About the Sheldon Scenarios
Recommended Process
Ways to proceed
The scenarios outline the organization's broad needs as related wholes projected into the contexts of four potential future environments. In each, given the Sheldon building and the mission, the organization survives by how it configures itself (in its building and its actions) in relation to the economy and culture. In terms of the building the scenarios begin to determine how the organization's facility needs and mission needs might configure and relate. This provides a context for investigating the design of the building as a series of structural incisions and actions that progress based on the latest information and a broad informed perspective. The purpose is to result in a building and an evolving process that serve the organization structurally, by insuring its survival (control of economy and time) and effective action (meaningful movement) into the future.
The organization is now facing what to do next. Following are some recommendations about how to proceed based on things learned in the scenario building process.
The Sheldon Project is big and complex, and has ramifications over a long period of time. To assure the efficiency of the process the Sheldon Project should be approached on multiple levels of scale and time. As a contrivance this can be not productive, but it is the nature of how projects progress. Focus on the details provides new information about the whole. Focus on the whole provides new information about the details. They are different enterprises that are done in different terms.
The Structuring, Sustaining, and Experiencing construct can be a useful tool for both analyzing the project in part or in whole, and within a narrow fixed span of time as well as an expanded range of time. This use throughout could help in keeping the dynamics in balance across the range and scales of activities.
The consideration of the whole project in these terms can be ongoing, with the continual inflow of new information. Identify the large and complex components of the design. (Roof, ceilings, heating system, egress and fire protection, windows . . .) Analyze these components in terms of how they impact in the broad scope of SSE. Some will be predetermined structuring elements (in any scenario) that do not impact on experiencing and sustaining (i.e. roof, structural). Others will involve complex contingencies and predeterminations about experiencing and sustaining.
Once an understanding of a component of the building is gained in the broad picture with an understanding of how it works in terms of SSE, then determination can be made about the contingency for action in the immediate. The most complex components of the project will be the ones that have significant impact in all three areas of SSE. (see ceilings)
Formulations of strategies about how to investigate these by way of progressive structuring, experiencing, and sustaining for the purpose of learning through the problem, or identify decision to be made with awareness of the consequential limitations/commitments involved in that action.
Refine, with the help of professionals, the exacting limits and possibilities afforded by the building in terms of what is possible (zoning, codes, engineering, egress, costs). This activity can be focussed by the identification of the most critical elements of the building in terms of broad SSE evaluation. Work to make the communication of these things clearly in terms of structural possibilities and limits, and guard against communication that by its form traverses into the area of prescribing experience.
Begin immediately to engage the organization in the interactive experiencing of the space. This activity is an essential source of learning about the experiential possibilities of the space. This will be an ongoing activity of the organization once it is in residence in an continuous cycle of doing and structuring and doing and structuring. These can begin as casual and unorganized, but could progress into more formed and structured activities. Forms, performances, drawings, models, building parts could all add to the understanding of the experiential possibilities of the building. (X musician investigates, model parts 5). Learning through doing and experiencing like this is one of the organizations best skills. The purpose of this activity is to mine the structure for information.
It is important however to not confuse this activity with structuring. It can inform, lead to and at times become structuring, but it is important to consider this as a separate step. Structuring acts within a broader realm of practical considerations.
Key in this is the communication between experiencing and structuring. This involves work on the creation of language to communicate into structuring what is learned in doing. For information from experiencing to have impact on structuring decisions, it needs to be communicated in terms that relate to structural concerns.
As components of the project are identified as impacting on experiencing, projects can be formed that investigate these dynamics in terms of experience. This may sound like a waste of time, but real modeling the real problem in the real space is the most direct method of investigation without submitting to the masking and translation problems of simulations such as writing, drawing, modeling, and figuring.
Also with the most complex components of the building, could be approached in a progressive manner, with stages of structuring, followed by experiential testing through use, followed by more detailed structuring.
These experiential activities are also important ways of substantive engagement with the diverse individuals, groups, interests of the organization. Like a family going to the site where their new dining room will be built, setting up a table and having a meal to see how it works and feels, this activity could be a significant means of getting people excited about the project, both within the organization and in terms of marketing the project. Participation at many levels serves to open the process to a diversity of views and input, and also can work to share through experience what is not possible in form.
It is important in this however, to keep clear what this activity is and what it is not. It is in some ways new territory and holds some danger in the miscommunication and misunderstanding. (see appendix - detail)
Master Plan
These analysis are gathered and composed in a Master Plan that evolves as a living document. The master plan:brings together input from what is learned through experiencing refined determinations from professionals about the possibilities and limits of the given structure strategies for progressing through components that are complex in their effect across the broad SSE analysis. Identifies for the organization the nature of its decisions in the context of SSE analysis and the scenarios Identifies clear and immediate paths of action toward the securing of the building, within the context of progress toward major stages, in relation to the whole process as a continuous and integral activity of the organization. Work to coordinate with the details of the capital campaign process, informing and giving substance, and preparing for coordinated action. Always keep in balance the consequences and opportunities afforded the organization in terms of the facilitation and limitation of its movement in Sheldon: it's sustaining, it's experiencing, and it's structuring.
SCENARIOS |
|---|