by Brad Powell

Interior design is the study and practice
of applying knowledge of human-environment interactions
to plan interior environments suitable for their intended use.
–Brad Powell

2.7.11 | Why design? In difficult economic times, Design is put on the back burner. These recessionary readjustments are important decisions and, accordingly, we should first ask, “Why Design?” for how else can we justify such a decision? The default answer of many business people seems to be that, design is just another discretionary matter, a luxury, something of relatively low priority.

If you have been reading this series, however, you will know that design is never discretionary. It’s unavoidable. It’s one of the salient characteristics of human beings. We act by design, by purpose, with a goal in mind. It’s unavoidable. We can’t help ourselves. The fact is, the very decision to defer interior design is part of an organizational redesign, one that determines that, in difficult economic times, whatever facility design or furnishing is in place is appropriate. In short, by deferring design we accept whatever is there, bad design or not, without asking, “What result?”

Space and furnishings are never free, and their design may be productive or detrimental. With these as givens, should anyone intelligently opt for bad or meaningless design by default? The day is not far away when a senior executive entering into a new workspace for his company will not say, “My, this looks [fill in the blank].” But, will ask, “What does this space cost per year, including costs of real estate, design, furnishings, lights, energy, cost of moves, including employee time and costs of lost opportunity and productivity during planning and moves?” The next question will be, “Having spent that money, why is it designed this way?” Facilities, procurement, human resources, finance, management and the design consultants will want to have a good answer, because the dollars are not immaterial. The ultimate inquiry is, “How effectively are we using the money we are spending on facility/real estate?” Obtaining great prices on real estate may save much money, but what good is it doing?

. . . the profession is ready to begin, and has begun, the shift of emphasis from technique to purpose . . . .

In short, many real estate decisions are made without the decision makers looking at and trying to answer the right questions. Regarding the costs of facilities, the question is not how much have you saved, but what have we got for our money. The A&D profession must be able to provide good answers, and those answers lie in understanding purposeful design.

Throughout this series, I have emphasized that interior design – and, in fact, all design for the built environment – is purposeful. In this regard, it many be helpful, for this discussion, to categorize the major aspects of architecture and design into two areas, technique and purpose. We know that learning in both of these areas continues through out the formal education process and professional practice.

One of the problems inherent in any professional education, however, is the heavy emphasis on technique. This is especially problematic where the professional education is not preceded by a broad liberal education. By its very nature, a professional education focuses on the tools and mental set needed to practice the profession. The fundamentals of technique come first. After all, the objective is to apply learned professional techniques in service of selected purposes within the scope of the profession. One cannot tell a story without first learning the language.

An early focus in design education on the techniques of professional practice serves a couple of essential functions. First, it provides a winnowing process through which individuals without the necessary skills, mental set, or dedication become aware of their unsuitability for a particular profession, or gain information regarding their own predilection for a specialized area within the profession. This is true for any profession, from mechanic to experimental physicist to pure mathematician, to say nothing of musicians, artists and designers of all sorts. Second, of course, this focus provides the apprenticeship during which a person learns the nature of their materials and how to apply them in particular cases.

The practice and perfection of technique is easy and enjoyable for people with the necessary talent and interest. Technical excellence, in turn, produces its own immediate rewards. The danger, however, is that many become so enamored of their burgeoning technique, and the ready positive feedback for its application, that they too often fail to develop adequately in the more arduous task of understanding the purpose of their endeavors. Thus, when I hear, as I often do, that designers are passionate about their profession, I fear that they often mean that they are passionate only about big “D” Design. As for the purpose of design, well, that’s another issue.

My reading of the developments in the thinking about the interior design practice, however, is that the profession is ready to begin, and has begun, the shift of emphasis from technique to purpose, how these purposes relate to the use of space and how the space/environment interacts with the people that inhabit or use that space. (See generally, officeinsight 11.22.10, 11.29.10, 12.6.10, 12.13.10,Teknion NeoCon 2010 Interior Design Panel)

Human-centric design is now well accepted in the interior design field. But this is a direction and a description, not a purpose, which requires digging much deeper, beyond concepts into data, beyond programming into systems analysis. This is not good news for designers who want to grab a few facts and dive into the creative process, but, then, the profession does itself a disservice by believing that every professional can be good at both. That’s like believing that architects do not need engineers: the social scientists and those educated in systems dynamics are no less than the engineers of interior environments.

(I note that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a practice that requires specialists in “technique” and specialists in “purpose.” In light of the great complexity of creating interior environments, that branching should probably be pursued for the interior design profession, even as modern architecture is dependent upon the distinctive education and experience of engineers of several types. The purpose aspect of interior design is, obviously, far more complex than the engineering components of architecture, and the latter have much more certain science to support them.)

Some of the ground work on the purpose of interior environments has been done. Psychologists, sociologists and anthropologists have identified certain human needs that must be satisfied, whatever the environment. One of the helpful theories offered to explain this is that of the motivational psychologist Abraham Maslow. (http://www.abraham-maslow.com) Evolutionary biologists and psychologist have also identified certain characteristics of humans that reflect their evolutionary development in an effort to explain preferences for certain environments and types of stimulation.

Even so, much more is required: the elements of all of these underlying aspects must be integrated into the even more important system dynamics, without which the holistic goal that we all know must be treated will escape us. This requires an analysis of the systems elements, an understanding of how they work together, and the effects of the system as a whole, which is much more than a mechanical aggregation of its parts. (See, for example, Jamshid Gharajedaghi, Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity: A Platform for Designing Business Architecture, 2nd Edition, Butterworth-Heinemann, (2006); see Systems Dynamicsgenerally)

Within any system, often overlooked, but pervasive in all aspects of our physical, psychological and social beings are two fundamental characteristics, which must be taken into account in constructing our interior environments:

http://media.officeinsight.com/images/template/icons/gt.tradegothicbold2.14pt.12px.png); ">
• The need for form and order, a sense of purpose and permanence, our culture, values and mission, a lodestar that guides our thinking, our actions and our sense of place or orientation in the physical world and in our every-day consciousness
• The need for an environment that allows for continuous change, in many ways and at the many levels that constitute life and death, evolution, adaption and extinction, social and economic existence, choice and the myriad of functions and roles upon which the human organism and human organizations, cultures and governments are built. The American values of freedom, liberty, pursuit of happiness, capitalism, competition, etc., are found within this aspect.

Without form and some sort value system and regulation toward it, we have chaos, mob rule, cut-throat competition, and many forms of derangement and madness. Without the ability to change, we have bureaucracy, stagnation, monopoly and other anti-competitive behavior, tyranny and oppression.

Even a cursory look at our universe – from quantum mechanics to cosmology, from cellular biology to organizational behavior – we see the same basic pattern: continuous change that underlies quasi-permanent (evolving) things, structures and institutions. Like the shark that dies when it ceases to move, so it is with all things in our universe, and, indeed, the universe itself. The study of the environment and its constituents, societies and other organizations and economies is the study of ostensibly static phenomena (viewed from our microscopic lifespans) and their constituent changes, the continuous interaction of the elements of the resulting systems and of how these systems change over time.

All of this is, of course, obvious once one stops to think about it, but applying these concepts in any particular situation is exceedingly complex. Perforce, we are always dealing with many moving targets and our analysis, which must always be limited by certain parameters, can only provide situational answers.

Nevertheless, the importance of keeping these two, seeming paradoxical, conditions – form and change – in mind cannot be over-emphasized. The danger, as we repeatedly see in many manifestations, is to think that we can treat or pursue only one of these conditions. When we find or create something we like or that we think is beneficial, we want to preserve and perpetuate it. A common example is a particular process that is used to accomplish a set goal. Commonly, we think of government agencies, which tend to study and formalize processes to achieve uniformity and equality of treatment; deviations we tend to see as corruption, as in corruption of people or process.

Inevitably, the rigid adherence to any process, however, particularly in the absence of a continuous re-evaluation of that process, results in what we call bureaucracy. Success always carries the seeds of its own destruction because we always want to continue doing what has worked before. The rewards of success reinforce the behavior that produced it, even though the challenges have subsequently changed. (See BIFMA Leadership Conference, this issue, whereRoger Martin remarks how our ability to use data to prove that design works can impede innovation.)

To narrow the discussion to our particular concern, the built environment, we can see these two forces creating inevitable tensions, and, later, I will discuss how these two forces can help us begin to see more clearly some historical distinctions among architecture, interior design and decoration. For now, let us look at the corporate procurement process as an example, particularly those processes involving creative professions such as interior design.

In many cases, RFPs for a project are sent out to the professionals and, thereafter, further communication is forbidden while the procurement folks work through their process. The result: disappointing sameness and a lack of progress. See officeinsight 5.3.10, Haworth Presents: The Interfaces of Interior Design – Summary and Commentary: Part 3), which reads in part as follows:

Apparently achieving a more effective process is much more difficult than it might seem, to a great extent because of the client’s internal processes. “We tend to have our own sourcing process and RFP process,” said [Ed] Chuchla [of Disney], “and these processes reflect the buildup of the ages. They get in the way of engaging with wonderful talent to get things going. Reinventing becomes much more difficult, because it goes into realms I can’t control.”

This type of thinking and action is pervasive, from procurement, to the standardization requirements of facilities managers, to the “don’t touch the furniture” attitudes of designers who want their designs always viewed in their pristine form, clean desks and no personal items and all. (We needn’t even comment on the outerface of interior design as portrayed in the trade magazines, design as art, etc.)

On the positive side, form and lodestar thinking is evident in a number of positive ways in current interiors work:

http://media.officeinsight.com/images/template/icons/gt.tradegothicbold2.14pt.12px.png); ">
• aesthetics, particularly those reflecting a harmony of form and color, and especially when combined with a coherent narrative and reaching its present apotheosis with branded environments
• working with organizational and local cultures
• analysis of organizational networks and key roles
• wayfinding and the use of graphics in interiors
• increased use of sun light, which helps individuals adjust their circadian rhythms to the environment
• involvement of senior leadership in facility design
• inter-departmental decision-making and budgeting for facilities use
• generally, incorporating facilities into organizational strategies

The other side of the coin is too much change, change without purpose or direction, change for the sake of change, chaos and wasted motion. In this regard, one might validly suggest that too many in the design professions are stuck in thechange/technique aspect of their profession – e.g., no two projects the same, “innovation” above all else and so on – without much thought of the purpose or system, the lodestar, in respect of which the changes are being made. The term “innovation” is loosely used to encompass any variation producing good design. Properly viewed, this is “good design, “not innovation.”

Are we too interested in what the trend is this year, what styles are in vogue, what colors will be everywhere, the latest interesting use of a material, novel shapes for a building? Or perhaps, we simply grasp at what seems like an appealing idea, such as lower panels, floods of daylight, energy savings, smaller workspaces, but without a full understanding of the implications such as inappropriate acoustics, inadequate lighting, lack of comfortable territorial zones, glare and overheated zones near windows, reduced productivity and employee satisfaction, and so forth.

Forms, proportions, geometric shapes, colors, patterns and textures, and acceptable aesthetics are all vital elements of architecture and design and bring to bear beneficial elements of stability and change, depending on their use. But, the building professions are moving well beyond these areas of traditional interest. Getting the right square footage for the right number of people with some sort of rudimentary understanding of helpful adjacencies, with pleasant, functional furniture and non-disturbing design don’t do it, not by a long shot. It is the right time to get serious about the important strategic and tactical effects of the built environment and a complete acceptance that we live and function in a continuously dynamic purposeful environment.

Clearly, with the continuous, ever mutable symbiotic relationship between form and change, the optimization of any built environment, including interiors, requires the active collaboration between the most senior levels of the organization – the leadership that establishes the vision for the organization, the element of form – and the participants at every level of the organization and the design professionals called in to help create the organization’s environment, the elements of change.

We can see the change principle and its requirements in play in many ways in interior design today:

http://media.officeinsight.com/images/template/icons/gt.tradegothicbold2.14pt.12px.png); ">
• greater of transparency for organizational affairs, physically and figuratively, including some open plan arrangements and permeable spaces (See One Shelley Street images, this article, above and first page)
• personalization of workspaces
• consolidation during recessions, and expansion during good times
• ability to convert single large offices into two smaller offices
• Movable, easy reconfigurable furniture, movable walls, adjustable, movable task lights
• Conferencing areas in increasing numbers, of various sizes and configuration, including small conference areas and informal meeting spaces furnished lounge chairs with tablet arms
• Individual climate controls and living plants
• Cafés and other places for informal information exchanges
• Remote conferencing equipment
• Rapid Continuous Improvement philosophies and practices in manufacturing organizations such as HNI
• Information gathering and collaboration advances, such as Scott Francisco’s Sandbox (See officeinsight 10.12.09, Scott Francisco’s Sandbox: He’s Not Just Playing Around), and Annie Lee’s Project Room (See officeinsight 11.15.10, Environetics Comes Full Circle)

SCOTT FRANCISCO, SANDBOX: THE SANDBOX ENABLE US TO LOOK AT A SPACE THROUGH THE EYES OF THE LEADERS AND STAFF WHO WORK IN IT.

My examples of form and change above range from the obvious to the counterintuitive, but we are only at the beginning of discovery and application of knowledge for interior design. For example, do our facilities’ capacity and employment practices really optimize performance during industry cycles, and, if not, how can interior design and architecture help? What kind of data should be collected and analyzed in order to effectively design facilities, and what methods are effective at gathering accurate and complete information? When organizations combine or move, how will the redesign affect the networks of communication within the organization?

These questions cannot be answered solely on the basis of common sense or experience, or through formal organizational documents such as organizational charts. We need to step up to new higher levels of analytical tools.

NEIL FRANKEL

System dynamics provides helpful tools. One good example of this in action is the work of networking expertKaren Stephenson, Ph.D., IIDA Star Award winner, etc. (http://www.netform.com) I remember sitting to Neil Frankel (formerly head of interior design at SOM Chicago, now Frankel + Coleman, adjunct professor Graduate School of Architecture, University of Wisconsin/Milwaukee, Interior Design magazine Hall of Fame, Interiors Legend 2005) at an IIDA conference several years ago. After a presentation by Dr. Stephenson, he whispered, “I’ll never be able to do an adjacency plan without thinking of this.” The point was that the avenues and gates of communication, and the importance of certain people in an organization, are not readily apparent, and identifying these key factors, and designing for them, takes considerable analysis of the right data to even begin to make the right decisions.

(The learned and insightful Mr. Frankel commented several years ago (as reported in Interior Design magazine) upon his election to the magazine’s Hall of Fame, which supports my proposition:

His [Neil Frankel’s] goal at Skidmore, he comments, was to continue the firm's tradition of excellence while adding to it "an atmosphere of risk, chance and learning.") [1994])

In conclusion, I note that the technical aspects of interior design that are the focus of much of design education are, by far, the easiest aspects of creating environments, for those with the needed talent. At the same time, we must recognize that those who can adroitly translate the complexities of environmental interaction into tangible workplaces and other environments have a special skill and training that set them apart from most of us mortals. We, and they, must learn to capitalize upon their talents and techniques. But they must learn to access the complex lessons systems dynamics and its underlying sciences.

In the next installment, I will offer some thoughts on the differences I see among the building design professions, using the concepts set forth in this installment as a background.

websites:

http://media.officeinsight.com/images/template/icons/gt.tradegothicbold2.14pt.12px.png); ">
• http://www.abraham-maslow.com/
• http://www.netform.com/