First and foremost, however, the structure must be built. Because this project has seen a methodological approach come from its efforts, the next logical step is to take that approach and craft it into a tangible product: erect the House and bring the future into today.

There were a number of aspects of this IPRO that might have been tended to more effectively than they were. Unfortunately, these problems were not identified sufficiently early on in the course of the project, and the IPRO 301 team was left with little time in which to rectify them. What can be done, however, is the documentation and analysis of these logistical and organizational problems so that future IPRO teams may avoid them altogether or, failing such avoidance, remedy them while there is ample time remaining in the project.

Project Goal and Objective
It is vital to the success of any project that all involved members understand both the underlying concept and motivation for the project as well as the projected outcomes in terms of products, changes, or in the case of this IPRO, deliverable materials to be given to the project's administration. In the case of this project, such clarity and universal understanding was not achieved to the extent it could, and indeed should, have been. No clear goals were set, nor methods, processes, and procedures defined, at the outset of the IPRO. In the future, it would be in the best interests of any IPRO team to clarify what exactly is to be done as early as possible so that the team can then organize itself as effectively as possible to complete its defined tasks.

Dynamics of Subteams

This IPRO team was organized into three smaller subteams. The subteams acted as specialized task forces dedicated to in-depth research on the various aspects of constructing the House. Subteams were defined for researching and developing the core system of design for the House, integrating new technologies into the House to support its functions, and researching building codes, safety concerns, and human-needs considerations by which the other subteams would be guided. The problem the three subteams encountered was that of redundancy in the work addressed by each subteam. There were times during which two teams would be focusing on the same topic without knowing and without communicating to each other that such overlap had been occurring. This reinforces the need for clearly-defined goals to be established as early as is practically possible in the course of the project. Valuable time could have been reclaimed had the subteams been given clear boundaries within which to conduct their research and development.

Additionally, the IPRO 301 team divided itself into these specialized subteams too early on in the project. While it is important to establish guidelines for subteams as early as possible, this is not to say that the division itself should occur next to immediately. Had the IPRO 301 team taken more time at the outset of the project to plan overall team objectives, establishing subteam objectives and guidelines would have been made considerably less complex.

Finally, the distribution of team members into subteams was grossly uneven. The largest subteam, dedicated to developing the core system of design and construction, consisted of seven members with an overall concentration in architectural specialists. The team dedicated to researching and implementing next-generation technologies consisted of four members. The team dedicated to researching regulations, code, and health and safety concerns consisted of only two members. A redistribution of human resources would have yielded not only the benefit of more evenly distributed workloads, but also a less homogeneous design team and more representation of architectural practices and tendencies in those subteams whose focus was not primarily architectural in nature.

Communication
Communications between subteams, as well as team and subteam leadership, was key for this IPRO as it is to any IPRO now or in the future. While the IPRO 301 team had little to no difficulty in the realm of administrative concerns such as these, it bears mentioning that future IPROs should strive to implement strong leadership and frequent and fluid communications. With solid communication of expectations, plans, progress, and requirements, each member of the IPRO team will be able to work more efficiently with less strain put on them to deliver despite a lack of resources. This concept applies in a vertical fashion as much as it does a horizontal one: not only is communication needed within the group and across subteams, but also up to the team advisors who have a lot to offer in the way of aiding in the completion of various project tasks.

Time
With the semester being much shorter than expected, teams should establish and adhere to a timeline as quickly and closely as possible. This will allow everyone in the team to understand their expectations, while at the same time preventing team members from needing to rush to complete any project objectives.

With regard to a project timeline, contingency time for deadlines and delivery dates is paramount. By allowing for a week or more of flex time by way of creating "virtual deadlines" an IPRO team can give itself much-needed breathing room make last-minute revisions or updates to project deliverables, and to communicate concerns about those objectives or deliverables amongst its members before the time comes to submit materials to the project's administration.