Quo Vatus by Matt Taylor
1987
|
C O N T E X T
Yesterday at a meeting with UniCredit real Estate I was given, for the first time, the budget for the project. I had been designing based on as set of assumptions that turned out to be false. Given what I had been shown of the design, as it existed prior to my involvement, I assumed that the detail and finish of the areas would be at the same level as the elevators, raised platforms and other features of the design. Further, my Program Statement [link: unicredit navcenter program statement], which has developed from various dialogs with UniCredit people and my own analysis of the requirements of the project, determined that this needed to be a signature project for a variety of reasons which are documented in that statement. While in no way was I being exuberant with spending, I assumed - and still believe for a variety of reasons - that this environment must be world class in concept as well as every detail.
The dilemma is that the project has already been delayed, and a design developed priced bid, and let to Permasteelisa prior to my involvement. There is a corporate approved time and cost budget with all the expectations and obligations that go with that.
I assumed that the design process was starting from scratch and that a new budget would be developed based on the new design. This is not the case. Also, I was attempting to engage with the UniCredit and Permasteelisa teams based on a “starting over” assumption and interrupting their requests for information in that context. As I progressively developed my plan, wanting dialog, feedback and engagement form the team they were waiting for the final design so that they could continue with design development and contract documents. This condition lead to considerable stress among the team. We were all working from a different set of expectations and my comments regarding team process [link: taylor_design_build_process] did not convey the message desired. I was in the preliminary design phase and the team was in the design development phase and attempting to incorporate my work into the next phase of contract documents.
As my design unfolded it because clear that it could not be accomplished within the original budget which was for a conventional meeting-learning space. The demands of a NavCenter are much greater than this accounts for. Permasteelisa is contracted for a fixed amount and has to deliver within it. The process of changing the budget would be protracted and politically sensitive. Given the train wreck that could have caused, everyone handled it very well. I left the meeting with budget in hand - and it is a considerable amount of money along with the amounts in other budgets and the problem to see if my design could be salvaged.
It cannot.
Yet, after much soul searching, I have drawn the conclusion that the design, basically as it is, is in fact what is required. The question then is how to accomplish it within the time and monetary constraints.
In the meeting, I pointed out that NavCenters are not just cost centers but actually save, make and earn money for the corporation - a circumstance not considered in the making of the budget for a corporate “training” center. This raised the possibility of future budgets and the idea of staging the work which is actually a better process in the long run. This is a very complex project to design and build in nine months.
This lead me to design the three alternative strategies which are outlined below. Each has advantages and disadvantages. Each have some mutually exclusive elements which will constrain any migration plan. In the end, the right choice depends on UniCredit’s concept of the UniManagement Mission and taking into consideration the STATEMENT that they are making, internally to UniCredit people, and externally to the European banking community and the city of Turin itself. This issue is addressed in the Program Statement [link: unicredit navcenter program statement] and other papers on this web site.
The challenge is this: the issue will be resolved over the next week - the present schedule demands this. The problem which this creates is that understanding the factors which drive the decision is not an easy task. These factors are included in the analysis of each option presented below. There is, unfortunately, little time left to dialog and arrive at an answer on a decision that effects so many people, perhaps negatively, in the short term yet makes such a great difference over the longer term.
Matt Taylor
March 23, 2006
|
|
|
T H R E E XS T R A T E G I E S |
| The three design strategies are: |
Strategy 1:
Make the case for the preferred design, as it is, get the money to do it and build out the entire project as designed at this time.
Strategy 2:
Redesign a permanent environment to meet the time and budget constraints and build this with little or no pre-staging for migration to the preferred design at a later date.
Strategy 3:
Build an RDS environment, within a leasehold improvement design, that meets immediate UniManagement requirements and develop the permanent environment - at a later date - based on the preferred design.
NOTE: all these strategies scope the basic leasehold improvements, with some modifications relevant to each strategy, as shown on UniCredit drawing 1002 rev 01A dated 16-03-06. |
|
| Each of these design strategies have strengths and weaknesses, upsides and risks. Which strategy is best can only be determined by the ultimate mission of UniManagement and the function of the NavCenter component as it augments this mission. The essential dilemma remains: there is not time to to this thoroughly within the available decision window. There is not time for the UniCredit Management to learn and understand the difference between a corporate training center and a NavCenter let alone the different economics involved [link: navcenter economics]. This means that the decision has to be made, now, based on a best guess of what will be desired in the future. There are two aspects which have to be considered in doing this. First, there exists exclusivity among the strategies - one eliminates, for all practical purposes, some possibilities inherent in the others. Second, to keep a migration path open - as in strategy 3 - money which has no short term benefit will have to be spent during the first planning and construction phase. As example, if the Armature [link: navcenter armature] as designed is to be built later, structural work will have to be done now to enable this. If the Armature is subsequently never built, this money will be have been wasted. There are other examples, which will be outlined below, however, the Armature, and all that goes with it such as lighting and media display, is a major one as is the floor plane [link: navcenter floor plane] which is closely related to it. If the Armature, as designed, is not built a completely different floor pattern will be required. If the floor pattern, as designed, is not affordable with the present budget then the Armature - if added later - has to be redesigned. There are many ways to design a good solution but an integrated design cannot be pulled apart thread by thread. With the typical environment, changes - as long as they are done with care - do not matter because the design is not integrated - it is arbitrary. With the UniManagement NavCenter, it does - to change is to change reference and meaning. It can be change - but only as a whole system. |
|
a n a l y s i s XS T R A T E G Y X1 |
Strategy 1:
Make the case for the preferred design, as it is, get the money to do it and build out the entire project as designed at this time. |
|
| As I have established why this is a signature project [link: unimanagement signature]. Why this is so is the result of a number of internal and external to conditions and opportunities to UniCredit [link: conditions]. These form the social window of opportunity in which this “product” will be launched. An internal marketplace is no different than an external one. There is a great deal of symbol involved in moving from Lesmo to Turin. Symbols and expectations can powerfully work for or against a project and the meme they create lasts a long time. The launch of any project or project is critical. Wikipedia notes: “the Edsel is most famous for being a marketing disaster. Indeed, the name‘Edsel’ came to be synonymous with commercial failure, and similar ill-fated products, have often been colloquially referred to as ‘Edsels.’” The Edsel [link: edsel] actually was a very good car. It failed because of the gap between what it was, the expectation of it, and the condition of the market in which it was launched [link: edsel failure]. |
It may be assumed that a project with an internal corporate mandate is immune from these effects. This is erroneous. There is no question it will be used - but how and in what context are the key questions. |
|
| This cartoon was published in 1979, 20 years after poor Murray made his three choices. I use to start every DesignShop® with this image - it always received hearty laughter until I asked everyone “how we will feel, twenty years later, about the work we are about to do in the next three days.” In recent years, the humor is lost on a modern audience because they cannot relate to the 1950s and what a tremendously good deal a fall-out shelter, an Edsel and $10,000 a year looked to an average American at that time. Besides, Edsels are now becoming a collector’s item, finally appreciated for what they were - if Murray could only have hung on, until the 21st Century, he might have realized some profit from his boldness. Timing, it is said - is everything and that is the point of this story. You address the issues of your time and act when the “market” is ready or you become an also-ran. Doing good work - when greatness is required - is to make an Edsel. |
| Strategy 1 does great work. Strategy 2, although it will be a very good result - does not. Strategy 3 may achieve the necessary level if this is the stated intent from the beginning, if we execute in a measured series of improvements, building excitement and capacity as we go, and if the present window-of- opportunity holds long enough for this to happen. |
|
a n a l y s i s XS T R A T E G Y X2 |
Strategy 2:
Redesign a permanent environment to meet the time and budget constraints and build this with little or no pre-staging for migration to the preferred design at a later date. |
|
| This design strategy uses the UniCredit Real Estate floor plan as revised March 16, 2006 with very few modifications and meets the May 22, 2006 Budget by Installing the 2005 WEF Armature, with some modifications, and using its existing electrical panels, wiring, control systems and lighting. The KWIB POD and the two rotating PODs, as shown on the Option One drawings would also be installed - the “wings” will be eliminated for now. MGT WorkFurniture from Lesmo will be moved to Turin and supplemented with more as necessary. Care with the WorkFurniture build-out will free some dollars for other required items. |
| Option 2 will create, in present terms, a state-of-the-art NavCenter which will be able to serve all of UniCredit’s requirements for a period of time except making the statement I believe is necessary - and necessary now. This, in marketing, is call POSITIONING. An opportunity to make this specific statement will be forever lost. |
| Option 2 has two big things in its favor. It is much more easily doable, within the cost and time budget that has been approved, and requires little additional design work than has already been done. |
| Even putting aside the issue of positioning, over the long run Option 2 will not turn out to be a good or economical choice. The RDS Armature will constrain the use of the center too much. This will not be apparent in the beginning when the use levels of the center are lower and the methods employed simpler. In addition, Option 2 doe not easily migrate to a fully capable solution. When this is wanted, the Center will have to shut down for extensive alterations. Time and money will be wasted. |
|
a n a l y s i s XS T R A T E G Y X3 |
Strategy 3:
Build an RDS environment, within a leasehold improvement design, that meets immediate UniManagement requirements and develop the permanent environment - at a later date - based on the preferred design. |
|
| Option 3 is a combination of the best aspects of 1 and 2 while avoiding the risks associated with the first. It requires building the floor as designed for option 1 [link: floor plane] and also performing structural and electrical work in anticipation of completing the design at a later date. The “wings” and PODs would be built as planned for Option 1 durning the first phase of Option 3. |
click on drawing to see large scale view |
|
click on piecture for tour of the RDS at Davos 05 |
| The Aspen Room at Davos, where this RDS was placed in 2005 is smaller than the center space under the cupola at Turin; at Davos the full outer ring of the Armature could not be employed - at Turin it can be. With the greater ceiling height at Turin and the far greater space around the full outer Armature ring, the Armature will set well in the environment. |
|
s u m m a r yX o f XS T R A T E T I E S |
| It should be understood that all three of these approaches will produce a very good result and will be functionally adequate in the short term. In fact only a few will be disappointed with the initial results of options 2 and 3. Some will sense that something was “missed” but, lacking a better example will not be able to articulate what did not happen. The majority will have nothing to measure the difference against. As time go on, however, the difference will reveal itself. In the long term, only Strategy 1 and or properly executed Strategy 3 will provide the full functionality that is needed. Option 2 is, over the long run most likely a dead end or, at minimum, will require a very expensive retrofit in later years. It does not evolve easily and without great expense and time loss. Option 3 can be the best trade off between budget, risk, timing factors and getting the results needed as they are needed - a just-in-time evolution. It will require extraordinary management discipline to be brought to fruition. Its weakness is illustrated by two questions: “will it actually be carried out?” And, “will the opportunity window remain open?” It is only Strategy 1 which creates the maximum impact, and sustains it. It shows UniCredit people and Europe that the first truly world class European Bank is being born. It directly addresses Turin and its need to recreate itself and transform its economy. |
| The issue is not about a budget that was proposed and approved for a very nice but traditional corporate training center versus the requirements to build a state-of-the-art learning, design and collaboration capability. The issue is not about the risk of going back and saying “we had a good idea and did a good job at executing it but now we see a far greater opportunity and we want to change our plans and do this.” The issue is the STATEMENT, build in steel, wood, glass, concrete and marble that says “this is who we are and where we are going.” |
|
| After meeting with Permasteelisa and Unicredit Real Estate architects, March 29, 2006, It was decided to pursue an Option 3 design strategy while designing, engineering and pricing the final environment based on the original design (Option 1). New drawings, pricing and contract arrangements will be developed between Permasteelisa and Unicredit so that this work can proceed. |
| |
| The floor will be built as designed for Option 1 and the RDS (WEF 05) Armature placed upon it to be removed when the new Armature is installed at a later date. |
| To the maximum extent possible, all necessary construction required to support the future Armature and its wire feeds will be completed in this first phase of work so that the transition to the final design will require minimal disruption and future expense. There are a number of projects, particularly lighting, that can be done at any time after the NavCenter is in operation when budget allows. These will be designed, engineered and organized into discrete work packages. This way, enhancements to the environment will be continuous and selected as experience with the space shows relevance. By the time the New Armature goes in, most of the other Option 1 work can be completed. |
| This approach will require some changes in the MG Taylor WorkFurniture layout. The RDS will supply sufficient lighting and power to the Center of the NavCenter and will perform well with a few enchantments. There will not be enough in the budget to supply lighting, other than general lighting, to the rest of the space. Therefore, less standard furniture will be supplied (it is not required in the beginning) and more rolling power and light trees will be installed instead. This may or not make it possible to supply the “Leonardo Wings” for opening. These can be added later, if not. The objective is to stay within the original MG Taylor estimate on Armature enhancements, WorkFurniture and trees, lighting and so on. |
| The RDS armature will work well within the UniManagement space. There are three issues that make this less optimal than the original design and will have to be dealt with as best as possible and “lived with” until the original Armature design is installed. First there is the horizontal constraint of the Armature’s truss span which is 40 feet. This alters the original design in terms of very large meetings employing an assembly set up. There is nothing that can be done about this however it is not too great a constraint. All other (and most used) set ups will be mostly as well served with a few with only minor constraints. The second is the location of the large media projection drop screens. The RDS Armature will constrain the use of the screen next to the balcony for some uses as it will the sight lines (for assembly purposes only) from the balconies. Rolling video trees will be used to compensate and we may need a few more of these than originally planned. The last issue is that of vertical scale. |
 |
| The section view shows the “gap” between the RDS Armature and the roof and dome layer - this creates a scale issue that the original Armature is designed to deal with. |
|
| The RDS Armature will be fitted with Translucent fins on top that will be similar to the shapes employed in the original Armature. These will raise the visual armature and provide surfaces for the projection of colors and images. In addition the drop screens will be used to project presence up into this space and images can be hung from the technology grid [future link:] as we did at the Palo Alto knOwhere store. In addition the Permasteelisa lighting team is designing a lighting system that can be installed in the RDS Armature that can sculpt the space between the Armature and the dome turning a liability into an asset. |
DesignShop at knOwhere
December 1999 |
| This DesignShop group is in a two story space with a balcony looking into it. The technology trellis holds video cameras, screens and microphones. There are more video screens at the eye level of the participants, as well as, the WorkWalls which are used for display and writing/drawing. The images hung from the Trellis were selected for this specific DesignShop. All media is multimedia. |
| A schematic model of the 2006 WEF Armature imposed over the floor plane design [link: the floor experience] as it will be built for Option 3. A schematic design of how the WEF Armature will be employed, until the installation of the permanent UniManagement Armature is installed, is under development and will be completed by mid April [future link:]. The graphic below is a sketch of how the high technology tech trellis will hold lights and projection drop screens. |
|
| The Permasteelisa contract has be completed and drawings based on Strategy 3 completed. Agreement in principle has been reached between MG Taylor and UniCredit to adapt the WEF 05 Armature to the space. The design, engineering and fabracation work can now begin. |
|
|
| Return to UniManagement INDEX |
|
|
|
|
| Return to INDEX Matt Taylor Biography |
|
|
|
|
| GoTo: ver 2.5 Line Drawings INDEX |
|
|
|
|
| Link: Revisions Corrections Details |
|
|
|
Matt
Taylor
Milan
March 23, 2006
SolutionBox
voice of this document:
ENGINEERING • STRATEGY • PRELIMINARY
|
|
posted:
March 23, 2006
revised:
April 5, 2006
• 20060323.419991.mt • 20050325.121281.mt •
• 20060326.566120.mt • 20060327.656510.mt •
• 20060329.122109.mt • 20060401.233321.mt •
• 20060303.566571.mt • 20060305.512315.mt •
• 20060513.544332.mt •
Copyright© 2006 Matt Taylor
GUINDON© Los Angeles Times Syndicate 1979
(note:
this document is about 96% finished)
|
|
|
|
