Philosophy
Starting Points, Objectives, and Process

Starting Points

Engineering education is now the closest to the traditional 'classical education'; a degree course jam packed with subjects varying from complex stress analysis to the theory of water treatment. Each subject demanding an in depth study and all using a discursive presentation. It's basis is a traditional applied mathematics course comprising a necklace of theories, each with a logical proof, strung together, without unification, to create a 'set of tools' and basic theory for use in practice. Often these 'tools' have no practical use.

Traditionally engineers have seen their role as being the design discipline which 'makes it stand up'. It is left to the individual engineer to develop their own view of their role, the method of working, and his or her aims. Often these will contradict those of the employer. Often engineers find it difficult to raise their heads above the mass of theory and technology. Profound thought is unusual and not part of our education. When it does occur it often lacks rigour, except perhaps when the engineer is forced to work out of their normal environment, say in architecture or product design. Then there is a necessity to communicate and to understand those who have completely different starting points. This can lead to introspection and inspiration.

For his own part the engineer must master his discipline; his analytical skill, his understanding and awareness of materials and constructional techniques, his command of the media of information production and presentation, and his ability to communicate with and to understand collaborators. He must also be aware of and use the creative thought process. Engineers should be aware of context; in other words history, contemporary achievements, and future developments.

These attributes and abilities have all been present in the great engineers from Brunel to Rice.

Objectives

For us 'to make it stand up' is not sufficient; this simple role can be fulfilled by almost anyone, and contains no creative ambition. For us the search for some expression within our projects is essential and should be the primary objective of the design engineer.

However this creative ambition can induce a feeling of impotence as the engineer will usually find that they have little control over design decisions and they will aspire to achieve objectives and carry out tasks for which they have no training or familiarity with; failure, disappointment, and dissolution are common place. It is the engineer's lot or task to work within this framework. Engineers are not Architects.

The uses of the minimum amounts of material and economy of means are also usually considered to be essential objectives in the wider context, but this simplistic approach is often inconsistent with the architectural idea, and results from a too isolated standpoint. Structure must be seen as part of the wider context of the architecture or object. Structural design is usually a supportive or subservient discipline to the architectural objective. The engineer's ideas must fit into the scheme as a whole and be appropriate.

Within the current climate it is important to stress that there should be no innovation for its own sake. Appropriateness is the ideal. It is important that the engineer tempers his personal reward for innovative work with an awareness that innovation must enhance the feasibility of the design and be appropriate.

Creating icons of 'high tech', and producing refined technological artefacts, can be a siren voice leading designers into the realm of fashion and styling which may have no content or relevance. Engineers may be used to create fatuous systems and ornament with structural form and components; their creative energies are perverted, consciously or unconsciously by the lead designer.

Rem Koolhaus has written that 'architecture is by definition a chaotic adventure.' Engineers are well placed to deal with this as their input is relevant and essential. Their task will have true worth if they can respond to the simplicity of the objective. Their problems are usually closely defined by archetypes; standardisation is much more common than in architecture. This in itself reduces the number of arguments and parameters, and creates a fallow environment for innovation and profound thought.

It is also our objective to create a strategy for the structural form that can be used as a project philosophy, or set of guiding principles. For us the ideal result is one in which the structural system, with its form and materials, is in complete sympathy with the architectural intent and the brief. The design does not have to have an overt, or flamboyant structure to comply. It may be physically invisible. It is enough to create a structural form with a consistent and coherent underlying strategy.

The ability to enhance the scheme, to give the design team the ability 'to boldly go where no man has gone before' is thrilling. To benignly allow the creative process to flow in any constructive direction without impediment, to carefully and incisively input an idea which can improve and enhance, or radically change a scheme for the better, is truly rewarding

Processes

We talk about the process of design often within the practice as individuals and a team; about the way we think and work, and about the way we react to problems and situations.

Our objective is to work with the engineer's standard method but to inject an extra inspirational and intuitive response at key stages. For us it is important to work on the design using the normal design engineering methods, but to then look for an enhanced expression within the structural form that lifts and enhances the architectural idea. Themes and ideas reoccur and are progressed from project to project.

The engineering design process has two distinct phases that interlock; the formulation of ideas, and the mathematical proving and testing of those ideas. It is also true that sometimes ideas are generated by mathematical analysis, although not as often as engineers would like to think. Our design thought processes seem to range from a discursive, reasoning, and systematic approach, to an intuitive generation of ideas. Traditionally design engineers have used an options approach; the development of a set of schemes, or solutions, which are then tested to assess which provides the most appropriate solution. We believe there exist two other alternatives; firstly the direct path of logical deduction, which is a reduced version of the options approach, and secondly the "flight of fancy", where often seemingly inappropriate solutions are explored intuitively and only tested for validity when developed into apparently detailed sketch designs. The "flight of fancy" is a method that deliberately discards testing until late on in the process. Often these methods are used subconsciously and often more than one is used at the same time. We believe that these methods are exactly the same as those used in any other creative design process, and that engineers should recognise this.

Because of the unique nature of most building projects and because of the necessary low development and production costs, prototyping is almost impossible. An automotive or aeronautical engineer would find this circumstance impossible, particularly as the consequences of failure could be equally as catastrophic as aircraft failure. Structural engineers resolve this problem by using higher factors of safety and 'more idiot proof' construction techniques. Standardised and codified design methods also help. The net effect of such a relatively unrefined design and construction method is to again reduce the depth of thought and design effort. This environment must be weathered if the engineer is to succeed within the architectural realm.

Bob Barton, May 1998