Images and the Making of Meanings in Construction Project Design

J. Civil Eng. Architect. Res. Vol. 2, No. 9, 2015, pp. 898-909 Received: May 28, 2015; Published: September 25, 2015 Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture Research Images and the Making of Meanings in Construction Project Design William H. Collinge School of Construction Management & Engineering, University of Reading, P.O. Box 219, Reading, RG6 6AW, United Kingdom Corresponding author: William H. Collinge (will.collinge@reading.ac.uk) Abstract: This paper explores how visual images used in construction project design work can be understood as social semiotic compositions that are authored by design teams to be interpreted by client audiences in particular ways. The paper clarifies how visual images are strategic communicative resources employed by designers that effect the comprehension of requirements, the relations between project parties and the design process itself. A visual image of hospital patient rooms from a hospital construction project briefing meeting is examined from a multimodal social semiotic perspective; the analysis being supported and supplemented with insights from designers immersed in construction project communications with client parties. The discussion notes how different representations of requirements using visual and textual signs can impact the design discourse and relations between parties; visual images being more sophisticated than simple tools in the design process. The insights of the paper are informative for multiple civil engineering and architectural contexts where visual images assist and propel forward the design process. Key words: Briefing, design, communications, multimodality, social semiotics, hospitals, programming. 1. Introduction Construction project design is characterized by the use of multiple visual resources (e.g. hand drawn sketches; 3D models; artist impressions) to assist the design process and mediate communications between project parties [1]. Indeed, visual images are increasingly prevalent and significant in an industry where BIM (Building Information Modelling) technologies are rapidly evolving [2] and where establishing shared understanding between design professionals (e.g. architects; structural engineers; building contractors) and project stakeholders (e.g. client representatives; the general public; government agencies) remains as important as ever [3]. Visual images are important because they represent project requirements and are used to transform conceptual ideas into potential built-environment solutions [1]. It is through the briefing and programming phase of a construction project that design teams produce multiple visual images to be viewed by non-professional audiences (e.g. client representatives), although the number of images used often means they evade critical analysis and close examination by parties immersed in the programming activity. Despite this frequency of use, each individual visual design image makes important meanings that influence how requirements are comprehended and the relations between project parties. As the paper will explore, in a social briefing context [4] that can be both competitive and temporally constrained, visual images are often strategically employed by design teams to resonate positively with the client in subtle ways. The paper clarifies how visual images are composed of signs from which meanings are deduced and shared between people [5]. A semiotic analysis of visual design imagery builds upon previous work in the

Images and the Making of Meanings in Construction Project Design 899 construction management field [6, 7] that recognizes communicative interchanges as inherently semiotic. An analysis of a power point slide drawn from a hospital construction project design meeting reveals how the semiotic composition of visual images is intrinsic to their functionality as communicative devices between parties. Communicative resources such as power point slides often display words, graphics and images simultaneously and the paper clarifies how such images may be deconstructed from a social semiotic perspective [8] as meaning making resources that invoke interpretations amongst construction project actors. From the analysis, it is contended that multimodal meaning making is integral to design communications when visual resources are used to represent construction project requirements: design visualizations contributing both functionally and socially as relationship building devices in competitive and temporally constrained project briefing contexts. It is also noted how such communicative resources can be cohesive devices in fractious and complex design contexts, retaining their interpretive flexibility and meaning making potential due to their semiotic composition. The paper begins by reviewing communications in construction project contexts as the significance of visual representations of project requirements is noted. A discussion of social semiotic theories and their analytical concepts leads to a research methods section detailing the background to the study and the research approach adopted. A power point slide visualization of hospital patient rooms is then presented and examined using the social semiotic framework of analysis. The critique is supplemented and supported by insights of interviewed construction project actors immersed in hospital construction project design interactions. A following discussion emphasizes the value of a social semiotic examination of visual resources used in design work as it is argued that multimodal meaning making is integral to the process of construction project design. The contrast between those project requirements that may be represented visually and those that cannot is noted as significant in an industry increasingly dominated by visual design software packages (i.e. BIM). A closing summary draws the insights of the paper together. 2. Construction Project Communications Effective communication is essential to construction project work interactions between design and construction professionals and the client [9, 10]. Official industry codes of practice such as the UK`s Code of Practice for Project Management for Construction and Development [11] highlight effective communication as important for project management success whilst often underplaying the significance of interpretation, understanding and how meanings are actually made in construction project design work. In their book concerning briefing and design work, Blyth and Worthington [12] assert that, Successful briefing demands attention to communication and how information is structured and passed through the system. Designers speak different languages to users, yet they must understand the business language of their clients for there to be meaningful communication of needs. Dangers lie in misunderstandings, but also in assumptions where one person interprets something differently from another. Whilst briefing ( programming in the U.S.) has many pre-conceived methodologies resulting from years of professional development [12], designers are allowed to use whatever methods deemed appropriate when communicating with the client as there are no prescribed rules on what methods to employ. Clients (those commissioning and paying for a building) are primarily concerned with building function (space, usability, operation), finance (total cost, reliability), project timescale (accuracy, reporting) and aesthetics (visual appearance, acceptability) [13]; the form and format of communicative interchanges between parties does not particularly concern them. Whilst different communicative methodologies can be used such as

900 Images and the Making of Meanings in Construction Project Design discussions, meetings and run-throughs [14], briefing and design work is also characterized by the use of texts, drawings and visual images for communicative purposes as project actors discuss, co-operate and collaborate. Texts, drawings and images are important for the making of meaning and the sharing of understandings between parties. For example, a client brief containing requirements for a future building will describe a structure using words and detail potential costs and dimensions in numbers. The brief may provide the initial communicative resource in construction project work, but other resources are quickly produced by designers (e.g. sketches; IT visualizations; physical models). Lloyd and Busby [15] have highlighted the importance of language and word exchange in social design interactions that mediate the problem solving process: designers using particular words and language to articulate their thoughts as opposed to architects, who prefer to use drawings and sketches. Similarly, Bogers et al. [16] reflect how designers often use images to clarify concepts and ideas for the client whilst Blyth and Worthington [12] have noted the discrepancies in the choice of communication method, commenting: At an operational level design teams will be in the habit of communicating with visual aids, drawings and photographs, whereas the user may be more used to written reports and not familiar with the idiosyncrasies of a designer s drawing. Whilst it is now recognized that design communication is central to the design development process [17], academics have observed that briefing involves the use of different semiotic resources as requirements are translated from one communicative form (i.e. words) to another (i.e. schematic drawing), including Markus and Cameron [18], Kamara et al. [19] and Blyth and Worthington [12], who state, Design and briefing are integral parts of the same process with much of briefing carried through the process of design. During this process the language used by the organization is converted into the language of building. The strategic brief is articulated through words and diagrams, while the project brief is articulated through conceptual drawings and workflow diagrams. The complexity of construction project briefing communications has been noted by Gluch and Raisanen [7], who comment, Communication is a dynamic and complex mediated discursive practice that both constructs and is constructed by human actors, using semiotic and technical tools Communication needs to be viewed as social practice, involving the interaction of interlocutors, contexts, semiotic systems, artefacts and technologies. In this interaction there often exists inherent tensions between these elements in particular contexts of use. In construction and design, communication occurs not just from person-to-person, but also from design resource to person: interactions between humans and visual design images also being legitimate instances of communication as visual resources carry intention and meaning from the originator to the reader/viewer through their semiotic composition [20]. Although construction scholars have identified the importance of shared understandings between project parties [21, 22], there is little research that establishes how shared understandings are developed in practice in construction project briefing and design contexts. A semiotic oriented perspective of construction project communication would focus upon the making of meaning through signs, as Dainty et al. [6] have noted, Whereas the process perspective sees communication as the transmission of messages through which one person seeks to influence another (and hence focuses on how transmitters and receivers encode and decode messages), the semiotic method sees communication as the development and exchange of meaning. Communicative meanings are made between people via sign formulations (e.g. spoken words; arm

Images and the Making of Meanings in Construction Project Design 901 movements; paintings; music), a field of enquiry that has been addressed by semiotics scholarship [23]. In an increasingly digital and visual world, the study of sign communications has received renewed impetus via social semiotics enquiry. Social semiotic theories and their analytical concepts are directly relevant to construction project communications, enabling us to examine and analyse how design images make meanings and understandings between people. 3. Social Semiotics Social semiotics aims to understand the role of sign communications in social situations and the motivational drivers underlying their formulation. As Kress [8] states, Social semiotics believes signs are motivated, not arbitrary relations of meaning and form: the motivated relation arises out of the interest of the makers of signs. It follows that a social semiotic approach to visual design imagery would ask whose interest and agency is at work in the making of meaning through sign communications and how meaning is made and with what resources. A construction project design image may be examined from a semiotic meaning making perspective: the analyst querying the use of signs in the composition and examining them to understand their role and effect on a viewer. Vannini [24] makes an explicit link between semiotic resource use, work practices and issues of power, stating, The study of semiotic resources should focus on the practical use of semiotic resources in social settings to understand how semiotic practices are inextricably linked with socio-political configurations of power. Authors of visual images in design work are likely to consider their effect on their audience (e.g. the client) as construction projects are frequently competitive, with rival design teams competing to win a contract from the client. How a design image is perceived, interpreted and understood by a client audience could conceivably affect the briefing and design process, ultimately affecting whether a contract is won or lost. Jewitt [25] has clarified how communications are characterised by the co-deployment of multiple sign resources at once, combinations of signs cohering and interacting to convey meanings collectively: Some things can be signified by image as well as through talk, while others can only be realized in an image and others only in talk. This introduces the concept of inter-semiotic relations, also referred to as intermodal relations, or multimodal ensembles. Multimodal research attends to the inter-semiotic play between modes to look at the specific work of each mode and how each mode interacts with and contributes to the others in the multimodal ensemble. Multimodal ensembles of signs (e.g. text, colour, image) can be used to convey meanings collectively [8] with meanings being distributed across different semiotic modes concurrently [26]. Whilst separate semiotics may be analyzed individually, multimodality examines what modes are used in combination and their relational coherence with each other [8]: the distribution and weighting of semiotic resource use in a multimodal ensemble being critiqued through a multimodal analysis. Visual social semiotic methodologies use representational, interactive and compositional techniques to expose how visual images make relationships between the viewers and authors of signs, with semiotic choices reflecting the intention, motivations and narrative strategies of sign authors. In their work, Kress and van Leeuwen [5] examine visuals from a grammatical perspective, extrapolating social meanings from visual image analysis, Meaning can also be derived from the grammatical make-up of images as well as the elements of the images what is expressed in language through the choice of different word classes and clause structures, may, in visual communication, be expressed through the choice of different uses of colour or different compositional structures. And this will affect meaning. Expressing something verbally or visually makes a difference.

902 Images and the Making of Meanings in Construction Project Design Scholars active in the communication field [27, 28] have taken forward visual social semiotic analytic techniques and applied them to different fields of study. The results can be informative, enlightening and valuable for extending understanding of how visual communications actually work. Social semiotic theories have not previously been applied to visual communications used in a construction project context, although semiotics has previously been applied to research how built environments convey meanings and values via their stylistic and aesthetic qualities [29, 30]. Semiotics has also been referenced in works that clarify the distribution of meaning in architect`s communications [31], that view construction as a complex of signs [32] and work that recognizes physical built environments as reflecting the representations of other semiotic modes employed [18]. Semiotic theories have provided a foundation for a variety of analytical methods by which sign communications of various forms (e.g. sound; text; image; movements) may be examined and critiqued [23]. It is from the semiotic theories discussed that a series of analytical concepts may be drawn and from which visual images may be examined and critiqued. 3.1 Analytical Concepts Drawing on the work of Barthes [33, 34], visual images may be examined using a series of semiotic concepts, as noted by Innis [35], Barthes instruments of coded/non-coded; denotation/connotation and linguistic/iconic formulate an ontology of the process of signification to explain the role of image. In addition to the more traditional semiotic analytical methods of Barthes [33, 34], the visual imagery methods of Kress and van Leeuwen [5] also relate to visual imagery analysis. When used in combination together, these formulate an analytical framework for examining and critiquing visual imagery from a social semiotic perspective. The key analytical concepts are discussed below. 3.1.1 Denoted and Connoted Signs Signs that have denotative meanings lack cultural significance, being direct messages to a receiver [8]. A denoted sign gives a direct, uncomplicated message to be understood. For example, the viewer of a painting of an apple tree will observe the apples hanging from the tree as fruit first and foremost. Connoted, or second-order meanings are cultural: a red, shiny apple may connote concepts of health and well-being or possibly fairy-tales and religious symbolism. Similarly, the words Niagara Falls denote a famous waterfall on the American/Canadian border, but may also connote different meanings for different persons (i.e. a happy holiday memory ; a dangerous adventure ). First level significations (denotations) act as a basis for second level significations (connotations), as Barthes [33] states, The first system (denotation) becomes the signifier of the second system (connotation) the signifiers of connotation are made up of the signs of the denoted system [33]. Denotations require basic interpretive knowledge, whereas connotations refer to knowledge that viewers may (or may not) possess. As Penn [36] has noted, The reader s interpretational freedom is dependent upon the number of his or her lexicons. The act of reading a text or an image is thus a constructive process. Meaning is generated in the interaction of the reader with the material. The reader s meaning will vary with the knowledge available to him or her through experience and contextual salience. In a design context, a roughly drawn sketch and a computer visual image may both depict a room, but whether the representation is professional or amateur in connotation may influence client reactions towards it. 3.1.2 Coded and Non-coded Signs Non-coded signs are easy to understand compared to those requiring specialized knowledge (coded signs). Coded signs are frequently used amongst communities or professions to facilitate quicker communication amongst closed groups (e.g. sign

Images and the Making of Meanings in Construction Project Design 903 language). Coded signs require a higher degree of cognitive knowledge than non-coded signs, often necessitating the initiation of educational activities from one party to another, so that interpretive codes may be shared. In a construction project context, the client may need to be educated about construction issues through the sharing of coded languages (e.g. schematic drawing scales). Whether a sign is coded or non-coded depends upon the cognitive knowledge of individuals interacting with a sign (i.e. their interpretive knowledge). 3.1.3 Linguistic & Iconic Signs Barthes [34] noted that language (linguistic signs) often accompany iconic signs (e.g. diagrams) to function as either anchorage or relay in relation to depicted images. As anchorage, words (which may themselves be denotative or connotative) label that which is depicted (e.g. a textual label under a photograph or an advert). As relay, text complements an image by adding further meanings (e.g. text on cartoon strips). In such cases, text (as a semiotic resource) adds meaning to another semiotic resource (e.g. image; diagram). Iconic signs resemble their object in some way (e.g. photographs, maps, diagrams), having a physical connectivity with an object and are used extensively in construction project briefing work. Penn [36] noted that linguistic and iconic signs work in different ways, text being a more laborious medium than visual imagery, where meanings are conveyed concurrently [36]: One important difference between language and image is that image is always ambiguous. That is why most images are accompanied by some form of text...images differ from language in another important way: in both written and spoken language, signs appear sequentially. In images, however, the signs are present simultaneously. Such issues are significant when linguistic and iconic signs are combined together as the compositional choice effects how readers relate to and comprehend representations. The compositional choice of sign authors is pertinent to social semiotic analysis that investigates author intention and narrative strategies. 3.1.4 Visual Social Semiotic Concepts From a visual social semiotic perspective [5], representational analysis examines what an image represents and the nature of social action represented. As noted by Kress and van Leeuwen [5], distinctions can be made between narrative and conceptual visualizations, narrative images telling stories about events or situations; conceptual images defining or classifying people, places or things in conceptual rather than realistic ways. As Jewitt and Oyama [37] state, the choice is important since the decision to represent something in a narrative or conceptual way provides a key to understanding the discourses which mediate their representation. Compositional analysis examines how representational and interactive effects cohere to deliver meaningful messages. A number of concepts relate to compositional analysis. Information value highlights how image elements are located in order to take on various information roles, for example, foregrounding an object (e.g. a table) against a contextual backdrop (e.g. a kitchen) will give that object more information value to a viewer; an object given more detail (e.g. a face with an expression) will have more information value than objects without detail (e.g. a figure in the background). These analytical concepts provide a suite of techniques from which a visual image may be examined. 4. Research Method As part of a research study into communications occurring in construction project contexts and the representation of requirements in construction project work [38], a series of interviews were conducted with NHS client representatives and hospital construction professionals. These interviews were supplemented by the collection of design materials from hospital construction projects, including schematic drawings,

904 Images and the Making of Meanings in Construction Project Design power point slides and visual images. Interviewees frequently referred to such materials as they discussed communicative interactions and the design evolution process. This empirical work provided clear evidence for the importance of visual imagery in the design process: construction project parties engaging and relating to a project via the design proposals presented to them in sketch, model or visual imagery formats. Construction project parties interpret such project communications against personal cognitive understandings of a fully functional and operational hospital facility. The power point slide (Fig. 1) was one such project resource drawn from the fieldwork interviews. Before proceeding to examine the power point slide, it is important to recognize the different contexts within which power point slides may be used. Slides may be used in a stand-alone capacity, as single communicative devices, or can be one in a series of slides used in sequence (usually in presentations). Additionally, slides may be accompanied by verbal commentary from a presenter, but may also be required to function without verbal commentary if part of a bidding consortia submission package. These variable factors are significant to the overall working of the slide, but the core functionality of the slide as a communicative device resides with the signs depicted that communicate to a viewer. Extrapolating a precise context of use does not detract from the validity of conducting a focused analysis of a slide as a semiotic composition that make it work as a communicative device between project parties. The paper will now conduct a social semiotic informed analysis of the slide using the analytical concepts previously discussed. 5. Power Point Slide Fig. 1 is a power point slide presented to the NHS client in a briefing meeting with designers. It presents 3 different visual perspectives of patient rooms in a hospital together with supplementary textual information. The slide was authored by the design team prior to their meeting with the client and is composed of a mixture of images and text that highlight a number of functional issues. It may be considered a multimodal design resource as it uses a variety of signs in combination [8]. Fig. 1 Power point slide of hospital patient rooms.

Images and the Making of Meanings in Construction Project Design 905 The division of the slide into 4 distinct quarters is a major compositional decision of the design team: a text section in the top left corner accompanies 3 visual images of patient room. The text serves as reference and informational anchorage for viewers seeking clarification of the data they see on the slide; the positioning of the text making an important contribution to how the overall slide composition is viewed and understood by observers. Text to the left of images usually guide and dictate how viewers relate to the images (text to the right of an image would have a more secondary, supportive role). The majority of signs on the slide are non-coded and denotative, being simple to interpret and understand for a viewer (i.e. the English text; the 3D graphic elements; the colours and shadings). As an interviewed designer noted, We think about what we put in front of the client and what they might perceive of it. You tend to leave things out because you want them to focus upon the things that are correct and getting some feedback. So you tend to précis what you send them, so that they focus on the right things. (Design Director) The slide authors have anticipated the co-operative role of the client to interpret these non-coded signs as coded signs require further interpretation, slowing down the communication process and potentially adversely affecting the fluidity of the briefing meeting with the client. Linguistic signs are employed in order for viewers to relate and understand the images on the slide as the designers intend, with iconic signs (doors; windows) working by being in a room environment so that viewers of the slide are not surprised to see a bed within a patient rooms. The linguistic text serves as both anchorage and relay for the images, informing the viewer about what is displayed and complementing the images by providing supplemental information. These representational choices suggest designers wish to focus on certain issues: room visibilities, size of space and usability receiving more attention than other issues associated with patient rooms (e.g. colouring of walls and floors; medical equipment positioning; patient privacy). By focusing attention upon certain issues with the slide, designers are effectively diverting attention from other issues. As another interviewee reflected, They give us a list of deliverables that they want but we tend to judge what information we will present, what level of information, detail, granularity of information we present to them. (Design Director) Although single signs work individually (i.e. a bed; a door; a chair), these signs are subsumed within a bigger room design, reflecting meaning one upon the other. The properties and functionalities of the patient rooms are denoted with combinations of text and visual imagery and this combination of semiotics (text; graphics; sketch outlines; shadows) work together to convey meanings and strengthen the slide as a communicative tool. For example, windows are defined as large by both text and image; room dimensions are depicted through numerals and imagery; room functionality is described in the abstract through a combination of descriptive phrases and visual signs. Such multimodal combinations of signs are used to address a number of design issues: Size of room: numeric measurements; visual image; designer opinion; Visibility issues: visual image ( sight lines ); designer opinion; Window size: visual image; designer opinion; Family space: visual image; designer opinion; Access to ensuite: visual image ( grab bar assist ); designer opinion. It should be noted that patient room requirements would have been initially presented to designers with text in a briefing document. The same requirements are now represented in multiple visual ways, changing how project actors engage and understand it in the process; by using multiple semiotic modes, multiplications of meaning are occurring through their concurrent use. For example, the attachment of

906 Images and the Making of Meanings in Construction Project Design designer opinion to patient room visibility issues (via text and image) illustrates how a multiplication of sign representations associated with visibility requirements is now being presented to the client. Such changes are subtle but significant for a viewer. By judicious selection and shaping of signs on such design images, the design team is endeavouring to influence client perceptive and interpretive understanding of their own requirements and the hospital design parameters: Because we tend to tailor presentation material to the audience and where you are in the process. So it is important you get the right level of engagement, so people do not go away with too much detail because people may go off and question the detailed data you provided when what you want to get is a sort of overview and broader picture. (Design Director) Holistically, the slide images are more aesthetically pleasing than technically precise, with naturalistic details (e.g. floor shadows; brown furnishings; blue windows) being added to resonate positively with a client audience. The 3D graphical style also connotes a professional construction feel; the combination of authoritative text statements and graphic imagery adding to the overall impression. Non-coded signs predominate on the slide (e.g. beds, chairs, windows), whilst coded signs (those requiring explanation) are minimal in number: the visibility sight lines and the red curved line linking ensuite and bed being two instances of coded signs on the slide. The precise meaning of these signs is unclear. In the meeting with the client, such coded signs will require clarification or explanation, providing an opportunity for designers to demonstrate specialized knowledge to their audience. The incidence of coded to non-coded signs on the slide is not accidental, as the frequency is indicative of an objective of designers. As the process of explaining the meaning of a sign would take time and effort, too many coded signs would jeopardize a smooth communicative event. As a result, coded signs are minimized to facilitate effective communicative with the client. Conversely, it could be argued that some coded signs are included to enable designers to demonstrate their knowledge and expertise to the client. Nurse and patient visibility sight lines are depicted using different coloured triangular shapes: red for a nurse view from the doorway; white for a patient view from the bed. Although these representations are contestable (e.g. what about obstacles, moving persons, distractions and noise?), with these sign representations, designers are attempting to steer interpretation of visioning requirements in certain ways. It can also be noted that one of the 3 room images remains uncoloured, reflecting that the design of the patient rooms remains unfinished, and thus indicating that client input into the room design is still a possibility. Representationally, the slide is narrative in nature, depicting rooms as empty spaces and viewers are invited to imagine how patient rooms might begin to function. Although conceptual signs are present in the form of visioning sight lines and the red-curved line, the narrative compositions encourage viewers to imagine how rooms may function. The slide does not depict people, as the narrative scenes would change considerably if people were depicted in the rooms performing actions and viewers would relate to the representations differently if persons were depicted. Interactively, the slide presents a bird`s eye perspective of patient rooms, giving viewers a feeling of power over the design that a horizontal view would not. This perspective establishes an interpersonal relation between image and reader, as Jewitt and Oyama [37] note, Images can create particular relations between viewers and the world inside the picture frame. In this way they interact with viewers and suggest the attitude viewers should take towards what is being represented. The result of this perspectival view is that viewers of the slide are seeing the patient rooms from a position of power and influence; the social distance between viewer and image elements being further

Images and the Making of Meanings in Construction Project Design 907 interactive compositional effects. The decision to simplify the slide by omitting certain construction project requirements (e.g. electrical wiring; cabling; duct work) indicates how the slide is more of a presentational device and not a detailed design tool as the slide has been crafted to be an informative and engaging visual resource for a non-construction audience. As noted, compositionally, designers are using the slide to steer client interpretations of space towards functionality issues and this is achieved via semiotic compositional choice. The slide works effectively because information is balanced out across the 3 images: nurse and patient sight lines being shown on two different slides whilst access to the ensuite bathroom is depicted on another. Placing all the signs together on one image would jumble the image and cause confusion. 6. Results and Discussions The detailed analysis of the power point slide illustrates how such visual compositions may be critiqued and examined using social semiotic theories and concepts. Such construction project visual resources work as communicative devices via the multiple signs by which they are composed: the design team choosing and selecting signs prior to their meeting with the client. In a competitive and temporally constrained programming context, it is important that the design team address the project requirements whilst making the right impression with the client and the slide provides visual confirmation that project requirements are being addressed whilst presenting an aesthetically pleasing and easy to understand series of images for the non-construction client audience. Whilst the representations are not technically precise, rather being renderings that are pitched for quick interpretation and understanding, the selection of coded/non-coded, linguistic/iconic and denoted/connoted signs do have a direct effect when the slide is presented to an audience to be interpreted and understood. The close analysis reveals the underlying strategy of the design team and the context of use of the slide in terms of the relationship with the NHS client and the issues they wish to address. The multiple meanings generated by the slide are indicative of a desire by designers to build a relationship with the client founded upon professionalism and attention to detail. Of course, it should be noted that other issues and phenomena also contribute to the making of meaning in programming meetings as well as the semiotic composition of particular design image: the spoken discourse; personalities of individuals and other project materials (e.g. contractual agreements; government regulations; site reports) all contributing collectively to the generation of meaning. In briefing discussions, design images such as Fig. 1 will be cross-referenced and contextualized continuously with other project data and information, so that no visual image alone acts in isolation. As a result, we can understand such visual images as playing important, but not exclusively critical roles. However, the semiotic composition of an image is significant for how meanings are made in the design context and how the client perceives the design team and its` building proposals. A semiotic oriented study of construction project communicative resources (e.g. the client brief; drawings; room data sheets) also draws attention to those requirements that may be visually represented and those that cannot. Certainly, in a hospital construction project context, requirements such as infection control, security and safety are not easily represented in the design and construction discourse [39], leading to potential confusion and uncertainty. It is important for all those engaged in architectural, engineering and design work (both professional and non-professional) to recognize that design images may not be able to represent all project requirements effectively. Those that are represented visually are done so in certain ways determined by the authors of the design image. Such insights are important in a

908 Images and the Making of Meanings in Construction Project Design professional field increasingly influenced by technological advances that are visual in orientation (i.e. Building Information Modelling-BIM). 7. Conclusion The paper has explored how visual images used in construction project work (such as power point slides), are composed of signs that communicate meanings to viewers; the visual dimension of requirement representation being significant and important in the context of a construction project briefing process that may be competitive and temporally constrained. Whilst such resources push forward the design process, they also control and influence how the client relates to a design through their semiotic composition; the semiotic constitution of a visual design image affecting what ideas, concepts and data are conveyed as well as how issues of understanding and interpretation are resolved. Visual design resources contribute to the making of meaning in programming and design contexts through their sign composition. The analysis leads to the supposition that visual design images may be described as social semiotic resources that generate specific meanings and messages via semiotic compositional choice: the slide being a strategic communicative device employed by designers to resonate positively with the client. The social semiotic analysis reveals how visual images are not simple tools in the design story that convey data and information, but are also significant symbolic entities, whose multiple roles in the design discourse should be recognised. References [1] C. Harty, J. Whyte, Emerging hybrid practices in construction design work: role of mixed, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 136 (2010) 468-478. [2] C. Eastman, P. Teicholz, R. Sacks, K. Liston, BIM Handbook: A guide to BIM for owners, managers, designers, engineers and contractors, 2nd ed., John Wiley and Sons, 2011. [3] R.C. Valkenburg, Shared understanding as a condition for team design, Automation in Construction 7 (1998) 111-121. [4] C. Kao, S.D. Green, The briefing process: A knowledge management perspective, in: C. Gray, M. Prins (Eds.), the CIB Value Through Design Conference Rotterdam, 2002, pp. 81-92. [5] G.R. Kress, T. van Leeuwen, Reading images, The Grammar of Visual Design, 2nd ed., Routledge, London, 2006. [6] A. Dainty, D. Moore, M. Murray, Communication in construction: Theory and Practice, Taylor and Francis, Oxon, 2006. [7] P. Gluch, C. Raisanen, Interactional perspective on environmental communication in construction projects, Building Research & Information 37 (2) (2009) 164-175. [8] G.R. Kress, Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication, Routledge, London, 2010. [9] S. Pryke, H. Smyth, The management of complex projects: A relationship approach, Blackwell Publishing Limited, Oxford, 2006. [10] R. Luck, Using artefacts to mediate understanding in design conversations, Building Research & Information 35 (1) (2007) 28-41. [11] CIB (Chartered Institute of Building), Code of practice for project management for construction and development, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, 2010. [12] A. Blyth, J. Worthington, Managing the brief for better design, Spon Press, London, 2001. [13] S.A. Brown, Communication in the design process, Spon Press, London, 2001. [14] N. Ryd, The design brief as carrier of client information during the construction process, Design Studies 25 (2004) 231-249. [15] P. Lloyd, J. Busby, Softening up the facts: Engineers in design meetings, Design Issues 17 (3) (2001) 67-82. [16] T. Bogers, J.J. van Meel, T.J.M. van der Voordt, Architects about briefing, Facilities 26 (3/4) (2008) 109-116. [17] M.L. Chiu, An organizational view of design communication in design collaboration, Design Studies 23 (2002) 187-210. [18] T.A. Markus, D. Cameron, The words between the spaces: Buildings and language, Routledge, London, 2002. [19] J.M. Kamara, C.J. Anumba, N.F.O. Evbuomwan, Establishing and processing client requirements-a key aspect of concurrent engineering in construction, Engineering, Construction & Architectural Management 7 (1) (2000) 15-28. [20] W.H. Collinge, C.F. Harty, Stakeholder interpretations of design: Semiotic insights into the briefing process, Construction Management & Economics 32 (7-8) (2014)

Images and the Making of Meanings in Construction Project Design 909 760-772. [21] S.D. Green, A metaphorical analysis of client organizations and the briefing process, Construction Management and Economics 14 (2) (1996) 155-164. [22] D. Fleming, Professional-client discourse in design: Variation in accounts of social roles and material artifacts by designers and their clients, Text 16 (2) (1996) 133-160. [23] P. Cobley, The Routledge Companion to Semiotics, Routledge, London, 2010. [24] P. Vannini, Social semiotics and fieldwork: Method and analytics, Qualitative Inquiry 13 (1) (2007) 113-140. [25] C. Jewitt, An introduction to multimodality, in: C. Jewitt (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis, 2010. [26] C. Jewitt, G.R. Kress, Multimodal literacy, Peter Lang, New York, 2003. [27] C. Harrison, Visual social semiotics: Understanding how still images make meaning, Technical Communication 50 (1) (2003) 46-50. [28] J. Morton, The integration of images into architecture presentations: A semiotic analysis, Art, Design and Communication in Higher Education 5 (1) (2006) 21-37. [29] A. Rapoport, The meaning of the built environment, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 1990. [30] A.T. Minai, Architecture as environment communication, Mouton De Guyter, Berlin, 1985. [31] P. Medway, Virtual and material buildings: Construction and constructivism in architecture and writing, Written Communication 13 (1996) 473-514. [32] P. Medway, B. Clark, Imagining the building: Architectural design as semiotic construction, Design Studies 24 (3) (2003) 255-273. [33] R. Barthes, Elements of Semiology, Noonday Publishers, New York, 1967. [34] R. Barthes, Image, music, text, Fontana, London, 1977. [35] R.E. Innis, Semiotics: An introductory anthology, Hutchinson, London, 1986. [36] G. Penn, Semiotic analysis of still images, in: M.W. Bauer, G. Gaskell (Eds.), Qualitative researching with text, image and sound, A practical handbook, Sage, London, 2000, pp. 227-245. [37] C. Jewitt, R. Oyama, Visual Meaning: A social semiotic approach, in: C. Jewitt, T. van Leeuwen (Eds.), Handbook of Visual Analysis, 2001. [38] W.H. Collinge, Briefing as meaning making practice through signs: Client requirement representations and transformations in construction project design, Reading University, Ph.D. thesis, 2014. [39] W.H. Collinge, Infection control in design and construction work, Health Environments Research and Design Journal 8 (3) (2015) 68-79.