Capítulo 3: La política de competencia en Cuba
3.1 Panorama de la economía cubana a partir de 1990
Sub-Themes for Theme One
Difficult & tricky to define
Subjective & based on individual perceptions & experiences Sector & Project-specific
Multi-faceted & multi-attribute
Dynamic and changing over time and across regions Matching the brief versus exceeding expectations
Need for optimisation due to potential conflicts between:
• Project objectives (time, cost and quality)
• Design objectives (various design attributes)
• Design objectives & regulations
Table 4-3: Sub-themes under the Theme One
The first noticeable point regarding the concept of design quality was actually the difficulty in defining it. This was evident during the interviews where most participants had to take some moments expressing, changing or expanding their definitions. Comments like ‘a very tricky question’ [P1-4] and ‘it is a difficult question’ [P1-6] were examples. P1-1, while finding the question interesting, also referred to a recent conversation he had with a contractor who said to ‘really struggle to understand what is meant by quality of design’. In a similar vein, Dewult and van Meel (2004) also referred to the absence of consensus on and the difficulty in defining design quality.
This defining issue does not reflect any lack of knowledge of the participants –who had many years of experience and were positioned at senior levels in their practices – but is, in fact, rooted in other characteristics of this concept. The definition can vary from one individual to another as P1-7 said ‘it depends on which side of the fence you are sitting’ or when P1-6 mentioned ‘it depends from the viewpoint of which stakeholder you look at’. Design quality – according to P1-1 is defined based on ‘individual perceptions’ and ‘varies by people’ and because of that is very much a subjective matter. In this regard, P1-4 linked design quality to individual experience and said ‘it is all about the benchmarking process, you always assess the quality of space based upon previous experiences’. Likewise, van Voordt (2009) saw the reason behind differing opinions on a building’s quality to be personal preferences and different interests and backgrounds. Nasar (1994) also linked people’s perception of a building’s features to the previous experience they had with that particular class of building.
Besides this subjectivity, there is another facet to the nature of design quality, which is being project-specific. Although the focus was on the healthcare sector, the diversity in healthcare settings and projects’ circumstances prevent one from giving a universal
definition even for healthcare environments. This point was specially observed when the participants tried to distinguish between good and bad buildings by emphasising key attributes. P1-9 found build quality and longevity as important while P1-11 referred to natural light and ventilation as primary areas for good design. It is interesting to note that P1-9 was involved in spaces for patients with dementia and P1-11 in primary health centres. This issue could in fact extend beyond only healthcare sector.
Apart from these characteristics, the responses provided two more dimensions to design quality, which further clarify its nature. Firstly, the design quality is multi-attribute and all the participants agreed on that either directly in their definitions, e.g., ‘it is a synthesis bringing together many different aspects’ [P1-6] and ‘it is a complex, multi-layered, and multi-disciplinary experience’ [P1-4] or indirectly when naming different attributes for building design, like accessibility, privacy and patient pathway. It was interesting to see that four participants – i.e., P1-2, P1-3, P1-6 & P1-7 – directly referred to the ‘DQI’ tool classification, i.e., functionality, impact and build quality, where P1-2 even believed that all diverse architectural styles talk about these three elements but interpret them differently. Thesame point was made by Volker (2010), as mentioned in section 2.2.3.
Another characteristic noted in the literature is the dynamism of design quality definition (Slaughter, 2004). According to P1-2, it changes over time and varies across different cultures. This point was corroborated by P1-8 with experience in international projects who referred to the differences in design quality perception in other regions, for instance where male and female patients need to be split.
Probing the responses further hinted on how the architects give meaning to design quality by linking it to a number of considerations for its fulfilment during projects. The first of these was the role of briefs. In the same way as P1-8 who said ‘design quality is matching the client’s brief’, P1-5 and P1-11 also pointed out similar comments. However, P1-7 gave an emphasis on the need to exceed initial expectations in order to delight the client by providing better quality than what was asked in the first place. P1-4 also brought up a
necessary ‘push’ of the quality attributes by the designers. It is also worthy to mention that P1-11 found briefs to be generally very poor especially in healthcare where ‘they are often written by managers and not designers’ causing ‘an immediate disconnect’ with the client’s wants. P1-7 while echoed this, added that the briefs often change during projects. In the literature, inexperienced clients with lack of required knowledge are mentioned as a barrier to effective briefing in construction projects (Kelly and Duerk, 2002).
A challenge towards design quality achievement is the potential conflict between various project objectives and the existence of resource constraints, hence the need for optimisation, prioritisation and compromise. P1-11 referred to this by describing the design journey as ‘delivering as much quality as possible with minimum compromise within the time and budget constraints’. P1-7 showed discontent over the fact that ‘it is usually the quality that is chopped’ although what ‘lives on’ and wins people’s praise over time is this very quality in buildings. On tension between quality and cost many participants referred to the need to have a lifecycle costing approach in line with Saxon (2005). P1-1 said ‘the construction cost is important but not as important as the lifecycle cost’ and found the latter key in ‘maintaining design integrity’ and ‘ending up with satisfied users’. P1-7, P1-10, P1-11 and P1- 12 argued similar points.
Tension was also mentioned to exist between design objectives and regulations especially for healthcare environments. P1-4 and P1-5 argued that although the aesthetics is highly important, the architects are limited about what they can do to maintain patient dignity or minimise infection. Although compliance to these is essential, P1-1 and P1-4 believed by sticking to only guidance (like HBN and HTM1 in healthcare), one could not get ‘terribly
satisfied’ end-users and the architects need to ‘a lot of time challenge’ them.
Another important point raised was the need for optimisation between design objectives or design attributes. All participants were on the same opinion that they need to prioritise
different design objectives and often have to compromise; P1-2 by saying ‘of course, architecture is about the best compromise’ pointed out that the prioritisation should be based on ‘what a building is for, it is a hospital and not an art gallery or cultural building’.