Designed Objects

VOLUME 6 ISSUE 3

The International Journal of

Designed Objects __________________________________________________________________________

Characterization of the Design Function in the Appearance Wood Products for Nonresidential Buildings A Conceptual Framework MYRIAM DROUIN, PIERRE BLANCHET, AND ROBERT BEAUREGARD

designprinciplesandpractices.com

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGNED OBJECTS www.designprinciplesandpractices.com First published in 2013 in Champaign, Illinois, USA by Common Ground Publishing LLC www.commongroundpublishing.com ISSN: 2325-1379 © 2013 (individual papers), the author(s) © 2013 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the applicable copyright legislation, no part of this work may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact [email protected]. The International Journal of Designed Objects is peer-reviewed, supported by rigorous processes of criterionreferenced article ranking and qualitative commentary, ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest substance and highest significance is published.

Characterization of the Design Function in the Appearance Wood Products for Nonresidential Buildings: A Conceptual Framework Myriam Drouin, FPInnovations, Canada Pierre Blanchet, FPInnovations, Canada Robert Beauregard, Laval University, Canada Abstract: The rising demand for forest products in nonresidential buildings pushes to evaluate the local wood products offer. The goal of the present study was to characterize the product design management within this manufacturing industry. The architects’ level of utilization of and satisfaction with the appearance wood products were previously estimated. It focused on the appearance wood products available for the nonresidential building sector in the Province of Québec; architectural wood product, molding, flooring, stair, window, door as well as interior and exterior siding were targeted. The case study was used as a research methodology; information was collected through a literature review, web site analysis, semi-structured interviews with architects and businesses representatives as well as open non-structured interviews with experts from the sectors. Results showed that these architects had a positive opinion about wood as a raw material but not all of them were fully satisfied with how the available products are currently designed, concerning both functional and aesthetical aspects. They believed that these products were too oriented toward the residential sector; that they do not always meet the non-residential construction needs and hardly fit into the prevailing modern architecture style. Results allow concluding that, generally, design is not a deeply anchored value in the business culture of these manufacturers. This is partly due to the fact that the creation is under the control of the architects for most of these products categories; custom-made products are more often valued over standard products in the nonresidential building sector. Keywords: Appearance Wood Products, Nonresidential buildings, Product Design, Architects, Manufacturers

Introduction

F

rom recent environmental concerns origins a case for the use of eco-friendly materials. As a result, policies have emerged worldwide to encourage greater use of forest products (USDA 2011; Anonymous 2008; MCPFE 2008; CNBD 2001) due, among others, to the capacity of wood to sequester carbon and to the low environmental impact of its utilization (Lippke et al. 2010; Skog 2008; IPCC 2007). In this context, Québec’s provincial government launched in 2008 a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the promotion of a greater use of structural and appearance wood products (MRNFQ 2008). This strategy particularly targeted the nonresidential sector, which shows the greatest potential for material substitution by wood. Wood has traditionally been used in the North American single-family housing sector, both in the wood light frame system as well as in appearance wood products. In opposition to structural wood products, appearance wood products refer to wood products that are apparent, inside or outside a building. Wood has indeed a much less impact on the nonresidential construction sector including in commercial, industrial, institutional and also in large multi-family buildings. Architects are required by law to sign and seal all plans and specifications for the construction, enlargement, reconstruction, renovation or alteration of a building, except for single-family houses or for buildings with no more than two floors and no more than 300 square meters (3 229 square feet) in area (Québec Government 2011). As a result, architects are positioned as major specifiers in the nonresidential building construction sector as well as in the multi-family building sector. Recent environmental concerns have motivated these professionals to increase their utilization of wood products (Falk 2009; Bergman and Bowe 2008; Bowyer 2008; MRNFQ 2008). While architects’ level of utilization of structural wood products in The International Journal of Designed Objects Volume 6, 2013, www.designprinciplesandpractices.com, ISSN 2325-1379 © Common Ground, Myriam Drouin, Pierre Blanchet, and Robert Beauregard, All Rights Reserved, Permissions: [email protected]

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGNED OBJECTS

nonresidential construction becomes rather well documented in the literature (Robichaud et al. 2009; O’Connor et al. 2003, 2004; Kozak and Cohen 1999), their utilization of appearance wood products has been less frequently assessed. A recent study assessed architects’ perception of appearance wood products in their nonresidential building conceptions (Robichaud 2010). This study revealed that most of them considered wood positively and prescribed some appearance wood products. Results demonstrated that, in their most recent building; i.e. possibly designed in 2010, architects from Quebec City and Montreal areas, prescribed wood products as follows: wooden floors in 27% of the buildings, exterior wood siding in 33%, interior wood siding (veneer, plywood and siding) in 88 % and moldings in 52% of the buildings. This study also reported results from a previous and similar study (L’Observateur 2010) in which architects from the Province of Quebec specified wood products in little different proportions in their recent building conceptions: wooden doors in 66% of the buildings, wooden cabinets in 57%, wooden flooring in 49%, wooden molding in 46%, decorative veneers in 37%, exterior wood siding in 31% and lastly wooden windows in 23% of the buildings. Kozak and Cohen (1999), in a survey conducted in Canada and United States, also found that interior wooden trims, wooden floors and exterior wood siding were current products in nonresidential construction with respective proportions of utilization of 85%, 25% and 20%, compared to the proportions of utilization of masonry, concrete and steel products. However, many factors limit the use of appearance wood products in the nonresidential construction segment. Robichaud (2010) reported maintenance as the principal constraint for the use of wood in nonresidential building, followed by the building code regulations, product durability and customer resistance. Spetler and Anderson (1985) concluded that a lack of familiarity with building codes impeded wood products utilization, as well as contractors’ attitudes and product cost, durability, and quality. They also reported that the proportion of appearance wood products in a building is inversely proportional to the building floor surface (Spetler and Anderson 1985). This study revealed a higher proportion of wood used in small buildings, comprising both structural and appearance products. Furthermore, it was found that this conclusion was especially true for molding, flooring, exterior and interior siding, as well as cabinets (Robichaud 2010). The consideration of appearance wood products from a design standpoint is not well covered in current literature; it has been mostly discussed through subjects such as innovation. While innovation is often considered as a major lever for a more competitive economy, some findings determined that the wood products industry has been insufficiently innovative over the past years. Previous studies aimed at measuring the relationship this industrial sector maintains with innovation. Hovgaard and Hansen (2004) found that innovativeness was not a familiar concept in the forest products industry; it could hardly be conceptualized by manufacturers. The study revealed that most of the surveyed firms do not follow a consistent and structured product development process. The need for more investment in product development activities in the wood products industry was also stated by Bell (2009) who mentioned that without a reliable method of developing new products, manufacturers tend to produce me-too products that rely on price as their main competitive advantage. In addition to moving away from the battle of prices, Leavengood (2009) mentioned the importance for this sector to shift from a focus on quality as a competitive tool to a broader commitment towards innovation; quality is a necessary but insufficient component in today’s business environment he said. Nevertheless, this limited level of innovation in the wood products industry might be explained by the size of these companies. According to Freel (2000), small size companies might face greater challenges when trying to achieve structured innovation practices. This could partly explain wood products manufacturers’ disadvantage facing innovation strategies because this manufacturing sector is mostly composed of small and medium businesses (Hovgaard and Hansen 2004). In an attempt to enhance firms’ innovativeness, Crespell and Hansen (2006) 2

DROUIN, ET AL.: CHARACTERIZATION OF THE DESIGN FUNCTION

identified success factors. They found that an upper management commitment was necessary to install a creative work climate. Moreover, team cohesion as well as employee autonomy and participation were ranked as important factors contributing to a favorable innovativeness atmosphere. According to Industry Canada, design is key to linking consumer and producers in the appearance wood products sector. A cultural change is needed in this sector to install the design reflex within manufacturer’s business models in order to add value to wood products (Industry Canada 2011). Finally, improving marketing strategies was mentioned as another challenge for the forest product sector. Weaknesses in the marketing of appearance wood products industry sector were identified by architects (Robichaud 2010). They noted the lack of ready access to technical information for these products. Wagner and Hansen (2004) maintain that wood products companies should focus their technical efforts on improving the appearance and environmental aspects of their products and their marketing efforts on communicating these aspects. Recent demand for forest products has however created more opportunities for the wood products sector to increase branding activities (Tokarczyk and Hansen 2006). According to Kolarova (2009), improvements of branding strategies in the wood products manufacturing sector were observed over the recent years, shifting from a commodity to a branded industry sector. The rising demand for forest products and the recent governmental strategy to increase wood utilization in nonresidential buildings (MRNFQ 2008) prompt us to evaluate the available appearance wood products and to determine whether or not these products succeed in satisfying the actual construction needs. The main objective of this study is to characterize how is the product design function managed within the appearance wood products manufacturing industry. Beforehand, to determine the relative importance of these products within this construction segment, this study aims at evaluating the architects’ level of utilization and satisfaction of the appearance wood products. More specifically, the study focuses on the appearance wood products available for the nonresidential building sector in Province of Quebec; architectural wood product, molding, flooring, stair, window, door, interior and exterior siding are targeted.

Methods The exploratory nature of this research led to the choice of the case study as a research methodology to achieve a qualitative characterization of how the design function is managed in the appearance wood products industry sector. In order to enhance the validity of the findings, the triangulation approach (Mathison, 1988) was adopted. In the present study, the triangulation method was achieved through collecting data via a website analysis, via semi-directed interviews with architects and business representatives as well as open non-structured interviews with experts in the sector. Finally, these findings were cross-validated with the conclusions from the literature. Website Analysis and Products Assessment The website analysis allowed constructing a qualitative opinion on the nature of appearance wood products available on the Quebec provincial market. More specifically, the diversity and the level of differentiation of these products were evaluated. Wood products company web sites and web sites promoting good use of wood products were reviewed. A company listing and selection was performed through the use of an industry listing data bank, iCRIQ, which gathers Quebec’s manufacturers and wholesalers-distributors (CRIQ 2011). This data bank was used to draw up a list of manufacturers’ name and characteristics for the product categories targeted by this case study. In addition, a sample of 15 businesses by product category was randomly selected from these lists for website analysis. However, throughout the duration of the study, more websites were consulted and they contributed to the knowledge developed in this study. 3


Interviews Three populations were investigated in the interviews: architects, businesses and wood industry specialists. The sampling scheme, i.e. people and company selection, was determined through a web research and following specialists’ recommendations. As a first step, seven architects from Québec City area were selected and interviewed. During the interviews, the architects were asked to comment on their use and appreciation of appearance wood products in nonresidential construction with a focus on the design aspect. Semi-structured interviews were used to direct the discussions towards specific subjects while allowing a certain freedom to respondents to address contiguous subjects. Secondly, meetings with representatives from companies in each product category were held to evaluate their use of the design function. A total of eight companies were selected quite randomly and interviewed (seven in person and one by phone). They were specifically questioned about their products as well as their resources in design, product development methods, distribution network and relationships with architects. Finally, two specialists with a general and valuable knowledge of the forest products sector were interviewed to get their understanding and opinions on the importance of design in the appearance wood product industrial sector and the positioning of the design function in the value chain. Moreover, the main conclusions established in the previous steps of the study were presented to them for validation. For those meetings, open non-structured interviews were used. Literature In an attempt to provide significant and reliable insight in the design management and practices of this industrial sector the knowledge and conclusions constructed through the website analysis and interviews were compared to the major conclusions found in the literature. This process provided an opportunity to evaluate the results from these different data collection methods and determine if they were convergent, inconsistent or contradictory (Mathison 1988).

Results The findings of this research will be presented in three sections. First, an overview of the appearance wood products industrial sector in the province of Québec is presented to provide an image of the manufacturers of this sector as well as the nature of their products, distribution and customer networks. Second, a description the relationship that architects have with wood products in their nonresidential building practice will be presented. This section allows the importance of wood products in nonresidential construction to be evaluated and the assessment of architects’ appreciation of the design of these products. Finally, after characterizing this industrial segment and the architect’s opinion of appearance wood products, the characterization of the product design management within the appearance wood products industrial network in nonresidential construction is discussed, this last section referring to the main objective of this study. Mainly this section discusses the architects’ and manufacturers’ shared commitment in the product design decision making process. Review of the Appearance Wood Products Industry Appearance wood products refer to a wide range of finish wooden products used in building construction. Compared to structural products that have mostly a mechanical function, appearance wood products must also fulfill an aesthetical function. For the sake of this study, these products were divided into eight categories: interior siding, exterior siding, molding, flooring, stair, window, door as well as architectural wood products. While the first categories refer to specific wood products, the architectural wood products represent a distinct category. 4


These refer to interior construction projects that are mainly wood based and include a range of products such as wooden cabinets, desks, doors, moldings and wall siding. These products can be divided into two broader categories: those close to sawmill operations presenting mostly linear products such as molding, siding and flooring stripe, that are small elements part of a greater system, and those closer to joinery industry presenting mostly architectural products such as stairs, windows, doors and cabinets. The appearance wood products manufacturing sector consist of large number of companies throughout the province of Québec (Table 1). The iCRIQ database (CRIQ 2011) was used to make a list of manufacturers for each of the product categories listed above. However, these numbers are not fully accurate first because they might vary depending on the product specifications, or key words used in the database, second because the listing in the iCRIQ database is voluntary, hence it is not comprehensive, and finally because a single manufacturer producing different types of products might appear two or three times in the table. Nevertheless, these numbers allowed us to conclude that the appearance wood products manufacturing sector was composed of many manufacturers: the molding segment appeared to encompass the largest number of companies, followed in order by the window, door, stairs, architectural wood products, siding and flooring sectors. Table 1: Québec Province Number of Manufacturers in Each Appearance Wood Products Category

Approximate number of manufacturers

Product category Molding1 Flooring2

130 50

Stairs3

83 4

Window Door

108

5

Interior /exterior siding

84 6

Architectural wood products7

54 72

Source: www.icriq.com Key words: 1 architectural wood molding, bended wood molding, PVC laminated wood molding 2 wood laths, mosaic parquets 3 wood stairs 4 wood windows, custom doors and windows, PVC/wood windows, aluminum/wood windows, wood doors & windows for building/restoration 5 exterior folding/sliding wood doors (businesses, restaurants, etc.), exterior wood doors, interior wood doors, firestop wood doors, folding wood doors, aluminum/wood French wood doors, French wood doors, institutional wood doors 6 wood wall panels, siding wood, interior wood paneling 7 architectural wood products The analysis revealed that the appearance wood products industrial network was composed mostly of small and medium size enterprises (SMEs). Each product sector was composed of a few dominant players and of a larger number of smaller players. The dominant players were responsible for most of the volume produced in a given sector. In other words, in each of the 5


products categories, a small number of companies controlled most of the market share. These dominant players were generally specialized in the manufacturing of one key product and they tended to offer a complete solution to the customer. They usually had an industrial approach based on mass production. With regard to the smaller manufacturers, they might be generalists, meaning that they often produced more than one product or offered a niche product in a lesser volume. While the dominant players occupied large and widespread market shares, the smaller players operated mostly locally with fewer employees and they had smaller distribution networks. Architectural wood projects were manufactured either by many small joinery companies or by larger companies that have learned to industrialize custom-made production to be able to compete for large projects. Merely few manufacturers presented these last conditions. Concerning the wooden door sector, there were a few large companies offering a serial production mostly for residential purposes. Smaller businesses offered high-end massive wood custom doors, mostly for exterior use in both residential and nonresidential construction. Only a few companies have specialized on custom architectural doors for nonresidential interior use. The windows sector was similarly composed mostly of either large companies producing with a serial approach and for which the wooden segment is a small part of their production, or either of small companies offering high-end custom-made wooden windows, often used for historical buildings, luxury homes or in cultural and commercial buildings. As for the wooden stairs sector, there were a few dominant manufacturers offering industrialized stair manufacturing while the other were small businesses producing stairs in a traditional way. This study also showed that the appearance wood products industry sector was mainly oriented towards the residential construction sector. Most of the manufacturers offered products designed and marketed primarily for the residential construction market while very few of them offered products and services fully or partly adapted to the nonresidential sector. There was no distinct industry network offering wooden products to the nonresidential construction. The architectural door and architectural wood products categories and, to a lesser extent, the window sector were exceptions. In these last product categories, there are companies aiming specifically at the nonresidential construction market; their products are adapted to this type of building specificities, notably to conform to the building code requirements, and their major customers were architects for whom their services and marketing were fully developed. Regarding the distribution of appearance wood products, most of the companies did not sell directly to their customers but rather through a distribution network. The residential orientation of this industry involves that these distributors are mainly adapted to the residential customers; they sold mostly in home hardware retailers or specialized stores. Consequently, most of the time, there were no formal channels for architects and subcontractors to communicate with these companies as well as to shop and order these products. They are invited to go through the residential distribution network to place an order, or to contact directly the company, especially in the case of large building projects. Since the architectural door and architectural wood products sectors were adapted for nonresidential construction, their distribution was personalized to architects and subcontractors needs. Figure 1 shows the position of the wood products manufacturers within the nonresidential construction network. These manufacturers interact mainly with subcontractors and architects as well as with their suppliers and distributors. Appearance wood products are installed in the building by subcontractors who buy products through distributors or directly from manufacturers. Architects were either responsible for the selection of the products when using already designed standard products, or designing them, when using custom-made products. This last alternative requires a closer relationship between the architect and the manufacturer or the joinery company.

6


Figure 1: Relationship of Appearance Wood Products Manufacturers in the Nonresidential Construction Network in Province of Quebec Architects’ Level of Utilization and Satisfaction of Appearance Wood Products The general opinion about wood as a raw material for construction was very good among the interviewed architects. Its appearance was appreciated; all architects agreed that the heterogeneous nature of wood was an advantage for its utilization. They mentioned that using wood brings value to their creations; it created a warm atmosphere, had personality, history, brought a local flavor to projects, was environmentally friendly, helped projects to be accepted and, although it was a traditional material, it could have a contemporary style when appropriately designed. Interviews with architects nevertheless indicated that their utilization of appearance wood products available for nonresidential construction was often limited. This utilization greatly varied among these professionals depending, to a great extent, on the product category and building type. The reason why mostly all architects liked wood as a raw material but specified appearance wood products in a limited way can be explained by a set of constraints impeding the use of such products in nonresidential construction: the customer, the building type, the product characteristics and performance, town planning rules and building codes were mentioned as potential constraints by architects. These findings were in accordance with previous results reported in the literature where product “maintenance, building code, product’s durability and customer’s resistance were mentioned as the principal constraints” (Robichaud 2010). According to them, the customer might be either a disincentive or an incentive to the utilization of appearance wood products. Many customers treasured the idea of using wood; it was mentioned by an architect that As soon as you specify wood, people are carried away and it helps the project to be accepted. Some architects mentioned that the customers might be reluctant to include wood in their project because they fear long term maintenance problems. The nature and characteristics of the product might also explain the difficulty in using wood for some applications; products cost, maintenance, durability and style were also mentioned as limiting factors by architects. Town planning rules can restrict exterior wood siding in some city areas where other materials such as masonry dominate. Finally, the most commonly cited factor limiting the use of wood appearance products in nonresidential buildings was the National Building Code (National Research Council Canada 2011). Depending on the primary purpose of the building, its area and its number of floors, the code might require buildings to be nonflammable. In such a case, wood products were harder to prescribe. To avoid these limitations, products can be treated for a better fire resistance or alternative solutions might be presented to 7


meet the code’s objectives. This last solution was however mentioned to be an arduous and requiring a long process requiring architects to be much convicted to use wood to persist in this direction. Architects were asked to describe their level of utilization for the different appearance wood product categories presented in this study. The limited number of professionals that were met allowed drawing only major trends that are presented in Table 2. According to the interviewed architects, doors appeared to be the most commonly prescribed appearance wood products in nonresidential construction; this reality could be explained by the nature of this industrial segment that was adapted to the needs of the nonresidential construction segment. Interior and exterior sidings, wood floorings and stairs were said to be occasionally prescribed by architects, mostly because their performance and costs are not always suitable for all buildings. Wooden windows are rarely prescribed for the same reason, while moldings were mentioned to be seldom prescribed since architects are not comfortable with their use in general, no matter the raw material they are made of. Because architectural wood projects were in a different category and encompassed the above products, it was not considered within this interview question. Table 2: Architects’ Level of Utilization of Appearance Wood Products in Their Nonresidential Practice Frequently

Occasionally

Rarely

Never

Doors Exterior siding Interior siding Floors Stairs Windows Molding

These findings were partly validated by results of the previous studies (Robichaud 2010; L’Observateur 2010). Wooden doors category also stood in the first rank of appearance wood products being the most prescribed by architects in their recent constructions in L’Observateur (2010). Wooden floors, that were said to be occasionally specified in the present study, were a popular choice among architects in these two previous studies where they were used in 49% of the buildings in L’Observateur (2010) and in 27% of the buildings in Robichaud (2010). A greater importance was given to wooden moldings in these previous studies, estimated to be present in 46% of the buildings (L’Observateur) and 52% de the buildings (Robichaud 2010), compared to the present study in which they were said to be rarely specified. Wooden windows were not a frequent choice among architects in the present study and in Robichaud (2010). A fast website review of the most recent buildings listed as good examples of building using wood products allowed observing that exterior wood siding and, to a lesser extent, interior wood siding also appeared to be popular products categories for architects. This web review also led to the general conclusion that wood was a present raw material in the nonresidential building construction sector but its utilization varies among architects and greatly depends on the building type and size.

8


Once the architects’ level of utilization of appearance wood products in nonresidential construction was established, they were asked to talk about their level of appreciation of these products when they do prescribe them. In other words, they were asked to discuss their level of satisfaction with the available products found on the market for nonresidential construction, more precisely to discuss the design aspects of these products, that is altogether their functional/technical and aesthetic characteristics. The architects answer on that question was not unanimous and not the same for each product category. There was however a preponderant opinion affirming that the actual appearance wood products’ design is not fully meeting their needs. The most frequent comment concerning the aesthetic aspect of these products was that their design does not allow creating uncluttered modern environments. Nearly all interviewed architects agreed that most of the available commercial products allow mainly Victorian, rustic or country style creations but hardly suit into more contemporary styles. When pushed further, their comment allowed finding that they were not unsatisfied with all products categories; their comments mostly applied to interior sidings and exterior sidings, as well as moldings and stairs to a lower level. For example, stairs and moldings proposed on markets were mentioned to be too often overcharged with ornamentations, while the interior and exterior sidings were reported to rarely differ from the traditional rustic planks. It was mentioned by one architect that there was too much diversity in some product ranges and not enough in the styles [they are] interested in. The doors, windows and floors segments seemed to satisfy architects on the appearance aspect. This lack of satisfaction for the look of the appearance wood products was also mentioned in a previous study; for example, architects mentioned about moldings, that they prefer simpler lines than the available profiles (Robichaud 2010). Finally, two architects out of seven, interviewed in this study affirmed to be mostly satisfied with the style of most of the available wood products. On the functional aspect, most architects had the opinion that, the wood product industry is somewhat traditional and that they would like to see more innovation within the products offered. It was mentioned more than once by architects that appearance wood products are mostly the same since many years. This statement was however found to be general and not to be relevant to all product segments and products from all companies. Some companies were perceived as being more innovative than others according to architects. Many architects agreed that they would appreciate to see more exterior wood siding products. They said that most of the available products are mainly designed for residential construction and they would like to see a product designed for commercial applications such as pre-assembled panels allowing quick coverage of larger surfaces, for example. In other words, engineered wood products for wall covering in outdoor applications would help fulfilling architects needs. The same request was reported for indoor wall covering products, where more ready-to-install products would be appreciated. The difficulty to find exterior wood sidings that offer a good warranty in clear finish was also pointed out during the interviews. Furthermore, it was mentioned more than once that wooden windows were not commonly used in nonresidential construction due to the challenges related to their performance and maintenance. The flooring sector did not receive any specific comments from architects but they seemed to agree that these products are not suitable for all applications, especially for high traffic building areas and for large surfaces. The wooden doors technical performances did not receive any comment. Thermally modified wood products received mitigated comments from architects concerning at the same time their functional and aesthetic performance. The most common downbeat comment was their low resistance to weathering; their appearance was perceived to quickly change when exposed to outside conditions. On the other hand, architects who appreciate these products believe that once the user is informed and is open to this modification in appearance, there is no problem. It was mentioned that it is a question of culture; people are not conscious that wood turns grey and is modified with time. Another architect mentioned that the reported

9


problems with thermally modified wood products were not due to the product itself but mostly to a poor installation, handling or to finishing problems. The same opinion about the level of innovation within appearance wood products sector was brought by the interviewed experts of this industrial sector. It was mentioned by one of them that too much effort was put on production over the last years and that it was time to work on designing more innovative products. A second specialist mentioned that more innovations were seen in European wooden products compared to the North-American ones. Manufacturers’ websites evaluation drove to similar conclusions. Even though this varies between product categories, there seems to be a low level of differentiation when comparing products from different companies. The interior wall siding product category was given as an example by an architect who mentioned that while a few companies started to offer innovative products, the majority is still offering the same traditional sidings that has been offered for many years. However, these conclusions are generalizations; the web site review uncovered recent initiatives presenting innovating wood products and architects might not all be aware of these recent product introductions. To sidestep the problem of not finding products offering the desired design and performance, and mostly to fulfill a need of uniqueness in their projects, architects are often using wood on a custom-made basis in their nonresidential construction projects. Most of the appearance wood products industrial sectors are adapted to this reality and allow for a great level of customization in their production process. This custom-made approach will be more deeply discussed in the following section of this paper. Characterization of the Design Function in the Appearance Wood Products Industrial Network Design decisions are taken at various levels in the conception of a building, from the general building shape and functionality to the smallest building element such as materials covering the floors and walls. It was found that within the nonresidential building construction network, the responsibility of design decisions is generally shared between the architects and the products manufacturers and to a lower extent with engineers for more technical aspects. While architects are responsible for taking most of the decisions concerning the design of the building, with the consent of their clients, manufacturers are responsible for the design of specific products, through their designers if they have any. However, as mentioned above, in the appearance wood products industry sector, the custom-made approach was possible and regularly utilized by architects. This means that architects, in addition to the possibility of selecting commercial products that are already designed by manufacturers, also often choose to design wood products themselves. These tailored products were either done on a small scale by joinery-type enterprises or either provided on a larger scale by larger manufacturers that have industrialized their manufacturing process. In both cases, wood was used as a raw material and transformed according to the architect’s plan. For some product categories, architects also choose an intermediate option that is mass customized products; products that are manufactured with some tailored options. These products are provided by companies that have a mass manufacturing processes adapted to the custommade production. Therefore, this high level of customization in this industrial segment implies that the design responsibility for the wooden product is partly shifted from the industry’ hands to the architects’ hands, and narrows the industry’s’ role to mainly a manufacturing one. This reality might explain, or be explained by, the fact that there seems to be few designers within this industrial network. Most of the interviewed manufacturers neither had an in-house designer, nor hired design consultants. It can be hypothesized that an increased presence of designers within the industry could allow producing more innovative products which might decrease the level of utilization of custom-made products. Also in-house designers could provide a better interface to deal with architects in large projects. 10


The analysis revealed there is always a small or large part of customization within the nonresidential construction sector for appearance wood products. As mentioned before, architects either select options on an already designed product, such as colors and profiles, or design the whole product. The level of customization for the different appearance wood products categories discussed in this study was assessed during the interviews with manufacturers and architects; the major trends are presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Appearance Wood Products’ Level of Customization in Nonresidential Construction for the Different Products Categories Architectural wood products stood at the right end of the customization scale. This manufacturing sector offered fully customized interior design projects where wood is the primary raw material. Projects are entirely designed by the architect and produced by the manufacturer, or woodsman, according to the architect’s plans. The manufacturers might propose solutions to improve the technical feasibility of the construction, but the architect is answerable for most of the creation. Wooden stairs, windows and doors were all three customized in a similar way in nonresidential construction. Depending on the architect, the building type and the construction budget, the level of customization may vary, but the major trend for these products in commercial, institutional and industrial construction is that they are custom fabricated according to the architect plan. The technical aspect of the product design is however taken in charge by the manufacturers. For example, in the architectural doors sector, the door appearance (shape, wood species, finishing color, etc.) is determined in the architect’s plan but the door interior composition is conceived by the manufacturer. The knowledge developed by these manufacturers ensures a certain level of performance and allows meeting the building code requirements, notably for fire protection and sound insulation. In nonresidential construction, wooden interior wall sheathings can either be categorized as custom-made products because they are most of the time made out of wood as a raw material and transformed by a carpenter or a manufacturer, but they can also be categorized as custom option products given that some companies also offer already designed wood siding for which architects select options such as color and profile. However, most of these designed products being close to 11


the traditional rustic plank and far from the contemporary style of modern architecture, the popularity of the commercial products is lower among architects than among residential owners. As for the molding sector, the customization level was also variable; molding might be selected by architects among a wide range of profiles offered by manufacturers but might also be customized according to architects desired profile. This last option requires manufacturers to machine new profiling knifes so it is mostly done when large volumes are ordered. Exterior siding and flooring were the product sectors that were the most distant from the custom-made approach, among appearance wood products considered in this study. These products were mostly designed by manufacturers and offered to the customers with some customizable options. The shape and/or dimension of these products are chosen by the architect among a few already designed choices but the chosen product is afterward available in a multitude of colors and finishing options. This lower customization level can be explained by the fact that manufacturers offer good warranties on their designed products. These warranties are reassuring for architects and final customers and make them less reluctant to utilize these products since they are more hesitant to design homemade products when the durability is challenged. The same kind of warranty also tended to be offered in the custom-made approach when it is done in an industrial process such as in the architectural doors and architectural wood work products segments. From these results it can be stated that the there seems to be a greater customization level for architectural product categories, such as door and windows, compared to more linear wooden products that are small elements as part of a greater system such as flooring or siding. The high level of customization in wood products color was available in all product segments. The color may vary according to the wood species that was selected by the architect. Most of the appearance wood products are offered in a range of wood species. However, the greatest variation of color is achieved through the utilization of finishing products. Most of the manufacturers offer products in a wide array of colors and propose the color match option allowing meeting any customer requirement for color. Many of the largest companies had their own colorist.

Discussion Characterization of the product design management within the appearance wood products industry was the main objective of this research. Results collected during interviews with architects and manufacturers conducted in the course of this study are somewhat convergent with the information available in the literature and with products’ features that can be observed on the company web sites. Most of these general conclusions were moreover confirmed by two specialists of this industrial sector who were consulted for validation purpose. As stated above, mostly for environment reasons, wood appears to become a popular material that has been increasingly utilized in today’s architecture. Architects like wood as a raw material and are open to prescribe wood products when possible in their construction. Some appearance wood product categories were found to be more present in nonresidential construction than others; the wooden door sector appeared to be the most common wooden product utilized in the nonresidential buildings, followed by the exterior and interior siding, wood flooring, stairs, window and molding product categories. These differences in the level of utilization of the various appearance wood products can be explained by the fact that each architect perceives wood products differently, that each of these product categories operates with different business models, some being more adapted to nonresidential construction than others, and that these products are not suited for all of building types. Products’ performance with regard to the building level of traffic may partly explain the difference of suitability among wood products in the different building types. This was especially true for the wood floorings that are more suited for lower traffic buildings. Moreover, as 12


established in previous studies, wooden products were more often prescribed in smaller buildings (Spetler and Anderson 1985; Robichaud 2010). For wood products sectors specialized in highend custom products, such as exterior wooden doors, wooden windows and wooden stairs, the high costs related to a more crafty personalization made these product categories more suitable for smaller buildings where they are present in smaller quantities or for high budget buildings such as historical ones. Some other wood product sectors succeeded in industrializing the mass customization process and are in a better position to offer cost effective products that can be more frequently found in larger nonresidential buildings, such as the architectural wooden door sector. According to the results of this study, some solutions might apply in order to increase the use of appearance wood products in large nonresidential building projects. For companies manufacturing architectural-type wooden products such as stairs, windows and doors, a solution would be to push further the industrialization of the custom-made approach in order to access the benefits of mass production. They could follow the example of architectural wooden doors and architectural wood products companies that have successfully industrialized the joinery work. As opposed to most of the companies oriented towards the residential sector, these two industrial segment adapted their businesses and their marketing to primarily attract and satisfy the main customers responsible of the material selection in nonresidential construction: the architects. Their products are manufactured according to architects’ plans; there are few pre-designed products, and their installations are adapted to quickly produce large orders as it is the need in nonresidential construction projects. For other companies manufacturing small wooden elements as part of a greater system, such as flooring, molding as well as interior and exterior siding; a solution might be to develop new innovative products that differentiate themselves from standard mass products. For example, panel-based products better adapted for the construction process of large nonresidential buildings would be desirable. Architects mentioned their need to find more ready-to-install solutions that would quickly and efficiently cover large areas. With such products, there would be a need to involve design professionals such as industrial designers in the process, in order to develop innovative products oriented towards the users’ needs. Moreover, these innovations should focus on the need to improve the finishing aspect of these products. Architects mentioned the need for more resistant products offering good warranties, especially in clear finish if it was technically feasible. The above-presented suggestions are possible solutions that could be adopted as part of a strategy to increase the use of appearance wood products in nonresidential construction. These solutions do not require dramatic changes in the current business model of many companies. For example, most of the appearance wood products manufacturers are already familiar with the notion of customization. For most of them, production is launched when an order is received and their production is personalized to the characteristics of this order. Moreover, most of these manufacturers have the expertise needed to transform wood into quality products and, as mentioned previously many technical innovations were developed in this industrial sector to ensure low cost production. One improvement they would have to implement though is the increased use of in-house professional designers.

Conclusion Other than being appreciated for its ecological virtues, the interviewed architects agreed that wood allows creating distinctive ambiances in nonresidential construction projects. This study concluded that there is an active industry producing appearance wood products in the province of Québec. Architects creativity and their desire to produce a unique project push the need for customization to a high level within this sector. Many products are designed and manufactured following the architects plan; some other products categories are designed within the company 13


and are produced following some customizable options. This high level of customization within the appearance wood products resulted in the creation of a dichotomy in the product design function; for most of the wooden products utilized in nonresidential construction, the technical aspect became the responsibility of the manufacturer while the aesthetic aspect became the responsibility of the architect. This reality might reduce the need for design to be a deeply anchored value in the business culture of these manufacturers. The study also revealed that most of appearance wood products manufacturers were somewhat adapted to a certain customization level, but that there was a need to push this level further to satisfy this market segment. Moreover, this industrial sector was, in general, oriented towards the residential sector and does not fully meet the architects’ needs. Some companies within these product sectors, found a way to adapt their production to the needs of nonresidential construction. Some of them succeeded in industrializing the custom-made approach, others in adapting the design of the products for the particular needs of the nonresidential construction. Looking at other countries where wood is as much an integral part of the culture as in Canada could help finding solutions to improve the integration of this material within the nonresidential building sector. The web review brought to light examples of recent original products which suggest that more innovative appearance wood products can be expected over the next years. This industrial sector shift from commodity products to value added products is well initiated and the rising demand for wood products within nonresidential construction should help accelerate this evolution.

Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the financial support of Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) through the CRD grant program (No 386935), as well as FPInnovations and Centre de recherche sur le bois from Laval University, for supporting this project. Thanks are extended to Claudia Després from Mission Design and François Robichaud from FPInnovations for their guidance in the writing of the interviews’ questionnaires.

14


REFERENCES Anonymous. 2008. British Columbia Launches Tax on Carbon; Launches Effort to Promote Climate Benefits of Forest Products. Forest Prod. J. 58(7/8): 16. Bell, B. 2009. Rethinking product development. Canadian Wood Products. July/August 2009: 810. Bergman, R.D. and S.A. Bowe. 2008. Environmental impact of producing hardwood lumber using life-cycle inventory. Wood Fiber Sci. 40(3):448-458. Bowyer, J. L. 2008. The GREEN Movement and the Forest Products Industry. Forest Prod. J. 58 (7/8): 6-8. Comité National pour le développement du bois (CNBD) 2001, Plan BOIS - CONSTRUCTION – ENVIRONNEMENT [Plan WOOD-CONSTRUCTION-ENVIRONMENT]. Comité National pour le Développement du Bois. http://www.cndb.org/pbce/pages/arbre.htm. Accessed June 6, 2011. Crespell, P. and E. Hansen. 2006. Fostering a climate/culture for Innovativeness. Oregon State University. Forest Business Solutions Research Brief. 5(3): 1–2. Centre de recherche Industrielle du Québec (CRIQ). 2011. iCRIQ: Québec Manufacturers and Wholesalers. http://www.icriq.com. Accessed, January 2011. Falk, B. 2009. Wood as a Sustainable Building Material. Forest Prod. J. 59(9): 6-7. Freel, M.S. 2000. Barriers to Product Innovation in Small Manufacturing Firms. International Small Business Journal 18 (2): 60-80. Hovgaard, A. and E. Hansen. 2004. Innovativeness in the forest products industry. Forest Prod. J. 54(1):26-32. Industry Canada. 2011. Technology Roadmap: Lumber and Value-Added Wood Products Conclusions for Appearance Wood Products. http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/fiif.nsf/eng/fb01459.html. Accessed May 2, 2011. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007 – Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007. B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ ar4/wg3/en/contents.html. Accessed June 6, 2011. Kozak, R. A. and D.H. Cohen. 1999. Architects and Structural Engineers: An Examination of Wood Design and Use in Nonresidential Construction. Forest Prod. J. 49(4): 37-46. Leavengood, S. 2009. Managing for Quality and Innovation. Oregon State University. Forest Business Solutions research Brief. 7 (4): 1-2. Lippke, B. J., Wilson, J. Meil and A. Taylor. 2010. Characterizing the Importance of Carbon Stored in Wood Products. Wood Fiber Sci. 42(CORRIM Special Issue): 5–14. L’Observateur, 2010. Valorisation du bois dans la construction de bâtiments commerciaux, institutionnels ou publics : Sondage auprès des professionnels [Valorization of wood in the construction of commercial, institutional or public buildings : Survey of professionals.] 38 pp. Mathison, S. 1988. Why Triangulate? Educational Researcher. March 1988 vol. 17 (2): 13-17. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE). 2008. MCPFE Work Program. Pan-European Follow-up of the 5th Ministerial Conference, 5–7 November 2007, Warsaw, Poland. http://www.foresteurope.org/filestore/foresteurope/Work_ Programmes/ELM_2008_Oslo_Work_Programme.pdf. . Accessed June 6, 2011. Ministère des resssources naturelles et de la faune du Québec (MRNFQ). 2008. Wood use strategy for construction in Québec. http://www.mrnf.gouv.qc.ca/english/publications /forest/publications/wood-use-strategy.pdf. Accessed, December 22, 2010.

15


National Research Council Canada. 2011. National Building Code of Canada 2010. http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/ibp/irc/codes/2010-national-building-code.html. Accessed May 2, 2011. O'Connor, J., R.A. Kozak, C. Gaston and D. Fell .2003. Wood Opportunities in Nonresidential Construction - A Roadmap for the Wood Products Industry. Forintek Canada Corp. Special Publication No. SP-46. 32 pp. O'Connor, J., R. Kozak, C. Gaston and D. Fell. 2004. Wood use in nonresidential buildings: opportunities and barriers. Forest Prod. J. 54 (3): 19-28. Québec Government. 2011. Architect’ Act. http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/ dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=2&file=/A_21/A21.HTM. Accessed May 23, 2011. Robichaud, F., R. Kozak and A. Richelieu. 2009. Wood use in nonresidential construction: A case for communication with architects. Forest Prod. J. 59 (1/2): 57-65. Robichaud, F. 2010. Le marché québécois des bois d'apparence en construction non résidentielle: La perspective des architectes [Quebec Market for appearance wood products in nonresidential construction : Perspective of Architects]. FPInnovations. Report prepared for the Centre d’expertise sur la construction commercial en bois (CECOBOIS). 120 pp. Scott Kolarova, E. 2009. Brand Association Transfers between Corporate and Product Building Material Brands: Perceptions of Homebuilders. Forest Prod. J. 59(11/12):75–82. Skog, K. 2008. Sequestration of carbon in harvested wood products for the United States. Forest Prod. J. 58(6): 56-72. Spelter, H. and R.G. Anderson. 1985. A Profile of Wood Use in Nonresidential Building Construction. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Forest Products Laboratory Resource. Bulletin FPL 15. 22pp. Tokarczyk, J. and E. Hansen. 2006. Creating Intangible Competitive Advantages in the Forest Products Industry. Forest Prod. J. 56(7/8): 4-13. United State Department of Agriculture. 2011. USDA Leads the Way on Green Buildings, Use of Wood Products. United States Department of Agriculture. http://www.usda.gov/wps/ portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2011/03/0143.xml&navid=NEWS_RELEASE&navty pe=RT&parentnav=LATEST_RELEASES&edeployment_action=retrievecontent. Accessed June 6, 2011. Wagner, E. R. and E. N. Hansen. 2004. Environmental attributes of wood products: Context and relevance for U.S. architects. Forest Prod. J. 54(1): 19-25.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Dr. Myriam Drouin: Myriam Drouin obtained her Bachelor in Forest Management and Environment at Laval University in 2005. She completed a Ph.D. in Wood Sciences at the same university in 2009. Myriam Drouin is currently a member of the Secondary Wood Products department at FPInnovations laboratory in Québec City. Her principal research interest is about the management of the design function within the appearance wood products industry. Dr. Pierre Blanchet: FPInnovations, Canada Dr. Robert Beauregard: Laval University, Canada

16

The International Journal of Designed Objects is one of six thematically focused journals in the collection of journals that support the Design Principles and Practices knowledge community—its journals, book series, conference and online community. The journal examines the nature and form of the objects of design, including industrial design, fashion, interior design, and other design practices. As well as papers of a traditional scholarly type, this journal invites presentations of practice—including documentation of designed objects together with exegeses analyzing design purposes, purposes and effects. The International Journal of Designed Objects is a peerreviewed scholarly journal.

ISSN 2325-1379

Designed Objects

Designed Objects

Suggest Documents