Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 09 October 2014, At: 15:41Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Building Research & InformationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbri20
Designing the Customer ExperienceCaroline Cole-Colander aa Colander Hill House Fox Hill, London SE19 9XA UK [email protected] online: 15 Oct 2010.
To cite this article: Caroline Cole-Colander (2003) Designing the Customer Experience, Building Research & Information, 31:5,357-366, DOI: 10.1080/0961321032000088025
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0961321032000088025
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Designing the Customer Experience
Caroline Cole-Colander
Colander, Hill House, Fox Hill, London SE19 9XA,UKE-mail: [email protected]
As the role of the professional changes, the importance of ‘the client’ and ‘the user’ is increasing. Two initiatives in the
UK have sought to improve design quality by bridging the gap between the client and the user on the one hand, and the
client and the designer on the other. These initiatives, ‘Designing the Customer Experience’ and ‘Design Quality
Indicators’ (DQIs), seek to address the divergent goals and impenetrable language that often inhibit communication
between client and architect. Designing the Customer Experience aimed at transferring design thinking from the retail
sector and led to an Agenda for Change, which included an investigation into how to find a common language between
clients and their design consultants. The DQIs build on this agenda and provide a tool for the uninitiated as well as the
professional to allow each to express and evaluate the design quality of a building. The extent to which these initiatives
have been and potentially can be successful in changing professional relationships with client and user and so improving
design quality is assessed.
Keywords: client, common language, customer focus, design, design quality
Alors qu’evolue le role des professionnels, l’importance donnee au «client» et a «l’utilisateur» grandit. Au Royaumei-Uni,
deux initiatives ont ete lancees pour tenter d’ameliorer la qualite de la conception en etablissant une passerelle entre le
client et l’utilisateur d’une part et, d’autre part, entre le client et l’architecte. Ces initiatives, «Concevoir l’experience du
client» et «Indicateurs de qualite de la conception» (DQI), s’efforcent d’analyser les objectifs divergents et la langue de
bois qui souvent constituent un obstacle a la communication entre le client et l’architecte. L’initiative intitulee
«Concevoir l’experience du client» avait pour objectif de transferer la reflexion conceptuelle du secteur du detail et
d’aboutir a un calendrier du changement qui comprendrait une analyse de la recherche d’un langage commun entre les
clients et leurs consultants architectes. Les DQI s’appuient sur ce calendrier et sont un outil pour le non-initie tout comme
pour le professionnel pour que chacun s’exprime et puisse evaluer la qualite de la conception d’un batiment. La mesure
dans laquelle ces initiatives ont ete menees a bon terme et peuvent etre considerees comme une reussite dans l’evolution
des relations professionnelles avec le client et l’utilisateur, et ameliorer ainsi la qualite de la conception.
Mots cles: client, langage commun, orientation «client», qualite de la conception
IntroductionThis paper is based on the author’s work developingdesign quality issues with both clients and design pro-fessionals within the construction industry, building on20 years’ experience working both as a design consul-tant and as a client within the industry. The author wasthe prime organizer of ‘Designing the CustomerExperience’ and the subsequent events, including thesession entitled ‘Finding a Common Language’ and ison the core steering group of the Design QualityIndicator project.
Changing role of the professionalThe role of the professions within society is changing.The word of a professional is no longer taken forgranted, the trust for doctors, the legal professions –and architects – is increasingly under scrutiny. Theincreased scrutiny is provided through regulatorybodies, with increasing powers to monitor and judgethe services provided to society by these professions.Best practice guidelines have been established, oftendevised and administered by outsiders to the professionitself, resulting in a gradual transference of power from
BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION (2003) 31(5), September–October, 357–366
Building Research & Information ISSN 0961-3218 print ⁄ISSN 1466-4321 online # 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltdhttp: ⁄ ⁄www.tandf.co.uk ⁄journals
DOI: 10.1080 ⁄0961321032000088025
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
5:41
09
Oct
ober
201
4
the individual towards centralized, measurablestandards for all. One of the major effects of thischange is that a professional no longer holds theunquestioned position of power within their chosenareas of expertise: managers now determine how thehospital consultant works, lawyers and barristers aresubject to complaints procedures, and architects findthemselves ‘part of the construction team’ sharing thedecision-making with other experts as well as withtheir clients. Today, most building clients expect toplay an active role in the development of their projectand will gather around them a team of experts to helpachieve their aims. In the past, the architect would haveled this process but now he is more likely to be a playerin a team of many. Not surprisingly, the emphasis onprocess-driven imperatives as pursued by this broaderconstruction team are increasingly coming to the fore:buildability, maintainability, process management anddelivery. However, this changing power base means adanger arises as the less easily measured and articu-lated values, broadly described as ‘design quality’, willbecome secondary. This is simply because design pro-fessionals who were their traditional custodians havebecome relegated within the decision-making process.
Client-led revolutionThe consequences of this change for the built environ-ment are enormous. The importance of ‘the client’, andeven ‘the user’ has been pushed up the agenda. Withfew exceptions, the days of the architectural patron,sitting in the background and allowing the architectto create a masterpiece uninterrupted, are over. TheRoarkian approach to architecture: ‘clients enable meto build, I do not build for clients’, is no longer viable.The construction industry is now facing the extra-ordinary situation where increasingly it is the clientwho is in control and leading the radical changes thatare currently being implemented. Across the UK indus-try, there has been a steady flow of client-led initiativesto push for change. Initially these initiatives were indi-vidual efforts, such as Stanhope plc’s rejection of stan-dard forms of contracts in the 1980s. However, recentyears have seen a gathering momentum of coordinatedclient efforts to instigate change and, most crucially, inrecent years these initiatives have received the whole-hearted backing of government. Following on fromSir Michael Latham’s report Constructing the Team(1995). Sir John Egan’s report (1998) aimed to cutwaste and costs across the industry, improve industry’seconomic viability and add value for clients andsociety. The guidelines and methodologies put forwardby organizations that have sprung out of thiswork, such as M4I and its successor RethinkingConstruction, are permeating across the industry.Coupled with the parallel drive from government tofinance its massive investment programmes in educa-tion and health through the Public Finance Initiative(PFI), a client-led revolution is now happening in
earnest. Both the private sector (through the large cor-porate ‘professional’ clients) and government areinvolved in leading this change.
The focus of this revolution, led as it is by managers andaccountants, is intensely practical. There is a short-termfocus on process – lean thinking, best practice, efficiency.The longer-term focus is on maintenance, sustainabilityand value for money, as manifest through the procure-ment routes such as PFI and Partnering being promotedacross the industry. The prime aim is to implement hugeefficiency improvements, with a push to cut constructioncosts and eliminate waste – by as much as 30%, a figureidentified as being both desirable and achievable by Egan(1998). Organizations such as the Confederation ofConstruction Clients (CCC) have been established withthe expressed aim of:
� Encouraging clients to achieve value for moneythrough best practice
� Securing major measurable and consistentimprovement in performance across the industry
� Promoting policies aimed at achieving a safe, stableand skilled industry, which is competitive andcompetent
Laudable indeed, but, perhaps inevitably, there is agrowing fear that the subtler aspirations of designquality, beauty, place making and delight in the envir-onment are taking a back seat – shadowing the waninginfluence of the professionals within project and con-struction teams. This fear is not without foundation,as highlighted by the recent Audit CommissionReport on PFI in Schools (Audit Commission, 2003)and in the review work on the effects of PFI beingundertaken by the Commission for the BuiltEnvironment (CABE). In addition, the findings of someof the projects undertaken through CABE’s broaderguardianship of architectural quality across the UKreinforces this view.
Why has this situation been allowed to develop? A keyfactor is that design professionals in the constructionindustry have declined to be part of the client-led revo-lution that is now in control. The architectural profes-sion in particular has been noticeable by its absence,sitting on the sidelines watching, as its central role in theprocess of creating buildings has been taken over bymanagers and makers. The reasons for this are nume-rous and varied. Anecdotal evidence shows that manyarchitects refuse to see themselves as part of the ‘con-struction industry’ at all and, those that do, have foundit hard to integrate into the new world, where the valuesof the profession have become subsumed by the drivefor efficiency. Equally, many architects find the changestaking place hard to countenance and are poorlyequipped to deal with an inclusive team-oriented work-
Cole-Colander
358
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
5:41
09
Oct
ober
201
4
ing environment that often demands leadership byothers in the team. Without the architect in a guidingrole, the aims and aspirations for most building projectshave changed. By default, today the emphasis is oftenon creating buildings, rarely on creating Architecture.
Divergent goals ^ impenetrable languageIt is not surprising that the aspirations of clients andarchitects are rarely the same. In the main, someonewho is commissioning a building will be driven bypractical issues: will the building cost too much; willit be finished in time; can I get planning permission;will the building work for me; will it be costly to run,etc. Although these things are important to the archi-tect, they are often overlaid with other concerns: howcan the design concept be preserved intact without toomany compromises; how can the client be persuaded tospend more now in order to achieve a building that willlook better in the future; how can an award winningbuilding be achieved which is recognized by my peers;how can the boundaries of materials technologies bepushed, etc. It is uncommon to find an ‘enlightened’client who not only understands, but also values thedesign agenda alongside his own. Equally, many clientswill tell you that it is uncommon also to find an archi-tect who will wholly understand and respond to thevery real concerns of the client.
Like many other issues that require debate and com-promise to resolve, insufficient time is given to reviewthis divide and to fill the gaps in understanding.Often those with the pragmatic agenda will see thosewith the design agenda as being impractical time andmoney wasters, without any sense of reality. Thosewith a design agenda will see the pragmatists assmall-minded bureaucrats and accountants. Neitherviewpoint is correct, nor is it helpful. Both are contri-buting to the poor quality, dysfunctional and uglydesign that permeates much of the built environmentin the UK today.
To make matters worse, this divergence of aspirationscan be exacerbated when each party tries to articulateits position. Often the same word will be used by each,but with a very different meaning. As found in thework done as part of Designing the CustomerExperience (see the section on creating a common lan-guage below), fundamental words such as ‘design’,‘quality’ and ‘value’ can be, and are, used to describevery different aspirations, without any real explanationof those divergent meanings. This confusion in lan-guage is dangerous indeed, as misunderstandings fuelmistrust and undermine communication. As a result,with the best will in the world, if the client is leadingchange in the industry, the concerns of the architect arebound to become secondary. At worst, they are notvalued and, if they are, the interpretation of the wordsused to describe them may well be at variance with the
real intention. This is a serious problem. The issue ofcommunication needs to be addressed most urgentlyif a balance between the two is to be found, and ifsociety is to benefit from a more rounded vision of thebuilt environment.
Value of design qualityIt is worth looking at the way another sector, the retailclient sector, has used design. The importance of‘design quality’ as a commercial tool has long beenrecognized by clients in this sector, where designerswork alongside clients to develop business and market-ing strategies which are then transformed into interiordesigns, graphics and, of course, the products that thecustomer purchases. The 1980s’ retail boom saw thesophisticated implementation of retail strategies withdesign at their core. Retail designers such as RodneyFitch working with the Burton Group and RashidDin working with Next became important and highlyvalued figures in that world. Design quality is recog-nized to have been instrumental in the rise of theseretailers, and has played a crucial part in their abilityto communicate with their customers – and so it isacknowledged to have contributed to their financialsuccess. As a logical conclusion to this approach,a number of retail designers actually became retailtraders. Sir Terence Conran is the most famous andsuccessful of these, starting with the Habitat Shops anddeveloping the Storehouse empire which, at its height,encompassed Heals, Mothercare, BHS and a numberof specialist fashion chains, as well as Habitat.During that time, most of the large and successful retai-lers not only spent freely on design, but also were atpains to integrate it into their strategic thinking.Design continues to be valued by this client sectorbecause a synergy has been established between thecommercial and the design-led agendas, from whichboth sides benefit. Note that many of the establishedretailers are now taking their confidence in designbeyond the realm of the interior designer, to commis-sion leading architects to create design-led architecturalsolutions to their building requirements. For example,Future Systems’s new department store for Selfridgesin the centre of Birmingham, and John McAslan’srefurbishment of the Peter Jones store for John Lewisin Sloane Square, London.
Designing the Customer ExperienceThere have been a number of initiatives that have triedto bring some of this ‘customer-led’ design thinkinginto the broader context of the built environment. In1997, as part of the Design Council’s Design inBusiness Week, the Royal Institute of BritishArchitects (RIBA) with sponsorship from BAA (for-merly British Airports Authority, a major constructionclient), organized a think-tank day entitled ‘Designingthe Customer Experience’ (RIBA, 1997). An invitedaudience of senior players across the industry attended
Designing the Customer Experience
359
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
5:41
09
Oct
ober
201
4
the day. These included 30 major clients (i.e. commis-sioners of design), from a broad range of business sec-tors (banking, communication, education, health,housing, manufacturing, offices, retail, sport and lei-sure, transport and utilities); 25 cross-discipline designprofessionals (architects, graphic and productdesigners, engineers and interior designers) and 12intermediaries and industry commentators.
The aim was to investigate the value of investment indesign. How could the benefits of good design bebrought to bear on a broader, lay audience – and inparticular the clients’ customers, as so successfullyachieved in other sectors such as retail? In other words,how to ensure that good design became a criterion thatclients not only recognized in the buildings and pro-ducts that they commissioned, but also became some-thing that they actively and confidently pursued aspart of their business and development strategies.
The day was a success. This was partly because it gavepeople from both the client and design sides a chanceto talk constructively around a subject that is rarelygiven the time for serious debate. Also, the wealth ofdifferent experiences and ideas that came to the forewere fascinating. However, it was the honesty withwhich clients and designers both admitted to mistakesin the past that allowed each a better understanding ofthe practical and cultural issues they all faced. Perhapsthe most encouraging thing was that all those whoattended recognized that when design is good, it canreally benefit a project, and that without good design,most projects are found to be lacking somewhere alongthe line. Case studies were presented by major clientsBritish Airways, the South Downs NHS Health Trustand Sainsburys. Workshops considered two key issues:‘How client/designer relations affect the delivery of thedesired customer experience’ and ‘Delivering the designvision and through it the desired customer experience’.
One of the main aims of this event was to create anAgenda for Change that could form the catalyst forfurther events and activities that developed the theme:Designing the Customer Experience. The day culmi-nated in a five-point Agenda for Change, agreed andpromoted by all:
� Improving education: for potential clients as wellas potential designers, to ensure that the real valueof good design is understood better by both sides
� Developing Continuing Professional Development(CPD): to help those currently in the market placeto make better use of good design
� Investigating contracts and purchasing: to bringdesign back onto the client-led agenda
� Improving the design process: to allow good designto influence the practical and vice versa
� Presenting design as an investment: to encouragethe sceptics to look again at the value of gooddesign
From this agenda, a year-long programme of eventswas organized which considered in more detail eachof the five issues. The initiatives emerging from the sub-sequent events were harnessed to promote the idea thata design strategy has a place in every business plan andthat design management is a key business discipline –and not just for design professionals.
Finding a common languageWhile each of the subsequent events addressed differ-ent aspects of the Agenda for Change, one in particularaddressed the issues of communication and language,and the conclusions coming from that session areworthy of review.
The event entitled ‘Designing a Common Language’was, as with the original event, attended by a mix ofclient representatives and cross-discipline designers. Itlooked specifically at both written and visual commu-nication. John Simmons, Director at InterbrandNewell & Sorrell, whose published work has focusedon story telling (Simmons, 1993), contributed a paperentitled ‘The Trouble with Words’ that addressed theimportance of words and language in establishingidentity, exploring the role of verbal diversity anddifferentiation in developing design solutions. AngelaDumas of the Judge Institute of Management at theUniversity of Cambridge spoke on ‘The Magic ofMetaphors’, looking at how visual metaphors can helpcommunication and help management teams to colla-borate more effectively when developing strategicideas. Both speakers were hugely inspiring, but it wasthe work that was done by the delegates themselvesthat produced the most fascinating results.
Before the event, delegates were invited to provide a listof words that are commonly used in the constructionindustry, and that they believed were often misunder-stood. The resulting list included almost 80 words,ranging from simple nouns such as ‘Client’, ‘Brand’ and‘Stakeholder’, to more complex descriptive words suchas ‘aspirational’, ‘innovative’ or ‘realistic’. Most worry-ing was the number of words on the list that arefundamental to describing design issues. Words suchas ‘benefit’, ‘cost-effective’, ‘design’, ‘design manage-ment’, ‘flexibility’ ‘holistic’, ‘impact’, ‘partnership’,‘quality’, ‘standardization’, ‘value’, ‘value for money’,to list but a few, were all deemed to mean differentthings across the industry.
Cole-Colander
360
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
5:41
09
Oct
ober
201
4
One of these, ‘quality’, was taken as the focus for twoworkshop sessions, involving all delegates. The firstlooked at ‘quality’ in terms of language, the secondat ‘quality’ in visual terms. Divided into five mixedgroups, the delegates were first asked to select sixwords to convey ‘quality’ from the view point of fivedifferent corporate organizations. What this exerciseplainly showed is that this oft used but seldom-clarifiedword not only means different things to differentpeople, but also is often meant to mean differentthings. For example, a ‘quality’ story to a tabloid news-paper and a ‘quality’ product to a traditional, old fash-ioned retailer will have little in common, and manyvalues that are not shared. Words such as ‘reliable’,‘caring’, ‘efficient’ and ‘long-term’ might apply to qual-ity in the health sector whereas ‘eye-catching’, ‘topical’,‘provocative’ or ‘raunchy’ might better describe qualityto the tabloid newspaper. Different people use theword ‘quality’ to express their interpretation of ‘qual-ity’ but the value judgements they bring to bear on theword will be very different indeed.
In many ways this point is fairly obvious and in thecontext of stand-alone corporate organizations it maynot really be an issue because those working closelywith the company should be working with the samevalue sets. However, the misalliance of meaningbecomes critical when people with different interpreta-tions of the same word, or a whole vocabulary, attemptto describe the same object, with the aim of reachingsome sort of consensus. The chances of reaching com-mon understanding are remote.
The second workshop asked delegates to describe the‘quality’ of the same five corporate organizationsusing only pictures (cut from old magazines) andno words. The collages of images created were inmany instances far more definitive and less open tomisinterpretation than the corresponding words hadbeen. However, most delegates, and especially thosewithout a design training, found this exercise farharder to complete and did not really feel confidentthat they could get the subtleties of their ideas acrosswith images alone. Words kept creeping onto theimage boards, as delegates sought to reinforce theirmessage with more conventional methods of commu-nication. The end results reinforced the divergentmeanings of the word ‘quality’. The image boardsfor the tabloid newspaper used brash primary col-ours, bold simple images and cheeky references.For the traditional retailer a more sober image wascreated – toned down, comfortable colours and tra-ditional, non-threatening lifestyle pictures exudingconservative, middle-aged values.
The event concluded that words are the core to com-munication because they are the primary communica-tion tool used in every day life. As such, most peoplefeel comfortable with them, and even when straying
into technical or specialist areas, where an innocentword can take on a very particular meaning, peoplewould rather struggle to use words than embark onless conventional communication tools. However, thepotential to misinterpret the meaning of regularlyused words and phrases was brought into sharpfocus and clearly there is a need to tread carefully,especially at the outset of a project, when the para-meters for the future interpretation of ideas are beingestablished.
There was a real interest from many of the delegates inthe use of visual metaphors to help clarify the valuejudgements that lurk behind words. Perhaps unsurpris-ingly, it was the design-trained individuals at this eventwho felt most comfortable with the visual approach.However, while many on the client side felt unable toinstigate or lead a discussion using visuals, there wasa sense that with the right leadership, visual dialoguecould be immensely useful.
One of the key messages from this workshop, recog-nized by clients and designers alike, was that more timeand effort could be usefully allocated, at the outset of aproject, to define and agree the value sets that lurkbehind the words used to describe project aspirations.Time spent in non-confrontational debate and review,developing a common language would pay dividendsas the vision for the project and its design interpreta-tion was then developed.
Those attending this event, and the other events insti-gated through ‘Designing the Customer Experience’(DCE) gained an insight into the value of design.However, one of the major problems with this typeof activity is that the knowledge and enthusiasmremain limited to those who attend the individual ses-sions. Dissemination to a wider audience is proble-matic. In an attempt to get over this difficulty, a DCEForum was established. The papers and conclusionsof each event were circulated to all Forum members,thus people who did not attend were give the chanceto hear how things went. In addition, members werecirculated with information about other events, papersor initiatives that were deemed to be of interest.
In the current client and customer-led approach to thebuilt environment it has become clear that if ‘gooddesign’ is allowed to play a role, then there needs tobe unambiguous dialogue, and team working betweenclients and designers. To achieve this, a common lan-guage is vital to allow discussion, consensus and agree-ment on which excellent solutions can be built.
Desire to measureOne of the most telling side issues to come from theclient-led drive for efficiency described above is theparallel desire for measurement. Success it seems is not
Designing the Customer Experience
361
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
5:41
09
Oct
ober
201
4
success at all, unless it can be quantified. For example,the UK Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)(which assumed governmental responsibility for largesections of the construction industry from theDepartment of the Environment, Transport and theRegions) as part of ‘Rethinking Construction’ has beenforceful in creating and then promoting KeyPerformance Indicators (KPIs) that are now in theirthird year of publication (http://www.kpizone.com).These indicators, or measures, have been painstakinglycreated by those now driving change in the industry, toaddress what they deem to be key measures of success(Figure 1):
� Client satisfaction with the product
� Client satisfaction with the service
� Defects in the product
� Predictability of cost
� Predictability of time
� Construction time
� Construction cost
� Safety
� Productivity
� Profitability
Inevitably, the things that are measured will tend tobecome the things that people strive to achieve.Conversely, the things that are not measured will tendto slide down the hierarchy. To be seen to do wellagainst government-endorsed KPIs is something thatclients and contractors are starting to value. Even thefew participating architects are starting to measuretheir own performance against these industry goals.However, there is a huge and dangerous gap in the cur-rent measurement systems. Where is ‘design’? Theanswer is rather feeble. In the main, the people whovalue measurement as a definer of success are notnecessarily those who understand the value of gooddesign. Hence, design quality is not high on their listof priorities. This is further exacerbated by the fact thatmost of these people do not feel comfortable with thelanguage of design, and therefore feel inadequatelyplaced to define and then promote measures thatencapsulate the rather elusive attribute called ‘designquality’. A solution might be for the custodians ofdesign within the construction industry, the architects,to establish a measurement for design quality. This isproblematic. Many in the architectural profession needconvincing that ‘good design’ is something that can oreven should be measured. Furthermore, a measure pro-
Figure 1 Construction Best Practice Programme’s Construction Industry wall chart of Key Performance Indicators for All Construction
Cole-Colander
362
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
5:41
09
Oct
ober
201
4
moted by architects, for architects is unlikely toimpress the very people to whom measurement isimportant, namely the clients.
Design Quality IndicatorsIn 1999, the Construction Industry Council (CIC)(www.cic.org.uk), with funding from the DETR,decided to tackle this issue. Its goal was to create a toolthat would enable the industry to measure, and benchmark, design quality, alongside the KPI measurementsthat were already in place. The aspirations were to cre-ate a tool that drew on the requirements and aspira-tions of both sides of the industry and that would beused by everyone. This would include the person whocommissioned the building, the person who designedit, the person who built it, the person who used it.The intention was to bring the value of good designto the attention of all.
The first task was to agree what the tool shouldexclude and where therefore it should be positionedin the wider context of other initiatives across theindustry. Most critically, it should complement theKPIs but equally it should not seek to replace the manydetailed and exemplary tools already in existence thataddress the broad issue of sustainability. In effect, theDQI should be the third point of a trilogy of tools(Figure 2).
Perhaps the most difficult aspect of the challenge wasto create a tool that would be valued and respectedby design professionals as well as their clients. A toolcapable of linking the practical, process-driven agendaof the client and the user to the more aestheticagenda of the designer, whilst adding value to each.If one or other of these groups rejected the tool, thenit would not succeed. Finding a common language wasvital to its success. On the one hand, it needed toengage the architect as a professional – to be respectfulof the theory and history of architectural thought, cos-seting the preciousness of Architecture and so addingto the intellectual debate. On the other hand, it neededto engage the client, by describing design in layman’sterms that were non-threatening and inclusive, sodemonstrating that design quality was not the preserveof the professions but an important and valuable assetfor all.
To achieve this dual aim, the Vitruvian model of ‘dur-ability, convenience and beauty’ became the intellec-tual foundation for the tool, accepted as it is acrossthe architectural profession to represent the funda-mental components of good Architecture. In the DQI,this trilogy has been translated into ‘build quality,functionality and impact’, words which, after muchdebate, were deemed to engage the layman, whilstmaintaining the link with the professional. Buildingon this three-legged foundation, the tool expands eachof these topics, first with a number of subsections:
Build quality: performance, engineering and con-struction
Functionality: use, access and space
Impact: character and innovation, form and materi-als, internal environment and urban and socialintegration
A list of statements was then created under each of thesubsections, describing the various attributes of abuilding that relate to the given subsection. The userof the tool is invited to agree or disagree with eachstatement, and their responses are then collated andanalysed by the tool, which produces a diagramaticrepresentation of the design quality of the buildingbeing reviewed. In this way, each user of the tool cre-ates their own impression of the design qualityachieved by that building.
Clearly, the content of and language used in the subsec-tion statements are critical to the success of the tool –too rudimentary and the professions will scoff, too eso-teric and the clients will feel excluded. Equally,the words chosen should minimize the confusion ofmeaning alluded to in the ‘Finding a common lan-guage’ exercise described above.
To ensure that the broad concerns of all involved in theindustry were addressed by these statements, the firstdrafts were initiated through a series of workshops,attended by a cross-section of industry participants.These resulted in statements addressing a wide rangeof issues, which were collated first under one of the threeheadings: Build quality, Functionality and Impact, andthen under the subheadings, to create a matrix of issues,all of which contribute in some form or fashion to thecomplex idea of ‘design quality’. For example, fromthe client or user agenda issues such as ‘The buildingenhances the productivity of the people who use it regu-larly’ or ‘The heating, ventilation and IT installationsallow for change of use’ needed to be juxtaposed withthe less pragmatic but equally important issues such as‘The building lifts the spirits’ or ‘The use of colour andtexture enhance enjoyment of the building’.Figure 2
Designing the Customer Experience
363
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
5:41
09
Oct
ober
201
4
The task was then to frame each statement in lan-guage that was understandable to the layman, with-out dumbing down the intellectual content for theprofessional. As such, the DQI is hugely reliant onthe compatibility of its language to the languagesused by the people with whom it needs to engage.At a basic level, this means that statements such as‘The building tells a story’, which was suggested bya designer, has been dropped in favour of the moreclient-oriented statement, ‘There is a clear visionbehind the building’.
As already stated, the original aim of the DQI tool wasto enable the construction industry to benchmarkdesign quality, thus elevating it to a similar level ofimportance to the other measures already included inthe government-inspired KPIs. However, one of themost fascinating spin-offs of this exercise is that thetool appears to have a capacity of its own to breakdown the language barriers between clients anddesigners. By taking the views of the individual, andthrough a series of comprehensive but simple questionscreating a sophisticated evaluation of how that personis viewing the design quality of a given building, theDQI creates a framework within which several indivi-duals can first express and then debate their views.Crucially, this framework is neutral and inclusive andtherefore non-threatening. It uses a language to whichall have contributed and so it encourages discussion toflourish on an otherwise neglected subject.
This capacity to act as a catalyst for debate, and sobecome a valuable briefing tool, came to light when thefirst draft of the DQI was piloted. At that stage, a sim-ple ‘donut’ graphic was used to represent the viewsof each individual who completed the questionnaire.The relative importance of the three main headings:Build quality, Functionality and Impact, was shownas a percentage of the donut ring, and through the useof bolder colours (yellow for Build quality, lilac forFunctionality, green for Impact), the perceptions aboutwhether or not the building had met the aspirationswere identified. As can be seen on the following exam-ples taken from one of the pilot projects (Figure 3), theaspirations of each person on the team can varyimmensely, as do their views on achievement, againstthe three headings:
For example, in this project, the project manager isshown to value build quality far higher than the client,the architect or the user. Whereas the client and theuser both value impact higher than the architect or theproject manager. This is certainly food for thought,and opened immediate and interesting debate betweenthe individuals about why these differences occur, soengaging the team in open, non-confrontational discus-sion almost from the moment the questionnaire wascompleted.
A second pilot project was a housing project commis-sioned by The Peabody Housing Trust and designedby Alford Hall Monaghan and Morris in DalstonLane, London (Figure 4).
The project primarily provides social housing along-side some shops and office accommodation. For thepurposes of the pilot, the project team was reconvenedand met as a group comprising the architect, engineer,main contractor, one of the subcontractors, the clientand a housing tenant. Each was asked to answer theDQI questionnaire, and whilst a sample of the resultswas being processed, the group members began dis-cussing their impressions of the tool and its benefits.Again, the measure of design quality registered by eachindividual team member was different, with varyinglevels of importance given to each of the headings:Build quality, Functionality and Impact. This in itselfgave rise to debate, giving each person the opportunityto explain their thinking – and to hear the opinions ofothers. Imagine how this conversation could be deve-loped further if each of the ten subsections wasexplored? The potential to enhance the briefing processand ensure that all aspects of design quality are notonly addressed, but also valued by each member of theteam is enormous.
Five buildings were reviewed in the first pilot of theDQI, and on each occasion its value as a communica-tions tool was noted, as some of the quotes taken fromthese pilots clearly demonstrate:
� ‘It touched on things we clearly hadn’t thought of’– client
Figure 3 Analysis of design quality by di¡erent project teammembers
Cole-Colander
364
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
5:41
09
Oct
ober
201
4
� ‘It’s a very important tool to use for a public-sectorclient to get a balanced brief’ – financier
� ‘I wish we’d used this earlier – the designer didn’teven seem to think about us’ – building user (recep-tionist)
� ‘I was pleasantly surprised to be asked if the flatwas ‘‘delightful’’ and ‘‘convivial’’ ’ – housingtenant
� ‘I’d like to use this throughout the project life-cycle’– project manager
� ‘We would love to use the DQI as a briefing tool onother projects – as a catalyst for debate across theproject and client team’ – architect
Other initiativesIt is encouraging to note that these two initiatives:Designing the Customer Experience and the develop-ment of the DQI tool, do not stand alone in isolation.The need to draw design quality into the spotlight isnow being recognized by a number of different playerswithin the industry. Also recognized is the need todevelop a cohesive common language – or at any rateframeworks within which such language can beexplored and developed.
NHS Estates (the property organization for theUK’s National Health Service) has developed a paralleltool to the DQI for use on health buildings: Achieving
Excellence Design Evaluation Tool Kit (NHS Estates,2002). This tool has been designed to be compatiblewith the DQI, and both operate under what is essen-tially the same framework.
The Confederation of Construction Clients hasrecently developed its Clients Charter Tool Kit, whichpledges that ‘A Charter Client will be the best kind ofclient to do business with’.
In addition, government is also starting to view designquality as a worthy aim, first by setting up and then bysupporting CABE. With its byline: ‘Improving people’slives through better buildings, spaces and places’,CABE sees its function as
The champion for architecture in England; topromote high standards in the design of build-ings and the spaces between them.
A worthy aim indeed for any government to support,and it is encouraging to see that CABE are now oneof the major sponsors of the next development phaseof the DQI.
ConclusionsThe key lesson learnt from ‘Designing the CustomerExperience’ and the ‘Design Quality Indicators’ is thatdiscussion and debate are vital if there are to be harmo-nious, ‘joined up’ aspirations for the built environmentthat can be subscribed to by all those involved in theconstruction industry. Although both these initiatives
Figure 4 Housing for the Peabody HousingTrust, London. Designed by Alford Hall Monaghan and Morris
Designing the Customer Experience
365
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
5:41
09
Oct
ober
201
4
have gone some way to unlocking the divergence ofthought and practice within the industry, furthersubstantial work needed to convince key players of thebenefits of dialogue. Finding the right catalysts toencourage non-confrontational and focused debate atthe level of individual projects is important, as wellas continuing the discussions on an industry-widestage, and through the auspices of CABE. More cross-industry events such as ‘Designing the CustomerExperience’ are needed, and the results of thesesessions need to be disseminated to a broader audience.In addition, the early success of the DQI as a communi-cations tool needs to be tested and developed further.There is no doubt that improvements can be made tothe current tool.
ReferencesAudit Commission (2003) PFI in Schools 2003 [http:/www.audit-
commission.gov.uk]Commission for the Built Environment [http:/cabe.org.uk]
Confederation of Construction Clients, Clients Charter [http:/www.clientsuccess.org.uk]
Dumas, A (1998) The Magic of Metaphors, Designing aCommon Language’ seminar, RIBA, London.
Egan, J. (1998) Rethinking Construction, Department of theEnvironment, Transport and the Regions, London. Reportof the Construction Task Force to the Deputy Prime MinisterJohn Prescott on the scope for improving the qualityand efficiency of UK construction [http://www.dti.gov.uk/construction/rethink/report/index.htm]
Latham, M. (1994) Constructing the Team, Department of theEnvironment, London. Final Report of the Government/Industry Review of Procurement and ContractualArrangements in the UK Construction Industry.
NHS Estates (2002) Achieving Excellence Design EvaluationTool Kit.
RIBA (1997) Designing the customer experience. Part of theDesign Council’s Design in Business Week, RIBA, London.
RIBA (2000) Architects and the Changing Construction Industry.Report, RIBA London [http://www.architecture.com/go/Architecture/Debate/Change 2114.html]
Simmons, J. (1993) The Trouble with Words, Newell & Sorrell.Vitruvius (1960) The Ten Books on Architecture, trans. M. H.
Morgan, Dover, New York.
Cole-Colander
366
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
5:41
09
Oct
ober
201
4
