Managing complexity through dialogue between disciplines

Manuel Romeo is a Partner at DVArea, Director of the Architectural Design Department at DVA, and head of the Milan office. With him, we discussed the challenges of the hospitality sector, workplace design, the characteristics of the Milan market, and the design framework – the method we use to address design complexity while maintaining coherence and fostering dialogue among all disciplines.

Tell us about your professional journey: what were the key choices that led you to DVArea and to your current role as Partner and Director at DVA? What does it mean for you today to lead this organization?  

My journey at DVArea has not followed a series of clear-cut steps, but has instead been characterised by a gradual broadening of my responsibilities. Initially, my focus was on the project itself, primarily from a technical perspective. Over time, my role increasingly shifted towards what the project enables: client relationships, interdisciplinary coordination, and managing the evolving conditions as the project progresses.
The most significant moment was this shift in perspective. At a certain point, the project became just one element within a broader system, comprising timelines, costs, expectations, and often misaligned decision-making dynamics. From there, my role evolved – first to Project Manager and then to Director – not through abrupt change, but out of necessity, following a path that required me to hold these different layers together and take responsibility for key decisions.
Becoming a Partner was a natural progression along this path. It was an important recognition, but above all, a change in scale: my responsibility was no longer limited to individual projects, but extended to the overall direction and the choices that shape the company’s development over time. Today, my work is situated precisely in this space. On one hand, there is the construction of a vision; on the other, the ongoing engagement with what happens when that vision is tested – on site and, even more importantly, in the everyday use of spaces.

Let us discuss the Milan office: what was the strategy behind establishing and consolidating your presence in this city? How important is Milan to the company’s overall positioning?

Milan is the environment where investors, asset management companies, and operators are concentrated. It is here that deals originate and where the initial decisions, on which subsequent projects are developed, are made.
From the outset, the office was conceived as an operational branch with a clear positioning, aiming to be closer to our clients and the dynamics in which they operate. In just over two years, it has experienced rapid growth, supported by the opportunity to work directly on complex developments in close contact with key stakeholders.
Today, Milan represents the most demanding context we engage with. Projects are more complex, timelines are tighter, and expectations are higher. It is an environment that continuously challenges our way of working and, over time, has had a direct impact on DVArea’s overall positioning. The Milan office does not operate as an autonomous entity with separate processes and projects, but as a natural extension of the Brescia headquarters. The two operate in continuity, sharing values, methods, and objectives within a fully integrated framework. 

Are there specific market verticals or client segments that are primarily handled by the Milan branch, and how does this translate into a differentiated service model?  

The Milan office has naturally focused on three main sectors: office, hospitality, and residential.
In these contexts, the project does not end with design alone but also involves asset management, market dynamics, and long-term sustainability. This changes the nature of client dialogue, which rarely consists of purely technical requests and instead requires a broader understanding of the overall operation.
As a result, the service model has been structured accordingly. Work is not organised as a set of separate services, but as a cohesive system of phases and responsibilities. Coordination across disciplines, economic evaluations, and the ability to anticipate critical issues are all integrated into the same process.
This approach requires a more structured organisation but allows for greater continuity and stronger control throughout the entire project lifecycle.

Space planning and interior design are often seen as separate disciplines, whereas at DVArea they are integrated. What measurable impact does this approach have on the value generated for clients and your ability to differentiate in the market?

When layout and interior design are developed separately, projects often lose coherence over time. Spatial organisation and identity-related decisions begin to diverge and typically only realign in later stages, when making changes becomes more complex.
By working in an integrated way from the outset, it is possible to develop a more robust project. Spatial functionality, user needs, and architectural expression evolve together within a process that combines design with an analytical dimension, where decisions are supported and validated by data.
The effects become evident over time. The number of design changes decreases, spaces function better for their users, and the alignment between brand identity and the built environment becomes stronger – because it is not the result of later adjustments, but of a shared vision established from the very beginning.

Your approach to workplace design has contributed, along with others, to defining a structured method that has evolved into a true design framework. How did this framework come about, what distinguishes it from a simple design process, and how is it applied in practice with clients?

The design framework emerged from a challenge that has become increasingly evident over time when working on complex projects: how to hold together multiple layers without losing coherence.
It was not conceived as a method to be applied, but as a reference structure that enables us to operate within this complexity without oversimplifying it. It brings together context, client requirements, user needs, environmental performance, and economic balance, preventing each aspect from being addressed in isolation.
The project therefore develops through iterations. Hypotheses are built, compared, and progressively refined, maintaining an open dialogue between disciplines and perspectives. Within this process, data plays a precise role: it helps make decisions more informed, verifies their impact, and indicates when a change of direction is needed. It does not replace intuition, but gives it substance and continuity.
The quality and value of the project are built throughout the process, through a continuous synthesis of dimensions that often do not naturally align. The framework serves to preserve this coherence over time, even as the project moves through different phases, stakeholders, and conditions.
In interaction with the client, this translates into a more open and transparent process. Decisions are not presented as the outcome of an internal step, but are shared as they evolve – turning the project into a collaborative journey, rather than a predefined solution. 

The transformation of workspaces has been rapid and profound. What structural changes are reshaping the way companies think about their environments? And how is DVArea evolving its offering accordingly?

In recent years, the transformation of workspaces has been profound – more in how they are experienced than in their physical form.
Space is no longer a neutral container; it has become an active element, capable of influencing well-being, concentration, and the quality of relationships. This has shifted the focus from a purely spatial and functional logic to a broader perspective, where environmental, psychological, and behavioural factors all come into play.
Today, designing a workplace means working towards balance. On one side are the operational needs of the organisation; on the other, the real functioning of people – their attention, fatigue, need for interaction, and need for regeneration. Space must support these dynamics, not constrain them.
In this shift, data has taken on an increasingly central role. It is used not only to measure environmental conditions such as air quality, lighting, and acoustics, but also to understand how these factors affect cognitive performance and long-term well-being. This enables a move beyond standard models to create spaces more closely aligned with real behaviours.
For DVArea, this has meant evolving the design approach into a more open system – capable of adapting and learning. Space becomes an ecosystem, where moments of focus, collaboration, and regeneration alternate dynamically, giving people the freedom to choose how and where to work depending on their activities and state of mind.
This is where value lies: not in designing a more efficient layout, but in creating environments that support how people actually work and live over time, making well-being a tangible and measurable condition.

In the hospitality sector, every space must deliver a memorable experience while also meeting operational efficiency requirements. How do you address this design tension, and what elements make the difference in your view?  

In the hospitality sector, design is always measured against a delicate balance between experience and functionality.
A hotel is a complex system in which identity, performance, operational flows, and sustainability coexist without ever being perfectly aligned. It is precisely within this tension that design takes shape.
Design decisions never operate on a single level. Spatial layout, the relationship between public and service areas, and the way circulation paths are structured all simultaneously affect perception, well-being, and user experience, as well as day-to-day operations. More subtle elements – such as the way light changes throughout the day, the rhythm of spaces, sound levels, and even scents – also play a key role in shaping the quality of the experience.
In recent years, greater attention has also been given to what happens afterwards: how spaces are actually used, how people move through them, where they perform well, and where friction arises. It is within these dynamics that a significant part of the experience is built, often far from the most visible design decisions.
The project thus develops through progressive adjustments, seeking a coherence that is never final but is built over time. When this balance holds, well-being and experience are not something explicitly declared, but a natural consequence of the space itself.

What are the structural challenges that an integrated design firm must manage today to remain relevant? And what is the strategic response to these pressures?

Today, an integrated design firm operates within a complexity that is no longer purely technical. The number of variables has increased, but more importantly, they have become deeply interconnected. Regulations, timelines, costs, and client expectations no longer evolve on separate tracks, making it more difficult to maintain coherence throughout the entire process.
In this context, fragmentation between disciplines quickly reveals its limits. When decisions are not aligned, the project weakens and control is gradually lost – often precisely in the phases where intervention becomes more difficult.
The challenge lies in holding these different layers together without oversimplifying them, ensuring continuity across a process that spans changing phases, stakeholders, and conditions.
The response we have developed over time moves in this direction. It is not only about internal organisation, but about how the project itself is approached. It means making the process more transparent, sharing responsibilities, and building decisions more consciously – without concealing their implications.