Ecosystems of Architecture

This research aims to explore how the distribution of client types varies when comparing one country to another within the same firm and how this division is vital to the firm's survival. To investigate this question, a comparative analysis can be conducted between two architectural firms operating in different countries within the same firm. The utilization of open data from the company's own website provides a valuable resource for conducting research on the distribution of client types. By examining the available information, researchers can gain insights into the company's portfolio, client base, specialization, and strategic focus. This data-driven approach ensures transparency and reliability in the research process and contributes to a comprehensive analysis of the firm's operations and market dynamics.

The distribution of client types within an architectural firm can vary significantly across different countries, impacted by factors such as cultural preferences, economic conditions, market competition, technological advancements, and even geopolitical considerations. Successfully navigating and managing this diverse client landscape becomes vital for the firm's survival, as it ensures a consistent flow of projects and revenue streams from various markets. Furthermore, a well-managed distribution of client types allows the firm to capitalize on specific market opportunities, diversify its portfolio, foster innovation through exposure to different design challenges, and cultivate a global reputation as a versatile and adaptable architectural firm. By continuously monitoring and analyzing the distribution of client types, and adjusting their strategies and resources accordingly, firms can stay ahead of market trends, anticipate changes, and position themselves for long-term success in an ever-evolving architectural landscape.

These graphs provide valuable insights into the distribution of clients across different countries within the firm. Upon comparing the two offices, it becomes evident that they predominantly engage with distinct client types, resulting in minimal direct competition between them. Notably, OMA operates in numerous countries beyond the Netherlands, catering to a diverse range of markets. In contrast, MVRDV concentrates primarily on projects within the Netherlands, emphasizing proximity. OMA's higher project completion rate can be attributed to their ability to attract a broader spectrum of projects and clients. However, it is important to note that government projects, which typically demand more time for completion, may influence these findings. Consequently, it would be imprudent to draw definitive conclusions based solely on the presented graphs. Nevertheless, the data indicates that OMA and MVRDV adopt differing strategies in terms of client acquisition, project diversity, and geographical reach, underscoring their distinct approaches to success in the architectural industry.

 The distribution of client types within an architectural firm is a crucial factor for its survival. The comparative analysis between offices in different countries highlights the significance of strategic client targeting and project diversity, indicating the varying approaches employed by firms. It is noteworthy that OMA focuses on a wide range of clients, whereas MVRDV has a smaller circle of clients. Although both companies operate in distinct business ecosystems, they are well-known and successful in the architecture industry.

Honourable mentions

Adham Selim | Strategist | Architectural designer | Teacher

Tristan Beerendonk | Student

Jeroen Piels | Student

Ayca Ozum Sevinc | Student

Joyce Bakker | Student 

Niels Noorderloos | Student 

Joseph | Student 

Menora | Student

Jasmine Ng  | Student