Managerial Implications for Architectural Competitions Based on Paradox Theory

Despite being one of the most important means to obtain commissions, explore in design terms and develop design quality, architectural competitions are an extremely controversial practice. Nevertheless, they are increasingly adopted within the European procurement law, to the point that exploring and understanding their debated issues is essential to improve their effectiveness. We use a paradox lens to open up managerial insights and to develop a theory of architectural competitions’ paradoxes. We propose a set of paradoxes and managerial implications for architects and clients/juries with regard to each competition phase: programming, selection and shortlist, design of the proposals, and jury decision making

[1]  Jan Silberberger,et al.  Assessing 'Quality': The unfolding of the 'Good'--Collective decision making in juries of urban design competitions , 2011 .

[2]  Ilari Aho,et al.  Value-added business models: linking professionalism and delivery of sustainability , 2013 .

[3]  Marianne W. Lewis,et al.  Managing creatives: Paradoxical approaches to identity regulation , 2010 .

[4]  Peter W. G. Morris,et al.  MANAGING THE PERFORMING PARADOX IN ARCHITECTURAL COMPETITIONS , 2012 .

[5]  Beatrice Manzoni,et al.  Working through paradoxes in professional creative service firms: Lessons learned from design competitions , 2013 .

[6]  Leentje Volker,et al.  Procuring architectural services: sensemaking in a legal context , 2012 .

[7]  H. Barksdale,et al.  Selecting a professional service provider from the short list , 2003 .

[8]  Judith Strong.  Winning by Design, Architectural Competitions , 1996 .

[9]  Magnus Rönn,et al.  Finnish architectural competitions: structure, criteria and judgement process , 2009 .

[10]  Peter Jacobsen,et al.  Dialogues and the problems of knowing: Reinventing the architectural competition , 2011 .

[11]  A. Todd Rivetti.  Beyond rational management, by Robert E. Quinn, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, 1988, 199 pp. , 1990 .

[12]  Gernot Grabher,et al.  Introduction to paradoxes of creativity: managerial and organizational challenges in the cultural economy , 2007 .

[13]  Wendy K. Smith,et al.  TOWARD A THEORY OF PARADOX : A DYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM MODEL OF ORGANIZING , 2011 .

[14]  Leentje Volker,et al.  Deciding about Design Quality: Value judgements and decision making in the selection of architects by public clients under European tendering regulations , 2011 .

[15]  F. Duffy,et al.  Professionalism and architects in the 21st century , 2013 .

[16]  Charlotte Svensson.  Speaking of Architecture. A Study of the Jury's Assessment in an invited Competition , 2013 .

[17]  M. Rönn.  Judgment in the Architectural Competition - Rules, Policies and Dilemmas , 2013 .

[18]  Kristian Kreiner,et al.  Constructing the Client in Architectural Competition: An Ethnographic Study of Revealed Strategies , 2007 .

[19]  Andrew D. Brown,et al.  ‘Invisible walls’ and ‘silent hierarchies’: A case study of power relations in an architecture firm , 2010 .

[20]  Marianne W. Lewis.  Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide , 2000 .

[21]  D. R. Eikhof,et al.  For Art's Sake! Artistic and economic logics in creative production , 2007 .

[22]  Magali Sarfatti Larson,et al.  Architectural competitions as discursive events , 1994 .

[23]  Jonas E Andersson.  Optimal competition briefs for a public design process : Three Swedish briefs in architectural compe­titions on housing for dependent seniors , 2010 .

[24]  John Punter.  Design by Competition: Making Design Competition Work , 2001 .

[25]  I. Mitroff.  The age of paradox , 1994 .

[26]  Candace Jones,et al.  Designing a frame: rhetorical strategies of architects , 2008 .