Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Facilities programming and case study of Kwantlen College Richmond Campus : implications for community.. Cook, Krista Aileen 1991

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata


ubc_1992_spring_cook_krista_aileen.pdf [ 4.85MB ]
JSON: 1.0086640.json
JSON-LD: 1.0086640+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0086640.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0086640+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0086640+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0086640+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0086640 +original-record.json
Full Text

Full Text

FACILITIES PROGRAMMING AND A CASE STUDY OF KWANTLENCOLLEGE RICHMOND CAMPUS : IMPLICATIONS FOR COMMUNITYPLANNINGByKrista Aileen CookB.A. , University of British Columbia, 1988A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTSFOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTSinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIESSchool of Community and Regional PlanningWe accept this thesis as conforming to the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIADecember 1991© Krista Aileen Cook, 1991In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.Department of Community and Regional PlanningThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate ^ABSTRACTIn the past thirty years, Facilities Programming has grown and evolved as a discipline,separate from both architecture and planning. Facilities Programming is a profession ofsuch a small and specialized nature that it is not well known or understood by many people,and is not well documented in the architectural or planning literature. This thesis provides adetailed definition of programming, as well as a comprehensive study of the programmingof the Kwantlen College Richmond Campus, in Richmond, British Columbia. From areview of selected literature on community planning as well as the author's knowledge ofits practice, a comparison is made between community planning and facilities programmingwhich shows that there are many similarities. This study of programming also suggestsseveral aspects that can be applied beneficially to the practice of community planning.These are participation, interaction, staged continuous decision making, and good analytictools.iiTABLE OF CONTENTSABSTRACTLIST OF TABLES^ ivLIST OF FIGURESACKNOWLEDGEMENTS^ viCHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 11.1 Introduction^ 11.2 Assumptions 31.3 Practical Significance of Thesis^ 31.4 Methodology, Sources of Data, Analysis Methods ^ 31.5 Organization of Thesis^ 4CHAPTER 2: PROGRAMMING DEFINED 52.1 Definition of Programming^ 52.2 Objective of Programming 62.3 Process of Programming 82.4 Program Participants 122.5 Programmer^ 132.6 Programming Information^ 152.7 Product 17CHAPTER 3 : CHRONOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION OF THEPROGRAMMING OF KWANTLEN COLLEGE RICHMOND CAMPUS19CHAPTER 4 : DETAILED PROCESS OF THE PROGRAMMING OFKWANTLEN COLLEGE RICHMOND CAMPUS^364.1 General Structure of the Process^ 364.2 Detailed Process^ 394.3 Kwantlen Comments 53CHAPTER 5: IMPLICATIONS FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING 555.1 Detailed Discussion of Programming and Community PlanningCharacteristics^ 585.2 Consideration of Ideas that can be applied to Community Planning^69REFERENCES 74APPENDICES^ 78Appendix A : Table of Contents of Kwantlen College Richmond Campus FacilitiesProgram^ 79Appendix B : Component Description of Adult Basic Education Program ^81LIST OF TABLESTable I: The Richmond Campus Education Plan^ 21Table IL The Task Outline^ 24Table HI: Ministry of Advanced Education, Trainingand Technology Space Standards 46Table IV: Summary of Programming and Community Planning Characteristics 57ivLIST OF FIGURESFigure 1: Conceptual Diagram of Programming Process^ 10Figure 2: Map of Temporary Richmond Campus 20Figure 3: Map of Permanent Richmond Campus Site ^ 23Figure 4: Programming Process Flow Diagram 37Figure 5: Detailed Process Flow Diagram^ 40Figure 6: Excerpt from Space-Cost Model for the Richmond Campus ^49Figure 7: Excerpt from Utilization Model for the Richmond Campus^51Figure 8: Conceptual Diagram of Programming Process^ 61Figure 9: Conceptual Diagram of the Community Planning Process^61ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThank youProfessors Brahm Wiesman and Peter Boothroydfor your time, insight, and commitment.Thank youJim, Susie, Jiuna, Paul, Sue, Tom, Mom, Dadfor believing in me.viCHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION1.1 IntroductionIn the past thirty years, Facilities Programming has grown and evolved as a separateprofession from both architecture and urban planning. Facilities Programming is aprofession of such a small and specialized nature that it is not well known or understood bymany people. "Facilities Programming has been defmed as the process by which criteriaare developed for the design of a space, building, facility, ..." (Canadian Handbook ofPractice for Architects 1976, 2). The primary purpose of programming is to lay out thebuilding requirements and functions clearly for the designer. It is the means throughwhich information about the needs of the building users are determined and expressed forthe instruction of the designer. In simple terms, programming information tells thedesigner how many spaces there should be in the building, what type of spaces thereshould be, how large they need to be, what is in each space, and what space needs to benext to what space. The Facilities Programming document describes for the designer howthe building should work. Programming may also include qualitative aspects desired in abuilding. For example, a program may describe more than a functional arrangement ofspaces, it may also describe qualitative concerns such as image, ambience, and character.Planning has been broadly defined as "a process by which an individual, group,organization or community decides what it wants (goals) and how it is going to achievethese goals (strategies) (Boothroyd 1989, 1). The Webster's Dictionary defines planningas" a formulated scheme setting out stages of procedure" (The New Lexicon Webster'sDictionary of the English Language 1988). A plan outlines how an individual, group, ororganization intends to respond to externally or internally driven change. Thus, facilitiesprogramming can be defined as a planning function, since an organization goes through afacilities programming process to arrive at a plan that outlines clearly how the organizationwill function and work in a new environment, as well as a physical plan that explicitlycommunicates the desired physical arrangements of space in a new or renovated facility.1Recently, Kwantlen College completed two facilities programming projects in theLower Mainland; the Surrey Campus and the Richmond Campus. The planning of theSurrey Campus was a negative experience for the majority of the faculty and staff at thecollege. The planning process used for the Surrey Campus was described as unorganizedand uncontrolled. Faculty did not understand the process, and they were unclear abouttheir role in it. Faculty and management were mostly excluded from development ofinformation for the Surrey Campus, but were instead presented with a programmedsolution by the consultant. This process left them feeling unheard and not in control.Planning for the Surrey Campus was not set in the realm of budget constraints and otherreal life considerations. Because of this, cuts to space were required throughout the designprocess. Faculty were left disillusioned and somewhat bitter (Peter-Cherneff 1991). Afterthis experience of planning the Surrey Campus, the Richmond Campus was seen as a newchance by the management of Kwantlen College. There was a desire to involve faculty to agreater and more meaningful extent. Management wanted the faculty to describe their ownneeds, have some control, and yet plan within realistic constraints.The purpose of this thesis is to analyze how and to what extent facilities programmingmay be applicable and significant to community planning. What can we learn fromfacilities programming that is useful for community planning? To achieve this,programming and community planning are compared using categories derived fromcommunity planning and facility planning literature.Firstly, Facilities Programming will be defmed by answering the following questions.What do the terms programming and program mean? What is the scope of programming,how does it work, and what are its products?Secondly, the case of Kwantlen College Richmond Campus will be used to describeand explain facilities programming from two perspectives, organizational and analytical.From an organizational perspective, how did the programmers of the Richmond Campusinteract with the many different actors involved? Who was involved and consulted andwhy? What level of participation was achieved and how was it achieved? What was thedecision making process? How were different interests and issues resolved? From ananalytical perspective, how did the programmers gather and manipulate information? Whatwas the nature of information development and methodology? How was information usedto make decisions?Thirdly, I will analyze the extent to which programming is applicable to communityplanning. What is the significance of programming to the community planning field? Howis the organizational interaction and the information processing employed in the2programming professional relevant to community planning? What can community plannerslearn from programmers?1.2 AssumptionsProgramming is accepted as a discrete, professional field and it is a planning function.I am assuming that there is some similarity between community planning and facilitiesprogramming, and Chapter 5 shows these similarities.1.3 Practical Significance of ThesisThe purpose of this thesis is to uncover, consolidate, and document descriptive informationabout the work of the programming profession. The thesis will afford readers insight intothe programming profession, and will inform planners interested in entering theprogramming profession. In describing facilities programming through the use of a casestudy it will be better understood in practice. Programming is significant for communityplanning, as the programming process and the community planning process have manysimilarities. Some of the concepts of programming will be applicable to the communityplanning field. I feel that there can be some transfer of training between facilitiesprogrammers and community planners.1.4 Methodology, Sources of Data, Analysis MethodsThe first part of the thesis consists of a detailed definition of facilities programming.There is not much literature on programming, and indeed, no comprehensive explanationsof the programming process. There are no case studies. Sources of data for the case studyof the facilities programming of the Richmond Campus were key people who wereinvolved in the project. Approximately 12 Kwantlen College faculty were interviewed asrepresentative respondents. Brigitte Peter-Chemeff, chairperson and key contact for theRichmond College project, acted as my key informant at Kwantlen College. Interviewswith respondents provided information on the organizational perspective of programming.How did the programmer and participants interact? How and on what basis were decisionsmade? To obtain a richer data base, I also interviewed the programmer for the RichmondCampus. Interviewing this consultant provided me with information about the analyticalside of programming. Documentation of the project was helpful, and I accessed the files ofBrigitte Peter-Chemeff and the programmer to piece together parts of the process that mayhave been forgotten.31.5 Organization of ThesisThis thesis is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 contains introductory informationrelating to the purpose of this thesis, its context, and how it is organized. Chapter 2provides context by reviewing important literature regarding facilities programming. Thischapter outlines the definition of facilities programming as found in the literature. Chapters3 and 4 describe the facilities programming for Kwantlen College Richmond Campus.These chapters comprise the main body of information provided by Kwantlen Collegeinformants and the programming consultant. Chapter 3 describes the chronology of theprogramming case study, while Chapter 4 concentrates on the analytical perspective.Chapter 5 reflects on the fmding that community planning can learn something fromprogramming in terms of participation, interaction, staged continuous decision making, andgood analytic tools.4CHAPTER 2PROGRAMMING DEFINED The purpose of this chapter is to describe and present a comprehensive guide toprogramming. Major ideas in the programming literature were reviewed, analyzed, andorganized and are put forward in this chapter. The main source for this chapter was TheArchitect's Guide to Facility Programming by Mickey A. Palmer (1981). Secondarysources included writings by Harold Horowitz (1969), F.E. Preiser (1978), B.H. Evansand C.H. Wheeler (1969), Henry Sanoff (1977), and William Pena (1977). Secondarysources used for the chapter were difficult to find and were not very informative. Thischapter presents a composite of the programming literature. In order to fully defme thenature of programming, it will be examined within a conceptual framework. Thisconceptual framework comprises seven sections : definition of programming, objectives ofprogramming, process of programming, program participants, programmer, programminginformation, and products of programming. At a general level, the definition ofprogramming will be outlined first to orient the reader. The objectives of programming, orthe purposes, will be reviewed. The programming process section will present howprogramming is done. Next, program participants, that is the people who are involved inthe programming process, will be identified. The programmer, in terms of his/her skillsand educational background, will be described. Programming information will explain thetypes of information contained in a program. Finally, the product, the program document,will be addressed.2.1 Definition of ProgrammingThe purpose of this section is to examine the definition of programming. What isprogramming? A comprehensive definition of programming will be outlined in thissection.Programming is broadly defined in the literature as information processing. "It isdefined as a process of identifying and defining the design needs of a facility andcommunicating the requirements to the designer" (Palmer 1981). Agnostini defines5programming as a "...coherent, meaningful compilation of the facts needed to createfacilities which will most effectively support the client's operations and organizationalgoals..." (Agmostini 1986). Palmer agrees that " all comes down to information..."."A program is information the designer can use. It is an organized collection of specificinformation about the client's requirements which the architect needs in order to design aparticular facility" (Palmer 1981). Since the program communicates the needs to thedesigner, programming also involves communication. "A program is communication. Ittransmits and interprets the needs of client to the designer" (Palmer 1981)The most simple yet enlightening explanation comes from White, who argues that" ...programming is a matter of planning before we act and really not different in intent frommaking a shopping list before buying groceries, planning an itinerary before a trip orrehearsing a play before opening night..." (White 1972). "Simply stated, programming isgetting ready for design" (White 1972).The key word in defining programming is information. Programming involves thecollecting and processing of specific information about human, physical, and externalfactors which will influence design. This information is needed by an architect in order todesign a facility. There are many problems that come along with the collection andprocessing of information. For the programmer, these present grave problems, includingthe organization of reams of information, the collection of relevant information, and thedocumentation of conclusions.2.2 Objective of ProgrammingThe purpose of this section is to explain the objective of programming. Why do weprogram? Objectives in programming include: to supply information to the architect andclient, to express the client's requirement, to state the design problem, to serve as a log or arecord of the programming process, to serve as a communication link, and to encouragegreater participation. The objectives might differ from project to project, and probablyfrom programmer to programmer. Each of these objectives will be described in turn.Palmer states that the "...primary purpose of programming is to supply the informationneeded by the architect for design..." (Palmer 1981). However, the objective ofprogramming is more than obtaining and organizing information : it also includesdeveloping and producing the information as well. As well as gathering the programinformation, the programmer must synthesize, analyse, and document that information in acommunicable form to the client and the designer. The program must serve the informationneeds of both client and designer. It should contain as much data as the designer requiresfor creative judgement, without overwhelming the lay client with technical details. The6program must speak the designers' language while explaining terms to the client. Theprogram must provide information and criteria for the designer. It acts as a informationresource for the designer. In other words, the designer uses the information in the programto design a building. The designer can delve deeper into the design problem with aprogram, as the information needed for design is outlined in the program for him/her.Designers use a program as a guide to the design criteria which must be fulfilled, as asource of data for preparing design solutions, and as a reference for making designdecisions. Used as a guide to the design criteria which must be fulfilled, the designer willcheck design solutions against criteria outlined in the program, such as dimensions andquality of environment concerns. The program will also be used as a reference for makingdesign decisions, because the program is a defmitive statement of client requirements thatthe design must fulfill.A program should also express client requirements. The program should translaterequirements that are implicit in facility operating plans and programs into explicitrequirements for a particular facility. The program should state objectives of each group interms of goals they wish to achieve, the issues they want to resolve, and the problems to becorrected. The programmer should make sure all needs and desires of the client areelucidated, that alternatives are considered and that the design implications of differentgoals are understood. The client's mandate, along with spatial requirements, should beexpressed in the program.Programming is figuring out and stating a design problem. A program must fullydescribe the problem by stating the underlying needs of the building and the clients. Thisinvolves investigation and analysis of project design needs. Put another way,programming is uncovering and stating the problem that the architect will solve throughdesign.A program also serves as a log, a record, and a progress report of the programmingprocess. A program may be distributed in several iterations, or drafts. These drafts willconvey current information on the progress of the project at its various stages ofdevelopment. Program drafts will show the designers, as well as the client how the projectis coming along. "It serves as a log, a memory and a set of conditions..." (Sanoff 1977).Palmer also notes that programming serves as a communication link between client anddesigner. "Programming helps achieve effective communication in informationdevelopment and in decision making" (Palmer 1981). It enables both client and designerto understand and agree on the design goals, project needs and criteria for design.Programming communicates client needs to the architect. The programmer's role is tocommunicate, either in verbal or written form, the program information to the designer.7Sanoff argues that programming can encourage greater client participation as well asuser feedback (Sanoff 1981). It stimulates clients to make decisions. It provides a methodfor decision making and a rationale for future decisions. Programming can encourage userparticipation by getting building residents directly involved in the programming exercise.Participation means the involvement of people with complex behaviours andcommunication, thus the programming process can become complex. A number of peoplewith different and frequently conflicting objectives and values are likely to exist and it is theprogrammer's job to resolve conflicts between the users. This, of course, can create ahighly political atmosphere for the programmer. However, there is general agreement inthe participation literature that more participation results in more feelings of satisfaction,competence and creativity in the users and in the programmer. As users become involved,more precise ideas about facility use and function become apparent. The result of userparticipation is that programs more precisely and reliably reflect the real needs of facilityuse.2.3 Process of ProgrammingThe purpose of this section is to try to explain the process used for programming.How is programming done?As seen by reviewing the literature, there is no single standard procedure forprogramming. There seem to be many individual methodologies. The best method is thatwhich works for each individual professional firm. Individual methods are developed andrefined to match individual's work habits and philosophies. All the methods follow asimilar general process which was put forward by Palmer. This process explanation will beoutlined in this section. All the methods have several common characteristics ; they aresystemized, iterative, and progressive. Each of these common characteristics explained indetail following.The programming process is iterative. Programming is a process of repeated cycles ofcollection, organization, review, and evaluation. Large amounts of complex dataaccompany sophisticated programming. This data is accumulated in cycles of collection.Once enough factual information is acquired a written statement is reviewed, evaluated, andresponded to by the client. In other words, once the programmer feels he/she has gatheredenough data, a document will be prepared. This document will be read by the client. Theclient will respond to this document, and may direct the programmer to review or revise thedocument in certain areas. This enables the programmer to expand and refine the programinformation in a logical, useful manner. It gives the programmer a clear direction of how toproceed to the next stage of work.8Programming is also a progressive process. This means that programming proceedsfrom the general to the specific. The programmer builds the program towards a defmitive,specific statement. The programmer does not know at the start of the project whatinformation will be important or included in the program document. It is only throughiterations with the client that the information needs become more focused and narroweddown. In other words, programming is progressive because the programmer starts withgeneral information and during the course of the project the programmer works to strictlydefine the information needs.The programming process involves systemization. That is, programming is a systemof procedures developed by individuals through experience, trial and error. Systemizationenables programmers to process information rapidly, reliably and economically.Systemization is required, as sheer volume of programming information may becomeunwieldy. Each programmer has a system that he/she developed to deal with the amount ofprogramming information that accumulates. For example, micro computers may be used.Information taken in note form with the client group may be transcribed quickly into amicro computer, and this information will be used as a data base. In a data base,information can quickly be sorted, organized and used in a document.Palmer outlines a general view of the programming process, which will be reviewedhere. All programmers follow this process, however, it would most probably be adaptedby them (Palmer 1981). Palmer states that the programming process is informationprocessing (Palmer 1981). There are five information processing functions: Collection,Analysis, Organization, Communication, and Evaluation. Figure 1 illustrates theprogramming process stages and how they cycle. This diagram was composed tographically illustrate the steps. Each function is interdependent. No step occurs inisolation from the other steps. Each of these information processing functions will beexplained in detail.9ORGANIZATIONEXPRESSESNEED TOIMPROVEEIR.DING)Identifyproblemand stategoldsInteractiveinformationdevelopmentand AnalysisStagedcontinuousdecisimmaldngCornmmi-cation &docmtenta-tionCycle of 'repeatedinformation developmentand declaim makingFigure 1: Conceptual Diagram of Programming Process, from Process Four Design &Aitken Wreglesworth Architects, Interactive Design : A Better Way to Involve Users(Vancouver, BC: Process Four Design & Aitken Wreglesworth Architects July, 1991) 5.The first stage in the programming process is the data collection stage. The purpose ofthis stage is to gather information needed to produce a program. Collection also includessetting goals and priorities, which may be done by the client before the programmer'sinvolvement. As the programmer moves along in the programming process, data collectionbecomes focussed and missing information is filled in. Data collection includes generatingand eliciting data from client and other resources. This stage may involve gettinginformation from clients, photos, sampling, observational studies, and questionnaires.Clients may be interviewed to provide important qualitative details about spaces and spaceneeds. Photographs of the existing spaces may be used to provide details aboutfurnishings, equipment, and sizes of spaces. The programmer may also decide to gatherinformation through use of sampling, observational studies, and questionnaires.Observational studies occur when the programmer collects information by watching theclient group in their existing space. The programmer may distribute questionnaires to thewhole client organization to gather information, or the programmer may simply sample asmall representative group from the client organization.The second stage in programming is called analysis of data. The purpose of this stageis to separate raw information into relevant and manageable categories. There is typically agreat mass of data obtained in the previous data collection stage. In the analysis stage, thislarge mass of raw information is sorted, compared and interpreted in order to determine thevalidity of that data. The programmer attempts to illuminate the significance of a mass ofdata by organizing the total into manageable portions. The programmer may organize thedata by developing some preliminary conclusions about the type of data needed. The type10of data needed in the program will be compared against the type of data collected. Theprogrammer also may test the relevance and validity of individual pieces of information tothe larger programming project. This may result in determining the need for additionaldata. In the case of numerical data, the programmer may use statistical analysis to manageand manipulate the data. By using analytical and statistical procedures, the data can bereduced to manageable portions of a useful quality.The third stage in programming is that of organization. The purpose of organization isto order the information into parts that make sense in terms of all the information.Organization is forming a whole from interdependent parts, in order to visualize it as awhole. As noted before, the stages seldom occur in a specific order. Organization canoccur at the outset, when data objectives must be ordered and identified. Organization canhelp in generating and analyzing information in a consistent and comprehensive mannerthroughout the data collection and analysis stages. Organization must occur in order toanalyse, and analysis of data is necessary for effective organization. After data collection,data are also sorted. Organization can occur at the end of programming, when conclusionsare put into meaningful order.The communication stage ties the programming process together, by making theprogrammer's work available and meaningful to program audiences, and by linking thevarious participants. Oral communication, as well as communication through writtendocumentation, is critical. Communication is important between the client and theprogrammer, as the programmer must understand the client's needs and the client mustunderstand what data the programmer needs. Communication fosters informationexchange, and enhances effective decision making. Communication is critical in botheffective development and presentation of information. It is also important in interactionbetween programmer and participants. Some communication aids that may be used byprogrammer are:Brainstorming- a free flowing worksession where ideas are generated,not discussed;Synectics- a technique using analogies, metaphors, similes to developideas;Buzz / Rap sessions- technique to freely talk in groups aboutinformation;Gaming- any number of creative games can be used to enhancecommunication; andGroup planning- where client groups strategize together about thefuture.11The programmer may use the following communication techniques in documentation andpresentation:Narrative- illustration of the program through use of narrative, or storytelling technique;Graphics- audio visual means to illustrate and communicate the programinformation;Audio /Visual aids- using three dimensional models as visual cues;Oral presentations- program can be described in speech to client; andWorkbooks- throughout the process, the developing program can bedescribed in a written form designed for response.Palmer's final stage in programming is evaluation (Palmer 1981). The evaluation stepconsists of the client reviewing the conclusions reached by the programmer, and pointingout gaps or revisions. Conclusions about facility needs should be evaluated by the client,the programmer, and the designer. However, this is not the final step in the programmingprocess. Once the gaps are highlighted by the client and by the programmer, the wholecycle may be repeated from any step in the process. A succession of progressively refinedprogram conclusions may be the end product, as the cycle may be repeated several times.Design begins as soon as the programmer has a final draft of the program. There may besome overlap between the programming and the design stages, but this depends on theparticular architect and programmer and how they work together.2.4 Program ParticipantsThe purpose of this section is to explain who is involved in the programming process.Who uses a program? What are some of the interest groups involved in a programmingexercise, and why are they involved?The client or sponsor of the project is the main figure involved in the programmingprocess. The client has a responsibility to provide program information that can bedeveloped in a number of ways. The client must work with the programmer to providedirection, information, and decisions. Heath argues that the client organization has a role inthe setting up of an information and decision network, and to ensure that the network isdiffused down into the organization so that every decision can be taken as far as possibleby the people most affected by that decision (Heath 1974). The final program is used by aclient in deciding the feasibility of a project, determining if facility needs have beenadequately addressed, and for making project and budget authorization decisions.Together, client and designer use the program to monitor and evaluate the design as itdevelops and to reconcile space and budget conflicts. The client can use the program'sstated requirements as a check against the designer's solution. If the designer has not keptwithin budget and space constraints as stated in the program, the client can point to theprogram as the authority.12Users, as part of the client group, are also involved in the programming process.Users are defmed as the people who will use the end product, the facility. Userparticipation refers to attempts to incorporate the actual or prospective users of a facility intothe planning and design of that environment (Becker 1977). The degree of userparticipation depends on both client wishes and the programmer's process. Users mayprovide information, as well as be part of the final audience for the program document.Users are involved because some people feel they are more competent to provide designinformation, since they are involved in the use of the building on an intimate day to daybasis.Various other interest groups can be involved in a programming project. Theirinvolvement is based on the particular type of project. These groups include architects,other professionals, city officials, regulatory bodies, the general public, contractors. Thesegroups are generally involved as information sources for the program information.However, depending on the particular project, they may be an audience for the fmalprogram document.The problem the programmer faces in dealing with the different groups is how toensure compromise occurs. It is the programmer's job to ensure that all groups are heardand have a say, and to facilitate compromise between groups. This is most difficult toaccomplish.2.5 ProgrammerThe purpose of this section is to examine who a programmer is, and the skills requiredto be a programmer. Who produces the program? The producer of a program is called aprogrammer. The programmer might be the client, the architect, or a specializedprogramming consultant.The client, that is the person or group of people building a facility, may do their ownprogramming. The production of the program is the clients' responsibility, whether theclient does it or hires someone else to do it. In the case of a simple, straightforwardbuilding the client may do the simple programming.An architect may produce the facility's program. This may occur as part of the buildingdesign stage, or as part of a predesign exercise by the architect.A professional programmer may produce the program. "An independent programmercan perform the work on behalf of either the facility owner, or the architect" (Palmer1981). The programmer is usually hired by the facility owner, but may be brought in by anarchitect on an unusually complicated facility. Programming is a specific service. Palmerstates that there are non-architectural programming specialists that concentrate on specific13building types, such as hospitals or educational institutions (Palmer 1981). Thearchitectural design team may have an in-house programmer, or retain an outsideprogramming consultant. Programming needs have been met over the past several years bya small group of technicians and planners working as consultants under the label of"architectural or facilities programmers". The educational background of this group ismixed, and includes architects, psychologists, sociologists, and planners.What are the skills required to be a good programmer? Programming, because of itscomplex nature, is often the work of a multi - disciplinary team, because no one individualcan possess all the skills needed for a complex problem. Required disciplines includearchitecture, management, psycho-sociology, computer technology, and engineering. Ateam must be skilled in architecture and planning to develop architectural ideas and planningconcepts for the building. It is important that a team has an able administrator to deal withthe production and documentation of the myriad of information. Involvement withparticipants demands a team have skills in psycho-sociology to work with groups ofpeople. A team must also be knowledgeable in computers for producing spreadsheets andother documents. Complex projects may required engineering expertise for structural,electrical, and mechanical building systems. As pointed out by Evan & Wheeler (1969), itseems apparent that good programming often stems from a programmer's prior experiencein programming and even in other disciplines. Good programming results from fourcriteria, including the programmer's capability and competence to use standard procedures,systematic procedure, data banks, and feedback information. These four criteria are themost important qualifications to be a good programmer. Programming skills may bepossessed by people trained in other disciplines besides architecture, including planning,engineering, and computer technology.Horowitz believes that there are professions better suited to programming thanarchitects (Horowitz 1967). He argues that architects acting in a programming capacity areoperating outside of their own scientific community. Horowitz believes that thebehavioural sciences and architecture can gain from collaboration. Behavioural sciencescan even offer an improvement of programming procedures, especially in techniques ofcollecting and organizing information. Therefore, programming is not exclusive to thearchitect's domain. It can be performed by planners, engineers, space managementconsultants, and interior designers.142.6 Programming InformationThe purpose of this section is threefold. In the first subsection, the types ofinformation in a program will be outlined and some examples will be provided. In thesecond subsection, the scope of information needed for programming will be presented.The last subsection outlines the sources of information to be consulted after theprogrammer has determined types and scope of information necessary. What type ofinformation does a programmer collect? What level of detail is collected? The mainproblem in programming is the large amount of data that can be collected, and then must besorted by relevancy. Another problem is the organization of these large amounts ofinformation.This subsection will explain and give examples of the types of information found in aprogram. It is hard to categorize the type of information needed in a program, becauseinformation is varied from program to program. Also a program must satisfy thedesigner's and client's information needs, which may be two different things. The clientneeds budget and cost information. The designer needs site, functions, space, andproximities information.Palmer states that most programs address three basic types of information ; human,physical, and external (Palmer 1981). Programming must be comprehensive, that is,address as many factors as possible from all three categories. Human factors arebehavioural aspects; for example, the program may call for a counselling office to bedesigned as a "warm and sympathetic environment". Community and public requirementsmay be addressed within this also. Physical factors include space types, functions, spacerequirements, space relationships, special equipment and systems, and site requirements.Each space would be described in terms of the functions performed in the space, the actualsize of the space in square feet, as well as detailed information about the space'srelationship to other spaces in the building. Detailed information about electrical, water,and heating and ventilation servicing would also be included. General information aboutthe site may also be provided. External factors include codes, standards, and regulations.It is important to indicate that there is no one comprehensive list of the informationtypes to be included in a program. That is because all programs are different, depending onthe program requested by the client and the building type. The program informationprovided will differ according to the type of program desired by the client, and the level ofdetail appropriate. The level and types of information will vary depending on theprogrammer's approved budget: a more comprehensive job can be done with a larger15budget. The client may not want a lengthy, detailed program; he may wish to quickly getinto design.The scope of information the programmer collects refers to the level of detail to beincorporated into a programming document. "Whatever data are necessary and relevant tothe efficient, effective, design of a facility that accommodates the needs of the client are theconcerns of the programmer" (Palmer 1981). This means the the scope of designinformation required is the scope of programming information. The scope should includespecific factors that will have prominent influence on the facility. Identifying the factorsthat have the most significant impact on the facility may give the programmer direction forinvestigation. There is no specific process to determining the most significant factors, theprogrammer own judgement and experience must be used. The designer's and client'sinformation needs and how they will use the program may determine the scope of theinvestigation of program information. Ideally, any program would gather all informationwhich limits or influences a facility's design. These statements all provide a wide latitudefor interpreting the scope of a specific program. "However in reality the purview of aprogram is determined by the programmer's inclination or routine, and the client'sinterests, time, and $" (Palmer 1981).The most important and difficult part of programming is deciding what information isnecessary and relevant to the design of a particular facility. Time and money constrain thescope of investigation. For any particular project, the programmer must select what is mostrelevant and important. The scope of investigation depends on the nature of a project, andthe programmer may address one category, or focus on a single issue. The significance ofthis is that the design may be adversely affected if the program scope is unduly constrained.How does a programmer go about collecting the information once knowing the scopeand type of information required? "If the planned facility is a replacement or a renovation,the existing facility is one of the principal resources for the programmer" (Palmer 1981).Direct observation of existing facilities provide a data base for programming. Constructiondrawings, floor plans, previous programs, computerized inventories of existing space andequipment will all be useful. The client may also have mandatory standards, records,reports, and promotional literature, which will all be important information sources. Theprogrammer may even take photographs of the existing building to use as informationsources. Similar facilities may be observed, along with their drawings and diagrams, toprovide useful information. The programmer's own experience with the facility type mayprovide useful data.Another primary source of information is the client. The client may provide data, butthe programmer must work to elicit data from client. The client may direct the programmer16to gather information from people using the existing building. These people are calledusers. The programmer must employ techniques of gathering relevant information from theusers. Users are important sources, as they have direct knowledge of a facility's contents,functions, and problems. Users have realistic information about how operations areperformed, how interaction occurs, the equipment and furnishings required, and howorganizational structures affect space and arrangement. The programmer may elicitinformation from the users by using a questionnaire, interview, observational study, orother techniques of direct data collection. A questionnaire is a list of questions compiled bythe programmer about programming information to be filled out by the client organization.Questions may concern information about furnishings, and servicing. The programmermay ask these questions through an interview, or simply by watching the clientorganization in its existing building. The programmer may also use certain researchmaterials for information sources. A library is a good source of information for theprogrammer.Local authorities, such as planning, zoning and building code officials, utilitycompanies, and government agencies may provide useful information. The programmermay retain consultants and other experts to address specific aspects of programming, as inthe case of cost consultants.2.7 ProductThe purpose of this section is to outline the final product in the programming process.What are the fmal products of the programming process? What does the final programcontain? What are its conclusions?The final product of the programming process is a document called a program.Agnostini says that a program is a comprehensive report that presents, in text and tables,the detailed qualitative and quantitative requirements of the entire client organization. Theend product of programming process is information. The program should always provideadequate, appropriate information that clearly communicates the specific needs of thatproject so that the designer can satisfy those needs. The actual program is the culminationof the information development process, and is the ultimate stage in programming.Programs will differ greatly. The content of a program, the form of the information,the format of the communication will vary tremendously. The program will depend on theproject, the client, and the programmer. There is a great variety in program types, as theapplication may be broad or narrow, simple or complex. The program will contain factsand conclusions distilled from raw data. The content of the program will depend on the17nature and complexity of the project and on the information the programmer has agreed toprovide to client.The final program should state conclusions. Conclusions may be expressed in terms ofdirection for the designer, space descriptions, design concepts, and spatial criteria. Theseall communicate ideas and requirements about the building's space to the architect.Conclusions define issues and present the concepts that must be addressed in design. Theprogram must clearly present conclusions in conformance with the methodology andterminology of designers. That is, the program should speak the designer's language. Theprogram should extract only essential conclusions and information.In conclusion, programming concerns the collection, organization, and communicationof information. Sources of information, types of information, and detailed programmingprocesses will vary from programmer to programmer, and from project to project. Detailsand purposes vary, but the general pattern or direction of activity is consistent. The generalprocess used in programming is similar from project to project; these process steps areCollection, Analysis, Organization, Communication, and Evaluation. However, theliterature leaves some doubt as to detailed examples and descriptions of processes. Theliterature provides no real life examples or case studies of a programming project. It is notclear how programming is done by a professional programming consultant. It seems thatprogramming is not a simple, mechanical process that can be explained easily, otherwisethe literature would have presented a detailed process explanation. It seems theprogrammer must build up his knowledge and experience of the profession in order todevelop his/her own personal programming process. However, there are some importantconceptual ideas and tools that a programmer should know before adaption of the processbegins. In order to further delve into the detail of the programming process, a case studyof a programming project will be examined in the following two chapters.18CHAPTER 3CHRONOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROGRAMMING OF KWANTLEN COLLEGE RICHMOND CAMPUS As evidenced by Chapter 2, there is not much literature on programming, and indeed,no comprehensive explanations of the programming process. There were no case studiesfound in the literature search. It is important to review a case study to impart a betterunderstanding of programming. Chapters 3 and 4 will study the project of theprogramming of Kwantlen College Richmond Campus. The purpose of this chapter,Chapter 3, is to present chronologically the events that took place in the the programmingof the Campus. The programming took place from May 1989 to February 1990. Chapter4 will explain the tools and the processes the programmers used in this project.Kwantlen College's Richmond Campus is temporarily located in rented accommodationin Richmond at Elmbridge Way and Cedarbridge Way. (See Figure 2: Map of TemporaryRichmond Campus). The space is somewhat limiting and was never intended to functionas a permanent campus. The Richmond Campus will continue to function out of rentedaccommodation until September of 1992 when it will occupy the newly constructedpermanent space.The development of the Kwantlen College system was considered by many plans andother documents prepared by Kwantlen College staff, all of which proposed a permanentRichmond Campus. A Five Year Plan 1989 -1993 , prepared by Kwantlen College in1989, called for the building of the permanent Richmond Campus. This Plan contained theEducational Plan for the new Richmond Campus outlining all the programs to be taught atthe new Campus along with the forecasted student full time-equivalents to be taught. (SeeTable I: The Richmond Campus Education Plan)This Educational Plan called for the new Campus to accommodate all the existingRichmond educational programs, increasing enrollment for some of these programs, andthe relocation of some educational programs from other Campuses to the RichmondCampus, as well as implementing some new educational programs.19MIDDLEARMBRIDGEBRIDGEPORT ROADDINSMOREBRIDGEOAK STBRIDGE^°°11%.\C-HIGHWAY 99CAMBIE ROADALDERBRIDGE WAYWESTMINSTER HIGHWAYTEMPORARY SITEKWANTLEN COLLEGERICHMOND CAMPUSNO3LANSDOWNEMALLGARDEN^NO 4ROAD^CITY WAY ROADFigure 2: Map of Temporary Richmond Campus, from Kwantlen College RichmondCampus Facilities Program (Vancouver, BC: Process Four Design, February, 1990).20THE RICHMOND CAMPUS EDUCATION PLANNumber of Full Time Equivalent StudentsFall 1988^1991/92^ChangeUniversity TransferArts 223 223Science 146 146Subtotals 369 369Business 231 252 21Adult Basic and Special EducationAdult Basic 48 67 19Adult Special 21 22 1Vocational Skills 12 12Subtotal 81 101 20Applied DesignDesign (new) 0 45 45Fashion 75 75Foundations (new) 0 24 24Graphics (transfer from Newton) 0 75 75Interior 44 44Subtotal 119 263 144Health and Human ServicesChild Care 16 16VocationalDrafting 43 43Office Administration 92 92Part-time Vocational 40 40Journalism 24 24Subtotal 199 199TOTAL 1015 1200 185Table I : The Richmond Campus Education Plan, from Five Year Plan, 1989-1993(Vancouver, BC: Kwantlen College, December 1988).21Educational planning for the new Campus took place during 1987-1988 within theKwantlen College system. It was not until 1988 that action began to occur outside of theinstitution. Kwantlen College officials began to meet with the Ministry of AdvancedEducation to secure initial approval and planning funds for the new Campus. During early1988, the Ministry asked Kwantlen College to illustrate a staged approach to developing theRichmond Campus. In the Autumn of 1988, after further consultation with the Ministry,the College began planning Richmond Campus as single project. Planning andprogramming money was obtained from the Ministry. The project budget was fixed at$37.2 million in 1988 dollars, including money for construction, furnishings, fees,contingency, and parking.A site for the new Campus was chosen at Lansdowne and Cook Roads. (See Figure 3Map of Permanent Richmond Campus Site). This site is adjacent to Lansdowne Mall, afully enclosed retail mall separated from the subject site by open parking lots. The site wasacquired by the client through a process conducted independently of the programmingprocess.After securing a site for the new Richmond Campus, Kwantlen College sent out arequest for proposals to programming consultants. Process Four Design, one of theprogramming consultants interested in the project, had an introductory meeting with UliHaag, the Dean of Human Resources and Organization Support on February 17, 1989.During this meeting, Process Four Design made a effort to find out more about KwantlenCollege and the Richmond Campus project. Subsequently, Process Four Design submitteda proposal for the project and was chosen for the interview short list. Shortly after ProcessFour Design was interviewed by Kwantlen College, the firm was chosen as programmingconsultants for the Kwantlen College Richmond Campus. On March 23, 1989 a letter fromKwantlen College was received by Process Four Design confirming their engagement for afixed fee.Process Four Design was hired by Kwantlen College because their philosophy had agood fit with that of the College. Both believe that users have valuable knowledge and thatthey can be used as valuable sources of information. Process Four Design were alsochosen because of the tight time frame for the programming. Process Four Design was notworking on any other major projects at that time and could work within the time frame setdown by the College, which was to program a new Campus during April 01, 1989 toSeptember 30, 1989, even though many faculty would not be available during thesesummer months.22MIDDLEARMBRIDGEBRIDGEPORT ROADDINSMOREBRIDGE CAMBIE ROADNO3 GARDEN^NO 4OAK STBRIDGEHIGHWAY 99ALDERBRIDGE WAYWESTMINSTER HIGHWAYPERMANENT SITEKWANTLEN COLLEGERICHMOND CAMPUSLANSDOWNEMALLROAD^CITY WAY ROADFigure 3: Map of Permanent Richmond Campus Site, from Kwantlen College RichmondCampus Facilities Program (Vancouver, BC: Process Four Design, February, 1990).23THE TASK OUTLINEPrincipalDay AllocationsSenior Programmer1.0 PROJECT INITIATION April Weeks 1-21.1 Establish contractual relationship 1.01.2 Orientation and review 2.0^2.02.0 ROLE/PARAMETERS April Week 2 -June Week 12.1 WorksessionsDirecting Committee 1.5^1.5User Committees 5.0 5.02.2 Working Paper #1-Role & Parameters 0.5^3.02.3 Review and Revise 0.5 1.02.4 Working Paper #2 - Issues 0.5^1.03.0 SCHEMATIC DESIGN PROGRAM June Week 2-September Week 13.1 WorksessionsDirecting Committee 1.5^1.5User Committees 5.0 5.03.2 Standard Space 1.0^4.03.3 Enrollment & staffing 2.0 3.03.4 Planning Concepts 1.5^2.03.5 Space Lists 1.5 6.03.6 Space/Cost Model 2.0^3.03.7 Working Paper #3- Schematic Design 2.5 5.03.8 Review and Revise 0.5^2.53.9 Working Paper #4- Space List 2.5 5.04.0 SITE PLANNING August Week 2-September Week 14.1 Outline Planning Criteria 0.5^1.55.0 DETAILED PROGRAMMING July Week 3-September Week 35.1 WorksessionsDirecting Committee 2.0^2.0User Committees 5.0 5.05.2 Working Paper #5- Space Data 2.0^5.05.3 Review and Revise 0.5 1.05.4 Working Paper #6-Directing Committee 0.5^1.06.0 FINAL DOCUMENTATION September Weeks 1-26.1 Prepare draft fmal document 1.0^3.56.2 Review and Revise 0.5 1.07.0 DESIGN LIAISON September Weeks 3-47.1 Block Planning Liaison 2.5^2.07.2 Schematic Concept Liaison 2.5 2.0Table II: The Task Outline, from Sumi, Jim, Principal of Process Four Design, Letter toMacLaughlin, Adrienne, President of Kwantlen College, March 06 1989.24The first step for the programmers was to produce a Task Outline. The Task Outline,reproduced as Table II, lists all the tasks that needed to be completed, as well as a dayallocation for each one. This chapter will explain the Richmond Campus programming interms of this task outline. Each major group of tasks will be listed, and a detaileddescription of the group will follow.April Weeks 1-21.0 PROJECT INITIATION1.1 Establish Contractual Relationship1.2 Orientation and ReviewKwantlen College Richmond Campus programming began in the first two weeks ofApril. The tasks performed during this time are found on the Task Outline under 1.0Project Initiation. During these first two weeks, the consultant established a contractualrelationship with the Kwantlen College organization by working with Uli Haag, the Deanof Human Resources and Organization Support. The programmer did this by workingwith the Mr. Haag to come up with a mutually acceptable budget and task outline. Bothparties entered into a legally binding contract, the programmer promising to do the work asoutlined, and the College promising to remunerate the programming firm. Orientation andreview also took place over these two weeks. The programmers spent time looking atexisting documentation including organization charts, Kwantlen College plans, and theSurrey Campus programming and architectural plans.Kwantlen College did some initial work at the start of the programming process. Theybegan to set up their control systems, roles, and mandates at the direction of theprogrammer. Uppermost in their minds was the programming of the recently constructedSurrey Campus. All group roles, membership, mandates, and operations were formallylaid out by Kwantlen to avoid repetition of problems of the Surrey Campus programming.(MacLaughlin, Adrienne, Letter of 20 March 1989). Certain objectives were outlined to theprogrammer at the start of the project. The decision makers at Kwantlen wanted to achievesome objectives in the programming of the Richmond Campus. The College wanted tosmooth over bad feelings remaining from the planning of the Surrey Campus, to have theprocess set within the existing decision making structure of the Kwantlen system, to havefaculty involved in a useful way, and to not have faculty take control of the process.To achieve this end, the Directing Committee, the decision making body of KwantlenCollege, identified all the groups and individuals to be involved in the programming, anddescribed their roles and mandates. As set out in a memo of April 6, 1989, the DirectingCommittee's mandate for the project was to:251. To make all the required administrative decisions to ensure that the project proceedsexpeditiously and remains within the fmancial resources allocated to the project.;2. To receive reports from the Project Manager and the Chairman of the UsersCommittees;3. To consider the recommendations of the functional planner (Process Four Design),architects (Aitken Wreglesworth Associates), and Project Manager (UMA Spantec):4. To make recommendations to the Facilities Committee and the Board.Decision and direction actions are based upon information generated by participatingstaff.from MacLaughlin, Adrienne, President of Kwantlen College, Letter to Jim Sumi ofProcess Four Design, April 06 1989.The Membership of the Directing Committee , as outlined in this memo, comprised theVice President of Education for the Richmond Campus, the Dean of Educational Support,the Vice President of Administration and Finance, the Dean of Organizational Support, theProject Manager, and the President of Kwantlen College. The Project Manager was a hiredconsultant from UMA Spantec, a construction management firm. UMA Spantec was notinvolved during the programming part of the process.The Directing Committee also established memberships in the User Committees, andtheir mandates. The role of users was to act as information sources about their own areasand how they work in the College. Their mandate for the Richmond Campus project, asdescribed in a Kwantlen memo of April 06, 1989, was:1. To be a liaison for their representative group to convey information to and from thegroup; and2. To provide advice to the College regarding space requirements; space lay out;furnishings and equipment.from MacLaughlin, Adrienne, President of Kwantlen College, Letter to Jim Sumi ofProcess Four Design, April 06 1989.There were five User Committees in total, each representing an educational oradministrative organizational grouping to be in the new campus. The five Committeesincluded:Group 1 Applied Arts and Career Preparation;Group 2 Design Centre;Group 3 Academic and Applied Studies;Group 4 Educational Support; andGroup 5 Administrative Services.Each Committee contained five to seven people, in order that all the departments andprograms to be included in the new Campus were represented. These representatives couldconsult with their colleagues who were not on the Committees.26A Chairperson's role was also created. The Chairperson's role, as documented in thememo of April 6, 1989, was :1. To prepare agendas for the meetings.2. To organize regular meetings to receive the advice of the members.3. To produce and distribute minutes.4. To provide regular reports to the Directing Committee.5. To work closely with the Project Manager to ensure that all the required informationis transmitted to the functional planner and architect.6. To provide information requested by the Project Manager or Vice PresidentEducation.from MacLaughlin, Adrienne, President of Kwantlen College, Letter to Jim Sumi ofProcess Four Design, April 06 1989.The role of the programmer was to work with the User Committees to produce aprogram document for the Richmond Campus. The programmer was to work most closelywith the Chairperson to schedule meetings, and distribute information and working papers.The programmer was to act as an information and communication link between the UserCommittees and the Directing Committee in order that all people were kept up to date andinformed of decisions and directions. Thus, from the very outset of the project, all groupsand individuals taking part in the programming process were clearly defined in terms oftheir membership and their roles.April Week 2 -June Week 12.0 ROLE /PARAMETERS2.1 Worksessions with Directing Committee and User Committees2.2 Working Paper#1 Role and Parameters2.3 Review and Revise2.4 Working Paper #2 - IssuesFrom the second week in April until the first week in June, the consultant moveddirectly and quickly into the programming work. Two worksessions were conducted witheach User Committee. The purpose of the worksessions was to develop Warts, Winners,Visions, and Opportunities lists with the User Committees, along with information on UserCommittees' anticipated roles within the College on the opening day of the new RichmondCampus. Developing Warts, Winners, Visions, and Opportunities lists with the UserCommittees was used as a warmup exercises for the users. Warts were things wrong, orthings people did not like about the existing Richmond Campus. Winners were things rightwith the existing facility, that should be carried over into the new facility. Visions andOpportunities for new Richmond Campus gave the programmers ideas about spaces,images, and how the new Campus should work. For example, a Wart of the existingCampus was the poor heating and ventilation system. A Winner of the existing Campus27was the opening windows. Visions and Opportunities for the new Campus included ideaslike having a student cafeteria, a faculty lounge, and adequate parking.The User Committees also developed functional roles and parameters for eachdepartment or program in the new Richmond Campus. These functional roles andparameters included information about the anticipated functions, enrollment, and staffingon the opening of the new Richmond Campus. Role and parameter statements provideddescriptions of services and activities each educational program will fulfill. The roles andparameters were described in current terms, as well as in terms of the changes that areanticipated in the future.The information developed with the User Committees, (Warts, Winners, Visions, andOpportunities lists, and Role and Parameters about each department and program), wasdocumented by the programmer and sent back to the User Committees in Working Paper#1. Working Paper #1 was distributed at the beginning of June, 1989. Revisions werenoted by the users directly on this paper and were sent back to the programmer forincorporation into a Revised Working Paper #1.However, some issues had arisen from the worksessions and Working Paper #1comments. Working Paper #2 was compiled by the programmers to address all the issuesthat needed to be resolved before programming could continue. Working Paper #2contained issues brought up by the User Committees as a result of Working Paper #1.Working Paper #2 was distributed June 1989 to the Directing Committee, the decisionmaking body of Kwantlen College. The Directing Committee reviewed key role andparameter assumptions, and responded yes or no to each issue. The Directing Committeeconsolidated their responses and gave a revised edition of Working Paper #2 back to theconsultant with decisions. Although the main issue to resolve at this stage was establishingthe role of each department in the new building, time was also spent with the DirectingCommittee refining limits for staffing, and student counts; for example, one of the issuesthat came up was the number of Full Time Student Equivalent numbers that each area ordepartment would teach. The User Committees felt that the ratio of the student numberswas incorrect between departments. They came up with a revised set of numbers that theyfelt would work correctly. This was forwarded to the Directing Committee in WorkingPaper #2 and approved.28June Week 2-September Week 13.0 SCHEMATIC DESIGN PROGRAM3.1 Worksessions with Directing Committee and User Committees3.2 Standard Space3.3 Enrollment and staffing3.4 Planning concepts3.5 Space Lists3.6 Space / Cost Model3.7 Working Paper #3 Schematic Design3.8 Review and Revise3.9 Working Paper #4- Space ListDuring the second week of June to the first week of September, Process Four Designconducted individual worksessions with users in order to produce a space list, neighbourslist, internal relationships diagram, staffing, and detailed space information for eachdepartment or program. Also at this time, Process Four Design communicated decisionsthat the Directing Committee had made about the issues to the users. Part of theprogrammer's job was to be a communication link between the Directing Committee andthe User Committees. The programmer communicated information between the twoentities.Worksessions began with the users giving the programmer a quick tour of the existingspaces in their area. The user would talk about what would be required in the new Campusand compare it to the existing spaces. From this, the programmer would begin to talk withthe user about space required to fulfill the previously determined role of the department orprogram. A space list was the product of this process.In these worksessions, a neighbours list was also generated by the user. Neighboursdefined those other departments or programs in the Campus that the user needed to haveclose, and the reasons why. The programmer did this by simply asking the user.As the space list had been generated by the user, the programmer took pre-cut papercircles ("bubbles"), and write a space name on each "bubble". The user would then beasked to organize their spaces by configuring the "bubbles". This was to determine theinternal relationships of the spaces, that is, how the spaces should be physically organized.What space needs to be next to what space and why? This process was done for each usergroup, as well as for the overall relationship of user group to user group.Staffing was also determined in this worksession. The programmer obtainedinformation regarding how many staff were required to teach each program, or to supporteach department at the determined enrollment, in order to correctly allocate office space.Process Four Design documented the information from the worksessions in WorkingPaper #3, which was distributed in the middle of July, 1989. This working paper included29information for each department or program on neighbours, internal relationships,previously determined role, staffing and enrollment. The purpose of the working paperwas to document in writing the information developed in the worksessions. The usersreviewed and revised the information directly by writing on the working paper, and thensent it back to Process Four Design.Based on the information developed in each worksession, and the tours of existingfurnishings and spaces, the programmers also produced an initial space list. This space listwas checked against the spaces in the new Surrey Campus to ensure that no space wasoverlooked. On August 15, 1989, what the programmers called a "quick and dirty" spacelist was distributed to the users listing the names of spaces required. This was revised bythe users and quickly returned to the programmers.On August 29, 1989, Working Paper #4 was distributed. This working paper consistedof a revised space list with the number and names of spaces without square footageassigned. This space list was based on revised space lists returned by the users. Thenumber of spaces required was based on user needs and was ascertained over the phone.However, this would need to be checked against various parameters and revised.During this time, the programmer was also processing space information in thecomplete Campus space list in order to develop Space Standards. Space Standards neededto be developed for staff offices, staff workstations, classroom workstations, and labworkstations. The purpose of developing space standards for spaces that repeat a lotthroughout the building is to eliminate redundant information in the program. Theprogrammer did not want to copy office requirements for every single office in the newCampus. Space standards were developed by looking through the space list for patternsand using the patterns to develop the standards. For example, all faculty offices wereshared and seemed to be about 160 Square Feet. A 160 Square Foot Shared Faculty Officebecame a standard.During the month of September, more detailed work on the space list and associatedcosts was done. Process Four Design developed a space list with attached square footage.Allocations for spaces were based on tours of the existing Campus and more worksessionswith the users. Cost information was gathered from Barnett Treharne Yates BC Limited, acost consultant. Costs per square foot per space type were developed by the costconsultant. Cost information was inserted into the space list spreadsheet; that is, unit costswere linked to units of space in a dynamic spreadsheet model. This model was dynamicbecause if a change in space size occurred, the spreadsheet would quickly recalculate thetotal project cost.30Process Four Design also worked with the Dean of each Educational Department todevelop the Utilization Model. The Utilization Model was a numerical computer model thatshowed how the new Campus would work in terms of number of courses and number ofteaching rooms. In order to begin collecting information for the Utilization Model, theConsultant gathered information over the phone from instructors and Deans about courses.Each program was outlined in terms of courses, the number of students per course, theinstructional hours per week in each course, the number of students in each course, and inwhat type of space. All information about educational programs was put into a computerspreadsheet to build a model to ensure the correct number and types of spaces had beenplanned. This information models how the new Richmond Campus would work in termsof all programs and space use. In September 1989, this utilization model was sent to GerryKilcup, the Dean of Applied Arts and Career Preparation for review. Gerry Kilcup, also amember of the Directing Committee, ensured the information collected was correct.August Week 2-September Week 14.0 SITE PLANNING4.1 Outline Planning CriteriaFrom the second week of August to the first week of September, Process Four Designcollected information on the new Campus site. Municipal codes and bylaws as establishedfor the site were examined for factors relevant at the programming stage. These factorsincluded site coverage (the area of site that can be covered by building), setbacks (thedistances from property lines that buildings may be located), and zoning (the designation ofthe site relative to Municipal zoning bylaws). Discussions with municipal staff alsoaddressed the potential for flexibility in determining final site constraints; for example, thenumber of parking spaces to be provided was to be determined as a part of the designprocess.This information was collected at a general level, to cue the design team in its research,as well as to identify factors that represented constraints at the programming stage. In thiscase, no such constraints were identified.July Week 3-September Week 35.0 DETAILED PROGRAMMING5.1 Worksessions with Directing Committee and Users Committee5.2 Working Paper #5 Space Data5.3 Review and revise5.4 Working Paper #6-Directing Committee31From the third week in July until the third week in September, the programmercollected detailed programming information. Some of this had already been collectedduring worksessions and tours of existing spaces with the users, however, follow up andmore detail was required in complicated areas. More worksessions were held with theusers, for purposes of inventorying existing program spaces and furnishings. The existingtemporary Richmond Campus was used as a starting point for technical and furnishingsrequirements. Each type of furnishing required was measured and documented. At thistime, enough information had been collected to assign a square footage to each space withsubstantiating detailed programming information. The detailed programming informationwas documented in Working Paper #5 Space Data. Detailed programming information, orspace data, included diagrams of furniture, equipment, layout of special spaces, andtechnical requirements of a space. It was special, detailed information about specificspaces, developed by the programmer in sketch form to arrive at the assigned squarefootage of a space. Users quickly responded to the Working Paper #5 and sent revisions.Now that all detailed programming information had been collected, documented, andrevised by the users, the space list could be completely revised. At this time, the space listwas within the budget parameters set by the Ministry of Advanced Training andTechnology. The programmers needed to inform the Directing Committee of KwantlenCollege with an update of progress, as well as get them to endorse the information that theusers and programmers had developed to date. All information was ready for finaldocumentation pending the endorsement of the Directing Committee. Working Paper #6was prepared for the Directing Committee with all information developed to date. TheDirecting Committee working paper included all educational programs and departments thatwould go in the new Campus. Each had a role description, enrollment, staffing, futurechanges, internal relationship, and neighbours. In addition, a complete space list, aspace/cost model, and a utilization model were included. This Paper was forwarded to theDirecting Committee in September 1989. A project meeting was held with the DirectingCommittee to discuss the space program. At this time, the Directing Committee approvedthe documentation. The go ahead was given to the programmers to produce a finalprogram document.September Weeks 1-26.0 FINAL DOCUMENTATION6.1 Prepare draft final document6.2 Review and Revise32At the direction of the Directing Committee, the programmers set to work to documentand produce all the information for the final draft program during the first two weeks ofSeptember. A draft of the final program was issued to the users, the Directing Committeemembers, and the project architects at the end of September, 1989. The draft programdocument included the following sections: Document Use and Organization, SiteInformation, Project Parameters, Planning Concepts, Space Types, Standards Spaces,Program Summary, and Component Descriptions. See Appendix A: Table of Contents forthe list of sections that made up the Final Program for the Richmond Campus. TheDocument Use and Organization section provided information about how to use theprogram document. The Site section provided general information about the site of the newCampus, and any constraints in site development. Project Parameters outlined the limitswithin which the design problem should be resolved. From the earliest stages of theprogramming process, parameters separate out the issues and requirements which are partof the problem from those which are not part of the problem; for example, a ProjectParameter statement for the new Richmond Campus was "The provision of specializedfacilities will be given first priority." The Space Types section described the number ofdifferent types of spaces in the new Campus, and described the characteristics of each. TheStandards Spaces section attempted to define the repeating spaces in an effort to minimizeredundancy later in the program document; for example, a faculty office was described inthis section in order that it need not be described numerous times throughout the document.The Program Summary presented a consolidation of the space list. ComponentDescriptions provide all the detailed space information about each group. Componentswere the program, departmental, or administrative entities that were defined as appropriatebuilding blocks for design. Each Component was described in terms of a Functional Role,Enrollment, Staffing, Neighbours, Internal Relationships, and Space Data. Appendix Bprovides an example of one Component with all its associated information.September Weeks 3-47.0 DESIGN LIAISON7.1 Block Planning Liaison7.2 Schematic Concept LiaisonDuring the third and fourth week of September, Process Four Design began the liaisonwith the architect. For this, the programmers used an activity they called modelling.Modelling occurred with the User Committees of the new Richmond Campus inSeptember. Color coded pieces of paper were cut out to scale for all the spaces in the newCampus. A building grid or outline was provided. In the modelling sessions, the User33Committees moved the pieces of paper about in the building outline. The users laid out thebuilding using the paper pieces the way they wanted the Campus to work for them. Thearchitects stood by and watched and listened. Modelling is Process Four Design's methodof linking programming and architecture. The architects began to understand how theactual users of the building wanted the building to work, instead of making assumptions.The architect found this process very useful as it provided them with an initial estimate at afloor layout. It also provided them with lots of conceptual information which theyotherwise would not have known until much later in their involvement. Modelling was tobe the last step in Process Four Design's involvement in the project until problems arose inDecember of 1989.In December, budget problems arose. The cost consultant advised that constructioncosts in Vancouver had risen significantly in a short period of time. Kwantlen Collegecould no longer build the space list outlined in the program, as it would be over budget.Space needed to be cut to stay within the fixed budget.On January 4th, 1990, an additional contract was negotiated between Kwantlen Collegeand Process Four Design to cut 23% of the space outlined in their original program. Theconsulting firm was to review other college models to see if it was possible to cut space by23% and still have a workable college. The firm was to report back to the DirectingCommittee by January 12, 1990 with the information.Process Four Design embarked on this additional scope of work by touring otherCollege Campuses in the Lower Mainland to fmd out where to possibly cut space in theRichmond Campus. Information was collected and documented about spaces in otherCampuses. Process Four Design shortly determined it was possible for the RichmondCampus to work as a Campus with 23% less space than allocated in the Final Programdocument. Process Four Design made a list of recommendations about where the DirectingCommittee could cut 23% of space from the Richmond Campus space list. The DirectingCommittee examined the recommendations, and added some of their ownrecommendations. Decisions were then made by the Directing Committee to get spacedown to the targeted amount. This did not affect the Richmond Campus Educational Planas outlined previously in this chapter.Process Four Design proceeded to revise the space list, and by the end of January 1990had a fmal space list, along with prioritized spaces to go back in, budget permitting. Aworking paper was distributed in January to the User Committees. This working paperattempted to inform the users of the situation to date, and showed them where cuts hadbeen made. The purpose of this paper was to ensure that each educational program and34department could work with the newly revised space, and to ensure decisions wereappropriate. For the most part, there were no further revisions.Now that the revised space list was fixed, Process Four Design incorporated all thechanges into the Final Program document. The revised Final Program was distributedFebruary, 1990.    35CHAPTER 4DETAILED PROCESS OF THE PROGRAMMING OF KWANTLENCOLLEGE RICHMOND CAMPUS In Chapter 3, the chronological events in the programming of the Richmond Campuswere described. Now that this context has been laid, this chapter presents detailedexplanations of processes used by the programmers in the Richmond Campus project.This Chapter consists of three sections, each addressing a more detailed level ofinformation than the one before. First, the general process used in the project will beexplained, with the help of a flow diagram. Secondly, specific details of the process usedwill be outlined, along with the description of important tools. A more detailed flowdiagram will help to clarify the process. Lastly, we will review comments made by theKwantlen staff and faculty involved in the process.4.1 General Structure of the ProcessFirst, a basic outline of the process used in the programming of the Richmond Campus willbe reviewed. The purpose of this section is to review the general structure theprogrammers set for the flow of information. The programmers set up a cycle forinformation flows, each of the parts are repeated a number of times. These three partsincluded:Input;Control & Decision Making; andProducts.The Process Flow Diagram (See Figure 4 : Programming Process Flow Diagram)following illustrates the basic cycling of the three parts. Information generation anddecision-making are a series of these three parts, that is, "Input / Control & DecisionMaking/ Products " steps. This diagram also depicts the flow of information between thedecision making body (Directing Committee of Kwantlen College), the User Committees,and the programmer. These steps are explained in more detail following the diagram.36Approval fromDecision-makingbody Participative WorksessionIssues withcontextualinformation Majority ofinformationInteractiveDecisionsDirection onproject parameters Direction incorporatedfor participativeworksessions to developnext level of detailNext cycle ofparticipation•PROGRAMMING PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAMCONTROL^PRODUCTS^ INPUTFigure 4: Programming Process Flow Diagram, from Process Four Design & AitkenWreglesworth Architects, Interactive Design : A Better Way to Involve Users  (Vancouver,BC: Process Four Design & Aitken Wreglesworth Architects July, 1991) 7.Input steps, indicated on the far right side of the flow diagram, show the main body ofinformation generation. Input represents the main source of programmatic information.Most information was developed with and by participating Kwantlen staff members. Themandate for participating staff, User Committees, was that they should have input into theprogramming process. The mandate and role of User Committees was strictly defined by37the Directing Committee. As outlined in Chapter 3, Five User Committees wereestablished by the Directing Committee, including Applied Arts and Career Preparation,Design Centre, Academic and Applied Studies, Educational Support, and AdministrativeServices. Each of the Committees represented a major organizational teaching oradministrative group within the Campus. Membership of these groups was alsoestablished by the Directing Committee.Participative worksessions, held by the programmer with each User Committee, werethe locus for Input. The purpose of meeting in a worksession format was to get peoplethinking together and working together on a single goal. The consultant recorded allinformation in worksessions and interviews. The material generated by users was alwayssent back to them in a working paper, with a structure and time frame for revisions andcomment. The programmer used the working paper as documentation of the last meeting.Participants used the working paper as vehicle for further comment, writing ideas andgetting additional information from other colleagues. Revisions to working papers werecollected, and material from revised working papers formed the basis for documentsections. Worksessions and interviews were used throughout the process to gather orgenerate a different type of information or a different level of detail.Control actions, on the left hand side of the flow diagram, were the responsibility of thedecision-making body established for the project. The Directing Committee of KwantlenCollege was the decision-making body already in place, and it acted as the Control device.The Directing Committee maintained control of the process within a scope or mandate setout at the start of the project, which was largely financial. Chapter 3 provides more detailon the Directing Committee's role.Information generated by User Committees generally fell within established parameterssuch as cost and space constraints, and was carried forward. However, sometimes issuesor problems arose and the Directing Committee needed to make a decision in these cases.Issues were always presented to the Committee by the programmer in their informationcontext, in order that informed decisions could be made. In other words, the programmerpresented the Directing Committee with the issue and all information pertaining to it. Itwould not be effective for the decision-making bodies to concern themselves with theminutiae of detailed planning information, but they did have copies of all documentation intheir files.In some cases, issues went back and forth between the Directing Committee and theUser Committees several times. This happened when the users felt particularly stronglyabout an issue. For example, during the stage of allocating office space, the UserCommittees desired single offices, that is, one person per office. The users presented their38case for this desired set of conditions to the programmer. However, the DirectingCommittee decided that faculty offices should be shared for financial considerations. TheUser Committees brought it up again because they felt so strongly, they wanted singleoffices badly. However, they were once again vetoed by the Directing Committee.Products were the organized information resulting from any part of the process.Products acted as the link between the Directing Committee (the Control) and the UserCommittees ( the Input). The Products were the programmer's responsibility, whetherthey were presented orally or in writing. Documents or products communicatedinformation to the User Committees and the Directing Committee. Products flowed fromthe User Committees to the Directing Committee, as well from the Directing Committee tothe User Committees. Movement from the User Committees to the Directing Committeeindicated that the Directing Committee needed to make some kind of decision. Informationalready developed by the User Committees at the Input level was being transferred to theDirecting Committee. This decision was sometimes a simple okay and go ahead, or itsometimes was a revision. Products also flowed from the Directing Committee to the UserCommittees. This occurred after the Directing Committee had made a decision, and thisdecision needed to be communicated back to the User Committees. The products in thiscase served as the basis for further direction to participating staff. User Committees werealways working within real life constraints and parameters set down by the DirectingCommittee.4.2 Detailed ProcessHaving explained in Section 1 the information flow set up for the programmingprocess, the purpose of Section 2 is to provide detailed explanations of the programmingprocess used for the Kwantlen College Richmond Campus.The detailed process used in the programming of the Richmond Campus is illustrated in adetailed flow diagram, see Figure 5: Detailed Process Flow Diagram. This diagram is setup similarly to the more general Process Flow Diagram (Figure 4), using Control, Productsand Input cycles. However, Figure 5 presents the process in greater detail.39INPUTCONTROL PRODUCTSr 4DecisionsIssuesPhilosophyMissionEducationalProfileRole &ParametersResolvedIssues(Parameters)5IuIIIIII5Role andParametersSpace ListFacilitiesProgramResponse toChangeApproval fromDirectingCommitteeCOMMITTEE ARDIRECTING1 ^ 11111,-11111%2WHAT ^molly^IF? /  {$$$$,InteractiveDecision Makingby Committee17r ID -1"rvDirecting CommitteeApproval^40ir 3IIIIIIIIIII ResolvedFacilities OfProgramRevisionsIssuesDecisionSupportModelsInformation 'IInformationInteractiveWorksession171kr:71z5InteractiveWorksessionIDEASIDEASMIN ■■■IMMNIPDETAILED PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAMApprovedFacilitiesProgramFigure 5: Detailed Process Flow Diagram, from Process Four Design & AitkenWreglesworth Architects, Interactive Design : A Better Way to Involve Users (Vancouver,BC: Process Four Design & Aitken Wreglesworth Architects July, 1991) 9.MinistryReviewDesign40The programming portion of the process consisted of four major parts:I Role and Parameters (Macro decisions)II Space List (Micro decisions)ifi Facilities Program (Detailed information)IV Response to Change (Adjustments)These four parts are seen on Figure 5 diagram on the left hand side. Each is also in factthe name of the final product of that part of the process. The diagram and the followingtext will help us to understand stages or cycles in arriving at these final products. Each partwill be explained in terms of the Control, Products, Input cycles. The interactive processapplied to the Kwantlen project problems ensured that staff provided the input andinformation, while the decision makers retain their decision making control.I: Role and ParametersThe Control for this stage of the project was approval from the Directing Committee ofKwantlen for programming go ahead. This meant that the programmer was hired,protocols and structures were in place, and programming was initiated. The products atthis point consisted of existing Kwantlen documentation, including education plans,educational profiles of the new Campus, mission and philosophy statements of the College,and descriptions of the various User Committees and their mandates. The programmerreviewed the existing Kwantlen products for context.Kwantlen's mission and philosophy statement was and is an expression of the beliefsystems of their organization, or more simply, the reason for doing the things it is doing.The philosophy and mission acted as a general guide for facility planning and designdecisions. The educational profile was the organization's first attempt to outline theprograms and allocated FTEs to be taught at the new facility. It consisted of the educationalprograms to be taught at the new Campus along with the number of students allocated toeach program. With appropriate resources, including dynamic numerical Decision SupportModels (explained in Tools section), this initial educational profile was not treated as aconcrete statement, but was viewed as a moving target. Kwantlen was not held to anobsolete educational profile as new information was learned, including the impacts of thebudget.Organizations should expect to juggle programs and FTEs during this programmingprocess. In the case of Kwantlen College Richmond Campus, a complete educationalprogram, a Waste Management program, was added after the Directing Committee hadapproved a final draft program.Input sources and processes at this stage consisted of participative worksessions withUser Committees. A key attitude on the part of the consultant was that the user had expert41information on functions and spaces, but was not accustomed to articulating thisknowledge. The consultant's role was to help the user to discover and articulate theinformation, input, and opinions which they have. Development and generation ofinformation occurred through worksessions with groups of people, called UserCommittees. These meetings were a very fast way of generating a lot of information in ashort time, and included brainstorming sessions. Their objectives included achievinggroup consensus on issues that arise, as well as generation of information. Theconsultant's strength was experience and innovative facilitation skills that helped keepmeetings in control, and make them exciting for users.Users acted as representatives for their areas. At this stage, Process Four Design usedUser Committees. A User Committee contained a mixture of people from within adepartment, to achieve a cross fertilization of ideas, and to get input on departmental issues.The strength of meeting departmentally was that issues arising at this level were resolvedquickly, and thus did not have to be referred to the decision-making body. In most otherplanning exercises, this key step is forgotten and staff in one area do not know what theothers are doing, which leads to defensive, uncooperative attitudes.The primary tool used by the consultant in information gathering and development wasthe worksessions with User Committees. In worksessions, the programmer usedbrainstorming techniques to focus on a specific subject and get all information about thatsubject before making any decisions. Worksessions were also held with individuals,where these individuals had relevant knowledge.Flipcharts were used by the consultant during user worksessions. Rather than takingnotes by hand on a note pad, the consultant kept a record of the information developed byjotting it on the flipchart. The flipchart was kept visible to all participants to ensure thatwhat was written down by the consultant was a correct documentation of what was said.Working papers were used to document information developed in the userworksessions. Flipchart information is quickly transcribed into a computer file. Materialdeveloped at the worksessions is then sorted and processed by the consultant, using acomputer database if necessary. The sorted and processed information, along with anyquestions the consultant may have about the information, is organized into a workingpaper. This working paper had an introduction, an explanation of the process, and anexplanation of what will happen next, together with the workshop transcript. The workingpapers enabled participants to ensure that the programmers understood and heard exactlywhat the users told them, and gave them a second chance to cover errors and omissions.Users also distributed working papers information among their colleagues to get broader42participation. Users and their colleagues responded openly and directly on the papers bywriting their comments. Papers were sent back to the consultant when completed.FAX and phone were also tools that were used extensively in the programmingprocess. The FAX machine was used to instantly send and receive notes aboutinformation. The phone was used in the event that meetings could not be arranged andinformation had to be transferred quickly. The phone was also used where the programmerneeded clarification on an issue.There were two products from the Role and Parameters part of the process, includingRole and Parameters Statements, and Role and Parameters Issues. Role and ParametersStatements was one of the first documented products to come from the interactiveworksessions with the User Committees. These statements were documented in WorkingPaper #1 as outlined in Chapter 3. Role and Parameters provided a broad description ofservices and activities that each entity (educational program or administrative entity) wouldfulfil. These statements described the limits and overall framework within which planningwould occur, setting out what each entity would and would not do. Role and Parameterswere described in current terms, as well as in terms of changes anticipated in the future. Inthe case of Kwantlen College Richmond Campus, the users described each educationalprogram or administrative entity in terms of its role within the College and Campus. Limitsfor role, staffing, and student numbers (student full time equivalent numbers) allocationswere established.Role and Parameters Issues arose from the participative worksessions at the departmentlevel. For example, Kwantlen users had responses to the initial educational profileregarding student full time equivalent numbers allocated to educational programs. Otherissues came up, such as a certain educational program was seen as not viable, and the usersfelt it should be cut. These issues fed into a Control cycle. Issues were forwarded to theDirecting Committee in the form of Working Paper #2 for decisions. Few issues, in fact,were carried forward to the Directing Committee, as most were resolved at the UserCommittee level. Only issues that needed to be addressed by the decision makers wereforwarded to them ; it was not necessary for them to address all information generated.The programmer extracted the necessary and relevant information from the worksessions tocompile a working paper for the Directing Committee. This working paper addressed theissues and provided the context in which the Directing Committee could make wellinformed decisions. This approach ensured that the time of the decision makers was notwasted, and that they were responsible for the final decisions in this process.Resolved issues, products from the Directing Committee's decisions, were fed back tothe Users at the next interactive worksession.43II : Space ListThe Space List was the final product of this part. Input consisted of participativeworksessions with Department Groups. Worksessions were held with each representativeuser and their department for detailed information on space requirements, organizationalconcepts, furnishings, technical requirements, and courses or programs. A framework andstructure was already in place for this information to be developed, as the limits of eachprogram were established previously in Role and Parameters. Users worked to describethe needs for teaching the education plan as defined.The tools used in these worksessions were Decision Support Models. Process FourDesign set up microcomputer models that simulated the complex situation of the newCampus. Instead of needing to work with lengthy manual calculations that make changesdifficult to incorporate, these models allowed the client and consultant to manipulate all thevariables interactively. Multiple iterations did not significantly affect time and results werederived instantly. Decision Support Models developed by the consultants for KwantlenCollege Richmond Campus include a Space List, a Space-Cost Model, and a UtilizationModel. These models created a legacy of the programming process, and were intended tobe used in operational planning long after the facility is occupied to resolve new issues andproblems which arose, especially in regards to space allocations.The Space List listed all the space to be included in the new Campus, along with thenumber and sizes of the spaces. The Space List was arrived at by using Ministry ofAdvanced Education, Training and Technology space standards, Surrey Campus spacestandards, other College space standards, as well as user input on spaces needed to teachthe educational profile and an inventory of the existing facility. At the direction of theDirecting Committee, spaces at the Richmond Campus were based on Surrey Campusspaces, that is, Richmond Campus spaces were to be similar in size to Surrey Campusspaces. Space size was also based on Ministry space standards (See Table II : Ministry ofAdvanced Education, Training and Technology Space Standards). These standardsprovided Net Assignable Square Footage per Student for a space. Space size was alsobased on the existing Campus, as well as user expressed needs. The programmer workedwith the user to arrive at the required size of a space. The Space List for Kwantlen CollegeRichmond Campus is part of a larger Space-Cost Model.The Space-Cost Model (See Figure 6: Excerpt from Space-Cost Model for theRichmond Campus) was used as a tool to help the client make decisions about space basedon total project cost considerations. The client quickly saw how total budget changed withspace changes. The Space-Cost Model is simply the Space List with the costs of spaceadded. Cost consultants (Barnett Treharne Yates BC Limited) supplied the programming44consultants with unit costs for different types of spaces, and the programmer linked unitcosts to units of space to arrive at a total cost for the project. As choices were made aboutspace, changes in cost allocations were determined immediately. The client saw thefmancial impact of "what if" questions about spaces. This was critical to Kwantlen Collegeas they were working within a fixed budget set by the Ministry.45MINISTRY OF ADVANCED EDUCATION, TRAINING ANDTECHNOLOGY SPACE STANDARDSRecommended Student Stations Unit Area Guidelines for Instructional Rooms in BCPost-Secondary InstitutionsRoom Type^ Recommended Unit AreaLecture Theatre 12-15 square feetSeminar Room 15-18 square feetClassroom^ 25 square feetDemonstration Room^ 43 square feetMicro Computer Area 40 square feetAccounting Lab 49 square feetBiology Lab^ 43 square feetBTSD Lab 50 square feetChemistry Lab 53 square feetDental Assisting Lab^ 74 square feetDrafting Lab 92 square feetLanguage Lab 37 square feetNursing Lab^ 68 square feetPhysics Lab 48 square feetTyping Lab 39 square feetAutobody Shop^ 220 square feetAutomechanics Shop 220 square feetCarpentry Shop 150 square feetIntro Electricity Shop^ 121 square feetHeavy Duty Mechanics Shop 353 square feetWelding Shop 134 square feetTable HI: Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology Space Standards,from Kwantlen College Richmond Campus Facilities Program (Vancouver, BC: ProcessFour Design, February, 1990).46,i- .1- c., cr, rn CA .11- q) C... 1/40 CT 00 et^ C.- rn^CT C.. Nt VDwo C, vn en cy ,--4 CP CD Ch CD AD VD 1/40 4n Ch ,....4 IN 4D elon C.... 4n 0 00 et., 00 C.:. 00. CA Nt., VD.% on %0 ,--1^N1-., oo el ootn.' (NI r-.." ^m c-.7 ,-. en co- o o CV-^C\F 0e17^CiN NF ON 0-CA Ch .--1 C.... .1, cy eil .--4 ..4. eq ,r -.0 .1- VD et %.0 4A N 00ON ,-1 EA 69 EA EA.^CA TA ,—I ,--I VI EA. 'ct EA^N^ER fAEA EA.^ CA EA. E9 EA^(AEn..0 ir„, 0. R^CD CD CD 0 0 CD: CD C) C) 0 C CD CD000^ci'0.^0.Rqc?8 cr ri Fo 6 6 6 6 6 o 6 6 6 e5 6 6 6^CD 00 CD 00 Nt^CA 4n CD et CA 00^CD 4n CD CD CD 0'-' 001/4°^0N NWI .--i 00 et CA .--1 et CA et un .1- 8 ,cij^8 41 (9, 2;1-1 i■I rn AD^Cl,--1 u2*." 0 0^C) C) 0 C) C) C> C) 0 c> 0 0 c) C>^00 0.00.0.^0'E '8 i.,-;Ili vi oe, c5 6 6 e5 6 e5 6 od 6 e5 kr; w-;^o c) o oD = ,--4 NN ,--o .1- .1- CA 00 CA on en ,--1 oo v:, N CA 4n 'r C) ..-4^.--4^ cl) ‘0^(.)V4=t'^C.'^CD CD CD CR CD CR CD CR CD CR CD CD CD^CD CD^CR CD CD CD^k."11^N,^00 00n un^CA .--1^u,...1 ,..-1 n C)^N NNt CA ...-1 (NI --1 ,--4 cl csi0 un^0 v-I 1-1 ...I'Tr^'7^ C40d t wo N.40^ 41At, R CD0%(5): CD CD 0 0 0 C! 0: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^ea CD CD CD CD CD CD^0.4^■—i .-.1^CV Nr ,--1 .--4 ,.... cy ,--4 ,--1 ,--4 CV Nr CV Nr ,--1 ,..1^0 qD ,--4^,..-• .—■CA^--(LV *aI-1 ct,A vN sg AE.06U0 o'"[-, to^ E"'4^ ;401 V UU 11<40 g 00^g^A^a.,^xi onIT1 15^406i . w 0 o .2^g i t'^1 1 w 0 :18 $^914 0a)Al • . 4 17 s • r, ,4 o v. 4:1^-5 M^t^4t u 0 0 u o^94 8 3,4!/^51 gl.c^zit^ bo^04.0^1■1 CA 0 in^V 0. '.■ 0 0,, 0 un un m 't g E.. 4 ,.. 4., .0 .0 6^0,1 Cd, COO^1Z 1^M^. 5^g^z1-NroggEps•^1 ..1 i 4. 1 ''tc).. csl^.?ay1 t3 1„^w44 : d d 'i 14) c4 Vs 8a tf--il 8 M 'S :74 E E 41 • ›Cut t^,i, 3 g't tc4 5 o,_10E-1^s^0.9 2^.2 4 gl., ,3„,wflil.222v!...'-ir,W.."gist):61 4545)." magia; ;14 41 .4 3 3 3- ci'i 8 3 -1.4 8 ' °^' ' 3 -6 c'' *-")iv) oguuu• 0^1 063 BOu 1Hu"'14.cieCD• X En47^Nwoo....t^coo.^oosm—rtch.1-4-AooN o.q:I N Ch N 4DvID N %C.^%.0,--11(1N^NV1^NVINNteINN00^00 WCTi‘^006s^t- :00 cTisCln06. C: 4.C:4.^op ..4- vl cv 00'n ch vl cy (NI vl N eg^W M ,-i v9 69^69 69^Cq 69 69 69 69 69 09;15 CI 6%^ EftF20.‹ 4-i^jg A7' 0 0 0^0 0 0 0 C)^C)^8 77. ggg ggggggg(4^4D en^'40^0■Ornmm0 No...4-SN 4) it---1-1-CPC),./) Trss..0m .0-4NNNN. 0qVIN %ANNInNt...4:WNV)C17-40. 4000'Cl;' In.C2■‘CT. o4scsiN6-16C) wl v.) cy ch cy c4.1- .1. Tr 00 ^t--eg ,--4 69 69 v9 vs 69 .--4 el C.4 69 ....I 6469 69 69 69 69^69.colcR^cR c) c)^cR cR cR^cR cR cR cR cR cRo o8^c? c5 c5 c)^cp c) c) cpo 0UP 0 0 00 C) 0 cD, 0 0 CD 0 0I- vD ,o cn^ch m m^NI- co oo ,.o .0 co,-. -. --4 r.■1^wdU9^.-.g000 oo 0000000 o^Coe 000 000000^00tr) 0 0'a 18 c5 <6 <5^vl <5•:1- 0 F;g8gg8g o 666lel tr;c3c5^viic;v-;.(56-too moo en,1-1- woo,,c)m^vp^.omen.omm^ ,c)en^mmUU41Xt'^c? c? c?^CC^e c? c? cR c? c? cR^0^cR <R cR^cR cR cR^cR cR cR cR cR cR^E-41 cy -. -. N ,--4 c). ooooN^.-1^Tr N^(7.,--4,--4 ,-1-1^000,-oNN•:1-^"^Trd-Th^ g0d w.-4w8CR CR CR^CR CR^CR CR CR CR CR CR CR^CR^CR CR CR^CR CR CR^CR CR CR CR CR 0. CR CRtg^,-.1 ,..mi ,-1^,-4 •-1^..... r■I .^,1 1...1 1■4 r■I^1^,..I 1...1^,-.4,--101,r).-1,-1A^,--■^E-Icn0U4ai c40.t^0^0.8^g^o c%...= .i a^--0^Q^fot bci4 4 a. .4 -....e lib'.2cn ... ca  rn^U^c!cS -5—t.^ow 14'8^ta 1105-, .A^11 I:, n 4s.6 1111.61^E--,^18t3E.--..901.1/w1Mm^A-T. 51^.,-..^..,,--6. 2 ,^..4 -^4, o .f• e0 0^01 1§3dt g li A§g xlgro^8 A^41 g ,To .E? t to o g g g v'... ,-.mc5..c.)^0.XWUivno^r:,, u0.0 ..^u ata,4 chi.cum u^e 8 8^a;wVA g grni4aA p gxe,2, gl A664gIgg4800000—id00^0^ m Rq• 111,4-0'• 44En.<O ZVIIZO11401-"c7304(iw59iW51=r9A goE-1SNO 00 0000^SIV:)^00 8000M 00^c)-c":)-66 6teloOo^0 In ^00 VC) v--; 00S %/D 01Cn 00 00^■0 VI In r-1 tv) 69EA i^ 69 EA EAtri%6S1 cs,-( EA SI 69ER ER0 0 0 00 00 000 0 000 01 00 0Si■OSNVIWS.-4S424").4-69E016969 EA000^00In^Sioo06oovom^E-1 ^ u)^m8 w..4 zO u^P ^ZZU 02a^ri) ^P t1.1.^HV) En^0U< Z^2 Fr;^z 00^(cl,- u^040,036^o cte ,,,^0 4^,,§EE^ww^689^-.--^>400EtE..,4a1^ig, al a, 14,4 a 9^ao 2'''^Q rAc44-,„E.E.)^zedg9di.L.1ww.gc^ZOH E^w g2tz'0g0u 0 (-4 cnOFigure 6: Excerpt from Space-Cost Model for the Richmond Campus, from KwantlenCollege Richmond Campus Facilities Program (Vancouver, BC: Process Four Design,February, 1990).49The Utilization Model set up for the Richmond Campus was an analytical tool to helpusers and decision makers make decisions about spaces and see the implications of thosedecisions based on the level of utilization of a space. (See Figure 7: Excerpt fromUtilization Model for the Richmond Campus). This was an objective way to show spaceuse, and helped decision makers to make informed decisions about both spaces andprograms interactively. The Utilization Model was a computer based numerical model thatshowed how the new Campus' programs would function with respect to space use. Itmathematically linked the various functions of the new Campus, by describing all programsand courses that would be taught. Variables used in the model included day hours, eveninghours, section size, room sizes, number of courses, weekly contact hours by course, andlecture or lab format. For each course, the faculty outlined the input figures. The inputfigures included the names of all courses, the number of sections taught per course, theweekly contact hours per course, the number of students in each section, and the name ofthe teaching space. Through the use of complex spreadsheet formulas, the number ofspaces required to teach those courses is calculated, along with the percent utilization ofeach space. This model was used as a check against the number of classrooms and labsbeing planned in the program. The model helped the Directing Committee to makeinformed decision about spaces, for example combine spaces with low utilization.50gc,sgONsg.1.sgCAsv)/C.)M20.).5`ggt:18cnU0324,).5aci8cn2I)=aleucucngf:,g4 g' - '* CAcn0-1V0450s: 0cri0er;o6* (c)So6o-6o6o6g 0)o o 4:)N %oN 0st inN ost InN 0-1-44CngU*EnEnMcolrfl00NNNN00,--1,--1,-41..10In1-100•zr/.■I0in NNN0In VI00,-.4 0VI■0ONN0InU44cl) r.,)C.- WIMNMNC... In C... InrINMNC.-. VI 1--.•MNMNC-- VI t--m ,..t-)csi...v.)IxX4..r.T4000,..4Uoe,.1-.-4oo%.o0odsIfoeiN ■c;m csim0 000oci1- 1 csi1.■I(4 438(ID1o01-10....1Nodo(NIw..10,.c;.. o6C/31o00csi1...1 4u,r-:occ;''o13(/)'3o6006 00U0UWXE-1C140*444a0Z0E:1_,..(rN*4P2M5wUx44O1-1(..,w.gZ000WSo6 60006 6o6o6 6006 6 60000..0o 6 .ti,,oo42w0*---..t44V)v)gUore; osi ocr;o4. os:csi -I00eii o..4- si00..-;,-, ce; si00000v-)(NI In1-1 4oo,-1U0(c)<4wg0X000000 0 o 0 0000 0 0U00g0r/544°c51Z01-1E•g..0tiroT.T40404g44-....u20rz44caRAm m  rt m m M N C.4 an- ....!- N N›"J.,-,'''s.4.0*(/'C4uM I' N ,-1 ref N ,-4 ..-1(Aw(--+EnOmCIIrz9.__,0rci(-4gu,20UN ,-■ e■1 1■4 N Ntnm (=,000;ooC-4 v;)0,; 00A;z4P:iibig1.1■itaizEi2r4C:144u gt,--4 ,-, "' '-' 1-.1 /-1 1.■I ..-I v-I 1..1 1-1 /■.4 2 ^ 00\0X00V4....I'-.g* g0X>1,11_,-'.Zoo,,,Eig1,1)4440X00 :f4,i1.4'4mE-i44000erc„-200g0C4.41.4Uwbtowi.1-1Al.<4CI)4)Nc„..,200;4rAVI4t14U...Oai01.,,,..4,41)6Cto.._k -,"Z0uU<4,E(.)txV)Cn..,t1-1UtA10°>''a+ gi,.,18>''18(7)...-...ja E(I)18>4t4::..-...4-,.1a.a.100>.4"430°,Y)tCIILL44cnOPOrxCOI...e,`",.Umoc.)e.)?)>4if,oc"'>4la°31100-1-14a....,0......›*tli:ou3'W). a,....S1.1)1:10°cY)Woogrn'''1UgouV)>4164141>441eiw1W1::."a...y.,-rI2o(-)>0-",_,,,,ii:....."al.5.2.-o0§)EA64a,..00USiogu°o›.1''''IZic.,>41°(XFigure 7: Excerpt from Utilization Model for the Richmond Campus, from KwantlenCollege Richmond Campus Facilities Program (Vancouver, BC: Process Four Design,February, 1990).51Control was achieved by the Directing Committee using the Decision Support Models.Decisions were made expediently because the programmer extracted issues and relevantinformation. Decision makers were aware of the context, and made fully informeddecisions. They also tested "what if" types of questions, as the models quickly regeneratedand showed the cost impact of these "what if" questions. An interactive session, using aportable computer, was used to explore the impact of potential decisions. The UtilizationModel showed the impact of combining spaces, or providing dedicated spaces. It pointedout spaces with low utilization, which might not have been acceptable to the Ministry. TheSpace-Cost Model helped decision makers to see the financial impact of adding or cutting aspecific space within seconds. This was critical to Kwantlen College, since they wereworking within a given fixed budget.Products included a Space List that fell within the fmancial parameters, as well as otherprogrammatic information including organizational concepts, furnishings, and technicalrequirements. Issues resolved by the Directing Committee were communicated to usersprior to the next worksession. It was important that users know the "why and what for" ofissues resolution. This ensured that users were always working within defined parametersand being asked for input, not decisions. The programmer was responsible forcommunicating the issues to the Directing Committee, as well as communicating thedecisions back to the User Committees.III : Facilities ProgramAt this stage the collected information and decisions were organized and documented bythe programmers. The assembly of the final facilities program occurred quickly as allinfonmation developed during the process was already contained on microcomputer files.Because of this, the programmer also had the ability to revise material quickly. The finalproduct was a Facilities Program. Process Four Design bound the documents in a threering binder to permit insertion of additional pages as changes occurred, because theprogram was not seen as a static document.IV: Response to ChangeAt this point, the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology reviewedthe Facilities Program material supplied to them regarding space utilization, space figures,and costs. After review, the Ministry tried to renegotiate the scope of the project withKwantlen College. They had some questions about utilization of spaces, the number ofspaces, and the size of spaces. Basically, the Ministry tried to cut the scope of the projectso it would cost less money. During these negotiations with the Ministry, the DirectingCommittee was able to respond to their inquiries from a position of knowledge about the52facilities program. The Directing Committee could also immediately determine the impactof budget changes and facilities changes on programs, enrollments and staffing. ProcessFour Design could quickly understand and respond to changing directions set by theMinistry, as all information was set up on spreadsheets and could be quickly revised.Revisions to the program material, initiated by the Ministry or other influences,occurred quickly because the complete Kwantlen College organization was familiar with theprocess and the information. Each user had participated in developing the information fortheir area and knew it in detail. All information is set up on spreadsheets, which enabledquick recalculation. In this case of the Kwantlen College Richmond Campus programmingprocess, the final draft of facilities program had been completed when it was determinedthat construction costs had increased significantly and the project was suddenly overbudget. The Directing Committee immediately met and gave direction to the programmersto cut spaces to get back within the project budget. In a timeframe of two weeks, with theinteractive participation of the users, 23% of space was cut.Finally, after Ministry approval, the fmal product was a Facilities Program. TheFacilities Program was passed on to the architects, and the project proceeded into design.4.3 Kwantlen CommentsThe purpose of this section is to review how the faculty and staff of Kwantlen Collegefelt about their involvement in the programming process. We cannot yet determine howthey feel about the final product, the Campus building, as it is still under construction, but amain idea behind this process is that the participants feel a sense of involvement andimportance. Also the participants give the best indication of how the process actuallyproceeded, as they were involved a on a day to day basis.Twelve Kwantlen staff members who were participants in the programming process ofthe new Richmond Campus were interviewed. They were asked a number of questions inorder to flesh out the history of the project, as well as to find out how they felt about beinginvolved in the programming process. As recounted by the participants, the pros and consof the programming process of the Richmond Campus are outlined.It seems that the most highly cited or most important facet of the process for theparticipants was the level and extent of faculty and staff involvement. All interviewedagreed that there was a tremendous number of people involved. The involvement wasexcellent, and there was a great deal of interest and excitement generated by the process.Participants enjoyed the fact that they had "an opportunity to verbalize their concerns andideas" (Peter-Cherneff 1991). Participants were sure their input was used, and what theysaid had an impact. Everyone got a fair hearing.53The process "... challenged users to define their needs rationally, objectively, andclearly" (Baker 1991). Users gained perspective of others' needs, and they were broughtcloser to understanding each others needs. The process forced users to compromise andwork out their own conflicts. Gary Baker, the Director of Continuing Education atKwantlen College stated that the participants "... negotiated their own compromises, whichresulted in partial ownership of process and total ownership of product" (Baker 1991).In general the participants agreed that the programming process moved along well. Itseemed clear and organized. The process had clarity of structure. It was well organizedand thought through.Participants found that the process had hidden benefits. The Kwantlen staff at theRichmond Campus are still working as a team today. The team benefits are in place farafter the programming is over. The sense of achievement for all Kwantlen staff and facultyremains. And most importantly from the College's perspective, the staff and faculty at theRichmond Campus feel ownership of the product.Despite the benefits associated with the process, there were also some shortcomings. Itseems the main fault of the process was the time frame. Participants were often asked toprovide information on short notice. There was little time provided to respond to workingpapers. The process was short and intense, and sometimes participants did not have achance to consult with colleagues.There was also the problem of raised expectations. A hazard of any consultation is thatit ... people think they are being asked for more than input." (Francis 1991). As soon asorganizations involve staff in any process, the staff believe they have a democratic vote.Participants believe that they will get what they ask for, even though their mandate asinformation sources only was clearly outlined.Finally, because of the newness of the process to Kwantlen College, there were somedoubts whether the process would be successful or not. There was a certain ambiguity thatwas present in the process.54CHAPTER 5IMPLICATIONS FOR COMMUNITY PLANNINGThe purpose of this chapter is to examine the implications of programming forcommunity planning. Chapter 2 presented a detailed explanation of programming within aconceptual framework. Chapters 3 & 4 presented the case study of the programming of theRichmond Campus. This case study was presented as an example of "leading edge"programming. That is, it was more participative and more interactive than traditionalprogramming as well as being supported by staged continuous decision making and goodanalytic tools. Although these four ideas are reflected in some aspects of communityplanning thought and practice, the case study brings them into very sharp focus asimportant components of a successful planning process in the programming profession.The following analysis shows that these four ideas in "leading edge" programming couldbe applied beneficially to community planning.In order to discuss these four ideas that community planning can gain fromprogramming, it is important to discuss the similarities and differences between the twoprofessions. We need some evidence that there are similarities between communityplanning and programming that would permit transfer of training to occur. It is notpossible to compare programming, as described in this study, to all the different theoriesand processes of community planning as this is clearly beyond the scope of this thesis.The purpose is therefore limited to the implications programming provides for communityplanning as described in selected literature and as typically practised today in Canada. Themain sources for definitions of community planning include Salomaa (1981), Hodge(1990), Ministry of Municipal Affairs (1985), Faludi (1973), Gauld (1986), and Chapin &Kaiser (1979).The theory of community planning as practised today in Canada that is accepted for thisanalysis is based on the rational comprehensive model as defined by Hodge (1990).Hodge states "the rational comprehensive model stands at the foundation of our modemplan-making processes for Canadian communities" (Hodge 1990).55I will describe the rational comprehensive theory of community planning, and compareit to programming. However, one of the problems with comparing programming to thetheory of community planning is that practice frequently differs from the theory describedin the literature. I will therefore also discuss my understanding of the practice where Ibelieve it departs from the theory.This chapter is organized into two sections. In the first section, a table is used as ageneral method of comparison of the important characteristics of programming andcommunity planning theory. Detailed discussion of the characteristics presented in the tableis provided, as well as a discussion of community planning in practice. In the secondsection, implications of programming for community planning are presented.56Summary of Programming and Community Planning CharacteristicsCategory^Programming^Community PlanningPurpose Outline and specify^Outline and specifyparameters and criteria parameters and criteriato guide facility design^to guide communitydevelopmentTechnique or Method^Identify problem &state goals,Interactive informationdevelopment,Analysis (includingsolution synthesis),Staged continuous decisionmaking (issue resolution),Communication anddocumentationIdentify problem andstate goals,Survey community,Design alternative plans,Evaluate, Adopt best planParticipationDecision MakersScopeImplementationClientRole of ProfessionalProductTime FrameInteractiveControllableAppointed Project CommitteeMicroThrough designSubject to interpretationOne organizationSets up processesfor information developmentand decision makingProgram DocumentRelatively shortReactionaryUncontrollableElected PoliticiansMicro & MacroThrough development andregulationsSubject to interpretationMunicipal councilPublicVagueParticipate in setting upprocesses forinformation developmentand decision makingPlan DocumentContinuousInto futureTable IV: Summary of Programming and Community Planning Characteristics575.1 Detailed Discussion of Programming and Community PlanningCharacteristicsEach of the characteristics will be discussed in turn as presented in the above figure.The community planning characteristics are as defined in planning theory, but thediscussions will also cover some aspects of community planning in practice, where itappears appropriate to do so.PurposeThe purpose of programming is to outline and specify the parameters and criteria toguide a facility's design. The programmer serves the client organization by gathering andoutlining this type of information for the architect. Programming is defined as thecollection and analysis of information which the designer needs to design the facility. Itinvolves solving problems about competing needs and interests. The program must meetthe goals outlined by the clients and the participants in the programming process.Similar to programming, the purpose of community planning, as defined in theory, isto outline and specify parameters and criteria to guide a community's development. Asecondary purpose " to serve people...", (Ministry of Municipal Affairs 1985) or inother words, planning aims to promote the public interest when coping with various urbanproblems.Community planning is also defined as the collection and processing of information forurban development. "...Planning derives initially from the need to solve problems or thedesire to achieve ambitions or aspirations..." (Hodge 1990). In theory, the purposes ofcommunity planning and programming are similar. Both try to objectify criteria andparameters to guide physical development and both set criteria for implementation.In community planning practice, however, there are often competing and conflictinggoals. Programming involves working and guiding one organization with clearly definedgoals, while planning involves guiding a large community with no clear, common goals.Technique or MethodThe programming process is a problem solving activity, that involves a large number ofvariables. The stages or steps of the process are seen in Figure 8, and include identifyingthe problem and stating goals, interactive information development, analysis, solutionsynthesis, staged continuous decision making, issue resolution, and communication anddocumentation. The steps are interdependent and none occurs in isolation from the others.This process is characterized by participation, interaction, staged continuous decisionmaking, and the use of analytic tools. Participation in the programming process means thatthe staff of the client organization become involved in information development at the verybeginning of the process and are involved throughout. Worksessions are held with staff to58develop programmatic information. Participants are involved at every process stage,implicit in the feedback loop in Figure 8.This process is also interactive, meaning that the participants and the programmerworked together during information development as well as information analysis. Thismeans the programmer, the participants, and the decision makers all communicatethroughout the process and work together to develop a solution. The programmer comes tothe process with no preconceived ideas about what the solution should be. Theprogrammer helps the organization to articulate its needs.This process is also characterized by staged, continuous decision making. At eachstage of the programming process the decision making body holds control by exerting itspower to resolve conflicts and issues that arise during information development. After eachinformation development stage the programmer extracts issues and conflicts and presentsthem to the decision making body. The majority of issues and conflicts are resolvedthrough interaction at the participant level, since most solutions are developed within theexisting parameters of the programming problem. The focus of the programmer is to helpfmd mutually acceptable compromises within the scope established by the decision makers.Some issues must be resolved at a higher level, and these are presented to the decisionmaking body with enough information to make informed decisions. Two of the advantagesof this approach are less time wasted on non-issues and decision making becomes fullyinformed.Since participants are working interactively with each other, they develop anunderstanding of the issues from others' perspectives. Rather than simply defending theirown positions, they are able to interactively develop acceptable solutions without the needfor a higher decision. Only those issues that can't be resolved face-to face, or exceed thecurrent scope of the programming problem must be presented to the decision making bodyfor resolution. Otherwise, the decision making body only needs to be kept informed of thesolutions being developed. Many issues and conflicts that would otherwise need to beresolved by the decision making body become non-issues. Since there are far fewer issuesto resolve, the decision making body is able to spend more time understanding the contextfor the issues presented, and the programming team is able to provide more informationabout fewer issues within the same project time and budget.Decision making is also continuous. The use of microcomputers for informationprocessing allows both participant and decision making body levels of decision to be madecontinuously throughout a project. Participants and decision makers are advised from thebeginning that when it is in the interests of the project to change a previous decision, theyare free to do so. Where it is not possible to make a final decision at a particular point in59time, the client is therefore comfortable in making a "subject to future change" decision atthat time. All decisions are documented and communicated back to the participants, toensure that participants are continuously working within current parameters. Goals andparameters are thus clearly defmed for the participants throughout the process, even whenthey change. This type of structured process ensures that the decision making body haslegitimacy that is created through the structure of the process.The last characteristic of the process is the use of analytic tools, called decision supportmodels. Decision support models are computer based numerical models that are quiteprecise, regardless of the complexity of the project. The impact of decisions can be shownimmediately, allowing the testing of what if questions by participants and decision makers.These models also facilitate a continuous decision making process, which allows forchanges in decisions in the progress of the process. In the case of the Richmond Campus,a Utilization Model and a Space-Cost Model were used.60Cycle of repeatedInformation developmentand decision makingORGANIZATIONEXPRESSESNEED TOIMPROVEBUILDINGIdentify Interactive Staged Commind-problem information cmtnuous cation &and slate development decision doamientaFels and Analysis making -lionFigure 8: Conceptual Diagram of Programming Process, from Process Four Design & AitkenWreglesworth Architects, Interactive Design : A Better Way to Involve Users (Vancouver,BC: Process Four Design & Aitken Wreglesworth Architects July, 1991) 5.Possible feedback loops asa result of preliminaryanalyses and evaluationsIdentify Stuvey Design Compare Adopt Develop aproblem community alternative and one programand conditions plans to evaluate Plan toarticulate and make suit Mire alternative Implementgoals predications conditions *IS PlanMonitor currenttrends andreview outcomeof planFigure 9: Conceptual Diagram of the Community Planning Process, from Hodge, Gerald,Planning Canadian Communities (Canada: Nelson 1990).61The community planning process is, in theory, very similar conceptually to theprogramming process. Community planning is also a problem solving activity involving alarge number of variables. Figure 9, reproduced from Hodge's book, explains this process(Hodge 1990). Comparing this diagram to Figure 8 on programming, it is evident that theprocesses and stages are similar, even though the terminology is different. Both processesfollow the sequence of identifying problems, stating goals, gathering information,analyzing alternatives, and adopting solutions. Similar to programming, the steps in thecommunity planning process are interdependent. Hodge cites that many of the phases arelinked to preceding phases by feedback loops (Hodge 1990). Participation in thistheoretical model is also similar to participation in the programming model. The" traverses all those steps..." (Hodge 1990). Implicit in the diagram is thatinput from the community occurs in each phase. This theoretical process is characterizedby the interdependence of steps, feedback loops, and the participation of the communitythroughout the process. This theory is strikingly similar to the programming process.However, in practice, community planning rarely follows this theory. Participation isgenerally not similar to the programming process. The public is seldom involved from thebeginning of the planning process; they are generally only involved in evaluating thealternative solutions at the end of the process. The planners rarely consult the public duringthe information gathering stage, and do not consult the public at all during the analysisstage. Solutions are presented to the public and the public can present their input bychoosing from among the solutions. This input may or may not affect decisions. Theassumption is that the individual citizen does not know what is best, but simply has a pointof view. There is no staged continuous decision making in planning. The decision makingoccurs at the end of the process when solutions are presented to a political body thatchooses from among them. This means that in practice, the decision makers have lesscontrol, because they do not know what is going on throughout the process. They aresimply presented with solutions at the end.In practice, the goals of community planning are often not clearly defined, and almostalways change due to political climate and whims. There is more conflict over goals,because of the number of competing interest groups in the community. The process isseldom clearly structured.Planners rarely use numerical computer models to inform the public or the decisionmaking body. Planners may use them for their own information or statistical analysis, butdo not make them understandable or useable for their clients. Typically, microcomputersare used primarily as word processors and calculators, to speed up the logistical aspects ofthe planner's work. Microcomputers have evolved tremendously over the past three to five62years. It is this evolution in speed and simplicity of use that allows the development ofnew tools and new processes. There are a myriad of calculations and "logic paths" (i.e. ifA, then B or C, if D, then B or E, etc.) that are currently handled as separate steps or byseparate task groups in the planning process that need to be recalculated or re-examinedeach time decisions are made or changed. The integration of these distinct task groups orproblem solving streams into a single computer model is not yet seen in communityplanning. Once these tools are developed, it is an easy and natural step to use theminteractively with the public or decision making bodies.ParticipationStaff participation within the client organization is a very important facet of theprogramming process. Participation can be controlled by having the participants selectedby the Project Committee or the programmer and by absolutely defining the roles of theparticipants.The role of the participants is to develop information for the program document, butthis type of participation is much more than the simple input of opinions and ideas from theparticipants. Information is developed with and by the participants. Participants wish to beinvolved in the process because they have a stake in the facility as they will reside in it.The participants, or users as they are called in programming terminology, have to work outcompromises and issues between themselves. They are presented with the problem ofdefining space needs and asked to find a way to make things work within constraintsestablished by the decision makers. Because of this, a sense of achievement and team spiritis created. As the Continuing Education Director of Kwantlen College said, the processresults in total ownership of the product by the users (Baker 1991).The texture of participation in programming is what I would term fine grained. Thismeans that the participation is highly representative of the overall organization attitudes andopinions. In fact, in the case of Kwantlen College Richmond Campus, the user committeesactually were derived from the new Campus educational plan. There was a user committeefor each educational division and administrative department.In community planning, participation seems to work differently, however, it is still animportant part of the process. "...Public participation is an important element in theplanning process. Opportunity must be given to the public to express themselves onplanning issues..." (Ministry of Municipal Affairs 1985). Unlike programming,participation in community planning cannot be controlled at any stage of the process.Planners cannot limit or prescribe involvement in any way; planners have no control overthe structure or make up of the participants. It is more difficult to define the role of theparticipants; participants in the community planning process do not have clear cut roles,63mandates, or goals as in the programming process. It is usual the that participants incommunity planning will have competing goals or purposes, as they may be united bygeographic location only. Unlike the programming process, the participants in thecommunity planning process have limited resources to become involved, including timeand money. Participants may also not be involved throughout the process. This presentsthe planner with additional problems.The way the public are involved is also much different. In community planning, thepublic is usually involved in a reactive way, then are usually presented with options oralternative solutions. The public is rarely included in the process from the very beginning,as in programming. The public is put in the position of identifying what is wrong with thesolutions, but are not invited to assist in determining them. This is not an interactiveprocess, in programming. It is a reactive process that, from the public's perspective, leapsfrom product to product.The texture of participation in programming is what I would term coarse grained. Thismeans that the participation is not representative of overall public attitudes and opinions. Infact, the content of the plan may reflect what is acceptable to those in the community thatwield influence. It is difficult to obtain agreement in a community about the public interest."There is almost never total agreement on the priorities to be assigned to different problemsand there will certainly be disagreement about their solutions" (Ministry of MunicipalAffairs 1985).Decision MakersIn programming the decision makers are a select group of people, usually the decisionmakers for the organization. In the case study of Kwantlen College the DirectingCommittee was in fact the President's Advisory Committee, the administrative decisionmaking body. The appointed project committee made all decisions during the process.Their decisions were based on a clearly established goal defined at the beginning of theproject. This goal may be financial, for example:.the project must be designed andconstructed within a budget of $22 million. Thus the criteria for decision making inprogramming is tangible and understandable.In the community planning process decision making is quite different. Decision makersare elected representatives. "Decisions are reached through the democratic process: electedpoliticians will reflect what they perceive to be the wishes of the people" (Ministry ofMunicipal Affairs 1985). The decision making process for community planning is openand democratic. However, the decision making process takes place within the politics ofthe community. "The form that community planning takes in a community is inevitably areflection of the political climate..." (Ministry of Municipal Affairs 1985). Issues can be64very complex and decisions may not be as clear cut as they sometimes are in programming.Community planning decisions may affect more people than those of programmingdecisions. Planning decisions affect people where they live, and people have strongemotional ties to their homes and communities. "Any planning decision is likely to affect asegment of the population..." (Ministry of Municipal Affairs 1985).Lastly, planners and decision makers have no clearly set goals to measure decisionsagainst. Goals and priorities are constantly changing. This ensures that decision makingwill always be difficult and the public may not find it easy to rationalize.ScopeProgramming occurs at a micro scale, and is usually based on a single facility.However, to describe the scope of community planning is not as simple a task as it ischaracterized by a macro scale. Community planning usually presents a holistic view, anda broad based comprehensive perspective. Community planning, by its nature, is longrange and forward looking (Chapin & Kaiser 1979). It is continuous and is futurefocussed. However, community planning can also be micro and have a specific focus.The scope of community planning is thus not clearly defined, it depends on the particularproject. For example, community planning may involve the planning for a single park, ormay involve the planning of a regional park system.ImplementationImplementation in programming occurs through the design of the facility and is subjectto the interpretation of the designer. Implementation usually occurs quickly aftercompletion of the program document., as the client organization wishes to get the buildingbuilt as soon as possible because of time and money constraints.Implementation in community planning occurs through the development of thecommunity and is subject to the interpretation of the developer. Implementation does notoccur as quickly as in programming. This is because most implementation occurs throughreactive planning tools, such as zoning and subdivision controls which constrain or limitdevelopment decisions (Hodge 1990). The planners cannot count on investments or otheraction by the community because a plan simply guides the development decisions and is nota proactive statement like a program document. Thus, the implementation of a communityplan depends on the amount of development taking place in a community. Neither plannersnor council have much control over the amount or timing of these investment decisions.ClientProgramming is undertaken within a public or private organization on its behalf. Theclient is the organization that usually has established or implicit mandates and philosophiesthat drive its operations, and has the widely recognized goal to build a new facility. The65client is a single organization that has clear goals and mandates to fulfill in the programmingexercise.In community planning, the nature of the client is somewhat vague. The planner'sclient is the political body, as well as the public at large. The planner's professionalresponsibility is to the political decision making body, but the planner's socialresponsibility is to the public. Sometimes this mixed allegiance becomes confusing. Also,the planner's clients have no clear directions or goals as in programming. Usually, theyhold a myriad of competing goals.Role of ProfessionalThe role of the programmer is to set up processes for information generation anddecision making. The programmer serves the client organization, and is financiallyreimbursed by this organization. There is an established professional relationship betweenthe programmer and the organization. The role of the programmer is that of a facilitator.The view held by programmers, as in the Kwantlen College case study, is that the clientorganization knows most about the facility they require. The programmer's role is tofacilitate the process of generating that information with the organization. The programmerholds no preconceived notions about the outcome of the project. The programmer simplyhelps the organization to articulate the best solution.In theory, the role of the planner is similar to that of the programmer. The role of theplanner is to set up processes for information generation and decision making. The plannerserves the public and the governmental body, but is employed by the governmental body.Professional planners are people who assemble and analyse relevant information to helpdecision makers make choices. The "...planner's role is to obtain the relevant informationand present it in a balanced manner..." (Ministry of Municipal Affairs 1985). Similar tothe programmer, the planner's theoretical role is also that of a facilitator. The "...planningof a community is a political process in which the professional planner's role is to advisethe participants and facilitate the process..." (Ministry of Municipal Affairs 1985).In practice, the planner's role seems to be different. The community planner's role isfrequently that of an expert. The planner gathers information, researches, and makesrecommendations to the political decision making body. This assumes that the plannerknows what is best for the community, and has information and knowledge that others donot possess. This is a very different role than that of a programmer, who has no agenda orpreconceived notion of a solution.ProductThe final product of the programming process is the program document. However, theprogram is viewed as a changing target. The document is not a definitive statement; it will66change as the design proceeds. The document does not sit on a shelf unused. It is usedextensively by the designers. It is important that the product be understandable and easyfor both the client and the designer to use. The program is usually put into a temporarybinder to permit the insertion or replacement of pages after publication, as change willundoubtedly occur.The product of the community planning process is the community plan. In theory,community plans are also seen as a changing target. "...Plans are viewed as documentswhich evolve under the pressure of circumstances, not a defmitive plan which will never bechanged..." (Ministry of Municipal Affairs 1985). In practice, however, planningdocuments are often seen as dogmatic and fixed. The logistics of changing a communityplan are onerous, and therefore changing a plan seldom occurs. The product in planning isusually not definitive because there is no clear client to carry out the plan. The productcould be an Official Community Plan, a zoning bylaw, or some design guidelines. Unlikethe program document, the planning document is often difficult to understand. It is oftencryptic and expressed in terms that require an understanding beyond that of the documentitself. The public also rarely looks at planning documentation from an overall perspective.They typically have a more myopic view, using or criticizing only that part which affectsthem or their project directly.Time FrameThe time frame of the programming process is relatively short compared to communityplanning. Time frames vary from one week upwards. Time frames in programming arecritical, because the client organization is interested in moving quickly as time is money.Programming occurs within the control of one organization, thus the scope and number ofconflicts may be minimal compared with those of community planning. In programming,all participants typically have a shared corporate or organizational focus, and since a routineprogramming objective is to improve the conditions and/or environment through facilitychange, the process tends to act as a catalyst for conflict resolution. Participants have anumber of positive motives for conflict resolution, and this also drives the shorter timeframe.Community planning has a relatively long time frame compared to programming, andtime frames seem to be less important. The time element in community planning iscontinuous and into the future. Planners are not working within one organization; they areworking with a myriad of interest groups and organizations within a community. Thenumber and scope of conflicts may be quite large, encompassing the entire community.Additionally, not all interest groups share the same objectives of change as the status quo isfrequently preferred. In fact, few planning processes are conducted in a context where67there is an expressed, let alone urgent, need for change from within the community. It isusually the planners who are seeking to implement change. The unknown consequences ofthe planning process can be kept at bay by nurturing, rather than resolving, conflicts.In conclusion, programming and community planning theory are similar. In fact, of theten categories of characteristics examined in this chapter and summarized in Table IV, four(Purpose, Technique or Method, Role of Professional, and Product) are virtuallyinterchangeable and two more (Scope and Implementation) are very similar. Onecharacteristic (Participation ), could be modelled after programming, while the remainingthree categories (Decision Makers, Client and Time Frame) are clearly different. Thesethree areas of difference between programming and community planning do notsignificantly affect the opportunities to apply the ideas derived from this case study tocommunity planning. The fact that there are differences in the two processes does notpreclude the potential to benefit from incorporating the four ideas into the planning process.These four ideas to improve the community planning process are to make it moreparticipative and interactive than traditional community planning as well as supported bystaged continuous decision making and good analytic tools.The first two ideas, more participative and interactive, are transferable to four categories(Technique or Method, Participation, Implementation, and Role of Professional). Stagedcontinuous decision making is relevant to three categories (Purpose, Decision Makers, andClient). The fourth idea, good analytic tools, is not only relevant in reducing the logisticalload of the last three categories (Scope, Product, and Time Frame), but is the catalyst tofacilitating the application of all four ideas.Why haven't these ideas been widely applied to community planning in practice? Theremay be many obstacles, unique to planning, that prevent their application. It is also criticalto note that this thesis compares the leading edge of one profession against general practice,or the average, in another.Community planning largely occurs in the public realm, within organizationalenvironments that encourage application of known (and consequently predictable and safe)processes. These factors alone are sufficient to account for the fact that ideas at the leadingedge of programming have not widely appeared in community planning. Once plannershave increased access to more powerful and transportable microcomputers and softwarethat have only been available for the past few years, things might change. Once they aregiven the mandate to "do it differently in order to improve", things might change.685.2 Consideration of Ideas that can be applied to Community PlanningThe fmdings of the case study on participation, interaction, staged continuous decisionmaking, and the use of analytic tools, are explored here for their application in thecommunity planning process. How might these four ideas work if applied to communityplanning? Why might the ideas not work? Each idea and its applicability to communityplanning will be discussed separately.Firstly, it can be argued that participation, as used in the case study, may be applied incommunity planning, so that public involvement in community planning could moreresemble Kwantlen College staff involvement in programming. At the beginning of theplanning process, a role could be clearly articulated for the public, as was the case for theKwantlen staff and faculty members in the Richmond Campus project. The public could beinformed that their role is to provide information, and not to make decisions. The publiccould be involved from the very start of a project and be clearly informed of the interestgroups involved and the constraints of the project, in particular the financial constraints.The public could then provide input within a setting of clear parameters and realconstraints. This process would indicate that the public was credited with knowing what isbest for their community.Following this model, a potential community planning process may consist of acommunity group being told how much money is allocated for a community project, andthe community group deciding among themselves how to achieve the project within thatbudget. Conflicts and issues would be decided by the decision making body throughoutthe process. The public might find it easier and more fun to provide input and help whenthey know their role, why they are involved, and what the real constraints of the projectare.Secondly, findings on interaction in the Richmond Campus programming project couldbe applied to community planning. The information flow of the Richmond Campus projectcould be used in community planning, that is the ultimate decisions would rest with the thepolitical body, and the input (within real life constraints) would be the responsibility of theinvolved community groupsIt is critical that the role of the public be clearly outlined and understood, in order thattheir involvement become legitimated. It is also important that people's input notdisappear, but be recognized even if it is not used. All input should be preserved in somekind of documentation. Decisions made by the political body should be fed back to thepublic somehow, along with the reasons. This will make the public realize and feel thattheir input is valued and is being heard. It would also begin to mitigate problems ofcontinuity.69The planner's role in this process would be that of a facilitator with no preconceivedideas about a solution. A dialogue between the professional planner and the public wouldoccur, based on "what if', "how much", etc. The planner would facilitate informationdevelopment with the public. Conflicts and issues would be referred to the decisionmaking body.Specifically, working papers could be used as a tool to accomplish some of theparticipation and interaction ideas. Instead of presenting the community with a finishedproduct, the constituents could take part in the development of ideas and products. Theycould be kept up to date on projects through working papers. This would solve manyproblems of poor feedback mechanisms to the public. It would also show to the publichow their input was being used, and that their input was valued. A working paper wouldinclude all input, whether it was used or not.Why might the fmdings on participation and interaction not work in communityplanning? There is the problem of continuity of participants and continuity of process. Thepublic's involvement in planning occurs at their whim. It is not a controlled type ofparticipation. The planner has no control over the membership of the participants as theprogrammer does. The same participants may not show up at consecutive meetings. Thepublic has limited time, and they participate in planning when they are interested in aspecific issue. This is a real problem in the legitimacy and continuity of the process. Itmeans that participants may not be clear on their role or the development of information todate, or how issues were resolved. Things may become reopened and may need to be dealtwith over again.Thirdly, the finding on staged continuous decision making, as used in the RichmondCampus programming project, could be used in the community planning process.Information development would take place through and by the participants, but all conflictsand issues would be resolved by a decision making body. The planner would present thedecision making body with issues, and the debates around them. The decision makingbody would then make a decision based on that information. It is possible that the decisionmaking body could be an appointed body made up of community members, or it could bethe elected politicians. The benefit of having the body made up of community memberswould be that that those members would not bring changing priorities or goals that manypoliticians would bring. And the process of community planning could becomelegitimatized through constant input and control cycles. The public would then understanddecisions made throughout the process and the solution at the end of the process would betheirs. That is, the public would "own" the product. The final solution would not come asa fait accompli or a surprise to them, because they would have been involved from the70beginning of the process developing the solution. This would result in ownership of theproduct.Why might this not work? There may be problems with the concept of communitymembers being appointed to a decision making body. It may not be possible in BritishColumbia municipal government to give decision making power to an appointed committeeof community members. This type of committee may only be able to have advisorypowers. Recommendations forwarded to the elected politicians may or may not beseriously considered by the politicians. It depends on how the politicians would view thecommittee and its recommendations. Sometimes the politicians may support therecommendations, and sometimes they may question them. Another possible problem withappointing community members to a committee is that of continuity. These memberswould need to be dedicated individuals, and must be available for regular meetings. Thisproblem may be solved through limiting the length of an individual's term. An individualmay serve only one year, and then a newly appointed member may serve. Stagedcontinuous decision making may also not work if the elected politicians were the decisionmaking body. It is not that the time involved is much greater, but because the politiciansbring other agendas and priorities to decision making. Community members may or maynot have these same agendas. If community members do not have the same agendas,decisions made by the politicians will never be understood and will undoubtedly raisemajor conflicts.Lastly, analytic tools could be used in the community planning process. The mostsignificant tool that community planning could adopt from programming is greater use ofmicro computers. Micro computers are critical in working with changing parameters andvariables inherent in both the community planning and the programming processes. Microcomputers allow rapid processing and recalculation of data at a speed that was unthinkablea few years ago. Decision support models can be set up on micro computers that simulatereal life planning situations. Logic and relationships between variables could be set up tosimulate any situation. These models could minimize the logistical barriers to dealing withthe ambiguities in planning situations. Models could show what impacts a decisions willhave and this would provide realistic knowledge on which to base decisions.Planners could use interactive decision support models set up on micro computers.These could be used for most kinds of projects to outline the constraints and parameters.The impact of decisions could quickly be calculated and planners could involve constituentgroups in their use. Planners and constituents could work together in understanding theimpacts of decisions about the community, whether it be development, new parks, or otherimprovements.71As in the Space Cost Model for the Richmond Campus, which linked space to costs,the planners for a community could produce a spreadsheet to show the different options forredevelopment. For example, the residents may want a property to become a park, and thedecision support model could show if the cost of upkeep or of development is within thebudget provided. What if questions could be answered through the use of such a model.The model could be used to raise questions, and to get the input of various groups. Thiswould be a more interactive, less solution oriented process. The use of decision supportmodels would allow constituents to work within defined parameters. This would allow thepublic involvement in a project where they knew their input was being used.Community planning may have difficulties with the use of analytic tools, such ascomputer models because some information in community planning is qualitative and suchdata does not lend itself to numerical calculation on a spreadsheet.In conclusion, it is not a simple task to state defmitively that community planning canuse participation, interaction, staged continuous decision making, and analytic tools.Community planning is a confusing and complex profession. The best we can do in thisthesis is to outline ideas that the community planning profession should think about. Aspreviously stated, planning occurs largely in the public realm, generally withinorganizational environments that encourage application of known and safe processes. Onceplanners have been given the mandate to do it differently in order to improve, we maybegin to see the implementation of some of these ideas.The principal fmding of this thesis that community planners can benefit from is that theinput of the public should be considered important and valued and their involvement canpotentially be structured to benefit rather than hinder the planning process. The attitude ofthe community planner is critical. If the planner is the expert, why would publicparticipation be a necessary and important part of the community planning process? Thepublic will become involved and active when they believe that the planner is a good listenerand is meeting with the public to get important insights and information from them. Theplanner should believe that the community's residents are the experts in how theircommunity is developing and how they want their community to develop. In fact, I believethat the public may offer the best solutions or ideas; ones that planners may not havethought of.Further research is needed on the constraints in using the finding outlined in this thesis.The question that needs to be answered is why community planning has not implemented inpractice what it has outlined in theory. Further research also needs to be done oncommunity planning processes in practice. Specifically, case studies of community72planning should be done to the level of detail that the case study of programming in thisthesis achieved. When the organizational atmosphere of planning changes and whenadditional research begins to impact on the community planning profession, I believe wewill begin to see the implementation of the four leading edge aspects of programmingachieved in this case study.73REFERENCESBaker, Gary, Director of Continuing Education, Kwantlen College. 1991. PersonalInterview.Becker, F.D. 1977. User Participation. Personalization, and Environmental Meaning : Three Field Studies. Program in Urban and Regional Studies. Cornell University.Bergman, Monique, Director of Bookstore, Kwantlen College. 1991. Personal Interview.Bevard, Joseph H. 1985. Capital Facilities Planning : A Tactical Approach. Washington,D.C: Planners Press.Bobrow, Phillip. 1974. "Experimental Changes to the Architectural Process."Industrialization Forum: 9 -19.Boothroyd, Peter, Associate Professor. 1989. Notes and Exercises for CommunityPlanning Course held summer 1989 at Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en Tribal Council Boardroom. Vancouver, BC: School of Community and Regional Planning,University of British Columbia.Boothroyd, Peter, Associate Professor. 1989. Developing Community Planning Skills :Applications of a Seven-Step Model. Vancouver, BC: School of Community andRegional Planning, University of British Columbia.Boothroyd, Peter and Anderson, Owen. 1984. "The Difference Between Corporate andSocial Planning, and the Implications for Indian Affairs." Saskatchewan Forum: 1-12.Brill , M. and Masterson, C.H. 1972. Some Thoughts on the Direction of UserRequirements Research. Washington, D.C: The American Institute of Architects.Canadian Handbook of Practice for Architects. 1976. Ottawa, Ontario: The RoyalArchitectural Institute of Canada, 2: 2.Caulfield, DA and Handa, VK. 1974. "The User's Role in Programming and ProjectManagement."  Industrialization Forum: 57 -58.Chapin, F.S. & Kaiser, E.J. 1979. Urban Land Use Planning. Third Edition.Champain, Illinois: Univeristy of Illinois Press.Davis, Gerald and Szigeti, Francoise. 1979. Functional and Technical Programming: When the Owner/ Sponsor is a Large or Complex Organization. Louain-la-Neuve:Proceedings of the Fourth International Architectural Psychology Conference, July 10-14, 1979.74Designing for Human Behaviour : Architecture and the Behavioural Sciences. 1974.Lang, Jon, Editor. Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania: Downden, Hutchinson, & Ross,Incorporated.Dluhosch, Eric. 1974. "Flexibility! Variability and Programming."  IndustrializationForum: 39-46.Duggan, Barbara, Faculty of Interior Design, Kwantlen College. 1991. PersonalInterview.Evans , B.H. and Wheeler, C.H. 1969. "Emerging Techniques 2 : ArchitecturalProgramming." The American Institute of Architects.Facility Planning Technology. 1987. Conway, M. & L. Liston, Editors. Atlanta,Georgia: Conway Data, Incorporated.Facility Program. Kwantlen College Surrey Campus. July, 1987. Vancouver, BC:Cornerstone Planning Group.Faludi, Andreas. 1973. Planning Theory. Permagon Press.Five Year Plan, 1989-1993. December, 1988. Vancouver, BC: Kwantlen College.Francis, Derek, Dean of Educational Support, Kwantlen College. 1991. PersonalInterview.Gauld, Don. 1986. Public Participation and the Preparation of Official Community Plansin British Columbia. Master's Thesis. Vancouver, BC: School of Community andRegional Planning, University of British Columbia.Gutman, Robert. 1969. "The Sociological implications of programming practices."Building Research  6 (April - June, 1969): 26.Hales, H.L. 1984. Computer-Aided Facilities Planning. New York: Marcel Dekker,Incorporated.Heath, Tom. 1974. "Programming and User Involvement : an Issue Based Approach."Industrialization Forum: 3 -8.Hodge, Gerald. 1990. Planning Canadian Communities. Canada: Nelson.Horowitz, Harold. May 1967. "The program's the thing." AIA Journal 47: 94-100.Klosterman, Richard. 1976. Toward a Normative Theory of Planning. PhD Thesis,Cornell University.Kwantlen College Site Analysis. July, 1987. Vancouver, BC: Cornerstone PlanningGroup.Kwantlen College Regional Development Strategy. February, 1987. Vancouver, BC:Cornerstone Planning Group.75Kwantlen College Richmond Campus Facilities Program. February, 1990. Vancouver,BC: Process Four Design.Lombard, Francois. 1974. "An Organized Process for Programming - Application to theCentre Beaubourg."  Industrialization Forum: 31 -38.McDonald, Cathy, Librarian, Kwantlen College. 1991. Personal Interview.MacLaughlin, Adrienne, President of Kwantlen College. Letter to Jim Sumi of ProcessFour Design, April 06 1989.MacLaughlin, Adrienne, President of Kwantlen College. Letter to Jim Sumi of ProcessFour Design, March 20 1989.Marketing Plan. January, 1988. Vancouver, BC: Kwantlen College.Martel, A and Ignazi, G. 1974. "An Experiment with Adaptable Housing at Montereau."Industrialization Forum: 59 -64.Ministry of Municipal Affairs. 1985. An Introduction to Community Planning. Ontario:Queen's Printer.Nanson, Derek, Faculty of Adult Special Education, Kwantlen College. 1991. PersonalInterview.The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English Language. 1988. 1988 Edition.New York: Lexicon Publications.Palmer, Mickey, A.. 1981. The Architect's Guide to Facility Programming. Washington,D.C: The American Institute of Architects.Peila, William M., with William Caudill and John W. Focke. 1977. Problem Seeking - An Architectural Programming Primer. Boston: Cahners Books International.Peter-Cherneff, Brigitte, Librarian, Kwantlen College. 1991. Personal Interview.Preiser, F.E. 1978. Facility Programming : methods and applications. Stroudsburg,Pennsylvania: Downden, Hutchinson and Ross, Incorporated.Process Four Design & Aitken Wreglesworth Architects. July, 1991. Interactive Design : A Better Way to Involve Users. Vancouver, BC: Process Four Design & AitkenWreglesworth Architects.Quick Facts. January, 1989. Vancouver, BC: Kwantlen College.Rathie, Bob, Faculty of Sciences, Kwantlen College. 1991. Personal Interview.Salomaa, Diana Rita. 1981. Planning Strategies for Canadian Urban Planners: A CaseStudy of Regina. Master's Thesis. Vancouver, BC: School of Community andRegional Planning, University of British Columbia.Sanoff, Henry. 1977. Methods of Architectural Programming. Stroudsburg,Pennsylvania: Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross Incorporated.76Slattery, John, Director of Design, Kwantlen College. 1991. Personal Interview.Struder, Raymond G, and David Stea. October 1966. "Architectural Programming andhuman behaviour." Journal of Social Issues  22: 127-136.Sumi, Jim, Principal of Process Four Design. 1991. Personal Interviews.Sumi, Jim, Principal of Process Four Design. Letter to MacLaughlin, Adrienne, Presidentof Kwantlen College, March 06 1989.Three Year Plan, 1991-1994. 1990. Vancouver, BC: Kwantlen College, October.Tompkins, James A. & White, John A. 1984. Facilities Planning. Washington, DC:John Wiley & Sons.Warsaw, L. 1974. "Programming for Participation."  Industrialization Forum: 45-56White III, Edward, T. 1972. Introduction to Architectural Programming. Tuscon,Arizona: Architectural Media.Wiesman, B. 1977. Facility Planning and Program Rationalization : Post SecondaryEducation in the Lower Mainland. British Columbia: Ministry of Education.77APPENDICES78APPENDIX A: TABLE OF CONTENTS OF KWANTLEN COLLEGERICHMOND FACILITIES PROGRAMEXECUTIVE SUMMARY^ iTABLE OF CONTENTS ivDOCUMENT USE & ORGANIZATIONPURPOSE^ 1DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION^ 1GLOSSARY OF TERMS 4ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 5CONTEXTTHE SITE^ 6PROJECT PARAMETERS^ 13PLANNING CONCEPTS 15SPACE TYPES 22STANDARD SPACE 28PROGRAM SUMMARYCOMPONENT GROUPS^ 35SUMMARY OF SPACES1.0 APPLIED ARTS AND CAREER PREPARATION^372.0 DESIGN CENTRE 393.0 ACADEMIC AND APPLIED STUDIES ^ 414.0 EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT^ 435.0 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 45COMPONENT DESCRIPTIONS1.0 APPLIED ARTS AND CAREER PREPARATION1.1 Adult Basic Education Program^ 1-11.2 Adult Special Education Program 1-61.3 Business Systems Technician Program 1-101.4 Continuing Education^ 1-121.5 Drafting Program 1-151.6 Early Childhood Education Program^ 1-201.7 Office Administration Program 1-261.8 Public Safety Dispatcher Program 1-302.0 DESIGN CENTRE2.1 Fashion Design and Marketing Program ^ 2-12.2 Foundations in Applied Design Program 2-82.3 Graphics and Visual Design Program 2-132.4 Interior Design Program^ 2-212.5 Mass Communication Program 2-263.0 ACADEMIC AND APPLIED STUDIES3.1 Business and Career Specialties Department^ 3-13.2 Humanities and Social Sciences Department 3-73.3 Science, Applied Science, and Technology Department ^3-1379APPENDIX A continued4.0 EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT4.1 Main Entry 4-14.2 Admissions and Registration 4-44.3 Counselling 4-84.4 Financial Aid 4-114.5 Job Placement 4-144.6 Library 4-154.7 Instructional Resources 4-174.8 Technical Services 4-304.9 Student Association 4-365.0 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES5.1 Administration 5-15.1.1 Campus Administration 5-25.1.2 Educational Administration 5-65.1.3 General Administration 5-105.2 Bookstore 5-18Appendix A: Table of Contents of Kwantlen College Richmond Facilities Program, fromKwantlen College Richmond Campus Facilities Program (Vancouver, BC: Process FourDesign, February, 1990).80APPENDIX B : COMPONENT DESCRIPTION FOR ADULT BASICEDUCATION PROGRAMFUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTIONAdult Basic Education (ABE) will provide students with high school level skills in a varietyof subject areas. This program will act primarily as a feeder into other Kwantlen programs,but will provide upgrading to students for personal reasons or for entry into otherinstitutions. Course work is presently a mixture of group instruction and individual work.Students complete course modules at their own pace.Adult Basic Education currently operates on a continuous intake basis with students able toenter the program throughout the academic year. Full time students attend during the day,between the hours of 8AM and 4PM. Part time students attend either mornings,afternoons, or evenings. Evening classes are offered four days/week, from 6PM to 9PM.Classes operate 10 months of the year from September to June.ENROLLMENT56 FTESTAFFING3 full time day instructors.2 half time evening instructors.FUTUREFuture enrollment in Adult Basic Education will grow significantly. While the method ofinstruction will not change dramatically, the focus will change to increased small groupinstruction.81NEIGHBOURSEstablish the outside areas that will relate to the component. These related areas are rankedin order of importance.Neighbours^ Reason for Closeness1. Admissions and Registration2. Student & Staff Lounges3. Food Services4. ECE5. Library6. Bookstore7. Campus Administration8. Office Administration9 . Academic Programs10 Drafting Program11 Business coursesCounsellors send students to ABE, and ABEsend students to counselling.For ease of student and staff access.Easy access to daycare facilities for use bystudents.Access to resources WV equipment).Access to supplies.Secretarial support.ABE acts as student feederABE acts as student feederABE acts as student feederABE acts as student feederINTERNAL RELATIONSHIPSThis diagram represents the functions within a component and how they relate to eachother. The diagram makes the first step towards relating zones of space.826 66 66 66 60 0 0 0 0O QO QOSPACE DATAThe spaces required to accommodate the needs of this component are described following.Bold lettering relates a space or group of spaces to the "Internal Relationships" diagrampreviously outlined. If more than one of a particular space is required, the number isindicated in parentheses immediately following the space name. The allocated area in NetAssignable Square Feet -NASF (Net Assignable Square Metres-NASM) is also listed. Abrief description of the space, as well as a conceptual diagram, may also be provided.These diagrams should not be interpreted as the required disposition of space, furnishingsand equipment. They are simply included to assist the reader in achieving a generalunderstanding of the desired space.LabsLab, ABE Level 1 600 NASF (55.7 NASM)A maximum of 22 students will move about the room to access reference materials, sitat a table, or occupy a study carrel or computer station.1. Round Table w/Chairs2. Bookcase3. Desk w/Runoff & Chair4. Filing Cabinet5. Computer Worktation w/Chair6. Study Carrel w/Chair83<> 0 <>0 0 0 00 <> Ov0 0 0IRENE• 1E16 6 6 6 6MEMLab, ABE Level ILA1330 NASF^(123.6 NASM)A maximum of 43 students will move about the room to access reference materials, sitat a table, or occupy a study carrel or computer station.1. Round Table w/Chairs2. Filing Cabinet3. Bookcase4. Desk w/Runoff & Chair5. Computer Worktation w/Chair6. Study Carrel w/Chair7. Science Corner w/SinkLc° P4E22Q 6 6 6 6 6 3 222284Classroom, 26 SeatShared use of spaces allocated to 1.3 Business Systems Technician.Lockers Design solution will attempt to place lockers in circulation space.Office, Shared Faculty2 @ 160 NASF = 320 NASF (29.7 NASM)See generic Office, Shared Faculty.Storage Room 100 NASF^(9.3 NASM)Includes one workstation for a student assistant.,El^1. Bookcase2. Workstation Desk w/Chair1Appendix B : Component Description for Adult Basic Education Program, from KwantlenCollege Richmond Campus Facilities Program (Vancouver, BC: Process Four Design,February, 1990).85


Citation Scheme:


Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 12 0
China 9 33
Philippines 5 0
Canada 4 0
India 1 0
Indonesia 1 1
Morocco 1 0
City Views Downloads
Beijing 9 0
Unknown 8 6
Paranaque City 5 0
Sunnyvale 3 0
Vieux-Saint-Laurent 3 0
Ashburn 2 0
Englewood 2 0
Mumbai 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items