Pulling Open the Flower

On week three of our Shattering the Meme novena, we explore the concept of creativity.  Creativity cannot be forced, nor can it emerge fully formed from the depths of our minds.  Unlearning the idea that hours spent equals quality of output to force an outcome is the lesson of this week.

As creatives, it’s ingrained in us from our earliest years that we are somehow supposed to be masters of everything.  The image of the superstar sole proprietor who conquers the word is dangled before us and we’re made to feel as if we are doing something wrong if we can’t achieve it.  From those first weeks in studio classes, the all-nighter is introduced. The idea behind it is that we need to work hard, really hard, at being creative.  We are not taught techniques for collaboration, or pulling in ideas from other industries or arts.  We are not taught how to understand the needs of the people we design for.  No, Instead the message is that it all must come from within.  And if the great idea won’t just open up out of our mind and bloom, we need to start picking at the bud, much like an ant on a peony.

Sounds strangely logical, except that creativity doesn’t work that way.  The worst thing you can do is to put performance pressure on it, instead of letting it flow, to close down its sources instead of expanding its horizons.  This meme has never served anything but our collective egos as it takes our self-esteem on a perpetual roller coaster ride.

Stop the suffering
Because we have been taught the behavior pattern of hard work, it feels wrong when an idea comes too easily.  We analyze it, reconstruct it, over-embellish it, reject it.  All in an attempt to make the act of creation something that requires tremendous effort.  We need to recognize that what we have been conditioned to feel “right” about in the design process is actually only what feels familiar to ourselves and our profession.  It gets propagated as “the way.”  In fact, what really ends up being propagated is stress inducing behavior. So, we think that if we are not under stress, we must not be very creative.  This is somewhat like planting a shade-loving plant in full sun, assuming that your shadow as you constantly tend it will be enough.

Live in the now
Creativity is about being present, not trying to predict the future based on the past.  When you are in the zone and are in a state of pure consciousness, nothing except the present moment matters.  You stop imposing past limiting beliefs and letting fears about what might happen restrict you, and you just go with it.  No over-thinking, no judgement.  Just think what would happen if you gave yourself more opportunities to disconnect the outcome from possibility. You might even realize that what you or your client thought the outcome should be wasn’t the best way to solve the problem. Stop ignoring all of the other ideas flowering in the garden in your focus on the one plant that hasn’t yet bloomed.

Allow the unfolding
In our “I am enough” mentality, we believe that we can go directly from intention to outcome.  We think that we control the outcome solely through our efforts, and if we didn’t get the result we wanted, we must have either not worked hard enough or made some mistake.  Not only does this corrode self esteem, it sets us up to shut down opportunities that might lead us to an even better result. You can plant the seeds, and tend the garden, but the plant will grow at its own rate, take its own form.  Building the framework for your intent and ideas to grow and then letting them take shape organically will lead you to the best possible outcome.  Relinquish control of what the outcome needs to look like and trust that you have set the right things in motion.

Shatter the Meme:
Allow yourself to detach from the outcome and instead focus on the intent behind the work you are doing.  What opportunity for growth can you find in the problem?  What is really motivating your client to take action?  What kind of environments do people really need? By asking these questions of yourself, your team and your client, you are able to ensure you are solving the right problems and building the right framework.  Resist the need to be a control freak and remember that when you pull open the flower, you usually spoil it.  Step back and let things unfold instead of trying, in your impatience, to force the outcome.

Shattering the Meme

For the third annual novena at the Patron Saint of Architecture, I want to help you to see all of the unlimited potential you have and start putting it to work for you.  Novenas are an annual chance to look in-depth at issues that affect how we operate in the world.  In past novenas we looked at how we can truly make a difference in the world, and how to overcome the things that drain our creativity.  This year, we will center around all of the things that we may not even know are holding us back, so that you can shatter those memes and become all that you were meant to be.

Memes, those ideas or beliefs that pervade our culture, are hard to avoid.  Like frogs in the pot, we don’t even know that they’re affecting us, they just seem to be the way it is.  As creative people we are especially susceptible to memes because there’s a certain voodoo around the act of creation.  When your work involves acts for which there is no right answer, you can only respond by evoking memes. The memes of a culture and its expectations, the memes of professional conduct, the memes of what a relationship with a client is supposed to look like.  But what if the meme is wrong? 

We can see the short-term effects of memes in viral internet content.  People get caught up in the topic, idiomatic speech may even be affected.  Then it passes.  Observing these micormemes allows us to see how something can be incredibly relevant due to factors taking place at the moment then pass away like a fad. I want to try to look at metamemes in much the same way.  That’s a lot harder to do.  Even if you can see that there may be something beyond, you might not see why it’s even in your interests to pursue it. 

Live outside the fishbowl
It’s important to realize that memes can operate on two different levels.  The horizontal level is what we absorb from our peers and other surroundings. Those memes can be, but aren’t always, easier to identify.  The more insidious memes are the ones that operate on a vertical level through cultural inheritance.  It’s what you learned about the culture of your profession from your professors and mentors, what your employers and co-workers have enforced, even what your parents thought.  If memes are all around us and have helped to form our beliefs about who we are and what’s possible in our lives and careers, that means we are not necessarily aware of them.  In this nine week series, we are going to bust through some common memes and shatter all of the limitations they hold.  I warn you, this will be both challenging and scary.  Your first reaction will be to disagree, but I ask you to sit with it and really think about why you might be unwilling to question a given issue.  We may not arrive at the same idea for shattering it, but just the realization that there could be a different approach is powerful.

Change the Equation
Believe it or not, most of us live our lives as if everything we encounter were a basic algebra problem.  We use the formulas we know to solve for x (ex. 6 + x = 10).  Unfortunately, solving for x means you have used a meme to eliminate the other variables, in our example that would be the number six or even the outcome, the number 10.  This very straightforward approach to problem solving often causes us to have tunnel vision about achieving outcomes.  If you have ever become frustrated about why you could be doing “all the right things” and still not get the desired outcome, you know what I am talking about.  I want to challenge you to think of things in a different way:  what do you really want the outcome to be?  Not the outcome you think you should achieve, but the one you really want.  Then, work backwards to see how you could achieve it.  Allow there to be more variables and less givens about the situation.  Use a little calculus, or even some differential equations.

Enter the World of Innovative Transformation
Innovative transformation is about challenging yourself to have a game-changing response to the opportunities in your life, instead of your automatic one.  How often do you start a new project the same way you start every other project?  I’m willing to bet you have all kinds of reasons why this is the best or only way to approach things.  You might be open to tweaking your process, but probably feel resistant to throwing it out wholesale.  But what if you did?  Silence all those limiting beliefs and just think about that.  What could happen?  Now think about all of the little things, the small and large decisions you make every single day.  Instead of making them on auto-pilot, start being conscious of them, and start asking yourself what assumptions are tied up in your typical actions.  Change your thinking and change your life.

For the next eight posts, I’m going to present common metamemes that we all deal with and give you strategies for looking at them in a whole different way.  I hope you’ll share your thoughts and experiences as you work to shatter each one.  The Patron community supports you and I know that you are unlimited.

Remedies for Healthcare Design: Major industry directions you need to address

Sometimes as architects, we get so myopically focused on what we do, in the process of design and project delivery, we fail to see the biggest picture. Our clients and colleagues often suffer this same malady, leaving us in need of a new place to go to seek perspective, and get out of the healthcare design echo chamber. One of my sources of choice is MedCity News. Founded in 2008 by Chris Seper, MedCity is a clearinghouse for information on all things related to healthcare and life sciences (which I often find includes many other aspects of design as well). Precisely because of his vantage point as a journalist, not a designer, with his finger on the pulse of macro issues impacting healthcare world, Chris has some amazing insights into what we’re missing:

There’s been a lot of focus lately on the patient experience. How do you see these trends impacting healthcare spaces themselves?
Patient engagement is emerging as a big issue, as healthcare consumerism rises. This will include a bigger emphasis on wayfinding, guiding patients around the hospital, as well as designing hospitals to provide more information through integration of data and organization of the space. It is also important to make the hospital feel less institutional and more welcome. Hospitals are the least inviting of any buildings, but now they are the largest buildings being constructed in most cities. For example, when you compare past architecture and current major building projects here in Cleveland, you are comparing structures like Symphony Hall and Playhouse Square to the University Hospital’s Seidman Cancer Center and Cleveland Clinic’s Sydell and Arnold Miller Pavilion or the Medical Mart. Healthcare will sculpt the face of many of the metropolitan areas of the country, it’s where the jobs are and the donors. There is an external aesthetic, and a legacy that will be written by hospital designers, something that was not even thought of seven to ten years ago. City planners will wake up too late to understand how to integrate them into the urban context. In 50 years, these hospitals will be the historic buildings we will be looking at. It’s an unknowing legacy.


How important do you think employee satisfaction will become in healthcare? What are some ways that amenities offered in the work environment will affect this?
You hear about shortages of high quality talent, but the indicators are that this is a buyer’s market. Many physicians are running to be acquired by health systems. Nurses have suffered notoriously poor treatment and are being laid off. Unless you are a rock star clinician, most systems will treat you like a widget. Any changes to your environment will be based on how it will extract value to patients because of the emerging reimbursement model and business model. The answers for shortages are to leverage technology and increase productivity, i.e. telemedicine.


How can design work to support the technological change taking place in the way healthcare is delivered?
There’s a lot of product fulfillment going on, leveraging RFID, sensors, wireless networks, better inventory management. There needs to be a level of consideration of how you manage and supply these systems. How patients flow matters, but so does inventory management to avoid over or understocking of supplies and correct delivery of drugs. Security will also be a bigger issue. How do you design a hospital where these are no visiting hours and people come and go all day?
I was at the Digital Health Summit this year and came away realizing that there were three major issues impacting healthcare; changes to government policy on reimbursement of sick care vs. management of wellness, the food people consume or are forced to consume (i.e low income residents of food deserts), and unlocking the desire of human beings to be healthy. Most people who need health and wellness don’t seek it or can’t do it. Most people who do seek healthcare are the worried well. Therefore, hospitals are dealing with managing the seriously ill or crisis conditions, while at the same time trying to pivot their focus on wellness.

We are a third of the way at most to achieving optimal healthcare delivery. Despite the resources out there for people to manage their own health, no physician is going to trust information gathered by a patient. Technology is still in the background. Mobile apps are useless when it comes to the clinical diagnosis of your problems because the rules and regulations and ability to quickly scan or tag information is still not there. There is also still a tendency to look to a clinical solution instead of a lifestyle one. For example, they are inventing all of these high priced ways to deal with sleep apnea when the number one way to deal with it is weight loss.


As architects, we often have to place design in the context of a hospital’s value vs. cost propositions. How many of these emerging value scenarios will actually improve quality through innovation in delivery of care or process?
Innovation is the biggest challenge. If there’s one thing healthcare is panicking over, it’s how to change their innovation and interface. Motivations have changed. How do you leverage data, and keep it accurate and of high quality, much less tap into big data potential? Everything has been structured for silos. Healthcare over the past ten years has moved into a real overall ROI through cross pollination of ideas. A hospital will spin off and partner with early stage companies in ways they never would have in the past and pharmacy companies will pursue a mobile app as aggressively as they would have a molecule. The whole ecosystem is changing, but the structures have not changed with it. An triumvirate of healthcare has emerged; patients/customers, clinicians, and the B to B side. One of the things we have been able to accomplish with Med City is to provide a forum for all sectors to interact, especially the underserved B to B side of healthcare.

Chris Seper (chris @ medcitynews.com) is the CEO of MedCity Media, which publishes MedCityNews.com. Chris drives the culture, oversees business and editorial directions, and manages the governance of the company (he also writes periodically for MedCityNews.com). Chris is a former journalist turned media entrepreneur who launched MedCity Media in December 2008. He sits on the board of directors of The Civic Commons and the advisory boards of Spoke Software and Your Teen Magazine.

Like They Used To: Craftsmanship, Sustainability and Design

In week eight of the Change the World novena, the spotlight shines on the art of making, asking what appreciation of craft and quality can do for creating unique memorable, and lasting neighborhoods.

When you analyze what’s great about the great cities of the world, it often comes down to a collection of neighborhoods or districts that provide a set of experiences that we want to seek out again and again.  That’s what the average person knows.  What they can never quite put their finger on is what specific ingredients went into the strange brew that is their favorite place.  Architects, designers, planners and developers have a little more insight.  We know that it’s all about placemaking, from the scale of the buildings, to the style of architecture, to the quality and texture of the public space, often “branded” by public art or unique street furniture.  But in the end, aren’t we just creating an elaborate stage set?  Sometimes with backgrounds and props so contrived and phony, so generically designed to appeal (think you average lifestyle center or planned community) that we end up with the opposite of someplace- we get anyplace.

It’s once thing to rail against self-contained development bubbles, quite another when

Details from the building to be
adaptively reused for industrial arts

that approach is applied to a historic neighborhood.  "It's important to engage the historic context," observes Brad Cooper, one of my colleagues at GBBN Architecture. A lifelong resident of Cincinnati, OH, it took his two years spent away at graduate school for him to realize how much his hometown was evolving.  "Architecture school pushes you to think about the built environment in a different way," he observed.  The most positive change he found was that more people were moving back to the inner city.  This larger population made once dangerous neighborhoods safer, which further encouraged the development of live, work and play opportunities.  "People's comfort with being in these neighborhoods made the city itself sustainable, however, getting investment is still a challenge.  The investment that does occur can be of poor quality, with a focus on new being better.  There is still a perception of Cincinnati's core as being an old city.  Getting more people interested [in historic neighborhoods] will provide more stakeholders and more 'peer pressure' for greater revitalization."   But it has to be the right kind.  Brad's urban design philosophy has been inspired by Matthew B. Crawford's Shop Class as Soulcraft book, in which the author makes the point that over the years, people value craft less because they don't know how things are made.  Especially when dealing with historic districts, "You realize that the infill projects can't begin to match the quality or integrity of the historic buildings," he says.  In order to heighten architectural appreciation, Brad feels that it is critical to build awareness of the value of the old buildings contained in Cincinnati's historic downtown neighborhoods such as Over the Rhine, which is one of the largest intact urban historic districts in the United States.   What has earned Brad a place in this Change the World series is the steps he took next.

Fresh out of graduate school, he started work on a business plan. Brad realized that, while in school, students have access to wood and metal fabrication shops, but that that resource is cut off upon graduation.  There is also a dearth of skilled craftspeople.  He decided that providing the resource of rentable shop space could be combined with urban revitalization of abandoned industrial space. He focused on Over the Rhine (OTR) for it's historic character as well as the art of its craft of is celebrated industries.  "One of Cincinnati's strong suits is its diversity of neighborhoods, in part due to the hilly topography.  I thought that engaging OTR could be fantastic and help make this neighborhood part of the city's modern identity." What emerged was the LIVE•MAKE project, an industrial arts center and business incubator that will provide housing and workshops, maker-in-resident studios (aka master craftspeople), light manufacturing studios and retail storefronts.  When you  are an intern architect without millions in the bank account, this might seem like a dream destined for the back burner.  But Brad tapped into the resources available to him in the community.  He contacted the Hamilton County Development Company and talked with them about their business incubator model.  He researched other apprenticeship, leasable workshop and redevelopment through the arts programs like TechShop, Maker Works, and Ponyride.  He met with the OTR Community Council to pitch the project and learn about site availability.  Then, he partnered with AIA Cincinnati and the Over the Rhine Brewery District Community Urban Redevelopment Corporation to launch a design competition for the project that will include adaptive reuse of a historic industrial building.  Currently in the jury phase, the entries are being reviewed by international design leaders as well as leaders in Cincinnati politics.  In January of 2013, a series of community choice events will allow neighborhood residents, developers and other interested parties to vote on their favorite project.

If you live in the Cincinnati area, put January 11th, 2013 6-9 pm @ A359 Partners in Architecture16 East 12th St.  Cincinnati, OH 45202 or January 25th, 2013 6-9pm @ Losantiville Design Collective1311 Main Street  Cincinnati, OH 45202 on your calendar.  

Finally, winners will be exhibited in a gallery show that will coincide with the Cincinnati Maker Faire in the spring of 2013.  Brad hopes that by generating awareness and excitement for this type of project that he can then work to assemble funding.

"The idea of leaving the world a better place than I found it has always been a guiding principle for me," he says.  "Architects need to be more involved in civic projects.  OTR has a lot of residential buildings and promoting homeownership is important to its revitalization.  The LIVE•MAKE space will become a resource for home improvement projects as well as a source for some of the artisans that people will need to hire to restore their spaces."  He's hoping that the party-like atmosphere that will exist at the community choice events will draw crowds and encourage everyone to voice an opinion.  "If you want to engage people in architecture, you have to make it fun." The first step of community engagement took place during archiNATI, Cincinnati's annual architecture week celebration.  Brad worked to get a grant from the  The Carol Ann and Ralph V. Haile, Jr./U.S. Bank Foundation to tour the empty old brewery buildings.  "There is so much abandoned manufacturing space.  I'm interested in finding adaptive re-use for these high quality structures," Brad notes.  "There is such a difference in the attention to detail in the way things were built and manufactured then vs. now."  Looking ahead five years or so, where does he hope to see his LIVE•MAKE dream?  "I want people to say that there has been a building constructed that matches or exceeds the quality of design and construction of its historic context."

Bradley Cooper is currently a junior designer at GBBN Architects in Cincinnati. He attained his undergraduate degree from the the University of Cincinnati (B.S. in Architecture) and his Masters of Architecture from Taubman College at the University of Michigan. His thesis work, Accuulate, Curate, is featured in Dimensions 25. Bradley is on the Steering Committee for ArchiNATI and is an avid homebrewer.

Architecture for the Everyman

A few weeks ago, I had the privilege of being interviewed by Salomé Reeves for her (x)Architect series.  One of the questions she had for me was something I hadn’t thought about all that much, but clearly should have.  Salomé asked, “Why do you think architects are often conceived as expensive accessories in the eyes of the general public?”  This question gets to the root of a conundrum that many of us have: we want to do exciting designs, but our potential client base is just a fraction of the population of people who wish to acquire, build or alter space, with only a limited subset of them committed (financially and otherwise) to high design.  I wondered: why don’t average people consult an architect more often?

The answer is probably the same as why they choose to file their own taxes instead of hiring an accountant, use online legal services instead of seeing an attorney, apply home remedies before making a doctor’s appointment, and fix their own leaky pipe instead of calling the plumber.  It’s easier, faster and more convenient to take care of things yourself instead of bringing in a professional.  Actually, if we take a look at human history, the idea of being a jack of all trades is far more prevalent than the idea of specializing.  People have been building their own homes for millenia.  In antiquity, architects, when they are so acknowledged, were very high status individuals who worked for the likes of the Pharaoh or Emperor.  Even in the age of master builders, and the emergence of the architect as a professional during the Renaissance, talents were reserved for a client base of the rich, the royal and the religious.  Perhaps the historical status of these patrons as well as the fact that works commissioned by them were intended to inspire awe has gone to our collective heads.  When we see architecture for the masses, it’s often in the form of some grand utopian vision.  It’s no wonder that the masses have soundly rejected these visions and continued to resonate with their traditional understandings of home, neighborhood and city.

The market share of the everyman requires a whole different paradigm on the way we understand design services.
People have always been able to build their own spaces. In today’s world, the developer has taken over for the do-it-yourselfer of the past. Expectations are not particularly high for space because most people don’t know what they don’t have. If your house looks pretty much like you expect a house to look and you have a nice lawn and nice decor inside, you feel good about it. Same thing with your business. A custom architect-designed home is just not something that could ever be affordable to most people - the design time alone would be exorbitant. And as an architect, we would have to take this time in order to deliver a good product.

But what if we didn't?  What if instead of looking at a traditional scope of services, and grousing that we can't do it cheaper, we instead delivered services that appealed to the affordability and convenience of the self-made project? We need to get on the other end of the innovation curve.  If we want people to appreciate our work, we must first help them begin to demand better, then find ways to make our work more available. This may mean that we create a kit of parts and some You-Tube videos about what to do with them and let people play. They’d still be paying us for a product and service, but it would be a whole lot more affordable. I also think that there would be a greater appreciation of design if people had more ability to modify their space to get it to work best for them. They’d stop settling for environments where they actually have to develop work-arounds to function and start noticing how and why other people choose to configure their space in a different way.

I have posted a poll on facebook to allow readers to weigh in on their view of accessibility in architecture.  Please visit  and let our community know whether you think we should redefine who we include in our client base and how to best go about reaching this new audience.

Are you an Architectural Luddite?

Do you cling to the comfort of the way things are “supposed to be” as you compulsively align the objects on your desk?  Are you made uncomfortable when new practice paradigms are introduced, choosing first to disregard, then criticize them, only grudgingly adopting them when your clients say you have to?  On the innovation curve spectrum  you would rank as a laggard.  But you probably don’t see yourself that way.  You think that you are being smart by not jumping ahead as an early adopter of the latest trends.  You grouse about how the market is changing and everything is so much more competitive.  You really have no clue how to survive in this changing market, so you double down on the old way of doing things, you stay in your comfort zone and maybe feel really clever that you are making the same old presentations and decisions, but using digital technology.  Like the Luddites  resisting mechanization during the Industrial Revolution, you are futilely fighting change.  Is the new the predator of the old, or simply its evolution?  

The emperor has no clothes

Skills are transferable, habits and routines are not.  A creative mind set free knows no limits.  So ask yourself, are new paradigms that challenge your comfort zone really bad, or are they threatening to expose your own fears that you aren’t creative enough to handle the change?

A small reward is better than none

Sure in a red-ocean, highly competitive environment, there are still winners and losers.  In fact that’s the point- to eliminate competition at all costs.  But that also diminishes you because it undercuts the overall value not just of an old paradigm, but of who you are and why a client should work with you at all.  The next time you feel the urge to smugly declare “winning,” just think of Charlie Sheen.

It’s the new normal

This mindset, now pervading our culture, is just pathetic.  To think that you have to settle for living up to less than your full potential (and by transference your work and the effect it has on others) shortchanges society as a whole.  It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of a future that doesn’t have to happen.  If you find yourself just settling, it’s time to start asking why you are holding on to processes and paradigms that are clearly not serving you.  No one can be innovative if they aren’t passionate and accepting a bleak fade into the abyss is hardly inspirational.

A great piece by Thomas Fridstein for Design Intelligence, “Adapting for Success in the New Practice Environment” exhorts us to embrace the opportunity that comes with change.  His tips for blowing up the old way we practice involve evaluating everything we do with fresh eyes:

1.      Look at the context of practice much as we would analyze the context of a project site

2.      Adapt for success by being, creative, client-focused, competent (and yes even with new technologies or design methods, Fridstein specifically mentions sustainability and BIM), cost-effective, collaborative and global.

3.      Design the design firm by looking at ways you can serve clients better while inspiring and nurturing your employees more.  Last century’s model with its pretext that you are lucky just to be working doesn’t cut it anymore (yes, he does bandy about the term “the new normal” to express the fact that change is here to stay.  I am choosing to forgive him for that because otherwise it’s an insightful piece).

As my friend, life coach Jane Scott Ashley once told me, “Life isn’t what’s happening while you cling for dear life to the trapeze you’re on.  It’s what happens when you let go so you can reach the next one.”

The Architect Brain- and How it Holds Us Back

We are trained as architects to be hyper-focused on detail.  We scrutinize relationships among elements, fret over details of code, think about every device that will be installed on a wall.  We draw finishes and juxtapositions of materials to the nth degree.  This same level of, well, obsession, gets applied to the way we operate.  Although we outwardly say that it’s a practice and that we can’t be held to a standard of perfection, we hold ourselves to that standard and react (at least inwardly) with shame when an error or omission occurs.  We condition our clients to expect perfection and implement all kinds of safeguards and quality control measures to “guarantee” mistakes won’t happen.  But the bottom line is that it’s about control.  We think that if we monitor every action of our staff, clients and contractors that we can swoop down like a hawk as the least sign of indiscretion and right the wrong.  That’s exhausting.  Furthermore, when was the last time it actually worked? 

If we were building the same building on very similar sites over and over again, we could just about perfect it over time. But most of the time, what we are doing in design is creating something from nothing.  We have developed a schizophrenic architect’s mind that allows us to be creative (embracing change) yet detail –oriented (resistant to change and looking for a right answer that can be applied formulaically).  Unfortunately, our creative mind does not win out often enough.  We ask of clients or superiors, “what do you want me to do?” and train our interns by saying, “this is how you do it.”  Then we become controlling about every detail of performance, documentation and implementation.

In an industry defined by disruptive change, we can take a cue from several recent neuroscience studies about how to deal with it creatively instead of procedurally.  Because architecture is really all about ideas.  A recent article in Strategy and Business magazine  by David Rock and Jeffrey Schwartz gives some really great insight into how to let go of fears and start making amazing buildings.  Here’s how to deal with taking the leap:

1.  Command attention by eliminating distractions so the entire project team is focused on the information being presented.  Engaging your audience makes them stakeholders in ideas as they are developed.
2.  Create a compelling vision of the project and why certain design characteristics make a difference in how the building will support its users.  The authors call this mental mapping, and it shapes the expectations and attitudes of our audience, allowing them to have moments of insight that forge new neural connections.
3.  Sustain the focus.  Keeping creative or innovative approaches in the consciousness of the project team (daily is recommended) helps the new vision to become “the filter through which every decision is made.”  Isn’t this our dream for every project- to lock into the owner’s vision and support it with an amazing design that makes the lives of all who experience it better?  Think about why this so often breaks down (or fails to even get started) on most projects.  Now think about how you can articulate and sustain focus on your project.

The devil is in the details
It’s time to perform an exorcism.  Our obsession with detail sets us up for both madness and failure.

Inside the Architecture Firm: Designing a Leadership Culture

Intuitively, we know that our inspiration and creativity are our greatest strengths as architects.  We are innovative and able to transform a lot of diverse, even contradictory, information into a cohesive design.  This talent unfortunately leads us to believe that we have a broader skill set than we actually do.  We think we are graphic designers, marketing gurus and, one day, emperors of our own little kingdoms otherwise known as the design firm.  The reality is that leadership in our profession is largely untrained to actually run a business and motivate/promote workers.  Will your tenure at any given firm (even perhaps your own) ultimately be beneficial or soul crushing?  This blog has dealt with architects' tendency to undervaluing our work and sell out to "make a sale."  In this installment, I wanted to focus on how we sell out inside the office by accepting certain stereotypes of character and leadership.

I presented this dilemma to Lisa Petrilli , CEO of C-Level Strategies, Inc., an expert in Visionary Leadership. Visionary leadership is something I think particularly resonates with our profession because it parallels the design process so closely in terms of being about big ideas, clarity and communication. Lisa graciously agreed to answer some questions specific to leadership in architecture, but I would encourage all of you to visit her site and learn more about her consulting and strategic planning services, as well as to take part in her Leadership Chat twitter series held each Tuesday evening.

AM: There has recently been a lot written on personality types and leadership temperament.  I appreciate that you make a case for introverts in your work, when so many push for extroverted leaders.  In particular, I am referencing a recent article in Architect magazine and other articles that push the ideal personality as being ENTJ.  I don't agree (of course, I am an INTP).  While ENTP may fit a stereotype for an architect, it is not necessarily an ideal temperament.  Is our profession in danger of rewarding some of the more aggressive and ego-centric characteristics of this personality type and even encouraging those who don't share this personality to model its characteristics? 
 


LP: I don’t actually think there is an “ideal” personality type for any role, including architects.  Although 31% of the architects who took the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator with Robert Gaarder were ENTJs, as he points out in the comments, “The distinguishing characteristic was that they were already in leadership positions or aspiring to be leaders.” I believe this impacted the results to a large degree.

I also think what’s more important than the particular personality type is an individual’s awareness of their type, and the implications of their type in regard to strengths and weaknesses. For example, introverts love to immerse themselves in the world of ideas, which must be a tremendous advantage to an architect.  At the same time, architects need to work with clients and become fluent in the world of action – which is generally easier for extroverts.  This pushes introverts outside their comfort zone, and beyond their preferences.

I think successful professionals understand the importance of moving beyond their comfort zone, and are willing to do so as needed and appropriate.  Sometimes, depending on the person, this requires deliberate courage.  This holds not just for the introvert/extrovert scale, but for the other personality preferences as well.  Those who leverage their strengths (their personality type preferences) and have the courage to move beyond those strengths to meet all the needs of their role, will stand out regardless of their profession.

AM: 
Big buzzwords in architecture firms are a "studio environment" meaning that there are few offices and workstations are relatively open to one another, and the idea of being a "flat firm."  What are your thoughts on promoting true collaboration and dealing vs. an almost natural human need to form hierarchies and award titles?



LP: I think the vision and culture of the firm determine which approach is best, and I don’t think they need to be mutually exclusive. In many industries having a particular title is important when the executive goes to meet with partners or customers.  Titles can also serve as forms of recognition as well as prestige in specific industries.  At the same time, companies that use a hierarchy and titles can also have cultures that promote a very deep commitment to collaboration in their approach to the work.

I think companies that break down silos and encourage collaboration can be extremely successful.  But it all goes back to the vision of the company and its culture.  As long as employees fully understand and are committed to the company’s vision and supporting strategies,  their particular role and how it fits into the greater vision, and how they will be evaluated and rewarded, they can succeed regardless of the design of their workstation.



AM: Many architecture firms have two parallel leadership structures:
Task based: Intern, Project Architect, Job Captain, Project Manager, Project Designer, Senior Designer, etc.
Title based: Associate, Senior Associate, Principal, Associate Principal, Vice President, President, CEO etc.
This is a bit schizophrenic as there is not necessarily a correlation between the two.  It also speaks to the diverse backgrounds and leadership experience that a person with the title Senior Associate, for example, might have. If that person is also a Project Manager, then he or she probably knows how to coordinate teams of people both inside and outside the office and to work with clients.  If that title is awarded to the IT person, however, the same skill set may not be present. Is this a good system and how best should it be implemented?

LP: The way a company organizes its talent is one particular strategy that should be designed to support the achievement of its vision.  If the organizational structure helps to clarify roles and responsibilities and to move the company toward its vision, then it’s working.  If the organizational structure confuses roles and responsibilities, prohibits individuals from fully executing their roles, limits their ability to achieve success, prevents clear messages from being communicated and makes it more difficult for the company to move forward, then it needs to be changed.

AM: Not every firm provides leadership training or mentoring, in fact, that is the exception to the rule.  As a result,  there are firms led by Principals who take employees for granted, offer no professional development opportunities, and generally create a sink or swim cutthroat work environment.  Further down the food chain, there can be Project Managers who can't lead a team or play nicely with their co-workers.  What advice can you offer to an architect to help them determine whether they are in a healthy or toxic work environment based on a few quick leadership assessment guidelines?

LP: I don’t think an architect, or any professional, needs leadership assessment guidelines to know if they’re in a toxic work environment.  If their gut tells them they’re in a toxic environment, that’s ultimately all that matters.  If someone believes they’re in a toxic environment, it’s difficult to convince them they aren’t.

What they have control over is what they do about this situation. The first thing to do is determine why, specifically, it feels toxic, given different people interpret this word and feeling differently.  They should ask themselves:
1.   Is my role in the organization clear and do I have support to fulfill my role to the best of my ability?
2.   Do I have opportunities for visibility in the organization commensurate with my responsibilities as well as desire for growth?
3.   Am I recognized for my accomplishments?
4.   Do I get credit for my work?
5.   Do I feel valued?
6.   Am I receiving constructive feedback that enables me to grow in my role, and praise in equal if not greater amounts?
7.   Is there a formal review process that provides clear direction for growth and advancement?

If these essentials are not in place, then ask for them.  Sometimes leaders become immersed in their own roles and lose sight of these essentials, especially if the company does not have strong policies and processes in place.

If you ask for these essentials and the answer is, “no,” or if you’re told “yes” and there is no follow through, then be honest with yourself about your options, what’s important to you, and where you want to give your time, talent and loyalty.

AM: Why is leadership important to creative professionals?  Many would argue that it's all about talent.  How can firms better train their leadership at all levels?

LP: Leadership is so much more than titles, levels and how we define our roles.  It’s about how we live our lives.  True leaders recognize and reward leadership qualities in people regardless of where they sit in the organization.  True leaders also have a strong, compelling vision that fosters growth.
For companies to thrive over time there must be a continuous effort to recognize, encourage and reward leadership attributes in their people.  Doing so leads not only to financial growth, but to personal growth, which furthers loyalty and productivity and fuels the cycle of opportunity!

Ultimately, we need to design our firm structure as carefully as we would any project.  We need to implement good integrated team strategies and value the input from staff at all levels.  Just as clear vision in a project process helps clients to get on board with an idea early on and embrace its power to transform the way they use space, so must we cultivate a leadership process that empowers everyone to make a difference as well as to clearly see whether they are in the right culture to advance their particular career goals.  Please share your thoughts and experiences either with leadership or as a leader.

Treat[ED]: Shifting the Emergency Department Paradigm

I’ve designed quite a few Emergency Departments, from large to small and concepts from zoning, to universal rooms to interior nurse cores and observation units. I have even participated on a team developing standards for one of the nation’s most prominent health systems. While all of these efforts focused on the patient experience and the standard of care, what we have really been doing is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic that is the ED. ED volumes keep increasing at a pace that no expansion strategy could ever really address. Patients are not getting better access to care, in spite of our efforts. I guess that’s what happens when you treat the symptoms instead of the problem.

I have had some recent exciting conversations with Dr. Todd Warden whose work on implementing aggressive processes to improve ED throughput is a game-changer.  An article detailing his work

explains how we have traditionally been using not only the wrong metrics to project volumes during programming, but also the wrong paradigm for processing patients. As architects, we love a good form follows function argument and Dr. Wardens’ insights into ED function create some very interesting implications for design that I share with you here:

The ED is not a hopeless case

“I think the ROI benefits of strong new ED processes tightly integrated with complentary design bodes well for future of ED. I am working with a revenue cycle company Besler, who is interested in the impact of ED improvements on increased revenue and decreased cost of operations.” To help us better understand how this works, Dr. Warden focuses on some specific patient statistics. “The moving parts are Left Without Being Treated (LWOTs), elimination of Diversions, and over time increased volume due to improved patient satisfaction.” These variables can be significant when you consider the following example for a typical ED that sees 50,000 patients per year. “LWOT’s, if at 5% for a 50K volume ED is $400-500 for every patient that walks out and about 10% of those patients would be admitted, representing a loss of anywhere from $1 to 1.5M.” There is also a tendency to over-focus on the external causes of ED overcrowding, including efficient interface with other departments and the ability to get patients who will be admitted out of the ED. Dr. Warden’s concept for managing ED throughput challenges traditional process in order to deliver a more efficient outcome from within the department. This might seem like a management or operational exercise, but it is actually supported by the built environment:
1. The patient shouldn’t own the bed
Dr. Warden’s approach begins with a challenge to the way we program space. His study of departments has indicated that the way we typically calculate a peak ED volume actually does not account for the amount of fluctuation between the highest and lowest daily volumes and therefore provides an underestimation of the number of patient spaces needed. Further, we typically understand one patient space to mean one patient bay or exam room. In fact, many patients who come to the ED do not require a stretcher or a private room or bay at all. Even those who do may not need to be in such a space for the entire length of their stay. “By adhering to the idea that the patient owns the bed, we create a lot of needless crowding and bottlenecks”, says Dr. Warden.
2. Integrating process with Design
Two areas that Dr. Warden focuses on are capturing the true measure of volume and efficiently moving that volume of patients through the department. Interestingly, building more rooms is usually not the answer he recommends. “I really see three levels of intervention. The first is completely process-driven. By getting the ED staff to work more efficiently, they can get patients in and out of the department quicker. The second level involves renovation to create a better space for handling patients who are not ready for discharge but do not require a bed. Sometimes, giving up a few ED rooms or a section of waiting are can create this space and allow more patients to be treated. The final intervention occurs at facilities that must add additional space in order to manage their volumes. In these cases, I actually recommend that they build a space called a Rapid Evaluation Unit or REU. More importantly the additional volume created with a high-performance method such as the REU allows the additional volume to be absorbed usually without needing additional staff so most falls to the bottom line. By applying these principles to design, the ED unit is about a third of the construction cost of a typical unit but provides double the annual capacity of the same number of traditional ED beds.”

Read more similar content in an article by Dr. Frank Zilm, FAIA and FACHA on New Directions for the ED

Design is Like Healthcare...

I call it the “duh” moment- when someone can frame an issue in a way that is so obvious that it inherently makes sense.  You wonder how you never came to that conclusion on your own.  I experienced on of those moments today while reading Scott Simpson’s “Change of  State in A/E/C” for Design Intelligence. It compares the sea change going on in our world to the one that has and is still occurring in healthcare. Doctors and hospitals are “always” kind of things that we will never stop needing, but the particular services they provide and the way in which they deliver them has changed. Sound familiar?

The piece particularly resonated for me because I have a foot in both worlds as an architect who specializes in healthcare. Like many physicians and hospitals, our industry has been slow to move from a traditional cost-based, risk adverse model. We are annoyed that our value or expertise is questioned and rush to create defensive contracts or lobby for legislation that will protect our design processes. What we don’t do is stop to consider whether these processes even still serve us. As Simpson puts it, “there’s not much evidence that all of this management and monitoring is being used strategically to design better buildings or deliver them more efficiently, which is what clients really want.”


Simpson does a great job at projecting trends from the demise of mid-size firms to the rise of multidisciplinary project teams. It’s a futurist view, but an instructive one that I hope will inspire you to look beyond the way things are and start looking at how you can be a leader in delivering:


Architects now have to sell their expertise and value instead of their time
Outcomes matter more than the services provided, value does not equal cost. Simpson cites the example of physicians, who are the primary deliverers of care. At one time, physicians determined how they would treat patients and were paid unquestioned for the services they provided. Today, many have become employees of large health systems and the care protocols that they use are largely dictated by insurance company requirements, which are increasingly being tied to outcomes for the patient. Similarly, architects have focused on being compensated for time or as a percentage of the construction cost for producing a design product. We want our talent to act as the justifier for our decisions. Architects need to have a much broader understanding of what their clients value as well as a way to frame every decision within that context. Start framing the services and expertise you provide as a series of value-adds and tying financial incentives to your ability to deliver according to metrics that are important to the owner (lower maintenance costs, better building performance, etc.). Far from diminishing design freedom, this practice will actually justify in real terms what has in the past seemed arbitrary or purely aesthetic.

Teams, not firms, will design, document and deliver projects.

Just like the once-dominant general practitioner has now become only one member of a team (not all of them physicians) of specialists who manage a patients health, so too will the architect be perhaps the owner’s guide, but certainly not the only player in determining what’s best for a project. You wouldn’t go to a doctor who routinely performed tests without confirming with your insurance company that you had coverage, or who refused to give you access to specialists when needed. It’s the same in design. The standard focus on phases of design and bidding will become irrelevant as technology allows more sophisticated modeling of options. Into the funnel will go decisions about design, sustainability, schedule impacts, operating costs, return on investment needs, outcomes on user experience and out will come a determination of value. This will happen for multiple scenarios throughout the project and the entire team, including the owner and their stakeholders will weigh the options to select the one providing the highest value. Look for more collective contracts and increased emphasis on integration and collaboration. Better yet- suggest them and become an influencer of their content.

If you don’t lead the change, the change will lead you

Physicians have become marginalized by the business of healthcare. Although they still play a critical role, that role is no longer dominant as other players like insurance companies, government agencies, equipment manufacturers, lawyers, and the corporate structures that manage large health systems have come onto the healthcare scene. The solo practitioner with an independent practice who referred patients to the local independent hospital is a relic in today’s healthcare environment. Architects should learn from their medical counterparts that resisting change diminishes your power to shape it. My favorite quote from the piece nicely sums up the issue, “The irony is that architects, who are so good at inflicting change on others, are woefully reluctant to embrace change in their own practices.” Change or become irrelevant.

How Was Your Stay?

First, a confession: I do not specialize in hotel design. I design, research and program healthcare projects. While hospitals have certainly tried in recent years to embrace the aesthetics of hotel design to create a more welcoming and less institutional environment, I think that the synergy between these two archetypes goes far deeper. More than imitation, this is a fusion spawned by recent trends in healthcare that creates an opportunity for both industries:

Trend 1: A hospital stay does not make you “all better”

Patients admitted to hospitals are sicker than ever before due in large part to the fact that so many procedures can be performed on an outpatient basis. You need to have had a significant illness, catastrophic accident or major surgery to qualify as an inpatient today. Simultaneously, hospitals have come under pressure from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services as well as insurance companies to shorten lengths of stay. Discharged inpatients therefore, may still be in a precarious state of health.

Trend 2: Both caregivers and patients are getting older.

The increase in the elderly population is also a factor in the ability of a discharged patient to function at a very high level upon discharge. All of this places added burden on the caregiver(s), who may themselves have compromised health.

Trend 3: Consumers are driving the healthcare marketplace.

Patients and their families are realizing that they have choices. They are demanding convenience, access, responsiveness and amenity from their healthcare providers. Many hospitals are beginning to provide concierge service to VIP patients. Additionally, families often want short term child care, reference libraries, and better food choices. 

Trend 4: A greater emphasis on wellness and prevention has emerged

Many healthcare systems are now offering alternative and complementary therapies such as massage, yoga and acupuncture. They are also expanding campus design to include things like on-site walking or fitness trails, and community education rooms within the facility.

Many major hospitals are served by nearby hotels, including some franchises directly owned by the healthcare institution and located on-campus, and I see an opportunity do more than provide accommodations for families during a hospital stay or a convention venue. As a building type, hotels are consumer oriented and focused on the total guest experience. Designers of hotel environments as well as their clients understand the value of positive distraction and captivating guests during their stay.

As healthcare clients shift their focus from purely functional spaces to ones that incorporate evidence-based design strategies, the connection between the environment and the health of patients and performance of staff is undeniable. Market trends have also necessitated a re-evaluation of traditional business models and rethinking of the spectrum of services provided. Healthcare design teams are working with owners to create spaces that are relaxing and comforting, perhaps even inspirational, instead of clinical. Collaboration with hotel designers could produce inspired hybrid architecture that also results in construction and operational savings for both due to the ability to share spaces and create operational efficiencies. Hotels already know how to offer excellent amenities that can seamlessly integrate with the goal of a healthcare institution such as wellness services and alternative therapies for both patients and families, in spas, gyms and grounds, venues for educational an community classes, and possibly even providing a transitional environment for discharged inpatients who may not be fully ready to return home. An inpatient room and a hotel room are not that dissimilar after all.

Generational Marketing meets Design

Effective design comes from the ability to know your audience and speak their language.  If you don't effectively communicate, you won't effectively define the problem. Different generations of building users have different values, expectations and needs.  Attracting and retaining quality staff and satisfied building occupants requires providing them with quality environments.  Try working with your client to assess the demographics of the building users and look at these tips in the chart below from the Generational Targeted Marketing Corporation to target programmatic elements or design features that might resonate best.  You may discover that providing  amenities like on-site childcare, fitness center or convenience services can make all the difference, or that better break rooms that allow staff to get off-stage and decompress in a stressful work environment keeps them motivated and happy.  There's nothing better than knowing you designed a building that people find enriching to occupy.

DEMOGRAPHIC SEGMENT	MINDSET: ATTITUDES, BELIEFS and VALUES
Generation  9/11 (2001-Present)	Generation 9/11 values fitting in with their peers. Overprotected during their formative years: at home, because of the rash of kidnappings and Amber Alerts; at school, because of school-shooting incidences; and in society, because of terrorism. Will tend to be risk-averse and therefore conformists as adults.
Generation Y (1982-2000)	Influenced by their brand-conscious Boomer parents. Attracted to brands at an early age and remain loyal. Associate brands with companies that stand behind their products. Brand names also important for peer recognition.
Generation X (1961-1981)	Market Savvy Demand an honest, straight-forward approach. Expect you to deliver on your marketing promises. Burn them once, lose them forever.
Baby Boomers(1943-1960)	The busy generation. Often juggle kids, spouses, parents and jobs, so anything that makes their lives easier or more convenient will appeal to them. They do not have time to read lengthy marketing efforts. Capture their attention in seconds, or lose them.
Silent Generation(1925-1942)	Once financially conservative, they are now willing to spend money on themselves. Feel it's now-or-never time to splurge on that big-ticket item.
G.I. Generation(1901-1924)	Avid readers Prefer sales by mail because customer service standards have fallen. May have trouble with transportation, so catalog sales are a natural fit.
Source: Generational-Targeted Marketing Group, 2007

Cheaper, Better, Faster: The Case for Entreprenurial Marketing

The increasing pressure to design and construct buildings cheaper, better and faster can seem like the surest path to a landscape of mediocre, throwaway buildings.  Architects prefer to look at projects as a factor of the dependent variables quality time and budget, explaining to a client, that meeting a low budget might compromise quality and perhaps argue for building a better, but smaller design.  Those relationships are weakened by market forces such as fewer resources or shorter client timetables to effectively launch a project and build, maintain or increase their market share. Clients demand that they want it all and want it now.  And there's a business theory for that.  Called Entrepreneurial Marketing,  Len Lodish, a Professor at the Wharton School of Business argues that smaller businesses need fast results with minimal investment.  Even the largest institutions in our industry operate much like small businesses, which is why I find this idea so compelling.  

To help get inside our client's head, let's focus on making the business case for ideas:

It's hard to focus on the long term when you have an immediate need that will likely exhaust your capital budget.  That's why so many large institutions look like they have tumors of one story buildings growing out of them and are a wayfinding nightmare. Schedule and budget concerns may be non-negotiable, but your client didn't hire you to smile and nod your head.  They hired you to think about the problem in ways that they can't.  As long as you have truly listened and respected their concerns, presenting a less literal solution than the one they asked for will gain their respect and produce a better project. 

There is also an implicit assumption on the part of the client by playing its safe, they know what they will be getting, and that the project will proceed more quickly and cost less.  Looking for proven solutions, they may be a little hesitant to explore innovative design practices, cutting edge research or sustainable tactics.  Or, they may  require integrated project design or minimum LEED certification without really understanding what is involved.  

Innovation does not have to come at a premium, and sometimes, the payback on implementing a cutting edge technology , unconventional method or research makes its own compelling argument. Architects are not necessarily known for their financial wizardry, but by presenting a strategy in terms of its return on investment, the conventional understanding of cost, schedule, and budget are transformed.  design time frames can become more elastic, with more time spent in pre-design and schematic design in order to brainstorm and then vet options as a team.  When we view a building project over its lifetime, the way that the problem is framed and eventually solved becomes more dynamic as well, leading to what the client wanted to achieve most- value.

Is Your Ocean Red or Blue?

Have you ever thought about how architecture is practiced?  Why so many architects are just not very collegial with one another and our professional organizations serve more as a source for legal documents, status, and continuing education instead of as a true collaborative resource?  Maybe you just naturally assume that you have to compete, after all work pays the bills.  Our profession has accepted the premise of a business strategy called Red Ocean (think blood in the water),  that assumes at its core that we can only win if everyone else loses.  Our work becomes a product or commodity and offering more of it for less is the only way to stay ahead of the game (sound familiar to how we undercut our fees and lose money on jobs to keep or get a client?) 

A more recent strategy to emerge turns that premise on its head.  Called the Blue Ocean strategy, it asks us to rethink the idea of beating the competition and instead examine that for which we are actually competing.  In other words, is the prize really worth it?  Are we decimating ourselves just to win?

By looking at who we really are and what we really want to do; we can, according to Blue Ocean thinking, define a new market that we can serve with the full force of our individual talent and passion.  It seems almost too good to be true.  I am transported back to my days as an idealistic student full of dreams and ambition, not the soul-crushing professional environment that awaits said student ideologues.  

Of course, there is a catch: you have to actually be innovative (and not too risk-adverse either). In a Blue Ocean paradigm, the focus is on the value of what we have to offer and finding a market that is actually seeking that value.  No building industry, creating niche markets requiring hyper-specialization is not the point, it's about innovation.  Innovation that also takes into account utility, price and cost in an attempt to make competition irrelevant.  That's something that we have a hard time with, because we want to keep designing buildings, and so do all the other architects. Also,blue ocean is an ideal that may not prove lasting. Mohammad Jamil of the Change Management Community is his article "Red and Blue Ocean Strategy" argues that the two strategies are in fact interdependent and cyclical, with blue oceans driving innovation, which in turn drives the red ocean competition that will eventually spawn more innovation.  I think that what matters most is that we realize that we are not constrained by the "way things are" and instead start asking a lot more critical questions:

1. What are you really trying to achieve and why?
2. To whom will it matter?
3. Can you abandon old habits and dependencies?

Stop swimming with the sharks and chart a course to peaceful waters.  When survival isn't the primary issue, it's amazing what you can achieve.