Paradoxes of innovation and architectural design: A model of design knowledge generation in architectural practices

What are the organisational paradoxes that beset the design process in architectural firms? As innovative knowledge workers and system integrators architects are often called upon to produce innovative and custom designed buildings. Architects can be characterized as knowledge intensive professionals who help to lead innovation. However, most of the research conducted in design innovation and organisational paradoxes has had a product portfolio focus. For example, it has been claimed that product innovation relies on two seemingly contradictory and paradoxical processes in product development organisations: the exploitative and the exploratory. How might these concepts be related to architectural firms and design teams? Using the above concepts an initial model was developed and then tested in order to understand the paradoxical processes that architects employ when designing. How might design processes in service firms differ from either linear or dichotomous models of innovation with their origins in product development? An initial model is proposed which is then tested and refined. These questions are tested in a broader survey of 73 Australian architectural practices. The survey aimed to identify the links between exploitative and exploratory design processes in the firms and the organisational paradoxes which surround these. A survey framework was developed which defined and highlighted to what degree architects instigate Radical or Incremental design changes in projects. The survey identified the extent to which Australian architects generate new design solutions after a particular design has been mandated. It concludes that these architects deliberately sought to foster highly paradoxical processes within their firms in the early stages of a project in order to create new design knowledge. Highly paradoxical processes, which oppose exploitative and exploratory design activities, tend to diminish as the project proceeds. Further research is needed to clarify if design processes with a high degree of paradox are where project innovation occurs. The paper concludes by outlining a model of exploitative and exploratory innovation and organisational paradox in knowledge intensive design firms