Philosophical differences: The case of architects' reluctance to use strategic planning software

Ray Wyatt, Jim Smith, Peter E D Love

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A briefing workshop was run in an effort to involve its participants in choosing a strategic direction, and eventual form, for a proposed facility. The workshop was an action research, participative process that sought to improve final design by preconsultation with some relevant stakeholders. This paper will specifically focus on our attempt to use strategic planning software at an early stage of such a workshop. It discusses and illustrates the difficulties of importing a new technique into an established, professional setting where activities and roles may be expressed, or assumed, on the basis of previous experience. More exactly, although we hoped to use our software to analyze and explore participants' design styles, and so predict their likely choice of design option, the architects present undermined such analyzes by playing a role rather than telling the software what they really thought about the various strategic choices. Hence it was, in some ways, a waste of time using our software. We speculate below whether such undermining might be symptomatic of deep philosophical differences between the workshop organizers, planners, and architects. We also examine whether such differences bode ill for the future of architecture.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)127-142
Number of pages16
JournalSystemic Practice and Action Research
Volume17
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2004
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Strategic planning
strategic planning
architect
research process
action research
stakeholder
software
Software
experience

Cite this

@article{0c5963fda47d4eb19c8940a01096487a,
title = "Philosophical differences: The case of architects' reluctance to use strategic planning software",
abstract = "A briefing workshop was run in an effort to involve its participants in choosing a strategic direction, and eventual form, for a proposed facility. The workshop was an action research, participative process that sought to improve final design by preconsultation with some relevant stakeholders. This paper will specifically focus on our attempt to use strategic planning software at an early stage of such a workshop. It discusses and illustrates the difficulties of importing a new technique into an established, professional setting where activities and roles may be expressed, or assumed, on the basis of previous experience. More exactly, although we hoped to use our software to analyze and explore participants' design styles, and so predict their likely choice of design option, the architects present undermined such analyzes by playing a role rather than telling the software what they really thought about the various strategic choices. Hence it was, in some ways, a waste of time using our software. We speculate below whether such undermining might be symptomatic of deep philosophical differences between the workshop organizers, planners, and architects. We also examine whether such differences bode ill for the future of architecture.",
author = "Ray Wyatt and Jim Smith and Love, {Peter E D}",
year = "2004",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1023/B:SPAA.0000018907.88310.c3",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "127--142",
journal = "Systems Practice",
issn = "0894-9859",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "2",

}

Philosophical differences : The case of architects' reluctance to use strategic planning software. / Wyatt, Ray; Smith, Jim; Love, Peter E D.

In: Systemic Practice and Action Research, Vol. 17, No. 2, 04.2004, p. 127-142.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Philosophical differences

T2 - The case of architects' reluctance to use strategic planning software

AU - Wyatt, Ray

AU - Smith, Jim

AU - Love, Peter E D

PY - 2004/4

Y1 - 2004/4

N2 - A briefing workshop was run in an effort to involve its participants in choosing a strategic direction, and eventual form, for a proposed facility. The workshop was an action research, participative process that sought to improve final design by preconsultation with some relevant stakeholders. This paper will specifically focus on our attempt to use strategic planning software at an early stage of such a workshop. It discusses and illustrates the difficulties of importing a new technique into an established, professional setting where activities and roles may be expressed, or assumed, on the basis of previous experience. More exactly, although we hoped to use our software to analyze and explore participants' design styles, and so predict their likely choice of design option, the architects present undermined such analyzes by playing a role rather than telling the software what they really thought about the various strategic choices. Hence it was, in some ways, a waste of time using our software. We speculate below whether such undermining might be symptomatic of deep philosophical differences between the workshop organizers, planners, and architects. We also examine whether such differences bode ill for the future of architecture.

AB - A briefing workshop was run in an effort to involve its participants in choosing a strategic direction, and eventual form, for a proposed facility. The workshop was an action research, participative process that sought to improve final design by preconsultation with some relevant stakeholders. This paper will specifically focus on our attempt to use strategic planning software at an early stage of such a workshop. It discusses and illustrates the difficulties of importing a new technique into an established, professional setting where activities and roles may be expressed, or assumed, on the basis of previous experience. More exactly, although we hoped to use our software to analyze and explore participants' design styles, and so predict their likely choice of design option, the architects present undermined such analyzes by playing a role rather than telling the software what they really thought about the various strategic choices. Hence it was, in some ways, a waste of time using our software. We speculate below whether such undermining might be symptomatic of deep philosophical differences between the workshop organizers, planners, and architects. We also examine whether such differences bode ill for the future of architecture.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=3843109185&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1023/B:SPAA.0000018907.88310.c3

DO - 10.1023/B:SPAA.0000018907.88310.c3

M3 - Article

VL - 17

SP - 127

EP - 142

JO - Systems Practice

JF - Systems Practice

SN - 0894-9859

IS - 2

ER -