Using Prototypes To Determine a Building Design

School Administrator, June, 1996 by Mary Lynne Derrington

The facilities committee was jubilant after voters passed a $10 million bond to build a new elementary school. Conversation was animated. But the light-heartedness quickly assumed a serious tone when the facilitator began with agenda item No. 1: hiring an architect.

The committee assumed it would proceed with a typical architect selection process. However, the principal and I had an alternative idea.

We suggested a process used by larger districts with numerous construction projects. These districts often use a prototype or model for building more than one school. We thought that building a prototype school borrowed from another district had advantages for a smaller district.

The principal formed a team of staff, parents, and community representatives to visit several new schools to determine whether the prototype concept would work. "After all," one team member reasoned, "if you purchase a new car, you don't ask General Motors to design it. You find the one that most closely matches your needs, take it for a test drive, and maybe add a few options."

Although building a new school is more complicated and costly than buying a new car, the analogy helped us understand and describe the process we wanted to use.

Essential Features

The principal led a group of staff and parents through a process of defining essential educational features. This step is similar to determining educational specifications, but it results in a product less detailed in description. We described the general design and concepts, not specific items. In terms of our car analogy, the committee selected a four-door automatic sedan but was not yet considering body color or upholstery.

We obtained from the state education agency a statewide list of schools built in the last three years. We sent requests for proposals to these firms in addition to the traditional public announcements calling for architectural services, with one important added feature. Firms were asked to address how the school they designed met the required elements of our educational vision.

We developed 18 questions around the major concepts for the school. We asked that remarks be brief but with enough information to communicate the architectural interpretation of our educational needs. We asked the architects to submit detailed responses along with the typical statement of qualifications. Firms that took this task seriously prepared a customized proposal rather than just change the cover on a previous submission.

Site Visits

Schools were selected from those submitted by the architects, but limited to western Washington due to budget and time constraints. In addition, we felt that the similarity of climate and geographical conditions might play an important part in constructing a prototype. Moreover, a recently built school was likely to have accommodations for current technology and compliance with legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act.

During site visitation, the vision or need statements became the screen through which all schools were viewed. The committee contacted schools to explain our purpose and interest and determine a convenient time for visiting. A team composed of parents, community representatives, teachers, a school board member, the principal, a food service director, and a technology expert visited 17 schools.

While the team was visiting schools, support staff, including the district's maintenance director, contacted peers in each prototype school district. We wanted to determine if the model school actually functioned as we envisioned and if people who worked in the building were satisfied with the design. We also were interested in the district's satisfaction with the performance of the architectural firm. Using the car analogy, the committee described this step as "kicking the tires."

Throughout the process, a committee of stakeholders worked with the administration. When information from architect proposals, school visits, and reference checks was available, a sub-committee reviewed the data. The decisions on whom to interview were based on the degree to which the architect and the model school matched the district's educational concepts. At the end of the screening, five architects were selected for interviews.

A second committee interviewed those architects who had submitted an appropriate prototype school and passed the reference check. Second interviews were conducted much like any selection process. The major difference was that each firm interviewed was selected because it built a prototype school that matched our educational vision.

Cost Savings

Selecting a prototype from another community works well in a district with little construction experience and with few construction projects under way. The staff and community could experience the school rather than just visualize it on a blueprint. Moreover, beginning with a working model allows time and resources to be spent fine tuning the details and consequently save time in the design phase of the construction process.