Design by Committee vs. Design by Dictator

A guest post by John Connell, Yestermorrow founder and board member

It is a commonly held view that good design results when projects are driven by an autocratic leader, and bad design results when projects are driven by democratized groups.

Many find the notion of an alpha leader romantically appealing, believing that great design requires a tyrannical “Steve Jobs” at the helm to be successful. This notion is, at best, an oversimplification and in many cases it is simply incorrect. Design by Dictator is preferred when projects are time-driven, requirements are relatively straightforward, consequences of error are tolerable, and stakeholder buy-in is unimportant. It should be noted that with the exception of inventors, celebrity designers, and entrepreneurial start-ups, virtually all modern design is at some level design by committee (e.g., clients, builders, consultants, code officials, etc.). The belief that great design typically comes from dictators is more myth than reality.

Design by Committee is preferred when projects are quality-driven, requirements are complex, consequences of error are serious, or stakeholder buy-in is important. For example, NASA employs a highly bureaucratized design process for each mission, involving numerous working groups, review committees, and layers of review from teams of various specializations. The process is slow and expensive but the complexity of the requirements is high, the consequences of error are severe, and the need for stakeholder buy-in is critical. Virtually every aspect of mission technology is a product of design by committee.

Design by Committee is optimal when:
· committee members are diverse,
· bias and influence among committee members is minimized,
· local decision-making authority is encouraged (operating within an agreed upon global framework)
· member input and contributions are efficiently collected and shared
· ideal group sizes are employed (working groups contain three members, whereas review boards and decision-making panels contain seven to twelve members)
· a simple governance model is adopted to facilitate decision making and ensure that the design process cannot be delayed or deadlocked.
 
Consider Design by Committee when quality, error mitigation, and stakeholder acceptance are primary factors.

Consider Design by Dictator when an aggressive timeline is the primary factor.

Favor some form of design by committee for most projects, as it generally outperforms autocratic design on most critical measures with lower overall risk of failure — bad dictators are at least as common as good dictators, and design by dictator tends to lack the error correction and organizational safety nets of committee-based approaches.

· Autocracy is linear and fast, but risky and prone to error.
· Democracy is iterative and slow, but careful and resistant to error. 

Image from: Universal Principles of Design, Revised and Updated: 125 Ways to Enhance Usability, Influence Perception, Increase Appeal, Make Better Design Decisions, and Teach through Design ~ Lidwell, William; Holden, Kritina; Butler, Jill.

Both models have their place depending on the circumstances. The strikingly original design for Freedom Tower came from Daniel Libeskind using a design process that can be aptly characterized as design by dictator. However, the requirements of the building that would take the place of the World Trade Center towers were extraordinarily complex, the consequences of getting the design wrong unacceptable, and the number of passionate stakeholders great. Given these conditions, Freedom Tower was destined to be designed by committee. As the design iterated through the various commercial, engineering, security, and political factions, idiosyncrasies were averaged out — a standard byproduct of design by committee. The final design is less visually interesting, but it is, by definition, a superior design.

Design Blog- Guest Post by John Connell

John Connell, Yestermorrow Founder

The following is the first in what we hope will be a series of guest blog posts from members of the Yestermorrow community on topics related to design thinking.

Yestermorrow Design Blog

Trying to invigorate the design conversation at Yestermorrow, I’m constantly challenged by where to start. I’ve tried design competitions, syntax, favorite examples, and inspired readings – none really launched the mission. This is probably more about my lack of follow-through than anything else.
 
So now, let’s try blogging! Participation is self-directed, from a long focused post to a quick comment on someone else’s. Or for the extremely tight schedule, one can just lurk in the wings.

This blog welcomes all comers to explore design issues, projects, concepts – whatever comes to the surface.

Design – is what?

Part of the challenge in wrapping one’s head around “DESIGN” is the varied uses made of the word. Design means so many things in so many contexts that a newbie is easily confused. For instance, architects commonly use the word to describe the 3dimensional result of their 2dimensional imagery while engineers use the word to describe the elegance of a numerical solution. Interior Designers use the word for everything in their field – she’s a “designer”. Graphic designers, landscape architects, fashion designers, animators, set designers, industrial designers, environmentalists, writers, book designers, cooks, painters and sculptors all use the word “design” in special ways. And yet, incredibly, they all share a common thread in that design always means intention or vision.

Regardless of the context, design is always the intended response to a problem (the “design problem”). The quality of a design solution is measured by how well it realizes the intentions or vision being pursued. So regardless of one’s professional bias or training or materials or methods,

design = intention


Design is Who?

In bygone times, design of any flavor was usually the result of one person. The architect, artist, master builder or craftsperson was almost always singular and their vision was a very personal expression. The study of architecture is a study of individuals remembered and venerated in our text books. Many hands and many minds entrained in one pursuit of one vision or goal laid out by The (autocratic) Designer. There are exceptions, of course, but generally this is the assumption behind architecture with a capital “A”.

Today, however, that assumption is being challenged. In a limited resource world with vastly expanded technological options, design (or intention) is not so easily outlined by a single vision. As the world gets smaller and more interconnected, the consequences of design become more complicated. Sustainable design, carbon neutral design, and affordable design are just a few examples that move beyond the earlier approach.

Pursuit of these more complicated design intentions requires the collaboration of many minds at the outset of a project. Finance, codes, structure, energy use, daylight, materials, health, comfort, ergonomics, land use, storm water, wastewater – any one of these alone could shape a building. Together, if not coordinated, they will reduce the design process to an internecine competition. This is why larger building projects are increasingly embracing some sort of integrated design at the outset. All the critical experts convene at the outset to work out a collaborative design (vision) that balances all the various agenda. This is a far cry from the autocratic design myth found in Ayn Rand’s Fountainhead.

Design has become a team sport! In a resource limited world, this is the only responsible approach…unless perhaps, if the building itself is quite small.

The house, if kept small enough, can still be the expression of a single person’s design vision. All the considerations listed above must still be understood and incorporated into that vision but it’s possible – just barely – for a single designer to pull it off. This is the allure of residential architecture. Each house becomes a talisman for how we must live sustainably on this earth. And since every site is different, this design problem must be reinterpreted endlessly to accommodate the infinite combinations of human cultures and natural ecosystems.

Autocratic Design vs. Team Design…(?)


Design Looks like What?

At Yestermorrow, this is the big question carried about just under the surface. It’s a great question and I want to advance it to center stage. We need to talk about it, hear various opinions, and develop some vocabulary.

In this post I have suggested that larger buildings benefit from Team Design while smaller buildings can still be the sublime invention of a single Design/builder. So let’s get some feedback on that!

Meanwhile, here are a few good resources to prime the pump:
http://www.house-design-coffee.com/

The Art of Critical Making (my favorite book for Yestermorrow)
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1118517865.html

Universal Principles of Design (a classic on design at all scales)
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/universal-principles-of-design-revised-and-updated-william-lidwell/1116891960

A Pattern Language (a classic on vernacular design)
https://www.patternlanguage.com/

Life and Death of a Structure

When I arrived at Yestermorrow for the first time in the summer of 2002, one of my first assignments was to join John Connell (Yestermorrow's founder) for a day to work with him shingling the exterior of the Yestermorrow treehouse. He would hold each cedar shingle up to the wall, draw a pencil line to continue the organic curve of the wall, and then hand it to me. I would jigsaw the shingle, then hand it back to him to hammer in. It was tedious work, but inspiring to see the care and attention given to each and every detail.

Photo credit Matthew Rakola

The Yestermorrow treehouse was a brainchild of John Connell and arborist Bill DeVos, and the first of what would prove to be many Yestermorrow treehouse projects. The treehouse was designed as an early prototype for a universally accessible treehouse and the unofficial launch of the Forever Young Treehouse organization. Started in the summer of 2000, the treehouse evolved over the next five years to become one of the flagship hang-out spots on campus, boasting a handmade hammock and an eclectic collection of furniture built by students over the years. The treehouse has hosted many a quiet nap break, gaggles of schoolchildren, yoga classes, and the occasional staff meeting.

Built and maintained by many Yestermorrow faculty, staff, interns and volunteers, the Yestermorrow treehouse has been a collaborative effort, and has continued to evolve with new additions and improvements from year to year. 

Photo credit Dean Kaufman

Since its construction, Yestermorrow has offered one of the only treehouse design and construction courses in the world, inspiring many students to go on to build their own backyard projects. Moreover, many of the people involved in building Yestermorrow's treehouse took the knowledge gained to other treehouse projects around the world, including Forever Young Treehouses, The Treehouse Guys, Stauffer Woodworking, Winvian Farm Resort and others.

Sadly, though, Yestermorrow's treehouse prototype must come down this spring after 14 years of enjoyment and learning. Last fall we discovered serious structural rot issues compromising the safety of the structure and since then have had it closed to visitors. After investigating what it would take to repair the structure, replace the roof, and rebuild the ramp, we've decided to deconstruct the treehouse and put our attention towards a new future treehouse on campus. This summer's treehouse class will hopefully help us identify potential sites and start the brainstorming process.

Photo credit Matthew Rakola

Prior to its deconstruction in early May we would like to invite everyone who helped to build the structure and who has enjoyed it over the years to join us for a memorial of sorts, to celebrate and appreciate the Yestermorrow treehouse on Sunday, April 13th at 4:00pm. If you cannot join us in person please feel free to send your remembrances to kate@yestermorrow.org to be shared at the ceremony.


Kate Stephenson
Executive Director

Interview with John Connell on 30 Years of Yestermorrow

In preparation for our upcoming 30th Anniversary Reunion we decided to check in with Yestermorrow's founder, John Connell, on what he's observed about the School over the last 30 years...

What was your original vision for Yestermorrow?
I wanted to teach the butcher/baker/candlestick maker a method of design-driven construction that would allow them to have well designed homes without the cost/annoyance of an architect.

Did you ever think it’d be around 30 years later?
Absolutely. When I was shopping for a campus (there were several potential parcels that I considered) one of the highest priorities was that it should be a situation that we could grow into for at least the next 100 years. At least....

What’s changed the most about the school over the past 30 years?
Many of us old timers lament the loss of design focus that drove the first decade. I guess this is the inevitable price to be paid for being a leader in green and sustainable methodologies. And maybe the pendulum will swing back now that "green" is as common and credentialed as 2x6 studs. Also, we were involved in bigger structures back then. We always tried to build homes or full scale additions. Here again there has been a trade off. By moving to tiny structures we can service more non-profits and municipalities. Still, I think there's something to be learned by wrestling with a real house and a real client's constraints.

What’s stayed the same?
The people! The school is still the net result of an incredible group of outstanding people. It's these people that generate the school's gravitational pull, bringing in more of the same. While the physical plant is important and our facility helps us attract funds and students - it's our faculty and staff that really make the school. If the campus were foreclosed on tomorrow, I know we could start over in a heart beat. We should never lose sight of this fact. It's the staff, the faculty and the interns that really keep the curriculum fresh and the students coming.

When you led the decision to buy the Alpen Inn property, what did you hope would happen to the campus?
Again, my vision was at least 100 years out and I was hoping we would pioneer some really new and brave design/build directions. The economic realities of such a large property have forced us to settle for something a good deal more conventional than I had dreamed. And yet, I still think in 100 year increments (and even 200 years!) so I'm not the least bit disappointed in what we have accomplished in a mere 30 years. There is nothing keeping us from stepping up to even greater design accomplishments if only we will make that a priority. Our campus is an excellent reflection of where we have put our focus - green methodologies both vernacular and high-tech. I love that about it.

How do you think Yestermorrow has influenced design/build education on a national scale? When we started Yestermorrow there were exactly two design/build curricula in the nation's architecture schools. Today, over half the schools have great shops and ongoing design/build programs. Yestermorrow faculty helped set up and run a handful of those programs and many others took lessons from our early efforts. But we are no longer leading the discussions that take place in that national context. We could do well to tune in. Additionally, I find that there are more design/build offerings at the elementary and middle school level. This is an incredibly important development and an arena we need to pay more attention to. Only be educating our entire population to design basics and visual intelligence will we be able to bootstrap the future of our built environment. The "Solar Age" of the late Sixties and early Seventies taught us that even green architecture that works will be razed if it's unattractive or poorly designed.

What do you imagine Yestermorrow’s next 30 years looking like?
Yestermorrow, like many institutions, is looking at a critical moment in its evolution. Every aspect of residential design and construction is under review as we look at the post-meltdown resource limited future. I would so like Yestermorrow to be a place that looks at things that other institutions can't because of entrenched special interests, routine or bureaucracy. If we could grow a school that combined the qualities of the Atlantic Monthly, Wired and Metropolis magazines, I think we might be headed in a promising direction. As an organization matures, it becomes increasingly difficult for it to persist as an innovative trail breaker. Maybe that phase of Yestermorrow has passed. I think not (see above concerning the staff).

But really the answer to question #5 should be, "Surprise me!"