Why Can’t You Understand What I Need?

By Brian George

George discusses how architects, engineers and contractors solve different problems…differently.

Brian George is a principal at Dallas-based Corgan Associates.

The human mind is an amazing thing that operates in complex and strikingly different way in each individual. Within the design and construction industry, the dominant thought and problem-solving processes are markedly different due to natural inclination, training and the needs of the profession.

Consider the contractor. Contractor problem solving is defined by set boundaries. The contractor knows their starting point in terms of the existing site and start date. They know the end point in terms of the building design and obligated completion date. All that lays between, in terms of methods and means of construction, sequence of construction, material staging and movement, etc.., is within their discretion and control. The outcome is fixed. The path to it is flexible. As a result, great contractors are flexible problems solvers, analyzing multiple options to reach their goal.

For the engineer, circumstances are different. The beginning point is roughly defined by the preliminary design, but the design chosen for the structural or MEP system can have a significant impact on the overall design. The outcome is not fixed. The initial engineering concept can be creative. The execution of the design must follow a linear, and often highly prescriptive set of rules, which leads to a generally predictable outcome. As a result, engineers are mostly linear thinkers, following each step down the path to reach a logical conclusion.

Then there is the architect, who has some parameters for a starting point in terms of existing site and the owner’s program; some rules for design in terms of codes and regulations; some context to understand in terms of weather, circulation, adjacent structures and current architectural styles; and some technology considerations. Given this, the architect still starts the design with a “blank sheet of paper.”  There is only a loose starting point, no set process and a nearly limitless set of possible outcomes. Hence, architects must be conceptual thinkers, examining and exploring multiple, and divergent options. They are often “layered” thinkers. The original thoughts are fuzzy and incomplete becoming clearer and more precise as thought and solution is layered on.

As a result of the divergent expectations placed on them, and their different approaches to problem solving, these three types of professionals are looking for different kinds of information and input as they interact. This can sometimes lead to miscommunication and conflict. We all tend to provide information in the form in which we want to receive it, not always the form in which others need it.

Contractors are generally looking for complete information to be their starting point. They understand that deviations are incredibly disruptive and costly. Architects and engineers may not take this to heart, though they should.

Engineers are looking for the correct information to allow the start of their linear process. For various engineering disciplines this information may include imposed structural loads, machine and occupant cooling loads and environmental influences. Engineers will typically be reluctant to start down the linear process without complete, reliable information, because once they start, if the information changes, their only option may be to go back to the beginning and start over. Architects often don’t understand this.

An architect’s need for input is entirely different. Early in the process we look for the big influencers: large rooms, major systems, significant criteria that must be accommodated in a certain location or manner or relationship. The smaller details must wait for a later “layer” to be resolved. Too much information, considered initially, can dilute or confuse a concept.

So, when professionals exchange information, we frustrate each other routinely.

• Engineers are looking for a defined starting point. Architects provide fuzzy parameters that may change later
• Architects are looking for major spaces and relationships, which engineers may not want to define until they have worked through their linear process.
• Contractors want specific, and especially, unchanging information, while architects want to reserve the option to have a better idea about the details as their designs evolve.

In the traditional design/bid/build process, there was a time for each of these thought patterns to have its appropriate place. In the modern world, phases overlap and collide.

To be a valuable partner, it is valuable to have an understanding of how our partners in other professions think, solve problems and provide information. This will improve combined solutions and relationships to the benefit of all.