Prescriptive versus non-prescriptive prison design briefs: Architect responses to interpreting Australian private prison design briefs .

Purpose - To report on architect reactions to the use of non-prescriptive design and construction briefs in the delivery of private prison projects in Australia. Design/methodology/approach - The introduction of the private prison projects in Australia saw the introduction of alternative delivery methods, such as Design-Construct, for the delivery of prison facilities. The resulting design brief, forwarded as the "Request for Proposal", was typically a non-prescriptive document. Those architects who participated in such private prison design projects were interviewed using a semi-structured interview questionnaire. Beliefs regarding the use of such briefs were gauged from the interview data. Findings - The interviews revealed conflicting beliefs regarding the usefulness and appropriateness of the design brief. The responses were divided between a minority who found the briefs adequate, owing principally to the belief that it facilitated innovation. However, the majority considered the briefs as inadequate for prison construction. They believed that it allowed for manipulation by contractors, and that it compromised the design process and the integrity of the facility. As architects question the suitability of such design briefs for the delivery of prison facilities, the paper highlights the advantages and limitations in using prescriptive and non-prescriptive prison design briefs. Originality/value - This paper fulfils a need for data regarding the role of design briefs in prison design and construction. It offers a valuable comparison of the diverse approaches that can be taken, and the impacts this has upon how architects operate in prison projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]