The World Economic Forum¹ has provided guidance on the subject in their document Infrastructure 4.0: “Infrastructure is more than just a series of assets. It is a system of systems that links the built environment, the natural world and the human experience. Done right, infrastructure investment has the potential to help us build a more sustainable, equitable and prosperous world.” 

DI: How did your RFP response embrace radical integration?

GL: Our team was built from the community and with global thought leadership. Our submission wasn’t just an RFP response, it was a vision for a comprehensive, equitable, sustainable approach to infrastructure. The technical narrative was aspirational and actionable — its clarity of purpose resulted in a selection without an interview. The team, including our gifted subconsultants, worked brilliantly together, in part because everyone believed in the mission. The team engaged in meaningful dialogue, debated the merits of the feasibility framework and eventually coalesced into a project-specific studio over the course of the RFP submittal. Our strategy was to deliver a bespoke solution and harness the thought leadership in support of the mission. We were driven to deliver the “Big J” to drive an impactful solution.
(See diagram).

DI: How are you bringing multidisciplinary expertise to bear? Innovating in your design process? How do you start? Who’s at the table? How and when are technology leveraged — and how does it differ from the processes we learned in school? Share some of the unique aspects of the team and how you’re going about approaching it.

GL: Let’s start with why multidisciplinary design. In a recent McKinsey article, The Business Value of Design, the authors make two compelling points. The first is to measure and drive design performance with the same rigor as revenue and costs. The second is to make user-centric design everyone’s responsibility. The article builds the case for leveraging the power of design to impact our physical world but also the bottom line. While some would argue profitability and design are incongruous, I believe an approach that values design leads to better resource allocation and ultimately, better design.

I start by determining if the problem has been defined properly and is viable. The next step is setting the table: framing the problem, engaging internal and external colleagues to weigh in on the path forward and creating a bespoke team aligned to the mission. The collaborators are always as unique as the assignment.

They say authentic solutions come from many voices. Architecture is enhanced by dialogue with a broader community beyond A&E. A rich design narrative that’s comprehensive, non-biased and looks beyond stylistic conceits will yield a better building, a better master plan, a better infrastructure — and will have enduring value because it was conceived as a positive response to a human condition.

Technology supports the design process, but it’s not a replacement for fundamental human design skills: the ability to think abstractly, the rigor to edit and refine, the sense of context and character. There is an intersection between technology, team structure and architecture. The successful balance of all three leads to transformative engagement and harnesses the synergies and resources to deliver a great design.

DI: In your quest to innovate in design process, what kind of cutting-edge techniques are you using to reform and reshape your own process of innovation? Are they technology-centric, process-centric, people-centric? What is the root of the change?

GL: At Jacobs it’s always people-centric. Inclusion, while not a technique, is a driver that is bringing diversity of thought, experience and perspective to our practice. Our cutting-edge techniques are more who than what. We’re expanding our design considerations criteria to include social equity, environmental and socio-economic sustainability, systems connectivity and a celebration of the interdependence of the natural and built environment. Technology and process are vital elements of our business platform. We excel at both because we use and develop them in service of a solution. My focus on both relates to radical integration. For technology, I’m interested in generative design programs that cross disciplines and can create conceptual models with metrics that address integrated issues. These range from ROI to social equity and advanced technical solutions. These models build the case for a “system of systems” approach. For process, that means streamlining design and delivery — and more effective and efficient allocation of resources and capital.

DI: You mentioned real innovation usually begins with problem definition. So often we end up solving the wrong problem, largely because that’s what the owner asked us to do. Are you making any inroads challenging RFPs or redefining problem statements to effect dramatic on-project innovation?

To change the frame of reference to yield more of a systems-thinking, longer-term approach?

GL: We’re launching a new initiative called Foreseeable™, which brings a way of thinking and a system of solutions that enable differentiated outcomes for the built environment: transformational places — next generation sustainability — financed delivery integration.

I am collaborating with Jim Lew on financed delivery integration. It is a large-scale integrated delivery enterprise agency, which creates complex building programs by defining, designing, delivering and operating projects as integrated value-optimized asset platforms.

DI: Some of your successes and failures in that space would be illustrative.

GL: How much time do you have? Since there’s a limit to the length of this article, I’ll just say my failures both outnumber and have fueled my most meaningful successes.

DI: Honesty appreciated. As a leader responsible for innovation, what are your biggest challenges? What do we need to know to engage more effectively?

GL: The biggest challenge is building consensus. The lack of predictive analytics for an idea that is forward-leaning and cannot be validated by examples of previous success is a high hurdle to overcome. My advice:

• Be transparent and exact with risk/reward metrics.
• It’s better to move on than back down.
• Early adapters matter if they share and invest in the vision.

DI: Since we’re shooting for radical change, can you dream for a minute? What’s your personal vision 10 years from now — for Jacobs and the industry?

GL: My vision for Jacobs is an empowered architectural community that is driving solutions beyond buildings. James Moore, the global solutions director for cities and places, has defined that vision eloquently: “We design the human habitat.” My vision for the industry is a tectonic shift in how we practice architecture.

DI: A closing thought for fellow innovators? One thing they should focus on to be effective.

GL: A good idea is inspiring; a great idea is immediately actionable.