Paradigm shift in architecture: landscape & Management

The paradigm shift in architecture: landscape and Management is the third article of a series of articles that examine the effect of the paradigm on the way architects work and its effect on firm business and define the major characteristics of a paradigm when it happens in a certain timeline in the architecture field and practice. The study starts from ancient architecture to date modern architecture.

Paradigm shift in architecture: landscape

Nickayin ¹ presented a paper on the landscape paradigm shift in the matter of scale. To start with he identifies that the landscape field is not part of architecture, and there is a wrong concept that architecture is the main discipline that includes landscape architecture. The author builds on Fabio De Carlo that says landscape design is not derived from architecture or planning the field is the drive and unique way of designing and perceiving territorial transformation.

Landscape field started from garden design and the paradigm shift is oriented towards a trio of urbanization, ecology, and landscape architecture. The main concern of this field is the shortage of land, provide food and shelter for human beings and protection of the hotspots and green corridors. Here comes the introduction of the scale of work in landscape.

The first attempt to take landscape to a large scale is the introduction of the “region “concept by Patrick Geddes in architecture planning. He emphasizes the integration of region and city in architecture planning. Patrick as the author deems that he advocated the critical vision of planning and to consider all existing conditions which paved the way for the new movement the new urbanism. This landscape urbanism is the integration of landscape architecture into urban design.

This holistic vision from garden design to new urbanism and city planning led to the new idea of mega regionalism. Megaregions include a network of metropolitan regions that share environment systems, topography, infrastructure systems, economic linkages, settlement and land use patterns, and culture and history. Here natural resources and ecosystems reflect the interlocking economic system of a mega-region.

The landscape field became even larger in scale to include landscape conservation. The actions of this conservation include green infrastructure, biodiversity conservation, land consumption, climate change, and water management. This is how the landscape field grew from garden design to city regions to urban regions to metropolitan regions to megacities. Here architects saw the world in the future in terms of planetary scale projects that see the entire planet as connected systems.

For example, the American architect Buckminster Fuller presented “world town plan -4d tower” and the architect Doxiadis presented “city of future” see figure 1.

The landscape field went global to identify the habitable zones that serve all humans and other species that will not damage the biodiversity hotspot. Plotting the most endangered bioregions and the most used land (urbanized). Where there are attempts to build green belts and forests to halt desertification. Reconnecting the fragmented ecosystems to ensure the migration of species in a natural way. Here the author provides some examples of this point in the landscape field Clement’s “Planetary Garden” Richard Weller’s “world park” Forman and Wu’s efforts to find the “habitable zone” see figure 2.

So, our landscape field started from small-scale garden design to a global scale of protecting the whole earth for the sake of human and other species safety and continuity. I will mention the main points of diversion in this paper.

• The landscape field on the small scale is dealing with the quality of earth (soil) and water when the work concerning newly built gardens. In some areas of the world, firms have designed large-scale parks that span 100 kilometers. This design is conducted in the same way as designing a small garden in terms of assuring the quality of soil for trees, shrubs, loans, and others as well as the water quality for living species like birds, fish, and other small water base living forms. Here the landscape architect assures the proper location for these parks in terms of air quality and location far away from pollution.
• There is no evidence that forests around the globe affect each other in terms of growth if one or more will be neglected and not restored. Many areas in the world raise the concern of providing financial support to protect open green areas that need rehabilitation without damaging the adjacent areas. Species will move to the next areas or any suitable area in the globe for proper living.
• In the same manner, the ecosystem of many areas in the globe is damaged without affecting other areas in the world. For example, birds migrating from Russia to the south of Iraq in winter because it’s warmer and less dangerous moved to the north of Iraq and adjacent areas in Iran when the marshes of Iraq drought.
• The contradiction in the author’s paper about landscape going larger in scale when mentioning the “green front” in Africa and the “great green wall of china” are not considered landscape projects.
• Human intervention and its damage to the environment raised the world organization concern about environmental issues like Ozone depletion problem, ocean plastic waste, soil contamination from chemical and oil products, and others that made many fields go larger in scale like landscape architecture, environmental planning, and water engineering and management.
• We cannot consider a paradigm shift because the landscape field became not dealing with the design of gardens or planning parks but participates in larger scale projects to protect the earth because of his knowledge in dealing with soil, water, and air quality for both humans and species.  

Paradigm shift in architecture:  Management

Our second part of this article introduces Mozota ²  paper on the paradigm shift in management. The first phrase she introduces is the paradigm shift from activity to a knowledge-based profession (design management). Peter Gorb defines design management as the effective deployment by line managers of the design resources available to a company to help the company achieve its objectives. And the aim of management is the “art of collective actions”.

At the beginning of the paper, she discusses the value model in design management and the second part introduces a couple of value models and their relation to education and how the paradigm shift exists.

The value model of design management is defining a designer’s capabilities and knowledge in business terms. Management for designers is a constraint by company and project management. Design for managers is the dictatorship of a company.

Design firms think that management knowledge and expertise is a barrier to company work. Managers focus on brand and innovation and ignore design science. Managers require the design in their work but focus on management activities. They believe that branding is a key issue, important in building the firm’s reputation. In many cases design is part of other discipline work like advertisement and marketing but here it is seen as a project- not value nor knowledge-driven.

She introduces the idea of design knowledge comes from projects thus reinforcing the concept of design as an output, a form, a shape, and not a process. Here is the introduction to discussing the couple of design management models she presents in her paper. The first model she presents is the Findeli model for design (figure 3) as it is taught and knowledge comes from projects, the three phases are:

1. Focus on the object and knowledge brought by designers to the project comes from humanities, art, culture, and emotions.
2. Focus on the process designers bring knowledge to the project comes from technology, science models, value analysis, and function.
3. Focus on actor’s knowledge comes from social science, anthropology, and user observation.

Here design knowledge in management science is the involvement of various disciplines in creating a brand, innovation, and strategic management performance decision.  The new paradigm shift is introduced in these two models UOD- user-oriented design, and NPD- new product development. These were introduced by the continuous design management improvement by management bodies like DMI by competition like red dot IDEA. As the new models improve the products quality people buy these products because they are design-driven.

One of the main models that the author thinks created the paradigm shift in design management is the BSC – balanced scorecard concept- model. This model focus on design value as design value for firms is either substantial or financial.

1. For substantial value– design as difference / how a firm should appear- by design- to customers to achieve the firm’s vision.

Design as performance/ to satisfy stakeholders how can design help in the business process?

Design as vision / how we will sustain – by design- our ability to change and improve.

• For financial value – good design is good business – to succeed financially, how should design appear to our partners and shareholders?

The importance of the BSC model is providing a global framework for analyzing all design projects, linking design capabilities to the manager’s best practices.

So, design knowledge is embedded in various management models to:

1. To create market value
2. To create performance value
3. To create value for the organization
4. To create value for society and all stakeholders

To sum up, the paper wanted to introduce the following:

New education programs are created to teach design as a knowledge base, not a project base. The idea of management becoming part of the design field and vice versa. Finally, the author says that: the territory of design science would be easier to describe and understand if explored, studied, and researched from another perspective than that of the output of the design process- the object or artifact- and that of a designer’s capability.

• There is no doubt that if design specifically in architecture is taught by providing knowledge before conducting any project design will be a paradigm shift. In all cases, the knowledge is provided in terms of standards and best practices in design but still, the main concern is doing the project which comprises many issues (see my article innovation in architecture) that make the design output come with many problems.
• Findeli model three phases as compared to architectural design work start with the object (Building or any other). Second phase processes how it is going to be realized (technology involvement, cost issues. etc.). The third phase is the actors mean how it serves the occupance. In articulating this model and its probable application to architecture there is no difference in the normal way design is conducted.
• BSC model is a very important model in design management that facilitates the design manager’s work in relocating different capabilities and design skills when doing a project design. It is not more than defining the weakness and strengths of a company and when to improve the weaknesses and when to use the strengths in business operations.
• Finally, I have studied at two different universities one in the east and one in the west. In terms of how design is taught is not different as both focus on delivering knowledge to students through projects. A slight difference may exist in that the teachers in one location assist the student more than in the other location in the world.  

Here we come to the end of investigating how academics, professionals, and researcher’s perspectives about paradigm shift in several areas. In the coming articles, we are going to examine the real characteristics of a paradigm shift in architecture and its effect on business and work.

references.

1. Nickayin, S.S. Paradigm Shift of Scale in Landscape Architecture—Towards a Planetary observation. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2949.https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052949.
2. Mozota, B., 2010. A Theoretical Model for Design in Management Science. Design Management Journal, 3(1), pp.30-37.