It seems like a good idea at the
time- if you are going to build something more than once, you should develop a
prototype. In theory, your standard can then
be tweaked with lessons learned from each subsequent project, allowing the
ultimate in efficiencies for design, construction (hello purchasing power),
maintenance, even optimizing the efficiency for staff, patients, customers,
vendors, you name it. However, the idea
of a prototype is very different from realities on the ground: this project, in
this location, with this demographic and these codes. I used to do a lot of commercial retail projects
(where prototypes reign supreme) and I think I only ever once built anything
straight out of the box. That was in a
really small town where the community was happy for any development at all and
the city planner was also the plan reviewer and the building inspector. I also got a building permit in less than 24
hours, so that should tell you something about THEIR standards. If you think that developing a prototype is a
shortcut, a way to circumvent the design process, it’s time to take another
look at your motives:
The standard with no standards
Architects and their clients alike are guilty of developing
prototypes based on the lowest common denominator in an attempt to build more,cheaper, and faster. Elementary schools with no windows
that got replicated over and over in two rapidly growing school districts who
shared a facilities manager is a distasteful (yet sadly real) example that
comes to mind. Sure, the buildings were practically
indestructible and went up in record time, but the staff and students were
placed in an environment that was one step below prison requirements. I’ve also worked with prototypes that were so
low-budget that the building essentially served as a billboard and nothing
more. How much time and money (including
architect and landscape architect fees) do you think got wasted every time the
cheap, somewhat gaudy prototype exterior had to be upgraded to pass muster with
a local planning department? Avoid unintended
consequences that cost you time and money by having design goals for your
prototype that extend beyond the desire to save time and money.
One size does not fit all
Other organizations try to create prototypes for finishes and
standard room types. The goal is to
circumvent a lengthy design process, including extensive user input. This use of prototypes is especially
prevalent in the healthcare sector, but you can also find it in the residential
market in the form of subdivisions offering a choice of models. Theoretically, the prototype has been
carefully researched and will provide the most efficient and “best” layout for
each type of space. In practice, users customize
their space as soon as they begin using it because it doesn’t really work for
how they need to use it. Standards for
colors and finishes may also need to be modified if they project the wrong
image to a community because there is a culture clash related to how the
organization is perceived. You are not
necessarily even saving time and money when the prototype for a room or
department has to be applied to an existing building or unique use and
therefore requires modification.
So is there ever any circumstance
where prototypes are good? While a bit
of a slippery slope, a prototypical design can be used as a tool to enhance the
user experience, and learn more about operational goals and the specific design
elements that can help achieve them:
Prototype as Pilot
It’s really exciting to think about a project as a test lab
for all an organization wants to achieve with a particular space. That can’t happen if the prototype isn’t constantly
in question. Not only should extensive
mock-ups (including finishes) be constructed, but input from staff in all
departments, at all levels, patients, customers, other community members should
be sought. Once a prototype design gets
the green light, a thorough post-occupancy evaluation of the space should be
conducted to learn about what worked and what didn’t BEFORE this prototype is
used again. Lessons learned need to be examined
as part of the design process for the next project where the prototype will be
used. Don’t forget to collect data
related to demographics of your building occupants; you may start to notice
some patterns that cause your prototype to evolve into options over time. You need to have a very clear set of goals
for the project and each element of the prototype should be carefully
researched to contribute to those goals.
When an element fails or underperforms, it needs to be analyzed in the
context of those goals to determine whether the cause is a design or an
expectation.
Prototype as module
There are many different scales of prototypes: master plan,
building, department, room. It often makes
sense to have a prototype just for room types and finishes. Sometimes, it is more important to map ideal
processes and flows that you want to standardize and develop modules that can
be applied with a greater degree of flexibility to an individual project.
Prefabricated construction
can often do more than prototyping to
help you build cheaper, better and faster, without compromising a solid design
approach that applies evidence based design and enhances the environment. This module can be easily fit into a multitude
of existing conditions, and has the flexibility to adapt over time. Modularized prototypes give you a kit of
parts that allow an open and honest dialogue with user groups about what needs
to happen in the space to ensure that the standards of care are supported, not
circumvented by design.
We’ve all certainly seen plenty of
badly applied prototypes. However, even
in your own experience, there are design elements and combinations that work
and that get used over and over in projects (although we don’t label them as
prototypes). These can represent just
as much of a closed circuit as the officially sanctioned prototype and lead to
equally banal and unresponsive design. Saving
time and money can be accomplished in a lot more interesting and effective ways
than cookie cutter architecture. The
important issue is to constantly upgrade your knowledge based on a thorough assessment
of how a design performs and to apply what you learned to consistently raise
your design standards.
