What does tacit knowledge bring to the research of historic collaboration in building?

Renée Cheng stated that the ‘intangibles of human interaction and collaboration in support of tangible outcomes presents a significant challenge for the professional.’ ¹ Andrew Pressman, Designing Relationships : The Art of Collaboration in Architecture (London: Routledge, 2014), xi. This quote acknowledges that a building is not only erected through tangible material, like plans, specifications etc. but also relies on the ungraspable processes of interpersonal relationships and collaboration. Throughout the nineteenth century, the rising complexity in building required more specialist interventions in both the processes of designing and building. ² Andrew Saint, Architect and Engineer: A Study in Sibling Rivalry (New Haven, Conn.; London: Yale University Press, 2007), 486–87. The professional building actors: architect, engineer and contractor also had to collaborate more intensively to create these increasingly complex buildings: combining the technical knowledge of each, but also benefiting from the necessary tacit knowledge of these actors. This tacit knowledge is both personal knowledge (like education or experience) that one actor harnesses through interdisciplinary exchanges but also tacit knowledge that is project-specific and hence shared among the actors (like managerial skills, insight in the building process and the roles of everyone involved).
The study of collaboration in the historical practice of designing and building relies heavily on the tangible traces left by the actors (their archives, the building, texts, etc.), but collaboration is itself an intangible process, governed by tacit knowledge. Within the Ph.D. project of the author, ³ Ph.D. funded by F.N.R.S. 2020-2024: A culture of collaboration: how architects, engineers and contractors worked together in Belgium (1890-1970). At ULB, under supervision of professor Rika Devos historical professional collaboration in building is investigated by a twofold approach. On the one hand, a historical framework is set up, on the other hand, in-depth case studies on complex buildings are scrutinized. This research can be considered largely in the field of construction history and is concerned with the built environment. For this paper, in order to grasp a better understanding of the nature and role of tacit knowledge that made possible the projects realized through collaboration processes, three case studies on complex buildings between 1898 and 1953 are investigated from the perspective of tacit knowledge. The research on historical collaboration suggests that these professionals’ tacit knowledge on technical, cultural and procedural issues is crucial in understanding the nature and motivation of their approach to collaboration, but remains difficult to fully grasp through archival study. This paper focuses on how disciplinary (knowledge) boundaries were crossed, and professional roles shifted in daily practice, while legal liabilities left room for innovative design in Belgian building.
In the introduction of the book The Tacit Dimension, Architectural knowledge and scientific research, Lara Schrijver referred to Bryan Lawson and Nigel Cross: ‘who both argued that “designerly ways of knowing” are a separate category of knowledge that was accompanied by a different approach to problem-solving.’ ⁴ Lara Schrijver, ‘Introduction: Tacit Knowledge, Architecture and Its Underpinnings’, in The Tacit Dimension Architecture, Knowledge and Scientific Research, ed. Lara Schrijver (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2021), 14. referring to Nigel Cross “ Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science”, Design Issues 17:3 (2001), 49-55.  And; Lawson How designers think (London: The Architectural Press, 1980). Precisely the fact that historians started to make a distinction between designing and execution, attributing each phase to a specific actor, ignored the full complexity of collaborative efforts in the building process. It is the aim of my research to try to bridge this gap and look to the full complexity of the building process, which was influenced by different kinds of knowledge and networks, stemming from different actors, each with their own tools, roles and responsibilities.

Means of revealing tacit knowledge through case studies

The aim of this paper is to see how the concepts of tacit knowledge help to understand the historical practices of collaboration. By looking through the lens of collaboration, this paper tries to gain insight in which kinds of tacit knowledge are present in the building process. The paper relies on three case studies for which one key document is selected to tell a story from the perspective of tacit knowledge.
This paper introduces three kinds of tacit knowledge that relate to historic collaboration in building, the first one is the technical knowledge, the second kind is the interdisciplinary knowledge and lastly the generated knowledge. Each kind resides on a different level. Where the first resides on the personal level of the actor, which is knowledge inherent to a person, the second one is on the level of the team, in which the central question is: ‘How to collaborate with each other?’, and finally the last one relates to the level of the project, in which the aspect of knowledge creation is tested by working together.
While looking through the different levels of knowledge that might exist or be created, the paper is concerned with how the building process and its historical documents can contain traits of information about the ‘tacit dimensions of knowing’? ⁵ Schrijver, 8. By introducing the concepts of generated (tacit) knowledge, this paper wants to find out if it is indeed possible that knowledge is created through building. More ambitiously, this paper wants to find out, what questioning this exploration of tacit knowledge in historical collaboration in building can bring to the wider discussion in tacit knowledge in architecture?

Three kinds of knowledge

Technical knowledge: Professionalization, education and socialization

From the nineteenth century onwards, the rising complexity in building required more specialist interventions in both the process of designing and building. The role of the architect was challenged and new demands of construction called for specialized actors, each setting up their own process of socialization. Within this context, professional organizations emerged and different types of teaching institutions were established. Professional organisations played a central role in the accumulation of knowledge. In 1872, the Société Centrale des Architectes de Belqigue (S.C.A.B.) was formed. ⁶ Victor-Gaston Martiny, La Société Centrale d’architecture de Belgique Depuis Sa Fondation (1872-1974) (Brussels: S.n., 1974), 8–10. Since its founding this society was concerned with the professional status of the architect and forwarded that the architect had to possess the right kind of knowledge to be considered a ‘competent’ architect. ⁷ Benoît Mihail, ‘Société Centrale d’Architecture de Belgique’, in Repertorium van de Architectuur in België: Van 1830 Tot Heden, ed. Anne Van Loo et al. (Antwerpen: Mercatorfonds, 2003), 513. Soon after the contractors and engineers would establish their own societies. ⁸ Jelena Dobbels, ‘Becoming Professional Practitioners. A History of General Contractors in Belgium (1870-1970)’ (Free University of Brussels, 2018), 220; SRBII, ‘1885-1985: Les Cent Dernières Années de l’histoire de l’ingénieur En Belgique : Colloque Du 25 Novembre 1985’ (Brussel: SRBII, 1986). The question of competence came to the fore already in 1882, when the president of SCAB Valère Dumortier (1848-1903) asked ‘What knowledge is required to obtain a degree in architecture?’ ⁹ Valère Dumortier, ‘Rapport Sur l’utilité d’instituer Un Diplôme d’architecte et Les Conditions d’obtention de Ce Diplôme’, L’Emulation 8, no. 10 (1882): 57. , in which he saw the answer to only certify architects if they had obtained a diploma at the Ecole des Beaux Arts. At the time, the profession was flooded with incompetent practitioners and ‘charlatans’, which had its detrimental effect on the quality of buildings and houses.
Irrespective of Dumortier’s proposal, in Belgium, architects were not only trained in Beaux-Arts academies, but from 1862 onwards, the state university of Ghent provided the diploma of ‘Ingénieur Architecte’ ¹⁰ Anne Van Loo, ed., Repertorium van de Architectuur in België : Van 1830 Tot Heden (Antwerpen: Mercatorfonds, 2003), 530. educating people in the dual profile of architect and engineer. Although Louis Cloquet (1849-1920) represented the qualities of the dual profile at the turn of the nineteenth century, he actually graduated as ‘Ingénieur Civil des Ponts et Chaussées.’ He became professor of architecture at Ghent University in 1890 and was a prolific builder himself, he believed that the role of the architect was to be: ‘architecte artiste et ingénieur’. ¹¹ Louis Cloquet, Traité d’architecture: Tome Cinquième, Esthétique, Composition et Décoration (Paris-Liège: Béranger, 1901), 144; Lieselotte Van de Capelle, ‘Het Volume van Elektriciteit : Technieken in de Architectuur (1860-2010)’ (Ghent University, 2011), 46. From 1895 until 1913, he compiled his architectural knowledge in his ‘Traîté d’Architecture’, which came out in five volumes. ¹² Louis Cloquet, Traité d’Architecture: Tome Premier. Murs, Voûtes, Arcades (Paris/Liège: Librairie Polytechnique, Baudry et Cie or Béranger, 1901).
Together with provincial architect Stephan Mortier (1857-1934), Cloquet was commissioned to act as architect for the new Hôtel Des Postes (post office) in Ghent in 1898. Although the preliminary plans were made by architect Alfons Van Houcke within the administration of the ministry of Rails, Telegraphy and Postal Services in 1896, Cloquet soon took on the role of the mediator within the project and developed it further with innovative techniques. ¹³ Laurens Bulckaen and Rika Devos, ‘The Engineer as Mediator in Complex Architectural Projects at the Turn of the Nineteenth Century: The Case Stdy of Louis Cloquet’, in Iron, Steel and Buildings: The Proceedings of the Seventh Conference of the Construction History Society, ed. James Campbell (Cambridge: Construction History Society, 2020), 405–18. The role of the mediator, as defined here, was someone who acted to validate the interests and (design) input of all parties involved and who took careful decisions, making sure the project effectively got built. Within the building of the Hôtel des Postes, the most striking innovation was the use of reinforced concrete for the floors, archival material shows that this concrete was even tested in situ (Fig. 1, 2, 3). ¹⁴ Patrick Goditiabois, ‘Het Posthotel van Gent (1899-1910)’, in Een Stad in Opbouw (2) : Gent van 1540 Tot de Wereldtentoonstelling van 1913, ed. Geert van Doorne (Tielt: Lannoo, 1992), 668. This design decision was influenced by the contracting company of Myncke Frères, who worked with Cloquet on other buildings at the same time, such as the Rommelaere Institute (1898-1905, Ghent) and the Polyclinic facility (1899-1900, Ghent) at the old hospital site of the Bijloke. Myncke Frères was the first contractor in Ghent to obtain a patent of Hennebique to install reinforced concrete, ¹⁵ Stephanie Van de Voorde, ‘Bouwen in Beton in België (1890-1975) Samenspel van Kennis, Experiment En Innovatie’ (Ghent University, 2011), 85. and the company won the tender for the foundations of the Hôtel des Postes. It is highly likely that the contractors hinted at using reinforced concrete for the structure of the floors as well, since the plans were changed between 1899 and 1902, changing the brick vaulted floor (which was established practice at the end of the nineteenth century), to a reinforced concrete floor. Nonetheless the collaboration between Myncke Frères and Cloquet was put to an end: not because of conflict, but because of the tendering procedure of the Ministry which yielded contractor Van Driessche as the best choice to execute the works. As Van Driessche did not hold a patent for building with reinforced concrete, the company had to rely on contractor Rhodius-Deville from Namur to execute the concreting. Next to that, problems with timing and poorly executed construction details made it difficult to work with Van Driessche. ¹⁶ Veerle Cnudde, Jan Dewanckele, and Marleen De Ceukelaire, Gent… Steengoed! (Gent: Academia Press, 2009), 55–56.
This story reveals much on the tension that rises between the theoretical knowledge on the structural principles of reinforced concrete and the factual execution of it, complicated by legal rights of the patent and procedures. Especially at the turn of the century when disciplinary boundaries were not always clearly defined. The case study also reveals that Cloquet demonstrates he had the necessary tacit knowledge of mediating and managing the many different actors involved, both in the administration and on the construction site.

Interdisciplinary knowledge: how to collaborate?

Once again, reference must be made to the end of the nineteenth century as a period that heralded major changes. Lara Schrijver noticed the tension between ‘insights derived through abilities and habits versus those of cognitive and codified knowledge’ ¹⁷ Schrijver, ‘Introduction: Tacit Knowledge, Architecture and Its Underpinnings’, 12. as the nineteenth century in which the systematisation of knowledge ensured not only that knowledge itself was reconfigured but also material production itself. ¹⁸ Schrijver, 12. Because of the large variety in knowledge needed to build, design transformed towards a more collaborative process in which each professional actor had to contribute towards the same goal. Today still, however, architectural historiography only rarely recognises this collaborative effort. At the same time, with the rising complexity, professional roles started shifting and new roles emerged. Next to that, regulation became a more pressing issue. Although the law on the protection of the title and profession of the architect in Belgium was only voted in 1939, which more strictly defined the roles of the building actors. Still, the case studies showed that for complex building projects, the mechanisms that would be introduced in the law of 1939, were already incorporated in practice. Moreover, contracts were still the measure to ensure that a project got build.
The contract of the Booktower in the case study on civil engineer Gustave Magnel (1889-1955) gave an indication on the tacit knowledge of the team as a collaborative entity. The project for the Central Library of Ghent University, or Booktower, was commissioned in 1933 by the Minister of Education Maurice Lippens to Henry van de Velde. ¹⁹ Beatrix Baillieul et al., Een Toren Voor Boeken (Ghent: Centrale Bibliotheek, 1985), 66. Van de Velde held a teaching position at the Ghent University and already in 1934 a contract between the ministry and the three designers of the building was signed. Next to Van de Velde, Jean-Norbert Cloquet was appointed as architect as well, and they were (initially) both responsible for the plans, execution drawings, tendering and the artistic overview. Magnel was appointed to design all works in reinforced concrete and to supervise those works (Fig.4). ²⁰ Contract of the Central library. HS.III.128.01.01, ‘Archief Henry van de Velde; Universitaire Bibliotheek Gent’ (Ghent, 1934).

Author: Laurens Bulckaen (picture taken) Title: Page 2 of the contract of the Booktower Source: HS.III.128.01.01. 1934. “Archief Henry van de Velde; Universitaire Bibliotheek Gent”. Ghent.

The contract shows that a design-team, as a united team, signed the contract, which was rather particular for that time, or any time for that matter. It is important to note that Magnel and Cloquet, both affiliated to the ‘special schools’ ²¹ Theo Luykx, Liber Memorialis 1913-1960 Deel IV Faculteit Der Wetenschappen, Faculteit Der Toegepaste Wetenschappen, ed. Theo Luykx (Ghent: Uitgave van het Rectoraat, 1960), 358; 364. of the engineering department, were already engaged in two other building projects for the university, namely the laboratory complex for the applied sciences, known as the Technicum (1932-1938, Ghent), and for the new Academic Hospital (1934-1954, Ghent). ²² Jean-Norbert Cloquet, ‘Le Nouveau “Technicum” de Gand Considerations Generales’, L’Ossature Métallique 6, no. 11 (1937): 515–21; Ronny De Meyer, ‘De Technische Laboratoria of the “Technicum”’, in De Universiteit Bouwt: 1918-1940 (Ghent: RUG. Centrale bibliotheek, 1991), 101–19; Lucie Zabeau-Van Der Verren, ‘Een Ziekenhuis Voor de Gentse Universiteit. Planning En Ruwbouw Tijdens Het Interbellum’, in De Universiteit Bouwt: 1918-1940 (Gent: Centrale Bibliotheek RUG, 1991), 129–50.
The contract also fixed the distribution of the honorary fees, for which Van de Velde got two thirds of the estimate of the entire building, and Cloquet only got one third. Archival material shows that Cloquet was tasked with much more work than Van de Velde, as he administered the day to day check-ups and paper work. Still, his role is diminished by Van de Velde in his memoire as ‘architecte administrative.’ ²³ Henry van de Velde and Hans Curjel, Geschichte Meines Lebens (München: Piper, 1962), 439. Magnel eventually got his honorary fee calculated only on the structural works in concrete and steel.
Although initially the institutional constraints provided the impetus, it seemed that Cloquet and Magnel worked together quite well and that they could assess to what level they could rely on each other. The tacit dimension of this contract is located both in the fact that multiple actors already obtained the knowledge to collaborate with one another.

Generated knowledge: how each building (construction site) generates tacit knowledge

The third kind of tacit knowledge this paper tries to define is the concept of ‘generated knowledge’ which is in fact the result of the shared knowledge or the overlap in both explicit and tacit knowledge between the building actors. Complex buildings often required inventiveness on different levels, sometimes on the interpersonal level, sometimes on the technical or design level. This kind of inventiveness often surfaced during, or due to the construction site. Therefore, the designers had to be tacitly aware of the possibilities or limitations that the actual construction process implied. On its turn, the design itself is often impacted by the contributions of the engineer or contractor. The case study revolving around the architectural office of Cols & De Roeck (1912-1965) exemplified this aspect of knowledge creation as they were involved in the construction of two car factories.
The buildings under scrutiny are the Ford Assembly plant (1931), and the GM plant (1954), both located in the Antwerp harbour. Although it was never explicitly stated (or retrieved from archival sources) how the Ford company relied on the architectural office of Cols & De Roeck, indications suggest that the company of Blaton was contacted as they established for themselves a reputation in the U.S. On their turn, Blaton engaged Cols & De Roeck, since the architectural office was familiar with designing industrial buildings and was considered a large office. The architects demonstrated to be a multi-disciplinary office as Vincent Cols (1890-1968) was educated as engineer-architect at the university of Louvain and Jules De Roeck (1887-1966) graduated at the Académie des Beaux Arts in Antwerp. The case study indicated that for both factory buildings, the office of Cols & De Roeck was in charge of creating the architectural plans, incorporating the complex spatial organisation of the program that a factory requires. Next to that they were concerned with the ‘aesthetical’ aspects of the building, but also soon took on the role of the mediator on the projects, bringing together all the information and design input of the different actors to integrate it into a functional building. This mediating process took shape in the fact that each structural part was initially calculated and dimensioned by the engineering office of Constructor, and then even further detailed and sometimes re-calculated by the respective concrete or steel contractors of Blaton or the Société Métallurgique, considering both had their in-house calculation and drawing office. ²⁴ Maurice Culot et al., Blaton : Une Dynastie de Constructeurs (Brussels: Archives d’architecture moderne, 2018). In the archives of Cols & De Roeck on both the Ford and GM plant a close collaboration can be noticed: multiple calculation notes and detailed drawings by the contractors trace back the structural design by the different actors. The structural principle of creating the first floor in reinforced concrete, which was prompted by the fact that it had to sustain the load of the assembly line for the cars, and the second floor, supporting the roof, was made in ‘lighter’ steel so that the production halls were illuminated with natural daylight. This type was repeated for the GM factory twenty years later. However, in the GM plant, the concrete floor evolved towards a ‘waffle slab’ system (Fig. 5), a new American technique Blaton was experimenting with and which allowed for more spatial flexibility. ²⁵ Vincent Cols, Jules De Roeck, and Joseph Frickel, ‘Les Nouvelles Installations de La Général Motors C°, à Anvers’, La Technique Des TravauxNovember-D, no. 27 (1951): 361–62.

Author: unknown Title: Picture of the construction site of the GM factory in Antwerp (1950) Source: La technique des travaux (journal)

This indicates at least two important aspects, first of all, the contracting companies (who were amongst the more established firms in Belgium) had sufficient tacit knowledge of how to integrate their own structural details in the overall form of the design. Secondly, in the reverse way, the architects’ tacit understanding of the capacities of the contractors raised enough trust and confidence in order to let them influence the design to such an extent.

Concluding remarks

When looking at the process of building through the lens of tacit knowledge, from conception to completion, several intermediate conclusions can be traced in this research. Still, it is certain that with enabling the methodological tool of the micro-historical approach, it became clear that a building process is influenced by different traits of tacit dimensions.
Through the in-detail look at the case studies, in the first half of the 20th century, different levels of knowledge seem to have influenced the design but also the process of collaboration. Before any kind of legislative framework was put in place, self-regulating practices emerged. The law of 1939 regulated architectural practice but also indirectly influenced collaboration. Yet also before this moment, tacit knowledge between the building actors on how the process had to propel, allowed them to work together in an efficient way. Next to that, by looking at multiple case studies, a principle of recurring collaboration was detected. It seems that certain building actors preferred to work with the same company or people on different projects. This hints on the one hand at the possibility that building actors develop a network and relationships, built on trust. Secondly, and more importantly, the recurring use of knowledge creates a form of tacit knowledge in the sense that one actor knows the intellectual capacities (and habits) of the other, and therefore it is ‘easier’ (or more convenient) to work with the same person or company again.
Also the emergence of different and even shifting roles within the building project, certainly identifying the role of a ‘mediator’ in the building process, shows that tacit knowledge is created on the level of the project, on how to deal with one another. This tacit knowledge was not taught in school, but relied on an certain sensitivity on how to deal with one another on a professional level.
The ideas that reside in the principles of tacit knowledge show that there is a whole layer or dimension within the case studies that I have researched up until now, that try to give an answer to how a process of building throughout history could be developed and how the actors relied on interpersonal connections and networks in order to build.
The knowledge within the field of building (whether it is architecture or construction), is often primarily focussed on the ‘what’ or, following Ryle, ‘knowing that’ ²⁶ Gilbert Ryle, ‘Knowing How and Knowing That: The Presidential Address’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 46, no. 1 (1946): 5. , most of the time concerned with the artistic (or aesthetic) or technological aspects of an edifice. The ‘how’, focussed on the process, or the ‘knowing how’ ²⁷ Ryle, 6–7. , by means of analysing collaboration, shows a multi-layered perspective on the complexity of building and architecture. It is indeed in this knowing how, that there exists a specific dimension of tacit knowledge within the process. I have tried to uncover the aspects within the archives that might shine a light on the process, on how the process developed, and who were the key actors involved, each bringing specific knowledge to the table, harnessing a tacit dimension of knowledge, residing from their professional profiles and backgrounds.

References

Baillieul, Beatrix, Hilde Ballegeer, Luc Heyvaert, Hendrik Lambotte, Dirk Laporte, Norbert Poulain, and Lucienne Zabeau-Van der Verren. Een Toren Voor Boeken. Ghent: Centrale Bibliotheek, 1985.
Bulckaen, Laurens, and Rika Devos. ‘The Engineer as Mediator in Complex Architectural Projects at the Turn of the Nineteenth Century: The Case Stdy of Louis Cloquet’. In Iron, Steel and Buildings: The Proceedings of the Seventh Conference of the Construction History Society, edited by James Campbell, 405–18. Cambridge: Construction History Society, 2020.
Capelle, Lieselotte Van de. ‘Het Volume van Elektriciteit : Technieken in de Architectuur (1860-2010)’. Ghent University, 2011.
Cloquet, Jean-Norbert. ‘Le Nouveau “Technicum” de Gand Considerations Generales’. L’Ossature Métallique 6, no. 11 (1937): 515–21.
Cloquet, Louis. Traité d’architecture: Tome Cinquième, Esthétique, Composition et Décoration. Paris-Liège: Béranger, 1901.
———. Traité d’Architecture: Tome Premier. Murs, Voûtes, Arcades. Paris/Liège: Librairie Polytechnique, Baudry et Cie or Béranger, 1901.
Cnudde, Veerle, Jan Dewanckele, and Marleen De Ceukelaire. Gent… Steengoed! Gent: Academia Press, 2009.
Cols, Vincent, Jules De Roeck, and Joseph Frickel. ‘Les Nouvelles Installations de La Général Motors C°, à Anvers’. La Technique Des Travaux November-D, no. 27 (1951).
Culot, Maurice, Rika Devos, Jens Van De Maele, Bernard Espion, and Yaron Pesztat. Blaton : Une Dynastie de Constructeurs. Brussels: Archives d’architecture moderne, 2018.
Dobbels, Jelena. ‘Becoming Professional Practitioners. A History of General Contractors in Belgium (1870-1970)’. Free University of Brussels, 2018.
Dumortier, Valère. ‘Rapport Sur l’utilité d’instituer Un Diplôme d’architecte et Les Conditions d’obtention de Ce Diplôme’. L’Emulation 8, no. 10 (1882): 55–60.
Goditiabois, Patrick. ‘Het Posthotel van Gent (1899-1910)’. In Een Stad in Opbouw (2) : Gent van 1540 Tot de Wereldtentoonstelling van 1913, edited by Geert van Doorne, 321–29. Tielt: Lannoo, 1992.
HS.III.128.01.01. ‘Archief Henry van de Velde; Universitaire Bibliotheek Gent’. Ghent, 1934.
Loo, Anne Van, ed. Repertorium van de Architectuur in België : Van 1830 Tot Heden. Antwerpen: Mercatorfonds, 2003.
Luykx, Theo. Liber Memorialis 1913-1960 Deel IV Faculteit Der Wetenschappen, Faculteit Der Toegepaste Wetenschappen. Edited by Theo Luykx. Ghent: Uitgave van het Rectoraat, 1960.
Martiny, Victor-Gaston. La Société Centrale d’architecture de Belgique Depuis Sa Fondation (1872-1974). Brussels: S.n., 1974.
Meyer, Ronny De. ‘De Technische Laboratoria of the “Technicum”’. In De Universiteit Bouwt: 1918-1940, 101–19. Ghent: RUG. Centrale bibliotheek, 1991.
Mihail, Benoît. ‘Société Centrale d’Architecture de Belgique’. In Repertorium van de Architectuur in België: Van 1830 Tot Heden, edited by Anne Van Loo, Marc Dubois, Francis Strauven, and Norbert Poulain, 513–14. Antwerpen: Mercatorfonds, 2003.
Pressman, Andrew. Designing Relationships : The Art of Collaboration in Architecture. London: Routledge, 2014.
Ryle, Gilbert. ‘Knowing How and Knowing That: The Presidential Address’. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 46, no. 1 (1946): 1–16.
Saint, Andrew. Architect and Engineer: A Study in Sibling Rivalry. New Haven, Conn.; London: Yale University Press, 2007.
Schrijver, Lara. ‘Introduction: Tacit Knowledge, Architecture and Its Underpinnings’. In The Tacit Dimension Architecture, Knowledge and Scientific Research, edited by Lara Schrijver, 7–21. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2021.
SRBII. ‘1885-1985: Les Cent Dernières Années de l’histoire de l’ingénieur En Belgique : Colloque Du 25 Novembre 1985’. Brussel: SRBII, 1986.
Velde, Henry van de, and Hans Curjel. Geschichte Meines Lebens. München: Piper, 1962.
Voorde, Stephanie Van de. ‘Bouwen in Beton in België (1890-1975) Samenspel van Kennis, Experiment En Innovatie’. Ghent University, 2011.
Zabeau-Van Der Verren, Lucie. ‘Een Ziekenhuis Voor de Gentse Universiteit. Planning En Ruwbouw Tijdens Het Interbellum’. In De Universiteit Bouwt: 1918-1940, 129–50. Gent: Centrale Bibliotheek RUG, 1991.

1. Andrew Pressman, Designing Relationships : The Art of Collaboration in Architecture (London: Routledge, 2014), xi.
2. Andrew Saint, Architect and Engineer: A Study in Sibling Rivalry (New Haven, Conn.; London: Yale University Press, 2007), 486–87.
3. Ph.D. funded by F.N.R.S. 2020-2024: A culture of collaboration: how architects, engineers and contractors worked together in Belgium (1890-1970). At ULB, under supervision of professor Rika Devos
4. Lara Schrijver, ‘Introduction: Tacit Knowledge, Architecture and Its Underpinnings’, in The Tacit Dimension Architecture, Knowledge and Scientific Research, ed. Lara Schrijver (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2021), 14. referring to Nigel Cross “ Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science”, Design Issues 17:3 (2001), 49-55.  And; Lawson How designers think (London: The Architectural Press, 1980).
5. Schrijver, 8.
6. Victor-Gaston Martiny, La Société Centrale d’architecture de Belgique Depuis Sa Fondation (1872-1974) (Brussels: S.n., 1974), 8–10.
7. Benoît Mihail, ‘Société Centrale d’Architecture de Belgique’, in Repertorium van de Architectuur in België: Van 1830 Tot Heden, ed. Anne Van Loo et al. (Antwerpen: Mercatorfonds, 2003), 513.
8. Jelena Dobbels, ‘Becoming Professional Practitioners. A History of General Contractors in Belgium (1870-1970)’ (Free University of Brussels, 2018), 220; SRBII, ‘1885-1985: Les Cent Dernières Années de l’histoire de l’ingénieur En Belgique : Colloque Du 25 Novembre 1985’ (Brussel: SRBII, 1986).
9. Valère Dumortier, ‘Rapport Sur l’utilité d’instituer Un Diplôme d’architecte et Les Conditions d’obtention de Ce Diplôme’, L’Emulation 8, no. 10 (1882): 57.
10. Anne Van Loo, ed., Repertorium van de Architectuur in België : Van 1830 Tot Heden (Antwerpen: Mercatorfonds, 2003), 530.
11. Louis Cloquet, Traité d’architecture: Tome Cinquième, Esthétique, Composition et Décoration (Paris-Liège: Béranger, 1901), 144; Lieselotte Van de Capelle, ‘Het Volume van Elektriciteit : Technieken in de Architectuur (1860-2010)’ (Ghent University, 2011), 46.
12. Louis Cloquet, Traité d’Architecture: Tome Premier. Murs, Voûtes, Arcades (Paris/Liège: Librairie Polytechnique, Baudry et Cie or Béranger, 1901).
13. Laurens Bulckaen and Rika Devos, ‘The Engineer as Mediator in Complex Architectural Projects at the Turn of the Nineteenth Century: The Case Stdy of Louis Cloquet’, in Iron, Steel and Buildings: The Proceedings of the Seventh Conference of the Construction History Society, ed. James Campbell (Cambridge: Construction History Society, 2020), 405–18.
14. Patrick Goditiabois, ‘Het Posthotel van Gent (1899-1910)’, in Een Stad in Opbouw (2) : Gent van 1540 Tot de Wereldtentoonstelling van 1913, ed. Geert van Doorne (Tielt: Lannoo, 1992), 668.
15. Stephanie Van de Voorde, ‘Bouwen in Beton in België (1890-1975) Samenspel van Kennis, Experiment En Innovatie’ (Ghent University, 2011), 85.
16. Veerle Cnudde, Jan Dewanckele, and Marleen De Ceukelaire, Gent… Steengoed! (Gent: Academia Press, 2009), 55–56.
17. Schrijver, ‘Introduction: Tacit Knowledge, Architecture and Its Underpinnings’, 12.
18. Schrijver, 12.
19. Beatrix Baillieul et al., Een Toren Voor Boeken (Ghent: Centrale Bibliotheek, 1985), 66.
20. Contract of the Central library. HS.III.128.01.01, ‘Archief Henry van de Velde; Universitaire Bibliotheek Gent’ (Ghent, 1934).
21. Theo Luykx, Liber Memorialis 1913-1960 Deel IV Faculteit Der Wetenschappen, Faculteit Der Toegepaste Wetenschappen, ed. Theo Luykx (Ghent: Uitgave van het Rectoraat, 1960), 358; 364.
22. Jean-Norbert Cloquet, ‘Le Nouveau “Technicum” de Gand Considerations Generales’, L’Ossature Métallique 6, no. 11 (1937): 515–21; Ronny De Meyer, ‘De Technische Laboratoria of the “Technicum”’, in De Universiteit Bouwt: 1918-1940 (Ghent: RUG. Centrale bibliotheek, 1991), 101–19; Lucie Zabeau-Van Der Verren, ‘Een Ziekenhuis Voor de Gentse Universiteit. Planning En Ruwbouw Tijdens Het Interbellum’, in De Universiteit Bouwt: 1918-1940 (Gent: Centrale Bibliotheek RUG, 1991), 129–50.
23. Henry van de Velde and Hans Curjel, Geschichte Meines Lebens (München: Piper, 1962), 439.
24. Maurice Culot et al., Blaton : Une Dynastie de Constructeurs (Brussels: Archives d’architecture moderne, 2018).
25. Vincent Cols, Jules De Roeck, and Joseph Frickel, ‘Les Nouvelles Installations de La Général Motors C°, à Anvers’, La Technique Des TravauxNovember-D, no. 27 (1951): 361–62.
26. Gilbert Ryle, ‘Knowing How and Knowing That: The Presidential Address’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 46, no. 1 (1946): 5.
27. Ryle, 6–7.