設計プロセスにおける施主と設計者との打合せでの設計案の提示方法に関する研究

<p> In a design process, architects need to identify the clients' requests and respond to them. Thus, just before the end of the design period, architects receive reviews from the managers at their design organization. The managers check if the drawings match the client's requests. However, during the design period, the content of consultations, proposals, and methods of discussions on designs held between clients and architects is not systematically managed but it is managed through an empirical method by the architects. In addition, the obligation for architects to explain things to their clients and the clients' requirements for standards have gotten stricter, thus, new remuneration standards have been set and architectural laws relating to clients have been reviewed. Considering these circumstances, it is important to carefully consider design meetings between architects and clients. Thus, we investigated the proposal methods that architects make to clients at design meetings. In a previous study, we found that architects made not only a single proposal, but they also made multiple proposal at design meetings with clients. In this study, we will analyze the specific methods they use to present multiple proposal and the effects that the result of multiple proposal have.</p><p> In this survey, we interviewed nine architects about the content of their design meetings during the preliminary design period of 11 projects that they were actually involved in designing. As a result, we confirmed 3 presentation methods and 2 effects that the multiple proposal had.</p><p> Method 1: When the architects presented multiple proposals during a time in which they were trying to identify the actual clients' requests, they often made two proposals. When they presented multiple proposal at a time in which they expected clients to actually select proposals, they were likely to present three or more proposals. It was found that architects change the number of proposals they make depending on the purpose of the proposal. Method 2: When the architects presented their proposals, they used various drawings such as Model, Plan, Section, and CG. When presenting multiple proposal to identify the clients' requests, they were likely to use one type of drawings, whereas when presenting multiple proposal when they expected to obtain consent from their client, they were use various types of drawings to present their proposal. It was shown that they changed the type of drawings they used depending on the purpose of their proposals. Method 3: It was shown that when the architects discussed while presenting multiple proposal, they presented not only a plan they recommended, but they also prepared a proposal they negatively evaluated, a proposal that the client negatively evaluated, a proposal that the architect neither negatively nor positively evaluated.</p><p> Result 1: After the design meeting, the architect presented proposals which are even against their results at subsequent design meetings to continue their discussions. Presenting multiple proposal had the effect of supporting ongoing consultations. Result 2: As a result of the multiple proposals being presented, it was seen that there were meetings where clients presented their own new discussion topics. It was shown that multiple proposals had the effect of allowing clients to be actively involved in the design meetings.</p>