competitive strategies
The Cornell University team’s competitive strategy revolves around three themes: people, planning, and real-time decision-making.
People are our team’s most important asset. Our ability to successfully plan and make decisions depends on our ability to work together and capitalize on the unique talents of the student members of our team.
The Light Canopy concept grew out of an experimental design studio that included architects, engineers, and landscape architects. It is the defining architectural component of our house for functional and aesthetic purposes. The Light Canopy also is a symbol of the overarching importance of interdisciplinary collaboration among the Cornell team members. We believe the Light Canopy and our team's integration of many disciplines are two of our strongest competitive advantages.
The diversity of ideas on our team had the potential to be our greatest strength or our greatest weakness. Throughout the life of the team, we have recruited students from different disciplines and have nurtured each individual’s ability to contribute. This has created a much richer and more competitive team.
From day one we have planned to win, while also recognizing the importance of educating competition attendees and preparing for post-competition uses of the house.
Key decisions were made during the design process supporting this objective. For example, in the 2005 competition we learned that a large battery bank is needed to prepare for unforeseen weather circumstances, and the 2007 house has a larger battery bank. Furthermore, the battery bank is contained within a separate box, so that after the competition the house can either be grid-tied or powered off grid.
To facilitate the tour process, the house was designed with a clear path from entry to exit. Additionally, we have substituted Tate's® standard panels with some of their plexiglass showcase panels to allow visitors to see the inner workings of the home during tours.
Additional sub-strategies include:
Maximizing the point-to-dollar ratio when making mutually exclusive decisions (encouraging communication among architects, engineers, and the business team on judging criteria and component costs).
Incorporating best practices from the 2005 Solar Decathlon (we spoke directly with the 2005 Cornell University team and the faculty advisor from the Rhode Island School of Design).
Considering trade-offs between aesthetics and function on a case-by-case basis (the integrative design studio allowed for open discussion regarding architectural and engineering perspectives).
Making decisions in real-time (some decisions will need to be made during competition as unforeseen events arise; our strategy is to remain open-minded and flexible during the competition—our house’s flexible design and our team’s culture will support this strategy).
