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.
