SYSTEM STRUCTURES IN ARCHITECTURE

- CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS OF A CONTEMPORARY INDUSTRIALISED ARCHITECTURE

Kasper Sánchez Vibæk

PhD-thesis
CINARK - Centre for industrialised architecture
The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts
Schools of Architecture, Design and Conservation
School of Architecture
October 2011
 KASPER SÁNCHEZ VIBÆK

SYSTEM STRUCTURES IN ARCHITECTURE

- CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS OF A CONTEMPORARY INDUSTRIALISED ARCHITECTURE

PHD-THESIS
Elaborated at CINARK - centre for industrialised architecture

© 2011 KASPER SÁNCHEZ VIBÆK AND

THE ROYAL DANISH ACADEMY OF FINE ARTS

SCHOOLS OF ARCHITECTURE, DESIGN AND CONSERVATION
SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE

ISBN: 978-87-7830-275-5

PUBLISHED BY:
THE ROYAL DANISH ACADEMY OF FINE ARTS
SCHOOLS OF ARCHITECTURE, DESIGN AND CONSERVATION
SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE
PHILIP DE LANGES ALLE 10
DK-1435 COPENHAGEN K

PRINT:
SANGILL GRAFISK PRODUKTION

GRAPHIC DESIGN:
MALENE HENSSEL

002
Table of contents
Part I – frame
I.1 Preface 006
I.2 Acknowledgements 009
I.3 Introduction to the problem area 011
I.4 Definition of Scope 018
I.5 Method and scientific approach 023

Part II – SYSTEM
II.1 Systems in architectural theory 042
II.2 Classification systems in construction 065
II.3 Industrial production theory 077
II.4 General systems theory 099
II.5 Systems terminology for architecture and construction 122

Part III – product

III.1 Commoditisation in architectural construction 140
III.2 Customisable architectural subsystems 152
III.3 Development and classification of integrated product deliveries 171

Part IV – model
IV.1 model presentation 196
IV.2 System structure analyses 209
IV.3 KieranTimberlake 212
IV.4 Scandi Byg 244
IV.5 NCC 261
IV.6 Arup Associates 279

PART V – Reflection
V.1 Findings 300
V.2 methodological experience 323
V.3 CONCLUSIONS IN SHORT 338

PART VI – appendix
VI.1 Illustration credits 348
VI.2 Bibliography & references 351
VI.3 Keyword index 354

- ONLY ON CD:
VI.4 Project frame description
VI.5 Articles , papers, and abstracts
VI.6 Data material, cases
VI.7 Course material
VI.8 Other presentations
VI.9 Curriculum vitae
003
 PART I
frame

1 http://www.karch.dk/cinark_
uk/table/Profile accessed on
September 3, 2011
I.1 Preface
2 http://www.realdania.dk/Eng- ORGANISATIONAL LOCATION,
lish.aspx accessed on September
3, 2011 FINANCING AND GENESIS
The present thesis is the result of 30 months of study and research conducted
at CINARK – Centre of Industrialised Architecture from 2009-2011. Organi-
sationally located under the Institute of Architectural Technology at The Royal
Danish Academy of Fine Arts, School of Architecture (RASA), CINARK ‘devel-
ops, accumulates and co-ordinates research and education activities concerning
the production of industrialised architecture from a sustainable point of view.’1
Through several earlier and ongoing research projects – a considerable part of
them conducted as PhD-projects – CINARK has since 2004 developed knowl-
edge around the processes as well as the products – or physical results – of
architecture and architectural creation exposed to modern industrialised means
of production.

The PhD-project has been made possible through cofinancing between the
RASA and Realdania – a major private Danish ‘strategic foundation created
with the objective of initiating and supporting projects that improve the built
environment.’2 The Realdania cofinancing was given on the basis of a grant
application without other conditions than proper documentation of progress
according to a project specific research plan approved by the RASA and the
provision of the related standard half-year evaluations. The stipulated length
of 30 months – slightly shorter than a normal PhD-project – has its origin in
an earlier project by another candidate that was abandoned. Due to earlier
research work and experience within the field, the candidate of present project
was considered qualified to complete the project within the available amount
of time.

The incentive to engage in present project is rooted in the candidate’s earlier

research work at CINARK that started in 2004 with a project concerned with
the goals and strategies in the process of architectural design. A subsequent
project from 2006 was more focussed on the outcome of these strategies and
processes and dealt with industrialised structural building systems. Finally an
international collaboration between CINARK, Chalmers University of Technol-
ogy in Sweden and Paris-Belleville Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Architecture
in France from 2007 looked into user requirements and mass customization

006
 I.1 preface

in industrial building systems.3 All projects have had a special focus on the 3 See (Jensen & Beim 2006, Beim,
Vibæk & Jørgensen 2007, and
consequences of the industrialised means of production and construction for Beim, Nielsen & Vibæk 2010)
the architectural quality of our built environment. Architectural quality is a
holistic concept than can not easily be reduced or atomised into clear, quan-
tifiable sub parameters characterising an industrialised logic. It is this tension
between the constituent parts and the whole that continuously has driven my
interest towards present examination of systems and systems thinking in archi-
tecture. While the main part of the research has been conducted at CINARK,
supplementary supervising was also received during a six month stay as visiting
scholar at University of Pennsylvania, Department of Architecture.

Structure of the thesis – a reader’s guide

Apart from disseminating some kind of final result or findings, the ambition
has also been to express some of the processes and the different steps that
led to these results and findings. This is sought reflected in the format of the
thesis in the sense that it is structured around a number of parts that express
a development from a theoretical exploration over a practical to the proposal
and application of an analytical model. Several papers and articles have been
published during the course of the project. These have in several cases served as
the basis for chapters or parts of these in the final thesis but have however been
considerably restructured for the purpose in order to get a coherent result and
avoid too much repetition. All related abstracts, papers and articles produced
during the project are enclosed in the appendix that however mainly is located
on a CD in order to keep the format and the focus on the main thesis.

The thesis is divided into five main parts and an appendix. Each main part
comprises several sections gathered around a common main theme such as
framework, theoretical exploration, practical exploration, model and case
studies, and final discussion and methodological reflection.

Part I is called FRAME. This part describes the overall framework for the re-
search i.e. how the project was made possible, what the thematic and organisa-
tional background is and how the scope and research problem is defined. A last
section of this part describes the methodological approach and tries to relate
this approach to a general discussion of scientific approach and knowledge
production.

007
PART I
frame

Part II is called SYSTEM. This part is the theoretical exploration of the thesis.
Here different theoretical paths of systems thinking are examined with refer-
ence to the research problem defined in part I. A first section is a historical view
on systematic thought in architectural theory. A second section deals with dif-
ferent applied classification systems and taxonomies in construction as opposed
to architectural creation. Next follows two sections on other kinds of systems
theory outside the field architectural construction such as industrial produc-
tion theory and general systems theory. A final section seeks to define central
concepts as they are used in this thesis.

Part III – PRODUCT is an exploration of the practical reality within archi-

tectural construction and its current level of industrialisation and systemic
elements. Commoditisation is proposed as a useful concept in this context.
Subsequently a section deals with the emergence of system products within
the field of construction seen as combinations of matter, process, and thought.
A final section deals with the specific development of integrated products in
construction and seeks to establish an initial product catalogue.

PART IV called MODEL is the presentation of a model as the primary out-

come of the thesis. The elaborated model represents an analytical structure or a
supportive tool applicable to contemporary and/or future architectural con-
struction. A first section presents the model its current state. Subsequently the
model is applied as an analytical tool to a series of cases (case studies).

Part V – REFLECTION is a discussion of the most important findings from the

case analyses and the general applicability of the proposed model. Subsequently
follows an after the fact methodological critique and reflection on the methods
applied, the experience gained and the lessons learned throughout the process
of the current PhD-research. A last section draws up the main conclusions in a
short form related to the main problem and hypotheses and points out further
development perspectives and future research needs.

The last part VI is an APPENDIX containing e.g. illustration credits, bibliogra-

phy and references, and a keyword index for the thesis. Furthermore, supple-
mentary documentation and material produced during the course of the project
is located on an indexed CD to be found inside the cover of the thesis.

008
 I.3 introduction to the problem area

I.3 INTRODUCTION TO 4 In Danish, (Center for) Indus-

trial Architecture is used in the
meaning of industrialised as a
THE PROBLEM AREA parallel to industrial design.
Consequently, industrial
- Handling complexity in architecture and construction architecture is normally termed
industry architecture in Danish.

‘Design today has reached the stage where sheer inventiveness can no 5 For a discussion of architectural
longer sustain it. To make adequate forms, one must be able to explore solution space – the set of all
the relations between circumstances more fully than is done at present, possible solutions for a given set
conditions or parameters – seen
so that the decision as to just where to apply precious and limited inven- in an architectural context see
tive power can be made’ e.g. (Vibæk 2007).
(Chermayeff & Alexander 1965:161)

Industrialised Architecture
Organisationally located at CINARK, Centre for Industrialised Architecture,
this thesis takes its starting point and naturally continues the line of earlier
research within the field of industrialised architecture – a term that CINARK
among others have contributed to the definition of. Industrialised architecture
does not in itself point towards a specific architectural expression or the ap-
pearance of a specific (new) architectural style. Neither can one talk about a
distinctly identifiable building typology; it is not about industrial architecture!4
While industrialised architecture as field of research still has the architectural
result as object of research, it quickly also involves the organisation and pro-
duction processes, their industrialisation, and the perspectives and consequenc-
es for the architectural result of this industrialisation. Architecture is generally
about creating the best possible physical surroundings for human life, and
decisive for the final result of all creation is not only the material but also the
tools and the related techniques. Organisation and production processes are
equally important when it comes to the definition of the architectural solution
space given for each architectural project.5 Rather than dealing with a specific
result, industrialised architecture is a particular way to construct or assemble
buildings – a way to think about architecture and construction – that however
has significance for this result: the finished work or building.

To deal with industrialised architecture as field of research here should not be

seen as a direct promotion of organisation, processes and results falling within
this category as being something particularly conducive for the architectural re-
sult. Rather, it should be seen as a critical discussion of and taking a stance on

011
 PART I
frame

6 A discussion of fundamental a range of tangible tendencies that is observed concerning the way we presently
differences between industrial
and architectural design can be
build. This, on the one hand in relation to architects and other consultants that
found under Commoditisation are contributing to the project basis of building projects as well as on the other
of architectural construction, hand in relation to stakeholders involved in the practical realisation of build-
III.1 ing projects. The latter group of stakeholders is increasingly becoming a mix of
7 This paragraph is partly taken
industrial manufacturers producing parts in offsite factory environments and
from (Beim, Nielsen og Vibæk the more traditional builders as contractors and their subcontractors that pro-
2010:77f) cess and adapt building materials and components directly on the building site.
Countless times construction has been compared with the product industry and
8 Wealth of nations is not neces-
sarily coincident with general
its mass produced standard goods for large markets. Although much within the
wealth of the individual citizens construction sector can be regarded as production there are reasons to believe
that construction seen as architecture has – and probably always will comprise
9 The British sociologist Anthony – elements that cannot be produced as finished goods in a true industrial sense.
Giddens use the notion of
expert systems to explain how
This is partly due to the fact that architecture is fundamentally bound to time,
people in their everyday life place and culture in a different way by constituting the framework of rather
draw on large amounts of than the tools for human action and development.6 An important question here
embedded knowledge when e.g. becomes: How does this industrialisation of construction look?
taking the bus or using the tel-
ephone. (Kaspersen 2005:439
and Giddens 1990) Division of labour and the modularisation of construction7
Although in some primitive form it has always existed in human communities,
the division of labour is one of the most significant characteristics of modern
society. In 1776 the British economist Adam Smith describes the division of la-
bour as one of the most efficient ways to improve the productivity performance
of companies hence increasing the wealth of nations.8 His best known example
is a pin manufacturing company. After splitting up the process of making pins
in different subtasks – thus specialising the workers – productivity raised by
factor 240 (Smith 1776). Since the time of Smith, a pronounced division of la-
bour has spread to all areas of society that partly due to this fact have become
increasingly complex. Construction and architecture is not an exception.

Industrialisation within construction starts later than the general industrialisa-

tion of society. Up until the massive industrialisation of building processes and
products in the 1960’s, the division between the crafts and professions on the
one hand and the modularisation of architectural construction on the other
was always identical. The building crafts could be seen as independent modules
– or systems of coherent expert knowledge - with clearly defined interfaces to
adjacent modules.9 Construction specifications, i.e. drawings, had a substan-
tial set of conventions, allowing a few instructions (as e.g. lines and signs) to

012
 I.3 introduction to the problem area

be clearly comprehended due to a large amount of implicit – or embedded – Figure I.1.1

CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS AS
knowledge. The dimensions of the windows on the plan of a masonry building, CONVENTIONAL PLAN DRAWINGS
for instance, is known to refer to the window sills, not to the sides of the actual INCLUDE LARGE AMOUNTS OF EMBED-
carpentry. The carpenter knows that he has to subtract the size of the joint (for DED KNOWLEDGE
which he has responsibility). It is thus not necessary for the architect as a ‘spec-
ifier’ to design this specific interface, only to define where it is. If the architect
wants to control the appearance of the detail, he can supply a drawing. If he
does not, the craftsman’s default solution will be used, still with a high-quality
result, as this detail will seem coherent in the particular building. The complex-
ity of the design task is reduced by making use of this embedded knowledge of
the implicit building tradition applied by the craftsman.

Today, the crafts and construction skills have almost disappeared from the
construction industry in their traditional form due to increased technical and
economical demands in architecture. Large standardised quantities, extreme
precision on the technical side and a need for increased productivity with less
manpower on the economic side, dissolve the essentials of the traditional man-
ually based workshop production and on-site adaptation. At the same time,
the explosion in the number of choices within the building material industry
has made it impossible for anyone to cope with all possible combinations in a
traditional non-explicit (tacit) manner. Although the fundamental architectural
challenge is relatively unchanged and still generally is about creating the best
possible physical surroundings for human life (in all aspects), the premises for
solving this task as specific buildings has changed considerably – building has
become much more complex both as object (material) and design task (pro-
cess). Simultaneously, the possibility for the architect of drawing on coherent
knowledge from the crafts has been reduced. It is not that expert knowledge
in construction has decreased – quite the contrary – but this knowledge no
longer relates to and is no longer automatically embedded into a coherent way
of building. Local vernacular architectures are expressions of such traditionally
coherent knowledge systems with the crafts as subsystems. However, although

013
 PART I
frame

10 BMS = Building Management the crafts still exist to some extent, they no longer cover construction as a
System is a computer based
control system that controls
whole. More and new areas of specialisation have emerged as crystallisations
and monitors the building’s or fusions of earlier trades as e.g. foundation work, flooring, ventilation, alarm,
mechanical and electrical equip- and BMS systems etc.10 A next question then becomes: How can this increased
ment (http://en.wikipedia.org/ complexity and knowledge fragmentation in construction be handled in order
wiki/Building_management_
system) accessed on August 8,
to facilitate a focus on the architectural core instead of getting lost in technical
2011 and economical details that however still needs consideration and control?

11 For a similar assertion, see e.g. Architecture as (industrialised) production

(Bachman 2003:6)
In this context, the present thesis claims that the architect has a special integra-
tive role among and in relation to the stakeholders involved in construction.11
Etymologically speaking architect means master builder or supreme carpenter
(Becker-Christensen ed., 2001) and the architectural profession deals (to a
great extent) with the conception and the creation of physical wholes. It is the
task of the architect to bring the different knowledge systems and their physi-
cal outcome or products together in order to create these wholes – or coherent
systems – that become more than the sum of their constituent elements: They
become architectural works. However, it seems that the architect’s tools for
creating this integration or synthesis has not evolved parallel to the described
development and specialisation within the construction sector in general and
the building component industry in particular. The architect is trained with and
still widely works from a ‘craft based’ approach that through use of a range of
materials transforms an architectural concept into a true physical form. The
modules or systems used for architectural thinking, it is argued here, still pre-
dominantly correspond to the traditional crafts rather than to the specialised
and partly industrialised building industry that is supposed to produce them.
That this is also the case for the processes of most of the traditional contracting
companies does not necessarily reduce the problem in relation to the handling
of complexity. There is apparently a growing gap between how on the one
hand architecture is conceived and, on the other hand, how it is or can be pro-
duced. Just the mere expression of architecture as production probably ‘grates
on the ear’ of many architects.

If however, we assume that industrialisation is a condition – not just an option

– that architects and other stakeholders in construction have to respond to but
simultaneously also stress that that architecturally speaking industrialisation
is a means not a goal in itself, then perhaps the discussion is less controversial
and can become more fruitful. This way the discussion of industrialisation of

014
 I.3 introduction to the problem area

construction and industrialised architecture can be diverted from a dialectic 12 The Danish Technological
Institute has lately initiated a
perspective of pros and cons towards a focus on potentials and perspectives network of companies and re-
of a conscious and critically well-balanced application of industrial logic in search institutions co-ordinated
construction and architecture. Industry and industrialised production methods by a so-called Centre for New
draw on strict methodologies and systems in order reduce or handle complex- Industrialisation (CNI). http://
www.cni.teknologisk.dk/ ac-
ity. While these methodologies and systems earlier inherently meant standardi- cessed on July 15, 2011
sation of the product, modern information technology has gradually facilitated
the standardisation of even complex processes that on the contrary can lead
to huge variety when it comes to the resulting products. This phenomenon is
often termed mass customisation with direct reference to and as alternative to
traditional mass production. The term new industrialisation covers, as pointed
out in earlier CINARK-research, a current parallel tendency within the Dan-
ish construction sector with reference to and as alternative to the first wave
of industrialisation in construction in the 1960’s (Beim, Vibæk og Jørgensen
2007:25 and Jørgensen 2007).12 While the first industrialisation wave in con-
struction was heavily standardised in its architectural expression and almost
became an architectural style in itself, the new industrialisation of construction
and architecture points towards a systematisation of project specific and con-
text sensitive solutions. This leads to the question: How can architecture and
construction be seen - and possibly conceived - as a system of processes and/
or products that better match the means of production that currently produces
our built environment while simultaneously taking into account architecture’s
specific attachment to time, place and cultural context? – and: What (kind of)
knowledge can possibly be transferred to a general system level thus reducing
the complexity to be handled within each building project seen as a single and
context specific design task?

Product architecture and integrated product deliveries

Within the product industry when designing e.g. cars, computers, wash-
ing machines or bags, the notion of product architecture is used to describe,
analyse, and optimise how production and product in the most adequate way
can be divided into a number of constituent elements of processes and/or
physical modules. Product architecture is not about architecture in the sense
that architectural designers usually apply it but simply refers to organisational
and product structural issues. The product architecture defines how different
subsystems form part of a complete supply chain and production line, and
how these subsystems are assembled in the final product without this structure
necessarily being perceivable to the end user. Through the product architecture,

015
PART I
frame

a system level is established that sustain the whole while simultaneously split-
ting up this whole into meaningful elements that subsequently as more or less
interdependent entities can be treated (designed and produced) separately – as
processes and/or physical elements that perhaps even are performed by differ-
ent independent suppliers. The product architecture as a design and production
tool reduces the complexity of the design task without necessarily reducing the
complexity of the product itself. This is particularly the case, when subsystems
or elements of the product architecture are based on standardised solutions or
well-known principles and/or processes.

In contemporary architecture and construction there is no self-evident product

structure as it earlier was provided by the crafts – although in a non-conscious
manner. The coherence between how architecture is conceived and how it can
be produced has, as mentioned, been broken due to both technical as well as
economical causes. A way to view ‘the product architecture of construction’
could become a useful tool – not just in construction phases but equally dur-
ing the earlier architectural design phases. Precision, strict methodology and
control can also be used in a creative manner! In the first case, such a tool (as
analytical) could increase the understanding of how buildings are and can be
put together from different industrial scenarios understood as a combination
of production (prefabrication) and on-site construction. In the long run, the
tool could potentially also be developed into a design supportive tool that,
apart from reducing the complexity of the architectural design process, could
increase incentives for true product development of architectural subsystems
in the form of more and new types of integrated product deliveries. Earlier
research at CINARK, described in the publication Three Ways of Assembling
a House, points out the emergence of such integrated product deliveries as a
product level between traditional onsite construction and the turnkey solutions
of the conventional offsite building manufacturers (Beim, Nielsen & Vibæk
2010). The present thesis seeks to go one step further both concerning develop-
ment and clarification of concepts as well as regarding the tool development.
Inspired by the industry, it seeks to examine how different systems approaches
can be used to bridge the gap between conception and realisation in the most
appropriate way. The underlying research thus deals with a question of com-
moditisation of construction. This is not the same as a commoditisation of
buildings as products or of architecture itself. As pointed out, this commod-
itisation can take place (and already does so) on a subsystem level in the form
of integrated product deliveries that are used as elements of a building. I will

016
 I.3 introduction to the problem area

return to a formal definition of systems and integrated product deliveries as

central notions of this thesis.

017
Part II – ‘SYSTEM’
The problem area and the scope of present thesis point out some circumstances
formulated as a general hypothesis of a gap between architectural ideation
and contemporary industrialised building production and construction. In the
following two parts this hypothesis is examined, substantiated and discussed
through both a theoretical and a practical exploration. These explorations cor-
respond to respectively Part II – ‘System’ and part III – ‘Product’ of the thesis
and will be addressed through a number of sub-questions. Finally the main
hypothesis is (partly) sought met in the system structure model found in part
IV – ‘Model’ of this thesis.

The present part, part II – ‘System’, forms the theoretical backdrop of the
thesis. Through five sections it examines and evaluates on systems theory and
systematic thought applicable in the thesis in the form of a scanning within dif-
ferent fields of knowledge and a concluding attempt, on basis of the findings in
these (system) fields, to establish a consistent terminology for the thesis as well
as in the general discussion of systems thinking in architecture and construc-
tion. With outset in existing knowledge and theory, the overall objective of
the thesis is to look into the empirical reality of building construction from
a systematic frame of reference – to look upon architecture and architectural
creation as a system of constituent parts, elements or subsystems. The sections
are the following: 1. Systems in architectural theory (II.1), 2. Classification
systems in construction (II.2), 3. Industrial production theory (II.3), 4. General
systems theory (II.4), and finally 5. Systems terminology for architecture and
construction (II.5).

The five sections do not form an exhaustive evaluation of systematic elements

found within the different fields. They rather offer a number of examples
through a selection of different ways of approaching architecture and other
complex fields from a systematic frame of reference. This is meant to work as a
short ideographic contribution within each field as well as a source of inspira-
tion for how the present thesis may contribute to a more systematic approach
to architecture and architectural creation in particular – or less pretentious:
contribute to a clarification of the perspectives of such a systematic approach
to architecture. Each section advances a hypothesis derived from the main
question and goal of the thesis that subsequently leads to one or two research
questions examined within the particular fields.

041
PART II
SYSTEM

II.5 Systems terminology for

architecture and construction
Introduction
The previous sections of the present Part II – ‘System’ have, with reference to
the topic of this thesis introduced key theoretical themes from related fields
of knowledge i.e. architectural theory, classification systems in construction,
industrial production theory, and general systems theory. The idea is that these
themes form the theoretical and conceptual framework or backdrop used for
the rest of the thesis. This both in the sense of underlining and further clarify-
ing the problems that the thesis sets out to treat as well as introducing useful
concepts for use in the subsequent practical exploration in Part III – ‘Product’
and for the case analyses and model presentation found in part IV – ‘Model’.
The current section seeks to distil key concepts and other findings into a more
condensed form in a so-called systems terminology for (industrialised) archi-
tecture and construction that furthermore tentatively establishes a taxonomy
relating some of these key concepts to each other.

Key Concepts and conceptual universes

A considerable amount of the vocabulary introduced above can seem unfamil-
iar for use in architectural design. Many terms are closely connected in small
‘conceptual universes’ of subsidiary concepts gathering around a central key
concept or theme. Below, such key concepts and their subsidiary concepts are
defined as to how they will be used throughout the rest of the thesis. A hope
is that they will also be useful within the more general conceptual universe of
architecture and construction as a contribution to a province of it under devel-
opment – industrialised architecture.

System
System as used in this thesis refers principally to the interconnected whole of
materials, processes, and information that constitutes the intentional human
creation of a building or a similar discrete and fixed physical entity of our

122
 II.5 systems terminology for architecture and construction

Figure II.5.1
Integration of different sub-
systems serve functions that
cannot be reduced the sum of the
constituent parts

112 Peter Checkland uses a similar

division of designed physi-
everyday physical environment (i.e. urban space, bridge, tunnel etc.). Materials cal systems (matter), human
refer to physical matter put into the building or consumed during its creation, activity systems (processes)
and designed abstract systems
processes refer to the manipulation of these materials by use of tools, machin- (thought). See explanation and
ery and personnel, whereas information represents immaterial resources i.e. reference in General systems
knowledge and ideas. Although conceptually these systems of matter, process theory, II.4
and thought can be separated, in practice they are always integrated when it
113 Natural processes and systems
comes to a building and cannot independently lead neither to a building nor to as opposed to human processes
elements of it.112 Matter without processing and knowledge about this process- and systems are not governed
ing yields no result. Equally, intentional processes as building construction by external intention but creates
originate from knowledge and ideas and are only expressed through the appli- and reproduce themselves. In
systems theory such systems are
cation to matter.113 Finally knowledge and ideas about buildings stay immate- termed autopoietic (self crea-
rial if not directed towards processes that manipulates material.114 A building tive) as opposed to allopoietic
in the definition above is furthermore, as argued previously, a complex system systems where ‘producer’ and
where many of its constituent elements or subsystems can be characterised as ‘product’ are separate entities.
A building can be seen as the
systems in their own right (e.g. the structural system, the heating system or the product – or subsystem of an
building envelope). As with other complex systems a building is more than the allopoietic system. The building
sum of its constituent elements: A structural system carrying a heating system itself is then called a heter-
and enclosed by a building envelope provides shelter from the natural elements opoietic system which means
that it is created by something
even in cold climates or seasons. The combination of subsystems contributes to or somebody exterior to the
the provision of a liveable space serving many functions that are not inherent system itself. See e.g. http://
in its subsystems seen as isolated (See figure II.5.1). The building as system can en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopoie-
also be regarded as a subsystem of other supra-systems such as blocks, cit- sis accessed on July 22, 2011
ies, cultures and social systems with more or less tangible physical substance. 114 A drawing or a description of a
This is here termed levelled complexity. The choice of focus or system scale building is still only a represen-
defines the primary and subsidiary system elements and their complexity level. tation – not a building it itself.

123
 PART II
SYSTEM

115 Systems organised hierarchi- Again, focus here (in present thesis) is the building as the primary (complex)
cally within other systems are
called holons – simultaneously
system with appurtenant subsystems. Furthermore, the focus of the subsystems
constituting wholes and parts. is exclusively delimited to elements that integrate some physical matter to be
See General systems theory, II.4 inserted in the primary system (the final building). Such (physical) subsystems
form hierarchies spanning from simple materials to complex integrated systems
116 The notion of dimension is in-
spired by the Danish DBK and
and can be integrated into each other.115 This is here termed nesting. Present
the Swedish BSAB classification system definition also operates with what is termed as different dimensions
systems respectively working of the system and its subsystems. A preparation dimension expresses different
with aspect (aspekt) and view levels of preparation of the physical (sub-)system (upon delivery), a standardi-
(vy) as different ways to look
at an object or a building. See
sation dimension expresses different levels of standardisation (of product and/
Classification systems in con- or process) upon delivery, and a service dimension displays different levels of
struction, II.2 service (in the delivery process).116 Below, the dimensions will be used in an at-
tempt to establish a taxonomy for classification of integrated product deliveries
117 Both Meadows and Bertallanfy
point out the need to model
and their degree of integration. As an overall consideration, it can be said that
specifically according to the the notions of system and network are closely related in the present system
purpose of the model. See II.4 definition stressing interconnectedness and interdependency rather than separa-
tion and classification.
118 For a definition of flexible
structuration, see General
systems theory II.4 Model
The notion of model is in the present thesis used as referring to a visually per-
119 This quality of the model is ceivable coded structure that as an intermediate tool displays a focussed view
pointed out by e.g. Odum
and Bertallanfy. See General
of a system seen on a specific abstraction or complexity level (cf. system and
systems theory II.4 levelled complexity as defined above). Such a model is always modelled for a
context specific purpose and this purpose defines the right level of abstraction
for each of the elements contained in the model.117 Models are in the present
thesis used to represent and display structural organisation or specific configu-
rations of subsystems in a main system (a building) in the form of a specific
pattern. However, as focus and complexity level can change according to the
context specific purpose of coding, the model should enable flexible structura-
tion of both elements and their interrelations.118 Although thus being a purely
mental (or epistemological) construct with no claimed ontological categories,
the model still represents a tool for understanding complex reality through a
simplified but flexible lens. It is a way to deal with the world. This is not the
same as simplifying reality itself.119 The systems view inherent in the model
aims at focusing on relations between rather than on specific content of each
of the elements (as patterns) thus reducing the amount of information needed
for keeping track of each element and its position in the system structure. In
this way the model can potentially reveal isomorphisms (equal form or here:

124
 II.5 systems terminology for architecture and construction

structural patterns) between various systems (buildings) coded within the 120 See Industrial production
theory, II.3
model even if these from a formal design point of view are completely different.
Equally, systems or buildings that from a formal design point of view are equal 121 The integration of process and
or similar can have different configurations of subsystems and thus result in product is, as earlier pointed
different coding of the model (equifinality). Structural patterns expressed visu- out, substantiated by Bertal-
lanfy. See General systems
ally through the model can potentially by manipulated through the model as theory, II.4 p5/6. Also advanced
a tool. Again, following the system definition above, the model focuses on ele- DSM-techniques tends towards
ments with some kind of material presence in the overall system being the final juxtaposing processes, products
building. Different codings of the model represent different system structures – and operators (organisational
DSM’s) See Industrial produc-
a main concept coming out of this thesis which will be formally defined below. tion theory ,II.3

Delivery 122 On dimension, See system defi-

In order to formally define the system structure, a clearer definition of the ele- nition above
ments – or system entities – of such a structure initially needs to be done. Using
the idea from supply chain management that each link in the (supply) chain
encompasses both the operator, the operation and the product or material as it
advances through the chain, the basic element or subsystem of the system, of
the model, as well as of the resulting system structure is here defined as a de-
livery.120 This delivery has, as the simple supply chain link, physical substance
(material), represents a process (operation), and is provided by a supplier or
a manufacturer (the operator) and thus overcomes the traditional product/
process dichotomy.121 This integration helps to reduce complexity of struc-
tures comprised of such system entities. The physical substance of a delivery
needs, in present definition, to become part of the final building. The process
of a delivery comprises as a minimum the possibility of buying or acquiring
and transferring the physical substance from the supplier for integration in the
building or for nesting it into another delivery that ultimately is equally inte-
grated in the building. However, processes can equally include higher levels of
the service dimension of a subsystem122 meaning that the supplier (or manufac-
turer) can supply, process, and/or install the delivery in the building or nested
into other deliveries. Deliveries, as used in this thesis, become physical subsys-
tems and their related processes as they are delivered and nested (inserted) into
a building or a subsystem of a building. Deliveries nested into other deliveries
can generally speaking – and with reference again to supply chains – be char-
acterised as upstream deliveries while if inserted into the building itself they are
downstream deliveries. The notions of upstream and downstream are also used
as relative to a certain viewpoint and will be more consistently elaborated in
the description of the model in part IV – ‘Model’.

125
 PART II
SYSTEM

Figure II.5.2
The dashboard of a car is today
delivered to the car assembly line Integrated product delivery
as a finished integrated product Being concerned with the possibilities of knowledge transfer about systems
delivery comprising several sub- and systems application from other fields into the fields of architecture and
systems in itself. construction makes integrated product deliveries a central concept and a type
123 Authors own translation from of delivery to be dedicated special attention in this thesis. Integrated product
Danish. See Vibæk (2009) – the deliveries, as used in the product industry, are complex systems in their own
last part of the definition points right and represent an efficient means of reducing complexity in focus for a
towards the service dimension given design task – in particular if these integrated product deliveries are well
of the system structure model –
See Model presentation, IV.1 established as commoditised products. While (building) materials and (build-
ing) components are perhaps easy to understand as deliveries, the integrated
124 See General systems theory, II.4 product delivery as a subsystem requires a little more introduction. Following
Mikkelsen et al., an integrated product (in construction) can be defined as ‘a
125 See Baldwin & Clark’s destinc-
tion explained in Industrial multi-technological complex part of a building’ that can ‘be configured and
product theory, II.3 customised’ to a specific construction project. It is furthermore ‘developed in
a separate product development process based on the principles in integrated
product development’. In its actually produced and specifically customised
state and when delivered to a customer this building assembly becomes an inte-
grated product delivery (IPD) that – as a kind of supra level – also can include
‘marketing, shipment and servicing’ (Mikkelsen et al 2005:3)*123. The definition
of an IPD as (sub)system goes clearly beyond the division between product and
process – between physical and non-physical – thus again acknowledging the
difficulty of a consistent distinction between what, as Bertalanffy suggested,
‘may be the very same thing’.124 As an example a service can be seen as a sys-
tem but whether it is mostly a product or a process depends on the specific ser-
vice in question and on how you look at it. Following the definitions of system
and delivery above, this thesis concentrates on IPD’s containing several kinds
of physical substance that become nested into the final building. Although
configurable for specific building projects, IPD’s exceed as systems the project
and context specific purpose. IPD’s exist with different degrees of complexity
and together with materials and components they can be integrated – or nested
– into each other so that a more complex and integrated system contains one
or several less complex systems. A prefabricated bathroom pod as a subsystem
to a building contains several nested subsystems as electrical wiring, plumb-
ing and structure that themselves can be seen as systems. Whether these are
relevant in a given system structure depends on the focus of attention. Integra-
tion and nesting are almost aligned in present definition and become conceptu-
ally the opposite of modularisation.125 However, to integrate or nest a delivery

126
 II.5 systems terminology for architecture and construction

does not exclude a subsequent disintegration or disassembly for replacement or 126 The sections of Part III –
‘Product’ introduce and discuss
conversion purposes. Modularisation and integration/nesting are like opposite several different kinds of these
sides of the same coin. Whereas integrated products and their separate produc- integrated product deliveries in
tion and delivery are common within other larger designed and engineered construction.
products such as cars, ships and aeroplanes, it is still a relatively new system
127 This primarily illustrates the
entity in construction.126 (See figure II.5.2) difficulty in making a com-
pletely consistent hierarchical
Present thesis works with two main types of IPD’s in construction that are graduation of complexity and
both of them upstream in relation to the final building that they are nested into integration of different deliver-
ies in construction.
and downstream in relation to the simpler building materials and components
that they are integrations of. In some cases IPD’s can also be nested into each 128 In the case studies of Part IV –
other.127 The two main types are chunks that are volumetric (spatial) units that ’Model’ this kind of integrated
can integrate a wide range of sub-systems (or parts of these if these subsystems product delivery is referred to
as parallel deliveries as opposed
are distributed in the building) and assemblies that are defined as system based to serial nesting. A discussion of
deliveries by having a narrower more specific scope often encompassing fewer this distinction and the different
systems but in their entirety. Where chunks in this definition are concerned kinds of integrated product
more with overall spatial performance, the assemblies are rather concerned deliveries can furthermore be
found in Findings, V.1
with system performance of one or few specific systems. This distinction is in
other contexts referred to as ‘by zone’ and ‘by system’. Chunks are deliveries
‘by-zone’ whereas assemblies are deliveries ‘by system’. Assemblies or parts
of these (modular assemblies) can be nested into chunks, and in some cases
chunks can be nested into other chunks (e.g. a bathpod into a large volumetric
element). Both main types are predominantly off-site produced before final
delivery. A final special type of IPD is onsite processing and delivery of a clearly
delimited and finished integrated solution that can have touch of both assem-
bly and chunk. This type, although delivered on-site with low preparation still
works as integrated through the high degree of service that lies in the finished
installation.128

System structure
The notion and the underlying concept of system structure is central to and a
main contribution of the present thesis. Conceptually, system structure fusions
the closely related concepts of product architecture and supply chain. While
within the product industry a product architecture indicates a static (actual
or thought) physical structure (organisation) of the constituent elements of a
product, a supply chain is concerned with the structure of the flow of pro-
cesses, materials and operators in order to reach this final physical structure.
Another way to put this distinction could be a product breakdown structure

127
 PART II
SYSTEM

129 Se e.g. Armistead et al (1996) as opposed to a work breakdown structure.129 The system structure seeks to
130 Ulrich & Eppinger uses the
encompass both these aspects of structure thus, as mentioned earlier, overcom-
term system level design for ing the dichotomy of process and product. The system structure in present
products as e.g. printers, definition is exclusively concerned with architectural design and construction
photocopiers and scooters. of buildings as complex systems assembled by a number of subsystems. The
‘The system-level design phase
includes the definition of the
adaptation of the term from the more production related ‘predecessors’ reflects
product architecture and the this fact. Leaving out the notion of architecture as in product architecture
decomposition of the product furthermore avoids confusion of this term within the context of architectural
into subsystems and compo- design as a distinct profession and discipline.130
nents.’ (Ulrich & Eppinger
2008:15). See also Industrial
production theory, II.3 Corresponding to the definition of model above, a system structure is not an
ontological entity – it is so to say not inherent in any building seen as a com-
131 As described in Systems in plex system. A system structure is an epistemological (artificial, immaterial)
architectural theory, II.1,
Gottfried Semper in the mid-
entity that makes it possible to articulate and interpret certain characteristics
nineteenth century anticipates of buildings related to the way they are produced and constructed. Particularly
montage as an architectural and concerned with the ways in which a building can be divided into constituent
tectonic strategy. elements that matches the way buildings are actually produced, the overall
purpose of a system structure is to bring closer on the one hand architectural
ideation and on the other hand contemporary processes of construction and
building production. The distance between architectural ideation and the way
buildings come into being is the main problem set out to be treated in this the-
sis. The idea of a system structure is the main contribution in this regard.

The introduction of the notion of system structure should not only be under-
stood as a ‘technical’ tool to look at a building. Inherent in this particular
view is also a certain architectural interpretation of buildings in general – and
industrially produced buildings in particular. The definition above of buildings
as complex systems of subsystems points towards an epistemological split of
the architectural (art)work into on the one hand the whole as an indivisible
entity that is more than its constituent elements and, other the other hand, the
work as an assemblage of relatively independent elements created outside the
work that together form a coherent whole – that is equally more than its con-
stituent elements. Technically, assemblage means the (simple) act or result of
assembling elements. However, assemblage within the arts also refers to three
dimensional (sculptural) compositions or ‘collages’ of miscellaneous objects or
materials or as defined in Webster’s: ‘an artistic composition made from scraps,
junk and odds and ends [i.e. miscellaneous articles, ed.]’. The assemblage has
connections to the artistic technique of montage.131 In such works of arts the

128
 II.5 systems terminology for architecture and construction

constituent elements both point inwards towards the internal composition but 132 For an elaborated discus-
sion of the assemblage as a
also outwards towards their origin outside the work. The architectural and three dimensional version of the
artistic implication of the notion of system structure as applied in this thesis montage or collage in art and
tends towards the notion of the architectural whole seen as an assemblage of architecture) see (Bundgaard
its relatively independent subsystems.132 The assemblage is the entire system – 2006:39-47)
the building as whole – as both physical object and architectural work. 133 Configuration is here used
in a sense similar to the way
The system structure is modelled by use of a visually perceivable model (see it is used in Space Syntax as
above) and displays a given structure (actual, thought or simplified theoretical) explained in II.4
of deliveries of different complexity and their interrelation as they become nest- 134 Most if not all building solu-
ed into each other and/or ultimately into a finished building. In other words: It tions are a mix of different
expresses a certain configuration of the constituent elements (deliveries) of the degrees of off-site production
system (the building).133 The delimitation of each delivery is not clear-cut and and on-site construction.
universal but project specific and depends furthermore on the specific focus and 135 This ressembles the notion of
purpose of modelling the system structure. Where each delivery – apart from equifinality as described in II.4
comprising some kind of physical substance – often additionally would imply
a contractual relation (between a supplier and a receiver), this is not a defi-
nite criteria. Company internal or partly company internal system structures
can in some cases make sense – particularly if the company is a manufacturer
producing highly complex integrated product deliveries or perhaps even all
encompassing building solutions either as prefabrication or as on-site construc-
tion or combinations hereof.134 On the other hand, a delivery can also comprise
various nested subcontracts that are opaque (not visible) in the system struc-
ture, if this detailed subdivision is considered irrelevant for the specific purpose
of the modelling. Such opaque subsystems are actually one of the means to
reduce unnecessary complexity of the design process. Apart from aiming at
a consistent subdivision according to the complexity and integration of each
delivery, the system structure promotes the distinction between offsite and
on-site deliveries in regard to where/when the delivery is produced and to what
degree it is prepared for nesting on-site or into other off-site deliveries. Apart
from the point that the model through this flexible structuration is project and
purpose specific, one of the major arguments for its utility is that the balance
between off-site production and on-site construction always is project specific.
Through use of the coded model the system structure can act as analytical tool
(retrospectively and potentially proactively) that gives an overview over differ-
ent system structure scenarios, read: different ways to produce a given system
(i.e. a specific building).135 Important here is to note that offsite production or
prefabrication is not necessarily the same as industrialisation in the sense of

129
 PART II
SYSTEM

136 See Industrial production automation. Often off-site production is merely construction under roof. Still,
theory, II.3
the choice of a certain off-site production (or prefabrication) can have other
justifications – economy- or quality-wise.

Equal to the capacity of, through the model, facilitating a visual display of pos-
sible production and assembly structures, and inspired by Nagurneys definition
of supply chains,136 system structures can also be used to indicate a possible
afterlife of the different sub-systems due to the quality of integrating process
and product. By displaying possible disintegration or disassembly scenarios
the system structure extend, its utility to facility management for modelling
scenarios for after the end of a building’s useful life. This will be further elabo-
rated in part IV, ‘model’. The system structure underlines a building’s quality of
being an open system with partly interchangeable constituent parts that can be
put together in different configurations.

Integration taxonomy
Based on the notion of dimensions and the definition above of the three differ-
ent dimensions of a given delivery or subsystem (being integrated or not), this
paragraph seeks to draw up a taxonomy that can be used for classification of
the different deliveries in a system structure. The overall purpose of the system
structure in the first place is to handle complexity by focussing (the limited
capacity of) design attention where it is most needed during the architectural
design process while simultaneously better integrating issues about how the ar-
chitectural idea is transformed into physical matter in the final building. Reduc-
ing the complexity of the design process does, as pointed out, not necessarily
reduce the actual complexity of the final outcome (i.e. the building – or main
system). Through the coded model of the system structure a chosen abstrac-
tion level is established according to the specific purpose in question while less
relevant detail are left out of focus.

The three dimensions of preparation, standardisation, and service can all be

seen as expressing different aspects of complexity concerning a delivery (sub-
system) in a building. Each of the three dimensions is here detailed as divided
into four levels that generally can be said to span from low to high integration
of complexity. Integration of complexity (in a delivery) means that the com-
plexity is handled by the supplier e.g. through production system or delivery

130
 II.5 systems terminology for architecture and construction

MAT
building material
com
building component
ASM
assembly
CHK
chunk

service. Potentially, integrated complexity reduces the complexity to be handled Figure II.5.3
Examples of the different prepara-
by the (architectural) designer/client or whoever is receiving a given delivery. tion levels

Due to the qualitative character of the subject (of complexity), the graduation of 137 Raw materials are seldom if
each dimension into four levels is arbitrary in the way that the categories seek to ever used in a non-processed
manner in a building as e.g.
theoretically cover the possible range within each dimension while the specific sub- directly from the mine. The
division is fixed to four intuitively meaningful categories. The categories attempt category refers to building
to avoid too much overlap and at the same time provide a comparable graduation materials – materials on a level
between the dimensions that makes it easier to understand and use. Below, the that is relevant in architectural
construction. In another context
three different dimensions and their corresponding values or levels are listed. with another focus, materials
could even be treated on the
Preparation level molecular or atom-level. It is the
The preparation dimension describes the level of preparation of the delivery focus on buildings and architec-
tural constructions that defines
when it leaves one (production) location in order to be inserted into another, the relevant range.
being a building or subsystem of a building. This in between state of a delivery
is independent of the processes needed to install the delivery at its destination
point in the system structure. The following four levels are defined correspond-
ing to the definition of deliveries and integrated product deliveries above:

0. MAT = Building material (manufactured raw material as one single or a

composite material).137
1. COM = Building component (assembled component as a simple custom
made component of one or few materials or a standard (industrial) tech-
nical device.)
2. ASM = Assembly (integrated assembly of materials and/or components
often encompassing one or few subsystems in their entirety – an assem-
bly by system)
3. CHK = Chunk (large volumetric element that can integrate a wide range
of subsystems or parts of them if these subsystems are integrated in the
building as a whole)

Some deliveries leaves one location as kit-of-parts (earlier KOP-category) of

prepared materials, components and or assemblies that when installed at the
destination point constitute assemblies (ASM) or chunks (CHK). Whether these
are coded as assemblies, chunks or as their constituent components and materi-
als is defined by the primary place of processing. If a considerable amount of

131
 PART II
SYSTEM

BSP
bespoke
m2o
made-to-order
c2f
cut-to-fit
OTS
off-the-shelf

SAL
sale
spl
supply
ins
installation
mnt
maintenance

Figure II.5.4 processing and adaptation is needed at the destination point, the delivery is
Examples of the different stan-
dardisation levels classified as its constituent (upstream) sub-elements. If only simple assembly
or a minor amount of processing and adaptation is needed then the delivery is
Figure II.5.5 classified as the assembly or chunk.138
Examples of the different service
levels
Standardisation level
138 Earlier iterations of the The standardisation dimension describes the level of standardisation of the deliv-
taxonomy had a kit-of-parts ery when it leaves one (production) location in order to be inserted into another,
category (KOP) that however being a building or subsystem of a building. The following four levels are defined:
showed difficult for consistent
coding and has been omitted.
0. BSP = Bespoke (custom product/custom delivery – non-standard solu-
tion made specifically for a project)
1. M2O = Made-to-order (custom product/standard delivery – customised
product version within existing system – often called mass customisa-
tion.
2. C2F = Cut-to-fit (standard product/custom delivery – cut and delivered
in customized dimensions for known customers)
3. OTS = Off-the-shelf (standard product/standard delivery – delivered in
standard dimensions produced for unknown customers

Service level
The service dimension describes the supplier’s level of direct involvement in the
handover of the delivery to the point of destination. The following four levels
are defined:

132
 II.5 systems terminology for architecture and construction

STANDARDISATON LEVEL PREPARATION LEVEL STANDARDISATON LEVEL

PREPARATION LEVEL
SERVICE LEVEL

SERVICE LEVEL
Material
Maintenance Maintenance
(MAT)
(MNT) (MNT)

Component
Installation Installation
(COM)
(INS) (INS)

Kit-of-parts
Delivery Delivery
(KOP)
(DLV) (DLV)

Assembly
Sale Sale
(ASM)
(SAL) (SAL)

Bespoke Made-to-order Cut-to-fit Off-the-shelf

Bespoke Made-to-order Cut-to-fit Off-the-shelf Material Component Kit-of-parts Assembly
(BSP) (M2O) (C2F) (OTS)
(BSP) (M2O) (C2F) (OTS) (MAT) (COM) (KOP) (ASM)

Desinstallation,
reuse, &
disposal
STANDARDISATON LEVEL PREPARATION LEVEL STANDARDISATON LEVEL
(DRD)
SERVICE LEVEL

SERVICE LEVEL

PREPARATION LEVEL
Maintenance
(MNT) 3 4 5 6 Maintenance
(MNT) 3 4 5 6 Material
(MAT) 3 4 5 6

2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5

TY
TY

TY
Installation Installation Component
2 3 4 5

I
I

I
(INS) (INS)

EX
EX

EX
(COM)

PL
PL

PL
M

M
CO

CO

CO
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
ED

ED

ED
Supply Supply Kit-of-parts
(SPL) (SPL)
AT

AT

AT
(KOP)
GR

GR

GR
TE

TE

TE
IN

IN

IN
Sale
(SAL)
0 1 2 3 Sale
(SAL)
0 1 2 3 Assembly
(ASM)
0 1 2 3
Bespoke Made-to-order Cut-to-fit Off-the-shelf Production Raw Material Material Component Kit-of-parts Assembly Building Bespoke Made-to-order Cut-to-fit Off-the-shelf
(BSP) (M2O) (C2F) (OTS) (PRO) (RAW) (MAT) (COM) (KOP) (ASM) (BDG) (BSP) (M2O) (C2F) (OTS)

Customised Standard PC Standard PD Standard Material Component Assembly Chunk

PC&PD Cust. PD Cust. PC PC & PD (MAT) (COM) (ASM) (CHK)

0. SAL = Sale (delivery pick-up arranged by purchaser/receiver) Figure II.5.6

2D-graphs without values
1. SPL = Supply (supplier delivers to purchaser/receiver at point of destina-
tion (integration location i.e. factory or building site)) Figure II.5.7
2. INS = Installation (supplier installs at point of destination (integration 2D-graphs of dimension pairs
location i.e. factory or building site)) with their respective values
3. MNT = Maintenance (supplier maintains delivery after delivery and 139 As mentioned above all three
installation) aspects and their related levels
express something about the
Remark that the levels of the service dimension are inclusive in the way that a complexity integrated in a
delivery or product. Integrated
higher service level automatically also includes the lower levels (e.g. delivery complexity means complexity
(SPL) always includes sale (SAL). Likewise maintenance (MNT) always in- handled by the supplier and
cludes sale, delivery and installation (INS). Although maintenance can perfectly thus – at least theoretically – is
be (and often is) a separate (service) delivery applied to a building after its con- beyond the attention of the pur-
chaser/receiver of the delivery –
struction, the focus of the system structure (cf. above) is exclusively delimited representing the next link in the
to deliveries that contain physical matter to be inserted in the building up until ‘supply chain’.
its completion. Such deliveries that include maintenance after completion will
consequently automatically encompass the other service levels.

Integrated Complexity Value

Theoretically, every delivery can be classified along each of the three dimen-
sions defined above. The different dimension values of each delivery can then
be crossed and plotted into simple diagrams showing the relations between
pairs of dimensions. Figure II.5.6 shows how such diagrams could look. Intui-
tively it can be understood that deliveries located in the lower left corner of the
graph will have a low integrated complexity whereas, on the contrary, deliver-
ies located in the upper right corner will have high integrated complexity.139 By
moving rightwards or upwards, integrated complexity of deliveries increases
while moving leftward or downward means that integrated complexity decreas-
es. It is thus argued that also high standardisation values point towards some
kind of integrated complexity of the delivery. Although standards perhaps are
defined completely outside a product through e.g. legislation or public regula-

133
 PART II
SYSTEM

Figure II.5.8 tion, these exteriorly defined standards make it possible to deliver a ‘simpler’
Examples of different total
integrated complexity values as product by constraining the solution space. The complexity integration lies
colour coded cubes in a three- in this case prior to the product itself that subsequently can draw on it as an
dimensional graph established standard.
140 Conceptually a relative inte-
grated complexity value could By applying numerical values to the levels of the different dimensions it is ten-
be calculated by adding all tatively sought to arrive at a simple (and simplified) mathematical expression
total values of the deliveries in of the integrated complexity seen as combinations of the different dimensions.
a system and dividing it by the By using values between zero (0) and three (3) for each of the dimensions of
number of deliveries. A relative
integrated complexity value a given delivery the values can subsequently be added to a sum. Figure II.5.7
would – at least theoretically – shows how values of two dimensions are added.
be comparable between systems
(different buildings or different If the values of all three dimensions of a given delivery are added it gives what
system structures for the same
building) is here defined as a total value of integrated complexity. In order to express this
in a diagram one needs three dimensions. In figure II.5.8 this is expressed like
a three dimensional graph. In the first case such a value is only a local measure
in the sense that it can (theoretically) be used to compare different versions
of the same physical element in a building. By having three dimensions it can,
again intuitively, be understood that if one dimension value goes one down and
another one up or if one dimension value goes two down and each of the two
other goes one up each, then the total value of integrated complexity will stay
constant. Working with numerical values of qualitative parameters (as the di-
mension) is of course not correct in a strictly mathematical sense and the values
are – at least not at the current stage of research – meant to be taken as exact.
It does however give an impression of different levers that can be used to adjust
the amount of integrated complexity in a delivery – and perhaps of the total
amount of deliveries that constitutes a building (seen as a complex system).140

134
 II.5 systems terminology for architecture and construction

Such levers could be including installation (INS) to a supply (SPL) or using an 141 Whether the actual installation
and/or maintenance is done by a
off-the-shelf (OTS) product instead of a bespoke (BSP) solution. sub-supplier has little impor-
tance as long as the contractual
Examples relation is between supplier and
The highest possible value of integrated complexity would be a completely manufacturer, client, main con-
tractor or whoever is receiving.
standardised (OTS) chunk (CHK) that is delivered, installed, and subsequently
maintained (MNT) by one single supplier or at least with this single supplier as
responsible for the entire service.141 On the contrary, the lowest possible integra-
tion of complexity would be the – perhaps slightly unusual – situation where a
completely bespoke (BSP) material (MAT) would be sold for pick-up (SAL) to
be arranged separately by the receiver (manufacturer, client, or main contractor)
who would also be in charge of it’s later installation in the building or as nested
into another delivery. However, most deliveries would be located in between
these two extremes as e.g. a standardised (OTS) ventilation device (COM) deliv-
ered (DLV) for subsequent installation by a plumber or a cut-to-fit (C2F) delivery
of simple façade cladding panels (MAT) installed onsite by supplier (INS).

The above examples do, as general (theoretical) examples, perhaps seem

evident. However, applied in a design process with specific deliveries or as an
overall design strategy they can potentially contribute to a more conscious se-
lection of where design effort is located (read: where complexity is kept open)
and where the effort is rather ‘outsourced’ to other (upstream) suppliers (read:
where complexity is integrated). The following part III - ‘Product’ looks into
specific examples of what integrated product deliveries are and can be and how
they can be described using the terminology as defined in this part.

135
Part III – PRODUCT
As opposed to the previous part II – ‘System’ being a theoretical exploration,
the present part III – ‘Product’ represents a practical exploration and discussion
of the building industry and its products as they are available on the market
today – or perhaps will become available through discernable tendencies or
development initiatives. A particular focus is the integrated product delivery as
a new or emerging kind of building product. Through three chapters different
aspects of products and integrated product deliveries in construction are ex-
amined. In Commoditisation in architectural construction, commoditisation is
proposed as a useful concept for understanding integrated product deliveries as
a qualitatively different kind of products compared to other kinds of delivery
in construction. The notion of industrial ecology is also introduced as having
special parallels to this kind of building products. In Customisable architectural
subsystems, the delimitation and definition of integrated product deliveries as
an entity are challenged through specific examples or types. Finally, Develop-
ment and classification of integrated product deliveries starts with short histori-
cal intro to product development in construction leading to the description of a
specific recent initiative. In the last part of the section the elaborated taxonomy
of integrated complexity from the Systems terminology section is tentatively
applied to different building products in a short catalogue-like format.

139
Part IV – MODEL
The two former parts II and III have mainly constituted explorations of
theoretical and practical fields in order obtain a better understanding of the
problem area and the main problem formulated as the scope of the thesis as
well as establishing a terminology for the latter parts and – hopefully – for the
field of knowledge in general. The present Part IV – ’Model’ introduces the
system structure model and the system structural view it provides as the pri-
mary outcome or product of the thesis. As described in the section of Method
and scientific approach, the model has been developed iteratively with initial
inspiration in the mentioned explorations and a primary case study conducted
at KieranTimberlake. Subsequently, the first model draft has, as a hypothesis
of a generally applicable model, been tested back on the primary case material
as well as on three other secondary case studies as an analytical tool. This has
worked partly as a discussion of the explanative power of the model partly as
four separate analyses and discussions of the four different cases. The case-
studies – particularly the primary – are fairly detailed and should consequently
be seen as relevant in themselves as a way of further folding out aspects of the
field of contemporary industrialised construction as well as giving valuable
feedback for the evaluation and modification of the model.

195
 PART IV
model

SCENARIO A - TRADITIONAL ONSITE CONSTRUCTION SCENARIO B - CONTEMPORARY ONSITE CONSTRUCTION

BUILDING MATERIALS AND SUB-ASSEMBLIES AND ASSEMBLIES CHUNKS BUILDING BUILDING MATERIALS AND SUB-ASSEMBLIES AND ASSEMBLIES CHUNKS BUILDING
STANDARD COMPONENTS SYSTEM COMPONENTS (IPD’S BY SYSTEM) (IPD’S BY ZONE) (TIERS NESTED ON SITE) STANDARD COMPONENTS SYSTEM COMPONENTS (IPD’S BY SYSTEM) (IPD’S BY ZONE) (TIERS NESTED ON SITE)

T4 T0 T4 T0
T4 T4 T0
T4 T0 T4 T0
T4 T0 T3 T0
T4 T0 T4 T0
T4 T0 T3 T0
T4 T0 T4 T3 T0
T4 T4 T0

SCENARIO C - CONVENTIONAL PREFABRICATION SCENARIO D - CONVENTIONAL BESPOKE PREFAB

Building materials and Sub-assemblies and Assemblies Chunks Building BUILDING MATERIALS AND SUB-ASSEMBLIES AND ASSEMBLIES CHUNKS BUILDING
standard components system components (IPD’s by system) (IPD’s by zone) (tiers nested on site) STANDARD COMPONENTS SYSTEM COMPONENTS (IPD’S BY SYSTEM) (IPD’S BY ZONE) (TIERS NESTED ON SITE)

T4 T4 T3
T4 T4 T3
T4 T4 T3
T3 T0 T4 T3 T0
T4 T1 T0 T4 T3 T1 T0
T3 T4 T3
T4 T3 T4 T3
T4 T4 T3

Figure IV.1.6 a-f

Different theoretical construc- The total integrated complexity value expresses to what extent the architect
tion scenarios expressed as (or other ‘customer’) can draw on knowledge and processes already embedded
simple system structures
and nested into the delivery further upstream. It could also be explained as the
6 Ibid degree of commoditisation of a delivery.*6 The dimensions nuance the coding
of the deliveries that each of them is graphically represented by a simple box in
the system structure model.

202
 IV.1 Model presentation

SCENARIO E - CONVENTIONAL STANDARDISED PREFAB SCENARIO F - FUTURE INDUSTRIALISED ARCHITECTURE

BUILDING MATERIALS AND SUB-ASSEMBLIES AND ASSEMBLIES CHUNKS BUILDING BUILDING MATERIALS AND SUB-ASSEMBLIES AND ASSEMBLIES CHUNKS BUILDING
STANDARD COMPONENTS SYSTEM COMPONENTS (IPD’S BY SYSTEM) (IPD’S BY ZONE) (TIERS NETED ON SITE) STANDARD COMPONENTS SYSTEM COMPONENTS (IPD’S BY SYSTEM) (IPD’S BY ZONE) (TIERS NESTED ON SITE)

T4 T4
T4 T3
T3 T2 T1 T0
T3 T0 T4 T2 T1
T4 T1 T0 T4 T2 T0
T3 T3 T2
T4 T3 T2 T1
T3

7 An exception to this directional

rule is if the model, as it will
System structure scenarios be introduced later, is used to
The system structure model has a generic character that potentially can be ap- look at disassembly scenarios.
plied to any building project – industrialised or not – as a way of analysing and In some cases lines can be
visualising the system structure in question. found between deliveries on the
same tier. This is a question of
the ‘granulation’ of the model
As mentioned earlier, it expresses a focussed view representing a specific view- rather than an expression of
point i.e. the architect’s, the contractor’s, the manufacturer’s etc. In each case inconsistency
the details or scale relevant for this view can be expressed in the system struc-
ture. Some of the deliveries (in focus) will appear nested as chains of subsys-
tems, systems and supra-systems (from upstream to downstream tiers) with the
building itself as the final integration point (T0). Others will be directly nested
into the final building. A characteristic of the model is that it combines the
idea, the process, and the product into one single system entity circumscribed
by the concept of delivery and visually expressed like a box (See figures IV.1.4
and IV.1.5). A way to illustrate where a delivery of a certain integration level
is nested into another delivery or into the final building is through the use of
simple lines between the boxes. These lines are always directional downstream
meaning that simpler deliveries (always) are nested into more complex ones
with the building itself (T0) being the most complex of all.7

Simplified theoretical scenarios have been put into the generic model for show-
ing (and testing) its explanative power in a simple way (see figure IV.1.6 A-F).
Different ways of defining and organising deliveries in construction projects will
be reflected differently in the model – read: result in different system structures.
As an example traditional and contemporary onsite construction scenarios will
have a large amount of the simple T4 and some T3 deliveries that are integrated
directly at T0 – the building site. On the contrary standardised and customised
prefab scenarios can have virtually the same T4 and T3 deliveries but with the

203
 IV.2 system structure anayses

IV.2 System structure Analyses

- introduction to the case analyses

Intro
The following sections are the result of the application of the model to a num-
ber of case studies. As mentioned in the section Method and scientific approach
in Part I – ‘Frame’, the primary case study at KieranTimberlake had at first
the purpose of generating a draft for the model – a hypothesis about a gener-
ally applicable analytical model drawn from a specific study and analysis of
an existing architectural project while simultaneously using the general insight
gained from the theoretical and practical explorations as reflected in part II and
part III. The choice of the primary case study has already been explained here.

Subsequently the model hypothesis was to be empirically tested on a num-

ber of secondary cases as analyses of the system structure of recently finished
building projects. The selection of these secondary cases was chosen as to have
supposed similarity with the theoretical (and simplified) scenarios developed
from the first model draft. Furthermore cases were for supplementary variation
tentatively chosen to represent different stakeholder perspectives concerning
the building projects in focus i.e. the architect, the manufacturer, the contrac-
tor, the consultant etc.

Selection criteria
As discussed more generally in the section of Method and scientific approach
the applied qualitative research design with a limited number of cases excludes
any claim of representativity in the cases. Furthermore, a supposed similarity
with the theoretical scenarios is not the same as actual similarity. However, by
trying to choose cases with certain similarity with these theoretical scenarios
that through the model does express variation in system structure, a prelimi-
nary assumption is that these (secondary) cases will equally express the same
or at least some differences in the system structure expressed through the
model. The different stakeholder perspectives should further accentuate this
aspect of variation in the system structure. Even if this turn out not to be the

209
PART IV
model

case the secondary cases would serve as an attempt to test and possibly modify
the model as a hypothesis of a generally applicable model as stated earlier.
Alternatively the model could be rejected as lacking any or at least significant
explanative power within the studied field – industrialised architecture and the
transition from a more traditional craft based approach. The exercise of the
following analyses is thus primarily to test the model and its usefulness and
secondarily to actually bring out interesting features from the specific case anal-
yses. This prioritisation is due to the explorative stage of the current research
and the model development.

The secondary case studies were carried out as shorter compressed versions of
the format used in the primary case study. By using the experience from this
initial study many of the same advantages of this ‘on location’ study was trans-
ferred to a shorter format. The secondary case studies consist of 2-4 days of
field studies in a company and dealing with a specific recently finished building
project. The project was chosen as well as key individuals (informants) located
before arrival through introductory correspondence. The research format
included a) interviews with several key individuals involved in the chosen
project b) direct access to full project material (on location) c) flexible timing
of appointments with key individuals, concerning access to project material d)
check-out session with clearance of proprietary issues and e) supplementary
understanding of the work methods and work culture in the company by being
physically present in the environment for several days.

Case selection
The following companies have been selected, each representing their specific per-
spective or viewpoint and with selected recently built cases as the object of study.

a) Company: KieranTimberlake
• An American architectural office located in Philadelphia, USA with
a special focus on industrialised construction and the use of inte-
grated products in architecture,
• The architect’s perspective
• Built case(s): Cellophane HouseTM, a prototype house made for an
exhibition at the MoMA in New York and Loblolly House, a holi-
day home made for one of the KieranTimberlake partners

210
 IV.2 system structure anayses

b) Company: Scandibyg
• A Danish housing manufacturer located in Løgstør, Jutland. Scan-
dibyg is specialised in prefabricated volumetric elements thus repre-
senting a high degree of completion,
• The manufacturer’s perspective
• Built case(s): The day care facility Ellepilen made for the City of Co-
penhagen and a large number of dwellings within a social housing
programme called Almenbolig+
c) Company: NCC Construction
• A major Danish contractor located in Hellerup, Copenhagen. NCC
is specialised in property development and turnkey contracting
within construction
• The contractor’s perspective
• Built case(s): Company House Vallensbæk (office building) and a
general office building concept called DK-kontorhuse (DK-office
buildings)
d) Company: Arup Associates
• A British building consultant (subsidiary of Arup) located in Lon-
don. Arup Associates (always) integrates architecture, structural
engineering, environmental engineering, cost consultancy, urban
design, and product design within one (multidisciplinary) studio
• The architect/consultant’s perspective (integrated)
• Built case: Ropemaker Place as a ‘shell & core’ high end office build-
ing development in London

211
 PART V
reflection

53 See Definition of scope, I.4, p.

18 V.3 Conclusions in short
- revisiting main problem, hypotheses and research questions

The two previous sections have sought to recapitulate and discuss both the
pivotal as well as more secondary findings of the present research on three
levels concerning respectively methodological aspects and experience, model
development, as well as results from the specific analyses of the case studies in
part IV – ‘Model’. The attempt to span all three levels in one single thesis pro-
duces a large material that, admittedly, can make it difficult to get an overview
and draw out explicit and concise conclusions of the work. This last section
is intentioned to sum up the findings in a short format by revisiting the main
problem and the hypotheses with their respective research questions as they
were formulated in part I – ‘Frame’ and part II – ‘System’. A final paragraph
touches upon the issue of further development perspectives and the need for
future research.

Main problem and goal

The main problem was formulated as:53

How can systems thinking help bridging the apparent gap between architec-
tural ideation and its subsequent realisation as process and result in contem-
porary industrialised construction while simultaneously handling the increased
complexity of specialisation and technical development?

The derived goal then followed as:

To propose an analytical structure (interpreted as a tool or a model) for clarify-
ing the potential of industrialised construction as positively enabling rather
than limiting the architectural solution space.

The notion of system structure and the system structure model, as it has been
presented, represent the author’s proposal for an analytical structure – or tool
– that can, it is asserted, help clarifying the potential of industrialised construc-
tion as positively enabling. This assertion is substantiated by the meaningful
results of applying the model in its present stage to four different case studies.
By integrating inspirational systemic elements from four different theoretical

338
 V.3 conclusions in short

fields as well as from a practical exploration of products and commoditisa- 54 See Method and scientific ap-
proach, I.5, p. 23
tion in architectural construction, the system structure model draws on several
sources of systems thinking in order to introduce a systemic level in architec-
ture and construction that lies between general construction techniques and
specific architectural results. This level – grasped by the system structure model
– seeks to bridge the apparent gap between architectural ideation and its subse-
quent realisation by establishing a systems view on buildings and architectural
design that can facilitate the handling of the increased complexity of both
specialisation and technical development. Through the use of flexible constitu-
ent elements – termed deliveries with varying degrees of integrated complex-
ity – the model visualises how architectural wholes (ideas) are appropriately
put together as assemblages of what the current and future building industry is
capable of producing (realisation as process and matter). A multi dimensional
understanding of integrated complexity – an integration taxonomy – has been
introduced as a way to nuance what deliveries and in particular integrated
product deliveries as an emerging entity in architectural construction are, and
how they can contribute to handling complexity in architectural construction
through different preparation, standardisation and service levels. The taxono-
my does not exclude supplementary dimensions.

Used actively, the notions of system structure, integrated complexity and the
system structure model potentially bring idea closer to realisation in archi-
tectural construction. However, at its present stage, the model stays mainly
analytical on the strategic and theoretical level. Still, it enhances understanding
and overview concerning industrialised construction in particular and is thus
applicable even on a practical level although it will still need further elabora-
tion in order to become a true and effective operational tool for direct use in
architectural practice.

Hypotheses
The thesis lines up five hypotheses – one methodological and four theoretical.
The latter are derivations of the main question of the thesis but with regard for
the respective fields of exploration.

Methodological
The methodological hypothesis was formulated as:54

339
 VI.2 Bibliography & references

VI.2 Bibliography & references

Books, chapters Bertalanffy, Ludwig von (1968) General System

Theory – Foundations, Development and Applicati-
and articles ons (revised edition), George Braziller, New York

A Alberti, Leon Battista (1992) On the Art of Buil-

ding in Ten Books. Translation by Joseph Rykwert,
Neil Leach & Robert Tavernor. MIT Press, Cam-
Bips (2006) Det Digitale Byggeri – DBK 2006
(Digital Construction, Denmark), Series of 8
bridge/London publications about digital building classification
in Denmark, Bips, Ballerup, DK
Alexander, Christopher (1964) Notes on the
synthesis of form, Harvard University Press, Braham, Wiliam W. & Jonathan A. Hale (2007)
Cambridge Rethinking Technology – a Reader in Architectural
Theory, Routledge, Oxon
Allenby, B. (2006) The ontologies of industrial
ecology? IN: Progress in Industrial Ecology - An Brand, Steward (1994) How buildings learn:
International Journal, Vol 3, Nos 1/2 pp 28-40, What happens after they are built? Viking Press,
Induscience Publishers, Geneva, CH New York

Andersen, Heine, Thomas Brante & Olav Korsnes Boothroyd, Geoffrey, Peter Dewhurst & Winston
(ed.) (1998) Leksikon i Sociologi (Sociological Knight (1994) Product Design for Manufacture
Encyclopedia), Akademisk Forlag, Copenhagen and Assembly, Marcel Decker, New York

Archer, Bruce (1995) The Nature of Research IN: Bundgaard, Charlotte (2006) Montagepositioner
Co-design, Interdisciplinary journal of design, pp – en undersøgelse af montagebegrebet i industria-
6-13, Taylor & Francis, January liseret arkitektur (Attitudes towards assembly – a
study of the notion of assembly in industrialised
Armistead, Colin, A. Harrison & Philip Rowland architecture). Doctoral thesis, Arkitektskolen
Armistead (1996) Business Processes: Lessons Aarhus, Århus
from Operations Management IN: Colin & Philip
Rowland (ed.) Managing Business Processes: BPR Checkland, Peter (1990) Soft Systems Methodo-
and Beyond, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester logy in Action. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY
c
B Bachman, Leonard R. (2003) Integrated Buildings
– the systems basis of architecture, John Wiley &
Sons, Hoboken (NJ)
Checkland, Peter (1999) Systems Thinking, Sy-
stems Practice. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY

Chermayeff, Serge & Christopher Alexander

Baldwin, Carliss Y. & Kim B. Clark (2000) Design (1965) Community and Privacy, Anchor books,
Rules - The Power of Modularity. Massachusetts New York
Institute of Technology, Cambridge
Cross, Nigel (2006) Designerly Ways of Knowing,
Becker-Christensen, Christian (ed.) (2001) Springer, London
Politikens Nudansk Ordbog med etymologi (New
Danish Dictionary with Etymology). Politikens Cross, Nigel, ed. (1984) Developments in Design
Forlag. Copenhagen Methodology, John Wiley & Sons, New York

Beim, Anne, Jesper Nielsen & Kasper Sánchez Frayling, Christopher (1993) Research in Art and
Vibæk (2010) Three Ways of Assembling a
House, Kunstakademiets Arkitektskoles Forlag,
Design IN: Royal College of Arts Research Papers
1, Royal College of Arts, London F
Copenhagen
Giddens, Anthony (1990) The Consequences of
Beim, Anne, Kasper Sánchez Vibæk & Thomas
Ryborg Jørgensen (2007) Arkitektonisk kvalitet
Modernity. Polity Press, Cambridge
G
og industrielle byggesystemer (Architectural Hartoonian, Gevork (1994) Ontology of Con-
Quality and Industrialised Structural Building
Systems), The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts,
struction – on Nihilism of Technology in Theories
of Modern Architecture. Cambridge University H
School of Architecture, Copenhagen Press, Cambridge

Bergdoll, Barry & Peter Christensen (2008) Home Hanson, Julienne (1998) Decoding Homes and
Delivery – Fabricating the Modern Dwelling, The Houses. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Museum of Modern Art, New York
Hays, K. Michael, ed. (2000) Architecture Theory
Berlemont, Thierry (2009) (re)classify - Construc- Since 1968. MIT Press, Cambridge/London
ting Architectural Experience IN: Architectural
Design and Construction Education, Proceedings Hillier, Bill (1996) Space is the Machine. Cam-
for ENHSA-EAAE Conference Genoa, June 2009 bridge University Press, Cambridge
Hillier, Bill & Julienne Hanson (1984) The Social

351
PART VI
appendix

Logic of Space. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge
Larsen, Esben (ed.) (1993) Håndbog for
Bygningsindustrien, HFB 27 (Handbook for the
Building Industry, HFB 27), Nyt Nordisk Forlag
L
Hugos, Michael (2006) Essentials of Supply Chain Arnold Busck, Copenhagen, DK
Management. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken (New
Jersey) Laszlo, Ervin (1996) The systems view of the
world. Hampton Press, Cresskill, NJ
Hvattum, Mari (2004) Gottfried Semper and the
problem of historicism. Cambridge University Lindemann, Udo, Maik Maurer & Thomas Braun
Press, Cambridge (2010) Structural Complexity Management – An
Approach for the Field of Product Design. Sprin-

J Jackson, Scott (2010) Architecting Resilient Sy-

stems, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken (NJ)
ger, Berlin/Heidelberg

Lund; Nils-Ole (2001) Arkitekturteorier siden

Jensen, Kasper Vibæk (2003) Rummet som faktor 1945 (Architectural theory since 1945). Arkitek-
– en sociomateriel discussion af det byggede miljø tens Forlag, Copenhagen, DK
(Space as a factor – a sociomaterial discus-
sion of the built environment). Bachelor thesis. Lönberg-Holm, K & C. Theodor Larson (1953)
Insitute of Sociology, University of Copenhagen, Development index University of Michigan, Ann
Copenhagen Arbor, MI

Jensen, Kasper Vibæk & Anne Beim (2006) Kva-

litetsmål i den arkitektoniske designproces (Goals
Maier, Mark W. (1998) Architecting Principles for
Systems of Systems IN: Systems Engineering, Vol.
M
and Strategies in the Process of Architectural 1, No. 4, 1998, pp. 267-284, Wiley Periodicals,
Design), CINARK (Royal Danish Acacdemy of Fine Wilmington
Arts, School of Architecture), Copenhagen
Maier, Mark W. & Eberhardt Rectin (2009) The
Jørgensen, Thomas Ryborg (2007) Arkitektur & art of systems architecting (3rd edition), CRC
Mass Costumization (Architecture & Mass Custo- Press, Boca Raton
mization), The Royal Danish Academy of Fine
Arts, School of Architecture, Copenhagen McDonough, William & Michael Braungart
(2002) Cradle to cradle – Remaking the way we
K Kapfinger, Otto (2001) Martin Rauch, Rammed
Earth, Birkhäuser, Basel
make things, North Point Press, New York

Meadows, Donella H. (2008) Thinking in Systems:

Kaspersen, Lars Bo (2005) Anthony Giddens a primer, Chelsea Green Publishing, White River
IN: Andersen, Heine & Lars Bo Kaspersen, (ed.) Jct.
Klassisk og Moderne Samfundsteori (Classical
and Modern Social Studies), p. 430-463, Hans Meyer, Marc H. & Alvin P. Lehnerd (1997) The
Reizels Forlag, Copenhagen power of product platforms. The Free Press, New
York, NY
Kieran, Stephen & James Timberlake (2004) Re-
fabricating Architecture, McGraw-Hill, New York Mikkelsen, Hans, Anne Beim, Lars Hvam & Martin
Tølle (2005) SELIA - Systemleverancer i byg-
Kieran, Stephen & James Timberlake (2008) geriet – en udredning til arbejdsbrug (Integrated
Loblolly House – Elements of a New Architecture, product deliveries in construction – a preliminary
Princeton Architectural Press, New York account), Institut for Produktion og Ledelse, DTU,
Kgs Lyngby
Kim, W. Chan & Renée Mauborgne (2005) Blue
Ocean Strategy, Harvard Business School Press, Mish, Frederick et al. (ed.) (1989) Webster’s Ninth
Cambridge New Collegiate Dictionary. Merriam-Webster Inc.
Springfield, MA
Kirkeby, Ole Fogh (1994) Abduktion IN: Ander-
sen, Heine (ed.) Videnskabsteori og metodelære, Mutopia (2008) U_build - Fremtidens proces- og
Vol. 1 – Introduktion (Philosophy of science and dialogværkktøj (U_build. Future tool for process
scientific methodology, Vol. 1, Introduction), Sam- and dialogue). Mutopia, Copenhagen
fundslitteratur, Frederiksberg, DK

Kruft, Hanno-Walter (1994) A History of Ar-

Nagurney, Anna, (2006) Supply Chain Network
Economics: Dynamics of Prices, Flows, and Profits. N
chitectural Theory – from Vitruvius to the present. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham Glos
Princeton Architectural Press, New York, NY
Nordby, Anne Sigrid (2009) Salvageability of
Kvale, Steinar (1997) Interview – En introduktion building materials. Doctoral thesis, NTNU, Trondheim,
til det kvalitative forskningsinterview (Interview NO
– An introduction to the qualitative research
interview). Hans Reitzels Forlag, Copenhagen Odum, Howard T. (1983) Systems Ecology: an
introduction, John Wiley & Sons, New York

o
Kwok, Allison G & Walther T. Grondzik (2007)
The Green Studio Handbook. Architectural Press/ Odum, Howard T. (1996) Environmental Ac-
Elsevier, Oxford, UK counting: EMERGY and environmental decision
making, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY

352
 VI.2 Bibliography & references

p Perkins, John B. Ward (1989) Arquitectura

Romana. Aguilar S.A de Ediciones, Madrid, ES
Thomassen, Mikkel Andreas (2003) The economic
organisation of building processes. Doctoral thesis.
t
Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby
Peirce, Charles Sanders (1994) Semiotik og
pragmatisme (Semiotics and pragmatism). Gyl- Tjavle, Eskild (1979) Systematic Design of Indu-
dendal, Copenhagen, DK strial Products, Institute for Product Development,
Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby
Pine II, B. Joseph and James H. Gilmore (2000)
The Experience Economy: Work Is Theater & Every
Business a Stage, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston
Ulrich, Karl T. & Steven D. Eppinger (2008)
Product Design and Development (4th edition),
McGraw-Hill, New York
u
Projekt Hus Sekretariatet (2001) Tæt samarbejde
i byggedelen, debathæfte 2, Projekt Hus (Close
Vibæk, Kasper Sánchez (2007) Flexible Solution
Space – Architecture by means of industrialised
v
collaboration in construction, vol. 2, Project structural building systems, Conference Paper,
House), By- og Boligministeriet, Copenhagen MCPC2007 – Mass Customization and Personali-
zation, MIT, Boston
Karsten Pålsons Tegnestue (2003) X-tension – til-
bygningssystem til bygningsrenovering (X-tension: Vibaek, Kasper Sánchez (2010) System Level
Extension system for building rennovation). Design and Nested Systems in Industrialised Ar-
Erhvervs- og Boligstyrelsen, Copenhagen chitectural Design (unpublished)

r RBE (2009) Facadeguiden ‘Rundt om facaden’

(The facade guide ’Around the facade). RBE,
Ringsted
Vibæk, Kasper Sánchez (2009) User Involvement
as a Configurable Integrated Product Delivery.
Conference paper. MCPC2009 - Mass Matching.
Aalto University, Helsinki, FI
Ryn, Sim Van der & Stuart Cowan (2007) Ecolo-
gical Design (10th anniversary edition), Island Vind, Bjarne og Mikkel A. Thomassen (ed.) Byg-
Press, Washington DC geriets Innovation – Innovation af byggeriet i
teori og praksis (Buildinglab DK – Innovation in

s Schmidt, Robert III, Jason Deamer & Simon Austin

(2011) Understanding adaptability through layer
dependencies IN: Proceedings for International
construction in theory and practice). Byggeriets
Innovation (Building Lab DK), Copenhagen

Conference on Engineering Design, ICED11, Tech- Vitruvius (1960) The ten books on architecture.
nical University of Denmark, Lyngby, DK Translation by Morris Hicky Morgan, Dover Publi-
cations, New York
Schön, Donald A. (2001) Den reflekterende
praktiker. Hvordan professionelle tænker, når de Vitruvio, Marco Lucio (1991) Los diez libros de
arbejder (The reflective practitioner), Forlaget architectura (The ten books on architecture).
Klim (and Basic Books), Århus Translation to Spanish by Agustín Blánquez,
Editorial Iberia, Barcelona
Semper, Gottfried (1989) The Four Elements of
Architecture – and other writings. Translation by Værdibyg.dk (2011) Perspektiver på faseskift
Harry Francis Mallgrave & Wolfgang Herrmann. – et debatoplæg (Perspectives on stage models
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK in construction – a discussion), Brancheinitiativet
Værdiskabende Byggeproces, København

W
Simon, Herbert (1979) Models of Thought, Yale
University Press, New Haven/London Warszawski, Abraham (1999) Industrialised and
Automated Building Systems, Taylor & Francis,
Simon, Herbert (1989) Models of Thought – vo- Oxon
lume II, Yale University Press, New Haven/London

Simon, Herbert A. (1996) The Sciences of the

Yaneva, Albena (2009) The Making of a Building
– a Pragmatist Approach to Architecture, Peter
y
Artificial (3rd edition). MIT Press, Cambridge Lang, Oxford

Skyttner, Lars (2005) General Systems Theory. Yaneva, Albena (2005) Scaling Up and Down –
World Scientific Publishing, Singapore Extraction trials in Architectural Design IN: Social
Studies of Science 35/6 (December 2005) Sage
Smith, Adam (1776) An Inquiry into the Nature Publications, London
and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Strahan &
Cadeli, London

Stacey, Michael (2001) Component Design, Websites

All websites used are referenced directly in the
Architectural Press, Oxford
end notes of the thesis.

353