Home Next
ASC Proceedings of the 41st Annual Conference
University of Cincinnati - Cincinnati, Ohio
April 6 - 9, 2005         
 
Multidisciplinary Collaborative Experiences:  A Case Study in Sustainable Construction and Design
 
Paul W. Holley and Christian Dagg
Auburn University
Auburn, Alabama
 
In the construction and design industries, survival for many construction and design firms is arguably predicated on their ability to work together with other organizations.  The demands of time and budget placed upon these industries by building owners challenge traditional project delivery methods such as design-bid-build, to which industry is responding.  Conversely, many academic institutions continue to neglect the opportunity to collaborate between the design and construction aspects of building by ignoring shared responsibilities and the shifts in industry.  This paper presents a case study in undergraduate education that fostered collaboration between architecture and construction management students, which would ultimately become the basis for a collaborative experience for every construction student in the department.  This is significant because pedagogical models for teaching within the two curriculums have historically been discipline specific, contributing to the continued lack of interaction between design and building education.
 
Keywords:  collaboration, multidisciplinary, project delivery
 
 
Introduction
 
In their collaborative work with graduate students, O’Brien et al note that “…there is a need to gradually reshape the curricula of Architecture, Engineering and Construction programs to encourage collaboration and exchange of ideas among students” (2004).  Septelka concurs in that “…universities need to review their current academic model and look for ways to increase the interaction between design and construction programs.”(2002)
 
This paper presents a pedagogical model recently implemented at “University X” through which architecture students and construction students, too often separated by course content and philosophical differences, were brought together in a collaborative effort focusing on sustainability and the LEED green building rating system.  Interdisciplinary education is not new as an academic concept. (Davis et al., 1996, Wyrick et al., 1996, Robson et al., 1997, Septelka, 2000).  However, many efforts to promote collaboration at the university level are limited to either a short term experience such a design-build charrette (Septelka 2002) or a program for a select group of students in a single class (Sulbaran 2003).  The model presented in this paper differentiates itself from these efforts in that it is a semester-long experience and is the foundation of a commitment to provide a collaborative experience for all undergraduate construction management students in a reputable construction program. 
 
In order for there to be successful collaboration, there must be a shared goal between the participants that is not exclusively in the domain of either discipline.  For the initiative in this case study, sustainable design provided this focus.  While the concept of sustainability has existed in academia for some time, it has not been a part of traditional course content at many universities.  Its implementation on a large scale is relatively new within the professions of both design and construction.  Additionally, there have been pedagogical disagreements over the proper strategy to address both environmentally sustaining design as well as the need to work together in a manner other than traditional bid-build delivery.  In the fall of 2003, the first iteration of a new undergraduate classroom and studio strategy attempted to foster the collaborative process while focusing the students on the common goal of sustainable building practices.  As the construction and architecture programs at University X are located in the same college, this offered an appropriate opportunity for collaboration between the disciplines.
 
 
Collaboration
 
The growing demands of schedule and budget placed upon design and construction professionals by building owners often make traditional project delivery methods inappropriate.  Industry is responding to these demands with increased collaboration and other creative solutions such as pre-construction and construction management (CM) services, all of which present opportunities for academia to prepare students for contemporary project delivery. 
 
The dictionary defines collaboration as both “working with others in an intellectual endeavor,” as well as “to cooperate with an enemy” (Merriam Webster, 2004).  Based on the authors’ perceptions, the second of these could be an appropriate description for both architecture students and construction management students within the college at University X.  While both departments existed in the same building, students rode the elevator quietly together, representative of a culture that needed to change.  Architecture school ultimately prioritizes the creative talent of the individual, resulting in a fear of diluting one’s own work creating a powerful incentive to avoid collaboration.  Reciprocally, construction management coursework is often more pragmatic, finite, and disciplined.  These traits are not always conducive to collaboration between the disciplines. 
 
 
Sustainability
 
“What we need is a paradigm shift in the way we view energy consumption in this country.  It's architecture- residential, commercial and industrial buildings and their construction materials- that account for half of all energy used in this country each year.” (Mazria, 2003). 
 
Architects and constructors now find themselves surrounded by significant environmental issues.  Many professionals in both industries have realized that early and constant collaboration is essential to providing answers to this dilemma.  In this case study, it was necessary to find some starting point, whereby the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Rating System (LEED) developed by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) offered a fundamental structure to students in both architecture and construction management curriculums.  Additionally, alumni and local professionals strongly indicate that LEED is steadily becoming a part of their practices, hence an important professional skill to learn as well.  “The LEED Green Building Rating System is a voluntary, consensus-based national standard for developing high-performance, sustainable buildings.  LEED provides a complete framework for assessing building performance and meeting sustainability goals. Based on well-founded scientific standards, LEED emphasizes state of the art strategies for sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection and indoor environmental quality. LEED recognizes achievements and promotes expertise in green building through a comprehensive system offering project certification, professional accreditation, training and practical resources.”  (U.S. Green Building Council, 2005)  It takes five aspects of any contemporary building project and suggests that green buildings should improve the health of its occupants, utilize local and renewable materials, create as little waste as possible both in its operation and construction, and even contribute to the improved environment of its neighbors.  All of the green building credits can be achieved through changing existing practices.
 
 
Case Study

 
The case study presented in this paper will chronologically follow the evolution of the collaborative initiative at University X, beginning in fall semester of 2003.  The conception of the project was based on creating an academic experience addressing the need for a change in the culture within the college, a perceived divide between construction and design students.
 
Original Academic Model
 
The original academic model for collaboration was fashioned to encourage social relationships before the beginning of the technical process.  Although collaboration is often considered and discussed in each year of both construction management and architecture curricula, it was agreed that advanced level students would be the most appropriate for this type of intense working relationship.  Beginning students would not be equipped with developed skill sets or appropriate knowledge to complete some of the assigned tasks, particularly tasks that would result in LEED credits. 
 
The project model was based on three phases during a regular semester, and included 30 construction students and 20 architecture students each in their last year of respective curricula.  The first phase was structured as “leveling through labor,” in that both architecture and construction students realized through observation that there was a common capacity in their physical construction skills.  All 50 students joined in physical labor via a local community service construction project for an entire Saturday.  The ulterior intent was for stereotypes to be broken down between the disciplines as each observed the others’ abilities and shortcomings, and to promote social interaction outside of a classroom setting through service learning. 
 
The second phase included an off-campus tour of a recently completed 1.1 million square foot LEED certified facility, after which students participated in a roundtable discussion with representatives from the design team, the construction joint venture, and the owner’s facilities director.  The trip yielded not only an in-depth exposure to LEED, but also afforded more opportunities for the students to interact across academic disciplines.  Perhaps most importantly, students observed industry members across all disciplines in a collaboration of their own in presenting the results of bringing the LEED certified project to fruition.
 
Finally, the students spent the latter half of the semester in a two month process of project collaboration in delivering an in-depth sustainable design and construction solution for a mixed use student housing proposal in a dense urban site.  The design studio that facilitated this process proposed 250 units of student housing on the downtown campus of a proximal urban university, 130 miles away from their own University.  Each inter-disciplinary team of students delivered a design solution for a specified project, as well as a pre-construction estimate, a complete overall project schedule, and a sustainability cost premium recap, all of which were presented through a “green” building lens.  This collaboration allowed not only for the design students to engage sustainable design and the appropriate technical information, but also allowed construction management students to be exposed to the same issues through the architectural studios and simultaneously the design process itself.  Participation in the final phase was in groups of five, including two design students and three construction management students.
 
Deliverables were assigned in the form of a Request for Proposal from a Mixed Use Urban Development Manager, as follows:
 
“Minimum Requirements:
A schematic design for all appropriate mixed use components on the site, including site and building plans, three dimensional models,  LEED certification information, and other items as appropriate or discussed with the owner’s design representatives.  Construction information including a conceptual estimate for the entire project, a proposed overall schedule using Primavera software, a recap of “premium” costs for proposed LEED design, construction, and operational elements, a jobsite overhead proposal including single and reoccurring costs, and a comprehensive site utilization plan with all necessary phasing, traffic control, etc.”
 
After 6 weeks of collaboration, the student projects were presented in context as a team, with all deliverables presented to a jury of both construction and design professionals from firms and practices nationwide.
 
Second Semester Refinements
 
The next iteration in the process utilized a one-to-one strategy with construction students being assigned to architecture students with independent design thesis projects, demonstrating the flexibility of the model.  The scale of the projects ranged significantly, with project results indicating a spread of construction costs between $2 million and $89 million.  The deliverables assigned were similar to that of the original model; however an extra component was added to give students latitude in how to promote their concept to the industry jury.  There were no objective criteria for the added component other than it had to be germane to the project and demonstrative of significant work in their collaborative efforts.  Student work for this component ranged from in-depth material analysis including life cycle impact and sustainability related performance, to complete business pro formas enumerating a proposed funding and delivery plan complete with ten year cash flows.  While the flexibility and deliverables of that semester’s undertaking were interesting, the authors concluded that the one-to-one pairing to independent design theses often presented challenging obstacles during the collaboration process as well as a certain lack of consistency which precipitated grading challenges.  The most notable problems were encountered in those design projects that were largely theoretical and lacked tangible building elements that could be quantified and analyzed.  The one on one pairing was appealing, however, as students were forced to produce their own work in lieu of hiding within a group.
 
Third Semester Results
 
For fall semester of 2004, the model returned to the group effort used in the original project, this time using the development of 800,000 square feet of student housing on University X’s campus as the project scope.  The model was revisited in three ways.  First, flexibility was further explored by using different faculty coordinating the construction students to demonstrate that the process was “reproducible.”  Second, significant precedent research was conducted by both design and construction students to help in developing a master plan and initial budget for the project.  Students researched campus housing through their respective disciplines to prepare themselves for providing both an appealing design and a realistic budget.  In this term, interim presentations were conducted in October complete with industry juries to provide feedback for teams to consider refining the final deliverables to be presented in December.  The last of the iterations for this term had perhaps the most impact on the project.  In November, students were given “correspondence” from the project owner indicating that there was an absolute budget constraint of $44,000 per bed.  This prompted response from almost all of the student groups.  Those who were in excess of the budget were forced to consider project design and scope changes and reductions; those who were not could reconsider design elements and features that might enhance their project’s appeal of the owner.  This model was very successful in that it most accurately captured a true collaborative effort by both construction and design students, primarily in forcing them to be dependent on their teammates to succeed.
 
Future Collaboration
 
Based on the success of the project, the authors now have a commitment from the Dean of the College to support every undergraduate construction student having this or some similar experience.  This is significant primarily in that the construction program at University X graduates some 90 students per year.  This will require multiple faculty members to be involved in both the construction and design departments, and is currently prompting efforts to regroup other coursework so that the “project” can become its own required 2-hour credit course.  By fall semester of 2005, it is hoped that this college-wide plan is in place.
 
 
Authors’ Conclusions
 
While the project deliverables included technical requirements that challenged the abilities of students, they were necessary in order to facilitate the collaboration and to advance the understanding of sustainable design and construction techniques.  For the construction students, the project requirements represented additional work beyond the normal coursework of the class through which the collaboration took place.  This precipitated a notable amount of after-hours work with their design counterparts, which appeared to contribute positively to promoting teamwork and mutual empathy.  Should the project become its own credit course, it is expected to be equally challenging for construction students by including in-depth coverage of pre-construction services, conceptual estimating and scheduling, business and real estate principals, and other pertinent topics to enhance the collaborative experience.
 
The most noteworthy result of this process was that students discovered the extent to which design and construction disciplines had to rely on each other in order to deliver a complete sustainable solution, and second, that the perceived disconnect between the two disciplines had diminished significantly for students involved in this model.  Evidence of these results was seen anecdotally in the final jury feedback.  The industry jurors were not afraid to critique across disciplines, questioning both the “why” and “how” of every project through an unsolicited collaboration of their own.  Students defended their strategies, demonstrating a cross-disciplinary understanding of their proposals.
 
Further, University X has demonstrated a commitment to sustainability by pursuing a silver LEED rating for a new facility within the college to be constructed in 2005, which will be among the first group of LEED accredited institutional buildings in the state.
 
Ultimately, the intent of the project over time will be to facilitate the reliance of students upon each other to bring complex proposals to fruition by the exchange of ideas and critique.  It is this type of team effort that they will likely experience in industry, for which this type of significant collaborative effort will prepare them.
 
 
References
 
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.
 
Mazria, E. (2003) "It's the Architecture, Stupid!" Solar Today, May/June,
pp. 48-51.
 
 Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary: Tenth Edition. (2004) Springfield, Ma, Merriam-Webster Inc.,  Merriam Webster Online Available from the World Wide Web: (http:// www.m-w.com)
 
O’Brien, W., Soibelman, L., and Elvin, G. (2003).  “Collaborative Design Processes: An Active- and Reflective-Learning Course in Multidisciplinary Collaboration”  Journal of Construction Education, ASC, Vol. 8, pp. 78-93
 
Robson, K. F., Caldwell, M., and Reynolds, J. (1997).  “Enhancing Communications in the Design and Construction Industry through Multi-Disciplinary Education”  Journal of Construction Education, ASC, Vol.1, pp. 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. (2002).  “The Design-Build Charrette – An Educational Model for Teaching Multidiscipline Team Collaboration”  ASC Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference, pp. 85-96
 
Sulbaran, T. (2003) “An Experience of a Multidisciplinary Project Involving Architectural Design, Quantity Takeoff and Virtual Reality Framed Within TAC-ABET Accreditation Criteria”  ASC Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference, pp. 185-192
 
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.
 
U.S. Green Building Council (2005).  URL:  www.usgbc.org