FEDERAL INTERIOR DESIGN FOUNDATION The State of Federal Interior Design Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2015 https://archive.org/details/stateoffederalinOObond THE STATE OF FEDERAL INTERIOR DESIGN White Paper Prepared by The Council of Federal Interior Designers for The National Endowment for the Arts Washington, DC. March 1988 Condensed Version Published by the Federal Interior Design Foundation PO. Box 27565, Washington, DC 20038 April, 1990 "Federal buildings are buildings for people to use. We own them. We aren’t building for any one agency, but as a national symbol. Buildings become our heritage, so we should have the best." -Federal executive in charge of facilities development THE STATE OF FEDERAL INTERIOR DESIGN TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction HOW THIS REPORT CAME TO BE i SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS 1 Part 1 FEDERAL INTERIOR DESIGN TODAY 3 1 . 1 Status of Designers 3 1.2 Variety and Quality of Projects 3 1.3 The Private Sector View of Design Quality 4 1.4 Reasons for Uneven Quality 4 1.5 Recognition 4 Part 2 INTERIOR DESIGN RESOURCES 6 2.1 Offices and People 6 2.2 Job Responsibilities 6 2.3 Education and Experience 6 2.4 Technology 6 2.5 Design Budgets and Funding 7 2.6 The Private Sector 7 2.7 Private Sector Attitudes Toward Federal Work 8 2.8 The General Services Administration 9 Part 3 INTERIOR DESIGN POLICIES 10 3.1 Policy Formation and Enforcement 10 3.2 Omissions in Policy 10 3.3 Selection and Space Utilization Policies 10 Part 4 PROCESS AND IMPLEMENTATION 12 4.1 Process Phases 12 4.2 Fragmentation of the Process 12 4.3 Concerns About Timeliness 1 3 4.4 Client Education 13 Table of Contents Part 5 JOB SATISFACTION AND DISSATISFACTION 14 5.1 Job Satisfaction 14 5.2 Dissatisfaction 14 5.3 Critical Issues 14 Part 6 RECOMMENDATIONS 17 6.1 Respondents’ Suggestions 17 6.2 The Recommendations 17 Part 7 APPENDIX 20 7.1 Study Methods 20 7.2 Terms Used 20 7.3 Survey Respondents and Interview List 21 Introduction HOW THIS REPORT CAME TO BE In 1988, the Design Arts Program of the National Endowment for the Arts commissioned six White Papers on the design professions in the federal government. The papers covered architecture, interior design, graphic design, urban design and planning, historic preserva- tion, and landscape architecture. The Endowment’s objective was to analyze "the state of federal design" to help guide its thinking in undertaking new program initiatives. The Council of Federal Interior Designers (CFID) was the recipient of a grant to prepare the study of interior design. The resulting White Paper, based on a lengthy ques- tionnaire and numerous individual interviews, was submitted to the Endowment in March 1989. This report is a condensation of that White Paper. It contains the same information as the original in a shorter and more easily referenced form. The only major change is that the original document contained recommendations for the Endowment in its efforts to assist the federal interior design community. Here, recom- mendations for CFID actions have been substituted. Readers are urged to think about these recommendations and communicate their views to the CFID leadership. Acknowledgements CFID would like to thank the National Endowment for the Arts for the funding that en- abled us to undertake and complete both the White Paper and this report. Thomas B. Grooms, of the Design Arts Program, was a helpful and exacting mentor. Equal thanks are due to the many people who took the time to fill out our lengthy ques- tionnaire and to share their insights and opinions in interviews. Without exception the interviewees were courteous, knowledgeable, and enthusiastic. In spite of the heavy workload in federal and private design offices, all responded to our requests for assistance with exceptional generosity. Marlene Hoyne-White of GSA also provided useful help. CFID Committee for the White Paper Charles Blumberg, CFID, FIBD, Chairman Lois Bennett, CFID National Institutes of Health Anthony Waller, CFID General Services Administration Kathy L. Baxter, President, CFID Library of Congress Evagene H. Bond Researcher and Author 1 Washington, DC March, 1990 THE STATE OF FEDERAL INTERIOR DESIGN SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS • Interior design is a young profession. Its maturation is still going on, but can be meas- ured by the existence of a body of knowledge that can be taught, transmitted, and tested; and by the growth of organizations to set standards of competence. • Interior designers enjoy more respect and recognition in the federal government than they commonly suppose, as measured by educational requirements, supervisor support, a new OPM qualification standard, the degree of responsibility they are given, and an in- crease in numbers of interior designers since the mid-1970s. • But the recognition is not widespread. Six agencies employ 90 percent of the interior designers in federal service. • Two-thirds of the survey respondents rate their jobs as good or excellent. However, the third who rate their jobs fair or poor constitute a significant minority. • Among all survey respondents, five "critical issues" stand out as sources of dissatisfac- tion. The five are:' -Lack of money: budget reductions, the uncertainty of funding, and an emphasis on the bottom line; -Lack of understanding of the interior designer’s contribution to design from top management and coworkers; -Lack of time and concurrent increases in workload; -Lack of involvement in the whole design process, especially project implementa- tion; and —Lack of upward mobility. • The quality of federal interior design ranges from poor to excellent, with most projects in the middle ranges. Though they work on a wide variety of projects, many federal de- signers complain of "standard" design. The consensus is that the government doesn’t get better design because it does not ask for it. • Private sector designers value government work and consider the government a good employer, but do not find the work innovative or exciting. They think they can produce design for private clients less expensively, faster, and more efficiently than for the gov- ernment. 1 The State of Federal Interior Design • Policies could be strengthened to express a philosophy of design, to encourage the inclu- more control over the design product. Policies that cover daily decision making are adequate, if subject to variation in the degree of compliance. • Interior designers and ID offices rely on their own record of performance to "sell" their services. They do little active communication on their own behalf. • The vertical organization of the design and installation process leads to fragmentation that adversely affects the quality, cost, and timely completion of design in the federal government. Complicating factors include the large number of people with a say in the process and the exclusion of designers from decision making at critical points. 2 The State of Federal Interior Design Part 1 FEDERAL INTERIOR DESIGN TODAY 1.1 Status of Designers Interior design is a young profession. It has evolved only since the 1920s (from the work of a few society decorators with "flair") to the status it holds today as a discipline with a body of knowledge that can be taught and tested — one of the primary definitions of a profession. The marks of its emergence as a profession include accredited degree pro- grams, tests, and certification and licensing mechanisms. Interior design is also a relatively new presence in the federal government. It is only since the 1970s that interior designers have been incorporated in any numbers into the federal facilities process. The increase in numbers came about because of the expansion of the government; because of the continually changing space needs in government agencies; and because of an increased recognition of the links between productivity, satisfaction, and the working environment. In about 15 years, interior designers have made significant strides toward winning profes- sional respect, although, ironically, many designers complain about what they perceive as the lack of respect. Nevertheless, most supervisors of ID programs (many of them architects) acknowledge the distinct skills and experience interior designers must possess; pay tribute to the importance of interior design in the building process; and speak highly of the contribution of IDs to the design team. As a federal architect who now runs a military awards program says, "If you want a specialist, you hire a specialist." Recognition is also reflected in job requirements and responsibilities. Interior design degrees are required to hold jobs at the journeyman level. Education, skills, and experi- ence are also acknowledged in a new (though limited) Office of Personnel Management qualifications standard. Interior designers are given a high degree of responsibility for large projects. 1.2 Variety and Quality of Projects Most federal interior design projects are for office space; health projects are the next most common. IDs also work on training centers and classrooms, laboratories, dining facilities, visitor centers, shopping malls, courthouses, housing, and recreation and leisure facilities. Projects range from a few thousand to several million dollars and from a few hundred to many thousand square feet and include new construction, renovation, and historic preser- vation and adaptive reuse. The quality of this work, either produced or contracted for by federal design offices, is uneven, ranging from what one designer calls "vanilla," or blandly inoffensive, to very good. A significant number of federal designers complain about "standard" projects, suggesting that many projects fall somewhere in the middle. 3 The State of Federal Interior Design 1.3 The Private Sector View of Design Quality Several private sector designers say that government design is not very imaginative; "you don’t look to the federal government for cutting edge projects," says one. While many federal projects have the potential to be exceptional, goals for function and economy tend to override aesthetic goals. Federal clients are likely to say, "This project must cost no more than $75 million; if there’s anything left over you can do something good," according to one private designer. Another says, "Projects are limited in scope, not size." 1.4 Reasons for Uneven Quality Many health care facilities and scientific installations are highly sophisticated technically, a private sector designer says. Government restorations in historic buildings are often done to very high standards. One private designer says that government constraints in themselves can present challenges and inspire interesting solutions. Thus, if "we don’t get good design [it is] because we don’t ask for it," says one federal designer, and study participants advance several related reasons for uneven or mediocre quality. In their concern for keeping immediate costs low, agencies may fail to consider the long- range benefits of good design in terms of maintenance and productivity. There is also a pervasive attitude that Robert A. Stone, a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, calls the "minimum essential" mindset — that is, an attitude that calls for the least expenditure for the least product. In this view, good design (translated as "good looking" design) is under suspicion as wasteful. One private architect acknowledges that public officials try conscientiously to fill their role as watchdogs of public spending, and opt for low-profile design in the fear "they’ll be nailed with a Golden Fleece Award" for spending money on facilities that may be perceived as too lavish or luxurious. Finally, the interiors community could echo a comment in the White Paper on architecture prepared for the Endowment. The paper says all but a few agencies lack "a philosophy that drives [the design] program" and quotes a statement from a 1962 GSA document, Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture: Design "must provide efficient and economi- cal facilities for the use of Government agencies.. ..[and] visual testimony to the dignity, enterprise, vigor, and stability of the American Government." But such statements are rare, and few know of or follow them. 1.5 Recognition Opportunities for recognition for good work are relatively scarce. A few agencies (espe- cially the military) conduct their own design awards programs and a few private sector competitions have categories for federal work. The National Endowment for the Arts conducts its Presidential Awards for Design Excel- lence program every four years, but few federal interior design projects are submitted (or win), in part because of the lack of time and money to prepare the entries. Some interiors work that would qualify is submitted in architecture or historic preservation categories. 4 The State of Federal Interior Design Some work is not intrinsically interesting — "standard projects" are "not the kind of thing that win awards." Not all federal designers think they should enter competitions; "it’s my job to give government workers good, clean, functional, economical work space, not to win prizes," says one. 5 The Slate of Federal Interior Design Part 2 INTERIOR DESIGN RESOURCES 2.1 Offices and People About 400 people function as interior designers and supervisors of interior design pro- grams in the federal government, according to CFID estimates. About half are CFID members. Although interior designers work in nearly 40 agencies here and abroad, about 90 percent are concentrated in only six agencies: the Veterans’ Administration (91 designers, by CFID estimates); the General Services Administration (60); the Air Force (49); the Army (30); the Navy (26); and the State Department (16). But design offices average fewer than 10 people, so designers are widely dispersed. Turnover is low. 2.2 Job Responsibilities Where the number of designers in an agency is small, the professionals tend to have little involvement with actual interior design projects. Instead, they write space use policies, directives, or guidelines; assist nonprofessionals to do design; or administer private sector contracts for interior design. Where numbers are large, interior designers are likely to be contract administrators, over- seeing projects carried out by contractors from the private sector. But they are also in- volved in traditional design activities — programming, design, and selection and specifica- tion of furniture, finishes, materials, and equipment — especially for smaller projects (often those under about $200,000) and for repetitive jobs like space planning. Few have ultimate sign-off responsibility but many do have considerable decision making authority in various stages of projects. 2.3 Education and Experience Most designers are recruited through various government hiring channels. An interior design degree and interior design experience in the private and/or public sectors are usual- ly, and at journeyman levels virtually always, required. Supervisors have almost always risen through the government ranks; most have 13 to 20 years of service; if they have design training (most do not) they usually have architectural degrees. Journeyman designer level is GS-1 1 or -12 (in the Veterans’ Administration, GS-7 or -9). To rise above that level, designers must almost always take on supervisory responsibilities. Few have passed the NCIDQ test, which is not required for government employment. If they belong to a professional association, it is likely to be CFID, not one of the private sector organizations. 2.4 Technology Perhaps half of the offices have computer assisted design (CAD) capability. Many have FAX machines and most use computers for word processing. Other uses of computers (for tracking projects and making spread sheets, for instance) are rare. Some offices are hiring designers as communications specialists to meet the automation needs of client agencies. 6 The State of Federal Interior Design 2.5 Design Budgets and Funding The government spends millions of dollars on interior design, but even to estimate the amount is impossible at this point. Project scope and costs vary enormously. A typical project for one agency may be the purchase of draperies for a small office; for another it is the complete planning, design, and furnishing of a new building. Costs may range from five thousand to several million dol- lars. One agency reports that a typical project costs $350,000,000, but this figure illustrates one of the difficulties of estimating interior design expenditures; it almost certainly includes construction and/or installation costs. In other words, the cost of design is frequently inseparable from other project costs. It would be necessary to go back through individual project contracts agency by agency to get an even approximately accurate total; survey respondents do not have access to these figures. The situation is summed up in the expla- nation of one respondent who says, "Our agency’s budget includes money for salaries, interior design, construction, contract administration and research. Money for new con- struction and rehabilitation comes from other budgets, so [our italics] interior design is a percentage of an unknown total." The picture is further complicated by the multiplicity of methods for funding projects. In many instances, client agencies have funds for projects and the design office stays within that budget. Clients who use GSA services may reimburse GSA for part or all of the cost of design services. In some military offices, a project is designed and cost estimates are submitted before funding is approved. In other cases, Congress appropriates money to an agency, which divides it among its regions; some is allocated to design. If there is money in the agency budget at the end of the year or if the agency receives an unexpected extra allocation, the design office may also receive some. Some have money only for furniture or finishes. In other cases interior design work is funded or managed by other entities within the agency, like engineering, procurement, or supply. Meanwhile, in a climate of federal cost cutting, design budgets stay the same or decrease (while workloads stay the same or increase). A Veterans Administration designer reports a cut in her budget for furniture and finishes from $1 19,000 to $31,000. Projects are done piecemeal; others are deferred, sometimes for years. It may be months or years before funding is approved or available; in one GSA office, the section chief had spent her annual budget by August; approved projects went back into the pipeline. The amount of federal work done by private contractors seems to be decreasing; each of the eight private contractors who responded to the survey reported lower billings in 1988 than in 1987 and one says there seem to be fewer requests for proposals for design work than formerly. 2.6 The Private Sector Whether the government is doing less work or giving less to the private sector is not clear, although other sources report a recent trend to hire private contractors. The decision to use a private firm depends on the workload in the federal design office, the policy of the agency, and on the size of the job. 7 In most regions, GSA does as much work as possible in house. Some agencies do the smaller projects in house and contract larger ones. For instance, the National Park Service handles projects under $200,000 in the regional offices and larger ones through the Denver Service Center. Other agencies use contractors to fill in when time or in-house expertise are in short supply. Again, however, it is hard to tell just how much interior design work is contracted, as many government agencies hire interior design services as part of an architectural or archi- tectural and engineering package. In GSA, private contractors may hold "term contracts" that make them eligible for work as it becomes available. Others are hired by the job. In either case, most are hired by a standard process — responding to a request for proposals followed by interviews and fee negotiations. A low estimate is usually a critical factor in selection, though GSA is exper- imenting with other procedures. Most jobs involve new construction. Private firms in the survey say they are used most frequently for pre-design and programming, schematic design, and the preparation of contract documents. 2.7 Private Sector Attitudes Toward Federal Work Private firms like federal work for several reasons. It can provide a steady base of income, a hedge against fluctuations in other work. Survey respondents consider government contracts "fair and generally profitable"; they call the government "a good employer that pays its bills on time (unlike many developers)." Government work often gives them interesting technical challenges or the opportunity to gain experience in new fields so as to diversify their practices. Federal projects have helped one design firm attract topflight staff members. Another finds that government constraints "force us to be very creative." The private firms generally characterize their relations with government agencies as good to excellent (as do government designers). They describe government design personnel as "professional, aboveboard, and bending over to be fair" in dealings with private firms. But private designers say that for private sector clients they can produce design faster, more efficiently, and almost certainly less expensively. The whole process of getting federal work done is, they think, unduly complicated. Typical complaints include the following: • The government system has too many players with too many separate agendas, rules, and systems; there is undue emphasis on "following procedures, meeting deadlines, and not making waves." • A major complaint is that separating design from procurement and installation leads to delays, slow decision making, "sloppy interoffice communication," "fre- quent changes of direction," and "politics." • Private designers also find that top management, client agencies, and contract- ing and procurement offices neither understand design issues nor appreciate the designer’s role. Client agency descriptions of the scope of work are often unsatis- factory. The public design offices themselves are guilty of "poor client manage- ment"; for instance, "end user input [should be kept] to a reasonable level." 8 The Slate of Federal Interior Design • Federal requirements for documentation can be onerous and expensive, a fact, they say, that the government seems not to recognize. They also dislike the Federal Supply Schedules and GSA’s current policies for space utilization rates. 2.8 The General Services Administration The Public Buildings Service (PBS) of the General Services Administration plays an important (though not omnipotent) role in the performance of interior design in the federal government. Most agencies in the executive branch of the federal government are housed in GSA owned or leased space and are required to turn to PBS in most decisions about space, including space assignment and space alterations. Even so, in response to the desire of many agencies to exercise more control, GSA often delegates a building to the agency to operate and maintain. In delegated buildings, an agency is free to make its own space decisions and purchases without approval by GSA. The military, the legislative branch, the judiciary, the Postal Service, and many other agencies have similar independence. Some of these agencies plan, design, and install their own projects. Others become GSA clients for programming, space layout, and installation. Complaints about GSA are frequent. While some consider the agency "a partner and an asset," many object to its policies and to the length and complexity of its space delivery process. Such complaints may result from misunderstanding, even among its own em- ployees, of the magnitude and complexity of GSA’s mission, and GSA officials say they are trying to put into effect "a new way of doing business" that will give both client agen- cies and GSA employees tools to pursue excellence in design within flexible guidelines. 9 The State of Federal Interior Design Part 3 INTERIOR DESIGN POLICIES 3.1 Policy Formation and Enforcement About 75 per cent of the agencies that responded to the survey have written policies, guide- lines, or standards to guide interior design decision making, and others follow established project formats. Some offices write policies locally; respondents rank the creation of policies among the best achievements of their offices. Sometimes policies are written by a central office which disseminates them in the regions; these are likely to be less popular. In general, policies cover the day to day practice of interior design. They set design stand- ards or minimum performance standards for design, space planning, and (sometimes) art and signage; and guide the selection of finishes, furnishings, and materials. Many incorpo- rate GSA policies and other standards (fire safety codes, for instance) into their own. However, many respondents complain that the policy making process is marred by bad communications and red tape and that policies are not updated frequently enough. In addition, only about half the respondents say the policies are effective or enforced. Although in some offices (about a third), policies have the force of regulations, there are few enforcement mechanisms. Where enforcement is weak, respondents blame managements that do not understand the importance of policies or give priority to following them. "Higher-ups deviate" from policy, respondents say. "Politics," interference in the design process by unqualified people, indifference, procedural breakdowns, and budget constraints are contributing fac- tors in policy failures. To improve compliance, respondents suggest making policies mandatory, forming review committees, and engaging management support for enforce- ment. 3.2 Omissions in Policy While existing policies cover day to day decision making, very few policies take a broader view of design in the federal government. For instance, as the White Paper on architecture said, agencies cannot point to a philosophy (which might be expressed as a policy) that drives the design program. Moreover, only a few agencies with ID programs have policies that require the participa- tion of interior designers in most or all facilities projects; that give designers authority to decide what constitutes good design; that protect the design package during implementa- tion; that give clients guidelines for the most effective use of the designer; or that regulate funding. Most respondents would like to see policies of this type written and enforced. 3.3 Selection and Space Utilization Policies Three types of regulations, promulgated to save money and prevent conflicts of interest, have almost universal impact on the federal interior design community. 10 The Slate of Federal Interior Design The first are the Federal Supply Service schedules from which many designers must select furniture, finishes, equipment, and materials. Many designers complain that selections for the schedules are based on low price only; and that the schedules themselves are too complicated; offer too few choices; change too frequently; and make it too hard to go "off schedule." The designer’s choices are also affected by Unicor — Federal Prison Industries Inc. -- a self-supporting wholly owned government corporation set up by the Justice Department to provide job training and useful employment to convicts. Unicor has started producing systems furniture, and because of federal acquisition regulations has come to be viewed by many purchasing officers as a mandatory sole source supplier. Where this is true, many interior designers complain of the restriction of their freedom of choice, especially as most consider Unicor’s prices high, its quality low, and its delivery unreliable. To help reduce the amount of space agencies use (and the government’s leasing costs), the General Services Administration has required that office space utilization rates average 135 square feet per person or less, a requirement that could be met by the use of systems furniture. The regulation, known as D-73, has been universally unpopular (and thoroughly misunder- stood, according to GSA officials). However, a new space utilization regulation has been drafted and was being circulated for comment in 1989. The new regulation will allow GSA’s clients to establish their own space needs on the basis of function, using guidelines that reflect current professional standards for prudent space planning. 11 The Slate of Federal Interior Design Part 4 PROCESS AND IMPLEMENTATION 4.1 Process Phases There are dozens of variations in the process by which a project comes into the federal design office, is funded, designed, approved, and implemented. In general, however, if an agency is involved in traditional design activities — as opposed to contract administration or policy writing — the process has three major phases. First, the client agency initiates the process with a request for services and supplies a budget estimate and a program. Second, the design or space planning team works with the client agency’s representatives to refine the program; it then develops space layouts, furnishings recommendations, and other design products; and prepares plans, specifica- tions, and work orders. Third, the project is turned over to procurement agents and/or engineering and construction branches for buying and installation. The client agency or an agency organization with oversight or policy responsibilities, not the design office, usually does a post occupancy evaluation (if it is done at all), looking for proper functioning and correct installation. 4.2 Fragmentation of the Process The phases of the project overlap only minimally; and designers are typically involved primarily in the second, the design phase. One respondent calls this separation of respon- sibility "vertical organization," and contrasts it with the "horizontal organization" of the private sector, where a project team comprising representatives of client, design team, and contractor work together under the guidance of one leader. Some agencies try to promote a team approach to design, but few report much success. The failure to involve designers more fully in all stages of the project, especially in the installation, is a major source of dissatisfaction among federal designers. At least half the survey respondents say they have "seen the last of the project" after construction or design intent documents are approved or the final presentation of the design package is made. Since procurement and installation people are rarely required to follow the designer’s specifications, it is not uncommon for a designer to express surprise at the design outcome when visiting the completed project. Others who have input — and who can occasionally affect design decisions — include facil- ities managers; realty, telecommunications, leasing, or build-out specialists; consultants; program analysts; shop foremen; planners and estimators; architects and engineers; clerks; construction managers; lessors’ agents; private contractors; and laborers. End users’ needs are considered in the programming phase, but only a few programmers solicit extensive end user input. Post occupancy evaluations are rarely concerned with the satisfaction of end user needs. It is the policy at most agencies to implement the project as designed. But changes 12 The State of Federal Interior Design "happen all the time anyway," often at the instigation of end users (who are on site and concerned) and are accommodated, if minor. 4.3 Concerns About Timeliness Completion of work "in a timely fashion" is a source of concern, especially to supervisors. It can take from 10 days to seven years to complete the process from pre-design through design development, and from 60 days to four years from construction documents to completion. Projects may be proposed for two or three years before work gets started. These ranges are not necessarily abnormal, given the size and complexity of some projects, but respondents frequently express frustration over project delays, which they attribute to the complexity of the process, delays in funding, confusion over departmental priorities, and "politics." 4.4 Client Education To help combat these problems, some design offices produce educational materials and maintain liaison with other departments. But in general designers say doing good work and increasing one-on-one contact with their clients are the best ways of facilitating project delivery, educating clients and colleagues, and gaining recognition for the value of their contributions. 13 The State of Federal Interior Design Part 5 JOB SATISFACTION AND DISSATISFACTION 5.1 Job Satisfaction Most supervisors and two-thirds of the designers who completed the CFID questionnaire rate morale, attitude, and level of job excitement good or excellent. Their positive attitude has two components — belief that the design office is accomplishing its mission and work that brings personal and professional fulfillment. Successfully completed projects rank highest on the list of office achievements. An office that consistently completes projects has fulfilled the respondents’ definition of its mission — to give its clients professional, timely, efficient service and to produce high quality, functional, cost efficient design that responds to the client agency’s needs. Improvements in the process that lead to the completion of projects and the establishment of design policies and guidelines are also considered important achievements. The factors that contribute most to personal satisfaction are challenging and varied design work and opportunities for independent assignments. A typical comment is that "not even in the private sector do you get so much variety and responsibility." Government work also offers job security, competitive salaries, regular and predictable hours, good fringe benefits, competent colleagues, and the opportunity to make significant contributions to the well being of others, respondents say. 5.2 Dissatisfaction A third of the survey respondents, a substantial minority, say their jobs are average or poor in morale, attitude, and level of job excitement. The causes of dissatisfaction are the reverse of the above and center on dull, badly coordi- nated, or poorly implemented design work hedged by bureaucratic and financial con- straints. "Standard" projects, especially those that do not get executed, are a common complaint. Other frequent complaints include GSA regulations and mandatory sources; low standards in both policy and execution; lack of inter- and intra-agency coordination; the need for CAD software, equipment, and training; and the inadequacy of their own work stations. 5.3 Critical Issues Regardless of the degree of job satisfaction, some complaints are voiced by almost every survey respondent at every level of responsibility. The pervasiveness of the following complaints - the "critical issues" — is one of the most important findings of the study. Moreover, the findings closely parallel those of all the researchers in the National Endow- 14 The State of Federal Interior Design merit’s multi-disciplinary "state of federal design" study, suggesting that the problems exist throughout the government design community. 5.3.1 The first of these, ranked at the top of the list, is the lack of money. Low budgets, uncertain funding sources, and budget cutting, with the concomitant increase in the work- load, are the sources of much frustration. 5.3.2 The next critical issue is the lack of understanding of and respect and support for interior design and designers’ contributions to the success of government facilities. While ranked second, this issue is the one designers think is responsible for other problems. If they were held in higher regard by more knowledgeable coworkers, they reason, they would be likely to enjoy larger budgets, a greater degree of influence in the design process, and greater upward mobility. Respondents cite improvements in regard and understanding among the greatest achieve- ments of their offices. Examples of improvements include getting a general officer to include interior design as a separate category in an awards program; winning acceptance from clients; being accepted as an authority by the procurement staff; and educating cli- ents. Interior designers and many supervisors direct their complaints about lack of recognition at three groups of people. Top Managers. Most of the people who head federal agencies and who make crucial design decisions are neither trained in nor sympathetic to design issues, designers think. As clients or managers, they neither ask for nor care about design excellence. Nor do they support the efforts of those who do; for instance, they will bend, ignore, or fail to enforce policies about design, especially if their own spaces are involved ("the Colonel gets what he wants " is a truism). This is the most strongly voiced complaint of all, and it is voiced by federal and private survey respondents at all levels. Nonprofessionals in the Design Process. This category, with nearly as many complaints, includes wives and secretaries, end users (workers), realty specialists, and other non-designers who affect design decisions without knowledge of the issues involved. But most complaints are directed at procurement and supply officers. For the most part, the people who do the buying for design projects have little training in nor understanding of interior design; they often replace specified items with less expensive or inappropriate substitutions. Whether the intent is to save money, to protect power, or simply to follow regulations, the result is often to subvert the design intent. Co-professionals. The third group comprises co-professionals, mostly architects and engineers. They too lack sympathetic understanding of interior design, re- spondents believe. As designers see it, the architect, focused on the building shell, considers the interior a decorating problem and fails to give sufficient thought to its functioning. The engineer, with his concern for structural integrity, neither knows nor cares about the interiors. 5.3.3 The third critical issue encompasses both lack of time and its companion, a crush- ing workload. Up to a point, a heavy workload adds to job satisfaction; too much work 15 The State of Federal Interior Design causes burnout, and many designers, it appears, are reaching the point of overload. One designer lists as her office’s most significant achievement "cranking out an incredible number of square feet." The demand for interior design services is increasing and budgets are being cut. In addi- tion, federal design offices are not growing to meet the demand. Although turnover is low, so is growth. If staffs are increasing (about half are not), it is by one designer at a time, and several report (and CFID lists confirm) authorized but unfilled positions. Hiring staff is reported by several survey respondents in the significant achievement category. Since so much job satisfaction depends on completed work, it is not surprising that fully 90 percent, when asked the high priority goals for their offices, say, "Get the work done!" This response indicates a simple desire to finish the day’s or the month’s tasks, but the key word seems to be "done" - implemented, completed, finished - with "in a timely fashion" as the spoken or unspoken rider. 5 . 3.4 The fourth critical issue has several parameters, all related to the design office’s control over various phases of a project. The previous section discusses this issue in more detail. Meanwhile, in summary, the fragmentation of the design process and the exclusion of designers from control of the process, especially in the implementation phases, is a source of continual dissatisfaction. 5 . 3.5 The fifth critical issue can be called "lack of upward mobility." This issue encom- passes desires for better pay, career pathways that lead to higher grades, and more oppor- tunities for professional development. Largely through the efforts of CFID and the National Council for Interior Design Qualifi- cation (NCIDQ), the Office of Personnel Management has adopted a qualification standard that upgrades and updates the education and experience requirements for interior design- ers. The new standard addresses grades from GS-5, the entry level, to GS-15. The jour- neyman levels are Grades 1 1 and 12; above that, the designer must almost always take on supervisory responsibility, and many wish for career pathways that would enable them to increase their grade levels and pay while remaining designers. Moreover, the standard is not the designers’ "own"; rather, it is included in a catch-all series, GS-1001, General Arts and Information. The government itself offers almost no opportunities for training and development. Very few agencies will give time or money for staff members to attend continuing education programs or professional conclaves like NEOCON. Only three supervisors reported sending staff to conferences; only one reported a line item in the budget for staff develop- ment. 16 The Slate of Federal Interior Design Part 6 RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Respondents’ Suggestions Survey respondents were asked to suggest changes that would relieve dissatisfaction and improve interior design in the federal government. Most suggestions fell into two categories: To improve understanding of design and in- crease support from clients, colleagues and management; and to increase the size and effectiveness of the interior design office. Typical suggestions were to educate personnel; require interior design involvement in facilities projects throughout the government; in- crease staff; upgrade positions; and raise professional standards. Another group includes design-related goals (write guidelines, improve accuracy in draw- ings, improve our own workplace, introduce space planning to agency, etc.) The smallest category of goals is to get more money for salaries, projects, and contracts. 6.2 The Recommendations The following recommendations and proposed initiatives for CFID include respondents’ ideas and ideas suggested by material in the report. They are arranged in categories by priority, with the most important first. Categories and priorities were developed by the CFID White Paper committee for the longer report to the National Endowment for the Arts. First, three general comments. Much of the material in this report reflects responses from agencies that do a significant amount of traditional design. As a general rule, CFID should also find ways to respond to the interests and needs of other constituencies, like policy writers and contract administrators. The issues faced by private and public sector designers are different, and designers in the private sector do not necessarily have solutions to problems faced by government design- ers. However, federal designers may have much to learn from the private sector in terms of innovations in aesthetics, cost control, and project management and delivery. There- fore, CFID should find ways to increase the interaction between private and public sector designers. Improved communication is implicit in nearly all the recommendations. If there is one all- inclusive suggestion, it is that CFID take an active role communicating the value of design throughout the federal community — that it do what one respondent called "spreading the good news about design." 6.2.1 — Recommendations for Design Improvement CFID should undertake activities that create discussion and debate about the fundamental issues of design. What is design? What is excellence in design? What does design con- tribute to the built environment and to the national psyche? What is the symbolic value of design? The utility? Does the federal government produce good design, and if not, why not? 17 The Slate of Federal Interior Design This category is given highest priority because initiatives in this area will help create and reinforce a climate in which all design disciplines can do excellent work. 6.2.2 — Recommendations for Morale and Recognition CFID should take action to reward excellence in design, to establish standards of good design, and to call attention to the achievements of individual designers throughout the government. Standards of excellence should not be limited to aesthetic questions. —Develop and adopt a broad philosophy of design and communicate it throughout the government. -Codify standards of excellence for interior design and conduct awards programs in federal interior design. There should be many kinds of standards for making awards. 6.2.3 -- Recommendations for Education CFID should identify key audiences for the messages it wants to transmit and undertake by as many means as possible to educate these audiences about the value of good design and the importance of including designers early and throughout the design process. —Continue to encourage federal interior designers to create professional networks. Some ways include strengthening chapters; sponsoring local, state, and regional meetings, seminars, and workshops; increasing the frequency of the newsletter and including more news about chapters, people, and problem solving; and encouraging private/public interaction. -Undertake campaigns to educate various groups involved in the design process about the value of good design in the workplace. Among the objectives would be to support efforts to involve designers earlier and later in the process and to support agency outreach to client and installation entities. Such campaigns could be conducted in cooperation with individual or groups of agencies, and should emphasize increases in productivity, worker satisfaction, and and the ability of the client agency to accomplish its mission as a result of design. These campaigns should use as many media as possible — brochures, fliers, semi- nars and workshops, videotapes, competitions. —Identify agencies where policies give designers a significant degree of control and authority and where compliance with policies is high. (The Air Force and the Army have programs with many features that can be emulated.) CFID could disseminate effective policies and procedures and work to encourage adoption of similar policies. 6.2.4 -- Recommendations for Research To strengthen its case for the inclusion of designers in the entire process, for an increase in budgets, and for the writing of more rigorous job standards, CFID should conduct baseline studies to describe current practices. 18 The Slate of Federal Interior Design -Design and find funding for a study of budgeting and spending on interior design in the federal government. —Design and find funding for a study of job descriptions, workloads, productivity, and morale. 6.2.5 -- Recommendations for Interior Design Standards CFID should take steps to encourage the highest standards of professionalism in federal interior design. —Continue to work to raise the awareness of interior designers of the importance of the organizations that contribute to the definition of interior design as a profession. Such organizations include the National Council for Interior Design Qualification (NCIDQ); the Foundation for Interior Design Education Research (FIDER), the organization that accredits interior design programs; and the Governing Board for Contract Interior Design Standards, which administers a certification program. -Continue to require passage of the NCIDQ exam for CFID membership (while providing a membership category for those who have not taken it). -Encourage federal practitioners to pass the NCIDQ test by providing tutorials to help designers study for the exam and by making available lists of study opportuni- ties. 6.2.6 — Recommendations for Delivery of Services CFID should initiate efforts to unify the design process and encourage interprofessional teamwork. -Identify an example of successful team design in a federal agency and publicize its work; conduct seminars and workshops; find all other means to encourage team design. —Conduct programming workshops to increase designers’ skills in programming so that a design office can offer this additional service to client agencies and educate end users on its importance. -Form and/or work on an interagency advisory board to work with GSA and Unicor on space utilization and selection regulations. 19 The State of Federal Interior Design Part 7 APPENDIX 7.1 Study Methods To gather the information in this report, the Council of Federal Interior Designers (CFID) devised and sent a questionnaire to its members and prospective members, to managers and supervisors of interior design activities, and to a selected group of interior designers in the private sector. Of the approximately 400 questionnaires sent, a total of 71 (63 from the CFID list and the managers and eight from the private sector) were returned, about an 18 per cent response. The questionnaires were followed up by personal interviews with 26 people in 18 private and federal interior design offices in San Francisco, Dallas-Fort Worth, the District of Columbia, and Boston. Many follow-up phone calls were also made. The most striking thing about the data is its consistency. Both surveys and interviews covered a cross section of people and agencies. The data are weighted on the side of staff members rather than supervisors, but almost without exception respondents’ concerns were similar, despite the variations in their situations. We therefore believe the data are reliable in giving a picture of federal interior design today. 7.2 Terms Used Titles, job descriptions, and office names vary considerably, though the people may be doing similar work in similarly functioning offices. For simplicity, the following terms are used in the paper. Interior designer, designer : Used interchangeably; includes space planners. Abbreviated as ID. Supervisor : Chief of department, head of office. Manager : Similar to supervisor, but includes interior designers with supervisory responsi- bilities. Agency : A federal organization formed for a specific mission; includes military installa- tions. Unit or office : The place in the agency where the interior design activity takes place. Client : The agency, and the representatives of the agency, for which interior design serv- ices are being performed. Numbers used in the text are averages unless otherwise stated. 20 The State of Federal Interior Design 7.3 Survey Respondents and Interview List 7.3.1 Public Sector The following federal organizations responded to the CFID questionnaires. An asterisk marks those where personal interviews were conducted. Respondents were promised their replies would be confidential, so only agency names and locations are used. Agency names are used as the respondents gave them. Administrative Office of the Courts, Washington, DC*; Office of the Federal Circuit Executive, San Francisco*. Air Force: HQ/USAF/LEEE, Washington, DC; USAF HQATC/DPSOF, Texas; Air Base Group, Civil Engineering-Architecture Section (ABG/DEEE/A), California; Headquarters Tactical Air Command/Department of Engineering, Interior Design Division (HQ TAC/DEEI) in Virginia, Nebraska, (two others, unidentified locations); Headquarters Pacific Air Forces/DPSSI, Interior Design Branch, Hawaii; Headquarters Military Airlift Command (HQ MAC), DCS, Engineering and Services, Directorate of Engineering and Environmental Planning, Engineering Division, Interior Design Branch, Illinois; HQU- SAF, Directorate of Engineering and Services, Engineering Division, Architectural and Engineering Branch, Washington, DC. Army: US Army Corps of Engineers -- West Germany, Nebraska, Washington (DC), California, Washington (state), Texas*; US Army Engineer Activity, Engineering and Construction Division, Arlington, VA; US Army Community and Family Support Center, MWR Construction Division, Design Branch, Alexandria, VA; Office of the Chief of Staff (Army), Management Directorate, Pentagon*. Department of Commerce: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Office of Administration, NOAA Consolidation Project Office; National Capital Area Support Center, Facilities and Logistics Division, Facilities Management Branch, Maryland. Department of Defense: DODDS Atlantic, London. Department of Health and Human Services: National Institutes of Health, Division of Engineering Services, Facilities Engineering Branch; NIH Clinical Center Art and Signage Program, Bethesda, MD. Department of the Interior: National Park Service, Division of Planning and Design, Boston*. Department of State: Office of Foreign Buildings, Washington, DC*. Department of Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration, Real Estate Branch, Washington, DC. 21 The Slate of Federal Interior Design Department of the Treasury: Departmental Offices, Facilities Management Division, Design and Construction Branch, Washington, DC*; Internal Revenue Service, Dallas* and Washington, DC*; U.S. Customs Service, National Logistics Center, Space Manage- ment Branch, Indianapolis, IN. Environmental Protection Agency: Office of Assistant Regional Administrator for Policy and Management, Administrative Management Branch, Region 3. General Services Administration: Public Buildings Service, Real Estate Division, Space Planning Branch -- Texas*, Colorado, the District of Columbia*, Region 9 (California)*, Missouri, and one unidentified by location; Facilities Support Center, Real Estate Branch, Region 2; Building Technology and Standards Division, Office of Real Property Devel- opment, Public Buildings Service, Washington, DC; Office of Real Estate and Develop- ment, National Capitol Region*. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Dallas*. Library of Congress, Library Environment Resources Office, Washington, DC. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Facilities Management Office; Facilities Engineering Division, Maryland. Navy: Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFACENGCOM), Architecture Branch, Interior Design Section — Northern Division, Western Division*, Hawaii, Penn- sylvania; NAVFAC, Design Division, Chesapeake Division, Washington, DC. Social Security Administration, SSA Management and Budget Field Services Section, Texas*. Veterans Administration: Medical centers in Pennsylvania, California*, North Carolina, Ohio, Georgia, Virginia, Kentucky, Mississippi, California, Puerto Rico, South Dakota, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, (one other, not identified by location); Office of Facilities, Interior Design Division, Washington, DC. 7.3.2 Private Sector The following firms returned questionnaires. One asterisk indicates a personal interview; two asterisks a phone interview. —Principal associate and project manager in a 30-person firm with two interior designers in Northern California*. Firm holds a GSA term contract; specialties are space planning, interior design, and programming. Private sector project awards for interior design. 12% of billings to the government. -Vice President in charge of government project management in a 45-person firm in Northern Virginia*. Nineteen interior designers. The firm specializes in large scale commercial space planning and interior design and technical facilities design and main- tains a separate space within its office for government projects. 50% of billings to the federal government. 22 The State of Federal Interior Design —Former federal designer, now Director of Federal Design in a 98-person firm with 14 interior designers in Northern Virginia**. Specializes in corporate tenant planning, gov- ernment comprehensive interior design, hospitality, and health care. 5% of billings to the government. -Principal in charge of project management and marketing for a 100 person firm with three interior designers in Southern California**. Specializes in space planning, color and texture selection, furniture selection, lighting, etc. About 5% of billings to the govern- ment. Major design award in architecture in 1988. —Principal in charge of interior design management, office management, and design development in a 36 person firm with six interior designers, Washington, DC.** Special- izes in space planning and space requirements analysis. About 50% of billings to govern- ment. Major design award in architecture in 1988. -President of a firm with 15 people and eight IDs in the District of Columbia. Specialty is contract interior design. 25% of billings to the government. —CEO of a 50 person firm with 10 IDs in Northern Virginia. Specialties are programming, space planning, interior design packages, phasing plans, systems furniture, and interior architecture. 80% of billings to the government. -Principal and operations manager of a 55 person firm with 21 interior designers in North- ern Virginia. Specialty is office planning and design. 25% of billings to the government. 23