Integral Design as a Solution for Sustainable High Rise
Sustainability is a crucial issue for our future and architecture has an important role to direct sustainable development (Taleghani et al. 2010). Although this path is not completely clear (Voss et al. 2012), the ultimate goal is clear: to design and build buildings that give more than they take (Gylling et al. 2011; Active 2013). In the Dutch Building Industry gaps of knowledge between the worlds of design and engineering were recognized by researchers as well as practitioners (van Aken 2005; Savanovic 2009; Quanjel 2013) . New approaches are needed to bridge the gap between architects and consulting engineers (structural, building physics and building services). The traditional building design process was a fragmented process where engineers and other experts were introduced after some of the most influential design decisions have already been made (Xu et al. 2006; Heiselberg 2007). This led in many cases to non-optimized buildings by nonintegrated addition of sustainable options like renewable energy systems or energy efficiency measures (Poel 2005; Brunsgaard et al. 2014). No longer conceptual building design should be done by architects alone, a whole design team with members from different disciplines is required to cope with the complexity of the current necessary sustainable development right from the beginning. During the conceptual building design process, synergy between different disciplines is essential to reach optimal sustainable building designs. King (King 2012) stated that in order to do anything meaningful in terms of moving to low carbon society, we need a consistent framework and design method, within which we can apply knowledge embodied in a design team.
Knowledge development in daily practice starts with effective collaboration between the participating disciplines in a design team (Emmit and Gorse 2007), making designing the most central activity in new product development. Concept designs can be seen as the basis of knowledge development within the design-team related to specific design solutions (van Aken 2005; Hatchuel and Weil 2003). For that reason concept generation is an essential part of the early design phase. During this phase, the most important decisions for the product/product-life cycle need to be made, even though relevant information and knowledge is lacking and domain experts might not be available and communication between them is very difficult.
Since the early 1960s, there has been a period of expansion of design methods through the 1990s right up to the present day (Cross 2007; Chai and Xiao 2012; Le Masson et al. 2012). However, there is still no clear picture of the essence of the design process (Horvath 2004; Bayazit 2004; Almefelt 2005a, b) and many models of designing exist (Wynn and Clarkson 2005 ; Pahl et al. 2006; Tomiyama et al. 2009; Ranjan et al. 2012; Gericke and Blessing 2012).
In the Netherlands, Methodical Design is a quite familiar design method in the domain of mechanical engineering and being taught at different educational institutes. The Methodical Design process (Kroonenberg and van den Siers 1992; Blessing 1994) is a problem-oriented method derived from the General System theory (von Bertalanffy 1976) and distinguishes based on functional hierarchy complexity levels during different design phase activities. This design method that was further extended into Integral Design through the intensified use of Morphological Charts (MC) was developed by Zwicky (Zwicky 1948) to support design activities in the design process (Savanovic 2009). General Morphological analysis was developed by Fritz Zwicky (Zwicky 1948) as a method for investigating the totality of relationships contained in multidimensional, usually nonquantifiable problem complexes (Zwicky and Wilson 1966; Ritchey 1998; Ritchey 2004). Morphology provides an arrangement for supporting overview of the considered functionalities and aspects and their solution alternatives. Transformation of the program of demands by a design team, into aspects and functionalities listed in the first column of a matrix, and formulation of the different solutions and relations related to these aspects and functionalities listed in the related rows to them, forms a MC. The traditional main aim of using MC is to widen the search area for possible new solutions (Jones 1970). The MC is a key element that can improve the effectiveness of the concept generation phase of the design process as it is an excellent way to record information about the solutions for the relevant functions and aspects. The MC aids in the cognitive process of generating the system-level design solutions (Wynn and Clarkson 2005) and also has definite advantages for communication within group work (Ritchey 2010). The MCs to visualize sub-solution alternatives play a central role in the Integral Design approach for design teams as all the individual MCs are combined into one Morphological Overview (MO). The MO of an integral design team process is generated by combining in two steps the different MCs made by each discipline. First, functions and aspects are discussed and then the team decides which functions and aspects will be placed in the MO. Then, after this first step, all participants of the design team can contribute their solutions for these functions and aspects by filling in the rows within the MO. Putting the MCs together enables “the individual perspectives from each discipline to be put on the table,” which in turn highlights the implications of design choices for each discipline. This approach supports and stimulates the discussion on and the selection of functions and aspects of importance for the specific design task, see Fig. 2.12.
In case of building design, MCs can be used to explicate discipline-based object- design-knowledge. Merging MCs of all involved disciplines results in an MO of the available object-design-knowledge within a design team. However, MO are not to be regarded as the end result of the team design process, rather as the initial phase based on which integral design can be done.
The description of the MO may read as minor implementation difference of the old MCs. However, it is a subtle but essential difference: the MCs represent the individual interpretation of reality, leading to active perception, stimulation of
Fig. 2.12 Building themorphological overview; Step 1,the MO containsthe chosen functions and aspects (1) from the different MCs. Step 2, the MO with the accepted sub-solutions (2) from the separate MCs
memory, activation of knowledge, and defining of needs. Within the MO, this individual result is combined with those of the whole design team. The MO is the representation of the design team’s interpretation/perception and activated mem- ory/knowledge: the design team’s mental model (Badke-Schaub et al. 2007).
As the Integral Design start from the program of requirements, the method especially emphasizes the sustainable development necessary to achieve nZEB. Due to reflection within the design team during the process, sustainable thinking is developed, and thus it becomes more than just merely the creation of mapping disparate skill sets within the team. The multidisciplinary dialogues lead to knowledge sharing (the MCs), knowledge integration (the MO), and knowledge generation (new solutions which were not included in the morphological charts, but are inspired by them). During this process, the information from the morphological charts are discussed and explained to each other. Any barriers to communication are overcome by the team members by solving the misunderstandings and the development of a shared insight, which forms the basis for the MO.