Einleitung

METHODE

PILOTPROJEKT

(REAL)FIKTIONEN

KONTAKT

  • METHOD

    Mechanik

    Open Plan Open Decision – OP-OD for short – is a novel planning method that is being developed by people within the KOOPERATIVE GROSSSTADT eG housing cooperative. OP-OD seeks to turn all project stakeholders (= interested parties) into idea providers and architectural solution developers on an equal footing. Ideally, the authorship of these solutions lies with the collective, which is the sum of many individuals – planners and users, specialists and laypeople – hence anything but anonymous. (Für die deutsche Version bitte hier klicken.)

    The OP-OD method has currently reached the stage of a working prototype. It was extensively applied and tested, in the course of a tangible construction project by the KOOPERATIVE GROSSSTADT, for the design of a residential building in Munich. The mode of operation, peculiarities, and remaining weaknesses are presented in detail in these guidelines. All the experiences we had will be shared as openly as possible. The inventors of the OP-OD method are both initiators and part of the research team. Hence they are familiar with this process down to the innermost part, but are biased as well. For this reason, the guidelines contain the numerous insights of external experts into the method itself and the results of its first application. These, together with the voices of selected participants to the first planning procedure, are available here in the form of extensive video interviews. An even more detailed cataloguing, evaluation, and external assessment have been published as part of an extensive research report.

    OP-OD is not for sale. It can be used openly and free of charge by all interested parties. The method as a whole, as well as its distinct elements and mechanisms, are freely available to everyone. They may also be used within one’s own collective participatory planning process. The defined objective is to develop the OP-OD method and its corresponding digital application platform (app) to such lengths that it can be used as an alternative to architectural competitions that will be just as good or, in many cases, even better. Basically, it should enable a very low-threshold integration of participatory collective planning phases within projects in the fields of architecture and landscape architecture.

    The OP-OD method pursues the following objective: planning and constructing buildings that are sustainable and enjoy wide acceptance. It is based on the assumption that by including all – or at least as many involved persons as possible – in the planning, it will be feasible to significantly reduce the so-called performance gap in technical, environmental and, also, social terms, or to make it almost obsolete.

    In addition to technical aspects, programmatic aspects should also primarily be taken into account. Initially, with regard to residential uses, these could include topics such as flexibility and spatial efficiency. Joint negotiation of what is sufficient, for whom, and to what end, plays a key role in this respect. With regard to acute social and environmental issues – what can be dispensed with and how much, which things and spaces can be shared, and which changes to building uses over a long period of time should be considered – it has been hypothesised that the collective, participatory approach of methods such as OP-OD generates better solutions more easily.

    In addition to the performance gap, which often has more to do with user behaviour, the OP-OD method would like to close, or at least reduce, the ‘prior experience gap’ (term used by the authors here) on the expert side. In architecture, designers like to discuss their own practical experience a lot. On the other hand, however, concrete follow-up steps and project monitoring are often very patchy.

    As a result, in classic design processes where few experts are involved (i.e. involving positions staffed by one individual) and the understaffed building owner thus tends to play a small role, only very selective or even one-sided experiences are available. There is a yawning gap between the practical experience actually available for the project and planning knowledge, but also the (in theory) actually available practical knowledge. It has been hypothesised that the collective collaborative approach of methods such as OP-OD generates better solutions more easily.

    What isn’t OP-OD?
    OP-OD is not perfect. Even with OP-OD, there is neither an automatic path to the best and most sustainable result, nor the promise of conflict-free participation. The planning outcome and atmosphere also depend on the capacity, the wealth of ideas and, in particular, the willingness of all participants to engage intensively with the project and deal with the negotiation processes required. However, OP-OD mechanisms are intended to enable those involved (planners, users, building owners, and other stakeholders) to do so in a very structured, well-facilitated, creative, and intensely cooperative manner.

    The OP-OD method is based on four principles underlying known, proven planning approaches and project selection procedures:

    1. Diversity of solutions, openness and the ideal of fairness as in open architectural competitions
    2. User participation
    3. Collective open source programming as found in the field of agile software development
    4. Collaboration ideal instead of the notion of competition.

    Out of these principles, the OP-OD method seeks to develop coherent mechanics of its own. The method and the ideals that underpin it are therefore not completely value-neutral or even freely negotiable; rather, they also reflect the specific attitudes and ideals of the authors of the method. Almost in the manner of discourse ethics, however, openness and indeterminacy should play an important role in the architectural planning outcomes to be achieved thanks to the OP-OD method.

     

    Open architectural competition
    Open competition procedures continue to enjoy a high – albeit not free of contradictions – reputation within the architectural community. In ideal cases, they allow for fair competition between the best ideas and, compared with other procedures, offer the lowest access restrictions to all participants. Thus, they potentially enable proposals by actors that no one had previously bargained for, and can bring to light other perspectives, including in terms of content, far more so than other procedures. In addition, they can promote a direct transfer of knowledge from academic work on architecture to the design practice.

    User participation
    Participation enjoys a high reputation in academic scientific discourse. It is indissolubly linked to the expectation (shared by the authors of the OP-OD method) that it can achieve sustainable and durable structural or open-space planning solutions. Within architecture and urban planning, in particular, solutions co-designed and co-developed by users together with experts can lead to high acceptance, direct appropriation, and greater care in use – or so goes the argument. Basically, when the buzzword ‘participation’ is mentioned, it does not always mean the same thing – that is to say, neither the same method nor the same goal. It can only be assumed that the common denominator is that future, or only potential future users or individuals affected can directly influence the planning in some way in certain places – even though they might not necessarily be the client or even the property owner. Some real estate investors have also come to believe that they can gain the right to build more and meet less resistance through participatory arrangements at an early stage of project development. However, the extent to which this is a form of participation that does justice to its inherently good reputation is not to be assessed here.

    Access, exertions and remuneration
    It is no trivial matter to consider how and whether participation can be organised, at least in principle, in such a way that already-existing elitist processes are not merely reproduced once again, whereby only eye-catching social actors who anyway occupy the stage are given another opportunity to (loudly) have their say. The temporal, economic and, also, intellectual capacities for real participation in planning processes are an issue that has not been clarified conclusively yet, let alone resolved. However, the OP-OD method assumes that involvement, whether from the point of view of planners, users, or other stakeholders, is financially remunerated from the outset. This can be achieved through a flat-rate remuneration per idea or contribution and through daily rates as a time fee. Unlike competitions, it does not matter how successful an individual idea or contribution is, or whether these will be used at all later on in the project.

    Open source and agile product development
    Some of the mechanisms of the OP-OD method are inspired by techniques found in software development and project management or, more specifically, by so-called lean development tools. The breaking down of a common, as little hierarchical as possible project or product development process into sub-steps and sub-tasks serves as a model. The departure points of the process and its aim are clearly identified. On the one hand, the path is well structured and facilitated; on the other hand, it is characterised by self-organisation, flat hierarchies, open communication, and a proper error culture. One of the best-known methods in this regard is the copyrighted Scrum: ‘Scrum is a framework for team collaboration based on a definition of roles, meetings, and tools that provide a team with structure and a clearly defined work process relying on agile principles.’ The principle of openness is greatly valued in certain areas of software development, as witnessed by the disclosure of the source code for programs enabling the collective further development and optimisation of products. Deep, undoctored insights into the design and decision-making processes of construction projects, along with the disclosure of later experiences during operation would constitute a transfer of the open source attitude into architecture. This would require an adequate, presumably digital project platform.

    Collaboration beats competition
    Authorship is often understood in terms of control and an exact correspondence between work and person, as well as personal beliefs and views. In many cases, however, a collective process will not allow this. It inevitably entails compromises, or decision-making involving many individuals with equal rights, which automatically (or at least quite often) only allows a limited correspondence between the work and the person. But what is it that authorship currently enables architects to do, what does it actually depict? Does it not reject the already achieved participation of many other disciplines and ideas, basically ignoring the nowadays already usual planning process polyphony? Obviously, it still serves as a proof of competence, and generates procedural advantages in competitive tendering and application procedures, while ensuring media attention or exploitability. In the course of discussing the German contribution to the Architecture Biennale 2021, Monopol magazine wrote as follows about the Vision 2038 presented there while told retrospectively: ‘The critical digital expert Evgeny Morozov brings good news: the basic pattern of competition has been replaced by that of collaboration — which has made everything else much easier.’

    The OP-OD METHOD integrates the participation (O) during the process of all parties involved, including users, in the planning collective. It requires precise preparation and pre-structuring of the planning process by the internal process facilitation and active, external facilitation during the actual planning process. Participation and planning thus do not constitute parallel, let alone separate strands, but are the building blocks of a single process and hence stand in a symbiotic relationship to each other.

    Purely GROUP-BASED PLANNING PROCESSES, as with direct democracy assemblies wishing to erect a building under WEG legislation [German Condominium Act], or groups with a public-interest orientation within tenant associations, are built on, and around participation (O) right from the outset, so to speak. Such processes are very intensive and often (but certainly not always) underlaid by many individual interests. They therefore always come close to what is polemically described as the ‘participation nightmare’, as the process often has to go through many loops.

    The outputs of GROUP-BASED PLANNING PROCESSES often receive little appreciation from an architectural point of view – but this should not be a reason to exclude them. More importantly, these processes often lack the necessary counterweight to the interests of users. Yet this is important if long-term, overarching aspects of the construction project or building are to be taken into account. Indeed, a kind of hyper-individualisation or excessively tailor-made solutions can undermine sustainability and openness. Many residents’ assemblies [Baugruppe], initiated by architects for the purpose of their own project acquisition, are exceptions to this in two respects. In connection with these assemblies, a design has already been prepared in advance by the architects for the purpose of attracting residents, but also for self-serving motives. As with property development models, however, users then turn into (disguised) building owners. This model has little to do with what genuine participation and involvement can and should mean. But even in this case, processes and outputs should not be discredited or delegitimised per se. Yet this arrangement is to be understood as a trigger for criticism.

    OPEN COMPETITION PROCEDURES are only to a very limited extent compatible with continuous participation. Here, only a few, albeit important, participation rounds (P) can be incorporated into the process here and there, for example during the preparation of the competition entry and, subsequently, in further project development. Open competition also entails the risk that, in the transition phase to further planning, fundamental parameters – such as profitability – often have to be honed and the first major conflicts between parties may emerge.

    On the part of the building owner, OPEN COMPETITION PROCEDURES are often not trusted sufficiently to do justice to complex technical requirements, risk management, and the high level of coordination of all parties that is required. On the side of the cooperatives, amongst various other arguments and reservations, it is precisely the desire for resident participation that often slows down architectural open competitions in Germany, as well as in Switzerland and Austria. Cooperatives often find it difficult to reconcile the implementation-related obligations associated with an architectural project competition with their conceptions of participation and involvement.

    It is intended that, as a rule, the OP-OD method should save time, compared with both group-based planning processes and open competitions, owing to a high degree of participation and a very large array of solutions. But even in the absence of time savings, the method’s objectives are a higher degree of participation and involvement (compared with competitions) and a greater variety of solutions and sense of collectivity (compared with group-based planning processes). These should lead to a more solid and valid planning.

    The following working hypotheses underlie the development of the OP-OD method:

    1. The use of new planning tools such as OP-OD leads to more sustainable planning outcomes in building construction – here focusing on residential construction.
    2. Thanks to the early (i.e. from the beginning) inclusion of users in the planning, the structure and its use are already fundamentally better understood by everyone at the planning stage.
    3. The involvement of users and experts on an equal footing in building planning and development, as well as the productive use of their diverse perspectives, potential, and expertise, leads to housing estates that are run more efficiently and precludes the ‘performance gap’ in technical and environmental as well as social terms.
    4. The OP-OD planning tool, which is based on principles used by open source applications, enables a collective planning effort and authorship by all those involved in the project; it makes planning that includes many stakeholders transparent and efficient.
    5. The introduction of the OP-OD planning tool aims to initiate a reorientation of the construction industry towards sustainable planning and construction processes – by questioning and further developing current processes and the understanding of one’s role – for instance including collaboration and transparency instead of competition, anonymity, and confidentiality (in this way, opening up planning to many stakeholders).
    6. The OP-OD planning tool combines open competition procedures with participatory planning methods in real time and open-source approaches. This combination enables architectural and technical issues in residential construction to be solved on a broader basis than before in discursive and even sometimes scientific terms.
    7. Currently, new modern tools are lacking, that would enable an effective, comprehensive participation in a virtual, inclusive, and low-threshold manner right from project start in the field of building design and, also, would make participation affordable for all by remunerating all the parties involved (including users).
    8. Individual authorship becomes obsolete through a collaborative design effort within the framework of the OP-OD planning tool, which increases the sense of identification and mutual understanding of participants.
    9. The OP-OD planning tool is not yet readily transferable to projects by public authorities or to public procurement and competition law. Detecting conflicts and, also, adaptation options, is part of OP-OD research.
    10. A collective planning effort and collective authorship of buildings – including possible use as co-authors of the design – promotes a diversity of solutions and an efficient exchange of knowledge between all parties involved, with positive effects/repercussions, including for further projects and intensified learning cycles.
    11. Discursive work on an equal footing increases understanding of the other stakeholders in every given situation. Elements such as greater fairness or awareness of the needs or (planning) circumstances of others are always present.

    OP-OD seeks to turn users, building owners, and experts (i.e. professional stakeholders) into idea contributors and architectural solution developers with an equal standing. The authorship of these solutions, hence usually of the final design as well, lies with the collective. This is the sum total of committed individuals – specialists as well as laypeople – and hence not an anonymous mass.

    Working collectively in the creative field is currently just as much established as it is, possibly, a frivolous fashion. In recent years, many new collectives have been set up, both in art and architecture. However, working on architectural designs has been teamwork on a daily basis for a very long time, although so far it has often been a very hierarchical form of teamwork.

    Lately, formal collectives have been translating this back into a form of collaboration that is as hierarchy-free as possible – into a shared, thus joint authorship. Yet applying the OP-OD method generates an authorship that is somewhat different from what we traditionally know by individual architects or self-initiated collectives in architecture.

    The mechanics of the OP-OD method are based on integrating participation or, more precisely, user participation, into a collective design method. Or, in other words, participation becomes an integral, no longer detachable component of the collective design itself. One could also say that in the case of OP-OD or similar methods, participation and designing collectively should become synonyms.

    The OP-OD method does not abolish authorship; neither does it anonymise the persons involved in the design. On the contrary, by mentioning individual names in an egalitarian way, it distributes authorship of the design across many more shoulders or individuals than has hitherto been customary. It also no longer makes any distinctions between the disciplines or stakeholders involved; instead, it gives all authors an equal standing. Thus, in a way, OP-OD deprives authorship of its absoluteness. However, it places it in a specific relationship to individual process steps, though without later overemphasising or even deliberately quantifying any parts of the whole.

    Within current cooperative planning and construction procedures, participatory processes or elements are an essential part of the project identity. They can significantly shape the development and testing of new structural and programmatic conceptions, or even make them possible in the first place. Participatory methods can be used to jointly negotiate high demands in terms of social affairs, solidarity, integration, inclusion, and the environment. Thereby, the user perspective is available at a very early stage of building conceptualisation and planning.

    The background of the OP-OD method is in fact to be found in the particular experiences of a cooperative (Kooperative Großstadt eG) with its own residential projects. OP-OD wishes to lower the inhibition threshold for collective, participatory processes, fostering them far beyond the field of cooperative housing construction. Thanks to the clear framework provided by a planning method such as OP-OD, the advantages of collective, participatory processes shall also be made available to private and municipal housing associations, as well as to self-initiated citizens’ assemblies and, in a wider perspective, to the public sector as client. A transfer to construction tasks other than housing is also desirable.

    But who are the participants in OP-OD, who actually makes up the collective? As many representatives as possible of all major interest groups (i.e. stakeholders) concerned by a project should be able to participate in a planning process using the OP-OD method. However, an important characteristic and hence a prerequisite is a multiple casting of the various roles. In order to promote the greatest total amount of intersubjectivity, not just one person should be cast for a role — neither within a specialist discipline, nor as building owner, nor as user. Usually, in addition to users and building owner representatives, a large number of experts, such as architectural planners, landscape architects, technologists, experts in the fields of sustainability, social affairs / sociology, accessibility, and so on, through to neighbours and representatives of the public interest, should therefore be involved through multiple casting. The OP-OD method distinguishes between the roles of ‘idea contributor’ and ‘developer’ during the planning process. The developers are recruited from all process sub-groups. For example, representatives drawn from the user group may also take on the role of developer.

     

    In this sense, OP-OD is similar to (open) competition procedures with regard to specialists. Here, too, many people from the same disciplines participate or are members of the jury — with the difference, however, that they are working on distinct, full project proposals in competition with each other, or evaluate these as a jury and select the winning project to be realised. The OP-OD method seeks to bundle and use all these competencies through a common, collaborative procedure and a specific way of working. Representatives who, during competition proceedings, would normally only be jury members can and should become part of the planning collective under the OP-OD method and, in this way, also become co-authors of the project.

    However, the documentation of the process on the digital platform makes all contributions and design steps transparent; currently, these can even be traced back to individuals.

    The mechanics of the OP-OD method thrive on the duality of ‘idea phase’ and ‘development phase’. It allows a large number of people to participate and generates numerous perspectives on planning tasks. During idea phases, the widest possible spectrum of partial solutions to individual, precisely formulated sub-issues is developed and displayed. During development phases, the various ideas are weighed up and merged, step by step, to form consistent problem-solving approaches. During this ping-pong between idea and development phases, the actual design condenses gradually and in a transparent way for all, and with the participation of all.

    Let us take one thing at a time: the OP-OD method breaks down the conventional process for the planning of buildings, open spaces, or urban areas into a large number of individual issues and individual elements. Many small, or deliberately fragmentary project-specific tasks are generated out of the overarching design brief, usually by the process support partner. These tasks serve as the foundation for the planning process. In turn, about three to five of these tasks are bundled in call rounds or project stages before being worked out synchronously by process participants.

    Each project stage consists of two phases, an idea phase and a development phase, which build on each other in alternation. They form the structural framework for the OP-OD planning process. Each project stage begins with an idea phase. This is always immediately followed by a development phase. The two phases constitute a unit within the process. The number of project stages can vary, depending on the planning task at hand. In principle, it would also be possible to carry out OP-OD in a single project stage, since a ‘synthesis’ is drafted after each development phase and, thus, a usable result can be obtained.

    During each call round and project stage, various elements of the building or overarching design brief are initially treated as isolated individual calls simultaneously. Here we are not yet talking about classic designs that attempt at an early stage to synchronise, synthesise or, even, solve all the many elements and requirements of a building.

    For example, such calls might deal with the issue of efficient vertical circulation, sustainable construction and materiality of the building, or reference floor plan solutions for specific forms of accommodation. A call might also only deal with the façades of a building, for example. Individual call rounds throughout all project stages build loosely on each other and, overall, deal with all significant and important elements of the building being planned. The large number of ideas serves as the foundation for every development phase.

    All participants are invited to develop and submit their contributions – their ideas and suggestions – within a certain time. Through ticket allocation on the project platform, it is possible to provide guidance and ensure that all topics are dealt with by a sufficient number and in appropriate depth. Thereby, idea phases pursue the goal of creating a large pool of very diverse, distinct ideas. These ideas may be developed independently or in small teams. Everyone — whether planner, expert, user, etc. — takes part in the idea rounds.

    The routes to the destination, display formats, and media with which and in which the ideas are developed, presented, and visualised match the participants’ qualifications; they can vary from project to project or from phase to phase. Curating idea formats in a way that is closely tailored to individual needs (primarily by the process support partner) is also conceivable. In this manner, planning depth and form of expression can be precisely and appropriately adjusted at any time. At the end of an idea phase, the ‘idea pool‘ is filled with the many different ideas of all idea contributors. All those involved in the planning process can see these ideas in real time and at all times.

    The distinction between idea contributors and developers is not a divisive or exclusive one. Initially, every participant in an OP-OD planning process is an equal idea contributor. As a rule, the developers are elected from the group of idea contributors at the beginning of each idea phase for the subsequent development phase by their own subgroup. This means that the group of developers is always a subset of the group of idea contributors. The developers are authorised to act and make decisions in the development phases without consulting the idea contributors. Once elected by their subgroup as delegates, they have a free mandate. They are therefore not subject to an imperative mandate. In the case of the initial application of the OP-OD method, the election or selection only took place in the sub-groups of the architectural planners and users due to the low number of participants from the technical trades.

    How exactly does an idea phase work?
    An idea phase starts with the publication of individual calls that are to be worked out at the relevant project stage. These can be viewed as a form of tiny competition call, in which very specific, precisely described sub-questions are formulated. The special feature of the approach lies in the separate processing of such tasks at the beginning, without already having to consider compatibility with other design components. So, for instance, one could pursue the design of a conceivable project-specific staircase or staircase solution, but without even knowing anything about the load-bearing structure or initial floor plan considerations. From phase to phase, however, the mesh of dependencies tightens up in OP-OD as well — even though tasks may remain fragmentary and solutions can still be formulated very freely or sketchily even at a late stage.

    All calls, uploaded ideas, and development outputs — the syntheses — may be viewed and accessed by everyone on the digital platform, supplemented by the necessary and relevant documents and records. The platform (LINK) resembles a central benchmark or anchor point for OP-OD processes. Communication and internal exchange can take place on the relevant project platform. The collective can also be viewed on the platform; its members can get to know each other and exchange information through personal profiles.

    An essential change compared to conventional planning processes lies in the simultaneity of all joint design contributions. In particular, the roles of planners in the specialised fields of architecture and open space and the roles of planners in the technical disciplines are set to change substantially through the OP-OD method. Planners from the technical disciplines (such as structural engineering, building technology, building physics, fire protection, etc.) are invited to comment on all topics linked to the building concerned (= call issues) from the first moment of the planning process, at which time no architectural pre-ideas yet exist. They should draw on both their professional and personal experiences as they wrestle with the specific planning task alone. Hence they should also formulate concrete ideas and suggestions concerning the development of the house, the floor plans, the ‘mechanics’ of living together, or flexibility.

    For the first application of the method, therefore, practically no technical issues were formulated in isolation. Rather, the integrative approach provided that all relevant technical issues (from building physics to accessibility) would revolve as constant moons, so to speak, around the larger questions of sustainable living and building – the planets, so to speak. It was thereby intended to express the opposite of contempt for technology; this, however, has not worked out to the extent expected yet owing to the low number of participants from technical disciplines.

    What happens during a development phase?
    The task of the developers, a group of about 10–12 people who are delegated from the idea contributors’ group at the beginning of each project stage, is to sort, test, combine, synthesise, and then, together and step by step, create one or several variants of the first intermediate planning results. This intermediate output or, in the last round, the (provisional) final planning output are referred to in the nomenclature of OP-OD as ‘syntheses’ or ‘synthetic results’. In turn, the syntheses of intermediate phases always become the planning basis for the next idea phase. Thus, the ideas in the idea pool revolve around the synthesis/syntheses of the previous development phase from the second phase onwards.

    The syntheses of the intermediate phases in turn always become the planning basis for the next idea phase. This means that the ideas in the idea pool from the 2nd phase onwards revolve around the synthesis(es) of the previous development phase. Until the end of each development phase, developers work intensively and jointly on a single synthesis or several synthesis variants. Individual topics, as well as the entire planning concept, are repeatedly negotiated until they are finally adopted through a mutual consent decision. With some time lag in planning, the drawings and texts of the synthesis are finalised; and the latter is provided with a ‘package insert’ of the remaining open points, or with questions to the plenary (= idea contributors). Finally, the single synthesis or several synthesis variants – if variants were still worked on until the end – are uploaded to the digital platform. At the final plenary session, they are reviewed and discussed again with everyone.

    The objective of any given development phase should be defined at the beginning, then jointly and critically examined by the developers, and subdivided into suitable work packages. The group itself is responsible for its internal structure, the allocation of work packages, and scheduling.

    Since the development phase itself only takes place in the protected (analogue and virtual) space of the developers and not every interim result is visible to everyone on the platform, the result and the process of the respective development phase is now visible to the entire collective of all participants – i.e. all idea providers.

    The group of developers receives support from external, expert facilitators who, in particular, facilitate discussions, coordinate knowledge transfer, or try to compensate for knowledge gaps. In addition, they take over the methodological facilitation and explanation. Facilitation is also important because the OP-OD method explicitly tries to turn users and experts within a planning project into idea contributors and developers of a common architectural solution who enjoy an equal standing. Therefore, there can, and will always be difficulties, for example in discussions of substance between all developers. Facilitation may also provide a form of translation work or intervene if a common operational level threatens to be lost. Facilitation, or the facilitators, also constitutes an important interface to process support.

    The overall shape of a planning process using the OP-OD method resembles a sequence of funnel-shaped phases. The open call questions and the consolidation of ideas into planning syntheses create a linear process that is, however, very agile due to the constant opening up to new questions and iteration loops. This also makes it possible to think in variants.

    • Call

      The OP-OD method is based on breaking down a design task into many smaller sub-tasks. Tasks are referred to as ‘calls’. Although OP-OD is not a competitive procedure, the calls are similar in structure to tiny competition calls. They formulate a task precisely. The fundamentals needed to fullfil the task, such as a basic set of plans, legal conditions and standards, already known restrictions, and content requirements, are provided to the participants. Submission requirements regarding plans and documents are also described in a call. Participants prepare their contributions within a clearly specified time frame. In the OP-OD method, these contributions are referred to as ideas or clues. The participants thus take on the role of idea contributors. The calls are published on the digital project platform. They are available in two versions: in technical language and in plain language.

    • Call round

      The OP-OD method divides planning processes into several project stages. The starting point of each phase is the simultaneous publication of several, but thematically independent calls. Together, these constitute a call round. The sum of all the calls in a call round defines the thematic orientation and the content-related goal of the project stage concerned. For example, the first application of the OP-OD method entailed dividing the planning task into three project stages — hence three call rounds (see Chart p. XX). Within each call round, three calls were published and worked out.

    • Project stage

      Each project stage in a project following the OP-OD method is divided into two essential phases: the idea phase and the development phase. The idea phase in each project stage takes place before the development phase. Each project stage starts with a call round (see above).

    • Idea phase

      The idea phase refers to that part of each project stage during which all participants work in parallel — either individually or in small teams — on the issues listed by the calls. It collects and develops numerous proposed solutions (= ideas) for the sub-questions and sub-elements of the project that have been precisely defined in the calls. Participants upload these to the OP-OD project platform for everyone to see. During the idea phase, all stakeholders assume the role of idea contributors. Proposals may be produced and visualised in various presentation formats and media, depending on the participant’s abilities and qualifications.

    • Idea contributor

      The term ‘idea contributor’ refers to an OP-OD planning process participant, regardless of their professional orientation. Users or neighbours who submit at least one idea during the planning process are also idea contributors. In turn, the sum total of all ‘idea contributors’ is referred to as the collective of all persons who actively participate in a planning process using the OP-OD method. The objective is to involve as many representatives of all project-relevant interest groups (= stakeholders) as possible. The idea contributors’ group is characterised by its diversity; in addition to users and representatives of building owners, it also consists of numerous specialists from various fields. These include planners from architecture, landscape architecture, technology, sustainability, and accessibility, as well as experts from other disciplines, such as social and sociological fields, if needed. Neighbours and representatives of public interest groups are also represented, whereby each group can and should be represented by several persons. The task of the idea contributors is to deal with the various call issues raised in the context of an OP-OD process by developing and uploading individual ideas. All idea contributors — regardless of their professional or personal backgrounds — are entitled, and called upon to develop and formulate independent ideas. The role of the idea contributors is based on the principle of independent work on sub-questions of an overall project. This implies a low level of coordination with the collective of participants and a high level of self-organisation.

    • Idea pool

      The multitude of ideas and clues developed by idea contributors and uploaded to the project platform generates, and fills up, the so-called ‘pool of ideas’. As a result of the varied, individual perspectives of idea contributors, it contains a wide range of conceptions, points of view, and attitudes. The diversity (or polyphony) of the idea pool constitutes the foundation for the teamwork of the developers during the relevant development phase.

    • Idea contingents and idea tickets

      In each call round or idea phase, during which several call issues are always worked out in parallel, it is necessary to effectively organise the capacities and work efforts of the entire collective. This is achieved by issuing so-called ‘idea tickets’, which are assigned to each call question. Their distribution is based on a forecast of the anticipated and aimed-for pool of ideas. This forecast is prepared by taking into account the number of participants and the available fee budget. The expected pool of ideas is then divided into corresponding quotas. These are known to all idea contributors. On the project platform, idea contributors can specify which tickets they would prefer to process and, thereby, set priorities. At the beginning of each idea phase, it is then clear who will work on which ticket. This system enables automated agreement within the collective and, at the same time, ensures clear coordination.

    • Idea allowance

      In an OP-OD planning process, ideas are remunerated through so-called ‘idea allowances’. These allowances are determined on the basis of a pre-calculated quota of ideas in alignment with the available fee budget for the project itself. It makes sense to distinguish between elaborate ideas and less far-reaching clues, whereby the former receive a higher reward and the latter a correspondingly lower one. The minimum idea fee should be set at the beginning of an OP-OD process or at the time of the tender. It must be known to all participants. Its absolute amount should be proportionate to the expected average time required. (This demand could not be fulfilled during the first application — see section on real fictions.) One also needs to clearly define which participants may receive an idea allowance. For example, it must be decided whether users or representatives of public authorities will also receive an allowance. However, building owners’ representatives do not need to be rewarded with idea allowances, since they usually receive a fixed salary. As regards users, this can be decided on a case-by-case basis. For instance, members of an assembly which, as the case may be, consists of well-off, well-educated professionals are to be treated differently from a group of people living in precarious conditions. It is, therefore, important to examine each individual case.

    • Idea biography

      Eine Ideenbiografie zeichnet den Verlauf einer oder mehrerer Ideen durch den Planungsprozess eines Projektes mit der Methode OP-OD nach. Sie ist aber derzeit noch kein eigentliches oder gar (durch die digitale Projektplattform) automatisch erzeugtes Werkzeug oder Ergebnis der Methode. Sie muss derzeit noch manuell erstellt werden. Sie dient eher im Rückblick und für die Forschung der Frage nach der Wirksamkeit oder Nicht-Wirksamkeit von Ideen. Ideenbiographien zeigen auf, welche Ideen zu welcher Zeit entstanden und in den unterschiedlichen Synthesen Niederschlag fanden. Auch lässt sich anhand von Ideenbiografien der Einfluss einer Idee auf die jeweilige Synthese, aber auch auf andere darauf aufbauende Ideen oder von ihr inspirierten Ideen zurückverfolgen. Im ersten Anwendungsfall der Methode OP-OD wurden stets die in den unterschiedlichen Synthesen und Syntheseständen verwendeten Ideen im entsprechenden Deckblatt eines Plansatzes mit angegeben. Perspektivisch gesehen wäre es aber interessant, wenn die digitale Plattform die Rückverfolgung von Ideen selbst aufzeichnen könnte. Einzig eine Verlagerung der eigentlich kollektiven Planungsleistung, die das Ziel der Methode OP-OD ist, hin zu einer sehr starken Betonung der Autor*innenschaft einzelner an einzelnen, erfolgreichen Ideen ist hier abzuwägen. Gleichzeitig zeigen exemplarische Ideenbiografien aus dem Projekt metso`metso, dass – selbst im Falle von prägenden Ideen – die kollektive Leistung durch deren sukzessive Transformation im Laufe der Entwicklungsphasen und der weiteren Ideenphasen sogar eher betont als relativiert wird. Man wird aber sehen, wie sich dies in weiteren Anwendungen der Methode OP-OD darstellen wird.

    • Development phase

      Each development phase rests on the results of the relevant idea phase: the ideas and clues found in the idea pool are viewed, sorted, selected, put in relation to each other and, finally, further worked out by the developers. In contrast to the idea phase, the development phase is always about the interaction between several topics and many elements of the design task, and about the search for a comprehensive architectural solution. With each further project stage, more and more elements and ideas come into the pool and, thus, into the planning-related negotiation and processing within the corresponding development phase. In addition, each development phase builds on the outputs of the previous project stage — expanded with the new call issues and their related ideas. During early project stages, the outputs (= syntheses, see below) of the development phase therefore do not yet amount to a complete design; hence they are still to be viewed, at least in part, as fragmentary solutions. At the end of the final development phase, however, a consistent design should emerge. In the course of each development phase, it is in principle possible to put earlier results to the test again and modify them.

    • Developer / development team

      In an OP-OD process, developers are recruited from the overall idea contributors collective. They are chosen either by the collective as a whole, or by specific sub-groups of the collective, for instance planners from the field of architecture or other disciplines, or by the user group, either through a (secret) ballot or another selection procedure. The developers group consists of about eight to twelve people. It is composed of representatives of the stakeholders who are key to the project, including building owners, users, architects, planners from technical disciplines, other experts, neighbours and, if necessary, representatives of public interest groups. Owing to the allocation of work during the development phase and the need to take action in planning terms, it is usually necessary that for a task in, for example, the structural engineering sector, several representatives from the architecture planners group should participate in the development phase at the same time. Within a short period of only a few weeks, these developers, who act on behalf of all the idea contributors involved, work together intensively and full-time as a collective. They gradually develop the design of the house or of the planning task. The task of the developers is to sort, test, synthesise, and consolidate individual solutions collected in the pool of ideas into first (and, then, subsequent) intermediate planning results (= syntheses). They take essential decisions by mutual consent [Konsent]. They are not bound to the idea contributors group by any instructions. Each developer has a free brief.

    • Idea backpack = idea bundle

      The idea backpack is a key methodological component of OP-OD development phases. At the beginning of each development phase, all developers ‘pack’ an idea backpack according to certain project-specific stipulations. The backpack is a pre-structured tool on the digital platform. This process involves participants looking at, and assessing all uploaded call ideas. Each developer thus selects the ideas that they consider the most interesting, relevant, and promising and packs them into their own idea backpack. Each developer then presents their selection or decision. This results in initial, substantive mutual exchanges between all developers on the advantages or disadvantages, potential, and synergies of the submitted ideas. Building on this, the entire developer team then collectively packs one or more collective idea backpacks. This is to be understood as an essential, collective participatory negotiation process with regard to the values and demands of the design. Idea backpacks are documented on the digital project platform and anyone can view them at any time. The ideas they contain can also be traced back. As the sum total of the ideas contained in it, each collective idea backpack forms a first (or, later on during the process, a fuller) version of the design.

    • (Preliminary) results = syntheses

      A synthesis during the processing of a design task using the OP-OD method always entails a combination, in planning terms, of individual ideas and clues that were generated during the idea phases. In contrast to the idea backpack (or idea bundle), however, in a synthesis individual ideas are no longer simply placed unchanged next to each other: they have already been combined into a whole. Usually, they have been adjusted to each other and thus slightly modified. However, a synthesis will not yet necessarily constitute a completed or thorough design sketch that is fully consistent or devoid of contradictions. During the development phase process, syntheses are created immediately after the idea backpacks. Hence, as a rule, first syntheses are always available halfway through the development phase and can be discussed during developer group negotiations. The output of each development phase is also referred to as a synthesis in OP-OD, all the way to the final output of the overall process. Hence every overall design is ultimately a synthesis, but conversely not every synthesis is an overall design. The ‘completed’ syntheses in each development phase serve as a groundwork for each further project stage. They are returned to the idea contributor as preliminary planning results. Any further call questions will then be based on them, even if new calls also raise completely new project issues that have not yet been dealt with. This is possible because syntheses serve as open preliminary results that might still undergo significant changes later on in the process. Yet the negotiations and decisions reached through agreement by the developers and incorporated into them should not lightly be disallowed.

    • Package insert

      Each synthesis that is returned to the idea contributors at the end of one development phase and the start of the next idea phase contains a so-called package insert. The developers can explain important elements of the synthesis from their points of view, list open questions, or investigations still deemed necessary, or more in-depth planning needs but, also, ask direct questions to the idea contributors. In addition, each synthesis is also accompanied by a list of the ideas used or taken into account in it.

    • Idea review

      An idea review is a tool that should be mandatory midpoint in every development phase, but can also be used again and again. The basis of an idea review are the preliminary planning results achieved in the course of the development phase, i.e. a first synthesis. The synthesis is examined with regard to its problems and open questions and, if necessary, also discussed. Aided by this knowledge, the developers review the entire idea pool once again and examine whether a problem-solving approach to the open questions of the synthesis can be found in one of the ideas not previously considered or applied or, even, whether whole ideas in a synthesis should be swapped in favour of others. The idea review thus serves as an iterative loop in the collective design process. In addition, the OP-OD method seeks to ensure that no ideas are overlooked and, above all, that the linking of the developers’ work with the idea contributors’ work is as profound as possible in the sense of joint authorship.

    • Daily rates for development

      The developers receive remuneration in the form of daily rates that are the same for all parties involved. These rates are irrespective of their particular qualifications. The daily rate should correspond to a full-time freelance income (excluding VAT). At the beginning of a planning project, a distribution key will be specified, which defines how much time each person involved will spend per development phase. This key is intended to reflect the expected workload of the various contributors. Development teams, however, are free to redistribute the daily rates amongst themselves. Thus, for example, an architecture planner will receive ten daily fees for a two-week development phase, while a technical discipline planner might receive only five daily fees. In this way, the workload can be mapped, whereby the work of each individual is of equal value.
      In any case, assistance provided by users or neighbours should also be remunerated at the same daily rate. This should make the participation of all social groups affordable. The building owners’ representatives, on the other hand, usually do not receive any fee in the form of a daily development rate, since these persons receive a fixed salary for their work anyway. In individual cases of building owners involved on a voluntary basis, however, this may be understood differently.

    • Architecture team (Arch-Team for short)

      The architecture team consists of those architects who have been appointed by the collective (usually the architecture planners) by (secret) ballot to move the planning forward, in the wake of the actual collective planning process, on behalf of the entire group and within an agreed framework to the more advanced service phases of the HOAI [German ordinance regulating the fees for architectural and engineering services]. However, this procedure is not yet feasible for public planning tasks (see Thresholds).

    • Reimbursement and remuneration

      In all phases of a planning process using the OP-OD method, participants receive an allowance that should correspond to the assistance provided (see idea allowance and development daily rate). The usual prize money in a conventional competition, as well as the processing fees for the planning phases to be provided through the OP-OD method (such as Service Phases 2 and 3 according to HOAI) are added up to a single sum. This sum should be distributed fairly in alignment with the number of participants (idea contributors), development phases, and developers. To ensure that no one is underpaid, adjustment is carried out in reverse precisely thanks to these ‘setscrews’: the number of idea contributors or idea tickets (see above) and the number of development phases and developers.

    • Open Source

      The OP-OD method has been developed and is being applied as an open source method. It is inspired by ideas from the software development field. In that field, the approach is about creating products whose source code is publicly accessible. This can be modified and distributed at will by any person. Such products are then released under an open source license. This means that the source code is visible to all users and can be further modified by them. Open source products, whether in software development or other sectors, are developed in a decentralised and collaborative manner, and are based on the principles of peer review and community production. The OP-OD method also strives for free applicability and adaptability, albeit on a slightly smaller scale or involving less complexity. It is explained in the digital guide available at www.op-od.de. Individual modules can be transferred and adapted to one’s own projects, which makes a decentralised application possible. In this way, continuous further development of the method by the community of all users and interested parties can take place. In this regard, no medium or method for this reverse process has been defined yet.

    • Scrum (software development)

      Scrum is a framework model. It organises team collaboration for the processing of tasks, primarily in software development. Scrum defines specific roles, meeting arrangements, and tools that enable a structured, clearly defined work process underpinned by agile principles. The basic terminology and role of developers in OP-OD suggest a loose analogy to Scrum. The method emphasises agility in project management, which is achieved through an iterative, incremental way of working. A Scrum project begins with the formulation of a clear objective in a complex subject area where it is difficult to plan ahead. Scrum is characterised by few, simple rules; the self-organisation of the team takes centre stage. The only fixed element is the project objective. A project is divided into phases in advance and the team is provided with certain methodological tools to carry out the work and check it. For example, the project objective is divided into smaller work packages that are controlled through tickets, and progress is recorded in a burndown chart. The efficiency of the methodological approach plays a crucial role. Several building blocks of the Scrum method served as fundamental inspiration in the development of OP-OD, but were reinterpreted. When wrestling with the Scrum method, it was found that its process modules could not be directly transferred to the architectural planning process. The OP-OD method differs significantly from the Scrum method in many key aspects. For example, it borrows at least as much from (open) competition procedures and classic participation models in architecture as it does from Scrum. On the whole, the OP-OD method is therefore a stand-alone symbiosis of many distinct elements.

    • Digital (project) platform

      A digital platform is an essential part of a planning process using the OP-OD method. It enables a decentralised, effective, free organisation of both the collective and the process. The specific project platform acts as a vital anchor for the process, successively recording and documenting the following: all basic project information; the content and time structure; all issues raised in the calls; the distribution of call tickets; detailed project steps; all appointments; the various organisational units (such as the idea contributors collective and the development teams); all role profiles; all elections and votes; as well as all ideas, syntheses, and the final result. All of the above can be consulted by the participants. The platform, currently only available as a working prototype, also already offers a few embedded tools specific to OP-OD, for example for packing idea backpacks and for idea reviews. The extent to which the platform should also provide further options for communication and comment will depend on the individual requirements of a specific project.

    • Konsent

      Text folgt

    ↑

  • PILOTPROJEKT

  • (REAL)FIKTIONEN

  • ABOUT / PRIVACY