The Process Is the Product: Collaborative Design in Four Silicon Valley Schools

In 1995 the city of Palo Alto passed a $143 million bond initiative, at that time the largest school bond ever passed by a California municipality. However, the initial “Building for Excellence Program” experienced difficulties, primarily due to a lack of alignment between budget and scope of work. In particular, contingency factors and escalation amounts had been underestimated. In addition, the master plan called for the construction of four new schools in lieu of renovation. The high volume of construction work underway in the San Francisco Bay Area and state-mandated class-size reduction (i.e., more classrooms had to be added because the state reduced the number of students allowed per classroom) further contributed to scope and budget misalignment.

Not anxious to inherit his predecessor’s problems, the new Palo Alto Unified School District superintendent, appointed by the Palo Alto Board of Education in 1997, called a halt to the Building for Excellence Program so that an audit could be performed. Although the initial objective was to confirm or validate the existing program, it became evident that there were specific elements of the program that would require modification. The most obvious was the relationship of the project budgets to the scope of work.

Another area of concern was the excessive schedule-driven nature of the program. As the schedule had begun to slip, activities that normally would have been completed in a sequence were being worked on in parallel in an attempt to maintain schedule. This fast-track approach significantly compromised the involvement of teachers, staff, and parents. Also, time for thorough reviews and approvals essentially had been eliminated.

In a process that involved many attorneys, the initial project team was dismissed and the district contracted the services of Vanir Construction Management. Vanir worked with district administrators, teachers, staff, and community to reconfigure the Building for Excellence Program. Over a period of several months, multiple meetings were held with the site committees at both elementary and secondary schools to obtain input in the development of a new plan.

Subsequent follow-up meetings were held with the site committees and school principals (headmasters) to review and confirm the relevant information prior to inclusion in a new document. The resulting reconfigured master plan, which contained solid budgets and schedules based on achievable work and schedules, was approved by the Palo Alto Board of Education in early 1998. When the program resumed, the initial $143 million bond had accumulated interest, and the new budget was approximately $168 million.

The reconfigured master plan involved some new construction, but the emphasis had shifted to renovation of the district’s twelve elementary schools and four secondary schools (two high schools and two middle schools). In line with the Board of Education’s prior direction, the funding split between the elementary and the secondary schools remained even (50 percent each) plus or minus 5 percent. Although the secondary school budgets were slightly higher than the elementary school budgets, the level of work to be accomplished at the elementary schools was more comprehensive than at the secondary schools.

Allocation of funding was based upon established priority levels of work. At the elementary schools, six priority levels were established and at the secondary schools five were used. Elementary school work was funded through priority Level 5 although some priority Level 6 work was funded. At the secondary schools, only Levels 1 and 2 were fully funded. Levels 3 and 4 were partially funded, and no funding was allocated for Level 5 (Table 1).

The reconfigured master plan divided design and construction of the twelve elementary schools into three phases, with four schools in each phase. Design of the first four elementary schools was completed in late spring 1999 and construction contracts were awarded that summer. A discussion of the collaborative process used to achieve this milestone follows.

Arriving at an approved design for the first four elementary schools required several key components, including a superintendent who championed “buy-in;” clear guidelines regarding scope, budget, and schedule; an organization with explicit roles and responsibilities; school-based building site committees committed to bringing closure to sometimes difficult issues; and management and project teams willing to embrace the collaborative process.

The actual process of working with the building site committee was often very challenging but also quite rewarding. Most meetings lasted from two and a half to three hours and progressed at a pace not always comfortable for design professionals. Clearly, both consultants and clients were being educated.

However, many extremely creative ideas emerged from the early meetings when locations of new classrooms and libraries were being discussed. The building site committee had the best knowledge about how each campus was being used as well as an understanding of the schools’ historical development. Each building site committee also had unmatched passion about the outcome. The combination of knowledge and passion produced fresh ideas and provided solutions that were not anticipated by the consultants.

It is probably fair to say that the school community is fairly idiosyncratic. Teachers and principals are, in a certain way, facilitators. Consequently, many members of the building site committee already had experience with group dynamics and facilitation. The groups frequently became self-regulating and adopted methodologies used in the classroom, such as “fair-turns to speak,” a way of minimizing dominance by particularly vocal group members and allowing quieter participants equal time.

Although every point of convergence was preceded by at least one, but usually more, points of divergence, at the end of each phase consensus was achieved. This consensus often was hard won, but once achieved it become immutable. Although the early meetings required more effort than expected by the consultants, no major redesigns were required.

This collaboration required more initial meetings with the building site committee than traditional design approaches. This can be explained, in part, by the “greenhorn” effect. That is, although experienced in school design, neither of the two architectural firms responsible for working on the elementary schools had collaborated so closely with clients before. When asked to look ahead and create timelines for future decisions, the architects were willing but not really able to plan in advance. However, after gaining experience in Phase 1, the architects were better prepared to focus on future phases.

There were many attempts to describe the scope of decisions made by the building site committees. However, at the end of Phase 1, all four committees believed that knowing more in advance about the decisions they would be making would have been helpful. This issue relates less to the timing of the decisions and more to the decision-making power of the committees. Again, having been through the cycle once, the nature of the decisions before the building site committees can be made more explicit in Phases 2 and 3.

Related to the above points, when schematic design and design development were complete, disengaging the building site committees was difficult. A great deal of momentum had been generated in the first phases of design, but many detailed design issues already had been addressed in the district facilities technical standards. Follow-on meetings with the building site committees were held to develop traffic/safety and move plans, but the number of meetings tapered off. Consideration had to be given to re-directing the creative energy of the building site committee.

The components of the collaborative approach adopted by the Palo Alto Unified School District in its Building for Excellence Program can be adapted to a variety of situations. Whenever consensus is needed from a diverse group of stakeholders, the collaborative approach is appropriate. Collaboration does not mean complete freedom; leading from behind is a necessity lest the process extend beyond reasonable time limits.

The collaborative design discussed here is part of a larger movement and approach to project management identified as “postmodern” by Thomas Hughes (1998; Table 3). In today’s world, which is swollen with “messy complexity,” solutions that actively involve stakeholders may benefit from the richness of diverse views and may be more permanent.

The author acknowledges the efforts of those involved with the Building for Excellence Program and credits their creativity, patience, and determination with achieving the best schools possible for the students of Palo Alto Unified School District.