Engineering, 2013, 5, 292-298
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/eng.2013.53039 Published Online March 2013 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/eng)
“Integrated Design Process” a Concept for
Green Energy Engineering
Christian Koch1, Henrik Buhl2
1Civil and Environment al En gi ne eri ng , Chalmer s University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden
2Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark
Received December 20, 2012; revised January 29, 2013; accepted February 6, 2013
ABSTRACT
Consulting Engin eers and Architects are cu rrently exp erimen ting with the concep t of “Integ rated Design Process” (IDP).
This paper views Integrated Design Process as a process tool and a concept for management and organization of the
green energy engineering process. Moreover such a concept is understood both as systematic knowledge and a symbolic
device for enabling change. The paper briefly reviews international variants, and focus on two variants present in Den-
mark: an architect and engineering variant of IDP. The differences between the concepts include different roles for main
actors, the use of information technology, the relation to lean, and forms of collaboration. The paper discusses two
building projects focusing on teams of engineers and architects in the early conceptual phase. One develops a solution
focused on energy saving technologies, the other on energy producing. It is argued that in this practical context, IDP is
viewed as ambiguous and not well defined, and the architects and engineer work hard understanding and using the con-
cepts even when directly involved. It is difficult to reach consensus on how to do it. The various players agree that an
increased interdisciplinary interaction in the design team is necessary in order to comply with the increased complexity
of green energy build ing design. IDP shows potential as a driv er for green energy engineering and technologies, as tra-
ditional roles and responsibilities in the design process is changed, and sustainable solutions for green buildings can
reach a higher standard and quality and are integrated earlier in the design process.
Keywords: Integrated Design Processes; Sustainable Building; Negotiated Concepts
1. Introduction
In Denmark it is estimated that 40% of the entire CO2
emissions stems from the build environment, energy
consumptions in buildings are one out of four main is-
sues in the current climate transition towards a non fossil
economy. The Danish Climate Commission work on the
ambition of the European Union (EU), which states de-
veloped countries should collectively reduce their emis-
sions of greenhouse gases by 60% to 80% by 2050 [1].
Designing clean buildings has become part of the fashion
like phenomenon created around this societal and global
agenda, call it LEED, BREEAM, Active houses, Passive
houses, GreenBuilding, CleanTech [2] or the like. De-
signing green and clean buildings involves meeting the
elevated European directive’s demands, a task that sev-
eral studies shows is not simple for the professional ser-
vice providers, the architects and the consulting engi-
neers [3,4]. Part of the complication lies with the many
competing concepts for climate change mitigation in
buildings. Clients (and regulators) ask for more, or some-
thing else, than just following building regulations, and
finding the right synthesis of design criteria and green
energy technologies is challenging. A collection of green
energy engineering technologies can be incorporated in
the design of the buildings; solutions embrace possible
extension using of panels, vertical windmill and thermal
heating, ventilation and cooling systems etc. One of the
central impacts of the need of designing green buildings
is that energy consumption concerns and energy related
requirements have to be engineered in an early conc eptu-
alization phase. Therefore in this paper the focus is on
cases of conceptual design which are often being organ-
ized as “architects competitions”, but with the introduc-
tion of integrated design (and energy calculations) also
involves engineering consultants and for other reasons
even contractors. What is in play in other words is a fun-
damental reorganization of previous linear and “over the
wall” fragmented design processes [5]. Integrated Design
Process (IDP) is here understood as a management con-
cept. Concepts encompass recipes, process tolls and
technology and varies globally, across countries and sec-
tors [6]. This is also the case with IDP, and international
variants are identified. In a Danish context it is assumed
C
opyright © 2013 SciRes. ENG

C. KOCH, H. BUHL 293
that local actors would translate and transform any such
management concept rather than merely mimicking it.
The preference in the theoretical framework is therefore
given to Danish contributors, identifying three variants.
The aim of this paper is to analyze how Danish archi-
tectural and engineering companies interact with the con-
cept of “integrated design processes” as part of their
transition into delivering professional services of green
buildings. The paper’s empirical material encompasses
two building projects both aiming at going beyond the
EU- requirements for energy consumption.
2. Method and Theory
The paper adopts a theoretical approach, which is mul-
tidisciplinary, with interpretive sociology as a central
position, starting with identifying internationally present
versions of IDP, as a background for characterizing three
versions of integrated design present in Denmark. This
part of the paper built on desk and a selective literature
study, both identifying research based and more popular
versions of the concep t, following an approach like stud-
ies of management concepts [7]. The empirical part of
the studies builds on case studies of four teams partici-
pating in a competition on two building projects with
high profile energy demands. The choice of cases was
done with point of the departure of collaboration with a
consulting engineering company active in a network of
architectural, engineering and construction firms heading
in the direction of using integrated design and sustainable
buildings. The two design competitions of building with
energy requirements, each with two teams are covered by
interviews of one engineer, and one architect from each
team supplemented with two interviews with clients rep-
resentatives. A desk study was used to complement on
knowledge about the two competition s. The names of the
two competitions are confidential; here they are called
“Green Building” and “Lo w Energy Building”.
IDP frameworks and cases/examples are introduced
below which is the basis for the analysis. Theory about
management concepts are used to analyze IDP as a con-
cept, this implies that IDP is thought of as a loosely bun-
dle set of ideas, visions, processual and content tools,
exemplary cases and results. This stands in contrast to a
belief that concepts used in enterprises would be founded
on scientific systematic knowledge, and encompasses
well defined and explicit too ls [6]. When an enterprise or
a group uses a concept, it would aim at directed change,
realized through learning or even negotiation processes
[7].
3. Integrated Design Processes (IDP)
Concepts of integrated design have been around for some
time and are present both in academic literature and in
companies’ branding of competences etc. The focus on
integrated design (without processes) is for example pre-
sented by [8]. [8] understands integrated design as what
architects do, when they incorporate the energy, site,
climatic, formal, construction, programmatic, regulatory,
economic, and social aspects of a project as primary pa-
rameters for design. The concepts are clearly aimed at
mitigating climate change, through creating sustainable
buildings. One example given is the reduction of use of
traditional power operated convectors in heating [8].
Reference [8] characterizes some recent changes in ar-
chitecture as drivers for integrated design, as a new ex-
tended understanding of composition, a broadened un-
derstanding of the context and multivariate assemblage
of factors and forces that compose buildings. This com-
position is seen as a confluence of two salient aspects;
the energy milieu of every building site and the social
construction of architecture [8]. The architect has a cen-
tral role, albeit in another shape than previously, now the
building project sh ifts from the twentieth century myth of
the singular architect to thoroughly collaborative team
structures. Social integration precedes technical integra-
tion. All technology is social before it is technical. The
role of the architect shifts from individu al master to stra-
tegic organizer of manifold, often disparate forms of
knowledge and processes [8]. Where [8,9] places most of
the competences and processes of integrative design
among architects, [10] in their task force of the Interna-
tional Energy Agency (IEA) presents a comprehensive
model for IDP, providing roles for a series of actors and
a phase model encompassing iteration. Four phases are
proposed basic predesign, concept design and design
development [10]. The committed client and a core team
of architects and engineers supplemented with further
experts is the vital idea. It is claimed that energy design
become integrated with architectural design rather than
being an ex ternal ad d on . [11] claims that the weaknesses
of the IEA model is too little focu s on architectural qual-
ity and underestimation of cooperation challenges be-
tween engineers and architects. [12] is another similar
comprehensive IDP concept with clear energy design
focus.
The third example of an integrated design process con-
cept is the International co uncil for Research an d Innova-
tion in Construction’s (CIB), publication on “Integrated
Design and Delivery Solutions”. Here integrated design
is defined as “Integrated Design and Delivery Solutions
use collaborative work processes and enhanced skills,
with integrated data, information, and knowledge man-
agement to minimize structural and process inefficiencies
and to enhance the value delivered during design, build,
and operation, and across projects” [13]. The CIB con-
cept combines collaboration, enhanced sk ills and IT-tools
such as Building Information Models (BIM) and Know-

C. KOCH, H. BUHL 294
ledge Management with process elements from lean (de-
sign). Apart from the comprehensive process scope, there
is also a clear focus on transforming industry; it is proc-
esses, technology and people of the build environment
that need to change [13].
Summarizing, the international concepts of IDP there
are different emphasis on which players are to “carry”
the integrated design, what role technology and process
methods should play and whether the concept is seen as a
project approach or an industry approach.
4. Two Danish Variants of Integrated Design
Processes
The interest now turns to two present variants of IDP in a
Danish context, an architectural-oriented [13] and an
engineering-oriented [14]. Both are embedded in more
than one player in Denmark, both encompassing compa-
nies and universities.
The architectural oriented variant is developed at the
Department of Architecture and Design at Aalborg Uni-
versity [13]. It is based on a holistic architectural ap-
proach and advocates for a close collaboration between
architects and engineers, where buildings are designed
through an interdisciplinary approach. The approach is
based on a common language between the architects and
engineers. Hence, they must carry an interdisciplinary
profile which incorporates skills from both professions.
One of the fundamental tools in this approach is a com-
prehensive parametric analysis that allows the engineers
to be more proactive in the design phase. The approach
operates with four phases: Analysis, Sketching, Synthesis
and Presentation. Joint decision making and corporation
between all professions in all phases should be exercised.
The architectural variant argues that engineers and archi-
tects should adapt their competences to each other and
thereby create a common language from which they can
design the building jointly. The engineering variant is
developed at the Technical University of Denmark [14]
is based on designing rooms before buildings in a “space
of solutions” where each room is analyzed in accordance
to predefined goals regarding energy performance and
indoor environment by the engineers. The architect can
subsequently design the building by combining the
rooms in various ways based on the performance of the
rooms [14,15]. It is possible to design various buildings
that automatically fulfill the predefined performance
goals. This approach decreases the trial and error design
element, and claims to base the design on conscious de-
cisions. The space of solutions is not intended to control
the design but set the boundary condition. The approach
is based on the assumption that indoor environment dif-
fer from room to room according to the specific orienta-
tion and internal load etc., hence, it is argued that it
makes no sense to analyze indoor climate on building
level in the design phase. The approach is less depended
on joint decision making than the AAU method above, as
the engineers and architects can work more individually.
The approach focuses on the strengths of the different
professions’ skills and utilizes them in different ph ases in
the design process. According to [14,15] integrated de-
sign involves four stages with particular roles (in paren-
thesis):
1) Establishing design goals (building owner and de-
sign facilitator);
2) Establishing design proposals for rooms and sec-
tions (building owner and design facilitator);
3) Generating proposals for rooms and sections (ar-
chitects, experts and design facilitator);
4) Selection and optimization of final building design
(building owner, design facilitator and experts).
The design facilitator role is share with the IEA con-
cept discussed above. Also [14,15] advocate for the use
of a specific IT-tool for hand ling the data on rooms in the
building, “iDbuild” [15]. This is a simulation tool devel-
oped for generating design advice for a goal-oriented
design process [15]. It relies on the power of building
simulation tools in design. And with the intention to push
performance evaluations into the early phase in the
building design process to reduce costs.
[5] have followed and analyzed practical processes of
Integrated Design and analyzed seven cases of use of
IDP in an set of passive house projects. They find that
most of the cases position themselves within the “ex-
tremes” of the engineering and architectural variants,
whereas two adopt a more traditional design process. IDP
causes different problems within the consortiums:
 Unclear boundaries compared to a traditional design
process. W ho does what and when?
 Different understanding of the same decision.
 The design teams focused so much on the technical
aspects that they forgot the architectural qualities.
 Binding constraints that the architect was not able to
design good architecture.
 The engineer felt too constrained because the archi-
tectural aspects were too fixed [5].
It follows that changes in the traditional design ap-
proach engender new ways to work as a team. Unclear
roles and goals, ineffective communication, increased
constraints and unfamiliarity with each others’ processes
prevailed in the cases—issues which emphasize the utili-
zation of IDP. However, it should be noticed that these
experiences are based on an entire project process and
not the competition phase alone.
Summarizing the two Danish variants of IDP, have
different emphasis on architectural and engineering com-
petences and approaches to processes with different em-
phasis on project, organization, IT and lean principles.

C. KOCH, H. BUHL 295
The “profession variants” shows how the difficulties in
creating common (mental) spaces for collaboration.
5. Designing Green Buildings with IDP
We now turn to the empirical material [16], two building
projects with high energy ambitions is first described,
followed by a description of the IDP process for two
teams in each project. At each of the two projects, two
competing project teams were interviewed addressing
architects and consulting engineers, and also referring to
clients and contractors representatives. Here the two
teams’ responses are described to illustrate the process
and expected results concerning green energy and sus-
tainability issues. Project “Green Building” (GB) con-
cerned a medium sized building (5000+ m2). The client’s
requirements to the building’s energy performance were
tighter than what is req uired in the Danish build ing regu-
lations (and EU regulation) and the client was focusing
on facilitating IDP. The client arranged an invited project
competition for five selected parties with duration of
roughly three months. The client was represented by
three partners: a contractor, the municipality, and a con-
sultant. Out of the five prequalified teams, two project
teams were chosen one of them was the winning team.
The project teams consisted of a main architect, a main
consulting engineer, and various sub consultants and
specialists. The interviewees were the main architect and
the main engineer from both teams and the client con-
sultant. A client consultant was instrumental in develop-
ing the demands fo r sustainability of th e building and the
use of integrated design. For this consultant sustainability
should be realized through a client drive and close col-
laborated of some form in the completion teams were
viewed as crucial. The energy ambition was formulated
as a concept where a synthesis of form, materials and
technique, creates as building which on a yearly basis
was energy neutral (web material). The ambition’s scope
is energy consumption by heating and ventilations as
defined in the building regulation, but also the individual
consumption by lightning and use of household utilities.
Upon finalizing the competition the winning project was
characterized as “actively energy producing, energy neu-
tral multi story dwelling, with comprehensive focus on
health, perfect indoor climate and quality of life” (web
material). The Client’s Consultant emphasis on the holis-
tic design, and an integration in the process also implied
looking for integration in th e bids.
Project “Low Energy Building” (LEB) concerns a
large scale building project (30.000+ m2). The client in-
vited selected companies to a Design/Build competition
with duration of approximately three months. The client
is represented by three partners which all are future users
of the building. The project’s requirements concerning
energy performance was also tighter than required in the
regulations though there were no specific initiatives re-
garding facilitating IDP. Two of the prequalified teams
were chosen. The project teams consisted of the De-
sign/Build contractor, a main architect, a main con sulting
engineer, and various sub contractors, consultants, and
specialists. The interviewees were the main architect and
the main engineer from both teams and a contractor from
one of the team. Furthermore, one of the clients was also
interviewed. The client announced the competition, first
as a prequalification round and then asking five selected
teams to develop a proposal. Each project team could
involve other consultants in order to secure the quality o f
the proposal, which the two studied teams did. When the
winner was awarded, the proposal is contracted with the
design/build contractor, which in turn hires sub contrac-
tors. The energy ambition of the building was to be able
to obtain a class 1 level compliant with EPCB (2003)
[17], which at the time of announcement equaled 50% of
the present day Danish Building regu lation. Secondly the
occupants of the building should be actively involved in
reducing the behavior oriented energy consumption. The
LEB client asked for the use of Integrated Energy Design
(EID), using a design process focused on climate appro-
priated design and user appropriated design and a plan-
ning of internal functions with emphasis on optimizing
energy consumption. The process of team 1, LEB, as the
client demanded the project teams to use integrated en-
ergy design, this was part of the ex ante requirements and
the adoption beyond debate. This was interpreted as an
advantage, as the Engineer said: “…it is an advantage
that the client clearly states what he wants and can relate
to that. It is easier to decode their requirements. ... And
then the project tea ms do not need to interpret that much
as they can see the level of ambition and what is ex-
pected” (Engineer team 1). The architect: “When we got
the program we evaluated the winning parameters… And
one can easily see that Integrated Energy Design, among
other things, is of great importance. And we do adopt
that, because it is an important part of this process and
the contractor paid it a lot of attention, hence, and it was
something we discussed every time” (Architect team 1).
Whereas in contrast to EID, the architect saw IDP as
more of an engineer’s concept, so where the engineer
maps EID to IDP, the architect distinguished between
them. The established project organisation scheduled a
number of deadline and meetings. But according to the
engineering consultant, things got more fluid, and there it
was a strength that the architects firm managed to keep a
partner (high level manager) onboard in the process, to
enable joint de ci si on m a ki ng .
The process of designing energy was becoming a
stronger synergy than normally: “All rooms were ana-
lyzed with regards to the internal load in relation to air

C. KOCH, H. BUHL 296
change, so the architect could prioritize the locations of
the room according to that. We put a lot of efforts in
preparing the details before the architects came to the
part” (Engineering Consultant). The architects think that
the engineers were not able to contribute in the process,
as they were too slow in decision making, because they
need to calculate/compute the different solutions/ideas.
So the problem is their tools, IT, and applications where
it takes too long time to compute it and to try n ew things
(Architect). A few tensions occurred relating to making
contradictory demands meet. The product was a good
experience, even if it could have been more interactive
(Engineering Consultant). This team’s energy design was
evaluated by the competition committee to be excellent,
as it arrived at the active house level, being able to pro-
duce energy. However the overall evaluation meant that
the proposa l d i d not win.
For team 2, LEB, the client demands for integrated
energy design, the engineering consultant interpreted it
as in direct prolongation of his company’s own strategy
of IDP: “So this way of thinking has gone all the way to
the top management. In that connection a lot of work-
shops and internal training was held with our internal
team members in order to implement this way of think-
ing” (Consulting Engineer).
The project organization encompasses a work groups
and a steering group. The contractor participated in the
steering group. Initially the winning parameters for the
competition were discussed on a “mass meeting” where
everyone in the team participated. A lot of meetings fol-
lowed. Four broad workshops were arranged by each of
the main partners. The energy design was made in a
strongly collective and joint manner: “We made energy
analysis of various initiatives and together we chose the
best. It was not a single-handed assessment but a joint
assessment about what would serve the project best. Not
only energy but also in regards to architecture, price,
constructability etc. We included it all” (Consulting En-
gineer). The process emerged as two parallel tracks: “T he
architect has a tendency to look at a building from the
outside and in, which is a good exercise that has to hap-
pen early. At the same time the engineer is working on
room level from inside and out where you examine what
can be done with regards to energy at the specific loca-
tion” (Engineer). The consulting engineers handled data
on the rooms with an IT-tool enabling simulation of en-
ergy consumption with various room constellations:
“Then you have something to contribute with before the
first sketches are made. And it is so important that we
start on that as it is the first sketches that set the direction
for the further development of the building’s form. These
analyses must be put on the table from day one to find
out what the facts are. The overall design we still leave to
the architect. The idea is that you have a handful of
rooms the architect can put togeth er and make his design
out of that” (Consulting Engineer).
In this manner it seems that team 2 was able to create
synergy and synthesis even at an early stage. Team 2’s
design was evaluated as the winner by the competition
committee. In term of energy design it arrived at the level
2 of the EU’s “Energy Performance of Buildings Direc-
tive” (EBPD) [17].
6. Discussion of Danish Experiences with
Integrated Design Processes
In the following we discuss four cases, four teams work-
ing with IDP: LEB team 1 and team 2; GB: team 3 and
team 4. The interviewed team members have difficulties
defining what integrated design “is” even after having
participated in a process claimed to be governed by such
a concept. Th e consulting engineers have gone further in
taking up integrated design than the architects. One
company (Engineering Consultant, LEB team 2) has im-
plemented IDP internally. Another (Engineering Con-
sultant, team 3 GB) have developed their version of inte-
grated energy design, also as part of their business strat-
egy, and claims identity between EID and IDP. The re-
maining two engineering companies hold competences in
doing IDP, but are not strategically committed. It is clear
that participant in all four teams struggle with the mean-
ing and content of IDP, including what new roles and
behavior to adopt. Central enabling factors for the proc-
ess is the clients demand for it, previous collaboration, a
“good feeling for each other”, and an organic project or-
ganization enab ling interaction and iterations, usu ally flat
with little emphasis on the steering group level, and more
emphasis on joint workshops with many participants.
Some players go further in emphasizing that overly stan-
dardized methods would be inflexible in the variety of
projects they engage in (Engineering Consultant, LEB
team 1). It is contested among the participants whether
IT tools for calculating energy features of the building
are enabling or constraining the process. Some players
see the tools as necessary to get the necessary valid cal-
culations, whereas others, predominantly architects, sees
the IT tools as constraining the interactive process, and
would prefer sound judgment (Architects, LEB team 1
and GB team 4). [15] similarly notes that engineering
energy design IT-tools are evaluative, rather than pre-
scriptive, which appears to constrain the engineering in
early phase design. Also scheduling is seen as an am-
biguous tool: the process has to be creative and interac-
tive but the process is short (3 months) and intensive (GB
team 3). Another contested element is how engineers
manages their new role; both the architects and the engi-
neers points at the need of a more open minded approach
towards design opportunities, rather than problem solv-

C. KOCH, H. BUHL 297
ing. Most of the architects, interviewed evaluate the en-
gineers as underperforming in this respect, although the
interviewed engineers claimed to be focusing on these
competences. This emphasizes the fundamental differ-
ences between the professions and their perception of
each other.
The barriers for IDP currently seem to be the limited
experience of most players, resource limitations, team
recruitment and tools. The investigated projects suffered
from significant resource limitations, hindering the fos-
tering of the process innovation—a barrier which can be
labeled the “Tyranny” of projects [18]. For some compa-
nies IDP is still to be adopted as a business strategy to
support the development of IDP (presently two out of
eight companies can be said to have such a strategy). By
recruiting professionals with IDP experience and/or do-
ing internal training the companies would enable the
processes also beyond cases where building requirements
and clients would require it [4]. The lack of tools and
procedures to support the enforced interaction is re-
markable. Neither [14,15] nor [13] have process models
and tools directly provided for the process. One player
refers to foreign books, but also rejects them (Engineer-
ing Consultant, GB team 4). CIB’s ideas of using Build-
ing Information Models (BIM) and lean are not articu-
lated [19]. As the two build ing projects studied were still
under construction, it is not possible to evaluate the de-
gree to which the climate objectives will be met, as one
can expect the design to be challenged by cost cutting in
the construction phase. At the presentation of both the
designs, after the competitions, the energy features were
highly flagged: at the LEB competition, team 1 actually
provided the strongest proposal with a design were the
house as such could be built with a negative energy con-
sumption balance. This was characterized as excellent
design by the evaluation committee. Team 2 wins the
competition however, with a better balance between
given design criteria; including (other) user requirements.
It was subsequently announced that the building would
comply to EBPD level 1 requirements, and with active
involvement of future users in changing energy consum-
ing behaviors. There was however nothing mentioned in
the competition evaluation about future higher levels of
EU-regulation, but merely a reference to contemporary
Danish regulation, which at the time referred to EBPD
[17]. At the GB competition the winning project (team 4)
designed a building actively producing energy, with en-
ergy neutral dwellings, and simultaneously healthy, with
good indoor climate and quality of life (for the future
occupants). The client’s consultant observed that some
teams had not assured consistency within the material
handed in, despite the calls intention of close collabora-
tion (Client Consultant, GB). The cases studied represent
clients going beyond present building regulation, and
consulting enterprises with the competences needed, in
contrast to results by [4] showing that most consulting
engineering companies studied in Norway prefer to stick
to existing build ing regulation (which is probab ly parallel
to Danish consultants). Going beyond the building regu-
lation implies that the design teams embark on less well
defined ground in setting the environmental level in the
design and balancing it with other criteria such as cost.
At LEB the initial design ambition was to design the
building without photovoltaic or thermal panels as such
solutions were perceived as too easy by the engineers.
The design building complies with EBPD 2015 or energ y
class 1 without using panels or energy producing tech-
nologies. This is obtained by a thorough design of the
building envelope using special windows and a range of
other technologies such as regenerative elevators and
solar preheating of ventilation air. The proposed design
solution includes an possible extension using panels, a
vertical windmill and thermal heating, green energy pro-
ducing technologies that improves the energy perform-
ance further. Moreover it is intended to continue to opti-
mize the energy balance of the building through control
systems, ventilation and cooling systems. In the LEB
case, synthesized design appeared to master this balance
better than design focusing only on energy. The building
envelope of GB is characterised by higher isolation abil-
ity and higher airtightness. Photovoltaic panels and com-
bined photovo ltaic-thermal is used as solution to the lim-
ited roof space compared to the size of the building.
However when present building regulation is not used,
then other higher, but still normative levels are referred
to, i.e. the “active house” criteria, meaning that the house
produce energy rather than consuming it [20]. Notably at
this early stage of design there is no attempt to refer to
broader standards and norms for sustainability such as
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen (DGNB,
German Sustainable Building Council [21]) or Leader-
ship in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED [22]).
These norms would extend the focus on the building and
the product, whic h was adopted here.
7. Conclusion
A range of green energy technologies is incorporated in
the design of the two building projects analysed in this
article. The projects, as well as Danish and international
variants, show that ambiguous concepts of IDP exist, and
the architects and eng ineers work hard to utilize the con-
cepts, even when directly involved . Difficult negotiations
amongst the participants have to be carried out to assure
consensus. The particip ating engineers, architects, clients
and clients counsellers agree that an increased interdisci-
plinary interaction in the design team is necessary in or-
der to tackle the increased complexity of sustainable

C. KOCH, H. BUHL 298
building design involving green energy technology. This
tendency changes the traditional roles and responsibili-
ties in the design process which leads to misalignments
of expectations in the design team. The projects studied
represent clients willing to go beyond present public
building regulation. This implies that the design teams
embark on less well defined ground in setting the envi-
ronmental level in the design and balancing it with other
criteria such as cost. Even then the tendency of the de-
sign teams is to refer to other standards, which are
slightly tighter than the present regulation, impairing a
more creative design, which is actually counter to the
ideas of integrated design. IDP still seems to be a prom-
ising concept for Green Energy Engineering as these
issues hopefully would be overcome in the future.
8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Esben L. Haubjerg for
doing interviews and other data collection and do the first
analysis of the material.
REFERENCES
[1] Danish Commission on Climate Change Policy, “Green
Energy—The Road to a Danish Energy System without
Fossil Fuels,” Danish Commission on Climate, Copenha-
gen, 2010.
[2] R. Pernick and C. Wilder, “The Clean Tech Revolution:
Discover the Top Technologies a nd Companies to Wa t ch ,”
Collins Business, New York, 2008.
[3] R. Marsh, V. G. Larsen and M. Kragh, “Housing and
energy in Denmark: Pa st, Present, and Future Chall en ges ,”
Building Research & Information, Vol. 38, No. 1, 2011,
pp. 92-106. doi:10.1080/09613210903226608
[4] T. S. Hojem and V. A. Lagesen, “Doing Environmental
Concerns in Consulting Engineering,” Engineering Stud-
ies, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2011, pp. 123-143.
[5] C. Brunsgaard, M.-A. Knudstrup and P. Heiselberg, “Ex-
periences from the Design Processes of the First ‘Comfort
Houses’ in Denmark,” Proceedings of the Nordic Con-
ference on Passive House, Göteborg, 27-29 April 2009.
[6] B. Czarniawska and G. Sevon, “Translating Organiza-
tional Change,” Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 1996.
doi:10.1515/9783110879735
[7] C. Koch, P. H. Rasmussen and P. Vogelius, “New Man-
agement and Working Life—The Forced Marriage,” In: H.
Hvid and P. Hasle, Eds., Human Development in Working
Life, Ashgate, Aldershot, 2003, pp. 41-65.
[8] K. Moe, “Integrated Design in Contemporary Architec-
ture,” Princeton Architectural Press, New York, 2008.
[9] A. Zimmerman, “Integrated Design Process Guide,” Can-
ada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Ottawa, 2006.
[10] G. Löhnert, A. Dalkowski and W. Sutter, “Integrated De-
sign Process. A Guideline for Sustainable and Solar-Op-
timised Building Design,” International Energy Agency
(IEA), Berlin, 2003.
[11] C. Brunsgaard, “Strengths and Weaknesses of Different
Approaches of IDP,” Aalborg University, Aalborg, 2009,
DCE Technical Report No. 74.
[12] M. Keeler and B. Burke, “Fundamentals of Integrated
Desig n f o r S u sta i n a b l e Bui l ding , ” W ile y, N e w York , 2009.
[13] H. T. R. Hansen and M. Knudstrup, “The Integrated De-
sign Process (IDP): A More Holistic Approach to Sus-
tainable Architecture,” In: S. Murakami and T. Yashiro
Eds., Action for Sustainability: The 2005 World Sustain-
able Building Conference, Tokyo National Conference
Board, 2005, pp. 894-901.
[14] S. Petersen and S. Svendsen, “Method for Component-
Based Economical Optimisation for Use in Design of
New Low-Energy Buildings,” Renewable Energy, Vol. 38,
No. 1, 2012, pp. 173-180.
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2011.07.019
[15] S. Petersen and S. Svendsen, “Method and Simulation
Program Informed Decisions in the Early Stages of Bui ld-
ing Design,” Energy and Building, Vol. 42, No. 7, 2010,
pp. 1113-1119.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/133983505/Petersen_-Sven
dsen---2010---Method-and-simulation-program-informed-
decisions-in-the-early-stages-of-building-design
doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.02.002
[16] E. L. Haubjerg, “Team Performance in Integrated Design
Processes—How to Improve Team Performance in Inte-
grated Design Processes in Construction Competitions,”
Master Thesis, Institute of Business and Technology,
Aarhus University, Aarhus, 2010.
[17] European Commission, “Directive 2002/91/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December
2002 on the Energy Performance of Buildings,” Official
Journal of the European Communities, Vol. 1, 2003, pp.
65-70.
[18] C. Koch, “The Tyranny of Projects—Teamworking, Or-
ganisational Knowledge and Project Management in
Consulting Engineering,” Economic and Industrial De-
mocracy, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2004, pp. 270-292.
[19] CIB, “CIB White Paper on IDDS,” CIB Publication 328,
2009.
[20] G. Gylling, M. Knudstrup, P. K. Heiselberg and E. K.
Hansen, “Measuring Sustainable Homes—A Mixed Me-
thods Approach,” Proceedings ARCC 2011—Considering
Research: Reflecting upon Current Themes in Architec-
tural Research, Architectural Research Centers Consor-
tium, Detroit, 2011.
[21] DGNB, “Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen,”
DGNB, German Sustainable Building Council, 2013.
http://www.dgnb.de
[22] USGBC, “Leadership in Energy and Environmental De-
sign,” United States Green Building Council (USGBC),
2013. http://new.usgbc.org/leed