Constructing
buildings
and
design
ambitions
 By
Kjell
Tryggestad,
Susse
Georg,
and
Tor
Hernes
 Department
of
Organization,
Copenhagen
Business
School.
 
 Paper
prepared
for
the
special
issue
in
Construction
Management
and
Economics
on
“Objects,
 Knowledge
Sharing
and
Knowledge
Transformation
in
Projects”
edited
by
Professor
Mike
Bresnen
 and
Professor
Chris
Harty.
 Abstract
 Project
goals
are
conceptualized
in
the
construction
management
literature
as
either
stable
and
 exogenously
given
or
as
emerging
endogenously
during
the
construction
process.
Disparate
as
 these
perspectives
may
be,
they
both
overlook
the
role
that
material
objects
used
in
construction
 processes
can
play
in
transforming
knowledge
and
thereby
shaping
project
goals.

Actor
network
 theory
is
used
to
explore
the
connection
between
objects
and
knowledge
with
the
purpose
of
 developing
an
adaptive
and
pragmatic
approach
to
goals
in
construction.
Based
on
a
case
study
of
 the
construction
of
a
skyscraper,
emphasis
is
given
to
how
design
ambitions
emerge
in
a
process
 of
goal
translation,
and
to
how,
once
these
ambitions
are
materialized,
tensions
between
aesthetic
 and
functional
concerns
emerge
and
are
resolved.
These
tensions
are
resolved
through
trials
of
 strength
as
the
object
–
the
building
–
is
elaborated
and
circulates
across
sites
in
various
forms,
 e.g.
artistic
sketches,
drawings,
and
models.
Given
that
initial
goal
accuracy
is
often
seen
as
a
key
 success
factor,
these
insights
have
theoretical
and
practical
implications
for
the
management
and
 evaluation
of
the
construction
project.
 Key
words:

construction
management,
design
ambitions,
project
goals,
knowledge,
evaluation
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 Introduction

 Few
would
deny
the
importance
that
project
goals
have
for
the
initiation,
development
and
 evaluation
of
a
construction
project
–
the
goal
is
commonly
thought
of
as
the
project’s
raison
 d’être.
However,
when
it
comes
to
understanding
and
explaining
how
project
goals
are
 established,
positions
vary.
Viewed
broadly,
one
can
discern
two
dominant
perspectives
within
the
 literature
on
project
and
construction
management:
one
that
treats
goals
as
exogenously
given,
as
 input,
and
another
that
considers
goals
as
endogenous
to
the
project,
i.e.
as
evolving
in
the
course
 of
a
construction
process.
Disparate
as
these
perspectives
may
be,
they
have
one
thing
in
 common:
neither
perspective
attends
to
the
contingent
role
of
materiality
in
the
construction
 process.
In
what
follows
we
address
the
question
of
how
objects
and
technologies
used
in
 construction,
including
the
building
itself,
are
actively
involved
in
shaping
–
or
are
constitutive
of
–
 project
goals
and
the
underlying
design
ambitions.


 We
argue
that
these
dominant
perspectives
are
problematic
because
they
either
ignore
or
 overlook
how
material
artefacts
and
objects
help
make
project
goals
and
design
ambitions
what
 they
are.
More
specifically,
we
suggest
actor
network
theory
as
a
way
to
empirically
explore
the
 emergent
connections
between
objects,
knowledge
and
goals
within
a
construction
project.
Thus,
 the
aim
of
our
study
is
threefold:
(1)
to
describe
and
analyze
how
project
goals
and
ambitions
are
 actively
shaped
and
established
by
a
variety
of
objects,
(2)
to
develop
an
adaptive
and
pragmatic
 approach
to
goals
in
construction,
and
(3)
to
discuss
implications
for
the
management
and
 evaluation
of
the
construction
project.


 
 Goals
and
ambitions
–
inputs,
outputs
or
both
at
the
same
time
 2 Goals
are
conventionally
defined
as
an
object
of
a
person’s
ambition
or
strong
desire
to
achieve
 something
(Webster’s
dictionary
1995),
e.g.
be
it
the
development
of
a
new
product
or
the
 construction
of
a
new
building.

However,
delving
further
into
this
definition,
the
Latin
etymology
 of
‘ambition’
draws
attention
to
another,
less
cited
meaning
–
“going
around
(canvassing
for
 votes)”(Webster’s
dictionary
1995:
31).
Both
definitions
can
be
found
within
the
project
and
 construction
management
literature:
the
former
figures
prominently
in
the
more
normative
 project
and
construction
management
literature,
e.g.
the
emphasis
given
to
identifying
the
client’s
 or
stakeholders’
goals
(Newcombe,2003,
PMI
2004,
Walker
2002,
Winch
2002);
whereas
the
 mobilization
of
support,
associated
with
the
etymology
of
ambition,
is
more
in
keeping
with
more
 descriptive
approaches
to
project
and
construction
management
(Engwall
2002,
Kreiner
1995,
 Pollack
2007).
 The
first
body
of
literature
devotes
little
attention
to
how
goals
are
formed
and
decided
upon.
 They
are
often
assumed
to
be
exogenously
given
by
the
client
as
input
to
the
construction
process
 (Walker
2002),
and
preferably
also
within
the
client’s
corporate
strategy
(Winch
2002).
 Furthermore,
it
is
often
assumed
that
initial
goals
can
be
made
accurate
(Flyvbjerg
2006)
and
 “SMART”,
i.e.
Specific,
Measurable,
Achievable,
Result‐oriented,
and
Time‐based
(Gardiner2005:
 202)
and,
by
doing
so,
that
it
will
be
possible
to
reduce
(project)
uncertainty
and
divide
project
 objectives
into
sub‐objectives
so
as
to
enhance
coordination
and
goal
realization.
Moreover,
as
 projects
move
through
their
life
cycles
towards
completion,
project
uncertainty
is
also
assumed
to
 be
reduced
as
more
information
gradually
becomes
available.
Should
uncertainty
prevail
due
to
 unexpected
events,
or
lack
of
information,
knowledge,
time,
and/or
money,
then
the
usual
 remedy
is
to
introduce
more
sophisticated
planning
and
problem‐solving
techniques,
enhanced
 managerial
and
contractual
control,
different
costing
techniques,
etc.,
so
as
to
enhance
goal
 3 accuracy
(Collyer
and
Warren
2009,
Gardiner
2005,
Winch
2002).
This
is
considered
key
for
 successfully
implementing
the
client’s
overall
strategy.
Winch
(2002)
also
suggests
that
goal
 uncertainty
can
be
reduced
by
increasing
the
client’s
information
about
the
design
by
introducing
 devices
such
as
prototypes,
mock‐ups,
computer
aided
design
and
simulations
prior
to
deciding
 upon
the
design
mission
and
the
planning
of
its
realization.
The
normative
assumption
is
that
 more
upfront
information
will
make
the
client’s
goals
and
priorities
clearer.
To
this
end,
the
 devices
serve
as
(neutral)
means
of
representation
and
as
vehicles
of
codified
knowledge
about
 the
project/design.

 The
second
body
of
literature,
grounded
on
a
critique
of
the
rationalism
associated
with
the
‘goal
 as
input’
approach,
emphasizes
participation,
learning
and
exploration
(Green
1999,
Green
et
al.
 2008,
Kreiner
1995,
Kreiner
2006,
Sahlin‐Andersson
and
Söderholm
2002,
Bresnen
and
Marshall
 2002).
Drawing
upon
observations
that
most
projects
are
not
the
result
of
rational
decision
 making
(Engwall
2002),
it
is
argued
that
projects
are
more
likely
to
be
controversial,
subject
to
 different
interpretations
and,
therefore,
something
that
has
to
be
negotiated
amongst
coalitions
 of
parties
involved;
a
position
in
keeping
with
the
above‐cited
Latin
etymology
of
ambitions.
 Following
Brunsson
(1985),
decision‐making
is
understood
as
a
way
of
achieving
collective
action
 rather
than
as
a
matter
of
choice
between
alternatives.
Accordingly,
goals
and
ambitions
are
 conceived
of
as
outputs
of
collective
action
rather
than
as
(given)
inputs.
Goals
are,
therefore,
 often
neither
well‐defined
from
the
onset,
nor
are
they
stable
throughout
the
course
of
the
 construction
project.
Scope
changes
and
goal
re‐definition
are
a
result
of
the
involved
 stakeholders’
learning,
and
making
trade‐offs
is
seen
as
a
matter
of
mobilizing
and
gaining
support
 rather
than
improving
calculations,
developing
more
sophisticated
planning
and
control
 techniques.
Moreover,
goals,
ambitions
and
trade‐offs
can
be
modified
through
experience,
i.e.
as
 4 people
involved
gain
more
insights
into
what
is
‘do‐able’
and
discover
things
not
previously
 imaginable.
Following
from
this,
goal
formation
and
realization
are
not
considered
separate
 actions
but
as
a
continuous
process
(Engwall
2002:
272).
However,
precisely
because
of
the
 contentiousness
of
many
projects,
goals
must
also
be
considered
as
“political
products”
(Engwall
 2002:
275)
or
as
Winch
notes
(2002:
225)
“negotiated
order”.

Goal
formation
is,
however,
 conceptualized
as
socially
negotiated
order,
with
little
or
no
attention
given
to
the
role
material
 artefacts
may
play
in
achieving
this
order.

This
is
surprising
given
the
overwhelming
evidence
that
 materiality
is
substantial
in
construction
projects,
and
the
further
evidence
concerning
unintended
 outcomes
such
as
accidents
(Kreiner,
2006),
design
and
scope
changes
(Winch
2002),
time
delays
 and
budget
overrun
(Flyvbjerg,
2006).
 As
an
alternative,
we
introduce
actor
network
theory
(ANT)
in
order
to
move
beyond
considering
 goals
as
either
input
to
or
the
output
of
decision
making.
Although
once
almost
exclusively
 associated
with
science
and
technology
studies
(Callon
1981;
Latour
2002,
2005),
ANT
is
now
being
 applied
in
organization
and
management
studies
(Czarniawska
and
Hernes
2005,
Kreiner
2002,
 Kreiner
and
Tryggestad
2002,
Enberg,
Lindkvist
and
Tell
2006,
Kreiner
2006,
Hernes
2008,
Woolgar
 et
al.
2009,
Justesen
and
Mouritsen
2009),
but
its
use
within
construction
management
research
is
 –
with
a
few
notable
exceptions
(Harty
2008,
Harty
2005,
Whyte
and
Ewenstein
2007,
Whyte
et
al.
 2007)
–
relatively
limited.
With
its
emphasis
on
how
objects,
facts
and
ideas
are
constructed
ANT
 can,
however,
provide
valuable
insights
into
the
serendipitous
and
contingent
ways
in
which
 construction
projects
evolve.
There
are
three
central
analytical
constructs
in
ANT
–
goal
 translation,
trials
of
strength
and
circulating
objects
–
which
are
useful
to
this
end.

 5 The
connection
between
goals
and
objects
is
discussed
by
Latour
(2002)
with
reference
to
a
 commonplace
object
in
construction
–
a
hammer.
When
inserted
in
the
hand,
the
hammer
affords
 different
possible
courses
of
action,
one
of
them
being
hitting
nails.
If
you
want
to
build
 something,
then
the
hammer
is
likely
to
be
important
for
the
realization
of
this
ambition/goal.
It
 participates
in
this
course
of
action
but
without
necessarily
‘determining’
which
way
the
building
 activities
will
go.
On
a
more
general
note,
the
role
of
objects
can
range
from
determining
the
 course
of
action
to
serving
as
a
backdrop
for
human
action,
but
in
addition
to
this
they
“might
 authorize,
allow,
afford,
encourage,
permit,
suggest,
influence,
block,
render
possible,
forbid,
and
 so
on”
(Latour
2005:
72),
i.e.
offer
a
multitude
of
options;
none
of
which
are
necessarily
given.
One
 important
point
following
from
this
line
of
reasoning
is
that
objects,
e.g.
technologies
and
even
 the
materiality
of
a
building
under
construction,
can
be
regarded
as
mediators,
i.e.
as
entities
 actively
involved
in
transforming,
modifying
or
even
distorting
the
meaning
that
they
are
 supposed
to
carry.
As
Latour
notes
(2002:
252;
emphasis
added):
“If
you
want
to
keep
your
 intentions
straight,
your
plans
inflexible,
your
programmes
of
action
rigid,
then
do
not
pass
 through
any
form
of
technological
life.
The
detour
will
translate,
will
betray,
your
most
imperious
 desires.”
The
concept
of
translation
(Callon
1981)
directs
attention
to
the
(active)
mediating
role
 of
objects
in
transforming
goals;
a
process
which
Latour
has
elsewhere
termed
as
“goal
 translation”
(Latour
1999:
179).
As
people
become
(re)equipped
with
different
technical
objects,
it
 is,
therefore,
likely
that
their
goals
and
ambitions
will
be
translated
into
something
different.
The
 ways
in
which
this
takes
place
and
the
results
it
has
are
uncertain
and
can
only
be
determined
 empirically.

 According
to
ANT,
a
chain
of
associations
–
of
humans
and
objects
–
is
“only
as
strong
as
its
 weakest
link”
(Latour
1987:
121),
and
it
is
therefore
likely
to
be
subject
to
transformations
as
 6 human
and
objects
interact.
In
such
instances
there
will
be
on‐going
“trials
of
strength”
(Latour,
 1987).
These
take
place
when
someone
or
something
contends
with
the
prevailing
‘order’,
i.e.
 challenges
the
status
quo
by
problematizing
the
existing
(Callon
1981).
However,
to
do
so,
the
 contender
must
mobilize
not
only
a
host
of
arguments
but
also
many
things/objects
to
build
and
 support
these
arguments.
Whether
or
not
the
contender
succeeds
depends
on
whether
or
not
the
 contender
can
convince
others
of
his/her
claims.
Take
the
question
of
the
technical
feasibility
of
a
 construction
design
as
an
example:
architectural
sketches
may
not
initially
give
reason
to
question
 the
technical
feasibility
of
a
design,
whereas
more
detailed,
technical
drawings
may.
Resolving
this
 may
likely
call
for
more
calculations,
drawings,
and
perhaps
even
simulations
to
demonstrate
the
 feasibility
of
the
design,
but
continued
contention
is
also
costly
because,
as
Latour
(1987:
78)
 notes
“the
dissenter
would
need
so
much
more
time,
so
many
more
allies
and
resources
to
 continue
to
dissent
that
he
has
to
quit,
accepting
the
claim
as
an
established
fact”
.
Following
from
 this,
a
project
goal
may
be
established
through
trials
of
strength
and,
returning
to
the
etymology
 of
ambitions,
enabled
by
the
“going
around”
or
circulation
of
objects
“to
canvass
for
votes.”
The
 notion

‘design
ambition’
is
introduced
to
not
only
capture
the
aesthetic,
functional
and
economic
 aspects
of
project
goals,

but
also
to
suggest
a
particular
‘performative’
approach

(Callon
2007,
 Latour
1986)
that
emphasizes
the
role
of
circulating
objects
in
negotiating
these
ambitions:
“
they
 do
things.
They
articulate
actions;
they
act
or
they
make
others
act.”
(Muniesa,
Millo
and
Callon
 2007:
2)
 Hence,
ANT
offers
a
different
perspective
on
goals
and
ambitions
than
the
above‐mentioned
 normative
and
descriptive
literature.
Rather
than
conceptualizing
goals
as
either
input
or
output,
 the
notion
of
goal
translation
suggests
that
they
may
be
both
at
the
same
time
as
objects
mediate
 to
transform
them.
Determining
what
role
objects
play
in
changing
design
ambitions
and
goal
 7 realization
is
an
empirical
question,
but
if
thoroughly
explored,
the
analysis
can
show
how
 collective
action
is
made
possible,
thus,
adding
a
material
dimension
to
the
understanding
of
 decision‐making
as
achieving
collective
action
(Brunsson
1985,
Engwall
2002).

 In
what
follows
we
direct
attention
to
the
role
that
artistic
sketches,
drawings,
photos
and
models
 play
in
the
construction
of
a
skyscraper.
These
objects
are
not
just
considered
visualizations
of
 ambitions
and
knowledge
(Whyte,
Ewenstein,
Hales
&
Tidd
2008,
Whyte
2003);
they
are
also
 entities
that
can
actively
mediate
in
the
construction
process
transforming
ambitions
as
they
“go
 around”;
circulating
between
various
contexts
such
as
an
architect’s
studio,
a
construction
site,
 and
a
laboratory
used
to
test
the
design’s
technical
feasibility.
We
show
that
project
goals
and
 specifications
emerge
endogenously
and
continuously
as
objects,
project
members,
the
 stakeholder
environment
and
the
emerging
building
interact.
It
is
through
these
interactions
that
 new
insights
and
new
ways
of
knowing
the
building
can
be
produced
(Yaneva,
2005),
and
the
 design
ambitions
subsequently
transformed.
This
has,
we
argue,
practical
implications
for
the
 management
and
evaluation
of
success
(or
failure)
in
construction
projects.
In
conclusion
we
 suggest
that
managing
and
evaluating
construction
projects
based
on
initial
design
ambitions
may
 be
prone
to
false
learning
(Busby
2001,
Kreiner
2006),
because
design
ambitions
change
in
the
 course
of
the
construction
process,
not
just
because
additional
information
becomes
available
in
 the
course
of
the
project
life
cycle
but
because
of
the
contingent
role
of
the
materiality
involved.
 This,
in
turn,
allows
us
to
address
hitherto
unaddressed
aspects
of
goal
formation,
scope
changes
 and
design
ambitions,
which
can
augment
insights
from
the
existing
approaches
to
project
and
 construction
management,
and
to
suggest
more
relevant
procedures
and
criteria
for
construction
 management
and
evaluation
that
take
knowledge
production
and
learning
into
account.
 8 Research
setting
and
method

 Our
research
is
based
on
a
study
of
the
construction
of
the
”Turning
Torso”,
a
skyscraper
in
 Malmö,
Sweden.
It
is
a
case
study
of
how
goals
and
ambitions
for
a
construction
project
are
 shaped.
Construction
started
in
2001
and
was
completed
some
four
years
later
–
in
late
2005
–
3
 years
behind
schedule
and
some
800
million
SEK
over
budget,
a
cost
overrun
of
approximately
 100%.
The
building
was
designed
by
the
Spanish
architect
and
engineer
Santiago
Calatrava
and
 commissioned
as
well
as
built
by
the
Malmö
branch
of
the
cooperative
housing
association,
HSB‐ Malmö
(HSB
is
the
acronym
for
Hyresgästernes
Sparkasse
och
Bygnadsförening,
the
“Tenants
 Savings
bank
and
Construction
Association”,
which
has
33
regional
offices
across
Sweden).
The
 construction
process,
as
well
as
the
end
result,
are
in
many
ways
spectacular:
not
only
is
the
 building
spectacular
aesthetically,
given
the
skyscraper’s
dramatic,
kinetic
form
–
it
is
190
meters
 tall
and
rotates
90
degrees
from
the
base
to
the
top,
just
as
the
name
indicates.
It
is
also
 spectacular
because
of
the
engineering
ingenuity
involved
in
constructing
one
of
the
highest
 residential
buildings
in
Europe.
Moreover,
the
Turning
Torso
is
spectacular
in
a
political
sense
 because
of
the
controversies
it
sparked
for
being
over‐budget,
delayed
and
for
changing
the
 identity
of
the
clients,
customers
and
of
the
city
in
turn.

 The
empirical
material
was
assembled
by
one
of
the
authors
in
the
course
of
two
years,
from
2004
 to
2006,
i.e.
initiated
towards
the
end
of
the
construction
process
but
continued
in
the
year
 following
the
building’s
completion.
The
empirical
material
consists
of
documentary
material,
e.g.
 city
plans,
consultancy
reports,
HSB
memos
and
decision
protocols,
architectural
sketches,
 drawings,
photos,
models,
movies,
press
releases,
and
articles
from
the
local
newspapers
and
 magazines,
and
transcripts
of
in
depth
interviews
with
eleven
key
informants
from
the
major
 9 organizations
participating
in
the
project.

The
duration
of
each
interview
was
approximately
1
½
 hours.
The
interviewees
included
the
head
of
project
management,
project
marketing,
several
 architects,
quality
consultants,
the
head
and
members
of
the
city’s
planning
and
architecture
 department,
as
well
as
the
former
and
current
CEO
of
HSB.
Given
that
many
of
the
interviews
 were
retrospective,
key
documents
such
as
architectural
drawings
were
used
during
the
 interviews
to
provide
a
relevant
framework
and
focus.

The
purpose
was
not
just
to
prompt
the
 interviewees’
memories
but
also
to
simultaneously
‘triangulate’
or
position
the
interviewees
and
 field
researcher
in
order
to
jointly
recollect
and
reconstruct
the
chain
of
events
in
this
complex
and
 controversial
construction
process
by
following
document
trails
(Latour
1987,
Justesen
2005).
 
 The
analysis
is
based
on
a
systematic
reading
of
the
empirical
material
to
develop
time
lines,
 identify
controversies
and
changes
in
the
goal
specifications,
identify
objects
with
a
significant
role
 in
the
chain
of
events
and
to
follow
the
chain
of
associations
connecting
the
key
decision‐makers
 with
these
objects,
e.g.
the
architect/engineer’s
sketch
and
a
model
of
a
twisting
torso,
the
budget
 (in
multiple
versions),
laboratory
simulations,
and
the
emergent
building.
Our
approach
is
similar
 to
the
one
taken
by
Latour
(1996)
in
his
study
of
Aramis,
a
public‐transport
system
in
France.

The
 aim
is
to
explain
the
project
events
with
the
help
of
the
involved
actors,
which
means
that
the
 study’s
scope
is
limited
by
the
boundaries
proposed
by
the
actors
themselves.
One
boundary
 which
we
were
unable
to
explore
was
the
one
set
by
Santiago
Calatrava.
Given
the
timing
of
our
 study,
we
were
unable
to
conduct
in
situ
observations
of
the
bench
work
within
the
‘laboratory’
of
 the
architect’s
office
(Yaneva
2005).
However,
as
Czarniawska
(1998)
and
others
have
argued,
 chains
of
events
are
likely
to
take
place
simultaneously
at
different
sites,
rendering
real
time
 10