There Are No "Silver Bullets"

My focus is on authoring processes that incrementally improve the probability of successful outcomes in a compounding manner such that by the time the project leaves my hands success is inevitable...

In life and in work I have learned to avoid relying on silver bullets or moonshots for success (although I do tend to try and have a couple aces up my sleeve [contingencies and workarounds]) at any given moment. In my view, the most effective methodology for success in any endeavor ultimately comes down to clarity of desired benefits and disciplined risk management. In the context of architectural projects, any design solution that I can conceive of is never precious - I'm simply not talented enough to rely on talent alone, I try to be self-aware. Moreover, architectural projects are often the largest expense most of us will ever be part of, whether it's a small residential project, a science and technology research complex or a campus-wide strategic plan. The sheer amount of capital (both monetary and human) that must be aggregated for these projects results in a humbling effect whereby any design solution I would present to a client or collaborator requires an appropriately high level of rigor. There's no "shooting-from-the-hip" in my repertoire, only processes of incremental progress based on quality decision making.

Ray Dalio describes three key approaches to decision making to maximize one's odds of being right:

1. Make believability-weighted decisions

2. Operate by principles

3. Systemize your decision making

Architectural projects often operate, in some capacity, in a "fog-of-war" where the information landscape is initially vague and requires reconnaissance. By persistently employing quality decision making, the project should progress smoothly. Expectations in the form of desired benefits should become increasingly clear and potential risks discovered, resolved, or having instigated adaptive responses by way of design solutions. Our job depends, in large part, on our ability to lift the fog. Very often, certain expectations spontaneously manifest, whether from client introspection, external forces or opportunistic discovery. Also quite often, certain risks to the project can only be discovered once the scope of the project is further developed. In short, a project is a dynamic process and it's important to respect that. Presuming or attempting to dictate a client's desired benefits is inappropriate and predicting every possible risk to a project is impossible. Therefore, the highest and best use of our human capital as a design service provider (the value proposition) is to assist the client in developing a design methodology for making well informed decisions as the benefits and risks naturally evolve - as targets naturally change.

Brian Joiner described three ways people can respond when pressured to meet a target value:

1. Work to improve the system

2. Distort the system

3. Distort the data

In elaborating on system improvement, Donald J Wheeler said, "before you can improve any system you must listen to the system (the Voice of the Process). Then you must understand how the inputs affect the outputs of the system. Finally, you must be able to change the inputs and possibly the system) in order to achieve the desired results. This will require sustained effort, constancy of purpose, and an environment where continual improvement is the operating philosophy."

If we consider that naturally the magnitude of complexity in a project will have a corresponding level of uncertainty (and therefore a greater number of, and moving range for, desired benefits [and associated risks]) then it is logical to conclude that the ability to develop (describe in greater depth and breadth) a project with enough substance to identify scope and enough plasticity to adapt to the natural evolution of desired benefits and potential risks is crucial. To do this, we can focus on steering the project toward a general set of qualitative and quantitative goals and take what Joshua Prince Ramus calls "core positions" with our clients. This can form a baseline for assessing trade-offs as desired benefits and potential risks exert influence on the project.

The crux is accepting that substance and plasticity are not mutually exclusive and that they can actually compliment the other.

Example: For one of our current projects we have called this design methodology "disciplined flexibility". In this example we have the following challenges:

1. High-performance spaces for sensitive equipment (requires a lot of engineering infrastructure to maintain safety and stability of the environment, and therefore risk).

  1a. Maximize serviceability, minimize disruption.

2. Existing building is leaky at the exterior (best not to locate high-performance zone along exterior, provide a buffer).

3. Uncertain population of user groups and associated proportion of space types.

4. Specific adjacency of space types required to maximize utility.

5. Privacy / seclusion of certain space types desired.

6. Cost management.

By collocating infrastructure intensive space types we can be very intentional with the routing of building systems such that other areas of the design can be more flexible to adapt to the evolving desired benefits and risks. We lean into pragmatic challenges with a disciplined, structured approach which conversely offers other opportunities to be less structured and more opportunistic. This trade-off results in a resilient design methodology and greater probability of successful outcomes.

The design of design: In this graphic we communicate in a visceral manner while drawing from a technical context. By providing both a diagrammatic floor plan and a rendered section we hope to connect the synapses between the client's knowledge of the program / existing building and the spacial design opportunities pertinent to this phase in the process. We are also able to subtly articulate our design responses to regulatory, financial and physical challenges. Furthermore, by explicitly animating transitions between 4 different options we drive home the idea that although we need to lock-in a strategy for space planning and systems distribution in order to advance the project, there is still embedded adaptability within. Again, the crux is accepting that substance and plasticity are not mutually exclusive and that they can actually compliment the other.

Notice an idealistic vision for an architectural masterpiece is not present. There's a time and a place for that but it has an inverse correlation with risk. As the probabilities for successful outcomes increases it affords us the latitude to explore architectural gallantry. Exploration of architectural gallantry irrespective of risk is an unnatural endeavor.

A common premise: veggies before dessert.

A more accurate premise: balance.

Jackpot: a meal that is both delicious and healthy. 

In my view, design services is not just about conceiving of a genius idea or heroic aesthetic and selling it to a consumer. It's about being clear regarding what a client wants and helping them proactively manage what may be in the way. Sure I should, and do, leverage my skill-set, intellectual capital and project experience to help clients identify opportunities to realize the highest and best use of their precious resources (real property, capital, time) throughout the process, but all in service of their vision for their future self and never without the context of regulatory, financial and physical challenges. In order to do this I do not focus on the end product or a perfect vision. There is never an end to architecture (maybe to a design services contract, but never the architecture) and absolute perfection simply does not exist. My focus is on authoring processes that incrementally improve the probability of successful outcomes in a compounding manner such that by the time the project leaves my hands success is inevitable.