A Systems and Contingency Analysis Applied to Construction Projects of Exceptional Architectural Design

Chapter 4 - Organizational Goals

Summary / The Project Organization as a Coalition / Case Study Context of Different Organizational Goals / Coalition Theory Applied to the Case Study / Return to Index Page

Summary

A project organization is a coalition of groups that often have dissimilar goals. Projects of exceptional design will tend to have a higher divergence of goals than more standard types of projects. This is particularly true between those responsible for designing the project, and those responsible for its construction. The client and designer, however, will generally be more congruent in their organizational goals than would be the norm on a more typical project. In order for a project of exceptional design to succeed, the designers will need the sanction and support of the client to overcome the greater level of goal disparity between the designers and the constructors.

Chapter 4 - Organizational Goals

This chapter will examine in particular the goals of groups within the project organization. The theory of coalition and methods of balancing diverging goals are discussed. A case study is used to highlight some of the goal conflicts that can occur on a project of exceptional design.

The Project Organization as a Coalition

The project organization on a construction project is comprised of a number of organizations that often have dissimilar goals, or while perhaps having a similar set of goals, will assign different priorities to the goals. Kast and Rosenweig [401] have noted that an organization's goals will influence its interaction within the environmental suprasystem and other organizational subsystems.

Cyert and March [402] view the organization as a coalition. They postulate three ways in which the objectives of a coalition are determined:

1) "Formation of Coalition Objectives through Bargaining" - Stabilization is achieved through the use of negotiation and side "transfer" payments.
2) "Stabilization and Elaboration of Objectives" - Stabilization is achieved through the allocation of functions, and the use of budgets.

3) "Changes in Objectives through Experience" - Objectives are modified through interaction with others in the project organization

Kast and Rosenweig [403] have identified three levels of goals that operate within an organization's goal structure: 1) Environ-mental level. 2) Organizational level. 3) Individual level. They relate these goals [404] to specific manage-ment functions which they note (relative to the ordering above) as: 1) Strategic - Relating the organization to the environment. 2) Coordinative - Developing the strategic goals into specific operating goals. 3) Operational - The actual, short term, task performance.

Case Study Context of Different Organizational Goals

The following propositions are based on both the writer's experience, and published documentation regarding the Kaufmann House, designed by the architect F. L. Wright in 1936. Further research would be required in order to statistically verify the following propositions.

Projects of exceptional design will tend to have a higher divergence between different organizations goals than will a project of more standard design. Because of this greater divergence, the possibility of conflict between the organizations in a construction project is greater. The following is excerpted from a letter in 1936 written by the architect Frank Lloyd Wright to the contractor, Walter Hall, [405] during the construction of the Kaufmann (Fallingwater) house:

I guess I took too much for granted when I called you on to the Kaufmann house. Probably you have always been your own boss, never worked for an architect and never heard of ethics.
At any rate it appears from Bob's [Wright's supervising architect on the construction site] letters that you are undertaking to advise Kaufmann concerning various matters that are certainly my business and none of yours, and this tardy letter from you shows that is is by no accident on your part but is your habit of mind.

...When I sent for you I hoped to find real help in getting a difficult building built for a difficult client. But it seems to me now I sent for you only to find I have a greater difficulty than either client or building.

...If you imagine your meddlesome attitude to be either sensible or honest (we will not say ethical) [then] something was left out of either your character or your education.

I have put too much into this house (even money, which item you will understand) to have it miscarry by mischievous interferences of any sort. The kind of buildings I build don't happen that way. Several have been ruined that way, however, and this one may be one of them.

This letter alludes to some characteristics that occur on many types of construction projects, but are accentuated, as is the case above, on projects of exceptional design.

In the situation above it can be inferred that the architect was performing his work out of a desire to create a work of art through the medium of architecture. This goal is confirmed by the career accomplishments of this architect together with his numerous writings.

It can be surmised that the contractor was interested mainly in the financial remuneration to be obtained out of the project. If the letter quoted above is not too overly biased, it would also appear that the contractor did not understand, and/or particularly care about, the essence of the design for what is arguably one of the greatest works of residential architecture created in this century. If the project had not been one of exceptional design, it could well be that the architect would not find the contractor's interference in the design process so "meddlesome". If the architect were merely designing the project to achieve financial remuneration, it could be argued that the goals of the architect and the contractor in the case above would have been more congruent, i.e. each would have sought to do the minimum required, within reason to please the client, and each would have sought to complete the project as expeditiously as possible in order to maximize the financial return.

In a separate letter that the architect wrote to Edgar Kaufmann, Sr., the client, Wright stated [406]:

I suppose there is nothing in your experience by which you might measure this disappointment and chagrin which you have handed me. I have put [my] best inspiration and effort into creating something rare and beautiful for you whom I respect and have conceived affection for only to find that so far as he could add ruin to my work and reputation he did so behind my back when I was helpless, with no idea, apparently, that he was so doing. Any pleasure I might take in having done some-thing noble and fine for you is outraged by any outside interference with my effort on your behalf, no matter how well meant the interference may be.

This letter hints at a difference in organizational goals between the client and the architect. Among other things, it can be inferred that the vision of what the building should be was a differently held vision on the the part of the architect and the client. Years later, Edgar Kaufmann, Jr. (the son of the original client) wrote in regards this difference of visions [407]:

...many of father's suggestions [regarding the design of the building] were as unsuitable as Wright's idea of gold leafing the concrete. Yet, in the long run, despite such vagaries these two productive and responsible men enabled a grand architectural concept to take coherent shape.

What is of interest to note, in the case above, and what I believe holds true for buildings of exceptional design more than for standard buildings, is that while the architect and the client may have differing visions of what constitutes exceptional design, they at least were in concordance that the project was one that required an architectural concept of exceptional design. In the case of the Kaufmann house, this can be noted in a letter written by the client to the architect [408]:

I hereby agree to do all in my power to see that the architect's instructions to the builder, Hall, or whoever may take his place, agreeable to the architect, are faithfully executed and that no exterior advice or criticism be allowed to interfere with the architect's authority over matters concerning the character and integrity of the building I have engaged him to build for me. And this is to continue until the building is completed to our mutual satisfaction.

At the risk of an over generalization, it would seem that on a project of exceptional design, concerning the relationship of the client, designer, and contractor that the following propositions might apply.

The organizational goals of the client and the designer, on a project of exceptional design, will be more congruent than on projects of standard design.

The organizational goals of the designer and the contractor will be less congruent on a project of exceptional design than they would be on a project of standard design. Similarly, this lower congruence will apply to a lesser extent between the client and the contractor.

In order for a project of exceptional design to succeed, the designer will require the support of the client to overcome the greater degree of goal dissimilarity between the designer and contractor, as well as between the client and contractor.

Coalition Theory Applied to the Case Study

With reference to the previously quoted postulates of Cyert and March regarding the three ways in which objectives of a coalition are deter-mined, it may be useful to apply these concepts to the context of the case study above.

The formation of coalition objectives through bargaining could be said to have occurred primarily between the client and the architect. Prior to designing this project, the client and architect had become acquainted and had developed a mutual respect for each other [409]. Between the two of them interacting they established the tone and nature of the project.

Stabilization and elaboration of objectives by the allocation of responsibilities, in the case above, was directed by the client and the architect. It was the client and architect together, after agreeing on the preliminary design, who agreed on a division of responsibilities for the construction of the project [410]. In addition, later in the project, during the construction phase, the architect successfully lobbied the client for a mandate of control on the project primarily over the contractor, but also over the client's representative. A letter by the client giving this mandate to the architect is quoted earlier in this chapter.

With regards the change of coalition objectives through experience, it appeared that the overall goals of the project coalition, as determined by the client and architect, did not change substantially through the project. If anything, experience within the project context seemed to make the contractor, at least externally, more pliable to the requirements of the project organization.

Generalizing from the above, there are some conditions in the example that I believe would apply to projects of exceptional design if they are to be successful in design terms. In the form of propositions, these would be:

On projects of exceptional design, the designer must have a large influence on the determination of the project organization's goals.

On projects of exceptional design, the designer will require the support of his client, and will need to have a degree of control of other organizations in the project organization, in particular those organizations that are involved in the physical construction of the project.

Return to Index Page

Return to Home Page