Lean Design& Building Industry
‘the first steps towards change is recognition’
(Deepak Chopra 1995)
To discuss probable solutions to increase the quality
of the built environment for the future, first we need to analyze the
typology of the facts and constrains related to the problems the building
industry has to face. Without recognition of the several negative aspects
there will be no awareness of the problems and so to change the situation
will be even more difficult.
Three types of problems are presented. The first is the amount of failure
costs, which runs up to 10,3% of the total amount of market exposure in
the building industry, about € 5,000,000.- each year (USP Marketing
Consultancy 2004). Second problem is the waste production: about 50% of
all produced waste is produced by the building industry and the building
industry uses about 40% of the energy in the world (Kristinsson 2002).
Third main aspect is that of ‘change’ of the circumstances
related to the environment. More different clients with different requirements
are involved, more new and different technologies-products-materials are
introduced and more different participants with different responsibilities-knowledge
design and construct the environment. This causes a growing gab between
the ‘abstract’ and the ‘real world’ (van Dinten
2006, Quanjel&Zeiler 2003).
If the building industry wants to work on these aspects, because of the
complexity, an integral approach is needed. Much research is already done
in this field. The integral approach is a simultaneously approach within
the several domains of society; context, organization, process, product
(Friedl 2001), with the use of the knowledge-triangle practice, education
and research (Quanjel&Zeiler 2003). Within this context three typologies
of solutions are suggested. The first one is design related and introduces
‘the methodic design’ (van den Kroonenberg 1978), developed
and used in the engineering industry, which has to be transformed in order
to ‘work in the field of the building industry. Secondly a more
process-product related tool is proposed; Industrial Flexible Demountable
/ Durability. Actually a tool-box introduced by the Dutch Government but
based on several other studies and experience (Habraken 1961, IFD 2000).
Finally ‘Learning by doing’, as an effective tool for the
knowledge exchange, is introduced (Schön 1983). By using workshops
professionals, students as well as researchers can be trained in a realistic
setting and expand there knowledge and skills needed for the changing
future requirements for users of the build environment (Savanovic˛ 2005).
- Dinten, W.L. van, (2006), Met gevoel voor realiteit, over herkennen
van betekenis bij organiseren, Eburon Academic Publishers, Delft.
- Friedl G., (2001), Modellering van het ontwerpproces; een process-choreografie,
ADMS publicatie 15 , Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e), Eindhoven.
- Habraken, J. (1961), De dragers en de mensen, het einde van de massawoningbouw,
- IFD-Bouwen Demonstratieprojecten 1999 (2000), SEV, Rotterdam.
- Kristinsson, J. (2002), Integraal Ontwerpen – vitale archiectuur,
- Kroonenberg, H.H. van den, (1978) "Methodisch Ontwerpen",
Faculteit der Werkuigbouwkunde, Diktaat Universiteit Twente, University
of Twente (UT).
- Quanjel, E. and Zeiler, W. (2003) Eindrapportage Onderzoek Integraal
Ontwerpen, University of Technology Delft (TUD), Delft, May 2003.
- Savanovic´, P., Zeiler,W., Trum, H.M.G.J., Borsboom, W.A., (2005),
Integral design methodology in the context of sustainable comfort systems
– Design Integration, Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e)
and TNO Built Environment and Geosciences, Eindhoven.
- Schön, D.A., (1983), The reflective practitioner: how professionals
think in action, London, Temle Smith.
- USP Marketing Consultancy,(2004), Bussiness Issues: Vernieuwing
in de bouwsector, wie durft?, juni 2004,