I think we must understand design in a broader and more
general perspective.
The design process is a prerequisite
for the work in the construction phase. It is during the design phase the
specifications of the execution phase transformations are made.
But the design is also the process
that transforms the client's brief into a specific design, i.e. generation of
the genotype of the coming work. Thus it is here the value generation for the
client takes place.
Finally, design is a process in its
own right with its own transformation and flow of information.
Looking at the design process from a
value perspective, it can be seen that there are – at least – two customers:
the client and the following process, for whom the design process should
generate maximum value.
Value for the client can be understood
in the traditional sense, asuming the client represents all the constructed
artifact's 'customers'. This makes the client the representative of the owner,
the users and the surroundings, and he represents them during the design and
construction phases, as well as during their ‘use’ of the building in short
and longer perspective.
Value generation for the construction
process is – in my understanding – the traditional meaning of 'concurrent
engineering' where the manufacturing process is designed parallel with the
product. Focus should be on constructability in general and on the possibilities
for making the construction flows as efficient as possible.
Looking at the design process from
this understanding, one could claim that the value generation for the client is
the most important part of the process.
After this follows the value
generation for the construction process. The cost of the design work is usually
10-15% of the total costs only, making the cost of the construction proper far
the most important cost item.
Finally comes the efficiency of the
design process itself – as long as its lack of efficiency does not cause less
than optimal value for the two recipients. But without a strong and constant
focus on the two value aspects, making the design process more efficient in its
own right may be a very dangerous endeavor.
The design process’ great complexity might for a great part
stem from he nature of the construction process itself. Construction is still
– opposite manufacturing – by and large divided into trades instead of into
products i.e. systems, modules or components. When a part of the building is
made into a product it seems that the associated design process becomes much
more ordered. Take as a case the elevators.
A more general question is the meaning of the term Concurrent
Engineering within construction? The paper focuses on the efficiency of the
design process itself only. Above are made some reflections on the concurrent
design of the construction process, but simultaneous engineering and
construction characterize many construction projects. How do we optimize their
design process?
Sven Bertelsen
