Designing Consensus: The Architect’s Role in Aligning Diverse Stakeholders

By SSP Architects

Opinions are like…well, let’s just say everyone has one. When going through a design process, these opinions can sometimes clash. And when that design process requires input from multiple stakeholders, sometimes with competing priorities, managing the input process becomes that much more vital.

10,000 Voices

Most architectural design projects have more than one voice at the helm. Projects that are larger in scope, public in nature, or have multiple stakeholders, require a synthesis of the input and information to result in a cohesive and thoughtful plan. Take for instance a public school project: a Board of Education and District Administration all will likely have input to give. Beyond that, however, are the end users (teachers and students), as well as the public in general, as it is their tax dollars being used to finance the project.

Ultimately it falls to the Architect to manage everyone’s input, and factor that input in with the overall scope, available funds, building codes, and aesthetics, to result in a finalized program from which the design can progress.

Getting the Architectural Design From Here to There

The contractor’s adage is “measure twice, cut once.” There’s a similar thought concept in the Architectural world, that changes are easier to incorporate at the “pencil on paper” stage than they are after a built wall is constructed. To that end, the pre-design and schematic design phases, early on in the design process, are critical for the Architect to gather as much information as is available, and to hear from all stakeholders what their visions of success for the project are. But these metrics are often competing: a maximum fixed budget vs. a desire for higher-end materials or a larger space; the need to turn over a new space early vs. incorporating a specialty piece of equipment that has a very long lead time; the ability to change the use of a space vs. stringent code requirements. 

The Architect will need to weigh each of these factors, and present the options for discussion. Keeping open lines of communication, and discussing the pros and cons of each competing priority, helps all parties to understand the factors being weighed, and therefore come to consensus on a final plan. Compromise will happen, but if the stakeholders understand why decisions were made, they oftentimes will be more accepting of the need to compromise. 

Tools for Engagement

So how do we get from these disparate points of view to a finalized plan? Every group will respond differently to different approaches. For some, the design charrette works well; this is a process where all stakeholders work through a series of decisions together, typically in a half-day or full-day long session. This requires a firm commitment of time and focus, as well as a schedule and structure to keep participants focused. The benefit is that ideas can be exchanged among disparate groups freely, oftentimes leading to discussion and compromise where previously a stalemate may have been looming.

Alternatively, a less directly engaging process could be undertaken in the form of surveys or one-on-one interviews. These types of interactions are usually easier to schedule, and may lead to participants sharing more freely, without the perceived judgement from other stakeholders. Somewhere in between these two ends of the spectrum are visioning sessions, which can be less intense than a charrette but more collaborative than individual conversations.

Making It All Work

Architectural design involves an understanding of spatial relations and technical detailing for sure. But in order to even get to that point, a project’s program must be solid. Facilitating the programming and design process can be the key to aligning stakeholders; and that stakeholder alignment is often a key for public projects to achieve a wide base of support. 

SSP Architects has spent decades leading public agencies, private companies, and nonprofit agencies, through this process. We have seen first-hand how this time spent upfront can pay off in not only project support, but in improved design solutions that respond to the key project criteria.