See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235934906

Architects about briefing

Article  in  Facilities · May 2008

DOI: 10.1108/02632770810849454

CITATIONS READS
23 2,575

3 authors, including:

Theo J M Van der Voordt

Delft University of Technology
505 PUBLICATIONS   2,212 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Crime Prevention through environmental Design / Fear of Crime (Sociaal Veilig Ontwerpen) View project

Adaptive reuse as a means to cope with vacancy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Theo J M Van der Voordt on 30 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-2772.htm

Architects about
Architects about briefing briefing
Recommendations to improve communication
between clients and architects
Tetske Bogers 109
PRC B.V., Bodegraven, The Netherlands
Juriaan J. van Meel
ICOP, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, and
Theo J.M. van der Voordt
Faculty of Architecture, Department of Real Estate & Housing,
Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to provide a better understanding of how architects perceive and use
briefing documents. It discusses what type of briefing information architects find relevant for their
design process, and how and when briefing information should be presented. It also gives
recommendations for clients and consultants that produce the brief.
Design/methodology/approach – The article is based on a review of briefing literature, six
exploratory interviews with two clients, two architects and two consultants, 18 in-depth interviews
with Dutch architects, and a workshop with Dutch experts on briefing.
Findings – A brief (or “program of requirements”) is a crucial means of communication in the
interaction between clients and architects. A good brief explains what the client needs, desires and
expects from a project. This is all crucial information for the design process. In the interviews,
however, many architects indicated that, in daily practice, briefing documents are not as useful as they
should be. In their opinion, briefs are often too long, containing overly-detailed specifications, that are
not always clear, consistent or complete.
Practical implications – In addition to the analysis of architects’ complaints, six recommendations
are given with respect to the briefing process, the contents and structure of the brief, and the status of
the brief.
Originality/value – Most publications on briefing focus on the client and brief writing at the start of
a project. The present paper discusses the opinions and experiences of the architect and the use of the
brief in the design process.
Keywords Project brief, Customer services management, Communication, Construction industry,
Architecture
Paper type Research paper

Briefing
Briefing concerns the identification and formulation of client requirements in
construction processes. Client requirements generally are about issues like spatial
dimensions, flexibility, indoor climate, logistics, security etc. In most projects, these
requirements are captured in briefing documents which record them in documentary Facilities
Vol. 26 No. 3/4, 2008
form. pp. 109-116
Basically, briefing documents are a means of communication in the interaction q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0263-2772
between client and architect. For architects, and others involved in construction DOI 10.1108/02632770810849454
F project, the brief should give a clear overview and understanding of the
26,3/4 accommodation needs and ambitions of the client organization. Furthermore, the
briefing document functions as a “touchstone” against which design proposals can be
tested and alternatives can be compared. Thereby, it helps to structure the debate
about the quality and value of design proposals between client and architect (van der
Voordt and van Wegen, 2005). Finally, the brief is a means to get an idea of the required
110 budget.
Because of its importance, clients and their consultants tend to spend a lot of time on
briefing. In most projects, the “writers” develop the brief on the basis of interviews
with end-users, discussions with facility managers, and the expertise of external
consultants. Architects, on their turn, tend to spend a lot of time on studying and
analyzing the brief. By reading the brief thoroughly, sometimes making their own
summaries and analyses, they try to get “in touch” with the project.
From a distance, this seems to be a productive way of working. Practice, however, is
more complex. Architects feel that briefing documents are often inadequate or limiting
their creativity (Cherry, 1999; Brown, 2001). They usually seek additional information
from their clients, sometimes re-doubling the effort that has already gone into the brief
(Heintz and Overgaard, 2007). Clients, on the other hand, sometimes have the
impression that the brief is poorly read by architects, or even ignored. They tend to
believe that architects would rather work without the restrictions of a brief.
These complaints are somewhat surprising because briefing has received quite a lot
of attention in both practice and research in the last decades (see, e.g. Sanoff, 1977,
1992; Palmer, 1981; Preiser, 1985, 1993; Duerk, 1993; Cherry, 1999; Peña and Parshall,
2001; Blyth and Worthington, 2001; Boyle, 2003; Ryd, 2004; van der Voordt and van
Wegen, 2005; Ryd and Fristedt, 2007). Most publications, however, have a one-sided
focus on the client (Heintz and Overgaard, 2007). Furthermore, most publications tend
to focus on brief writing at the beginning of a project (Ryd, 2003). Very few attention is
given to the architect and the use of the brief in the design process.
This is a major gap because, as said earlier, the brief is essentially a means of
communication. Briefing should not only focus on the “sender”, but also on the
“receiver” of information. Otherwise, its contents may not come across, be
misunderstood or overlooked, limiting the relevance of the brief.

Method
This paper explicitly focuses on the role of architects in the briefing and design
process. It is based on eighteen in-depth interviews with Dutch architects, all
experienced lead-architects, working for medium-sized or large architectural offices
(Bogers, 2007). The semi-structured interviews focused on descriptions of how
architects use and perceive briefing documents, and the respondent’s ideas for
improving briefing documents. The questions were based on an extended literature
study and six explorative, open interviews with two architects, two professional clients
and two briefing consultants.
The outcomes of the interviews have been presented in a workshop with 11 Dutch
experts on briefing – seven briefing specialists from different commercial consultancy
firms, one advisor of the Dutch Governmental Building Agency, and three academics
who are involved in teaching and research into briefing processes. After a short
introduction of prior research and experiences with respect to briefing, six issues were Architects about
discussed in 30 minutes each. The discussion was based on a short presentation of each briefing
issue and a statement, all based on the interviews.
The outcomes of the interviews and the workshop will be discussed in the following
paragraphs, looking at following topics:
.
general impression of briefing practice;
111
.
format and contents of briefing documents;
.
phasing of the briefing process;
.
new methods and innovation in briefing;
.
relation with other forms of communication; and
. relation with the nature of the project;

The article ends with an overview of the architects’ recommendations for better
briefing.

General impression of briefing practice

The idea that architects find briefing documents rather “annoying”, and prefer to work
free of restrictions, was not confirmed in this research. Almost all interviewed
architects stated that they find the brief a vital document. A majority of them (44
percent) finds the absence of a proper brief annoying, or thinks that it is simply
impossible to start working without one (22 percent). None of the respondents regarded
the absence of a brief as ideal. Only 6 percent regards this as pleasant. The other 28
percent did not have a clear preference:
Interviewed architect: The brief is one of the most vital documents in the design process. Often
its importance is underestimated. It is relevant from the early start to the very end of the
project. It is an important tool for testing. There are too few good briefs.
While recognizing the importance of the brief, the respondents express a considerable
amount of dissatisfaction with the briefing documents they encounter in everyday
practice. In their perception, briefing documents are often long lists with standard
requirements that are based on building codes and generic standards they already
know about. Other complaints are that briefing documents are not always complete
(mentioned by 50 percent of the respondents), too detailed (28 percent), or not detailed
enough (32 percent). Inconsistencies and contradictions can also be a problem,
especially in voluminous briefing documents for large scale projects. 80 percent of the
respondents find this annoying:
Interviewed architect: To put it negatively: briefing documents are often copied from earlier
projects. They are not tailored to the unique nature of a project. Many requirements are vague
and abstract, others are borrowed from existing norms and building codes. I don’t think this
creates good briefing documents, although there are exceptions of course.
These complaints may explain the fact that more than half of the respondents would
like to be actively involved in the briefing process. They do not prefer to be main
author or producer of the brief, but they would like to participate in the development of
its contents.
F Format and contents of briefing documents
26,3/4 Architects would like briefing documents to be readable and understandable. One of
their main demands is a clear document structure, which helps them to make a
distinction between requirements of primary and secondary importance:
Interviewed architect: When the brief is not structured properly, it is difficult to identify
whether requirements are highly relevant or of minor importance. When you find a vital
112 requirement somewhere in the catacombs of the brief, you are basically being wrong-footed.
According to many of the interviewed architects, the lack of proper structure is a major
problem. In their perception, strategic requirements concerning, e.g. the ambitions of
the client, are obscured by an overload of technical specifications. The mentioning of
mostly generic norms and standards makes it difficult to pinpoint the unique
characteristics of a project.
Another complaint concerns the absence of financial information in many briefs.
Although almost all handbooks on briefing state that the brief should include
information concerning the budget for the project, many briefing documents seem to
lack this type of information. The architects state that this makes it very difficult to
interpret the content of the brief. For example, terms like “high-quality” or
“high-standards” cannot really be understood when budget information is absent.
A topic of debate among the architects, is the extent to which the brief has to be
explicit about the client’s preferences concerning architectural style or aesthetics. Most
architects, and experts on briefing, state that a client’s ambitions on architecture
should be an integral part of the brief. At the same time, they recognize that
architectural ambitions are difficult to express in words. The use of images can be
useful, but many architects feel that explicit references to other buildings oversimplify
the architectural demands of clients:
Briefing consultant, participating in the workshop: Images can be used to illustrate
requirements that are difficult to express in words. With a term like “open”, different people
will have different associations. To be more clear, the use of images of a good option.

Phasing of the briefing process

The architects were also asked about their preference in the phasing of the briefing
process. According to literature there are basically two different approaches. One
approach is based on the idea that all briefing information should be complete before
the design process starts (e.g. Peña and Parshall, 2001; Duerk, 1993). The other
approach is based on the idea that briefing is a continuous process, which interacts
with the design process (e.g. Barrett and Stanly, 1999; Blyth and Worthington, 2001).
The interviewed architects differed in their preference for one of these two
approaches. Half of the interviewed architects said that they expect their clients to have
done their “homework” before they start designing. They feared, and have experienced,
that an on-going briefing processes can result in new requirements and many changes
along the way. In their opinion, it frustrates the efficiency of their design process. Over
40 percent of the respondents, however, question the extent in which clients are really
able to formulate all their requirements beforehand. They stated that clients actually
need the architect’s sketches and drawings to find out what their accommodation needs
really are.
 Regardless of which approach is pursued, the status of requirements should be Architects about
clear. All architects indicate that it is important for them to know which requirements briefing
are “fixed” or “flexible”. Furthermore, they would like to have a clear procedure on how
changes in the brief are communicated:
Interviewed architect: In my experience, there are always changes in the brief during the
project. It is important to communicate and administer these changes. If requirements do not
change, we just make the building as it is written down in the brief. 113

New methods and innovation in briefing

Relatively little has been said about new developments or innovation in briefing
practice. The general impression was that briefing documents and their status in the
project tend to become inflexible due the rise of PFI projects and Design and Build
methods of procurement in the Netherlands.
A new development that was discussed with several of the architects, is the use of
internet and digital modeling in briefing. Five of them had practical experience with a
new Dutch briefing tool called BriefBuilder. With this softwaretool, requirements are
not captured in paper documents, but in a web-based computer model. Instead of
having to “plough” through paper, architects can “click” and “browse” through
requirements on a project website (van Ree et al., 2006; Zeegers and Ang, 2007). All five
architects indicated that it took some time to get used to this new way of briefing, and
that they still print parts of the digital model. They also stated that the tool provides
better possibilities to structure and access briefing information.
The architects expect that such tools will slowly become more common, in line with
the on-going digitalization of their own design process:
Interviewed architect: Working with a digital brief is very pleasant. It takes some time to get
used to, but it is an ideal way of working. Briefing information can be accessed from different
perspectives [. . .] information was better structured [ . . . .] and we could check our own work
against the brief with an additional test tool.

Other forms of communication

However important the brief may be, all interviewed architects agree on the fact that
briefing documents cannot replace face-to-face communication with the client. Many of
the architects say that they always try to establish a direct dialogue with users and
clients, even though they are not supposed to do so in some projects. Direct contact
with users is seen as necessary to get a “feel” for the organization and the ambitions
and priorities of the clients:
Interviewed architect: Conversations with users and clients are most important. Of course we
can design a building without communicating with them, but this tends to result in a
dissatisfied client. He won’t understand the building, or the building doesn’t live up to his
expectations.
Architects see direct communication also as a means to test whether they have
understood or interpreted the brief properly. The respondents indicate that written
requirements do not always match the actual expectations of the clients and users.
Furthermore, the contents of the brief are not always realistic, e.g. not matching the
F client budget. In such cases, a direct dialogue between architect and client is absolutely
26,3/4 necessary:
Interviewed architect: If you ask clients what they want, they say they need a new Volvo, with
all extras, while in reality they may be better off with a second hand Renault. The gap
between what they want and actually need is large, again and again.

114
Nature of the project
The described observations and comments of architects were made about briefing in
general, not referring to a specific type of project. All respondents, however, also agree
on the notion that the contents and type of brief should depend on the type of client
(professional/non-professional), the nature of the building (size, complexity, function)
and the organization of the construction process (traditional, or integrated contracts
such as Design & Build).
In large and complex projects, briefing is more important than in standardized and
small projects. And when direct contact between users and architects is difficult, such
as in Design & Build and PFI-projects, the brief should contain more information about
users than usual:
Briefing consultant, participating in the workshop: A hospital or PFI building projects asks for
a different type of brief than a standard corporate building. In the case of large scale and
complex projects, more attention should be given to the completeness and consistency of
requirements.

Conclusions and recommendations

The goal of our study was to get a better understanding o how architects perceive
briefing and what they want from briefing documents. Based on the interview
outcomes, we can conclude that architects find briefing crucial for their design process,
but that they are not always pleased with the briefing documents they have to work
with. Based on their response, we can formulate the following recommendations for
improving briefing processes and briefing documents:
.
Give architects the opportunity to comment on the brief: the project’s planning
should contain a “dialogue phase” in which the architect can study the brief and
discuss its contents with the client.
.
Have the consistency and completeness of the brief checked: especially in
large-scale projects with voluminous briefs is it recommendable to have an
outsider read and analyze the brief before it is finalized. This saves a lot of
frustration and communication problems with the architect later in the process.
.
Be clear about the essence and priorities of the project: make an explicit
distinction between strategic requirements or ambitions, functional briefing, and
the technical, more detailed requirements. A distinction between a strategic brief,
a project brief, a fit-out brief and an operating brief may be helpful to emphasize
that briefing is a process of refinement, leading from a general expression of
needs to a particular solution (Blyth and Worthington, 2001; Ryd and Fristedt,
2007).
 .
Be clear about the status of requirements: make clear which requirements are Architects about
fixed and which are flexible, where uncertainties lie, and how to deal with briefing
changes in the brief.
.
Focus on the unique or specific requirements of the project: do not copy the
content of generic norms and standards; instead, make clear in which sense the
building is different from the standard.
115
. Include not only quantitative, but also qualitative requirements: figures about
square meters, temperature levels, etc, are important, but they tell a very limited
story about the accommodation needs of the client. Do not hesitate to include
“soft” information concerning the culture, the attitudes, ambitions and desires of
the clients and the users, activities and business processes, scenarios and
forecasts for development of the business, and the “feel” for the project.
Descriptions of the daily situations, short inspirational essays and statements
made by the users of the existing facility may be helpful to transmit the feel for
the project essential to the architect as the staring point for design (Heintz and
Overgaard, 2007).

To many, these recommendations will hardly sound surprising. It is clear, however,

that in everyday practice briefing is still problematic. Clients and their consultants
seem to be too focused on piling up all their requirements in large reports, while
forgetting that the architect actually has to read and use this document in the design
process. To improve the everyday practice of briefing, it is important to realize that
architects cannot produce a good design, when clients fail to be clear about what they
want.

References
Barrett, P. and Stanly, C. (1999), Better Construction Briefing, Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Blyth, A. and Worthington, J. (2001), Managing the Brief for Better Design, Spon, London.
Bogers, T.G. (2007), “Het programma van eisen als communicatiemiddel” (“The brief as a tool to
communicate between clients and architects“), graduation thesis, Faculty of Architecture,
Delft University of Technology, Delft.
Boyle, G. (2003), Design Project Management, Ashgate, Aldershot.
Brown, S.A. (2001), Communication in the Design Process, Spon, London.
Cherry, E. (1999), Programming for Design, Wiley, New York, NY.
Duerk, D.P. (1993), Architectural Programming; Information Management for Design, John
Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Heintz, J.L. and Overgaard, F. (2007), “From program to design: how architects use briefing
documents”, paper presented at the CIB World Congress, South Africa, 14-18 May.
Palmer, M.A. (1981), The Architect’s Guide to Facility Programming, The American Institute of
Architects, Washington DC.
Peña, W. and Parshall, S. (2001), Problem Seeking: An Architectural Programming Primer,
4th ed., Wiley, New York, NY.
Preiser, W.F.E. (1985), Programming the Built Environment, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York,
NY.
F Preiser, W.F.E. (1993), Professional Practice in Facility Programming, Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York, NY.
26,3/4 Ryd, N. (2003), Exploring Construction Briefing. From Document to Process, Reproservice
Chalmers, Göteborg.
Ryd, N. (2004), “The design brief as carrier of client information during the construction process”,
Design Studies, Vol. 25, pp. 231-49.
116 Ryd, N. and Fristedt, S. (2007), “Transforming strategic briefing into project briefs”, Facilities,
Vol. 25 Nos 5/6, pp. 185-202.
Sanoff, H. (1977), Methods of Architectural Programming, Dowden, Hutchinton and Ross,
Stroudsburg, PA.
Sanoff, H. (1992), Integrating Programming, Evaluation and Participation in Design, Avebury,
Aldershot.
van der Voordt, D.J.M. and van Wegen, H.B.R. (2005), Architecture in Use, An Introduction to the
Programming, Design and Evaluation of Buildings, Architectural Press, Oxford.
van Ree, H., van Meel, J. and Lohman, F. (2006), “Better briefing for better buildings:
an innovative modelling tool for specifications management”, paper presented at the
Construction and Building Research Conference of the Royal Institution of Chartered
Surveyors, University College London, 7-8 September 2006.
Zeegers, A. and Ang, K.I. (2007), “Client involvement in performance based briefing in Public
Private Partnerships: procurement and the use of ICT: Dutch best practice”, paper
presented at the CIB World Congress, South Africa, 14-18 May.

Corresponding author
Theo J.M. van der Voordt can be contacted at: D.J.M.vanderVoordt@tudelft.nl

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats