On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, Ken Follett wrote:

> In a message dated 4/27/00 8:21:17 AM Central Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> << I found that the only way to get an architectural firm to start thinking
> about the site and its context was to reject the first proposal outright, and
> maybe the second. >>
>
> Larry,
>
> I'm curious about your process of discovery to come to this operational
> rule-of-thumb. I imagine pre-rule dealing w/ an architect and getting results
> that did not fit the requirement of paying attention to a unique site. Then a
> minor incident pertaining to another issue and that had nothing much to
> logically do with the eventual discovery of the rule. Seeing results of an
> action that were not intended and/or particularly anticipated, but fit the
> desired outcome. Then trying the technique out with deliberate action to see
> if the intended results would repeat. Then setting in a pattern of
> anticipating the need to go through a cycle of rejections of first, second,
> and third proposals. The whole time, I assume, not being able to reveal to
> the submitting architect the technique being used to get them to focus on
> specific needs unique to the project. To what extent were you able to align
> you team in working together to use this process? Were you able to say what
> you were doing and why, or did you have to simply move forward, do it, and
> now you can talk about it?

What would happen is that the first proposal would be so disheartening
that I would start to question why we were bothering with the project at
all.  The second proposal would always be much better.

I tried to short-circuit this by spending more time and attention on the
process of conveying our needs and specifications, but it did not change
anything.  Sometimes we dealt with the same architectural firm a second
time (specialties vary when it comes to the kinds of buildings a county
government needs), and that didn't change anything either.

I wonder if the first proposal is customarily kind of a red herring,
perhaps deliberately on the architect's side to lower expectations as to
what could possibly be accomplished given our budget and constraints.

Maybe putting the worst foot forward is not just an economy move (i.e.,
here's the last generic 6000 square foot office building we already
designed, let's just squeeze it onto your site, then we don't have to
think very hard about this project), but a deliberate strategy to limit
what might eventually be demanded of the expected later versions.

No, I didn't share this rule with others at the time, but I was not the
only one gaining experience.  By the last project we did when I was there,
the staff rejected the architect's first proposal without even letting
them show it to me.  It must have been pretty bad -- they (staff) just
howled when I asked them to describe it.  But the building as-built is
excellent.

---
Lawrence Kestenbaum, [log in to unmask]
The Political Graveyard, http://politicalgraveyard.com