Visual Thinking Through Model Making by Andy McDonagh

Visual Thinking Through Model Making Andrew Nathan James McDonagh

A dissertation submitted to the Scott Sutherland School of Architecture and Built Environment, Robert Gordon University in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Architecture.

Mr Andrew McDonagh 1003915 Master of Architecture Supervisor: Dr. Huda S. Salman Scott Sutherland School of Architecture and Built Environment Robert Gordon University

Word count: 11,470 SI value: 14%

Declaration

The content of this dissertation is the result of my own investigation, except where stated otherwise. It has not been accepted for any degree, nor been concurrently submitted for any other degree within or outside Robert Gordon University. I take full responsibility of the authenticity, sources and originality of the content used in this dissertation.

Andrew McDonagh 1003915 May 2015

Acknowledgements I would like to take this opportunity to thank the people who have made this research possible and for all the help I have received whilst completing this paper. Firstly, I would like to extend my gratitude to Dr. Huda S. Salman for her constant support and enthusiasm. A thank you is also due to all who participated in the design studio experiment and to those who completed my research questionnaire. A special thanks goes to my friends and family for their patience, encouragement and guidance throughout my studies. Thank you for believing in me.

iii

Abstract

Emerging technologies of the twenty-first century are drastically changing the way designs are produced, and adjusting the very processes of common architectural practice. This creates uncertainty amongst architects as to their current methods of designing and the effectiveness of those methods in a profession now driven by technology. This paper gives context to such design methods from a visual thinking perspective, addressing digital and physical model making and various other design tools. Previous studies have investigated sketching and its use by many designers as a tool for conceptualisation, before developing that concept through digital models. However, this research is concerned with the combination of other such media: verbalisation, physical model making and indeed sketching, alongside Computer-Aided Architectural Design (CAAD). The aim is to offer an incentive to architects and designers to readdress their methods of designing and redirect focus back to such a process through the engagement of visual design thinking. Verbalisation has been shown historically to be the most used design tool during the early stages of the design process. However, through several methods of data collection, the study showed that with an increase in digital modelling software usage in recent years, a subsequent reduction has been evident in verbalisation as a design tool. As part of the methodology, a study undertaken in the university design studio illustrated that sketching was in fact the medium most used in conceptualisation. The outcome showed great need to provide design-based teaching of digital modelling software both in practice, and at an academic level. Keywords Visual thinking; design; creativity; model-making; design thinking; 3D CAD; physical modelling; digital design

Contents page number

Description

Contents

vii

List of Figures

1.1 Introduction

1.2

Aims and Objectives

Literature review

14 15 16 17

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

What is visual design thinking? Visual thinking in physical modelling Visual thinking in digital modelling Craft & Technology

3 Methodology

21 23 24 24

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

Model Making Study Follow-up Interviews Practitioner Questionnaire Questions Asked

Scope & Limitations

5 Resources

Assumptions of the Study

Findings, Results & Analysis

8.1 Discussion

40 42

8.2 Conclusion 8.3 Suggestions for Future Research

References

Bibliography

Appendices

List of Figures

page number

Description

Figure 1 - Student Participation in Studio Study

Figure 2 - Studio Study Matrix

Figure 3 - Preferred Medium for Sketching

Figure 4 - Preferred Medium for Model Making

Figure 5 - Frequency of Mediums Used

Figure 6 - Tasks Undertaken Through Words Medium

Figure 7 - Tasks Undertaken Through Digital Model Making Medium

Figure 8 - Preferred Medium for Conceptual Stage of Design

Figure 9 - Medium Allowing Greater Freedom in Design Development

Figure 10 - Digital & Physical Modelling Usage in Early Stages of Design Process

Figure 11 - Digital Modelling Software Usage

vii

viii

1.1 Introduction

Through the current ‘technology age’, the place of architects in the construction industry is ever-shifting – perhaps due to our accessibility to digital modelling software, perhaps due to its generally clear user interface and ease of use. In certain areas, it is believed that many people have lost sight of the importance of the architect in design. This, alongside many other factors, has led to an increase in the amount of self-build projects, and large-scale development companies and volume housebuilders ‘designing’ our built environment. From a personal point of view, the architectural model should be a rough tool for discovery, and there is only so much discovering that can be done of a 3D model on a computer screen, demarcated by dimensions (Lawson & Loke, 1997). There are, however, two types of architectural model: “the study model or the presentation model” (Sutherland, 1999). These two types compose a certain craft in architecture. Yet has this craft of physical model making in the architect’s practice been replaced by a new digital one? The answer to that question is essential in defining the role of the architect today. On that point, this paper will generate some conclusions as to the architect’s place in the construction industry with regards to their skills in model making and staying relevant in a world of everadvancing technologies. With the continued rise in digital fabrication, technology and Building Information Modelling (BIM) in various fields, this paper will offer to designers and architects a motive to employ visual thinking throughout their design process, to take custody of that which sets us apart as designers. My view is that the recuperation that followed the recession, together with the adoption of various digital tools, also brought about a frugal use of services in the construction industry, which in turn undermined the architectural profession. This paper intends to reinstate the importance of that phrase ‘design process’, and redirect the focus of designers back to that very process amidst the current upsurge of technology. This continued rise in new technology presents the great variety of modelling processes that impact the design process today. A study into this topic would delineate the place of models in the 21st

century design studio and discuss the importance of visual thinking through physical as well as digital modelling processes. “The variety of design processes that inform the fabrication of architecture is now greater than ever” (Dunn, 2012). A huge player in that is Building Information Modelling (BIM). This - alongside various other types of digital media - have the potential to radically shift the way designs are created in the industry, not to mention the ways in which they could greatly support and extend creativity in architecture. “As a term and method that is rapidly gaining popularity, Building Information Modelling (BIM) is under the scrutiny of many building professionals questioning its potential benefits on their projects” (Barlish & Sullivan, 2012). Thus, this paper will provide a balance of both physical modelling and digital modelling, informing current and future decisions of whether or not to adopt such digital design tools.

“

A computer screen is only ever 2½D. So when you make a 3D model from it, there is always something you are not expecting.

(Løddesøl, 2014)

“

1.2 Aims & Objectives

Snøhetta Architects based in Oslo, Norway, utilise a constant process of 3D modelling and 3D printing as an approach to visual design thinking: discussing, sketching and investigating spatial form. Do physical models allow greater autonomy in this design development than 3D models? Is there more freedom to think visually through a rough conceptual model before it has dimensions? This study aims to investigate these questions through the subject of ‘visual thinking’ whilst examining various processes of model making. For clarity, this paper will refer to handmade models as “physical models” and computer generated models as “digital models”. First the research will cover physical models, described as “a vehicle for process, idea and reflection” (Voulgarelis and Morkel, 2010), of which there are two genres: the “working model” and the “presentation model” (Sutherland, 1999). This study will then investigate digital (computer-generated) models, before comparing the two types and discussing which is more effective with regards to that which is of concern to this paper: the “working model”. As a subject of great personal interest, a study into architectural model making would delineate the place of working models in the design process. The timeframe of this paper also lent itself to the completion of a study in the Stage 5 Architectural Design Studio at Robert Gordon University investigating various students’ use of this and other mediums in their design process.

The overall aim of the paper is to compare these two methods of modelling with regards to design development at a conceptual level. This carries two objectives, each of which has an element in both physical modelling and in digital modelling. â&#x20AC;˘ The first objective is to investigate, through a process of design reflection and visual thinking, which one method of model making is more pertinent to designers at a conceptual level. â&#x20AC;˘ The second is to delineate the place of models in the 21st century design studio, and establish to what degree alternative design tools are being used in design conceptualisation before being presented through physical and computer-generated models. Both objectives will be addressed initially through the studiobased model making study. Following post-study interviews, this experiment will then be reflected as a whole and related to previous model studies undertaken (namely Jonson 2005 and Salman 2007), through both physical and digital modelling for comparative purposes. The second part of this methodology includes a questionnaire sent out to architecture practices in Scotland in an attempt to understand their thought process, and in which ways modelling is being used as design media. This research study also presented an opportunity for a research document and A1 poster submission to the Graduate Student Symposium of the ACM Creativity and Cognition Conference 2015. This Symposium provided constructive feedback on this paper from a panel of experienced researchers and practitioners, as well as offering guidance on future directions.

2. Literature Review

This section provides a summary of previous research into the topic area, describing the existing and established theory and research in architectural model making, visual design thinking, and Building Information Modelling (BIM), and gives a distinct context to the paper. 2.1

What is visual design thinking?

The creative process described in this section suggests a back and forth movement between the brain and the medium, and is highly reminiscent of Donald Schön’s description of the way an architect ‘holds a conversation with the drawing’ (Schön, 1983). In the Review of Educational Research journal, a useful description is given: “design thinking is generally defined as an analytic and creative process that engages a person in opportunities to experiment, create and prototype models, gather feedback, and redesign” (Razzouk & Shute, 2012). This activity is further emphasised in the paper ‘Problems, frames and design perspectives on designing’, where Schön states that “when [design] moves function in an exploratory way, the designer allows the situation to ‘talk back’ to him, causing him to see things in a new way – to construct new meanings and intentions” (Schön, 1984). Offered here is an essential process of the designer, which engages the brain through a critical progression of design and redesign, but is this process being used in twenty-first century model making? Moore (2003) laments a similar idea that “the concept of the visual [also] hinges on the idea that there is a direct connection between what we are looking at and the manner in which we think, that ‘external things’ are the causes of our ‘inner’ experiences” as “the mind takes the form of the object perceived, without its matter” (Putnam, 1999). Does every human being’s mind take the “form of the object perceived” then, or is that something that designers have been taught through academic education? Can this concept of visual thinking be ‘learned’ through a constant process of designing, or were all natural designers born with that skill? Is sketching the tool whereby designers can apply lateral thinking to turn that concept into something else?

Salman, Laing and Conniff (2006) make an interesting point in their research ‘CAAD Visualization Techniques Mediate the Conceptual Design Process as a Thinking Tool’: “A designer’s ability to solve design problems depends on his/her ability to create a virtual world where visual thinking becomes possible and helps to externalize ideas of the different design situations. This design world includes sketches, diagrams, drawings and physical models”. When tackling a design problem, it is possible to connect with this world through a design conversation (Schön, 1991) with one’s preferred mediums and design tools. Thus, through the designer’s use of physical models to help solve that design problem, he/she interacts with a 3D world (Mitchell, 1990). 2.2

Visual Thinking in Physical Modelling

What exactly is the craft of physical modelling? Previously I mentioned physical models and their description as “a vehicle for process, idea and reflection”. Voulgarelis and Morkel (2010) also observe that “the cognitive focus of the physical model is that it enhances dialogue. Not only does the model talk back, but it is an easy graphic form to access visually and verbally for both student and lecturer”. This creates a clear contrast to model making on the computer, and its lack of ‘accessibility’ and engagement of the senses. Although 3D printing has more recently changed this, digital modelling was previously only accessible “within a ‘live’ computer where students can show the whole model with ease. However, students tend to print out views that hide problematic issues – this is not possible to achieve with a physical model.” These views established by Vougarelis and Morkel reminisce the work of Schön, regarding the ‘conversation’ that the designer holds with the medium. It is recognised that all mediums ‘talk back’ in different ways (Schön, 1989; Breen et al, 2003; Lawson, 2004; Mitchell, 1990). In his thesis, a Masters student in Turkey observed that “when concept models or muck-ups are considered, such tasks involved in modelling may be regarded as a way of reasoning just like sketching” (Akalin, 2003). This quotation suggests an analogous back and forth motion between mind and medium. There is no function of a design

tool, unless it aids critical analysis and communicates to the brain feedback of the design created with that tool. This in turn begs the question of the effectiveness of model making as a creative tool for design development. Undoubtedly it will depend on the studio, and the designer (Lawson & Loke, 1997), but is there a better balance that can be found in the architecture profession today than sketching a concept before developing and representing it through physical and computer-generated models? This paper aims to act as an instrument in striking that balance, but research must first be done into the digital realm. 2.3

Visual Thinking in Digital Modelling

“Visual design thinking is performed through three-dimensional digital models. Designing in a three-dimensional digital environment might be described as sketching in space” (Abdelhameed, 2004). Although this type of model making suggests one with more complexities, it also suggests one with less boundaries and more liberty. Is there anything we can take from physical modelling into the new digital craft? Jordan Brandt writes in the book ‘Persistent Modelling’ that “craft is marked by the mind relating the purpose of the work to the motions of the hand” (Ayres, 2012) and concludes by saying “the use and creation of our technology could well be informed by the process of craft. So instead of authoring a deterministic model, how do we craft the modelling process to accommodate a persistent continuum?” This suggests that digital modelling systems should be ever-advancing, meaning at a design level such a system should enable us to expand, through a process of imagining, what we can do in the digital modelling realm. “Tools in the more literal sense, like pencil, compasses and ruler, say next to nothing about the designs devised with their assistance” (Gänshirt, 2007). The same could be said about Building Information Modelling (BIM). It could be said that at the end of the day it is the end product that determines the effectiveness of that tool, not how it was arrived at. There is, however, an evident increase in the

various avenues that a design may take, and that is where potential lies for further exploration of visual design thinking. Bearing in mind that each designer designs more effectively using particular tools, a notable area for investigation is whether or not this digital exploration is, or can be, for everyone. It is argued by Lawson and Loke (1997), however, that “present CAD tools do not support the kind of vagueness and uncertainty that those manual conceptual sketches allow and thus often prematurely fixate or crystallise developing design concepts.” Or, in using the language of Donald Schön, “such CAD drawings are insufficiently conversational but seem more like imperative statements made by the computer leaving little or no room for further contributions from the designer” (Lawson & Loke, 1997). With regards to design exploration, Peter Rowe (1987) notes that “there are many different styles of decision-making, each with individual quirks as well as manifestations of common characteristics”. Goel (1995) further describes the design process as being a task of complex cognition. It is evident then, that this process is different for every designer and his or her understanding of the medium, as Abdelhameed (2004) observes that “what an architect can conceive and comprehend depends on what this architect can visually perceive through the media used”. Designers have and will always have different skills and capacities; therefore it is unlikely that digital modelling will become customary to architectural design. However, in an attempt to accommodate personal preference, alternative mediums of design are offered through programs such as Google SketchUp, Adobe Photoshop, and Autodesk AutoCAD. Breen (2004) informs us such software has allowed students and practices alike the opportunity to personify working methods (Achten 2003; Achten and Reymen 2005) according to their styles, preferences and abilities. 2.4

Craft & Technology

“Computer-assisted design might serve as an emblem of a large challenge faced by modern society: how to think like craftsmen in making good use of technology” (Sennett, 2008). There are such architects as Greg Lynn, who seek to expand the use of computers in design, through research, education and practice. Such acts are essential to the existence of a ‘digi-craft’, and perhaps also essential to the relevance of architects throughout the 21st century. In his article, ‘Design Course Goes Digital’, John Marx emphasises that “recent advances in computer hardware and software have opened opportunities for a digital design process that does not diminish but rather enhances creativity” (Marx, 2000). This outlines a point essential to the formation of a digital craft; creativity. But is that creativity using physical or digital design tools? “The word ‘tool’ might invoke the mechanical, rather than the digital age. Yet ‘tool’ was used for representing both action and thinking, as in ‘thinking tool’, and therefore the notion of conceptual tools covered both physical and cognitive activities” (Jonson, 2005). These conceptual tools have always stretched design exploration, whether physical or cognitive. The architect started out designing using the pencil (the design tool) to create sketches (the medium), forming the gesture that produces a concept for the rest of the design to follow. Then as technology developed, his design tools changed to perspective drawings, to physical models, and now to 3D modelling. Regardless of the development of new design tools, software etc., the architecture industry would still be designing and making, using whatever tool or media is available to them. With regard to the range of new design tools available to architects today, Nick Dunn (2012) offers a strong background to historic digital modelling processes and their more recent proliferation in architecture in his book titled ‘Digital Fabrication in Architecture’. “CAD/CAM processes have been used in engineering and industrial design for over 50 years in the development and fabrication of cars, aeroplanes and smaller consumer goods. Components are usually designed and developed with three-dimensional modelling software, and then scale models are produced using a rapid prototyping process that translates digital information into physical object” (Dunn,

2012). However, with regard to these computer-generated models which were discussed earlier as being demarcated by dimensions, and hence too rigid to fulfil its function as a development model. It is argued by Lawson and Loke (1997), that “present CAD tools do not support the kind of vagueness and uncertainty that those manual conceptual sketches allow and thus often prematurely fixate or crystallise developing design concepts.” Or, in using the language of Donald Schön, “such CAD drawings are insufficiently conversational but seem more like imperative statements made by the computer leaving little or no room for further contributions from the designer” (Lawson & Loke, 1997). How is it that one model inspires a thought in the mind, which in turn creates a ‘development’ of models? The question is then, are the media and tools in common use today allowing that precision and elegant design required in order to endorse this new digital craft, or are they just equipping us to get the job done faster? It is deemed by some that computing as a tool is unsuitable for conceptualisation (Lawson & Loke, 1997; Verstijnen et al., 1998; Purcell, 1998). It has been shown, however, that CAD is actually a conceptual tool used to foster new methods in the perception and conceivability of design (Jonson, 2005). “Arguably, then, the view that CAD is inappropriate for conceptualising seems to be based on a preconception of conceptual tools as surface, rather than deep structures” (Jonson, 2005). In the methodology, various conceptual tools will be investigated with relation to craft in order to determine that which is most appropriate to design ideation. In related studies, sketching has traditionally been considered a core conceptual tool (Schön, 1983; Garner, 1992; Goel, 1995; Suwa and Tversky, 1997; Cross, 1999; Tversky, 1999; Plimmer and Apperley, 2002; Bilda and Demirkan, 2003; Jonson, 2005). However, in the last ten years, significant increase has been evident in the use of digital model making at both university level and practice level design studios. Thus, as a new digital craft matures, what is now the norm for conceptual ideation may be significantly different in the architectural design studio than what it was a decade ago.

3. Methodology

This study sought the review of qualitative data such as the following key journals: Design Studies, Automation in Construction, IJAC (International Journal of Architectural Computing) and cuminCAD database, in order to first gain an understanding of existing research, theories, and motivations then help to provide insights into the discussed problems of the topic and help to develop ideas and hypotheses for future studies. Hopefully this process of qualitative data collection will help to identify others’ thoughts and insights, and inquire more deeply into the issues outlined in previous chapters. Further data collection after the design studio study will be done through follow-up interviews, which will be semi-structured; ensuring responses are focused and not vague. Respondents will be carefully selected following any particular model making processes used, interesting comments made or any “aha!” moments encountered. Previous studies on similar subjects have completed primary research through focus groups (group discussions), individual interviews, and participation/observations. Other such research methodologies found in review of past literatures were “case studies, surveys, interviews, and individual analyses and theories” (Barlish & Sullivan, 2012). Case studies are often very reliable sources of primary research, which “present the information in the context of a particular project, inclusive of the project’s characteristics and give actual project data (Barlish & Sullivan, 2012). However, no such case study would be suitable to this research, which is concerned with one active research study and one passive research study, both of which have aspects of qualitative and quantitative data. As discussed in the aims and objectives chapter, this paper is solely concerned with the conceptual phase of design, as this is the timeframe through which students and practitioners alike are most likely to complete “working models” in their design process. Design studies previously have maintained a focus on sketching, its impact on designing and have engaged less emphasis on reflection and visual thinking with regard to digital and physical model making, with little concern for design tools in the current digital age.

3.1

Model Making Study

Design Studio Study

Part of this research included a study completed in the Stage 5 Architectural Design Studio at Robert Gordon University, investigating the way students employ design thinking through model making (physical and digital) and which mediums they utilise in the process. Using a matrix similar to that of Jonson, 2005 (see Figure 2), these mediums included physical modelling, digital modelling, sketching and words (written or spoken). In order for data collection to be most effective, students were allowed the same freedom offered by their personal design environment. See Figure 1 showing student participation in the study. This would ensure access to their own tools and unrestricted access to information (Dwarakanath & Blessing, 1996), with regards to the type of information and also their order of processing it (Plass et al., 1998).

Figure 1: Student Participation in Studio Study (Andrew McDonagh, 2015)

Figure 2: Studio Study Matrix (Andrew McDonagh, 2015)

Methods of data gathering used historically include the think-aloud method (Someren et al., 1994) or participant observation (Robson, 1993). However, the former is considered weak in documenting nonverbal thought processes (Cross et al., 1996) and could potentially disrupt the design process itself (Davies, 1995). The latter holds problems for the observer with thought to time constraints with valuable time being spent observing, and also for the participant’s confidentiality and the interference with their thought process during design development. The selected data collection method would have to be one that allowed participants to provide their own responses under little supervision, through a quick, simplistic and user-friendly interface, minimising interruptions to their thinking process and upcoming design studio submissions. As the chosen research instrument, self-reporting would carry two parts: the selfreport, carried out as an on-going process by the participants, and in certain cases, the interview. 3.2

Follow-up Interviews

Students who made notable observations with relevance to the literature, or had particularly interesting visual design processes were then questioned through follow-up interviews. The collection of their thoughts after the studio study regarding the design process, or “reflection-on-action” (Schön, 1983), provided a rationale for the quantitative data received (see discussion section). In these instances, the self-report became a preliminary to interviewing (Burgess, 1981), revealing points for speculation and helping to regulate the authenticity of the results (Jonson, 2005). These interviews will be semi-structured, using several guided questions, or an interview protocol or schedule (Barker, 2002). The students selected for these interviews include one preferring digital model making and one who was favourable of physical model making, offering a balanced discussion of the subject area and those mediums concerned within it. In order to further ensure the interview information remains unbiased, accurate (Talja, 1999) and discursive, as the interviewer it is essential to retain an “interested stance, with a kind of free-floating attention, and attempt not to put words into the respondent’s mouth” (Burgess, 1981).

3.3

Model Making in Practice Questionnaire

This paper’s methodology includes one active study through the studio study and one passive study on architectural practice. The passive study included a questionnaire sent to five hundred architecture practices in Scotland featuring various questions on a relevant issue in the architecture world today facing the rise of new technology. Due to the recent increase in the number of smaller practices making the switch to BIM as their new office standard for drawing production, this questionnaire produced a good amount of data. 3.4

Questions Asked

• What is your preferred medium for the conceptual phase of designing? Digital modelling or physical modelling • Do you feel digital models or physical models allow greater freedom in design development & why? • How often do you create digital (3D CAD) models of your project during the early stages of the design process? • How often do you create physical (handmade) models of your project during the early stages of the design process? • With regards to design thinking, please describe how you imagine differently when digital modelling as oppose to physical modelling? • Why did you choose to, or not to, adopt digital modelling software/ BIM? • Which digital modelling software do you use? • Why has the craft of physical modelling been neglected in many UK architecture practices?

â&#x20AC;˘ In your opinion, what must architects do in order to stay relevant over the next 50 years?

Data Analysis

This research into the architectural practice presented valuable information on visual thinking in model making for the findings, results and analysis section, later informing the subsequent discussion, conclusion and proposal for future research.

4. Scope & Limitations

In establishing the boundaries to this research paper and the methodology, it was decided that the limitations of such a broad topic should be clearly outlined to aid time management and to retain the focus of the study. Design Studio Study With regard to choice of participants for the study, it was felt that delimitations should be applied. In order to achieve a larger sample size for a higher-level study such as PhD in Architecture, the whole SSS Stage 5 M.Arch. year group (approximately 57 students) could have been included. However, due to constraints imposed by time, it was decided to include the unit one students only, a population of twelve students. In order to collect objective data, the selected sample featured a range of backgrounds and sexes, although reflecting similar backgrounds with regard to education. The study matrix was designed in a similar manner to that of Jonson (2005), with students being instructed to select the mediums (or design tools) used in their conceptual stage design process from: sketching [S], words (spoken or written) [W], physical modelling [PM] and digital modelling [DM]. Each time the participants switched to a different medium, a new box was ticked, followed by a brief description of (a) the task undertaken through that medium, and (b) any notable observations, landmark events, or â&#x20AC;&#x153;Aha!â&#x20AC;? moments experienced through this medium. Any other design tools used, of which there were none, were to be included as a numbered footnote at the bottom of the page. Students were also advised that, due to the nature of the model making study, this matrix was to be completed only when using either physical or digital modelling (in conjunction with another medium). The informants were also asked to tick a box indicating their preferences for sketching (either 2D or 3D), and Modelling (either physical or digital). With respect to the limitation of time, it is understood that as this study was conducted closely after the conception of the design project, the results represent a snapshot of the mediums used by students during the conceptual phase over a two-week period. In

order to inhibit this limitation from affecting the outcome of the study, a note was included on the study matrix indicating it should only be completed if and when using digital or physical modelling in conjunction with another medium. The self-report method of data collection was selected over the think-aloud and participant observation methods, as this was the approach most efficient with thought to personal time management issues and upcoming deadlines in the design studio module. It would have been beneficial to hold interviews with all of the study participants, but as this is predominantly a qualitative study, in order to restrict the amount of time spent carrying out and analysing the interviews, it was more suitable to follow up the two students producing the most relevant and interesting results. Model Making in Practice Questionnaire In selecting the sample for the questionnaire, it was assumed that a larger sample would prevent the outcomes of any variables within the results from being exaggerated. The questionnaire was circulated to five hundred architecture practices in Scotland, presuming a response rate of approximately 10%. In order to prevent time loss in distribution to such a large population, a mail merge feature was used. It was understood that through the use of a “random sample”, as oppose to a “sample of convenience” (Simon, 2011), that the results of this study were more representative of the wider population of architects in Scotland and thus held more weight in drawing conclusions. With thought to timescales, this process was completed early to allow a sufficient response time for all participating practitioners as well as aligning with the outlined schedule for collecting and collating these responses. This was necessary for unexpected delays such as limitations in the mail merge software, restricting the send batch to 100 email addresses per day. The collected data was then examined for common trends, before responses were analysed for relevant themes of visual thinking in aid of fulfilling the objective

as to which method of model making is more appropriate to the conceptual working model, and in establishing the place of models in the 21st century design studio. Due to a rising number of practices implementing BIM software, it is assumed that this will be the focus/focal point/centrality/centrum for a high quantity of the responses. Therefore, in order to retain its focus, this paper will avoid such a large subject as it solely concerned with digital model making from a visual thinking perspective. In order to achieve a significant amount of data, the questionnaire had to retain legibility and relevance to architectural practice. This was done in a number of ways: • With the inclusion of few questions not concerned with the study – this includes questions that may be of interest to the participants, but also questions in line with personal future research. • Endeavour to find out the names of the research participants in order to create a personal association with the emails. This was done using the list of email addresses on the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland (RIAS) website, with the inclusion of first names in particular creating a higher likelihood of the email being opened. • Attempt to create a ‘flow’ throughout the questionnaire, with related questions following on from one another and ensuring participant engagement.

5. Resources

List of resources required to complete the study. Design Studio Study

• Architectural Design Studio SC32 • Stage 5 architecture students • Any tools they may require from the workshop in conjunction with their model making process

Model Making in Practice Questionnaire

• Google Forms survey creation software • Participating architecture practices across Scotland • “Yet Another Mail Merge” Google Forms Add-On • Google Docs spreadsheets

For the chapters following the methodology - that of discussion and data analysis - the Google Forms online software was used, in conjunction with Google Docs spreadsheets, Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Word.

6. Assumptions of the Study

Design Studio Study It is assumed that the selected sample for this study will somewhat reflect the architecture student population that this paper intends to make inferences to. As outlined in the literature, verbalisation has been shown previously to be the most used conceptual design tool (Jonson, 2005). It is assumed then, that verbalisation will still be a common tool in the architectural design process. This paper has a general assumption that the use of physical model making and/or digital model making set a general appropriateness for the study, but also that as the profession progresses further technologically, these processes may well change in future years. There is an overall assumption that participants of this study will answer honestly, that such honesty will be treated with anonymity and confidentiality, and that participants have a right, as volunteers, to opt out of the study at any given time. Due to previous uses of similar data collection methods such as reflection (Simon, 1981; Schön, 1987; Dorst, 1995; 2008), the self-report (Burgess, 1981; Jonson, 2005), and reflection on action through follow-up interviews with designers (Schön, 1983; Schenk, 1991; Lawson, 1994; Cross & Cross, 1995; Yin, 2003) all recording success, it is expected that this study will receive a similar level of success. It is expected that the study will follow previous literatures (Schön 1983; Garner, 1992; Goel, 1995; Suwa and Tversky, 1997; Cross, 1999; Tversky 1999; Plimmer and Apperley, 2002; Bilda and Demirkan, 2003) with sketching being recognised as a central tool in the conceptual stage; in many cases the most used tool for conceptualisation. Initial thoughts also perceive a possible link between preferences for 3D sketching and for digital model making due to the potential ease for some to visualise or to ‘put themselves inside’ a digital model. It is assumed that those who have difficulty sketching in 3D will also have poorer perception of 3D space, and due to physical models seemingly engaging more of the senses than digital models, I anticipate that it could be a similar accessibility block in the mind which prevents one from connecting with 3D sketches properly.

Model Making in Practice Questionnaire This practitioner questionnaire does assume that architecture practices in Scotland utilise some kind of model making in the early stages of the design process, whether that be physical or digital. Questionnaires or surveys have been used previously to gather information and attitudes on similar topics (Do, 1998; Hanna & Barber, 2001; Al-Qawasmi). A greater use of digital modelling in the conceptual phase of design is anticipated due to a rising number of practices implementing new software. At a time such as this, where practices are processing drastic changes in the architecture office, such research should be enlightening, but also to some degree unreliable, as these office standards and design tools are subject to change in the very near future.

7. Findings, Results & Analysis

Design Studio Study A total of 10 students were included in the study, providing a round number for subsequent analysis. The study was undertaken over the course of a three-week period, and responses completed by participants when using digital or physical modelling over that timeframe. Details of all the study participants can be found in Appendix A, with transcripts of the two follow-up interviews in Appendix B and C.

Figure 3: Preferred Medium for Sketching (Andrew McDonagh, 2015)

Figure 3 shows the preferred medium for sketching in the design studio experiment out of the ten students sampled. From this same research sample, it was evident that 60% of students preferred 2D sketching. Similarly, Figure 4 shows 60% of students in preference of physical model making over digital. However, despite this evidence

Figure 4: Preferred Medium for Model Making (Andrew McDonagh, 2015)

and previous assumptions of the study, very little or no correlation was found between studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; preferred medium for sketching and preferred medium for model making.

Figure 5: Frequency of Mediums Used (Andrew McDonagh, 2015)

With reference to Figure 5, sketching [S] was identified as the primary conceptual tool (as found in the literature). These findings also challenged the view that digital modelling is an inappropriate medium for conceptual design. What has been observed historically in conceptualisation studies is that â&#x20AC;&#x153;verbalisation [W], on its own or in combination with other conceptual tools, emerged as the prime mover for getting startedâ&#x20AC;? (Jonson, 2005). It is apparent in this research, however, that conceptualisation in recent years has been somewhat different. Generally speaking, designers are using the words medium [W] more for research and information rather than discussion. This is backed up by Figure 6, which shows that

Figure 6: Tasks Undertaken Through Words Medium (Andrew McDonagh, 2015)

the words medium [W] was only used verbally in one instance, for design discussion. Following an analysis of the sketching medium [S], it appeared that out of all 20 tasks undertaken, this medium was most commonly used for concept development, site analysis and testing form relationships. Of 9 tasks undertaken through the words medium [W], the most common was for research (through internet searches) followed by description and analysis of sketches, and also the wording and clarifying of design strategy as the second most common tasks. Despite greater usage of physical modelling, several more tasks were recorded being undertaken through digital modelling (see appendix A). The student observations help to enforce this point about speed of digital model making with many students remarking on physical modelling as â&#x20AC;&#x153;time consumingâ&#x20AC;?. This disadvantage was common throughout the research including the practitioner questionnaire. Digital modelling through Sketchup was used more prominently for testing design ideas, in the generation of site models and also in order to try and achieve a sense of scale (see Figure 7).

Figure 7: Tasks Undertaken Through Digital Model Making Medium (Andrew McDonagh, 2015)

On the other hand, physical modelling was most commonly used for creating site models and performing massing studies of existing surroundings and also proposed developments; most seemingly with presentation in mind as oppose to development. The only other instance of its use was in exploration of spatial relationships for one studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s precedent study.

It was apparent that more subjects preferring physical modelling used digital modelling than those preferring digital modelling using physical modelling. This trend, backed up by student feedback, suggests pressures of cost and time upon the students, influencing their decision to use digital modelling, which is said by students to be “quicker and easier to visualise”. Various disadvantages of digital modelling were also noted, with one student remarking with regards to speed, “it takes time to compile enough information to gain a sense of character until the model is more developed”. A twenty-six year old student also noted that it wasn’t very helpful in developing a conceptual idea. Model Making in Practice Questionnaire Out of the 500 questionnaires issued, a total of 64 responses were received, giving a 12.8% response rate (a greater sample than the 10% expected). The questionnaire contained eight questions and took approximately 5 minutes to complete. The results have been presented in five main sections for clarity: 1.

Background & Participant Sentiment

Frequency of Use

Visual Design Thinking

Craft & Technology

Future for Architects in a Digital World

Background & Participant Sentiment

This section contained a brief background to the study and a description of visual design thinking. Participants were asked to indicate their model making preference for the conceptual stage of design. The results are evident in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Preferred Medium for Conceptual Stage of Design (Andrew McDonagh, 2015)

It was shown in this study that 70% of the practitioners surveyed preferred digital model making for design in the conceptual stage, and four participants preferred not to answer due to such modelling processes not being used in their practice. Despite the results in favour of digital model making, seventeen practitioners felt that physical models were more assistive for design development (see Figure 9), but still used digital due to time and cost constraints, as well as flexibility further along the design process.

Figure 9: Medium Allowing Greater Freedom in Design Development (Andrew McDonagh, 2015)

A common view was that physical models are greater for conceptual massing, form design and ease of communication to others, whilst digital models have their advantage when it comes to modification, contained information and the exploration of multiple solutions. 2.

Frequency of Use

This section contained a few questions regarding the frequency of modelling use in practice; the first relating to digital (3D CAD) models in the early stages of the design process and the second relating to physical (handmade) modelling. From Figure 10 it can be seen how drastically the design processes of architecture practices have changed in recent years, showing that not a single practice in the sample always create physical models, but that a huge 37.5 (and ever-increasing) percentage of practitioners always utilise digital modelling software in the early stages. The two data sets are almost symmetric suggesting that through the increase of digital modelling usage, there is a subsequent decrease in physical modelling usage, showing that practices are perhaps utilising individual specific mediums, rather than a range of design tools. The informants of later questions in the questionnaire outline various other reasons, which begin to suggest an explanation for this.

Figure 10: Digital & Physical Modelling Usage in Early Stages of Design Process (Andrew McDonagh, 2015)

Visual Design Thinking

The following questions of this study are predominantly qualitative, and therefore assume a dynamic and negotiated understanding of the responses from an analysis perspective (Minichiello et al, 1990). This data is primarily analysed through the derivation of themes from the participantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; responses. For this section, practitioners were asked to try and describe how they imagine differently when digital modelling as oppose to physical modelling. The data received from such a question would inevitably be qualitative, with some making the relation to visual thinking better than others, but the majority were of relevance to the study. For the purpose of clarity, the results of this section are included in the discussion chapter of this paper. 4.

Craft & Technology

Embodying three questions, this section tried to bring light to the new â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;digital craftâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; mentioned in the literature and discuss why the craft of physical modelling has disappeared from many architecture practices in the UK. Five main themes were identified as reasons for the adoption of digital modelling software or BIM (Building Information Modelling) in architectural practice in Scotland. These were reasons such as time, cost, efficiency, government policy for Pre-Qualification Questionnaires and Public Contract Tenders, and as an aid of communication to client, colleague and design team. Practices are also driven, to some degree, by competition. This also appeared as a significant factor in the decision of whether or not to adopt such software. Small offices face a difficult dilemma either way: running the risk of adopting too quickly and slowing up projects within the office, or missing out on projects to larger corporate practices producing higher quality digital imagery.

Digital Modelling Software Usage

Figure 11: Digital Modelling Software Usage (Andrew McDonagh, 2015)

Figure 11 gives an indication of the range of programs being used in the architecture industry today. As the most used software, Google Sketchup was observed to be in use by 59% of the sample group. Whether these were licensed products, or limited-time free trials, is unknown. However, the above chart gives an idea of how many practices are currently using BIM, with mentioned examples such as Revit, AutoCAD, ArchiCAD and Rhino 3D all offering BIM products. It is accepted that the number of practitioners using Autodesk Revit is ever increasing, with many more offices indicating that they were in the process of the education and implementation of this software. This data also begins to suggest which software products could be developed to present a more design-based interface and a wider range of input methods to architects. There were a very low number of practitioners recorded who donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t frequent any form of modelling software. In these instances, calculated as just under 8% of the 64 sampled, the commonplace for design was freehand sketching at a conceptual level then advancing to 2D AutoCAD for subsequent stages.

The Neglected Craft As noted previously, with Figure 8 as a visual aid, there has been a significant neglect of the craft of physical modelling in the architecture practice in recent years. Respondents of this question outlined similar reasons to those of the ‘Frequency of Use’ section. The recurring theme of time was recorded primarily, but secondly reasons included factors such as lack of flexibility, cost, lack of portability and storage, as well as featuring a higher quality and more resourceful output. 5.

Future for Architects in a Digital World

The final question requested participants’ opinion on what architects must do in order to stay relevant over the next fifty years. Due to the complexity of this question, the results were entirely varied, and many too detailed for inclusion in this chapter. However, some common thoughts and trends of these results are deliberated in the following discussion section. Please see appendix E for a full list of responses.

8.1 Discussion

Given the data that has been collated in the previous section, this chapter presents a more detailed discussion aiming to interpret and explain these results in relation to the initial research question. The chapter is separated into two parts regarding preceding methodologies. Design Studio Study 1.

Study Results Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate the way students employ visual thinking through model making (physical and digital) and which mediums they utilise in the process. The results showed that there were two student types: those utilising a medium only once with no particular preference, and those with a clear preference for a particular medium over the others. 3no. students were observed having multiple uses for one specific medium: in two cases the tool being sketching and one being physical modelling respectively. The physical modelling case proved an interesting one as the Nigerian student, Ayoola Olorunda, actually preferred digital over physical modelling. However, it appeared the project was one including three separate functions in three individual blocks, with a focus on the relationship between. This demonstrates the need for such in-depth model studies including both precedent analysis (investigating how similar relationships were dealt with) and the exploration of key spaces in the proposed building. The two instances of sketching include Scottish student, Jennifer Macleay, and Lithuanian student, Lukas Vegys, and reasons either stem from the year group’s earlier education in the Part 1 Architecture Course, and the teachings of one particular lecturer with a shared preference for this medium, or as an attempt to simplify an otherwise complicated project. It is felt that the latter example is correct for Lukas’ project, which utilised sketching for ‘getting started’, seemingly in order to simplify the scheme. To compare this with a project in the same location by another Stage 5 Architecture student provides some context and possible reasons why. Kyle Scott completed a similarly sized project, low-rise high

density and of less complexity, compared to Lukas’ high-rise high density, using predominantly digital modelling. This data calls to suggest that Kyle was able to use digital modelling in the conceptual stage of design to model the entirety of a reasonably simple housing typology, and replicate that typology in very interesting ways. As laid out in the earlier assumptions, it was found that sketching was recognised as the most used tool for conceptualisation, amounting to over 38% of all tools. Contrary to initial thoughts perceiving a link between preferences for 3D sketching and digital model making, as mentioned previously, there was very little or no correlation between the two. 2.

Follow-up Interview & Literature Discussion

The follow-up interviews generated very useful information with great relevance to the literature. A discussion with one student (see appendix B), led to suggestions for possible advancement in digital modelling technology. This observation followed a quotation from Abdelhameed (2004) regarding the use of digital modelling software as ‘sketching in space’: “unless they were able to develop it [digital modelling software] so that you were to sketch on a tablet device in the same way you do on paper, and then extrude the faces outwards to create volumes. Then perhaps you could claim that it would achieve a similar level of liberty. However, there are probably still constraints without even realising it – it’s all subjective” (Vegys, 2015). This forward-thinking appreciation for digital media resounds with historic visions for the digital future such as Bermudez ad King in their paper ‘Media Interaction and Design Process’, where the usage of hand sketching and CAAD are considered in conjunction, rather than as independent mediums (Bermudez & King, 2000). In the paper titled “‘Fake’ and ‘Real Creativity using Computer Aided Design: Some Lessons from Herman Hertzberger”, it is stated that “much of architectural design is actually done through conversation” (Lawson & Loke, 1997), “however because that conversation is not recorded and the drawings are we tend not to

notice its importance” (Lawson, 1999). Students of the architectural design studio at Robert Gordon University also made this discovery. As noted by Lithuanian student, Lukas Vegys, “most good ideas happen as part of a conversation, because you may say a word and someone else might pick it up differently. They might elaborate or they might even misunderstand it; then some different thoughts altogether may come to their mind, which might be the solution you are looking for” (Vegys, 2015). Furthermore, a student from Scotland laments that “9 times out of 10 people will say, ‘oh I didn’t realize that’ or, ‘I didn’t think of that’” (Kemp, 2015). From a personal standpoint, it is felt that the medium only has a certain degree of influence; it’s the way we learn 3D modelling that is the problem. A research study into design devices regarding digital modelling discovered that “inexperience seems to limit design possibilities” (Coyne et al., 2002). This factor may also be a suggestion as to why there was significantly less preference for digital modelling from students in comparison to the practitioners, assuming superior design experience in a practice environment in comparison with the university design studio. Similar to the work of Salman (2007), it is regarded that a possible reason for this lesser engagement of students in digital modelling software could be that “the sample had not been taught CAAD within a design-based teaching” (Salman, 2011). However, there is a possibility that many architects in practice are inexperienced in design through digital means also. There may be a problem, therefore, with this sudden adoption of various types of digital modelling software because it is likely that most practitioners have been educated in such software from a technological perspective rather than from a design background. Jonson (2005) acknowledges that “commercial CAD systems tend to be driven by production needs (efficiency and accuracy), rather than creativity, focusing on automating routine tasks and on increasing drawing productivity, and therefore reducing product development costs”. It is possible, then, that practices are driven by similar such factors, reducing concern for whether the medium assists design development or not.

Model Making in Practice Questionnaire 1.

Background & Participant Sentiment

There was a significantly larger majority of practitioners using digital modelling than students which tends to suggest a number of possible reasons: either practices are moving forward faster than students, there is a lack of design-based CAAD teaching available at university, that there is enough difficulty nowadays (with computing aside) in educating students in design. Or perhaps practices simply consist of more experienced designers when it comes to the digital realm. 2.

Frequency of Use

It was noted in the results section that practices are perhaps utilising individual mediums, rather than a range of design tools. However, going back to various examples in the literature it is emphasised that a combination of tools, or conversation between the verbal (language) and the non-verbal (visualisation) is the case where design conceptualisation performs best. This is common to the findings of other research such as ‘the language of design’ (Schön, 1983), ‘the translation problem’ (Tomes et al., 1998), the ‘pictureword-cycle’ (Dorner, 1999) and the ‘design ideation of interaction’ (Jonson, 2005). The world famous architect, Álvaro Siza, cautions that “one should not make oneself the slave of one tool only. That is why I always work with proper drawings from the drawing board, with sketches and with models at the same time” (Bauwelt, 1990). Therefore, in order to be most effective in design ideation, either; a range of design tools must be used in these early stages, or various other functions must be integrated into the one that is being used most prominently: digital modelling. 3.

Visual Design Thinking

It was noted by a practitioner based in Scotland that “the brain is the best computer for conceptual design work. There is something special between the ever-changing thought process that travels

instantly between the brain, through the neck, shoulder, arm to your finger tips and onto paper!” This reminisces of Herman Hertzberger’s stance on drawing in the design process: “A very crucial question is whether the pencil works after the brain or before. In fact what should be is that you have an idea, you think and then you score by means of words or drawing what you think. But it could also be the other way round that while drawing, your pencil, your hand is finding something, but I think that’s a dangerous way. It’s good for an artist but it’s nonsense for an architect” (Lawson, 1994). Digital modelling seems to evoke more such instances of the medium taking control, as evident in the unexpected breakthroughs of Schön (1999) and Jonson (2005), and paralleled in my own research several times, but namely through an architect in Stornoway who observed that “sometimes the software can take you to places that wouldn’t happen physically”. Gabriela Goldschmidt suggests that there could be a similar ‘back and forth’ motion which engages the brain when model making. In her paper ‘On visual design thinking: the vis kids of architecture’ she perceives that “no sophisticated tools such as the computer era provides us with can bypass creative visual thinking. However, if amplification is possible, as is the case when sketching is practiced, there is no reason to assume that it cannot be further amplified. Will computational tools be able to empower us in this respect one day? Possibly, but only provided we recognize that visual thinking is in no way inferior to other modes of cognition and is as systematic and rational as linguistic thinking” (Goldschmidt, 1994). With this in mind, it must be possible that this “ever changing thought process”, observed by the practitioner, between brain and pencil can inform, through sufficient education in model making, a similar connection between brain and model. Students being educated in architecture today may recognise such connections. In Helena Webster’s Design Diary, the model is considered the “container of the design and reflective process” (Webster, 2001), with Voulgarelis and Morkel (2010) adding that “the models help to physically retain the design idea in conceptual development. Compared to other graphic forms, the model is the best 3D communication about the initial idea. It is easily accessible and easy to refer back to”.

As perceived by one participant in the north of Scotland, “I already have clear idea of 3D forms however the model lets me communicate these to a client”. This is “Until ‘realized’, a design is essentially a figment of the designer’s imagination, although his or her ideas may be laid down and conveyed to others via specialized design media” (Breen et al., 2003). Another point that should be made is that of realisticity. As an architect in the north of Scotland points out regarding imagination in design, the act of physical model making “forces consideration of structure whether we want to consider it at this stage or not. So the process of design or imagining becomes more complete as we start to think about the structure as part of the concept. Too many buildings suffer from an interesting concept into which an incompatible structure has been shoe horned as an afterthought”. 4.

Craft & Technology

There are many distinct advantages of the new craft that has been developed through technology. In following on from the previous visual thinking question, one of these advantages is made clear by an architect based on the east coast of Scotland, who asserts that through such digital mediums, an architect is “always working on the potential final draft and there is no cost implication other than time should you want to explore multiple solutions”. This hints at visual thinking in digital model making in a way reminiscent of the ‘parallel lines of thought’ (Lawson, 1993), essentially improving the overall design through more variations being explored, more feedback gathered and more ‘design and redefine’ being done. However, it also alludes a distinct opportunity for architects to be more creative in designing, and therefore redeveloping and redefining this so-called ‘digi-craft’. This is furthered through an architect in Glasgow who claims “we use quite a sketchy aesthetic in our digital models in comparison to a polished render type digital model, so the imagination becomes more engaged and experiencing the designed space becomes more ‘real’. The digital model can allow the user to expose a dialogue further”. This significantly reminds us of Schön’s ‘conversation

with the medium’, showing that this lady clearly has a good 3D imagination which connects well with the digital modelling medium. “Because of the speed of trying out different options many more iterations are imagined and explored”. However, perhaps for many other reasons, the speeding up of that process isn’t necessarily a good thing. As observed in one student interview (Appendix B), “when you design in three dimensions, you too quickly limit yourself to, or too quickly come to some conclusions about what the shape will be as oppose to trying to think of it from a more schematic, theoretical perspective” (Vegys, 2015). This example suggests that the digital model forces one to think of other more immediate visual issues (size and shape), rather than what the issues are regarding the focus of the project. Thus, the user is distracted from the actual design. In summary, there is a significant difference in attitude towards craft in the architecture office compared to the academic environment. Due to their current design-focused education, students seem to have more of a concern as to where this new craft is taking the profession. As a broad example, a Stage 5 architecture student points out that “in AutoCAD and various other programs, it is very much the case that you draw a line and you enter the distance, so you have to think ‘oh what is the distance?’ as oppose to ‘does it look right in terms of proportions?’” Whereas, in relation to that indicated previously, practices are much more profit-driven and output focused, as oppose to observing how they got there and what the essence of the design was. An observation from an architect on the west coast brings a notable advantage of digital modelling: “with digital modelling I will create many variations of the design in one sitting as you see it taking shape quicker. With physical modelling each design process is completed before analysing and amending”. This suggests that there is a back and forth engagement with the brain with both physical and digital modelling but with physical the process is longer. A similar process as above is conveyed by an architect in Edinburgh from a digital modelling perspective: “with a digital model I find

it easy to quickly model something, analyse how it looks/functions and keep trying variations. All very quick and easy to understand how your design decisions affect the project. And accurate too”. And finally, a sharp observation is made by a principal architect north of Edinburgh, who stresses that “all processes push designing in a certain way - if you use Sketchup then you get a lot of extrusions as it is easy to do that, physical modelling may be influenced by the making process - solid wood leads to interesting forms different from modelling in card. If you model in clay things can be very organic.” This again speaks of a strong influence of the medium on design, advising a parallel process not dissimilar to Voulgarelis & Morkel’s idea of models as “a vehicle for process, idea and reflection”. 5.

Future for Architects in a Digital World

Enlisting the opinions of various informants, this section considers the relevance of architects over the course of the next fifty years. The common thoughts and trends annotated from their responses are illustrated here: • Firstly that architects must embrace change and technological advances, and adopt BIM, but also not let it take over. As one architect in Inverness put it, “such technology has the potential to stifle creativity. CAD, BIM etc. may be helpful tools, but should never be a substitute for a designer’s brain”. • Secondly, it was recognised that a clear identification of what architects can add would be useful, before emphasising those skills to the public. This would include streamlining the construction process to reduce time-consuming paper work and concentrate on design. In addition to this, an architect in Edinburgh added that we must “make design important and sell it”, and even further enforced by the partner of a firm in Glasgow stating the need to “try and make quality of design in buildings more relevant to the public and government as it is in cars and fashion”.

• Another shared view was that, rather than focusing on the industry itself, architects should focus on clients, meeting their needs and showing value in their services to them. • The final common trend observed throughout the responses spoke of assertiveness: “continue to imagine how spaces and buildings can improve peoples lives, and to continue to strive to create these places”. This was fortified by an architect in Inverness who emphasised that “the world needs bright, intelligent and caring individuals who are willing to speak in favour of quality (not just quantity)”.

8.2 Conclusion

In conclusion, it is felt that a designer should and inevitably will use whatever medium he/she finds appropriate to his/her skillset, capacity and imagination. However, what is truly essential is that this medium is also used in combination with other design tools, namely including verbalisation or discussion. Following after the studio study, all students, bar one, generated digital models (Google Sketchup or Autodesk Revit) as a presentation tool running up to their final studio submission. However, shown that 70% of practices utilise digital modelling software in conceptual development and only 60% of students did so, it is evident that more need to realise its potential for earlier stages in design thinking and conceptualisation. Through an advanced design education, students should be able to change their â&#x20AC;&#x153;preconception[s] of a CAAD [Computer-Aided Architectural Design] presentation tool to a thinking supportive toolâ&#x20AC;? (Salman, 2011). It is noted that students and practitioners alike either need to engage this combination of design tools, or something about the digital modelling software needs to change. It is suggested, then, that due to the required combination of design tools; verbal and nonverbal, language and visualisation, modelling and discussion, that some form of verbalisation mode should be integrated into model making technology. Model making software is already starting to incorporate this discussion element, however, developers must progress, either to allow these various processes to take place consecutively, or a social media-type platform to be integrated into modelling software. This could be done in order to streamline the design process, but never to remove vital steps for critical analysis, constructive criticism and design reflection. Also, despite the common use of Autodesk Revit software in the Masters design studio at Robert Gordon University, it was decided early on that such software would not be an effective tool for this study due to its nature in the conceptual stage of design. Revit is more particular and advanced modelling software, which alerts the user of queries and faults as they arise. These alerts, or notifications, advise of queries such as floor planes not meeting correctly at a junction or walls not being straight. The design medium for this

design studio research experiment had to be as free and liberating as possible, therefore Google Sketchup rendered itself as a more suitable choice. As an issue that will remain at the forefront of architecture over the coming years, technology has changed the way we design, and will shape our design process further still in the unforeseeable future. It is essential that progress is made in such a topic, and at a time when the ‘digital era’ is radically changing these design environments, the timeliness of this paper is given a valid context. In response to the aims proposed at the outset of this paper, significant outcomes were achieved. With an overall aim to compare digital and physical model making, with relation to design development at a conceptual level, I believe the various methodologies; including passive and active studies, have clarified each tool and provided each its own context relative to other such tools used in conceptualisation. In satisfying the first objective, it was realised that both physical and digital mediums are useful for accomplishing different tasks, and appropriate to different stages of the architectural design process. However, with architects in practice sharing a general preference for digital models and students an inclination to employ physical model making at a conceptual level, it is of general consensus that physical models may be more appropriate to the working model, whereas digital model making holds a greater degree of efficiency and relevance to the future of the industry. The second aim was to delineate the place of models in the 21st century design studio, establishing the variety of mediums through which designs are being created before being presented through physical and computer-generated models. Through literature review (namely Schön, 1983) and research studies of my own, it was clarified that not verbalisation, but sketching, was in fact the most used tool, as per initial expectations. In my opinion, it is impossible even to teach design (Moore, 2003), and that is where visual thinking comes in. There must be a constant process, a back and forth motion (Schön, 1984) between the brain and the medium, because if not, nothing is learnt and no progress made.

For many users, digital modelling is actually a hindrance to good design, occurring when students “produce a certain kind of three dimensional form in a CAD package…bypassing that visual editing critical faculty we try to inculcate in design schools” (Lawson, 1999). However, as quoted previously, Donald A Schön (1984) states that “the designer allows the situation to ‘talk back’ to him, causing him to see things in a new way – to construct new meanings and intentions”. Personally, I believe that although designers and practices are generally always going to use the most cost-efficient option, that option should accommodate designers’ various levels of imagining, varying skillsets and also preferences. Although many are still developing skills in digital design, whether out of choice or office custom, the option of digital model making is ever rising. Hence, there is a great need to develop this design tool into one that is more assistive in the conceptualisation phase, for use at both practice and university level. Seemingly, as discovered in the data analysis chapter, the increase in digital modelling software usage in recent years has brought a subsequent reduction in verbalisation as a design tool. This reflects either a misunderstanding of digital modelling and the extent of its benefits, or that the medium is working before the brain in some cases, as implied/insinuated by Herman Hertzberger (Lawson, 1994). Due to evidence in previous research stating that verbalisation was the major conceptual tool for the early stages of the design process, this is a point of great concern for us as designers. In summary, it is my belief that architects must always progress with ever-advancing technology, but never substitute it for the brain. As a subsequence of the daily challenges faced by designers, their problem solving and resourceful strategic thinking skills are second to none. Therefore, we must use those proficiencies to benefit the world around us today in whatever way we can. By a process of visual thinking and design reflection, we as an industry must continue to imagine and create great spaces and buildings using a range of design tools, and whatever technology helps us do so most efficiently.

8.3 Suggestions for Future Research

University Design Studio Some architecture schools are advancing faster than others, but all operate differently. Therefore, further research should be focused on a wider population to gain more representative inferences and conclusions, perhaps including architecture schools across Scotland or the UK. This would minimise the subjectivity of such research by allowing comparative studies to take place. A more detailed study may also be beneficial in establishing what must be done in adapting education systems in accordance with changes emerging throughout the new â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;digital eraâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; facing architectural practice. A challenge of the future, however, will be in retaining focus on actual design. Undoubtedly many students are pursuing an architecture course with great familiarity of computers, and aspirations of 3D printers and technology, therefore the task for such educational bodies will be to try and develop a hunger for good design first, retaining this as the centrality of the architecture course in the 21st century. Architectural Practice It would be advantageous to complete a similar visual thinking study in architectural practice to identify which mediums are becoming common practice in the new digital design studio, and if digital is used at later or earlier stages of design conception. This study would be of great benefit in helping the architecture industry to progress and also to ensure the service that they provide is relevant, and is desired by clients. However, this may be a difficult study to undertake, due to confidentiality and time pressures upon practices. Despite potential difficulties in conducting such research, this would help identify in what ways the industry must develop, which areas are subject to change and which office customs are constructive and should be kept in place. Furthermore, this research emphasises the lack of studies investigating what happens in designerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s minds when they design using digital modelling and highlights the need for further experimentation (through practice based studies mentioned previously) in order to ensure that relevant architectural design education is being offered at an academic level,

but even more so at a practice level. With discussions recently regarding the shortening of the architecture course to five years, an analysis into the architecture office expectations of university graduates would be advantageous in order to bridge the gap between university and practice, and to signify what stage placements should be implemented into that course.

References

ABDELHAMEED, W., 2004. Visual Design Thinking in the Design process as Impacted by Digital Media. Design Studies, Volume 26(6), pp 613–624. AKALIN, G., 2003. Comparative Analysis on the Cognition of Designer’s Identity Through Digital Presentation Drawings. Masters Thesis, Bilkent University, Turkey. AYRES, P., 2012. Persistent Modelling: Extending the Role of Architectural Representation. Abingdon, Oxon [England]: Routledge. BARKER, C., PISTRANG, N. and ELLIOTT, R., 2002. Research methods in clinical psychology. New York: J. Wiley. BARLISH, K. and SULLIVAN, K., 2012. How to measure the benefits of BIM – A case study approach. Automation in Construction, Volume 24, 2012, pp. 149-159. BERMUDEZ, J. and KING, K., 2000. Media interaction and design process: establishing a knowledge base, Automation in Construction, 9, pp. 37-56. BREEN, J., NOTTROT, R. and STELLINGWERFF, M., 2003. Tangible virtuality—perceptions of computer-aided and physical modelling. Automation in Construction, 12(6), pp.649-653. BURGESS, R.G., 1981. Keeping a research diary. Cambridge Journal of Education. Volume 11, Part 1. pp. 75-83. COYNE, R., PARK, H. and WISZNIEWSKI D., 2002. Design devices: digital drawing and the pursuit of difference. Design Studies, 23(3), pp. 263-286. CROSS, N., CHRISTIAANS, H. and DORST, K., 1996. Introduction: the Delft protocols workshop. In: Analysing Design Activity. Wiley & Son, Chichester, UK. pp. 1-16. DAVIES, S., 1995. Effects of concurrent verbalisation on design problem solving. Design Studies, Volume 216(1), pp 102–116. DUNN, N., 2012. Digital Fabrication in Architecture. Laurence King Publishing Limited.

DWARAKANATH, S. and BLESSING, L., 1996. Ingredients of the design process: a comparison between group and individual work. In: Analysing Design Activity. Wiley & Son, Chichester, UK. pp. 93-116. GOEL, V., 1995. Sketches of thought, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.  GOLDSCHMIDT, G., 1994. On visual design thinking: the vis kids of architecture. Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning, Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel. JONSON, B., 2005. Design Ideation: the conceptual sketch in the digital age. Design Studies, Volume 26(6), pp 613–624. 10.1016/j. destud.2005.03.001 LAWSON, B.R., 1994. Design in Mind. Butterworth Architecture, Oxford, England. LAWSON, B. and Loke, S.M., 1997. Computers. Words and pictures, Design Studies, Volume 18(2), pp 171–184. LØDDESØL, C. Introductory Lecture. Head of Workshop Department, Snøhetta Architects, Oslo Office. 3 November 2014. MARX, J., 2000. ArchitectureWeek - Tools - Design Course Does Digital - 2000.0823. [online] Architectureweek.com. Available at: http://www.architectureweek.com/2000/0823/tools_1-1.html [Accessed 3 Apr. 2015]. MINICHIELLO, V., ARONI, R., TIMEWELL, E. and ALEXANDER, L., 1990. In Depth Interviewing: Researching People. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire. MITCHELL, W. J., 1990. The Logic of Architecture: Design, Computation, and Cognition. MIT Press. MOORE, K., 2003. Overlooking the visual. The Journal of Architecture, Volume 8(1), pp. 25-40. PLASS, J., CHUAN, D., MAYER, R. and LEUTNER, D., 1998. Supporting visual and verbal learning preferences in a second-language multimedia environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, Volume 90(1), pp 25-36.

PUTNAM, H., 1999. The Threefold Cord; Mind, Body and World. New York, Chichester, Surrey, Colombia University Press. RAZZOUK, R. and SHUTE, V., 2012. What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, Volume 82(3), pp. 330-348, http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457429 ROBSON, C., 1993. Real world research. Blackwell, Oxford, England. ROWE, P. G., 1987. Design thinking, the MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England. SALMAN, H. S., 2011. The impact of CAAD on design methodology and visual thinking in architectural education. Available from OpenAIR@ RGU. [online]. Available from: http://openair.rgu.ac.uk SALMAN, H., LAING., R. and CONNIFF, A., 2006. CAAD Visualization Techniques Mediate the Conceptual Design Process as a Thinking Tool. Academia, eCAADe 24, 16, pp. 701. SCHÖN, D.A., 1984. Problems, frames and perspectives on designing. Design Studies, Volume 5(3), pp.132-136. SCHÖN, D.A., 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How professionals think in action. Temple Smith, London, England. SIMON, M., 2006. Dissertation and scholarly research. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co. SIZA, Á., 1990. Freibad in Leça de Palmeira. Bauwelt, (29/30), pp.1470. SUTHERLAND, M., 1999. Modelmaking. New York: W.W. Norton. TALJA, S. (1999). Analyzing Qualitative Interview Data. Library & Information Science Research, 21(4), pp.459-477. VAN SOMEREN, M.W., BARNARD, Y.F. and SANDBERG, J., 1994. The Think Aloud Method. Academic Press, London, England. VOULGARELIS, H. and MORKEL, J., 2010. The Importance of Physically Built Working Models in Design Teaching of Undergraduate Architectural Students. Connected 2010, 2nd International Conference

on Design Education, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, pp. 2.

Bibliography

ABDELHAMEED, W.A., 2003. The impact of computer on the design capabilities of architects: a comparative study of different trends. Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt. AKIN, O., 2001. Variants in Design Cognition In C. Eastman, W. M. McCracken, and W. C. Newstetter (Eds.), Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education (pp. 147–198). Amsterdam: Elsevier. AKIN ,Ö .and AKIN, C.,1996. Frames of reference in architectural design: analysing the hyper-acclamation (A-h-a). Design Studies Special Issue: Design Cognition and Computation. 361-341:(4)17 . 323 AL-QAWASMI, J., 2004. Reflections on e-design: the e- studio experience. 1st ASCAAD International Conference, e-Design in Architecture, KFUPM, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, 177-193. AL-QAWASMI, J., 2005. “Digital media in architectural design education: reflections on the e-studio pedagogy”, Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education 4(3) 205–222. AZHAR, S., 2011. Building Information Modeling (BIM): Trends, Benefits, Risks, and Challenges for the AEC Industry. Leadership Manage. Eng., 11(3), pp.241-252. BILDA, Z. , 2001. Designers’ Cognition In Traditional Versus Digital Media During The Conceptual Design. MSc thesis. The Department Of Interior Architecture And Environmental Design, The Institute Of Fine Arts of Býlkent University. 325 BILDA Z. and DEMIRKAN, H. , 2003. An insight on designers’ sketching activities in traditional versus digital media.” Design Studies, 24(1),pp. 27–50. BILDA, Z AND GERO, JS., 2008. Idea development can occur using imagery only during early conceptual designing, in JS Gero and AK Goel (eds), Design Computing and Cognition ‘08, Springer: pp. 303-320 GOLDSCHMIDT, G.,1999. Visual analogy: a strategy for design reasoning and learning, in Eastman, C., McCracken, W. and Newstetter, W. (eds) Design knowing and learning: cognition in design education, pp 199-219, Elsevier, New York.

JANKE, R., 1968. Architectural models. New York: F.A. Praeger. LASEAU, P., 2001. Graphic thinking for architects and designers. 3rd ed. Canada: John Wiley and sons. LAWSON, B. ,1997. How Designers Think .3rd. ed. The Architectural Press: London. LAWSON, B., 2004. What Designers Know, Architectural press: Oxford, UK. LAWSON, B. , 2004 a. Schemata, gambits and precedent: some factors in design expertise. Design Studies, 25(5), pp. 443-457. LAWSON, B., 2006. How Designers Think. 4th ed. The Architectural press: Oxford, UK. OXMAN, R., 2006. Theory and design in the first digital age. Design Studies, 27(3), pp. 229-265. OXMAN, R., 2008. Digital architecture as a challenge for design pedagogy: theory, knowledge, models and medium. Design Studies. 29(2), pp. 99-120. PURCELL, A. and GERO , J. , 1998. “Drawings and the design process.” Design Studies 19(4): 389–430. PURCELL, A.T., and GERO, J. S., 1996. Design and other types of fixation, Design Studies, Volume 17, Issue 4, Special Issue: Design Cognition and Computation, ROWE, P. ,1991. Design Thinking. 3rd ed.: USA. SALMAN, H.S., 2004. CAAD Impact on the Early Stages of the Architectural Design Process. MSc thesis. University of Wolverhampton. SALMAN, H., LAING, R. and CONNIFF, A., 2006. “CAAD Visualization Techniques Mediate the Conceptual Design Process as a Thinking Tool : Reflection on action study”, in Communicating Space(s) . 24th eCAADe Conference Proceedings. Volos (Greece) 6-9 September 2006, pp.700-708.

SALMAN, H., LAING., R. and CONNIFF, A., 2008. The Changing Role of CAAD in the Architectural Design Studio. The Built & Human Environment Review, Volume 1, pp. 25-39. SANGUINETTI, P., ABDELMOHSEN, S., LEE, J., LEE, J., SHEWARD, H. and EASTMAN, C., 2012. General system architecture for BIM: An integrated approach for design and analysis. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 26(2), pp.317-333. SCHÖN, D., 1983. The Reflective Practitioner, Harper Collins, New York, NY. SCHÖN, D. ,1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner, San Francisco, USA: Jossy-Bass. SCHÖN, D. , 1991.” The Reflective Practitioner: how professionals think in action”, New York, NY: Harper Collins. SCHÖN, D. A. and G. WIGGINS 1992. Kinds of seeing and their functions in designing. Design Studies, 13(2), pp. 135-156. SIMONDETTI, A., 2002. Copmuter-generated physical modelling in the early stages of the design process. Automation in Construction, Volume 11(1), pp. 303-311. SOLLAZZO, A., 2011. Digital Van Berkel. Roma: Edilstampa Srl. TVERSKY, B. ,1999. What does drawing reveal about thinking? In J. S. Gero & B. Tversky (Eds.), Visual and spatial reasoning in design. (pp. 93-101). Sydney, Australia: Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition. VAN BERKEL, B. and BOS, C., 2006. UN Studio Design Models – Architecture Urbanism Infrastructure, Thames & Hudson, London, UK.

Appendices

page number 63

Appendix A - Design Studio Study

Completed Studio Study Matrix

Studio Study Results

Follow-up Interviews

Lukas Vegys Interview Transcript

Daniel Kemp Interview Transcript Appendix B - Practitioner Questionnaire Future of Architects Response List

Description

Published Questionnaire

Follow-up Interviews Mr Lukas Vegys, 2015 Visual Thinking Through Model Making - Follow-up Interview Interviewed by: Andrew N J McDonagh Evernote Voice Recording Scott Sutherland School of Architecture and Built Environment 17.04.2015 Transcript: AM: “Firstly, what is the actual size of your project?” LV: “It’s 90 metres by 90 metres, so that’s 81,000 square metres.” AM: “Okay so first question is why do you prefer sketching in 2D?” LV: “You do not normally want to jump too quickly into AutoCAD or Google Sketchup, because although it may make certain things a bit quicker, like creating volumes etc., at the same time it creates constraints in terms of what you are putting on paper, so if you are only sketching on paper, it is easier to do what you want to do without feeling some kind of connotation from the program. It is easier to draw a skewed line at an odd angle than it is to do on CAD or Sketchup; it is more natural. Also, if you are using the correct scale, it can also be a very quick method of gauging the sizes, whereas in AutoCAD and various other programs it is very much the case that you draw a line and you enter the distance, so you have to think ‘oh what is the distance?’ as oppose to ‘does it look right in terms of proportions.” AM: “Great, and what about 2D as oppose to 3D sketching?” LV: “It probably depends on how good you are at each method, but it does take it to another level so maybe you start thinking of the spaces in terms of their heights or what kind of sense of place you are creating, by thinking of it in three dimensions as oppose to plans and sections. I’m sure you could do that with a section too. At the same time however, if you are not very good at sketching in 3D, you may also end up limiting yourself, so it is probably very subjective as to what is the easiest medium for someone – it could be modelling, it could be something else. AM: “Right, next question - why do you prefer physical modelling to digital modelling then?” LV: “Sometimes I do, sometimes I don’t. Physical modelling can often be a bit more time-consuming, so while I may prefer to do it that way, I may not choose to on the basis that I am pushed for time. It may be quicker to do all the shapes and boxes on Sketchup, but you will know this as well that when you show it to someone else they are going to see a 2D drawing from that specific angle; they are not going to see it as a three-dimensional thing. So if you do go to the effort of creating a 3D physical model, it will be easier for others to try and understand what you are trying to do.”

AM: “Yeah that’s interesting. In relation to your answers on the study template, in the first question you mention that sketching allows you to put down ideas as you imagine without creating ‘technical barriers’, please clarify what you mean by technical barriers?” LV: “That’s what I meant previously, that if you are using Revit for example, it is very much straight lines and because it also is the answer to fancy forms or that it takes so much longer, you may end up not doing anything on the basis that it is too difficult or you simply lack knowledge in how to do it quickly, so you might limit yourself to cubes and squares and that kind of thing. It’s almost like writing, just writing whatever comes to your mind, and it would be more difficult to write if you were trying to sculpt a piece of stone.” AM: “A quote from a literature review paper I was reading says that ‘Designing in a three-dimensional digital environment might be described as sketching in space’ (Abdelhameed, 2004). When you use digital modelling personally, do you find that same freedom?” LV: “Well Sketchup is quite good for quick models, however it can still be annoying, depending on your expertise and how you use it. It’s not the same as sketching on paper, but it depends on the project, when you design in three dimensions, do you too quickly limit yourself to, or too quickly come to some conclusions about what the shape will be as oppose to trying to think of it from a more schematic, theoretical perspective, thinking what the issues are with regards to what you are doing as oppose to what size or what shape this is going to be. If someone is skilled at Sketchup, maybe for them it is just like sketching; maybe it is not as good.” AM: “So do you think if we were educated fully in digital modelling such as Sketchup we would be as free to use that, ‘sketching in space’ (Abdelhameed, 2004), as we would with a pen on paper?” LV: “If you have a computer I suppose. *laughs* There are too many variables, because it all just comes down to personal opinion. You can’t really answer that properly. I would probably say that, to me personally Sketchup would come at a later stage in the project. I wouldn’t be using it as the first thing to come up with ideas – I would try to sit down and think what the issues are at hand and how to address them. Then once you move on and you need to start thinking of massing, maybe then you can start looking into Sketchup.”

AM: “So you think it is too rigid to use at the first stage?” LV: “Probably. Unless they were able to develop it so that you were to sketch on a tablet device in the same way you do on paper, and then extrude the faces outwards to create volumes. Then perhaps you could claim that it would achieve a similar level of liberty. However, there are probably still constraints without even realizing it – it’s all subjective.” AM: “Great. In the second question you were using physical modelling and your task was ‘testing massing in relation to density/forms/layout’ and your observation was that it helped you visualize it, so I wonder if you could expand on that, comparing that to digital modelling? And which type of modelling do you feel is easier to understand what the real built entity will be like?” LV: “For that specific model, I made lots of little 5m3 cubes, which were all identical, so being able to move them around very quickly and test different arrangements was useful in quickly gauging what could be a desirable form for the site. However, at the same time I was limited in that I wasn’t able to edit every single cube in order to create a slightly different form, which perhaps was overhanging or creating a terrace. So on one level it was quite good for the task at hand, but I wasn’t able to take it any further because of these limitations. If I was using digital modelling (Sketchup), I might have done the latter, which is testing overhangs or balconies within every individual block, but then it probably would have been too time-consuming to play with the overall form of the massing to see how it relates to its surroundings, the existing architecture etc. AM: “In relation to the fourth question where you were using Words [W] and you’ve said it is useful to put down your thoughts onto paper and writing by hand seems to connect with your brain quite well, so do you believe thoughts or designs are made clearer when written down? LV: “Yes, but quite often I feel reluctant to write things down in a journal on the basis that it does take a bit of time to sketch things out, to write them down, and sometimes I think that because you have a thought in your head, there’s no point in writing them down if you don’t have much time. But if you do write them down, you either clarify or you question that specific thought in your mind, and you can confirm to yourself if that was a good thought. There’s a process of writing that allows you to order all of your thoughts and make them make sense.”

AM: “To clarify them?” LV: “Yes. Since our tutor started asking us for reflective design feedback every Friday… although it takes a couple of hours to note down what was said during the weekly review, we try to understand and note all the important parts. The process of actually writing down your thoughts in a concise manner then setting yourself goals for what you plan to achieve the next week makes it a lot easier and more successful to proceed with your project. AM: “Okay, so next I’m just going to read a quote by design researchers Rim Razzouk & Valerie Shute, 2012. “Design thinking is generally defined as an analytic and creative process that engages a person in opportunities to experiment, create and prototype models, gather feedback, and redesign”. With reference to that statement, please describe how you imagine differently when digital modelling as oppose to physical modelling?” LV: “It probably depends a lot upon the scale of the project you are working on. If you are working on modelling a building at a small scale or big scale, then the process of making a physical model although it is far from reality is probably quite suggestive of the way you would approach it in terms of construction or building and probably allows you to understand it on a slightly better level. Whereas if you just create a 3D model digitally, it isn’t as indicative of the way it would be built. You are merely just extruding parts and forms to make shapes. Other people may perceive computer models as being definite, as in, that is the way it is going to be built, whereas usually if it’s a sketch or a physical model there is probably more leeway as to the suggestion of what an object could be, more easily adjusted.” AM: “So did you find any key strengths and weaknesses when using your physical modelling?” LV: “My strength is that I do amazing because of my modelling skills.” AM: “Not your strengths! I mean strengths or weaknesses with the medium! *laughs* With physical modelling.” LV: “I wouldn’t say there is any weakness… The only weakness to me is that I struggle to do “quick models”, which means I only do nice models, which then becomes time-consuming. So the weakness of the model that I produce is that it takes a long time. But then sometimes

its not necessarily essential that it has to be that quality.” AM: “So you are very precise, or you are a perfectionist?” LV: “I just like things to look good.” AM: “Yeah, I think that’s the case with a lot of us designers! So do you think it’s something that you could practice to make it quicker or more “sketchy”? LV: “It would be quite useful to try that. Some materials sometimes are quite good for making massing models, so you might get some little pieces of timber that you are able to put into bigger shapes as oppose to making boxes of cardboard or layering cardboard to make some kind of taller structure. But then, not always do we have different types of model material available to us, so quite often we are limited to cardboard. That limitation can put you off doing a certain thing because you want to know what will be quickest. Maybe if there was a workshop that had clay, timber and other types of materials, there could be more opportunities to use physical modelling in the quickest way, which would encourage you to do it, as oppose to opting for a different medium. Usually when people do models on Sketchup, all they do is they print them out and provide some pictures to look at, it’s not the same as having a model in your hand that you can look and try to see what’s going on in there.” AM: “Great, so just to finish, it has been proven (Jonson, 2005) that most sudden insights occur in the verbalization mode [W], and that “verbalization, on its own or in combination with other conceptual tools, emerged as the prime mover for getting started”. (Bouncing ideas off one another: “what if you tried this?”… Your colleague mentioned earlier that because you two were sitting next to eachother both using Sketchup, you were able to offer a fresh insight or a new perspective that he hadn’t thought of before, and hopefully that would be the impact that would make you think “Oh I never thought of that before”, so my final question is do you often verbalise your design ideas or open them up for discussion with others?” LV: “Yes, I try to do it all of the time. Obviously we are working on visual projects, but people are either busy or they are reluctant to spend their time helping someone else, so everyone tends to focus on their own project. However, most good ideas happen as part of a conversation, because you may say a word and someone else might

pick it up differently and they might elaborate or they might even misunderstand it, then some different thoughts altogether may come to their mind, which might be the solution you are looking for. Quite often when you’re spending so much time working on a particular project, you become too concerned about some little details that may be bothering you and quite often someone else is able to bring a fresh perspective on it, because they are not as attached to the project and have no concerns and they are just able to take a step back, observe it and just say “this doesn’t work… that doesn’t quite make sense… you could try doing this”. Because usually it’s a lot easier to critique others work than to critique your own, just because you’ve got an emotional attachment to your own work. The way we work in design studios is effective because even if you are not speaking to your peers, you can still see their sketches, you can see their models and you can kind of pace yourself against others and ensure that you are sticking to the schedule, or even better you can try and compete with people and just try to outdo each other whether its on purpose or subconsciously. Its an efficient way of raising the standards all the time, so I presume that if everybody worked from home and just came into studio in time for the final presentation, things would be a lot different, potentially not as developed as it could be otherwise.” AM: “So you think that is the importance of design studio? Interaction with others who are completing similar design tasks?” LV: “Doesn’t have to be similar, it could be something completely different. My colleague is investigating affordability in architecture and he came over to me asking about my dissertation, which is on densification, because I was trying to figure out if there is a case for affordability to consider density, or more importantly, all the issues in relation to density – if they are bad or good. And he read my dissertation and found the comments quite useful to his own project, because in a way it is completely unrelated, but at the same time it is very much related.” AM: “Great, that’s the end of your interview. Thank you very much for your time.” LV: “Thanks.”

Mr Daniel Mackenzie Kemp, 2015 Visual Thinking Through Model Making - Follow-up Interview Interviewed by: Andrew N J McDonagh Evernote Voice Recording Scott Sutherland School of Architecture and Built Environment 17.04.2015 Transcript: AM: “My first question for you is why do you prefer sketching in 3D?” DK: “It helps you visualize the actual project, and decide the forms that you are creating. Gives you an idea of height and scale all in one, rather than in plan where you only get areas essentially.” AM: “So you prefer sketching a form essentially rather than drawing a plan then a section?” DK: “Yes, because with 3D sketching you can include context and get a real feel for how what you are creating will respond to the surrounding context.” AM: “And why do you prefer digital modelling to physical modelling?” DK: “To me digital modelling is a lot quicker, and easier to make changes in, whereas physical modelling you either have to have an idea in your head straight away and create that, and then have to create another model if you change your mind. In 3D digital modelling, you can change it straight away, delete things, change the form, pull apart entities.” AM: “So do you feel that there is more freedom in design with digital modelling as oppose to physical?” DK: “There is a lot more freedom, however physical modelling has its advantages on how you construction something, because at the end of the day it will have to stand up. If you are creating something that contains smaller parts underneath, then it has to hold that weight, whereas with digital modelling it doesn’t give you that same sense of structure and construction, so it helps with the modelling in that sense.” AM: “Are there any key strengths and weaknesses you’ve found with digital modelling in general?” DK: “Strengths are that there a lot of different programs available to achieve different results, for example there are parametric design programs now which you can create 3D modelling in, which if you were doing in physical modelling it would take forever! And the weaknesses I guess, some of the programs have limitations. For example Sketchup has various limitations, but that might just be down to the user’s experience or knowledge of the program, and many programs, if you

have never used them before can be hard to get your head around.” AM: “So do you think that digital modelling like Sketchup should be educated more fully at an academic level or a practice level or where do you think that should come in?” DK: “I think it should be implemented at an academic level, but definitely after doing all the traditional methods, like physical modelling, because I think physical modelling is just as important, if not more important than digital modelling, because as I said before it does give you an idea of if something will work structurally or not.” AM: “And just a final question… As part of my research it was proven (Jonson, 2005) that most sudden insights occur in the verbalization mode [W], and that ‘verbalization, on its own or in combination with other conceptual tools, emerged as the prime mover for getting started’. Do you personally often verbalise your design ideas or open them up for discussion with others?” DK: “Yes, I always ask for other people’s input, just to see if there is something I have missed or to see if they have any thoughts on whether it’s going to work or not, and I find it very helpful actually. And I do it to other people as well, help them with whatever they are doing. For example, today my colleague wasn’t really seeing something and so I just mentioned “maybe you should try that, have you thought of this?” and it’s quite a successful way of doing it, 9 times out of 10 people will say “oh I didn’t realize that” or “I didn’t think of that”. AM: “So do you think that’s due to 2 perspectives rather than one, or due to them sticking with one medium for their whole design task? Do you think they would work out the same thing if they moved from that medium to another medium? For example, do you think if your colleague was digital modelling in Sketchup and you said “well you haven’t seen it like this” or “you haven’t tried this”, do you think he would’ve found that out another way if he’d gone back to sketching or gone back to physical modelling?” DK: “He might have done. It might have taken him a while as well. It may have been a couple of weeks down the line until he realized that thing, but it’s one of those things, it’s a different perspective. You know, we’re all working on different projects. Although they are in a similar situation, we are all working on different things; we have all seen different things. We all have different experiences in life, and in

architecture, so we all have a different point of view, which helps other people get to where they want to get to quicker I guess.” AM: “Great. And just to close then, did you have a similar experience in practice, bouncing your ideas off others or design reviews etc.?” DK: “Yeah we had a lot of design reviews: in my work experience I had the pleasure of doing conceptual work, unlike architecture in the academic field of conceptual design, but along similar lines I guess. But they’d always had reviews and I’d always go to my peers and ask their thoughts, just because I’m still learning so I needed that experienced input to say whether or not I was on the right track or if I had missed something.” AM: “So were those reviews something that the architects in the office did as well?” DK: “Yeah they would. I don’t think they would do it as much as I did, but they always had some sort of weekly meeting if it was on a big project, to show their designs and thoughts on something. They’d all discuss it and come to a decision about which way to go.” AM: “Great, thank you very much for your time, Daniel.” DK: “Thank you.”

Practitioner Questionnaire

The responses from question 8 of the practitioner survey are shown in the following pages. 8. In your opinion, what must architects do in order to stay relevant over the next 50 years? • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • •

Maintain integrity in design Adopt BIM but BIM must improve on detailing at 1:5 etc Architects must embrace change. Good luck with your thesis. Keep up with changes and adopt new skills to keep up with the other non architects who we compete with for work. Regain/retain the position of design team leader in both the 3D and built environment. Lead in all areas of construction technology & procurement innovation. They must add and create value to construction projects, they must lead clients into making more cost effective building solutions, they must be visionary. No other discipline has an imagination and we must use ours to create a better way forward. Own the design process. Hope this helps. ADOPT BIM - PROGRESS ON IT FULLY Design great, meaningful and cost effective buildings plus keep abreast of and embrace technological advances Become much more involved in strategic thinking and planning, at highest level in business and government. Champion the use of micro generation and energy efficiency, in buildings. Get a grip on building industry and promote design as a good investment Keep learning Continue to keep up with the last technology and try and offer a more complete package for the design process. Take back control of our own industry. Over the years the profession has been eroded by other disciplines taking over many of the things we would have traditionally undertaken. I think BIM is a huge opportunity to win back control over the process however as a profession we seem to be reluctant to do this. Contractors and Engineers have been quick to embrace BIM and have already set up benchmarks and systems to run projects in this manor. Very few architectural practices (especially in Aberdeen) have been as eager to embrace the change and as a profession we find ourselves once again following the lead of others. This is magnified by the popularity of D&B as a procurement route which effectively sets up a situation where the architect works for the

• •

•

• •

• • •

contractor having to compromise on design to meet cost. I think championing BIM. Holding control of the central models would help the profession win back control of design. Adapt. Innovate. As in point 5, architects must streamline the construction process to reduce time consuming paper work and concentrate of design. Potential well designed projects are lost due to lack of time due to other project demands. Keep up with new developments in software. There will always be another practice who is using the latest software which gives them a possible advantage. Keep up with what is happening in your local community / architectural world. BIM isn’t going away and will ultimately become the norm therefore clients are starting to expect to see 3D output. This will probably grow to the expectation of a detailed scaled model eg. 3D printing from the BIM model in time. Architects need to be aware of the implications of moving away from the physical model development stage as a means of explaining a concept - this might be through the adoption of technology instead that allows clients to ‘be inside’ the space virtually. Not forget who the client is and who they design for. Some architects design for their peers, and impose their own views strongly on the client hidden behind a veneer of ‘good design’. Good design means achieving what the client wants and creating a product which functions well within the parameters the client has set. Offer a service that the project managers and Large Contractors cant. Personal and creative. Protect the role, stop the invasion of architectural designers/ building designers etc. and heavily promote the creative and complex work we do. Try and make quality of design in buildings more relevant to the public and government as it is in cars and fashion. As designers, not to get dragged into the whole BIM thing too readily .. it has the potential to stifle creativity CAD/BIM etc. may be helpful tools .. but should never be a substitute for a designer’s brain. Architects need to commit time to keeping up with new software. It is increasingly difficult with so many packages to choose from however, critical to keep up to date and moving with new technologies. Inspire the public. Hmmm. Good question. Make design important and sell it. The adoption of BIM is growing in the industry, however developing Level 2 and 3 BIM, particularly in a way that is practical for smaller

•

• •

• • • •

•

practices will be key. Integrating more with the construction industry, with regards to off-site construction of buildings and building elements from BIM models, will also be important. With regards to physical modelling, 3D printing, laser cutting and CNC routering offer faster ways to generate more accurate models. As BIM packages develop more reliable standard export files for use in the aforementioned machines and as the prices of the machines and materials drop this will become more and more common. Try to keep a clear identitification of what an architect can add to the design process. Adapt to what the client understands - this generation is more technologically minded, we are more impacted by visuals that represent the project as closely to what will be there and being able to see it at any angle Architects will have to move forward with new computer software but also not let it take over. The danger is people will think if a computer can do it then we won’t need architects. I may buck the trend here, but rather than focussing on what industry trends are I prefer to focus on what the benefits to my Clients are, and tailor every presentation to each individual Client. As long as Architects can clearly convey their ideas to their Clients and the wider design team, it doesn’t really matter what medium is used, imho. Hope that helps? Harness all tecnologies - but always trail them with the act of physically making! We have a saying ‘if you can’t make a wooden model out of it you can’t make it on a construction site! Good luck - feel free to call to discuss further. It depends what you mean by relevant. Some might say that practices that cannot keep up in the race towards digital modelling are no longer relevant but I see no evidence to support that idea. People are reflecting, at the moment, on the significance of Frei Otto and it could be argued that he was at the sharp end of what became the technical revolution in design. This allowed designers, especially systematic designers, to imagine in a way not previously possible, simply because the structures were too complex or could not be verified structurally. Today, the tail is wagging the dog and the drive for signature building is making architecture into packaging design. I think the argument has to be about what function architects are expected to have in the next ten or twenty years. It is not a matter of style, so much as how end users are persuaded to regard design. I don’t see architects helping architecture unless each one is prepared to re-examine what they are for and what architecture is supposed to be. To stay relevant

• •

•

• • • • • • • • • •

• •

•

architects need to still exist and for this to happen they need to know what they are supposed to be doing and they should have a political framework which allows them to do it. The tools which help them are always just tools. Sorry to be so long winded. Shooting from the hip and probably missing a lot! We should offer insight and inspiration to our clients, providing delight and reassurance that our buildings offer value for money, durability and pleasure in use while continuing to keep the weather out. Push further to explore innovation and architectural design possibilities within a project, and to effectively demonstrate how this can be achieved. The dialogue between architects and other parts of the construction industry needs to be opened up to become more collaborative as well. Provide services which no-one else can. Go back to the drawing board for conceptual design rather than be led by CAD Put the clients needs first and use whatever technique is necessary to explain the design as many clients can not read / understand plans. Be creative, flexible and continue to add value to projects. By embracing new technology, strive to become again, the lead consultants in the Design Team I do not believe the architect’s relevance is at risk but architects will need to embrace new technology and more inclusive and collaborative working methods with the wider design team. Realise that we are experts in our field and market ourselves in that way. We also need to get better at managing ourselves and our projects - I think it’s crazy that we don’t get any training in managing a design team or managing a project. Move with the times and benefit from technologies available to allow us to be more creative. The entire profession must change - there is huge disjoint between small scale domestic projects and large commercial projects and the sort of practices completing work. I also don’t know that it is so much a question of staying relevant, as opposed to staying existent. Show value in their services to clients Continue implementing and developing the BIM environment, fully collaborative design platforms and software for fast and transparent exchange of information between design disciplines and consultants. Liaise at the earliest design stage with product designers and

• • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • •

•

developers to ensure efficiency in both design and cost are at the forefront. Keep up with all changes - materials, technology, be kinder to the world, reduce waste... NA Move with the times but never forget their roots. Charge more fees. By being creative and pushing the boundaries with GOOD work Firstly, define what relevent means in our time, place and current cultural, ecological, environmental socio-potlitic environment, and then do everything we can to make a positive contribution in the area which we feel most passionate...(the world needs bright, intelligent and caring individuals who are willing to speak in favour of quality (not just quantity). People (not just commodity and assets) Environment as a whole, not just narrow minded interests. Figure out where we as individual architects have the passion, skill and resources to make a difference. For a start they need to really emphasise their skills to the public and private companies as too many people are opting for non registered ‘designers’ who do not have the duty of care or skills. Also really need to get rid of the ‘boys club’ mentality and start encouraging more women into the industry in particular when it comes to construction and technical knowledge. The Architecture Education system also needs to stamp out the ‘bullying’ nature that often goes on between tutors and students. Same as the last 500, Commodity, firmness & Delight. This question is far too open for me to answer succinctly. Design critically and criticise constructively all other design. The tools we use are less relevant to this core role.” Understand CAM. Concentrate on art and proportions as well as environmental issues. I don’t think this can be answered easily Now, there’s a question. Continue to imagine how spaces and buildings can improve peoples lives, and to continue to strive to create these places. Adapt, innovate and develop with the market. Approach each project individually in terms of context and output. Take on talented and motivated young people to produce the work of the experienced elders BIM