---At 09:42 AM 9/20/2002 +0200, Charlotte Magnusson wrote:
Another thing which I would be interested to find out more about is the
way the amount of persons involved influence the design process. My
feeling is that roughly speaking the process will be more rigid (and
maybe more of a method) the more persons there are. Anybody who can
direct me to anybody who has studied this, or has ideas on the subject?


Dear all,

Following Charlotte`s thoughts about the impact of the people involved
in the design process, I think `quality` is as important  as the
`quantity` of the people-- 
I would like to point out that the roles/responsibilites the actors have
within a practice and how they relate to the design problem at hand at a
particular point in the design process is crucial to the process itself
,and the design thinking of a particular individual. Thus as, Lubomir
pointed out `Communication and mutual understanding
are major issues in teamwork.  ` -- not only within the team of `design
professionals` but also across the many others engaged in the practice.
In that respect the issues of power/knowledge exercised between all the
actors should, I believe, be considered as an essential part of design
process research. 

let me try to illustrate with an example:

A designer within an architectural firm is at the point  of designing a
handrail for a particular stair. Depending on the context, phase of the
process --and most importantly-- the particular people involved at that
point;
- the designer may have to incorporate, within his/her deisgn, a
standard detail of another joint venture firm due to a contract
agreement between the two firms,
- the designer may only conceptualise, and represent a steel tube as a
handrail (and the question arises how we distinguish between a design
activity and similar activites within a general practice framework?!)
because,say, the major issue that would need to be communicated at that
point is the construction of the stair with the structural engineer
rather than the `aeshtetics` of the handrail...
- the designer may `design` in full (well, the design never ends..
but...) every aspect of the handrail, concentrating on the visual
representation along with it, because this will be the major issue of
discussion on the next meeting with the client,
- the designer may take different attitudes to the designing of handrail
in relation with his/her role and responsibility within the team and the
general firm policy of teamwork;  (eg I would allocate less of my time
and energy- and be less emotionally involved while designing as a junior
architect if I know that I am only partially in control of making the
final decisions and that a senior architect will change my design
anyway; as opposed to me being the major decision maker as a senior
architect; as opposed to a team where a hierarchy between the architects
is not determinant of power over decisions regarding product, thus it is
a product with input from all the team-members equally.) 


Thus, the `product`  will be influenced by the above interactions which
are an integral part of the design process.  

The two related literature I have most benefited in the field of
architecture and planning are;

Cuff, Dana. Architecture: The Story of Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT,
1991.
Forester, John. "Designing: Making Sense Together in Practical
Conversations". 
        Journal of Architectural Education 38.3 (1985): 14-19. 
(and other works by these two researchers)

I am unaware of other studies that study the `micropolitics of design
practice` in architecture and how it actually influences the cognitive
process (and would welcome feedback)-- and thank you, Ken for providing
a rich reference list from a variety of related design disciplines.
Regards,
Burcak

Burcak Altay, Ph.D.
SOM
Skidmore, Owings and Merrill LLP
14 Wall Street, New York,New York 10005
phone: 1.212.298 0290 
fax: 1. 21. 298 9500
e-mail: [log in to unmask]