INTEGRATING DESIGN AND THE CONSTRUCTION SCIENCE CLASS

INTRODUCTION

This paper will present a number of models by which construction course work can be integrated with architectural design courses. The beginning premise is that while students of construction and students of architecture receive instruction in a number of elements of their disciplines in a variety of courses, and while educators assume that these units of instruction will be synthesized by the students into an integrated and coherent understanding, experience indicates that such integration often does not take place. It is held further that greater integration of the course work provided students of the two disciplines can only serve to enhance the understanding of the two professions, each for the other, to their mutual benefit in academia and in professional practice.[6]

There are some assumptions in which the integrations proposed in this paper are founded. First, the integration is discussed in the context of courses being taught in a multidisciplinary college which houses programs in architecture and construction, as well as other professional programs. It is further assumed that parallels exist by which similar methods of integration can be utilized at other universities where the construction program may be housed in a college other than architecture.[ 1]

It will soon be noted by the reader that many of the models which are presented in this paper involve the extension of construction expertise into the education of design students. While a conscious effort has been made to include consideration of benefits to construction students, construction professors, and the construction discipline as the result of the integrations proposed here, it is nonetheless freely admitted that often the preponderance of the direct benefits to be derived will accrue to the design students.

This should not be viewed with dismay by the construction professional. Rather, it can be seen, first as an opportunity to further contribute in a meaningful way to the education of designers, as well as to the more complete education of constructors. It need hardly be said that such efforts can only bode well for the future of the young people in both professions. Additionally, what better way to enhance the stature of construction education as a bona fide academic discipline, than to recognize the value of key blocks of construction knowledge to the education of students of other disciplines?

THE PROBLEM

Examples abound of situations where students tend to keep their teaming from individual courses discreet, while educators believe that all of the knowledge from different courses and disciplines is being synthesized by the students into a coherent body of learning. The student of design produces a project in the studio which requires impossibly long spans, and which pays no heed to methods of making connections between various materials and structural components. Yet this student has usually completed static and structures courses, as well as materials and methods course work, prior to enrolling in the design studio.

Similarly, detailed consideration of integrating a workable mechanical system into the design project (including capacities of heating and/or cooling systems, duct layout, etc.) frequently seems alien to the student designer, as if it were somehow incidental to, or perhaps even inhibitory to, the design being produced. Economic analysis, in terms of comparison of costs of alternative materials or structural systems, or approximations (even on a dollar per square foot basis) of the costs of the building being designed, frequently are not included as part of the student's thinking regarding the design project. Constraints founded in legal considerations such as zoning, code compliance, and contract systems by which the project may be constructed, often are not considered as part of the design process.

The authors have come to refer to these occurrences as the "box syndrome," where students keep their learning from different courses in separate boxes, and tend to keep the boxes discreet from one another. It is the assertion of this paper that not only is this situation undesirable, but also that models can be devised which, with some effort, will eliminate or favorably impact the problem.

THE MODELS

Five kinds of construction course work will be examined from the perspective of their possible integration with architectural (or engineering) design courses:

Each of these generic course work areas will be examined form the perspective of four different methods of accomplishing the desired integration. The potential benefits and drawbacks of each method will be elaborated in terms of their benefits to students of design and construction. Additionally, the argument will be presented that the teaching of one or more of these subject areas by a construction department, to students of construction and students of design, and the integration of that course content into design classes, can only solidify the existence of construction education as a viable academic discipline. In the broader sense, the building of construction considerations into design education can only serve to enhance the education of and enlighten the professional practice of designers and constructors.

The methodologies by which this beneficial integration is perceived are listed below:

AN IMPORTANT ASIDE WHICH NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED

There exists a concept which the authors hold to be an error in the thinking of many multidisciplinary schools, which refers to Construction Science classes as "service courses" to the design discipline. This terminology is incorrect at best, and counterproductive at worst. It is incorrect because no program should be relegated to the role of serving another. The two professions in actuality serve each other, and that reality should be reflected in the pedagogical approach used in the university. The notion is counterproductive in that it undermines the importance of the educated constructor, and subtly or not so subtly, instills attitudes in both professions which may be carried into professional life. Neither the construction science courses taken by student architects, nor the various design perception classes taken by construction students will be referred to as service courses in this paper. Rather, the course work utilized in the education of the two sets of professionals, as well as the professionals themselves, and the disciplines themselves, are viewed as existing and functioning in a symbiotic relationship.

MATERIALS AND METHODS COURSE WORK

Typically, materials and methods courses in the construction curriculum address themselves to the properties of materials from a physical and engineering standpoint, to the characteristics and strengths and weaknesses of materials, and to the proper specification, ordering, handling, installation, and use of the materials of design and construction.[4] Most of the instructional material is taught in lecture settings where the instructor delivers a great deal of factual data. Usually students of architecture and construction are enrolled together in these courses, with the specific and well-intentioned objective of providing for exchange of ideas between students of the two professions. Beyond this physical proximity, and efforts by the instructor to relate the factual material to the needs of students of both professions, the amount of real exchange which takes place between design and construction students in such course is problematical.

One means of providing for greater interaction between students of design and construction, would be to develop a series of co-requisite sections. By this concept, students of design and construction would be simultaneously enrolled in a given architecture design class. Additionally, these same students would be enrolled in the construction materials and methods course. Maximum opportunity for interchange of ideas between students, is easy to envision. A fuller integration of design and construction education, and fuller development of materials and methods and other construction topics from design and construction viewpoints is difficult to imagine.

However, consideration of the realities of the educational environment soon leads one to conclude that implementation of such a model would be practically impossible. Even if one were to assume that the obvious scheduling difficulties could be resolved, it is doubtful such an approach would be feasible, for a number of reasons.

Should all students of construction, for example, be required to enroll in an architectural design class in order to receive materials and methods instruction in another class? The benefits of interfacing design and construction education notwithstanding, the authors think not. These and a number of other considerations lead inevitably to the conclusion that co-requisite sections are an unworkable model for achieving the desired integration, at least insofar as undergraduate education is concerned.

Another possibility to be considered involves the use of linked sections of course work. By this approach, architecture students who enroll in a design course which has been designated as a linked course or linked section, would be required to simultaneously enroll in a designated construction course such as materials and methods.

In addition to being linked by the commonality of the design students present in each class, these courses would seek to maximize interaction between the material presented in each class, as well as between the design and construction students themselves. Ties between the classes could be enhanced by having the project which is assigned in the design studio serve as the background subject for illustrating materials and methods discussions in the construction class. Alternately, an actual completed building of the type being designed as a studio project could be presented as the context for materials and methods presentations. Ideally, slides to illustrate the various phases of construction, and depicting the materials and methods employed in the construction of the building, would be utilized. The complete set of drawings and specifications for the building, and other actual contract documents, used to illustrate design and construction concepts, would be an invaluable teaching aid. If instructors from each professional discipline could exchange presentations in the two classes from time to time during the semester, as discussed later in this paper, this linkage would become even more complete, and thus more beneficial.

This model is perceived by the authors as an excellent and practicable means of more fully integrating design and construction course work. For the design student, this approach offers essentially the same benefits described in conjunction with co-requisite sections -- maximum interfacing of design studio activities with vital technical information on materials and methods provided in the construction class. For the construction student this approach stresses the interactive approach to design and construction issues, while continuing to present the materials and methods information essential to the practicing construction professional. From an administrative standpoint, this approach requires only a minimal amount of coordinating effort for the accomplishment of a tangible and very beneficial series of objectives.

The final model for integrating design and construction course work entails design professors and construction professors visiting each other's studios and classrooms, perhaps extending to the point of team teaching each other's courses. We begin with the scenario of the design studio instructor attending the construction materials and methods class where both design students and construction students are enrolled. It is presumed that the materials instructor would make it known to the class that the design instructor were present, would invite the design instructor's active participation in the class, and would proceed to teach the class as usual.

The significance of having the studio instructor present in the class is manifold. First, it demonstrates to students of both disciplines the importance which the faculty places on materials and methods of construction. Second, it permits the studio instructor to ask questions and interject commentary from a design perspective about the use of materials and how their properties affect correct design decision-making.

The integration will be further enhanced, in the opinion of the authors, if the design professor lectures on occasion to the materials and methods class. This action would of itself reinforce for the design students the idea that knowledge of materials and their proper usage is fundamental to the making of appropriate buildings. The construction students could likewise benefit from the exposure. Seeing the different way in which the architect talks about materials, and seeing how materials are used in different buildings which might be described by the architect, could very well engender a better understanding about the design process in the construction student. The student would perceive that the design process is not a random one, but rather one in which the properties of materials play an important role.

This might assist the construction student in more completely understanding the application of materials from a design perspective, and in understanding the designers intent in using various assemblies of materials to achieve desired ends.

If the construction professor occasionally walked through the studio of the design students enrolled in the materials class, a number of direct and immediate benefits would accrue to the design students. First, and importantly, an interest in application of the knowledge being imparted in the materials course would automatically and strongly be evidenced. Additionally, the instructors observations and interaction in the studio might very well yield examples which could be utilized as teaching points in the materials and methods lectures.

It is conceivable that one way of creating benefits of interaction for the construction students would be to invite these students to visit the design studios. Hopefully, the design and construction students would discuss materials and their various aspects in the context of projects underway in the design studios. This would create an interactive learning environment, in addition to creating a situation where both professions experience the benefits of having the constructor impact the thinking of the designer from the early stages of the design process. ,

Yet another variation proposed by the authors is one in which as an assignment in the materials course, construction students and design students could be assembled into teams. On each team, construction students would work with design students on specific aspects of the design project under consideration. Tutorials by construction students, and/or assessment or critiques or analyses of the designers' use of materials and methods on the design project, could become an assignment for the construction students in the materials course.[3j It is believed that the benefits of this kind of interaction could be high. Again, the construction students would be interfacing with the design students from the onset of the design process, to the betterment of both. Additionally, such group learning sessions could demonstrate to the design student the valuable expertise which the constructor brings to the design process.

A final model proposed by the authors for integrating the content of materials courses for students of design and construction, is one in which the materials instructor is a regular part of the design course. This concept is similar to that of the design instructor being a lecturer in the materials course, with the same associated benefits. Here though, instead of delivering formal lectures, the construction professor might be assigned for a period of time to be a visiting critic for a number of design studios. The benefits to design students would be immediate and clear. Not the least among these would be the fact that opportunity for direct interaction with a materials expert would almost undoubtedly generate new insights regarding use and application of materials in the design process.

From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that a number of models exist by which the materials and methods course work of the construction department can be more fully integrated with the design studios of the architecture department, for the mutual benefit of students of design and construction. The authors believe that one or more of these models, or some combination of the pedagogies discussed here, could be utilized at some level in the curricula of many colleges where design and construction are taught. The intent here is to stimulate thinking for educators who would consider different teaching approaches for the improvement of the educational process.

It is also recognized that the success of the interactive methods discussed thus far with regard to materials and methods course work, and discussed in the sections which follow regarding other teaming areas, will rest in large measure with the faculty members involved. In the opinion of the authors, it is only if the faculty invites a two-way interactive process within the models discussed here, that students will in fact effectively interact.

In a final note regarding materials and methods course work, it is strongly held that the integration of this body of knowledge into architecture and construction curricula should occur early in the educational process of students in both disciplines. From the perspective of the architecture student, the disciplined understanding of materials and their use in building design and construction, is the building block of design. The early exposure of the design student to thinking about materials from the constructability standpoint is essential for the realization of appropriate design and construction strategies. From the construction student point of view, the notion of assemblies of materials and their impact upon estimating, scheduling, and building is a fundamental one. Early exposure to the interaction of construction and design issues is basic. It is believed that both students of architecture and students of construction have much to gain immediately and in the long run from the kind of supportive and interactive approach to the professional disciplines presented in these models.

STATIC AND STRUCTURES

With regard to this area of knowledge and the others which follow in this paper, the unit of instruction will not be traced through all of the pedagogical models previously presented. Rather, various important aspects of education of designers and constructors within this subject area will be presented. Discussion will be provided with regard to the one model, as previously developed, or to combinations of the models, which appear to offer effective means of better integrating the subject matter for students of design and construction.

The two-way integration of statics and structures course work for students of design and construction is more difficult to address than the materials and methods course work discussed earlier. Structures is frequently taught from an abstract perspective to students of both disciplines.[5) The problems of understanding the impact of structure on decisions affecting cost, speed of erection, materials selection, organization of work, and other related issues are numerous -- and are only infrequently discussed in many structures and design courses. Typically, the courses in structures are offered in the construction department, and are taken jointly by students of design and students of construction, and may very well serve the needs of neither population effectively. In this area, a great deal of progress might be made regarding the two-way integration of this body of knowledge.

From the conceptual standpoint, and within the framework of the models being proposed here, the studio instructor could participate as a visitor to the structures class, and could discuss the functional and planning implications of structural decision-making on the building design and procurement process. Examples of architectural work might be used to impress the design and construction students with the importance of appropriate decision-making, early in the procurement process. Additionally, the telegraphic impact of structural decisions by the designer, could be investigated in a series of lectures by the design instructor. Many issues would likely begin to evolve in these discussions, which have a significant impact on the delivery of professional services by both disciplines.

The understanding of structures concepts by the design student working in the studio can be enhanced by frequent referral on the part of the studio instructor to the lecture sessions carried out in the structures course. [8] The bridging between the two courses then, can be enhanced by the active involvement of the design professor, and the students of both disciplines can benefit.

None of the preceding discussion is intended to obviate the need for clear and direct presentation of mechanics of materials and assemblies, and structural behavior. However, that is only the foundation for the even more comprehensive understanding of structures needed by the constructor and by the designer, to enable them to make effective decisions about realization issues (how the building is actually constructed), and design decisions (what the final form and order of the building should be). Intelligent decision-making on these issues must come from informed professionals who understand the issues of structure from both an assembly and design perspective simultaneously.

The construction science professor visiting design studios as a critic presents another opportunity for this kind of integration. The design student will profit from the knowledge which the construction professor can share with regard to all aspects of structure in the design, and especially those considerations involving structural decisions early in the design process.

Construction students also could benefit from an interactive analysis with design students with regard to structures issues, as suggested earlier regarding materials and methods considerations. The interdependency between constructor and architect in the early stages of design occurs not only from an engineering standpoint, but also with regard to issues of assembly, process, and cost. Discussion might revolve about issues such as how the choice of one structural system over another might reduce erection time, or increase the ease of detailing, or how it might reduce the number of different trades involved in the construction process. Both designers and constructors would be well served by the integrated inclusion of such issues in structures course work.

As in the previous section, the authors conclude that the simplest way to commence such an integration would be for professors of design and construction to attend and take an active part in each other's classes. It is believed that the process would be further facilitated if design students were enrolled in structures classes concurrent with their design studio work, by the linked sections concept.

MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

The impact of mechanical, electrical, luminous, and thermal considerations on the quality of a building is undeniable.[2] Perhaps more than any other, these issues affect the quality of a given building, and are most readily assessed by the users of the building. The vital importance of properly educating students of design and construction in this important aspect of their disciplines is apparent.

As with structures course work, if the educational experience of the students involves only the engineering aspects of the subject matter, the material can be dry. Worse, if only the physics of light and the thermodynamics of air flow are presented to students of design and construction, the material may seem inconsequential to students of both disciplines. The impacts of decision-making in these areas should be addressed from the standpoints of cost effectiveness, quality, assembly and profit. Both students of design and construction can benefit directly from this added dimension to mechanical and electrical course work.

If design students are enrolled in linked sections of the mechanical/electrical courses offered in the construction department, and if design and construction professors attend each other's lectures and studios, as previously discussed, then a broadening and enriching of course work content can be achieved. The net result can only prove beneficial for students of design and students of construction.

If the studio instructor attends and participates in lectures and laboratories of the construction course in mechanical/electrical systems, he can favorably impact the perception of the course work by students of both disciplines. Additionally, the questions and commentary which the design professor is almost certain to interject into the course can but enhance and broaden the horizons of the course content.

Based upon the design instructor's firsthand knowledge of what has been presented in the construction class, that professor can provide application of the principles and reinforcement of the ideas in the design studio. The impacts of system selection, and routing of electrical, plumbing, and other service systems in the building (fundamental decisions about the configuration of the building) can be addressed from the correct vantage point.

If the studio instructor were to lecture occasionally in the construction class, a broader view of the impacts of the service systems in the building might be developed, for the benefit of designers and constructors in the class. Examples could be provided of buildings where the mechanical systems work effectively and buildings where they do not. Perhaps most importantly, the design decisions which impact the assembly process can be set forth in a way which allows the constructor to understand the impact of the designer's choice of various operating and distribution systems on the estimating, scheduling, and assembly processes of the constructor.

The value of the construction professor participating in the design studio, assisting design students with mechanical systems considerations, is indisputable. The interaction between a designer and a construction scientist is of invaluable benefit. It may also be that observations and examples taken by the construction professor from the studio back to the construction class will prove useful in enhancing the knowledge of the construction students in the class, as well as further compounding the learning for the design students enrolled in the class.

ESTIMATING AND SCHEDULING

The construction courses which address the sequencing and timely delivery and costing of the construction process, are for designers, probably the most underutilized link to the construction discipline and the expertise it has to offer.[7] And a most unfortunate maloccurrence this is. The ability to derive accurate cost estimates and time schedules is as basic to the success of an architect as it is to the success of the contractor.

The impact of design on the scheduling and the cost of a project is elemental. Decisions in design impact techniques for work, as well as resource allocation. Conversely, the time for completion and the cost of any aspect of the design are important variables which affect the design itself. Yet students of design typically are not required to take construction estimating course work, and they seldom do so on an elective basis. Design faculty usually introduce little more than the most rudimentary concepts of scheduling into the design studio.

If the approach were taken whereby design and construction faculty attended each other's classes, an enrichment of the design student's experience and capabilities would almost certainly result immediately. If studio instructors attended estimating and scheduling courses in the construction department, there is no doubt they would become more capable of addressing these issues on a daily basis in the design studio. This would permit design students to view the matters of materials selection, structural system, mechanical systems, quality of finishes in the building, and other key aspects of the design, from the enlightened view of their impact on schedule and cost.

If the designer were to participate in the estimating course work, he could provide examples of buildings with real budgets and real time constraints. Additionally, the designer could elaborate on the practice in many architectural firms where constructors are asked to participate as consultants early in the design process, in order to estimate the costs of the design being produced, and to participate in the decision-making processes of the designer. Personal experience would allow the citation of numerous examples where input by constructors during the design process has yielded higher quality and/or more cost effective buildings.

If the estimating and scheduling faculty visited design studios periodically, they could be of enormous help to the design students. By discussing costing and scheduling implications of various options under consideration, they could assist students in making informed and practical design decisions. By continually underscoring the need to meet budget in the students' design, the construction professor could add an important dimension as well as a huge measure of realism to the work of student designers.

The need is real, and the opportunities are most certainly present for strong kinds of interactive cooperation. Designers and constructors alike would be remiss not to adopt some methodology, whether one of the models presented here or some other, for enhancing the interaction between designers and constructors in this vital area.

CONTRACT LAW

The relationship between the law, the builder, and the designer is a necessary and basic one. The impact of the law on the professions of design and construction is more significant and more important today than ever before.

Students of construction typically receive instruction in the legal aspects of topics such as contract delivery systems, liabilities, subcontracting, labor relations, business practice, and others. Designers also are educated in multiple facets of the law and the legal environment. Yet strangely, few of these legal studies courses have designers and constructors enrolled simultaneously. It would seem that many issues of importance to the two professions could be addressed concurrently for designers and constructors in a course specifically tailored to meet the professional needs of both.

CONCLUSIONS

REFERENCES