QUALITY: What does that buzzword mean? Improving the final deliverables of a project, emphasis on managing the processes that produce these deliverables, a continuous cycle of improvement through monitoring and feedback—these are some of the definitions that come to mind. When we think about the “Quality Movement,” we think of experts like Deming, Juran, Shewhart, and Crosby. These men have greatly shaped our interpretations and images of quality. Through their work, the meaning of “quality” has evolved to a philosophy of meeting customer requirements from the start; we now accept that it is necessary to build quality into the strategic planning process.
Another change agent not usually thought of in reference to the quality movement is Buckminster Fuller. Like the quality “gurus” just named, he experienced resistance toward his new ideas and time lags between the initial concept and marketplace acceptance. Fuller's approach to quality was to use technology wisely to improve the quality of life. His development of the geodesic dome is an example of his commitment to using technology to resolve specific social issues of his time.
Quality from the Start: Design Science, Synergetics, Tensegrity. Fuller used the ideas of “Design Science” in his revolutionary work, which focused on redesigning manufacturing processes based on rules found in nature. According to Fuller, nature made design decisions using the most efficient methods, in contrast to manufactured designs that were often wasteful. Like nature, Bucky Fuller's work emphasized the importance of conserving resources while maximizing the use of energy
Through his work, Fuller proposed to improve living standards by an innovative architectural design. Called the geodesic dome, this new idea in housing designed quality into the product from the start.
Traditional houses had not changed since the 18th century. Inefficient materials were still used. Fuller's dome, made of self-embracing triangles, is by contrast still the strongest structure ever built, pound for pound; it can enclose more space with less structure than any other dwelling. Designed to be built from materials that do not degrade, the structure requires no maintenance. In 1964, Time magazine referred to the dome as “a benchmark of the universe.”
In the 1920s the young visionary Buckminster Fuller began experimenting with the idea of a “tensegrity” structure, one that would rely more on tensional rather than compressional members. These early experiments led to the development of Fuller's Dymaxion (“doing more with less”) House, and eventually to the light and strong structure called the geodesic dome.
Fuller used the ideas of synergetic geometry—the patterns found in nature—to develop the dome. “Synergetics” is based on the principle that the unique behavior of the whole system is greater than the sum of its components. This concept is evident in the dome architecture. The geodesic dome combines the shape of the sphere with the tetrahedron shape to create a most efficient structure: one whose strength is derived from its design. The sphere has the most volume with the least surface space of any geometric shape; the tetrahedron is a three-dimensional figure with four surfaces, such as a pyramid. Interlocking these shapes, as in the geodesic dome, provides tremendous stability. This shape is often found in nature, such as in crystals, where there is a stacking together of identical units. Fuller called this new form of architecture, “Dymaxion,” which means “doing more with less.” This term became his personal trademark.
The prototype of the Dymaxion House, built in Wichita, Kansas, in 1946, provided some important design-flaw information. Unfortunately, the investors in Fuller's alternative housing project refused to give him the time to correct these flaws before proceeding to market the house.
Also based on structures found in nature, the principle of “tensegrity” was another design feature of the dome architecture. Fuller tried to employ tensional forces in his structures, separating these components from compressional members. Domes are stronger than traditional buildings, in which both tension (pulling upward) and compression materials (pushing downward) are handled by materials such as cables and bricks. Tensional forces in traditional architecture are not used efficiently, as these forces are often channeled into the ground. By maximizing the use of materials for tension only, the strength of the dome structure increases in ratio to its size.
Quality Defined by the Customer. Fuller thought his geodesic structures could solve social and economic problems in the aftermath of WWII, such as the housing shortage and unemployment in the defense industry. These structures were affordable and could be built quickly; materials were used efficiently; and the domes required little operating and maintenance expense because they provided a natural means of heating and cooling. The geodesic dome had a “chilling effect” in which the natural air currents caused cool air to be drawn to the top of the dome and hot air to escape through the hooded openings. Thus the domes are cool inside even on the hottest days. They did not require painting or reroofing, and were weather-resistant to tornadoes, earthquakes and storms. The domes used a fraction of the materials required for traditional shelters. The building process could be completed in a matter of hours, rather than months, and they could easily be mass-produced in a factory, air-delivered and set up on the ground anywhere in the world as a complete structure, with no limitations on dimensions.
Striving for “Zero Defects.” Fuller had already developed the first model for the geodesic dome by 1927. This single-unit dwelling, the “4-D Dymaxion House,” was the predecessor to the dome. Its circular footprint used space efficiently with the least amount of materials. The “anticipatory” design of the house emphasized the idea of mobility, independence, and autonomy. Fuller had decided that aircraft technology would be the most efficient process for mass-producing and distributing these structures. The materials used in constructing the house would be composed of permanent, engineered materials, preferably aluminum. Because he envisioned the structure being transported by air, weight was an important factor.
In 1946, Fuller reached an agreement with Beech Aircraft to mass-produce a version of the Dymaxion House. There was great interest in this design, and favorable public response led to many orders for the house. Records indicate that there were over 35,000 orders from the start.
A prototype of the Dymaxion House was built in Wichita, Kansas, and was intended to be thoroughly tested. In producing this prototype, it was discovered that important details were missing. There were design flaws, including the heating and cooling system. The air-handling ductwork to support solar heating and cooling was not installed. The contractor had also neglected to install the interior gutter to prevent roof leaks.
Fuller emphasized the importance of building other prototypes to review the design process before mass production. The use of prototyping, he argued, is part of the cost of conformance to requirements. It was Fuller's belief that three prototypes were often required to work out all the important details. Ensuring that the prototype meets specific standards would help to reduce any cost risk exposures. This thinking reminds one of Deming's Continuous Cycle for Improvement strategy: Plan-Do-Check-Act.
Why It Failed. Unfortunately for quality-minded Fuller, the stockholders and the board of directors insisted on producing the geodesic house without correcting the known design flaws. Their goal was to fill the outstanding orders immediately and maximize their short-term profits (a goal antithetical to quality, as Deming discusses in his writing on “The Seven Deadly Diseases.” The stockholders tried to shape the project to meet their own individual interests.
The “Garden of Eden” was the first outdoor dome constructed with a transparent shell, creating an enclosed, climate-controlled environment, an early forerunner of today's Biosphere project.
This research and development project did not replicate any previous projects, so there was a greater need for a larger quality program with concentration on prevention and inspection. Fuller strongly felt that by eliminating the necessary testing and prototyping, and neglecting specific conformance requirements, later failures would prove costly. He did not want to incur extensive retrofitting costs or to develop a poor reputation by bringing a product to market before it was ready. He was right: According to later study of the Dymaxion House, it was estimated that the house required at least another year of development.
The differing objectives between the project manager and the key sponsors, who provided the financial resources for the project, produced conflicts. These communication management issues resulted in Fuller abandoning the project, at that time.
A cause and effect analysis was omitted in the design phase that would have identified the underlying causes of potential problems. Some additional reasons for the failure of the project were:
Regulations, such as building codes, were not examined early in the project. The building codes in effect at the time prevented the structures from being built. Regulations, along with standards, must be primary inputs to quality planning.
The houses required the use of synthetic materials such as alloys and plastics that were not readily available at that time. Materials analysis and the use of available technology are an important part of quality planning.
There was further stakeholder opposition from the construction industry and the building trades—the “invisible customers”—although the aircraft and machinist unions were greatly in favor of the project. Groups like the plumbers’ and electricians’ unions had no interest in the project meeting its goals because the low maintenance of this structure and the method for mass production represented a threat to their professions.
Tooling costs were a major problem. Banks, a primary partner in most projects, refused to provide funding for the tooling or to loan money for mortgages. This was due to disputes between the stakeholder groups and the government regulations on building codes.
Fuller learned from these mistakes.
Quality Problems Lead to Solutions. Although the Dymaxion House never advanced further than the prototype stage, this idea led to the creation of the geodesic dome. In designing the dome, Fuller used the lessons learned from his earlier projects. The size and nature of these design projects benefited from a small team. Fuller was also personally involved early in the building of the prototype, which differed from his role in the design process of the Dymaxion House. The early teams were composed of recruited students from various universities, who helped to accelerate the geodesic “evolution” by developing prototypes of geodesic structures using different materials. Often duplicate assignments were given to different teams to develop alternate strategies to the same design problem.
Fuller's team-building methodology fostered noncompetitive cooperation to meet common goals. Students organized into teams, with each team assigned specific activities. A successful prototype was developed by a group of students from the Chicago Institute of Design. With the small staff of students, Fuller developed a prototype in one month.
Fuller had predicted that it would take 25 years for public acceptance of the idea of transportable housing. Again, he was right. The final realization of the geodesic dome, his lifelong undertaking, did not present itself until 1952, when the Ford Motor Company acquired the first large geodesic dome. The Ford project proved that Fuller's architecture was effective for commercial use.
More About Bucky
Baldwin, J. 1996. Bucky Works. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Fuller, Buckminster. 1983. Grunch of Giants. New York: St. Martin's Press
Fuller, Buckminster. 1969. Utopia or Oblivion. New York: The Overlook Press
Marks, Robert. 1960. Dymaxion World of Bucky Fuller. New York: Reinhold Publishing
Time Magazine. 1964 (January 10). Modern Living—The Dymaxion America.
For Ford, the geodesic dome solved a specific design problem. The geodesic dome was built to cover the courtyard of the Ford Rotunda building so that the space could be used throughout the year, even during the winter months. Since the geodesic dome was lighter in weight than traditional shelters, it was the only structure that could be supported by the Ford Rotunda building,
The project was completed successfully, ahead of schedule and below budget. The strategy of assembling the 8.5-ton, 93-foot dome was similar to the plan used in the 1940s to build the Dymaxion Deployment Units, a form of the Dymaxion House that transformed steel bins into emergency shelters for radar crews in distant locations to withstand severe weather conditions. The individual sections of the structure were prefabricated, which eliminated the requirements for dangerous scaffolding and expedited the construction process.
The Ford dome was experimental, since it was the first large geodesic structure built. The materials used to cover the small triangular panels of the frame would eventually leak. A second generation of domes, called the Pillowdome, resulted in the discovery of tefzel, a material that provided a permanent, watertight surface. Nevertheless, the Ford project resulted in a great deal of public interest, and the domes were used to solve other architectural design problems.
These domes were used by the U.S. Air Force as shelters to handle extreme weather conditions in the Arctic. The domes also became prominent symbols during international trade expositions. In 1956, the U.S. Department of Commerce used an 8,000-square-foot dome for an International Trade Fair. This dome was air-shipped and built within 48 hours of arrival on location. The geodesic dome evolved into further improvements through advancements in technology and from continuing “lessons learned.”
Many prototypes of the dome were built. The first outdoor dome constructed with a transparent shell was called the “Garden of Eden.” It provided an enclosed climate-controlled environment, where the interior resembled an outdoor setting. The Pillowdome structure, a second-generation dome, utilized plastics to insulate the dome from leaks. Models of megastructures were also developed and designed to float on water or to resemble miniature cities.
Today, over 200,000 geodesic domes of varying sizes can be found throughout the world. This form of architecture has been recognized as a landmark achievement in design. The geodesic dome was chosen for the U.S. pavilion at Expo ‘67 in Montreal and for the Epcot Center at Walt Disney World. It is the most significant architecture design of the 20th century.
A QUALITY LEADER, Buckminster Fuller tried to break away from the traditional molds of thinking. He was a visionary who saw an improved way of designing and building architecture. With the geodesic dome, he used the ideas of synergetics, design science and continuous process improvement to build a new form of shelter using the patterns found in nature. Part of his strategy, “The Design Science Event Flow,” was to review and enhance each process so that subsequent projects and follow-on prototypes were developed more efficiently. Interestingly, the Design Science Event Flow resembles the typical phases of a product life cycle: subjective/research phase, objective/development phase, production/installation phase and regeneration phase. A study of Buckminster Fuller's work reveals many ways in which his thinking anticipated later developments in project management, design, and quality. ■