel–based) energy and thus also minimizing emissions during the use phase. What is not considered here is that more than half of the energy that a building requires during its life cycle is used for extracting and manufacturing the raw materials, semifinished products, and components used to build it, and for the construction process itself. Likewise, the energy consumption and emissions associated with dismantling, recycling, and disposal are generally not taken into account. Another important desideratum: how can we create more built environment for more people using less material – and how can we accelerate the long-overdue introduction of a recycling economy within construction? The lack of public engagement with these questions continues to be a source of amazement, considering that the construction industry accounts for 35 percent of both energy consumption and emissions, and around 60 percent of both resource consumption and mass waste. Looking at the process chain as a whole – from design to construction, operation, and finally to the dismantling of a building – it soon becomes clear: true sustainability in construction requires a departure from the strict separation of design, production, operation, and dismantling that is currently found in almost every area of the world. We need an information structure that provides the basis for all phases and that is comprehensive and consistent. Only in this way can we realize a form of construction that saves both materials and energy and is recycling-friendly and healthy. Only in this way can feedback be obtained from the production, use, and dismantling phases in order to improve the quality of future design processes. Only through reforms of this kind can the individual components of a building be returned to biological or technical cycles when a building reaches the end of its life. An information structure that is the basis for all life cycle phases requires those involved to communicate and cooperate in new ways in pursuit of a common goal. The development of strategies to redesign the associated processes is the subject of this book. Christian Bergmann defines systemic parameters for a value creation process that leads to sustainable development in construction and encourages innovativeness among those involved. To this end, he provides a detailed analysis of the changes that are required in our design and construction processes. His aim in doing so is always to improve the parameters in construction for the benefit of sustainability. He has thus created an important framework for bringing about a realignment of the entire field of construction. — Werner Sobek

PREFACE 9

PART I

1  |  INTRODUCTION

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the world is at a turning point. Two factors are decisive in this: firstly, challenges linked to the demand for sustainable development; and secondly, the rapid digitalization of processes of all kinds. The following section outlines the multicriteria problems that result from this situation, and demonstrates their significance for construction, as well as highlighting the responsibility that the construction sector holds in this context. A differentiation is made between construction (as a process) and the built environment (as a product), forming a basis for understanding the associated systemic interrelationships.

1.1 ARCHITECTURE AS A REFLECTION OF SOCIETY “What is our time and what is it all about?” [211] This was the question posed by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe at the beginning of the twentieth century. With his architecture, he was seeking to provide an answer to the societal changes that had taken place as a result of industrialization. According to him, architecture is “the reflection of the driving and sustaining forces of an epoch” [57]. Modern architecture – of which Mies van der Rohe was one of the founding fathers – developed against the backdrop of a worldview that emphasized the dichotomy of society and nature [215], with the former dominating the latter. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the world is at a turning point. This is due to two key factors: (1) sustainable development; and (2) digitalization.

Sustainable Development as a Guiding Principal The fourth Assessment Report of the United Nations IPCC [159] linked climate change directly to human activity. The “limits to growth” addressed by Malthus [199] as early as 1798 and scientifically predicted by Meadows et al. [205] in 1972 now appear to have been reached. Waste disrupts the cycles of the biosphere just as severely as harmful emissions disrupt atmospheric cycles. In the long term, such changes to planetary systems are a threat to the basis of human existence – “this new reality […] must be recognized – and managed” [53], and this task is the existential challenge of our time. The 1987 Brundtland Report of the United Nations [53] proposed the idea of sustainable development for the first time. It defined this as a form of development that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” In 1992 the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development made the term a key concept for a “Century of the Environment” through the Rio Declaration [252] and Agenda 21 [5] [321]. In order to implement sustainable development in practice, the “opposites of nature and technology” need to be understood as “variations of the same system” [263]. This leads to the development of a unified theory of a socio-environmental system [215] which takes into account the interactions between the anthroposphere and the ecosphere. The following facts and prognoses illustrate the unprecedented nature of the challenge: The global population currently stands at more than seven billion [322]. For the first time, this number has tripled within one human lifetime [37]. The figure is expected to rise to between 9 and 10 billion by the year 2050 and to stagnate by the end of the century [337]. Alongside the lower birth rate associated with increasing wealth, this will be a direct result of the scarcity of resources. Emerging markets and emerging powers not only increase productivity and thus also economic growth [294], they also create

PART I 14

additional demand, leading to allocation problems [102]. The increased prosperity of former developing countries such as India and China, whose combined population accounts for more than one-third of the global population [322], causes people within these countries to aspire to a Western lifestyle. Highly developed countries such as the USA, however, have an ecological footprint that exceeds their biocapacity – “if everyone lived like an average resident of the USA, a total of four Earths would be required to regenerate humanity’s annual demand on nature” [193]. In light of this, it is clear that not only the anthropogenic greenhouse effect, but also the already existing shortages in the supply of natural resources (evident in the phenomenon known as land grabbing [226] among other things) are set to gain momentum in the future [111]. Over the last few years, therefore, an increasing number of political programs, concrete guidelines, and legislation aimed at sustainable development have been developed on the basis of national sustainability strategies [235]. Up until now, the focus has been on energy-efficiency measures, but there is currently a shift toward a more holistic approach to the topic of resource efficiency [78]. This is demonstrated at the European level by the Thematic Strategy for the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources [302] and the Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe [254]. At least in developed areas of the world, the threshold for diffusing the concept of sustainability throughout the whole of society appears to have been passed – preserving and protecting the planet’s ecosystem is set to become one of humanity’s shared values in the future. The fact that the United Nations [159] and Al Gore [122] were awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for their awareness-raising efforts is testament to the humanitarian relevance of global warming [17]. But the burning of coal, gas, and oil alongside the disposal of expensively extracted, nonrenewable raw materials at the end of their useful life goes hand in hand with the certain knowledge that these practices will come to an end sooner or later. Urban mining is therefore becoming an increasing focus of attention – today’s cities are the anthropogenic raw materials store of the future. Although there are many academic studies on sustainability in construction, the field of architecture has so far not provided a strategy that is fully targeted at this future scenario.

The Significance of Construction: The Transformation of the World The archaic basis of building, to create an interior space and to use this to protect humans from the natural world, implies by definition an approach that is destructive to the environment. The built environment not only has a major influence on the individual and their social behavior, a topic which has been extensively researched [241], it

1  |  INTRODUCTION 15

is also defined as the antithesis of the natural world and the ecosphere [215]. It encompasses the environment that has been created by humans to serve their activities, from individual buildings to infrastructure systems and to entire cities. The term makes no qualitative differentiation between “architecture” and “functional buildings or civil engineering structures.” It will be used according to this sort of inclusive, heuristic understanding in this book. The term construction will be used to describe the totality of all processes connected to the built environment – without differentiating between service and production – across the entire building life cycle (from procurement of materials to design and construction, the usage phase, demolition, and finally the further processing of raw materials used) without making a qualitative distinction between architecture and civil engineering structures. Based on this definition, construction is responsible for approximately • 50 percent of energy consumption [137], • 40 percent of all artificially caused CO₂ emissions [268], • 50 percent of the consumption of natural resources [138], and • 60 percent of mass waste production [138]. It has not only shaped the appearance of Planet Earth over the centuries, it is also the main cause of the current threat to human livelihood. It is therefore imperative that answers to the pressing questions surrounding sustainable development be found in the field of construction in particular.

A New Era: The Digitalization of the World The “transformation of the world” in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that Osterhammel [227] describes provided the backdrop against which modern architecture could develop as a way of radically breaking with existing dogmas. Since the beginning of the last century, a new development has emerged to take the place of industrialization: digitalization. This describes the society-wide transition from an industrial to an information age, as described by Castells [59]. Alongside the call for sustainable development, this transition characterizes the transformation process that our societies are currently undergoing. The convergence of these two forces is often termed the “third industrial revolution” [80] and results in fundamentally new patterns of thought and action, which in turn facilitate the solving of multicriteria problems. For example, digitalization provided the technological prerequisites for climate change research: For the first time, it was possible not only to gather information, but also to process and interpret that information in order to generate

PART I 16

algorithms and models demonstrating how the global climate would develop in the future. Unlike with analogue processes, data from the most diverse disciplines and the connections between these data could now be integrated into the research, in order to identify complex interrelationships. The application of digital technologies led to the development of digital techniques that moved the focus away from the individual elements and toward their interrelationships. If we were to ask Mies’s question again today with the aim of providing an adequate architectural response to our own era, the two “driving and sustaining” [57] forces at the start of the twenty-first century would be the demand for, and realization of, sustainable development, and the ongoing process of digitalization.

1.2 THINKING IN TERMS OF INTERRELATIONSHIPS The most striking feature of the present transformation process is the recognition that everything is increasingly connected with everything else [214]. Things are linked with each other systemically, and their interdependencies determine that the whole is more than the sum of its parts [290]. This applies equally to the world’s environmental, economic, and social interrelationships. Sustainable development must therefore be based on three equal pillars: the environmental, economic, and social [2]. In order to not only recognize the new reality but also to manage it in the future, as called for in the Brundtland Report [53], a systemic approach is required as the basis for sustainable activity. Because: “Research for sustainability is an integrated, system-oriented approach that develops innovative concepts and solutions for the […] challenges outlined. It is designed as a framework for making decisions that result in future-oriented action” [39]. In its widest sense, a system is understood to mean a number of elements that have reciprocal relationships with one another [33]. Together, these form a whole, which is separate from its environment – known as the system environment – and sometimes interacts with this environment. The control of systems is generally termed cybernetics [333]. The procurement, processing, and communication of information is the key factor here. The general systems theory that emerged in parallel to the digitalization process in the mid-twentieth century gave rise to a deliberately interdisciplinary paradigm for theoretically recording “organized complexity” [108]. According to Niklas Luhmann [195], human actions intended to control a system can themselves be understood as a system, that is, as a social or communication system.

1  |  INTRODUCTION 17

Construction as a System – Built Environment as a System The world in which the built environment is created is the starting point for all construction. This encompasses a society’s values as much as its technical and technological possibilities and its legal and economic framework. Both construction and the built environment have a systemic character. Construction will be understood in the following as a process, the product of which is the built environment. Thus the product depends on the process. Unlike that which is set out in the HOAI (Honorarordnung für Architekten und Ingenieure, the German fee structure for architects and engineers) [314], this does not follow a linear sequence, but rather is highly interlinked and iterative [207]. It is primarily defined by the organization of communication between participants, which is embedded in the aforementioned technological, legal, economic, and sociocultural frameworks. In accordance with system theory, these frameworks – together with the commodities used – represent the system environment of the construction communication system. If the product – that is, the architecture of the system “built environment” – is a reflection of the society in question, the process – that is, the architecture of the communication system “construction” – plays a decisive role when it comes to the performance of the built environment: “How a thing comes into being is constitutive for what it is” [253]. There is no end to the process due to its circular nature. In addition to considering the efficiency of a value-added process for developing a building, it is thus also important to look at the effectiveness of decisions made across a product’s entire life cycle. Efficiency, according to Peter Drucker [86] is “doing things right,” whereas effectiveness is “doing the right things.” According to this understanding, the former represents an optimization measure, while the latter scrutinizes the objective in toto. Efforts to increase efficiency can thus compromise the effectiveness of the activities in question [47]. The built environment of today can be understood as an open system, since it interacts continuously with its environment – particularly the natural environment – through the consumption of resources and the production of emissions and waste. The links within the system (such as between the individual elements of a building) and the interactions with the external artificial or anthropogenic (for example, mobility) and natural environment (such as climate) determine whether entropy is created or prevented [164]. The convergence of the rapid developments in the field of digitalization with the demand for sustainable development necessitates a radical rethinking of how we build. In order for a built environment to meet the challenges of the present day, it needs to be based on a process which systemically recognizes interrelationships.

PART I 18

From Design Process to Process Design To date, digitalization has primarily been incorporated into construction in the early design phases, occasionally producing new forms thanks to new design techniques. However, the technology used to realize projects on the building site is largely that of a bygone era. There have been many initiatives to optimize construction processes. As early as the 1990s, the first tower blocks to be built almost fully automatically were completed in Tokyo using the Automated Building System [40]. Today, it is principally the academic world that is beginning to close the gaps between digital design and manual construction methods [123]. Even more than on a product’s form, which has been developed using so-called generative, parametric, and computer-based design, digitalization has a profound influence on the process that underlies it. There have been efforts to optimize processes for a number of years now, particularly coming from the field of project management and the construction industry. However, their approach does not address the problem from a holistic perspective. For the most part, such efforts serve to increase efficiency in terms of time and costs. In order to change this, the process needs to be redesigned in a way that, rather than building on current realities, retroactively adjusts these based on a still-to-be-defined target situation, and thus aims to improve the effectiveness of the process. The strategy presented in this book puts the focus within construction on designing a new process of this type. In the future, Louis Sullivan’s maxim “form follows function” [298] will be replaced by the slogan “form influences function” [131] – it is not the function of a product that defines its form, but rather the form of the process that influences its function of producing the desired product: a built environment that meets the requirements of our age.

The Beginning of a New Avant-Garde In the case of previous impulses to radical change that were motivated by architectural theory, a new style (such as Deconstructivism, Postmodernism, or Parametricism) was proclaimed purely from an academic perspective, and subsequently imposed on society. This new avant-garde will be different. Those who create buildings in the near future will be challenged by society to come up with innovations that promote the sustainable development of the built environment. Similarly to the upheavals at the start of the twentieth century, the process of change currently taking place is the result of real societal causes which are distinct from pure questions of form. However, while the fathers of modern architecture also wrote manifestos on forms of architecture that adequately reflected the developments happening in society, the fo-

1  |  INTRODUCTION 19

cus in the future will be on the form of the process via which these architectural forms are created. The form itself has yet to be defined, similarly to the way in which it took time to establish the design of the first automobiles after the horse and carriage were replaced by the internal combustion engine, or the way in which the industrial designers of today are still searching for an appropriate formal language for the emerging field of electromobility. The digitalization of the world is opening up new, more efficient and effective methods for construction. These developments will not primarily be about the questions of geometry that fascinated the architects of the Gothic and Baroque periods [315]. Rather, the procurement, processing, communication, and interpretation of information will have a profound influence in the context of acquiring knowledge and will thus serve as the basis and the tool for sustainable and innovative construction.

Objective and Structure of This Book The objective of this book is to develop a strategy for redesigning the process within the field of construction. The strategy will define the systemic parameters necessary for a value-added process that results in sustainable development within construction and promotes innovation among those involved, in order to meet the challenges of today. Currently, different process models are used in construction depending on the particular task and the respective parameters. For this reason, the present book will focus on the next level up in the strategy. This will reveal the factors that are relevant to the task of process redesign and therefore require redefinition. The parameters that define the process will be taken into account just as much as the process itself. In addition to providing an answer to the question of what needs to be done, the strategy also sets out a number of approaches to answering the question of how this can be achieved. The topic areas covered and the analytical methods applied can be divided into the following four categories: • theoretical basis; • analysis of the actual situation / definition of the target situation; • integrative design processes / influence of digitalization; and • analysis of related industries. Chapter 2 will analyze the basic principles of organization, process design, and strategy development. Theoretical knowledge of communication and complexity, as well as of innovations, likewise serves as a prerequisite for the analyses that follow. The basis for this is systemic thinking, which provides a structure for the abovementioned multicriteria problems in the context of digitalization and sustainability, and directs the focus toward the interdependencies that exist between individual factors.

PART I 20

Chapter 3 builds on this by describing the actual situation in the construction industry, with a view to developing solutions. To this end, there will be an analysis of the German fee structure for architects and engineers (HOAI) [314] as a set of regulations that defines the process. In particular, this section will examine the extent to which knowledge acquired in the execution, use, and repurposing phases, as well as in the end-of-life (EOL) and beginning-of-life (BOL) phases, is currently integrated at the design stage. At the same time, the chapter will outline the roles, tasks, and competencies of the most important individuals involved in design and construction, and examine the relationships among them. This will enable the identification of weak points in today’s process. Following the definition of the target situation in Chapter 4, Chapter 5 will present and analyze the approaches to process optimization that already exist within the field of construction. Three aspects in particular will be highlighted: (1) the virtual anticipation of reality via digital design methods, which have a substantial impact on how the parties involved work together; (2) a number of recently developed approaches to process optimization, the potential and problems of which will be presented; and (3) the increasing quantification of quality. Increasingly, process structures are defined by simulations and certification procedures. As well as the positive aspects of this, there are also risks, which will likewise be outlined. Chapter 6 will contain an analysis of process chains and parameters in related disciplines, subsequently using this to make selective recommendations for action for the construction industry of tomorrow. Two aspects will be emphasized in particular: (1) the drivers of innovation at both product and process level; and (2) the structure of cooperation between the parties involved in the product creation process, as well as the influence that the applied technologies have on the process. To conclude the study, there is a critical discussion of the extent to which the findings are transferable and of how they could be adapted for construction. The conclusion of this book is therefore based on the finding that there are fundamental shortcomings in the process currently applied within the construction industry. These are described in detail in a comprehensive survey of the existing process and the factors that define it, and summarized as an analysis of shortcomings. Building on this, a strategy will be developed with the aim of finding process-level solutions to the existing problems.

1  |  INTRODUCTION 21

2  |  THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This section analyzes the basic principles of organization, process design, and strategy development. Theoretical knowledge of communication and complexity, as well as of innovation, serves as a prerequisite for the analysis that follows. The basis for this is systemic thinking, which provides a structure for the multicriteria problems that arise in the context of digitalization and sustainability, and puts the focus on the interdependencies among the individual factors.

2.1 THE TERM PROCESS: A DEFINITION Processes in Management In management, a process is understood as “a network of individual and organizational activities and event sequences that are carried out in order to create an agreed product” [180]. Another much quoted definition is provided by Thomas H. Davenport [73]: “A process is thus a specific ordering of work activities across time and place, with a beginning, an end, and clearly defined inputs and outputs.” However, this definition has been frequently criticized. Margit Osterloh and Jetta Frost [228] therefore broaden the definition and speak more generally of the “transformation [of] material, information, operations, and decisions.” Organizational theory attempts to organize processes. According to Michael Gaitanides [112], it is characterized by a “duality of the organizational structure [Aufbauorgnisation] and the organization’s flow of work [Ablauforganisation]”; the first is concerned with how tasks are assigned, the second with the distribution of work. The organizational structure therefore has a structural character and describes the objectives of actions – the organizational flow of work defines the rules for completing actions and is therefore an “ordering across time and space of those work processes […] that are necessary for carrying out a task” [178]. The completion of tasks in the context of the organizational flow of work relies on the distribution of tasks and the definition of target situations that take place within the organizational structure. Erich Kosiol [178] identifies the following content of a “structure for an organization’s workflow”: • definition of operations; • summary of operation sequences; • fine-tuning and harmonizing the tasks of the various participants; • definition of time requirement. Before these processes can be implemented in practice, a task analysis must be carried out. The analysis is based on the overall task, termed the corporate purpose [112], and breaks this down into subordinate subtasks. The counterpart of this is the work analysis on the side of the organizational flow of work. This defines the aspects that are important for carrying out the subtasks. This differentiation can be traced back to the two separate characters of a task. It is important to distinguish between these: • action objective (the specification or target situation); and • action content (the actions taken in order to achieve an objective). A process is thus divided into three phases: (1) design; (2) execution; and (3) control [178]. Generally speaking, the structure of design and construction processes reflects these organizational forms. The sequence of work steps is standardized in the HOAI [314]. The

PART I 24

process indirectly based on this has a clear starting point (the contract from a principal) and a defined end point (the defect-free completion and handover of the building to the client). In order to reach this target situation, the process is subdivided into nine phases, which contain the relevant tasks in the form of service scopes (Leistungsbilder). The division into design, execution, and control can also be seen in the structure of the HOAI: The design phase of the process (SPHs 1–5) is clearly separated from the execution phase (SPHs 8–9) by the contract award phase (SPHs 6–7). The HOAI thus follows the model of the organizational flow of work. The organizational structure, on the other hand, is much less apparent. This is primarily due to the fact that the HOAI derives its applicability from the exclusion of the organizational structure, since the process in construction is generally geared to the production of one-off objects. Thus it is a process within a project that itself is defined by its uniqueness [83]. However, the organizational flow of work, according to Gaitanides [112], views processes as “the repetition of an identical procedure,” which can normally be “routinized” and “generally controlled” with regard to division of work and work content. Generally speaking, projects in the field of construction are collaborative, but they differ significantly from one another in terms of time requirements and complexity. The structure of the HOAI therefore aims to assign an extremely complex procedure to a routine on the one hand, while keeping its organizational structure as generic as possible on the other. Due to the way in which the organizational structure defines objectives, it has a decisive influence both on the process design and configuration of process participants – and thus overall on the organizational flow of work – and on the quality of the building. By applying this to the tasks of the architect, we can deduce that Service Phase 1, in which task and target are clarified, corresponds to the organizational flow of work within management. However, the stipulated renumeration of 2 percent of the overall fee [314] (formerly 3 percent [145]), as well as the generally very tight time frame, are at odds with the importance of the two tasks carried out at this stage. Boyd C. Paulson [233] illus­trated this as early as 1976 using two curves going in opposite directions: a cost curve that was rising exponentially, and a diametrically descending curve representing the ability to impact costs. The graph was republished in 2004 in the course of the development of integrated project delivery (IPD) as well as Building Information Modeling (BIM) [64], and is known today as the MacLeamy curve [198]  → fig. 1. Due to this problem and also to the fact that architects of today, as per their training and professional profile, are generally not equipped with the organizational compe-

2  |  THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 25

COSTS

Definition of costs Development of costs

Ability to impact costs TIME Initiation

Design

Realization

Use

End of life

Fig. 1: Development of costs and ability to impact costs (after [103])

tencies described here, major building projects assign these tasks to project managers, who act on behalf of the principal. The organizational flow of work is thus excluded as far as possible from the project process set out in the HOAI, and often takes place before the actual process. Because it is accorded this status, project management has a considerable impact on the quality of the built environment in terms of time, hierarchy, and content. Since contractual structures also have an indirect influence on the process, it can be concluded that the organizational flow of work comes into play before the actual start of the project and has a decisive impact on the process.

Reengineering Architecture: A New Approach The literature from the field of business administration defines the term process from its own discipline-specific angle. This is essential for analyzing the existing processes in construction and gaining an understanding of the interrelationships which need to be taken into account as part of a process redesign. However, the following three limitations should be noted. Firstly, the literature refers to market competitiveness. Success is measured in terms of saving costs and time. A holistic view that takes account of sustainability is currently not represented in the literature. Secondly, the recommendations for action in the liter-

PART I 26

ature are too specific to be applied to construction; they follow a mechanistic approach, according to which the procedures are organized sequentially and standardized. Lastly, the aim of these publications is to optimize existing processes with the help of predefined models or tools. The goal is to increase efficiency. But if an ineffective process – that is to say, one that leads to the wrong objective from a holistic viewpoint as defined by William McDonough and Michael Braungart [47] – is optimized to be more efficient, the outcome may even be worse than before, since the thing perfected is itself wrong. The present study therefore proposes a fundamental overhaul of the process. For “our thinking cannot keep up with processes that are becoming ever faster and more complex – processes that we ourselves initiated” [218]. To answer the question “what can we do?” we must therefore explore the question of “how must we think?” [36]. An approach that helps to answer this question is found in the concept of business process reengineering (BPR) after Michael Hammer and James Champy [131]: It describes a “fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes”; it is about starting right from the beginning – according to this approach, the performance problems that exist in construction today are a consequence of “process fragmentation.” Similar to the way in which a company’s management was separated from its operational procedures toward the end of the last century [131], construction has increasingly moved toward an uncoupling of design and execution. The increasing number of experts involved in construction leads to process fragmentation in specialized departments, which is making it increasingly impossible to recognize significant changes or to react to them accordingly [131]. If we are to fundamentally rethink existing processes, we need to take into account the parameters that define the process in question: that is to say, it is primarily about designing processes: Process design is a prerequisite for the design process.

Perspectives from the History of Philosophy It is helpful to look to philosophy in order to gain a more general understanding of the concept of a process – an understanding that is disconnected from economic interpretations of the term. For in order to break through the “sterility” to which a society is sentenced as a consequence of the “crystallized validity” [214] of its terms and concepts following a “very limited period of progress” [330], there must be renewed interrogation of the meaning of “fundamental terms which are of major significance for shaping the future” [214]. According to F. W. J. Schelling [265], the terms process and organization mutually determine each other. A distinction can be made between processes that are organized

2  |  THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 27

by an agent (for example, processes in construction), and those that are self-maintaining and self-organizing, that is, autopoietic [203] (such as processes in nature). However, “the phrase ‘art and nature itself’ points to the similarity of processes in the sense that in both spheres, processes are merely ‘alterations and modifications’ of material” [253]. Schelling is thus the first to link the concepts of process and product [266]. According to his reasoning, the product is the result of a process. Furthermore, each product can be understood as a “condition for further processes, in which it either serves an object or an instrument” [253]. The sequence of processes is thus never-ending [58]. The future will require us to think in terms of cycles, and this must be seen as having its origins in the logic of circularity described above. In construction, the current process in accordance with HOAI results in the product of a building, which serves the process of use, among other things. Among the consequences of this are signs of wear and tear, which themselves are part of the superordinate process of entropy increase. If the purpose of the building has been fulfilled or it reaches the end of its useful life, this signals the start of further processes, such as dismantling and recycling. According to this understanding, although a building is a product (as the outcome of a subprocess), it should actually be viewed more as modified material [267] which has been used in a particular way over a certain period of time. With reference to controlling processes, Anton Bauer [24] differentiates between process actions and the course of the process. He makes clear that “the course of the process could be something other than the consequence of the sum of the actions.” The recognition within business administration theory that the planning of processes is becoming less and less possible is thus already present in the philosophy of the nineteenth century (and can ultimately be traced back to Heraclitus) [253]. According to Nicolai Hartmann [133], there is likewise a direct connection between the concepts of process and form: “The conditions under which a form is created are supplied by the process.” Because the process, unlike the form, is generally not directly recognizable or understandable, “researching processes requires deductive thinking.” A process is organized both internally and in relation to other processes. Together, the processes form a “system of processes.” Alfred North Whitehead [329] demonstrates the infinite linking and reciprocal influence of processes by replacing the idea of being with that of becoming: “How a thing comes into being is constitutive for what it is” [253]. These notions reveal the systemic character of the concept of a process in the context of process organization. In summary, we can draw the following two conclusions for the construction industry: Firstly, processes as they are defined in HOAI are procedures within a larger context.

PART I 28

Their apparent outcome, the built environment, is thus modified material. They are to a large extent taken from nature, modified (they are processed into building materials) and used (in the construction of a building). Even after the supposed end of the actual value-added process, the material remains a part of the overarching, ongoing process of nature, because “nature is process” [271]. The decay of material, or the increase in entropy in line with the theories of Jacques Neirynck [219], is thus a natural law that also applies to artificial products. Even after a building’s usage phase has ended and it reaches its end-of-life (EOL) phase, the material undergoes further process phases, whether these be artificial or natural. It must therefore be returned to the artificial or natural cycles as they are described by McDonough and Braungart [47]. This process is termed a material process. Secondly, processes are, or become, subordinated to an organization. In the case of the process in construction, this is largely defined by the actions of the parties involved and by the parameters within which these actions take place. The process in construction defines both the form of the built environment and its quality. This process is termed an immaterial process.

The Concept of a Process in Construction There is no single definition of the term process that applies universally across construction literature and practice. The heuristic view referred to above does not represent the basis for current practices. Rather, there are various different understandings of the process, and these are not clearly demarcated. Depending on how the process is understood, the phases into which it is divided will be different. At the simplest level, the process can be broken down into the design and execution processes – that is, into a theoretical and a practical component → fig. 2. A further differentiation can be made within these processes: the conceptual design process can be distinguished from the technical design process, although different interpretations exist as to what constitutes creative design and what is technical in nature. The HOAI [314] represents (as pricing regulations) a guidance document which has had a decisive role in bringing about a uniform process understanding in Germany since its introduction in 1977. Based on the service phases of the HOAI, we can say that from a designer’s perspective, the theoretical part of the process begins with the basic evaluation (Grundlagenermittlung) and continues over four design stages – preliminary design (Vorplanung), scheme design (Entwurfsplanung), design for approval (Genehmigungsplanung), and execution design (Ausführungsplanung) – ending in a solution that is ready for execution. Following the tendering and awarding process (Ausschrei-

2  |  THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 29

Preliminary design Scheme design Design for approval APPROVAL Execution design Tendering/awarding

DESIGN

Site management Warranty management

Service Production

EXECUTION

START OF CONSTRUCTION Preparation Shell construction Facade Interior work MEP

MEP Concluding activities COMPLETION

Fig. 2: Project-specific design and execution process (in line with [171])

bung und Vergabe), the design stage gives way to the execution stage. The process concludes with project supervision and documentation (Objektbetreuung and Dokumentation). Although every construction project has a unique set of influencing factors and thus follows its own rules, the parties involved typically break down their work according to the HOAI structure. In the following analysis, it therefore serves as the basis for determining the actual situation with regard to process design in construction. The HOAI delimits the process in accordance with business administration theory: Generally speaking, it begins with the awarding of a contract to an architect and ends with the handover of the property. In the context of a building’s overall life cycle, it thus refers to a very limited period of time. The prior and subsequent phases are not taken into account. But these phases take on a special importance when considered in the context of sustainable development within construction. This has been demonstrated in recent years by holistic balancing methods such as the ecobalance or the life cycle assessment (LCA). Even before the actual design process begins, important decisions are often made by

PART I 30

principals that have a decisive impact on the subsequent process and thus on the quality of the building. Examples that illustrate the importance of decisions made prior to the start of the design process include: developing and initializing a plan; installing project management staff and the parameters that this defines in relation to cost, time, and quality; and questions regarding the site and spatial organization of the building to be developed. Processes prior to the design phase also include those that are carried out simultaneously in some cases. One example of this is the beginning-of-life (BOL) phase. The type and quantity of resources required for constructing a building is largely dependent on the design and is highly significant in the context of a life cycle assessment. For example, the choice of materials has a major impact on the cumulative energy demand (CED) for the construction of a building. This is the proportion of the cumulative energy demand that is needed to extract the raw materials, process them into building materials, transport these to the site, and then actually install them in the building [313]. This is also occasionally described as gray energy, embodied energy [16], or indirect energy flow [132], although the definitions of these terms are not consistent. The beginning-of-life (BOL) process, which up until now has been viewed in isolation, must therefore be incorporated into the process design aspect of construction, in order to enable us to recognize interdependencies between the various factors. The same applies to the use, repurposing, and EOL phases that follow the completion of the building. The use phase in particular is firmly anchored in the public perception, thanks to the fact that in traditional buildings, the energy consumption in this phase far exceeds that in the other phases [124]. Its share of the CED is referred to as the cumulative energy demand for use [313]. Minimizing this share can have a decisive impact on the design of a building, moving toward the development of energy-plus houses. The ratio of a building’s surface area to its volume (S/V ratio) is just as important in this context as the selection of suitable insulation materials. This can have a profound impact on a building’s form, assuming there is a consistent effort to achieve energy efficiency. The form in turn has a direct influence on disassembly and recycling properties, and thus also on the cumulative energy demand for disposal [313]. Furthermore, it is important to ensure that complex interactions between the phases BOL, design, execution, use, and EOL are better understood, more clearly communicated, and more uniformly defined in future. For example, newly developed recycling techniques should have a positive influence on the life cycle assessment. The same applies when it comes to broadening the analysis out to include all material resources, including the raw materials used and the water required for manufacturing building materials. Regarding the latter, there needs to be further work around the concept of

2  |  THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 31

virtual water [208]. The Federal Statistical Office [275] generally differentiates between direct and indirect consumption of environmental resources. The latter includes, for example, the environment’s intake of artificially produced emissions. In order to guarantee a holistic view of all subprocesses, take into account the complex interrelationships between the parties involved across all specified phases, and pave the way for cyclical thinking, the process in construction must be expanded to include the entire life cycle of a building. Based on this premise, we can summarize by asserting that the objective of construction should not be the completion of an object, but rather the resulting value for society at all levels.

Parameters: Values, Materials, Commodities Sacha Menz et al. [94] use a “theoretical model of work” as a way of abstracting the process in the construction industry. According to this, each action can be subdivided into three phases: (1) intention; (2) concept; and (3) production. These three phases can each be assigned a corresponding material, a required tool, a force used, a basic idea, and a result. “The results of the previous phases, the concept and the intention, are – together with the value – aspects of an idea that defines the design of a product” [94]. If the results of the first two phases are not available, this idea consists only of the value. Since the product is thus formed by an idea and produced using a material, the terms value and material will now be examined more closely. Sociological “values have their origins in the individual. […] By linking their feelings to patterns of behavior, the individual endorses certain values” [94]. These define an individual’s actions and determine what is intended, conceived, and produced. Since architecture is a reflection of society, the built environment is an embodiment of shared values: moral concepts that individuals within a society share and that bind them together to form said society. Depending on how important a value is to a particular society, it may be visible in the form and quality of the built environment. As the knowledge that climate change is largely the result of human activities becomes ever more widely accepted, we can observe a shift in sociological values taking place in the Western world. With our sense of security currently under threat, humans are attaching greater importance to the natural environment, calling into question the dominance of material values in the long term. As a consequence, we are seeing a paradigm shift in construction – away from a focus on costs, time, and quality and toward the triad of raw materials, recycling, and emissions [70] [120].

PART I 32

Material values have a direct relation to the concept of commodities. Arnold Picot et al. [237] state that: “Scarcity is the starting point for economic activity.” In addition to material resources, scarce commodities also include immaterial resources such as time, labor, and money. Since raw materials are by definition finite, it is not true to say that they are becoming scarce; rather, they are scarce.

A material value does not describe the product itself, but rather its monetary worth in comparison to other goods. A sociological value, on the other hand, is that which the product or commodity offers the user or society. Thus the material value of a product can increase if it has been produced sustainably and therefore contributes to the protection of the shared sociological value represented by the natural environment: “A key difference between the industrial economy and the service economy is that the first gives value to products that exist materially […], whereas value in the service economy is more closely attributed to the performance […] of products integrated into a system” [292]. The relevance of the term material is therefore very apparent: While the idea to construct a building arises from, or is shaped by, values, a material has its origin in

RESOURCES

LIFE CYCLE Costs

OLD PARADIGM

G

EM

Quality

LIN

IS

CY C

SIO

RE

NS

NEW PARADIGM

Time

Fig. 3: Old and new paradigms in construction (following [70])

2  |  THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 33

the natural environment [94]. In the production phase, material is taken from the environment and subsequently used to construct a building. The energy required for this (assuming it is from a nonrenewable source) is also based on a material. Since the work consumes its “material elements, its object and its instruments [... it] is a process of consumption” [201]. Following this line of thought, the creation of values thus necessitates the destruction of values. In the context of sustainable development, therefore, ecology and economics are generally assumed to have conflicting objectives. From an etymological perspective, however, both terms have their roots in the Greek word oikos (house) [173], which broadly speaking denotes a human living environment [200]. Ecology is thus the study (Greek: logos); economy, the management or law (Greek: nomos) of Planet Earth [320]. Ecology can therefore be comprehended as the understanding of interrelationships between living beings and their natural environment (as a natural science), while economics can be understood as the organization or shaping of this relationship (as a humanity) [129]. While all other living beings exist in harmony with their natural environment – for example, their waste serves as nutrition for others [47] – there is a generally held assumption that economically advantageous actions are in contrast to ecologically compatible ones. This is based on a historical discrepancy between the interpretation of the term economy as the thrifty management of resources on the one hand, and a system for producing and consuming goods and services on the other [320]. The former definition gives rise to the mutual dependency described above. Based on this understanding, a person’s actions must follow natural laws [54]. However, when economy is interpreted as a system of production and consumption, humans follow the rules of an order that they themselves have created. Growth and prosperity are thus the values that determine Western economic systems, with progress largely being defined by “technological and economic aspects” [214]. The scientific understanding of ecology no longer serves as the basis for structuring the economy along humanistic lines. The climate change that the world is currently experiencing is thus the result of interference in a complex system with flawed rules. Viewed from an etymological perspective, ecology and economy do not represent opposites. However, sustainable development has been defined in a way that is deliberately anthropocentric in that it refers to the satisfaction of human needs [53]. Linking the terms sustainability and development explicitly emphasizes that the two concepts are of equal worth, since the economic system in the Western world is currently based on growth.

PART I 34

Construction as a Feedback-Enabled Process “Those who want to alter just one variable or multiple isolated variables” within a complex system “will […] generally fail due to complex interactions” [218]. In the context of developing a strategy for process redesign in construction, it is therefore important to clarify what effects a fully sustainable form of architecture would have on the economic and sociocultural pillars of sustainability. With their concept of Cradle to Cradle, Braungart and McDonough [47] have developed a vision of a closed-loop economy. Werner Sobek [288] defines this for the built environment with the principle Triple Zero. Buildings must be conceived, planned, built, and used in such a way that they can gracefully disappear from the world at any time without having caused any harm [287]. These approaches make clear that human constructions are ultimately ephemeral in nature, regardless of the length of time for which they are used. If we were to succeed in establishing a fully closed-loop economy in which the quality of materials was consistently maintained, this would ultimately render efficiency efforts irrelevant. There are already comparable visions with regard to energy generation [188]: If in the future we could generate 100 percent of our energy using renewable sources, and at the same time overcome the technological difficulties associated with storage, this would have a direct impact on the built environment. A strategy based around this scenario appears to make sense in view of the fact that the sun supplies approximately fifteen times more energy than the population of the world needs to live [10], and considering that the German automotive industry, for example, already achieves recycling rates of over 90 percent [11]. The scarcity of commodities would cease to be a problem, since these would no longer be used up, but rather merely used.

2.2 THE TERM STRATEGY: A DEFINITION Meaning, Type, and Content of a Strategy Since its introduction into the German language in 1777 [44] and the writings of Carl von Clausewitz [63], the term strategy has been used in an interdisciplinary manner. In simple terms, the word as it is used today denotes the long-term striving toward a particular objective, in order to achieve which a plan is created that takes account of the relevant parameters, such as the available resources. Henry Mintzberg et al. [213] define strategy as a pattern in a stream of decisions. Today, strategies are particularly widely used in the business world; Mathias Kranz provides an overview of these [180]. With increasing globalization, criticism has been directed at the planability aspect of strategies, with the result that it is no longer possible to discern a consensus about what a strategy is within the literature. That notwithstanding, it is apparent that a strategy is increasingly being understood not as a fixed result, but as a process which must be

2  |  THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 35

continuously adaptable to changing parameters and objectives. For “the advantages of a selected strategy are eroded […] over time by ongoing changes to internal and external […] parameters” [180]. A strategic orientation must therefore be adaptable in order to guarantee its effectiveness. For this reason, a process strategy does not propose any fixed set of rules, but rather influences the process of strategy development in a way that enables content to be created independently of it. A strategy thus comprises a planned and an emerging component [180]. In order to successfully implement this in the field of construction, it is expedient to draw up recommendations for action for each individual area, the content of which can be independently developed by the relevant parties. The present book will therefore develop a process strategy which is sufficiently defined to act as a long-term strategic planning document in the construction industry. At the same time, it must be flexible enough to apply to the multiplicity of tasks that exist in the context of producing one-off buildings, and to serve as a framework for case-by-case strategy development. As the intention is “to influence the future in a deliberate […] and specified manner” [180], such a strategy can be categorized as an intended strategy. This refers to a plan that is aimed at realizing a vision, and involves the setting of long-term objectives.

Strategy Levels: Vision, Mission, and Objectives In economic theory, strategies are broken down into different levels that reflect company hierarchies. Applying this directly to construction does not seem to make sense, as this industry follows fundamentally different organizational structures that have interorganizational and temporal limitations – including across countries and cultures. For this reason, the strategy process followed here will not correspond to any of the ten schools identified by Mintzberg et al. [213]; rather, its form will be a specific response to the challenges within the field of construction. Following Kranz [180], the strategy’s hierarchy will be composed of: • vision (long-term objective, ideal situation, worded in a memorable way); • mission (focused on the task that must be performed in order to achieve the vision); • objective (quantifiable, with a time frame); and • strategic principle (imperative for action, basic principles of decision-making). A strategy in line with the arguments made so far does not currently exist in the construction industry. However, one existing approach is the Leitbild Bau [189] (mission statement of the German construction industry), defining the following focus areas:

PART I 36

• The parties involved in the value chain for construction are designers and problem-solvers. • Customer-orientation, partnership, and fairness form the foundations for cooperation in the construction value chain. • The quality of a building should be assessed over its entire life cycle and should be improved according to economic, ecological, and social sustainability objectives. • Education is the key to quality, innovation, job security, and competitiveness. • The innovation capacity of the value chain in construction should be strengthened, and Germany made a leading market for innovative construction. • Legality and value management are prerequisites for fair competition, job security, and sustainable business success. The Leitbild Bau is designed to represent “the industry’s strategic framework” [296]. Jointly initiated by the relevant professional bodies in 2009, the document’s key demands include partnership and fairness, the intention to assess the quality of buildings across their life cycle, and the strengthening of innovation. Thus far, however, the initiative has not succeeded in generating the necessary momentum toward change. A major reason for this may be the fact that the guidelines were drawn up jointly, with the aim of reconciling the interests of all parties. The Leitbild Bau thus serves only partially as an orientation document – it does not represent a strategy that can be used to tackle the challenges in question, since it does not include the necessary targets and recommendations for action with regard to implementation. In addition, the mission statement does not contain a concrete definition of the problem or a compellingly expressed vision.

2.3 BASICS OF ORGANIZATION Handling Scarce Commodities: Specialization Adam Smith [283] wrote in 1776: “The greatest improvements in the productive powers of labor, and the greater part of the skill, dexterity, and judgment, with which it is anywhere directed, or applied, seem to have been the effects of the division of labor.” From today’s perspective, the division of labor and specialization have made the greatest contribution with regard to dealing with the scarcity of resources described above [237]. The increases in industrial productivity that were achieved as a result of these practices became the basis for the prosperity of the Western world. But with increased specialization comes an increase in dependencies. For example, in a value-added process that has a linear structure, each participant is dependent on the results of the foregoing phase. Conversely, they must ensure that the subsequent

2  |  THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 37

phase can build on their own work. Interfaces therefore play a key role in ensuring that the process runs smoothly. Here, problems can arise with regard to exchange and coordination [237]. How the work is divided up, who needs to have which special expertise in order to carry out their part of the work in an optimum fashion, how the work content can be coordinated, and how the results can be transferred to other work steps or phases – these are all questions of organization. Division of labor and specialization separate heterogeneous tasks and increase efficiency. The discipline-specific knowledge within a specialized unit increases both quantitatively and qualitatively. These two effects mean that process structures involving a division of labor appear superior to less specialized setups. This is because the more extensive and heterogeneous an individual’s areas of responsibility, the less likely it is that they will experience learning effects that go beyond their current level of knowledge, or that they will develop new specialist techniques. Additionally, control and monitoring capabilities are limited, which impacts negatively on results. The associated deficiencies can be divided into two categories according to Picot et al. [237]: • shortcomings in the division of labor and specialization; and • shortcomings in exchange and coordination. They are thus the result of “unfavorable configurations” [237] of the structure of division of labor, specialization, exchange, and coordination, and can be minimized or eliminated through organization. The renewed emphasis on specialization in construction today and the accompanying increase in the division of labor are direct consequences of the progress achieved in areas that are already specialized. Against this backdrop, the fragmentation seen in construction is a logical consequence, as is the evolution of the master builder of the Renaissance to the architect of today, whose job description is being further divided into the roles of conceptual designer, technical designer, and site manager.

Shortcomings at the Interfaces: The Role of the Coordinator As the number of participants grows, so does the number of interfaces. Not only is this a source of error, leading to efficiency problems in terms of both time and cost – there is also the potential for information to be lost or misinterpreted, or for delays in passing it on. However, it is clear when looking at the effectiveness of a process that the quality of the product depends not only on the addition of the information and actions that have resulted from specialization, but also on the entirety of their interconnections being taken into account. The more specialized a participant is, the less able they are to foresee the consequences of their actions for the product as a whole.

PART I 38

The negative effects of a procedure that is not specialized, or only specialized to a minor degree, can also arise in a process where the division of labor goes too far: Highly specialized structures can produce optimized solutions within each stage of work. However, if the overarching organization and interface configuration are deficient, the efficiency and effectiveness of a process with less division of labor and more integration can in fact be superior. To create a sustainable and innovative built environment, equal attention must be given to both the efficiency and the effectiveness of a process. Competencies in the areas of organization and coordination are key in this regard. The function of a coordinator can develop into a specialized area, similar to that of assigning tasks in construction. The consequence of this is a lower capacity to make qualified decisions regarding the development of content, which has an impact on the effectiveness of the end product. What is more, the decisions are made based on the coordinator’s subjective opinion. Their perspective on the organization is shaped by their own individual training, whether consciously or unconsciously – a fact that becomes clear in view of the current process in construction: If this position is occupied by someone with a background in architecture, the process tends to be strongly oriented around the design criteria and quality standards of the architect. If, on the other hand, the person in this role is from the field of project management, the focus tends to be on cost- and time-efficient procedures. It is thus important to take into account how the appointment of a particular coordinator influences the process. The perspective of this individual and the objectives they envisage are substantially influenced by their professional background and by their relationship to both the principal and the other process participants. For example, contract structures can lead to dependencies which prevent individual participants from realizing their full potential. Getting rid of generalists, as is often called for, is thus not helpful, not only from a design point of view but also from an organizational perspective. Because in order to make decisions that are effective on a holistic level, a coordinator needs to possess both organizational capabilities and sufficient knowledge of the individual discipline. The problems that come with increasing specialization can potentially be combated by the coordinator – however, these problems cannot be viewed in isolation from questions of interface configuration. By restructuring team organization so as to enable collaborative communication and joint decision-making within a project team, the role of the coordinator could theoretically be rendered obsolete. If today’s interface configuration were revolutionized to the effect that in the future, all participants would

2  |  THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 39

be working on a single data set that simultaneously served as a communication medium, the tasks of the coordinator would likewise become irrelevant, at least in theory. But currently, instead of eliminating the causes of deficiencies at the interfaces, the tendency is to try to tackle their effects, primarily by using technology. Digitalization is widely understood as an aid to exchanging information. The individual technologies, methods, and tools used to do this, however, do not ensure that the selected information is in itself correct, is sufficient in scope, or will be correctly interpreted. These questions are outside of the sphere of influence of technology.

Systematization and Standardization Specialization is one of the main reasons for the systematization of construction. The more that knowledge is generated by ever more specialized areas, the more specific are the resulting solutions and products. In order to bring these together in the context of the overall process, standardization has increased over the decades. Today’s construction, as the product of industrialization processes, is primarily “construction with systems” [293]. The providers of individual systems – in facade construction, for example – increasingly determine the design of the built environment, since architects are obliged to constantly keep in mind the technical implementation aspects in order to offer cost-effective solutions. Meanwhile, the building components originate from the organizational and process structures of the manufacturer and the technologies they employ for production. This circumstance is described by Stephen Kieran and James Timberlake [169]. On the other hand, some companies are directing their attention toward developing solutions for implementing individualized designs. The manufacture of nonstandardized facade elements can lead to technical innovations, for example. The new manufacturing techniques that have emerged in the last few years for the production of complex components, for instance double curved surfaces, can largely be traced back to the creative designs of architects, which supposedly necessitated inefficient construction methods (see for example [324]). Initially, the computer-based design methods led to problems further down the value chain. This has increasingly resulted in inefficiencies. However, the task of rectifying these presents a great opportunity for innovation. If, in view of the anticipated problems, the architects had deliberately decided against the use of new software and the development of new formal languages, these innovations would not have had the chance to come into being. Today, the digital value-added chain has been closed up [65]: CAM technologies enable the computer-controlled manufacture of thousands of different individual parts. Ro-

PART I 40

botics is increasingly in a position to recognize these parts and to install them fully automatically following a fixed sequence. The developments associated with this mass customization are innovations that would not have existed if it were not for the new formal language. And it is not just the built environment that develops further in this process, but also the parties involved in its value-added process and their knowledge; the technologies used and the associated techniques also evolve in parallel. The innovation potential that has resulted from not following the efficiency credo is of major importance for both the economic and sociocultural pillars of sustainable development. Furthermore, it has an important role to play in moving society forward. Innovations are prompted not only by efforts to increase efficiency, but also by the creativity of designers.

Construction with Systems: Construction as Part of a System In the 1960s the pursuit of efficiency led to a process of standardization and rationalization in construction. This took place against the backdrop of the industrialization of construction, although these approaches had already been developed in light of the growing world population and the anticipated resource shortages – for example in the movement known as Metabolism in Japan [177]. Ultimately though, this form of architecture was not able to establish itself. Today, modular construction is mainly used in industrial and temporary applications. Closed systems of this kind have proven themselves to be unsuited to a broader market: they are too lacking in interfaces from a technological standpoint and too unattractive from an architectural perspective. The same is true when it comes to construction with systems. The history of construction is also the history of a long process of differentiation [293], whereby the system of a building has been composed of ever smaller subsystems. Changing requirements and the ever increasing complexity of energetic, material-related, technical, and functional conditions has resulted in forms of development, production, and assembly that correspond to the specialized functions of the individual components [293]. Industrial thinking tends to be in terms of sections and compartments, and as a result, we generally divide a room nowadays into the two-dimensional elements of floor, wall, and ceiling. At the next level down in the hierarchy, the terms supporting structure, facade, and partition have become established, and these categories are used to systematically subdivide a building into its individual components. For each element, there are types, which form the basis for developing further subsystem components. Digitalization, on the other hand, opens up possibilities that transcend limitations on design and creativity. Instead of building with systems, we have construction as part of a system. It is no longer just the building that is seen as a system that can be thor-

2  |  THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 41

oughly broken down into its component parts. Rather, the process of construction is understood as a system that has reciprocal relationships with its environment on the one hand, and with the building on the other. The focus moves away from the elements and toward the interrelationships of the overall system. Thanks to the ability of computers to process these interrelationships, the analytical subdivision of the individual components based on a systematic approach is now replaced by a systemic approach.

2.4 SYSTEMS THINKING, COMMUNICATION, AND KNOWLEDGE Systems Theory: An Introduction Systems thinking forms a contrast to mechanistic thinking. While the latter assumes that a thing can be understood purely by analyzing its component parts, it became apparent in the 1960s that the transition from function-oriented to process-oriented production necessitated a corresponding change in the way we think. The existing principle of cause and effect was fundamentally called into question, which led to a focus on examining the interrelationships between the individual parts. It is therefore not the characteristics of the individual parts, but rather their relationships and interactions – that is, the existing processes – that define systemic thinking. This approach comes from systems theory, which was primarily shaped by Ludwig von Bertalanffy [33], Heinz von Foerster [108], Norbert Wiener [332], John von Neumann [221], Gregory Bateson [22], Humberto Maturana Romesin [203], and Niklas Luhmann [196]. The theory helps us to describe, understand, and manage complex relationships, including those that exist in construction. This means that all parameters relevant to the project and their effects, including on the system environment, need to be integrated into the decision-making process. In view of the marked increase in the complexity of these parameters in recent years – the greater time and economic pressure, the demand for sustainable development, and the fact that partial services are increasingly performed by a multitude of specialists – systemic thinking can serve as the theoretical basis of a strategy to redesign the process in construction. Accordingly, a building is less the materialized sum of the partial services carried out by the individual parties involved and more the sum of the interconnections and reciprocal relationships that play out during the process. Since these are primarily mental in nature, the way the different participants think is of crucial importance. The more different ways of thinking that come together, the larger the area in which an architectural solution can potentially be found.

PART I 42

The individual parts of a system could be, for example, those involved in a professional capacity in design or construction, the various business processes they use, the information they communicate, or the individual components produced to construct the building. Through their interrelationships, these and further elements form a system which is distinguished from its system environment. On a technical level, therefore, it is not only the construction-related characteristics of a component that determine its form, but also questions regarding production or logistics. Similarly, we can say the following with regard to the sustainability of a component: If disassembly parameters, for example, are applied prior to the start of construction, the construction will have to adapt to the changed objective. For example, if the energy used to produce a thermal insulation system is the same as that used in the production of a mono-material component with a comparable u-value, there would need to be consideration of which additional factors would result in advantages or disadvantages for the two variants. The dependence on disassembly and recycling characteristics is just as important here as the differing net areas of the space used or the coordination of any additional work step. A further consequence could be that instead of manufacture on-site, premanufacture is chosen, which could accelerate the progress of construction and lead to other trades’ choosing to manufacture off-site. Generalizing, we can talk about multicriteria problems in construction which do not yet have definitive systemic solutions.

Cybernetics: The Principle of Circularity Cybernetics, which has its origins in systems theory, uses the principle of circularity – feedback – in order to reach an objective. We “speak […] of cybernetics when effectors […] are connected with a sensory organ that uses signals to send feedback to the effectors” [108]. By registering the impact of an action (for example, a decision made in an earlier process phase), it becomes possible to adjust this action preemptively. In the course of the digitalization of construction, this technology has already become widespread, for example in the form of simulations. Cybernetics refers to the control of a system. In an anthropological sense, it is also “a form of interdisciplinary thinking that enables members of a range of different disciplines […] to communicate with one another in a language that everyone understands” [108].

In other words, cybernetics allows complex interrelationships to be not only recorded, but also communicated – one of the most important aspects of networked process structures. Luhmann [195] provides a detailed analysis of the role of communication within social systems.

2  |  THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 43

However, literature dealing with cybernetics and systems theory from an architect’s perspective is generally limited to the development of computer-generated or evolutionary design processes. This neglects the aspect of communication between the designer and the other participants in the process, and also fails to take into account potential market requirements or stipulations from the authorities. Although external parameters have a greater influence on design than is the case with traditional design methods, the literature assumes an initial act of the designer that is largely removed from the actual conditions. The result is a product-focused approach, whereby the virtual generation of the building as a technical system is controlled using another technical system. In addition, we need to examine the potential that systems thinking offers in the context of a holistic understanding of processes in construction. Communication is the means here, and digitalization one of the tools deployed.

Technical, Social, and Sociotechnical Systems In the following, systems thinking will be applied to construction. Broadly speaking, the construction system can be divided into two subsidiary systems: • built environment as a system (product) – technical system; and • construction as a system (process) – social system. On the one hand, the built environment, and indeed every building, is a system that follows the concept of the input-output model – that is to say, it is an open system involved in a process of exchange with its system environment and the natural environment [51]; in simplified terms, this can be defined as a technical system. On the other hand, the parties involved in the construction process form a system that, following Luhmann [196], can be understood as a social system. This likewise interacts with its system environment and with society. The sum of these two systems is described as a sociotechnical system [43]. The building as a technical system has already been described; below, construction as a social system is explained in more detail. “In the case of meaning systems, [its conceptualization] is predominantly the exchange of information. A meaning system obtains information from its environment, […] interprets surprises, [… and] is integrated into a network of other systems that reacts to it” [195]. Other systems of this type could be legal or economic frameworks, for example. Depending on their function, the individual systems have varying influence on the other systems. The process in construction, which is primarily defined by the exchange of information between the various participants, can thus also be described as a communication system. Redesigning this system of

PART I 44

construction (process) offers a far greater potential than merely examining the system of the built environment (product): “The greatest environmental gains lie in changing the overall systems in which products are manufactured, used, and disposed of rather than in changing the composition of the products themselves” [319]. The objective of a system is principally self-maintenance. In order to achieve this, the system must continually work to counteract the increase in entropy which is a physical imperative (see Neirynck [219]). It becomes clear here that this is only made possible by the openness of the system. Inevitably, construction’s endeavor to delay entropy in the built environment causes entropy to increase outside the boundaries of its own actions, that is, in the system environment. The input-output system “assumes that a system can afford to have a high level of indifference toward its environment, that by and large the environment has no importance for a system, but then that specific factors in the environment have all the more importance. […] A system understood in this way has relative autonomy, in that it can decide for itself […] what it depends on, on the one hand, and what it puts into the environment as an output, as waste, or indeed as a service, a willingness to support something else, on the other” [195]. The built environment represents an input-output system of this kind. It consumes energy in order to provide a pleasant inside temperature during its use phase, and produces waste when it is demolished at the end of its use phase. At the same time, a high-quality built environment can represent a service, in that it supports society. Due to its complexity, construction as a sense system cannot be mapped using this machine model, but rather corresponds to Luhmann’s black box model [195]: Based on the regularities of the system’s external relationships alone, we can deduce “that there must be a mechanism of some kind that can explain the reliability of the system, its calculability, the predictability of its outputs given particular inputs.” Due to the level of internal complexity, it is only the above observation that leads us to conclude that there must be an internal order. But even this predictability is not always a given, since it is not uncommon for the particular inputs to change significantly over the course of the process. This is linked to the fact that from a cybernetic perspective, there is always an attempt to establish “negative feedback” [195] over time, that is, to reduce the discrepancy resulting from the law of entropy. Systems such as construction, on the other hand, are in a position to increase the variance from the target value. This is known as positive feedback [195]. This kind of feedback can cause entropy to increase unduly in an area not registered by the receptors or sensors, in other words outside of the system. In this situation, it is not possible to control the effectors or actuators.

2  |  THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 45

Passive house technology and thermal insulation systems are examples of this. While on the one hand, there is an attempt to increase energy efficiency in order to preserve resources and reduce CO2 emissions, this has two effects on the building’s system environment which currently do not receive sufficient consideration prior to the building’s completion: firstly, the increasing use of thermal insulation systems is creating a waste problem for future generations, since the glued layers of the facade construction are often inseparable and thus do not allow for proper sorting or material-specific recycling when EOL is reached. A further issue is the fear that the goal of making houses airtight in the interests of energy efficiency could in fact lead to higher concentrations of harmful substances (emitted by the installed materials) in the building interior. This can cause air quality to be up to four times worse than the outside air, which according to Braungart [48] could lead to a rise in the number of people with allergies and asthma. This in turn has knock-on effects for society with regard to labor and health care. Apart from this, architectural spaces are created not simply in order for us to breathe, in the sense of taking in oxygen, but also for us to breathe freely – they allow for “a broadening and an animation of human existence […] as the basis for personality” [300]. These effects not only diffuse into the natural environment, therefore, but also into other societal systems, and thus into the system environment of construction. Similar examples can be observed in many other areas of contemporary life and the economy. The substitution of palm oil for mineral oil has profound consequences for the deforestation of the rain forest [194] and the development of food prices [50]; meanwhile, if the current trend for timber construction continues unabated, the term sustainability – which has its roots in forestry – is set to be taken to absurd lengths. For in Germany alone, the amount of wood burned annually is almost equal to the amount harvested, so that large quantities have to be imported in order to meet the overall demand (including from the furniture and construction industries) [15]. However, the ongoing global loss of forests is the second largest cause of climate change (accounting for 12 percent) and one of the main reasons behind the extinction of species [19]. The above examples demonstrate how positive feedback can occur when we fail to register negative effects on the system environment. What is particularly concerning is that this can be done consciously. This is primarily due to a flawed incentive system, whereby monetary gains increase the more they follow positive feedback. Thus far, it has hardly been possible to offset the resulting losses monetarily. Additionally, such losses cannot be traced back to the perpetrator, with the result that the negative effects have to be borne by the population at large, while the positive effects only benefit the perpetrator. “Very quickly, we come up against the question of how far particular escalations can go before the system endangers its own existence” [195]. In the words of von Förster [108], “the most distressing characteristic of the global system ‘humanity’ is […]

PART I 46

its demonstrable instability, and the consequent collapse that is now approaching with unexpected rapidity. As long as humanity treats itself as an open system and ignores the signals from the sensors which communicate its own condition, we are moving inexorably toward this fate.”

Communication of Information: Difference Theory The process within construction involves a large number of different participants, and communication therefore has a crucial role to play, enabling the transfer of information between the different parties. The respective difference between the states of not knowing and knowing – that is, the correct interpretation of the supplied information and its comparison against the previous information – prompts the relevant participants to adapt their actions. The information here could either be that communicated between participants – that is, within the system – or that which the system obtains from its environment by way of sponsors. Gregory Bateson [22] argues in relation to difference theory that a unit of information is a difference that makes a difference. In simplified terms, this means that a piece of information is only a piece of information when it “not only […] represents a difference, but when the system adapts its state in response to it – in other words, when the perceiving […] of a difference creates a difference” [195]. In order to enable this to happen within the process of construction, it is important that both communication and the generation of the content to be communicated (in other words, information procurement) take a central role. To achieve this, there are a number of different basic conditions that need to be put in place. On the one hand, a medium must be made available that is easy to use for all producers involved in communication, and that can be decoded, and thus understood, by all recipients. Since communication for the process in construction takes place at multiple – and especially nonverbal – levels, media must be installed that are appropriate for the relevant technologies and information. Communication in construction is ostensibly about ensuring the completion of the building. In more general terms, though, it is a means of making decisions. This should take place on the basis of sufficient and reliable information. However, this is usually not the case in construction due to time and cost constraints. In addition, there is a risk that information relevant to making a decision is available at the required time, but is not used or taken into account by the decision maker – the principal, for example. In economics and politics, this phenomenon is widespread and evidenced by empirical studies [238]. An analytical approach, although theoretically possible, is rarely adhered to in practice. The available information is often used to justify the decision in retrospect, however.

2  |  THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 47

An additional problem is the fact that there is no objectively correct or incorrect amount of information or type of information. Making the right decision often depends less on the problem to be solved and more on the qualities of the particular decision maker. A piece of information, as per Arnold Picot et al. [238], is accordingly “defined by the type, quantity, and quality of the information which a person requires within a certain period of time to complete her tasks.” It should be asserted that the quality of a decision generally improves as the amount of relevant information increases [105]. Equally important here is the quality of the information and the veracity of the relevant knowledge, that is, the stringency of the conclusion arrived at based on the perception of a piece of information. For example, if this has been wrongly decoded or if the recipient does not have all of the information that they require to interpret the information in question, this represents a possible source of error; particularly because the quality of decisions and the information on which these are based are very difficult to measure [105] – one of the reasons that the humanities are often described as soft sciences, as opposed to the natural sciences which are termed hard sciences. Due to its systemic character, construction is situated at the interface between these disciplines. On the one hand, it is a creative activity in which a place is deliberately transformed from one state to another. There can be no single correct solution for this. Those involved, especially architects, therefore have the freedom to invent a place. On the other hand, the product of this process is an open system that is involved in a process of exchange with the natural environment. In the interests of sustainable development, therefore, greater focus should once again be placed on the laws of physics, using an analytical approach. In this sense, there is in theory a single correct solution – within certain other parameters – which the parties involved can arrive at. In construction, for example, form finding and form development methods are applied in the context of lightweight construction [289] in order to save materials, and thus also natural resources. This can result in a conflict of objectives, both between the so-called soft and hard arguments (for example, the creative intention of the architect on the one hand and the calculations of the engineer on the other) and between different parameters within a group (such as the consumption of natural resources versus the cumulative energy requirement). What is more, the parties involved in construction are often pursuing very different individual aims alongside the common objective of creating a building. In some cases, these aims are not connected to the project itself – they may be at a business level, for example.

PART I 48

Besides communication, the procurement of information also represents a key basis for decision-making. In construction today, this takes the form of referring to guidelines and standards, enlisting the help of experts and consultants, and learning lessons from reference buildings and previous experiences. However, in the day-to-day of the construction industry, the individual factors are rarely evaluated and weighted according to scientific criteria. Rather, it is up to the participants in the process to assess the factors subjectively. This approach is not expedient when it comes to achieving objectives that are in line with sustainable development. In other areas of production, in which the aspect of cultural creation is considered less important due to the shorter lifetime of the goods produced, scientific methods such as assessment matrices are used. The certification system of the German Sustainable Building Council [77] can be understood as an assessment matrix of this kind. Comparable systems exist internationally: The American LEED [187] and the British BREEAM [49] are the most important of these. They apply the scientific procedures used in other industries to construction and evaluate the quality of sustainability. The way these systems work has been analyzed by Peter Mösle, among others [216].

2.5 INNOVATION AND SUSTAINABILITY Innovation as the Key to Sustainable Construction The demand for sustainable development is widely recognized and proclaimed to be a driver of innovation [55]. By the same token, innovations are also the key to sustainable development. The BMBF’s framework program Research for Sustainable Development (FONA) [39] unites the goals of the high-tech strategy for Germany 2020 [153] and places the terms sustainability and innovation in direct correlation with each other. The design and construction processes as they are typically conceived today do little to encourage innovation. It appears to be particularly difficult to implement innovative practices in construction, which is “traditionally seen […] as a low-tech industry” [209], since its innovation capacity is continuously found wanting. According to Anna Butzin and Dieter Rehfeld [56], the main reasons for this are to be found in what are generally speaking tight time frames and budgets, as well as the spatial and sectoral fragmentation of the industry. An additional reason is the fact that innovations generally do not originate in the main task, but rather come from suppliers of building materials, equipment, and machines, and particularly from engineers and architects. The result is an innovation gap, which prevents the systematic pooling of innovations [56].

2  |  THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 49

“Innovation biographies” for the construction industry demonstrate the need to consider the whole value-added process in construction, meaning that innovation cannot be expressed by the indicators used in innovation research (such as patent applications, number of people employed in R&D, etc.) [56]. “They are less visible because they are strongly process-oriented and relate to a specific problem that needs a prompt solution. […] The question of process optimization and the associated new business models” remains, according to Jürgen Nordhause-Janz et al. [223], “the key question for the further development of the value chain in construction.” In this regard, the following factors are of central importance: • qualifications and training of those involved; • competence in the area of interdisciplinary cooperation; • use of new IT opportunities; • coordination and documentation of processes. Research networks such as the Fraunhofer-Allianz Bau come into being because the answers to the current problems in construction “can only be found when different specialist areas join forces” [23]. Numerous professional bodies have launched joint initiatives in recent years. Application-oriented research receives visible political support – at an international level, networks such as the European Construction Technology Platform (ECTP) [100] have been established to enable interdisciplinary communication on the key fields of innovation within the industry. Their ability to innovate will ultimately decide whether the political objectives of sustainable development can be achieved and whether at the same time a built environment can be created that corresponds to society’s continually changing requirements [23]. “Innovations that are relevant to society and the economy are increasingly emerging at the interfaces between technologies and disciplines” [55]. Although the housing, real estate, and construction sectors are closely intertwined with numerous other sectors of the economy, not least due to the highly relevant topics of the environment, mobility, and energy and resource efficiency, it is allotted only 3 pages out of a total of 654 in the 2012 German federal report on research and innovation [55]. The way in which activities within the main building trade are connected with those of other producing trades (for example, technology or construction equipment manufacturers) or those of the architect receives as little attention in the report as process innovations. This is due to the way in which the term innovation is understood as a technological improvement which can be directly measured in economic terms. The terms research, innovation, and technology are used synonymously within the report, despite the fact that innovations can also happen without research, and the latter does not always result in the former. What is more, innovations in the vast majority of cases take place at a process level rather than a technological one. Although the authors do not provide a clear defi-

PART I 50

nition of the term innovation, this does become clear when comparing against the 2011 Innovationsindikator (innovation indicator) [155], which measures and compares the innovation capability of different countries – again, exclusively at an economic level. Innovations that support sustainable development but that do not have a directly measurable economic impact are thus difficult to identify. This is not helped by the undifferentiated use of the terms innovation and process (the optimization of a construction process, for example, has different effects than the optimization of a design process). In order to obtain a differentiated understanding of the terms and to understand how innovations happen in construction, the following section will explain the heuristic approach of the innovation system in construction.

Heuristic Concept: The Innovation System Innovations come into being as a result of the interaction of various parties. These form what is known as an innovation system, which itself is strongly influenced by the parameters of its environment. These factors – both hard and soft – need to be taken into account in any holistic analysis and evaluation of innovation systems; we call this a heuristic concept [155]. Whether an innovation system is successful or not can be gauged by looking at its inputs and outputs. The innovation system in construction should not be equated wholesale with the communication system in construction. Generally speaking, it denotes a system that exists independently of individual project teams over an unlimited period of time. Formal similarities to the communication system in construction consist in the integration into a social, political, and legal framework (more broadly speaking into the system environment), and in the relevance of the process, which generates innovations through the interaction of the various parties involved. It should be noted that, depending on the innovation, only select participants in the construction communication system may form a part of the respective innovation system. This is because it is not just the building that represents an innovation, but also the individual technological components, materials, manufacturing processes, or process optimizations that are far removed from the process in construction. Due to the fact that participants from the most diverse innovation systems are only selectively linked up with one another over the course of comparatively short project time frames and their respective tasks are highly specialized, a fragmentation occurs within many communication systems in construction. This inhibits the conventional innovation process, which is measured by innovation indices [87]. On the other hand, these system intersections can also be understood as a network that will continue to expand, thus yielding an increasing number of innovations in the

2  |  THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 51

future. The more often that the lineup of a project team changes, the more often a new pool of heterogeneous knowledge and processes is created. The discontinuity of cooperation is thus an obstacle in some senses, but can also be seen as an opportunity, particularly for a communication system that remains in place over the course of multiple projects. The term open innovation is often used in other industries in this regard. This means that knowledge is exchanged for financially comparable knowledge. Teamwork does not just happen inside the organization in order to cross boundaries between departments. Rather, the aim is to forge alliances that bring together competencies from both inside and outside the company. The meshing of various specialized units to form intercompany networks in open innovation systems generates an interdisciplinary growth in knowledge, thanks to a systemic approach. According to Oliver Gassmann and Ellen Enkel [114], we can distinguish between three core processes in this regard. While an outside-in process describes the integration of external knowledge in the innovation process, inside-out processes involve an externalization of internal knowledge. A coupled process is a mixed form, which on the one hand actively integrates the environment – for example, customer requirements – into the development process, while on the other hand bringing subsections of an upcoming innovation to society, thereby generating a market for the innovation. This latter type of innovation process is widespread and leads to a rapid diffusion of the invention on the market. According to diffusion theory [256], business management activities and sociological studies can have a greater impact on the success of a product than the technical innovation upon which the product is actually based. Applying these principles to construction may be a suitable means of linking up the various specialized participants who are spread across different disciplines and organizations, and thus systemically increasing the respective knowledge of each party.

The Term Innovation: A Definition In the literature relevant to construction, the terms innovation potential, innovation performance, innovation capability, innovation activity, and innovation capacity are used very imprecisely, and are likewise imprecisely applied, for example to processes (design and/or construction processes), products (technologies and/or buildings) or output (economy and/or ecology). It is therefore necessary to clarify what is meant by the term innovation before proceeding to the analyses that follow. Joseph Schumpeter [277] defines the term innovation as the introduction of a technical or organizational novelty; if production factors are combined in a new way, this leads to a transformation of the economy and society. For something to be an innovation, as opposed to merely an invention, it must be diffused in the market and in society [217].

PART I 52

According to Everett Rogers

[256], an innovation is influenced by five factors. Alongside subjective advantages, for example the prestige acquired by the innovator, the innovation’s compatibility with existing social values also plays an important role. Furthermore, Rogers observes that particularly when it comes to products, diffusion is more successful when the innovation is perceived to be simple. Equally important for a successful market entry is the visibility of the innovation, something which can be improved by appropriate marketing.

Innovations do not just happen at a product or an organizational level – according to Jürgen Hauschildt et al. [136], innovation is more about the overall notion of something new, whether that be products or processes. The term avant-garde as used in architecture can be understood as a cultural or humanities-based counterpart to the market-related definition of innovation. Thus it is also possible for architects to innovate at a product or process level during the design phase, or to trigger innovations within the activities of other parties further along the process. Since the word innovation has primarily been used in a colloquial sense in construction to date, the key types of innovation as they are understood from an academic perspective are summarized below: • technical innovation: product or process innovation; • organizational innovation: management or process innovation; • social innovation: innovation requirement or innovation consequence. Generally speaking, process innovations in the production trades can be divided into two types: if the innovations take place in production processes within manufacturing, they are deemed to be technical innovations. If they take the form of new developments within management procedures, on the other hand, they are classed as organizational innovations. Social innovations can likewise be divided into two categories: the first group comprises changes in the behavior patterns of a society, which in turn create a demand for new products and processes (for example, the demand for sustainable development); the second group covers the changes in a society’s behavior patterns that result from product or process innovations (such as changed patterns of communication due to smartphones). Using innovation management, the innovations within a company are typically broken down into a number of impulse, development, and realization phases [136]. The initial phase or impulse phase involves monitoring trends and identifying future technologies. The innovation then enters the development phase. At the same time, the diffusion potential is assessed. If diffusion is predicted to be very likely, the realization phase can begin. Of course, each of these steps involves decisions being made by man-

2  |  THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 53

agement. Management thus ultimately decides on product and process innovations, so that in this sense these are the results of management innovations [262]. For construction, this means that innovation capability ultimately depends on the principal or the decision makers.

Innovation Potential in Construction: A New Horizon Apart from the price competition to win contracts, which by its very nature inhibits innovations with regard to increased product quality, there are almost no incentives for individual participants to drive innovation forward. Most of the time, principals shy away from the additional risk and investment; although it is possible these days to calculate the financial gains from energy efficiency using amortization times, the calculation models employed by investors and users are generally based on shorter time frames. For private principals, the additional financial burden at the start of construction is usually too great. Credit institutes have yet to develop new models that can help in these cases – on the contrary, their portfolio management indirectly inhibits innovation, for example with regard to new building typologies. Because it becomes involved at a relatively late stage, that is, during the tendering and contract award phase, the construction industry is hardly in a position to have a decisive impact on the project. Its only option is to submit a bid that is as cost-effective as possible for performing the work in question. The industry does not have an influence on the basic concept of a building, which for its part should be conceived today in such a way that for every trade, at least three bidders are found via a tendering process and all design content complies with the generally acknowledged technical regulations and approvals. The specialist engineers and designers involved act on the instructions of the architect who, in terms of their training and practical design experience, is increasingly disconnected from the technologies available to them. With the body of knowledge within the system of construction increasing in size and complexity, it exceeds the competencies of the conventionally trained architect, particularly because ever tighter schedules do not allow time for engaging with it. In order to increase the potential for innovation in the field of construction, there is a need to create suitable incentives. Besides improved legal conditions (guarantees, liability, recycling etc.) and properly publicized certification systems, the role of financial incentives should be emphasized and investigated further. Because ultimately, competition within the free market is critical for adapting activities. Within companies, innovations typically come into being with the aid of investments in research and development, far removed from the architect’s design.

PART I 54

An exception to this is the large architecture and engineering firms that have created departments specializing in specific future-related topics. Thus firms such as Foster + Partners now have specialist departments [331], while others, like Gehry Partners, have set up new companies [115] which, as well as producing innovative designs, also apply and develop new software and tools that make it possible to implement their architectural ideas in the built environment. A look at design and production processes outside of the construction industry reveals that this approach has long been the norm for designers and engineers in other fields, for example in the automotive industry. Here, new products emerge in the course of interdisciplinary collaboration between a large number of highly specialized experts from various departments. In particular, the relationship between design and production is critical: The design team can refer to the know-how of production at any time, for example in order to reduce production times and costs. By the same token, they can also inform the production staff that new manufacturing and assembly processes need to be developed in parallel in order to enable the manufacture of a design that has been newly modified to meet market requirements. In most cases, this both improves the product and serves to fulfill customer requirements. At the same time, production times are shortened and work steps automatized. This ultimately results in financial gain. An answer to the question of why a similar innovation process does not exist in construction can be found in the following key prerequisites, which distinguish construction from automotive manufacturing: • Capital Without previously generated capital that can be reinvested in an innovation process of this kind, such a process is not possible. • Experience In the automotive industry, a new product range is generally based on an already existing, related product range. The necessary process chains and resource planning steps are usually already in place, and the relevant know-how is available. In addition, between the delivery of the first batch of the successor model series and that of the predecessor model series, there is a use phase during which direct feedback is provided via the regular service intervals. • Unity In the automotive industry, the unit formed by design, planning, construction, and manufacture leads to a type of industrial group that does not have an equivalent in the construction industry. Not only does this facilitate successful long-term cooper-

2  |  THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 55

ation between the participants in the value-added process and result in an appropriate financial reward, it also serves to project an image to the outside: the brand. This enables demand to be specifically generated using inside-out marketing processes. • Time The average life span of vehicles is shorter than that of the built environment. The key factor here is not so much the technical as the economic life span [166]. In the USA, for example, vehicles are used by one person for just under seven years on average [92]. This time period is connected to the cycles in which successor models come onto the market. Accordingly, regulations on EOL scenarios for vehicles were brought into force as early as the 1990s. Unlike in construction, all components of a vehicle are designed and assembled in a way that facilitates disassembly right from the start. • Flexibility The aspect of flexibility in automotive manufacturing is directly related to the points on unity and time. Whereas in construction, one of the biggest issues currently is the remodeling of existing buildings to make them more energy-efficient, automotive manufacturing has the opportunity to integrate innovation into each new model range. Reaction times are faster thanks to the shorter product cycle; at the same time, there is also more flexibility to adapt to these. In construction, too, a large discrepancy has developed between the technical life and the economic life of both building components and whole buildings. Particularly as a result of economic depreciation models, the economic life of a building, at only around 25 years in some cases, may be four times less than the technical life, which remains at up to 100 years [166]. The latter is thus becoming increasingly less relevant. In an effort to assess whether it makes sense to apply innovation approaches from other industries to construction, a number of key factors are identified below: • Outsourcing As early as the mid-1990s, the production trade began outsourcing a wide range of activities with the aim of making savings, that is, individual company tasks were increasingly assigned to third parties. But construction continues to have a surprisingly lean organizational structure. However, this has less to do with process optimizations that have already been carried out and more to do with the fact that industrialization processes in construction have been limited to production; design, as a service sector, has been left largely untouched. The construction sector has thus skipped a development step, and already has a flexible organizational form that is theoretically very well suited to the requirements of the digital era.

PART I 56

• Leadership Although the architect is no longer responsible for certain managerial tasks, they continue to have a leadership role within the project team. This is primarily thanks to the fact that the job profiles of the other individuals involved have an analytical focus. The architect’s task and ability to shape, to coordinate, and to integrate makes them an ideal person to take a leadership role. By way of sketches, models, and computer-generated visualizations at the start of the design process, an effective vision can be created within the project team, which then provides a clear focus for subsequent cooperation. • Digital Design Since the use of CAD programs is well established today, CAM production technologies are becoming increasingly widespread. Designers are challenging the industry to come up with new technical solutions for their visions. When today’s students enter the working world, they will possess a level of knowledge regarding generative design that will far exceed the competencies of previous generations. This represents a good starting point for innovation. • Globalization Unlike in most other areas of the economy, the globalization process is nothing new in the field of construction. Historically, architects have often operated on an international scale, and this is even more common today; debates on regional differences based on culture and climate have died down since the onset of the International Style. This is primarily due to competition, something which has become increasingly fierce since the construction industry entered the era of globalization. Thus it is nothing unusual when the prefabricated parts for a tower block facade in Europe are manufactured in Asia due to the lower wage costs. • Star Architecture What has become known as “star architecture” is increasingly coming in for criticism in the context of the sustainability debate. However, an established style or approach to architecture can offer a number of advantages that have not been sufficiently taken into account thus far. These include not only the value of being immediately recognizable, but also the process of continuous improvement. For companies outside of construction, these two aspects generally form the foundations for success. However, architectural firms do not always pursue them. The reorganization of cooperation between individual specialists is a promising approach, and one that can be observed when looking at today’s star architects and their company structures: for example, Zaha Hadid Architects has the Computation and De-

2  |  THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 57

sign Group (CODE) [3399], which works exclusively with geometries, while the Office for Metropolitan Architecture (OMA) runs the think tank AMO [225], and Werner Sobek has founded WSGreenTechnologies [338]. Whereas these examples are based on the expansion of existing special competencies, Ben van Berkel and Caroline Bos (UNStudio) pursue a strategy of continually forming new, project-based alliances with external parties, deriving their own unique identity from this method [309]. An open innovation approach has thus also found its way into the world of architecture and is viewed there as a strategic competitive advantage [232]. The ongoing development of the works of star architects is accompanied by a longterm increase in innovation within the associated technology industries. Cooperation of this kind also enables the continued development of process organization and innovation management. The quality of the built environment increases at the same time as profits are generated. The latter is in turn a key prerequisite for achieving progress by making investments in further innovation.

PART I 58

PART II

3  |  ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION

In order to begin developing solutions, this section presents the current situation in construction. To this end, the HOAI (Honorarordnung für Architekten und Ingenieure, the German fee structure for architects and engineers) is analyzed as a set of guidelines that indirectly defines the process. There is a particular focus on examining how far knowledge from the execution, use, repurposing, and endof-life (EOL) phases, as well as from the beginning-of-life phase (BOL), is already being integrated into the design process. At the same time, the roles, tasks, and competencies of the most important participants in the design and construction processes are introduced and the relationships among them explained. This leads to the identification of weak points in today’s process.

3.1 ORGANIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION: THEORY AND PRACTICE The Fee Structure as a Basis for the Process The design and construction process is a “complex structure consisting of feedback processes that are integrated with one another” [207]. Each project has specific requirements and therefore requires individual organizational structures. The individuals involved, and the form in which they communicate, likewise differ from project to project. There is thus no binding set of regulations that govern the design of processes in construction. Since its introduction in 1977, however, the German HOAI has provided a generally applicable classification of the process. Today, its content refers to work performed rather than to particular occupations. This is to say that the process has a decisive role to play “for all parties involved with design and construction in a professional capacity” [145]. Over time, its universal application has led to the development of a sequential process which typically defines design and construction workflows within Germany. In the following, the HOAI will serve as a basis for examining the actual situation in the fields of design and construction. There will also be an analysis of its ability to achieve sustainable development goals and to generate the necessary innovations for this. Since it is first and foremost decision-making processes that influence the quality of the built environment, the following section will also analyze the knowledge that is accessible to the respective participants at different points in the process.

Service Phases and Service Scopes in Building Design The process as defined by the HOAI begins with the awarding of the contract and covers all stages up to property handover; it is subdivided into nine phases. The HOAI regulations are not aimed at achieving optimum organization, but rather are intended as a basis for calculating fees. To this end, in each phase, the services that should be performed in order to ensure “the proper fulfillment of a contract in general terms” are organized into service scopes [145]. However, the actual scope of the services to be performed in each phase is governed individually by the work contract. Each Service Phase (SPH) is assigned a corresponding service scope. This structure serves to roughly govern the typical design and construction of a building and to divide the fee between the various Service Phases. The amount of the fee is oriented toward fee zones based on the level of difficulty of the design requirements. For building design, which will be the sole focus of analysis in the following, there are five zones. Services are additionally assigned in accordance with object lists.

PART II 64

The service scopes are ordered in linear fashion in phases. Taken as a whole, they form a sequential process in which the conclusion of one phase is followed by the start of the next. Parallel to the increasing level of detail, this is accompanied by increasing complexity, which makes it necessary to employ the services of specialists during the course of the project. Additional tasks can be commissioned that go above and beyond the services contained in the “Building” service scope. The remuneration of these tasks is not subject to the HOAI’s binding pricing regulations. The tasks are divided into three categories: other services, consultancy services, and special services. “Other services” covers services that are carried out after the client has made a change to the objective, the scope, or the schedule of a previously agreed service. Consultancy services are generally provided by specialist engineers. Their individual scope is likewise defined by service scopes, but their remuneration is not governed by binding regulations. On the other hand, special services, provided they are a component of the work contract between the parties, are assigned to the nine Service Phases in accordance with their service scopes. The amount of the fee can be negotiated freely. This category includes – among other things – measures that represent efforts to realize sustainable construction above and beyond what is legally required. Based on the wide range of potential special services and the fact the list in the HOAI is not exhaustive, only the most important aspects will be referred to in the following: At the beginning of the design process in Service Phase 1 – Basic evaluation, it is usual that not all input information is available. In many cases, principals only have a rough intention for the project, with which they then hope to reach a particular objective. For architects, this means that they need to research not only the background information usually required for their work, but also the information that will lead to the success of the project in the view of the principal. The analysis of multiple potential sites, programming, or the creation of a functions diagram are examples of special services. The “special measures for optimizing buildings or components that go above and beyond the usual scope of design services” [145] are particularly relevant in the context of preliminary design. They are key to establishing what the client and contractor are prepared to do in order to minimize energy consumption and CO2 emissions. This includes considering options for using renewable energy. What constitutes the “usual scope” of energy-saving measures is defined solely based on the fulfillment of requirements from the relevant legal regulations. In addition, the special services in Service Phase 2 – Preliminary design include the analysis of possible solutions based on varying requirements. Unlike the analysis of

3  |  ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION 65

alternative solutions based on the same requirements (listed under the standard services), this represents a process that will genuinely generate variants. What should be remembered is that the architect’s design generates new requirements in addition to the original requirements of the principal, which the latter could not have known about before the start of the design process. The requirements contained in the work contract are thus incomplete. A good example of this is the range of variants generated during competitions as a result of the designs submitted by the various architects. Creating images using special techniques is a further key point, since this is often subcontracted to third parties these days. In a media-dominated age, visualization specialists have a degree of influence on the overall project that has not yet been fully appreciated. The emotional power of images means that these individuals have a decisive impact on internal and external decision-making processes. The commissioning, financing and, particularly in the case of public works, acceptance of buildings by the general population stands and falls with the vision conveyed in the images. Under special services for Service Phase 3 – Scheme design, the alternatives and variants developed during the preliminary design phase are analyzed and assessed using a cost study. In addition, measures for optimizing the building and its components that go above and beyond the usual scope of design services are fleshed out and considered with regard to their potential to reduce the final energy consumption and CO2 emissions. The use of renewable energies also represents potential objectives for the project. In Service Phase 4 – Design for approval, the client can commission special design services from the architect, which the client, as with all services in this category, must remunerate separately. This is also the case if the permission documents need to be modified as a result of circumstances for which the contractor is not responsible, a situation that has potential for conflict. The execution drawings in Service Phase 5 are more strongly oriented toward the object. In this phase, the architect may be called upon to check the designs of third parties not involved in the main design process to ensure that these agree with the execution designs (such as the construction documents and assembly planning). Service Phases 6 and 7 cover the contract award process. They include some special services that are particularly aimed at reinforcing process transparency and the comparability of bids. During project monitoring in Service Phase 8, the architect assumes a monitoring role. This is remunerated separately as a special service if he or she draws up, monitors, and updates detailed schedules and cost and capacity plans. The architect’s role as the responsible site manager is outlined in the HOAI; ultimately though, this does not represent a normative model for the content of architecture and engineering contracts.

PART II 66

During Service Phase 9 – Project supervision, the special services cover the documentation of the completed process and the information required for the use phase. This is particularly important with regard to the maintenance of complex technical systems. Reviewing the building and operational benefit-cost analyses is also classed as a special service. In view of the increasing requirements for energy-efficient operation of buildings during their usage period, and subsequently for environmentally friendly modification and dismantling, this phase will need to play a more important role in future.

Service Scopes for Specialist Engineers and Designers Due to the complexity involved in design and construction today, the architect is reliant on the expertise of specialist engineers. These individuals render commissioned partial services that are closely linked to the successful and timely fulfillment of the individual service phases. In this way, the HOAI also governs the remuneration for services rendered by engineers (for a more detailed analysis see [31]). In the majority of Service Phases, the HOAI defines the services in the service scopes Building Design, Structural Design, and Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing Building Services by making reference to the services in the respective other phases in the form of “being actively involved in,” “building on,” or “supporting.” However, neither the parameters nor the corresponding organization are defined. When subobjectives diverge between different companies, there is great potential for conflict. Because every construction project involves the cooperation of different organizations within a limited time frame, the business processes of one party are not adapted to those of the other parties. Likewise, project teams only retain the same composition for a limited time period and may include a range of different personalities, which increases the time and effort needed for orientation and coordination, as well as the risk of mistakes.

Chronology of Process Content In practice, the process content is subject to various factors depending on the project. In the following, therefore, the tasks of the architect are presented (in generalized and abstracted form) based on the typical chronology of a building project, in order to expand the theoretical framework. The following overview builds on the work of Harmut Klein [171] and Sacha Menz [207]: • The main aim of Service Phase 1 (Basic evaluation) is for the architect to clarify the task and advise the principal on the overall scope of the work required. In addition, decision-making aids are developed in order to facilitate the selection of other parties to be involved in the design process.

3  |  ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION 67

• In Service Phase 2 (Preliminary design), the background information is analyzed and used as a basis for agreeing on the objectives. This includes not only looking at the parameters for planning the project and designing the object, but also identifying potential conflicts of interest. In addition, the first steps are made toward a design, in that an architectural concept is developed. Although the analysis of alternative solutions according to the same prerequisites is very important here, it is not always carried out to the extent that it opens up the theoretical space necessary for finding an optimum solution. This is primarily a result of the fact that the integration of specialist engineers’ services that should take place at this point according to the HOAI cannot always be realized. Clarifying and illuminating the major interrelationships with regard to urban planning, design, function, technology, building physics, economics, the energy sector, and landscape ecology is often prevented because individuals specializing in these areas are not yet involved at this early point in the process. Thus any potential strain on the affected ecosystems cannot be analyzed at this early stage. In parallel, the architect is expected to begin preliminary negotiations with the responsible authorities in order to establish that the intended project is likely to obtain permission from the authorities. To conclude the phase, the architect draws up a cost estimate, thus ensuring that costs can be controlled. • Service Phase 3 (Scheme design) involves consideration of the systems and the integration of design input from others. The design concept is substantiated in an iterative process using the medium of drawing [171], and developed into a complete design using input from other parties. In the process, the architect should compose a building description which contains an explanation of offsetting and substitution measures in accordance with the relevant environmental mitigation regulations. The design is presented in the form of drawings throughout this phase, so that any recurring component groups can already be examined in detail. The project’s eligibility for permission is checked and evaluated once again, and a cost calculation is drawn up and compared with the cost estimate from the preliminary design stage via a cost control mechanism. • In the Service Phase 4 (Design for approval), the principal commissions the architect to submit the documents for obtaining permission for the project as required under public law. It is not unusual for design documents, descriptions, and calculations to be completed or adjusted following the conclusion of the design for approval stage. • In Service Phase 5 (Execution design), a solution is developed that is ready for execution. To this end, the results of the previous phases are worked over using input

PART II 68

from the other parties involved in the design process. The goal is to have a graphical representation of the building that features all details required for its execution. These include working drawings and detail drawings, for example. Particularly in major projects, it is normal to continue with the design process while construction is actually being carried out, although this generally results in additional costs of 20–30 percent [242]. • During Service Phase 6 (Preparation of the tendering/awarding process) the architect works out the quantities for the bill of quantities on the basis of the specifications and other production information for the project. Coordinating and agreeing on the performance specifications for specialist engineers and designers is just as much a part of the architect’s role as soliciting bids for each area of performance. The tendering and awarding procedure is governed separately in Germany by the Vergabe- und Vertragsordnung für Bauleistungen (VOB) (Construction Tendering and Contract Regulations) [314]. The priority of the regulators here is ensuring the transparency of the process and the equal treatment of all bidders. • As part of their involvement in Service Phase 7 (Assisting with the tendering/ awarding process), the architect is expected to check and evaluate the bids submitted. To do this, they generate a price comparison list for each partial service. The drawing up of a quotation and comparison of this against the cost calculation represents a further cost control mechanism. Finally, the tendering and contract award process marks the transition from the theoretical component of the process – that is, design – to the practical component: construction. • During Service Phase 8 (Project monitoring), the architect’s task is to monitor the execution of the building for compliance with the building permission documents, the construction plans, and the performance specifications, as well as with good engineering practice and the relevant regulations. In addition, the architect is responsible for the proper execution of the load-bearing structure in compliance with the checked structural design. Furthermore, he or she coordinates the parties involved in project monitoring, draws up a schedule and monitors this, keeps a site journal, and checks invoices. The site supervisor supervises the details of prefabricated components, measures the built quantities in cooperation with the contractors, and finally conducts the acceptance procedure together with other professionals involved in the design and project monitoring. Since this is closely linked to the task of listing periods of limitation for claims related to defects, it is highly relevant from a legal perspective. Finally, the actual costs are recorded using a cost statement. Acceptance by the relevant authorities and the handover of the building to the principal represent the culmination of project monitoring. In addi-

3  |  ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION 69

tion, previously compiled documentation, such as operating instructions and test records, is handed over to the principal at this time. The project monitoring phase concludes with the tasks of supervising the rectification of defects, and a final cost control based on a check of the construction companies’ invoicing against the contract prices and quotation. • Dealing with defects is a major part of Service Phase 9 (Project supervision). These should be identified during a site inspection prior to the expiry of the period of limitation for defect-related claims against the construction companies, and rectified accordingly. To conclude the process, the architect collates the various drawings and calculations. At 3 percent, the remuneration for this final phase equals that of the first phase – as a result, a comparatively low amount of time is spent on these phases, even though they are so important when it comes to the quality of sustainability in the built environment. For example, the installed materials are currently not comprehensively documented, which leads to problems at EOL. In simplified terms, the process according to HOAI can be understood as a product-focused process, which does not take into account either the life cycle of the building and its interactions with the natural environment or the business processes of the individual parties involved and their systemic integration into the cultural environment → fig. 4.

Principal

Architect

Construction company

Specialist engineers

Subcontractor

Task

BOL

Contracting

DESIGN

Handover

EXECUTION

USE

EOL TIME

Fig. 4: Project-focused organization (according to HOAI [314])

PART II 70

3.2 THE PARTICIPANTS: THE INDIVIDUALS PROFESSIONALLY INVOLVED IN CONSTRUCTION Overview According to Phases of the Life Cycle Looking at the construction process over the entire life cycle of a building, it is apparent that the interaction of the various participants determines the quality of the process and product. This is usually represented using linear diagrams, since the primary aim is to map hierarchies and powers to act, as well as legal responsibilities. However, diagrams of this type are not capable of adequately reflecting the reality of the network of relationships, the participants’ access to the specific knowledge of the other parties, and the actions taken as a result. In → fig. 5, therefore, the customary participants and their relationships are represented in a form intended to reveal the complexity that exists in practice. It serves to break down the system of construction into individual subsystems. Knowledge is positioned at the center of the network, since it has a decisive influence on the efficiency, effectiveness, innovation potential, and quality of the process, as well as on the level of sustainability of the product. The participants in the process in construction are the bearers of knowledge, and they share this with one another using the communication system. Thus they refer to the knowledge, whereby the information flow is bidirectional. The graphical proximity to the knowledge center serves as an abstract way of showing the importance of the respective participants within the process, without giving any information about their hierarchical relationships. The distances are thus intuitively chosen and intended to serve as an example, and usually vary considerably from project to project and from phase to phase. → Figure 6 breaks up the groups of participants, which are undefined for the sake of simplicity, and demonstrates the complexity of the structures, which is a result of the increasing specialization of the various individual aspects. These are grouped around the main participant and are assigned their positions in the same manner as described above. The participants situated on the circles are ordered according to the relevant sequences across the life cycle. Overlapping the different spheres allows for a highly simplified representation of the information and material streams. The result is a visualization of the complexity that characterizes the process in construction today – knowledge is becoming less relevant because the web of relationships increasingly leads to performance problems and obstacles to innovation. Furthermore, the lack of process organization increasingly results in legal disputes, the complexity of which is revealed by the average processing time that judges in Germany’s Higher Regional Court (of second instance) are allotted for such cases [141]. This far exceeds that of other matters of civil law.

3  |  ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION 71

A consequence of this is the shift of the participants’ focus away from the original design – that is, content-based – tasks within the process and toward supervision and safeguarding – that is, organizational – measures, which are primarily intended to safeguard the respective decision or economic/legal position. Two indications of this are the growing involvement of legal experts, and the fact that many participants formerly in producing roles are now increasingly concentrating on service tasks in the interests of minimizing risk – for example, construction companies who now primarily work in the areas of project or facility management. These companies orient their strategy toward the prevailing market developments, which are opposed to team-oriented, innovative, and sustainable development in construction. They are a product less of the “increasing mechanization of construction” [325] than of an outdated form of process organization.

Expert Specialist engineer

Execution

Architect Knowledge

Authorities

Principal

Project manager

User

Fig. 5: Participants involved in the construction process

PART II 72

The Classical Participants • Principal and User The principal is defined as a “person or entity on whose authority a building is planned or erected” [171]. In most cases, all other participants in the design and construction processes are contractually tied to this individual. These days, and particularly in larger building projects, the principal is usually not the same person as the user. Accordingly, the objectives of the two parties can differ considerably, since the latter’s priority is to create a building suitable for everyday use, while the former is often more concerned with making a profit. In many cases however, the user is not yet known at the start of the design process, which encourages ge-

Materials procurement procurement

Beginning of life (BOL) & contracting contractin

Specialist Specialist engineer

Execution

Built environment environment Expertt Exper

Use & end of life (EOL) (EOL)

Execution Project oject sequence sequenc

Projec Pr ojectt manager

Design

Knowledge Knowledge

Architec Ar chitectt

Management

Natural environmen envir onment onmen

User

Recycling facilities

Principal

Authorities Legislation egislation Approval Appr oval

Fig. 6: Breakdown of participants and their relationships

3 | ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION 73

neric design, for example a flexible building that fits with the market analyses of realtors. Conversely, if the initial user is intensively involved in the design process, the result can be a building that is unattractive for potential second users. There have been cases in which the intended initial user has become insolvent prior to the completion of the building, with the result that it is impossible to rent out the building once finished [327]. The principal therefore may be closely tied to credit institutions, supervisory board committees, or realtors in their decision-making. Ultimately, a building’s quality depends directly on the decisions made not by the designer, but by the principal or their control body. This means that suboptimal decisions may be made, even when comprehensive information is available and after the designers have provided consultation. • Project Managers For major projects, the relevant parameters and time requirements usually exceed the competencies and human resources of the principal. To ensure that all project steps are completed inside the set time frame and budget, the principal assigns “the technical, financial, and legal client functions that can be delegated” [171] to a project manager. The work of the architect is thus limited to the design activities that are required to enable the physically feasible construction of a building. Meanwhile, the project manager takes on the tasks of economic analysis, provision of resources, contract administration, and other activities such as those related to facility management. It is desirable for the project manager and architect to work together closely, since the coordination and monitoring of the design and execution phases often overlap with the tasks of project management. • Architect The architect advises the principal on all matters that concern the implementation of a building, and represents the principal’s interests to all parties involved in design and construction. In Germany, the architect thus traditionally acts as the advocate of the principal. In addition to an ability to develop convincing ideas and to implement these in a way that is creatively sophisticated, technically faultless, and economically efficient, the architect should possess strong social competencies. The task areas of the architect can vary considerably from project to project, and depending on the contractual basis and client model. The classical role of the generalist who has competencies in all areas of construction is increasingly being superseded. In almost all European countries and in the USA in particular, activities are now divided up in accordance with the separation of design and execution that is enshrined in the design of the process. In Germany, too, these tendencies are in evidence. In most cases, a design architect is tasked with SPHs 1–4, following which a technically and financially competent construction architect takes over for SPHs

PART II 74

5–9. The exact timing of the handover can vary, however, since it is not uncommon to find organizational forms in which the latter is responsible for the coordination and leadership of the entire project, starting from the first service phase. In such cases, the design architect initially has the role of a specialist designer, producing a design under the leadership of the construction architect, and subsequently remains involved in the project in that they monitor the architectural and design quality. The danger of this is that the quality of execution may be reduced, unless an expert has been appointed to take overall artistic responsibility [144]. • Specialist Engineer Structural design and mechanical, electrical and plumbing building services are integral parts of any large construction project (for more on their role and influence, see [31]). As the body of knowledge in construction has grown, so the number of additional specialists – including interior architects, landscape architects, and lighting designers – has increased steadily. Due to their increasing importance, additional new participants will be described separately. • Experts and Consultants Experts can be commissioned for project-specific topics throughout the entire design phase. Unlike the specialist engineers and designers, they do not carry out any design work, but provide consultancy services. Typical experts involved are: soil consultant, building historian, traffic planner, fire safety expert, expert for thermal and sound insulation, expert for interior acoustics. • Public Offices and Authorities / The General Public Besides the work of the designers, external factors such as obtaining permission from public offices and authorities are key for the progression of the project. For construction projects that require permission, the construction supervisory authorities monitor adherence to building regulations and other requirements [171]. Additional parties such as the Cadaster and Survey Office, Land Registry or Real Estate Office, Town Planning Department, Listed Building Authorities, Office for the Environment, Civil Engineering Department, and Parks and Landscape Department can be involved as the individual project requires. In addition, the permission documentation for public works must be submitted to the local fire service and the Fire Prevention and Emergency Management authority. If the planned construction is a project with relevance to the general public, the plans will also be submitted to the appropriate committees [118]. Thanks to the fixed meeting schedules and the need to discuss and come to an agreement on the plans, this often leads to delays in the project. Major projects in recent times (such as Stuttgart 21 [297]) demonstrate that the representative process for democratically shap-

3  |  ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION 75

ing public opinion does not consistently lead to decisions that are also acceptable to certain minorities of the population. Citizens’ initiatives are formed as a result. Problems at process level happen on the one hand when the competencies of specialists are called into question, and on the other hand when projects are delayed and the question arises of whether taking into account all interests ultimately improves or impairs the quality of the building. Due to their complexity, major projects that run over several years are difficult for people to fully grasp in all their systemic interrelationships. • Contractors The typical process today involves issuing an invitation to tender and subsequently awarding the contract for construction services to a contractor. There are two different approaches to this: firstly, the principal can award contracts by trade, that is, a company specializing in the respective service receives a contract to perform those works. The opposite method is to award a contract to a general contractor who is then responsible for construction services across all trades. The companies performing construction work have organizational structures that are largely unknown to the principal and the designer. Materials procurement, for example, has a major influence on time, costs, and quality, and subcontractors may also play a role. Increasingly today, buildings are assembled or pieced together from individual component parts [198]. Since a mixed approach combining off-site manufacturing and on-site construction is becoming increasingly common, it is important to take into account the dependencies and interrelations between the relevant parties. The principle of lean construction [139] encourages these developments.

The New Participants Recent years have seen a steady increase in the number of people involved in the process. Below, these are referred to as new participants and introduced based on their links with one another and their respective influence within the process: • Facade Engineer The facade engineer deals with the design and technical aspects of building exteriors as well as aspects related to building physics. The building exterior is one of the most complex elements of a building, since it needs to fulfill such a diverse range of functions. As well as the design-related aspects, which require specialist knowledge, particularly where nonstandard geometries and new media are used, requirements related to building physics are especially important. This combination goes beyond the former skill sets of pure building physics, mechanical, electri-

PART II 76

cal and plumbing building services, or facade manufacture. The task of the facade engineer is thus to combine the creative ideas of the architect with the technological side – more specifically, aspects related to building physics, manufacturing, and the construction workflow. Moreover, if a principal requires media facades or automated light installations, this can mean that the task of shaping the urban landscape, which traditionally falls to the architect, is carried out by individuals who are not specialized in this area. The awarding of separate contracts for services related to designing the building and those that pertain to the facade leads to further differentiation and fragmentation within the field of architecture. The fact that a large portion of the maintenance costs for a building during its lifetime are related to the facade makes the idea of subcontracting services to specialized providers (who are in close contact with the companies executing the work) all the more attractive for principals and the facility management. However, this is not the way to develop a holistic form of architecture. • Sustainability Consultant Ever more complex requirements in the context of designing sustainable building concepts have led to the emergence of consultants specializing in this area. Increasingly, these individuals assist in developing buildings that are in accordance with the international certification systems for sustainable construction. Their work may take the form of technical partial services in the area of mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP), or comprehensive design and consultation activities that include a life cycle analysis or ecobalance. Simulation technology also has an important role to play in sustainability planning. Simulations are used for the analysis and calculation of solar energy gains and heat transmission losses, alongside many other aspects. In this context, there are now companies that specialize in advising principals and helping architects to achieve certification. • Auditor Thanks to training programs offered by the German Sustainable Building Council (DGNB), the last few years have seen the emergence of the role of the auditor in Germany. “Only through them” and their DGNB auditor’s qualification “can […] certification be achieved” [77]. Although they do not have a design role, they ideally supervise the process from the beginning in order to prompt the necessary steps for certification at an early stage. This is often done by way of preliminary certification, which is important in terms of real estate marketing, because in addition to a positive impact on the natural environment, certification also leads to an increase in the property’s value. Furthermore, it creates a positive image for the companies involved. And since it is becoming increasingly common for companies to certify their own internal quality standards (for example, with ISO or ICG certification), a

3  |  ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION 77

building certification can ultimately make a positive contribution to a company’s corporate social responsibility. • Geometry Planner In recent years, the increase in complex computer-generated geometries has resulted in a compatibility problem at the interface to realization: “Powerful software tools allow the exploration of nonstandard forms with intuitive user interfaces and hide the complexities of blobs, twists, and folds during design. But when it comes to the precise realization of those shapes, the complexity is back” [76]. Since the construction industry does not keep pace with the developments in the IT industry and architects may lack the necessary knowledge in the areas of programming and mathematics, the new role of the geometry planner is concerned with transforming information from the architect into parametric CAD models, and thus translating this information into the language of manufacturing companies and their CAM machines. Their work closes the often problematic gap between design and execution. This leads to the emergence of new knowledge, because unlike in typical contract award processes, contact must be made with manufacturers at an early stage in order to orient the design around their technological possibilities. Logistics processes are likewise taken into account and have a major influence on design and manufacture. The manufacturer’s know-how is thus integrated into the process far earlier than is the case in the conventional contract award process. • Value Engineering Value engineering is concerned with a process that is conducted at a very late stage in the design phase to evaluate the solutions developed so far with regard to just one factor – cost-effectiveness. Similarly to the way in which the term value is used here solely to refer to measurable values related to cost, the term engineering is not used in the conventional sense of designing and calculating structural solutions. The danger of this approach is that solutions already developed are optimized in order to increase their cost efficiency, which may reduce the architectural and creative quality as well as the sustainability of a building. • BIM Manager A BIM (Building Information Modeling) manager is an IT expert who is concerned solely with the maintenance of the virtual building model or digital building model in projects which use a BIM-supported or BIM-based process. The fact that a range of different parties have the option of editing the virtual model and the data volume that results from this can lead to complications with the model itself. The BIM manager tries to prevent these by monitoring the changes made by the various parties, maintaining the databases, and resolving any problems that arise. They

PART II 78

are solely responsible for IT aspects and otherwise have no influence on the project itself. However, their monitoring role gives them opportunities for significant indirect influence. In addition, the digital monitoring process leads to a new level of surveillance of participants, which can in turn foster mistrust and the premature use of safeguarding mechanisms to preserve evidence in case of disputes. The innovation potential and the quality of the process may thus be increased, but the ability of those involved to innovate at a product level may ultimately be reduced. • Legal Expert or Adjudicator Construction law, described by Ulrich Werner and Walter Pastor [325] as a “special field that it is no longer possible to overlook,” is an important area of activity for legal experts. The greater the complexity of the construction process, the more extensive are the associated contracts. The more unclear the legal context and the less certainty there is regarding risk assessment, the greater the potential for disputes. The task of the legal expert is therefore to resolve or arbitrate these in the best interests of the parties involved. In addition, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures have become established at the European level in recent years; these have their origin in the British legal tradition. In this approach, the aim is to resolve conflicts “quickly and cost-effectively on a private, autonomous basis” using the “methods of out-of-court settlement” [236] (see also SOBau [272]). In the course of ADR, various different outof-court processes are presided over by a neutral third party who does not have ultimate decision-making powers [125]. Kilian von Pezold [236] expresses the suspicion that this simply represents a self-created money-making opportunity for the legal experts involved. In addition, the so-called adjudicators are not required to have any special qualification. The most pertinent point for the process in construction, however, appears to be the trend toward carrying out ADR processes in parallel to the construction process [41]. In future, therefore, legal experts will not only be called upon by individuals involved in construction to act as external legal representatives in concrete conflict or damage cases, but will become fixed members of the design team. On the one hand, this development could have advantages in terms of avoiding legal disputes, including through the process of mediation [130]; trust within the team could be strengthened. On the other hand, there is a danger that those individuals with a monitoring role could increasingly come to dominate those responsible for creative design, which could discourage a collaborative approach based on mutual esteem.

3  |  ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION 79

3.3 DERIVING INSIGHTS Explicit and Implicit Performance Problems The problems arising from the fragmented process structure can be divided into two categories: Deficits derived directly from the HOAI are deemed to be explicit performance problems. These lead indirectly to subsequent effects at a systemic level, which are classed as implicit performance problems. In the following, the most important contexts will be explained and grouped into eight problem fields: • Time Limitations The process described is limited to a very narrow window of time within the overall life cycle of a building. Phases prior to the award of the contract to an architect, such as the sequence-planning and BOL phases, are not taken into account, nor are the phases that follow the handover of the property – that is, use, repurposing, and EOL. The architects thus cannot be completely aware at the time the contract is awarded which BOL phases the materials they plan to use have undergone and what effects these have on the planet’s ecosystem. Equally, they can only predict this to a limited degree for the subsequent use, repurposing, and EOL phases. Currently, life cycle assessments are used as a way of responding to this issue. To date, however, they have not been an integral part of the design process, but rather represent merely a consultancy service or a special service, which the principal may or may not choose to commission. Furthermore, even if life cycle assessments are commissioned, they can only counteract what are at times negative consequences to a limited degree, since systemically influential aspects such as depreciation models from investors or the lack of established product responsibility stand in the way of sustainable development. In the future, therefore, the process in construction should be expanded to include the entire life cycle of a building, with a view to generating positive incentives through the responsibility of those involved. • Division via Contract Award The process according to HOAI is formally divided into two parts: the tendering and contract award processes represent a barrier that creates a processual break between the previous design phase and the subsequent execution stage. Different contractors submit their bids for a particular scope of work, although they have no influence on what this scope will cover. As a consequence, it is generally the company submitting the lowest bid that receives the contract – this usually results in inferior quality and a subsequent increase in costs. However, initial steps toward a process that pays greater attention to a building’s entire life cycle are already being made [20]. In addition, when preparing to submit a bid, bidders have just a few weeks to view and understand a design that has been developed over a long period of time.

PART II 80

In many cases, this makes it impossible for the bidder to fully analyze the complexity of the task. If bidders attempt to actively involve themselves in the design by submitting additional bids intended to minimize cost, this can also have a negative impact on the quality of the building. Going forward, the know-how of contractors and product and machine manufacturers needs to be integrated during the design process in order to eliminate the gap between theory and practice. In keeping with industrial thinking, architects today have to refer at an early stage to manufacturer information and product offers that specify standardized measurements and prices in order to ensure that the ideas they come up with can be realized. This factor has a decisive influence on the built environment. If the architect chooses to disregard this information, the project may go over budget. Research and development is conducted in the field of construction technology with the aim of reducing these costs – in most cases without the input of architects, however. If the two parties could work together at an early stage, this would solve both problems, without at the same time increasing the level of standardization. • Relevance of the Early Phases The first two service phases offer the greatest potential for having an influence on the development of costs within the subsequent process and across the entire building life cycle. The cost-effectiveness of a project can only be significantly influenced “at an early stage, namely during requirements planning and building design” [326]. This assertion can also be applied to sustainability-related factors. However, the following factors make it difficult to take sustainability into account during the basic evaluation and preliminary design phases: firstly, the low remuneration of 10 percent of the overall fee and the correspondingly short time frame mean that it is not always possible for the architect to analyze all relevant parameters and to find an appropriate solution. Secondly, a sufficiently skilled and interdisciplinary design team has generally not yet been installed at this early stage in the process. The architects alone cannot be expected to have expertise that is commensurate with the multiplicity and complexity of the tasks at hand, partly because of the increasing specialization within the field. Thirdly, the early phases are often not sufficiently defined; they have a very low level of organization and are often entirely replaced by the activities the architect carries out to acquire the job, for example, a competition entry. The design is thus developed under acute time pressure, and the remuneration is poor. The results are often celebrated for their architectural merit, but are not consistently subjected to a comprehensive analysis of their nonvisual value. If an architect has access to their own network of specialist engineers and consultants who support their work, this is a major advantage. Competition rules often only allow for the direct

3  |  ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION 81

appointment of the creator of the design, however. This procedure corresponds to outdated hierarchical structures. If the client appoints new specialist engineers and consultants after the competition phase, this has an adverse effect on the continuity of the process. Time and effort are required in order to coordinate with and train the incoming parties, which leads to a loss of efficiency. In addition, it can be observed that principals for major building projects increasingly seek advice from the market regarding their objective prior to appointing an architect. The marketing industry plays a key role in this regard: While it is the architect’s task to shape the human living environment in a forward-looking fashion, that is to say, to design the world of the future as it would ideally look [279],

marketing is concerned with providing guarantees for the project’s financial success. A fundamentally different objective – one that is legitimized by the past – thus precedes the future-oriented work of the architect. • Specialization Tendencies While the early work stages are primarily characterized by design tasks, the execution design and project monitoring phases demand in-depth knowledge of construction engineering. The architect’s ability to perform creative, design-based tasks as well as monitoring and supervising activities defines the quality of the transition between phases. Meanwhile, in many parts of the EU as well as in the USA, the architect’s profession has already been split into two as a result of this discrepancy. However, there should be close cooperation between the designing and supervising parties throughout the entire process. By lumping all specialist engineers and designers together, the process as it is today fails to reflect important developments within the field: on the one hand, the emergence of new expert roles and the split between designing and supervising architecture firms, and on the other hand, the integration of ever larger areas of expertise within individual organizations. The management, coordination, and team-building tasks that go hand in hand with the expansion of the design team are not covered in an architect’s training, neither are they reflected in the remuneration or scheduling. Furthermore, the team generally has a new lineup for each project, which hampers coordination and team-building. • Delays Related to Permissions and Approvals Delays can arise during the transition from one phase to another, such as during the process of obtaining building permits or other approvals. Particularly in the case of contracts for public works, this often creates idle periods for designers, because in some cases obtaining permission or approval is dependent on the meeting schedules of particular committees.

PART II 82

In Germany, moreover, individual states have specific guidelines regarding the way a design must be presented for the permission procedure. Harmonization of these guidelines, similar to the current process of European standardization, would seem to be a sensible way forward here. Additionally, due to their two-dimensional nature, requirements contained in building regulations (as for clearances) as well as pricing according to cost groups (such as for walls or ceilings) cannot simply be applied as they are to new (for example, organic) forms, and thus require a fundamental overhaul. The result should enable increased compatibility with today’s digital design methods. For instance, the process for obtaining building permission and the documentation of each phase could be simplified in the future by allowing the use of three-dimensional virtual building models. • Linearity of the Process The linear sequence of the individual works regularly leads to delays during the design and construction phases. The reasons for this include periods of bad weather, but more importantly, problems with contractors, potentially followed by court proceedings, supply bottlenecks, and insolvencies of individual companies. If the work of one trade is delayed, the next trade is not able to begin their work on schedule. This results in delays throughout the entire process chain. From a designer’s perspective, too, there are problems at the interfaces between disciplines due to the use of different software and incompatible file formats. This increases the time required for coordination, and may also lead to a loss of information and errors in communicating or interpreting information. These problems could be rectified by harmonizing data formats and ensuring that the programs used are consistently compatible with one another. • Incentive Systems In order to make construction more cost-effective, the HOAI includes a clause providing for a bonus, as a percentage of the originally stipulated fee, in the event that actual costs fall below the eligible costs agreed in the work contract; this is on the condition that the lower costs are based on exploiting technical/economic or environmentally friendly solutions. Since the construction of a building only accounts for around 15 percent of the overall costs arising over the building’s life cycle [179], however, this incentive appears to be shortsighted both in terms of life cycle costs and the quality of the built environment. There is also a malus provision in the event that the agreed amount is exceeded. However, since no restrictions are stipulated, there is a danger that the architect may have to accept a reduced fee even if the cause of the increased costs is out of their control. While these provisions are aimed at reducing costs, bonus and malus payments could also be used to incentivize designers to pro-

3  |  ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION 83

mote sustainable development in their work. For example, this would be a way to systematically encourage building designs demonstrating levels of energy efficiency or resource efficiency that go above and beyond what is legally required. Furthermore, the fact that tasks are split into the three categories of services, consultancy services, and special services does not create any regulatory impetus for the client to request services that go beyond the “proper fulfillment of a contract in general terms” [145]. Whether consultancy services or special services are carried out depends less on the expertise of the designer and more on the will of the principle to pay for these. As part of sustainable development efforts, consideration should be given to introducing mandatory environmental impact assessments, building physics considerations, and more stringent energy optimization measures, and to amending legal regulations in order to encourage innovation. • Price Competition As “binding pricing regulations” [145] would contravene EU service guidelines [248], the fact that the HOAI’s area of application is limited to German architecture and engineering firms has created discrimination against domestic stakeholders (Inländerdiskriminierung). This failing was not rectified by the amendment of 2013 [314]. It is thus to be feared that a distortion of competition benefiting cheaper service providers from other European countries will impair the long-term quality of the built environment. The VOB [314], on the other hand, stipulates with regard to producers that contracts should be awarded to local companies where possible. This results in a weakening of competition, which in turn can mean that innovation incentives are reduced. The stipulation that contracts should be awarded according to the prices that are standard for the region negates the reality of globalization. This restriction applied to the execution of the work is diametrically opposed to a widening of the process by those in charge of the tender procedure, which is intended to promote competition. In 1996 the Federal Council gave the regulators the following objectives for revising the HOAI: systematic simplification, more transparency, a reduction in bureaucracy, more flexibility, and greater incentives for cost-effective and quality-oriented construction [325]. However, the objectives did not articulate the ambition to bring about construction that increases quality and promotes innovation, something which could potentially have facilitated progress in the industry. And the revisions between 2009 and 2013, too, focused on schedules and costs. • Architectural and Creative Aspects Taken as a whole, the performance problems outlined above also represent a barrier at an architectural and creative level. The HOAI fails to take into account the

PART II 84

DESIGN

EXECUTION

APPROVAL

POLITICAL COMMITTEES

COMPETITION

ALTERNATIVES

TEAM QUALITY

BUREAUCRACY

PRICE COMPETITION

RISK MANAGEMENT

VALUE ENGINEERING

WORKSHOP DRAWINGS

STANDARDIZATION

GRAY ENERGY

TEAMBUILDING

HIERARCHY

DESIGN ARCHITECT

RAW MATERIALS

TIME MANAGEMENT

COMMUNICATION

RECTIFYING DEFECTS USE ENERGY EFFICIENCY

COMMUNICATION CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT

UNCERTAINTY

SPH 6

SPH 3

SPH 1 SPH 2

SPH 5

THE PUBLIC

SPH 4

PRINCIPAL

CONTRACT

PROJECT SUPERVISION

REPURPOSING RENOVATION

CONSTRUCTION ARCHITECT

END OF LIFE

INSOLVENCIES

RECYCLING

SPH 7 SPH 8

SKETCH

TENDERING

SPH 9

PRELIMINARY DESIGN PREPARATION

Fig. 7: Overview of problems in the service phases (SPH)

value of architecture in the sense that the built environment has a profound influence on people’s everyday lives, so that its quality should be judged not just on a technical level, but also on an architectural and creative level. The problems listed above thus have a direct negative impact on the architectural quality of the built environment. However, the Davos Declaration of 2018 represents an initial attempt to put cultural quality requirements on an equal footing with economic and technical interests [74].

Systematic and Systemic Categorization In → fig. 7, the problem areas are summarized and assigned to the critical SPHs 1, 4, 7, and 9. Collectively, these problems are particularly relevant for the development of a strategy for process redesign. They demonstrate the importance of the initial phase and the decision-making processes that precede it, which are akin to sequence-planning processes, as well as the relevance of the last phase with regard to use and EOL. In addition, pointing out the weaknesses in SPH 4 and SPH 7 reveals the two most important interface problems, which create a separation between the theoretical and practical components of the process. Based on the theoretical framework developed thus far, the performance problems of the HOAI can be divided into five categories, which serve to characterize the actual situation in construction today in its systemic context:

3  |  ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION 85

• Sequential Processes: Service Provider vs. Producer In the HOAI, processes are depicted in simplified sequential form. It is assumed that the design of a building follows a strict linear chain of decisions, represented by so-called phases, with each phase requiring completion before the next can begin. This way of thinking does not correspond to the complex reality of the processes in construction, which actually form a structure of interlinked, iterative processes. The separation of design and execution that is fostered by the HOAI as well as by current practices in the training of architects and engineers is a manifestation of this deficiency. In the tendering and contract award process, construction companies are asked to submit their know-how at a point in time where there is little opportunity to influence not only costs, but also architectural quality and the quality of sustainability – rather than integrating this expertise into the design from the beginning. The tendering and contract award procedure is thus not conducive to innovation among the participants. • Fragmented Processes: Generating Profits Instead of Creating Value The current design and construction process is fragmented in two different senses: firstly, within the process framework as it is conceived in the HOAI, and secondly, at the interfaces between the stages. As a consequence of increasing specialization, there are a large number of individuals either directly involved in or supporting the process, which in turn leads to fragmentation of the work carried out. Performance problems arise at the interfaces between the different areas, both at an interpersonal and a data level. This hinders the communication of information, which in turn has a negative impact on both the efficiency and the effectiveness of the process. Although the transitions between phases within the HOAI process present substantial difficulties, it is the failure to take into account the phases before and after the process that is particularly problematic. These include the BOL, use, and EOL phases, which are largely responsible for resource and energy consumption, as well as the production of emissions and waste. Even though these aspects can be examined as part of life cycle assessments, more substantial progress can only be made by taking a holistic approach to the entire process in construction. Creating incentives and expanding spheres of responsibility are two important ways of achieving a holistic value-added process that incorporates both material and sociocultural values. • Hierarchical Processes: Risk Associated with Decision-making While the antique terms for art (Latin: ars) and technology (Greek: techne) could “equally denote either art or craft” [257], thus pointing to the “indivisibility of architecture” [270], today’s project teams are composed of a range of different specialists with highly diverse competencies and objectives. In order to realize sustainable

PART II 86

development in construction, these boundaries between disciplines need to be overcome in the future. Those involved in the construction process in a professional capacity should therefore henceforth be seen as partners who perform their roles in order to achieve a common objective. Teamwork can help to widen both the field in which an optimum construction solution can be found, and the spectrum of potential design activities. • Mechanistic Processes: Thinking in Terms of Service Phases Today’s process structure is similar to a machine model. It assumes that given a particular input, an exact prediction can be made regarding the timing and content of the output. However, the complexity of construction today points to the fact that unpredictability within the field has increased. It is time to replace mechanistic thinking, which applies the procedures of assembly line production to the theoretical aspects of design, with an approach that is capable of integrating the complex interactions in construction, and its dependence and impact on the relevant parameters, and on the environment in general. Object-related thinking is no longer adequate when it comes to meeting today’s challenges. If the objective of the value-added process is no longer simply the completion of a building, but instead, the focus is on the material and immaterial qualities of the built environment over its life cycle, then more consideration needs to be given to the relationships between cause and effect across the boundaries between disciplines and phases. Thanks to digitalization, there are now methods of analyzing interdependencies from a systemic perspective and using these to devise an approach for the future. • Industrial Processes: Limitation through Rationalization The industrialization of construction manifests itself in industrial processes and rationalization measures, with the consequence that construction today is essentially a discipline based on systems. Buildings are increasingly assembled from prefabricated, standardized elements that designers need to take into account right from the start of their activities in order to work in an economically efficient way. But the consequence of this is that those responsible for execution have less incentive to innovate, since they no longer have to react to ideas that are initially unrealizable or those that cause inefficiencies at process level. Thanks to mass customization and the use of digital data transfer from design through to realization, there are now methods of realizing highly individualized designs. By focusing less on the industrial processes of the past and more on the digital processes of the future, we can increase the innovation potential of the entire industry and ensure that in the future, buildings are not just constructed with systems, but rather within a system.

3  |  ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION 87

4  |  DEFINITION OF THE TARGET SITUATION

Based on the identification of weak points in today’s construction process, this section develops a definition of the target situation, in order to be able to define the action that is needed at process level. In formulating objectives, the focus is on encouraging sustainable development. Existing approaches such as efficiency, permanence, sufficiency, resilience, and substitution are outlined and analyzed. Finally, the section looks at fully recyclable construction as a holistic approach and describes its most important principles.

4.1 REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY OF THE FUTURE The following section will outline the requirements for a future target situation in construction, in order to be able to define the corresponding action required at process level. In formulating the objectives, the focus is on encouraging sustainable development. The current challenges in this regard can only be holistically overcome by leveraging the innovation potential in construction. Fragmentary Approaches to Sustainability To begin with, five existing approaches designed to contribute to sustainable development will be presented and critiqued. Due to the three dimensions of sustainability [2], it should be borne in mind that the recommendations for action relating to the “new paradigm” (raw materials, recycling, emissions) may have an impact on the “old paradigm” (costs, time, quality) [70], which can run contrary to the macrosocial concerns of sustainable development. • Efficiency Energy and resource efficiency measures represent transitional solutions: Reducing the resources used has a positive influence on the negative effects, but fails to tackle the root causes of a flawed system. In addition, improving the energy efficiency of a building can actually have a negative impact on resource usage, in that the additional insulation material causes more material to be generated and more water and energy consumed during the BOL phase, and results in a large volume of mixed waste at EOL. This is known as a “rebound effect” and causes entropy to increase in other locations [165]. In addition, there is the possibility that the principle of efficiency when viewed in the context of the current economic system may ultimately have negative consequences for producers too, since lower material and energy consumption generally means lower profits. • Permanency Permanency in this context describes the longevity or durability of buildings. It is assumed that buildings are especially sustainable if they can be used for several different purposes over as long a time period as possible. The fact that the associated flexibility and modularization of the constructions and spatial structures can lead to a monotonization of the built environment with negative sociocultural consequences is usually ignored, as is the fact that a maximized life span may deprive future generations of the opportunity to shape the built environment in accordance with their own requirements and the technological possibilities available to them. The consequence is less opportunity to innovate.

PART II 90

• Eco-sufficiency Eco-sufficiency in this context refers to the limitation of user requirements. In the context of sustainability strategies, this concept (in the German-speaking world) originates from Wolfgang Sachs [261]. Examples in construction include the call for a reduction in the amount of living space that should be available to each citizen [88] or the acceptance of higher or lower limits with regard to the permissible temperature of a building interior. This could be enacted by adapting existing guidelines. However, this would mean a certain discrepancy with generally recognized democratic and market-economy principles. According to Naomi Klein [172], this is fundamentally about “capitalism vs. climate.” Although the eco-sufficiency strategy would have direct positive effects on the ecological pillar of sustainability, it neglects the indirect effects produced at the economic, social, and cultural levels. Because as long as the economic system is built on the principle of growth, the reduction of demand for space, material, and energy will be accompanied by a reduction in productivity, and will thus ultimately jeopardize prosperity. David Harvey [134] provides a compelling description of the relationships between the built environment and the economic and financial systems. According to him, construction has long been used by politics and business to compensate for systemic discrepancies between the supply of and demand for capital. The social consequences that would result from a drop in consumption are outlined by Zygmunt Bauman [26]. He shows how individuals within today’s postindustrial society derive their societal value from their ability to consume. According to this scenario, if an individual loses this value, he will experience societal exclusion [27]. The idea of eco-sufficiency is thus not sustainable on a society-wide level in line with the definition supplied by the Brundtland Report. • Resilience Resilience here refers to an ecosystem’s resilience to anthropogenic stresses. It involves an anthropocentric interpretation of the definition of sustainable development in the Brundtland Report [53]: the effects of human actions on the planet’s ecosystem are viewed explicitly in terms of satisfying human needs. This is sometimes understood as legitimizing the delayed introduction of countermeasures [165]. We can thus conclude that when resilience is taken as a guiding principle, the status quo is not called into question, and environmental aspects tend to be made subordinate to economic concerns. This is at odds with the holistic approach of the three-pillar model of sustainability [2]. • Substitution Substitution in this context means the replacement of particular raw materials with other materials that have the same value. On the one hand, this can serve to

4  |  DEFINITION OF THE TARGET SITUATION 91

eliminate the negative effects associated with the use of one material by substituting it with another. For example, such negative effects could include emissions that are damaging to human health and the climate, overproportional energy consumption during the production of the material, or potential risks to groundwater associated with landfilling at EOL. Today, however, the main motivation for substitution is the scarcity of resources, which leads to rising prices and local allocation problems. One positive impact associated with this in the long term is that innovation will enable a more flexible deployment of materials in the future, which is an important prerequisite for the use of recyclates in particular. However, there are also negative effects, such as the higher price and increasing imports of wood, which in Germany are the result of its growing popularity as a fuel, based on the idea that mineral oil should be replaced with renewable raw materials. In construction too, wood as a substitute for concrete and steel has been in the spotlight thanks to its positive impact on the life cycle assessment [71]. If this trend continues, however, there is a danger that sources of renewable raw materials will be unsustainably managed, with rebound effects being a possible consequence [19]. Improvements can be achieved using a combination of the various approaches outlined – however, this will not achieve the goal of long-term sustainable development at the environmental, economic, and sociocultural levels. The approaches presented are not able to fathom the systemic nature of the interconnections within construction – as well as those between construction and other areas of life and the economy.

Holistic Approaches: Triple Zero and Cradle to Cradle In order to move away from these fragmentary approaches, a strategy for redesigning the process in construction needs to be based on a holistic approach that goes beyond these concepts. Werner Sobek [288] defines one such approach with his principle Triple Zero, which is concerned with “creating buildings with zero net energy consumption” (Zero Energy), “that do not produce any harmful emissions” (Zero Emission), and that are “completely recyclable” (Zero Waste). Michael Braungart and William McDonough [47] provide a variation on this and on the latter approach in particular with their principle Cradle to Cradle. While energy generation, which has been the focus of political attention thus far, will only represent a problem for the natural environment for as long as it continues to use nonrenewables and thus release harmful emissions into the atmosphere, the supply of natural resources for construction is a permanent problem, since these resources are finite.

PART II 92

The strategic goal therefore must be the development of a fully recyclable mode of construction, in order to make the resources stored in the anthropogenic sphere accessible to future generations for meeting their own needs. The starting point for redesigning the process in construction must therefore be a waste-free closed-loop economy, in which all materials are fed back into the natural or technical material cycles without any quantitative or qualitative loss.

4.2 FULLY RECYCLABLE BUILDING Initial Situation and Required Action In Germany, construction is responsible for around 55 percent of the total amount of waste [72], and processes 85 percent of all mineral resources [245]. Both the EU resources strategy [1] and the resource efficiency program of the Federal Republic of Germany [78] set out far-reaching requirements for the future handling of construction materials and construction waste. The German act on the reorganization of recycling and waste management (Gesetz zur Neuordnung des Kreislaufwirtschafts- und Abfallrechts – KrWG) [117] introduces a new five-level hierarchy that has the avoidance of waste as its top priority. According to the OECD’s “Policy Principles for Sustainable Materials Management” [239], today’s waste management is to be replaced by materials management that uses life cycle thinking. The following aspects present an obstacle to these developments: currently, construction materials are largely still joined together permanently using wet processes. This makes it more difficult to dismantle the building and necessitates a destructive approach, whereby the residues of different substances remain stuck to the various materials. Heterogeneous mixtures of substances create waste disposal problems for the future. These mixtures increasingly contain substances both artificial and natural, both mineral and organic – partly as a result of increased requirements regarding insulation and the airtightness of building exteriors that have been introduced as part of energy efficiency efforts. Peter Richter and Niklas Maak [246] describe this problem; the Initiative für Nachrichtenaufklärung (INA) [306], an organization that critically examines media reporting in Germany, identified it as one of the ten most neglected topics as early as 2009. A closed-loop economy thus does not currently exist in construction, despite the official recovery rate of 90 percent and a recycling rate of around 80 percent [212]. Detailed tracking of mineral substance flows as per the monitoring report of the Kreislaufwirtschaft Bau (an association campaigning for a closed-loop economy in construction) reveals that the actual recycling rate in line with the new definition of the term recycling in KrWG [117] would be a mere 1 percent [212].

4  |  DEFINITION OF THE TARGET SITUATION 93

This is down to two different aspects of the monitoring report: Firstly, when determining the rate, only those fractions that were actually installed in buildings are included. Road surface material and excavated soil and rocks, which together account for 63 percent of waste in construction and are utilized again for the same purpose, have an 85 percent recovery rate within their fraction, which distorts the overall picture. Secondly, despite their etymological associations, so-called recycled construction materials are virtually all used in earthworks or road building, as well as other special applications. Only around 1 percent of recycled waste – and with reference to the figures from Kreislaufwirtschaft Bau [212] only around 0.5 percent of the overall volume of mineral construction waste (including broken-up road surface material as well as stone and earth) – meets the criterion of recycling that maintains the original level of quality. In order to paint an accurate picture of material flows, there needs to be more focus on qualitative aspects in the future. This would enable better differentiation between the downcycling described and recycling where the same level of quality is maintained. Equally, the data should be expanded to include nonmineral construction materials. Manufacturers’ take-back obligations, which would replace waste management since the materials would not lose their status as products, as well as bans on landfill, require corresponding measures to be introduced by lawmakers [249]. Whether waste can be recycled and what level of quality the resulting recycled construction materials attain depends on the initial quality of the materials, but also “on the methods used for dismantling and demolition, the extent to which the various types of material are kept separate, and the processing technology used” [212]. While corresponding steps are being taken at a material level, such as through environmental product declarations (EPDs) [160], knowledge remains patchy when it comes to connection techniques that allow for nondestructive and residue-free separation. Existing forms of construction therefore need to be better recorded in order to continue developing them for future design and construction methods. For the process in construction, this means that the procurement and communication of information across the boundaries between phases and disciplines, as well as its interpretation by the parties involved, generates knowledge that, when it is implemented in practice, has a decisive influence on whether entropy increases or is avoided during the BOL, construction, use, repurposing, and EOL phases of a building. Because when a building can be fully dismantled, and when construction materials can be properly separated, this forms the basis for the required prioritization of reuse, preparation for reuse, and recycling over recovery [117].

PART II 94

Disassembly and Recycling In the VDI Guideline 2243 [312], the term disassembly is defined as the “totality of all procedures which serve to separate multibody systems into component groups, component parts, and/or formless substances.” Recycling, on the other hand, describes in general terms the return of waste to an artificial cycle of materials, which is based on the natural cycle of materials. The KrWG [117] defines recycling as “any recovery procedure by which waste is processed into products, materials, or substances that serve either the original purpose or other purposes”; it therefore “includes the processing of organic materials, but not energy recovery or the processing of materials intended for use as a fuel or filling.” However, there are currently a range of other definitions, not least because of the rise of urban mining [110] and resource efficiency [274], neither of which have been clearly defined as yet. As a consequence, recycling as it is used colloquially often also means “material recovery” or even “energy recovery.” Thus there is no uniform use of the term within the literature. In the following, the terms disassembly and recycling are used in accordance with the definitions quoted above, whereby they denote two consecutive process steps. The quality of disassembly has a defining influence on the quality of the subsequent recycling. In this book, fully recyclable construction will be understood as the vision of a closedloop economy, and thus includes reuse, preparation for reuse, and recycling that maintains the original level of quality. The goal is to stop the increase in entropy that is driven by substandard recovery of materials or energy and by the burning and disposal of materials.

The Building as a Technical System In the following, a building is viewed as a technical system and is therefore analyzed solely according to technical criteria. Architectural aspects are only taken into account inasmuch as the results of the analysis of the technical system must not be allowed to get in the way of general applicability. Based on this premise, the analysis will draw on findings from the literature of related industries, including mechanical and automotive engineering. More detailed information is provided by Robert Masou et al. [202]. Unlike in DIN 276 [82], buildings in the future should be subdivided with regard to their recycling capability according to a hierarchy comprising the shearing layer, the component group, the component, and the respective material [52].

4  |  DEFINITION OF THE TARGET SITUATION 95

The concept of the 6 Ss, also referred to as shearing layers → fig. 8, was developed by Stewart Brand [45] and represents the top level of the hierarchy. It defines the capacity of a building to be adapted to changing requirements. For example, new requirements could arise as a result of material-specific lifetimes and the wants and needs of individual inhabitants, but also, and increasingly, due to the introduction of new legal provisions such as Germany’s EnEV (energy saving regulations) [97]. In addition, the ever shorter innovation cycles of manufacturers lead to the replacement of elements that have not yet reached EOL. A case in point is the Apple Cube in New York, the facade of which was replaced after only five years of use. The 18 glass panels on each side of the facade were replaced with just 3 panels on each side in order to achieve greater transparency [14]. In designing a closed-loop economy, we should not just start from the assumption of an EOL scenario, but should aim for a situation in which individual layers can be replaced or modified at different times without having an effect on the other layers. This would make it possible to respond to varying economic and technical lifetimes. In mechanical engineering, the German term Bauweise – meaning “construction method” or “design” – refers to the way in which materials are shaped and joined together to form components. It therefore provides information on the constructive properties, assembly, recyclability, and behavior of the elements in a structure [25]. According to Sobek [289], the following four terms can also be applied in construction: differential design, integral design, integrating design, and composite design. In terms of recyclability, integral design has positive recycling properties in that it enables just one material to provide multiple functions. Thus there is no need for the time-consuming disassembly of different materials or the often complicated separation process [52]. This complies with the requirement in VDI Guideline 2243 [312] to avoid the use of a large number of different materials. However, differential design is better able to respond to the life cycle–related requirements of the individual shearing layers. Here, multiple elements, sometimes consisting of the most diverse materials, are joined at selective points to form a component or a component group. Because the connections can be separated without leaving behind residue, the disassembly process is comparatively simple and materials can be properly separated without the need for an expensive, energy-intensive separation process.

Materials Selection and Connection Techniques The choice of materials defines recycling properties at a material level. Meanwhile, the chosen means of connection defines the disassembly properties of buildings and their structural levels. It therefore represents a key component in achieving a closed-loop economy.

PART II 96

Stuff:

5–10 years

Space plan:

10–15 years

Services:

10–20 years

Facade: Structure: Site:

25–30 years 50–100 years >200 years

Fig. 8: The 6 S’s (shearing layers) of a building [45]

Connection types are usually divided according to their physical mechanism of action. In terms of the separability of components, the following categorization, customary in product development, should also be taken into account: inseparable, partially separable, and separable connections. A further categorization from the field of technical products divides the connection techniques according to their disassembly characteristics [143]: destructive, partially destructive, and nondestructive. When choosing a connection technique, it is important to plan from the start which recycling method the parts to be disassembled are subsequently to undergo. In light of the interconnections described above between the individual shearing layers, we can conclude that nondestructive disassembly offers other benefits in addition to being the basis for all high-quality recyclates. However, the disassembly process typically used in mechanical engineering today does not usually correspond to a reversal of the assembly process [143]. All the same, the field does not exhibit the extreme contradiction that exists in construction, which is revealed in the use of terms like demolition and tearing down and the methods that these denote. Furthermore, in the field of construction, an important criterion is whether or not residue from the connection substance adheres to the respective material, bearing in mind the processing that follows dismantling. Separable connections that are also nondestructive and leave no residue have two key advantages: on the one hand, they help achieve the highest level of recycling (reuse), and on the other, they open up new potential with regard to the technologies used in disassembly. A systematic and methodical dismantling process does appear feasible, and would put an end to dangerous, dust- and noise-intensive demolition work in urban areas. The materials to be recycled could be separated on-site, or – in a reversal of the prefabrication process – in another location under clean conditions.

4  |  DEFINITION OF THE TARGET SITUATION 97

The responsibilities and process chains as they are today need to be reviewed in the future based on this scenario; William Addis and Jørgen Schouten [3] give a detailed account of the problems that result from today’s demolition and dismantling methods. In addition, there needs to be investigation into the extent to which manufacturer take-back and reuse of components is legally possible in the field of construction, how straightforward it would be to communicate these concepts to the market, and finally, how acceptable it would be from an emotional point of view for owners across multiple generations.

Disassembly Process: Base Component and Platform Principle The extent to which constructions are “disassembly-friendly” is determined by measures taken during the design and construction process, which are summarized by the concept of Design for Disassembly (DFD) [68] (see also [89] and [222]). The literature on product design sets out corresponding design criteria for this [93] (see also [143]). Michael Schmidt-Kretschmer [273] in particular illuminates the close reciprocal relationship between the means of connecting and the parts to be connected. The theory of assembly-compatible product design following Gerhard Pahl and Wolfgang Beitz [231] can also provide us with guidelines for disassembly: the structuring, reduction, standardization, and simplification of disassembly operations results in the entire building’s having a structure that is conducive to disassembly. The disassembly-friendly design of connections is also based on the reduction, standardization, and simplification of joints. The requirements from VDI Guideline 2243 [312] provide an overview of this. Applying these concepts to construction is feasible in principle, according to Wolfgang Willkomm [334]. This needs to take place using different scales at the various different building and structure levels. However, in order to become established practice, a systematic disassembly of building components that follows the assembly process, but in reverse order, must be able to compete with the conventional, and comparatively unsystematic, demolition process in terms of the time required. The degree of disassembly plays a key role in this [93]. Against this background, the goal of disassembly becomes the splitting up of a building into its individual portions, which are then broken down into smaller parts, separated, and processed. Gottfried Ehrenstein [93] demonstrates that the actual separation of connections can only represent a small fraction of the overall time required for disassembly. Further key factors are recognizability, accessibility, required force for separation, and in particular, the component size and weight. In the automotive industry, therefore, the product development process involves the planning and virtual simulation not only of production processes and the vehicle’s driving and crash performance, but increasingly of disassembly, too.

PART II 98

There are three basic methods used for this [93]: (1) analysis of the predecessor model, (2) construction of prototypes, and (3) simulation using design-for-environment programs. These are ways of determining recovery costs, material revenues, optimized disassembly methods, and negative environmental impact. Alongside the application of these methods to construction, rationalization measures will also be an important factor for the construction industry in terms of integrating DFD concepts into the value chain. In construction, disassembly procedures can be carried out either on-site or off-site. This represents a reversal of the assembly methods used when erecting a building: either on-site assembly or prefabrication. For reasons of size, the last step of assembly, and thus the first step of disassembly, always take place on-site in construction. The rationalization of this has led to modularization – again, this is comparable to the automotive industry. Modules can consist of one material, several materials, or entire rooms, and do not have to follow the principle of identical parts. A fully automated disassembly scenario can be envisaged using the example of masonry blocks: as part of efforts to increase efficiency, partly or fully automated wall systems – and most recently construction robots – are increasingly being used in the assembly process [255]. Assuming a separable connection technique has been used, construction robots could work in reverse order to precisely dismantle the walls of a building when it reaches EOL. This principle could also be applied to all layers related to the outer walls, taking into account DFD design rules. If we consider the logical consequences of automation, it would seem to make sense to move the disassembly of components or component groups to a clean and automated environment. This would minimize the extent of disassembly on-site, which in turn would reduce the environmental impact, time requirements, and logistics expenses. Individual projects in the construction industry demonstrate that there is already a tendency toward components being taken back by their original manufacturer. The fact that components and component groups that have an advantageous size for a fully automated factory are well handled makes this approach comparable to the disassembly processes for technical products. For example, a building could be dismantled on-site into the prefabricated parts originally produced for construction, which could then be transported back to the factory, including their layer structures and any installations. The prefabricated parts would then be broken down into their individual components off-site, and these would in turn be separated into the individual materials. There are corresponding processes for technical products: initial course dismantling followed by subsequent fine dismantling [143].

4  |  DEFINITION OF THE TARGET SITUATION 99

In line with product design, the load-bearing part of a wall in construction can be viewed as a base component. Typically, this constructive basis is fitted with additional secondary components (such as additional facade structures) in an industrial process that takes place at the factory. The form of this base component therefore not only depends on how it will subsequently be used and the requirements during usage, but also on the production conditions (for example, robotic gripping methods). The patterns of dependency arising from assembly here are also significant for disassembly. Nested patterns are problematic for subsequent disassembly; open patterns are to be preferred to closed ones [52].

Recycling-Friendly Design Life cycle thinking is becoming increasingly influential in the construction process. Nonetheless, such holistic balancing methods continue to be hampered by the notion – particularly on the part of the principal – of “building to last.” However, life cycle assessments have demonstrated that the cumulative energy demand for the creation of new housing that is optimized to reduce heating energy consumption represents up to 45 percent of overall energy consumption over a period of 50 years. But if the installed materials are kept in the materials cycle by means of recycling, up to 40 percent of this can be recovered [305]. In order to integrate these approaches into the design phase, the following concepts have become established in the field of product design, based on the Design for X (DFX) principle [258]: • Design for Environment (DFE); • Design for Disassembly (DFD); • Design for Recycling (DFR); and • Design for Reuse (DFR). While the extensive processes associated with Design for Environment (DFE) [8] are still not used in construction, they are already standard in the automotive industry as part of Product Life Cycle Management (PLM) [4]. Kiril D. Penev [234] therefore suggests a general life cycle model that combines the last three processes. According to this model, the objective is to use minimum resources (including energy) across the whole life cycle and ideally to avoid any form of disposal. Design for Disassembly (DFD) has a decisive influence on a building’s construction and connection methods [89], while Design for Recycling (DFR) also takes into account the properties of the materials used and their logistics [278]. Design for Reuse (DFR) describes the process of reusing a product whereby its structural form remains unchanged [127]. A detailed evaluation of recycling processes is currently still a complicated endeavor, since the conventional databases offer insufficient data on the recycling potential

PART II 100

of individual building materials and connection techniques. In most cases, only very general EOL scenarios are provided which are not capable of adequately reflecting new concepts. For example, there is a standardized recovery process for mineral waste which is based on current realities – regardless of whether the resulting construction waste is mixed or in the form of single-type individual fractions. In order to evaluate recycling processes in a meaningful way as part of life cycle assessments, it is therefore important to determine the recycling potential in a detailed, material-specific manner in future, and to conduct an assessment of the quality of recovery and/or use processes. To sum up, we can conclude that the construction industry does not yet have sufficient experience in the methodical development of constructions that can be disassembled and fully recycled. Applying the findings from the analysis of mechanical engineering and automotive manufacturing does appear feasible, provided the specifics of construction are considered, and the concept takes into account the need for fully recyclable construction methods. The key prerequisite for this is a new system of conceptual thinking.

4  |  DEFINITION OF THE TARGET SITUATION 101

PART III

5  |  ANALYSIS OF INTERNAL APPROACHES

This section presents and examines the existing approaches to process optimization in construction. Firstly, the virtual anticipation of reality using digital design methods has a significant impact on the way participants work together. Secondly, there are several existing approaches to process optimization, and the potential and problems associated with these will be illustrated. Thirdly, there is the quantification of quality: increasingly, process structures are defined by simulations and certification procedures. In addition to the positive aspects of this, there are also risks, which will likewise be outlined.

5.1 THE QUANTIFYING OF QUALITY The analysis of the actual situation and the requirements outlined for a future target situation make it clear that a fundamentally new approach is required in the construction industry. Against the backdrop of the need for sustainable development and the increase in digitalization, recent years have seen the development of a range of approaches to process optimization within construction. The most important of these will be presented and analyzed in the following, in order to establish their potential influence on a strategy for redesigning the process in construction. Furthermore, the various possibilities for predicting the performance of a building create a comprehensive body of information that can be used as a basis for decision-making. Here, the results of methods such as life cycle analyses and simulations are fundamentally different to the criteria that have traditionally been used by architects to assess the quality of a building: they supply results that enable a quantifiable assessment to be made. The associated chances and risks will be analyzed in the following.

The Term Quality: A Definition The term quality is used both neutrally to mean the sum of various characteristics, and as a positive judgment regarding those characteristics. As there is currently no consensus on the meaning of the term in construction, let us start with a general overview of definitions: according to Jörg-Peter Brauer [46], quality “describes a perceptible state of systems and their characteristics, which is defined in a particular time frame according to particular characteristics of the system in this condition.” Meanwhile, ISO 9000:2005 [161] defines quality as the “degree to which a set of inherent characteristics fulfills requirements.” This definition is similar to that of Philip Crosby [66], who defines quality as the “fulfillment of [previously defined] requirements.” These understandings of the term are thus about objectively measurable characteristics. However, quality assessments outside of the world of construction often cover far more than just the product itself: the method of total quality management (TQM) is used to review the quality of an entire company. Meanwhile, David Garvin [113] sets out five different perspectives on the assessment of quality: • transcendental (colloquial perspective); • product-based (objective fulfillment of set requirements); • user-based (only those factors required by the user are relevant); • value-based (with regard to price, that is, as a benefit-cost ratio); and • production-based (fulfillment of conditions that are set a priori).

PART III 106

In architecture, quality is often contrasted with quantity and is thus a synonym for excellence. This usage corresponds to a transcendental understanding of the term. In reference to building performance, however, quality is generally measured according to a quantity of characteristics and is thus usually expressed in measurable values (for instance, the airtightness of building exteriors using blower door tests). This represents a product-based perspective. Determining the execution quality in construction also involves assessing the degree to which the actual situation corresponds to the target situation, so that the latter two aspects can be assigned to the area of technical quality. This technical quality is planned, managed, and monitored by quality management staff. Today, quality assurance indicators are often monitored within the manufacturing sector using computer-aided quality systems (CAQ). In construction, systems of this type are only used within certain individual construction companies or at product manufacturers, because products have a comparable scale here, and production takes place under clean factory conditions. However, the digitalization of quality monitoring only makes sense when larger quantities are involved. CAQ systems are not yet used for entire buildings.

Architectural Quality: Quality of Sustainability To help us reach a sophisticated understanding of the term quality in the context of construction, four key definitions are set out below based on the DGNB criteria and the definitions outlined above [79]. The Davos Declaration 2018 provides a detailed explanation of the umbrella term Baukultur [74]. As this term is already associated with an evaluation/objective, it will not be covered in any further detail here. • Architectural Quality Architectural quality is essentially the quality of the design, including town-planning aspects, spatial effects, selection of materials, and the fulfillment of user-specific requirements. It also covers overarching factors grounded in architectural discourse; these include in particular the architectural concept, the novelty of an idea, and its significance within contemporary and historical architectural discourse. “Good” architects often distinguish themselves through unique room constellations, for example, or through an unusual approach to lighting and color and to the effects that these have on people. In so doing, they define new, nonmeasurable benchmarks against which to judge the architectural quality of the future. Since time immemorial, architectural quality has been defined by the so-called masterpieces, even though these might score below average when measured against the majority of conventional quality criteria. Ultimately, it is up to the individual to make a subjective decision upon viewing or entering a given building regarding whether the building is of good or poor quality: architecture “must inspire our life” [9]. In this

5  |  ANALYSIS OF INTERNAL APPROACHES 107

way, a building that makes us think, even though it may not correspond to conventional ideas of beauty, can represent high-quality architecture. In future, this transcendental, nonquantifiable, and in some cases highly subjective understanding of quality – and here architecture is very similar to other forms of visual art as they are understood by Ernst Gombrich [121] – should thus play a greater role in the context of the sociocultural pillar of sustainability. • Design Quality Design quality forms the link between architectural quality and execution quality. When developing the execution drawings, the architect must ensure that they enable those responsible for execution to transform the architectural design into a high-quality reality – whether or not those constructing the building do indeed achieve this will be reflected in the quality of execution. This means that management-related factors such as awarding contracts also play a key role in the context of design quality. A building can thus exhibit very high architectural quality and yet still not fulfill quality requirements in terms of design. Conversely, a building that cannot be considered of high quality in an architectural sense may possess a high level of design quality – this is usually only apparent when the quality of execution is also high. • Execution Quality The quality of execution is directly comparable with the technical quality of products and is determined exclusively by the execution process. Regardless of how the designers represent the details in their drawings, execution quality depends solely on the degree to which these a priori target values are achieved. However, the planning of the execution process has an indirect influence here – for example, when subareas of execution are transferred to the factory, this generally produces a higher level of quality. It should be noted though that there is a potential conflict in this regard: although the execution quality of prefabricated elements is often superior to those produced on-site, the overall impression, and thus the architectural quality, can sometimes suffer as a result of this approach. Execution quality is therefore about a production-related understanding of quality. • Quality of Sustainability The term sustainability can be understood as a measure of quality: if a building is sustainable, it has a high level of quality in relation to sustainability targets. In order to assess this, there are extensive lists of criteria associated with various certification systems which have been developed by institutions such as the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) [187], the UK’s Building Research Establishment (BRE) [49], or the German Sustainable Building Council (DGNB) [77]. As a re-

PART III 108

sult, there are different understandings of the number of criteria to be taken into account and the size of individual target values [91].

The Certification of Quality Certification systems have had a significant part to play in the growing relevance of the issue of sustainability in construction. They enable measures for designing and realizing sustainable buildings not only to be integrated and monitored during the design and construction processes, but also for their function to be measured and assessed following the completion of the building. First and foremost, this is achieved by focusing on the object, which is understood as an open technical system. The criteria list from the German Sustainable Building Council [79] covers the following four topic areas in this regard: • environmental quality: ecobalance, effects on local and global environments, use of resources, and volume of generated waste; • economic quality: life cycle costs, value development; • sociocultural and functional quality: health, comfort and user satisfaction, functionality, design quality; and • technical quality: quality of technical execution. The following additional two criteria complete the current list, but do not have the same weighting in the assessment: • process quality: quality of design, quality of construction, quality of management; and • site quality (not factored into the overall assessment). The criterion of process quality has a special significance. It is used to measure the extent to which sustainability-related criteria are taken into account by the process participants throughout the entire process of design, construction, and management. While the first four topic areas are each weighted at 22.5 percent in the assessment, process quality only represents 10 percent in the context of certification [79]. Aspects contributing to process quality include project preparation and integral design methods. A further aspect is the question of whether any additional optimization steps are taken during the design process, despite the resulting increase in complexity. The assessment of process quality also looks at whether the tendering and contract award processes are conducted with a view to safeguarding sustainability. In accordance with the degree to which the quality criteria are fulfilled, there is an assessment of the extent to which the steps carried out during the process create an optimal basis for the subsequent sustainable management of the building.

5  |  ANALYSIS OF INTERNAL APPROACHES 109

The quality of construction according to the DGNB is assessed [79] on the basis of four additional factors: (1) the quality of the construction site and construction process; (2) the quality of the companies performing construction work and of their prequalification; (3) the quality of construction itself; and (4) the systematic commissioning of the finished building. There are also criteria for assessing the sustainable management of a building during its use phase. These are as follows: strategy and control; and systematic installation and resource management. In this way, certification systems enable a greater degree of monitoring with regard to compliance with sustainability criteria. A further benefit is the way that such systems can market the relevance of this objective to the public. The degree to which the targets have been reached is quantified by the DGNB’s German Seal of Quality for Sustainable Building. As a visual symbol of this award, the principal can have a gold, silver, or bronze plaque installed. The making visible and measurable of factors that are otherwise invisible is an important aspect of certification systems. This initiates discussion of the issues involved not just within specialist circles, but outside of them, too. Mechanisms of competition develop, which in turn supply incentives for further development. Finally, financial and image-related incentives are also created for investors and users.

Critical View On the other hand, certification systems generate four different problem areas for the process in construction, which will be outlined below: • Market Compatibility Defines the Level of Quality The structures and content of sustainability certifications are based on the prevailing market conditions. This has enabled them to be implemented promptly in practice. Important aspects include conflict-free integration into the procedures followed in day-to-day practice, and minimal cost increases for the client. This approach is particularly in evidence in the BREEAM and LEED systems. The result is a marked simplification of complex interrelationships and a definition of the quality level that is oriented not only toward environmental sustainability criteria but also toward the criteria of the existing market. The logical consequence is mediocrity, which then becomes the standard. The lower the quality level of the guideline values that are required in order to be awarded a gold certificate, for example, the lower the resistance of those involved; the lower the required extra effort, the lower the additional costs. A comparatively simple balance sheet showing the additional financial gains that can be achieved by having a certified building on the property market demonstrates to the client the profitability of certification (after subtraction of the additional costs that need to be invested in construction).

PART III 110

A systemic definition of the term sustainability that gives equal weighting to the interdependencies between the environmental, economic, and sociocultural pillars [2] is thus on the one hand essential for the process of change. On the other hand, though, it leads to compromises which prevent more fundamental processes of change. If the environmental pillar were accorded the importance it deserves in view of the enormity of the challenge it presents, the impact on the other two pillars would be perceived as negative. If the financial impact were too severe, this would not be acceptable to principals; there would be a fear of sociocultural consequences. With the status quo being maintained on the one hand, and new ground being broken on the other, it is likely that innovation is being hampered at the sociocultural and economic levels. • Costs and Extra Work as a New Field of Conflict The additional costs for certification can be divided into three areas: firstly, the costs to be paid to the certifying body; secondly, those due to the auditor; and thirdly, the cost of investments required to meet the quality standards for the sustainability criteria (including material and design costs). As a guideline value, these costs will represent approximately 15 percent of the cost of construction, whereby it is to be assumed that the amortization period will become shorter as technologies continue to develop, reducing the maintenance costs over a building’s life cycle, so that in the long term, not only the additional costs but also the entire cost of construction will be amortized within three decades [285]. These additional costs as well as the relatively complicated verification process and the large number of new dependencies and interfaces present an increased risk of (legal) disputes. Moreover, in order to achieve a high level of process quality, each design-related activity must be accompanied by an administrative activity: documentation and monitoring are thus brought further and further forward within the process. In addition to the positive effect of increasing process quality, this can also have a negative effect with regard to trust within the team and efforts to come up with new solutions as part of a creative process. • Quantification Leads to Depersonalization of Responsibility In decision-making processes within the field of construction, quantifiable arguments are often considered to be superior to nonquantifiable ones. This is based on the rationality of scientific thinking. However, the resulting distinction made between the rational and the emotional frequently implies that these two things are mutually exclusive, which is a misconception. It would mean that rational decisions would not involve a decision maker, while emotional decisions would be irrational per se due to the decision maker. Currently, this is developing into a conflict that is based on the same flawed thinking: sustainability or creativity.

5  |  ANALYSIS OF INTERNAL APPROACHES 111

There is a new either/or, when in fact the correct approach is both [218]. Sustainable construction only makes sociocultural sense as creative architecture, and creative architecture is only environmentally acceptable if it is also sustainable. What is considered an even more important issue is the danger that formal rationalization of the reasons for making decisions will result in the diminished quality of the built environment. Principals, particularly investors who have to justify their actions internally (for example, to supervisory boards) and externally (to the public), are able to officially safeguard their decisions by referring to scientific criteria, quantifiable data, and a quality verification process. The resulting “untouchability” of decision makers can be viewed with regard to quality assurance measures as a moment of egotism, but one into which these individuals are basically forced by the existing structures. The consequence of this depersonalization of decisions is that the decision maker increasingly does not take responsibility for the decision in question. Vittorio Magnano Lampugnani [183] laments the way in which the widespread approval enjoyed by the work of star architects releases the clients who appoint them from responsibility for the quality of the building. This is a complaint that could also be leveled at the quantifiability of sustainable buildings in future. • Process Quality Independent of Decisions The certification system of the DGNB examines the quality of the building as well as the quality of the process. It should be noted in this regard that an a posteriori comparison of process and product quality can reveal significant differences. If a process that has been optimized in order to meet the certification criteria paves the way for an equally sustainable building, the process quality has theoretically reached its highest level. But if, despite the designers’ putting forward an exemplary process, the principal or permission authorities decide against a sustainable solution, and another, potentially fully unsustainable alternative is implemented instead, this will not have a negative impact on the assessment of process quality. Particularly in areas that are more difficult to quantify, such as the sociocultural pillar of sustainability, a decision of this kind is not reflected in the building assessment.

5.2 INTEGRATIVE PROCESS MODELS In other countries, the inadequate situation in construction has led to the development of new process structures over the last few years. The most important of these come from the Netherlands and the USA: Bouw Team models and Integrated Project Delivery (IPD).

PART III 112

Construction Team (Bouw Team) Models In particular, the Dutch concept of the Bouw Team (construction team) has formed a part of the German debate regarding the optimization of processes – admittedly primarily with a view to saving time and money [29]. In some European countries, the concept has prompted an adaptation of the relevant process organization. From a German perspective, although the reduced costs that result in most cases are generally welcomed, we can also observe a simultaneous loss of quality. This is often cited as a counterargument, and not just by architects. Because it primarily affects the relationship between architects and tradespeople, and is not capable of fully handling either the innovations in digital data processing and communication or the complexity of larger construction projects, reference is made here to the following literature: a general overview is provided by the Baden-Württemberg Chamber of Architects [29] and Klaus Wehrle [318]. Hannes Weeber and Simone Bosch [317] refer primarily to the benefits of reduced costs, while Lars Weber [316] compares the team-oriented approach in other European countries with the procedure traditionally followed in Germany. Reference is also made to the company strategies related to the construction team idea, which are particularly aimed at major projects within the construction industry [340]. A further concept is that of lean construction, which was adapted from the lean production and lean management of the automotive industry. Even though it covers important aspects such as dealing with complexity and uncertainty – particularly for fast project sequences – and the minimization of resource consumption, it is first and foremost a “project delivery system” [151]. More in-depth analysis that looks at the systemic interrelationships between digital design tools and the objectives of sustainability is supplied by Lincoln Forbes and Syed Ahmed [109]. Harald Wolf highlights the concept’s origins in the automotive industry and the importance of the control function from a project management perspective [336]; Jörg Altner [12] outlines the advantages from the viewpoint of a construction company.

Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) The concept of integrated project delivery (IPD) developed by the American Institute of Architects (AIA) [156], on the other hand, represents a comprehensive approach to process optimization. The form of project delivery that the IPD aims to bring about integrates participants, systems, and business structures and practices into one process that uses the competencies and know-how of all involved; the objective is to optimize the project results, generate added value for the principal, and avoid waste, while efficiency is maximized across all phases [156]. The key to success here is the close, team-oriented cooperation of all parties involved starting at the earliest stage possible. The vision of the AIA can be translated into six points [156]:

5  |  ANALYSIS OF INTERNAL APPROACHES 113

• • • • • •

Facility management, users, construction companies, and subcontractors or suppliers are involved in the design process from the start. Processes are results-oriented and decisions are not made solely on the basis of costs. Communication throughout the entire process is clear, precise, open, transparent, and trusting. At the time that they make a decision, the designer understands what its subsequent effects will be. Risks and remuneration are value-based throughout the entire project and are distributed appropriately among all participants. As a result of these practices, the construction industry delivers a built environment that is more sustainable and of higher quality.

The use of digital design and communication technologies should be understood not just as a means of, but also as a reason for, developing IPD. Unlike the German association buildingSMART [191], the AIA sees Building Information Modeling (BIM) not as a method, but merely as a tool. IPD involves methods which, in combination with BIM, lead to a new process [156]. But the tool BIM and the process IPD can also be used separately from each other. IPD is thus constructed in such a way that it can be applied to any project. The participants are consistently divided into three groups: owner, constructor, and designer [156]. These terms are well chosen on the one hand, since they are open enough to work as umbrella terms for all contracting parties. On the other hand, however, the field of participants who have an influence on the course of the project is very limited. In addition, the openness of the terms results in room for interpretation and thus imprecision. The designer, for example, no longer necessarily fulfills the joint role of designer and supervisor from the initiation of the project all the way up to its handover. This can result in breaks in the process that are not adequately reflected in the concept of IPD. IPD therefore primarily concentrates on the collaboration of the three aforementioned groups, who are referred to as primary participants → fig. 9. These are assisted by several “key supporting participants.” But although this separation initially sounds logical because it reduces complexity, it creates boundaries and hierarchical levels, which should in fact be overcome.

PART III 114

Primary participants Principal (Owner) Architect (Designer) Construction company (Constructor)

Key Supporting Participants

Specialist engineer

Task

BOL

Subcontractor

Facility Management

Handover

DESIGN

USE

EXECUTION

EOL

TIME

Fig. 9: Project-based organization (according to IPD [156])

However, the nine principles of IPD [156] are significant to this study: • Mutual Respect and Trust: All participants are committed to working as a team and understand the value of collaboration. • All-round Added Value and Proportional Remuneration: All participants benefit from working in a team. Remuneration is based on the value that the respective participant has contributed. • Collaborative Innovation and Decision-making: Innovations are stimulated by the free exchange of ideas; decisions are made based on the anticipated value for the project, not on the predefined status of a particular participant. Key decisions are evaluated as a team and made unanimously. • Early Involvement of Participants: Decision-making is improved by integrating the knowledge and expertise of the various participants from later phases of the process. • Setting Objectives Early on: Project objectives are developed and decided on collaboratively and at an early stage, and respected by all participants throughout the duration of the project. • Intensified Design: Improved results in the design phase lead to greater efficiency and savings in the execution phase. • Open Communication: Instead of accusations and liability claims, there is a general will within the project to solve problems collectively. Communication therefore needs to be open, direct, and honest.

5  |  ANALYSIS OF INTERNAL APPROACHES 115

• Appropriate Technology: The use of the latest technologies is established at the beginning of the project. Functionality and interoperability are of the utmost importance for communication in this regard. • Organization and Leadership: The project team should have its own organization. The leadership is assumed by the person best suited to this role based on the topic in question. However, since IPD builds on the current structures in the construction industry, it is not capable of effecting the desired radical transformation without certain constraints and parameters. There are several internal contradictions, particularly with regard to the question of responsibilities and the remuneration of services: on the one hand, the separation of responsibilities that has developed over decades is to be broken down, but on the other hand, roles are supposed to remain clearly defined. The repeated appeals for collaboration and trust are undoubtedly correct; but it is questionable whether these can be implemented in an industry that is characterized by project work within limited time periods. IPD supplies the answer to this question by linking the success of each individual to the overall success of the project. However, it does not provide details on how this would look in practice. On the contrary, reference is made to that fact that a cultural shift needs to take place in construction and in the way that participants work together. The most important aspects of IPD [156] are summarized and discussed below. Unlike in traditional project teams, “primary participants” can join forces to form “single purpose entities” (SPE). “Key supporting participants” can be contractually bound either to the SPE or to one of its members. The structural engineer, facade engineer, and MEP planner thus do not form part of the inner core of decision makers. This provision ultimately does not go beyond the current level of integration – these individuals are consulted as specialist engineers and consultants, but the systemic importance of their input is not sufficiently recognized. The importance of the intrinsic motivation that comes from identifying these parties with the team and its goals is not taken into account. In order to install a project team, it appears that a great number of factors must be defined or jointly established at the start. This subsequently becomes very important, since a functioning process structure, strong teamwork, and defined rules for decision-making make it possible to carry out the later steps more efficiently and with fewer errors. However, there are two major problems here: Firstly, the team itself is responsible for developing the structures of its activities – in most cases though, none of the participants have the competencies required to do this; secondly, this work stage can sometimes be more time-intensive than originally anticipated.

PART III 116

Critical View Fundamental difficulties with IPD can be attributed to the organizational form, that is, a project. Financial incentives and legal responsibilities are largely defined by collaboration that takes place within a limited time period. Although IPD does make comprehensive alterations to existing structures – particularly because large components of the decision-making are brought forward from later to earlier phases – it builds on the existing structures without looking holistically at the basic parameters. The individual participants continue to be separated and hierarchized, despite the desire to bring about reform in this area. Interface optimization using digital tools is improved, but the understanding of the motivations of those involved remains largely unaffected by this. IPD detects the correct weaknesses and draws the correct conclusions as far as temporal sequences and decision-making are concerned. The aim is to increase the efficiency of the process as a whole. Costs and time can be saved and risks minimized. Furthermore, the correct measures are taken – within the possibilities currently available – to improve the sustainability of buildings. This is primarily achieved by incorporating expert knowledge at a very early stage and by the improved, more transparent, and more ambitious definition of targets and measuring techniques, for example with regard to energy efficiency or consumption of resources. The quality of the process has risen accordingly, but the application of IPD also brings risks, particularly the danger of stagnation due to an excessive amount of organization and coordination for all participants. The energy required for collaboration can equal or even exceed that used in carrying out the actual project work, which can result in inefficiencies. The other key risk is that innovation will be avoided due to the excessive level of monitoring that all decisions undergo based on measurable parameters. It is not only the creativity of the designers that could suffer as a result, but ultimately also the research and development at construction companies, since efforts are made from the very beginning to avoid any and all uncertainties. And finally, the question must be asked as to why, despite the USA’s having apparently superior process organization, the milestones in sustainability, quality, and innovation are being reached elsewhere.

Insourcing: Architecture as a Brand A solution for this could be found in removing the separation between the individual participants. Comparable to automotive manufacturing, companies could form that bring together the competencies of all participants as a unit under one brand. The complicated and risky processes of forming teams and the associated legal contracts and liability conditions would become unnecessary. At the same time, the motivation of everyone involved could be increased, since the entire team is represented to the outside

5  |  ANALYSIS OF INTERNAL APPROACHES 117

and financial gains are more apparent to all participants. Meanwhile, legal disputes would be minimized – external claims could be dealt with collectively by the brand. A further advantage would be that the team could work together on a long-term basis across multiple projects. This would in turn remove the organizational and administrative as well as sociocultural difficulties associated with the project formation and induction phases. Also connected to this would be a continuous improvement process (CIP) within the company, in which organizational and project-specific experience and findings would be gathered and documented in order to build up a body of knowledge that transcended individual projects. Approaches already exist for supporting this process with software [75]. In the long term, the competencies gained in this way come to be reflected by the brand and thus communicated to the outside world. Market advantages are generated both by the efficiency of the processes and by the quality of the products or buildings, while risks are minimized. It would be possible to break away from the conventional “price-based competition” [308]. The consequence would be a monetary gain that increased the capital stock. The practice of reinvesting these profits in research and development – the basic principle of all producing companies outside the construction industry – could then be adopted within the field of architecture. The innovation potential inherent in the basic conception of buildings would increase, and would shift from a purely component-based level to a conceptual level. If we compare this scenario to that in the automotive industry, it becomes apparent that the design of the end product is the key factor from a customer or user perspective. The design of the process would be a matter for individual companies. They could independently develop their profile and establish their areas of expertise at both process and product level. At the same time, the responsibility of these companies for their products would need to be expanded, so that they would remain responsible during the operation of the building and at its EOL. This would increase the incentive and the obligation for companies to place greater emphasis on these latter phases during the design and execution processes. In automotive construction, it is normal practice to consult the manufacturer on maintenance matters during the use phase; this is a major source of revenue for manufacturers. In this scenario, life cycle assessments would take on a greater significance. The way would be paved for orderly dismantling, proper separation and full, high-quality recycling of the construction materials used. The documentation of the design process and composition of the building would make this possible at a technological level, while the extension of responsibilities would enable it at a legal level. Market advantages would be created in connection with the demand for sustainable development, since the brands’ images will be directly linked to these issues in future.

PART III 118

In view of the separation between services and production that has dominated up until now and that is enshrined in the “Berufsordnung der Freien Architekten” (Professional Code for Independent Architects) [34], this idea appears revolutionary. However, companies and brands of this kind do already exist in the form of general contractors, property developers, and suppliers of prefabricated houses. If these companies would orient their work around fully sustainable principles that encourage innovation as described in the present work, this would enable the development of organizational forms and company structures that have a viable future. It would be particularly important in this regard to ensure that the so-called soft criteria that define the formal and cultural value of the built environment receive equal attention. The current situation in this regard is unsatisfactory, partly due to the fact that design architects whose talents are above average contribute too little in this area. The insourcing outlined above is deemed to be organization-related, since its starting point is not the process directly, but rather the organizational structure of the participants. Risks here include that of an overly pronounced hierarchy developing for control reasons, as well as the risk of increasing coordination and administration work. These problems are in evidence in the history of the automotive industry: while the automotive groups continue to grow, the core brands are getting ever smaller, because more and more elements of the production have been outsourced. Increasing numbers of small to mid-size companies work together to produce an end product that is as innovative as possible. Many suppliers work for multiple brands in parallel, sometimes manufacturing the same parts for different products. The brand takes on responsibility for the overall product in the public domain and, provided the public perception is positive, simultaneously improves the brand image. The brand thus determines the objectives to be achieved, defines the design of the product, and ultimately guarantees the quality of the product through the final assembly process. Although a large part of added value is carried out by third parties, the brand presents itself to the outside world as a unit. The conclusion to be drawn here for process design in the field of construction is that steps that are decisive for quality – regardless of at what point in the process they occur – need to be carried out by a single unit → fig. 10. In line with the automotive industry, this allows a large number of specialists to be integrated across multiple projects via long-term master agreements in a way that puts the focus on partnership and teamwork. Essentially though, the special responsibility inherent in construction means that even in a process model of this kind, values must be adhered to that are shared by the whole of society. The architect, whose competencies are related to promoting the general good, has a particularly large contribution to make here.

5  |  ANALYSIS OF INTERNAL APPROACHES 119

Brand Architect & engineer Contractor

Experts Specialist engineer

Manufacturer

Task

BOL

Supplier

Facility management

Handover

DESIGN

PRODUCTION

Specialist engineer

Modification

USE

Recycler

Dismantling

REPURPOSING

EOL TIME

Fig. 10: Process-based organization

→ Figure 11 provides an overview of the differences identified so far between the product-based organization of the HOAI, the project-based organization of the IPD, and the process-based organization associated with the insourcing approach with reference to their significance for the life cycle of buildings.

5.3 THE DIGITALIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION Parametricism vs. Performance Three-dimensional design tools provide the user with a visual representation of a process that has a mathematical origin. By changing the algorithms, the designer is in a position not only to create significant visual variances, but also to describe the individual results mathematically and precisely within a very short amount of time. Furthermore, the user can work with and influence an unparalleled number of different conditions that can be drawn upon when creating a design. According to Patrik Schumacher [276], a new style is currently developing on the basis of this design method, which he terms parametricism. This development is primarily happening at an academic level, however. Whether parametric design methods will revolutionize the theoretical debate surrounding architecture as radically as did the

PART III 120

optical revolution at the end of the nineteenth century or the invention of central perspective at the close of the seventeenth century [119], remains to be seen. But away from formal architectural questions, it is clear that there is great potential in conceiving the computer as a method and not a tool when it comes to sustainable, innovation-friendly development in construction. In computer-based design processes, the advantage of the unlimited number of iteration steps comes with the recognition that it is not the designer who sets the parameters which define the form; rather, the design comes into being as a result of the requirements that are stipulated for it externally [289]. Following Branko Kolarevic [175], Achim Menges [206] defines the result of this process as “performative architecture.” The function thus defines the form, although the design process has changed significantly [298] since Sullivan’s time thanks to digitalization. However, this has nothing to do with any sort of creative will, but rather is down to the fact that digital technologies enable the relevant physics to be more accurately analyzed and the form to be oriented around it in a more sophisticated way. If the formal language of modernism was still based on rational production methods and the transfer of machine-influenced ways of thinking to people’s everyday lives, the formal language of performative architecture results from the analysis of relationships between the system and the environment, as well as from the application of digital technologies. A service economy model therefore needs to replace the existing assessment criteria of performance, since these belong to the industrial economy [292].

DESIGN

EXECUTION PRODUCT-BASED

PRODUCT-BASED

PRODUCT-BASED

BOL

USE

REPURPOSING

EOL

PREFABRICATION

Cross-project process Fig. 11: Product-, project-, and process-based organization

5  |  ANALYSIS OF INTERNAL APPROACHES 121

Digital Processes Digitalization has had a profound effect on construction. Some digital technologies have given rise to new methods of working that have a significant influence on the process in construction. A distinction is made here between digital design technologies and digital manufacturing technologies [135]. Both of these have a connective character, however. Digital design technologies in particular can enable information from the later phases of a process to be integrated at an early stage. Thus new tools give rise to new methods, to which the design of the process must constantly react. In this context, the German word Technologie (technology) is understood following Günter Ropohl [257] as the sum total of the artifacts that have been artificially developed by humans and serve a profane purpose. Technik (technique), on the other hand, is understood as an organized pattern of action that serves the achievement of an objective. In construction, the tool is the technology which generates or necessitates a design technique or a method. The perpetuation of this procedure across time leads to a process, which is the sum total of a number of actions. The more complicated each of these actions, the more specialized is the knowledge required in order to process information. This results in two developments: firstly, the increase in the number of process participants. As complexity increases, professions become splintered. The consequence is a loss of efficiency due to interface problems. Digitalization has not caused the number of participants to rise, however. Today, rationalized design methods based on digital technologies mean that projects involve less staff than they used to – it is only the heterogeneity of those involved and the number of participating companies that has increased. This creates a communication problem at the interfaces, which leads to the second development: ever larger parts of the process are being transferred to the virtual sphere. Construction is thus currently in a transitional phase, in which computers are in a position to process large volumes of data and complex information, but not yet capable of fully integrating and interpreting this information. A large number of so-called new participants are involved in looking at the weaknesses that exist on a technological level. In the long term, however, it is to be expected that the exponential increase in the efficiency of microchips [149] will mean that computers are able to perform many of the tasks that are currently carried out by experts. External simulation tools are already beginning to be integrated into the architect’s design software. In the long term, this is likely to lead to a design process which has fewer interfaces and is therefore more efficient and ultimately more holistic.

PART III 122

Digital Design Technologies The following digital design technologies, which are presented in detail by Moritz Hauschild and Rüdiger Karzel [135], have a direct impact on the process in construction: • Geographic Information System (GIS) With the help of GIS, comprehensive information on the site and local geography can be used as an integral basis for the design process. In addition, it is becoming less and less possible to plan towns using 2-D planning material – instead, facts that reflect the needs of the inhabitants (water consumption, infrastructure systems, social mix, etc.) need to be analyzed in order to develop sustainable urban concepts [307]. Furthermore, the use of (anonymized) private data (for example via GPS), can provide new information about the “invisible” links between the elements within a town or city [243]. These can subsequently be integrated into GIS. In the future, interactions between an individual construction project and the surrounding town should be analyzed virtually with regard to sustainability factors prior to the start of the project. • Simulation Simulations use algorithms to prepare and process information: simulation “enables the (usually dynamic) course of complex systems and processes to be replicated” [135]. In the mid-term, design and simulation software will continue to move closer together, the user interfaces will be more intuitively designed, and the parameters will be stored in databases (that are invisible to the user). In the long term, a scenario could emerge in which all relevant simulations will be carried out alongside the design process using a single software [191]. “The ideal objective of virtual simulation techniques is an anticipated life cycle analysis of the building in question” [135]. • Parametric Software Parametric software brings three-dimensional elements into relation with one another using rule-based data models. Drawing is replaced by programming, with variants being generated in a very short space of time. The model is continually being adjusted globally to reflect any changes made locally during the design process. It is this associative character that brings forth the true benefits of using digital tools; the relationship between digital and systemic ways of thinking becomes apparent. • Visual Programming In visual programming, the person working on the design does not need to have mastered the language of programming. A graphical, modular structure of stored

5  |  ANALYSIS OF INTERNAL APPROACHES 123

conditions enables application across any number of projects. It is thus first and foremost about sharing knowledge between different projects within the company – projects which may take place at different times and involve different personnel. When parametric modeling of the design happens right at the start of the design process, the content is restructured – formulating the model at the start of the design process becomes more complex. The idea is not that the associative links between the individual parts are only made after the design process as a way of achieving the goal of increased efficiency; rather, these links prompt the creation of a design in the first place. This is therefore not about an additional task in the design process, but rather about more intelligent design – with new tools. In view of the resulting benefits for the subsequent phases, the remuneration should be higher when parametric software is used, not because of the additional work involved in programming, but rather due to the holistic outcome created by the generative approach. • Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) / GAEB IFC is a data format that is governed by ISO/DIS 16739 [162] and is designed to serve as a standardized interface in construction. It optimizes the cooperation of all participants at a technological level. The Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) and in Germany the Gemeinsame Ausschuss Elektronik im Bauwesen or GAEB (Joint Committee on Electronics in Construction) facilitate a direct exchange of information between all software programs – regardless of their provider – that avoids error and loss. These data include geometries and component information as well as data on quantities, material, and costs. • Building Information Modeling (BIM) BIM is less a software and more a method for digital, networked project organization [190]. The objective is an error- and loss-free communication process between all parties involved. Pieces of information are linked up in the form of extensive databases, and visualized using a single three-dimensional model, the virtual building model. Due to the relevance that BIM is set to have in the future, it will be examined in more detail at a later point. • Transparent Project Room The transparent project room is an extension of the BIM approach in which all actual actions are mapped visually; there is thus no need to upload and download data. Mobile processing will be taken a step further with the aid of cloud computing, which will make it possible to virtually develop, communicate, document, and store project-relevant information in future. Additionally, the real-time mapping of reality is thought to have a team-building character [240]. Since the virtual space is

PART III 124

supposed to be a representation of the real space, the former must exhibit the same structures as the latter [135]. It therefore also reflects the services and obligations contained in the actually existing contracts. All actions can be reproduced in the transparent project room; the information flows are likewise transparent and cannot be deleted. This monitoring function is diametrically opposed to the medium’s community-based character and contradicts the notion of team spirit promoted by management. The function is relevant in view of liability and warranty issues, however. In some cases though, the extra monitoring can mean that participants go into a project not wanting to take any risks, and that their motivation suffers. An automated comparison against the schedule (4-D BIM) offers further mechanisms for monitoring, which not only serve to increase the pressure on participants, but also negate the iterative process in construction, despite the use of the latest technologies; innovation may be hindered as a consequence. • Infrastructure Life cycle Management (ILM) Infrastructure Life cycle Management (ILM) enables information to be implemented at an early stage that will be of major importance for the subsequent facility management phase. This – alongside the controlling aspect – is the purpose of what is known as lake knowledge [135]. With respect to sustainability concerns, this integration of both participants and information from later phases of the building’s life cycle should be regarded positively.

5.4 INFORMATION-BASED MODELING Building Information Modeling (BIM) “Building Information Modeling (BIM) is a method of organizing and documenting the design process,” meaning that its “introduction, implementation, and facilitation […] is a management task” [190]. The tool used for this is the virtual or digital building model. The standards at technological level are set by Committees TC 59 and TC 184 of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) [158] and by buildingSMART e.V. [192], and in their entirety are intended to control a unified exchange of data across processes [191]. The Gemeinsame Ausschuss Elektronik im Bauwesen or GAEB (Joint Committee on Electronics in Construction) [116] is concerned with the question of optimizing interfaces; the results are incorporated into the work of the Deutschen Institut für Normung (DIN, German Institute for Standardization). The provision of IT support throughout the construction process is required by the Leitbild Bau [189], but is not yet commonplace in Germany [99].

5  |  ANALYSIS OF INTERNAL APPROACHES 125

Architect

Architect

Auditor

Structural engineer

MEP

Auditor

Structural engineer

MEP

BIM Project management

Authorities Facility management

Construction company

Project management

Authorities Facility management

Construction company

Fig. 12: Conventional and BIM-based information flows [284]

The aim of these working methods is to develop a more efficient value-added process in construction. Consistent IT support throughout the design and construction processes and during the use phase results in benefits for the principal with regard to security of scheduling, costs, and quality [190]. The way this works in practice is that those professionally involved in the design and construction phases integrate their work into a joint virtual building model, from which they in turn take the information that is relevant for them. In this ideal scenario – the “big open BIM” [191] – a digital 3-D model is stored that includes all relevant details and, additionally, all information that cannot be depicted in drawings, such as quantities or manufacturer data for individual elements, as well as the corresponding price information. All pieces of model information are associatively linked to one another, so that when individual changes are made, all of the relevant data is updated accordingly. In this way, digital bids can be submitted during the tendering and contract award process, construction site organization can be carried out, and the actual progress of construction can be continuously mapped. The wide-reaching changes triggered by this method are described by Ray Crotty [67]. When the building is completed, the digital model is handed over to the user or the facility management, so that all of the information will continue to be available in the following phases. This enables the monitoring of follow-up management, maintenance work, and any design services rendered as part of modification or restoration work. One great advantage of this lies in the way that using a model and the associated databases allows the installed materials to be precisely localized and their quantities and properties to be determined. The “big open BIM” method can thus be viewed as the ideal scenario.

PART III 126

Up until now, however, “the systematic and loss-free recording, provision, and longterm storage of relevant building information […] across the building’s entire life cycle” [135] has not changed the underlying process to the degree that one would expect based on the systemic approach. Until BIM becomes more widespread, the potential of this way of working is not likely to be fully recognized; at the moment, only 15 percent of architects in Germany believe BIM to be relevant for the future [99]. This “model-oriented way of working” is in opposition to the “drawing-oriented way of working” [135].

Drawings as a tool of design, construction, communication, and on-site implementation are always representations of geometry. This geometry defines the form of an object. Based on the tool they are using, therefore, the designer is chiefly interested in geometry. Menges [206] puts this another way: “The designer operates […] on the level of phenotypes.” The information that underlies a form but is hidden from the viewer cannot be defined by the designer through drawings. However, the potential of the computer lies in the processing of volumes of information that are beyond the capacity of analog methods – that is, information as it occurs in the genotype of forms. When systems are designed so that their interrelationships define a sphere of possibility for generating a form, the systemic character of the factors that have an influence on architecture can be recorded and integrated. Algorithms enable the linking of pieces of information here, that is, parameters. This has the advantage that optimization processes will no longer be aimed at achieving just one objective. Additionally, despite the increase in both complexity and the number of participants, there is the possibility to record the systemic character of buildings in a holistic way and to design them accordingly. Computational design, as this is known, is bringing back together the design and construction phases that, since Leon Battista Alberti [6], have been drifting apart. The reason for this is the fact that drawings and models, as abstractions and representations of reality, are becoming less important in light of computer-based information processing. They have been used up until now because the human brain needed a simplified representation of the large amount of information in order to process and interpret it. But when programmed accordingly, computers can process not just more extensive information, but also more complex information. Computing [206] could be used in the future to integrate a diverse range of factors related to production and use, and also to the requirements of the EOL and BOL phases, in order to widen the field in which an architectural solution could potentially be found: “Computational design enables […] an understanding of form, material, structure, manufacturing, and production as systemic interrelationships” [135]. The result is a built environment that performs markedly better. These factors therefore need to be expanded with a view to sustainable development.

5  |  ANALYSIS OF INTERNAL APPROACHES 127

Effects on the Process The use of BIM has wide-reaching consequences for the entire process in construction. Some of these are described by Thomas Liebich et al. [190]: • There is a significant rise in the amount of structuring and coordination work. Depending on whether the method involves a building model that is updated at intervals following discussion and agreement among those participating, or one that is continually accessible to all, the additional work may be shifted to other disciplines. • Besides the specialist work on the model, the BIM method also necessitates coordinating and structuring tasks associated with updating the model and ensuring that the data required for this is compatible. A “new central role” [190] is suggested for this, the BIM manager. • Compared with the conventional remuneration based on HOAI, there are also shifts with regard to time. The use of BIM entails additional work, particularly in the very early stages of a project, and these costs must be covered. Since principals are often not willing to do this, there is a substantial risk for the actual implementation of the BIM method in practice. • In principle, there are three options with regard to the amount of remuneration: creating new, specific service scopes which would supplement the existing ones; charging these services as “special services” [145]; and finally, exempting these services completely from binding pricing regulations. The experts [190] argue for the latter, because it would be a way of overcoming the traditional allocation of fees by design area, and the joint, interdisciplinary nature of activities would be reflected accordingly in the contract. However, there are also problems associated with the use of BIM, which are closely interwoven with the apparent advantages: • The word trust is often used to describe the basis for implementing BIM – the process of jointly developing a virtual building model is supposed to strengthen team spirit within construction. Ultimately though, this also means that BIM becomes an instrument of control. Each of the participants’ activities can be recorded using automated records and the progress of the project can be viewed not just looking ahead, but also retrospectively. As part of efforts to optimize and increase the efficiency of the process, the performance of those involved can be analyzed and assessed across particular periods of time. What was originally a function intended

PART III 128

to benefit cost security and adherence to schedules can have a negative influence on the motivation, creativity, and ultimately the innovativeness of those involved. Representatives from the construction industry have had a key role in developing and promoting BIM [264]. It has its origins not in the early phase of a project, but rather has grown out of a desire to carry out construction work in a manner that is as fast and fault-free as possible. To this end, it is an advantage if all sections of construction can be trialed in advance without using up materials, thus saving on the associated time and costs. At the beginning of the design process, when the aim is to develop an appropriate architectural solution for the task at hand using various concepts and design ideas, the method is less useful; two reasons for this are the precision that the technology demands of the designer, and the lack of sufficient information. • Conversely, there is the danger of systematization. Instead of uncovering the systemic interconnections on a project-specific basis and allowing the momentum of the project to continuously prompt new developments, continued efforts to achieve efficiency at process level by way of systemization could impact negatively on innovation in future. Similar to the way in which today’s development plans based on public construction law do not take into account new building geometries, BIM software could in the future automatically provide a warning when an architect’s creative design proposal would initially result in inefficiencies, either because the required components (for instance, window profiles) are not available on the market or because they are not stored in the system. Particularly in the early design phases, in which many aspects are still being developed and thus are very undefined (and cannot be otherwise), this could have an inhibiting influence on the project and on Baukultur in general. • For a designer embarking on a project, a knowledge of all quantifiable parameters that will apply in later phases can be inhibiting. Furthermore, simulations used in the early design phase to map the implications for subsequent phases are generally based on empirical values. This means that a new design is assessed using data-bases from already existing buildings. But these have undergone processes based on the parameters that applied at the time. Today, the industrial processes of modernism continue to be responsible for the majority of the forms that make up the built environment, since every design is assessed according to its economic viability. Since board materials in large quantities have thus far been most cost-effective industrially, many designs are adapted to reflect this. Curves are made into triangles, complex geometries are approximated and changed to simpler ones in order to be able to install a larger number of identical parts. Reverse mechanisms of the

5  |  ANALYSIS OF INTERNAL APPROACHES 129

type that can be observed within the digitalization process are prevented. On the other hand, the supposed genius (or even naïveté) of the designer, as well as nonstandardized designs, lead time and again to innovations in production. Because the demand for nonstandardized forms has risen in recent years, the construction sector has had to adapt its methods and technologies in order to turn computergenerated forms into reality. The provision of extensive knowledge regarding the potential consequences of a decision in the early design phases can serve to increase efficiency, but this sometimes means accepting a process that is ineffective because it inhibits innovation. Gerhard Matzig [204] provides an example of this in the context of construction: “When the winner of the architecture competition for the site of the [1972 Munich Olympics] was decided […], nobody knew whether it would be possible to build an undulating roof landscape, how long it would take, how durable the whole thing would be, or how much it would ultimately cost. In other words: there were many unanswered questions. But the project went ahead anyway. […] Today […], the Olympic Stadium would not get built.” • Furthermore, using simulation software at an early stage can lead to conflicting objectives: the software-based representation of the consequences of various scenarios suggests that there is clear choice. But the more information that is available at the start of the design process, the more numerous the conflicting objectives. In the interests of sustainability, therefore, the objective when designing should not be optimization with regard to just one parameter, but rather the optimization of a design with regard to as many key parameters as possible. In construction, however, there is always an overlap between hard and soft factors. Because of simulations, there is a risk of soft factors being treated as less important than hard factors in the future – after all, weighing up nonquantifiable factors ultimately comes down to a human decision. • An issue with the “big open BIM” is that it is undergoing constant modification because participants have continual access to it. By having access to the model and being able to modify it independently, participants may not only offer suboptimal solutions, but may also introduce errors into the model. The method of working up until now, in which variants are exchanged only between the respective participants in the form of drawings and sketches created for the purpose, has the advantage that the architect initially checks the individual variants, and may modify their design in the process – a step that the specialist engineer is not able to carry out. The idea proposed in the literature [190] [191] that a BIM manager could perform this task without any specialist knowledge of the material appears questionable in reality.

PART III 130

It becomes apparent why most examples in which BIM has been successfully deployed so far were either highly standardized buildings using system-based construction or were projects in which the method was not introduced until the tendering and contract award phase. The first of these points to the aforementioned problems of further systematization in line with a component-centered way of thinking and is opposed to a systemic approach; the latter does not fully exploit the potential of BIM, since it is used too late on in the process, and primarily with the aim of saving time and money at the construction site. Methods comparable to BIM exist in the automotive industry: simultaneous engineering and the digital factory, in which simulations are already being created at the design stage to demonstrate how individual elements and the overall product need to be manufactured in order to ensure efficient production. The biggest difference between the automotive industry and construction lies in the fact that in automotive manufacturing, the very large numbers of units involved make it possible to predict the extent to which an initially inefficient production process can be financially justified by a design that promises an increased turnover. For example, a completely new factory with an entirely altered production line can be profitable despite the substantial investment required, provided that it enables the manufacturer to bring a product onto the market that gives it a major competitive advantage. This situation does not exist in construction. A consequence of the virtual simulation of these processes may therefore be that, prior to construction, the efficiency of the subsequent building process is optimized with regard to costs, time, and quality to such a degree that standardization continues to increase rather than decrease. The result could be a decline in the use of special architectural solutions, which would lower the quality not just of individual buildings, but of entire cities. When using BIM, it is therefore critical that, at the same time as rethinking the process, we recognize that today’s industrially influenced, mechanistic way of thinking cannot offer solutions to the problems of tomorrow. Instead, we need to develop and apply new, systemic approaches shaped by digitalization.

BIM as a Tool for Sustainability Working with a BIM model both requires and generates a holistic approach. Unlike in traditional design methods, the virtual building model is not purely a representation of the building to be constructed, but rather is a simulated anticipation of reality. This is because it is not the separately developed representative drawings and calculations that, when taken as a whole, represent the information for the building to be construct-

5  |  ANALYSIS OF INTERNAL APPROACHES 131

ed, but rather the reverse: all relevant individual pieces of information can be taken from a single model. The 3-D visualization of the virtual building model is only one of several forms of displaying the information in question, which is stored interdependently in databases: “The geometry of a building represents only a small percentage of the total body of useful information […]” [284]. The virtual miniature of a physical building is thus not so much a model of the building, but rather a mapping of the model that describes it. According to general model theory [291], a model is a reduction of reality, as well as an abstract or real mapping of it. By definition therefore, a model captures only those attributes of the original that appear relevant to the creator of the model. One result of this is the fact that models always have to be interpreted. In order to avoid sources of error when doing so, creating and applying a model is only effective when the model is valid (in that it meets the specification) [84]. Building Information Modeling (BIM) is both descriptive and prescriptive, in that it documents information, while at the same time causes new information to emerge when the model is created. The English term modeling translates into German as both Modellieren and Modellbildung [184]. While the first of these refers to describing the process of construction using a scale model, be it physical or digital, the latter implies the recognition, description, and anticipation of reality [291]. The mapping of the object of investigation is thus not only the mapping of the individual components, but also the mapping of their interconnections. Altogether, a model can be used to understand a system. Since both the building as a product and construction as a process are systems, BIM describes both the virtual building model and the actual activity of modeling information. Abstraction is key in both cases, since models by definition involve abstraction. With digital data processing becoming increasingly powerful, simulation and reality are coming ever closer together. Nonetheless, because the reality is so complex, a virtual building model is still an abstraction. Some pieces of information are known at the time of modeling, others are not. The total amount of information is constantly increasing during the model creation process. The resulting changes to the individual components and the consequent changes to the relationships between them are constantly being updated. In this way, the effects of one decision on one or more other decisions become apparent without any resources being consumed. Here, too, the boundary between product and process is broken down: both the information pertaining to the building and the factors that circumscribe a project are recorded in the model. Since this is parametrically constructed, information that influences the process can have a direct impact on the product and vice versa.

PART III 132

Eddy Krygiel and Bradley Nies [181] categorize models according to phases and the need for information, whereby a transfer of data between categories is possible in both directions (see also the classification according to [197]): • Integrated Design Model: during design phase / shared by designer and specialist engineer/designer; • Construction Planning Model: during construction phase / shared by construction company and subcontractors; • Facilities Management Model: during use phase / shared by principal and operator. The Integrated Design Model can be transferred to specific software programs for energy or structural design, for example. Additionally, precise GIS data can be used as the basis for the design. And in the future, it will be possible to integrate expanded information for determining environmental sustainability. It will thus be possible to automatically generate data, for example for creating an energy certificate. Furthermore, sustainability certification as a whole can be linked to a model of this kind. The integration of material data sheets provide a simplified overview of costs and environmental impact. The Construction Planning Model facilitates the planning of the entire construction sequence. This logistical component has been implemented in the automotive industry since the 1990s by means of the “digital factory.” Its equivalent in construction thus far has been the “digital construction site” [42] (see also [126]). The handover of the Facilities Management Model to the operator not only optimizes dayto-day organization during the use phase, but also enables the ongoing documentation of modifications, so that an up-to-date model of the building is available at EOL.

Critical View For all the advantages offered by BIM, it is clear that the use of a method alone is no guarantee of success. There is a need to master the techniques involved, and this plays an especially important role in the case of software applications, since the quality of the output is directly dependent on the quality of the input; the person who sets up the model, inputs the relevant data, and defines the links has a correspondingly large influence. The setting of parameters is just as important here as the available range of data. Furthermore, although the three-part model approach extends the time frame of the process, it still does not equate to a holistic approach, since the model-related communication generally takes place at a point where significant potential can no longer be used. Moreover, there continue to be boundaries between projects, which make it more difficult to use the knowledge gained in one project as a basis for subsequent projects; further problems include the need to put together a new project team each time, and the fact that responsibilities only last for a limited period of time. There is therefore cur-

5  |  ANALYSIS OF INTERNAL APPROACHES 133

rently a fragmentation not just in the communication of data, but also with regard to the interpersonal communication between individual specialists. As part of their training, those involved need to be taught to have an understanding of the various roles, competencies, objectives, and positions that transcends individual projects, as well as a genuine interest in – and respect for – the work of their colleagues. The task of putting together a new team for each new project represents a further obstacle: different personalities need to harmonize with one another, and different ways of working, or different business processes, need to be coordinated. Finally, because the principal is free to make decisions as they see fit, there is a risk that not all of the specialists required to achieve the desired goal will be appointed. Depending on the values defined by the client, important protagonists may be missing. The aforementioned aspects are examples of how the choice of method alone – for example BIM – does not make an approach holistic in the way that it needs to be in order to achieve sustainable development in construction.

PART III 134

6  |  ANALYSIS OF EXTERNAL APPROACHES

This section contains an analysis of processes and parameters in related disciplines, and subsequently uses this to make selective recommendations for action for the construction industry of tomorrow. Two aspects will be emphasized in particular: firstly, drivers of innovation at both product and process level; and secondly, the structure of cooperation among the parties involved in the product creation process, as well as the influence that the technologies applied have on the process. To conclude the study, there is a critical discussion of the extent to which the findings are transferable and of how they could be adapted for construction.

6.1 EVOLUTION OF AUTOMOTIVE MANUFACTURING Ever since it began, automotive manufacturing has served as a model for architecture [167] (see also [185]), due to the fact that its process structures have similarities to those in

construction, but its innovation potential is superior. However, comparisons at product level can only be made to a very limited degree, due to the difference between mass and one-off production, and the difference in scale between vehicles and buildings. In the following, the development of automotive manufacturing will be examined solely in terms of the process used and the applicable basic conditions. → Figure 13 shows a summary of the most important evolutionary steps and in particular their causes, contexts, and effects. The latest developments in the context of demands for sustainable development and digitalization are outlined using examples, in order to draw conclusions that are relevant for the process in construction.

From Mass Production to Divisionalization The introduction of the assembly line in production by Henry Ford in 1913 represents the first revolutionary step in the story of automotive manufacturing. Time savings of almost 90 percent led to reduced costs and consequently to higher demand [152]. However, Taylorization, as it is known, involved resources’ being consumed to a degree that was previously unheard of. Additionally, the fragmentation of the process meant that a delay at just one point had a negative impact on the entire process. To avoid errors of this kind, there was an excessive level of monitoring and surveillance. We can observe parallels to the processes used in construction today, more than 100 years later.

MERCEDES-BENZ

FORD

GM

TOYOTA

BMW

AUDI

Combustion engine Automobile

Assembly line Vertical integration

Divisionalization Taylorization

Outsourcing Lean management

Digital Car Project

Strategy Innovations

1886

1913

1950

1982

138

heute

MOBILITY

SCALE

INDIVIDUALITY

QUALITY

EFFICIENCY

Product Drive

Production Costs

Management Marketing

Management Production

Individualization Company Process Drive

Fig. 13: Evolution in automotive manufacturing (following [152], expanded)

PART III

1995

SUSTAINABILITY

Changing values in society at the start of the second half of the twentieth century meant that the uniform products offered by Ford could no longer satisfy the demands of the populace. General Motors (GM) transferred the specialization strategy from production to management and achieved a diversification of products, which went hand in hand with a new line of business: for the first time, an automotive manufacturer offered loans to its customers [152]. This way of proceeding had a systemic character: what appear to be additional costs in production can ultimately be turned into an advantage. Through divisionalization and by offering individualized products, GM opened up the field of marketing. Meanwhile, the division of labor at management level led to efficiency increases and to the creation of specialized departments. By founding its own bank, the company not only created a new source of revenue, but also encouraged customer loyalty – and thus achieved a strategic competitive advantage.

From Taylorization to the Platform Principle In the 1980s Toyota developed a new form of process-oriented organization, namely the Toyota Production System (TPS). This process, which prioritized maximum customer satisfaction over maximum production, once again had its origins in the prevailing conditions within society at the time [152]: the boom in demand witnessed in the postwar era was on the wane; globalization had created worldwide competition. Business processes therefore needed to be adapted to continually changing and increasingly individualized customer requirements. TPS was based on the Japanese principle of kaizen. Here, “value creation is comprehended as a unit […] and all relevant stages [are] improved collectively by all parties involved” [152]; on the one hand, specialization was used as a means of achieving innovation; on the other hand, outsourcing and partnering led to an increase in efficiency. More specifically, the success of lean management, which is based on the principles above, was achieved by introducing the following methods: as part of keiretsu, long-term master agreements were entered into with suppliers, which gave the latter more responsibility and more input into the overall product. Kanban, meanwhile, refers to how the parts within a production process are moved on to the respective worker only when he or she requests them, in order to avoid the jams that can occur in assembly line production. At the same time, workers take on more than one work step: they are integrated into a so-called nest, which independently produces a larger system and then transfers this to the main production [152]. Jidoka is an optimization method in which the faults that arise in production are not discovered only during the final check – that is, at the point when remedying them is difficult and expensive – but rather at an earlier juncture. Codetermination by those involved is an important aspect for developing a joint product. Poka yoka is an instru-

6  |  ANALYSIS OF EXTERNAL APPROACHES 139

ment designed to help avoid complexity in order to be able to recognize faults. These measures are also carried out by suppliers, thus facilitating long-term partnerships. Suppliers, which generally tend to be smaller companies, benefit from the management know-how of a large corporation, which is why there is a strong sense of loyalty among the partners [152]. Just-in-time (JIT) and just-in-sequence (JIS) mean that parts are only delivered to the required location at the time that they are needed. The complexity of logistics increases, and the work of coordination assumes a key role. Since large quantities of identical vehicles were no longer being produced (make-to-stock or push strategy), the production process underwent outsourcing, the goal being rationalization. This means that individual processes that can be identified as a unit are taken out of the actual production flow and moved to another location. Individual parts are joined together by the supplier to form components, which are delivered using the just-in-time principle (make-to-order or pull strategy). The tools of process optimization at management level have a direct impact at production level. Conversely, lean production leads to lean management – the two principles are closely linked. One result of this is what is known as the platform principle. This is a means of achieving standardization in order to save costs in production and to manage the complexity generated by outsourcing as well as to minimize the risk of mistakes arising from the coordination between participants. In this process, components that are not visible to the customer are standardized across products and models, and combined as a base group. In this way, vehicles that differ enormously in their appearance, performance, and purchase price can be manufactured on the same platform. The capital saved in areas that are not visible is used to increase the individualization of products: design-relevant components can be more strongly differentiated; cooperation is possible on a global scale and across markets because the interfaces are always the same. It is thus not the components that are standardized, but rather the interfaces between them, while the design of the individual components can vary widely. Today’s wide range of variants in automotive manufacturing thus has its origins in individualized customer requirements, which were reflected in corresponding management processes and, in turn, in suitable manufacturing processes, ultimately leading to the desired product variety.

From the Classical to the Digital Process While the starting points for Taylorization in production (assembly line) and kaizen were found in management (lean management), digitalization began in the design process. This transformation process is illustrated below using the example of BMW.

PART III 140

The goal of BMW’s Digital Car Project was to shorten the product development process by 50 percent [303]. The process that was in place at the start will be referred to below as the classical process, while the process that had developed by the end is called the digital process. Although there is no conclusive proof that this project was implemented at BMW in the manner described by the literature [303], its intriguing approaches make it a useful theoretical model. Taking this as a basis, the key changes will be outlined below. • “Capability-building Phase” Replaces the Initial Definition of Objectives While in the classical process, the first step was to set the objectives for a new product, the initial phase of the digital process is characterized by an identification of objectives [303]. Similar to architecture, the form is not designed as such; rather, the given circumstances are examined until a form emerges that is optimal for the task in question [289]. However, the identification of objectives in automotive manufacturing takes the form of a comprehensive analysis based on multiple criteria. The key point about this approach is that the initial phase is extended and at the same time left open. It is a matter of building up a body of knowledge, not of the supposedly ingenious idea of one individual. This first stage thus takes up far more time than in the classical process, despite the goal of cutting the overall process duration in half. The identification of objectives in the capability-building phase therefore runs in parallel to the design stages as they get under way. Thus the second key difference to the classical process becomes apparent: all process participants contribute their know-how and ideas in order to define the objectives collectively. As a consequence, there is a wider field in which potential solutions can be found and a broader basis for decision-making, and aspects can be integrated that were previously not taken into account. The participation of all parties strengthens team spirit and increases intrinsic motivation for all those involved. Furthermore, the parallel nature of activities makes it possible to continue adapting the definition of objectives to new knowledge that emerges – the objective is thus no longer fixed. • Formulating a Vision Prior to Establishing Objectives About halfway through the process of identifying objectives, a vision is defined [303]. This defines a comprehensive picture of that which the project should realize in the long term. In particular, the vision encapsulates the image or emotional value that the vehicle should have. This is primarily about values that cannot be directly expressed by the objectives set in a product development context. For the customer, this vision is often what makes a product stand out from the competition and ultimately leads to their decision to purchase. Likewise, the vision forges a link to the company’s values and embeds the product in its long-term strategic framework. Last but not least, the vision consolidates the objectives that are al-

6  |  ANALYSIS OF EXTERNAL APPROACHES 141

ready in development, so that these do not point in opposite directions later. It is thus a powerful instrument that serves to create an identity – both internally and externally. The team can continue to orient itself around the vision in decision-making procedures throughout the entire process. • Concept Phase Becomes Less Important The classical process did not involve creating a vision, and the definition of objectives played a subordinate role in terms of the time it was allotted, while the concept phase took place in parallel to the definition of the product range’s characteristics and equipment. In the digital process, the concept phase takes up a much shorter period of time [303]. This means that the concept is largely something project-specific and, because it has less relevance for other projects, is given less emphasis in the overall process. The fact that a process can be repeated in other projects, and the growth in knowledge that is anticipated to result from this, are considered more important than the product itself. Styling, on the other hand, begins when the vision is defined and before the concept has been established, meaning that the concept is identified on the basis of already developed designs [303]. With regard to architectural design, it can sometimes be observed that strong concepts are implemented in a poor-quality manner; likewise, good-quality architecture can result from concepts that themselves are not particularly strong. It is only once the design exists that a definitive judgment can be made on an architectural concept – because it is only in the implementation that a concept either works or does not work. It can therefore be advantageous to begin developing designs at an early stage. • Digital Simulation in Place of Physical Tests Probably the best-known difference between the classical and digital processes is the shift of almost all physical tests into the virtual realm. Where models were once built by hand right up to a 1:1 scale in order to test appearance and function, and a minimum of two fully functional prototypes were constructed, the digital process uses virtual models and simulations [303]. All relevant characteristics of a vehicle are digitally simulated, to the extent that even the production is trialed virtually using a “digital factory.” While digital assembly methods are used to simulate the assembly of a vehicle, Design for Disassembly (DFD) is a way of virtually anticipating the disassembly process at the end of a vehicle’s useful life. In addition, there are the usual methods that digitally test aspects such as driving characteristics or aerodynamics.

PART III 142

• Errors as Negative Feedback for the Purposes of Prevention Because all development steps and tests take place in the virtual sphere, errors during the process result in almost no delays or additional costs. They are therefore much more readily accepted, and even welcomed. Scoping out the limits of what is feasible is much more straightforward when using digital tools, for the reasons outlined above. This leads to a large number of errors, which in turn trigger iteration loops, helping the project to move closer toward the desired objective. This evolutionary process, parts of which can be automated using algorithms, yields great optimization potential.

From Process to Strategy Level The scarcity of resources is a key issue in the company strategies of today’s automotive groups. A holistic approach that takes into account the entire life cycle of a vehicle therefore forms the basis of the product development process. An example of how a company reacts to this challenge is provided by the Audi Strategie 2020 [182]: “We define innovation” is a mission that aims to structure the value-added process in such a way that the product it produces is innovative overall. The central principle of the current product portfolio is lightweight construction, a method designed to conserve resources at every stage in the product life cycle. In order to achieve this, specialists in the areas of development and production work closely together right from the beginning of the project. On the one hand, the results are recognizable in the product: the topology of individual components follows the example of nature. For example, the A-pillar is an aluminum die-cast part in which the material is solidified in areas that will be subjected to more strain, and conserved in areas where there will be less strain [182] – likewise, the structure of the extruded profiles of the sills is based on bone structure, whereby the architecture of the cancellous bone reflects the prevailing force trajectories [304]. This principle of lightweight construction [289] is increasingly being enhanced through the use of a diverse range of materials within components of this type. These enable the specific forces to which a component will be subjected to be efficiently absorbed and transferred via the specific properties of individual materials. This integrating construction method [289] brings a number of advantages: the number of connections is minimized, there are fewer components, and there is increased precision during assembly. This in turn has a significant impact on the planning of production: during the product development process, production is also planned in great detail. In some cases, this means that the required production systems are newly designed, planned, and implemented using the “factory emergence process” [182]; the manufacture of the vehicle is

6  |  ANALYSIS OF EXTERNAL APPROACHES 143

initially simulated virtually. The activities carried out by humans in this regard may be a component of the digital data control model. This is a continuous data set which supports the entire process and integrates all relevant information [182]. It facilitates the internal communication of technically relevant and design-related aspects. An extra visualization step using 2-D images, as is traditional in architecture, is no longer necessary. This parallel development of product design and production planning → fig. 14 enables the objective of conserving resources to be applied to the latter as well as to the former. In this way, the process of production is the subject of ongoing research and optimization, with the goal of minimizing the resources required to create the product. Tools are designed so as to minimize weight, and the amount of water required to produce a vehicle is documented with a high level of precision. While in 1988, 5 cubic meters were required per vehicle at Audi, this figure had been reduced to 1 cubic meter by 2010 – and the water recirculation rate today is 97 percent [182]. In order to continue improving, the innovations in the automotive industry and the processes which produce them are continuously monitored. In this way, the industry operates a form of innovation and competency management that is geared toward realizing the overall strategy, and is thus long-term in nature.

6.2 SYNERGY EFFECTS IN RELATED DISCIPLINES Mobile and Immobile Construction The focus within the automotive industry on interfaces and interactions at both the product and process levels is a key aspect of its innovativeness. In the coming years, however, new developments in automotive manufacturing will primarily take place in two other areas: firstly, drives, and secondly, the task of connecting vehicles with one another and with their environment [182]. If the first of these continues to move in the direction of electromobility, this will generate the potential for synergy effects between immobile and mobile construction: since both products will now be dependent on electricity, the energy flows can be controlled user-specifically using smart grids. Already today, we want buildings that not only generate enough energy to fulfill their own requirements, but also supply energy for emissions-free vehicles [286]. A prototype for a concept of this kind is the Aktivhaus B10 [140] in the Weißenhofsiedlung in Stuttgart: it generates locally 200 percent of the energy that it requires; the surplus is used to power electric vehicles and to cover a portion of the energy requirements of the neighboring Le Corbusier building. This approach will be “an important building block for the transition to renewable energy” [224].

PART III 144

Project manager

Architect Engineers

Trades Construction companies Construction equipment

Planning the design process

Management

Designers Engineers

Design Building construction

Automotive construction

Production

Suppliers Factory

Producing the production process

Robotics

Planning the production process

Fig. 14: Parallel product design and production planning

It would be possible to carry out a detailed comparison of the design and construction processes in the automotive industry and those in construction. Knowledge transfer between the two fields opens up great potential. This may also have an effect on the labor market: by shifting the focus of automotive manufacturing to electric drives, the industry is going to be confronted with restructuring processes. Highly qualified professionals could switch to the field of construction, where they could use their knowhow to drive forward the technological aspects of sustainable development.

Influence of Shipbuilding Currently, it is often not possible for construction companies in the classical mold to realize new formal languages based on digital design technologies, because they lack the know-how and the relevant technology. A small – but rapidly rising – number of buildings are therefore constructed using production techniques that have their origins in shipbuilding. An example of this is the Link Bridge of the Yas Marina Hotels in Abu Dhabi [60]. It was created using the block construction principle commonly used in shipbuilding [38] and illustrates how important the parameters are in production and logistics. Unlike in construction, the work steps in shipbuilding are carried out in parallel – depending on the size of the ship – in prefabricated sections or blocks [38]. According to David Eyres and George Bruce [101], 85–90 percent of all wiring, installations, and other technical equipment is implemented under clean factory conditions; the interior

6  |  ANALYSIS OF EXTERNAL APPROACHES 145

equipment can also be integrated into the sections by suppliers in the form of modules (the forms of which do not have to be standardized), so that the largest ships in the world today comprise only 10–15 of these “mega-blocks” [301]. The scale-based gradation of prefabrication increases efficiency in production considerably: large container ships have building times of less than seven months but still manage to have tolerances of only +/-5 mm [186]. A similar breakdown of buildings into blocks, sections, and modules, which are oriented around neither the grouping of floor-wall-ceiling, nor the hierarchy of structure, facade, and interior work, would represent a completely new approach for construction. An end to the linearity of the process, the integration of disciplines and trades right from the beginning of the process, and the precision of design and execution achieved using digital methods would all change the entire value-added process and the existing parameters significantly. The aforementioned step-wise disassembly processes in reverse order also appear feasible in this context. Applying these principles and the related ways of thinking to the process in construction therefore promises much greater innovation potential than merely adapting those production substeps that lead to a new formal language in the built environment.

6.3 DERIVING INSIGHTS Societal Parameters The development steps described above arose principally due to the interaction of a number of external parameters. Mathias Hüttenrauch and Markus Baum [152] illustrate this using a “model for external environmental analysis” (PESTE analysis), in which the political, economic, sociological, technological, and environmental changes are analyzed. According to this, the success of the Ford Motor Company was based not only on the technical innovation of assembly line production and the price reductions that resulted from standardization. Rather, these were consequences of the First World War, in the wake of which there was demand for a previously unknown quantity of goods. At the same time, the adverse situation in the US labor market meant that workers could be enticed with high wages that were being heavily subsidized by the government. Reducing the acquisition costs created strong incentives for customers. What is more, Ford propagated the idea of the automobile as something that was essential to day-today life. The origin of individual mass mobility thus lies in the financial incentives that presented themselves to only a small number of companies.

PART III 146

The conditions under which the Toyota Production System emerged were entirely different: in the years following the Second World War, Japan had to deal with an ongoing scarcity of resources; at the same time, unions were demanding guarantees of life-long employment. The high personnel costs had to be compensated for by a prudent use of resources and an ongoing improvement of the process. The just-in-time process has its origins in the high costs of warehouse facilities. The resulting pull strategy represents the interface to the altered customer requirements. Quantity is replaced by quality. This could only be achieved by increasing the independence of suppliers, which then led to problems when bringing components together, since the complexity of coordination had increased due to the distances involved (both spatially and in terms of expertise) – thus the platform principle came into being. This brought with it an increase in outsourcing and supply chain management. The exchange of knowledge between organizations led to the principle of open innovation. It was not until the 1990s that environmental factors began to receive more attention. Today they dominate not only the transformation processes in mobile construction, but also those in immobile construction. The influence of changing requirements in construction can be divided into three segments according to Alexander Rieck [250]: (1) technology and processes; (2) demand and construction costs; and (3) existing buildings and modernization. According to the study, the last two aspects will become less important over the long term – as of 2020, the sector “technology and processes,” which historically was considered to be less significant, will be more important than the other two sectors put together and will continue to increase exponentially. Systematizing the Conclusions Drawn In summary, we can come to the following conclusions based on the analysis above: • Outsourcing leads to competitiveness. The focus of the parties involved is on the structure of interfaces at the design and production levels. The platform principle is a product innovation that is based on management innovations. • Intrinsic motivation is more effective than extrinsic motivation. When more responsibility is handed over to the specialists involved, there is an (intrinsic) motivation that arises from the activity itself, which ultimately produces a better result than would be achieved by higher financial (extrinsic) incentives.

6  |  ANALYSIS OF EXTERNAL APPROACHES 147

• Long-term master agreements provide stability. Thanks to the continuous cooperation and interdependence between the respective parties, both the quality of the products and the innovation potential increase. The loss of efficiency that can result from team-forming processes and the coordination of different business processes is avoided. • Management innovations lead to product innovations. Product innovations are generally the result of innovations at process level. These have their origin in external parameters (such as society), which have a considerable influence on them. • Initial cooperation of design, construction, and production. Because all participants in the entire value chain are involved at an early stage, parameters and risks can be recognized in the early project phases. The designs are adapted accordingly and factor in BOL- and EOL-related aspects. • Commitment to partnership engenders team spirit. Thanks to a common vision and the brand image, each individual participant identifies with the overall system. • Open innovation builds a collective body of knowledge from project to project. The principle of open innovation helps to gain market advantages over competitors. Specific expertise is acquired by specialists and is continuously shared across disciplines and project boundaries. • Customer requirements define the product range. Ongoing analysis of demand leads to products that are constantly changing and being oriented to the needs of society. The process design is oriented retroactively to the products. • Coupled process innovation provokes demand. Since society does not have any insight into the technological possibilities available to the manufacturer, future demand is generated by externalizing certain aspects of new developments (for instance, by using prototypes). Innovations that are not visible are visualized through the design. • Legal regulations create pressure to innovate. As demonstrated by the example of Directive 2000/53/EC [247], legal regulations on vehicle recycling have provided a major impetus for innovation within the industry.

PART III 148

• BOL and EOL phases play a decisive role. In the context of sustainable development, BOL and EOL are particularly significant. An additional reason to focus on these phases is the positive impact they can have on the image of the brand as a whole. This has given rise to methods such as Design for Disassembly, the further development of automation, and increased services associated with take-back guarantees (see also International Dismantling Information System (IDIS) [157]). • Simulations replace models and prototypes. The increasing anticipation of reality using digital techniques serves to conserve resources, save time, and develop a wider range of variants than ever before. The latter leads to a growth in knowledge, and ultimately to a better end product. • Design of production facilities is carried out in parallel to product development. Product design does not necessarily have to be based on the existing technologies available in the production facilities. On the contrary, the latter can be developed in parallel to the product based on the specific requirements of said product. Product innovations can thus encourage innovation in the technologies and processes of production. • Principles of platforms, identical parts, and modularization. With suppliers located throughout the world, coordination and communication take on a key role in the process. In order to make interfaces as efficient and error-free as possible, product-defining techniques are developed that standardize not the individual parts, but rather the interfaces. The visible individualization thus tends to increase, as does the “invisible” standardization. • Efficiency will be replaced by effectiveness in future. Currently, companies are focusing on continuing to increase the variety of models and designs, and handling resources and energy more efficiently. Processes, however, already appear to be close to peak efficiency. The next big evolutionary step is expected to take place at product level: the combustion engine will have to be replaced by a more sustainable drive type (such as electric).



6  |  ANALYSIS OF EXTERNAL APPROACHES 149

6.4 CONCLUSIONS FOR THE PROCESS IN CONSTRUCTION Possibilities for Transferring Concepts Previous studies on the value-added process in automotive manufacturing with regard to how it could be applied to construction have focused primarily on manufacturing and production. Even if not all aspects are transferable, theoretical comparisons can be drawn in terms of the organization of the overall process, and particularly with regard to the tools and methods used in design. The analysis thus reveals aspects which are highly relevant for the process in construction: • The focus on the initial work stages should be prioritized in future. A comprehensive process of identifying objectives that emerges from an interdisciplinary and collaborative project initiation phase not only shapes the future course of the project within the team, but also lays the foundations for a sustainable and innovative building. The longer this phase lasts and the more openly and flexibly the vision and objectives are defined, the more successful the subsequent implementation will be. This is likely to produce significant potential for managing the project, which will in turn also save time and costs across the building’s life cycle. • Already during these initial phases, designs exploring different variants should be developed and presented with the help of digital drawings and models. This approach aids the decision-making process, since it enables the advantages and disadvantages of individual ideas to be more clearly visualized and theoretical considerations to be translated to an architectural context. This would appear to be a suitable tool for the architect to clearly illustrate qualitative advantages and disadvantages, thus forming a counterbalance to the lines of argument put forward by other project participants, which are generally based on quantities. The additional work involved in developing variants and running through various iterations ultimately improves the quality of the end product. This activity should be remunerated in a way that is commensurate with its importance. • As in the automotive industry, there should be ongoing development of digital technologies. BIM represents an important tool; however, digital building models need to be protected from increasing standardization and appropriation by product manufacturers. This will ensure that they are a suitable technology for designers too, allowing them to develop their creative ideas right from the start of the process. Restrictions in this regard are undesirable in light of the requirement for innovation in construction. The important thing is that these new services are not just performed by one project participant, but rather that multiple project partners work in parallel on different variants, as in the automotive industry. Just as the

PART III 150

department for the crash performance of vehicles proposes solutions to designers, and production must react accordingly, the latter can also supply important impulses for adapting the design or crash performance. All project participants are expected to be open to criticism and suggestions from third parties, and to demonstrate initiative and creativity. • If a similarly positive way of dealing with mistakes and errors were to become established in the design and planning of construction, the current limits of what is feasible could be surpassed. We now have the possibility of using digital technologies to develop a larger number of variants at shorter intervals without the need for cost- and resource-intensive processes, and the opportunity to weigh these up against each other. This not only leads to a broader understanding of the specific task to be solved, but also contributes to the wealth of experience of each individual participant. This becomes apparent in the form of an overarching learning process, which increases the overall body of knowledge across multiple projects. In summary, we can say that the use of digital technologies within automotive design has transformed the entire value-added process. Digital techniques have been developed alongside the digital technologies, and these converge to create a digital process. The transformation of the process additionally leads to a more pronounced increase in knowledge that transcends the limited durations of individual projects. According to Chris Bangle [21], the product can be understood as an experiment in improving the process with regard to the products of the future: “A successful design is not characterized by the ability to create a brief sensation, but by the influence it exerts on subsequent designs in the years that follow.” The aforementioned development steps that have taken place in automotive manufacturing are still in the early stages within the field of construction. The concepts of module, system, and element, as well as those of standardization and industrialization, are understood in different ways, and negative associations with them are widespread in construction. As described above, as a consequence of changing consumer expectations, the automobile is no longer a mass-produced, uniformly designed product in the way that it was around the middle of the last century. The argument often heard from critics of industrialization that the house is not an automobile is therefore now only partially true. Of course, every house must react to its programmatic, climatic, and geographical conditions, as well as to sociological, cultural, and formal parameters – but the system according to which it was conceived, designed, planned, constructed, used, disassembled, and recycled needs to be realigned in light of the urgent questions that we are facing globally.

6  |  ANALYSIS OF EXTERNAL APPROACHES 151

An example: providers of prefabricated houses already use the platform principle, but receive little recognition from Baukultur – buildings of this type are created largely without the involvement of architects. However, prefabrication of individual parts is becoming increasingly popular – including with architects – in larger building projects on account of the ever more complex geometries, the associated new manufacturing technologies, and the required precision [35]. The image of prefabrication has transformed in recent years. Paradoxically though, the method is most often used to realize architecture that is particularly unique (and thus not standardized). However, despite all attempts to make construction more cost-effective, it has become steadily more expensive. The relative price of automobiles, on the other hand, is lower than it was thirty years ago taking into account their quality and value – and yet manufacturers are making record profits [284]. At the same time, the way that cars are produced and their appearance, quality, and function have developed steadily. Giving consideration to each individual phase during the design process is thus not just an ideal. It also represents an approach to increasing the innovation potential in construction above and beyond the technical innovations within the construction industry.

Critical Examination Although the product development process can serve as an example for immobile construction, it also requires critical examination. • Innovation at component level – not at product level The innovation potential of automotive construction is measured using conventional criteria (for instance, R&D expenses, patents). The innovations in question here are primarily those at the component level. In terms of its basic attributes, the automobile as a product has changed little since its invention. Innovation has occurred in the areas of driving performance, power, consumption, comfort, userfriendliness, and safety – all factors that could be optimized with the help of technological innovation. These changes were very much gradual, and took place at the technical level and at the level of production processes. This problem has become apparent in the current crisis, in which new drive concepts are being sought. Leading automotive manufacturers are currently looking for ways to use their processes, which are tailored to producing the product “automobile,” to respond to calls for the electrification of individual mobility. The resulting products are essentially converted internal combustion engine vehicles. On the other hand, newer, smaller companies that do not have a background in the automotive industry are developing a genuinely new product, based on processes that do not need to be adapted, but rather can be specifically designed for the purpose. They do not

PART III 152

operate according to the principle of optimization and are not obliged to work with preexisting structures and ways of thinking, but rather can take the ideal image of an electric vehicle as a starting point and work backward from this in order to design the processes necessary to achieve this ideal. This way of doing things resembles the approach taken by today’s architects when they create a design at the start of the process on the basis of a minimal amount of information. They do not simply apply the resource-based view widely recognized in business management and consider the means that are available to them; rather, they ask themselves what the ideal solution would be in order to improve the place in question [279] (see also design thinking [98]). The result – provided the creator of the design works to a high standard – is tailored solutions that exhibit a far higher level of innovation at the product level than has ever previously been the case for an automobile. However, the indicators used to measure the innovation potential do not reflect this. • Regimentation as an inhibitor of innovation Automotive manufacturing is obliged to deal with a large amount of regimentation. To a large extent, globally defined standards dictate to designers and engineers the way that a car must look and function. This regimentation can serve to both promote and inhibit innovation. In the long term, the rapid increase in regimentation within construction in response to the demand for sustainability will pose a threat to innovation at the product level. The more important that certification procedures become and the more they acquire the character of legal directives, the more predictable the quality of the built environment will become. Although this means an increase in quantifiable quality, for instance that of sustainability, we cannot rule out the possibility that the level of architectural and design quality will decrease. An example of this is solar panels, which are installed on a large number roofs, with little thought given to their aesthetic appearance. A further example, and one that is worrying from an environmental standpoint, is the installation of 700 million m2 of thermal insulation systems in Germany – within only 50 years [104]. There is also an increase in buildings with an outer surface area that is minimized in relation to their floor area in order to avoid heat transmission losses. Because such buildings present a quantifiable environmental benefit, they pose a threat to the architectural variety that is so important to both interior and urban spaces.

6  |  ANALYSIS OF EXTERNAL APPROACHES 153

PART IV

7  |  STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT

The following section presents a new holistic system-environment model for construction. The levels of the strategy – vision, mission, guiding principles, and objectives – are based on the understanding of construction as a system. Since the parameters that are external to the system have a major influence on the process in construction as well as on the activities of its participants, these are also integrated into the strategy. Two cycles – the material cycle on the one hand, and the immaterial cycle of knowledge on the other – are developed as a theoretical model, with the aim of viewing projects in future as the interface between these cycles, in order to generate innovation in construction over the long term.

7.1 THE SYSTEM–ENVIRONMENT MODEL IN CONSTRUCTION Material and Immaterial Resources A general cyclical model for the process in construction is presented in → fig. 15. As described, construction constitutes a system that is continually interacting with its environment. This produces two cycles: firstly, a flow of materials – raw materials are taken from the environment, processed into construction materials, and used in construction. Collectively, they are used as a building during the use phase and eventually channeled back into the environment. This could be the natural environment, provided the materials can be channeled back into a flow of natural materials. There is also the possibility of integrating materials into other systems that exist within the system environment, where they then circulate in what can be termed technical cycles [47]. In future, it must become possible to take materials – both from the cycles of nature and the cycles of technology – out of the environment and integrate these back into the system using a recycling process that maintains the same level of quality, in order to create a closed-loop economy in construction. Materials can be understood as a subgroup of resources. Just as labor, capital, and time are components of this group, so the knowledge accumulated over the course of the project is also a resource. This constitutes the equally important immaterial object of the second cycle. Instead of cooperation that lasts for the duration of a project – and that is thus focused on realizing a specific product according to defined quality requirements – as is common today, mechanisms and methods must be installed in future that ensure that this immaterial resource, which is produced via the processes of design and construction, also endures within cycles. This ensures that the knowledge generated is available to the construction system at all times and can be drawn upon for new projects. While raw materials, a material resource, leave the system and go through further phases in the natural system environment, knowledge, an immaterial resource, follows a cycle through the cultural system environment. The bearers of knowledge are the participants at the boundaries of the system. They themselves form a subsystem of construction, defined as a communication or sense system. It organizes the process of construction and is directly related to the cultural system environment. This in turn plays a key role, in that it defines all parameters relevant to the functioning of the system.

Parameters: Mechanisms of Control The participants form the interface between the system and the environment. This is where the control of the system takes place. Both the participants in the sense sys-

PART IV 158

tem “construction” and the skills they have learned in their respective training originally come from the system environment. The legislation according to which they are obliged to act controls the quality of the product just as much as the remuneration they receive for their respective services. These are connected to the value that is accorded to them by society as a whole, that is, society and its values also have a considerable role to play in controlling the result of the construction process. Not just price, but also demand, are key here. Conversely, the more internal knowledge from the process that is externalized in the cultural environment – that is, communicated to society by the participants – the greater the sense system’s chance of being able to control the behavior of society. In other words, the participants in construction are controlled by the prevailing conditions in society, but on the other hand, they also have the possibility to control their cultural system environment – or at least to influence its development. Architects have a special role to play here, because they have a powerful visualization tool at their disposal: architecture. Furthermore, → fig. 15 demonstrates the need to dispense with the current focus on a linear process that takes place over a limited period of time, with the building as the end point. If we were to understand buildings as a means to further development within construction generally, each individual building would be situated in the long term within a series of experiments in which knowledge was generated; these would increase the overall quality level → fig. 16. There is a particular need for this continuous improvement process to take place in architecture firms – unlike in the construction industry, the approach has generally not yet become established here and has been the subject of little research. In addition, ways should be found for this process to transcend the boundaries between individual companies. The cultural system environment – in particular the areas of training, legislation, remuneration, and values – has received little consideration thus far in research and in practice, and needs to become a stronger focus of attention. Up until now, it has principally been the participants in construction and their relationships that have been held responsible for the success or failure, quality, cost development, and sustainability of buildings. However, it is likely that a much greater level of influence can be achieved by researching parameters and their function with regard to the participants, the process, the project, and the product. There is great potential here in terms of controlling the system – that is, exploring and altering the reasons behind the techniques employed today, instead of trying to counteract their known effects.

7  |  STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT 159

CULTURE

Values

Laws

Remuneration

Control

KNOWLEDGE

Communication

SOCIAL SYSTEM

PARTICIPANTS Organization

HUMANKIND/ART/ TECHNOLOGY

PROJECT BOL

Design

Construction

PROCESS

MATERIAL MATERIELLE RESSOURCEN RESOURCES

NATURE Fig. 15: The system–environment model in construction

PART IV 160

Training/research

etc. ...

IMMATERIAL RESOURCES

SOCIOTECHNICAL SYSTEM

PRODUCT Use

BUILT ENVIRONMENT

EOL

TECHNICAL SYSTEM

Input / output

ROHSTOFFE RAW MATERIALS

7  |  STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT 161

INPUT

OUTPUT

Wertschöpfung Value added

Innovationen Innovations

KnowlWissen edge

KnowlWissen edge

KnowlWissen edge

Prozesse Processes

Technologien Technologies

DESIGN

PRODUCTION PROJECT PHASE

Fig. 16: Continuous cross-project improvement process

Resource Cycles: Project as Interface The resource cycles are characterized by the three key phases project, use, and processing → fig. 17. The project represents the interface between the material and knowledge cycles. Between the phases, resources undergo various individual processes. We already know these for the material cycle: after the handover of the property to the user, they are utilized for the user’s purposes. After this, the building may serve a series of other purposes (in the context of which new projects can be integrated into the cycle), and then comes the disassembly phase. Materials are processed and recycled so that they are available for use in other projects. In terms of the cycle of knowledge, it is proposed that the knowledge acquired up to the time of property handover, that is, at the end of the project, should be documented. This documentation would be far more extensive than the project documentation required by the HOAI, since it is not just the product that needs to be documented, but also the process by which it was created. Problems that participants had to deal with, decisions made, constraints that necessitated changes of plan, etc., all give crucial information about what measures need to be taken in the early stages of a subsequent project to ensure its success. Experiences need to be passed on in a format that can also be understood by people outside the project. This knowledge has so far hardly been documented in construction, partly due to contractual confidentiality clauses, but also with the justification that project sequences are unique. Neither the publications by project management nor those of the architects provide a comprehensive insight into the processes that have been followed. The idea that dissertations in the field of architecture could be written on buildings that the respective author helped to design [229] is a step in the right direction, however. This will be a way to enhance architectural research with substantial stores of knowledge that have thus far been concealed. In a subsequent step, these can be used within the cycle as the foundation for further, more detailed research. In this manner, important

PART IV 162

elements of theory can find a way into development, leading to products and processes that in turn enable the optimization of the next project. At the point at which a new project is initiated, the material and knowledge cycles from other projects come together again. Collectively, these multiple projects result in the linking together of a larger number of resource cycles. In addition, the loose project teams that are the norm in construction enable each participant to acquire specific expertise and knowledge of processes in every project, which they can then contribute to future teams. A resource cycle of materials and knowledge develops, incorporating feedback from all life cycle phases.

Knowledge Cycles along the Material Cycle As shown in → fig. 18, various knowledge cycles form around each material cycle. These correspond to the following disciplines: • design and construction (associated with the project phase); • use and operation (associated with the use phase); and • procurement and recovery (associated with the processing phase).

t en m

Preparation

cling Recy Preparation

Di sm

Project

MATERIAL CYCLE

Repurpo sing

KNOWLEDGE CYCLE

earch Res

Initiation

ng tli an Use

Use

Use

Documenta tion

De ve lo p

Optimiza tion

Handover

Fig. 17: Material and immaterial resource cycles

7  |  STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT 163

The knowledge gained in the project phase leads to the utilization and processing of information, so that it can then be applied in subsequent projects. The knowledge gained in the use phase – the use of the material – can likewise be processed within the specific knowledge cycle of use and operation, and channeled into other projects. In turn, the knowledge gained from processing the materials leads to projects within the recycling and construction material industry. If there were an overarching knowledge cycle that encompassed these three knowledge cycles, which themselves are attached to the material cycle, this would be a way of leveraging the synergies that are currently lacking between the knowledge related to the three disciplines. Interdisciplinary dialogue regarding research has a central role to play here and could potentially revolutionize the innovation system in construc-

Project

PROCUREMENT RECYCLING

Processing

Processing

DESIGN CONSTRUCTION

Use

Use

Project

INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNICATION

MATERIAL CYCLE

Use USE OPERATION

Project

Fig. 18: Knowledge cycles along the life cycle

PART IV 164

Processing

tion. This approach can gradually transform the undesirable situation described above, that is, knowledge can only arise in the context of the specialized division of labor, but this simultaneously causes problems at the level of interfaces and communication. In future, we must no longer think in terms of one cycle in which every project and every material or knowledge cycle is regarded as separate and viewed only from one perspective; rather, a more promising approach is to be found in the linking together of multiple knowledge and material cycles, since this reflects the system within construction in a holistic way. The next step would then be to transfer this approach from construction to other anthropogenic material and knowledge cycles. In future, these could be integrated into the flows presented here. The consequence will be a growth in, and transfer of, immaterial knowledge across disciplinary boundaries. On a material level, new material streams can be created spanning resource processing industries that have previously been separate, and the waste component of products can be eliminated completely [7].

7.2 STRATEGY LEVELS From today’s perspective, the system–environment model represents an ideal situation in construction. This ideal situation is constantly changing in order to react to anthropogenic and natural conditions. With the aim of enabling the process in construction to be redesigned, the present strategy comprises a vision, a mission, five guiding principles, and ten objectives:

Vision and Mission Vision: Metabolic Evolution of Construction The input and output in construction, both at a material and an immaterial level, are continuously in harmony with the anthropogenic and natural environment, and thus resemble a metabolism [18]. Similarly to biological evolution, construction develops as a system within these environments. It increases its body of knowledge, is innovative over the long term, and conforms with the principles of sustainable development at the economic, environmental, and sociocultural levels. The result is a built environment based on the ecology of Planet Earth that meets the needs of the era in question and reflects the possibilities available to it – and not least, inspires people through its architecture. As a system, the respective built environment is free of harmful substances and waste, exists in harmony with the natural environment across its entire life cycle, and does not depend on the environment’s finite resources at any time.

7  |  STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT 165

Mission: Reengineering Architecture The vision must be achieved through a comprehensive redesign of the process in construction, since this is constitutive for the built environment.

Guiding Principles and Objectives The strategy sets out five guiding principles: • from mechanistic to systemic thinking; • from a fragmented to a holistic design process; • from a hierarchical to a collaborative design process; • from sequential to parallel actions; and • from industrial to digital production. As well as ten objectives: • Feedback-enabled Project Process The process in construction must be expanded on a project basis to integrate the phases that precede it – project initiation and materials procurement (BOL) – and those that follow it, namely use, repurposing, and dismantling including recycling (EOL). • Continuous Improvement Process The project-based approach to accomplishing tasks in construction must be overcome. Cross-project, and thus also more long-term, approaches – not to the product but to the process organization – need to become established and professionalized, particularly among architects, in order to be able to document the knowledge acquired during an individual project for use in other projects, thus increasing the overall body of knowledge. A long-term continuous improvement process (CIP) – as is already pursued within construction companies [69] – should be established. • Integrated Design and Production Process The strict division between service (design) and production (execution) created by today’s tendering and contract award procedure should be broken down. The knowledge of the respective participants must be shared at an early stage and integrated into the other phases in order to be able to draw on production competencies right from the start of the design process and, conversely, to influence production by making conscious decisions during the design stage. • Network of Experts In response to the growing complexity of interconnections within construction, the field of participants must be expanded to cover more areas of expertise, and

PART IV 166

participants’ individual profiles must become more specialized. The role of the architect, too, can no longer be regarded as singular – here too, we need to see the emergence of experts on individual areas within the profession. • Working Together in Partnership In the future, the success of a plan will depend on the parties involved working together in partnership in order to be equal to the complexity of the interconnections needed to achieve a result. Bringing to public attention the work of participants other than the architect, and the increased responsibility this would bring, would boost the intrinsic motivation of these individuals. • Interorganizational Business Processes The need to put together a new team for each new project leads to losses of efficiency. This is due to the confrontation between diverging approaches, data-processing methods, and individual characters. In the future, the relevant business processes of individual organizations need to be adapted to the interorganizational realities of the process structure. The ideal situation is one of long-term cooperation between partners. • Interdisciplinary Communication Cooperation must be accompanied by interdisciplinary communication. Due to the increasing specialization of individual participants and their educational backgrounds, there is a danger that although each individual aspect can be optimized, the participants lose sight of the “bigger picture” and its interconnections. This must be tackled at an interpersonal level, since digital building models are limited in this respect. • Holistic Training Process The increasing specialization within construction needs to be taken into account in the form of new courses of study, both in architecture and other disciplines. This reorientation must also include the practical professions such as trade. Besides covering the relevant specialist knowledge, the various training paths should also inform students about the horizons of other participants in the process, in order to enable smooth and fruitful cooperation. • Increasing Public Awareness In the future, the participants in the process in construction should not just take into account the various aspects of sustainability in their actions, but should also proactively inform society about the relevance of these – since it is society and its values that ultimately decide what is built, as well as how and where things are

7  |  STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT 167

built (and also dismantled). As a member of this public, the principal determines a large number of the parameters and makes the key decisions; their values define the value of the built environment. The task of the participants and especially the architect must therefore be to ensure that their work has a positive influence on society as a whole, and on the client in particular. • Legal Framework The existing standards and guidelines hamper the innovation process in construction. Furthermore, the complexity of private construction law in Germany is a result of the large number of parties involved and their outdated process structures, which have led to uncertainties and financial risks. There needs to be targeted research in the future to determine the extent to which legislation and case law influence construction. However, binding legal regulations and government-supported financial incentives are also a way of increasing the sustainability of the built environment. These must aim to have a positive impact on a systemic level.

7.3 EFFECTS ON JOB PROFILES The Responsibility of Architects and Engineers “The great problems of our time cannot be solved by science” [108]. The reason for this is the fact that science usually views problems in isolation in order to find a verifiable solution to them. However, today’s challenges in the field of construction have systemic origins. The knowledge generated by the natural sciences and that arising from the humanities should therefore be considered of equal worth in future. Architects must base their activities and decisions on the achievements of the hard sciences; on the other hand, the soft sciences must be equally valued and their objectives understood. By having an open exchange of ideas and knowledge, the two sides – design and science – can mutually benefit and strengthen one another [13]. However, students of the two disciplines generally take separate pathways through education and their programs of study cover entirely different content; herein lies the main cause of the present deficiencies in communication. As a basis for smooth cooperation, this differing study content needs to be – phenomenologically – more strongly anchored in the respective other disciplines that participate in construction. Furthermore, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary project work should already be taking place during degree programs in order to lay the foundations for future teamwork, both in terms of specialist knowledge and communication skills.

PART IV 168

Because according to Heinz von Foerster

[108], questions (whether in construction or any other field) can generally be divided into two groups: those that are in principle decidable, and those that are in principle undecidable. He considers decidable questions to be those of the hard sciences, because these can be answered with a definitive yes or no based on natural laws. In contrast, decisions about undecidable questions involve a choice, which is always accompanied by responsibility – following this line of argument, the participants in construction can only decide on questions that are undecidable in principle, and thus answers to them cannot be found, but rather must be invented [108]. There is thus no objective right or wrong (at least not in architecture), because the questions that need to be answered during the construction process are primarily ones that are undecidable in principle. The freedom to choose and the responsibility that goes with this determine the quality of the built environment. The invention of answers is primarily the task of the architect. As part of a sense system, they must simultaneously act as a sensor and an actuator: a sensor in that they have to perceive changes in the system environment and forward these to the construction system as feedback, and an actuator in the sense that they can identify the discrepancy that is bringing the information to light, and can influence the construction system (for example through the design) in order to adapt the system behavior accordingly. Decisions can thus be made jointly and based on the relevant information, against the backdrop of a comparison of the hard and soft sciences. An ability to make informed judgments is required [32] in order to fathom complexity beyond the design process and to systemically take into account its interconnections.

The findings must be put into the context of the overall system in order to be able to predict the effects for the system–environment relationship and for the system environment itself. This is a way of avoiding a situation where undecidable questions are decided in a way that is deemed sensible for the immediate project-specific issue, but that could turn out to be negative at points (both in terms of space and time) that the sensors are not able to detect (rebound effect). More effort must be made to raise public awareness of problems relevant to society, such as those to do with establishing sustainable development in construction. Architects in particular have the task of making nonvisualizable values and “hard facts” visible, striking, and clear using their designs. Likewise, publications and lectures can contribute to shaping a society’s values, thus having an indirect influence on the quality of the built environment.

7  |  STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT 169

The Situation of Architects While discussing the development of the Venice Biennale of Architecture, David Chipperfield [62] addressed a problem faced by architects: he claimed that they were no longer taken seriously in the politics of construction and appeared to have lost their footing [170]. Hadid [128] has expressed similar sentiments: “People don’t have respect for you.” The position of those involved in construction, the relationships between them, and the way they are viewed by society all have a role in determining their ability to work toward sustainable development in construction. They are both knowledge carriers and decision makers – and thus also the holders of responsibility, since as Chipperfield has said, architecture is not only created by architects, it also depends on collective conditions and society [61]. The unsatisfactory state of affairs in the architectural profession today has been evidenced by a number of studies carried out in Germany in recent years (including [106] and [323]). Christoph Hommerich [146] comes to the conclusion that architects are experiencing a major economic crisis. This picture is confirmed by perspectival studies [147] as well as regular surveys of architecture firms and salary and economic surveys carried out by the provincial chambers of architects in Germany [295]: The remuneration of architects can be up to 25 percent lower than that of engineers working in other areas – 40 percent of German architecture firms are in the red [154]. Ultimately, this is also a result of the loss of important tasks within the construction process. Particularly in the case of larger projects, competencies in the field of management and project management have been assigned to providers specializing in these areas. The architect has increasingly become an expert for design tasks who is obliged to follow the instructions of third parties. But in smaller projects, too, for example in residential construction, a decline in the involvement of architects can be observed. Providers who create turnkey single-family homes with guaranteed planning security and cost certainty have increased their market share in Germany [85]. Furthermore, prefab homes have a 20 percent share of the overall market for single-family houses – they have surely benefited from the discussion on energy and sustainability over recent years [335]. In economic terms, this means that supply exceeds demand. The consequence is increased competition on the market. It is therefore likely that in some cases, services above and beyond the usual acquisition activities are being provided free of charge. At an employee level, the competitive situation is primarily reflected in comparatively low wages and a growing number of graduates who receive only short-term contracts or places on internship schemes. There are two consequences of this that have a direct influence on the quality of the built environment: firstly, there is a need to save

PART IV 170

resources during projects in order to be able to remain economically efficient. This causes a reduction in the quality of the work performed in some cases. However, if an architect renders services to the best of their ability without payment, they undermine their reputation, as “the common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot” [259]. Their work will subsequently be considered less valuable. Secondly, the fact that large areas of the architect’s remit have been handed over to project managers has led architects to concentrate more heavily on pure design aspects. While this may initially have increased their prominence, “their influence has decreased steadily” [176]. Given the relationship between marketing and design [183], the architect thus runs the risk of pushing their design competencies to the point of absurdity. This development, whereby there is less and less room for the true – and far more complex – work of architecture, weakens the reputation of architects over the long term.

Designing Appropriate Training for Architects The aforementioned problems need to be tackled at a political level in order to manage the systemic links between recognition, performance, remuneration, and quality. An important starting point here is the university system, for which – alongside the topic areas set out by Volker Koch [174] – the following actions are recommended: • Higher Entry Requirements for Architectural Programs Architecture must be understood as the sum total of all required areas of knowledge – selection procedures for new students that are based solely on design skills should therefore be reexamined. Competencies in areas such as communication, strategic planning, and economics should also be taken into account. The introduction of a numerus clausus should be considered as a way of ensuring the quality of prospective students. • Testing Students During Degree Programs Architecture degrees in Germany are characterized by the large amount of freedom granted to students. Although this makes sense in a university context, it is also important that there is consistent teaching and testing of the relevant knowledge. After all, the reputation of a degree can also help to increase the level of regard for the profession. • Specialization as Part of Training Following on from the general component of the degree program, students should specialize in a particular field in order to react to the increase in contracts coming

7  |  STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT 171

from specialist areas [295]. Similar to specialist lawyers, architects could specialize according to typology and content, or materials and technologies. This would also strengthen the trust of potential clients in the qualifications of the architect. • Interdisciplinary Knowledge Architectural programs should include more content from the courses of study of future project partners; students should learn about the structures and approaches, technologies, and business processes of these other disciplines. If learning content for particular projects were created jointly in interdisciplinary teams, this would increase understanding and acceptance between the disciplines, facilitating future team-oriented cooperation. • Organizational Competence as a Component of Training Competencies in organization, management, team-building, motivation, and communication as well as strategic, target-oriented problem-solving must be integrated into the architect’s training. In this way, the architect could properly fulfill their role as a communicator. In particular, unforeseen complex situations involving conflicting objectives are given too little attention in degree programs at present, something which is due to the project- and design-based approach within academia. • Teaching Basic Principles and Future Technologies Learning basic skills such as hand drawing and mastering the latest 3-D software are by no means mutually exclusive. Students must be taught both, just as they must learn to work competently with common design tools and regulations. • Competence in Sustainability Specialist knowledge regarding sustainability must also be integrated into the content of architectural programs. Professorships should be instituted accordingly, similar to those for structural engineering and building physics. In addition, the latter two disciplines should expand their specialist knowledge to include concerns related to sustainable development in construction, so that sustainability can become a given in the design process within the foreseeable future.

PART IV 172

The Role of the Architect in the Future In addition to building design as described by Mathias Eisenmenger [96], it will increasingly be the task of the architect to design innovations, and to externalize these with the aid of coupled innovation processes. Successful architecture firms are already focusing their efforts on only a small number of aspects of architecture, and using these to develop a comprehensive approach that defines their work across project boundaries. This allows them to become specialists within a particular area of architecture. In a large number of cases, this goes hand in hand with an – intentional or unintentional – marketing strategy. The careers of many of today’s star architects started not with major projects, but rather with small experiments that were paired with a theoretical treatise or an emphatic manifesto. Their buildings embodied this and provided the image needed for marketing. The publication of both manifestos and marketing material serves to disseminate the idea. The invention can thus diffuse in architectural circles, and beyond that in the circles of principals and investors – thus an innovation is born. Architects stand for a brand, the products of which are their buildings. In some cases, their buildings already bear a logo (for example, the Prada Aoyama Epicenter in Tokyo, Herzog & de Meuron [142]). Regardless of whether this should be considered negative or positive, it creates the opportunity to obtain competitive advantages by using marketing and branding strategies to highlight an architect’s individual approach. This increases an architect’s capacity to have an influence – as a result of which their responsibility also increases. Architects need to understand the mechanisms described here and to use these in the future for the benefit of innovation-friendly and sustainable development in construction.

Societal Perspective Economically, environmentally, and socioculturally, construction is of central importance for society as a whole – it accounts for approximately 5 percent of the goods produced and services provided in Germany and employs almost 7 percent of the working population [210]. Within the producing trades, almost one in five people work in the construction trade, while in the service sector, around one in seventy work in architecture or engineering firms (see [81] together with [163]). The construction trade’s share of overall value added [30] also shows that construction remains highly significant in Germany. However, a large number of products and services are provided by parties that are not taken into account by the abovementioned indicators. The phases that precede and follow the process are not currently integrated into economic balance sheets. Likewise,

7  |  STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT 173

LEVEL III

what? Analysis

how? Gestaltung Design

Strategy ENVIRONMENT

Strategy for redesigning the process

SYSTEM

Design

LEVEL II

how?

how?

what?

Design

Analysis

PROCESS

PRODUCT

Analysis

Design

what?

how?

Process design as strategy

LEVEL I

Strategie Strategy

Fig. 19: Perspectives for strategy development

services that are only indirectly involved in construction are not taken into account, such as the credit and real estate industries. Furthermore, supporting professions such as those of the IT industry need to be integrated in order to fully reflect the relevance of construction. Particularly during the use phase, the economic impact of construction is considerable: energy production and the increasing technical regulation of buildings, the supply and disposal of water, and facility management are all aspects that should be considered part of construction.

PART IV 174

While these factors are being regarded as increasingly relevant at a material level, they continue to be neglected in economic analyses. The situation is similar when it comes to those working within the EOL phase (such as employees of demolition, dismantling, and recycling companies). An “expanded view” of the entire value chain in construction reveals that this accounts for a far higher share of GDP than is generally supposed – one in every ten euros in Germany is generated in the context of construction [328]. In addition, around a tenth of the labor force in Germany is required “for the construction of new buildings and the extension, modernization, and maintenance of existing ones” alone [260]. This value is used to quantify the significance of the property sector. However, the term property sector does not appear in the official statistics on the significance of construction, even though the real estate and housing sectors account for around 13 percent of the total value added, which clearly exceeds the figure for the construction trade [260]. Due to the differentiation and overlap of these terms in current usage and the economic areas attributed to them, it is not possible to determine the economic importance of the entire value chain in construction [328]. In order to implement the strategy presented in practice, these limitations need to be overcome. Thus we see the potential that emerges in the context of society as a whole: not only can the present strategy on redesigning the process in construction lead to a sustainable and innovative built environment, but the latter, as a strategy, can make a major contribution to creating a sustainable and innovation-friendly society → fig. 19.

7  |  STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT 175

8  |  LOOKING FORWARD

Based on the strategy presented above for redesigning the process in construction, it can be deduced that the opportunities to influence the performance of the built environment increase the further we move away from current approaches and especially from the product-based view itself. The greatest lever for change could thus be created by calling into question the paradigms that currently prevail in the cultural system environment. The following section looks ahead to the future by considering how the paradigms of permanence that have prevailed up to now with regard to the built environment might be replaced by a deliberate shortening of life cycles (impermanence).

8.1 IMPERMANENT CONSTRUCTION: A FUTURE SCENARIO Flexibility vs. Individuality In the debate on sustainability in construction, it is generally assumed that buildings should be as permanent as possible, and should be preserved and repurposed over the longest possible time period by means of renovation and conversion. Under current conditions, this assumption initially appears to make sense in terms of minimizing material and energy consumption, and keeping the number of BOL and EOL phases to a minimum. Furthermore, this approach, referred to in the following as permanence, corresponds to the consensus among architects that the built environment should be understood as a cultural asset that continues to evolve across the generations. Against the background of the systemic interconnections in construction described in this study, this permanence approach will be interrogated with regard to its capacity to achieve the objectives of sustainable development. The reason for this is that it is primarily based on the principle of resource efficiency in accordance with the environmental pillar of sustainability. However, an effective strategy needs to take into account how a completely closed-loop economy in construction (in which no more waste is created), coupled with fully renewable energy generation, would affect all three dimensions of sustainability [2], and thus also sociocultural and economic relationships within society. The assumptions on which the permanence approach in construction is based may in time prove to be incorrect in light of subsequent technological developments, and the approach may turn out to be ineffective at a societal level in the long run. Today, the buildings inherited from previous generations do not meet the requirements of their current users in many respects. This applies both to technological aspects, such as the mechanical and electrical equipment or the insulation properties of building exteriors, and to use-related requirements which concern the building substance, for example the floor plan layout. Alongside demographic changes and increasingly unstable individual user biographies in residential construction, the construction of office and administrative buildings is subject to constantly changing requirements due to companies staying at individual sites for shorter periods of time, and the changing programs that result from repurposing. Currently, we can observe that this experience is being taken as evidence of an environmental imperative to anticipate the future in order to build sustainably, that is, in a way that meets the needs of future generations. Taking into account the widest possible range of eventualities leads to an increase in the flexibility of buildings. A building that is subdivided into shearing layers following the model of Stewart Brand [45] and

PART IV 178

is characterized by having just one structural grid for all usage scenarios represents an optimum approach to sustainable construction according to the permanence approach. Contrary to the ongoing progress of digitalization, this represents a harking back to the benefits of the sort of standardized construction methods celebrated in the 1960s: “You can shape the future without obstructing it” [311] is one of the claims from this period of construction using systems. Current approaches [220] that are aimed at making structures flexible and durable are surprisingly similar to the visions of the future from that time [107]. The permanence approach thus refers primarily to the environmental aspects of sustainability. The form of built environment that it creates is not fully able to reflect the requirements and possibilities of different generations. It is a fallacy for humans to believe that they can fully anticipate the consequences of their actions, including the advantages and disadvantages that may result for future generations. There are many examples of systems organized by humans leading to consequences that could not have been anticipated at the time the systems were put in place: an example from construction is the garden city concept [150], which ultimately led to greater land usage, increased traffic, and the phenomenon known as urban sprawl [280], or the Zwischenstadt (in-between town) [282]. On the other hand, large-scale housing programs developed in order to make housing conditions more equal (and thus create a more balanced and harmonious society) ultimately resulted in a lack of quality in housing and thus also a poorer quality of life; this led to society-wide problems. At a material level, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch [168] represents a similar set of problems: when they were first invented, the plastics that now threaten the oceans’ ecosystems were celebrated for the fact that they did not decompose. Just as political demands for energy efficiency in recent years have supported the rise of the insulation industry, the transition to renewable energy represents a growth opportunity for the photovoltaic industry. The problem of mass waste attributable to airtight facade constructions in which a large number of organic and mineral materials are glued together will trigger future research and development on recycling processes for insulation systems. Innovative companies will generate profits that lead to growth for society as a whole, which ultimately – provided full recycling is possible – should be regarded as sustainable from an economic point of view. This is a way of securing a society’s prosperity, which can be understood as the basis of sociocultural sustainability. The question thus arises as to whether the call for resource efficiency – and, in the context of the permanence of buildings, the avoidance of apparent problems – actually corresponds to the demand for sustainable development as it is understood systemically.

8  |  LOOKING FORWARD 179

A closer examination of the economic pillar of sustainability reveals that it is currently regarded as desirable to design buildings in a way that keeps maintenance costs as low as possible over the period of their use. On the one hand, this means that the buildings function as energy-efficiently as possible. When looked at purely from an environmental perspective, this appears to make sense as long as energy continues to be derived from fossil fuels. But from an economic perspective, it is only the operator who benefits, while the energy providers face losses. The more zero energy or even plus energy houses that are built, the more significant these losses will become. Key economic sectors are currently undergoing periods of transformation. A loss of market share is usually accompanied by job cuts which, besides the individual fate of those affected, can ultimately have a negative impact on society as a whole. In turn, a higher unemployment rate has adverse effects on the welfare state and thus on the sociocultural level of sustainability. Equally, these phenomena can occur when operating costs are minimized as a result of lower maintenance expenses. Low-maintenance building technology, weatherproof building materials, and durable floor-plan arrangements are intended to help achieve this. As a consequence, though, companies that specialize in the maintenance and repair of these components or in the modification and renovation of buildings will receive less work. In the long term, the reduced need for renovation and modification measures lowers innovation potential. The longer the period of time for which a building is designed, the more infrequent the possibility for introducing new features; and the less demand there is for these, the less they will be produced. The innovation process slows down and could eventually come to a complete standstill if the permanence approach is pursued. Since time immemorial, the principle of “building for eternity” has been one of the causes of low innovation potential in construction. As life cycles are now getting shorter (regardless of what is intended by the architect), the consequences need to be analyzed: as a result of the permanence approach, nearly 30 percent of building work in Germany today is carried out on existing buildings [28]. If architecture is supposed to be an expression of the era that produces it [57], the task of architects in Central Europe increasingly consists in preserving the past – instead of shaping the future: “Architectural firms now carry out 57 percent of their work on [existing buildings] and only 43 percent on the construction of new buildings” [295]. The consequence is a sort of lethargy, which prevents us from believing in our ability to create something of higher quality than that which previous generations were able to create. Without this belief, society can no longer make progress – not just at a technological level, but also socioculturally. The debate on the reconstruction of the Berlin Palace is just one example of the consequences of this innovation-inhibiting approach [244]. Rem Koolhaas [230] illustrates this point by providing the statistic that 12 percent of the landmass is already protected by official conservation measures and is thus “untouch-

PART IV 180

able” for future generations, even though their needs may be fundamentally different to those of today. The term culture, however, has always been understood to mean not just preserving that which is already there, but also continuing to develop this and adding something new – active cultural production, in other words. It is not unusual for the old to make way for the new in this process. Constructions that are greatly admired today, such as the Eiffel Tower in Paris, have their origins in a destructive act. Moreover, they were highly controversial at the time they were built, particularly among those who were intellectuals active in culture themselves [119]. In hindsight, however, the tower has been both the guarantor and the symbol of the rise of a global metropolis – today, its value for society as a whole is estimated at €435 billion [95]. This example illustrates how processes of renewal give each generation the possibility to design a built environment that takes account of its specific requirements, and is at the same time an expression of its technological and cultural achievements. The fact that these build on the achievements of the past – even while sometimes breaking with existing paradigms – defines Baukultur.

Deliberately Shortening the Life Cycle Having examined the permanence approach, we will now consider an alternative model for the built environment, namely the impermanence approach. Here, the notion of permanence is replaced by transience: impermanence is used in this context to mean that the built environment would undergo a much more constant process of change than it does today. Things that had become outdated would continually be disappearing to make way for something new. This would have great advantages for each and every principal: a concept that had been specially developed according to their own vision would become reality. Specific buildings would be tailored to the aforementioned contexts linked to individual living situations in residential construction on the one hand, and to company requirements in office construction on the other. While renovation and maintenance only permit a gradual adaptation of the basic decision that was originally made, the approach of fully recycling buildings offers the opportunity to respond specifically to new requirements and to benefit from the latest technology, since a new building is being built from scratch. This strategy initially seems uneconomical, but in fact it not only can lead to a completely new form of economic efficiency [90], but also can prove to be a driver at the level of the economy as a whole: the more tasks that need to be accomplished, the more work is created; the more work that is created, the more productive a society can

8  |  LOOKING FORWARD 181

be. Unemployment falls while consumption increases. This in turn is a decisive factor for a society’s prosperity, which ultimately has an impact on the spheres of education, social security, and pension schemes. Looked at from the perspective of society as a whole, the increase in dismantling and rebuilding activities could prove to be sustainable both economically and socioculturally. A further benefit is the psychological effect that comes from overcoming existing, outmoded structures. At the same time, the ever shorter usage periods of buildings would boost the innovation potential in construction; not just because of the continual opportunity to deploy new technologies, which would result in a competition-oriented market, but also – and especially – due to the increased possibility of understanding projects as experiments within an overarching process. The social acceptance of new, unusual concepts or forms of architecture would increase due to the fact that buildings would have a shorter life span. As a result, there would be a broader – and critical – awareness of Baukultur. Herein lies the fundamental difference to the permanence approach. Instead of falling back on the purely functional forms of the 1960s in order to make buildings adaptable to changing requirements over time, in the impermanence approach, buildings would be designed specifically according to knowledge that is relevant and certain at the time the decision is made. On an intellectual level, this means that one does not presume to have provided for every eventuality; socioculturally, it means that the task of designing assumes a higher status than it has today, and that it is indeed possible to have a city which is constantly transforming to meet the changing needs of its inhabitants. The specificity of the designs created in this scenario would be diametrically opposed to the ubiquity that is currently threatening the unique character of the world’s cities due to the prevalence of buildings that are ever more simplistic and rationalized according to the yardsticks of permanence and efficiency. This monotony can lead to sociocultural problems. The built environment as a system has ecological interrelationships with the natural world, and humans, as a biological species, are a part of the latter. Given this, it is clear that the built environment must ultimately be holistically sustainable, especially for the benefit of people. With a built environment that is constantly undergoing renewal, this potential could be felt in all areas of life. A built environment that is optimized for the parameters known at the time of creating a design represents a concept that is in line with the transformation processes currently taking place at the technological level of design. As design and execution become more digitalized, it is becoming possible to develop and implement highly differentiated, location- and task-specific, individually optimized forms and structures. These are in keeping with both the zeitgeist of today’s avant-garde and the

PART IV 182

will of society, as evidenced by the industries where life cycles have already been shortened. Furthermore, this approach also creates the opportunity for society as a whole to dare to give the go-ahead to a project that may not still be there in fifty years’ time [299]. If modernism was the architectural response to the rationalization of many areas of human life, with the resulting structures being highly standardized, the future must be the architectural response to the demand for sustainable development, with the result being individualized buildings. This is the goal of a scenario in which life cycles are deliberately shortened and buildings are only ephemeral in nature, thereby increasing the innovation potential from one generation to the next. Full recycling of all construction materials is the key prerequisite for being able to implement the approach presented here in an environmentally sustainable way. The basis for this is a closed-loop economy in construction, in which buildings are disassembled in a systematic manner as described above, their materials are separated properly, and are reintegrated into the material cycles of nature and technology without any loss of quality. All required information must be stored in a digital building model that has been expanded to include the relevant data – comparable to the IDIS in the automotive industry [157]. Precise data on the quantities and positions of individual materials as well as detailed instructions on the targeted disassembly of individual components, the corresponding EPDs (environmental product declarations), and the planned recovery methods must already be stored virtually at the design stage, and the components themselves must be labeled using RFID systems (radio frequency identification) or QR codes (quick response codes) [310]. Equally, the legal responsibilities must be clarified in advance and recorded in datasets. The disassembly method is different to today’s demolition procedure: in place of a destructive act that creates noise and dust at the same time as posing significant danger to those carrying it out, there is now a systematic, nondestructive dismantling process that avoids noise and dust and is largely safe. The result is a well-organized collection of construction materials that are available for reuse in construction, for processing in a manner that creates recycled materials of equal value, or for other industries. By using a disassembly process that is strategically planned at the start of the project, the anthropogenic store of raw materials that is hard to access at present will be made accessible. Due to the increasing number of buildings disassembled, there will be a continuous – and growing – supply of construction materials available for use. These circulate in technical material cycles and replace nonrenewable raw materials extracted from nature. This would allow us to dispense with the need for natural resources in the long term.

8  |  LOOKING FORWARD 183

However, it can be “deduced from the current demographic trends [in Germany] […] that by 2050, demolition – particularly of residential buildings – will significantly exceed new construction in almost every part of the country” [269]. Another reason for proper separation and high-quality recycling, therefore, is that the volume of the material output from the built environment will exceed that of the material input from the natural environment. In the long term, then, materials from the technical cycles must biodegrade fully and be fed back into the natural cycles. To make this possible, the choice of connection techniques needs to be reconsidered. Likewise, there should be a renewed consideration of which materials can be used in construction. The parameters for selecting materials are no longer just stability, durability, and properties related to building physics, but also recycling potential. If they are not recyclable or can only be recycled with a loss of quality, or if they can only undergo thermal recycling, they should be avoided – or else new preparation processes need to be developed for them. For example, nanotechnology offers the possibility of developing completely new material properties that are optimized to achieve the goal of an endless circulation of the materials in a technical cycle. Similar to the trend in the automotive industry over the past few decades, shorter life cycles for buildings will increase the anticipated innovation potential even more. The shorter the product life cycle, the more cost-effective the product. Currently, almost all production trades (with the exception of construction) are taking advantage of these correlations. There are of course negative connotations attached to the idea of a consumerist society, but these can be attributed to the fact that the term is currently synonymous with a throwaway society. However, if consumption were to produce no waste, but instead only new raw materials [47], the problem of increasing entropy would be eliminated. The possibility of whole cities being designed anew while remaining in the same place has wide-reaching significance: intraurban areas are largely already built up, and repurposing the structures to meet the needs of current principals is not straightforward, but demolition work would mean additional costs. Rather than generating income through the sale of the raw materials that would be obtained in this way, the majority of new buildings are built outside of existing structures, “so that in total, the steady growth of residential areas alone accounts for 90 percent of additional land used” [251]. Thus new land continues to get built up, while urban centers face decay. This is accompanied by heavier traffic, increasing CO2 emissions, soil sealing, allocation problems with agriculture, segregation [281], and last but not least an aesthetic that is increasingly removed from the creative influence of architects. Deliberately shortening the life cycle of the built environment is a way of counteracting these problems: new building

PART IV 184

land would continually become available, which would create the freedom to continually explore new approaches in intraurban areas. From a sociocultural perspective, a task for the future would be to investigate the emotional aspect of the impermanence approach. The human urge to build for all eternity can be traced right back to the great cultural and religious sites, such as the pyramids of Giza. However, humans at that time were primarily nomadic; it was only once they became more settled that the cultural customs associated with creating houses could develop, making places out of what were previously just habitats. In towns, these included places of togetherness, and places of seclusion. And although building to stand the test of time, for instance in the time of the Romans, was in keeping with the technologies available as well as the way that society perceived itself at that time, the incomplete silhouette of the Colosseum in Rome is in part due to its stones’ being reused for other purposes: “the Colosseum was not so much a monument as a quarry” [148]. As long as only natural materials were utilized and the global population remained relatively modest, this way of living could be described as sustainable. However, the accomplishments of industrialization, the introduction of artificial construction materials, and the rapid rise in the global population and accompanying scarcity of natural resources during the Industrial Revolution marked the beginning of a new phase – a phase that must now end with the recognition of climate change and the adaptation of the human system using the strategy of sustainable development. Today, the impermanence approach – and the deliberate shortening of the built environment’s life cycle under the assumption that a fully closed-loop economy will exist in the future – appears to be a potent strategy for enabling a systemically understood form of sustainable development within the field of construction. Additionally, the possibility of conceiving architecture in the future in such a way that buildings can be put up quickly, cost-effectively, and in a higher quality than today and, most importantly, can be precisely disassembled, furthers the innovation capacity of Baukultur. Every time a building is dismantled or a new one is built, there will be an opportunity to implement new-found knowledge and inventions. The built environment thus not only reflects the zeitgeist of a society at a particular time and its technological accomplishments, but also, crucially, has the opportunity to continually adapt to changing conditions and parameters: “Architecture isn’t here to stay” [287].

8  |  LOOKING FORWARD 185

8.2 SUMMARY Conclusion In this book, a strategy was developed for redesigning the process in construction. The hypothesis that the prevailing product-focused view is not in a position to tackle the challenges associated with sustainable development was confirmed. Only a holistic, process-focused approach can overcome the problems we are currently facing, since it takes into account all factors that have an influence on construction, and thus indirectly on the built environment, at any point in time. The process is defined as a cycle that – in an innovative system-environment model – reveals the interactions between the social system of construction and the technical system of the built environment. Their respective inputs and outputs are directly linked to the natural and cultural system environment, which is why maintaining material and immaterial resources within cross-project cycles is identified as the key to both sustainable development and an increase in the innovation potential in construction. The participants in construction play a critical role for the quality of the built environment, since they perform a control function at the interface to society. It was demonstrated how parameters external to the system such as laws and remuneration, societal values and training structures have a decisive influence on participants’ actions. The recommendations for action provided are therefore based on three different levels of scale. The first of these is concerned with the performance problems arising from process structures influenced by the HOAI. Overcoming the fragmented, hierarchical, sequential nature of processes was identified as key here, as this corresponds to a mechanistic worldview that has its origins in industrialization. What are required instead are holistic, collaborative, and parallel processes based on the systemic character of construction in the era of digitalization. Information-based modeling (such as using Building Information Modeling/BIM) was identified as being a forward-looking design method, but one that can only realize its true potential when it not only takes into account but also encompasses the entire life cycle of a building, that is, when it is used by each participant in each phase without interfaces. Indeed, the notion that buildings are essentially modified material that will continue to circulate in the material cycles over the long term forms a key basis for the vision developed in the present work of a metabolic evolution in construction. It was shown that implementing this project-focused approach in reality would have wide-reaching consequences for the entire system within the field of construction – including the adaptation of parameters. For this reason, the project-focused approach forms the basis for a process-focused approach, the objective of which is a long-term,

PART IV 186

continuous innovation process in construction. Using examples from the automotive industry and the current endeavors of large architecture firms, the advantages and disadvantages of insourcing and outsourcing strategies were examined. It could be determined that the integration of design and execution, as well as the supervision of a building during its use phase, can lead to the establishment of a brand, which can solve many of today’s performance problems while still upholding the notion of architecture as culture. In the context of long-term cooperation, there was a special focus on the resulting project-independent growth in knowledge, and the fact that it would no longer be necessary for participants to coordinate their various business processes. Equally, there was a focus on the opportunity to increase product responsibility, and on the chance to have a positive influence on society’s sociocultural values by means of marketing and inside-out processes. Methods were outlined both for supporting a process of this kind using technical measures at product level, and for triggering new market mechanisms via a fully recyclable built environment. Finally, the measures presented were examined in a broader societal context, since architecture is “the reflection of the driving and sustaining forces of an era” [57]. At this level of the overall system, the strategy of maximizing building life spans (termed the permanence approach) that is currently so prevalent in the context of sustainable development was contrasted with a new model based on the shortening of building life spans, referred to as the impermanence approach. It could be demonstrated that this approach allowed a considerable degree of retroactive control over both process and product design. In the long term, the approach represents a strategy for redesigning the process in construction in a manner that is holistic and that transcends phases, projects, organizations, and disciplines; that takes into account the interactions between environmental, economic, and sociocultural aspects in a systemic way; and that gives every new generation the chance to create a culture of building that is tailored to its own needs and that reflects the possibilities available to it.

Future Research This book focuses on the development of a strategy for redesigning the process in construction. Due to the multiplicity of the process structures in construction and the complexity of the interrelationships, the choice was made to use a scale that is above the level of operational process design. This made it possible to consistently pursue a transdisciplinary approach and, based on a comprehensive literature review, to draw upon knowledge from related industries, as well as to identify the systemic interrelationships between the different recommendations for action. But not all of the aspects considered have been analyzed exhaustively. The result is thus an intended strategy, which itself should be understood as a process, and which has the potential to be

8  |  LOOKING FORWARD 187

adapted to specific, more individualized objects of investigation. At the same time, the hope is that the selectively highlighted problems can serve as a starting point for developing further strategies of other kinds. As is the nature of a strategy, the end result raises a number of issues that will need to be given more detailed consideration in the future. The most important of these are as follows: • comprehensive redesign of the HOAI with the aim of institutionalizing integrative process structures as the new standard; • creation of financial incentive systems for all participants in connection with the sustainable development of the built environment (including across boundaries between individual projects); • visualization of the hidden factors that oblige participants to act in a certain way, for example contractual, company, or remuneration structures, insurance, or depreciation: • analysis of ways that politics can either promote or prevent innovation in construction using standards and legislation; • reorganization of the indicators for innovation potential, performance, and the societal and environmental relevance of construction, in order to increase the transparency of the relevant interconnections; • methods for professionalizing knowledge management and quality control within architecture firms; • development of methods of assessing the quantifiable and nonquantifiable quality of the built environment in which the two categories are considered equally important; • analysis of the education and training of the various participants in terms of the interplay between generalization and specialization, with a focus on efficient and effective communication; • further development of technical, construction-based, and logistical approaches to generating a fully recyclable built environment; • research into the possibilities and effects of fully recyclable construction and a shorter building life span from a business and economic perspective (including from the viewpoint of the principal); • consideration of the sociocultural and emotional consequences of the impermanence approach, and the innovation potential both in terms of a society’s urban spaces and its cultural evolution; • development of a Baukultur that gives equal architectural expression to the two prevailing forces of sustainability and digitalization in a contemporary way.

PART IV 188

To sum up, the kinds of analyses that reveal substantial innovation potential and should therefore be more extensively pursued are those that do not just assess the results in terms of the possibility of implementing them within existing parameters, but rather, looking toward the future, come up with a target situation that can only be achieved if completely new processes are designed and the existing parameters are overcome.

8  |  LOOKING FORWARD 189

APPENDIX

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1 A Resource-Efficient Europe – Flagship

8 Allenby, Braden R., “Integrating Environment

Initiative under the Europe 2020 Strategy.

and Technology: Design for Environment.”

European Commission, COM (2011)

In The Greening of Industrial Ecosystems,

21. Brussels, 2011. 2 Abschlussbericht der Enquete-Kommission “Schutz des Menschen und der Umwelt – Ziele und Rahmenbedingungen einer nach-

edited by Braden R. Allenby and Deanna J. Richards, 137–48. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1994. 9 “Alles ist Common Ground: Steven Holl im

haltig zukunftsverträglichen Entwicklung”

Interview,” BauNetz, September 4, 2012.

– Konzept Nachhaltigkeit: Vom Leitbild

http://www.baunetz.de/biennale/2012/

zur Umsetzung. Deutscher Bundestag. Drucksache 13/11200. Bonn, 1998. 3 Addis, William, and Jørgen Schouten. Principles of Design for Deconstruction to

beitrag.php?bid=101. 10 Alt, Franz. “The Sun Won’t Send Us a Bill,” Detail, “Green 01” (May 2009): 18–19. 11 “Altfahrzeugaufkommen und -verwertung 2008.

Facilitate Reuse and Recycling. London:

Daten zur Umwelt, Umweltbundesamt,”

CIRIA, 2004.

http://www.umweltbundesamt-daten-zur-

4 Adel, Frad. “Umwelt- und Recyclingbewertung

umwelt.de/umweltdaten/public/ theme.

als Bestandteil des Automotive Product

do;jsessionid=DBABEA977B86DC210856

Lifecycle Management.” Diss., TU Braun-

40757BB79EED?nodeIdent=2304, accessed

schweig. Essen: Vulkan, 2009. 5 Agenda 21 – The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. In

December 8, 2012. 12 Altner, Jörg. “Effizienter Bauen nach den Grundsätzen von Lean Construction: Er-

Report of the United Nations Conference

fahrungen aus dem deutschen Hochbau der

on Environment and Development: Rio de

HOCHTIEF AG,” Lean Magazin,

Janeiro, 3–14 June 1992, vol. 1, Resolutions

http://www.leanmagazin.de/component/

Adopted by the Conference, 9–479. New

content/article/615-effizienter-bauen-nach-

York: United Nations, 1992.

den-grundsaetzen-von-lean-construction.

6 Alberti, Leon Battista: On the Art of Building in Ten Books, translated by Joseph Rykwert, Neil Leach, and Robert Tavernor.

html, accessed November 29, 2011. 13 Antonelli, Paola. “Both Science and Design – Forward Motors, Providers of Perspective,

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999.

Guardians of Beauty and Truth – Are Essen-

7 Allen, David T., and Nasrin Behmanesh,

tial to Progress,” Seed, http://seedmagazine.

“Wastes as Raw Materials.” In The Greening

com/content/article/core_principles/,

of Industrial Ecosystems, edited by Braden

February 10, 2009.

R. Allenby and Deanna J. Richards, 69–89. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1994.

14 “Apple Retail Store 5th Avenue: New Cube, New York, USA,” Seele.com, https://seele. com/references/apple-retail-store-5thavenue-new-york/, accessed 12.09.2012.

APPENDIX 193

15 Arnu, Titus. “Jetzt raucht’s aber,” Süddeutsche Zeitung, October 12, 2017. 16 Ashby, Michael F. Materials and the Envi-

28 Statistisches Bundesamt. “Bautätigkeit: Baugenehmigungen im Hochbau Deutschland 2011.” Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.

ronment: Eco-informed Material Choice.

https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/

Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2009.

Wirtschaftsbereiche/Bauen/Bautaetigkeit/

17 Le Monde diplomatique. Atlas der Globalisierung 2009. Berlin: taz, 2009. 18 Baccini, Peter, and Paul H. Brunner. Metabolism of the Anthroposphere: Analysis,

Tabellen/Baugenehmigungen.html; jsessionid=E1E83A47298AE74C29544604 02FE8981.cae2, accessed November 5, 2012. 29 Architektenkammer Baden-Württemberg

Evaluation, Design. Cambridge, MA:

and Architektenkammer Rheinland-Pfalz.

The MIT Press, 2012.

Bauteam: Ein Leitfaden für Architekten und

19 Baier, Tina. “Bäume zählen,” Süddeutsche Zeitung, October 6, 2017. 20 Balck, Henning. Lebenszyklusorientierte Ausschreibung und Vergabe im Hochbau. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer IRB, 2012. 21 Bangle, Chris, as cited in [303]. 22 Bateson, Gregory. Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology. New York: Ballantine Books, 1972. 23 Fraunhofer-Allianz Bau. “Bauen für die Zukunft – Zukunft für den Bau.” Valley: Fraunhofer Bau, version April 2012. 24 Bauer, Anton. Lehrbuch des Strafprozesses. Göttingen, 1835, as cited in [253]. 25 “Baukonstruktion und Statische Systeme.” Lecture notes, Institut für Leichtbau Entwerfen und Konstruieren (ILEK), Universität Stuttgart, 2010. 26 Bauman, Zygmunt. Flüchtige Zeiten: Leben in der Ungewissheit. Hamburg: Hamburger Edition, 2008. 27 Bauman, Zygmunt. Verworfenes Leben:

Handwerker. Stuttgart and Mainz: Architektenkammer Baden-Württemberg and Architektenkammer Rheinland-Pfalz, 2009. 30 “Bedeutung der Bauwirtschaft 2011 in Deutschland. Hauptverband der Deutschen Bauindustrie,” http://www.bauindustrie.de/ zahlen-fakten/statistik/bedeutung-derbauwirtschaft/, accessed December 10, 2012. 31 Bergmann, Christian. “Prozessneugestaltung im Bauen: eine Strategie.” Dissertation, Universität Stuttgart, 2013. 32 Berkel, Ben van. “What Happened to Architectural Objectivity?” Lecture given at Columbia University, New York, April 4, 2012. 33 Bertalanffy, Ludwig von. General Systems Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. New York: Georges Braziller, 1968. 34 “Berufsordnung für Mitglieder der Architektenkammer Baden-Württemberg (AKBW),” Merkblatt no. 33 (March 2011). 35 Beton+Fertigteil Jahrbücher 2005–2010. Gütersloh: Bauverlag, 2010. 36 Beuys, Joseph. “Aufruf zur Alternative.”

Die Ausgegrenzten der Moderne. Bonn:

In Volker Harlan, Rainer Rappmann, and

Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, 2005.

Peter Schata, Soziale Plastik: Materialien zu Joseph Beuys. Achberg: Achberger Verlag, 1984.

194

37 Birg, Herwig. “Entwicklung der Weltbevöl-

48 Braungart, Michael. “Cradle to Cradle.” Lecture

kerung,” Informationen zur politischen

given at Consense 2011, Stuttgart, June 29,

Bildung 282 (2011): 44–11.

2011.

38 “Blockbau-Prinzip,” Meyer Werft, https://www. meyerwerft.de/de/meyerwerft_de/werft/ produktionstechnik/blockbau_prinzip/ blockbau_prinzip.jsp, accessed November 2, 2012. 39 Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF). “BMBF-Rahmenprogramm

49 BREEAM – Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method. http:// www.breeam.com, accessed January 1, 2012. 50 Breisinger, Clemens, Olivier Ecker, and Perrihan Al-Riffai. “Die wirtschaftlichen Ursachen des arabischen Frühlings: Der Weg von der Revolution zur Trans-

Forschung für Nachhaltige Entwicklungen

formation und Ernährungssicherheit.”

(FONA).” Bonn/Berlin: BMBF, 2009.

IFPRI Dossier 18 (May 2011).

40 Bock, Thomas. “Construction Robotics,” Autonomous Robots 22, no. 3 (2007): 201–9. 41 Boldt, Antje. Vorläufige baubegleitende Streitentscheidung: Dispute Adjudication

51 Breitschmid, Alfred. “Interdisziplinäres Planen beflügelt die Nachhaltigkeitsgesellschaft,” greenbuilding 10 (2012): 16–21. 52 Brenner, Valentin. “Recyclinggerechtes

Boards in Deutschland. Neuwied: Werner,

Konstruieren.” Diploma thesis, Institut für

2008.

Leichtbau Entwerfen und Konstruieren

42 Borrmann, André. “Computerunterstützung verteilt-kooperativer Bauplanung durch Integration interaktiver Simulationen und

(ILEK), Universität Stuttgart, 2010. 53 [Brundtland Report]. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED).

räumlicher Datenbanken.” Dissertation,

Our Common Future. New York: Oxford

Technische Universität München, 2007.

University Press, 1987.

43 Both, Petra von. “Ein systemisches Projekt-

54 Buckminster Fuller, R. Operating Manual for

modell für eine kooperative Planung

Spaceship Earth, edited by Jaime Snyder.

komplexer Unikate.” Dissertation, Uni-

Zurich: Lars Müller Publishers, 2008.

versität Karlsruhe, 2005. 44 Bourscheid, Johann W. von. Kaisers Leo des Philosophen Strategie und Taktik. Vienna, 1777. 45 Brand, Stewart. How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They’re Built. New York: Viking, 1994. 46 Brauer, Jörg-Peter. DIN EN ISO 9000:2000 ff. umsetzen: Gestaltungshilfen zum Aufbau ihres Qualitätsmanagementsystems. Munich: Carl Hanser, 2009. 47 Braungart, Michael, and William McDonough.

55 Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF). Bundesbericht Forschung und Innovation 2012. Berlin: BMBF, 2012. 56 Butzin, Anna, and Dieter Rehfeld. “Innovationsbiographien in der Bauwirtschaft,” Forschung aktuell (October 2008). 57 Carter, Peter. Mies van der Rohe at Work. Berlin: Phaidon, 2005. 58 Cassirer, Ernst. Philosophie der symbolischen Formen, 1923–29, as cited in [253]. 59 Castells, Manuel. End of Millennium, vol. 3, The Information Age: Economy, Society

Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way

and Culture. New York: Wiley-Blackwell,

We Make Things. London: Vintage, 2009.

2010.

APPENDIX 195

60 Centraalstaal International, http://www.

70 Czerny, Margarete, et al. Innovation und

centralindustrygroup.com/about/projects/

Nachhaltigkeit im Bau- und Wohnungs-

link-bridge-marina-hotel-f1-circuit/7?catid=

wesen: Strukturanalyse und Lösungsvor-

291, accessed October 15, 2018. 61 Chipperfield, David, as cited in Christina Gräwe, “The Proof Is in the Pudding: Pressekonferenz mit Chipperfield,” August 27, 2012, http://www.baunetz.de/biennale/ 2012/beitrag.php?bid=71. 62 Chipperfield, David. “Common Ground,”

schläge. Vienna: Österreichisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (WIFO), 2010. 71 Dangel, Ulrich. Wendepunkt im Holzbau: Neue Wirtschaftsformen. Basel: Birkhäuser, 2017. 72 “Daten zur Umwelt: Abfallaufkommen 2009, Umweltbundesamt as of 11/2011,” http:// www.umweltbundesamt-daten-zur-umwelt.

http://www.labiennale.org/en/architecture/

de/umweltdaten/public/ theme.do?

exhibition/chipperfield/, accessed Septem-

nodeIdent=2320, accessed December 9, 2012.

ber 6, 2012. 63 Clausewitz, Carl von. On War. London: Penguin, 1832. 64 The Construction Users Roundtable (CURT). “Collaboration, Integrated Information, and the Project Life Cycle in Building

73 Davenport, Thomas H. Process Innovation: Reengineering Work through Information Technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1993. 74 European Ministers of Culture. “Davos Declaration 2018: Toward a high-quality Baukultur

Design, Construction and Operation.”

for Europe.” World Economic Forum Annual

Cincinnati: CURT, 2004.

Meeting, Davos, Switzerland, January 23–26,

65 Corser, Robert, ed. Fabricating Architecture: Selected Readings in Digital Design and

2018. 75 Demian, Peter, and Renate Fruchter. “An

Manufacturing. New York: Princeton

Ethnographic Study of Design Knowledge

Architectural Press, 2010.

Reuse in the Architecture, Engineering

66 Crosby, Philip B. Quality without Tears: The Art of Hassle-Free Management. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984. 67 Crotty, Ray. The Impact of Building Information Modeling: Transforming Construction. Oxford: Routledge, 2011. 68 Crowther, Philip. “Design for Disassembly.” Dissertation, Queensland University of Technology, 2003. 69 Cüppers, Andrea. “Wissensmanagement in einem Baukonzern: Anwendungsbeispiele bei Bauprojekten.” Dissertation, RWTH Aachen, 2006.

and Construction Industry,” Research in Engineering Design 16, no. 4 (2006): 184–95. 76 Design to production, designtoproduction. http://www.designtoproduction.ch, accessed July 20, 2012. 77 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen (DGNB), http://www.dgnb.de, accessed January 31, 2012. 78 Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (BMU). Deutsches Ressourceneffizienzprogramm (ProgRess). Berlin: BMU, 2012. 79 DGNB Handbuch: Neubau Büro und Verwaltungsgebäude. Stuttgart: DGNB, 2009.

196

80 Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz

89 Durmisevic, Elma. “Transformable Building

und Reaktorsicherheit (BMU). Die Dritte

Structures: Design for Disassembly as a

Industrielle Revolution: Aufbruch in

Way to Introduce Sustainable Engineering

ein Ökologisches Jahrhundert. Berlin,

to Building Design and Construction.”

BMU, 2008.

Dissertation, TU Delft, 2006.

81 Statistisches Bundesamt. “Dienstleistungen:

90 Easterling, Keller. “Architecture to Take Away:

Strukturerhebung im Dienstleistungs-

The Subtraction of Buildings as a New

bereich Architektur- und Ingenieurbüros

Construction Economy.” In Re-Inventing

2008.” Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt,

Construction, edited by Ilka Ruby and

2011.

Andreas Ruby, 265–74. Berlin: Ruby Press,

82 Deutsches Institut für Normung (DIN). DIN 276:2008-12: Kosten im Bauwesen: Teil 1: Hochbau. Berlin: Beuth, 2008. 83 Deutsches Institut für Normung (DIN).

2010. 91 Ebert, Thilo, Natalie Eßig, and Gerd Hauser. Zertifizierungssysteme für Gebäude: Nachhaltigkeit bewerten, internationaler

DIN 69901-1: 2009-01: Projektmanagement,

Systemvergleich, Zertifizierung und Öko-

Projektmanagementsysteme: Teil 1:

nomie. Munich: Institut für internationale

Grundlagen. Berlin: Beuth, 2009. 84 Dörner, Dietrich. “Thought and Design:

Architektur-Dokumentation, 2010. 92 Gillies, Trent. “Car owners are keeping their

Research Strategies, Single-case Approach

vehicles for longer, which is both good

and Methods of Validation.” In Designers:

and bad,” May 28, 2017, https://www.cnbc.

The Key to Successful Product Development,

com/2017/05/28/car-owners-are-holding-

edited by Eckart Frankenberger, Petra

their-vehicles-for-longer-which-is-both-

Badke-Schaub, and Herbert Birkhofer, 3–11.

good-and-bad.html, accessed: November

New York: Springer, 1998.

7, 2018.

85 Dörries, Cornelia. “Haus ohne Eigenschaften:

93 Ehrenstein, Gottfried. ed. Handbuch Kunst-

Massenware und Einzelstück,” Deutsches

stoff-Verbindungstechnik. Munich: Hanser,

Architektenblatt, March 31, 2011. https://

2004.

dabonline.de/2011/03/31/haus-ohne-­ eigenschaften/. 86 Drucker, Peter F. The Effective Executive. New York: Harper & Row, 1967. 87 Dubois, Anna, and Lars-Erik Gadde. “The

94 Eidenbenz, Michael, Patrick Filipaj, and Sacha Menz. Changes: Innovationen im Bauprozess. Zurich: vdf Hochschulverlag an der ETH Zürich, 2010. 95 “Eiffel Tower Worth £344 Billion to French

Construction Industry as a Loosely Coupled

Economy – or Six Towers of London,

System: Implications for Productivity and

The Telegraph, August 22, 2012, http://www.

Innovation,” Construction Management and

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/

Economics 20, no. 7 (2002): 621–31. 88 Düchs, Martin, in an interview with Roland Stimpel. “Dauerhaft umweltgerecht,”

france/9492500/ Eiffel-Tower-worth-344billion-to-French-economy-or-six-Towersof-London.html#.

Deutsches Architektenblatt (March 2012).

APPENDIX 197

96 Eisenmenger, Mathias. “Der Architekt: das zukünftige Berufsbild unter Berücksichtigung seiner Verantwortung als Baumeister.” Dissertation, Universität Kassel, 2006. 97 EnEV: Verordnung über energiesparenden Wärmeschutz und energiesparende Anlagentechnik bei Gebäuden (Energieeinsparverordnung), version 10/2015. 98 Eppler, Martin J., and Friederike Hoffmann.

106 Finanzen und Steuern, Umsatzsteuer 2008. Fachserie 14, Reihe 8, Statistisches Bundesamt. Wiesbaden, 2010. 107 Flieger, HeinZ. Bauen für die Zukunft. Düsseldorf: Verlag für deutsche Wirtschaftsbiographien, 1970. 108 Foerster, Heinz von. KybernEthik, translated by Birger Ollrogge. Berlin: Merve, 1993. 109 Forbes, Lincoln H., and Syed M. Ahmed.

“Design Thinking im Management: Zur

Modern Construction: Lean Project Delivery

Einführung in die Vielfalt einer Methode,”

and Integrated Practices. Boca Raton:

OrganisationsEntwicklung, no. 2 (2012): 4–7. 99 Arch-Vision. “European Architectural

CRC Press, 2011. 110 Fricke, Klaus, Kai Münnich, and Burkart

Barometer, 3. Quartal 2009.” Rotterdam:

Schulte. “Urban Mining: Ein Beitrag für

Arch-Vision, 2009.

die zukünftige Ressourcensicherung.”

100 European Construction Technology Platform (ECTP), http://www.ectp.org, accessed July 27, 2012. 101 Eyres, David J., and George J. Bruce. Ship

In Ressource Abfall, Festschrift zur 50-JahrFeier des BDE. Neuruppin: TK, 2011. 111 Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie (BDI). “Für eine strategische und ganzheitliche

Construction. Oxford: Butterworth-

Rohstoffpolitik: BDI-Strategiepapier zur

Heinemann, 2012.

Rohstoffsicherheit.” BDI-Drucksache Nr. 432.

102 “Faktenpapier nicht-energetische Rohstoffe – Hintergrundinformation zum IHK-Jahres-

Berlin: Industrie-Förderung, 2010. 112 Gaitanides, Michael. Prozessorganisation:

thema 2012.” Berlin/Brussels: Deutscher

Entwicklung, Ansätze und Programme des

Industrie- und Handelskammertag (DIHK).

Managements von Geschäftsprozessen.

2011. 103 Fechner, Olaf. Analyse der Rolle der Architekten und Ingenieure in Abhängigkeit von unterschiedlichen Auftraggebermodellen. Weimar: VDG, 2009. 104 Feldhusen, G. “Fassadendämmung: Von Null auf 700 (Mio. m2),” Deutsches IngenieurBlatt, special issue, “50 Jahre WärmedämmVerbundsysteme” (April 2007): 27. 105 Feldman, Martha S., and James G. March. “Information in Organizations as Signal and Symbol,” Administrative Science Quarterly 26, no. 2 (June 1981): 171–86.

Munich: Vahlen, 2007. 113 Garvin, David A. “What Does ‘Product Quality’ Really Mean?” Sloan Management Review (Fall 1984): 25–43. 114 Gassmann, Oliver, and Ellen Enkel. “Open Innovation: Die Öffnung des Innovationsprozesses erhöht das Innovationspotential,” zfo 75 (2006): 132–38. 115 Gehry Technologies, http://www.gehrytechnologies.com, accessed December 1, 2012. 116 Gemeinsamer Ausschuss Elektronik im Bauwesen (GAEB), http://www.gaeb.de/index1. php?javascript=on, accessed October 27, 2012.

198

117 “Gesetz zur Neuordnung des Kreislaufwirt-

127 Guy, Bradley, and Scott Shell. “Design for

schafts- und Abfallrechts, February 24, 2012,”

Deconstruction and Materials Reuse.”

Bundesgesetzblatt 2012, part 1, no. 10: 212–64.

In Design for Deconstruction and Materials

118 Bund Deutscher Architekten (BDA). Gestaltungsbeiräte: Mehr Kommunikation, mehr Baukultur. Berlin: Bund Deutscher Architekten (BDA), 2011. 119 Giedion, Sigfried. Space, Time, and Architecture:

Reuse, edited by Frank Schultmann and Abdol R. Chini, paper 15. CIB Publication 272. Rotterdam: CIB, 2002. 128 Hadid, Zaha. “Zaha Hadid Discusses Challenges in Architecture,” Architecture Daily,

The Growth of a New Tradition. Cambridge,

November 24, 2011. https://www.archdaily.

MA: Harvard University Press, 2008.

com/186843/video-zaha-hadid-discusses-

120 Girmscheid, Gerhard, and David Lunze. “Paradigmawechsel in der Bauwirtschaft: Lebenszyklusleistungen,” Bauingenieur 83, no. 2 (2008): 87–97. 121 Gombrich, Ernst H.: The Story of Art, 16th ed. London: Phaidon, 2005. 122 Gore, Al. An Inconvenient Truth. London: Bloomsbury, 2006. 123 Gramazio & Kohler: Architektur und Digitale Fabrikation an der ETH Zürich, http://gramazio-kohler.arch.ethz.ch/web/d/ projekte/index.html, accessed October 15, 2018. 124 Graubner, Carl-Alexander, and Katja Hüske.

challenges-in-architecture. 129 Haeckel, Ernst. Generelle Morphologie der Organismen. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1866. 130 Hammacher, Peter. “Adjudikation und Mediation: Ein gemeinsames Ziel.” Cologne: Wolters Kluwer, 2009. 131 Hammer, Michael, and James Champy. Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution. New York: HarperBusiness, 1993. 132 Hannon, Bruce. “The Structure of Ecosystems,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 41 (1973): 535–46. 133 Hartmann, Nicolai. Philosophische Grund-

Nachhaltigkeit im Bauwesen: Grundlagen,

fragen der Biologie. Göttingen, 1912, as cited

Instrumente, Beispiele. Berlin: Ernst & Sohn,

in [253].

2003. 125 Grieger, Winfried. “Außergerichtliche Streitbeilegung.” In Handbuch des Fachanwalts: Bau- und Architektenrecht, edited by Johann Kuffer. Munich: Werner, 2006. 126 Günther, Willibald A., and André Borrrmann, eds. Digitale Baustelle: innovativer Planen, effizienter Ausführen: Werkzeuge und

134 Harvey, David. “The Right to the City,” New Left Review, no. 53 (September/October 2008): 23–40. 135 Hauschild, Moritz, and Rüdiger Karzel. Digitale Prozesse: Planung, Gestaltung, Fertigung. Munich: Institut für internationale Architektur-Dokumentation, 2010. 136 Hauschildt, Jürgen, Sören Salomo, Carsten

Methoden für das Bauen im 21. Jahrhundert.

Schultz, and Alexander Kock. Innovations-

Berlin: Springer, 2011.

management. Munich: Vahlen, 2007. 137 Hegger, Manfred. “Solar Decathlon 2007: Prototype Home 2015,” Zukunft bauen: das Magazin der Forschungsinitiative Zukunft Bau, version date June 2009.

APPENDIX 199

138 Hegner, Hans-Dieter. “Leitmotiv: Nachhaltiges

“Moore’s Law to Roll on for Another Decade,”

Forschungsinitiative Zukunft Bau, version

CNET, February 11, 2003, https://www.

dated June 2009. 139 Heidemann, Ailke. “Kooperative Projektabwicklung im Bauwesen unter der Berücksichtigung von Lean-Prinzipien: Entwicklung eines Lean-Projektabwick-

cnet.com/news/moores-law-to-roll-on-foranother-decade/. 150 Howard, Ebenezer. Garden Cities of To-morrow. London: Sonnenschein, 1902. 151 Howell, Gregory A. “What is Lean Construc-

lungssystems.” Dissertation, Karlsruher

tion?” In Proceedings IGLC-7, edited by

Institut für Technologie (KIT), 2010.

Iris Tommelein, 1–10. Ketchum, ID: Lean

140 Heinlein, Frank. Aktivhaus B10 by Werner Sobek. Stuttgart: avedition, 2015. 141 Herrler, Elmar. “Zusammenfassung der Ergeb-

Construction Institute, 1999. 152 Hüttenrauch, Mathias, and Markus Baum. Effiziente Vielfalt: Die dritte Revolution

nisse des Gutachtens Arthur Andersen

in der Automobilindustrie. Berlin: Springer

über ein analytisches und fortschreibbares

Berlin, 2008.

Personalbedarfsberechnungssystem

153 Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung

(PEBB§Y I) für Richter und Staatsanwälte.”

(BMBF). Ideen, Innovation, Wachstum:

Berlin: Deutscher Richterbund, 2011.

Hightech-Strategie 2020 für Deutschland.

142 Herzog & de Meuron. Prada Aoyama Tokyo – Herzog & de Meuron. Milan: Progetto Prada Arte, 2003. 143 Hesse, Stefan, and Viktorio Malisa, eds. Taschenbuch Robotik, Montage, Handhabung. Munich: Carl Hanser, 2010. 144 HOAI 2002: Honorarordnung für Architekten und Ingenieure, 7th edition. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2003. 145 HOAI 2009: Verordnung über Honorare für

Bonn/Berlin: BMBF, 2010. 154 Institut für Freie Berufe (IFB). IFB-Studie Bürokostenvergleich 2010 im Auftrag des AHO. Nuremberg: IFB, 2011. 155 Deutsche Telekom Stiftung and Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie (BDI), eds. Innovationsindikator 2011. Bonn: Deutsche Telekom Stiftung, 2011. 156 The American Institute of Architects (AIA) / AIA California Council. Integrated

Leistungen der Architekten und Ingenieure,

Project Delivery: A Guide, version 1, 2007,

27th ed. Munich: Beck-Texte im dtv, 2010.

https://info.aia.org/SiteObjects/files/IPD_

146 Hommerich, Christoph, and Thomas Ebers. Analyse der Kosten- und Ertragssituation

Guide_2007.pdf. 157 International Dismantling Information

in Architekturbüros: Ergebnisse einer

System (IDIS), https://www.idis2.com,

Repräsentativbefragung. Berlin: Bundes-

accessed December 2, 2012.

architektenkammer, 2006. 147 Hommerich, Christoph, Nicole Hommer-

158 International Organization for Standardization Technical Committees (ISO/TC), https://

ich, and Friederike Riedel. Zukunft der

www.iso.org/technical-committees.html,

Architekten: Berufsbild und Märkte. Düssel-

accessed October 15, 2018.

dorf: Architektenkammer NRW, 2005. 148 Hopkins, Keith, and Mary Beard. The Colosseum. London: Profile Books, 2005.

200

149 House, David, as cited in Michael Kanellos,

Bauen,” Zukunft bauen: Das Magazin der

159 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). IPCC Fourth

169 Kieran, Stephen, and James Timberlake. Refabricating Architecture: How Manu-

Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007.

facturing Methodologies Are Poised To

Geneva: IPCC, 2007.

Transform Building Construction. New York:

160 ISO 14025:2011-10, Environmental Labels and Declarations: Type III Environmental

McGraw-Hill, 2004. 170 Kietzmann, Norman. “Biennale 2012: Auf Grund

Declarations: Principles and Procedures.

gelaufen,” Dear, published September 5,

Berlin: Beuth, 2011.

2012, https://www.dear-magazin.de/stories/

161 ISO 9000:2005-12, Quality Management Systems: Fundamentals and Vocabulary. Berlin: Beuth, 2005. 162 ISO/DIS 16739:2012-4, Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) for Data Sharing in the Construction and Facility Management Industries. Berlin: Beuth, 2012. 163 “Jahr 2008: 1,5 % mehr Erwerbstätige als ein

Biennale-2012-Auf-Grund-gelaufen_10289171. html. 171 Klein, Harmut. Basics Project Planning. Basel: Birkhäuser, 2017. 172 Klein, Naomi. Die Entscheidung: Kapitalismus vs. Klima. Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer, 2015. 173 Kluge, Friedrich, and Elmar Seebold. Kluge: Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen

Jahr zuvor.” Press release no. 001, Statis-

Sprache. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2002.

tisches Bundesamt, Wiesbaden, January

174 Koch, Volker. “Wissensbasierte Ausbildung

2, 2009. 164 Jakl, Thomas, and Manfred Sietz, eds. Nachhaltigkeit fassbar machen: Entropiezunahme als Maß der Nachhaltigkeit. Vienna: Diplomatische Akademie Wien, 2012. 165 Jakl, Thomas. “It’s the Entropy, Stupid!” In [164], 11–18. 166 Kalusche, Wolfdietrich. “Technische Lebensdauer von Bauteilen und wirtschaftliche

von Architekten: Szenarien für Lehre und Praxis in einem erweiterten Berufsumfeld.” Dissertation, Universität Karlsruhe, 2008. 175 Kolarevic, Branko. Performative Architecture: Beyond Instrumentality. New York: Spon Press, 2005. 176 Koolhaas, Rem, as cited in: Frank Kaltenbach, “Cronocaos,” Detail, June 27, 2011, http:// www.detail.de/architektur/termine/

Nutzungsdauer eines Gebäudes.” In Bauen,

cronocaos-000035.html, accessed October

Bewirtschaften, Erneuern: Gedanken zur

26, 2012.

Gestaltung der Infrastruktur: Festschrift

177 Koolhaas, Rem, and Hans-Ulrich Obrist,

zum 60. Geburtstag von Prof. Dr. H.

eds. Project Japan: Metabolism Talks…

Schalcher, edited by Hans Held and Peter

Cologne: Taschen, 2011.

Marti, 55–71. Zurich: ETH Zürich, 2004. 167 Keck, Herbert. “Auto und Architektur:

178 Kosiol, Erich. “Grundprobleme der Ablauforganisation.” In Handwörterbuch

Zur Geschichte einer Faszination.”

der Organisation, 2nd. ed., edited by Erwin

Dissertation, TU Vienna, 1991.

Grochla, 1–8. Stuttgart: Poeschel, 1980.

168 Kershaw, Peter, et al. “Plastic Debris in the Ocean.” In UNEP Year Book 2011: Emerging Issues in Our Global Environment, 21–32. Nairobi: UNEP, 2011.

APPENDIX 201

179 Kovacic, Iva. “Building Performance Evalua-

Bauens in Deutschland: Eine gemeinsame

Toward Strategy for Sustainable Planning.”

Initiative der deutschen Bauwirtschaft.

In REAL CORP 007 Proceedings, edited by

Berlin: Zentralverband Deutsches Bau-

Manfred Schrenk, Vasily Popovich, and Josef Benedikt, 185–93. Vienna Schwechat, 2007. 180 Kranz, Mathias. “Management von Strategie-

gewerbe, 2009. 190 Liebich, Thomas, Carl-Stephan Schweer, and Siegfried Wernik. “Die Auswirkungen von Building Information Modeling (BIM)

prozessen: Von der Strategischen Planung

auf die Leistungsbilder und Vergütungs-

zur integrierten Strategieentwicklung.”

struktur für Architekten und Ingenieure

Diss., Universität Potsdam, 2006. 181 Krygiel, Eddy, and Bradley Nies. Green BIM: Successful Sustainable Design with Building Information Modeling. Indianapolis: Wiley, 2008. 182 Lakeit, Arne. “Vorsprung durch Technik im

sowie auf die Vertragsgestaltung.” BMVBS Research Initiative “Zukunft Bau.” Bonn: BMI, 2011. 191 Liebich, Thomas, Konrad Stuhlmacher, and Romy Guruz. “Information Delivery Manual Work within HESMOS: A Descrip-

globalen Audi Produktionsnetzwerk.”

tive Approach to Defining Information

Lecture given at the Technologieführer

Delivery Manuals.” Dresden: AEC3 Deutsch-

der Automobilindustrie stellen sich vor, Universität Stuttgart, January 16, 2012. 183 Lampugnani, Vittorio Magnano. “Gesten ohne Sinngehalt: Über die Zerstörung der Stadt durch zeitgenössische Architektur-Skulpturen,” Neue Zürcher Zeitung, November 11, 2011. 184 Langenscheidt Universal-Wörterbuch Englisch. Berlin: Langenscheidt, 2009. 185 Le Corbusier: Towards a New Architecture, translated by Frederik Etchells. London: Architectural Press, 1965. 186 Lee, J. W., as cited in “Samsung’s ‘Mega-Block’ Revolution.” Press release, TTS Marine, January 1, 2006. 187 United States Green Building Council (USGBC). LEED – Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design, https://new.usgbc.org, accessed October 21, 2012. 188 Leibundgut, Hansjürg. LowEx Building Design: Für eine ZeroEmission Architecture. Zurich:

202

189 Leitbild Bau: Zur Zukunft des Planens und

tion on “Dynamical Building” Model:

land/TU Dresden, 2012. 192 Liebich, Thomas. “Organisation: Ziele, Organisation und Kooperation von buildingSMART.” Munich: buildingSMART, 2010. 193 World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). Living Planet Report 2012: Biodiversity, Biocapacity and Better Choices. Gland: WWF, 2012. 194 Lottje, Christine. “Der hohe Preis des Palmöls: Menschenrechtsverletzungen und Landkonflikte in Indonesien.” AKTUELL 22 (March 2012). 195 Luhmann, Niklas. Introduction to Systems Theory, translated by Peter Gilgen. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013. 196 Luhmann, Niklas. Social Systems, translated by John Bednarz, Jr., with Dirk Baecker. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995. 197 MacLeamy, Patrick. “BIM, Bam, BOOM! How to Build Greener, High-Performance Buildings,” http://hokrenew.com/2010/02/09/bim-bamboom-how-to-guarantee-greener-high-

vdf Hochschulverlag an der ETH Zürich,

performance-buildings/, accessed October

2011.

14, 2012.

198 MacLeamy, Patrick. “On the Future of the Building Industry (Parts 1–5).” Video, https://

208 Allan, John A. “Virtual Water: The Water, Food and Trade Nexus: Useful Concept

youtu.be/4dqW70eoQH4, accessed October

or Misleading Metaphor?” IWRA Water

15, 2018.

International 28, no. 1 (2003): 4–11.

199 Malthus, Thomas Robert. An Essay on the

209 Meyer-Meierling, Paul. Gesamtleitung von

Principle of Population. London: J. Johnson,

Bauten: Ein Lehrbuch der Projektsteuerung.

1798.

Zurich: vdf Hochschulverlag an der ETH

200 Manstetten, Reiner. “Die Einheit und Unvereinbarkeit von Ökologie und Ökonomie,” GAIA 4, no. 1 (1995): 40–51. 201 Marx, Karl. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, translated by Ben Fowkes. London: Penguin Books, 1976. 202 Masou, Robert, Christian Bergmann, Walter Haase, and Valentin Brenner. “Rezyklierbare modulare Massivbauweisen: Entwicklung von Grundprinzipien.” In Mauerwerk-Kalender 2012, edited by Wolfram Jäger, 649–81. Berlin: Ernst & Sohn, 2012. 203 Maturana Romesin, Humberto, and Francisco J. Varela. Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1980. 204 Matzig, Gerhard. Einfach nur dagegen:

Zürich, 2003. 210 Miegel, Meinhard. Foreword to Adrian Ottnad and Peter Hefele, Die Zukunft der Bauwirtschaft in Deutschland. Munich: Olzog, 2002. 211 Mies van der Rohe, Ludwig. Conversations with Mies van der Rohe, edited by Moisés Puente. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2008. 212 Kreislaufwirtschaft Bau. “Mineralische Bauabfälle Monitoring 2008.” Berlin, Kreislaufwirtschaft Bau, 2011. 213 Mintzberg, Henry, Joseph Lampel, and Bruce Ahlstrand. Strategy Safari: A Guided Tour Through the Wilds of Strategic Management. New York: Free Press, 1998. 214 Minx, Eckard, and Harald Preissler. “‘Die Sonne geht nicht im Osten auf’: Zukunftsfähiges

Wie wir unseren Kindern die Zukunft

Denken und verantwortungsvolles Handeln.”

verbauen. Munich: Goldmann, 2011.

In Die andere Intelligenz: Wie wir morgen

205 Meadows, Donella, et al. The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. New York: New American Library, 1972. 206 Menges, Achim. “Architektonische Form- und Materialwerdung am Übergang von Computer Aided zu Computational Design,” Detail 50, no. 5 (2010): 420–25. 207 Menz, Sacha. “Systeme und Prozesse.”

denken werden, edited by Bernhard von Mutius, 254–69. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 2008. 215 Moffatt, Sebastian, and Niklaus Kohler. “Conceptualizing the Built Environment as a Social-Ecological System,” Building Research & Information 36, no. 3 (2008): 248–68. 216 Mösle, Peter. “Entwicklung einer Methode zur Internationalisierung eines ganzheitlichen

In Drei Bücher über den Bauprozess,

Zertifizierungssystems zum nachhaltigen

edited by Sacha Menz. Zurich: vdf Hoch-

Bauen für Bürogebäude.” Dissertation,

schulverlag an der ETH Zürich, 2004.

Universität Stuttgart, 2010.

APPENDIX 203

217 Müller-Prothmann, Tobias, and Nora Dörr.

of the World: A Global History of the

Methoden und Werkzeuge für systema-

Nineteenth Century, translated by Patrick

tische Innovationsprozesse. Munich:

Camiller. Princeton: Princeton University

Hanser, 2009.

Press, 2015.

218 Mutius, Bernhard von. “Die andere Intelligenz

228 Osterloh, Margit, and Jetta Frost. Prozess-

oder: Muster, die verbinden: Eine Skizze.”

management als Kernkompetenz: Wie Sie

In Die andere Intelligenz: Wie wir morgen

Business Reengineering strategisch nutzen

denken werden, edited by Bernhard von Mutius, 12–43. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 2008. 219 Neirynck, Jacques. Huitième jour de la création: Introduction à l’entropologie. Lausanne: Presses polytechniques romandes, 2005. 220 Nerdinger, Winfried, ed. Wendepunkte im Bauen: Von der seriellen zur digitalen Architektur. Munich: Institut für internationale Architektur-Dokumentation, 2010. 221 Neumann, John von. The Computer and the Brain. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1958. 222 Nordby, Anne Sigrid. “Salvageability of Building Materials.” Dissertation, NTNU Trondheim, 2009. 223 Nordhause-Janz, Jürgen; Jessica Welschhoff, and Dieter Rehfeld. Innovationsstrategien am Bau im internationalen Vergleich. BMVBS-Online Publikation 07/2011. Berlin: Bundesministerium für Verkehr Bau und Stadtentwicklung (BMVBS), 2011. 224 Oehler, Stefan, and Hans Georg Reinke. “Die Zukunft der Photovoltaik,” greenbuilding (June 2012): 8–12. 225 Office for Metropolitan Architecture – OMA/AMO, http://oma.eu/oma, accessed December 9, 2012. 226 Oppeln, Constanze von, and Rafaël Schneider. “Land Grabbing: Den Armen wird der Boden

204

227 Osterhammel, Jürgen. The Transformation

Innovationsmanagement: Strategien,

können. Wiesbaden: Gabler, 2000. 229 Otto, Frei. “Mehr von der Natur verstehen: Ein Gespräch mit Frei Otto.” Detail (December 2005): 1400–1403. 230 Ouroussoff, Nicolai. “An Architect’s Fear that Preservation Distorts,” New York Times, May 23, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/ 2011/05/24/arts/design/cronocaos-by-remkoolhaas-at-the-new-museum.html. 231 Pahl, Gerhard, Wolfgang Beitz, Jörg Feldhusen, and Karl-Heinrich Grote. Konstruktionslehre: Grundlagen erfolgreicher Produktentwicklung, Methoden und Anwendung. Berlin: Springer, 2007. 232 Roland Berger Strategy Consultants. “Partnerschaftsmodelle als Erfolgsfaktor in der Bauindustrie.” Berlin: Roland Berger Strategy Consultants, 2007. 233 Paulson, Boyd C., Jr. “Designing to Reduce Construction Costs,” Journal of the Construction Division 102, no. 4 (1976): 587–92. 234 Penev, Kiril D. “Design of Disassembly Systems: A Systematic Approach.” Dissertation, TU Eindhoven, 1996. 235 Perspektiven für Deutschland: Unsere Strategie für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung. Berlin: Die Bundesregierung, 2002. 236 Pezold, Kilian von. “Adjudikation: Ein neues Verfahren zur außergerichtlichen Streitbeilegung von Baustreitigkeiten: Fluch oder

unter den Füßen weggezogen,” Brennpunkt,

Segen für die Baubeteiligten?” Cologne:

no. 8 (April 2009): 1–5.

Wolters Kluwer, 2009.

237 Picot, Arnold, Helmut Dietl, and Egon Franck.

247 “Richtlinie 2000/53/EG des Europäischen Par-

Organisation: Eine ökonomische Perspek-

laments und des Rates vom 18.09.2000 über

tive. Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel, 2008.

Altfahrzeuge.” Version February 25, 2010.

238 Picot, Arnold, Ralf Reichwald, and Rolf Wigand. Information, Organization and Manage-

248 “Richtlinie 2006/123/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 27.12.2006

ment: Expanding Markets and Corporate

über Dienstleistungen im Binnenmarkt.”

Boudaries. Heidelberg: Springer, 2008.

Version December 27, 2006.

239 Heine, Lauren, and Marc Major. “Policy Principles for Sustainable Materials Management:

249 “Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November

Working Document.” Policy Report 1 for

on Waste and Repealing Certain Directives.”

OECD Global Forum on Environment,

Version February 25, 2010.

October 25–27, 2010. 240 projectplace, https://www.projectplace.de, accessed October 4, 2011. 241 Rapoport, Amos, ed. The Mutual Interaction of People and the Built Environment: A Cross-cultural Perspective. Amsterdam: De Gruyter, 1976. 242 Rath, Heike, as cited in “ARGE Baurecht: Baubegleitende Planung erhöht Kosten um bis zu 30 Prozent.” Press release, ARGE Baurecht, DeutscherAnwaltsVerein (DAV), Berlin, June 19, 2012. 243 Ratti, Carlo. “Senseable Cities, Senseable

250 Rieck, Alexander. “FuCon: Bauen im Jahr 2020.” Fraunhofer Institut für Arbeitswirtschaft und Organisation (IAO), http://www.fucon. eu/aktuelles/rieck_iao_bauen_morgen.pdf, accessed October 14, 2012. 251 Rink, Dieter, and Ellen Banzhaf. “Flächeninanspruchnahme als Umweltproblem.” In Handbuch Umweltsoziologie, edited by Groß, Matthias, 445–63. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften/Springer, 2011. 252 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. In Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Develop-

Mobility.” Lecture given at the conference

ment: Rio de Janeiro, 3–14 June 1992, vol. 1,

Vision: Elektromobile Stadt der Zukunft,

Resolutions Adopted by the Conference,

Berlin, September 7, 2011. 244 Rautenberg, Hanno. “Jetzt ist Früher heute,” Die Zeit, January 19, 2012. 245 VDI Zentrum Ressourcen Effizienz und Klimaschutz. Ressourcenschonung durch Beton mit Recycling-Gesteinskörnungen. http:// www.vdi-zre.de/ressourceneffizienz/im-bau/ rc-beton/, accessed December 9, 2012. 246 Richter, Peter, and Niklas Maak. “Die Burka fürs Haus: Wohnen, Dämmen, Lügen: am deutschen Dämmstoffwesen soll das Klima genesen,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, November 16, 2010.

3–8. New York: United Nations, 1992. 253 Ritter, Joachim, Karlfried Gründer, and Gottfried Gabriel, eds. Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie. Basel: Schwabe, 2010. 254 European Commission. “Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe.” COM (2011) 571. Brussels: European Commission, 2011. 255 ROB Technologies AG, https://rob-technologies. com/robotic-brickwork, accessed October 15, 2018. 256 Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press, 2003. 257 Ropohl, Günter. Allgemeine Technologie: Eine Systemtheorie der Technik. Karlsruhe: Universitätsverlag Karlsruhe, 2009.

APPENDIX 205

258 Rose, Catherine Michelle. “Design for Environment: A Method for Formulating Product End-Of-Life Strategies.” Dissertation, Stanford Univers”ity, 2000. 259 Ruskin, John, as cited in Frank Siegburg, F.,

Energieeinsparung und Klimaschutz,” Zukunft bauen (June 2009): 20–21. 269 Schiller, Georg, and Clemens Deilmann. Ermittlung von Ressourcenschonungs-

“Ermittlung von Stundensätzen für Planungs-

potenzialen bei der Verwertung von Bauab-

leistungen.” Siegburg: Tabellen, http://

fällen und Erarbeitung von Empfehlungen

www.siegburgtabelle.de/html/aufsatz.html, accessed December 5, 2012. 260 Rußig, Volker. Die volkswirtschaftliche Bedeutung der Immobilienwirtschaft: Kurzfassung des Gutachtens des Instituts für Wirtschaftsforschung (ifo). Universität München, 2005. 261 Sachs, Wolfgang. “Die vier Es: Merkposten für

zu deren Nutzung. Texte, no. 56 (2010). 270 Schlaich, Jörg. “Zur Gestaltung der Ingenieurbauten, oder Die Baukunst ist unteilbar,” Bauingenieur 61, no. 2 (1986): 49–61. 271 Schlegel, Friedrich. Philosophische Lehrjahre III. Paderborn, 1963, as cited in [253]. 272 ARGE Baurecht im Deutschen Anwalt Verein (DAV). “Schlichtungs- und Schiedsordnung

einen maßvollen Wirtschaftsstil,” Politische

für Baustreitigkeiten (SOBau).” Berlin:

Ökologie 33 (1993): 69–72.

DAV, September 2009.

262 Sander, B., M. Benz, and R. Bovensiepen.

273 Schmidt-Kretschmer, Michael. “Untersuchun-

“Verschenkte Chancen: Echte Innovationen

gen an recyclingunterstützenden Bau-

finden im Management statt.” Innovation

teilgruppen.” Dissertation, TU Berlin, 1994.

Excellence Studie 2011, Spotlight 4. Düsseldorf: Batten & Company, 2011. 263 Sauerbruch, Matthias. “Baukultur ist … alles,

274 Schmitz, Christof, and Betty Zucker. Wissensmanagement. Berlin: Metropolitan, 2003. 275 Schoer, Karl, Sarka Buyney, Christine

was wir haben,” Baukultur, May 10, 2010.

Flachmann, and Helmut Mayer. “Die

https://www.bundesstiftung-baukultur.de/

Nutzung von Umweltressourcen durch die

stiftung/publikationen/kolumne/alles-was-

Konsumaktivitäten der privaten Haushalte:

wir-haben.

Ergebnisse der umweltökonomischen

264 Schaper, Dirk. “BIM-gestützte Produktionssysteme im Infrastrukturbereich – HochTief Virtual Design and Construction (ViCon).”

Gesamtrechnungen 1995–2004.” Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt, November 2006. 276 Schumacher, Patrik. “Parametricism: A New

Lecture given at BIM-Anwendertag, build-

Global Style for Architecture and Urban

ingSMART, Duisburg, May 24, 2012.

Design,” Architectural Design 79, no. 4 (2009):

265 Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph. Ideas for a Philosophy of Nature, translated by

14–23. 277 Schumpeter, Joseph A. Theorie der wirtschaft-

Errol E. Harris and Peter Heath. Cambridge:

lichen Entwicklung. Berlin: Duncker und

Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Humblot, 2006.

266 Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph. Von der Weltseele. Hamburg, 1798, as cited in [253]. 267 Scherer; Alexander Nicol. Grundzüge der neuern chemischen Theorie. Jena, 1795, as cited in [253].

206

268 Schettler-Köhler, Horst-Peter. “Leitmotiv:

278 Seliger, G., E. Zussmann, and A. Kriwet.

287 Sobek, Werner. “Architecture Isn’t Here to Stay:

“Integration of Recycling Considerations

Toward a Reversibility of Construction.”

into Product Design: A System Approach.”

In Re-Inventing Construction, edited by Ilka

In Integration of Information and Collab-

Ruby and Andreas Ruby, 34–45. Berlin: Ruby

oration Models, edited by Shimon Y. Nof, 27–41. New York: Kluwer, 1994. 279 Shamiyeh, Michael, and DOM Research Laboratory, eds. Organizing for Change: Integrating Architectural Thinking in other Fields, Profession, Space. Basel: Birkhäuser, 2007. 280 Siedentop, Stefan. “Urban Sprawl – verstehen, messen, steuern,” DISP 160 (2005): 23–35. 281 Siedentop, Stefan. “Wir haben ein Problem: Ökologische, ökonomische und soziale Risiken des Flächenverbrauchs.” Lecture, given at conference, Flächenverbrauch: Ein Problem für Schleswig-Hostein? Neumünster, April 2, 2004. 282 Sieverts, Thomas. Zwischenstadt: Zwischen

Press, 2010. 288 Sobek, Werner. “Bauschaffen: Auch im Sinn der Nachhaltigkeit,” ARCH+, no. 184 (October 2007): 88–89. 289 Sobek, Werner. “Entwerfen im Leichtbau,” Themenheft Forschung 3 (2007): 70–82. 290 Socrates. “Metaphysik VII,” as cited in Aristoteles-Handbuch: Leben–Werk– Wirkung, edited by Christof Rapp, and Klaus Corcilius. Stuttgart: Metzler, 2011. 291 Stachowiak, Herbert. Allgemeine Modelltheorie. Vienna: Springer, 1973. 292 Stahel, Walter R. “The Utilization-Focused Service Economy: Resource-Efficiency and Product-Life Extension.” In The Greening of

Ort und Welt, Raum und Zeit, Stadt und

Industrial Ecosystems, edited by Braden R.

Land, 3rd ed. Basel: Birkhäuser, 2013.

Allenby, 178–90. Washington, DC: National

283 Smith, Adam. The Wealth of Nations, 2 vols. London: Penguin, 1999. 284 Smith, D. K.; Tardiff, M.: Building Information Modeling – A strategic implementation guide. New York: Wiley, 2009. 285 Sobek, Werner, as cited in “DGNB: Zertifi-

Academy Press, 1994. 293 Staib, Gerald, Andreas Dörrhöfer, and Markus Rosenthal. Components and Systems: Modular Construction: Design, Structure, New Technologies. Basel: Birkhäuser, 2008. 294 Steingart, Gabor. The War for Wealth: The

zierung wird erweitert,” Detail, May 17, 2009,

True Story of Globalization, or Why the Flat

http://www.detail.de/architektur/themen/

World Is Broken, translated by Christopher

dgnb-zertifizierungssystem-wird-erweitert001636.html, accessed July 20, 2012. 286 Sobek, Werner, Michael Herrmann, Christian Bergmann, Thorsten Klaus, Petra Michaely, Jürgen Schroth, and Jürgen Schenk. “Plusenergiehaus mit E-Mobilität: Energieeffizienz an der Schnittstelle zwischen Gebäude und Fahrzeug.” In VDI-Bautechnik, Jahresausgabe Bauingenieur 2011/2012, 92–100. Dusseldorf: Springer-VDI, 2012.

Sultan. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008. 295 Stimpel, Roland. “Größe zählt” Deutsches Architektenblatt (October 2012): 32–34. 296 Streck, Stefanie, and Karsten Wischhof. Materialband zum Leitbild Bau. Berlin: BMUB, 2009. 297 Stuttgart 21. http://www.bahnprojekt-stuttgartulm.de/aktuell/, accessed October 15, 2018. 298 Sullivan, Louis. “The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered,” Lippincott’s Magazine, no. 3 (1896): 403–9.

APPENDIX 207

299 Schütte, Gisela. “Interview: Wir brauchen mehr Akzente, die rocken! – Hadi Teheran,” club!

308 Trost, Markus. “Leistungswettbewerb in der Bauwirtschaft: Die Dimensionen einer

Magazin (June 5, 2012), https://magazin.bch.

Strategie des nicht preisbasierten Wett-

de/titelthema-hamburg-baut-wir-brauchen-

bewerbs.” Dissertation, Bauhaus-Universität

mehr-akzente-die-rocken/. 300 Teherani, Hadi, ed. 20 Jahre BRT Architektur. Hamburg: Teherani, 2011. 301 “The Secret Behind Samsung’s ‘Megablock Revolution’ Unveiled.” Samsung Village, September 15, 2011. http://www. samsungvillage.com/blog/2011/09/samsungblog-the-secret-behind-samsungsmegablock-revolution-unveiled.html. 302 Europäische Kommission. “Strategie für eine nachhaltige Nutzung natürlicher Ressourcen.” Luxembourg: Amt für Amtliche Veröff. Der Europ. Gemeinschaften, 2005. 303 Thomke, Stefan, and Ashok Nimgade. “BMW AG: The Digital Car Project (A).” Harvard Business School Case Study 699-044, November 18, 1998. 304 Thompson, D’Arcy Wentworth. On Growth and Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1917. 305 Thormark, Catarina. “A Low-Energy Building in a life Cycle: Its Embodied Energy, Energy

Weimar, 2006. 309 UNStudio, http://www.unstudio.com, accessed December 1, 2012. 310 Urban, Arnd I., and Gerhard Halm, eds. Mit RFID zur innovativen Kreislaufwirtschaft. Kassel: Kassel University Press, 2009. 311 USM Haller Möbelbausysteme, Werbeaussage, as cited in Georg Vrachliotis, “Der infrastrukturelle Raum: Fritz Hallers Architektursysteme,” ARCH+, no. 205 (March 2012): 44–49. 312 Richtlinie VDI 2243: Recyclingorientierte Produktentwicklung/Recycling-Oriented Product Development. Berlin: Beuth, 2002. 313 Richtlinie VDI 4600: Kumulierter Energieaufwand (KEA)/Cumulative Energy Demand (KEA). Berlin: Beuth, 2012. 314 HOAI (Honorarordnung für Architekten und Ingenieure). VOB – Vergabe- und Vertragsordnung für Bauleistungen, 34th ed. Munich: Beck-Texte im dtv, 2018. 315 Wallisser, Tobias. “Vom Blob zur algorithmisch

Need for Operation and Recycling Potential,”

generierten Form,” ARCH+, no. 189 (October

Building and Environment 37, no. 4 (2002):

2008): 120–23.

429–35. 306 “Top-Themen 2009: Gefährlicher Müll beim

316 Weber, Lars. Die Baubeteiligten in England: Eine Darstellung struktureller Unterschiede

Bauen und Sanieren.” Initiative Nach-

zwischen der englischen und deutschen

richtenaufklärung (INA), http://www.

Bauwirtschaft. Munich: GRIN, 2009.

derblindefleck.de/index.php/top-themen/ top-themen-2009, accessed October 10, 2011. 307 Trentmann, Nina. “Arbeiten an der Stadt der Zukunft: Stadtentwicklung als Studiengang,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, June 29, 2012.

317 Weeber, Hannes, and Simone Bosch. Unternehmenskooperationen und Bauteam-Modelle für den Bau kostengünstiger Einfamilienhäuser. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer IRB, 2005. 318 Wehrle, Klaus. “Gemeinsam besser Bauen: Der Bauteam-Gedanke.” Lecture given at Baden-Württembergischer Handwerkstag, Stuttgart, October 14, 2009.

208

319 Weinberg, Matthew, Gregory Eyring, Joe Raguso, and David Jensen. “Industrial Ecology:

327 Werner, Ulrich, and Frank Siegburg. “Der Architekt: Realitätsferner Künstler

The Role of Government.” In The Greening

oder Garant für die Wirtschaftlichkeit?

of Industrial Ecosystems, edited by Braden

Der geschuldete Erfolg des Architekten

R. Allenby and Deanna J. Richards, 123–33.

unter Berücksichtigung des Lifecycles

Washington, DC: National Academy Press,

einer Immobilie: Im Spannungsfeld der

1994.

Baukosten, Folgekosten und Rentabilität.”

320 Weiß, Stefan. “OIKOS: Haus des Lebens – Häuser für das Leben.” Lecture given at the Ev. Akademie Hofgeismar, March 18, 1999. 321 Weizsäcker, Ernst Ulrich von. Das Jahrhundert der Umwelt: Vision: Öko-effizient Leben und Arbeiten. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus, 1999. 322 United Nations Populations Fund (UNFPA). State of World Population 2011. New York: United Nations, 2011. 323 Welter, Thomas. “Jeder 662: Einwohner in Deutschland ist Architekt oder Stadtplaner.” http://www.bakcms.de/Portals/_Rainbow/ infomaterial/1156-0/Architekten%20in%20

Lecture given at ARGE Baurecht, 33. Baurechtstagung, Dresden, March 20, 2009. 328 IW Consult. The Construction Value Chain: Final report of the Research Project “Analysis of the Economic Significance of the Construction Value Chain” for the Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt-, und Raumforchung. Cologne: IW Consult, 2008. 329 Whitehead, Alfred North. Process and Reality, corrected ed. Edited by David Ray Griffin, and Donald W. Sherburne. New York: The Free Press, 1978. 330 Whitehead, Alfred North. Science and the

Deutschland%20zum%201.1.2010.pdf,

Modern World. New York: The Free Press,

accessed October 15, 2018..

1967.

324 “Weltweit einmalige Glasscheiben für die

331 Whitehead, Hugh, Xavier de Kestelier, Irene

Elbphilharmonie,” Baulinks, published

Gallou, and Tuba Kocatürk. “Interview

February 2, 2010, http://www.baulinks.de/

with the Specialist Modelling Group (SMG):

webplugin/2010/0163.php4.

The Dynamic Coordination of Distributed

325 Werner, Ulrich, and Walter Pastor, W. “Einführung zur 9. Novelle der HOAI.” In [145]. 326 Werner, Ulrich, and Frank Siegburg, as cited in Roland Kesselring, Tagungsbericht ARGE Baurecht, 33. Baurechtstagung in Dresden, March 20–21, 2009.

Intelligence at Foster and Partners.” In Distributed Intelligence in Design, edited by Tuba Kocatürk and Benachir Medjedoub, 232–46. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. 332 Wiener, Norbert. Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. Paris: Hermann, 1948. 333 Wiener, Norbert. Kybernetik: Regelung und Nachrichtenübertragung im Lebewesen und in der Maschine. Dusseldorf: Econ, 1965. 334 Willkomm, Wolfgang. Recyclinggerechtes Konstruieren im Hochbau: Recyclingbaustoffe einsetzen, Weiterverwertung einplanen. Eschborn: RKW, 1996.

APPENDIX 209

335 Bundesverband Deutscher Fertigbau. “Wirtschaftliche Lage der deutschen Fertigbauindustrie,” Fertigbau.de, https://www.fertigbau.de/bdf/unserebranche/#&panel1-11&panel2-1, accessed October 15, 2018. 336 Wolf, Harald. “Lean Construction Management.” Lecture given at Baubetriebstage 2009, RWTH Aachen, September 23, 2009. 337 United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Population Prospects: The 2010 Revision. New York: United Nations, 2011. 338 WSGreenTechnologies, http://www. wernersobek.de/en/locations/stuttgart/ wsgreentechnologies/, accessed October 15, 2018. 339 Zaha Hadid Architects Computation and Design Group, http://www.zha-codeeducation.org, accessed December 9, 2012. 340 ZÜBLIN teamconcept, http://www.zueblinteamconcept.de, accessed: February 22, 2010.

210

LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 1  Development of costs and ability to impact costs (after [103]), 26 Fig. 2  Project-specific design and execution process (in line with [171]), 30 Fig. 3  Old and new paradigms in construction (following [70]), 33 Fig. 4  Project-focused organization (according to HOAI [314]), 70 Fig. 5  Participants involved in the construction process, 72 Fig. 6  Breakdown of participants and their relationships, 73 Fig. 7  Overview of problems in the service phases, 85 Fig. 8  The 6 S’s (shearing layers) of a building [45], 97 Fig. 9  Project-based organization (according to IPD [156]), 115 Fig. 10  Process- and organization-based organization, 120 Fig. 11  Product-, project-, and process-based organization, 121 Fig. 12  Conventional and BIM-based information flows [284], 126 Fig. 13  Evolution in automotive manufacturing (following [152], expanded), 138 Fig. 14  Parallel product design and production planning, 145 Fig. 15  The system–environment model in construction, 160 Fig. 16  Continuous cross-project improvement process, 162 Fig. 17  Material and immaterial resource cycles, 163 Fig. 18  Knowledge cycles along the life cycle, 164 Fig. 19  Perspectives for strategy development, 174

APPENDIX 211

212

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Christian Bergmann studied architecture at ETH Zurich and at the University of Stuttgart, from where he graduated with a diploma in 2006. He has worked at UNStudio in Amsterdam and Werner Sobek in Stuttgart as a design leader and project manager. In his doctoral thesis, which he completed in 2013 at the University of Stuttgart, he presented a strategy that enabled the development of innovation-friendly and sustainable processes in design and construction at a holistic level. Since 2015 he has been a senior architect and project manager at Hadi Teherani Architects in Hamburg. The projects that he has been responsible for have been awarded several prestigious architecture and design prizes.

APPENDIX 213

Translation from German into English:  Charlotte Davies, except for the quotes 52, 56, 72, 85, 127, 130, 147, 160, 181, 192, 198, 204, 210, 212, 258, 282, 286, 287, 291, 297, 300. Copy editing:  Keonaona Peterson Project management:  Nora Kempkens, Alexander Felix Production:  Bettina Chang Layout, cover design and typesetting:  Jenna Gesse Reworking of the figures:  Jenna Gesse, Jan Middendorp Paper:  120 g/m2 Plano Plus Printing:  Grafisches Centrum Cuno GmbH & Co. KG, Calbe, Germany Library of Congress Control Number:  2018965141 Bibliographic information published by the German National Library The German National Library lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, re-use of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in other ways, and storage in databases. For any kind of use, permission of the copyright owner must be obtained. ISBN 978-3-0356-1584-5 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-0356-1569-2 German Print-ISBN 978-3-0356-1582-1

© 2019 Birkhäuser Verlag GmbH, Basel P.O. Box 44, 4009 Basel, Switzerland Part of Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

www.birkhauser.com