Maybe this sounds too obvious, but don't chase after projects that have no design opportunities. I continually see firms running themselves ragged to get work like feasibility studies, ADA compliance assessments, window studies, roof replacements, etc. Every firm needs their bread and butter work, but don't let it take over.

I also think it's important to foster a collaborative rather than hierarchical working environment.

Good points 4arch. Some people would like to cut off a project at a dollar amount but I think since the firm is running well business wise then you could go forward with smaller projects if those projects presented design opportunities.

set up weekly crits at which people present and discuss projects in progress?

It seems like these apathy issues (not towards work but towards design) come from the top. Sometimes its just fear of not having enough work or loosing clients and it leads to bidding lower and taking bad jobs, design wise that is. Less money leads to less design time and bad jobs lead to clients who don't want to pay for design.
It all starts at the top with the person getting the work and determining the contracts. The problem is once a firm starts down a certain road its hard to change direction just by internal work environment issues. Not that it doesn't play an issue. Most places getting the mediocre work are led by people that have been doing mediocre work a long time. I'd add they are also pretty jaded at this point typically. Luckily there are always exceptions, so be one!

Switch to macs and archicad...use BIM....your tools have to inspire too.

How about you enter a competition? Make a team of a few people that are excited, and the open up to crits with the rest of the office, and get them involved and excited.

I think you are in the best position anyone aspiring to be a designer could be in. If you are allowed to make design decisions and there is a firm where everyone is making a good business from it then what is needed is someone that is inspired to bust a move. They don't need to be excited by a slide show or some cheerleader effort. You take the opportunity. That is why firms need designers. Sometimes people are really not that interested in fashion or aesthetics. If they want to work on producing better design work then you have the best position cut out for you to design something for them to produce.

The most important thing is to have a couple of people in the office who push for the notion of great design.

Have your firm subscribe to a few international magazines. El Croquis, Detail (the German one, not the fashion mag), Domus, others. Point out good designs to people in the office.

I hate to say this too, but an uncritical office is not a good design office. Good design is about criticism, it's about stripping away bad ideas and replacing them with good ones.

I've been in some really really good design offices, and I've been in some bad ones. The good ones were generally very hard on themselves about detailing, materials, and quality. They were rigorous and uncompromising. They wouldn't accept a bad idea just because they wanted to be polite, or just because the client asked.

I bet you won't find many "good' design offices that are soft and sloppy in their process.

Thank you all for the thoughtful comments. I'm going to consider each one. In fact a colleague and I are entering in a competition today. I agree that you must be critical. I've gotten some flack for being blunt with criticism but in the end it's worked out.

Well being critical is good, you just have to watch how you do it. Don't just be critical, propose a solution rather than point out a problem. Let people know you are hoping to make the project a little better than it already is, so it doesn't seem like you are telling them their stuff is no good, even if it is. I offended an architect once who specifically asked me my opinion on a piece of a design. I didn't even say anything bad about his design i said well i wonder if it was like this instead, then it would relate to blah blah blah. I think really he just wanted me to tell him he was amazing. Architects seem to be particularly sensitive so make sure you know how that person will react.
Also it sounds like you are some what lower level, maybe not lowest in the firm but perhaps mid level? It would probably help your case if you had a principal or someone higher up the chain on your side, that you've discussed these ideas with. Sometimes people just won't listen to anything somebody in a lower position says because they are lower. Silly and unfortunate but can be true. I guess i would like to know if you are trying to change the firm from the bottom up or if the firm leaders have said decided they want to move that way but are unsure of how to accomplish this.

I am mid-level and been here for almost two years. I have discussed this with one of the principals and he's been on board with the idea of growth in that area. It was something we discussed as I went through the interview process. I do sense that he has so much going on that he'd like to show more interest in it. Mostly, I think he is looking for us to take it and run with it.

A few of us have integrated design crits into the process, the older guys want nothing to do with that...

The largest obstacle I'm facing now is the fact that this type of architecture will require more than a 40hour week and most people here are not willing to commit anymore than that. Even though the principal has said that he would like to have at least one large competition per year worked into the studio as a typical project. To be done during work hours, some don't want to even work on it as it most definitely will require a lot of hours as the deadline approaches.

It is kind of silly that seniority rules purely for seniority sake...

Ideally, performance & design ability would take a higher priority.

i'd gladly work 60 hours a week if it were possible...

Well it sounds like you are in a much better position to run with it then i thought. Having the go ahead from one of the principals is great. I think most people who have been working for a while are going to be at least somewhat cynical and apprehensive to spend their spare time working on something that they assume will most likely not go ahead. I think you are just going to have to go with it. Pick a competition maybe something that deals with issues you know people might already have some interest in. You will have to take the brunt of the work this first time, but if you are successful they will surely be interested next go around.
As for an actual suggestion, since i haven't really given one yet, perhaps you can get sometime alloted for the competition that gets people away from other work. If you are involved in the competition work you get to spend the second half of the day on thursdays in the conference room with beer and pizza instead of working on your more regular job.
Or maybe you get a bonus for the extra time. It might not be cost effective to pay hourly overtime for work on the competition but if all participants got a $1000? bonus that might convince someone that was already interested but just had some many other things to do to justify it.
Or you simply need a group of younger eager architects, maybe they just need to keep hiring people interested in it like yourself. Of course thats a pretty long term solution, which is actually necessary anyway if they honestly want a different type of firm. You just aren't going to change the old guys most likely.

Get internal competitions going. The 'anyone can enter' an idea for a given project (a real one, not a true competition). Then have crits and a winner.

This will foster creativity and competition (and free work and long hours, but you can't have it all). Some will hate the idea that someone else, particularly younger/less experienced could get the job, but that's how it works. Weeds out the lazy ones, ones with less talent and let's new talent shine.

To me, this seems pretty obvious, but hierarchy and ass kissing seems to work better.

If there is a possibility of winning the design job, you'll get lots of interest and people working their asses off to do a good job. At the very least, it will show the big bosses who has talent and ambition.

have a studio that does cheap fast profitable buildings
and a studio that enters competitions

Maybe you should switch jobs to another firm that is already a design powerhouse. Changing an ingrained firm culture is really tough to do.
Does anyone know of any examples of a firm that successfully made this type of transition and jumped into the design big leagues?

wait - was the office originally fired up about design?

as others have said, the people at the top have to be the ones driving innovation, encouraging creativity, facilitating discussion and exploration - and fostering a collaborative work environment... If they aren't or they can't then there is really nothing you can do.

Good point. If there was never any good design being done, then it is obviously not a priority (most firms are concerned with bottom lines or just don't care or 'see' what 'good' design is).

I remember a number of years back a relatively large regional office started to hire young designers with some talent. for years they were known as just a production firm lead by a couple tough old screws. But with some additions and a couple of purchases of smaller offices they started to come into their own. It probably took 5 yrs but they became an even stronger force regionally.

Design is good business. They made the case for it and set out a plan and lead the way for a new mode of office in my region for some time. Many other firms followed and gave good opportunities to many younger architects to actually design in what use to be a non design setting.

Maybe, but I'm not so sure. I think the model of one good designer taking the lead can work really well.

Strawbeary,

I don't believe leadership and collaboration are mutually exclusive. A *good* designer who takes charge of a project will still be aware of his weaknesses and will bring people into the project who have skills in the areas in which he is lacking. He will take his colleagues' thoughts and opinions into consideration - even though he may ultimately make the call not to pursue them. Good offices see the whole of the brainpower under their roof as greater than the sum of its parts. That doesn't necessarily preclude having a strong lead designer.

Gonna have to agree with Strawbeary - I do believe that hierarchy is a good thing. Let those that are good at one thing do it, those that are good at another do something else.

I actually think this is one problem with architecture, too. Jack of all trades, master of none (or something like that).

I worked in a heirarchy based office. The designs were pretty good. I now work in a "everybody's opinion counts" office. The designs are pretty bad. I see a relationship. Just personal experience.

Strawbeary - there has to be leadership in a collaborative environment - collaborative means that you have strategically hired people who are good at things that the others are not, and they all influence, inspire, and support each other. There have to be leaders guiding this mess of creative people or else everyone is suddenly going to have an opinion of how things have to be run ( the leader's job) instead of constructively contributing in their areas of expertise.

When I think of hierarchy, I think of top-down design where everyone is simply implementing an individual's design vision with no input. collaborative means that everyone is utilized to realize a design through exploration - the top person guides this process, but does not dictate entirely.

sorta depends on the people. i've seen both ways work - and not work. sometimes the collaboration is with people who just don't have the umph to get into the designing. sometimes the designing principal is just a control freak.

it doesn't help if you aren't a better designer than your boss...

or maybe it does.

doesn't help if you are

get 'em fired up.
...on weed.

Look, everyone thinks they're a good designer. But very few people actually are. Them's the facts.

Everyone in a given firm thinks their design ideas should be entitled to a fair hearing. But you quickly learn who's good, and who just has weird, tasteless, or banal ideas.

The problem with a consensus, "everyone's opinion counts" office is that some people's design opinions are simply worse than other people's. This is design, not democracy. Democracy produces stagflation and a five-thousand page tax code. Design hierarchy produces Ronchamp, CCTV, and the Bilbao Guggenheim.

However! Since everyone thinks they're a good designer, it's often the worst designers with the loudest voices who rise to the top in a given firm.

This is why the people at the top need to promote the one's with talent. This is also why I believe there needs to be more segregation in firms - someone designs, someone handles construction, someone handles business, someone handles marketing, etc. Just not enough time in the day to be good at everything.

But it is the responsibility of those in charge to seek out the talent. I've seen plenty of firms just not care and let the best talent move onto a firm that does. That's bad business, but as farw points out, everyone thinks they are a good designer and the vast majority simply are not.

I'll always remember a quote by a NBBJ principal years ago "I always try to hire people that are better than I am". Not many would say that.


Collaboration is great if everyone has talent, but if not, you end up with a mish-mash of a building that is all too common. It is very difficult to have a clarity of vision without a clear hierachy.

collaboration means that you work with people who are good at things you aren't good at. The environments that people are describing as "collaborative" sound a lot more like anarchic pissing matches with a bunch of wanna-be design leaders where no one wants any actual responsibility.

There has to be someone in charge - it doesn't always have to be the same person, but without a leader the design will be a mess.