sn 6123 - relational spaces of innovation in architecture...

UK Data Archive

Study Number 6123

Relational Spaces of Innovation in Architecture Firms, 2007

USER GUIDE

British Academy Award SG-43996 Relational spaces of innovation in architecture firms

Architects interview schedule

Tell me a little about your career to date and role here And a bit about the firm – is it a partnership/public company? What kind of projects you get involved in – in a practice group? What’s the role of this office – a lot of designers or implementers? Innovation and architecture So your work, what makes you a successful architect? And what does innovation mean here in this market? And is this about adapting what others have done and drawing inspiration? How often are things radically new? Challenging the norm is key? So as an architect, is being innovative finding the most efficient or most aesthetically pleasing solution? Which takes priority usually?

1

British Academy Award SG-43996 Relational spaces of innovation in architecture firms Inspiration and conversation with colleagues What form does inspiration come in? Picture, text, drawings? Being in x city important for this? Firm have major KM facilities and intranet to facilitate? What role for the computer – takes a lot out of hands of architects? Do you help out colleagues, in the team or call someone another office with this kind of thing? And what benefit do you take from those conversations, interactions? Is working with other offices about resources – they do part of the job? Which offices do you work with most? How often does this occur, in what context? International people present here? Bring inputs into dealing with culture? Do you travel to other offices, local collaborators, meet regularly?

2

British Academy Award SG-43996 Relational spaces of innovation in architecture firms Mobility networks and experience Do you travel to look at buildings, get inspiration? And how important are conferences for getting to meet other architects, see their work? Is MIPIM important? Local milieu and networks Is this always with architects or also engineers other professionals? And what about the firms you work alongside – construction firms, designers etc? Do you brainstorm, learn from them? All come here, meet up somewhere? Important to be located close together? Do professional associations here in provide a valuable forum? What events, do you attend? What benefits? What about ideas coming out of universities? Do you maintain and contacts in unis?

3

British Academy Award SG-43996 Relational spaces of innovation in architecture firms The media and competitions & universities How important is the media as a source of ideas? Which magazines do you think identify key trends? And are they powerful influences? What key trends have you picked up and found influential recently? So are competitions influential on thinking – the winners? What about management fads like open plan working? The guru’s of this world – influence everyone else? The professional field Who are you competing with? Your reputation – important to be known locally, in Europe, worldwide?

4

British Academy Award SG-43996 Relational spaces of innovation in architecture firms And do the clients expect you to have such a global outlook in your designing? And how much do they bring ideas to the table, influence innovation? Do you find ideas from certain places get reproduced worldwide? US/UK hegemonic? Working on overseas projects Where is most of your work done … here or in other countries too? Can you describe a project you’ve worked on outside of the UK? Or a project where you’ve drawn on ideas from outside the UK? Who made up the team – all here or elsewhere? Why this firm chosen? Adapting designs to local context How do you have to adapt and respond to local context – more sympathetic to local?

5


6

Are some designs more placeless and less in need of changing than others? Certain types of building need more local adaptation? Is it the interior and less the exterior that gives it local meaning? What role for the site visit – what you trying to get out – landscape or culture? And do local contractors help because of their knowledge? Regular meetings occur – travel? What does it facilitate? How much does regulation – local planners, constraints on building types – influence your work? Has there been a general coming together in cities of regulation about building types? Conclusion


Professional Associations (PA) interview schedule

Tell me a bit about the professional association – its aims/role And how important to architecture do you think PAs are? And tell me about your role here The PA And as a PA, what can you do to help architects be successful/innovative? What events do you organise - training/ get togethers etc? Do you connect with engineers, other professions to help this? And do your publications have a role in keep architects up to date? And what’s the criteria for what goes into those publications? Do you basically champion what you see as the most important trends etc? Geographies of innovative architecture And universities – do you have lots of links there that are important to what you do?

1

British Academy Award SG-43996 Relational spaces of innovation in architecture firms Do architects generally find maintaining uni links important? Is there a US/UK hegemony? World leaders in architecture? Seen as modern and globally powerful? Does this create conflict today – US stretching mussels? And are clients buying this? What relationship do you have with overseas bodies that do the same elsewhere? Do you collaborate, organise events with them? What about the International union of architects? So you’d encourage architects to look globally for ideas and to promote their work? And so is it easy to transfer ideas across space? How do you change things? What considerations? Are some designs more placeless and less in need of changing than others?

2


3

Does the way people use buildings in different places have an impact on their meaning? And how do you help architects deal with that? Training etc? Innovative architecture What marks out a successful architect – what skills needed? And what makes them innovative rather than just another architect? So as an architect, is being innovative finding the most efficient or most aesthetically pleasing solution? Which takes priority usually? Conclusions

1

Spaces of innovation in

architecture firms

Project summary

A Research Project funded by the British

Academy

Project Leader: Dr. James Faulconbridge

Lancaster University, UK

May 2008

2

Research questions

This project explores the practices of innovation in architectural firms

and the role of various technologies, social networks and media in

shaping building design. Recognising the often collaborative nature of

innovation, it aims to develop understanding of the way architects

work in teams but also draw on a range of different stimuli in the

innovation process. In doing this, the project also seeks to understand

the way architectural knowledges move across space and the

mechanisms for ‘localising’ building designs. A number of themes will

be covered in interviews:

� The behaviours and characteristics of the successful, innovative

architect.

� The social practices (teamwork, collaboration, inter-personal

networks of communication) involved in innovation and the

geographies of these practices. This part of the project aims to

tease out exactly how architects go about developing

innovative design ideas and the importance of intra- and extra-

firm relationships.

� The importance of professional discourses in informing innovation

3

Methodology

The primary method of data collection for this project was in-depth interviews

with practitioners. There were two main stages to the data collection process.

1. Thirty six in-depth interviews with architects in London (9 interviews),

Paris (3), San Francisco (9), New York (9) and Tokyo (6).

•••• A rich dataset revealing the practices and relational spaces of

innovation was collected with interviewees (see table 1)

spanning the organizational hierarchy within firms, from director

level down to associate architect.

Table 1. Interviewees in firms.

Cities: L= London; NY = New York City; P = Paris; SF= San Francisco; T = Tokyo.

Interviewee City Interviewee City

Project Architect L Architect P

Managing

Partner

L Architect P

Associate Partner L Managing

Partner

P

Managing

Partner

L Architect SF

Project Architect L Managing

Partner

SF

Associate

Architect

L Architect SF

Architect L Principal SF

Partner L Architect SF

Associate

Architect

L Architect SF

Principal NY Partner SF

Architect NY Principal SF

Principal NY Principal SF

Partner NY Architect T

Architect NY Architect T

Architect NY Managing

Partner

T

Director NY Architect T

Director NY Principal T

Partner NY Architect T

4

2. Nine interviews with representatives of professional associations

• Key individuals (see table 2) in the professional associations

representing architects in each of the cities studied were

interviewed.

Table 2. Interviewees representing professional associations.

Cities: L= London; NY = New York City; P = Paris; SF= San Francisco; T = Tokyo.

RIBA = Royal Institute of British Architects; AIA = American Institute of

Architects; JIA = Japanese Institute of Architects; AIJ = Architectural Institute of

Japan.

Interviewee City Association Interviewee City Associati

on

Director L RIBA Director SF AIA

Researcher L RIBA Publicity

Officer

SF AIA

Director NY AIA Board

Member

T JIA

National

Council

Member

P L’ordre des

Architectes

President T AIJ

Secretary

General

P International

Union of

Architects

5

Executive Summary

A number of insights were gained from the interviews with architects in firms

that help advance knowledge and these are detailed more fully in the report

below. In particular the following themes emerged from interviews:

•••• Architects work in a state of hetronomy (c.f. Larson, 1993) and

clients, engineers and regulators all play an important role in

the innovation process and in the localization of designs.

•••• Innovation is also the result of teamwork within firms and

collaboration between experts (in the same but also spatially

dispersed offices) with different skill sets.

•••• The media is a significant influence on innovation as it provides

inspiration but also, because of the importance of good

publicity to an architect’s career, acts as a spur for architects to

innovate.

•••• The cities in which firms operate have a significant influence on

innovation, primarily because of the pools of talent they house.

•••• The role of the architecture profession varies between each city

and whilst this often historically defined continues to have an

impact on the work of global firms.

Interviews with representatives of professional associations were also

particularly insightful. Of especial significance were the insights gained into:

•••• The way architecture is (has always been in come ways) a

global profession.

•••• The way professional associations that have a national remit

increasingly operate internationally.

•••• The challenges and debates about international work, its ethics

but also its importance the business of architecture.

6

Detailed findings

The project primarily aimed to engage in a number of academic debates

about the geographies of innovation in architecture firms but also

cultural/creative industries more broadly. With this in mind the project had

two main objectives:

To map and explore the multiple, scale transcending, networks and circuits of

social practice informing innovation in global architecture firms.

Two main insights were gained in relation to this objective.

1. For many architects the global nature of architecture as a profession

renders the search for inspiration and ideas innately global, thus

challenging the association of creative/cultural industries with

exclusively local geographies of innovation (e.g. Simmie, 2003).

2. Travel, conferences, magazines with global coverage and working in

global cities that are the crossroads of flows of mobile architects are

all strategies used by architects to incorporate themselves into

relational spaces of innovation. This corresponds with emerging work in

the mobilities paradigm (Urry, 2007) looking at the ‘fluid’ social spaces

of many professionals.

7

To provide empirical exposition of these social practices; and examine the

processes of embedding ideas in local contexts.

Three insights of particular significance were gained from the project:

1. The global nature of architects’ professional lives and work can be

unpacked to reveal examples of travel, collaboration (with colleagues

in the same firm and peers in other firms), worldwide scrutiny of other

architects work and attendance at conferences. This mean it is

impossible to ‘locate’ the place where innovation occurs. Hence all

innovation is global to some extent, further challenging the idea that

innovation and learning is a process with local and global

components that have different qualities and can be disaggregated

(e.g. Bathelt et al., 2004).

2. On the ‘design side’, the embedding of innovative designs in the local

context occurs through multiple actor-networks. In particular, the

client (who is usually local to a project), local regulators, local sub-

contractors and local architects involved in a project provide

localizing influences on the design process. Applying these findings to

work from relational economic geography (e.g. Bathelt and Glϋckler,

2003) and the global production networks paradigm (Dicken et al.,

2001) brings in a cultural industries perspective to studies and develops

more sophisticated understanding of the embeddedness of firms

(Hess, 2004).

3. Those inhabiting the building and residents of the city in which a

building is built also localize designs through their consumptive and

interpretative practices. The identity of buildings is, therefore,

‘autonomous’ to some extent with even the most ‘placeless’ work of a

star-architect or apparently out of place skyscraper having a ‘local’

identity and meaning. This finding draws on and develops work that

uses ideas from cultural geography (Lees, 2006; Jacobs, 2001) and

8

actor-network theory (Law, 2002) and applies it in the realm of global

firms, economic geography and the work of the global architect.

These findings have been/will be used to advance academic understanding

through the development of papers putting forward three major empirical

and theoretical advances:

1. Mobile ecologies of innovation

Existing work on the geographies of knowledge and innovation (e.g. Amin

and Cohendet, 1999; Bunnell and Coe, 2001; Malmberg et al., 2007; Bathelt et

al. 2004; Coe et al., 2004) can be advanced by consideration of the need to

move beyond discussions of local and global. Data collected as part of the

project reveals the need for a theoretical conceptualization of the forms of

mobility that influence innovation and learning, something that

fundamentally repositions the focus of analysis away from the role of face-to-

face contact and conversation and towards experience, engagement and

practice.

2. Localising designs – actor-networks putting buildings in their place

The idea that global firms operate as embedded organizational forms (e.g.

Coe and Wrigley, 2006; Dicken et al., 2001; Hess, 2004) is developed by this

research because of the insights gained into how architects work in a state of

heternomy. Detailed examination of the ‘design side’ and ‘consumption side’

actor-networks influencing the work of global architects reveals previously

ignored relationships that shape and localize the work of global firms. In

addition, the findings of this project also show that studies of cultural/creative

industries can better bring-in the consumer in discussions of the embedding of

work of global firms.

9

3. Taking the professions seriously – geographical heterogeneity in work,

expertise and status

The comparative work completed as part of this project, in five cities in four

countries, reveals the need for greater recognition of the affect of

professional status on the work of architects, as well as other professionals.

There has been a burgeoning of work on professional service firms and their

globalization (Beaverstock, 1996; Beaverstock et al., 1999; Jones, 2005) yet the

affects of professional status, and the differences in professional status

between countries, has so far been underplayed. Data collected as part of

this project shows how in each country architects, their role in building

projects, expectations about the ‘value added’ they deliver, and ultimately

the success of global architectural firms, are all influenced by the professional

identity of the architect. By comparing the different countries studied, with

the contrast between Japan and the USA and UK being particularly stark, the

project has shown how understanding the history and status of professions

can better help us theorise the globalization of professional service firms.

10

Conclusions

This report details the main academic findings of the research project. Other

findings relate to the challenge of organizing teams/studios to encourage

innovation within architecture firms and the use of ICT to create integrated

architectural firms and inter-office collaboration. Summaries of these findings

are currently being developed.

What is clear from the analysis to date is that innovative architecture only

emerges when practitioners are exposed to multiple influences, both within

the firm but more broadly within the now global profession of architecture.

This produces complex ecologies or milieus of innovation that are composed

of interactions, collaborations and experiences that occur in ‘spaces’ well-

beyond the office of a firm and even beyond the city a firm is based in.

Architecture is, then, a truly global profession.

11

Acknowledgements

Thanks to those who participated in the research and gave up their valuable

time to be interviewed. I am also grateful to Andrew Hewitson for his diligent

work in collecting interview data in Paris.

Thanks to the British Academy (grant SG-43996) for financial support that

allowed this research to be completed.

12

References

Amin, A. and Cohendet, P. 2004. Architectures of knowledge: Firms capabilities and

communities. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Bathelt, H. and Glückler, J. 2003. Towards a relational economic geography. Journal

of Economic Geography 3 117-144.

Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A. and Maskell, P. 2004. Clusters and knowledge: local buzz,

global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Progress in Human

Geography 28 (1) 31-56.

Beaverstock, J. V. 1996. Subcontracting the accountant! Professional labour markets,

migration, and organisational networks in the global accountancy industry.

Environment and Planning A 28 (2) 303-326.

Beaverstock, J. V., Smith, R. and Taylor, P. J. 1999. The long arm of the law: London's

law firms in a globalising world economy. . Environment and Planning A 13 1857-1876.

Bunnel, T. and Coe, N. 2001. Spaces and scales of innovation. Progress in Human

Geography 25 (4) 569-589.

Coe, N., Hess, M., Yeung, H. W.-C., Dicken, P. and Henderson, J. 2004. 'Globalizing'

regional development: a global production networks perspective. Transactions of the

Institute of British Geographers NS 29 (4) 468-484.

Coe, N. and Wrigley, N. 2007. Host economy impacts of transnational retail: the

research agenda Journal of Economic Geography 7 341-371.

Dicken, P., Kelly, P. F., Olds, K. and Yeung, H. W.-C. 2001. Chains and network,

territories and scales: towards a relational framework for analysing the global

economy. Global Networks 1 (2) 89-112.

13

Hess, M. 2004. Spatial relationships? Towards a reconceptualization of

embeddedness. Progress in Human Geography 28 (2) 165-186.

Jacobs, J. M. 2006. A geography of big things. Cultural Geographies 13 1-27.

Jones, A. 2005. Truly global corporations? Theorizing organizational globalisation in

advanced business-services. Journal of Economic Geography 5 177-200.

Larson, M. S. 1993. Behind the postmodern facade. Berkeley, University of California

Press.

Law, J. 2002. On hidden heterogeneities: complexity, formalism and aircraft design. In

Law, J. and Mol, A.-M. (Ed.) Complexities. Social studies of knowledge practices.

Durham, NC, Duke University Press,

Lees, L. 2001. Towards a critical geography of architecture: the case of an Ersatz

Colosseum. Ecumene 8 (1) 51-86.

Maskell, P., Bathelt, H. and Malmberg, A. 2006. Building global knowledge pipelines:

the role of temporary clusters. European Planning Studies 14 (8) 997-1013.

Simmie, J. 2003. Innovation and urban regions as national and international nodes for

the transfer and sharing of knowledge. Regional Studies 37 (6/7) 607-620.

Urry, J. 2007. Mobilities. Cambridge, Polity.

14

For more information about this project please contact:

Dr James R. Faulconbridge

Department of Geography

Lancaster University

Lancaster

LA1 4YW

United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0)1524 510265

Fax: +44 (0)1524 510269

Email: [email protected]

© James Faulconbridge, May 2008.

sn 6123 - relational spaces of innovation in architecture...

Documents