Home Improvements:

Knowledge Exchange in

the Creative Economy

Final Report

hi homeimprovements

School of Architecture

Arts Tower, Western Bank

ISBN 978-0-9576914-8-3

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the copyright owner.

While every effort has been made to check the accuracy and quality of the information given in this publication, the Publisher will not accept any responsibility for the subsequent use of this information, for any errors or omissions that it may contain, or for any misunderstandings arising from it.

Acknowledgements

AHRC: Susan Amor, Michael Keegan and Ellie Ricketts-Jones.

Prof Jonathan Dovey, AHRC REACT Hub provided support and guidance.

RIBA: Anne Dye and Alex Tait provided support and guidance in publishing Home Improvements: Report on Housing Research in Practice and Research Practice Guide and publicising the project.

was instrumental in helping us write the bid and assisted with contractual arrangements.

Jonathan Rickard, Radian, provided an invaluable additional industry viewpoint.

Prof Jeremy Till, Central St Martins originally brought the project team

of the RIBA gave support to the project.

sa

Executive Summary

Introduction

1.1 Survey of RIBA Practices 1.2 Interviews with Practices 1.3 Findings 1.4 Recommendations 1.5 Dissemination and Impact

2.1 Expressions of Interest

2.3 Embedded Projects 2.4 Recommendations

3.1 Key Outcomes and Achievements Based on Stated Aims and Objectives of Project 3.2 Transformative Effect 3.3 What Changed in the Course of the Project and Why

3.5 Recommendations

References

List of Figures

Annexes

1 CEKE aims 2 Knowledge Exchange Process

4 Reports and Other Documents

Contents

5

8

99

101012

1313141617

1919

21212222

23

24

25262829

5

Executive Summary

The Home Improvements Knowledge Exchange in the Creative Economy project ran from September 2012 to September 2013. It was led by the

with industry advisors Nick Rogers from Taylor Wimpey and David Birkbeck from Design for Homes.

main objectives of the project were to facilitate the development of research in architectural practice and to break down the strong cultural differences between architectural academia, practice and the volume house building industry here represented by our project partner Taylor Wimpey and, in doing so, to improve housing supply in terms of quality and

crisis in terms of housing supply with an industry ill prepared to meet demand (Calcutt 2007).

The Home Improvements (HI) project was divided

survey of RIBA practices, sent to all the RIBA members, which provided data for two publications: the RIBA Home Improvements: Housing research in Practice report and the Research Practice Guide for Architectsin November 2013 and the Research in Commercial

were augmented with qualitative information from some 20 interviews with architectural practitioners. Evidence for these documents was also drawn from the experience of setting up and running the second work package - the embedded projects.

An advert went out in the in October 2012 for expressions of interest from practices interested in working with universities and the housing industry to develop three embedded

one promoting self build and one using a design research approach to address the ubiquitous problem of parking.

Thirty six expressions of interest were received from architectural practice, with notably few coming from the regions. From these nine practices were

in December, the aim being to evolve a series of research project proposals with industry and academic partners. The project team used the event to invite early career researchers who would in effect lead on the embedded project, overseen

This was an extremely productive event receiving a feedback score of 10/10 from most attendees

time costs money). Three practices were successful in their bid for funding. The resulting projects were:

Space to Park

www.spacetopark.org

summary from Kris Hopkins, Minister for Housing and attendance from 40 (despite torrential rain and

Motivating Collective Custom Build

www.collectivecustombuild.org

This was developed by Ash Sakula architects

project was reported in over 10K tweets and continues to be disseminated, for example with Northern Event hosted by the Housing Quality Network February 2014.

Street Primer

http://www.kingston.ac.uk/astreetprimer

This was the work of Satellite Architects with

6

Key Findings

SME Architecture practice

Beyond teaching, few practitioners engage with universities. For the purposes of research this leaves academic resources and knowledge largely untapped by practitioners and the research generated by practice largely uncollated and disseminated. Fuelling this separation is a lack of

specialists or academia. Architectural practitioners

in a rigorous manner and have a very ambivalent attitude to research. The situation is particularly acute in the regions.

Research in practice occupies a grey area between research and consultancy. There is widespread confusion on the meaning of design research. In

mapping and visualizing of complex spatial data used so effectively elsewhere, for example the public space research that gave impetus to make

Generally the profession is very poor at articulating the value of architecture research skills in resolving,

problems and solutions.

Architectural practitioners are generally unaware of the opportunities presented by research. Perceived barriers to research are: lack of time; lack of money; and the idea that clients may be put off by a research focus and insurers may charge more for Professional Indemnity if research reveals that the architect is at fault. The profession is also notoriously competitive.

Positive examples of research-led practice show that research can enable SME practice to develop a specialist brand; bring in research income as well as test ideas and innovate. There is a small sector of the architectural profession that sees the development of research practice as key to the future of the profession. There is also a younger generation of SME practice that have expanded the notion of practice greatly, and for whom research is integral, an example is 00/:.

of Portsmouth has shown that practitioners expend an unnecessarily large amount of time bidding for work that they are unlikely to get. This is because of the way in which building projects are procured. In this way practices are being drained of resources that they could put to the cause of research.

scale to practice. KE work is complex in terms of IP contracts and VAT. The machinery of research grant

practice needs.

Early Career Researchers are not generally assertive or experienced enough to work with

requires extensive research and leadership skills. It is extremely time consuming.

Architecture schools are not generally good at teaching students to become research practitioners. Practitioner teachers do not articulate design in terms of research and rarely refer to best practice current evidence. As well as upskilling practitioners in practice schools need to upskill practitioner teachers.

Architectural Academia is poor at disseminating its research or making research links with practice. The industry press very rarely publishes the outcomes of academic research.

The embedded project format used within Home Improvements is a good way in which to nurture academia practice links. KE is however very time consuming and the Home Improvements team was overambitious in terms of what it set out to achieve. Although we did hit our targets this was at considerable personal cost to all concerned. It was

money.

There are a raft of cultural differences between architectural practice and the volume house building industry. Although the value of good design is recognised, practice is perceived to be naïve in

7

We found that practices were hungry to work with house builders, sometimes because they thought that they would get commissions that way. If architectural practice can work in rigorous practical ways that take into account house builder attitudes and priorities there is much scope for collaboration.

not as communities. We found that Research shows that home owners are not happy with the choice or quality of homes delivered by the volume house industry in general. More research and sustainability based house builders such as Igloo are not able to produce houses at the low costs achieved by less scrupulous colleagues in the industry. Research input is needed to demonstrate that well designed new homes are worth the extra up front costs. This could also be furthered by government policy and has to some extent through the planning process. Funding for this is very unlikely to come from an industry that concentrates its research and development on making delivery even more

Recommendations

To improve the capacity to undertake collaborative research involving academia and practice there need to be funding sources that are open to practitioners and respond to the way in which the industry works.

Government action is needed to improve the ways in which building projects are procured to reduce wasted resource across the industry meaning that practices have little or no capacity for research. Further, incentives are needed to promote Post Occupancy Evaluation, studies of the way in which buildings perform over time.

So undeveloped is the state of research culture within architecture that a multi pronged approach is needed to develop capacity in this area. Particularly pressing is the need for an information hub bringing together a range of resources for practitioners keen on developing research.

Extra resource needs to be put into the regions where SME practice, the sector under greatest threat according to the RIBA The Future for Architects report (Building Futures 2011), has suffered most greatly from the recession and would

mechanisms to facilitate KE. The AHRC and other research councils should be encouraged to continue with the CEKE format as the embedded projects provide an excellent laboratory for KE for all concerned.

The extremely time consuming nature of KE needs

to allow researchers to take up unanticipated opportunities, in particular for dissemination.

research processes into the education of architects. Being a highly transferable skill it can only bode well for employability.

Early approaches to experts in Architectural Personal Indemnity insurance suggest that insurers are more likely to reward than penalise practitioners for research practice. We recommend that the RIBA investigates the possibility of lowered Personal Indemnity premiums for responsible research practice.

8

Introduction

This pilot project brought Volume House Builders (represented by Taylor Wimpey), built environment academia (represented by academics on a North-

together on a shared research project. In doing so we modeled a novel form of engagement within a construction industry in critical need of knowledge exchange (KE). Our aim was to improve Volume House Builder developments through KE between partners whilst, at the same time, enhancing the research capabilities and competitiveness of SME architecture practice. The full aims of the project and the extent to which they were achieved are set out in Section 4 below

The Home Improvements (HI) project was divided

a survey of RIBA practice, sent to all 24,000 global RIBA members, which provided data for two publications: the RIBA Home Improvements: Housing Research in Practice report and the Research Practice Guide for Architects, both of which were launched in November 2013 with a

Practice 2were augmented with qualitative information from some 20 interviews with architectural practitioners. The project ostensibly began in September 2012 but as the RA was not employed until January 2013 this

has taken a great deal longer than the original

opportunity.

9

At the outset of our project very little was known about the state of research in architectural practice

work package therefore was to establish a base line of knowledge about the current state of research in practice and then to focus in on the theme of this project housing research in practice. The product of this work package was the Home Improvements Housing Research in Practice report and the RIBA Research Practice Guide (see Annex 4). This latter document was produced at around the same time that the RIBA was doing a wide reaching review of the RIBA a document that sets out the stages of architectural involvement in a project. We were able to co-ordinate the two together in a

and a review of literature in this area indicated that research in practice can be divided into three subcategories:

Knowledge Management – this is the process of collating and organising relevant design information that ensure that practices remain up to date largely with technology and regulations.

are vital for staff members but receive little critique from outside and are rarely shared. SME practices struggle to develop such resources.Design Development – this is the process of design which is rarely articulated in terms of research and very rarely disseminated in this formatResearch Projects – this format, so familiar to academia, is rarely to be found in practice

Our focus here on was to: help develop the process of Knowledge Management into something more rigorous and effective; encourage practitioners to formulate design development in research terms and to review projects as to whether they were effective in those terms and lastly to develop aspects of their practice with academic partners through funded research projects.

Ethics approval was secured at the outset of the project. Co-I Foster, working closely with the RIBA

about the current state of research in practice. Between February and May 2013, it was issued

to all chartered architectural practices via the RIBA bulletin on three occasions and was heavily publicised via Twitter and other on line media. The response rate to such surveys is notoriously low, meaning that the 83 responses we collected was deemed to be good in comparison to others, at the

100. This could also be seen as an indicator of the lack of interest in research within the profession.

section we asked practitioners their views on research, concentrating on how they valued research and what opportunities they thought it had for developing their business. In this regard, one of the fundamental questions we asked practitioners was to describe their own understanding of what research is. In particular, we were interested in gauging whether practices needed assistance in conducting research, and if so, what should this consist of. The second part of the survey was

housing sector. With this our aim was to establish how, why and when practitioners were conducting research, thereby exposing which areas of housing they considered needed more attention. We were also interested in evaluating where practitioners looked for cutting edge knowledge in housing, and why these places were considered important. The

found in Home Improvements: Housing Research in (Annex 4).

Findings

The majority of research in practice is in the area of environment and construction, followed close behind by user behaviour and participatory practice close behind. Findings from the RIBA survey of research practice revealed that only about 18% of practices were aware that research funding existed. It follows from this that only about 18% had received research funding. Furthermore, if they were to seek funding around 25% would look to the RIBA for advice and around 25% would look to academic partners. Around 20% would look to the architectural press where there is currently little or no advice on funding. Nearly 50% said that they would like to pursue research with about 18% saying categorically that they were not interested. The rest were not sure. In response to questions about what

10

needs to be done to help practices pursue funding the response was: 25% publicity for research grant opportunities and exemplars of success in industry journals; 23% academic partnering; 20% wanted RIBA support; 12% industry support and 10% wanted training. It is our conclusion that a RIBA/

the void so clearly drawn by these statistics.

themselves to be research based felt that the

improving the built environment, followed by demonstrating the value of architecture and job

picture of the current state of research in practice, but also more encouragingly, a growing willingness and enthusiasm to engage with this area. Details of the survey as a whole are the subject of a refereed journal paper currently in preparation by RA Coucill and Co-I Foster for

.

We had hoped to compile a series of case studies from the material that was sent to us from the survey but it quickly became apparent that we had to take another tack to collect case study material. Judging from the scant responses to this part of the survey it became very evident that practitioners needed help with articulating the research content of their work.Secondly, a sample of follow-up interviews was conducted. In addition to following up the responses of survey participants, these semi structured

practices. In these interviews practitioners were invited to uncover research conventions in practice, and to identify innovative approaches and cutting edge knowledge. Because practices were selected for one or more of these factors a semi-structured

framework for all interviews.

Also interviewed were a select sample of industry partners and publishers involved in the production of housing and the publication of research respectively. Thematic concerns from the semi-structured interview format were adapted to the circumstances of these interviewees, in order that such interviewees were questioned on the same topics but from the perspective of their own disciplines.

Findings

Often practitioners do not see their work in research terms but it was very clear to the academic team that what they were doing was in the tradition of research. Even when the academic team reframed practitioner projects in research terms, the practitioners sometimes remained sceptical that what they were doing was actually research, suggesting that practitioners may have an outdated or overly rigid conception of what research is.

It is clear that research did not play a large role in the academic training of many of the architects and that they are not convinced of its importance. These

in which architectural academia is not generally recognised through awards, industry journals or policy and in which practitioners consistently complain that the students produced by academia

practitioners are involved in the development of the teaching curriculum.

eyes of architects. It is connected either to over technological or over theoretical forms of discourse. Architects are not aware of recent changes in research methodology that allow for more nuanced discussions and greater connection to practice.

A few of the architects that we spoke to in the course of this research expressed concern that their Personal Indemnity (PI) insurance would cost more if they found errors in what they had done when doing post occupancy evaluation of their built schemes.

academic partners to work with. This is why we compiled the RIBA Research. The research was completed by a

intern and was not an anticipated part of this project. The review was based on university web sites which were often out of date or poorly structured making

The project was disseminated within the profession through the very activity of doing the research itself.

In September 2012 PI Samuel, as member for

11

Innovation Group, was invited to address RIBA

practice. This was an opportunity to advertise the forthcoming survey and her speech received a very positive response.

Our repeated efforts to get publicity in the industry

a fundamental lack of interest in university based

were keen to hear about research opportunities. The which had committed to publishing

on the subject before it began has devoted several pages to architecture research, including many of the issues we uncovered in March 2014 (see: http://www.ribajournal.com/pages/march_2014__intelligence_research_230015.cfm )

The RA and PI presented the research at the Housing Studies Association conference in York

architects to attend that conference for several years.

European research network for architecture in May 2013 at which she publicised the research. She also disseminated the research via the SCHOSA, Heads of Architecture Schools network.

The PI presented Home Improvements at the Creative Exchange Knowledge Exchange Conference in York in September 2013. That same month she presented the project to an audience of some 60 Registered Providers of Housing during a Keynote presentation at a symposium set up by the

The symposium

opportunity to promote the project. Around 60 people signed up for the event though fewer attended. It is notable that the people who were present included

extremely positive.

embedded projects took place at the end of the RIBA Symposium Research Matters on 29 November 2013. It was attended by about forty practitioners but again we were unable to inspire media interest.

Architecture project the PI had a stand at the Royal

Society of Architects in Wales CPD conference 15 November 2013 where she distributed copies of the Home Improvements report and spoke with interested practitioners. She also met with Design Council Wales to discuss potential collaborations.

Home Improvements also received publicity via the embedded projects described below.

A refereed journal paper is currently in preparation by Co-I Foster and the RA on the development of the survey and further refereed outputs are in progress from the embedded project teams.

the help of advertising experts, we will make a pitch for architectural research. HI was a featured project within the AHRC publicity.

We are keen to further disseminate the documents through Follow on Funding.

Fig. 1 Research in Commercial Practice Poster

12

need better publicity. More effort needs to be made to make research feel relevant to practitioners.

Greater emphasis should be placed on the development of research skills during architectural training. Staff in architecture schools need to be better at teaching design as research. The architecture profession needs to keep up to date with research through CPD and other training.

The profession needs a research resource that will promote good research practice, advertise research opportunities and broker relationships between practice and academia.

A digital database of academic architectural research expertise is needed to enable practitioners

information would be gathered by the RIBA or the Architects Registration Board when they do their annual information gathering exercises from the schools.

Early approaches to experts in Personal Indemnity suggest that insurers are more likely to reward than penalise practitioners for research practice. We recommend that the RIBA investigates the possibility of lowered premiums for responsible research practice.

13

Evidence for the RIBA Home Improvements: Housing Research in Practice report and Research Practice Guide was also drawn from the experience of setting up and running the second work package - the embedded projects.

Following discussions with the industry team an advert went out in the in October 2012 (circulations 7500) for expressions of interest from practices interested in working with universities and the housing industry to develop three embedded

one promoting self build and one using a design research approach to address the ubiquitous problem of parking.

Thirty six expressions of interest were received, several from distinguished practices, with notably few coming from the regions. Generic feedback was sent to all those who had submitted. It was

articulating their interest in research in a format that we could recognize through our assessment criteria, based on common research funding practice. This was despite the considerable amount of time the PI had spent advising interested practices on the process by telephone. Our criteria meant that we selected practices who already had some research

Flora - AJ Ad - 4th revisions.pdf 1 9/27/2012 11:35:46 AM

Fig. 2 Call for Interest Advert

14

acumen when it is possible that our time would have been better spent working with the less successful candidates. We also had interest in the project from

the line on this as so many practitioners work in the school.

Lessons from Expressions of Interest

Some of the practitioners who sent in Expressions of Interest had:

excellence with clear examplesReliance on being famous and inappropriate toneDismissive attitude to VHBs and therefore the idea of KE

research

Simultaneously Samuel spent considerable time

contract team developing the contracts for the embedded projects. The unfamiliar project format

There was extensive discussion of the use of a non-disclosure agreement but the document was so large and onerous that we felt it would inhibit creativity and make the whole ideas lab process overly formal. Instead we took advice from Jonathan Dovey at REACT who was able to pass on to us the

was also an issue.

A group of nine practices were invited to evolve research project proposals by participating in an

Architecture in December. The event took extensive careful planning – there are clearly many parallels between arranging a good teaching event and arranging a good KE event. The preparation paid

productive event receiving a feedback score of

an industry context where time costs money). Being in a school of architecture, a very creative place, seemed to help the process.

I never understood how to put a research

practitioners and academics than I had anticipated.

The practitioners particularly welcomed the input of our industry partners who were fully embroiled in the development of the proposals. The practitioners

manner necessary to create a research project. The

school interested in developing their research who came in on some of the discussions.

Fig. 3 Geographical Distribution of Expressions of Interest

15

Groups need to be set up in advance to save time

2 days is absolutely the bare minimumTimetable must not be too rigid, allowing extra time when necessary

work together and thinkGood to ask sub groups to regularly pitch to the group overall

and assertiveness to work well with practitioners. Need a mix of senior and more junior university staffGood to work in a relaxed, creative place like an architecture schoolHospitality plays a central role in creating a friendly and creative atmosphere

Development people to give advice at critical stage on last day.

excellent Staff Development Opportunity for people beyond the projectNeed to be clear about distinction between research, knowledge exchange and consultancy.A tight timetable for the project requires a proposal at the end that is almost ready to be delivered. This is ambitious within two days and with ECRs.

16

weeks developing their research bids with their academic partners. They were submitted shortly before Christmas. The Project and Advisory teams assessed the proposals against an agreed set of criteria although choosing one proposal for

rushed. It would have been better if the assessors had provided feedback to the proposals and then invited a second round of bidding. In this way practitioners, industry and ECRs would have learnt more about what makes a rigorous proposal. There were great differences of opinion between industry and academic assessors of the project bids. The academic team was looking for an excellent bid with less concern for applicability while the industry team was looking for industry applicability with less concern for the quality of the bid. In this case we achieved a compromise. A major priority for the

design research skills of practice.

2013 though there was a time lag in setting them up. Regular project meetings meant that the project

funding meant that the practitioner members only

and possibly led to a slight disconnection between the practitioner members and other overall process.

For details of each of the embedded projects please see the individual project reports in Annex D and their individual websites.

www.spacetopark.org

See appendix for project website and report.

to car parking on many new build housing estates is not working. The design practice made a series of simple design recommendations to alleviate the situation. The project received a well attended

from Kris Hopkins, Housing Minister who described

Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and

contribution by Terry Fuller, Regional Director of the Homes and Communities Agency. We used it as an opportunity to disseminate the Home Improvements project as a whole. The project has been written up in 14.2.14 (http://www.building.co.uk/parking-problems-on-housing-developments/5066454.article) and the

www.collectivecustombuild.org

A collaboration between Ash Sakula architects

for Homes. Custom Build is a very new mode of

The aim of this project was to help make sense of Custom Build in an academic rigorous and

is backed up by an extensive literature review. The design research skills of Ash Sakula are particularly

of this project was reported in over 10K tweets and with a write up in Building Design 18.11.13 and continues to be disseminated by the team. Samuel presented a paper on the project at the Architectural Humanities Research Association conference, November 2013 which contextualised it within the

subsequent funding bid to the AHRC on the subject of Custom Build.

Primer http://www.kingston.ac.uk/astreetprimer

Takes the form of design guidance for volume house builder public realm based closely on an

of using information. This was the work of Satellite

closely with Taylor Wimpey. This project Is shortly

regional Design Director meetings and the circuit of VHB industry conferences and awards. The Co-I responsible for this project Steven Spier moved to

giving the project the amount of time in mentoring that it demanded. The relationship with the practice,

17

At their best embedded projects such as these are an excellent way to promote knowledge exchange.

bid by PI Samuel Connecting Communities of

research in an urban context.

Clear paths are needed within university administrative systems to facilitate embedded projects.

It is important not to underestimate the time it takes to develop embedded projects. It is important to understand the different cultures and ways of working between practice and academia. It is important to set aside time to work with those unsuccessful in being funded through the process as the feedback loop can be very fruitful.

It is also important to be realistic about outputs and dissemination. All parties involved in the embedded project put in considerably more work than they anticipated.

It would have been good if we could have done more work with the practices that were not given funding. With a small amount of funding we could have developed further events to assist them in developing their research ambitions.

The project team needs to include very experienced and less experienced researchers. If working with ECRs they should be included in the project right from the very start.

The design input that the architectural practices brought to the project was really invaluable both for

is needed into the precise contribution of design research and its outcome celebrated.

Academia and practice work at a very different pace.

place within an embedded project and it would be helpful to put in place funding that takes uncertainty into account.

There are indeed very large cultural differences between architectural academia, practice and the house building industry that were thrown into relief

by the embedded projects but working on them together really helped to build bridges.

It is important to know whether practitioners want to do such projects because they are interested in research or whether they are using the project as a pretext to pitch for work with industry. Interviews with shortlisted practices on their motivations for getting involved in projects could help with this.

Minister Kris Hopkins

18

Fig. 6 Motivating Collective Custom Build, images from workshops and conference. Photo credits: Sam Brown

19

This concluding section provides a summary of our experience in delivering the Home Improvements Project. As a highly experimental pilot project it was inevitable that it would shift in response to our constituent community during the course of its development.

The original aims are in italics below with our achievements in plain text.

Tackle the state of near total impasse that

This we achieved through the embedded projects but there is a very long way to go in securing a cultural change.

Test the potential for innovation in housing

The embedded projects have revealed that there is much potential for innovation in this area.

Reveal gaps

The most fundamental discovery is that architecture is so poorly equipped to demonstrate the value good design has in improving wellbeing or increasing value through evidence and thereby to sell its services to house builders or the government The RIBA survey revealed that practitioners did not know

gaps in knowledge with any conviction.

Reveal the extent and type of housing

research

This was achieved through the RIBA survey and the RIBA Home Improvements: Housing Research in

have developed a strategy for developing research in SME regional practice which we hope to pursue via Follow on Funding. The core of the idea is to develop with the RIBA a central resource for research practice.

Volume House Builders (VHBs)

The embedded projects each provide an incremental innovation with strong application to VHB activity.

amongst VHBs. The space to park parliamentary launch has created a good platform for this.

The embedded projects have led to a further project funding bid to the AHRC, a collaboration

developer Igloo Carillion. Focusing on the delivery of Custom Build housing this project, if funded, would lead to a new business model for housing that embraced resilience and sustainability. The Home

stage in developing this collaboration.

20

Architectural SMEs

The Survey took place and was published in the RIBA Home Improvements report. The project has acted as useful pilot for the provision of Ideas

through Follow on Funding. Our ambitious target is to prepare practitioners for engagement with Horizon 2020.

an excellent networking events for all parties. The

in which we were able to model novel forms of collaboration.

Academia

The RIBA Home Improvements report does provide a resource for academics seeking to work with practice partners and provides a useful compendium of the kind of research that is taking place. More importantly it is a wake up call for academia showing the extent of the task we have ahead in engaging practice in research. The report has provided a

project mentioned above which we hope will become an exemplar for other practices.

The three ECRs who were each engaged with

immersion into the housing industry agenda and

project team. As well as developing her research

develop a very extensive set of important contacts within the housing industry. Sam Brown a Graduate

advert for our Call for Interest, was instrumental in developing the MCCB embedded project and is now working for Design for Homes one of our industry partner. Home Improvements has done much to help him in the development of his career in housing research.

the housing industry agenda. It has, for example, spawned a new housing design project in Year 2 indeed David Birkbeck one of our industry partners went to talk to the undergraduates about the realities of the market. Knowledge developed in the course of the project has been disseminated to PGT and PhD students via our Home research group. The PI is involved in the development of a new interdisciplinary degree on resilient cities to which the research has contributed. The Architecture

research unit and taught masters course on housing that this has given the impetus to. As architectural education is increasingly under review the door is open to develop more industry based training for architects of the future.

21

research and by extension architectural academics are not just about high technology or theory. Architectural Academics are doing pragmatic and critical work on some of the most thorny issues that face the construction industry at this time. This has been a surprise to many of the practitioners and industry people that we have encountered.The project has also convinced a small but important collection of practitioners that there is perhaps something to be gained in doing research. There seems to be a greater awareness of the need to address research in practice across the profession as a whole though this cannot all be attributed to our project.

At the same time it has revealed to our industry partners that good things can be made to happen through collaboration with academia. Our practitioner and industry partners have learnt about rigorous and ethical research practice whilst developing the projects with us. David Rudlin of

The project has had an energizing effect on the Research and Innovation Group at the RIBA. The project provides a model for what is possible when the RIBA and academia join forces and sets the scene for new more ambitious projects. Anne Dye Director of Technical Research writes: “A literature review undertaken for the RIBA by the Research Information Network in 2012/13 highlighted the lack of knowledge about how architects create, use and access research-based knowledge. The

this knowledge gap and has been an important resource for the RIBA in developing strategies for supporting research in practice and relationships between practice and academia. In particular it

practices wishing to engage with research, leading to the RIBA Research in Practice Guide as well

as the proposed book Practice, to be written by the RIBA Research and Innovation Group. It also prompted the RIBA &

which allows practices to identify academics and schools working in areas of interest to support the formation of practice-academia collaborations”.

The project has made a considerable difference to the research trajectories of the project team. The PI

for the Cultural Value of Architecture in Homes and Neighbourhoods project and is now moving towards issues of marketing architecture based on work for the Creative Economy Showcase. Co-I Foster is developing a branch of his research relating to

MCCB embedded project has since put in a bid for doctoral students with practitioner Irena Bauman on the subject of Custom Build. Kenny Fraser who was the ECR on Space to Park will be Co-I on the Follow on Funding bid for Home Improvements.

and why?

It was our plan to enlist Early Career Researchers to lead the project teams for the embedded projects. This gave rise to a number of problems. Firstly the ECRs were already quite committed with teaching

year to work on the project and they clearly lacked ownership of what we were doing. We should have involved prospective ECRs in the project right from the very start, but we had not wanted to do so until we were sure funding was in place. It seemed also that ECRs were not yet ready to work with potentially demanding senior academics and

a senior member of staff having management responsibility for each of the embedded projects with an ECR working on the day to day to day leadership. This format worked reasonably well though all concerned suffered from the rather optimistic time allocations set within each project.

The original plan was for a 0.8 RA to join us at the outset of the project. Such is the cumbersome

it took two more months to recruit the RA than anticipated. When the RA eventually did join the project she joined on a full time basis.

The dissemination plan changed as we went along

22

in accordance with the opportunities that came available to us. With a KE project such as this it is not possible to anticipate all the likely dissemination possibilities.

We were not able to deliver all the outcomes within the allocated year partly because of the work loads of the ECR members of the embedded projects and partly because the projects were much more time consuming than anticipated. Work on the project has

and work continues on the refereed outputs.

The opportunity for extra dissemination funding via the Creative Exchange Showcase allowed welcome space for more dialogue with our sister project the

It quickly became apparent when preparing the RIBA Practice Research Guide that there was no

to work with in their geographic or subject area. PI

Experience funding to pay for an intern to compile

2013, in pilot form as a searchable PDF (Appendix 4).

It was a revelatory experience for the PI Samuel, to visit so many practices and to see how radically practice had changed since she left it. As Head of

of practice, knowledge that will go back into the

work around employability. The experience left her with a profound sense that the schools of architecture are failing practice in not teaching students to be better research practitioners.

the nature of architectural practice which is widely recognised as intellectually unstimulating (Smith 2014). It is our thesis that research practice could reverse this situation.

The PI Samuel took up the offer of AHRC Media Training in January 2014. This was an unexpectedly

in the future.

that we had three subject strands and only two industry partners. We wanted industry partners for each of the subject strands so we asked Jonathan Rickard from Radian Registered Providers of Housing to join the Industry Team. He provided an invaluable additional industry viewpoint.

Continue with the CEKE programme. The funding has been transformational at multiple levels. We recognise that the only way to continue our research in this area is through Follow on Funding it would be very helpful if there was a less onerous application procedure to extend CEKE funding. Ideally the timescale for CEKE projects should be longer or should allow a lengthy time lag for dissemination.

Include funding for PI time when organising such events as the Creative Exchange Showcase.Allow for a Contingency Fund for dissemination purposes within a project bid. If possible offer more media advice in disseminating the project.

The CEKE meeting in Bristol was very valuable. More opportunities for interchange between projects would be very welcome, for example the attendance of project PIs at the Advisory Groups of other projects.

23

Building Futures, 2011. The Future for Architects? Available at: http://www.buildingfutures.org.uk/projects/building-futures/the-future-for-architects [Accessed May 2, 2013].

Calcutt, 2007. , Available at: http://webarchive.

nationalarchives.gov.uk/20070130001032/http:/callcuttreview.co.uk/downloads/callcuttreview_221107.pdf.

Architecture? Available at: http://www.architectural-review.com/why-do-women-really-leave-architecture/8659000.article [Accessed February 14, 2014].

References

24

List of Figures

Fig. 1 Research in Commercial Practice Poster

Fig. 2 Call for Interest Advert

Fig. 3 Geographical Distribution of Expressions of Interest.

Housing Minister Kris Hopkins.

Fig. 6 Motivating Collective Custom Build, images from workshops and conference. Photo credits: Sam Brown.

25

Creative Economy Knowledge Exchange

(CEKE) awards were developed with the aim of

supporting one or more of the following:

of these aims below. Please state where any are not applicable.

one-off or part of a series, including brokerage and KE projects, which stimulates exchange between research and creative Small Medium Enterprises (SME);

knowledge exchange between SME architectural practice, architectural academia and the house building industry. The embedded project enabled extensive exchange between all parties and the

Early Career Researchers that addresses the developmental interaction between these researchers and creative businesses to accelerate enterprise and future productivity;

embedded projects became an important lynchpin in terms of research practice interchange. Each of the embedded projects was led by a Professor with

and was instrumental in project delivery.

An unexpected outcome was the involvement of

experience of meetings with practice and the RIBA at a high level and came out of the experience much more focused.

Proposals which seek to extend models of good practice in KE provision between arts and humanities researchers and the creative economy;

have created a model for delivering KE across the construction industry.

Infrastructure - such as databases or websites

humanities expertise (research, resource or facilities) to stimulate connections between the arts and humanities and the creative economy (locally if appropriate, though with the potential to replicate and scale up);

An unexpected outcome of the project was the

schools. The aim of this was to enable SME

the Creative Economy that could be explored in more depth through feasibility studies at an appropriate scale.

The embedded projects provide an excellent example of one way to facilitate research in SMEs, but the project has also provoked ideas for other formats which could be equally useful.

A multitude of ideas were developed at the Ideas

26

Collaboration across project partners including:were these new or existing?were any new partnerships developed during the project? do they plan to continue working together?

out in item 3 of main document

Engagement with Stakeholders

Engagement with KE Hubs and other CEKE Projects

Engagement with other AHRC funded projects/initiatives

Engagement with other research / funding councils or bodies e.g. EPSRC or TSB or Devolved Administrations?

Media activity – this is set out in the main

Public Engagement

Potential for Policy Impact

– The review of

time for the Creative Exchange Showcase was

research and academia are far stronger than

practices saw the project as a chance to pitch

27

Has this led to any culture changes within the HEIs involved, in particular around knowledge exchange?

28

Industry Partners:David Birkbeck - Director Design for HomesNick Rogers – Design Director Taylor WimpeyJonathan Rickard – Design Director Radian HousingAnne Dye - Director of Technical Research, Royal Institute of British ArchitectsAlex Tait – Research Assistant RIBA

Academic Team

Space to Park

Designers and Architects, ManchesterDavid Birkbeck – Design for HomesWith assistance from Progressive Research and Bob White, Kent Council

Motivating Collective Custom Build

Fionn Stevenson, Cristina Cerulli and Sam Brown –

Cany Ash and Robert Sakula – Ash Sakula

David Birkbeck – Design for HomesNick Rogers – Taylor Wimpey

Making Place

Nick Rogers – Taylor Wimpey

The following practitioners were interviewed in the making of the Home Improvements: Housing Research in Practice Report

Andrew Matthews – Proctor and Matthews ArchtitectsAndy von Bradsky – PRPCany Ash – Ash Sakula

Fran Bradshaw – Anne Thorne ArchitectsHendrik Heyns – Allies and MorrisonJames Soane – Project OrangeJon Ackroyd – Architype

Kevin Davis – DJD Architects

Mike Keys – Fielden Clegg BradleyPaul Monaghan - AHMM

Sabine Storp – StorpWeber ArchitectsSarah Wigglesworth – Sarah Wigglesworth Architects

Stephen Smith – Wright and Wright

Annex 3

29

All of the following documents are available from the Home Improvements website:

http://www.shef.ac.uk/architecture/research/homeresearch/home_research_projects/home_improvements

Home Improvements: Housing Research in Practice. RIBA,

Home Improvements: Housing Research in Practice

Research

Research Practice Guide

(publication)Space to Park Final Project Report

(publication)Motivating Collective Custom Build Final Project Report

PrimerStreet Primer Final Project Report

SCHOSA

School of Architecture

Arts Tower, Western Bank