Integrative Process (IP)©

ANSI Consensus National Standard Guide©

February 2, 2012

for

Design and Construction of Sustainable Buildings and Communities

The financial support of BetterBricks / Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance in the development of this
Standard, and leadership support of Bill Reed and John Boecker, are greatly appreciated.

Copyright 2005-2012
Market Transformation to Sustainability & American National Standards Institute

1
 COPYRIGHT NOTICE
PROHIBITION OF UNAUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTION, REPRODUCTION, AND/OR USE

This Standard and the methodology described herein is the property of the Institute for Market
Transformation to Sustainability (MTS) and any unauthorized reproduction or use of this Standard in whole
or part, including for educational programs, is strictly prohibited by US and international copyright and anti-
piracy law, including treble damages.

Consistent with copyright law, purchase of this Standard provides only the individual purchaser to
use the Standard. For use by others, including those in the same company, either 1) a standard
license must be purchased for each individual, or 2) a corporate a volume license agreement can
be executed for full and unlimited use by members of the primary organization. Without purchase consistent
with these terms, or authorization by MTS, it is prohibited to distribute this Standard including via email, fax,
print, copy, internet posting, or any other means including for educational purposes.

For corporate volume license purchasing please contact ANSI’s sales department:
212/642-4900 – Phone
212/398-0023 – Fax
www.ansi.org – Web

To purchase additional copies of this Standard please go to:

http://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=ANSI%2FMTS+1.0+WSIP+Guide-2007

Note: Should this link change, users may search the ANSI site for “Integrative Process Standard.”

For reprints and approval of excerpts, please contact MTS at:

202-338-3131 – Phone
202-338-2800 – Fax
[email protected] – Email

2
 Integrative Process (IP)
ANSI Consensus Standard Guide 2.0
for
Design and Construction of Sustainable Buildings and Communities
01 February 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 SECTION ONE – Introduction and Making the Case

1. A. Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………… 4
1. B. Integrative Process Definition ………………….…………………………………………………… 4
1. C. Intent of this Standard Guide………………....……………………………………………….......... 5
1.C.1 Consensus Standard Guide..……………………………………………………………… 5
1.C.2 Relationship to AIA’s Integrated Project Delivery (IPD).………………………............. 5
1.C.3 Relationship to US Green Building Council’s LEED Green Building Rating System... 5
1.C.4 Ensuring that this Standard Guide is Implemented Effectively..………………………. 6
1.C.5 Reference Guide for this IP Standard Guide…………………………………………….. 6
1. D. Background
1.D.1. Philosophy.………………………………………………………………………………….. 6
1.D. 2. Two Examples of the Integrative Process Benefits…………………………………...... 7
a. Building Systems as a Unified Organism (not separate pieces) …….………. 7
b. Building Team as a Unified Organism (not solving problems in isolation)...... 8
1.D.3. Everyone is Practicing Integrative Design . . . at least that’s what they say .…..……. 9
1. E. The Integrative Process Structure Compared to a Conventional, Linear Process.……………. 13
1. F. The Key Aspects of an Integrative Process ….……….…………………………………………… 15
2.0 SECTION TWO Implementation…………………………………………………………………………… 16
2.A. Part A Discovery………………………………………………………………..…………………. 19
2.A.1. Stage A.1 – Research and Analysis: Preparation ……………………………………... 20
2.A.2 Stage A.2 – Workshop No. 1: Alignment of Purpose and Goal-Setting ……….......... 22
2.A.3. Stage A.3 – Research and Analysis: Evaluating Possible Strategies ……………….. 27
2.A.4. Stage A.4 – Workshop No. 2: Conceptual Design Exploration.………………….…… 29
2.A.5. Stage A.5 – Research and Analysis: Testing Conceptual Design Ideas …….……… 31
2.B. Part B Design and Construction
2.B.1. Stage B.1 – Workshop No. 3: Schematic Design Kickoff – Bringing it All Together
(without committing to building form) ……………………………………………………. 33
2.B.2 Stage B.2 – Research and Analysis: Schematic Design – Bringing it All Together
(and now committing to building form) ……………………………………………......... 36
2.B.3. Stage B.3 – Workshop No. 4: Design Development Kickoff – It Is Brought Together;
Does It Work? ……………………………………………………………………………… 37
2.B.4. Stage B.4 – Research and Analysis: Design Development (Optimization) …………..39
2.B.5. Stage B.5 – Workshop No. 5: Construction Documents Kickoff –
Performance Verification and Quality Control ………………………………………….. 41
2.B.6 Stage B.6 – Construction Documents (No More Designing) ..………………………… 42
2.B.7. Stage B.7 – Building and Construction – Aligning with the Constructor………........... 43
2.C. Part C Occupancy, Operations, and Performance Feedback
2.C.1. Stage C.1 – Occupancy: Feedback from All Systems ….……………………………. 46
3.0 Appendix
3.A Glossary …………………………………………………………………………….………………… 48
3.B Reference Standards and Guidelines………………………………………………………………. 54
3.C Acknowledgements.…….……………………………………………………………………………. 55

3
SECTION ONE – Introduction and Making the Case
1.A Introduction
This Integrative Process (IP) Guide is comprised of two sections: Section One introduces the
history, intent, background, philosophy, and fundamental premises that support the growing need
for building design and construction teams to align around the implementation of a clearly defined
Integrative Process. Section Two defines that process; providing a step-by-step outline for its
implementation. Accordingly, Section Two is the portion that project teams should follow when they
desire to conform with this ANSI Consensus Standard Guide.

This document is the result of six years of work beginning in November 2005, when a core
committee of building industry practitioners gathered in Chicago to begin a dialogue on how to offer
the marketplace a document that codifies the meaning, importance, structure, and practice of an
Integrative Design Process. The Institute for Market Transformation to Sustainability (MTS)
requested the formation of this group to create a standard guideline of practice that would provide
building Owners and building design and construction practitioners with a framework for practicing
in a highly interactive way, using a co-learning process. This Integrative Process is essential for
achieving both cost efficiencies and highly effective sustainably oriented performance. Many
professionals talk about the need for this process, but very few teams do it well. This guide is
intended to inform designers, engineers, constructors, facilities managers, building owners, and
clients about this process and to provide a framework for taking the mystery out of this way of
practicing.

Version 2.0 is a refinement of the ANSI/MTS 1.0 Whole Systems Integrated Process Guide
(WSIP)-2007 for Sustainable Buildings and Communities. After Version 1.0 was adopted, a book
was published to elaborate on the “lessons learned” from implementing an Integrative Process (IP).
The book, The Integrative Design Guide to Green Building, written by the 7group and Bill Reed
(IDGGB, or, the Reference Guide), built upon the structure of the original ANSI Standard Guide
and appreciably refined it. Further, in 2009, approximately thirty peer reviewers, from a range of
design and building professions, were engaged to review the detail practices and stages outlined in
the book; a workshop was held in Seattle, Washington in October 2009 to synthesize their
comments. This Version 2.0 is guided by the suggestions, comments, and edits that grew out of
this peer review process.

As outlined in the prior Version 1.0 Standard Guide, the premises of this document are:
- It needs to be simple enough to be referenced by busy building professionals and clients
seeking to understand why they can benefit from an IP structure.
- It needs to be specific enough to function as a guideline for practitioners and clients in
determining the scope and deliverables associated with building design, construction, and
operations practices.
- The framework needs to be generic enough to be applicable to a wide variety of project
types and process entry points in the timeline of a project.
- It needs to speak to all participants in project delivery, so that they can comfortably
participate in the integrative design process.

1.B Integrative Process Definition

The Integrative Process actively seeks to design and construct projects that are cost-effective over
both the short and long terms, by engaging all project team members in an intentional process of
discovering mutually beneficial interrelationships and synergies between systems and
components, in a way that unifies technical and living systems, so that high levels of building
performance, human performance, and environmental benefits are achieved.

4
1.C Intent of this Standard Guide

1.C.1 Consensus Standard Guide

This document is intended to serve as a Consensus Standard Guide and common reference
that will support the building industry (architects, constructers, designers, engineers, landscape
architects, ecologists, facilities managers, clients, manufacturers, and so on) in the practice of
integrative design, integrative construction, and integrative operations. Accordingly, this
document is written in the form of a Standard Guide, in accordance with the definition of a
Consensus Standard Guide: a compendium of information that outlines a series of options for
implementing an Integrative Process, but it does not recommend specific or prescriptive
courses of action. It is largely qualitative and designed to present a clear framework that can
be adapted and applied to any situation or building type by tailoring the process to the unique
characteristics of each and every building project, regardless of function or location. Therefore,
as a Standard Guide, it is intended to increase the awareness of information and approaches
pertaining to Integrative Design, and it is contrasted from more quantitative Consensus
Standards.

1.C.2 Relationship to AIA’s Integrated Project Delivery (IPD)

This Integrative Process Guide outlines a process that is distinctly different from, but is
intended to complement, the American Institute of Architects’ (AIA) Integrated Project Delivery
(IPD) approach. The AIA’s IPD is a project delivery approach that integrates people, systems,
business structures and practices (primarily through contract and legal agreements) into a
process that collaboratively harnesses the talents and insights of all participants to optimize
project results, increase value to the owner, reduce waste, and maximize efficiency through all
phases of design, fabrication, and construction. This Guide presents a systematic methodology
and structured process of how to achieve these results; it outlines the details of an optimal
step-by-step process that client, design, and constructor teams can utilize to achieve these IPD
goals by presenting how to achieve mutually beneficial interrelationships between people,
project, site, and infrastructure systems. The benefits include greater cost effectiveness, value,
building performance, and human performance, while addressing sustainability issues
associated with energy, water, materials, and habitat.

1.C.3 Relationship to US Green Building Council’s LEED® Green Building Rating

System
Developing metrics for assessing a project team’s engagement and use of this Integrative
Process Guide contributed to the US Green Building Council’s (USGBC) development of an
Integrative Process credit intended for incorporation as a new credit in Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design (LEED) 2012. This proposed credit includes activities associated
with “Discovery”,and “Implementation” across energy-related and water-related systems, as
well as integrative cost analyses associated with these systems. It rewards project teams for
using the information gathered during the Discovery Phase to make improved building design
decisions during implementation; it requires project teams to identify and execute synergistic
opportunities for high performance outcomes across different disciplines and building systems,
so that cost-effective project outcomes are achieved through analyses of key systems
interrelationships before decisions are made on building form and throughout the design
process. Although this IP Standard Guide serves as a Reference Standard for project teams
pursuing this proposed new LEED credit, it also serves as a valuable resource to help guide
teams through an integrative process so that high performance LEED Certified projects can be
achieved cost-effectively.

5
 1.C.4 Ensuring that this Standard Guide is Implemented Effectively
Substantial market experience corroborates that "everyone is saying they are doing integrative
design, but they really are not." The Federal Trade Commission Environmental Marketing
Guide (http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus42-complying-environmental-marketing-guides)
identifies this problem, and in doing so, makes it clear that the substantial cost and risk
reduction benefits achievable by following the Integrative Process outlined in this IP Standard
Guide will not be realized unless this process outlined herein is implemented effectively.

Additionally, the stock of higher performing projects that currently are needed to address rising
long-term energy costs/price volatility and dangerous climate change will be too expensive
without adhering to this process. It also is worth noting that national public meetings on green
building underwriting conducted at Federal Reserve regional offices in 2010 concluded that
Integrative Process (IP) is such an important part of underwriting, that a consensus determined
“IP has sufficient value that it should be a condition of financing:” http://mts.sustainableproducts.com/Integrative_Design.html.
Also at this preceding link is Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company’s IP Risk Reduction
Statement concluding that adherence to this IP Standard reduces design and construction risk.
Further, the National Consensus Green Building Underwriting Standard identifies that use of
this IP Standard increases cash flow.

Accordingly, if an Owner desires an Integrative Process that is effective in achieving the

associated economic, risk reduction, and environmental benefits, that Owner should consider
requiring their design and construction professionals to follow this Integrative Process Guide by
incorporating it into their contracts. This is especially important with regard to ensuring that the
all-team Workshops identified in this IP Standard Guide are conducted. Further, such contracts
should specify which professional or entity will take the lead in facilitating the Integrative
Process. In incorporating this Standard Guide in contracts, Owners may want to consult with
legal counsel who possess Integrative Process expertise, to ensure that the Owner’s needs
and an effective Integrative Process are both achieved, thus adding value to their projects.
Even if such contractual requirements are found undesirable (for whatever reason), germane
provisions of this IP Guide should at the very least be incorporated into the project
specifications in order to ensure their implementation.

1.C.5 Reference Guide for this IP Standard Guide

Implementing the Integrative Process presented herein also requires significantly more detailed
information than can be presented within the scope of typical Standard Guides. Therefore, this
Integrative Process Guide is designed (but not required) to be used in conjunction with its
companion “Reference Guide”, the aforementioned Integrative Design Guide to Green Building
(IDGGB), which provides far more detailed guidance for implementing an integrative process
and uses the same format outlined in this IP Guide. As such, the IDGGB is referenced
throughout this IP Standard Guide in order to provide additional guidance.

In summary, the intent and purpose of an Integrative Process is to effectively manage and optimize
synergies between the complex set of technical and living systems associated with design and
construction in order to effectively pursue sustainable practices. To achieve cost effective and
increasingly more effective environmental performance, it is necessary to shift from conventional
linear design and delivery processes to design and construction practices that focus on interrelated
systems integration. This IP Standard Guide is intended to provide project teams with a clear step-
by-step outline of a process for doing so.

1.D Background

1.D.1 Philosophy

6
All things and all life are interrelated and connected. Ignoring these interconnections has
created the need to address more directly how humans can work to sustain life on this planet.

When working in a way that isolates design and construction disciplines into silos (architects,
mechanical engineers, landscape architects, constructors, etc), fragmented solutions are
created. These ‘solutions’ can, and do, create unintended consequences – some are positive,
but most are negative. The corollary is that when working to integrate areas of practice, it
becomes possible to find performance and cost synergies and benefits.

To work this way requires that the people involved in the process – those who hold knowledge
that is spread across various disciplines – are brought together in ways that enable the
knowledge, analyses, and ideas from each discipline to inform and link with the systems and
components of all other disciplines. This synthesis requires a process that develops all major
issues in parallel with each other, so that the entire design and construction team can identify
cross-linked interrelationships and resultant benefits from beginning to end.

An integrative process mandates more coordination. It encourages rigorous questioning. It

challenges typical assumptions and rules-of- thumb from the very beginning of the project. The
coordination of building and site systems should be addressed early and questioned before
schematic design starts, or at the least, while it proceeds. Integrating the many systems
involved in a building project requires that the expertise of each team member responsible for
each system, be brought together for the purpose of augmenting the efficiency and
effectiveness of every system and team member.

All issues need to be addressed concurrently, with everyone present, at the earliest possible
time. This can be summarized as: Everybody Engaging Every issue, Early in the project.

1.D.2 Two Examples of Integrative Process Benefits

All relationships should be identified for optimal results, and value-engineering should not focus
on optimizing individual components; Amory Lovins calls this "Tunneling through the cost
barrier", while the Lean Construction Institute calls this “Optimizing the system, not its parts”.

In the conventional design process, each discipline’s representative is expected to design the
sub assemblies and systems under his or her control with the most effective benefit for the
lowest cost. In the Integrative Process, the full client-design-building-and-operations team is
looking to find the overlapping relationships, services, and redundancies, so that potential inter-
dependencies and benefits (that otherwise would have gone un-noticed) can be exploited.
Normally, previous assumptions and standard practices leave such synergies unexamined.

It is remarkable how many technologies and techniques can be changed and minimized when
all systems of a project are looked at as an integrated whole, rather than as a set of fragmented
pieces that are optimized in isolation. This recognition requires the client-design-building-and-
operations team to function as a unified whole system to investigate these potential synergies.

a. Building Systems as a Unified Organism (not separate pieces)

A Passive Solar Home in the Western USA:
Before the invention of low-emissivity glass, passive solar homes typically cost $5,000 more
than a conventional house of equal size. This was usually the case, because in addition to
the required larger areas of glass, increased insulation and thermal mass, mechanical
systems had to be installed to serve as a back-up heat source.

7
 When low-emissivity, argon filled glazing appeared in the market, a number of cascading
benefits were realized that reduced the cost of a passive solar house to approximately
$2,000 less than conventional construction, while at the same time reducing annual energy
costs by 50 to 70 percent.

It works this way: The insulation value of the high performance glass is such that a number
of reductions are possible.

- The well-insulated walls and windows no longer need to be warmed by a heat

source. Also, heating components that compensate for the uncomfortable radiant
heat loss from our bodies to cold surfaces of glass (and measures to reduce
condensation) are no longer needed. Therefore, instead of the usual ductwork
along the perimeter of the house that is installed to bathe windows with warm air,
it is possible to eliminate these runs. Consequently, the ducts are limited to a
central trunk serving all rooms from the internal walls. Money is saved.
- Because the walls and windows are such effective insulators, a boiler is no longer
needed. The house is capable of being heated with a quick recovery hot water
heater. More money is saved.
- Because the house is so tightly built, the issue of indoor air quality is a concern.
The air handler is replaced by an air handler, which also serves as an air-to-air
heat exchanger. Some money is spent with this action, but the house is much
more desirable from a health perspective.

The overall approach spends more money on glazing and insulation in order to capture
overall net savings (and benefits) resulting from eliminating the boiler and reducing
ductwork; significantly reduced energy costs and better indoor air quality also are achieved.

b. Building Team as a Unified Organism (not solving problems in isolation)

All people relationships should be designed to interact in order to achieve optimal results;
purposeful studies and meetings are held to explore system interrelationships and
exchange ideas for possible new solutions.

Fostering an Interdisciplinary Process: “A Deer in the Headlights”:

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Cambria office building project

in Ebensburg, PA was a project with two clients: the DEP (the building user), and the
developer (the owner), who was responsible for designing, building, managing, and leasing
the building to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, earning profit from lease revenues.
This project served as a learning laboratory about the importance of making sure that all
project team members are convened in a series of sessions focused on integrative design
solutions as early as possible.

An early schematic design meeting was held with the project team, including the project
engineers, architect, constructors, the developer, and DEP representatives. The schema for
the design emerged as an elongated rectangle consisting of a central core and two wings.
The plan was oriented lengthwise on an east-west axis, with the larger wing to the west and
the smaller to the east. An early decision was made to couple ground-source heat pumps
with underfloor supply-air-plenum distribution. The design architect had decided before this
early schematic design meeting that the central HVAC equipment should be located in a
penthouse on the building’s roof. Given this decision, the meeting’s participants initiated a
discussion about piping and ductwork: specifically, how best to get the piping from the
ground-source heat pump well-field up to the penthouse, and how to distribute air ducts

8
back down from the air-handling units into the underfloor supply-air plenums on both the
first and second floors of this 34,500-square-foot building.

The team engaged in a back-and-forth conversation, discussing where the piping would go,
what the size of the vertical duct shafts should be, how all of this could fit into the central
core, and how to avoid conflicts between these distribution components and other building
elements such as elevators, structural components, sprinkler pipes, etc. As this discussion
unfolded over a period of about twenty minutes, the architect realized that this process was
not, in fact, an integrative design process. Rather, this process of deciding (albeit, as a
group) how best to assemble these systems amounted to little more than accelerated
coordination. Further, the decision to locate the central HVAC system components in the
penthouse had been made in isolation (by the Architect) without any input from the other
disciplines at the table.

Realizing this, the architect stopped the meeting. He looked across the table at the
mechanical engineer, and asked, “If you were designing this building, where would you
locate the central HVAC system components? Where’s the best place for the mechanical
room?” The engineer was stunned. He sat in silence; later, he said that he felt like a deer
caught in headlights. The architect, noticing the engineer’s discomfort, asked what was
wrong. He explained, “Nobody’s ever asked me that question before.” Here was someone
with over twenty years’ experience designing HVAC systems, yet never in his career had an
architect asked him for his expert advice on where to locate the HVAC system components
and the mechanical room. It only took a couple of minutes, though, for the engineer to
recover. He suggested placing the eleven ground-source heat pump units in two separate
mechanical spaces on the ground floor of the building—six units in one room (serving the
west wing) and five in the other room (serving the east wing). He explained that he could
then route supply piping from the well field directly up through the slab on grade to each of
these units, thereby eliminating all of the piping up to the penthouse and back. Additionally,
supply air could be provided directly into the first-floor air plenum with only a foot or two of
ductwork in three directions. Further, only five feet of vertical ductwork would be needed to
supply air to the second-floor plenum, thereby eliminating virtually all of the ductwork that
otherwise would have been needed to provide supply air from the penthouse. Further still,
the engineer noted that since the duct runs would be so significantly reduced, less
resistance to airflow would result, which meant that fan sizes could be reduced. Lastly, he
explained that instead of facilities staff having to climb a ladder in the janitor’s closet to get
onto the roof and then go out into the snow and rain to replace filters, compressors, and so
on, these activities could be performed in an easily accessible, weather-enclosed space,
resulting in significantly improved ease of maintenance over the life of the building.

The engineer’s solution was elegant. In fact, everyone loved the idea except for one
person, the owner, who heard only that he was going to lose 400 square feet of prime lease
space from the first floor of his building. Locked into a minimum square footage of lease
space, he viewed such an adjustment as impossible. But, after some discussion and
calculations, it was determined that this new idea would save the owner $40,000 in base
construction costs. Hearing this, the owner happily agreed to make up the lost square
footage by adding an inexpensive 18 inches of length to each end of the building. Everyone
was happy. The significant operational savings that would be realized from both energy
savings and simplified maintenance were, as it turned out, icing on the cake. Even the
sheet metal Constructor, who initially balked at the idea of losing all that ductwork
(asserting that such a system would never work), said by the end of the project that it was
the best system he had ever installed.

9
1.D.3. Everyone is Practicing Integrative Design . . . “at least that’s what they say”

What is this mysterious “Integrative Design” process and what does it mean? How do you
know if you really are practicing integrative design or not? How does a client know who to
believe when selecting a team?

With the steadily increasing demand for green and sustainable building, and the
proliferation of the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED® Green Building Rating System,
there is a heightened awareness that the design process itself determines the success and
cost effectiveness of implementing green building and using rating systems. Practitioners
now recognize that an integrative design process can make or break a project, but it can be
difficult to achieve and it depends on every member of the team participating and
committing to it. The difficulty of this process is that it challenges people’s ability to go
outside of their comfort zone, do things differently, and refine their personal skills when
encountering resistance and conflict.

When asked about green building, design professionals often respond in one of two ways.
First, there are the naysayers, those who feel that green design is either a passing trend, or
an expensive add-on layer superimposed onto “traditional” design. Second, there are those
professing that they’ve been doing green design since the ’70s solar craze, and that
everything they do is green and sustainable.

So how do you know if you are really practicing integrative design? To answer this
question, one needs to have a set of indicators—both qualitative and quantitative criteria—
that evaluate whether or not one really is working collaboratively in a team setting. The U.S.
Green Building Council (USGBC) created the LEED rating system to answer the question,
“what is a green building?” Similarly, the design and construction industry now needs to
have a set of indicators that can answer the question—“how green is your process?” ...or,
“how integrated is your process?”

To answer this question, it is first necessary to raise awareness about our current practice
and be honest about what doesn’t work in order to recognize the indicators of a “dis-
integrated,” or dysfunctional, process. These include:
• Lack of clear and shared understanding of project goals and basic aspirations
during conceptual and schematic design
• Poor communication resulting in errors, omissions, and assumptions that result in
over-sizing systems, redundancy, and gaps in knowledge and performance analysis
• A heightened degree of mystery between disciplines, particularly around specific
analysis (For example, the architect doesn’t understand how the mechanical
engineer arrived at the current design, or what assumptions defined the system’s
performance analysis.)
• Lack of value in meetings, tasks or activities—this could range from “value
engineering” (which jokingly is referred to as neither) to ongoing, repetitive meetings
whose outcomes are not clearly defined, and people’s time is wasted.
• Overlaps in roles and gaps between team members’ responsibilities (especially in
LEED projects)
• Silos – decision-making happens without collaboration (for example, the architect
saying, “It’s too early in design to include the mechanical engineer, interior designer,
or landscape architect”).
• Lack of a specific or defined map—the integrated design process differs in
significant ways from the conventional design process to which we’ve become
accustomed or conditioned. To succeed, the project team should intentionally map

10
 its process with clearly targeted goals and with identified decision-making paths,
milestones and methodologies for analysis. Without these, the team has no idea
where it will end up and will suffer added headaches and increased cost. Without a
map, it’s too easy to fall back into conventional practice patterns.
• Meeting structure and flows—particularly early in the process, project teams need to
engage in brainstorming, workshops, and targeted meetings interspersed between
larger group meetings. To avoid silo behavior, teams should focus on specific
analyses, feedback loops and co-solving problems.
• An “abyss” exists between the design and construction professionals, and these two
camps function more as if they are enemies than on the same team, which often
results from current contractual structures and obligations.

On the other hand, you know you are participating in an integrative design process
when:
… you are asked for your input on a wide range of issues—including those outside of
your immediate area of expertise or purview.

…a number of project team members are pushed out of their “comfort zone” (they either
find this exciting and invigorating, or initially terrifying and disturbing!).

…there is a shared understanding of project goals via collaborative working sessions.

…the expectations of your work are clearly defined and sufficiently detailed—the results
have targeted, quantified performance goals.

…other people’s work depends on yours; tasks are interdependent—you can’t just go
off and hide in a corner, then push through your deliverables. Integrated systems result
from an integrative process in which stakeholders co-solve problems.

…you feel that group interactions inspire creativity—working sessions are more “fun.”

…you feel more respected and valued than in a traditional project, and you feel
obligated to respond in kind—you sense a higher level of morale and alignment with the
core values expressed by the group, resulting in an expanded degree of pride in the
outcome.

…there is a focus and emphasis on process itself, including an early collaborative goal-
setting session attended by all team members (no later than schematic design) to
establish a shared understanding of project targets and priorities.

…the process is mapped clearly—stakeholders actually spend time planning how

problems will be solved together, with decisions made in a transparent way—this
defined “map” is incorporated into main project schedule.

…innovative solutions that challenge “rules-of-thumb” are encouraged (innovation

doesn’t mean high-tech or risky strategies).

…decision-makers (client) and an expanded array of stakeholders are involved in a

significant and valuable way.

…the project embraces issues not usually considered in the typical design process—
such as the health of the watershed, the regional ecology, and the community—by

11
 engaging an ongoing process of discovery that identifies what contributes to the health
of the project’s context or place.

…you feel a greater sense of ownership in the entirety (or whole), rather than in
individual aspects or components.

…there is dialogue and debate surrounding design decisions, leading to a higher level
of “buy-in” and consensus among the team.

. . . designers and constructors are working together to find creative reconciling

solutions from the beginning of design through construction.

However, it is important to remember that very little in life is black and white, including the
design and construction process. Most processes are neither completely collaborative nor
completely dysfunctional. More likely, there are variations. One typical scenario is that a
team gets off to a great start, but then the process degrades over time. At the outset, a
team focused on green design will plan an initial workshop—excitement is high, enthusiasm
abounds. People leave the workshop revved up and ready to charge ahead…however,
ingrained habits are hard to change! Either the workshop was a one-hit wonder and didn’t
include a rigorous mapping process, or there wasn’t enough built into the ensuing process
to ensure that collaborative interaction would continue.

The first workshop isn’t enough. The team’s process will not be integrated unless team
members continue to pay vigilant attention to it, and continue to question even their own
participation and habits. A truly integrative design process will include a variety of
interactions among the team—a series of larger workshop meetings with smaller focused
meetings in between, all orchestrated to build on each other. Each meeting, interaction, and
activity should serve to add clarity and value to the exploration, analysis, and resulting
design. If not, the merits of these activities should be questioned and alternatives explored
that might better serve the purpose.

The indicators of an integrative design process are reflected in both the built product and
the human interaction that leads to it. Decreased costs resulting from the elimination of
redundancies and streamlining systems are a solid indicator that the design team is not just
piling on technology without a rigorous and carefully considered method of analysis. As a
result, highly integrated building systems can’t fall prey to typical value engineering
methods, because components are inextricably interrelated, and they cannot be reduced by
merely removing some, without significant impacts on other systems components. Clarity
about both the design and the steps to be taken in the design and construction process are
another strong indicator of an integrative process—the mystery surrounding who knows
what and how they do what they do is lessened, thereby augmenting clarity that is visible
both during the entire process and in the final product.

Accountability is another indicator. Accountability in the form of quantifiable building

performance metrics (where LEED and other rating systems play a role) gives design
teams a measurable means for determining what actually has been accomplished. Such
accountability in the design process requires that stakeholders are held to task for specific
milestones; their input is interdependent with others and therefore critical in order to
produce deliverables and meet deadlines.

The first step in assuring one’s proficiency as an integrative designer involves paying
particular attention to one’s own indicators—if you are reflective about your participation

12
 and the participation of others in the group, you have a much higher chance of success. In
other words, when one looks for quantifiable feedback that evaluates the collaborative
nature of the process, the likelihood of achieving success is much higher.

1.E The Integrative Process Structure Compared to a Conventional, Linear Process

The Integrative Process structure is different from the conventional, or linear, design and
construction process. Achieving the greatest effectiveness in cost and environmental performance
requires that every issue and every team member be brought into the project at the earliest point.

The structure to manage this flow of people, information, and analysis is fairly simple:
- All disciplines gather information and data relevant to the project;
- This information is analyzed;
- The people who hold this information (clients, designers, engineers, Constructors, operators)
gather together in workshops to compare notes and identify opportunities for synergy.

This process of research, analysis, and meeting is done in a repeating cycle that
progressively approximates and refines the design solution. In the best scenario, this cycling
of research and workshops continues until the project systems are optimized and all reasonable
synergies are identified. Accordingly, the Integrative Process can be diagrammed and outlined as
follows:

13
RESEARCH / ANALYSIS - Individual expert team members initially develop a
rough understanding of the issues associated with the project before meeting –
these issues are associated with ecological systems, energy systems, water
systems, material resources, skill resources. This occurs so the design process
can begin with a common understanding of the base issues.

WORKSHOP - The team members come together with all stakeholders in the
first workshop (charrette) to compare ideas, to set performance goals, and to
begin forming a cohesive team that functions as a consortium of co-designers.
By being in relationship to each other, each team member invites the issues
associated with the system for which he or she is responsible to come into
relationship with all others, so that a more integrated and optimized project
results.

14
 RESEARCH / ANALYSIS - Team members go back to work on their respective
issues – refining the analysis, testing alternatives, comparing notes, and
generating ideas in smaller meetings.

WORKSHOP - The team reassembles for a deep discussion of overlapping

benefits and opportunities – how best to utilize the “waste” products from one
system to benefit other systems. New opportunities are discovered, explored
and tested across disciplines, new questions are raised, and cost issues are
evaluated.

RESEARCH / ANALYSIS - Team members go apart again to design and analyze

with more focus and potentially with greater benefits accruing. New ideas are
uncovered.

WORKSHOP(S) - The team reassembles once again to further refine the

design and to optimize systems being used (building and mechanical systems)
and to integrate systems connected with the project (energy, water, habitat,
materials, etc.). Cost issues are further analyzed and optimized.

This pattern continues until iterative solutions move as far as the team and client wish. Simply
stated, good integration is a continuously dynamic iterative process. All issues need to be kept in
play so that the connections and relationships can be optimized. A linear process approaches each
problem directly and separately, while an integrative process approaches each problem from the
varied viewpoints of multiple participants and the issues they represent. It is a continuous circling
process, one that encourages exploration in order to ensure discovery of the best opportunities,
while permitting continuous adjustments as more understanding emerges.

Three to five workshops are the typical number of large meetings required to move integration
forward, in conjunction with many additional sub-meetings. When and how team members interact
is the responsibility of the project manager or integration facilitator. Nevertheless, unless the
project team meets with some level of intentional integration (and updated analysis) at least every
two weeks, the momentum of exploration will diminish.
The essential foundation of an Integrative Process is the Discovery Phase. An understanding of
the invisible relationships between the basic systems (habitat, energy, water, materials) of a project
needs to be gained before the design of any tangible, physical relationships can begin. Every key
issue needs to be brought into play – the more the better. This requires that the client, the design
and construction team members, the community, and other stakeholders representing key issues
and interests, be brought into a relationship with each other so that co-discovery can take place.

The design process should begin by determining, as best as possible, how to increase the
beneficial interrelationships between human, biotic, technical, and earth systems. This
understanding becomes the foundation for any design aimed at saving resources, restoring the
health and benefits of natural system processes, and engaging humans in an understanding of
these functions, so that they can serve as effective stewards. Participants in the design,
construction, and operations phases of the project should actively seek to optimize the
interrelationships between these systems over time – in other words, making sustainable (and
best) use of resources, both technical and natural.

As stated earlier, an Integrative Process requires the committed engagement of everyone about

15
every issue early in the project. The trick is managing this process so that every person’s time is
considered, avoiding excess costs and wasted time. Not everyone needs to be around the table at
every meeting. Each project is unique, so every project requires a process management roadmap
to make sure that assignments are accomplished and addressed by having the right people
present at the right time. Management of this design process is critical if money is to be used
efficiently and if the energy and engaged enthusiasm of team members is to be maintained.

1.F The Key Aspects of an Integrative Process

To achieve an environmentally and cost effective integrated project, the following practices
represent basic minimum requirements. Certainly it is possible to achieve a sustainable project
without these practice aspects; however, the large majority of project teams will stumble in their
effort to achieve high level goals if any of these aspects are not addressed:
1. The Client (the main financial decision maker) needs to be involved in the integrated,
design decision-making process – so he/she is aware of how decisions are made and will
not mistakenly disrupt decisions that have resulted from connected synergies.
2. Select the right design team (No experts, only co-learners).
3. Align the stakeholders and design / construction team around the purpose and values that
are driving the real reason for the project and its greening effort - making money, or “I want
a building” are rarely, if ever, the purpose of the project.
4. Identify Key Systems/ Patterns – form shapers (habitat, water, energy, and materials).
5. Optimize and find synergies between building and natural systems during the Discovery
Process - use evaluation tools iteratively in pre-design, or at the latest, schematic design –
after this it can get expensive to “add green technologies” to a project that wasn’t designed
with these in mind from the beginning.
6. Use tools to facilitate integration, to inform design decisions and to reduce resource and
energy consumption, such as building information modeling (BIM), energy modeling, etc.
7. Commit to specific measurable goals for key systems.
8. Identify Champions or a Core Team to hold these goals throughout the project.
9. Map the Integration Process.
10. Iterate the design – workshops & research / analysis: work towards Whole System synergy.
11. Follow through during the Construction Process.
12. Commission the project and begin this during early design (make sure it performs the way it
was intended and designed to perform – just because it’s built doesn’t mean it works).
13. Maintenance and Monitoring (entropy happens – feedback is essential to maintain
performance).
SECTION TWO – Implementation
(Italicized items indicate additions to the Section Outlines in the Reference Manual)

This section outlines the Integrative Process that project teams should follow when they desire
compliance with this ANSI Consensus Standard Guide. Implementing this process consists of
three basic parts:

• Part A – Discovery
This is the most important phase of integrative design; it can be thought of as an extensive
expansion of what is conventionally called “Pre-Design”. It is unlikely that a project’s
environmental goals will be achieved cost-effectively – or at all, for that matter – if this
phase is not engaged with rigor and is not perceived as a discreet and new way of thinking
about the design process. Discovery work needs to be accomplished before “putting pencil
to paper” . . . in other words, before schematic design begins.

• Part B – Design and Construction

16
 This phase begins with what is currently call “Schematic Design” . . . as such, it more
closely resembles conventional practice in its structure, but it expands and enlivens the
process by folding-in all of the work and collective understanding of systems interactions
reached during the prior Discovery Phase.

• Part C – Occupancy, Operations, and Performance Feedback

This implementation outline does not examine this phase in any comprehensive way, since
doing so is beyond the scope of this Standard Guide, and in fact, it likely requires an
additional Standard to give it its full dimension; however, it should be considered while
engaging Parts A and B, since without feedback, the building and the inter-relationships of
its systems, including occupants and their response to their environment, do not come
alive. In other words, without such post-occupancy feedback, there will be no means to
assess the degree to which Parts A and B successfully addressed these inter-relationships.

Integrative Design Guide

Each of these three Parts – or phases – is further sub-divided into a series of stages; 13 total
stages are outlined below and form the primary content of this Standard Guide by briefly describing
the tasks and activities associated with each stage. These activities are detailed and elaborated
further in The Integrative Design Guide to Green Building: Redefining the Practice of Sustainability,
which is intended to serve as a supplemental and companion “Reference Guide” for implementing
the Integrative Process described in this IP Standard Guide. Therefore, the remainder of this
Standard Guide will refer to this Integrative Design Guide book as the “IDGGB” or "Reference
Guide”. Often supplemental resources from this IDGGB are referenced by the page number on
which they can be found in the first edition of this book (published in 2009 by John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.)
An Optimal Process
The implementation outline presented herein introduces and describes briefly the steps and
activities that make up each stage of the Integrative Process. It is important to note that this
process is presented as an “optimal” one that can be adjusted, applied, and tailored to fit project-
specific parameters and circumstances. In other words, this Standard Guide should not be used to
dictate a linear methodology; rather, its purpose is to identify an idealized structure and set of
activities that will need to be adjusted and tailored to the parameters of each unique project and
team.

Accordingly, Section Two of this Standard Guide is intended to provide a replicable outline of the
steps necessary for implementing an Integrative Process. However, it is not prescriptive. It is not
intended to provide a checklist of steps that must (or even can) be followed precisely for every
project. Instead, the intent of this Standard Guide is to provide a methodology for improving the
building design, construction, and operations process that can remain flexible and scalable,
depending upon the unique circumstances of each project. For example, smaller projects may not
be large enough to afford all of the activities associated with all of the stages, while some major
projects likely could warrant more stages and workshops. Additionally, on a small and less
complex project, implementing the tasks discussed below for the Discovery Phase might be
completed in a few weeks, while on larger more complex building projects, this may take many
months.

Facilitation and Leadership Skills

It also is clear that implementing the Integrative Process requires management, group facilitation,
and moderator skills in order to execute this series of activities effectively; in this context,
effectiveness is really about relationships – about the way people interact with each other and how

17
they can interact more effectively with each other. In particular, project team workshops constitute
an important part of the IP Guide, as described above. Therefore, the project team likely will want
to assign the role of Integration Facilitator to a team member (or members) to lead the team’s
integrative efforts and/or to facilitate workshops. In many cases, hiring a Consultant with these
facilitation skills is a good option. Additionally, users of this Standard Guide may want to consider
seeking management/facilitation guidance and/or training as part of their execution of this process,
particularly with regard to developing the necessary organizational and leadership skills of the
person(s) leading the team, since the quality of any project team’s focus and function is often a
reflection of the leadership skills at the table, as opposed to just the implemented process alone.
These skills include (among others):

• Ability to ask generative questions (questions that go beyond the expectation of automatic
answers - i.e., these require the generation of new thoughts by the participants).
• Ability to facilitate group dynamics and reconcile/harmonize conflicting forces.
• Ability to clearly delegate and communicate responsibilities to various “champions’ on the
team, and then hold these champions accountable.
• Ability to “essentialize” all key points.
• Ability to schedule multiple simultaneously-occurring tasks.
• Ability to allow time for reflection.
• Ability to be flexible.

Four Key Subsystems

Additionally, all development of the built environment finds itself inherently linked and inescapably
bound to larger nested systems and to primary sub-systems within that whole. Consequently, the
Integrative Process outlined below – and particularly during the first nine stages – repeatedly
references the four key subsystems. The IDGGB describes the subsystems in detail, starting
on page 70. In summary, these four key subsystems are associated with the following
fundamental principles:

• Habitat (both human and other biotic systems)

Preserving habitat is our obligation not only to the other species with whom humans share
our planet but also to ourselves. As such, this Standard Guide groups human habitat with
all other habitat systems into one subsystem – humans as a part of nature, not apart from
nature – for the purpose of engaging the following principles:
1. Partner all human activities with living systems in mutually beneficial relationships—a
project should contribute to supporting the systems of life on its site and within its
watershed.
2. Understand and respect local ecological and social systems, including (but not
exclusively) human social health and well-being.
3. Build in essential feedback mechanisms to continuously evolve these relationships.

• Water
1. Strive to make annual water budget equal to or less than annual rainfall on site.
2. Use less water.
3. Retain all rainwater on-site (to the extent allowable by law).
4. Manage water (rainwater and/or wastewater) to replicate natural flows in order to
minimize water leaving the site.
5. Cascade water use to support all life (human and other biotic systems), if water will be
leaving the site.
6. Recharge groundwater table (where possible).
7. Strive to clean all water to potable standards before it leaves the site.

18
 8. Meet or exceed all local, state, and federal laws and guidelines relative to water
management.

• Energy
1. Create less demand via the use of conservation strategies including but not limited to
orientation (and other “passive” strategies), increased envelope performance demand
patterns, reduced lighting and loads, etc.
2. Use available site energies—e.g., sources and sinks—sun, wind, earth-coupling (such
as ground-coupling, water-coupling, etc.), and diurnal cycles.
3. Increase efficiency of what is left—e.g., equipment, appliances, diversity factors,
parasitic losses, part-load performance, occupant behavior, etc.
4. Minimize or neutralize carbon footprint.

• Materials
1. Use less – that which is not used has no environmental impact.
2. Use materials that are abundant and renewable and that do not destroy human and/or
earth systems in their extraction, manufacture, and disposal.
3. Strive to use locally sourced, recyclable, nontoxic, and/or low-embodied-energy
materials. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) tools are effective at evaluating such
comprehensive environmental impacts.

Cost Analysis
Continuous cost analysis also is an extremely important component of this process, and might be
considered a fifth key subsystem. If projects are not economically sustainable, they simply are not
sustainable. During early stages, such cost implications have the potential for being “glossed-over”
or overlooked. Therefore, this is one of several reasons why the Integrative Process works best
when Constructors and Designers work together from the very beginning, before anything is
designed; hence the participation of Constructors on the team during the earliest design phases,
whenever possible, is strongly encouraged. The inclusion of a savvy constructor or cost estimator
from the outset can be critical, and can often provide the owner and project team with the
necessary confidence to move into subsequent phases – both for financing purposes and also for
overall budgeting purposes.

2.A PART A: DISCOVERY

It should be noted that the entire Discovery Phase may be new to many owners/developers, and
even to other industry professionals. Clear goals, schedule, deliverables, and fees will need to be
established for this phase. The concept of integrative thinking during the Discovery Phase
workshops will need to be reinforced and consistently encouraged. An effective and seasoned
Integration Facilitator will add significant value to this phase. As mentioned above, project teams
without this expertise may want to consider hiring an experienced consultant for this facilitation.

Additionally, it is recommended that at the very beginning of (or prior to) the Discovery Phase, the
Owner should engage key team members (see page 128 of the IDGGB) and begin to formulate
his/her own goals for the project (these goals should not be binding, but provide a starting point for
the team). These goals should include budget, business intentions, ability to use life cycle costing,
time frame, ROI assumptions, quality expectations, scope, etc.

The following pages outline the activities and tasks to be engaged during each of the 13 stages of
the Integrative Process, the first five of which comprise Part A – Discovery.

19
2.A.1 STAGE A.1
RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS: PREPARATION

Perform preliminary research and analysis to prepare for Workshop No. 1, the Goal-Setting
Workshop (this is a component of the work defined in Proposal A – see below). Without initial
research, potential sustainable design opportunities will not be able to be discussed with a high
level of rationale (in other words, it will be a fact-free meeting). It helps to begin with research and
analysis prior to the Goal-Setting Workshop by gathering data pertaining to the four key
subsystems. This sets the stage for the initial workshop and provides a framework for continuous
analysis and development throughout the entire process. Accordingly, the following should be
addressed prior to the Goal-Setting Workshop:

A.1.0 PREPARE PROPOSAL A

• Establish scope and fees for initial Goal-Setting Workshop.
Because the process of integrative design is new and the skill sets of team members vary,
project design fees can have a wide range of variation. The following “Proposal A–Proposal
B” approach, when possible, enables a realistic fee proposal from all team members and
serves as an effective structure for establishing clear scopes of work.
 Proposal A: Selected key consultants or team members are asked to submit a fee
focused only on participating in the initial goal-setting workshop and preparing the
background research needed for that workshop (stages A.1 and A.2 only). This
background research and initial goal-setting workshop can be used to set performance
goals as well as to define the integrative process road map (see A.1.4. and A.2.1. along
with pages 123-125 of the IDGGB, which include a sample road map), a process
management scheduling tool that delineates coordination, meetings, sub-meetings,
workshops, and deliverables for those various meetings. With the goals and process
road map established, the consultants have a much more realistic idea of the scope of
work required from them for the remainder of the project.
 Proposal B: With the much clearer understanding of scope and schedule obtained
during Stages A.1 and A.2, all team members can now assign more accurate fees to
the tasks required for the remainder of the project. Proposal B then addresses the
duration of the project and is written by each consultant based upon the agreed-upon
scope and schedule road map developed at the goal-setting workshop (Stage a.2
Workshop No. 1). It is a good idea, when soliciting Proposal A fees, to also request a

20
 non-binding Proposal B fee estimate. This helps the Client develop an overall, rough
budget for the project. It also gauges the A/E and constructor team’s approach and
serve as a check to see if the Owner and the project team are in alignment regarding
the anticipated level of effort required.

A.1.1 FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH IN ADVANCE OF WORKSHOP NO. 1

• Site selection: Assess optional sites (if not already selected)
If no site(s) have been selected, provide a mechanism for establishing site selection criteria.

• Context: Identify base ecological conditions and perform preliminary analysis of the four key
subsystems (see pages 110-120 of the IDGGB):
 Habitat (including human inhabitants)
 Water
 Energy
 Materials
• Stakeholders: Identify key stakeholders—social and ecological.
Identify all key participants on the team and prepare an initial list of probable team
members with thought given to when each would be introduced into the process. At the A.1
stage, team members should include at a minimum, the Owner, Architect and Constructor
with other design consultants and key subcontractors added as needed. It also is
recommended that a Commissioning Authority be hired for attendance at the Stage A.2
Workshop No. 1, if possible.

Determine likely construction delivery method; note that conventional Design-Bid-Build

construction delivery likely will be unsuccessful at achieving high performance goals cost-
effectively, and should be avoided where possible. Additionally, an Owner may not legally
be able to hire the Constructor during design, particularly where prohibited by public
procurement law for publicly-funded projects, so in these situations, the Owner should
include the Constructor’s perspective by selecting a consultant/construction management
firm as a project team member.

• Program: Develop initial functional programmatic requirements

In additional to space-by-space functional descriptions, provide initial profile(s) of how the
building will be used and by whom.

• Commissioning: Engage initial process for preparing the OPR

Begin to establish Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR). Most everything done in these
early stages pertains to establishing the initial OPR content. The commissioning authority
is not separately responsible for documenting the OPR document. See the IDGGB
Reference Guide pages 137-140 for a more detailed description of activities pertaining to
the creation and functions of an OPR. Additional details on the Commissioning Process
(Owner's Quality Process) can be found in ASHRAE Guideline 0-2005, The Commissioning
Process, as an additional reference guideline applicable to the IP Guide.

A.1.2 PRINCIPLES AND MEASUREMENT

• Select rating system(s) and establish performance measurement criteria
It is important to establish initial baseline assumptions for use as benchmarks against which

21
 to assess design decisions. The U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED® program, along with
other green building rating systems and assessment tools, can serve as a useful tool for
establishing project targets by utilizing the benchmarks and metrics it has established for
measuring performance. Other rating systems and analysis tools include: Green Guide for
Healthcare (GGHC ), Labs21, CO2 balancing, ecological footprint, life cycle assessment
(LCA), Natural Step, SBTool from International Initiative for a Sustainable Built Environment
(iiSBE), BREAM in the United Kingdom, CASBEE in Japan, Green Globes, International
Green Construction Code (IGCC), etc.

A.1.3 COST ANALYSIS

• Prepare integrated cost-bundling framework template
It is helpful during this first stage to set up a framework of costs listed or grouped by broad
function, such as foundations, envelope, mechanical systems, electrical systems, and so
forth. This listing gives team members reference points for recognizing, connecting, and
recording relationships between systems. In other words, it provides the framework
template, in the form of a spreadsheet, for integrative cost bundling described in Stage
A3.3. This document can be created with blank cells for future use; its use will be described
further in subsequent stages.

A.1.4 SCHEDULE AND FEES

• Develop a scheduling template—a Road Map—for assigning tasks
Develop a schedule and task spreadsheet template, or integrative process road map
described in more detail below in Stage A.2.1. Include some assumptions about time
frames and task definitions for the discovery and schematic design phases that the team
can begin modifying at Workshop No. 1. This will help team members better understand:
 The detailed scope of integrative design work (interactions and tasks) for the project.
 The issues that will need to be addressed that may have been mentioned, but only
generally or vaguely, in the RFP.
 The specific tasks and interactions, so that a Proposal B can be written more accurately
and fairly.
 The process of examining this detailed scheduling with the team, as this provides a
greater opportunity for team members to be aligned around the interactions required by
this highly iterative process and helps them to avoid operating upon more
conventionalized assumptions.
• Prepare Agenda for Workshop No. 1
To help team members become aligned around common purpose, it is extremely important
to include the primary team members in developing the agenda for the first workshop. This
can be accomplished by scheduling a conference call with the appropriate team leaders.
The discussion during this call should center on the project team’s expected outcomes so
that the team’s efforts can focus on and align around expectations.

2.A.2 STAGE A.2

WORKSHOP NO. 1: ALIGNMENT OF PURPOSE AND GOAL-SETTING

The Goal-Setting Workshop serves as a critical contributor to the Integrative Process—it creates
alignment. Without alignment around the source and meaning of the project’s goals, the team may
not understand the real purpose behind them, and might miss the larger target and its essential

22
aspects. It is the grounding work required for the team to begin to function as co-learners; learning
the nature of the client’s goals and the purpose behind them will help ground the team for creative
problem solving and for much more fruitful interaction thereby increasing the potential for the
project’s success.

Along with all other project team members identified on page 128 of the IDGGB, ensure that the
Constructor’s participation is engaged for this workshop, if possible, to obtain input and feedback
on all systems, including input on constructability, sourcing, and costs.

A.2.1 WORKSHOP NO. 1: TASKS AND ACTIVITIES

• Introduce participants to the fundamentals of the integrative design process and to systems
thinking.

• Elicit client’s deeper intentions and purpose for the project.

• Engage (facilitated) exercise to elicit stakeholders’ values and aspirations.

One of the key lessons learned about this process is that the project team needs to
generate and decide on how to address the effects on environmental sustainability that the
project will create, whether they be impacts or benefits; therefore, getting alignment around
the team’s and stakeholders’ real aspirations is essential – if this does not occur, the design
process may fall back to the default mode of repeating the patterns of conventional design.
Examples of facilitated exercises, such as the Touchstones and Core Values exercises, are
described in detail on pages 82-87 and 129-130 of the IDGGB.

Establish a Core Team to hold and evolve these aspirations and values (see a description
of the Core Team below at the end of Stage A.2.1).

The terms “Touchstones” and Core Values” are defined in the Glossary in Appendix A, but
for purposes of clarification, the following example exercise illustrates how Touchstones
can be identified by the project team and become applicable to the integrative process:

Examples of a Touchstones exercise:

The purpose of this brain-storming session is to identify and list the primary goals and
aspirations of the project team and to prioritize important issues. These “Touchstones”

23
 identify what the project team and stakeholders determine are the most important design
considerations that would define success. The exercise begins by identifying these issues,
then prioritizing them and/or exploring the ways that these issues are interconnected.

At the first workshop/charrette with the team, before talking about the project design, its
components, and even its program, the facilitator simply can ask the question, “What are
you trying to accomplish by building this project?” . . . or “Picture yourself six months or a
year after moving into your new building, what are the characteristics that you would say
about your project that made it a success?” Ask this question in the context of issues
associated with sustainability by identifying the following five key environmental
imperatives:

• Climate Change
• Potable Water
• Resource Destruction
• Habitat Destruction
• Pollution/Toxins

Open a discussion about how the team thinks a successful project would address these
issues – as well as others associated with the unique specifics of the project and Place –
and how they are interrelated. Accordingly, the resulting primary objectives, or
“Touchstones”, can be identified explicitly at the outset in order to help guide the team
through their decision-making process, from conceptual design through occupancy.
Additional benefits that should not be underestimated result from of this exercise as well;
these include: team alignment around issues, collective and individual “buy-in” of
objectives, and ownership of them. The results of this exercise also contribute to creating
the initial Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR) as part of the Commissioning process.

It should be noted that this exercise represents only an entry-level process. It aligns people
around basic ideas that need to be addressed in a project; however, the prioritization piece
of it can lead team members, at times, to think that some of the identified environmental
issues are “less important” if they didn’t get many votes. . . . but all issues are important;
you can’t “vote on nature.” Alternatively, ask team members during workshops to identify
how any three of the identified issues are connected. Then, ask them to select two more
that have interrelationships with the first three, and then two more, and so on. In this way,
project teams begin to see the interconnections more than the fragmented issues or
elements in isolation.

• Clarify functional and programmatic goals

In addition to functional program issues, this discussion should include:
 Team presentation of project status, constraints, opportunities.
 Presentation of results from Stage A.1 research.
 A systems overview of the project’s existing conditions and base issues (e.g. ecological,
energy, water, and material).
 Building owner, users, and operations / maintenance staff in a discussion regarding
occupant engagement and behavior as a tool to achieve project’s integrated goals
(targeting behavior change in the occupants and operators following occupancy).
 Feasibility of various applicable construction delivery methodologies (Design Build, CM-
At-Risk, IPD, etc.). As mentioned above in Stage A1.1 above, conventional Design-Bid-
Build construction delivery likely will be unsuccessful at achieving high performance
goals cost-effectively, and should be avoided where possible.
 Applicability and use of Building Information Modeling (BIM) for use as a functional and

24
 decision-making tool.

• Establish initial Principles, Benchmarks, Metrics, and Performance Targets for the four key
subsystems (see pages 130-133 of the IDGGB):
 Habitat (including human inhabitants)
 Water
 Energy
 Materials

Present potential rating systems as resources for establishing performance targets, and the
metrics and benchmarks to be used for evaluation of performance.

The terms “Metrics”, “Benchmarks”, and “Performance Targets” are defined in the Glossary
in Appendix A, but for purposes of clarification, the following example illustrates how these
relate to on another:

Example for Benchmarks, Metrics, and Performance Targets:

From LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations, EA Credit 1 Optimize
Energy Performance states (parenthetical terms added):

Demonstrate a percentage improvement in the proposed building performance rating

compared with the (Benchmark) baseline building performance rating. Calculate the
(Benchmark) baseline building performance according to (the Metric) Appendix G of
ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007 using a computer simulation model for the
whole building project. The minimum (Performance Targets of) energy cost savings
percentage for each point threshold is as follows: New Buildings Existing - 12%; Building
Renovations – 8%.

• Generate potential strategies for achieving identified Performance Targets.

 Better than establishing Performance Targets and Goals is the concept of working
towards highest Potential. By engaging the team in imagining the highest value that
could be added to a project and its stakeholders (its users, the Earth, the community,
the watershed, etc.) there is the possibility of exceeding generally accepted goals (such
as LEED targets). Working on stretching goals or achieving the highest potential
imagined can inspire design teams to reach higher levels of performance than is
typically expected.

• Determine order of magnitude cost impacts of proposed strategies.

• Provide time for reflection and feedback loops from client and team members.
Ensure that all key decision makers are involved in the process of establishing goals and
project direction to avoid decisions reached at the workshop from backfiring due to lack of
critical support or buy-in. Building into the workshop intentional reflection time and feedback
loops that invite participants to pause and reflect upon how the meeting is progressing can
help eliminate such problems. This can take the form, for example, of asking the owner’s
team to meet during lunch to discuss the findings of the team thus far and to report back to
the group as a means of kicking off the afternoon. This has the added advantage of giving
people – some of whom may feel uncomfortable sharing their thoughts in the larger group
format – a voice within the comfort of a smaller group, leading to more casual conversation
with their coworkers. Another form this strategy can take can be as simple as pausing – for

25
 five or ten minutes at a logical break point in conversation or at a major transition – to ask
everyone to reflect on what they are experiencing through this process.
• Develop an Integrative Process Road Map that identifies responsibilities, deliverables, and
dates, as described and detailed in the IDGGB.
An Integrative Process Road Map identifies in a detailed spreadsheet the team member
responsibilities and deliverables for engaging a clearly defined and manageable integrative
design process that is tied to specific tasks and dates. (Refer to the IDGGB for a sample in
Figure 5-13 on Pages 124-125, along with a more detailed description on pages 135-137).

 The Road Map identifies: responsibilities for action items and the champions for various
environmental issues; detailed and staged deliverables (so that rational system
optimization decisions can be made); and schedules for meetings with defined purpose
and expected attendees. This serves as a scheduling and process map that stipulates
points of joint decision-making and problem solving between team members (not just
individual assignments that are later integrated into a project).
 The actual scheduling process of the Road Map is best done with the entire team or
with a subgroup that walks the team through the process. All members of the team are
invited to comment on what is needed from the others to help them—and help the
project—achieve the environmental goals and performance targets. Remarkable
observations sometimes occur in this process—such as “I didn’t know I was responsible
for an hourly simulation model,” or “I didn’t realize how many meetings we were going to
have at the beginning of the project,” or even “I don’t think we’re the right firm to be
involved in this project.”
 This mapping process allows for the design team to understand the scope of the work
and project expectations from a very detailed perspective. As a result, there is more
likely buy-in from the consultants, more accurate fees, and greater engagement in the
integrative process that the project will need to engage for achieving cost and
environmental effectiveness. In addition, there likely will be fewer instances of
begrudging the engagement. The integrative process typically can be mapped out in
detail for a three to six-month period with reasonably frequent adjustments as the
project moves forward and as inevitable changes occur. It is not the most entertaining
process, but it is a very enlightening one.

• Commissioning: Continue documentation of the Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR)

Most everything done in these early stages pertains to establishing the OPR content. The
commissioning authority is not separately responsible for documenting the OPR. Consider
that in many ways, this first workshop serves as an OPR-creation or confirmation exercise,
and documentation should be created that can be utilized as the OPR, including the initial
Performance Targets described above. See pages 137-140 of the IDGGB for a more
detailed description of activities pertaining to the creation and functions of an OPR. As
mentioned in Stage A.1.1, additional details on the Commissioning Process (Owner's
Quality Process) can be found in ASHRAE Guideline 0-2005, The Commissioning Process,
as an additional reference guideline applicable to the IP Guide.
• Establish a Core Team – depending on the size and ambitions of the project
Establish a Core Team empowered with decision-making authority and process
management. This small group of team members is responsible for focusing and
addressing the issues of an Owner’s Board of Directors, building committee, or any large
governing body. It is unwieldy to have to assemble a large group of people to represent the
Client – especially when rapid decisions are required. The Core Team along with the
project Integration Facilitator (coach, project manager, architectural lead, or whomever

26
 elects to lead the integrative process) is “in charge” and orchestrates the work-flow and
organization; in other words, the Core Team is charged with making decisions and deciding
“who should be doing what.”

Another, and deeper dimension of a Core Team is to take responsibility for holding the
evolutionary potential (or the ‘core’) of the project throughout its life. Its long-term purpose is
to maintain, build upon, improve, and evolve the project’s aspirations for sustainable
performance over time. By focusing on evolving the values and aspirations of the project,
the Core Team can potentially inspire the team to move beyond initially established goals.

A.2.2 PRINCIPLES AND MEASUREMENT

• Document Touchstones, Principles, Metrics, Benchmarks, and Performance Targets from
Workshop No. 1 (See IDGGB page 141 for a description of these aspects).

A.2.3 COST ANALYSIS

• Document order of magnitude cost impacts of proposed strategies to reflect input from
Workshop No. 1.
This is not cost estimating at this “vision” stage. It is often helpful to have one workshop
where everyone knows that they are (theoretically) free of constraints – knowing those will
come and be present for the rest of the job. Rather, identifying both first cost and
operations implications of proposed strategies should set the stage for preliminary Life
Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) regarding select key items should suffice, followed by
estimates of the Net Present Value and payback periods for the proposed measures in the
next few stages.

A.2.4 SCHEDULE AND NEXT STEPS

• Adjust Integrative Process Road Map to reflect any input from participants after Workshop No.
1.

• Distribute report from Workshop No. 1.

Document and distribute a report of Workshop No. 1 preparation, activities and results
including:
 Fundamental research and analysis.
 Principles, performance targets, and measurement criteria from Workshop No. 1.
 Document order of magnitude cost impacts of proposed strategies to reflect input from
Workshop No 1.
 Schedule and next steps: Updated schedule to reflect input from Workshop No. 1

3. STAGE A.3
RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS: EVALUATING POSSIBLE STRATEGIES

From this point forward, the process begins repeating the pattern of Research and Analysis
followed by Team Workshops. During this Research and Analysis stage, the team continues to
refine initial studies, based on the understandings developed at Workshop No. 1, by testing design
concepts and performance targets for feasibility. This process is highly iterative.

Entitlements and Permitting are a critical component for many projects, so engaging the permitting
authorities and building department of the applicable jurisdiction in the earliest stages of the project

27
can be important. This stage represents an appropriate point to engage these issues and
stakeholders by engaging code and municipal officials.

A.3.0 PREPARE PROPOSAL B

• Develop Proposal B: confirm scope and fees based on Workshop No. 1 scope refinement
If using a two-part fee proposal, as discussed in Stage A.1, develop Proposal(s) B to define
the scope of services for all team members, including any potential additional consultants
needed (See IDGGB for more details).

A.3.1 RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS ACTIVITIES: FIRST ITERATION

• Explore and identify a wide range of opportunities and possible strategies before collapsing into
solutions.
Include explorations within individual disciplines, smaller related groups and public meeting
outreach (as appropriate).
• Expand the analysis of the four key subsystems (see pages 146-153 of the IDGGB):
 Habitat (including human inhabitants)
 Water
 Energy
 Materials

A.3.2 PRINCIPLES AND MEASUREMENT

• Evaluate design concepts against Performance Targets from Workshop No. 1.
Include evaluations of design concepts against selected rating system criteria, if applicable,
as part of your performance assessments relative to targets.

• Commissioning: Prepare conceptual phase OPR (see page 154 of the IDGGB)
Teams should be challenged to include in the OPR sets of both “required goals” and
potentially higher “desired goals” that can address notions such as “it would be great if. . .”

28
A.3.3 COST ANALYSIS
• Apply unit cost estimates to the integrative cost-bundling template (see more detailed
description of this cost bundling framework on pages 154-155 of the IDGGB).
• Use line-item unit cost estimates as a starting point for understanding the first-cost impacts of
the alternative systems components (and systems groupings) that are being tested, modeled,
and considered. This is done to create a “project palette” of related line-item costs associated
with these alternatives that allows the team to see the whole set of potential project systems’
(and associated components’) costs. In this way, the team can assemble, or bundle,
interrelated system “groupings” or “combinations” of systems and components. In other words,
the team draws from this list items that are related to each other with regard to how they interact
in terms of their costs (in parallel with the analysis of these groupings’ performance
implications). It should be noted that the line-item costs for each listed component do not need
to be finely honed at this stage; it is the relative difference between the costs of each alternative
“grouping” or “combination” (bundle) that is being explored.
• Refine Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA): Consider a net-present-value analysis of life cycle
costs for these bundles to include:
o First cost of systems options.
o Operations, maintenance, and replacement costs.
o Productivity and environmental cost impacts when possible.
• Refine Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA).

A.3.4 SCHEDULE AND NEXT STEPS

• Update Integrative Process Road Map in preparation for Workshop No. 2.

• Prepare Agenda for Workshop No. 2.

2.A.4. STAGE A.4

WORKSHOP NO. 2: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN EXPLORATION

This workshop, or charrette, initiates the transition from research and alignment of objectives to the
actual design process. It is best when this charrette can focus on generating conceptual design
ideas; but if a project enters the Integrative Process late, this charrette also can focus on reviewing
conceptual design ideas that already have been developed and exploring alternatives.

The project’s key team members who attended Workshop No. 1 should be present at Workshop
No. 2 so that team buy-in and a sense of “ownership by all” continues to develop.

It should be noted that the implementation outline below can be used to create the template for a
Workshop No. 2 agenda and tailored to the specific parameters of each project. However, the
agenda for this session needs to remain fluid and flexible during the workshop, allowing for it to
change in response to the “energy in the room” (as always), the degree of progress made at each
step, the potential exploration of new discoveries, and so forth. It also should be noted that this
workshop can occur as an all-day event on a single day, or it can be structured to last as long as
three or four days, depending on project complexity and the team’s goals.

If the Constructor has not been involved up until now, this is an important stage at which the

29
Constructor’s participation becomes even more valuable and should be included whenever
possible. In particular, the creative experience and additional perspective on design ideas that
Constructors can offer, not to mention their thoughts on how design impacts constructability and
cost, are often overlooked. In other words, the Constructor is best viewed as another co-designer.

A.4.1 WORKSHOP NO. 2: ACTIVITIES

• Present and assess the findings from Stage A.3 (Research and Analysis) of the four key
subsystems (see pages 157-158 of the IDGGB):
 Habitat (including human inhabitants)
 Water
 Energy
 Materials
• Generate conceptual site and building design concepts (related to the four key subsystems)
from:
 Touchstones and Principles (see descriptions in the IDGGB).
 Site forces (see examples in Figure 5-28 on page 159 of the IDGGB).
The conceptual design effort at this charrette often begins with a group site forces
exercise, which involves diagramming on a site-plan overlay those flows entering the
site and those leaving. These site-specific flows can be thought of as “site forces,” and
they include solar orientation, prevailing winds, pedestrian and/or vehicular circulation,
public transportation access, utilities access, topography, stormwater flows, views,
noise sources, neighborhood connections, and so forth.
 Community and watershed living-system patterns.
 Functional program.
Consider encouraging “energy programming” as a component of this work (for example,
see practices by the Energy Studies in Buildings Laboratory at the University of
Oregon). In summary, this process looks at program use proximities and the related
energy impacts and synergies.
 Breakout group working sessions (see descriptions and examples of small group
sessions on pages 160-164 of the IDGGB).
• Confirm alignment with Touchstones, Principles, Metrics, Benchmarks, and Performance
Targets

30
  Assess concepts for alignment with principles, and performance targets.
 Review and refine occupant engagement and behavior strategies.
• Review (and refine) integrative cost-bundling studies in progress.
• Review and adjust the Integrative Process Road Map.
• Provide time for reflection and feedback loops from (and between) client and team members.
• Commissioning: Review Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR).

A.4.2 TRINCIPLES AND MEASUREMENT

• Document adjustments to Performance Targets to reflect input from Workshop No. 2.
• Commissioning: Adjust OPR to reflect input from Workshop No. 2.

A.4.3 COST ANALYSIS

• Update any required integrative cost-bundling templates to reflect input from Workshop No. 2.

A.4.4 SCHEDULE AND NEXT STEPS

• Update Integrative Process Road Map to reflect input from Workshop No. 2.
• Distribute Workshop No. 2 Report.
Document and distribute a report of Workshop No. 2 including:
 Document adjustments to performance targets that reflect input from Workshop No. 2.
 Commissioning / Owner’s Quality Process: Adjustments to the OPR to reflect input
from Workshop No. 2.
 Cost Analysis: Update any required integrative cost-bundling templates to reflect input
from Workshop No. 2.
 Schedule and next steps: Updated schedule to reflect input from Workshop No. 2.
2.A.5. STAGE A.5
RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS: TESTING CONCEPTUAL DESIGN IDEAS

This is a critical point in the process. This stage is the bridge between Discovery and Schematic
Design. The project team needs to be reasonably sure that the essential form-giving issues of the
key subsystems have been addressed before giving form to the building. These should be
analyzed to a level to which the team can confidently commit, so that the subsystems can be
coalesced into a limited number of schematic design schemes.

31
A.5.1 RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS ACTIVITIES: EXPLORATIONS WITHIN INDIVIDUAL DISCIPLINES AND
SMALLER RELATED GROUPS

• Test (and evaluate) conceptual design schemes from Workshop No. 2 within the realities of the
program and guiding principles relative to the four key subsystems (see pages 168-193 of the
IDGGB for detailed descriptions of this analysis and example tools to use):
 Habitat (including human inhabitants)
 Water
 Energy
 Materials
This analysis includes explorations within individual disciplines, smaller related groups and
public meeting outreach (as appropriate).
Reconcile conflicts identified during evaluation – there are two options when making
decisions about seemingly conflicting issues: compromise or harmonize:
When teams compromise they "concede". This means everyone loses a little ground
on each issue but not so much that it really hurts; however, neither side has
a reasonably positive outcome. Example: replace single-glazed windows in a house
with double-glazed windows. The windows cost more and the energy payback is
minimal – maybe 30 years. In other words, lose-lose.

When teams reconcile, they are "harmonizing". Both sides of the issue are positive.
Example: replace the single-glazed windows with triple-glazed, argon filled, low
emissivity windows. The seemingly expensive windows allow significant reductions in
ductwork due to eliminating the need for perimeter heating and a major downsizing of
the boiler. The more expensive better-quality windows allow for a total reduction of
capital costs as a whole compared to purchasing the less expensive double-glazed
windows, AND the energy savings is high enough each month to be meaningful to the
owner, while associated environmental impacts are reduced. This is a win-win-win
situation.

Review occupant engagement and behavior strategies in order to model possible savings
and synergies.

32
• Coalesce findings and bring analysis to a reasonable conclusion before beginning the
Schematic Design phase.

A.5.2 PRINCIPLES AND MEASUREMENT

• Confirm and solidify Metrics, Benchmarks, and Performance Targets
• Commissioning: Develop Basis of Design (BOD)
It is also helpful for each discipline to develop systems narratives, or stories, to help explain
technical concepts, the reasons “why” decisions are being made, and potential relationships
to other systems/disciplines without technical jargon (in layman’s terms). More detail about
how to formulate and utilize BOD documents effectively is described in detail on pages 194-
195 of the IDGGB.

A.5.3 COST ANALYSIS

• Put a price tag on every strategy and subsystem, then aggregate them into integrated cost
bundles.
It should be noted that financing sources may need to be educated on strategies and
subsystems, and/or the team may need to address financing options that may impact the
feasibility and reality of some strategies.

A.5.4 SCHEDULE AND NEXT STEPS

• Update Integrative Process Road Map in preparation for Workshop No. 3.
• Prepare Agenda for Workshop No. 3.

2.B PART B: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

2.B.1. STAGE B.1

WORKSHOP NO. 3: SCHEMATIC DESIGN KICKOFF – BRINGING IT ALL TOGETHER

(WITHOUT COMMITTING TO BUILDING FORM)

At this point, team members have analyzed major subsystems, including options for the building’s
architectural form and massing, but the team has yet to put these pieces together in a whole
building design. Nevertheless, project designers need to restrain themselves from locking into what
the building looks like too soon. Focusing too quickly on the architectural form and/or aesthetic
issues alone tends to pessimize performance and to downgrade the whole. In other words, this
stage begins by ensuring that each of the major subsystems has been refined to a relatively high
degree via reasonably thorough analyses before giving final form to the building.

During Workshop No. 2 (Stage A.4), how these systems might interact with each other has been
examined conceptually. These conceptual ideas and systems performance were then tested
during the Research and Analysis of Stage A.5; now, during Schematic Design, it is time to put
these systems together in greater detail to see how they will support each other and, most
importantly, to discover how the design evolves from integrating these separate pieces. Via
iterative analysis, how these systems are in relationship and mutual support of one another can be
discovered, thereby allowing this process to inform the building’s architectural form and solution. At
the same time, the team continues to look at these systems and their components in continually

33
finer detail and progressive approximation with a finer grain of analysis.

This Schematic Design effort is kicked off during this stage in Workshop No. 3. Similar to
Workshop No. 2, the Implementation Outline below can be used to create an agenda for Workshop
No. 3; but, again, the agenda for this session needs to remain fluid and flexible during the
workshop, as the team makes new discoveries. It also should be noted, again, that this workshop
can occur as an all day event on a single day, or it can be structured to last as long as three or four
days, depending upon project complexity and the team’s goals. Lastly, the Constructor’s
participation once again is extremely valuable at this workshop and should be encouraged (if at all
possible), so that the project’s construction professionals can be included as co-designers.

Additionally, the construction process needs to be considered now. The construction processes
should inform the design process and not simply be an output of it. Investigating Production
System Design using computer simulations may be valuable at this point. Alternative construction
operations may reveal assumptions that the product design should take into account, thereby
rendering the Constructor’s input even more valuable.

As discussed above in the introduction to Section Two of this Standard Guide, the implementation
outline herein presents an “optimal” process that will need to be adjusted and tailored to the
parameters of each unique project and team. Accordingly, it may be sensed by some project teams
as unrealistic to imagine a standardized process that expects 3 full workshops (plus the attendant
tasks associated with same) prior to focusing on building form. Accordingly, some teams may need
to consider how best to adapt this optimal process to their constraints, perhaps by engaging
workshop iterations that can be inserted at key moments, as appropriate for the project.

B.1.1 WORKSHOP NO. 3 ACTIVITIES

• Present sketch concepts (multiple), supporting data, and discoveries from Stage A.5 Research
and Analysis.

• Develop site and building configuration sketch solutions by evaluating flows and exploring
interrelationships between the four key subsystems (see pages 222-231 of the IDGGB):
 Habitat (including human inhabitants)
 Water

34
  Energy
 Materials
• Assess the realistic potential for achieving Performance Targets and review commitment to
Touchstones and Principles

• Identify the systems that require more extensive cost-bundling analysis, including life-cycle-cost
impacts.
This will require agreement between the Owner, design team, and Constructor on the
appropriate variables for this calculation, e.g. discount rate, energy cost escalation, etc.

• Provide time for reflection and feedback loops from (and between) client and team members

• Commissioning: Identify where the Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR) and Basis of Design
(BOD) will need refinement based upon new discoveries.

B.1.2 PRINCIPLES AND MEASUREMENT

• Document adjustments to Performance Targets to reflect input from Workshop No. 3.

• Commissioning: Adjust OPR and BOD to reflect input from Workshop No. 3.
Similar to previous comments about the OPR, the BOD is a vital design team document or
collection of documents that each design team member is responsible for generating and
maintaining, since it serves as a collection of agreed upon specific criteria driving design
decisions and being continuously modified. It should be in the middle of the table as
opposed to off to the side getting updated later. More detail about how to utilize OPR and
BOD documents effectively at this Stage is described in detail on pages 233-235 of the
IDGGB.

B.1.3 COST ANALYSIS

• Update any required integrative cost-bundling templates to reflect input from Workshop No. 3.
Budget parameters may be more precisely defined at this point. Discussions can begin to
address the potential for establishing contracts on a Not to Exceed or GMP basis, if
appropriate.

B.1.4 SCHEDULE AND NEXT STEPS

• Refine and extend forward the Integration Process Road Map tasks and schedule into future
phases to reflect input from Workshop No. 3.

• Distribute report from Workshop No. 3

Document and distribute report from Workshop No. 3, including:
 Adjustments to performance targets to reflect input from Workshop No. 3.
 Owner’s Quality Process Quality Commissioning: Adjustments to the OPR and BOD
that reflect input from Workshop No. 3.
 Outline specifications based on results of Workshop No. 3.
 Cost Analysis: Update any required integrative cost-bundling templates to reflect input
from Workshop No. 3.
 Schedule and next steps: Updated schedule to reflect input from Workshop No. 3.

35
2.B.2 STAGE B.2
RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS: SCHEMATIC DESIGN – BRINGING IT ALL TOGETHER
(AND NOW COMMITTING TO BUILDING FORM)

Schematic design now begins in earnest. This Research and Analysis period is focused on
iterating and refining the results of all previous work and developing a project solution or solutions
that address multiple issues with minimal materials, systems, and expense. Also, this process
focuses on using the opportunity of building to restore and contribute to the health of local living
systems—in other words, elegant design.

Include explorations within individual disciplines, smaller related groups and public meeting
outreach (as appropriate).

B.2.1 RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS ACTIVITIES: SCHEMATIC DESIGN

• Engage a more informed schematic design process and develop building form solutions from
conceptual sketches produced in Workshop No. 3.

• Iterate, iterate, iterate, with meetings, conference calls, etc., to integrate the four key
subsystems with building form (see pages 237-254 of the IDGGB):
 Habitat (including human inhabitants)
 Water
 Energy
 Materials
Activities include:
– Develop building form solutions from conceptual sketches produced in Workshop
No. 3 by pursuing an iterative process of engaged communication to integrate the
four key subsystems with building form.
– Evaluate schematic design schemes from Workshop No. 3 within the realities of the
program and principles, performance targets, and cost relative to the four key
subsystems.

36
 – Engage sub-team meetings across disciplines and expertise areas circling back with
integrated design team and with Owner, as described in the above-referenced
pages of the IDGGB.
– Analyze Occupant Engagement and behavior issues.
– Begin Outline Specifications describing systems and materials being considered.
– Implement Building Information Modeling (BIM) – it is now reasonable to begin to
populate the model with specific information for more detailed analysis and detailed
design permutations. (See detailed descriptions of BIM on pages 198-202 of the
IDGGB).

B.2.2 PRINCIPLES AND MEASUREMENT

• Examine building performance in detail and evaluate results against Performance Targets.

• Commissioning: Adjust the OPR and BOD to reflect proposed schematic design.

B.2.3 COST ANALYSIS

• Refine integrated cost-bundling numbers to ensure that proposed schemes, systems
combinations, and cost scenarios can be evaluated with increasing accuracy (see pages 256-
258 of the IDGGB for how to address cost-bundling at this Stage).

B.2.4 SCHEDULE AND NEXT STEPS

• Adjust and prepare Integration Process Road Map for team review to include tasks and
schedule impacts that have emerged from schematic design discoveries.
• Begin Implementation of BIM - if utilized.
• Prepare Agenda for Workshop No. 4.
This likely is the latest point for selecting construction delivery mechanisms (e.g. design-
bid-build vs. CMGC vs. design-build vs. Integrated Project Delivery, etc.).

2.B.3. STAGE B.3

WORKSHOP NO. 4: DESIGN DEVELOPMENT KICKOFF – CT IS BROUGHT TOGETHER: DOES IT
WORK?

At this point, Schematic Design documents have been submitted to the owner as a single
architectural solution, with possible variants. The team now has an understanding of the
interrelationships between the four key subsystems and the project’s potential for achieving the
Performance Targets within the ranges defined during Discovery and analyzed during Schematic
Design. The pieces have been brought together into a building form to which the team now needs
to commit collectively by validating that the schematic solution falls within these ranges for all
Performance Targets, before engaging more detailed optimization analysis in Stage B.4, Design
Development.

In essence, Workshop No. 4 functions both as a Schematic Design sign-off and as an

organizational meeting for outlining Design Development activities. The benefit of breakout groups
at this point likely is limited; rather, the team as a whole needs to verify that all of the threads have
been brought together. Then the team needs to identify any gaps in the schematic analyses that
will need to be addressed, by engaging more refined analysis, in order to reach higher levels of
performance within these ranges of Performance Targets.

37
B.3.1 WORKSHOP NO. 4 ACTIVITIES
• Present schematic design solutions from Stage B.2 Research and Analysis and verify that the
ranges of Performance Targets are being met for the four key subsystems (see pages 267-274
of the IDGGB):
 Habitat (including human inhabitants)
 Water
 Energy
 Materials

• Verify that schematic design solution meets building program requirements and environmental
performance objectives.
• Commit to building form, configuration, and systems interrelationships that will be analyzed in
further detail for optimization during Stage B.4 Research and Analysis.
• Identify the systems components variants that will require more detailed cost-bundling analysis.
• Identify Measurement and Verification (M&V) methods and opportunities for providing
continuous performance feedback.
• Commissioning: Identify where the OPR and BOD require updating.

B.3.2 PRINCIPLES AND MEASUREMENT

• Document adjustments to Performance Targets that reflect schematic design solution.
• Commissioning: Adjust OPR and BOD to reflect schematic design solution.

B.3.3 COST ANALYSIS

• Expand any integrative cost-bundling templates to reflect input from Workshop No. 4.

B.3.4 SCHEDULE AND NEXT STEPS

• Refine and extend forward the Integration Process Road Map tasks and schedule through

38
 Design Development.

• Distribute Workshop No. 4 Report.

Document and distribute Workshop No. 4 Report including:
 Adjustments to performance targets that reflect schematic design solution.
 Commissioning: Adjust OPR and BOD to reflect schematic design solution.
 Developed specifications.
 Cost Analysis: Expand any integrative cost-bundling templates to reflect input from
Workshop No. 4.
 Schedule and next steps: Updated schedule to reflect input from Workshop No. 4.

2.B.4. STAGE B.4

RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS: DESIGN DEVELOPMENT (OPTIMIZATION)

Design Development is about optimization. Accordingly, during this stage, team members are fine-
tuning the details of their systems, components, and system interrelationships via iterative and
more progressively detailed analysis. The conclusion of Design Development constitutes the
conclusion of making design decisions. It bears repeating, then, that activities during DD focus on
“Designing in Detail,” except for at the finest level, which remains for Construction Documents;
therefore, “Design is Done” at the end of this stage. What is meant by “Done” here is that the
design of all systems that support the Performance Targets for all four key subsystems is
complete.

Include explorations within individual disciplines, smaller related groups and public meeting
outreach (as appropriate).

B.4.1 RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS ACTIVITIES: DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

• Engage detailed analysis of systems interrelationships with continuous iterations between
disciplines.
The analysis here should address in detail the project-specific questions about systems
interrelationships that were asked during Workshop No. 4 pertaining to the four key
subsystems. Interim meetings between team members are essential to accomplish this,

39
 and are described in more detail in the IDGGB.
• Validate achievement of Performance Targets for specific components of the four key
subsystems (see pages 278-285 of the IDGGB):
 Habitat (including human inhabitants)
 Water
 Energy
 Materials
If solutions for integrating the four key subsystems are not completed in detail during this
Stage, and their Performance Targets are not verified by detailed analysis, then it likely will
be too late to realize integrative solutions – the design will not be “Done.” Accordingly, this
detailed analysis should address questions that are highly project specific, so presenting a
comprehensive list of the types of analysis to be engaged during this stage would be
impossible (and well beyond the scope of this IP Standard Guide), since the nature of such
analysis varies as widely as design parameters differ from project to project. However,
examples that are intended to illustrate what level of detail should be addressed in the
systems integration analysis during DD are presented in the IDGGB.
Also, provide a report and review of occupant engagement/behavior strategies and the
expected benefits (both social and ecological) from same.
• Obtain continued input and feedback from Constructor on all systems – the Constructor’s role at
this point can be critical to achieving successful outcomes.

B.4.2 PRINCIPLES AND MEASUREMENT

• Document in detail and validate building-performance results against Performance Targets.
Update and expand outline specifications and begin developing specifications.
• Prepare draft Measurement and Verification (M&V) Plan.
• Commissioning (Cx): see pages 287-294 of the IDGGB for more detailed descriptions:
 Commissioning Authority (CxA) to review design progress and identify opportunities for
further optimization and potential conflicts. The CxA should be engaged from the
beginning of the integrative process and participating as much as possible to provide
input on optimizing performance and operations throughout.
 Identify the preliminary list of systems to be commissioned.
 Prepare preliminary Cx Plan (see example on pages 295-296 of the IDGGB).
Engage Owner’s operations and maintenance (O&M) staff more formally at this phase to
reinforce their meaningful input that was provided earlier.

B.4.3 COST ANALYSIS

• Utilize integrated cost-bundling templates to optimize value and performance (true value
engineering) to conclude cost analysis for all major systems.
Ensure that the technical, programmatic, and aesthetic elements are weighed and valued
when making cost decisions, which requires an iterative collaboration between the Owner,
Architect, and Constructor.

Identify and quantify green building rebates and incentives, if not analyzed earlier.

B.4.4 SCHEDULE AND NEXT STEPS

40
• Extend forward the Integration Process Road Map tasks and schedule through the
Documentation phase and begin integrating with the Constructor if this has not yet occurred.
Once again, it is emphasized that early integration with the Constructor and key sub
consultants (mechanical, electrical, curtain wall, building envelope, etc.) is a key step to
successfully implementing the Integrative Process. Cost estimates, constructability input,
and element-installation-experience sharing are a critical aspect of aligning Constructors
with the four key subsystem goals and Performance Targets.
• Prepare Agenda for Workshop No. 5.

2.B.5. STAGE B.5

WORKSHOP NO. 5: CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS KICKOFF - PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION AND
QUALITY CONTROL

The design is done. The four key subsystems are no longer separate. They are now part of a
whole. To proceed confidently with the documentation phase, it will be worthwhile to have a final
review of project intentions. Project teams should ask: Did the team miss anything during the
intensity of the DD stage? Are there any last opportunities to integrate systems that may have
slipped through the process? In preparing for this workshop, make sure the data to support the
actual achievement of expected performance results is available. All generalizations and
guesswork should now be put to rest with concrete performance calculations.

The principle objective in this workshop is to design the documentation process in ways that can
best integrate and communicate the details of the project, so that systems can be effectively priced
and constructed. In addition to clear, communicative drawings, designing a process for developing
meaningful, thorough, and understandable specifications is a key aspect of this phase; this process
needs to be addressed by the entire team at the workshop.

B.5.1 Workshop No. 5 Activities

• Verify that the design meets all Performance Targets (modeled or calculated).
Include confirmation that all occupant performance / behavior design assumptions remain
accurate.

• Present and verify the integrated performance of the project as an interrelated whole.

41
• Identify where Specifications will need to be altered to effectively document project performance
and integrate the four key subsystems (habitat, water, energy, and materials).

• Verify final cost-bundling analysis and cost impacts related to all major systems and
components.

• Commissioning: Review Commissioning Plan for alignment with BOD and schedule
Commissioning review of mid-construction documents.

B.5.2 PRINCIPLES AND MEASUREMENT

• Document final Performance Targets.

• Review draft Measurement and Verification Plan.

• Commissioning: Update OPR, BOD, and Commissioning Plan to reflect input from Workshop
No. 5.

B.5.3 COST ANALYSIS

• Document integrated cost implications of final design decisions.

B.5.4 SCHEDULE AND NEXT STEPS

• Plan quality control review process of Construction Documents.

• Distribute Workshop No. 5 Report.

2.B.6. STAGE B.6

CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS: NO MORE DESIGNING
In the best of worlds, this stage is a disciplined process of drawing and specification
documentation. Disciplined means that check points exist along the way that will verify the
systemic integration and coordination of systems through the Construction Documents. To achieve
a deep optimization of systems, almost every decision and interrelationship needs to be
understood and reconfirmed. It is necessary to make sure that the people doing the technical
documentation understand why and how decisions have been made, so that they can “think into”
the issues and resolve any remaining discrepancies with the same level of creativity and
understanding that informed the design team’s integration of the four key subsystems. Building
Information Modeling (BIM) tools will be very useful in this stage.

42
B.6.1 DOCUMENTATION ACTIVITIES
• Complete Bidding Documents with thorough Specifications that communicate both performance
requirements and project intentions that integrate the four key subsystems.
• Commissioning (Cx): Update Cx Plan and insert Cx requirements into Specifications (see pages
304-308 of the IDGGB for more detailed descriptions of Cx activities during this Stage).

B.6.2 PRINCIPLES AND MEASUREMENT

• Finalize performance calculations to validate final design and document results.

• Produce final Measurement and Verification Plan to build performance measurement and
feedback mechanisms into project.

• Commissioning: Perform detailed review of Drawings and Specifications to ensure consistency

with OPR and BOD.

B.6.3 COST ANALYSIS

• Review unique cost implications with Constructor and finalize cost estimate.

B.6.4 SCHEDULE AND NEXT STEPS

• Schedule quality control reviews of Construction Documents.

2.B.7. STAGE B.7

BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION: ALIGNMENT WITH THE CONSTRUCTOR

The Integrative Process outline and this Standard Guide for these last two stages are not intended
to provide a comprehensive or detailed outline of the myriad activities and variables associated
with construction and occupancy. Rather, this Guide’s intended purpose is to provide a general
overview of the aspects associated with integrative design that affect team members as they
engage construction and occupancy activities.

43
Although the title of this stage includes “alignment with the Constructor”, such alignment needs to
begin in design phases. This Standard Guide is intended to be unambiguous in its preference
for having the Constructor be part of the integrative team from the beginning, commencing
in early design.

B.7.1 BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

• Explain unique aspects of project and the integration of all systems at the Pre-Bid and Pre-
Construction conferences.

• Review with Constructor’s team (all trades and subcontractors) their roles and responsibilities
prior to commencing construction regarding:
 Subcontractors’ roles in supporting the integration of their work into the whole.
 Each subcontractor’s role in supporting the documentation necessary to demonstrate
achievement of Performance Targets.
Constructors and trades people need to understand that their components are part of a
larger whole, and this likely requires them to be made aware of the components in the
project that will require products and installation processes that fall outside of
conventionalized norms. Accordingly, it is useful to convene meetings with trades people –
those who actually will be on-site doing the work – at several points in the construction
process. These multiple meetings need to be scheduled contemporaneously with the
specific work being performed at various stages of construction, as clarified by examples on
pages 330-331 of the IDGGB.

Review Constructor submittals through the unique filters of environmental performance.

• Construction Acceptance - it is important to note that the Owner and Design Team
should continue the integrative process throughout construction to review and approve
the constructed work. This should include setting expectations early through approval of
submittals, mock-ups and/or first-in-place construction, along with on-going review of
subsequent installations.

• Commissioning: Coordinate with Constructor’s team installation of all systems regarding

achievement of Performance Targets (Refer to pages 332-334 of the IDGGB for more detailed

44
 descriptions; see also ASHRAEGuideline 0-2005, The Commissioning Process, as an additional
reference guideline applicable to the IP Guide).
 Perform site observations.
 Incorporate Commissioning schedule into construction schedule.
 Review submittals.
 Develop construction checklists and commissioning (functional) tests.
 Witness start-up.
 Perform commissioning (functional) tests.
 Verify training of building operations team.
 Prepare final Commissioning report.
 Produce systems manuals.

Other activities include:

– Verify construction and project metrics with the Constructor and subcontractors
throughout the project.
– Create documentation feedback structure to keep buyout in line with performance
and purchasing expectations.
– Involve Owner’s O&M staff in construction process and commissioning.
– Refer to the IDGGB for more detailed descriptions.

B.7.2 PRINCIPLES AND MEASUREMENT

• Manage the collection of documents that verify achievement of Performance Targets.

• Commissioning: Document construction checklist and commissioning testing results and

prepare Commissioning (Cx) reports and Recommissioning Plan.

B.7.3 COST ANALYSIS

• Coordinate with Constructor to ensure that subcontracts are awarded based upon performance
requirements, not just price.
Several mechanisms can ensure that this will happen (such as performance specifications,
construction partnering, etc.), but these likely will differ from one project to another,
depending on the implemented project delivery methodology.

B.7.4 SCHEDULE AND NEXT STEPS

• Ensure systematic communication between design and building team.
It can be effective to require in the specifications that various topics related to Performance
Targets be included as regular agenda items at all job conferences for the purpose of
updating status, coordinating trades, and sequencing appropriately. This often requires
interim meetings and/or communication between various team members; not at all unlike
the traditional construction process, but environmental performance issues and systems
interrelationships are now thrown into the mix with equal priority. Throughout this process,
the incorporation of feedback mechanisms should remain part of all discussions to ensure
that building and occupants have the capability to measure and assess operational
performance.

45
2.C PART C: OCCUPANCY, OPERATIONS, AND PERFORMANCE
FEEDBACK
2.C.1. STAGE C.1

OCCUPANCY: FEEDBACK FROM ALL SYSTEMS

The Call for Performance Feedback: At this point, construction has been completed and the
operations phase begins. The intent of this Standard Guide is not to describe, in any
comprehensive way, how to operate a building, since the procedures and impacts associated with
building operations are far beyond the scope of this Standard Guide. Rather, the purpose here is to
explore what needs to be measured and how. Accordingly, the Standard Guide’s last stage
focuses on how to go about engaging performance measurement and creating performance
feedback mechanisms.

Such measurement and feedback is critical for informing the operations of the facility, so that the
degree to which established Performance Targets have been met can be assessed. Such
feedback helps designers, Constructors, and owners better understand the implications that their
process and decisions might have on future project outcomes, so long as this feedback can be
identified and documented. In other words, performance feedback can help project teams
understand the results of their integrative process, so that they can continually evolve their process
toward better and more effective integration. Convening a project team meeting post-occupancy
can be extremely useful in this regard. The purpose of this meeting is to generate a discussion with
all team members about lessons learned by exploring: What worked? What did not work? How
might it be possible to do better and think about this differently?

C.1.1 OPERATIONS ACTIVITIES

• Establish operations team consisting of key stakeholders responsible for continuously
monitoring, maintaining, and improving environmental performance.
This feedback should be provided to the Owner, the occupants, and the O&M staff . . . but
also to design and construction team to inform future decisions/process.

• Establish and implement standard operating procedures (SOPs) that provide continuous

46
 feedback regarding performance of the four key subsystems:
 Habitat (including human inhabitants)
 Water
 Energy
 Materials
Activities include:
– Conducting post occupancy evaluations of occupants and O&M staff.
– Conducting a lessons-learned workshop with the original team.
– Developing action plans for occupant behavior (changes) based on feedback.
• Commissioning: Conduct periodic Recommissioning in accordance with Recommissioning
Manual.

C.1.2 PRINCIPLES AND MEASUREMENT

• Document key indicators that serve as proxies for the health of the larger ecosystem.
• Document occupant surveys and reconcile results with building systems performance.
• Implement measurement and verification (M&V) plan continuously over the life of the building.
• Insert results of periodic Recommissioning into Recommissioning Manual.

C.1.3 COST ANALYSIS

• Track economic performance of the four key subsystems.

C.1.4 SCHEDULE AND NEXT STEPS

• Implement all of the above over the life of the building.

47
3.0 SECTION THREE – Appendices

A. Glossary

Basis of Design
The BOD is narrative and analytical documentation prepared by the A-E design professionals
along with design submissions to explain how the Owner's Project Requirements are met by the
proposed design. It describes the technical approach used for systems selections, integration, and
sequence of operations, focusing on design features critical to overall building performance. An
OPR is developed for an owner/user audience in layperson’s language, while the BOD is typically
developed in more technical terms.
[modified from the Whole Building Design Guide, http://www.wbdg.org/project/doc_comp.php]

Benchmark
Standard, or a set of standards, used as a point of reference for evaluating performance or level of
quality.
[Businessdictionary.com]

Building Information Modeling (BIM)

A Building Information Model (BIM) is a digital representation of physical and functional
characteristics of a facility. As such, it serves as a shared knowledge resource for information
about a facility forming a reliable basis for decisions during its life-cycle from inception onward.
A basic premise of BIM is collaboration by different stakeholders at different phases of the life cycle
of a facility to insert, extract, update or modify information in the BIM process to support and reflect
the roles of that stakeholder. The BIM is a shared digital representation founded on open
standards for interoperability.
[National Institute of Building Sciences buildingSMART alliance™]

Building Systems
Physical or performance related components that are combined to provide a specific function in a
building. These are typically grouped in performance categories in specifications (e.g, mechanical
systems, electrical systems, lighting systems, structural systems, plumbing systems, etc.)

Charrette (Workshop)
A fast-paced intensive workshop with key client, design, engineering, and building participants.
These charrette events typically range from half-day to week-long events. They provide a
framework for achieving significant production and meaningful agreement among participants in
relatively brief amounts of time.

Commissioning
An intensive Owner’s Quality Process that begins during design and continues through
construction, occupancy, and operations. Commissioning ensures that the new building operates
initially as the owner intended and that building staff are prepared to operate and maintain its
systems and equipment.
[Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory definition http://cx.lbl.gov/definition.html]

Conceptual Design
Conceptual design is a step in the creative process. It describes the general framework of an idea,
along with the principles from which it is derived. It explores iteratively the intentions and
representations of ideas aimed at achieving performance targets.

48
Construction Documents
Legally binding drawings and specifications that set forth, in detail, requirements for the
construction of the project.

Core Values
Principles that guide an organization's internal conduct as well as its relationship with the external
world.
[Businessdictionary.com]

Example:
• Values can be defined as those things that are important to or valued by someone. That
someone can be an individual or, collectively, an organization. One place where values are
important is in relation to vision. One of the imperatives for organizational vision (whether a
client/design team or business) is that it must be based on and consistent with the
organization's core values. An organization's core values – as an example, integrity,
professionalism, caring, teamwork, and stewardship- are often part of an organization's
vision. When values are shared by all members of an organization, they are extraordinarily
important tools for making judgments, assessing probable outcomes of contemplated
actions, and choosing among alternatives. Perhaps more important, they put all members
"on the same sheet of music" with regard to what all members as a body consider
important.
[National Defense University, “Strategic Leadership and Decision Making”, Chapter 15,
Values And Ethics]

Cost Bundling
A holistic cost analysis that first identifies all components affected by each major integrative
strategy, then groups the costs associated with all such affected components into integrative
combinations, or "bundles", instead of estimating solely the individual line item cost for each
component or system individually.

Design Development
The elaboration and refinement of the schematic design so as to define and resolve all aspects
and interrelationships of the project’s subsystems and components

Discovery Conceptual Design

The concept design that arises out of a disciplined and thorough Discovery analysis and evaluation
process.

Discovery Evaluation
The analysis of site forces and issues that will affect and inform building form and design

Discovery Phase
The Discovery Process is a phase that informs the early part of the conventional Pre-Design
Phase. In terms of Sustainable Design, the Discovery Phase is a significant phase. Site forces,
energy, daylighting, material choice, water balancing implications are understood and inform the
rough massing and preferred location of the building before the concept design process is
engaged. This provides many more opportunities and restraints for the architect to consider before
creating the building form.

Discovery Preparation
The initial research and process road mapping that precedes the analysis and evaluation of issues,
forces, and programming of the project

49
Entropy
Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.
[free online dictionary]

Four Key Subsystems

The alchemists were correct—earth, wind, fire, and water are the four essential elements required
for life. The sun (fire) is out of our control, other than how we use its present or stored energy
(fossil fuels) as a resource. However, the other elements directly in our control are essential to the
pursuit of the sustainable conditions that serve to sustain life. Without healthy soil (earth), clean air
(wind), and clean water, we will not be able to grow healthy food, or build shelter, for the support of
all species—the essential base condition necessary to sustain life. A building cannot function
without, or be without impact on, the contributions of these four key subsystems, which are
continually referenced throughout this Standard Guide as (1) water, (2) habitat (human and other
biotic), (3) energy, and (4) materials. Consequently, all development finds itself bound to these four
primary subsystems.

High Performance Building

A building that integrates and optimizes on a lifecycle basis all major high performance attributes,
including energy [and water] conservation, environment, safety, security, durability, accessibility,
cost-benefit, productivity, sustainability, functionality, and operational considerations
(Energy Independence and Security Act 2007 401 PL 110-140). High Performance Buildings are
not sustainable in themselves; even a carbon neutral, water balanced, and pollutant-free building is
still an interruption of the life and most likely damaging the planet due to its construction and on-
going internal activities associated with its operations.

Integration Facilitator
A person who organizes and leads large and/or complex meetings and processes in order to
systematically explore, discover, and structure reciprocal interrelationships between people,
organizations, their missions and the systems, technologies, products, and processes associated
with building and human performance.

Integrative Cost Bundling

A spreadsheet consisting of line-item unit cost estimates as a starting point for understanding the
first-cost impacts of alternative systems components (and systems groupings, or “bundles”) that
are being tested, modeled, and considered for a project. This is done to create a “project palette”
of line-item costs for these alternatives that allows the team to see the whole set of potential
project systems (and associated components) costs, so that the team can assemble, or bundle,
interrelated system “groupings” or “combinations” of systems and components. In other words,
from this list are drawn items that are related to each other with regard to how they interact and in
terms of their costs as a group, rather than solely as individual separate components.

Integrative Process
A process of design, construction, and operations that is organized to structure the interaction
between people who hold knowledge of the various technical and living systems associated with a
building project. This process is organized to explore, discover, identify and structure mutually
beneficial interrelationships and synergies between these multiple systems.

Integrated Project Delivery (IPD from AIA)

Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) is a project delivery approach that integrates people, systems,
business structures (contract and legal agreements) and practices into a process that
collaboratively harnesses the talents and insights of all participants to optimize project results,

50
increase value to the owner, reduce waste, and maximize efficiency through all phases of design,
fabrication, and construction.

AIA’s California Chapter denotes the phases of an integrative process as “conceptualization”,

“criteria design”, “detailed design” and “implementation documents” for instance. This way the team
knows they are working within the framework of a nonconventional process. This Integrative
Process Guide uses more conventional design phase terminology. For reference they compare as
indicated in the following table and diagram:

IP Guide terms Traditional terms IPD terms

Discovery Preparation
Discovery Evaluation
Discovery Conceptual Design Pre-design / Conceptual Design Conceptualization
Schematic Design Schematic Design Criteria Design
Design Development Design Development Detailed Design
Construction Documents Construction Documents Implementation Documents

Integrative Process Road Map / Process Management Roadmap

An Integrative Process Road Map identifies in a detailed spreadsheet the team members’
responsibilities and the required deliverables for engaging a clearly defined and manageable
integrative design process; it is tied to specific tasks and dates. The process of developing such a
map has proved beneficial in the scoping of work and in keeping track of the complex interactions
required between team members in order to optimize building, natural, and social systems and to
identify synergies between them.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a scientific methodology evaluating the environmental impacts and
energy use of products / materials over a product’s life from raw materials extraction to end of life /
reuse. LCA is an emerging tool that is not able to accurately compare one product to another
without published and harmonized product criteria rules.
[See Leadership Standards Campaign Framework (Aug. 2011)]

Life Cycle Cost Analysis

Life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) is a method for assessing the total cost of ownership. It takes into
account all costs of acquiring, owning, and disposing of a building or building system. LCCA is
especially useful when project alternatives that fulfill the same performance requirements, but differ
with respect to initial costs and operating costs, have to be compared in order to select the one that
maximizes net savings.
[Whole Building Design Guide, http://www.wbdg.org/resources/lcca.php]

51
Linear process
A linear process emphasizes design disciplines working with ideas in isolation from other
disciplines. At relatively few points in time these ideas are presented and combined with the
systems designed by other disciplines. Slight adjustments are possible with these minimal
interactions. Generally, this approach is “successful” because the expectations of this design
approach do not question design assumptions that have “worked” in the past.

Living systems
A living system maintains its identity and self-organizes to a higher level of complexity and
resilience in order to preserve itself. A forest, a human community, and a wetland are living
systems. Because sustainability is about sustaining life – it is necessary that humans understand
and become re-integrated with life and how living systems process themselves.

Measurement and Verification Plan

A well-defined and implemented M&V plan provides the basis for documenting building
performance in a transparent manner that can be subject to independent, third party verification.
[Lawrence Berkeley Lab, http://mnv.lbl.gov/keyMnVDocs/mnvplan]

Metrics
Standards of measurement by which efficiency, performance, progress, or quality of a plan,
process, or product (such as a design iteration) can be assessed.
[Businessdictionary.com]

Organism
A system regarded as analogous in its structure or functions to a living body: the social organism,
a building as an organism, etc.
[free online dictionary]

Owner’s Project Requirements

The Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR) provide an explanation of the ideas, concepts and
criteria that are considered to be very important to the owner, coming out of the programming and
conceptual design phases and which are desired to be tracked throughout design and
construction. The OPR is developed by the owner not the design team. The OPR provides the
direction for the design team. The OPR document sets the functional goals that the design is
judged against and establishes the basis of the criteria used during construction to verify actual
performance. The OPR does not list items that are already required by code. The OPR is generally
not a description of what specifically will be included in the project design, but is the more general
feature and categorical performance criteria to be met by the design. Where practical and known,
the OPR includes measurable indicators used to verify that the performance requirements were
met.
[www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/bsc/CALGreen/CX-SAMPLE-PROJECT.pdf]

Performance Targets
Measurable goals or objectives that are established for a building system (or program) that
generally can be quantified but, in some cases, qualified.

Principle
A basic truth, law, or rule that has to be, or usually is to be followed, or can be desirably followed,
or is an inevitable consequence of something, such as the laws observed in nature or the way that
a system is constructed. The principles of such a system are understood by its users as the
essential characteristics of the system, or reflect the system's designed purpose; the effective
operation or use of which would be impossible if any one of the principles was to be ignored.

52
[Adapted from: Alpa, Guido (1994) "General Principles of Law," Annual Survey of International &
Comparative Law: Vol. 1: Iss. 1, Article 2]
Examples:
• The nature of the land, its healthy functioning, its living systems, and physics inform the
structuring of human habitat.
• Unpolluted, biologically diverse, and carbon-rich soil is one of the foundations for healthy
food.
• Conserving energy by means of a well-insulated and reasonably airtight envelope is an
ecologically effective and cost effective way of reducing energy use.

Production System Design

Production system design is called “work structuring” and serves the three goals of production
systems: do the job, maximize value, and minimize waste. For each of the latter two, ends-means
hierarchies are proposed that progressively answer the question “What should we do to achieve a
goal?” moving from desired ends to actionable means.
[Production System Design: Work Structuring Revisited, LCI White Paper #11, Ballard et al,
www.leanconstruction.org/pdf/WP_11_Work_Structuring.pdf]

Recommissioning
A type of commissioning that occurs when a building that has already been commissioned
undergoes another commissioning process. The decision to recommission may be triggered by a
change in building use or ownership, the onset of operational problems, a predetermined time
interval, or some other need. Ideally, a plan for recommissioning is established as part of a new
building's original commissioning process or an existing building's retrocommissioning process.
[Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory definition http://cx.lbl.gov/definition.html]

Schematic Design
Schematic design studies consist of drawings and other documents illustrating the scale and
relationships of the project components

Site Forces
The flows and interrelationships of water, wind, sun, animal and people movement, ground water,
plant habitat, and so on that will impact or be impacted by a proposed building project and / or
other human activity.

Standard Guide / Consensus Standard Guide:

A compendium of information or series of options that does not recommend a specific course of
action - A guide increases the awareness of information and approaches in a given subject area,
and is contrasted to more quantitative consensus standards: classification, practice,
specification, and test method.
[ASTM Blue Book definition]

Sustainable Building
Emphasizes the process of designing buildings so that they will sustain the health of the planet's
organisms and systems over time. Buildings themselves are not sustainable within the context and
meaning of sustaining life on the planet. Therefore it is the process of building that may achieve
this, along with neutralizing the damage that buildings and their processes cause.

Synergies
The interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their combined effect is greater than the
sum of their individual effects.
[free online dictionary]

53
Systems
A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a purposeful and complex
whole.

Systems thinking
The process of understanding how things influence one another within a whole - Systems Thinking
has been defined as an approach to problem solving, by viewing "problems" as parts of an overall
system, rather than reacting to specific part, outcomes or events and potentially contributing to the
further development of unintended consequences.
[Systems Thinking in Schools, Waters Foundation,
http://www.watersfoundation.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=materials.main]

Technical systems
Mechanical and man-made systems that deteriorate and suffer reduced performance (due to
entropy).

Touchstones
Goals, aspirations, or general criteria established by project teams from the outset against which
design iterations can be evaluated in order to guide design decisions and stay aligned with these
original goals and aspirations.

Whole system
The various systems of a building, a body, a community, a watershed, etc., interacting as an
integrated whole organism in relationship with the larger systems in which it is nested.

B. Reference Standards and Guidelines

ASHRAE. 2005. Guideline 0-2005, The Commissioning Process. Atlanta: American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.

ASHRAE. 2007. ASHRAE Guideline 1.1-2007, HVAC&R Technical Requirements for the
Commissioning Process. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers, Inc.

ASHRAE. 2008. ASHRAE Guideline 4-2008, Preparation of Operating and Maintenance

Documentation for Building Systems. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers, Inc.

ASHRAE. 2001. ASHRAE Guideline 5-1994 (RA 2001), Commissioning Smoke Management
Systems. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.

ASHRAE. 2011. ASHRAE Guideline 10-2011, Interactions Affecting the Achievement of

Acceptable Indoor Environments. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers, Inc.

ASHRAE. 2008. ANSI/ASHRAE/ACCA Standard 180-2008, Standard Practice for Inspection and
Maintenance of Commercial Building HVAC Systems. Atlanta: American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.

54
C. Acknowledgements
The Integrative Process Standard Guide for Design and Construction of Sustainable Buildings and
Communities has been made possible only through the efforts and contributions of the large group
of committed volunteers and professional practitioners who participated in the development of this
Standard Guide, including:

Market Transformation to Sustainability ………...Mike Italiano

Chairs / Leadership ……………………………Bill Reed and John Boecker, Co-Chairs

John Boecker
Jason Twill*
Jeff Levine
Sean Culman

Version 2.0 of this Standard Guide was produced with financial support from BetterBricks, led by
John Jennings, Manager of Design and Construction Market, Commercial Sector. BetterBricks
is the commercial building initiative of the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.

*Deep gratitude and special acknowledgement is owed to Jason Twill, of Vulcan, Inc., for his
enthusiasm and tireless efforts in assembling peer reviews and for his help in engaging the support
of BetterBricks.

55