Architects As Leaders by stefanie kuhn

Architects As Leaders

Regaining Authorship

by Stefanie Kuhn

Statement of Originality

This dissertation is presented to the Department of Architecture, Oxford Brookes University in part fulfilment of the regulations for B.A. (Hons) in Architecture. It is an original piece of work which is made available for copying with permission of the Head of the Department of Architecture Signed

Stefanie Kuhn

BUILD

RIBA 66 Portland Place London W1B 1AD UK

Stefanie Kuhn 08061420 Architects as Leaders Regaining Authorship U30029 UK

25 February 2011 Dear Sir/Ma’am I am writing to you to propose ‘Operation Rebuild Architect’. Overleaf I have attached the Mission Statement along with the Main Orders. I request that you review these, along with the included document, ‘Architects as Leaders: Regaining Authorship’, and consider granting permission for early implementation. I appreciate that this would be a bold move, but I am confident that given full support and commitment, the project could mark the beginning of a new era for the architectural profession. Yours faithfully,

Stefanie Kuhn Midshipman Royal Navy H.M.S Build

Identification

OPERATION ReBUILD ARCHITECT

BUILD

MISSION: To regain authorship of design MAIN ORDERS: SITUATION

Authorship of architects in crisis. Status of Architect requires repositioning. Cultural shift in perception of role required. Formal redefinition of educational infrastructure.

EXECUTION Concept of operations

Key timings and Limitations

EVIDENCE AND SERVICE SUPPORT

Review of historical activity. Change risk analysis. Establishment of modified training and development infrastructure. Personal development and professional chartership infrastructure required, including availability of personnel to deal with change management. â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Date from dateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; to be decided.

Evidence will be provided from mainstream architectural discourse by contemporary architects including Cuff, Wigglesworth and Till. Real life observations from design team meetings, architectural education and naval training will form service support to validate any statements made.

QUESTIONS

Signed: Date:

Recipient to confirm clarity of brief to author.

Architects As Leaders

Regaining Authorship

All sketch work in this dissertation is from observations of real life design meetings and has been originated by the author unless otherwise stated.

Contents 0

Authors And Leaders

Down With The System! Cause & Effect The ‘Halcyon’ Days Towards the Looming Crisis

Job specification: Architect: 1800

The Unidentified Role

Job specification: Architect: 1900

The Vivid Parallel The Military Way Traits and Translation

***

Job specification: Architect: 2000

Rebuilding Architects As Leaders Progression over Regression

****

Job specification: Architect: 2030

Bibliography

Lost & Found The Forces For Change The Product

â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Ran out of carrotsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (2010) The Architect giving the presentation struggles to gain focus and motivation of his subordinates towards the design problem

Authors and Leaders

“The leaders who work most effectively, it seems to me, never say “I”. And that’s not because they have trained themselves not to say “I”. They don’t think “I”. They think “team”. They understand their job to be to make the team function… There is an identification (very often quite unconsciously) with the task and with the group.” Drucker (1992: 14) Critical to an accurate understanding of what the dissertation will seek to present is the definition of two key terms that I will use throughout the journey; Leadership and Authorship. Leadership Motivation, not obligation, is what leadership is all about. Carrot or Stick – or neither: both are stimuli that impact only temporarily on the subject(s). Once removed, the subject ceases to respond. “It is about achieving influence, not securing compliance” (Haslam et al, 2011:1) Motivation is not the provision of an incentive to co-operate or perform. It is more concerned with shaping a mind-set, re-enforcing beliefs, creating desires and gaining mutually-agreed commitment to priorities. Either the external provision of an incentive, or the imposition of a sanction e.g. ‘punishment’ for failure to comply, could each result in active contradiction when the opportunity arises. In addition, progressively more effort/ size of incentive/ 8

gravity of sanction is required to maintain performance and compliance with ‘leaders’ instructions. Conversely, where subordinates are ‘bought-in’ to the leader’s aims and objectives, and those of the “mission”, not only will they be motivated to perform better (BRNC, 2010) but perhaps more importantly their willingness to do so repeatedly will itself serve to reinforce the leader’s status and authority. “Instead of being self-depleting, true leadership is self-regenerating”. (Haslam et al, 2011:2) Authorship Authorship is something quite different. It relates to, but is not limited to, the ‘ownership’ of a concept, or in the case of an architect, a design. It would not be unfair to look at it as a form of ‘copyright’. (Anstey, 2007) I will in due course offer by way of example an analogy comparing authorship with motherhood, to illustrate the similarities between the two and the challenges that each faces, but for the moment should like to focus on recognising that it is the authorship of buildings design that can be neither achieved nor maintained for the architect without her being firmly established in the role of design team leader. If the definition of authorship were to be limited to a simple equation with ‘ownership’, this would be seriously understating its importance to the status of the architect, and to her sense of achievement upon completion of a project. 9

‘The King and his guards’ (2010) Ignoring his subordinates opposite, the Head Architect sits observing the drawing to his content, almost ‘guarded’ by his junior staff.

Down With the System!

Cause & Effect The following is a narrative of a real life situation involving a design team meeting in support of a major construction project in London, UK. As observer, I recorded the verbatim comments: Design Team Meeting 1

July 08: Year 2010

The clock ticks steady and the pendulum has swung back. It’s 1400 hours and the meeting has been in progress for the last 27 minutes. As I sit, I listen, observe, and record. Architect: Service Engineer: Architect: Service Engineer: Structural Engineer: Architect: Structural Engineer: Architect: Architect: Service Engineer: Architect:

‘No, No, No! Why do you keep speaking of a concrete wall?! There is no concrete wall.’ ‘There is!’ ‘There isn’t!’ ‘Well, then our lack of understanding has arisen due to inaccurate history from you.’ ‘This is your latest drawing on the system which you’ve published. It shows a concrete wall there’ ‘No our latest one doesn’t’ ‘Well this is what we have from your site as your last published drawing’ ‘I shall go check.’ *Architect returns with a print out of the drawing* ‘See we are not showing a concrete wall!’ ‘You are, right there!’ *Points* ‘O there, that! Yes but that’s not our wall, we haven’t drawn it on there, it’s drawn in blue, that was **** (Elevator Services) exploring. It doesn’t really exist.’

*Engineers stare petulantly at the grey scale drawing the architects published!*

In the given example, Design Team Meeting 1 exhibits a high degree of uncertainty: the purpose of the meeting and its outcome are unclear; there are at least two different versions of the ‘same’ drawing; the wall issue is unresolved. Ostensibly, the meeting is about air ducts and cooling units, but the conversation centres on building materials. The loose and unfocused qualities evident here were frequently witnessed at design team meetings during my two months spent observing the working of a practice. But, if this is typical of the here and now, does it also represent the future? How has it come to be that such an apparently dysfunctional relationship exists between the historically ‘all powerful’ project leader, and the very people that he should be getting the best out of? This will be considered in more detail later, but, in order to understand the significance of the present and how we got there, we must first attempt to understand the thoughts, actions and processes which lead us here. For this chapter does not look back with the intention of dwelling on history, but reviews the past simply to set the scene. It is the ‘Cause and Effect’ in which the interest lies. It is these processes (among many others) that have shaped the profession and discourse which exists today. The ‘Halcyon’ Days With the exception of gender imbalance, the picture painted in Design Team Meeting 1 is not how it has always been. The concept of ‘mastery’ in relation to architecture is deep-rooted. God was 13

portrayed as the ultimate strength in his capacity as “architect” of the universe, and this established a powerful symbolism connecting architecture with religion, where power was generally inherent in the central characters, as with the traditional status of the architect in his profession. Wigglesworth (1996) explained that “Mastery implies a totalising ethos which reduces temporal, topographical, sexual, material, conflictual difference to the masculine, singular, active.” Even as recently as the early 70’s, and oblivious (either by design or ignorance) to the shrinking realities of the profession, the RIBA’s Plan of Work (1973) comprehensively describes the architect’s over-arching responsibility, with the broadest of knowledge bases, for taking complete control of a project. It recorded a profile of the typical duties of an architect as almost ‘all-knowing’ – “The Plan of Work...sets out...the key tasks of the architect’s management function. The responsibility here is to foresee, as far a practicable, all the problems that are likely to arise, to make arrangements to ensure the solution to them in good time, and to take the necessary action on unplanned eventualities. In this role of leader the architect’s responsibility is total... He (my emphasis) should create a complete guide to the action of the whole job...” Even farther back, in the first century BC, Vitruvius (1960:5-6) spelled out the extensive range of knowledge an architect has needed: “Let him be educated, skilful with the pencil, instructed in geometry, know much history, have followed the philosophers with attention, understand music, have some knowledge of medicine, know the opinions of the jurists, and be acquainted with astronomy and the theory of the heavens.” The architect has always assumed a heavy responsibility to perform an over14

arching role, and to be able to optimise any contribution sought from specialists beyond his own level of understanding (Cuff, 1991). Despite such a challenge, architects of the past, Mies, Corbusier, Frank Lloyd Wright for example, were able to so perform in the capacity of commander and owner of the project because in those days they were actually the person with the greatest breadth of knowledge and clarity of vision as to the project’s objectives (Blake, 1997) - the authority to lead came through power born of the knowledge. It is noteworthy that at this time when such skill and expertise were owned by an architect, their position would have been something that would largely only have been accessible to a man (Toy, 2001), and then only one who had experienced a privileged education. For the time, and architects, that I cite existed after the professionalization of the role of architect back in 1834. (Lawson, 2006) A time where entry into the occupation would only have been accessible through the Apprenticeship System and/or Universities - both methods requiring large sums of money (unrealistic for many) and thus exclusion from the profession for the lowerclass aspirants. Consequently, it can be argued that whilst, on occasion, there was a justified and inevitable respect for the architects’ authority because it was merit based, there were also many examples of where rank and wealth existed together, and the authority will have been a ‘bought’ product (Stevens, 2010). Increasing collaboration with expert contributors by this ‘god-like’ figure to whom challenges were seldom made, would require a degree of humbleness on his part, a realisation that whilst he would always wish to stay as leader, he and the project could benefit from their input. To take advantage of the richness of creativity the architect would have to possess the vision to not suppress the contribution of those “whose voices and bodies (were) excluded from the architectural mainstream” (Wigglesworth, 1996:277) but to capitalise upon it. 15

Such vision was not always evident. Le Corbusier, for example, once coolly replied to a design suggestion posed by his artist-priest client, Father Couturier, at Ronchamp “I don’t care about your church, I didn’t ask you to do it,” “And If I do it, I’ll do it my way.” (Corbusier, 1950, cited by Pearman, 2009) Even today, architects like Wigglesworth, Finch and other contributing authors of Desiring Practices (1996) feel the necessity to continue to investigate the multiple directions that architectural work can take, in an attempt to change the situation which still exists and “find a new acting position for those men as well as women excluded”. (Wigglesworth, 1996:277) Whilst one can identify many plausible reasons as to why the architect was the sole ‘commander’ of a design team, both positive and negative outcomes to such a designated status exist. Does the benefit of clarity - of only having his, single, spoken voice heard - justify his negligence of the value of the contribution of subordinate specialists? Does his diverse knowledge of many disciplines, outweigh that of the focused expertise of a specialist? Or merely render him ‘Jack of all trades, but master of none’? Towards the Looming Crisis Let us return our thoughts to the contemporary context and the anecdote of Design Team Meeting 1 mentioned at the beginning. How did the situation develop from a position where the architect was the ‘king-pin’ and the inspiration behind all that followed, including the specialists, to that where he has lost the ‘upper hand’, the status, the authority, and the authorship that went with it? Rules and regulations that applied to construction were once less onerous than now. The introduction of legislation, such as the 1994 Health and Safety “Construction, 16

The Apathetic Architect (2010) The architect sits back, limbs folded, uninterested in the topic evolving.

Design and Maintenance (CDM)” legislation (PROjEN, 2011), was seen by architects as obstructive to creativity (Hill, 2003) or at least of little interest. The very nature of the character meant that few Architects would ever be, or become, experts in interpretation of rules - as a result, many made the conscious decision to withdraw and get the emerging specialists to crunch the numbers. (Brindley, 2010) As Brindley explains, “we (architects) have gradually painted ourselves out of the picture...We wanted to focus on the interesting design bits. We didn’t want to “do money”; this led to the rise of the Quantity Surveyor in advising and controlling costs for the clients. We were less interested in the management of projects; this led to the project manager becoming the client’s agent. All the so-called boring technical bits, we delegated to technicians, technologists and engineers.” Buildings have moved on in their technical complexity over time, and awareness of such matters may well strictly be the province of the engineer. But where is the architect to go if one pursues this view to the conclusion suggested by Broadbent (1988:xvii), that “the engineer designs the essential structure whilst the architect adds something over and above, which is not strictly necessary, and which, at worst, will cost the client a great deal of money?” Broadbent puts across the argument that as “the various functions of building design have been separated out over the past two hundred years”, what the architect had been seen as responsible for has diminished, and he has lost, and continues to lose, skills which can be “quantified”. The engineers, however, the output of whose work could better be quantified, have inevitably assumed a self-recognition as an increasingly more valuable contributor, even challenging their relative worth as being equal –or at least close - to that of the architect . One inevitable development, as briefly mentioned by Brindley (2010), was the 17

advent of professional Project Managers, “who claimed to be better organisers than the designers” (Finch, 1996:135) and brought structure, discipline & cost containment to the process. (Dinsmore et al, 2010). There was always an inherent expectation of the architect as ‘leader of the pack’, and one which they were generally willing to meet - “Architects were traditionally always considered to be the lead consultant and effectively the ‘head’ of the design team. This was a role however that was expected of them, and that they expected to have to do. They accepted the responsibility that came with it.” (Smith, 2010) So why would this leader, this ‘Owner’ of the design entrust its precious offspring to the custody of a mere process specialist? Could this offer him the chance – and indeed, did he want - to adopt this new, more design-focused role, leaving the project manager to undertake the ‘boring’ project administration tasks? Evidence suggests that Architects generally prefer the design-related role (Cuff, 1991). It provides them with the natural backdrop against which to exercise their innate talent for creativity, for lateral thinking, to respond to stimuli from both their client and the environment within which they are asked to conceive their design. (BA SHAS, 2010) So whilst project managers are very good at organising and handling meetings and following up on required actions, this polar opposite produces a potential ‘disconnection’ between the way that the project is run (often very efficiently!) and the evolution of project design. As Smith (2010) suggests, this ironically might even result in less-focused and efficient meetings and the architect and his specialists working to quite differing agendas. Whereas he would traditionally manage this difference, possibly to his advantage, his involvement with - or sidelining by - the 18

professional project manager, now meant that the architect would do so at risk of bringing the whole infrastructure down to its knees. Perhaps he could now be compared with the captain of a warship, with a good level of understanding of all aspects of the ship’s functions, but with the overriding objective of getting it to the optimum place in the battle zone so as to inflict maximum impact, and only able to do so by harnessing – and coming to depend upon – the expertise of his resident experts in each of their respective fields? It is fair to speculate that the architect may well have himself to blame for the increasing influence of other professionals in a project, rather than any desire on their part for this greater voice and recognition (Brindley, 2010). It is unlikely that the architect expressly chose to take a back seat that would allow the other areas of specialisation to rise to power, but the retreat of the architect may have been at least in part a response to significant growing disenchantment with the profession in the 20th century. Incidents like the collapse of the prefabricated highrise tower block Ronan Point in 1968 provoked not only massive condemnation of modern architecture, but the architectural profession itself sank to a low level of public esteem (Cunningham, 1998). “Public unease with the hundreds of similar blocks across the country spilled over into a backlash against the architectural profession and the grand designs of the Modern Movement, which the public blamed, however unfairly, for Britain’s flimsy tower blocks” (Gallagher, 2001). By the 1970’s the failures of this Modern Movement and its consequential damage to the architectural profession were increasingly apparent to many architects, like Kroll and Erskine, who “looked for ways to redress the balance of power between the architect and the user” (Awan, Till & Schneider, 2011). And so, Community Architecture was born; where social housing projects, like Erskine’s ‘Byker Wall’, were the product of a design partnership between architect and the future 19

‘First amoung equals’ (2010)

inhabitants who were (unconventionally) “involved in each stage of the design, including the choice of contractors” (Awan, Till & Schneider, 2011). It can be considered that this backlash has been a significant contributor to the rise of the specialists’ role in a design team and to the withdrawal of the architect. They became wary of assuming the autonomous right to full responsibility. As Kroll states, “We are the architects, and I don’t want to escape from that responsibility of being or deciding etc., but I do not want to decide alone” (Kroll, in BlundellJones, 2005:186). Both Anstey (2007) and Eisenman (2008) suggest how technology (especially computer use), along with the rise of user-orientated (participatory) design, has also played a significant part in the changing status. “Architects used to draw volumes, using shading and selecting a perspective. In learning how to draw, they began to understand what it was like to draw like Palladio or Le Corbusier, and the extent of the differences in these masters’ work. With a computer, one does not have to draw. Clicking a mouse from point to point, one connects dots that make plans and change colours, materials and light. Photoshop is a fantastic tool — for those who do not think.” Eisenman (2008) continues, to express a shared fear that its effects will bear consequence on the professions future as people will (and have) increasingly begun to question the necessity for the role of architect. So, was the change and decline in status simply a passive ‘drift’ like Smith (2010) would suggest, or as Brindley (2010) argues, was it made to happen by active and deliberate intent on the part of one or more of the players in the construction ‘game’? Did the architect’s diminishing knowledge spectrum exacerbate this decline? Certainly, the increasing self-interest in the status of the other members of the team will have been a major factor, reinforced by a change in social priorities 20

and new rules now applying that strengthened their voice and the relevance of their specialist skills. It is unlikely that the architect simply took his foot off the pedal, with the risk that his concepts and ideas would never be realised. The contemporary architect may be rooted in the past, but is poles apart from where he, and now she, once was. Even if he still now leads the choir, the strength of his voice has become moderated by the parts being sung by those who were once just members of the chorus. And whilst “the overlap of expertise supports the adoption of more integrative design solutions,” we can realise that, “with this integration comes ambiguity about each member’s responsibility” and the overall authorship of the design (Cuff, 1991:85). The extent to which he now still owns that unique product of his creative intellect that is the design concept will, as leadership theorist, Haslam (2011), explains, depend heavily upon the way that he is able to manage his own influence on the contribution of others. His one-time innate authority to lead has developed into one that no longer may assume the strength that it once did, and he is more likely in the current scenario to be treated as ‘first amongst equals’ than be offered the deference of a doting audience. There will of course be the perception that those, like Zaha, Foster and Rogers, can still command such respect (Design Museum, 2007), but where the more common model will perceive the contemporary architect owning a concept that has suffered notable dilution since its origination. If this position is not to be viewed by the profession as the unwelcome foot of a slippery slope upon which purchase can never be regained, then a movement must be made towards understanding what will facilitate a change. The acquired 21

strength of the other collaborators will have to be maintained, but in a positive direction, and with the architect being able to emerge this time as genuine leader, supported by their motivation that she assumes this revitalised role. There may, therefore, be a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;looming crisisâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; that the profession must tackle, but there is certainly not an inevitable outcome, with much scope for redress if approached skilfully.

Job title: Architect Location: UK

Date: 1800 Reports to: SELF!

Job purpose: Wealth Creator Key accountabilities:

Measures:

Operational:

Successful recognition for self and client, Repeat orders ideally exceeding expectations. Workload Distribution:

Workload Distribution:

At the disgression of the architect.

Economic, efficient use of subordinates.

Output:

Vison and Inspiration.

Public acclaim and reputation.

Dimensions Impacted By Job:

Skills and experience:

Dependant on specialisation, but could be as broad as entire city populations.

Development through practise, usually broad and significant.

Key interfaces: Internal - Subordinates and Junior team members. External - Client/ Society (via Govenment/ Authorities/ Hierarchy. The operating environment and context of the job: Rigid and formal structure with Architect as leader without question. All subordinates have significantly less knowledge and authority. Professional requirements: Poorly developed system for outsider entry - status and occupation as architect only acessible to existing wealthy individuals. Approved by HR director: Name: E. Wilson Signature: Approved by job holder: Name: G. Bennit Signature: 25

Date: 27.01.1869

‘Ambiguity in its element’ (2010) Who’s who? The architect is no longer the Leader of the team as he sits uninvolved twiddling his pen.

The Unidentified Role

In Critical Architecture, Rendell (2007:310) states: “Practising architecture ‘critically’ implies working with the status quo, but at the same time exploring ways of critically adjusting the status quo in order to be able to make a critique. The ‘critical’ architect makes readings of existing situations and reveals their findings as a way of moving (architecture) forward.” Based upon the questioning content which is increasingly visible in architectural literature, it is reasonable to suggest “the ‘critical’ architect (who) makes readings of existing situations and reveals their findings” exists. However, the remainder of the statement, I find, is harder to justify. This will become clear before the end of the chapter. Lost and Found According to Cuff (1991:91), “Professional Uncertainty” is the product of the changes which saw the architect’s status shift in the twenty-first century. Basing an argument around four primary areas - expertise, authority, allegiances, and procedures – Cuff argues that the developed ambiguity surrounding these domains is often the cause for dysfunctional design meetings. She reveals through her own observational experiences how the “areas of expertise themselves are ambiguous”, that “no clear procedures (are evident) at either the macro level; of the overall development of a project, nor at the micro level; of the meeting/decision-making process.” Cuff (1991:91) continues to negatively explain how “uncertainty (now exists) over who has authority to delegate responsibilities, (resulting in) participants with strong interests tenaciously assume(ing) and hold(ing) roles of power”. Such a 30

situation, which undoubtedly illustrates the architect’s loss of leadership status (*although see below), is argued by some to have created equality (BuildingForum, 2008), while by others, inequality (Wigglesworth et al, 1996). (*It is interesting that no commentator seems to have suggested that the architects themselves might have in some cases been the strong characters referred to.) Coren Sharples (cited in Deamer, 2009), founding Principle of SHoP Architects/ Construction expresses how “the traditional organization of the architectural office - linear, hierarchical and star-driven - while vaguely still intact, was and is increasingly nonsensical. What was necessary from the professional point of view was not only the revision of standard contracts but a conceptual reclassification of the players.” She describes how the architect should function as a “leader” for the client but as a collaborator with the builder; does this represent, though, a dispersion of authorship, or the need/opportunity for the architect to take on a multi-faceted role? In Desiring Practices, Wigglesworth and co-authors (1996:276) focus on a topic they refer to as the “identity problem”. A situation which they dispute has been neither lost (as it has never existed), or truly found over the years of the status change. Though many specialists, like male engineer ‘Geosolutions’ (BuildingForum, 2008), would argue there has been a growth in equality- having witnessed their involvement and power escalate as the architect increasingly “calls on others to offer advice and solutions”, - Wigglesworth et al (1996:277) would contend that such an environment which still “finds scant space to locate the female” is not one of equality. From a female perspective, whilst it might seem logical that the skills and expertise owned by female members of the profession could come to the fore 31

‘Take a Seat’ (2010) The opportunity many have waited for.

when the project management infrastructure is in such an uncertain state, most commentators would suggest that this opportunity had not been grasped. Whether this is because of their failure to recognise the scope to take advantage of it, or whether because of additional blockers to entry into the profession on other than a very restricted basis, it is disappointing to note that woman have been slow to capitalise upon the opportunity. Finch (cited in Wigglesworth et al, 1996:283) explains his belief that it is “the arguments which characterised the female body as passive, fickle, carnal and dissembling, that have also relegated the female labour force to the back rooms of design offices”. Vale (cited in Wigglesworth, et al 1996:270) on the other hand argues that “the problem (only) arises when woman want to behave as men, thereby jettisoning all the cultural traditions of what it means to be female.” She holds firm that it is the skills and knowledge that rest with woman in the domestic sphere which places such value on their involvement in architectural practice. Whilst noteworthy that the number of females entering architectural education has risen to 27% of the total in 2008/09 (HESA, 2010), inequality still exists with only 19% of the practising profession being female (Sinha, 2010). Wigglesworth et al (1996: 25) vindicates that “the exclusion of women opens to interrogation concerns about the spatial and material practices of architecture. It raises questions such as who is allowed to speak, who has access to architectural products as well as the social and working relationships which produce its space- which production methodologies prevail, and who claims authorship?” The Forces for Change The idea of authorship and its significance to the architect is one that must be 32

explained before continuing to consider the forces for change, and how these might be put into play. We must be clear as to whether the issue is a loss by the architect of the role of ‘leader of the project’ or ‘author of the design’? It is equally important/ necessary/ essential to establish whether the architect needs to assume the former in order to achieve (or regain) the latter. In A Black Box: The Secret Profession of Architecture, Banham (1996:293) poses the question; “What is it that architects uniquely do? The answer, alas, is that they ‘do’ architecture.” Otherwise stated, architecture is the product of architects. In Tills latest book, Architecture Depends (2010), he too addresses this idea, though unlike Banham, is uncertain of what the product of the architect truly is. On page 50, he first declares it as buildings, by page 85, it has shifted towards the design of buildings, and on page 154, he too, like Banham, believes the product to be architecture. This realisation is drawn for specific reasons. Buildings have become a necessity of the world and are therefore contingent. Architecture, however, as Till (2010) expresses, is simply defined by architects and can thus take the form of anything the architect wishes it to, be it a building, a design or even writing. As a result, Till suggests that the very word ‘architecture’ can itself be deemed contingent and applied to the profession, the practice and the product of architects. Anstey (2007), alternatively, would have the reader recognise that the importance of architecture is in the design and its authorship. 33

Although the subject of authorship in architecture might seem only recently to have been moved to the front line, the issue of its decline or loss is not a new subject. Anstey (2007:6) explains how important it is to establish the ‘place’ of authorship in order to understand the discipline of architecture . He reflects that: “Since the fifteenth centenary, architects have staked their claims, defended their territories and maintained their status through arguments modulated around subtly changing notions of authorship and intention.” But why? What’s so special about authorship? Why is it something architects should fight for? And if in fact architects do claim to be authors, exactly what is it are they authoring? Already complexities occur as one begins to explain; for neither the notion of author, nor the authorial work itself, or indeed the way they are linked, has an absolute definition. In order to illustrate a practical parallel with an architect’s authorship of their design, however, consider how the relationship between a mother and her child offers an interesting analogy:

-From the second the embryo begins to develop in the womb, the mother become the creator of that child. It’s author. -From the moment that a brief is agreed with the client, the architect’s attention is turned to conception of their embryonic design: authorship is established.

-As the child grows, external forces, experiences and people will to a greater or lesser extent influence the development of that child. 34

-As the project gathers pace, so the input of new influences in the form of subject specialists and industry norms, often in the shape of formal regulations, will impact its development.

-Over time the mother will be forced more and more to accede to a diminishing influence, but if her own influence has been built upon a solid base, she may still be able to retain a significant hold over the being that the child has become. -The architect will retain their ‘hold’ and authority over the design’s development if they are able to work positively with the emerging third party influences, and arguably they, too, like the mother will have the capacity to maintain their authorship of the original design if they can do this.

Literacy theorist, Rolland Barthes (1967), radically suggested in his essay “The Death of the Author”, that poems, plays and novels are created not by authors but by readers. The person who wrote it is purely a “scriptor”, a mere transmitter. Interpretation of the stories is made by each reader, and they are constantly ‘recreated’ by society as a whole, as opposed to by a single individual. Unlike the scriptor, architect Davies (2005: 88) argues that “the author is a named individual whose writing is assumed to be inseparable from his or her personality.” His point is valid, for it is true that when reading novels, such as, Paradise lost and Pride and Prejudice, we do so in the knowledge of Milton’s (1998) blindness and that Jane Austin (2008) never married. The author can be seen as the originator of the text, like an ancestor or a parent – or a God. “The author’s voice is the voice of authority” (Davies, 2005:88). According to Barthes (1967:142), however, the link between the voice of the individual author and the text itself is false. “Writing 35

(he says) is the destruction of every voice, every origin”. It is the language itself which speaks, not the author. As an author writes, they engage with the shared world of meaning and consequently submit to the superior authority of the reader: “the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the author” (Barthes, 1967:145). Barthes’ (1967) ideas regarding authorship might be applied to architecture. Architecture is after all an art form – and thus subject to interpretation by the user/observer in a way that is potentially different to that intended by the author (architect). In Cuff’s book Architecture: The Story Of Practice (1991), we are reminded of how architecture is a collaborative enterprise. The idea, therefore, of a single author of a building seems unrealistic from the start. With an architect’s first duty being to ensure that the client’s brief and needs are met (RIBA, 2007), and the knowledge that “the production of detailed design is usually a team effort” (Davies, 2005:89) surely those participants too, share in the building’s authorship? One can then progress to question the inclusion of standard components, proprietary systems, even building materials, which often have not been designed by the architect. Should not the designers of those things too, also share in the authorship of the building? It may be untenable that the person who conceives the design of a building should be allowed to retain the sole ownership of that design. At some stage in the process of design and construction, the architect may have to ‘let go’ and compromise on much of his original concept; can then the end result be reasonably attributed to him alone? However, must the recognition of the input from contributors other than the architect to the overall process of the creation of a building preclude the author 36

of the original design from acknowledgement of their unique status? When recognition is given to specialists involved in a project, they are usually listed separately from the core narrative (AJ, 2010); this assures recognition that is due to the ‘lead actor’ in the production, i.e. the author, i.e. the architect. Distinction of purpose – and sometimes skill/expertise - between architect and the person (s) who ‘materialises’ the creation is not new. Moreover, there is an implicit superiority of intellectual input required on the part of the architect. In De re aedificatoria (c.1450) Leon Battista Alberti formulated a fundamental distinction between the architect and the ‘workman’ that draws upon the powers of preconception and of judgement, and he seeks to define the higher standard that is expected from the former: “To make something that appears to be convenient for use, and that can without doubt be afforded and built as projected, is the job not of the architect but of the workman. But to preconceive and to determine in the mind and with judgement something that will be perfect and complete in its every part is the achievement of such a mind as we seek.” Battista (1450) cited in Rykwert (1988:315, IX, 10). It emerges clearly that it is the loss by the architect as “author of the design” which is the issue rather than the loss of the role as ‘leader of the project’. Why authorships worth fighting for? The exact answer I can’t give you; the response is individual, but all are of equal worth. Personally, when I create, whether a painting, sketch or design, I become absorbed in the process. In a sense, I surrender a part of myself to it. For this reason, my desire for recognition on completion is not for fame or self-worth, but of innate pride and satisfaction of achievement. As for yourself, you will have to answer that one. 37

The Product Consider again the quote at the beginning of this chapter by Rendell et al (2007:310) : “The ‘critical’ architect makes readings of existing situations and reveals their findings as a way of moving (architecture) forward.” I mentioned how I struggle to justify the end part of the quote. I believe challenges to address and make changes to the status quo are being made, but suggestions as to just how to achieve these changes are often not given, and if they are, one could argue they move us backwards as opposed to forwards. Any attempt to make progress must tackle one of the key challenges which is to define the role of the architect and the nature of their ‘purpose in life’ in the design/ construction process: in a nutshell, the ‘architecture product’ (Banham, 1996). Consider just a few of the options that have been discussed in pursuit of arriving at this definition and positioning the architect as an agent for change The Architect’s Solution – 1: Co-authorship With the Client. In Architecture Depends, Till (2010) contends that designs produced by some contemporary architects are often impossible visions, the quality of which the built reality cannot technically attain. Challenging the status quo, he recommends that architects transfer their attention from the built object and problem solving, towards the user. He suggests architects of the future make a business developing briefs and becoming an “interpretative agent” for an architecture that is a “transformative agency”. People have received this suggestion as a radical idea and many have 38

turned their backs on it. I find myself however, questioning how radical it truly is, as one might argue this could well be down the path we are currently marching. Perhaps if such a move were to be made, the new ‘partnership’, being the work of only the architect and client, would at least serve to reinforce the architect’s authorship role, even if this were to involve a more integrated relationship with the client. The positioning with the functional specialists would be more aloof, and these would then simply be engaged with the project’s delivery. The Architect’s Solution – 2: The Radical Challenger. Jonathan Hill also validly questions the status quo, proposing the ‘IIA – the Institute of Illegal Architects’ as the alternative to the RIBA. An institute “where the architect is able to question and subvert the conventions of architecture” (Hill, 2001:36). Hills aspirations are admirable, his ideas of significant value, yet the connotation of illegality perhaps creates an unnecessary diversion from the merit of this principle. With his vision essentially sound, Hill (2001: 32) identifies like many that “the status of the architect is uncertain... (and) in order to gain... the architect must first discard, or at least transform, the profession.” Other commentators reinforce the need to strengthen the professional standing of the Association rather than advocate its sidelining (Wigglesworth et al, 1996). The Architect’s Solution – 3: Harnessing the Power of Equality. Perhaps a rather contentious but important issue pertinent to definition of the ‘architecture product’ and how it may be optimised is that of apparent gender prejudice. Feminists, like Rendell (2000) and Wigglesworth et al (1996:282), request “a renegotiation of the terms and conditions” in architectural practice. “To define a new ‘speaking position’ that acknowledges the gender of the speaker.” In 2000, RIBA adopted an equal-opportunities policy for its own staff. In 2001 that 39

policy was then adapted to include all members of the RIBA as well. (RIBA, 2000) However, with twice as many women architects unemployed in 2010 compared to that of men (Fulcher, 2010), one has to question the equality and rate of change. Are men really that much better at architecture then woman or is prejudice still rife? Despite wishes expressed by so many, ‘renegotiation’ is slow in coming. It may be that if true equality were to be achieved, there could be so much more opportunity for the profession to ‘reinvent’ itself with a fresh reinforcement of the architect’s status and authority (Toy, 2001). Aside from these ‘solutions’ proposed above, views vary hugely as to how, and if, progress may be made towards changing the status quo, but there is no shortage of advocates in support of something happening! Hill (2001), Till (2010), Rendell (2000), Wigglesworth (1996), Anstey (2007), Cuff (1991), Toy (2001), Sharples (2009), Bloomer (1996) - all challenge the status quo, all agree with the necessity for change. Anstey (2007:8) gloomily argues that no “new discourse on architectural authorship, and the new paradigms of authorship in architecture that are currently suggested, (provides) clarification, an advance, nor a solution.” Till (2010) more optimistically believes that architects have the power to define architecture, but he then offers few clues as to why they don’t possess – or generate - the authority to actively revitalize the status quo? Each commentator has some sort of view, whether positive or negative. There is, however, emerging a common theme as to how the status quo might be 40

‘All commentators, no spokesman’ (2010) Everybody has an opinion, but the battle for development continues.

changed, and that is to look carefully at a wholesale review of the architectural education process. Cuff (1991:84) contends that “the extreme uncertainty and contingency of architectural practice is intentionally avoided in the architectural academies.” Sara (2001:1) also contends that as “education lies at the heart of the profession as the place in which architects’ attitudes, beliefs and training are developed... any attempt at addressing the gender imbalance, must start in the schools of architecture”. It is noteworthy that in the last few years of architectural education - as the students change, the projects change, and even the units change - it is only since the introduction of the 2010/11 syllabus that the general approach and techniques to teaching and learning have been enhanced. (Syllabus, 2008/9, 2009/10, 2010/11). Till (2009:11) states that: “…architectural education (is) a relentlessly circulating set of boxes of stuff (ideas, knowledge, skills, techniques) moving through its own world. The movement makes it feel fresh, but in fact the boxes go nowhere very far. And when it all feels a bit dull, a few handstands and other displays of formal gymnastics are thrown in to denote progress.” So is it difficult to visualise how the battle to make the changes, and to potentially regain authorship, may end? Has a solution been identified? Perhaps. We have studied the past, its cause and effect, watched the responsibilities of the architect reduce, their leadership diminish, and consequently their authorship slip slowly from their grasp. We’ve fought our way through the paradoxical reflections 41

‘ACTION STATIONS!’ (Definition: A military term ordered when action is imminent and the relevant person must take up their position.)

of contemporary architects, their contradictions in approach, but united belief in the necessity for the status quo to be questioned and perhaps transformed. The blunt reality indicates, however, that there needs to be a method to underpin any change that might be possible to achieve. Challenging the status quo is commendable, but that won’t change it – this requires action and an action plan that will work. There are some clues as to the role that could be played by a reform of the education/training process for professional architects, but to launch such reform will require a proven, relevant template that can be used to shape the way forward, and provide real guidance on steps to successful execution. From where should that template be sought?

Job title: Architect Location: UK

Date: 1900 Reports to:

Job purpose: Regeneration, creation of both practical but also symbolic re-birth of hope for a better future. Towards end of century, a stimulus of inovative thought. Key accountabilities:

Measures:

Operational:

Efficiency of production

Affordable access for all users to variety of options.

Workload Distribution:

Careful use of scarce resources

Controlled management of resources available. Output: max utilisation of all ‘damaged’ land.

Output: Workable but creative solutions to often ‘blank canvas’ sites.

Output: Ability to balance creativity with practicality.

Dimensions Impacted By Job:

Skills and experience:

Dependant on specialisation, but could be as broad as entire city populations.

Development through practise, usually broad and significant.

Key interfaces: Internal - Emerging talents within construction industry. External - Govenment The operating environment and context of the job: Challenging, initially frugal and austere.

Professional requirements: Increasing. Approved by HR director: Name: J.Smith Signature: Approved by job holder: Name: D. Brown Signature: 45

Date: 14/06/1945

‘The Group and The Team’ (2010)

The vivid Parallel

So faced with the challenge of changing the status quo, is there an optimal route for the profession to take? It may just be that an entirely different ‘stage’ could offer some worthwhile clues as to how to address the challenges. I believe that there may be a way forward that could take its lead from a ‘secret’ side of my life – the world of the military. “PARDON?!” I hear you say! “The Military?” “Architecture is nothing like the military – and architects, certainly nothing like its leaders! NO! Architecture is buildings - Military is War” “What ARE you on about?” Let me explain...... Over my two years as a Part I Architecture student, my educators have consistently offered the following advice; “Architecture must be your life; you don’t have time for other activities.” “Everything you do must be Architecture; you must absorb yourself in it” If this is the case, I have to confess; I have been cheating – even just a little - on architecture! For the past two years I have gained experience and learnt to become both a committed student of architecture and a trainee officer in the Royal Navy. This is not a confession I am ashamed to make, as I believe it follows the other advice that my tutors have given of “keep your eyes open”. My involvement in this ‘secret’ 50

activity has led me to draw the conclusions that I will now go on to share. The Military Way. Commanders and officers in any country’s armed forces have faced a two-fold challenge both in the way that they manage leadership of their troops and the way that these resources are then deployed in the war zone. “The world’s stage is no longer the same shape that it once was, and the political map even less so.” (MGen Fisher, 2009) Old relationships have moved on and the way that various countries’ armed forces behave often have to now follow a different course. This requires (sometimes radical) adaptation by military leaders whose instinctive preference is to follow the tried and tested path. Not only must they rethink their approach to campaigns but they have to consider how to lead the ‘new era soldier’. Simon Tappin (2010) Commanding Officer of the Oxford University Royal Naval Unit (OURNU) explains “No longer does a Commander expect his officers to assume the respect of their men as almost a ‘contractual’ right. Integral to their training now is an appreciation of how these skilled human resources must be developed into an effective team.” The officer’s rank will be undisputed, but her actual authority will be a function of her ability to turn aspirations into inspiration. A view which is commonly expressed by Haslam et al, (2011) in The New Psychology of Leadership. Such a skill is then essential to build upon in the war zone, where there are many examples, like ‘Operation: Provide Comfort’, Iraq 1991, of how the military force must adapt to circumstances where a bullet as a response to the answer ‘No’ is no longer an acceptable solution. In recent and current conflicts in areas such as Iraq and Afghanistan, Captain Spencer (2011) explains how “the allied forces’ 51

role, as both combatants against the insurgent forces, as well as security for the civilian population, has required us (the military) to demonstrate significant skill in adapting our handling of different situations and people.” Gone are the days where Generals and their Officers would simply ‘bark’ orders at their men and expect them to obey. This would be neither appropriate nor the most effective way of inspiring the troops to give their best (BRNC Syllabus, 2010). - Nor, however, would it work for an architect and her team wishing to achieve success in a design project! Today’s military leader is taught that “the principal task is to inspire those who (you) lead to give their best in all circumstances...to inspire individuals and transform teams; to turn doctrinal precepts into action” (BRNC Syllabus, 2010:84). The western military have had to constantly adapt their position to respond to changes in their own society and the world at large. So, too, do architects have to reconsider theirs within their own profession (Kostof, 2000). The military situation faced in Iraq, led to an essential change in leadership style and military approach which proved itself a success (MGen Fisher, 2009). The architects’ answer to the Ronan Point “situation” however showed much less realism and a singular lack of responsibility (Arnold, 2004) helping to cause the “identity problem” (Wigglesworth, 1996) that architects have today. Models of leadership are not, however, unique to the arena in which they are 52

enacted, (BRNC Syllabus, 2010) and the military solution to the challenge of gaining respect and recognition from the functional teams has the capacity to be translated to the world of architecture. In the last chapter I stated how “it is the loss by the architect as “author of the design” which is the issue rather than the loss of the role as ‘leader of the project.’” However, I can now conclude that the architect’s ability to be recognised for the quality of their authorship is likely to be positively reinforced by their adoption of the stance as leader. This will bring with it the engagement and, it is likely, the respect of the other collaborators in the team. Not leadership per se, but its use in support of the architect’s authorship. However, considering evidence for this premise, military solutions are not simply transferable as off-the-shelf answers to the architects’ crisis. The military structure managed the imposed changes to its leadership status remarkably well in response to prevailing circumstances (Lt Cdr Tappin, 2010). But whilst having changed, the military have still maintained what architects arguably need to establish; a sense of true, embedded leadership (Cuff, 1991). Traits and Translation The Command, Leadership and Management (CLM) syllabus, (BRNC, 2010) issued to all personnel in Officer Training, explains how the military have applied previously successful ‘tried and tested’ principles, but overlaid fresh, current academic theories to establish the leadership style they teach today. “The antiintellectualism that prevailed as recently as the early 1980s is no more; and just as the 21st Century officer must study the social as well as the military causes and consequences of his profession, so too must he/she develop a detailed 53

understanding of the theories that underpin his/her principal role as leader.” “Courage, integrity and willpower. Professional knowledge, intellect and judgement” (BRNC, 2010: 4-1); just a few of the practical and characteristic qualities that Leadership ‘Trait’ Theory believes identify a leader. Though probably true, such traits are invariably found in good leaders, and the discredited contention that “leaders are born, not made” draws many academic detractors (Nohria & Khurana, 2010) including those who are themselves within the military. Whilst, the syllabus identifies that some people are born with more ‘leadership defining’ traits than others, it crucially states that “the so-called inherent qualities and attributes of an effective leader can be grown, nurtured and developed through training and education” (BRNC, 2010: 4-2). It is thus reasonable to expect that a similar approach to enhance leadership skills could be adopted in the architectural profession. Notably, however, changes will have to be relevant to the structure (Cuff, 1991), power (Johnson, 1994) and social dynamics (Wigglesworth, 1996) of architecture where there is no regimented chain of command, no formal disciplinary procedure or rank structure to oblige the architect’s collaborators to toe the line if they don’t want to. I offer the following anecdotes, drawn from two real life scenarios of group interaction that I encountered in the same week, as an insight into how the military solution might serve to inform the profession of architecture. Architecture 1st year, Term 1, Project 1: A group of nine sit in the far corner of the design studio. Each of us randomly selected to join forces and create. The brief: to represent our interpretation of the word “home”. Discussions begin slowly. Each new student begins reticent regardless of their true

character, perhaps afraid that their ideas will be mocked. Ten minutes have past, and World War III has just begun. The room is charged with energy. Naturally, the extroverts have taken centre stage. This time, I choose to step back and observe. The Pole and the Mexican have clashed, both shouting, neither listening. The Romanian and the two English students agree and desire the same design. The remaining extrovert has thought tactics. She speaks quietly to the three remaining introverts hoping to gain their allegiance... So this is group work! Military Training, 1st Year, Rank: Officer Cadet Thirty minutes have passed and part I of the lesson is complete. But the lecture was just the start. The start of the learning process, as well as the evening. Lesson 1: Basic Leadership Skills has just been given. Part II will deal with how to implement them. The students are given their roles. “There will be Ten Training Officers (TO), One Officer (O) and One Commanding Officer (CO).” The student CO begins by explaining the brief. She wisely finishes with a piece of advice given in the lecture; “Now, does anyone have any suggestions on how to complete this task?” Suggestions are given, ears are listening, and ideas are merged. The atmosphere is also charged, it’s a timed task and the minutes are running out, yet everyone remains calm and listens. The time has come; the Commanding Officer has to make her decision. A decision, nevertheless, reached with input from both the leader and members of her team. This really IS group work!

Why is it less likely, then, that the architecture students in these anecdotes will achieve their objective? It is not purely a matter of structure. Nor is it through their own fault, but arguably through the fault of the syllabus. Let us consider why this might be by reviewing the direction of each group. At this point I wish to make clear my belief that the current architectural syllabus from which we are taught is essentially effective in its purpose - as far as it goes. The objective of the following argument is not to criticise, but to merely highlight the potential areas where improvement could be made as “a way of moving architecture (in both the education and the profession) forward.” (Rendell et al, 2007:310) Shown on the opposite page are the transferable skills for each of the respective subject areas. Though their overall criteria are similar, vital differences exist. As Mitchell (2005) explains, “every word has great meaning” and for this reason I wish to focus your attention on the two statements made by each syllabus, under the heading ‘communication’. The Design Module Handbook (BA SHAS, 2010) states that; The skill to work effectively in group situations will be practised. The Naval CLM syllabus (BRNC, 2010) states, however, that; The skill to work and communicate effectively, as appropriate to their role within a team, will be practised, taught and assessed. 56

Transfer skills from the U30031/92 Design Module Handbook. (BA SHAS, 2010)

Transfer skills from the Command, Leadership & Management (CLM) Syllabus. (BRNC, 2010)

Practiced Taught

Assessed

Self Mangement - Manage time and planning responsibilities

- Set personal objectives

Learning Skills - Classroom training and theoretical exercises in team leading, problem solving and learning expertise.

- Understudy work and practical training in team leading, problem solving and learning expertise.

Communication - Planned/ unplanned verbal presentations

- Deliver technical briefs to Commanding Officer and ships company regarding navigation preparations, meteorology, or engineering checks

- Work and communicate effectively as appropriate to their role within a team.

Note the critical and fundamental enhancements that appear in the Naval syllabus, and how these take the basic premise so much farther forward. The HarperCollins Dictionary (2000) defines the word ‘group’ as “a number of persons or things considered as a collective unit, bound together by common social standards, interests etc”. Comparatively, its definition for the word ‘team’ reads, “a body of people organised to work together towards achieving the same goal”. The label ‘team’ is often used interchangeably with ‘group’ and yet each of these terms conveys a very different concept, as illustrated above. Lt Cdr Tappin (2010) explains how “a collection of individuals can form a group and yet not achieve very much. A team, on the other hand, is Action Orientated. Its members are drawn together by a clear, unifying purpose.” I would argue that the Design Module Handbook needs to not simply change its wording from ‘group’ to ‘team’, but the whole orientation has to change towards the objective of not ‘group work’ but teamwork. Getting things done in any profession may be seen as posing two separate challenges. The first to which the organisation must rise is the task itself, and the problems involved in achieving it. Frequently, and unfortunately, this is often the only issue considered (Haslam, 2011). The second but arguably most crucial challenge, and the one that the military primarily focus on is the development of effective interaction between their individuals to develop their approach as a single, integrated unit. (BRNC, 2010) “Getting the interaction right will produce an effective team whose output is considerably larger than the sum of its individual members” (Cpt Spencer, 2011). 58

‘The Imbalance’ (2010) Interaction must be between all members or voices will continue to be excluded.

This synergy is a valuable force multiplier yet not one that architectural education has properly capitalised on. As Cuff (1991:81) contends, “group projects occasionally provide the opportunity for students to experience design as a collaborative process, but, generally however, the group negotiations occur without preparation or reflection, and even when a group is involved in the early stages of a project the final outcome is generally divided into individual solutions.” It is noteworthy that the word ‘skill’ was also highlighted in the syllabus extracts. Skill is defined as “a special ability acquired by training” (HarperCollins, 2000). How is it, then, that it is only in the BRNC syllabus (2010), that the skill (to work and communicate effectively as a team) is taught. It is this crucial difference which saw the naval students in the anecdote triumph, whilst the architect students did not. If : - ‘leaders are made, not born’. - “qualities and attributes of an effective leader can be grown, nurtured and developed through training and education”. - such a leader can command a team to efficiently tackle and solve problems as an integrated unit. - such a leader can include voices which were once excluded. - such a leader had the authority and ability to regain authorship through leadership. Then can we really afford to delay embracing at least SOME of the military learning in favour of the architectural profession?

Job title: Architect Location: UK

Date: 2000 Reports to:

Job purpose: To inspire and influence with pragmatic creativity. Key accountabilities:

Measures:

Operational:

To demonstrate ecological awareness without compromising progressive design.

Scaled, certified reduction in carbon footprint of all new building projects.

Workload Distribution:

To industrialise processes to achieve optimal efficiencies.

Measured improvement in productivity of deployed resources.

Output:

Maximum return with long term

Measured increase in satisfaction of clients on both individual and societal levels

sustainability. Dimensions Impacted By Job:

Skills and experience:

Dependant on specialisation, but could be as broad as entire city populations.

Improved balance (for the architect) in mix of technological competence & business acumen.

Key interfaces: Internal - Emerging talent within own profession to ensure cohesive development of skills & recognition of status by third parties. External - Property/construction industry investment decision-makers. The operating environment and context of the job: Improving empathy between Architects and the users/ influencers. Professional requirements: CPD linked with increased prof training in commercial management. Approved by HR director: Name: N. Climp Signature: Approved by job holder: Name: J. Powell Signature: 63

Date: 15/05/2001 Date: 15/05/2001

The Architect renewed (2010) Good communication and efficient team work begin to shine through as the architect, structural engineer and service engineer dicuss design problems.

Rebuilding Architects As Leaders

“Reinvention is a useful weapon” (Wigglesworth, 1996:286)

Progression not Regression There is every opportunity for the architect to reinvent herself as author, leader AND as a paragon of how the profession can evolve, by empowering her team as well as herself – but she will need the courage of her convictions and a willingness to learn from the example of others, not only within the profession, to do so. So just where does the profession find itself? At a crossroads, with options on which compass point to turn towards, or at the head of a valley with sides so steep that to imagine emergence would be unthinkable? Power, status, authority, have all been lost, or at very least, reduced to a level where the position that the architect once held as ‘Leader’ has given way to his new role as ‘creative co-ordinator’ – hardly even a shadow of his former self. And so has the holy grail of Authorship, once the sacred domain of the all-knowing, allhallowed architect, been wrested from his grasp, and spread amongst the followers like the spoils of war. Autocracy has had its day – no longer will the feudal lord command his minions and be met with deferential respect that he has not earned. Ways that may come rooted in other professions, other disciplines, with parallels not always so obvious until the boundaries of past learning have been breached. Ways that see a new range of creative thinking embraced, not just with inventiveness, flair and design optimism, but which extends also to the innovative use of resources both human as well as material, an ability to demonstrate that the inspirational scope of the new-era architect is far beyond that of her forebears. 68

She must be seen as leader, her energy felt by those around her, and her personal conviction engaged with all who breathe the same emotional attachment to the buildings and creations that she conceives. Through this she will regain that Authorship she so dearly seeks, but not by dictate or legislation, but because her supporters will be her admirers, too. They will accord her that status because she has caused the design to come to life with their involvement, with their skills playing a crucial part in its nurturing, and because they, too, will be recognised as instruments of its success. All of this will not be without pain and it will involve a journey of realignment – key to which will be the education and personal development of all members of the profession in the ‘new way’. Education must be delivered to all stages of the career journey within the profession – and beyond, to the collaborators, too. Not just to budding newcomer architects for whom a new syllabus can easily be created from day one, but - arguably even more importantly - as a development opportunity for mid-late career architects – for whom the aspirational success in their career still holds a magic. And for all those professionals who are complementary to the architect, upon whom she may lean, and who will lean on her to anchor their skills and so make ‘a difference’. Timescale will depend on resources deployed and the receptiveness of professionals to some often ‘radical’ initiatives proposed – will this be an issue? – I think not: but what will be crucial is that the delivery be supported by realism, with initiatives tailored carefully to the different players so that the ‘sum of the parts’ concept is finally consigned to the past, and ‘the whole’ becomes the norm in the industry . 69

‘The balance’ (2010) The voices are heard and appreciated by the leader: the architect

Teamwork, in its true sense, will be fundamental to the architect’s approach to how she deals with her expert associates. The return on the investment that she will make in cultivating their engagement with not just their own specialism, but with the others in the team will pay huge dividends. They will look upon the project as a whole, and when she comes to draw on the ‘emotional bank account’ that she will build, she will foster collaborative understanding that will benefit any scheme, large or small, rather than the hitherto partisan entrenchment that will have become a thing of the past. Use of military parallels will prove to be invaluable, but only if adopted against the back drop of the architectural profession itself, and then takes account of the very real difference in ground rules. When the architectural model for personal development has been refined, it can lead by example to become the ‘gold standard’ for how the professional infrastructure may be established on a global scale, with best-practice models again tailored to the circumstances and operating environment of each location in which it is deployed. A professional approach to a challenge that is faced by the profession is what is required to make this work – so that once more architects can become leaders – and regain that coveted Authorship that we so desire.

Job title: Architect Location: UK

Date: 2030 Reports to:

Job purpose: To shape strategic direction for development of new building materials and land use Key accountabilities:

Measures:

Operational:

To impose and have legislative authority to enforce social guidlines for land use and buildings construction.

Strategic plan for land use decided by architect’s.

Workload Distribution:

To delegate process management to functional experts.

Formal project management process drawn up and recognised for cross-disciplinary use.

Output:

Architectural profession to become the formal point of reference for strategic

All building projects approved at strategic level by central Architectural Council.

allocation of raw material resources. Dimensions Impacted By Job:

Skills and experience:

All scales of operation including national and international land use strategies.

Architect’s adopt a role as project ‘sponsors’ now that sub-hierarchy of functional specialists is established.

Key interfaces: Internal - New functional experts External - Government, raw resoure producers, landowners. The operating environment and context of the job: Diminishing conventional space available for construction, ongoing research into viable alternatives. Professional requirements: Mandatory formal training in strategic planning for all architectural practice owners and consultant architect’s wishing to work on projects above a certain threshold value. Approved by HR director: Name: Signature: Approved by job holder: Name: Signature: 73

Date:

â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;I am the authorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (2010) Architect defends their claim of authorship

Bibliography And Illustrations

Illustrations All sketch work in this publication has been originated by and is property of the author.

Books Anstey, T. Grillner, K. & Hughes, R. (2007). Architecture and Authorship. London: Black Dog Publishing Limited Austen, J. (2008). Pride and prejudice. (ed.2). London: Pearson Education Banham, R. (1996). A Black Box: The Secret Profession of Architecture. In Banham, A Critic Writes, ed. Mary Banham. Berkeley: University California Press Barthes, R. (1967). The Death of the Author. In Roland Barthes, Image-Music-Text. Heath, S. (1977) Trans. and ed. London: Fontana Blake, P. (1997). The Master Builders: Le Corbusier / Mies Van Der Rohe / Frank Lloyd Wright. London: W. W. Norton & Co Broadbent, G. (1988). Design In Architecture: Architecture and the Human Sciences. Letchworth, UK: David Fulton Publishers Ltd. Cuff, D. (1991). Architecture: The Story Of Practice. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press Cunningham, A. (1998). Modern Movement Heritage. London : E & FN Spon Davies, C. (2005). The Prefabricated Home. London: Reaktion Books Ltd Dinsmore, P. & Cabanis-Brewin, J. (2010). The AMA Handbook of Project Management. New York: Amacom Books, a division of the American Management Association Drucker, P. F. (1992). Managing the non-profit organization: Practices and principles. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Dutton, T. (1991). ‘The Hidden Curriculum and the Design Studio’. In Dutton, T (ed) ‘Voices in Architectural Education: Cultural politics and pedagogy’. New York: Bergin and Garvey. Harper Collins (2000), Collins English Dictionary. Glasgow: HarperCollins 78

Publishers Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Platow, M. J. (2011). The New Psychology of Leadership: Identity, Influence and Power. Hove, UK: Psychology Press Hill, J (1998). The Illegal Architect. London: Black Dog Publishing Limited Hill, J. (2003). Actions of Architecture: Architects and Creative Users. London: Routledge Johnson, P. (1994). The Theory of Architecture: Concepts, Themes & Practices. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Kostof, S (2000). The Architect: Chapters in the History of the Profession. California: University of California Press Kroll, L. â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Animal Town Planning and Homeopathic Architectureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, in (eds.) Blundell-Jones, P. Petrescu, D. & Till, J. (2005). Architecture and Participation. London: Routledge Lawson, B. (2006). How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified. London: Elsevier Milton, J. (1998). Paradise Lost. (ed.2, illustrated). California: Longman Nohria, N. & Khurana, R. (2010). Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice. New York: Harvard Business Press Rendell, J. Hill, J. Fraser, M. & Dorrian, M. (2007). (eds.) Critical Architecture. Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge Rendell, J. Penner, B. & Borden, I. (2000). Gender Space Architecture: An interdisciplinary introduction. New York: Routledge Rykwert, J, Tavernor, R, Leach, N. (1988). On the Art of Building in Ten Books. IX, 10. Trans. Cambridge: MIT Press Till, J. (2005). Architecture and Participation. London: Routledge Till, J (2009). Architecture Depends. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press Toy, M. (2001). The Architect: Women in Contemporary Architecture. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons 79

Tschumi, B. (1996). Architecture and Disjunction. Massachusetts: MIT Press Vitruvius, (1960). The Ten Books of Architecture. Trans. M. H. Morgan. New York: Dover Wigglesworth, S. McCorquodale, D. & Ruedi, K. (1996). (eds.) Desiring Practices. London: Black Dog Publishing Limited

Reports Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). (2010). Students and Qualifiers Data Tables: Subject of Study. [online] Available at: <http://www.hesa.ac.uk/ index.php/component/option,com_datatables/Itemid,121/task,show_category/ catdex,3/#subject> [Accessed 9 February 2011] RIBA (2007). RIBA Core Curriculum for Continuing professional development (CPD). London: RIBA Publications Ltd. RIBA (2000). RIBA Equal Oppertunities Policy. London: RIBA Publications Ltd. RIBA. (1973). ‘Working To The Plan’, Plan of Work for Design Team Operation. Reprinted from The RIBA Handbook. London: RIBA Publications Ltd.

Jouranals And Newspaper Articles Architects’ Journal (AJ), (2010). 24 June 10, Volume 228, (Issue 15), Pg 28. Arnold, D (2004). “‘Real danger’ of new Ronan Point collapse”, Building Design (bd) online [online]. Available at: <http://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/real-dangerof-new-ronan-point-collapse/3035038.article> [Accessed 07 October 2010] Brindley, R. (2010). Architect and Executive Director of Professional Services for the RIBA. ‘Why do architects earn less that other professions?’, Building Design (bd) Online. [online] Available at: <http://resource.bdonline.co.uk/questions/32/ why-do-architects-earn-less-than-other-professionals> [Accessed 4 February 2011] Eisenman, P. (2008). Yale professor of Architectural Design. ‘Have computers damaged architects’ design quality?’, Building Design (bd) Online. [online] Available at: <http://www.bdonline.co.uk/comment/have-computers-damagedarchitects%E2%80%99-design-quality?/3113755.article> [Accessed 20 February 2011] 80

Fulcher, M. (2010). ‘Alarm’ as number of women architects falls for first time in nearly a decade’. Architects’ Journal, 11 November, 2010, Volume 232, (Issue 18), Pg 19. Pearman, H. (2009). ‘Le Corbusier and Palladio: Master Architects’. The Sunday Times, [online] 15 February 2009. Available at: <http://entertainment.timesonline. co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/architecture_and_design/ article5725521.ece> [Accessed 7 February]

Internet Awan, N. Till, J. & Schneider, T. (2011). Participation. Spacial Agency. [online] Available at: <http://www.spatialagency.net/database/where/physical%20 relations/participation.1970s> [Accessed 6 February 2011] Building Forum. (2008). The Role of an Architect. [online] Available at: <http:// forum.building.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?tid=182&page=1> [Accessed 2 February 2011] Gallagher, D. (2001) From Here To Modernity. BBC, Open University. [online] Available at: <http://www.open2.net/modernity/> [Accessed 6 February 2011] PROjEN. (2011). CDM Regulations (Construction Design and Management) [online] Available at: <http://www.cdm-regulations-uk.co.uk/links.html> [Accessed 9 February 2011] RIBA. (2011). RIBA Education Fund. [online] Available at: http://www. architecture.com/EducationAndCareers/PrizesScholarshipsandBursaries/ RIBAEducationFund/AbouttheFund.aspx> [Accessed 26 January 2011] Sara, R. (2001). The Pink Book. [online] Available at: <http://www.eaae.be/eaae/ awarded/A1PINK_Sara.pdf> [Accessed 10 February 2011] Design Museum (2007). Zaha Hadid Architecture and Design. [online] Available at: <http://designmuseum.org/design/zaha-hadid> [Accessed 2 October 2010] Sharples, C. (2009). Principle of SHoP Architects/Construction. In Deamer, P. (2009). Introduction: Architectural Discourse. [online] Available at: <http://www. peggydeamer.com/images/introduction.pdf> [Accessed 9 February 2011] Sinha, S. (2010). Women in Architecture: Diversity in Education. Diversecity. [online] Available at: <http://women-in-architecture.com/index.php?id=39> [Accessed 8 February 2011] 81

Stevens, G. (2010). A History of Architectural Education in the West. [online] Available at: <http://www.archsoc.com/kcas/Historyed.html> [Accessed 26 January 2011]

Syllabus’ Britannia Royal Naval College, (BRNC). (2010). Command, Leadership and Management Syllabus (CLS). Dartmouth: BRNC BA Single Honours Architecture Syllabus (BA SHAS), (2010) Module Handbook: U30031 U30092, Architectural design 3 & 4. Oxford: The Built Environment, Oxford Brookes University BA Single Honours Architecture Syllabus (BA SHAS), (2009) Module Handbook: U30021 U30022, Architectural design 1 & 2. Oxford: The Built Environment, Oxford Brookes University

Interviews (True name & Company identity are not disclosed to maintain confidentiality) Smith, N. Director of a Built Environment Consultancy Firm, London. The Ways things are going. Interviewed by Stefanie Kuhn. [Verbal & Email]. (Personal Communication, London, 13 July 2010) Spencer, B. (2010). Captain, Troop Leader - Royal Scots Dragoon Guards. Leadership and Teamwork. Interviewed by Stefanie Kuhn. [Verbal & Email]. (Personal Communication, Manchester, 20 October 2010) Tappin, S (2010). Commanding Officer of the Oxford University Royal Naval Unit (OURNU). Military Leadership. Interviewed by Stefanie Kuhn. [Verbal ]. (Personal Communication, Oxford, 6 September 2010)

Seminars (True name is not disclosed to maintain confidentiality) Fisher, A. (2009). Major General - Royal Marines. Development in Iraq: Director Plans - Royal Navy Hudson Fellow Guest Speaker. Oxford University, unpublished. The following references have not been individually cited, but were all used in construction of the dissertation Ahrentzen, S and Groat, L (1992) ‘Rethinking Architectural Education: Patriarchal conventions and alternative visions from the perspective of women faculty.’ The Journal of Architecture and Planning Research, 9:2 (Summer 1992) 82

Anstey, T. (2005). “The ambiguities of disegno”, Journal of Architecture, vol.10, no. 3, June 2005 Blundell-Jones, P, Petrescu, D & Till, J. (2005). Architecture and Participation. London: Routledge Coleman, D et al (1996). Architecture and Feminism: Yale publications on architecture. Michigan: Princeton Architectural Press Crinson M. and Lubbock J. (1994) ‘Architecture, art or profession? Three Hundred Years of Architectural Education in Britain’ Manchester: University Press Forty, A. (2000). Words and Building: A Vocabulary of Modern Architecture. London: Thames & Hudson Ltd. Inspirational Development Group (2010). The Sandhurst Business Challenge [online] Available at: <http://www.inspirationaldevelopment.com/the-sandhurstbusiness-challenge> [Accessed 04 September 2010] Littlejohn, S. & Foss, K. (2008). Theories of Human Communication. (ed.9). USA: Thomas Wadsworth. Markus, T. & Cameron, D. (2002). The Words Between the Spaces: Buildings and language. London: Routledge Marshall, C. (1995). ‘Imagining Leadership: Education’. Education Administration Quarterly, Aug, vol. 31, (Issue 3). p 484. Mitchell, W. (2005). Placing Words: Symbols, Space, and the City. London: The MIT Press Nicol, D and Pilling, S (2000) ‘Architectural education and the profession: Preparing for the future’ in Nicol, D and Pilling, S, Changing Architectural Education: towards a new professionalism’, London: Spon Press RIBA (2007). RIBA Protection of Title. London: RIBA Publications Ltd. Roaf, S & Bairstow, A (2008). The Oxford Conference: a re-evaluation of education in architecture. Oxford: WIT Press Rushton, E. & Tyman, D. (2007). Flying Down to Moscow. London: Wild Pansy Press 83

Assignment complete Stand easy Await new orders