The OP-OD method is based on four principles underlying known, proven planning approaches and project selection procedures:
- Diversity of solutions, openness and the ideal of fairness as in open architectural competitions
- User participation
- Collective open source programming as found in the field of agile software development
- 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:
- The use of new planning tools such as OP-OD leads to more sustainable planning outcomes in building construction – here focusing on residential construction.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- 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.
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
