This is a book about design, although not design as it's typically practiced. Rather, we've focused on evidence and how evidence can be created and applied to make the work of architects and other design professionals relevant to the twenty-first century. The design professions must change to remain viable as the world around us changes. Technology and economics have sharpened client expectations for return on investment and changed the way our clients work. Although public admiration for signature design is very much alive, designers are more than ever being held accountable for high-performing buildings. It's rapidly becoming the norm to expect buildings and their interiors to be sustainable and cost-effective and to lead to positive behavioral outcomes—places that help people heal, learn, produce, and thrive.
THIS APPROACH TO DESIGN ISN'T JUST FOR LARGE, SPECIALIZED PRACTICES; NOR DOES IT ASK THE DESIGNER TO GIVE UP PASSION FOR THE ART OF ARCHITECTURE. IT'S ABOUT ADDING VALUE, NOT LIMITING CREATIVITY. TO THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH TO DESIGN, EVIDENCE-BASED DESIGN ADDS CONSIDERATION OF MANY TYPES OF KNOWLEDGE THAT HELP US ANTICIPATE HOW THE DESIGN WILL AFFECT HUMAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE.
The model developed and exemplified by the Work of the experts featured in the book is grounded in a belief that to remain relevant in a rapidly changing world, full of cultural, economic, and environmental challenges, architects must expand their domain of expertise, the issues they will explore, and the methodologies they will employ. If they do, innovation Will thrive. If the design professions fail to embrace change, the gulf will grow between what they can provide and what building oWners and occupants need to succeed Within their own value systems.
THE APPROACH WE ADVOCATE IS "EVIDENCE-BASED" BUT IT DOESN'T SIMPLY MIMIC EMPIRICAL SCIENCE. This new design model would blend the creative use of intuition and experience that has served the design professions well, with an empiricism that is specifically appropriate to the architectural profession. Design that is broadly informed by reliable evidence will lead to better buildings; buildings that are technologically creative and good for people.
How might the design professions evolve Without risking the very qualities that have made design so compelling to so many people for so long? The authors set out on a journeY to discover current best practices and next steps toward empirically informed design that would inspire designers. As criteria for our search, we determined that the methods and processes must be useful and feasible for practitioners Working in small, medium, and large firms; design students and facultY; clients and professional organizations.
As we searched, we were often inspired, occasionally disappointed, and ultimately excited for what the evidence-based approach could bring to design practice.
We were inspired by the explorations of new building materials and building systems in search of greater design expression and new ways of generating and saving energy.
We were also inspired by sophisticated efforts to use lessons from the social sciences to redefine organizational behaviors and performance.
We were excited by the potential of neuroscience to inform architecture with an understanding of biological response to environments.
We were impressed by sophistication of the new digital tools and processes that have impacted not only how we work, but what types of work are now being undertaken by leading architects and other design professions.
We were disappointed to see how many architects are fearful and dismissive of the influence of scientific evidence on design, but once we better understood this perception, we felt encouraged that foundations already exist in the design process to bridge the gap.
In the end, our research convinced us that utilizing evidence is an inevitable part of future practice, critical to design innovation and client service. We discovered that there are lessons to be learned from the sciences about how evidence-based design might be practiced. Equally important, we believe that this model of evidence-based practice for design won't ask the designer to become a scientist; abandon subjective thought; or relinquish his or her role as creator, form giver, and integrator. Using scientific methods to inform design does not imply a prescriptive design process, with limited choices for the designers. Information from scientific disciplines, such as neuroscience, may enrich the designer's considerations but not at the expense of creative expression.
There are a number of positive steps toward evidence-based design practice being taken by individuals, professional organizations, and universities. Nevertheless, design professionals have not yet come together with a consistent point of view about how to advance a model that would be feasible for typical designers and would work well within a design culture.
To move in this direction, the authors considered the work of experts who already embrace the notion and precedents from medicine and other professions that have begun to establish systematic approaches. We also asked ourselves how these lessons might best integrate with the existing strong foundation of design education and practice. Two overarching principles emerged along with two key questions.
Using evidence is intrinsic to the design process. Every time we do a cost estimate, we are modeling. Structural calculations rely on performance data. When we test how two materials react to each other and perform as a system, evidence is created. Examples go on and on, but it's not enough. Evidence-based practice doesn't eliminate the traditional process of design inquiry. It simply raises the bar. It adds the dimension of transparent performance outcomes. It makes designers more active participants in defining needs and advising how design can help to achieve client goals. It encourages innovation in the building sciences by replacing what was done last time, or what is code minimum, with what would yield the best results for the client, the public, and the planet.
This involves more testing, seeking information, and envisioning with the help of new technologies. IT SEEKS INPUTS FROM THE LARGER WORLD AROUND US; NOT MERELY ONE'S OWN PRACTICE OR EVEN THE DESIGN WORLD WE KNOW THROUGH PEERS AND TRADE PUBLICATIONS. If a social scientist, an energy specialist, or neuroscientist has the information needed to predict how a place will affect its inhabitants, why not bring that disciplinary expertise into the design conception?
There isn't any one best source or best method of inquiry. The physical, natural, and social sciences provide a knowledge base that can enrich design decisions and make them more relevant beyond the design community. Methods to produce new knowledge also come from varied disciplines. No one is best and bringing several perspectives together will yield the most compelling evidence and best designs.
Evidence is information that serves a special role. By definition, it is intended to help form an opinion or make a judgment. It indicates something about something else. In design practice, evidence has value if it is reliable and valid as an indicator of how a design attribute (or set of attributes) will affect smething that is important to the designer or client. The attribute could be a color, a workstation standard, a window placement—any number of things that the designer manipulates to create space. Similarly, the outcome could be cost, energy efficiency, structural integrity, user satisfaction, and anyone of many other things that might result from the design.
Given the purpose of evidence, the notion of reliability is critically important.That means that time and time again, we can predict with reasonable confidence the outcomes of a design choice. Validity of the evidence is also important. We need to know what the evidence is reflecting—the cause of the effect—and that's often not easy in complex environments.
A commonly cited example is research that suggests a relationship between healing and windows. Is it the daylight or the view or specific types of light or views (or other) that create the positive response in the patient? Valid evidence would correctly identify the right cause and effect. Evidence-based medicine has struggled with several models to codify "strength of evidence." As design professionals evolve a model for evidence-based practice that is right for architecture, there's no requirement to mimic medicine. However, there are several basic constructs about strength of evidence that seem very appropriate because they're founded in many years of good research practices. We need to remain cognizant of the fact that although all information can in some way help us make choices, valid and reliable evidence is what we're seeking.
The gold standard for creating strong evidence is experimentation in Which the subjects are randomly selected, and an intervention is performed with all variables rigorously controlled. However, this is not always broad enough to inform a designer's question; not feasible in the average practice. As an alternative, observation and cohort studies can yield very strong evidence if systematically done. Rigor will, however, ultimately affect strength of evidence. While systematic observation is considered fairly strong, unsystematic observation is at the bottom of the scale.
A preponderance of evidence increases its strength. A large volume of data tends to weed out anomalies and increases the odds that the findings are reliable. Multiple indicators also can be very compelling. In medicine, data from different sources all pointing to the same conclusion is often considered in aggregate to be a stronger predictor of outcome than a single highly controlled experiment.
IN CREATING EVIDENCE FOR DESIGN, WE NEED TO SEEK THE STRONGEST EVIDENCE WE CAN, WHICH ADDRESSES THE QUESTION AT HAND IN A WAY THE DECISION-MAKERS WILL APPRECIATE, AND THAT IS FEASIBLE WITHIN OUR RESOURCES.
Let's say you're starting a project and you want to try an evidence-based approach. The first question might be: What kind of evidence will I need and what's the right methodology to get it? We believe, as in the evidence-based medicine model, there is no one right methodology. The best available information can come from various types of research, each of which may increase one's understanding of the implications of design choices. Nevertheless, we need a place to begin.
It all starts with defining the critical question that the evidence needs to inform. What are your client's goals? What do you think the opportunity is for this project to add value? While this might sound vague, the answers are generally clear in actual application. Just don't start the dialogue with questions about the design solution. If you do, the response will likely be a proposed design solution rather than a context for rigorous exploration and investigation. Ask instead about organizational or other performance objectives and the research topics will emerge.
For example, a health-care client might be concerned about how the design might improve nurse recruiting, lessen time for a patient to heal, or speed the emergency room induction process. With further probing, you would define the existing context and possibly even refine the goals with quantitative targets for improvement.
Typically, the next step would be to review the existing literature. In the case of your health-care client, you would find existing evidence about each of the topics your client cares about. That's because a lot exists on these topics. It's just that the quality of it varies greatly and also it's not easy to tell. It's then up to your client and you to determine if you need more to feel confident about applying the evidence. If so, in this example, each of the goals clearly focuses on a research endeavor you could pursue with survey (nurse satisfaction), simulation modeling (emergency room throughput), data mining (medical records compared to room attributes), and observational techniques (nurse walking patterns and time with patients).
We advise that literature review would go beyond design research sources. In the example above, nurse satisfaction might be best covered in human resources/organizational dynamics research. Patient outcome could be informed by biomedical research. Although the linkages to design are generally not established in these disciplines, the core issues are. That narrows your job to linking the core issues to design, perhaps through an intervention and postoccupancy evaluation. The significant learning from a broad, cross-discipline study is that it keeps paramount what you are solving for, e.g., reducing nurse stress and fatigue by changing the layout, not shortening the corridors.
Literature review will provide most of the clues you need to decide about the need to do original research and what methods and metrics to use, if you do. Existing peer-reviewed research will provide a background of prior studies and generally explain what findings have been validated over time and which ones need further study. The review will explain what methods the researcher chose to use in the research design and why, as well as the statistics used to analyze the data.
We're not suggesting that an untrained researcher should try to "do this at home". Often the best approach is to engage an expert research partner. However, learning about the methodologies and metrics others have used can help a designer frame the research need enough to know if an expert research team is needed or if a simpler solution would suffice. Many forward-looking design firms have someone with research skills on their staff or have alliances with other firms, who can be objective external partners.
IT'S GENERALLY GOOD ADVICE, IF YOU'RE NOT A TRAINED RESEARCHER, TO ENGAGE A DIVERSE AND INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM OF EXPERTS TO VERIFY THAT THE CORRECT CRITICAL QUESTION IS BEING ASKED AND MOST APPROPRIATE, FERTILE METHODOLOGIES CONSIDERED. YOU ALWAYS WANT TO PUSH FOR THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE EVIDENCE THAT'S FEASIBLE AND THAT'S NOT OVERKILL TO ANSWER THE QUESTION AT HAND.
Choice of the right metrics runs parallel to methods. It starts with the question and an understanding of how the client needs to garner approval from their stakeholders. Self-rating on a basic 1-to-10 scale might suffice if your client wants to know how satisfied the staff is (although in the spirit of always using more than one measure, you might also review turnover records). In contrast, in the emergency room example, patient or staff ratings would be very weak indicators compared to a simulation that predicts that a design intervention would increase "X" patients per hour and equates that to revenue increase or labor savings.
A clearly defined and provocative research question, related to client goals, and informed by prior research and experience (Hypothesis)
Use of both disciplinary and interdisciplinary knowledge as a foundation (Epistemology)
Use of accepted standards for measuring performance outcomes (Metrics)
Striving for the most reliable and valid performance predictors, preferably from more than one study and using more than one methodology (Strength of evidence).
Peer review to certify the quality of methodology and reasonableness of outcomes (External validation).
Clear and understandable communication of research approaches, including assumptions, limitations, constraints, and methodology, so others can make good critical judgments about applicability to their context (Transparency).
NEUROSCIENTIST FRED (RUSTY) GAGE OF THE SALK INSTITUTE MADE THE STATEMENT: "WITHOUT EVIDENCE THERE IS NO SCIENCE." IT'S VERY DIFFERENT IN THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN PROCESS. IT'S DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE SAYING, "WITHOUT EVIDENCE WE ARE NOT ARCHITECTS." BUT ARE WE THE BEST ARCHITECTS WE CAN BE?
Architects and other design professionals would do well to better understand the implications of their work on the people who are affected by it. This does need to go beyond conjecture, if the design profession wants to do responsible work with positive outcomes and have credibility with clients. That doesn't mean the average architectural practice needs to transform into a research company; nor should the design process revert to a research science model. It's merely about an opportunity to evolve into something richer and more sustainable.
The assumption by many is that evidence must be treated like codes and program criteria; a necessary evil, useful but constraining. Our research and experience suggests something very different—that evidence is information that can inspire better solutions and enhance the value of the designer to their client through better outcomes. If we're right, evidence-based practice will help the average architect solve more complex problems, and do so creatively, and maintain good client relationships.
Develop a better appreciation for research methods, in order to make good judgments about the strength of evidence they might choose to apply to their projects. This should start with design education.
Actively seek information from beyond the design world and consider what it might mean for solving design problems. Multi-disciplinary collaborations, with the architect as orchestrator, would be one great starting point.
Fearlessly measure the outcomes of each design intervention to inform the next project.
Expand beyond individual project research and advocate for shared databases on design impacts. We advocate expansion of the work instigated by the University of Minnesota and their database titled "Informed Design." Other academic, institutional, and professional organization support is essential to create a database of peer-reviewed research initiatives that can be archived and retrieved by the public.
Based upon our research we have identified three specific areas where greatest innovation will occur. Some are here and now; others will be in the near term; and some will require more time to become feasible for most practices, but the seeds are already here for those who wish to lead the profession. All can be incorporated into practices of all sizes through differing operating mechanisms sensitive to the skills and resources of the practitioners.
Building Performance: In response to a desire to create new types of formal architecture—more complex structures—and to advance environmental sustainability building—reduce carbon footprint—designers, chemists, and physicists are coming together to recombine and repurpose materials, and develop new ultra-performing materials and systems. Evidence-based methods are being used to assess how these initiatives might enhance building performance.
Research about new materials and building systems is being done primarily by smaller, design-oriented firms with principals who are engaged in teaching. The research, design, and teaching are integrated activities that intellectually stimulate and inform each other. Design exploration is the primary incentive and research is the "means rather than the end." This exciting opportunity is being enhanced since major building product manufacturers are putting their scientific, business, and marking knowledge and resources behind collaborations with designers.
Human Performance: Use of environmental psychology methodologies—surveys and observational studies—are becoming more commonplace as part of design programming, in all sizes of firms. The most forward-looking work seeks to use design as a lever to improve organizational performance. In that sense, some practitioners distinguish their research from programming and postoccupancy evaluations, both of which are often understood to be all about defining space, rather than influencing effective human behaviors.
Regardless of what it's called, using evidence to assure performance outcomes, rather than spaces without regard to their impacts, will become the norm for designers who are respected by their clients as adding value. Some of this evidence will come from shared databases and some from original research by the practitioners; but most will not be limited to one project or one firm. Research collaborations with social scientists and designers will improve the quality of both quantitative and qualitative evidence and prove that physical environments can measurably support and even transform human performance.
Neuroscience: The new field of neuro-architecture, which brings together architecture and neuroscience, will provide timely physiological feedback as well as potentially a more reliably predictive understanding of human response to design. There is a recent group of graduates from joint neuroscience and architectural programs who will be able to apply the science to design decisions and thereby create truly human-centric environments. With added research, more evidence, and a stronger database of dependable knowledge, we will soon see neuroscience used as evidence for a new level of informed design. This will be the new frontier.
Starting right now, design practitioners and educators should be aware of the varied evidence-based initiatives being explored today and consider ways to use the knowledge, tools, and methods to improve the impacts their work has on those who experience it. THE NEXT GENERATION OF PRACTITIONERS WILL NEED TO RAISE THE BAR FURTHER. They should be armed with many new approaches that will permit a more relevant practice model, one that is needed to respond to the complexity of global challenges. Architectural education will have a major role in influencing and directing this change, in a collaborative context with practice, and clients.
The goal of our book has been not merely to identify the importance of empiricism in architecture. We've also intended to shed light on the range of evidence that can be useful; how new evidence can be developed; and what methodologies and standards are needed to yield information one can trust.
OUR HOPE IS THAT THESE IDEAS WILL RESONATE WITH MANY PRACTITIONERS AND EDUCATORS, WHO BY EXPLORING AND APLYING THEM WILL FIND THAT THEIR WORK IS RICHER AND HAS HIGHER IMPACT; THEIR PROFESSIONAL CREDIBILITY IS ENHANCED; THEIR COMMERCIAL SUCCESS BOLSTERED. WE DON'T BELIEVE EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE SHOULD BE FOR A RARIFIED FEW. WHEN SYSTEMS TO CREATE, COMMUNICATE, AND APPLY STRONG, DIVERSE EVIDENCE ARE IN PLACE AND EMBEDDED WITHIN THE CREATIVE DESIGN PROCESS, ARCHITECTURE WILL BE RECOGNIZED AS A VALUABLE, KNOWLEDGE-BASED PROFESSION—A VISION SHARED BY MOST DESIGNERS.