When integration goes wrong: Learning from the mistakes of practitioners

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This paper presents the results of research that was conducted by interviewing architects and structural engineering practitioners to find more specificity on the topic of integration among the two fields. The responses analyzed here are those that portray the undesirable integration missteps. The results yield a framing of integration that is narrower than one might expect. Two areas of poor integration identified by architects give particular insight into the structural engineering and architecture relationship: the improper intellectual framing of the project and the perceived conservatism of the engineer. For engineers, the responses centered on the failure of the regular interactions of the professionals and the lack of architectural leadership. Beyond the profession-specific themes, a comparison of the responses from all practitioners shows that integration lapses happen when the structure itself is too large or a lack of foresight causes errors to arise during construction. The opportunity to review and criticize examples of bad integration, especially when contrasted with positive definitions, demonstrates that integration is multifaceted. Small process-based missteps can color the way a practitioner views the success of integration in a project or work methodology. In comparison to positive examples of integration, which include hope, aspiration, and aims, negative factors show that, along with the ideals, the daily working relationship between the architect and engineer is equally important.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number05016001
JournalJournal of Architectural Engineering
Volume22
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2016

Fingerprint

Structural design
Engineers
Mistakes
Color
Interaction
Conservatism
Lapse
Causes
Ideal
Aspiration
Regular
Specificity
Methodology
Foresight
Interviewing

Keywords

  • Architecture
  • Integrated systems
  • Integration
  • Professional practice
  • Structural engineers

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Civil and Structural Engineering
  • Architecture
  • Building and Construction
  • Visual Arts and Performing Arts

Cite this

When integration goes wrong : Learning from the mistakes of practitioners. / Uihlein, Marci Smith.

In: Journal of Architectural Engineering, Vol. 22, No. 2, 05016001, 01.06.2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{915405aaccee41cfa2af1017cbf3d9aa,
title = "When integration goes wrong: Learning from the mistakes of practitioners",
abstract = "This paper presents the results of research that was conducted by interviewing architects and structural engineering practitioners to find more specificity on the topic of integration among the two fields. The responses analyzed here are those that portray the undesirable integration missteps. The results yield a framing of integration that is narrower than one might expect. Two areas of poor integration identified by architects give particular insight into the structural engineering and architecture relationship: the improper intellectual framing of the project and the perceived conservatism of the engineer. For engineers, the responses centered on the failure of the regular interactions of the professionals and the lack of architectural leadership. Beyond the profession-specific themes, a comparison of the responses from all practitioners shows that integration lapses happen when the structure itself is too large or a lack of foresight causes errors to arise during construction. The opportunity to review and criticize examples of bad integration, especially when contrasted with positive definitions, demonstrates that integration is multifaceted. Small process-based missteps can color the way a practitioner views the success of integration in a project or work methodology. In comparison to positive examples of integration, which include hope, aspiration, and aims, negative factors show that, along with the ideals, the daily working relationship between the architect and engineer is equally important.",
keywords = "Architecture, Integrated systems, Integration, Professional practice, Structural engineers",
author = "Uihlein, {Marci Smith}",
year = "2016",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000207",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
journal = "Journal of Architectural Engineering",
issn = "1076-0431",
publisher = "American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - When integration goes wrong

T2 - Learning from the mistakes of practitioners

AU - Uihlein, Marci Smith

PY - 2016/6/1

Y1 - 2016/6/1

N2 - This paper presents the results of research that was conducted by interviewing architects and structural engineering practitioners to find more specificity on the topic of integration among the two fields. The responses analyzed here are those that portray the undesirable integration missteps. The results yield a framing of integration that is narrower than one might expect. Two areas of poor integration identified by architects give particular insight into the structural engineering and architecture relationship: the improper intellectual framing of the project and the perceived conservatism of the engineer. For engineers, the responses centered on the failure of the regular interactions of the professionals and the lack of architectural leadership. Beyond the profession-specific themes, a comparison of the responses from all practitioners shows that integration lapses happen when the structure itself is too large or a lack of foresight causes errors to arise during construction. The opportunity to review and criticize examples of bad integration, especially when contrasted with positive definitions, demonstrates that integration is multifaceted. Small process-based missteps can color the way a practitioner views the success of integration in a project or work methodology. In comparison to positive examples of integration, which include hope, aspiration, and aims, negative factors show that, along with the ideals, the daily working relationship between the architect and engineer is equally important.

AB - This paper presents the results of research that was conducted by interviewing architects and structural engineering practitioners to find more specificity on the topic of integration among the two fields. The responses analyzed here are those that portray the undesirable integration missteps. The results yield a framing of integration that is narrower than one might expect. Two areas of poor integration identified by architects give particular insight into the structural engineering and architecture relationship: the improper intellectual framing of the project and the perceived conservatism of the engineer. For engineers, the responses centered on the failure of the regular interactions of the professionals and the lack of architectural leadership. Beyond the profession-specific themes, a comparison of the responses from all practitioners shows that integration lapses happen when the structure itself is too large or a lack of foresight causes errors to arise during construction. The opportunity to review and criticize examples of bad integration, especially when contrasted with positive definitions, demonstrates that integration is multifaceted. Small process-based missteps can color the way a practitioner views the success of integration in a project or work methodology. In comparison to positive examples of integration, which include hope, aspiration, and aims, negative factors show that, along with the ideals, the daily working relationship between the architect and engineer is equally important.

KW - Architecture

KW - Integrated systems

KW - Integration

KW - Professional practice

KW - Structural engineers

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84969974958&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84969974958&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000207

DO - 10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000207

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84969974958

VL - 22

JO - Journal of Architectural Engineering

JF - Journal of Architectural Engineering

SN - 1076-0431

IS - 2

M1 - 05016001

ER -