INVESTIGATING DESIGN AS RESEARCH:

UNDERSTANDING R&D ACTIVITIES IN AUSTRALIAN

ARCHITECTURAL PRACTICES
Peter Raisbeck1

Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning The University of Melbourne Victoria 3010, Australia

Within the property and construction industry architectural design is generally seen as
a problem solving activity which meets client needs. Through design, architects
respond to a brief by using their design expertise to visualize and integrate together
different building systems. However as buildings have become more complex
architects are beginning to argue that design is not simply a problem solving activity
in its own right. In this view, design is a research process which is unique. However,
this view is quite different from accepted norms of what constitutes scientific research
or research and development. Moreover in Australia very little is known about the
R&D activities of architects and how these relate to the concept of design as research.
Understanding how different practices undertake R&D and how much of this might
be embedded in architectural design activities is important. Four case studies of
architectural practices employing semi-structured interviews will be presented. The
data gathered from these case studies were used to structure a broader online survey
which was distributed to 1100 architects and received 92 responses. Architects
conduct a range of what they identify as original research activities but few architects
document or formalize these activities. For this reason identifying the research
activities that architects conduct through the design and project delivery process is a
first step in understanding how design activities drive construction innovation.

Keywords: architecture, design, research and development, research methods.

INTRODUCTION
Recent scholarship in architecture and architectural theory argues that architectural
design is a research activity in its own right. Downton argues that design is a “way of
enquiring a way of producing knowledge; this means it is a way of researching.”
(Downton 2003). In this view, designing a building is regarded as a research project
which generates new knowledge and innovations which are then constructed. As Radu
asserts “The process of architectural design is close to the process of knowledge
creation in the sciences” (Radu 2006: 345). In architectural schools, design based
research has been given credence with the rise of design focused PhD programmes
(Radu 2006, Melles 2009). As Short notes, amongst architects there has been a
renewed interest in research in architecture as evidenced by the RIBA 2007 annual
research symposium which focused on this issue (Short 2008). As Jane Rendell was to
note at this Symposia "If, as some have argued, design is already a form of research,
then we need to explore how we might distinguish between design-as-research and
research-as-design, and question on what grounds and why such a distinction might

1
[email protected]

Raisbeck, P (2010) Investigating design as research: understanding R&D activities in Australian

architectural practices. In: Egbu, C. (Ed) Procs 26th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6-8 September 2010,
Leeds, UK, Association of Researchers in Construction Management, 747-756.
Raisbeck

matter. We should also pay attention to a relatively quiet but fascinating discussion
around design research quality, and how excellence in this area is to be recognized.
We can probably agree that not all excellent research is excellent design, but is all
excellent design also excellent research?" (Rendell 2007). In February 2006, the
National Education Council (NEC) of the AIA (then called the RAIA) convened a
workshop to discuss how architectural research in Australia should be documented
and how its impacts were to be understood in the discipline. The subsequent research
policy recognized creative works, for example buildings or the design of buildings as
constituting "the highest levels of achievement in architecture research" (AIA 2009).
Despite this activity and theoretical debate, both in the UK and in Australia, very little
empirical data has been gathered about the “design as research” or R&D activities in
architectural firms.
The intent of this research is not simply to point to the ways in which Australian
architects can gain R&D tax concessions. It goes deeper than that. Recent policy
developments point to the need to begin to measure and benchmark R&D and its
outcomes in architectural practices. Understanding how small professional consulting
firms conduct R&D aids an understanding of how it might be conducted in other
property and construction firms. Quantifying what might constitute R&D in
Australian architectural firms is timely in light of the new tax credit which provides a
45 per cent refundable credit for firms with an annual turnover of less than $20
million. This means that small firms, which encompasses most Australian
architectural firms, will receive a tax refund which effectively doubles the current
level of support for such firms (ATO 2010). Another aspect of this research surrounds
the introduction of Excellence in Research for Australia initiative (ERA) metrics to
measure research outputs in Australian Universities. For example, some industry
practitioners who work in architectural schools demand that designing a building
should be counted in university research metrics. Universities, however, want research
publication outcomes that enhance their academic reputation.
Aims
Architectural design considered as research and development is obviously different to
textual modes of research, or scientific research, because it encompasses a range of
media—such as drawing and, more recently, computer modelling (Chi 2007). How
might design research, as it has been termed, differ from what the construction
management community regards as empirical research? If design is seen as a being
akin to the process of knowledge creation in the sciences, how might it relate to peer
contested methodologies and research methods? Given that R&D can in theory lead to
innovative outcomes in construction, it is important to understand the architects’ role
in this; especially if architects are regarded as “systems integrators” with a significant
role to play in leading processes of design and construction innovation (Gann 2000,
Gann 2005). In theory, every design concept and its constructed realization in built
form is the result of a unique process, a process that is the result of much knowledge
based research activity. This suggests that it is correct to regard architects as
“knowledge-intensive” professionals who often operate in project based situations of
complexity and ambiguity (Lu and Sexton 2006). But Rylander, in an extensive study
of the literature on design thinking as knowledge work, highlights that there are no
case studies on knowledge intensive design firms (Rylander 2008). Hence, despite
these theoretical claims very little is understood about the kinds of knowledge or
innovations created within architectural firms. Nor is it clear how using design skills

748
Design as research

to solve problems differs from traditional R&D activities that result in new product
development or other innovations.
Definitions and design frameworks
The OECD states that "Research and Development (R&D) comprise creative work
undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase the stock of knowledge,
including knowledge of man, culture and society, and the use of this stock of
knowledge to devise new applications. R&D is a term covering three activities: basic
research, applied research, and experimental development" (OECD 2008). The
definitions described under Australian Commonwealth legislation are a useful starting
point to understand how R&D might be defined in an architectural firm. R&D is
described in terms of activities, as compared to theoretical concepts or intentions, on a
project basis. Hence, an R&D project is “a set of co-ordinated and controlled activities
with a start and finish date, undertaken to achieve an objective.” Under Australian
law, all R&D projects must contain at least one “systematic, investigative and
experimental” activity (ATO 2010).
Indeed, as suggested above in recent architectural theory the concept of design as
research has been linked to a tradition of architectural experimentation. It has been
suggested that “architectural experimentation requires a rigorous feedback between
design and research" and this "has been at play in design pedagogy since at least the
1960s” (Furján 2007: 62). As has been noted, architectural design as research has
increasingly been regarded as a unique activity because “all architects ever do is
design and build prototypes” (Kieran 2007: 27). Lawson notes that architectural
design processes are complex and need to be distinguished from engineering
definitions of optimized design. But he argues that many of the maps or descriptions
of the design process tend to be overly theoretical or prescriptive and thus tend to
place a value on linear descriptions of the design process sometimes ignoring the
iterative design process that take place within a particular design exercise (Lawson,
1980: 29). To complicate things further, Lawson argues that, amongst other things,
design knowledge is based on precedent and this is a central feature of the design
process (Lawson, 2004: 93).
Approach
The hypothesis of this research is to begin to test the proposition that: architects
undertake original design research and this is distinct from the other modes of design
or R&D that architects undertake in their firms. Having identified these distinctions
the research quantified the percentage of time architects typically spend on research in
different sized practices. The above hypothesis was tested by asking the following
primary questions: How much time do architects spend on creating new design
knowledge in each phase of the practice lifecycle? Are some projects, such as
competition entries, used to develop new design knowledge within the firm? Do
different types of practices conduct different types of original design research? What
kinds of other research activities do architects conduct in their practices? What kind of
innovations does this activity produce? This extends my previous research and the
definitions I have already developed (Raisbeck 2006, 2008).
In order to begin to pinpoint both explicit and implicit R&D practices in architectural
firms a two stage or phase approach was chosen. In the first phase, in-depth series of
firm case studies were developed. Structured interviews were undertaken with four
Australian architectural firms. A pilot interview was undertaken in order to clarify and
test the survey instrument questions. This interview is not included in the results as it

749
Raisbeck

did not capture the same qualitative data. The results of the interviews are set out in
Tables 1 to 4.
The aim of the interviews was to ascertain what kinds of activities the architects took
in relation to R&D and design by research. A diverse range of practices were selected
in an attempt ensure a broad range of so-called design research practices were
examined. Another selection consideration was the aim of investigating practices of
different size and years in business. Five practices were approached and interviewed.
These ranged from a small practice with five staff to firms with up to 50 staff. Most
of the in-depth interviews were undertaken with either directors or senior members of
staff. All of the practices interviewed affirmed that original design research, as we had
defined it, was a significant part of designing across the practice lifecycle.
The survey questions were structured by the typical project stages in which
architectural offices have traditionally been organized. These stages were: briefing
and feasibility up to and including concept and schematic design (SD), design
development (DD), contract documentation (CD), and contract administration (CA).
Both the structured interview surveys and the online survey made the distinction
between design orientated tasks and those tasks devoted to original design research.
Architects do not spend all of their time designing and within any particular stage of
the practice lifecycle they will need to spend time assessing briefing information,
organizing workflows, meeting with clients and co-ordinating consultants and other
non-design administrative tasks.
RESULTS
Structured interview results
Practice A is a national firm based in Melbourne with around 50 staff. It has
completed apartment buildings, museums, art galleries and university buildings. The
practice is involved in furniture manufacturing business which allows it to quickly
prototype models. It has received a number of state and national AIA awards for these
projects. Within the office, design information is transferred across the office by
“creative” staff meetings once a week.
Practice B is also a national firm based in Melbourne. R&D in the practice is market
driven in that the firms formal R&D efforts are an effort by the practice to anticipate
how it might gain future competitive advantage and new revenue streams. This
practice had 50 staff in Melbourne and 20 in Sydney plus a small office in Hanoi. In
addition there is a 15 to 20 person research group devoted to research into
systematized housing construction and bushfire resistant housing. The firms R&D
efforts are formalized and a taxation concession is claimed. This group has a number
of patents but little of its output has been commercialized.
Practice C is a 10 year old practice which has completed a number of award winning
projects up to $30M dollars in value. The firm’s philosophy is to approach design as a
research activity which encompasses form making, computer modelling and
programming, alongside social and cultural conditions. It has around five staff
depending on workloads. Both directors of the firm have strong connections with a
university. The firm considers that research is a core activity and each project is
approached as a unique set of circumstances.
Founded in 1983, Practice D has an office in Melbourne with four staff and a second
small office in central London with two staff. The firms focus is on client based
research and prototyping. It employs four staff and has adopted a research consulting

750
Design as research

model to specialize in retail and work environments. In the early stages of each
project, the firm undertakes a number of research orientated methods including “think
tank” and concept sessions, scenario planning and spatial prototyping (building
physical mock-ups of spaces). Whilst the practice does document each project in
terms of the research outcomes, such as prototypes, it has no formal R&D procedures
in place.
Table 1: Practice A
Practice A SD DD CD CA
Research Client context Workplace Materials and Minimal design
undertaken: and disciplinary research systems research or
language of research R&D
clients (e.g. Non-standard
biosciences) details and
Local building products
systems and
methods
New materials
Historic
precedents
Climatic design
Time 60-90% in this 50-60% Not quantified Minimal design
allocation: stage allocated allocated to research or
to design design. R&D
20% of this 6-15% project
would be specific
original design research
research.

Table 2: Practice B
Practice B SD DD CD CA
Research Compilation of Discussion with Resolution of Minimal design
undertaken: base external details research or
information. consultants Construction R&D as a result
Climatic Material methods and of on site
research research. supply chain changes.
logistics
Time 60% on design 85% allocated 15-20% Minimal design
allocation: Original design to design. allocated to research or
research varies (50/50 between design R&D
as it is project design and Original design
specific. presentation). research would
Original design be 15-20%
research 30%

751
Raisbeck

Table 3: Practice C
Practice C SD DD CD CA
Research Project specific Incorporating Minimal design
undertaken: technical research or
information and R&D
project
constraints.
Time 50 to 60% 70% devoted to 20-30% Minimal design
allocation: allocated to design. devoted to research or
design. Original design design. A third R&D
Half or 30% of research 50% or 10% of total
this time time in this
allocated to stage devoted to
original design original R&D
research and
innovation.

Table 4: Practice D
Practice D CD DD CD CA
Research Interviews Scenario Technological
undertaken: Client development research.
workshops Data
collection
Time 30% devoted to 30% devoted to 30% devoted to 30% devoted to
allocation: original R&D. original R&D original R and original R and
30% of time prototyping D D
spent on design

Online survey
The case study data was reviewed in order to develop the online survey. The online
survey was designed to be much shorter and relatively quick to complete. Eleven
hundred and thirty two Australian architectural offices were approached via an online
survey tool and there were 91 respondents. The online survey form established the
research profile of the company in terms of numbers employed in the company and if
the company had a formal R&D programme, any links with research centres and how
many people in the practice worked specifically on R&D. The next section of the
online survey ascertained how research, if any, was documented in the office. This
was a key question to ascertain the level of research documentation and what
procedures were in place to verify this. Respondents were asked to consider this in
relation to the largest project in their office.
For each practice stage the respondents were asked what percentage of time was
allocated to design in each stage. This question was asked with the assumption that
design activities continue even after the architect has created the initial or concept
design. In order to distinguish between normative and routine design tasks,
respondents were then asked about the total amount of time spent on design in each
stage. Following this, respondents were asked what percentage of this time was
allocated to original design research. In other words the amount of time spent on
conjectural design tasks such as researching products or materials, building systems or
non-standard details. Such tasks, in practice, may mean iteratively designing by trial
and error a new detail for a building element that brings together existing products and
materials in an entirely new way. In addition this element may be part of a building
design that is itself a response to a unique brief, site context and budget.

752
Design as research

Online survey results

Most of the practices surveyed were small practices. Eleven hundred surveys were
sent out using an online survey tool and 95 completed. They would fall under the
category of SMEs but most were what might be regarded as micro-businesses with
less than five staff. Eighty-six percent of these were incorporated as companies under
Australian law. Fifty-seven percent of those surveyed had between one and five
employees, 23% had between six and ten employees and 23% had more than ten
employees. Eight percent of respondents had more than 30 people employed. Eighty-
nine percent of practices reported that they did not have a formal R&D programme in
place and only 8% said that they had links with a university or co-operative research
centre. Nevertheless, 37% of survey respondents indicated that their practice had staff
who worked specifically on R&D and 68% indicated that they had an informal R&D
programme in their firm.
Table 5: No. of firms (92 in total) allocating time to design and original design research by
stage
Briefing to Schematic Design Development Contract Contract
Design Documentation Administration
% time Firms Firms Firms Firms Firms Firms Firms Firms
allocation allocating allocating allocating allocating allocating allocating allocating allocating
this % of this % of this % of this % of this % of this % of this % of this % of
Design time for time for time for time for time for time for time for
time Original Design Original Design Original Design Original
Design Design Design Design
Research Research Research Research
0-20% 8 34 9 31 23 43 65 72
20-30% 9 26 12 25 24 28 18 12
31-40% 19 16 12 12 18 6 3 1
41-50% 10 9 15 13 9 6 1 2
51-60% 14 4 13 5 8 4 2 2
61-70% 18 2 13 3 5 3 1 0
71-80% 9 0 14 1 5 1 1 0
Greater
than 80% 5 1 4 1 0 1 0 1

There was little documentation of the research activities in the offices surveyed.
Seventy-two percent of respondents had no formal procedure for the collection of
design data in their offices and yet 56% indicated that for each project they had a
separate section or directory file devoted to research. Sixty-eight percent of
respondents indicated that timesheets were the principal method by which research
was accounted for. Only 13% of offices wrote research reports on the information they
had collected and yet 89% of practices stated that the research information they might
collect on a project is used on other projects.
Almost all of the responding 92 firms allocated time to design throughout the
lifecycle. The schematic design and design development appear to be the most
intensive in terms of design time. In the initial design phase, 46 of the 92 firms
allocated more than 51% of their time to design. In terms of original design research,
it can be seen that eight firms claimed in the survey to have devoted more than 51% of
their time to this during the schematic design phase. However, 51 of the 92 firms
reported that they had spent at least 20% to 50% of their time involved in original
design research during this stage. In the next stage, design development, 44 of the

753
Raisbeck

firms reported having allocated more than 51% of their time to design and 39 firms
reported having allocated between 21% and 30% of their time to design. By the
contract administration stage, normally the time when the project is under
construction, the majority of firms are spending less then 20% of their time on original
design research.
DISCUSSION
The results confirm that architects regard themselves as being engaged with the
process of creating original design knowledge throughout the project lifecycle. The
responses all affirmed that design activities, and what was termed original design
research, continued through each stage of the practice lifecycle. Once a project was in
the construction phase, this tended to diminish. This research is limited in as much as
it did not try and quantify the amount of time devoted to these activities in detail via
an inspection of logs or time sheets or observation. However, it still points to the idea
that architects are producing original design knowledge customized and intended for
particular site conditions, briefs, budgets and clients. In theory, the design of every
building is different and even those buildings that are repetitive or made from standard
elements arguably may still require a degree of original design research. Surprisingly,
a majority of practices indicated that the research information that they gathered on
one project might be used on other projects and yet few practices mentioned the role
of competitions and unbuilt projects in their responses.
Only one practice (practice B) had formal R&D procedures in place in order to claim
the R&D taxation concession. This practice had grown to the point where it had
formed a separated related company whose purpose was to conduct research, develop
patents and commercialize this work. This practice had developed a number of patents
in the area of prefabrication and had a formal programme in place. The other three
companies, whilst all claiming to be interested in the idea that practice based design
research and research and development were important, did not have formal
programmes. Of these practices, only one had developed procedures for managing and
documenting the original design outcomes, client workshops and prototyping that
were the result of their research endeavours. It would appear that most original design
research in architect’s offices was stored in files, either in physical files or in digital
form. Nonetheless, this points to the fact that this knowledge is largely implicit within
the firm and rarely is it made explicit through systematic documentation in order to
strategically direct design processes in order to gain taxation R&D concessions or
commercialization via patents.
CONCLUSION
Architects appear to devote a great deal of design time to solving unique and original
problems across the practice lifecycle. The study points to the range of design
activities that architects undertake in order to realize project designs. These activities
include a range of problem solving and design related research activities such as data
collection, workshops, internet searching and drawing. In addition, it demonstrates the
degree to which they research historic precedents, climatic issues, construction
methods, products and materials. Arguably, few other construction professionals
would actively have this broad range of skills and expertise at their disposal. It also
points to the emergence of new skills amongst architects related to the scripting of
programmes, 3D digital modelling and prototyping. Clearly, further research could
quantify how much time was spent conducting these design related activities on
different projects and then quantify how the design knowledge from these activities

754
Design as research

was captured and used on further projects. More importantly, further research might
begin to look at how this design knowledge drives construction innovation in the
construction and project delivery phase and how the benefits of this knowledge are
transferred to other parties such as other consultants, contractors, sub-contractors and
even clients also involved in the project delivery process.
REFERENCES
AIA (2009) Understanding research excellence in architecture, (available at
http://www.architecture.com.au/policy/pages/research/further-information.php
accessed 050610)
Australian Taxation Office (ATO, 2010) Research and development tax concession, (available
at http://www.ato.gov.au/businesses/content.asp?doc=/content/34627.htm accessed
051006)
Chi, L (2007) Translations between design research and scholarship. Journal of Architectural
Education, 61(1), 7-10.
Downton, P (2003) Design research. Melbourne: RMIT Publishing.
Furján, H (2007) Added Design/Research. Journal of Architectural Education, 61(1), 62-68.
Gann, D, and Salter, A (2000) Innovation in project-based, service enhanced firms; the
construction of complex products and systems. Research Policy 29, 955-972.
Gann, D Brady, T Davies, A (2005) Can integrated solutions business models work in
construction. Building Research and Information, 33(6), 571-579.
Kieran, S (2007) Research in Design. Journal of Architectural Education, 61(1), 27-31.
Lawson, B (1980) How designers think. London: Architectural Press; Westfield, N.J.:
Eastview Editions.
Lawson, B (2004) What designers know. Boston, MA: Elsevier/Architectural Press.
Melles, G (2009) Global perspectives on structured research training in doctorates of design –
what do we value?, Design Studies, 30(3), 255-271.
OECD (2008), OECD Factbook 2008: Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics,
(available at http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/oecd/content/book/factbook-2008-
en;jsessionid=5ak701710flr8.delta accessed 050610).
Radu, F (2006) Inside looking out: a framework for discussing the question of architectural
design doctorates. The Journal of Architecture, 11(3), 345–51.
Raisbeck, P (2008), Misperceptions Of Architectural Production And Risk: A Case Study of
the Architect’s Role In A PPP Project Construction Construction Management and
Economics 26(11),1145 – 1157.
Rendell J (2007) Some Notes on Architecture and Design Research, The Bartlett, University
College London RIBA Research Symposium 2007, Reflections on practice: capturing
innovation and creativity available at (available at
http://test.riba.contensis.co.uk/TheRIBA/WhatTheRIBADoes/ResearchAndDevelopm
ent/ResearchSymposium/RIBAResearchSymposium2007.aspx accessed 050610)
Rylander A (2008), Design Thinking as Knowledge Work Epistemological Foundations and
Practical Implications. International DMI Education Conference, Design thinking:
New challenges for designers, managers, and organizations, 14-15 April, 2008,
ESSEC Business School, Cergy-Pointoize, France.
Short, A (2008), What is ‘architectural design research’? Building Research and Information,
36(2) March 2008, 195 – 199.

755
Raisbeck

Shu-Ling, L and Sexton, M (2006) Innovation in small construction knowledge-intensive

professional service firms: a case study of an architectural practice. Construction
Management and Economics 24,1269-1282.

756