Chapter 5 Ove Arup: Theoretical and Moral Positions in Practice and the Origins of an Engineering Firm

  Part I Reflections on Practice

Abstract

The abstract discusses the legacy of Sir Ove Arup, founder of Arup, a major global engineering consultancy specializing in designing the built environment. It highlights how Sir Ove, throughout his career, pondered the impact of his work on urban environments. The analysis of documents from his archives presents him as an engineer-philosopher. His writings reflect his 'Total Design' philosophy, influenced by Carl Mitcham's (1994) engineering philosophy of technology, which is grounded in an instrumentalist view of technology (Feenberg, 2002). The case study illustrates Sir Ove's approach to engineering methodology, its purpose, societal role, and how he incorporated values into engineering practice.

5.1 Introduction

This section introduces Sir Ove Arup, a significant 20th-century British engineer and founder of Arup, a global consultancy in engineering design. It discusses how engineering design in large firms mediates various interests in shaping the built environment and the implications of engineers' perceptions on societal changes. Sir Ove's reflections, influenced by modernist views and an instrumentalist concept of science and technology, emphasized integrating art and aesthetics into design. His leadership at Arup focused on integrating technical and conceptual knowledge in construction. This chapter, using Sir Ove's career as a case study, aims to illustrate the moral, theoretical, organizational, and personal concerns in engineering. It characterizes his views as aligning with Carl Mitcham's (1994) "engineering philosophy of technology" and Andrew Feenberg's (2002) instrumentalist theory. Despite his instrumentalist view of technology, Sir Ove did not strictly adhere to this perspective in his approach to engineering. The chapter will delve into his biography, analyze his speeches and writings, discuss his Total Design theory and the structure of the building industry, and examine the foundational values and theories of the Arup firm. The analysis is based on an archive of Sir Ove's work at Arup's London headquarters, covering 1942 to 1983. The conclusion highlights the significance of practice-based engineering philosophy in understanding the interplay between values, technology, and society.

5.2 Considering Philosophical Positions

This section outlines Sir Ove Arup's engineering philosophy in the context of broader philosophical frameworks. It aligns Arup's philosophy with the analyses of technology philosophies by Carl Mitcham (1994) and Andrew Feenberg (2002).

Mitcham categorizes philosophies of technology into two main types: 'Engineering Philosophy of Technology (EPT)' and 'Humanities Philosophy of Technology (HPT)'. EPT is a pro-technology stance developed by technologists and engineers, focusing on the nature of technology and its application to human experience. In contrast, HPT, emerging from humanities scholars, provides a more critical and expansive view, incorporating technology's relationship with other aspects of human life, such as art, ethics, and politics.

Feenberg's schema differentiates between instrumental and substantive theories of technology. Instrumental theories view technology as a tool subservient to external values, often linked to a liberal belief in progress. Substantive theories, however, emphasize the significant impact of using technology on humanity and nature, beyond its intended goals, often advocating for a return to more traditional societal forms.

Engineering theories typically adopt an instrumental viewpoint, considering technology as universally rational and neutral tools, suitable for any social context. This perspective emphasizes 'trade-offs' between technological efficiency and non-technical values like environmental, ethical, or religious considerations.

The section positions Sir Ove Arup's reflections within this instrumentalist framework of technology, providing a foundation to analyze his specific views on the organization of the construction industry and the incorporation of values in his firm. It sets the stage to explore how these general engineering philosophies are reflected in the specific practices of one of the 20th century's notable engineers.

5.3 Ove Arup and the Firm

This section describes Sir Ove Arup's early life, education, and the founding of his firm, Arup. Born in England in 1895, Arup initially studied philosophy and mathematics before pursuing engineering, specializing in structures. He developed an interest in reinforced concrete and worked with Christiani and Nielsen, designing various structures. However, he became dissatisfied with the limited scope for innovation in this role.

Arup was inspired by the Modern Movement architects like Walter Gropius and Le Corbusier, who emphasized the functional use of structural materials and valued engineering. His willingness to explore new ideas led to collaborations in the field of structural engineering. He joined J. L. Kier & Co as a director of designs and tenders, the Architectural Association, and the Modern Architectural Research (MARS) Group, which supported modernism in British architecture. He also collaborated with the Tecton architectural partnership, contributing to notable projects like Highpoint I and II, the Gorilla House and Penguin Pool at London Zoo, and pioneering ‘box-frame’ construction in Britain.

In 1946, seeking more freedom to develop engineering solutions for the Modern Movement, Arup established his own firm, 'Ove N. Arup, Consulting Engineers, later known simply as 'Arup'. He is renowned for his collaboration with architect Jorn Utzon on the Sydney Opera House.

5.4 Technology and Morality

In this section, Sir Ove Arup's views on the interplay between technology, morality, and society are discussed. Arup believed that engineering, in harnessing scientific and technological advancements for human progress, is fundamentally a moral endeavor. He emphasized the need for broad and inclusive deliberation, including input from engineers and scientists, to determine the beneficial uses of technology and its administration. This perspective aligns with an instrumental definition of engineering, where technology is used to advance humanity, echoing Robert Treadgold's 19th-century definition of Civil Engineering.

Arup acknowledged that the technological revolution, which enabled humans to overcome natural challenges, also brought a moral responsibility to wisely manage the gains. He saw the main challenge as reaching a consensus on what constitutes a benefit to humanity, framing it as a moral, social, or political issue rather than a technical or organizational one.

Arup advocated for scientists and technicians to actively participate in societal debates as socially conscious citizens, as described by Feenberg's instrumental theory. He distinguished between the technical sphere, where rational means can achieve clear objectives, and the social and political spheres, which involve value judgments, ethical considerations, and an understanding of human aspirations and behaviors that can't be logically deduced.

While Arup encouraged engagement with the arts and humanities to enrich social and political discussions, he did not propose applying technological principles to these fields. He maintained a straightforward relationship between aims defined by societal spheres and their realization through engineering. However, unlike a substantivist viewpoint, he did not explore how realizing humanitarian goals through technology might further shape the technology or social context itself.

5.5 The Structure of the Building Industry

In this section, the focus is on how Sir Ove Arup, in founding and managing his firm, addressed his moral and theoretical beliefs in the context of the broader building industry. Throughout his career, he concentrated on three key issues: the division between architects and engineers, the separation of processes between briefing, designing, and constructing, and the challenges of knowledge specialization within the industry.

5.5.1 The Architect-Engineer Divide

Sir Ove Arup, aligned with modernist architectural ideals, challenged the traditional division between architects and engineers. He viewed these roles as offering two equally valuable perspectives on a unified design concept. Arup advocated for a synthesis of the architect’s focus on human responses to form and space with the engineer’s approach to utilizing science and technology to manage natural forces.

In the building industry, this division was deeply ingrained, with firms typically separating the roles of builders (working for architects) and engineering contractors (working for engineers). Arup criticized this split, noting that it began with professional education. Architectural schools often emphasized quality and architectural theories at the expense of technical skills needed to realize these designs in actual buildings. Conversely, engineering education sometimes hindered the development of aesthetic considerations in design.

Arup approached this issue from an instrumentalist perspective, recognizing trade-offs between architectural vision and engineering efficiency. He saw the need for a balance where architectural delight and humane design were not sacrificed for optimized efficiency. However, Arup’s philosophy, primarily focused on finding appropriate trade-offs, may not fully address potential fundamental cultural tensions that arise when engineering methods are applied to creating quality human spaces, a point highlighted by Feenberg's (2002) substantive perspectives on technology.

5.5.2 Divisions Between Briefing, Designing, and Construction

This section discusses Sir Ove Arup's objections to the traditional division between the briefing, designing, and construction phases in building projects. He criticized the separation of design (handled by architects and consulting engineers) from construction (the realm of contractors who were often not involved in the design phase). Arup argued that this division hindered efficiency and quality in construction.

He believed that designs cannot be created without considering the technical and constructional facilities available. Conversely, contractors are not motivated to develop new facilities that designs do not yet require. He emphasized that architectural design largely interprets the client's wishes, which become clearer once the architect begins drafting ideas. Therefore, it is crucial for technical advisors to be involved early in the design process, ensuring that designs account for construction methods and the final structure.

Arup stressed the importance of integrating construction knowledge into the initial stages of architectural design. He argued that clients often produced design briefs that hindered quality design due to their lack of collaboration in the early stages. He advocated for a design process where the client, architect, engineer, and contractor work closely together, allowing for an interactive exploration of design possibilities, informed by construction knowledge regarding methods, processes, and costs.

This collaborative approach would also drive technological development in construction, as contractors, who are typically responsible for developing new technologies and techniques, would be influenced by the building designs. Arup viewed this integration as not just a practical necessity but a moral imperative, aligning with his belief that realizing technical benefits for humanity is a moral duty. He saw the design stage as a critical component that should pervade the entire building process, involving all stakeholders collaboratively.

5.5.3 Specialization and the Limits to Knowledge

This section addresses Sir Ove Arup's concerns regarding the impact of specialization and the limits it imposes on knowledge in the building industry. As scientific and technological fields expanded, greater specialization emerged in all areas of the industry. This specialization, while necessary for managing complex problems, led to a scenario where no single group or individual possessed a broad enough understanding to grasp all relevant design information, creating barriers to comprehensive design understanding.

Arup recognized the need for specialization to address specific problems effectively, but he also cautioned against losing sight of the interconnectedness of different aspects of design. He aligned with Louis Bucciarelli's concept of 'object worlds,' which highlights the diverse knowledge, values, and languages of specialists involved in the design process. This diversity, while valuable, posed challenges to achieving the synthesis that Arup sought, integrating quality, form, and efficient functionality.

He believed that while design problems could be decomposed into specialized parts, it was the whole or the totality of these parts that represented the ultimate goal of both 'dream and action.' In an industry fragmented by specialization, Arup emphasized the importance of creating what he called the 'composite mind' — an approach that integrates diverse specialist knowledge to achieve a cohesive and comprehensive understanding of design challenges and solutions.

5.6 Total Design

5.6.1 The Total Design Ideal

This section discusses Sir Ove Arup's concept of 'Total Design,' an approach he developed to counteract the fragmentation he observed in the built environment industry. 'Total Design' encompasses 'Total Architecture' for the built environment, representing a collaborative and integrated approach to design decisions.

The key idea of 'Total Design' is that all relevant design decisions are considered together and integrated into a cohesive whole by a well-organized team. This process involves a range of elements, including design perspectives from both architectural and engineering disciplines, and the boundaries between client/designer and designer/builder.

Arup acknowledged the ambitious nature of this ideal, recognizing it as a lofty goal that may never be fully realized. However, he still pursued it, believing that striving for the best possible result in any single case could provide valuable experience applicable to larger scales of the built environment.

'Total Design' is presented as a moral goal, aiming for the instrumental integration of high-level aims with the most economical and effective means. This integration should ideally extend to all scales of human-mediated environments. Arup's approach aligns with the tendencies of Engineering Philosophy of Technology (EPT) as identified by Mitcham, in terms of its rationalization and extension across scales.

Arup also explored aspects of human experience, such as the concept of 'delight' in architecture, suggesting a broader scope of thought beyond conventional EPT. He acknowledged the social and political complexities in reaching consensus about the desired outcomes of design. While not developing a sophisticated philosophy on the nature of technology and its impact on humanity, Arup's ideas significantly influenced his leadership in a large engineering practice and his principles for good design in the built environment.

5.6.2 Total Design in Practice; Implications for the Firm

This section discusses the practical implementation of Sir Ove Arup's 'Total Design' concept within his firm and its broader implications.

'Total Design' necessitated a deep commitment to collaboration and teamwork from the very beginning of a project, involving clients, architects, engineers, and contractors. This approach aimed to overcome the traditional barriers in the building industry caused by separate roles and processes between architects and engineers, as well as the fragmentation due to increasing specialization.

To put this into practice, Arup and his colleagues experimented with different team structures. One approach ('Answer A') was to form small, multidisciplinary teams with stable membership to foster close understanding and overcome disciplinary biases. The other approach ('Answer B') involved separate, specialized firms coordinated by a project leader, usually an architect, to maintain an overarching perspective.

Arup concluded that there was no one-size-fits-all solution for team organization. Instead, his firm needed the flexibility to adapt both strategies depending on the project's needs. This led to the expansion of Arup's firm into related fields such as architecture, planning, environmental engineering, and computer programming, driven not by a desire for growth but by a commitment to quality.

Establishing an architectural practice within an engineering consultancy raised concerns and criticism, particularly from architectural circles and some members of Arup's own firm. However, Arup remained focused on the principle of 'Total Architecture,' which encompassed more than just aesthetics. He believed that by working with architects who shared their vision, they could make significant strides toward the ideal of complete integration in design. This expansion was a strategic move to better realize the concept of 'Total Architecture' and pursue the firm's commitment to quality and integrated design.

5.7 Aims and Means

This section outlines Sir Ove Arup's approach to managing his firm's expansion and maintaining its core values, particularly in relation to the Total Design model.

Arup recognized that merely expanding the firm's range of specialist knowledge was not enough to ensure quality work. The Total Design model required a specific organizational culture and set of attitudes focused on collaboration, mutual trust, and respect for diverse perspectives. As Arup's firm grew in specialties and geographic scope, he was encouraged by his partners to explicitly define these attitudes.

In the early 1970s, Arup addressed the firm in a series of talks titled 'Aims and Means,' culminating in 'The Key Speech.' This speech outlined the challenge of creating an organizational culture around the Total Design ideal, addressing typical management issues in a large, growing organization. Arup emphasized the importance of a fraternal model to overcome social friction and contribute to a harmonious working environment, believing this would also enhance the quality of their work.

Arup stressed the significance of ideals and moral principles, seeing them as essential to binding the firm's diverse and global offices. He downplayed the importance of profit, a sentiment embodied in the firm's transition to trust ownership in 1977 to allow staff freedom from short-term commercial pressures and focus on long-term goals.

Michael Davis (1998) characterized Arup's firm as "engineer-oriented," prioritizing quality (and safety) over profit-making. After Sir Ove Arup's death in 1988, the firm continued to expand globally. Each new employee receives a copy of 'The Key Speech,' which outlines the firm's commitment to Total Design and its principles. With over 10,000 staff in 37 countries, Arup's firm now includes a wide range of professionals and has contributed to major projects like the Sydney Opera House, the Oresund link, the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, and notable structures for the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

5.8 Conclusions

The conclusion of this section reflects on the impact of Sir Ove Arup's philosophy on the success of his firm, Arup, established in 1946. It has grown into a significant international consultancy in engineering design and related services. The extent to which Sir Ove's design philosophy and his approach to social and moral issues contributed to this success is a topic for further exploration.

Sir Ove's 'Key Speech' and his Total Design theory are still prominent within Arup's offices and are well-known among the staff. However, the extent to which his values and ideals are implemented in the firm's everyday global practice warrants more investigation.

This analysis aimed to explore Sir Ove's contributions as a practice-based engineer-philosopher in the context of the philosophy of technology. It examined the influences on his thinking and the organizational challenges in design for the built environment. The discussion used categories from the philosophy of technology to highlight Sir Ove's views against broader philosophical alternatives.

Sir Ove's moral position and instrumentalist view of science and technological design in relation to social and political aims are noted. However, it's acknowledged that his philosophical position is less formally developed compared to other thinkers in the field, touching on areas of both Engineering Philosophy of Technology (EPT) and Humanities Philosophy of Technology (HPT).

The conclusion also recognizes that Sir Ove's theoretical stance led to a values-led agenda, influencing his leadership and the organization of his firm. This contributed to Arup's 'engineer-led', quality-focused character through a model of total design. The section suggests that engineers often bring a complex mix of informal moral and theoretical perspectives to their work, significantly influencing their approach to design and interaction within socio-technical contexts.