Manzoni, B; Morris, P and Smyth, H (2012) Managing the performing paradox in architectural competitions. In: Smith, S D (ed.) Proceedings of 28th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2012, Edinburgh, UK.
Abstract
In architecture competitions are fascinating. Over the years, they have increasingly become a popular mechanism for architects in acquiring work and clients in looking for designers. Still they are a debated topic presenting several controversial issues. In fact, competitions, as architecture in general, are a fertile ground for contradictions and management oxymora struggling among opposing forces, such as artistic recognition and market constraints, individual passion and collective collaboration, creative spark and discipline. These are actually examples of paradoxes that architects confront regularly. In organizational terms, a paradox is a set of contradictory yet interrelated elements, logical in isolation but irrational when juxtaposed. Paradoxical tensions exist simultaneously and persist over time with no resolution, therefore attending competing tensions is critical for architectural practices. Through an inductive qualitative case based research, this paper explores why a performing paradox exists within architectural competitions, what tensions are experienced and how they are managed.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | architecture; architectural competitions; paradoxes; performance; practice management |
| Index terms: | designer, collaboration, architectural practice, competition, practice management, architect, architectural competition, resolution, paradox |
| Subjects: | social theory and frameworks, management, market analysis, conflict resolution, business, profession, tendering |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Business Strategy, Roles and Professions, Procurement, Stakeholder Management, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here