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.
