A charrette provides a format where students can work together in a group or in competition with other groups in providing a proposed solution to a design issue. A charrette is typically organized over a short period of time to help build intense bursts of creativity from the participants. This process provides a forum for ideas to flow amongst the students and provides immediate feedback to students from a jury on their proposed solutions.

The design charrette is not a new academic teaching model and has been utilized for centuries in architecture and other design programs. In defining the term charrette we turn to DPZ Architects, Miami, Florida, homepage. "The term charrette is derived from the French term for "little cart" and refers to the final intense work effort expended by architects to meet a project deadline. At the Ecole de Beaux Arts in Paris during the 19^th century, proctors circulated with little carts to collect final drawings, and students would jump on the "charrette" to put finishing touches on their presentations minutes before the deadline."

This paper is based on an ongoing study at the Interdisciplinary Design Institute at Washington State University investigating the effectiveness of utilizing a design-build charrette as an approach to teaching multidisciplinary collaboration between students from architecture, construction management, interior design and landscape architecture programs. A committee of faculty from the four respective disciplines developed the design-build charrette model studied. Over the past three years this study has collected data from students on their thoughts about interdisciplinary collaboration before and after participating in the charrette. This paper outlines the design-build charrette model that has been developed at the Interdisciplinary Design Institute over the past three years and will summarize the current findings of the study, focusing on the success and failure of utilizing a charrette model across multidiscipline, and provide recommendations for improving the design-build charrette model for future use.

The design profession and construction industry is rapidly changing from a traditional design-bid-build project delivery to a more collaborative design/build approach. These changes are the results from high legal cost due to conflicts, project delays, design changes, and loss of profits. The traditional method lacks communication and collaboration between the design and construction teams. In a similar fashion most universities have set up their academic model so that design and construction courses are isolated from one and other. This model does not allow student to learn how to collaborate or communicate with other disciplines. Comments from various industry advisory boards indicate that these skills are essential when a student enters their field of study. (Septelka, 2000)

The challenge to educators is how to teach multidisciplinary collaboration in an academic setting. Interdisciplinary education is not a new concept (Davis et al., 1996, Wyrick et al., 1996, Robson et al., 1997, Septelka, 2000). Interdisciplinary presents additional problems when it comes to collaboration. Davis et al (1996) observed that diversity impacted team building in a non-linear fashion. They also reported that communication barrier existed between engineers and non-engineer and impacted team formation because of the unwillingness of the diverse group to recognize that "outsiders" opinions are as valid as their own.

For the past six years, Washington State University has utilized a student charrette as method to introduce students to the Interdisciplinary Design Institute (DI). The charrette is held during the first week of classes at the start of each academic year. The charrette is explicitly designed to foster the philosophy of the XX, which is to bring students from architecture, construction management, interior design, and landscape architecture disciplines to work and learn in a team-oriented, urban environment.

At Washington State University, undergraduate students begin their individual courses of study at the rural Pullman campus, and attend the Interdisciplinary Design Institute in their 4^th or 5^th year depending on their area of emphasis. The Interdisciplinary Design Institute also offers graduate design programs within an interdisciplinary educational setting. In the spirit of interdisciplinarity, the charrette is an introduction to the teamwork format that students will most likely see again in classes and studios at the Interdisciplinary Design Institute.

Originally the charrette had only focused on the three design disciplines represented at the Interdisciplinary Design Institute. Three years ago the model was changed to a Design & Construction Charrette (D-B Charrette), this was done to include the forth discipline at the Interdisciplinary Design Institute, construction management. This addition provided students the experience of both design and construction collaboration during the development of their proposed solutions to the problems presented in the charrette.

The D-B Charrette is held during a four-day period and all classes at the Interdisciplinary Design Institute are cancelled during the competition. It is mandatory for all undergraduate and graduate students enrolled at the Interdisciplinary Design Institute to participate in the D-B Charrette. Each team must have a student representative from each of the four disciplines. A team ranges from 4 to 6 students and teams are made up of a mix of graduate and undergraduate students.

The charrette event is kicked off in the morning of day one. In most cases this is the first times student from the different disciplines have come together for a professional event. Most disciplines are from different colleges and/or schools within Washington State University. This event is to help students come together and form multidisciplinary teams. The morning events consisted of guest speakers from the community, a presentation of the D-B Charrette project and rules, team assignments, a team building exercise, and a site tour. The program for the D-B Charrette is handed out at this time.

A structured team building exercise, Lost at Sea, is used to teach the effectiveness of consensus-seeking behavior in task groups. This was a comparative experience with both individual decision-making and group decision-making exercises. (Nemiroff & Pasmore, 1975) A non-design exercise is chosen to help the teams learn to work together without predefined disciplinary roles.

Students are given 48 hour to develop their proposals. Most students work within their teams in the design studio at the Interdisciplinary Design Institute. Faculty from the four different disciplines tour the studio during the 48-hour period to provide coaching and advise to the teams. Team solutions and presentation materials are due at 5 PM on day three.

Each year a committee of faculty representatives from all four disciplines select the conceptual project for the D-B Charrette. The guidelines for selecting the conceptual project is that it must include elements from all four disciplines and be based on a current community issue, this is done to add a real life element to the charrette process and involve the students in a community service project. Project sponsors provide a small monetary donation for prizes and charrette administration costs, such as printing. The projects selected over the last three years include:

1999 - A proposed downtown mixed-use building sponsored by Ron Wells, a Spokane Renewal Specialist and President of Wells & Co. The location of the proposed project was an extremely tight site that Mr. Wells plans to develop. The site measured about 100 square feet, and was bound on three sides by historic buildings. The directive was to meld a new mixed-use project that addressed two kinds of housing needs in downtown Spokane: a hotel that offers high-end all-suite rooms for visitors and condominium units in the mid-$200,000 range.

2000 - Redevelopment of the Holley Mason Block sponsored by Robert C. Brewster, Jr., the owner and developer of the Holley Mason Building (built in 1910). The owner's plans for this block are consistent with the goal of bringing urban renewal to the Spokane downtown. For this site, this entails a parking structure, retail shops and restaurants, apartment and condominium units, all interconnected with pedestrian walkways and open spaces. This site is particularly significant in that it is located south of the elevated rail line that bisects downtown Spokane. The portion of downtown north of the rail line is more vibrant, with more businesses as well as positive pedestrian activity, while the blocks immediately south of the rail line is much less so. By targeting a site south of the tracks for urban renewal, this project seeks to overcome this "wrong side of the tracks" distinction for the area south of the rail line.

2001 - Proposed master plan for the St. Luke's Rehabilitation Institute of Spokane. St. Luke's is the largest rehabilitation center in the state of Washington. The facility is licensed for 102 beds, although it operates at only 53 beds due to space utilization demands. The charrette exercise aimed to meet two goals for the owner. The first goal of the charrette was to propose a better space utilization scheme for the facility itself at the least cost, without structural alterations. The second goal was to propose a master plan for the site that would include a structure or structures for doctors' offices, support staff and case manager offices, a house for patient families and new landscaping.

Design-Build Directive

The faculty from all four disciplines, with assistance from the charrette sponsor, generates a directive in which students can take a broad vision and turn it into a detailed design presentation that includes plans, cross-sections, three dimensional images and construction details such as cost and schedule. Each year the design focus of the project varies, one year the project might focus on architecture and the next year on interior design or landscape architecture.

The directive is communicated to the students through a written design & construction program that includes an introduction to the project, general programmatic content, design and construction team requirements, required design and construction documents, charrette schedule, and prizes to be awarded.

Each team is limited to one (1) 30" x 40" illustration board and must present material from all 4 disciplines. Graphics can be drawn directly on the board, adhered to, or built on to (in the sense of 3 dimensional relief). The requirements vary from year to year depending on the project requirements. The following is an example of information that was required for the St. Luke's Rehabilitation Institute Project, which emphasized interior design.

In the morning of the forth day the jury is assembled to review the student’s work. The jury is made up of professionals from all four disciplines plus representatives from the owner, developer, and the city. Judging criteria are based on design and construction elements and that the students’ proposals were appropriately represented by all four disciplines. To provide immediate feedback to students on their proposed solutions, the jury provided an open critique session and provided comments on all of the proposals before they announced the winning teams. Student proposals are not graded, but in some cases students may be given class credit for participating in the charrette. As an incentive for participation a small monetary sum is awarded to the first four places. To help make the event a festive occasion a free barbecue lunch is sponsored by the Washington State University Student Association.

To evaluate the D-B Charrette as an approach to teaching multidisciplinary collaboration a survey was developed to evaluate the student’s thoughts pre-charrette and post-charrette. The Likert scale method was utilized (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = undecided, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree). The pre and post-survey asked students to identify their disciplines of study and to identify if they were an undergraduate or graduate student. This was done to see what effects the charrette had across disciplines and between undergraduate and graduate students.

The pre-survey is handed out and collected during the charrette kickoff meeting that is held in the morning of the first day. The survey asked four questions about their thoughts on working on group projects and if they felt interdisciplinary collaboration is required by their profession and should it be part of their education at Interdisciplinary Design Institute. In addition, the survey asked students to evaluate their perception of participating in the charrette would enhance their abilities to:

The post-survey asked the students if the D-B Charrette experience actually enhanced the above five team attributes. In addition the post-survey asked five questions about their overall experience in participating in the D-B Charrette. The post-survey is available during the award ceremony and the week following the charrette.

The results are based on surveys that have been collected over the past three years. This past year 29 multidiscipline teams were formed that ranged from 4 to 5 students per team. Approximately 350 students have participated in the D-B Charrette over the past three years. Response rate to the pre-survey was 72% and 47% to the post-survey. The makeup of the response per discipline for the pre-survey was: 27% architects, 25% construction managers, 27% interior designers, and 53% landscape architects. The post-survey response represented by discipline was: 29.5% architects, 37% construction managers, 19% interior designers, and 14.5% landscape architects. Response to the pre-survey represented 85% undergraduates and 14% graduates, while the post-survey represented 88% undergraduates and 12% graduates. See Appendix A for Pre & Post Descriptive Statistics.

In comparing the students’ pre-charrette response in the area of working on team projects, the mean was higher for working on team projects with students from their own department (3.88) verses working on teams with students from other programs (3.56). Each year (1999, 2000, 2001) the overall mean increased for each category (3.72, 3.91, 3.95 and 3.48, 3.50, 3.67) and the response that disagreed decreased. Seventy-two percent (72%) of the students indicated that they strongly agreed and agreed with working with students within their departments, while only 57% of the students strongly agreed and agreed that they enjoyed working with students from other programs. The mean for the graduate students (4.15, 4.06) was higher than the mean for undergraduate students (3.84, 3.49) in both categories. Eighty-nine (89%) percent of the graduate students indicated that they strongly agreed and agreed with working on both types of team projects compared to only 69% of the undergraduate students agreeing or strongly agreeing to enjoying working on teams within their program and 51% agreeing or strongly agreeing to enjoying working on teams with students from other programs. The construction management students had the highest mean (4.03) for working on team with students from their own department, while interior design students had the lowest mean (3.78). Students from the Landscape Architecture program had the highest mean (3.77) for working on teams with students from other programs, the other three programs mean ranged from 3.50 to 3.51.

Most of the students thought that working with other students on interdisciplinary projects were an important part of their college education. The overall groups mean response was 4.16 and this varied over the three years (4.22, 4.11, 4.17). One hundred percent (100%) of the graduate students (4.44 mean) agreed or strongly agreed that their education should include working on interdisciplinary team projects. The undergraduate student less strongly agreed with a mean of 4.11. The construction management students had the lowest mean response (4.00) and more students were undecided about the importance of interdisciplinary projects.

Most students thought that the ability to work as a team member on interdisciplinary teams/projects was required by their profession/industry, the overall mean was 4.54 and varied over the three years (4.58, 4.59, 4.47). One hundred percent (100%) of the graduate students (4.59 mean) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, while undergraduate students indicated a slightly lower response (4.11). When looking at the student’s response per discipline, interior design students had a slightly lower opinion than other disciplines.

In general, most of the students had thought that participating in the D-B Charrette would enhance their ability to work with other disciplines, the mean for all of the attributes were above 3.69. The response rate from students that agreed and strongly agreed on the potential for enhancing their ability to communicate and collaborate with other disciplines and working as an interdisciplinary team member was above 82%. Students had a lower opinion if the experience would enhance their ability to trust and respect other disciplines (62.3%, 75.3%). Thirty percent (30%) of the students were undecided whether the charrette would enhance their ability to trust other disciplines.

In reviewing the results of the post survey the mean for the 5 attributes were lower than the students pre-charrette expectations, indicating that students expectations were slighter higher than their actual experience of the D-B Charrette. This is also indicated by a lower number of students agreeing and the higher number of students disagreeing that participating in the charrette actually enhanced the attributes. The mean for attributes ranged from 3.29 to 3.60. Only 50% of the students felt that participating in the D-B Charrette enhanced their ability to trust students in other disciplines. See Appendix B for Post Survey Attributes Statistics.

Overall the graduate students had a higher mean than undergraduate students on their experience gained from participating in the D-B Charrette, except for enhancing ability to work as an interdisciplinary team member, where both had the same mean response. The mean for the graduate students ranged from 3.65 to 3.85 and the undergraduate mean ranged from 3.36 to 3.75. Eighty-five percent (85%) of the graduate students agreed and strongly agreed that the experience they gained from participating in the D-B Charrette had enhanced their ability to communicate with other disciplines. Seventy percent (70%) of the undergraduate student students agreed and strongly agreed that the experience they gained from participating in the D-B Charrette had enhanced their ability to work as an interdisciplinary team member. Both the graduate and undergraduate students reported that the D-B Charrette had the least impact on enhancing their ability to trust other disciplines. Twenty-four percent (24%) of the undergraduate students disagreed and strongly disagreed with that the charrette enhanced their ability to trust other disciplines.

The construction management students mean response was lower than the group’s mean for all five attributes in the pre-survey indicating they had a lower expectation in participating in the charrette than other disciplines. The interior design students had the highest mean for four of the five attributes in the pre-survey indicating they had the highest expectation in participating in the charrette. The landscape architecture students had the highest expectation for one attribute, that the charrette would enhance their ability to collaborate with other disciplines.

After participating in the D-B Charrette the construction management students mean response was still lower than the group’s average for all five attributes indicating that the attributes for these students when compared to the other disciplines were least enhanced by participating in the charrette. When comparing the construction management student’s pre-survey response to their post-survey responses for the five attributes, the mean for four of attributes increased except for respect, indicating that the charrette experience was higher than their expectations

The interior design students still had the highest mean response for four attributes after participating in the charrette and the landscape architecture students had the highest mean response for one attribute, that the charrette enhanced their ability to collaborate with other disciplines.

The post survey evaluated the students overall experience in participating in the D-B Charrette. Sixty-nine percent (69%) of the students agreed or strongly agreed that their overall experience was positive, with a combined group mean of 3.75. In comparison, the graduate students (4.05) responded more positively to the experience than the undergraduate students (3.69). Ninety percent (90%) of the graduate students agreed or strongly agreed that the charrette was a positive experience compared to 66% of the undergraduate students. The interior design students (4.31) indicated a more positive experience than the students in landscape architecture (4.13), architecture (3.59), and construction management (3.43) did.

Sixty-five percent (65%) of the students indicated that their multidiscipline team had worked successfully as a group, with a combined group mean of 3.66. The interior design students (4.16) indicated a more positive group experience than the students in construction management (3.61), landscape architecture (3.58), and architecture (3.43).

Eighty percent (80%) of the students indicated that the D-B Charrette is a positive activity in providing an interdisciplinary environment, with a combined group mean of 4.01. In comparison, the graduate students (4.20) agreed that it was a positive activity and had higher mean response than the undergraduate students (3.97) did. Ninety percent (90%) of the graduate students agreed or strongly agreed that the charrette was a positive activity compared to 78% of the undergraduate students. The interior design students (4.53) had a higher mean response than students in landscape architecture (4.17), architecture, (3.92), and construction management (3.74) did.

Recommend as an Introduction to the Interdisciplinary Design Institute

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of the students would recommend that the D-B Charrette be held every year as an introduction activity to the Interdisciplinary Design Institute, with a combined group mean of 3.87. Graduate students (4.05) where more in agreeance with this statement than undergraduate students (3.82). Seventy-five percent (75%) of the graduate students agreed or strongly agreed that the charrette be held every year as in introduction to the Interdisciplinary Design Institute compared to 63% of the undergraduate students. Construction management student (3.61) voiced the strongest disagreement to the activity being held, while the interior design students (4.50) had the strongest agreement for holding the event yearly.

The D-B Charrette as an event to help students meet other people had the highest response rate, with a group mean of 4.39, with 90% of the students agreeing to the statement. The students in architecture had the lowest mean (4.24) when comparing the mean to other disciplines.

The following recommendations are based on the results of the study, the author’s observations, and comments from students that participated in the D-B Charette.

Mixing the graduate students with undergraduate students increase the frustrations of both groups. If faced with the two programs, it is recommended to have separate undergraduate and graduate student teams and to have two different judging categories.

The first year of the D-B Charrette students where allowed to select their own multidiscipline team during the morning break at the kick-off meeting. This presented a problem since most students did not know students from other disciplines. Also, logistically it was awkward and time consuming. The following year the charrette committee chose the multidiscipline teams prior to the kick-off meeting and students were assembled in their teams during the morning break at the kick-off meeting. Students returned to the auditorium in their teams for the team building exercise.

The time allowed needs to be weighed against the complexity of the problem, along with the recognition that student will be working in multidisciplinary teams. The time factor in this study increased the frustration of working collaboratively. The ideal situation for teaching multidiscipline collaboration would be a semester/quarter long studio. Robson, et al (1997) reported on the success of a utilizing a semester long multidiscipline project.

The commitment from students is an important element that will influence the successful outcome of a charette. Many students felt that the time commitment was not proportional considering monetary and personal rewards. Some students feel working or their internship is more important than participating in the charrette and they choose not to participate or have a negative attitude and choose to take a non-participatory role on their teams. This increases the frustration of the other team member. Also, the number of days and the days of the week that the charrette is scheduled might not work for all the disciplines participating. Several changes have been made over the last three years:

The type of project chosen for a design-build charrette can put more requirements on one discipline than the others, causing resentment amongst team members. Also, since student from different class years are participating some 3^rd and 4^th year design students might be faced with a design challenge that might be more complex than they are academically prepared for. Comments from students indicate that there is too much pressure on one discipline and the other disciplines tend to want to wait until that discipline finishes their design concept. Since this is the first time many students are faced with a collaborative effort they do not know how to work as a group. Many students find it difficult to work on a team made up of four different disciplines. The recommendation is to choose a project that can incorporates all disciplines, provide team guidance while the students are working on their projects, and each year change the project discipline emphasis.

Last, is that formalized teambuilding needs to be incorporated into the development of a design-build charrette. Only one hour is set aside to work with students on developing interdisciplinary teams. The results from Lost at Sea (Nemiroff & Pasmore, 1975) exercise indicated that students had trouble working as a group and lacked team synergy. Seventy-five percent of the teams earned higher points working as individual than working in their assigned team. This indicated that students had difficulty in collaborating as a multidisciplinary team. This result is supported by Davis et al (1996) findings that communication barrier existed between designers and non-designers that impacted team formation because of the unwillingness of the diverse group to recognize that "outsiders" opinions are as valid as their own. If we want student to learn in a multidisciplinary setting it is important to add an educational component on how teams work and coach students on team building during the charrette process, this will help prevent setting students up for a negative collaborative experience.

Since the design and building industry requires teamwork amongst the professions, universities need to review their current academic model and look for ways to increase the interaction between design and construction programs. The success of developing a multidiscipline academic program or educational activity will depend on a strong commitment from both faculty and administration. This become more difficult when each discipline report to a different schools and/or college. This difficulty intensifies when the programs are spilt between campuses. For students to embrace the idea of working on interdisciplinary projects or studios the concept must be supported within their professional program. Also, we should not be waiting until a student’s senior year to introduce the concept of collaboration with other disciplines. This concept needs to be fostered early on in the student’s academic experience and often.

Care must be taken when developing a multidisciplinary activity, even with good intentions, it still can create an atmosphere that is difficult for students to gain a positive collaborative effort. Since most student have not had the opportunity to collaborate with other disciplines it is necessary to instruct the students on how to work together and collaborate as interdisciplinary team members. Even though the D-B Charrette was not a total success in all areas, it is a model that can be improved upon as an approach to providing students with a multidisciplinary academic experience.

Davis, M. L. and Matsen, S. J. (1996) "Design Competitions: Does "Multidisciplinary" Contribute to the Team Building Experience." Proceedings of the 1996 Frontiers in Education Conference, 276-279.

Nemiroff, P.M. and Pasmore, W. A. (1975) "Lost at Sea." The 1975 Annual Handbook for Group Facilitators, University Associates, Inc., 28-30.

Robson, K.F., Caldwell, M., and Reynolds, J. (1997). "Enhancing Communications in the Design and Construction Industry through Multi-Disciplinary Education." J. of Construction Education, ASC, Vol.1, 41-48.

Septelka, D. M., (2000). "Interdisciplinary Team Building as Part of the Construction Education Process." Proceeding of the Construction Congress VI, ASCE.

Septelka, D. M., (2000). "The Charrette Process as a Model for Teaching Multidiscipline Collaboration." Proceeding of the CIB W89 International Conference on Building Education and Research, 35-44.

Wyrick, C., Pinkus, C., and Caenapeel, C, (1996) "Team Building and Project Planning Catalyst for Engineering Interdisciplinary Clinic" Proceedings of the 1996 Frontiers in Education Conference, 1463-66.