4.1

DESIGN FIRM BUSINESS MODELS When starting a firm, being intentional and strategic about a business model may be challentging. Nevertheless, understanding the options and proceeding with self-aware- ness is essential. The material in this section was sourced from The Architect's Guide to Small Firm Practice (Wiley 2010), by Rena M. Klein, FAIA. In general, a business model is a plan that articulates what business is being con- ducted and how the business will generate income. Renowned consultant David Mais- ter, author of many books on management of professional service firms, has identified three business models that are common in organizations that offer professional ser- vices: efficiency-, experience-, and expertise-based. Each of these business models can yield growth and profitability, assuming that they are operated appropriately. Efficiency-Based Firms Efficiency-based firms are focused on fast and less-expensive project delivery. These firms often specialize in one project type or a narrow range of services and tend to serve clients that are looking for standard solutions and quick turnaround. For example, a small architectural firm that serves residential developers might operate effectively within this "efficiency" model (see Figure 5.1.). DESIGN FIRM BUSINESS MODELS EFFICIENCY • We can do it better, faster, cheaper. • We do projects that are not complex and have many repeatable elements. • We employ the latest production technology and continuously improve production processes. EXPERIENCED • We know what we are doing. • We can do unique complex projects by applying our accrued knowledge. • We leverage relationships to acquire projects and collaborate to deliver them. EXPERTISE • We have special knowledge or talent. • We serve as expert consultants or are design stars. • We continually work to innovate and to create and acquire new knowledge. Excerpted from Architect's Guide to Small Firm Management, Klein, 2010 The Architect's Guide to Small Firm Management (Wiley, 2010) FIGURE 5.1 Efficiency-based Firms Rely on Repeatable Processes. Because efficiency-based firms do projects with a significant amount of routine work, founders may be able to hire a less experienced person for production assistance as soon as workload permits. This will help to keep production costs down, while free- ing the founder to acquire more work. Routine work may also lend itself to having a remote virtual workforce or to subcontracting production work. With repeatable ele- ments and standard processes, project delivery can be streamlined. Profitability is dependent on volume and productivity and is relatively easy to obtain once systems are in place. Sustainable success in these firms requires continuous improvement of work processes and staying current with technology and trends. Experience-Based Firms When asked, most small firm leaders will describe their firms as operating within the second business model—experienced-based—and most are correct in their assessment, to a greater or lesser extent. In contrast with efficiency- based firms that have deep experience but engage in rou- tine projects, true experience-based firms are proficient at solving non-routine and complex design problems. While their experience may be in a certain project type, such as public schools or museums, their core competency is the ability to successfully organize and deliver significant and complicated projects. Many successful experience-based firms find they are able to apply their accrued knowledge to a diversity of project types, a strategy that can help weather economic downturns in individual market sectors. (See Figure 5.2.) Starting an experience-based firm requires a founder to have knowledge and experience in solving complex design problems and serving on teams that regularly exe- cute significant projects. The initial management chal- lenge for this type of firm is to match the project task to the "pay-grade." Much of a design fee can be spent when the founder performs work that could be done by someone with a lower salary. For solo practitioners who have meaningful experience in complex projects, a first hire might be administrative support, rather than produc- tion help. This will free the founder to do more billable work and nurture relationships that will lead to more opportunities. 188 Organizational Development PART 2: FIRM MANAGEMENT Experienced • • Profitability depends on well managed projects and skillful use of staff resources Mixture of tasks and staffing levels Balanced staffing sriangle Partners/Principals Project managers/Project architects Interns/Drafters The Architect's Guide to Small Firm Management (Wiley, 2010) FIGURE 5.2 Experience-based firms Rely on Applying Accrued Knowledge. Once the workload of a start-up firm grows, hiring a skilled and experienced archi- tect to assist the founder, as opposed to an intern, may be the best practice. This person should be able to manage projects and provide reliable assistance to the founder in delivering complex projects. Virtual collaboration with other experienced collaborators as subconsultants or joint venture partners is also an excellent strategy for project delivery in start-up experience-based firms. Sustainability for experience-based firms is enhanced when they are adept at creating and acquiring new knowledge from doing projects that can be applied to future commissions. Expertise-Based Firms Expertise-based firms have service offerings that rest upon deep knowledge and/or exceptional talent. (See Figure 5.3.) These firms include those headed by "starchitects," with their unique style and abilities, or, more commonly, specialists in a narrow band of professional knowledge such as acoustical design or commercial kitchen design. For founders who have deep knowledge or unique talent, an expertise-based firm may allow a financially successful one-person firm to be established and sustained. Administrative help is advisable to free the principal to complete billable work. How- ever, the straightforward nature of this kind of practice might keep administrative demands to a minimum, allowing the principals to do it themselves. Since most of the work is non-routine, few, if any, middle-level and junior staff are needed to complete the work. More commonly, expert practitioners will partner with experts in their related field to offer a broader range of services. Many also connect with academic institutions that allow expert practitioners the opportunity to teach and facilitate research activities that forward knowledge creation. One- or two-person firms can be very successful using this model since profitability often depends on high hourly rates for services. Any Project That Comes Through the Door: Opportunistic vs. Strategic Most design firms will start in an opportunistic manner—a project is offered that allows an architect's initiative, talent, and training to be exercised and showcased. Whether making the leap from employment by others to being self-employed, or start- ing a firm because no other option is available, since design services are project-based, having a project to do is usually a prerequisite to starting a firm. This may make the discussion of choosing a business model academic, as the kind of firm being established may be dependent on the job opportunities present in the marketplace. Given this reality—an environment where it appears that all opportunities must be explored and accepted—how is it possible to be strategic? The answer to this question is simple. All opportunities need to be explored, but not all opportunities must be accepted. The interests, skills, and aspirations of the founder must be considered at firm start-up in order to set a course toward both per- sonal satisfaction and financial success. Nevertheless, accepting any project that comes along can lead to a strong general- ist practice and can be a strategic choice in itself. Generalist practices may be particu- larly successful for firms established in smaller communities, where the work available is likely to be varied in building type and scale. These firms prosper from the broad generalized knowledge they have acquired and can become stable and well-rounded. The downside of this strategy for many practitioners and start-ups is that it may limit the depth of professional knowledge acquired over time, leading to fewer opportunities for complex projects. Firms that accept "any project that comes through the door" can become unfocused and spread too thin. Naturally, the core competencies, personal connections, and interests of firm lead- ers will attract certain clients and projects even if there is no intentionality. At some point in the firm's life, especially if firm growth is a goal, a more intentional approach to the firm's business model will be required. Figure 5.4 illustrates how the business models are formed by the interrelationship between a firm's level of specialization and its ability to deliver complex projects. Once a firm's business model is understood, firm growth or sustainable stability as a solo practitioner or small firm becomes more possible. START-UP BUSINESS PLANNING Legal Requirements There are several choices for a firm's legal structure regardless of whether a firm is founded by a single individual, a two-person partnership, or a group of owners. SPECIALIST GENERALIST Expertise-based specialist complex projects Experience-based generalist complex projects COMPLEX PROJECTS ROUTINE PROJECTS Efficiency-based specialist routine projects Any project that comes through the door generalist, complex projects The Architect's Guide to Small Firm Management (Wiley, 2010) FIGURE 5.4 Business Models for Design Firms Relate to the Level of Project Complexity and Specialized Knowledge Required. According to the 2012 AIA Firm Survey, 28 percent of all firms were formed as S corporations, making this the most common legal structure among all firms in 2011. This exceeded the percentage of firms formed as sole proprietorships (20 percent). Setting up as a partnership of two or more requires additional considerations besides the legal structure of the firm. It is important to consider the makeup of agreements between those entering a partnership. ▶ See the backgrounder accompanying this article, Firm Legal Structures, regarding the key factors to consider in choosing or modifying an architecture firm's legal structure. PARTNER AND SHAREHOLDER AGREEMENTS Fresh beginnings are exciting. The potential for success can seem a certainty for an enthusiastic new firm starting out. Principals with diverse backgrounds and talents can join forces to create a greater whole, but partners are distinct people who bring their own strengths and weaknesses to a firm. As hard as this can be to envision at the beginning of the new firm, disagreements among partners can ruin a business. In five or ten years, one partner can forget how important the talents of another were to starting a new business, and focus instead on something less positive. A contract between partners can seem unnecessary when things are going smoothly, but will be a necessity when rough spots arise. Avoiding some conflicts is possible with a partnership agreement that specifies the following: • Names of all partners, their legal relationships, and their ownership percentage. Some things that help decide who owns how much of a business include who initiated it, who brings the strongest reputation or expertise, who made financial contributions for start-up, and who does what work. • How compensation and financial earnings are to be calculated and distributed among partners (or owners, if a corporation). • Financial responsibilities. How will expenses be divided and paid? Who has the right to financially indebt the firm and its principals? • Decision making and the organizational hierarchy. Determine from the beginning who is in charge and of what. When a partner has a certain skill set or specialized knowledge, responsibility for decisions in those areas can be assigned accordingly. • Credit for work. Architecture is a creative endeavor. Decide whose name will appear first and any circumstances that might change the order. • Dispute resolution. If a disagreement does arise, everyone will know in advance whether it will be resolved through earnest discussions, arbitration, mediation, or a court of law. • What happens when a partner is sick for an extensive period, becomes disabled, or dies. • How a partner can leave and divest his or her interest to the remaining partners. • The procedure for bringing in new shareholders. Reprinted from the AIA Handbook 14th edition, "Starting an Architectural Firm," Moreno.Financial Setup Financial planning is a vital part of getting ready to open a new firm. Key tasks in the financial setup of a firm may include the following: • Selecting and setting up an accounting system • Establishing tax identification and filing status based on legal structure • Establishing a business bank account • Engaging trusted professional advisers, including an accountant and attorney, if needed, to help set up legal structure or agreements • Acquiring start-up funding from outside sources, if necessary Logistics Facilities Since home offices keep overhead low and are eligible for tax deductions, their inherent cost-effectiveness and flexibility is a natural fit for many solo practitioners and start- ups. While individual work settings can be increasingly remote, singularly efficient, and still be fully "connected," many find working alone day after day to be unsatisfying. Firm founders who have recently left a larger firm may miss the collegial company of others during the workday. In addition, the continuing need for face-to-face meetings as part of the project acquisition and delivery process requires most practitioners to have access to conference rooms and meeting spaces. As founders contemplate the leap from the home office, or options to augment and mitigate its limitations, a number of flexible space arrangements are available for con- sideration: Rental Office Spaces or "Executive" Suites: The predominant typology of emerg- ing office arrangements, these are fully furnished, rentable office spaces for hourly, daily, or monthly rental. Office rental arrangements of this type commonly provide offerings beyond the rental of physical workstations, including social/meeting/ conference spaces, high-speed Internet bandwidth and connectivity, and telephone and receptionist service, as well as mail handling. However, the typical production necessi- ties of an architect, such as large-scale plotting and scanning, are usually not readily available in executive suites, and there are generally no spaces or accommodations for equipment storage or services like model-making or photography. Those with a consistent need for meeting space may benefit the most from this kind of arrangement. Sole practitioners, specialty design consultants, and others not providing a full range of architectural services may also find these arrangements ben- eficial. Since rental costs are typically on a per-use basis, this arrangement can be cost effective. Virtual Offices: This office arrangement offers users a professional ambience and permanent telephone number with answering services, and in some cases mail han- dling, while reducing the overhead costs of a traditional office. As this is not a physical space rental, this amenity is particularly attractive to firms without a dedicated or permanent office space that would benefit from having fixed contact information for calls and mailings. This can provide stability for client corre- spondences regardless of where the practitioners are. For firms just starting out as well as those exploring multiple temporary or satellite locations, there may be considerable benefits to having a fixed office address and virtual phone line system. When using an office address located in a state where an architect is not licensed, practitioners should check with the state's Architectural Licensing Board for relevant requirements or regulations. Coworking Spaces: A work space shared with other professionals, within or outside the design disciplines, is a popular office concept. Unlike executive suites, these work- places are set up to foster interaction between users. Sole practitioners seeking poten- tial synergies and collaboration with other like-minded industry colleagues, or simply PART 2: FIRM MANAGEMENT 192 Organizational Development seeking to simulate the congeniality of the office environment, may benefit the most from this space arrangement. Rental costs are typically on a per-use to monthly basis, and can be cost effective with some limitations on the type of work done there. Similar to the rental offices/executive suites, most coworking spaces are generally "plug-and- play," and any equipment storage (e.g., laptops) is typically offered to monthly subscrib- ers. As such, these types of workspaces can be less convenient on a per-use basis. In many cities, design-focused coworking facilities have been established, such as the Design Annex located in Somerville, Massachusetts. The Design Annex offer ame- nities that cater to a design office culture, specifically, architecture, graphic design, and web design. In the Design Annex, a dedicated model-making facility encourages a robust range of creative design work. Some coworking spaces participate in global reciprocity programs that allow their members to use other spaces in the United States and abroad. Under the Co-working Visa Program, the Design Annex allows active members of one space to use other coworking spaces around the world for free for a set number of days. Shared Office: Subletting office space from an established firm or sharing perma- nent office space with a number of other sole practitioners is the most conventional of the flexible office arrangements. For the leaseholder, there are some obvious benefits such as sharing overhead (e.g., rent/mortgage, utilities, Internet service, printers, paper, and ink, etc.) as well as having tenants who offer unique skill sets and professional services. More important, if collaboration is encouraged, new tenants may provide access to new markets and clients. For start-up renters looking for a space requiring limited customization, a shared office space could offer benefits such as reduced start-up time and cost efficiencies. While these arrangements are often short-term, since firms outgrow their shared office space arrangement, some firms may find natural synergies and ultimately consider long-term lease commitments to capitalize on both the cost-sharing benefits and the partnering opportunities. Infrastructure Never has the basic operating toolkit for the start-up had such relatively low barriers to entry. Full suites of Internet-based applications can be easily hosted with basic func- tionality at no cost, and open-source (nonproprietary) applications from sites like Oracle's OpenDocs.org have lowered the historical software acquisition investment costs for new businesses. Telecommunications tools, such as Skype® Internet phone service and web-meeting services such as GoTo MeetingTM, provide relatively low-fee services while consider- ably improving the lines of global teleconferencing for firms of all scales. Cloud-based data sharing tools like DropBox® allow multiple users to access electronic files from a remote, independently hosted server that is hosted for a monthly fee, thereby alleviat- ing the business owner of the typically higher hard and soft costs of maintaining and periodically upgrading a conventional in-office server. For project management, new integrated project tracking and management appli- cations can provide a wide range of functionality that could put off the need for dedi- cated accounting staff as a firm grows. Current design-friendly software such as ArchiOfficeTM provides customized project controls for timecards, project scheduling, and project tracking. A complementary accounting application can integrate with ArchiOfficeTM for invoicing and expense reporting to clients. For many start-ups, more affordable and less industry-specific small business accounting software, such as Intuit's QuickBooksTM, may be adequate. Financial Resources Start-up financing is increasingly difficult to obtain as architecture firms and their owners are often required to meet stringent loan eligibility criteria. Without consider- able personal savings or personal loans, start-ups need to be wise with their resource allocation and thoughtfully prioritize office start-up investments. While firm IT infra- structure needs can be obtained at a minimal cost, there are still significant financial considerations to address at the outset of setting up a professional services firm, includ- ing but not limited to office fixtures and furnishings, licensing and insurance, market- ing and business development, salaries (for the founder and/or staff), and supplies. Traditional sources of small business loans and start-up capital made available through agencies such as the Small Business Administration (SBA) are increasingly limited and not always accessible for many founders of start-up firms. It is recom- mended that firms contact their local banking institutions that provide SBA loans to determine their eligibility to participate. Typically, there are two types of SBA loans: the basic 7(a) Loan Program, which is the most used type of loan the SBA offers and is available in amounts up to $2 million; and the MicroLoan Program, which specializes in loans for small business up to $35,000. According to the SBA website, their 7(a) Loan Program may be the most inclusive of all their resources, as it provides "financial help for businesses with special requirements. For example, funds are available for loans to businesses that handle exports to foreign countries, businesses that operate in rural areas, and for other very specific purposes." In the case of new firms without established credit history, it can be difficult to qualify for loans and lines of credit, and, as such, other approaches to gathering start-up financing may need to be considered, including but not limited to these: 1. Secure personal funding and loans through: a. Creditcards.Thisisoftentheleastdesirableoption,asinterestratesaretypically quite high and overburdening a balance can adversely affect the guarantor's credit history. b. Personal loans. Family, friends, and personal contacts. c. Vendors and supplier loans and lines of credit. 2. Securing investors through: a. Funding "spin-offs." New independent firms can be financed as offshoots of an existing practice or as a result of a strategic alliance with a larger firm. Sometimes large organizations are interested in funding smaller, start-up firms or even aca- demic research units that can help advance a specific technology or practice initiative that may provide a strategic advantage or unique access to new or emerging markets. b. Partnership arrangements. Firm founders may consider negotiating a long-term agreement with future shareholders to consider "sweat equity" in the firm's nascent period. In the start-up phase, potential shareholders could work in exchange for future shares of the practice. It is important for potential share- holders to review all state licensure requirements for firm shareholders and to get any agreements in writing. 3. Secure grant funding through: a. Microfinancing or "crowd funding." Grassroots fund-raising, usually via online platforms, from many funders (often in limited and small amount) to support a particular cause, project, or organization. b. Not-for-profit organization status. Some firms establish themselves as 501(c)(3) entities, with a focus on public interest and pro bono design work. Organizations of this type tend to be community design centers and these entities typically do not engage in for-profit work. Marketing Social media tools provide a means of online communication between the user and a larger audience. With the relative abundance of powerful and popular Internet-based social media applications—specifically Facebook©, Twitter©, Pinterest© and Linked In©—marketing for a start-up is a relatively accessible and cost-effective endeavor. Start-ups can use these social media applications to create a platform for broadcasting 194 Organizational Development updates and virtually any message at the click of a button. Firms considering the rela- tive value of social media should consider at least the following: (1) who is the potential audience, (2) the motivations and objectives behind such a marketing approach and the value of the content being broadcasted through these potentially "viral" media tools, and (3) the commitment and level of effort to maintain these applications. Lastly, it is not uncommon for firms to find themselves networking among themselves, when it may be more effective to fine-tune a social networking strategy that reaches out to a larger public audience, particularly potential clients. The use of the Internet to market start-ups also includes participation in competi- tions and other online gallery opportunities. Exposure on multiple Internet sites can increase a firm's visibility on search engines and, ultimately, accelerate a firm's name recognition with relatively little financial investment, if any. Start-ups with limited marketing budgets may find that participation in civic engagement commitments, AIA events, and public interest design projects may yield meaningful results. This is especially true when volunteer engagement is aligned with a founder's genuine interests. For example, practitioners that are committed to public realm design may be inclined to serve on planning boards and design advisory commit- tees in their local municipalities. These types of engagements can bolster the reputa- tion of a firm and demonstrate the founder's competence and capability to colleagues and potential future clients. Writing a Business Plan For design firms, business planning can be divided into four primary aspects: purpose, finance, operations, and marketing. Once purpose is understood, plans can be developed within each of the other three functional arenas. Please note that the business plans discussed in this section are not the kind needed for securing a bank loan. Those may have a particular form that is provided by the lending institution. Instead, these business plans are meant as doc- umentation of intentions and the proactive measures designed to accomplish goals. Business planning brings intentionality to the management of a small firm, which is a distinctly different approach than being moved primarily by external circumstances. Much of the material in this section was sourced from The Architect's Guide to Small Firm Practice (Wiley, 2010) by Rena M. Klein, FAIA. Although the components of the business plan appear as distinct parts, in reality they are interconnected. Each aspect is an element of a whole firm system and, as such, they impact each other continuously. Marketing efforts must link closely with aspirations, which often determine operational choices; operational effectiveness will impact financial growth, and market position may determine what is possible financially. In Figure 5.5, each aspect of the business plan is shown to have each of the other aspects within. For example, consider Marketing—each quarter of the Marketing quadrant is related to one of the four major quadrants. The financial aspect of Marketing is a marketing budget; the purpose aspect of Mar- keting is alignment of the marketing message with vision; the operations aspect of Marketing has to do with improving job acquisition processes such as the proposal writing; and, finally, the marketing aspect of the Marketing quadrant is outreach to new prospects and forming new relationships. ▶ Chapter 6, Marketing and Business Development, covers effective marketing strategies and methods for architecture firms. ▶ See Strategic Planning for the Design Firm (5.3), Developing Marketing Strategy (6.2), and Networking and Business Development (6.4) for more on business planning. ELEMENTS OF A BUSINESS PLAN A. PURPOSE/BUSINESS MODEL • Philosophy/corevalues • Project types? Client types? • Career contentment and disposition of owners • Core competence and core weaknesses • Market opportunities and threats to market position • Firmsize • Firm future, including transition plan B. FINANCIAL PLAN • Financial expectations of owners • Revenue goals over time • Operating budget expectations over time • Profit plan over time • Scenario plans for firm revenue and staffing over time C. OPERATIONS PLAN • Organizationstructure • Technology upgrades and integration • Project delivery model • Knowledge acquisition and development • Promotion, recruitment, and compensation D. MARKETING PLAN • External market conditions and competition • Targetmarket • Keydifferentiators • Image and brand • Relationship-building and networking plan Excerpted from Architect's Guide to Small Firm Management by Rena M. Klein (Wiley, 2010).

Firm owners can customize this diagram to suit their own business plan and update the diagram as some goals are completed and some are altered by external circum- stance. This fractal diagram can be used as a tool to plan and track firm development activities over time. For start-ups, marketing is likely to be the most important aspect of the business plan initially, but marketing is not possible without knowing purpose. It is not possible to effectively deliver projects acquired without holistic knowledgeable operations. Overall profitability will be elusive without financial management. All the parts of busi- ness planning are interconnected. ENTREPRENEURIAL PRACTICE Self-Awareness As a founder, the key to successful strategic and opportunistic choices is self-knowledge in two key areas: level of comfort with collaboration and tolerance for risk. Founders with self-awareness and integrity about these two issues can successfully shape a firm based on their own values and proclivities, using their understanding of self as a pri- mary firm design criteria. In the race to win work, keep staff billable, and build up a firm's portfolio, founders should assess the advantages and disadvantages of pursuing or accepting certain proj- ects or tasks. This underscores the importance of being strategic about identifying assignments that reinforce the firm mission or help build the firm's brand and identity. Eugene Kohn, Founder and Chairman of KPF Associates, frequently recounts advice given to him by a friend during the recessionary times of the mid-1970s: "Your success will be measured by the work you turn down." Level of Comfort with Collaboration How much trust and how much control feels comfortable to a firm's founder is a func- tion of personality and inclinations. The comfort zone will vary for different types of 196 Organizational Development PART 2: FIRM MANAGEMENT decisions; for example, a founder may feel comfortable collaborating on project man- agement, but not allow collaboration on design decisions. In control-centered practices, architects keep a tight rein on information, knowledge, and drawings (or models), sharing only the minimum necessary for sub- consultants to perform their work. In collaboration-centered practices, information, knowledge, and drawings (or models) are readily shared and the entire team participates, to varying degrees, in the co-creation of the design. Founders with a high degree of comfort with collaboration have the opportunity to participate on collaborative teams, either as a leader or an expert contributor. In addition, a highly developed interest in collaboration may lead to joint ventures with other firms, or participation in emerging project delivery methods such as Integrated Project Delivery (IPD). Founders who enjoy collaboration are likely to have success in growing their firms through cultivating an empowered and engaged staff. Founders who prefer a more controlling style may choose to be solo practitioners or leaders of very small firms where they can track everything and be completely in charge. Firms such as these can also be successful, especially when the founder has specialized knowledge, unique talent, or access to high margin markets. Being a solo practitioner or leading a very small firm can also be the choice of those who enjoy external collaboration but prefer to do much of the internal project work themselves. Clearly, there is a spectrum of practitioners within the boundaries of both extremes, but firm founders who have self-awareness about their place on this continuum are more likely to acquire and execute their projects with integrity—to say what they mean and to mean what they say. In addition, self-awareness about level of comfort with col- laboration will help to unapologetically develop a firm that truly takes advantage of the founders' strengths. Risk Tolerance Starting a firm is risky. Architectural firms operate in an environment of unpredict- ability where success or failure is not solely predicated on the talent and effort of the founder(s). There are ways to mitigate unpredictable risks, such as purchasing profes- sional liability insurance and planning contingencies on projects. Practice risks can be mitigated through the careful choice of clients and projects and by following best practices in terms of agreements and documentation. Other risks must be accepted as inevitable, with corresponding actions taken to prepare for these risks. For example, there is likelihood that the founder's personal income may be very low in the first few years of firm operations. Founders should be prepared to partially fund their own salaries for at least 12 months and for various periods of time throughout the life of the firm. In addition, founders must be able to provide health insurance coverage for them- selves and their employees. The Affordable Care Act is expected to increase health care insurance options for individuals and as such may be beneficial to those starting a firm. As an illustration of the effects of health insurance costs on starting a business, a study by RAND corporation (Is Employer-Based Health Insurance a Barrier to Entrepreneurship? [RAND, 2012] by Robert W. Fairlie, Kanika Kapur, and Susan M. Gates) found that an increase in entrepreneurship at age 65 is attributable to eligibility for Medicare. Because of the need to self-fund benefits that are usually supplied by employers, minimizing other kinds of overhead will help mitigate the financial risks incurred. If a person is uncomfortable with the notion of not receiving a predictable paycheck at regular intervals, and with providing their own insurance and retirement savings, being self-employed will be very difficult. Architects who feel uncomfortable with the unknown— "Will the phone ever ring again?"—may find self-employment to be overly stressful. Many deal with the unpre- dictable nature of practice by simultaneously engaging in other endeavors that supply more reliable incomes in more predictable time frames, such as teaching, or becoming a construction management adviser or building inspector. Despite the risk, many find the rewards of autonomy, the opportunity to design, and the ability to self-determine one's work life to be well worth it. Why Firms Fail Data collected by the Small Business Administration between 1992 and 2002 indicates that less than a third of new businesses started in 1992 survived their first decade of existence. Martin Zwilling, a venture capitalist and contributor to Entrepreneur maga- zine, has developed a list of 10 reasons why first-time entrepreneurs fail ("10 Top Reasons Why First-Time Entrepreneurs Fail," Entrepreneur, September 2012): • Lack of or inability to execute a business plan • Slim or no-revenue pro forma (projections) • Limited business opportunities • Inability or ineffectiveness in execution • Too much competition • Limited or lack of valuable intellectual property • Inexperiencedteam/staff • Underestimating resource requirements • Lack of marketing • Lack of resilience—giving in too early The list may be helpful to consider as an internal checklist for architects about to start their own firm. Most of the items can be addressed through careful planning, realistic assessment of strengths and opportunities, and thoughtful self-awareness. Writing a business plan that includes an operations and financial plan is one way to bring discipline and careful preparation to the endeavor. Architects, who are trained as planners and designers, can bring their abilities to the creation of their firms. No archi- tect would consider designing a building without a purpose, site, structure, or budget. Starting a firm without articulating the mission, markets, project execution, or poten- tial revenue stream is equally foolish. Considering these issues early in the firm plan- ning process and throughout its start-up phase is the key to sustainable success. CONCLUSION Like the design of a custom home, starting a design firm presents the opportunity to create a business entity and firm culture that truly reflects the strengths, tendencies, and proclivities of its founder and by extension, its staff. The skills architects apply to their work as design professionals should be used to plan the start and ongoing evolu- tion of their firms. Designing a firm entails considering financial goals, purpose, size, optimal structure, business development strategy, and the best possible integration of the interest, skills, and aspirations of its founders. While there may be no formulas, secret techniques, or consultants that can deliver a custom-designed practice, one's awareness of self, knowledge of the basics of running a business, and understanding of the drivers of change are important first steps in the journey. Recognizing trends and patterns at the global, organizational, and interpersonal levels offers founders an insight into the potential for firm development and a growth strategy. Planning a new design practice, like planning a new space, also entails the consid- eration of sustainability, something that can stand the test of time. In the midst of change and unpredictability, it is important that founders prioritize personal values and preferences that will lead to professional satisfaction, which in turn is closely connected to potential for profitability. Therefore, a key aspect of founder self-awareness is an understanding of how success and satisfaction in their work is defined. When thinking about starting a firm, consider the following: • How important is financial success? • How much money is enough? • How will direct and indirect value of firm output be measured? • How important are name recognition and design awards? • Does success include "doing good" for the local community? • Does success include having a healthy and contented office culture? • How important is fun and creativity in the firm? Firm founders, in shaping their practice, should consider these personal factors along with external realities such as demographics, global practice, overall economic health, target market project opportunity, and the firm's role in civic engagement. Appreciation of these trends in unpredictable times is essential for firm founders to navigate through uncharted territory in the New Normal. In some ways it has never been easier, or perhaps more necessary, to start one's own firm. The advent of "telecompanies" ("When Job-Creation Engine Stops at Just One," New York Times, Oct. 04, 2012) allows solo practitioners to expand their capacity with a flexible virtual workforce. Web- or cloud-based IT infrastructure and new advances in business administrative support expand capabilities at a low cost. Furthermore, social media is providing a new and unprecedented ability to reach out to and engage poten- tial clients and collaborators. Entrepreneurial architects who are self-aware, risk toler- ant, and have a vision of how their offerings can fit into the marketplace have a unique opportunity to reap the benefits of designing their own work-life that is both person- ally satisfying and financially rewarding. BACKGROUNDER FIRM LEGAL STRUCTURES Jay Wickersham, FAIA This backgrounder describes the most commonly used legal structures for architectural firms, and key factors to consider in choosing or modifying a firm's structure (Table 5.1). Jay Wickersham is a founding partner of the Cambridge, Mas- sachusetts, law firm Noble & Wickersham LLP, and a lec- turer at the Harvard Graduate School of Design, where he teaches courses in the history, law, and ethics of practice. Every architect who establishes an independent practice should consider creating a separate legal entity to serve as the framework for practice. What we commonly call a "firm" can take on many different legal forms, from sole proprietor- ship to partnership, limited liability partnership (LLP), corpora- tion, or limited liability company (LLC). Even a sole practitioner can create a corporation or LLC as the vehicle for practice. What follows is an overview of the most commonly used legal structures for firms and factors to consider in choosing and shaping an entity. The laws governing legal entities, and their availability for architectural practice, vary from state to state. The choice of entity can also have important financial and tax implications. A practitioner should always obtain legal and accounting advice to guide the process of creating or modifying an entity. CHOICES OF LEGAL STRUCTURES FOR PRACTICE Sole Proprietorship An individual architect who has not taken any formal action will, by default, be considered to be practicing as a sole proprietor. A sole proprietorship may be given its own name, but in legal terms it has no independent identity. Because the owner does not enjoy any liability protection, all of his or her personal assets are at risk if there is a claim. From a tax perspective, a sole proprietorship is a disregarded entity; it does not file a return or pay tax, but instead all of its income and losses are reported on the owner's tax return and are taxed only there. A sole proprietorship dissolves upon the owner's death. General Partnership Two or more architects practicing together may be deemed to be practicing as a general partnership—regardless of whether they have taken any formal legal steps. Every state has passed a law that is a version of the Uniform Partnership Act, defining baseline assumptions about ownership and con- trol of a partnership. However, it is extremely important for architects who intend to create a partnership to draft and sign a written partnership agreement that sets out the detailed terms of their association. In a general partnership, all of the partners actively participate in management. (Limited part- nerships are generally used as investment vehicles and not for professional services; limited partners have an ownership share, but only limited management roles.) Each general partner is potentially liable for the actions of the other part- ners; a partner's liability may extend beyond one's partner- ship interest, to reach the partner's personal assets as well. A general partnership does not pay federal taxes; each part- ner's share of income and losses is passed through and reported on the individual's tax return. Limited Liability Partnership (LLP)/Professional LLP Most states have passed laws that permit the creation of a partnership variant known as an LLP. In general, LLPs offer lia- bility protections that are not available to general partnerships; the personal assets of partners, other than their ownership interest in the LLP, are protected against liability for business claims against the partnership, except in the case of fraud or other extreme wrongdoing. But partners typically remain liable for their own professional negligence, even when acting on behalf of the LLP. In addition to a written partnership agree- ment, the governing documents for an LLP will include an LLP certificate filed with the Secretary of State's office. In many states, architects can only practice through a professional LLP, which may be subject to further restrictions on ownership, liability protection, and insurance (see the accompanying chart for further details). Business Corporation The most common form of legal entity for an architectural firm is the business corporation. All corporations have three levels of participants: • Stockholders are the owners of the corporation, with their ownership evidenced by shares of stock. • Directors are elected by the stockholders, and have a fidu- ciary duty to act in their best interests. They are responsi- ble for broad policy decisions. • Officers are elected by the directors; they carry out the day-to-day management of the corporation. Stockholders' personal assets, other than their ownership interest in the firm, are protected against liability for business claims against the corporation, except in the case of fraud or other extreme wrongdoing. But stockholders typically remain liable for their own professional negligence, even when act- ing on behalf of the corporation. The governing documents for a corporation will include articles of organization filed with the Secretary of State's office, and written corporate by- laws. Within the category of business corporation, there are two broad subcategories. Publicly Traded/Subchapter C Corporation A handful of architectural firms are so large that their stock is publicly traded on a stock exchange. In publicly traded cor- porations, the controlling ownership interest is typically held by outside stockholders who are not actively involved in man- agement of the firm. There is limited overlap among stock- holders, directors, and officers. Publicly traded corporations pay corporate taxes on their income; their after-tax profits can then be passed through to the stockholders in the form of dividends, to be taxed a second time on the stockholder's individual tax return. (This system of double taxation is defined in subchapter C of the Internal Revenue Code— hence the name of this type of corporation.) Closely Held/Subchapter S Corporation Most architectural firms that choose the corporate form of entity are what is known as "closely held corporations"—they are owned by stockholders who are actively engaged in the practice, and some or all of the stockholders also act as cor- porate directors and officers. To ensure that ownership of a closely held corporation does not pass to outsiders, the stock- holders will typically execute a stockholders agreement that contains restrictions on the transfer of stock. Under subchap- ter S of the Internal Revenue Code, corporations with no more than 100 stockholders, all of them being U.S. citizens or resident aliens, may elect not to pay federal taxes; instead, profits in the form of dividends, and limited amounts of cor- porate losses, are passed through and reported on the indi- vidual stockholder's tax return. Professional Corporation In many states, architects may elect a special form of entity known as a professional corporation. Because professional corporations are subject to further restrictions on ownership, liability protection, and insurance (see the chart for further details), they are rarely selected in states where architects may also practice as a business corporation. In a small num- ber of states, the professional corporation is the only corpo- rate entity permitted for an architectural firm. PART 2: FIRM MANAGEMENT 200 Organizational Development Limited Liability Company (LLC) The LLC is a form of legal entity that has come into widespread use in the past 20 years, following the passage of enabling laws in all 50 states. An LLC has two levels of participants: • Members are the owners of the LLC. • Managers are elected by the members, and have a fidu- ciary duty to act in their best interests. They are typically responsible for both policy decisions and the day-to-day management of the LLC. Members' personal assets, other than their ownership interest in the firm, are protected against liability for business claims against the LLC, except in the case of fraud or other extreme wrongdoing. But members typically remain liable for their own professional negligence, even when acting on behalf of the corporation. As with corporations, most architectural firms that choose the LLC form of entity are "closely held"; they are owned by members who are actively engaged in the practice, and who may also act as managers. Under the Internal Revenue Code, an LLC may elect to be treated for tax purposes as a sole proprietorship (if it has only one member), as a partnership, or as a corporation. If it elects sole proprietorship or partner- ship treatment, it will not pay federal taxes; instead, a mem- ber's share of income and losses are passed through and reported on the individual's tax return. In many states, architects can only practice through a professional LLC, which may be subject to further restrictions on ownership, liability protection, and insurance (see the chart for further details). ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Government filing requirements—Secretary of State's offices. In order for an LLP, corporation, or LLC to come into legal existence, it must make an initial filing with the office of the Secretary of State (or comparable agency) in the state in which it has been formed, and pay the required filing fee. Entities must also file annual reports, or they run the risk of being dissolved. Sole proprietorships and general partner- ships do not need to make these filings. Firms are increasingly being required to make compa- rable filings as out-of-state ("foreign") entities with the Secre- tary of State's office in all states in which they practice architecture. These filing requirements are distinct from the firm practice requirements defined by the state architectural registration boards (see chart). Government filing requirements—State architectural regis- tration boards. Although architects are universally aware that they must become individually registered by each state in which they practice, many are not aware that in most states, in-state and out-of-state ("foreign") firms are also subject to legal require- ments set forth by the state's architectural registration board. In most states, a firm must make a filing with the registration board and obtain a certificate of authorization (COA), or comparable document, before it can practice. Even those states that do not issue a COA typically impose requirements upon firm practice. Registration boards may require the registration of owners and/or managers, in the home state and/or the state of prac- tice; they may also limit or ban certain types of legal entity, or even set rules for names under which a firm may practice. Actions on behalf of the firm. To maintain liability protec- tions, all formal actions of a firm (signing contracts and other legal documents, issuing letters and drawings, etc.) should be taken in its name, so that parties with whom it deals are put on notice that they are dealing with an independent legal entity and not an individual. Informal management practices versus legal responsibili- ties. It is common for architectural firms to give key employ- ees titles such as "principal" or "associate." Such titles may accompany well-defined responsibilities for project and/or firm management. Firm owners should carefully review such informal management titles and practices, to see that they are appropriately coordinated with the responsibilities set forth by law for management of the chosen form of legal structure. TABLE 5.1 Summary of Legal Structures Ownership Management Liability Protection for Personal Assets Tax Treatment Secretary of State Filings State Registration Board Filings/ Requirements Sole Proprietorship Individual practitioner Individual practitioner None Does not file federal return or pay taxes— income/losses passed through to individual owner None Typically not required General Partnership Partners Partners None Files federal return, but does not pay taxes—income/losses passed through to individual owners None Many states require certificate of authority (COA): varying requirements for licensing of partners

CHAPTER 14 Research in Practice 14.1 Research in Practice Overview Travis L. Hicks, AIA Academic research has well-established methods, structures, support mechanisms, and dissemination outlets to support faculty, students, and researchers. As practice-based architectural research develops these structures and mechanisms, architects are beginning to leverage synergies with academicians and academic research. INTRODUCTION Integrating research into architectural practice brings the objectivity of data, metrics, and evidence to the more subjective or aesthetic aspects of practice. In a world that is increasingly dependent upon creative thinking and problem-solving skills of analysis and synthesis, "design thinking" from the creative process of design is making its way into the vocabulary of other disciplines such as business, education, and medicine. At the same time that the creative processes of architecture are being exported, the more objective, scientific processes from other disciplines are being imported into the design process. Although both subjectivity and objectivity have been present in architecture for centuries, there is a current wave of influence of research, metrics, data, and num- bers in general, on professional practice. AIA RESEARCH PRIMER DEFINES THREE CATEGORIES OF RESEARCH Basic research is "fundamental scientific investigation" and addresses building typology, practice issues, or materials and methods of construction. Note that the AIA's definition of basic research is different from the academic definition of basic research, which refers to the core data related to a research problem in that context. Applied research is "applying basic research findings into specific situations" and addresses leadership, practice, design, or building performance. Developmental research is "developing applied research results for general situations" and addresses seven broad agenda areas: social, technological, environmental, cultural, organizational, design, and educational. ▶ Research Methods (14.2) addresses architectural research methods in further detail. While academic research and practice-based research have some differences, architects now find themselves using a variety of research methods in order to solve cli- ents' problems, develop new technologies, and distinguish their practices from their competition. Enough overlaps and similarities exist between academic research and prac- tice-based research that this overview of research resources is timely and relevant to practicing architects in firms large and small. This chapter will expose the reader to a wide range of topics related to research and its integration into professional practice. RESEARCH CATEGORIES The American Institute of Architects has offered some guidance for architects who are just beginning to explore research in practice, outlining three categories of research in its "Research Primer." This document defines basic and applied research and offers further details about the research methods and applications of those methods that fall under the category of developmental research. ARCHITECTURAL RESEARCH METHODS Architectural research at times looks like the scientific research of chemistry or engi- neering labs; at other times architectural research resembles the human-centered social sciences, environmental psychology, or behavioral sciences. Regardless of where the research falls in this spectrum, the scientific method can offer a basic framework for integrating research into practice. Beginning with far-reaching research goals, the researcher will establish a central question, or questions, to be addressed by the research. The project proceeds with the establishment of a hypothesis and research methods, the collection of data, analyses of the data, and, finally, conclusions and impli- cations of the research. To apply this research, architects will depend upon their own interpretation and creative design process. Research generally begins with the researchers' positioning the work relative to the existing body of knowledge and literature in the discipline. A literature review provides a background for the researcher and the reader. This background gives the researcher an opportunity to explore the theoretical, historical, technological, or contextual aspects of the topics at hand so that the contribution of the new work provides new knowledge or some challenge to the existing body of knowledge. Architectural research methods fall into two broad categories of research: qualita- tive and quantitative. Qualitative methods depend on data influenced by subjective analysis and interpretation, while quantitative methods rely on objective analysis through higher-level statistical science and analysis. Qualitative data result from research methods such as natural observation, focus groups, and interviews, while quantitative data stem from metrics such as temperature, humidity, etc., that are mea- surable using scientific equipment. However, depending upon the kinds of information being gathered and the researcher's methodologies, the same research technique can be used to collect quantitative or qualitative information. Sources of information can be primary, secondary, or tertiary. Primary sources of information or evidence represent the first appearance of information, theories, data, or other original materials upon which other research is based. Depending upon the type of research being done, these primary sources could range from documents in an archive tied to a library or other institution, or to existing buildings or other structures. It is through the analysis of these primary sources of information that academics estab- lish new knowledge or theories. 900 Research in Practice PART 3: PROJECT DELIVERY Secondary sources of evidence are distinguished from primary sources through time, distance, or analysis. If an existing building is a primary source, then an analysis of that building, written in a journal article by someone miles away from the building and after construction of the building, is an example of a secondary source of evidence. Secondary sources are not the original evidence; instead, they are analyses, commentar- ies, reflections, or critiques of primary evidence. From secondary sources some archi- tects will generate a literature review before seeking out those primary sources for more thorough research, while other architects rely on secondary sources alone. Tertiary sources are further removed than secondary sources from the primary sources of evidence and include bibliographies, abstracts, indexes, or other lists of sec- ondary and primary sources of information. One can find these lists in journals, books, online databases, or in individual articles. For architects diving into a new area of exploration, tertiary sources offer a starting point and a list of sources to locate before generating a literature review that can lead to original research and new knowledge. As architects begin to explore research programs, they might find that secondary sources or tertiary sources are more readily available; however, over time and as one sharpens one's research agenda, one should seek primary sources or those sources as close to the original informa- tion as possible. One key to this establishment of new knowledge, scholarship, or theories is the peer review process. Peer review offers legitimacy to one's work. In the academy, peer review is often a requirement for research to count as scholarship or new knowledge. Open dissemination of research through peer-reviewed journals is part of the cul- ture of academia, while dissemination of practice-based knowledge will be more reserved due to the competitive nature of practice. Still, there are a number of firms that find an advantage through the dissemination of their work through white papers, conference presentations, and jour- nal articles. ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN ARCHITECTURE While other disciplines, particularly those in the liberal arts and natural sciences, have well-established doctoral- level coursework, the discipline of architecture in the past relied on professional practice as a means to developing disciplinary expertise. Even among academics, the Master of Architecture degree held sway as the terminal degree for years; in recent decades, however, architecture programs have expanded their graduate programs to allow for more researchers and research projects. The primary research- oriented degrees in architecture are the Master of Science (M.S.), the Doctor of Architecture (D.Arch.), and the Doc- tor of Philosophy (Ph.D.). According to Design Intelligence ("Doctorate Programs in Architecture & Design," 2005), there were 25 doctoral programs in the United States in 2005. This had grown to 29 doctoral programs by 2012, according to the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture. (See Table 14.1.) This increase suggests a slight growth in the number of these programs within architecture schools. In addition, there are other disciplines, such as art history or engineering, TABLE 14.1 Doctoral Programs in Architecture University Location Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA Clemson University Clemson, SC Columbia University New York, NY Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA Harvard University Cambridge, MA Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago, IL Kansas State University Manhattan, KS Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA New Jersey Institute of Technology Newark, NJ North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC Princeton University Princeton, NJ Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Troy, NY Texas A&M University College Station, TX University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA University of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA University of Florida Gainesville, FL University of Hawaii at Manoa Manoa, HI University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, IL Champaign University of Kansas Lawrence, KS University of Maryland College Park, MD University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI University of Nebraska-Lincoln Lincoln, NE University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Milwaukee, WI Virginia Tech Blacksburg, VA Yale University New Haven, CT where individual Ph.D. candidates can pursue dissertation research centered on par- ticularly architectural topics. While practitioners are driven by project schedules dictated by clients, academi- cians' work has its own rhythm. Academic research will follow the academic calendar, factoring in individual faculty members' promotion and tenure schedules, post-ten- ure review schedules, grant cycles, class schedules, or other factors not common to architectural practice. Grants for college and university faculty and students are becoming increasingly competitive, yet institutions offer support through grant- writing specialists. Research institutes have developed at some universities in order to provide central- ized support and a cultural identity to faculty, students, and researchers. These insti- tutes, such as Portland State University's Institute for Sustainable Solutions, offer opportunities for researchers to collaborate on projects and to take advantage of institutional resources, and expertise in writing grant proposals and managing large governmental or privately funded grants. The literature of academia includes a number of scholarly journals not commonly read by practitioners. While practitioners are familiar with more mainstream journals such as Architectural Record, Architect, Contract, and Dwell, to name a few, academic research finds a more limited audience in journals such as the Journal of Architectural Education, the International Journal of Architectural Computing, and the Journal of the Society of Architec- tural Historians. These journals are generally accessible as printed documents through subscriptions, through academic libraries, or online as e-journals. Academic journals offer faculty, students, or researchers the opportunity to disseminate their work; to receive feedback, support, or criticism of their work; and to increase the body of knowl- edge in the profession. Unlike popular journals that are beholden to subscribers and advertisers, the academic journal maintains objectivity through peer review processes. As an increasing number of journals go online in an e-journal format, there are more opportunities for researchers to disseminate their scholarship. Additionally, there are opportunities for academics and practitioners alike to disseminate their work through peer-reviewed conference presentations. These conference opportunities include those offered by the Environmental Design Research Association (EDRA), the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA), and the Architectural Research Centers Consortium (ARCC), to name a few of the key conferences. RESEARCH IN ARCHITECTURAL PRACTICE In professional practice, research can match that generated by researchers in academic settings; however, practitioners will be inclined to generate research around specific projects or clients in order to maintain profitability or to win projects. Few firms are able to maintain stand-alone research practices, or research for the sake of research. Consequently, practicing architects sacrifice some of their own research agendas to make way for clients' agendas. In meeting a client's needs, the question of objectivity comes into play. How can an architect generate peer-reviewed, objective results unen- cumbered by competing subjective demands of a client? Despite the competing goals of objectivity and subjectivity, architects are finding ways to integrate research pro- grams into their practices. There are varying degrees of research integrated into the practice of architecture. Continuing education requirements demand that architects stay abreast of current trends and new disciplinary knowledge; therefore, many architects find themselves involved in a basic level of research in which they maintain a current understanding of professional literature. For those architects at the other end of the spectrum, research is more than just reading literature or taking a passive approach to research; these architects are actively engaged in research, funded through grants or partnerships, which is disseminated through peer-reviewed outlets. Between the two extremes there are other levels of research that will be addressed later in this chapter. SELECTED FIRMS WITH RESEARCH PROGRAMS • Architecture Research Office See the backgrounder Case Study: Architecture Research Office, by Kim Yao, principal, in this section for more information about ARO. (www.aro.net) • KieranTimberlake Stephen Kieran and James Timberlake were the inaugural recipients of the Latrobe Prize for research in practice awarded by the AIA College of Fellows in 2001. The work of their firm seamlessly integrates research into practice with projects such as the SmartWrapTM building envelope system. (www. kierantimberlake.com) • Gehry Technologies Founded in 2002, this spin-off of Frank Gehry's practice provides advanced technology services through research and development of technological solutions. Inspired by digital technology used in aviation and automotive engineering, the work of Gehry Technologies has produced innovative architectural forms by integrating research into design. (www.gehrytechnologies.com) • Gensler Launched in 2005, Gensler's research program leverages the sheer volume of work done by this large global firm and the number of staff available to generate research and new knowledge. There are three components to Gensler's research initiative: evidence-based design, research methods and tools, and trends forecasting. One significant contribution of this multifaceted approach is Gensler's Workplace Performance Index®, a tool for correlating design to workplace performance. (dialogue, issue 19, Special Edition: Research, 2011) • Skidmore Owings & Merrill SOM has teamed with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute to form the Center for Architecture Science and Ecology (CASE), a collaborative think tank that brings together academics, practitioners, and manufacturers to study high-performance design issues in urban, global settings using actual buildings as research test cases. Launched in 2008, CASE has secured external funding from sources such as the National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the AIA. (www.case.rpi.edu) Unlike academic research schedules, the timeline of projects and, in turn, practitioners, is dictated by the client's business goals and schedules. The opportunity exists for academicians and practitioners to collaborate on research projects in order to take advantage of each other's strengths. Practitioners will have access to clients, existing buildings, and real-world design projects unavailable to the academi- cian. The academic, however, will have familiarity with funding agencies, grant-writing skills, and space to under- take research projects. Collaborative efforts between aca- demicians and practitioners can prove beneficial to both. TRENDS IN ARCHITECTURAL RESEARCH Evidence-Based Design Evidence-based design (EBD) is a term associated with a design process that includes research as part of its methodol- ogy, with the critical application of knowledge gained through research in a specific design project. Evidence-based design has its origins in environmental psychology, evidence- based medicine, and health care design; however, as more architects and clients find value in the contribution of research into design, EBD as a process has expanded into other building and project types. Where the goal in evi- dence-based health care design might be related to patient health and well-being, the goal in these other building types will be different. In retail environments, for example, an evidence-based design goal might be to increase product sales and corporate profits. Consequently, the kinds of evi- dence sought after will vary from project type to project type. While research can be applied to any project or build- ing type, there are certain types that, due to their very nature, have had more time and energy focused around their research. As a logical progression from evidence-based medicine, health care architecture and design have lever- aged evidence-based design practices. Additionally, learning environments, workplace environments, and retail environ- ments rely on evidence-based design. With a growing movement toward evidence-based design practices, practi- tioners and academics alike are seeking training, experience, and credentialing in EBD short of pursuing a Ph.D. or other advanced degree. For this audience, the Center for Health Design, founded in 1993 by a group of health care design professionals, has established criteria for accredita- tion and certification through the Evidence-based Design Accreditation and Certification (EDAC) examination. Materials and Technology Research Current trends in digital fabrication have offered architects the opportunity to develop research around digital technology. Laser cutters, CNC routers, and 3D plotters have given rise to computational research and parametric design research. Rapid prototyp- ing has allowed architects to develop custom material details for innovative systems three-dimensionally, economically, and quickly. Easy access to this equipment has made it easier for architects to produce material and technology research. ▶ Evidence-Based Design (14.4) further addresses the use of research in architecture practice.

Research into the development of new materials gives architects the chance to branch out and to address issues such as new sustainable materials. Researchers who are developing intelligent skins, recyclable materials, and building systems have been able to take advantage of research into building materials and technology. Building information modeling (BIM), parametric modeling, and other areas of digital technol- ogy have been integrated into research programs as architects develop hardware and software that offer insights into streamlining the design and construction process. Organizational support for digital and materials technology researchers exists through the Association for Computer Assisted Design In Architecture (ACADIA). The aforementioned collaboration between SOM and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, CASE, has a number of research projects in the area of next-generation build- ing systems. CASE's researchers are pushing the development of new materials and systems such as integrated desiccant systems, ceramic façade and structural systems, and integrated solar façades. Organizational Research As companies are faced with growth or shrinkage of their businesses, architects are called upon to support this spatial and organizational restructuring. Change manage- ment is a service that more architects are offering, and it involves the kind of research connected to organizational studies. Organizational research, grounded in the disci- plines of business, sociology, psychology, and behavioral sciences, offers insight into the relationships between business objectives and the design of architectural form and space. Through this lens, architects, designers, and researchers try to understand orga- nizations through a number of different research methods. The kind of research generated by furniture manufacturers, such as that by Knoll Workplace Research, supports the trends in organizational research. Workplace strategists have found a niche market in supporting organizations that have changed as a result of globalization or the economy. Organizations request that these strategists help determine efficiency, space planning, branding, etc., related to the organization's restructuring. The aforementioned Workplace Performance Index is a ratings-based tool devel- oped by Gensler to illustrate relationships between design and performance. These relationships are of particular interest to businesses seeking to improve their attraction, retention, and engagement of staff while increasing their profits. Data gathered through workplace and organizational research has proven invaluable in strengthening the value of architects and designers in corporate office environments. Sustainable Design Research Another trend in architectural research is in sustainability. Sustainable design research has ranged in scale, including that of the molecular and chemical structure of building materials, and whole building systems integral to the architecture, energy sources, and environmental quality. One can point to the USGBC's LEED rating system, the EPA's Energy Star program, and any number of product rating systems as sources for the increasing number of research projects related to sustainable design. Sustainable design initiatives have encouraged a burgeoning culture of green research. William McDonough and Michael Braungart have inspired a generation of scientists who will redefine the way building materials are made, used, recycled, up- cycled, or repurposed. McDonough and Braungart Design Chemistry (MBDC) is a consulting and certification company that certifies products with the Cradle-to-Cradle label. By setting high standards for interior products, MBDC has caused product man- ufacturers to invest more time, money, and energy into research and development. As manufacturers develop more sustainable materials, indoor environmental quality research has led to more restrictive regulations for the content of interior finish mate- rials. Greenguard Environmental Institute (GEI), for example, is an industry leader in establishing healthier indoor environments by establishing criteria for the content of products and materials. Building commissioning as a project phase has also injected sustainable design research into building systems development. This development of more energy-effi- cient mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems is spurred by market demand for these systems due to higher energy costs and an economy requiring such efficiency. Related to these developments in systems, alternative energy research has led to devel- opments in solar, wind, and geothermal energy sources. One exemplar of alternative energy research and development is the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the sponsor of the biannual Solar Decathlon competition. Colleges and universities as well as product manufacturers and vendors have invested millions of dollars to develop state-of-the-art residential designs that operate off the grid for this competition. RESEARCH AND SUPPORTING INSTITUTIONS A variety of institutions have contributed to the integration of research and practice. One of the first and most prolific was the Educational Facilities Laboratory, which generated a wealth of research information and has served as a database for information on educational environments since its founding in 1958. The University of Michigan's Architectural Research Laboratory was one of the earliest proponents of design research in academia. Founded in 1948, this lab was a pioneer in integrating design, technology, and construction with research. The AIA has a history of research-oriented discourse dating back nearly 100 years. According to Hadley (A History of Research at the AIA, 2009), the AIA Scientific Research Committee was founded in 1924, followed by a Research Advisory Service in 1949, and various entities in the 1960s including a Department of Research, Committee on Research, and Division of Research. In 1972 the Research Corporation was founded, focusing primarily on energy, followed by the Architectural Research Council in 1982. In 1986 the AIA entered into partnership with the ACSA to form a joint Architectural Research Council. The Architectural Research Centers Consortium (ARCC) is a global consortium of research centers focused on architectural research and design. ARCC hosts conferences that bring together academic researchers in schools of architecture from across the globe. (www.arccweb.org) The European Association for Architectural Education's (EAAE) Charter for Architectural Research is a formal document that provides a framework and guidelines for architectural research. The intended audience of this document includes universi- ties, practitioners, and others involved in architectural research. (www.eaae.be) The Environmental Design Research Association (EDRA) holds annual confer- ences where scholars meet to discuss the latest scholarship in the discipline of environ- mental design. Founded in 1968 by a group led by Henry Sanoff, EDRA brings together people from a wide range of disciplines, including architecture, planning, interior design, environmental psychology, and sociology. (www.edra.org) The Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture (ACADIA) is an orga- nization that promotes the research and development of computer software and tools that assist in architectural design and construction. ACADIA holds an annual conference where its members present their research and scholarship. ACADIA members consist of academics, practitioners, and computer industry professionals. (www.acadia.org) Funding Sources Architectural research is supported locally through architecture firms, college and uni- versity research programs, public-private partnerships, or product manufacturers; nationally and internationally architectural research is supported through public and private organizations, associations, and government grants, such as the National Sci- ence Foundation or Department of Energy. The AIA's support for research has waxed ▶ The backgrounder on What Architects Need to Know About Building Commissioning (10.10) further discusses commissioning as a project phase. and waned with the economy and in response to the national and global discourses of the times. With recent trends in sustainability, BIM, disaster relief, and other global issues, the AIA has renewed its commitment to supporting research. Initiatives include the Latrobe Prize and the Upjohn Research Initiative. Named for architect Benjamin Latrobe, the AIA's Latrobe Prize is awarded biannu- ally to support research projects related to the advancement of the profession of archi- tecture. Projects are selected by the College of Fellows through a competitive RFP process. In recent cycles the Latrobe Prize has been in the amount of $100,000 awarded in 2011 to "Public Interest Practices in Architecture," representing a team of academics and practitioners who are studying the realm of public interest architecture practices. The AIA's Upjohn Research Initiative offers smaller research grants of matched funds to individuals or teams working on research to advance the profession. Recent recipients of the Upjohn Research Initiative grants include the project "Active Passive Environmental Systems," led by principal investigators from Sci-Arc and USC. For more information or to read RFPs for these research awards, visit www.aia.org/ practicing/research/index.htm. The Boston Society of Architects' Research Grants in Architecture program is dedicated to "practice-based and practice-oriented research that expands the definition of research in the profession and the industry...." Proposals that support collaboration among practitioners, students, and academicians are encouraged (BSA, "Research Grants in Architecture," 2012). Founded in 1956, the Graham Foundation for Advanced Studies in the Fine Arts "makes project-based grants to individuals and organizations and produces public pro- grams to foster the development and exchange of diverse and challenging ideas about architecture and its role in the arts, culture, and society" (Graham Foundation, "Grant Programs," 2012). Grants to individuals fall under two categories: (1) production and presentation, and (2) research and development. Grants to organizations are typically awarded to 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations, or in cases where the public is clearly served by the projects. In addition to these grants, the Graham Foundation also has an awards program for doctoral candidates as well as for periodic public exhibits and events. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is another potential source for design research funding in the area of health care architecture and design. Historically the RWJ Foundation has supported research on the physical environment as it relates to their program areas: childhood obesity, health coverage, health professionals, health- related innovations, and public health (RWJ, "Program Areas," 2012). Much like the Graham Foundation, the RWJ Foundation offers grants to tax-exempt organizations such as universities and public agencies. Government grants are potentially the most competitive and difficult for architects to win; however, these grants tend to be the most robust and substantial. Grant oppor- tunities exist from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the Environmental Protection Agency, to name a few sources. The mission of the NIH is "science in pursuit of fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce the burdens of illness and disability" (National Institutes of Health, "Mission," 2012). The funders invite U.S. small businesses to submit Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grant applications (Department of Health & Human Ser- vices, "Guide," 2012). Similarly, NSF offers small business innovation research pro- grams and funding and has several programs for which architectural research is appropriate and relevant. While practitioners are well versed in writing marketing proposals, many architects will find grant writing a seemingly foreign language. One approach for the practitioner is to forge partnerships with academicians more familiar with the grant-writing pro- cess, its nuances, and the administration of successfully funded projects. With most long-term research projects, the researcher should start small, build capacity through pilot projects or studies, establish a clear line of inquiry, and then pursue larger grants. The rest of this chapter will provide a broad survey of research methods, applications, and case studies that should give the reader a better understanding of research in archi- tectural practice and a starting point for applying research in one's own practice.

BACKGROUNDER THE EVOLVING PRACTITIONER RESEARCHER D. Kirk Hamilton, FAIA, FACHA This backgrounder explains the new roles associated with a research-informed design practice, and the skills practitioners will need to develop to take full advantage of the potential. The author contends that an evidence-based practice has the opportunity to develop competitive advantage. D. Kirk Hamilton, a founding principal emeritus of WHR Architects, is a professor of architecture at Texas A&M University. Coauthor of Evidence-Based Design for Multiple Building Types (Wiley, 2010), he writes and speaks frequently on the use of research in design. There is a new and growing breed of architecture practitio- ner. As more architects find that the quality of their design decisions can be improved by thoughtful reference to solid evidence from research, they begin to seek new skills. As more clients ask for reliable confirmation that a firm's prior work has produced measurable positive results, architects need to be able to perform or commission credible, unbiased studies. Architects, more than ever before, are finding a prac- tical need to develop the skills to use research, as well as to do research. The use of research in design can be called an evidence-based design process, or a research-informed design process. Doing research, or conducting formal studies in the context of practice, is called applied research. The practitioner researcher is an evolving model that addresses these important opportunities to improve designs, capture the results associated with design projects, and answer important design questions with new knowledge. WHAT NEW SKILLS ARE NEEDED BY DESIGN PRACTITIONERS? Architecture education's traditional emphasis on design and technology has dominated the training of most practitioners, and few have strong foundations in research methods and literature review. Although a research-informed design pro- cess does not abandon a practitioner's normal process of designing, it adds some additional steps. This can require a bit of skill development. The evidence-based practitioner must learn to convert the statement of one or more key design issues into a research- able question, with many potential sub-questions. They must learn to search the scholarly literature and other credible sources for material relevant to the design issue and the research questions. The scholarly material found must undergo critical evalu- ation to determine its reliability and relevance to the current question and project. Careful interpretation of the material's implications for the practitioner's project will lead to develop- ment of design concepts. These concepts, informed by an understanding of research implications, will be produced in expectation of some intended result, which may be called a design hypoth- esis. All designers make intuitive assumptions about the results a design concept will produce, but few are docu- mented. The evidence-based practitioner will need to formally document design hypotheses during the design phase, and be prepared to follow with careful measurements after the design has been implemented to determine whether the design hypotheses have been supported. A chain of logic should connect the architect's design concept back to interpretation of specific citations from the literature. A commitment to hypothesis documentation and confirming measurement is sometimes described as a mini- mum requirement of an evidence-based practice. EVALUATION OF PROJECTS IS REQUIRED IN AN EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE The careful evaluation of completed projects is a form of research, so practitioners who commit to measure the out- comes associated with their design hypotheses become researchers. Architects will want to document project results that have importance to the client, which can mean using the same metrics the client uses in managing their business. Prac- titioners will also want to gather project information the firm can use to improve future projects—both measures recording each unique project's outcomes, and comparative data related to the firm's ongoing collective body of work. Serious evaluation after a project is complete requires a full under- standing of design intent, and may need to compare project outcomes with the client organization's previous performance results. The practitioner must be wary of bias or the appear- ance of bias when involved with self-evaluation, so collabora- tion with the client or an independent third party may be desirable. PERFORMING APPLIED RESEARCH CAN ANSWER IMPORTANT QUESTIONS Some questions cannot be answered by the current literature. If the design issue is very important, the potential impact of the design decision is high, and little is known, the topic may lend itself to the performance of applied research. New skills an architect might need to perform research include learning to write an effective research question, and the ability to select appropriate research methods to answer the question. Data collection, analysis of findings, and the careful develop- ment of conclusions are skills most practicing architects would need to learn. The true evidence-based practitioner will always publicly share research findings with the field, through publication and conference presentations. Even in cases of negative results, open sharing allows the firm and others to avoid similar future outcomes. In many cases, the firm may wish to add a qualified researcher to the team so that these activities are properly conducted. DESIGNERS NEED TO BETTER UNDERSTAND RESEARCH; RESEARCHERS NEED TO BETTER UNDERSTAND DESIGN Architecture requires a team effort for all but the simplest of projects. In this context, the designer who may not have had research training needs to learn how to communicate effec- tively with a researcher in order to benefit from the collabora- tion. Similarly, the researcher in practice must understand the goals and values of the designers with whom they collabo- rate. They begin speaking different languages and valuing different parts of the process, but must learn to work together on behalf of better projects. An effective partnership between designer and researcher is crucial to development of superior projects. A NEW BREED OF DESIGNER-RESEARCHER IS EMERGING There are a growing number of practitioners who have com- pleted both a design education and graduate training in research. These designers have a high degree of comfort when turning to the literature for relevant evidence, under- stand how to interpret scholarly material, and can also skill- fully practice the art of architecture for decisions that demand a response to intuitive passion. The qualified and competent PART 3: PROJECT DELIVERY 934 Research in Practice designer with the additional skills of a Ph.D. researcher is becoming a valuable commodity at some firms. RESEARCH IN PRACTICE CAN PROVIDE A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE The skills of a practitioner researcher can contribute to improved design decisions, and help to build a body of cred- ible outcomes associated with completed projects. These demonstrably better designs, and the unbiased results from past projects, can be used to convince future clients of the value of the practitioner's involvement with an intended proj- ect. It is clear that effective use of evidence from scholarly research and performance of applied research by practitio- ners can lead to important competitive advantage in the mar- ketplace. We will see much more of the practitioner researcher. BACKGROUNDER RESEARCHERS IN PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE: UNDERSTANDING CHALLENGES TO AN EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE MODEL IN ARCHITECTURE FOR HEALTH Erin K. Peavey, Assoc. AIA, M.Arch., LEED AP Building design and construction (BD+C) researchers in pro- fessional practice help guide the process by utilizing exist- ing evidence to make design decisions, and creating new knowledge to answer important questions in the design pro- cess. This 2010 study was designed to develop an under- standing of the emerging role of researchers in professional practice. Erin K. Peavey is a researcher and medical planner at HOK in New York. She is on the board of the Academy of Archi- tecture for Health Foundation and on the faculty at New York School of Interior Design's Graduate Program in Health Care Interior Design. Her work has been published in numerous scientific journals and industry publications. As the health care design industry has become increas- ingly focused on employing research to advance design decision making, researchers are a growing part of the architecture practice. Researchers are helping guide the process of using existing evidence to make design deci- sions, creating new knowledge and exploring design inno- vations. In an effort to shed light on the role that researchers play in the design field, Texas A&M University, in collaboration with the Academy of Architecture for Health, performed a 2010 study (Hamilton, Peavey, and Pentecost, EDRA, 2010). The study explored the role of researchers in professional practice and the perspectives of health care architecture practitioners using an evidence- based practice model (EBPM). This study defined evidence- based design (EBD) as "the process of basing decisions about the built environment on credible research to achieve the best possible outcomes." This three-part study consisted of: (1) a questionnaire to the AIA Academy of Architecture for Health (AAH) membership; (2) a questionnaire to Researchers in Profes- sional Practice (RIPP) participants (a networking group for individuals conducting research inside health care firms); and (3) interviews with RIPP participants. The results shared here focus on components related primarily to researchers in professional practice and discuss ways to use researchers in practice and work toward synergy with practitioners. Through the use of online questionnaires, 609 AAH members out of 6,811 completed the survey, yielding an 8.9 percent response rate. Of the 35 health care design researchers who were contacted, 17 responded to the ques- tionnaire, yielding a 49 percent response rate. Of these researchers, 7 offered to be interviewed on their roles as research professionals. All questionnaire and interview ques- tions and protocol were reviewed and approved by the Texas A&M University Internal Review Board, and responses were confidential. FINDINGS: RESEARCHER AND PRACTITIONER INVESTIGATION Demographics of Researchers in Professional Practice Little is known about the diverse and evolving population of health care researchers in professional practice. The RIPP questionnaire explored the barriers to evidence-based prac- tice and revealed the initial demographics of the researcher group. Study questions inquired into each researcher's formal education, practice type, colleagues, daily work life, and other roles they have outside of research. The majority of researchers were educated in architec- ture, and other degree types including psychology, nursing and allied health, and marketing. Many of these individuals had degrees in multiple subjects. The highest level of educa- tion for researchers was a doctoral degree (53%), others had master's degrees (23%), or had either a bachelor's degree or professional degree (21%). Most researchers had either 2 to 5 years or 20 to 30 years of experience as a researcher—few were in between these extremes. Researchers worked primarily with project managers, architects, hospital administration, and medical planners. In addition, they worked with other research per- sonnel, lead designers, client staff, and hospital middle man- agement. Researchers performed a wide range of activities depending on their background. Based on survey responses, researchers spend the majority of their time in the following ways: finding and interpreting literature, creating studies, col- lecting and analyzing data, and reporting of results. In addi- tion to traditional research roles, researchers perform marketing (75%), programming (45%), design (30%), and medical planning (23%), as well as project management and consulting. These additional roles varied depending on the background of the researcher. Interviews revealed that mar- keting was most commonly directed at the client, where research experience and expertise were important in secur- ing a commission. This commission included projects ranging from a greenfield building to an independent research study. Questionnaire Results: Contrasting Perspective of Researchers vs. Practitioners The questionnaire was designed to shed light on practitio- ners' and researchers' views on barriers to adoption of an EBPM. The study compared the views of practitioners with and without experience using EBD with the views of research- ers. Of the 609 AAH study respondents, 54 percent had experience using EBD and 46 percent had no experience using EBD. This response was used to create two separate groups, which were then compared on a number of factors and associated with the responses from RIPP group (Hamil- ton, Peavey, and Pentecost, EDRA, 2010). The study indicated that practitioners with experience using EBD were significantly more comfortable using research in the design process than those who lacked familiarity with EBD. Interestingly, though, there was not a significant differ- ence in these two groups of respondents' apprehension over the logistics of research within a practice. Specifically, these groups both voiced concerns that the precedent for billing research services was currently lacking, and stated that addi- tional time devoted to research often bumped up against the timelines of project schedules. What this shows is that even as practitioners become more experienced in using research, important issues persist, representing challenges to fitting research with a practice model that need to be strategically addressed within each architect's practice. Table 14.5 shows barriers perceived by researchers and practitioners. These barriers were different for each group. Practitioner barriers centered on research-related compo- nents of EBD, such as comprehension and application of evi- dence, whereas researcher barriers related to business concerns, such as needing additional labor hours and time. An issue for both groups was the need for a consistent billing precedent that would allow companies and organizations to charge for research-related services. Note: The top barriers for researchers focused on issues of business and project management, whereas the top barriers for practitioners were related to understanding and utilizing research. Interview Results: The Researcher Perspective Interviews with researchers allowed the study to expand beyond the quantitative data to understand the issues in greater depth and illuminate the practice-based researcher perspec- tive. The interview questions discussed the role of the researcher within their firm and with clients, how they spent their time, and the types of difficulties they had had in using the EBPM. At the time of the study, no overarching job description existed for researchers in professional practice, and thus researchers defined their own roles. In this process, practitio- ners and clients frequently misconceive the role of the researcher. One researcher posed the question as, "Should [researchers] be integrated into the design process, treated as advisers, or as librarians of EBD literature and resources?" The respondent went on to say that integration throughout the project was paramount. For the creation and implementation of successful research, interviewees stressed the importance of fostering partnerships with facilities, architects, and designers. Inter- viewees frequently focused their desire to foster a sense of community. As one interviewee put it, "Research is about transparency, objectivity, and community of learning." The interviewee went on to expound on the difficulty in translating the research culture to a competitive design field, where research is often a competitive advantage first and foremost. Unlike many researchers who work in academia, these indi- viduals in practice are often the only researchers at the firm and lack the ability to discuss and exchange ideas with other researchers. Funding was mentioned as a key issue by all interview- ees. In a design practice, research funds come from a num- ber of areas, including research and development, education, or as a marketing expenditure. Additional funds come from clients wanting to show the value of the design intervention and demonstrate the building's impact on operational sys- tems. Researchers stressed that it is best to embed research into the initial scope and proposals, thereby rooting it with the overall project. Although grant funding is a viable option, strong competition exists for these limited funds. TABLE 14.5 Comparison of Barriers to Evidence-Based Practice Model for Practitioners and Researchers Top Barriers for Researchers Top Barriers for Practitioners Labor Hours Additional Time Billing Precedent Relevant Evidence Client Support and Contradictory Research Relevant Evidence Identify Flawed Research Billing Precedent Contradictory Research Additional Time PART 3: PROJECT DELIVERY 936 Research in Practice Advice from Researchers Last, we asked researchers what words of advice they had for others in the field. Researchers advised practitioners and their research partners to work with high-level hospital man- agement from the beginning of project formation. Research- ers emphasized the need to "secure buy-in from senior leaders, to ensure success of the project," and to help frame learning and improvement opportunities that each unique project and client possess. Researchers recommended utilizing various subject mat- ter experts, collaborating with others to obtain a variety of perspectives and a comprehensive approach. Researchers suggested partnering with university and independent researchers to provide both support and second opinions. In field research, they recommended dedicated persons on site at the facility. In many situations, when a dedicated person did not exist, research duties were often the first task to be brushed aside when other assignments materialized. Furthermore, researchers stressed that when a study is unable to confirm a hypothesis, it offers a great chance to explore the hypothesis to understand design issues through a new lens. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ARCHITECTS By understanding the challenges facing an evidence-based practice model, we can begin to change the face of practice. When leveraged correctly, research can show the vital role of the built environment in reducing operational costs, increasing operational effectiveness, and having a positive impact on the occupants. The synergy between architects and researchers can help quantify the impact of the built environ- ment on the client's bottom line. It is essential that architects show the viability of design in affecting myriad complex issues that have an impact on their clients. By working together, researchers and architects can empower their cli- ents to make informed decisions and invest in research that improves the quality of each project. 14.4 Evidence-Based Design Travis L. Hicks, AIA Evidence-based design (EBD) is a trend in the practice of architecture that has grown out of evidence-based medicine and other evidence-based discourses. Grounded in research, EBD takes advantage of current knowledge, data, and well-informed clients to arrive at better design solutions. BACKGROUND Since the early 1970s, evidence-based design (EBD) is one of a number of different "evidence-based" discourses among a wide range of disciplines. For example, there are similar evidence-based paradigms in medicine, education, nursing, dentistry, and policy, to name a few. Evidence-based design (EBD) is a term that has come to mean many different things to different audiences at different times. At its best, EBD is a design process that leverages best practices and current knowl- edge as well as primary, secondary, or tertiary evidence in order to solve a particular problem or answer a specific question through a rigorous process that resolves design issues with evidence. When misrepresented, EBD can be a convenient rhetoric used to justify what one would have done intuitively or through a more conventional design process. This article seeks to provide some guidelines for telling evidence-based design apart from conventional architectural practices and from research for research's sake; additionally, this article offers some suggestions for integrating an EBD program into one's practice. Travis L. Hicks is an NCARB-certified licensed architect and assistant professor at the Univer- sity of North Carolina at Greensboro. With combined professional practice and academic experience dating back to 1997, he is a graduate of Princeton University who began his career with thesis adviser Michael Graves. Evidence-based design is "...a pro- cess for the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence from research and prac- tice in making critical decisions, together with an informed client, about the design of each individual and unique project." —D. Kirk Hamilton, FAIA Qualities of Responsible Evidence-Based Design • The design process relies on knowledge and information gleaned through research and the gathering of evidence. • Completed projects go through a rigorous postoccupancy evaluation, or similar analysis, in order to make subsequent projects more successful. • Research and evidence are woven into the design process; conversely, the design process responds to research reciprocally. • Results of research are open-ended, not predetermined, so that the design is open- ended. Signs of Dubious Evidence-Based Design • Architect relies solely on intuition, past projects, or standard practices to arrive at a design solution, while claiming to be practicing EBD. • Product manufacturer points to its product data and claims it as "evidence"; how- ever, closer inspection reveals that the data is not changing the way the product has been conceived and/or produced. Basic evidence-based design methods involve some of the same techniques that are applied in other kinds of architectural research. Research is key to gathering evi- dence to be used in the design process. What distinguishes evidence-based design from pure research, however, is the application of research into a design project that will, in turn, become an architectural project to be studied at some future date. The expecta- tion of evidence-based design is that design solutions are improved through this cycli- cal process of asking a question, answering the question through a design process, and then refining/altering the question the next time. Assembling an evidence-based design team will be a critical step in the process of establishing a practice or project built around EBD. Some firms will already have research departments or individual research staff members; other firms will have to strategize the implementation of a research program. Introducing a research pro- gram into a firm without a preexisting research staff will take time and planning. Firms specializing in particular project types will want to target their research hires around their expertise. For example, a firm specializing in K-12 projects should consider hiring a researcher with a background in learning environments research projects. Sample Researcher Profiles • Graduate of doctoral program in architecture with Ph.D. or D.Arch. and research focused on technology, typology, sociology, or other relevant research categories • Architect-practitioner with significant programming expertise around a specific building or project type—for example, a justice programming consultant • Graduate of doctoral program in sociology, psychology, history, engineering, or similar discipline relevant to design research • Former professional with experience relevant to project type—for example, a for- mer nurse who works on research team in a health care-focused practice • Researcher from manufacturing or industry with insight into the research projects from these related industries—for example, a former furniture industry employee with workplace research experience One challenge of implementing evidence-based design into one's practice is the well-established standard services offered and the need to reconsider or alter the stan- dard services and phases of projects. Architecture firms will have standardized project management tools, techniques, and expectations based around traditional project phases. "Squeezing" research programs into project phases that already have tight profit margins is not the way to establish one's self as a leader in evidence-based prac- tice. Starting small, with a single researcher working on a single project, and giving the research the appropriate time and space required, is a better approach to starting a research program. EVIDENCE-BASED DESIGN METHODS 1. Question The first step in a research project is often stating a ques- tion, or questions, that will be answered through a method- ical process. Understanding that the very practice of architecture is a complex problem-solving exercise that ultimately answers a plethora of questions, there is not an expectation that every problem one encounters in a project will be pursued with the same level of research and/or evidence-gathering strategies. The architecture team should determine some hierarchy of questions in much the same way one would design for formal hierarchy in a building design. Working with an informed client, the design team with evidence-based experience will organize research questions around project goals and priorities. Sample Research Questions • What arrangement of patient room furniture promotes the shortest hospital stay? Project goal: Reduce hospital stays by a certain amount of time. • What relationship between open labs and closed labs promotes the greatest efficiency? Project goal: Decrease the time before a particular drug goes to market. • How do lighting strategies and reflectivity of ceiling finishes influence student test scores? Client's priorities: Increase test scores above state or national averages. • What is the relationship between work surface heights and collaboration in research and development facili- ties? Client's priorities: Promote product innovation through collaboration. • How will a change in the materiality and geometry of the façade affect the R-value of the building enclosure? Project goal: Design a building envelope that reduces the building's energy consumption by a certain percentage. Not all questions will make great research questions. The experienced design and research team will be able to establish a short list of questions that are central to the project and the client's goals. Shortly after establishing this hierarchy of questions and project goals, the architect or design team should generate a literature review to offer a background knowledge base for the research project and to hone the questions. The term "literature review" is primarily associated with aca- demic settings; however, many of the academic literature review techniques will sound familiar to practitioners who have done background research to set project goals for a client. The literature review is both a process and a document; however, the review begins with a process of casting a wide net in order to capture a wide range of material that come to bear on the research question or topic. Whether an article has been peer-reviewed will affect the importance of that article; in addition, the manner of peer review will increase or decrease the article's importance. A double- blind peer-reviewed article, one where the identities of the authors and reviewers are kept from each other, is given greater credence than a single-blind peer- reviewed article, one where the authors' identities are known to the reviewers. An inquiry to the editorial staff will generally reveal a journal's approach to its review process. As the reviewer sifts through and filters the information in the literature, STEPS IN THE EVIDENCE-BASED DESIGN PROCESS While there are a number of different versions of the EBD process, the following steps are common to many of these versions: Question: Through a literature review or by virtue of previously completed projects, arrive at a question to be addressed through the design project. Collect data: Collecting data will take on different forms, depending upon the kind of data to be collected. This collected data will inform and influence the design process. Hypothesize: A critical step in the EBD process, stating a hypothesis the architect is beholden to prove/ disprove, will make the process more rigorous. Design: Like other architectural projects, designs that follow an EBD process will have a design process. An EBD-oriented project team will have methods and tools to evaluate a project's trajectory toward its EBD goals periodically throughout the design process. Construct: The construction of the design based on solid evidence or knowledge is a critical component of EBD, so that a post-test or postoccupancy evaluation of the project is possible. Analyze: The analysis of the design and construction project is commonly done through a postoccupancy evaluation, and this analysis offers insights into the project's success. Refine question: A key to evidence-based design is that the process results in a refinement of the question or project goals, and the EBD cycle begins all over again. Share results: Publication of the results from the EBD process will advance the collective body of knowledge in the profession. 14.4 Evidence-Based Design 939

SUGGESTIONS FOR CONDUCTING A LITERATURE REVIEW • Seek current knowledge while still framing literature within a historical context. • Target academic journals in addition to books or mainstream periodicals. University libraries will have access to academic journal articles. • Seek peer-reviewed work to elevate the objectivity and accountability of source materials. • Draw a diagram to describe relationships between different sources. • Keep notes in an organized fashion so that they can be called upon in future phases of the project. • Generate a spreadsheet summarizing each article, with the following headings: citation, setting, subjects, methods, and results. • Use a citation program such as Endnote or Refworks for recording citations and inserting them in papers while you write. 940 Research in Practice a more concise literature and body of knowledge are established as a basis for the research question. Where can one find scholarly journal articles? Aca- demic libraries will offer greater access to current scholar- ship on a topic through academic journal articles that have been peer-reviewed. Consider an alternative resource such as Google Scholar (see www.scholar.google.com). Other online search engines are PubMed and InformDesign. Following the literature review, a more informed ques- tion or project statement is possible. After forming the pri- mary questions to be addressed through the project, a series of research techniques will be employed to collect data so that the architect can begin to address the research questions. 2. Collect Data While every step in the EBD process is important, the collection of data is a critical component to establishing the pretest attributes of the work. If, at the other end of the process, one is to assume that there's something to be studied after the project is built, then the quantitative or qualitative data that is to be compared begins with the data collected during this step in the process. A variety of data collection methods can be implemented during this phase, and a number of those methods are described below. Natural observation is a qualitative research technique used in evidence-based design research. This kind of observation involves the researcher's spending time observing subjects who are relevant to the design project. If the design project requires the redesign of an existing space, then the observation of that existing space is logical. If there is no existing building or space to be analyzed, then other research techniques would be more appropriate. In public building settings natural observation is more easily accomplished, as the observer attempts to "disappear" into the crowd. The question of "insider vs. outsider" comes into play in certain situations. As an insider, the architect might have privileged access to insights that an outsider would never observe. As one considers how to approach any kind of observation, one has to consider the effect that the observer has on the observed. For a small residential project, the oppor- tunity to observe is obviously not the same as it would be for a large shopping mall, for example, where the researcher can disappear. For those smaller private design commis- sions, there are other research techniques that would be more appropriate to pursue. Surveys are another way for the architect to arrive at evidence to feed into the design project. Used frequently in workplace environmental research, surveys of staff members begin to reveal organizational aspects of the clients. These techniques allow architects to probe, question, and dissect a particular issue from the perspective of the client or end user. The practice of generating a survey is a science and an art, and pre- vious experience writing surveys or reviewing surveys will make the survey stronger. There are a few things to consider when generating a survey for distribution, such as the target audience, target sample size, format of questions, and methods for establish- ing and maintaining anonymity. Choosing between online surveys and hand-written surveys is another consideration when designing the proper survey instrument. Focus group sessions are another research technique used frequently in the EBD process, particularly when the research applies to a specific, targeted group or audience. Unlike a random sample questionnaire, which would be distributed randomly to potential survey participants, the focus group session, as its name implies, is a way to glean informa- tion from a group of people selected around a particular focus area or because of similarities PART 3: PROJECT DELIVERY in that population. For example, if an architect is designing a new pediatric intensive care unit, that architect might consider a focus group consisting of parents of children who spent a certain amount of time in a PICU. For the same project a separate focus group session could include doctors and nurses who work in this type of environment. Focus group sessions can take a number of different forms. Focus group sessions might consist of surveys or questionnaires and seem more like a group survey. Focus groups might function more like group interviews. In lieu of simple question and answer sessions, some researchers will integrate more creative techniques with which to extract information from the group. One such technique is "visioning." In a vision- ing process, the researcher or architect leads participants through a more hands-on process of envisioning certain aspects of the project. Visioning exercises often include the use of inspirational images, drawings, diagrams, or models with which focus group participants are asked to interact. At this point in the EBD process, one might ask what makes EBD different from programming. Programming and EBD have similar techniques, such as surveys, focus groups, interviews, and observation; however, evidence-based design is a cyclical pro- cess that takes knowledge gained from one project and applies it to the next one. In addition, design research is more rigorous than traditional programming. Architects and programming consultants will be familiar with many of these techniques because they will have used the same techniques to generate a program document for a project. The program document is a tool that can be used for the benefit of the project, regard- less of any EBD goals. The additional requirements overlaid onto the project by EBD goals will mean that the design team addresses the hierarchy of questions to be addressed by the project and outlines a plan for targeting and answering these research questions through the design process. In academic settings, particular research instruments will often trigger the univer- sity's institutional review board (IRB), which is a board consisting of faculty and staff with expertise in research methods and protocols, when research projects include human and/or animal subjects. While certain aspects of EBD research will not involve any such parameters, projects that include surveys, focus groups, natural observation, or interview techniques might trigger the need for IRB approval. Most architects doing research in professional practice would not necessarily be beholden to IRB protocol; however, such architects should be aware of the existence of institutional review boards, the concepts that govern IRBs, sensitivity to human subjects, and the risks involved in such research. In addition to this general awareness, architects might have certain cli- ents, such as health care or higher education institutions, that will require IRB approval from them. Architects who participate in research projects with academicians should also be aware of the IRB approval process and the time that it takes academic research- ers to submit for IRB approval and to receive approval or exemption. Potential IRB Review "Triggers" in Academic Settings • Research involves the observation of people, particularly minors. • Research involves interacting with or talking to people of any age. • Research instruments collect personal or demographic information about research participants. • Research involves potential risk to participants, ranging from health and welfare risks to minor risks such as personal embarrassment. 3. Hypothesis While in a typical design process the architect relies on previous experience, proto- types, or rules of thumb to assume the answers to all the questions, an evidence-based design process demands a suspension of belief. Stating a hypothesis or a series of hypotheses will allow for discovery and for the hypotheses to be supported or unsup- ported. Stating a hypothesis is one of the key differences between evidence-based design and a standard design process. 4. Design How, then, does the design process change when there are evidence-based aspirations of the architect or design team? For illustration purposes, consider another component of the typical design process. For example, cost estimating is an activity that is done peri- odically throughout a project, generally at the ends of project phases. A project team that fails to generate periodic cost estimates will most likely find that the design is off track vis-à-vis the budget by the end of the construction drawing phase of the project. Is it pos- sible to complete a project without a cost estimate? Yes; however, the results may be less than desirable. Is it possible to complete a project without any thought given to evidence- based design? Yes, but that project would not be able to claim EBD as an influence nor an outcome; moreover, the project would not benefit from the value that data and evidence could bring to the table. If project cost is something that needs to be evaluated periodi- cally, then evidence is also an aspect of the project that could be evaluated periodically. 5. Construct For an EBD process the construction phase will have similarities to any other construction phase. Those aspects of a construction phase that might be unique to EBD include more rigorous mock-ups for testing, higher levels of building commissioning, and rigorous test- ing, measuring, and balancing. Depending upon the research questions that the design team and client are trying to address, mock-ups will be important in the EBD process. Mock-ups should be used to measure more than just aesthetics or whether the mock-up quality meets the specifications for the element constructed. Depending on the scale of the mock-up, the mock-up can be used to gain additional cycles from the cyclical EBD process. The mock-up can be analyzed, and the research questions can be reformulated and the design modified before the final construction is completed. Communication between the design team, research leader, and contractors is crit- ical during the construction phase. Much like LEED has made its way into the discus- sion during pre-construction conferences and regularly scheduled construction meetings, EBD has the potential to be a point of discussion in these meetings. 6. Analyze The analysis of data will rely on different tools and techniques, depending on the data that has been collected after construction and/or occupancy. In the case of post-con- struction, the design team will be able to analyze the more technical aspects of the design. Engineering systems can be tested and balanced against the design criteria; however, the aspects of the design that rely on human interaction will require a postoc- cupancy evaluation (POE). Architects will be familiar with postoccupancy evaluations and the techniques generally used in POEs. Surveying end users, for example, will offer insights into the project's overall success, usability, and comfort. For certain sets of primary source data, one might use statistical analysis software such as ATLAS.ti, NUD*IST, or Hypersoft. For less complex data sets, a researcher can use more common software such as Microsoft Excel or similar spreadsheet soft- ware packages. Analyzing the data should lead to statistics or data related to the initial questions and hypotheses. The postoccupancy evaluation phase of a project engenders an attitude of open-mind- edness. How often does an architect design something and then "walk away" from the project once the project is closed out? Most architects do not take the opportunity to revisit their projects and treat them as a source for research and data mining. Clients do not typi- cally request POEs, either. In order to research one's previous designs, then, the architect has to begin writing the postoccupancy phase into the contract or begin doing the research with business development funds as a way to build a critical mass of data and expertise. For the postoccupancy evaluation process to be considered evidence-based design, there needs to be a correlation between the questions and research methods used early in the process and those used in the postoccupancy analysis. The pretest data is col- lected early in the process to establish a hypothesis; the post-test data is what is col- lected during the postoccupancy phase. The analysis of the data should follow suit, so that research questions become clearer. 7. Refine Questions Following through with an evidence-based design process means the research ques- tions need to be refined so that subsequent projects take advantage of the previous project. Upon analyzing the results of the built project, the researcher, architect, or design team must determine if the hypothesis was supported, or not, through the proj- ect's outcomes. If the hypothesis was supported, then the architect can continue with similar attitudes or solutions when faced with a similar problem. If the hypothesis was not supported in the course of analyzing the project's outcomes, then the architect will alter the design or refine the question when faced with a similar problem or project. One challenge with revising or refining research questions is that certain questions might only be applicable to a single design project. This limitation could be due to the unique nature of the building's program, site, scale, or some other feature that would prevent the project from being duplicated. "Signature" pieces of architecture would lend certain aspects of their designs to rigorous examination through a number of iterations; however, much of what would make that piece of architecture unique would not be duplicated through testing and retesting. Along those same lines of logic, a "cookie cutter" prototypical project for which many versions or variations exist could be more easily studied, redesigned, evaluated, redesigned, reevaluated, and so on. 8. Share Results Disseminating one's work is critical to establishing the legitimacy and objectivity of the work. Most architects are familiar with the process of disseminating their work through monographs or journal articles; however, architects are not used to releasing the data or numbers about their work. Reasons for this reluctance to share information might result from a fear of exposing less-than-desirable conclusions or from a desire to keep informa- tion private or proprietary, thereby maintaining a competitive edge or client confidentiality. Disseminating the results from an EBD process means that the architect finds ways around these blocks and shares the results from the research. Academic journals are one outlet for the research results. One example of an academic journal relevant to EBD is the Health Environments Research and Design Journal, or HERD. Research conferences are another way to disseminate information from the EBD project. Activities of the Researcher During EBD Project Phases • Pre-design phase: Develop research tools, participate in programming activities, establish project goals with client and design team, arrive at central research ques- tions and hypotheses, set up EBD checklists for project. • Design phases: Collaborate with design team, update EBD checklists, develop pro- totypes and mock-ups to generate preliminary data. • Construction phase: Participate in testing and commissioning, maintain EBD pri- orities through site meetings and field reporting, update EBD checklists. • Postoccupancy phase: Conduct postoccupancy tests, surveys, observation, etc.; col- lect data from postoccupancy; prepare reports for dissemination. • Dissemination: Write journal articles documenting the results of research, contrib- ute to conference presentations related to project. APPLICATIONS FOR EVIDENCE-BASED DESIGN The evidence-based design process transcends typology or context; however, there are a number of building types that lend themselves more readily to the EBD pro- cess. These building types either rely more heavily on data or numbers to be successful, or they are allied with end users or clients who themselves have evidence- based discourses. Health Care Environments Evidence-based design has a well-established history in health care environments where the collection of quantitative patient data has been readily available. Given the interest of hospitals and insurance companies in maintaining or improving the level of patient care and employee productivity, health care environments have over the years focused time and energy on architecture and interior design. Patient data such as blood pressure, heart rate, other vital signs, and length of stay are monitored and tracked in the standard operation of a hospital, nursing home, or other health care facility; therefore, the col- lection of data for architects in health care environments is more accessible. The Center for Health Design (CHD) is an organization that advocates for better health care design through research and education, supporting an EBD approach to health care design. The pursuit of evidence-based medicine provides a natural synergy with EBD. Health care professionals seek to improve patient care and, in the process, collect data that supports the work of architects and interior designers. Information about staff efficiency and effectiveness, data related to accuracy and proficiency, and numbers of patient illness or death related to staff performance are of interest to those studying evidence-based medicine. This data, when shared with architects and designers, offers some insights into the relationships between welfare and design. Learning Environments Learning environments such as K-12 schools or higher education spaces also offer architects access to quantitative data, such as test scores, grades, student absences, and sick days. Design goals supported by research into these project types range from improving test scores to improving indoor environmental quality. Over the years archi- tects and researchers have concluded that daylight has a direct and positive impact on student performance, and indoor environmental quality has a similar impact on health. More recently there has been research into the relationships between teaching styles, furniture layout, and learning in academic environments. A product of this research is Steelcase's "LearnLab: Classroom of the Future," a prototype for a flexible learning environment that challenges the conventional classroom layout and structure. Another source of data tied to learning environments is the National Clearing- house for Educational Facilities (NCEF). Funded through the National Institute of Building Sciences, NCEF collects and disseminates information about learning envi- ronments and links to a number of allied organizations and information sources. Learning environments are not limited to schools; libraries also fall under this category. Libraries range from academic libraries to public libraries to school libraries. As EBD expands beyond health care design, there are opportunities for architects to find synergies with evidence-based librarianship (EBL) or evidence-based library and information practice (EBLIP). Recent research by the author suggests that EBD prin- ciples applied to library design will affect the ways that libraries are laid out. Workplace Environments Workplace environments are being studied relative to employee attraction and reten- tion, reduction of sick days, productivity, and efficiency. For corporate office environ- ments, the research is being led by furniture manufacturers such as Knoll, whose Workplace Research group is showing the way to advancements in corporate office design. Research in workplace environments has led to improved ergonomics for work- ers, more transparency in office partitions, and changes in standard planning modules. Ergonomic research has resulted in office accessories such as keyboard trays, monitor arms, high-end task chairs, and foot machines. PART 3: PROJECT DELIVERY 944 Research in Practice In addition to research being done by furniture manufacturers, there are leading architecture firms that are studying the relationships between design and productivity and efficiency. Gensler is one of the global leaders in this effort; through its Workplace Performance Index® it has established a tool to measure the relationships between business and design. Retail Environments Retail environments are another project type where research influences architectural design. Project goals for these retail environments tend to be different from the types of goals for health care. Retail data is generated through information technology sys- tems linked to sales. Through studying sales figures, market research, and their rela- tionships to retail space planning and layout, retailers are better equipped to generate retail designs that increase profitability. An advantage that retail environment's EBD processes have over other building types is the rate at which retail spaces are designed and built and the sheer number of retail environments that exist. Compared to hospitals or laboratory buildings that take 5 to 10 years from start to finish, retail environments are generated at lightning speed. The EBD cycle is able to lead to conclusions at a similar pace, such that retail spaces are perhaps the most finely tuned environments based on research and evidence. Science and Technology Environments As their name implies, research laboratories are those facilities where hard science and bench research is undertaken. The people who run these laboratories are the same people who are funded by federal grants from agencies such as the National Institutes of Health or the National Science Foundation or through private investors. The kind of rigor that these agencies demand and that the researchers carry out means that the architecture of these spaces needs the same rigor. Evidence-based design techniques will assist with a number of current issues in wet lab and dry lab architecture. For new construction projects, EBD has the potential to address questions related to daylighting, ventilation, efficiency, safety, and security. For existing laboratories in need of renovations or additions, an analysis of the existing building will generate the data needed to produce the architectural design. Airflow tests, light levels, and indoor environmental quality measurements are examples of a few metrics that can be collected and documented in existing laboratory buildings. Importance of Evidence in Sustainable Design One might argue that sustainable design is inextricably linked to evidence; otherwise, who would know what is actually being targeted for sustaining? In order to sustain something at a certain level, or to improve upon that level, the metrics or data of that level must be a known number to begin with. This area of metrics is where sustainable design and EBD overlap. LEED for Existing Buildings: Operations and Maintenance, or LEED-EBOM, is a rating system that incorporates the pursuit of evidence in sustainable design. Within this system there are several categories that ask the architect or other design team member to utilize evidence gathered through energy analyses, existing building energy consumption, and other data before establishing the existing building's baseline. From this baseline of the building model or energy model, then, the design team establishes goals for improving the numbers. While the LEED rating system does not emphasize evidence-based design principles, there is a great potential for exploiting the LEED certification program in order to generate postoccupancy analyses of LEED-certified buildings with the express purpose of making design changes and then starting the cycle of research again. The mandatory five-year recertification cycle of LEED-EBOM- certified buildings will ensure that architects and owners are collecting data that can inform future design projects. The Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star® program encourages the collection of building energy data that gets tracked and recorded as energy use inten- sity per unit of floor area. Energy Star offers an interactive online Portfolio Manager® tool for building owners to monitor this resource consumption. The data collected and reported by owners is generating benchmark data for future building projects; in turn, these data provide a wealth of information for evidence-based sustainable design. The kinds of data tracked by this program have already resulted in collective building data that can be referenced as architects design buildings of similar scale and type. EVIDENCE-BASED DESIGN ACCREDITATION AND CERTIFICATION The Center for Health Design, founded in 1993 by a group of health care design pro- fessionals, has established criteria for accreditation and certification, codified through an examination. Much like the USGBC's LEED rating system and LEED examination have redefined professional practice, the CHD's Evidence-based Design Accreditation and Certification (EDAC) examination has the potential to redefine practice around evidence-based design. According to the Center for Health Design, the "internationally recognized EDAC program awards credentials to individuals who demonstrate a thorough understanding of how to apply an evidence-based process to the design and development of health care settings, including measuring and reporting results." The EDAC examination consists of 110 multiple-choice questions. One hundred of the questions are scored; 10 questions are pretest questions that are not scored. The test covers five different content areas: Evidence-Based Design for Health Care, Research, Pre-Design, Design, and Construction and Occupancy. BACKGROUNDER EVIDENCE-BASED HEALTH CARE DESIGN: AN UNDERSTANDING OF ITS TIPPING POINT Rosalyn Cama, FASID, EDAC Design research methodologies vary, but they are fundamen- tal to the way most design projects begin. Putting rigor around those methodologies and making baseline knowl- edge accessible has allowed the evidence-based health care design movement to gain traction while successfully attracting the attention of owners seeking to align strategic objectives with policy-driven building programs. Rosalyn Cama, B.S. with Distinction, University of Connecti- cut, is president of CAMA, Inc. As a collaborative sub- consultant achieving improved outcomes through evidence-based design, Cama has served as ASID National President, and is board chair for The Center for Health Design. She received the ASID Designer of Dis- tinction in 2012. ACCEPTANCE OF EVIDENCE-BASED HEALTH CARE DESIGN Tipping points occur when an external driver forces crucial conversations that shift behaviors. Such was the case for evidence-based health care design's tipping point. In 1999 the Institute of Medicine (IOM) instigated crucial conversations about the improvement of medical care delivery in their landmark publication To Err Is Human (IOM, 1999). The most discussed mandate that resulted from that report was to slow the spread of infection to save lives. It created market readiness for anything that addressed this issue. A health care building boom coincided with this man- date. Many hospital administrators charged with improving physical infrastructure were also faced with operational directives to improve the quality of care, particularly around safe delivery. Within the ranks of architects and affiliated design professionals there was concern that an evidence- based approach to design did not have enough data to fuel its adoption. Many feared that using peer-reviewed research, housed in the halls of academia, would squelch creativity. In 1998, The Center for Health Design (CHD) commis- sioned a researcher at Johns Hopkins University to conduct an analysis of all research in the field linking design of the built environment of health care to outcomes ("Status Report: An Investigation to Determine Whether the Built Environment Affects Patient Medical Outcomes," H. Rubin et al., CHD,1998). The Johns Hopkins reviewers examined 78,761 articles for possible inclusion, but only 84 articles contained relevant data, fueling the profession's skepticism. However, 74 of the 84 articles (88 percent) demonstrated that some health care environmental feature was related to at least one patient outcome parameter. The health care industry's skepti- cism was beginning to shift to a need for more evidence- based knowledge. The Center for Health Design instituted a field study research program in 2000 known as The Pebble Project. Health care providers, working from the Johns Hopkins study, began to build the body of knowledge by measuring design interventions linked to outcomes in need of improvement that were aligned with their strategic directives. Their findings fueled others to look at how the built environment affected these much-discussed outcomes. This design methodology was noticed within health care provider boardrooms and around policy-making tables. Requests for proposals began to ask for evidence-based experience. It didn't take long for design practitioners to see how evidence-based design could become a business strategy. Two other research analyses were conducted by Texas A&M and Georgia Tech in conjunction with The Center for Health Design in 2004 and again in 2008 ("Review of the Research Literature on Evidence-Based Health Care Design," R. Ulrich et al., Health Environments Research and Design Journal (HERD), 2008), and the number of qualified studies grew into the thousands. With this growing adoption of an evidence-based design methodology, the acceptance of design innovation started to grow. Before, the only real mea- surable criteria for difficult design decision making was cost, and many new ideas failed at the point of budget evaluation. It took evidence to connect the reduction in the spread of infection to the design of the single-bedded patient room (see Figure 14.7) and its adoption into the Guidelines for Design and Construction of Health Care Facilities—the indus- try's accepted code or reference standard for health care buildings. Not only did this design intervention reduce the spread of deadly infection, but it also created a return on its investment in less than two and a half years by avoiding the added cost of care when a nosocomial infection occurred ("The Fable Hospital," D. Parker et al., 2004). Interim mock-up studies are encouraged in the evidence- based design process. This quick way to prototype new design interventions in order to get to specific user input and aid in design detailing greatly reduces the cycle time for the acceptance of innovative design ideas. Architectural mock- ups as a mitigated risk technique have opened the door for innovative design discussions to evolve more rapidly, fueling subsequent return on investment studies. Mock-ups have assisted greatly in the value engineering discussions. (Note the reference in the "For More Information" section regarding "The University Medical Center at Princeton Inpatient Mock- up Project.") ESOURCES FOR THIS PRACTICE METHODOLOGY In evidence-based health care design, the initial baseline of knowledge was quite manageable for those entering the field in the 1990s. As that baseline expanded, so did its complex- ity. The need to capture the successes and failures of particu- lar design interventions has moved beyond academia to the design studio in collaboration with owners. Many firms have engaged researchers, as have many product manufacturers and owners. Small firms can participate through a link to a university or research team member from a collaborative firm. In health care, the venue to share information has now grown to a variety of venues staged by all stakeholders. The norm is to share failures as well as successes. These stake- holders also demand knowledge about interventions yet to be proven. Most important to this practice methodology is the ability to stay current on findings and awareness of what is emerg- ing as innovative design interventions. There are several ways to tap into this knowledge base: • Attend conferences and webinars. • Join community interest groups or initiatives. • Find related websites. • Know which organization or university is producing useful tools. • Subscribe to relevant peer-reviewed journals. • Subscribe to magazines that track evidence-based project case studies. • Seek out important white papers on relevant topics. • Get the EDAC (Evidence-based Design Accreditation and Certification) credential. Sharing the development of a project with a larger group of interested colleagues has gotten easier but more competi- tive in terms of research rigor. See a list of resources in the "For More Information" section below. If a project team needs more research, there are many specialized firms that can serve as consultants. The Center for Health Design also offers assistance in a variety of ways, with third-party reviews and consulting, assistance with litera- ture reviews, and the development of a project research agenda. As a firm's baseline knowledge grows, the CHD offers a number of tools to assist in the review and develop- ment of useful criteria to use in the research process. Subcon- sultants can also be found in other professions and from academic and/or manufacturing partners. PROFESSIONAL SUPPORT Universal to all design processes is the ability to collect and synthesize intelligence from a variety of sources. When this intelligence includes peer-reviewed research, it enriches a very specific body of knowledge referred to as "project wis- dom" (Evidence-Based Health Care Design [Wiley, 2009] by Rosalyn Cama). It is here that an evidence-based vision is drawn, holds a project on course, and determines where innovation and value engineering will and will not be toler- ated, as illustrated in Figure 14.8. Inherent in this process is the use of thought leaders on the topics that are believed to be innovative. Most thought leaders are known by many in their field. Using the AIA and other professional associations to identify these people also adds to a team's ability to take a project to a new dynamic level. Sometimes it is best to look beyond design to clinical associations. Companies often use thought leadership in their research and development work and are a great resource for finding experts in areas that will jump start a project team's evidence-based thinking. Non- profits doing the research are also good sources for advice. TRENDS MOVING FORWARD It took the IOM to move crucial conversations about medical safety to the fore and drive the design of the single-bedded room into adoption. Health reform caused the design industry to partner with hospital administrators to swing the pendulum from its position of patient-centeredness to a more balanced position including staff effectiveness. Doing more for less is not just a "lean" operational solution, it is also a design problem that can improve throughput while still reducing errors. As the diagnosis and management of disease are addressed earlier in a person's care plan, an accountable care model is driving sustainable health and wellness. Design interventions for a culture of well-being, as shown in Figure 14.9, will emerge in our newly revised community and home-based health system. Moving way upstream, design professionals might consider collaborating with care providers to understand how at a societal level, before policy even takes hold, to drive conversations about preserving human existence through the design of restorative environ- ments so disease is avoided. How we as humans can learn to live in a state of wellness through design is the true path toward heath reform. It is here that evidence-based health care design will reach its tipping point in all design sectors.