Becci Taylor 2013-05-19T09:45:59-04:00 Becci Taylor http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=becci-taylor Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Becci Taylor Good old fashioned elbow grease. Why Don't We Design Better? tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2415850 2013-01-05T12:08:33-05:00 2013-03-07T05:12:01-05:00 Becci Taylor http://www.huffingtonpost.com/becci-taylor/
Buildings are generally conceived, designed, built and used in a linear way. The norm does not encourage interaction between these processes and feedback loops in the industry are fairly poor. As a result there is significant wastage of time and effort from highly trained minds. And as we commoditize concepts such as 'sustainability', an increasingly regulated construction industry continues to enable folly to the extent that we may be in danger of building increasingly worse spaces that are harder to build and more difficult to operate.

I love great architecture, and don't want some notion of 'sensible' design for easy construction and simple operation to impede its creation. I believe that collaborative integrated design ought to inspire and enhance architectural vision. Better buildings are better for people in aesthetic and operational terms, leading to truly sustainable results.

A building must consider and respond to its setting, and interface positively with its surroundings. It should simultaneously take opportunity from its context and improve by its presence. This architectural attitude should be extended to the interaction of the building with the physical environment and the powerful natural resources of sun and air. Truly integrated building design considers the opportunities in the environment (often called passive design) such that the physics of the building are efficient. It also considers the construction of the building, and the use and maintenance of the building. To be truly successful, this process ought to also start with a client brief which is developed with input from the team.

In most examples this simply doesn't happen. And there are plenty of examples where the lack of integrated holistic design leads to complete unfitness for purpose. The worst cases I have seen include schools where access to services is so poor that they cannot be properly maintained or where internal acoustics prevent teaching; or buildings with glazing that causes uncomfortable overheating. These failures of the design process are often due to an 'additive' approach to design.

The extreme additive design process follows a linear process of conception by a client; development by an architect; being 'made to work' by engineers; and made buildable more cost effectively by contractors. Design in this way cannot be integrated. Details are solved piece by piece. Elements are added to make it work, make it 'green' and pass building regulations or score points. I am an engineer; I am trained to solve problems. But it is deeply unsatisfying to solve problems that didn't really need to exist in the first place. And design in this manner loses the elegance and efficiency that makes great engineering and great architecture.

As the building process gets more complex, the problem gets worse. This quote from Ove Arup poses the problem well.
"Specialization is the way civilization moves forward - and perhaps it is the way it will destroy itself. Faced with a complex entity we split it up, catalogue the parts, study and develop them separately and then fail to put them together again."


These issues are not something we can legislate for. Building regulations have made significant improvements in elemental performance of buildings, but it is unlikely that they could, without becoming unwieldy, change fundamental problems in the design process. This is not an issue for the government to regulate but instead for designers to embrace morally. Human energy is wasted and results are poorer when design processes ignore important constraints and opportunities at the outset.

There are 'sustainability' scoring systems out there (such as BREEAM and LEED) which help, but also encourage a check box mentality of 'we don't get points for that, so there is no point in doing it.' There is little encouragement for egalitarian design teams. How about a scoring system that awards a point for 'the architects talked to the engineers before they picked up a pen' or the involvement of constructors early on the design process? And are there lessons to be learnt and shared across industries?]]> Mysterious Ambition tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2088332 2012-11-07T11:20:51-05:00 2013-01-07T05:12:01-05:00 Becci Taylor http://www.huffingtonpost.com/becci-taylor/ here I have now started to wonder about the mysterious force of ambition that is driving me and my peers. Traditional gender roles have always painted women as 'less ambitious' than men, but enlightenment is pretty much here. Ambition may have different emphases for women, but regardless of gender, there is sense of discontented ambition to be observed in my generation, a force that is more ambiguous than a plan for our lives. After carrying out some casual research I have distilled three distinct elements of this ambition. I propose that what drives us can be categorized into three elements.

1. Fulfillment of potential
2. Making the world 'better'
3. Vanity

Ambitious people are driven to fulfill their potential. This can be along various axes; whether intellectual, creative, to fulfill our potential for happiness, or simply to fulfill our earning potential. Fulfilling whatever this potential is vital for satisfaction. It is important to understand and embrace this - at a business level it is critical for successful teams and staff retention.

Making the world better is an important force within our generation. This is not about something as glib as 'saving the world' but rather making it better to be in. This is easy to define in my industry - construction. We can make the world better through better buildings, better public realm, better infrastructure. But broaden the context and it applies universally. Perhaps this can be defined better as optimizing situations to maximize the potential of others. Leading to their happiness and success through buildings, or teaching; through art, writing or websites. The more megalomanic of us may wish to change entire operating structures - be it industries or governance. Better systems produce better outputs (and more value).

Finally there is vanity. This is perhaps the most powerful and drives the first two elements. Our measure of our own potential ranges along a vanity scale from pessimistic, through self awareness, to egotism. And to make the world better we must have sufficient self belief to believe that our proposals are the most likely to make the world the most better. To make our mark on the world, we are best propelled by the belief that ours is the best mark.

So vanity is a virtue because it can drive us. But it is also a vice because it can go too far. It could be egotism rather than selfishness that leads to a narrow understanding of value, limited to short term personal rewards. Is that also what can lead people to agree to unrealistic demands from clients? When we mis-judge value or agree to unrealistic demands it leads to poor performance, high cost (financial and personal) and non-fulfillment of potential.

The solution is astute self awareness (of ourselves and our teams) in order to form productive relationships. Value judgements must be widened to focus on people and experience as well as considering future feedback benefits to ensure we maximize opportunity. Honest communication about the implications of actions can be used to breed better relationships and make the world better. Ultimately, otherwise there will be disappointment, and in disappointment nobody realizes their potential.]]> A Woman In Engineering Thinking About The Future tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1970248 2012-10-16T11:05:19-04:00 2012-12-16T05:12:02-05:00 Becci Taylor http://www.huffingtonpost.com/becci-taylor/
I've been involved in engineering for 16 years through school, university and now as an Associate at Arup. This is an important part of my life, and is especially exciting as we enter what the BBC calls engineering's golden age. I can now see the various strands of my personal interests and professional life starting to coalesce: being an engineer, being a woman, being passionate about design and wanting to make things better.

What excites me is the idea that mixed gender leadership, a new respect for engineering, and educated, satisfied people can start to make a serious difference to both the developed and developing world. The most rewarding experiences of my life combine these things, and include designing a Kindergarten for rural Ghana as part of a truly collaborative team and developing a masterplan that improves the climate for urban living in Doha (which just won a Future Project of the year award).

I see Sustainable Development as the product of efficient, functional design which considers all of its impacts and capitalizes on opportunities. It's a recurrent theme in what I do, but is not a blind aim. It's really important to distinguish Sustainable Development from the concept of being 'sustainable', a word which applies as much to a profitable arms business as it does to recycling paper.

I'm proud to be shortlisted as a 'Woman of the Future'. Awards for women are useful on a personal level as they provide support and inspiration. They are also useful on a global level because the greater female participation and resulting gender diversity they encourage is beneficial for us all. I believe this benefit derives from an approach to decision-making and leadership which tends to be more prevalent in women than in men, a topic summarized well by the European commission in 2012 and also McKinsey in its Women Matter series.

For me, one key element of this approach includes a greater emphasis on collaboration and the different measures of success that go with this. In a collaboration, success is measured by the success of the product not the individual, which I believe to be ultimately more rewarding, more sustainable (the dictionary meaning) and more efficient. People working collaboratively share information, are nicer to each other and are probably happier. A frustrating characteristic of the construction industry is that many new buildings are new prototypes with newly formed teams not bringing the full weight of the industry's lessons learnt in past projects to the table. This doesn't make sense or encourage progress!

Another key element of a "more female" approach is a wider concept of value. Decisions based solely on the bottom line don't always lead to the most financially sustainable ends. Value needs to be considered much more widely; in terms of relationships, job satisfaction, education, experience. These wider considerations can lead to huge financial gains, for example through driving competitive advantage and creating new opportunities.

I think engineering needs more leadership like this and the UK needs more engineers leading it. I want to be a part of this, and awards for women can help me do this now. What we have to remember is that these awards will only be truly successful when they no longer need to exist.]]>