Project Delivery

Mr. Hartnack makes interesting points.  Should architects be the contractor to take advantage of precisely the issues he states?   Sounds like the master builder role again.

-------------------------------------------
Mary Graham AIA

-------------------------------------------

Ms. Graham,
 

That makes sense. The master builder role was OK when building construction consisted of masonry and timber while statics and structural engineering were mostly gut feelings and lots of luck.

The approach to delivering architectural services was devised during a time of much simpler buildings and construction methods. Our mistake, as I see it, is that we are trying to work with a system that is no longer suited to current technology.  Modern buildings are so complex that no single person can understand, much less coordinate all of the technology that goes into making them into smoothly functioning entities. Even after thousands of hours spent in coordination and with help of BIM and CAD, errors and omissions, faulty coordination, delays and cost overruns are rampant and owners are turning the other way.

When I google the words "errors and omissions by architects" I come up with more half-a-million results and the realization that it's a very lucrative business at the expense of architecture.

The only chance I see for the profession is a radical change in the manner in which we do business. Discussion that focus on our value to society, such as I have seen on this forum, are not much help.

-------------------------------------------
Karl Hartnack AIA
Component Past President
Hartnack Architecture
Duesseldorf DE
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 04-08-2011 08:54
From: Mary Graham
Subject: cross post to Project Delivery .

Mr. Hartnack makes interesting points.  Should architects be the contractor to take advantage of precisely the issues he states?   Sounds like the master builder role again.

-------------------------------------------
Mary Graham AIA

-------------------------------------------

Mr. Hartnack, I am interested in your discussion.  In your most recent post, you said:
<<When I google the words "errors and omissions by architects" I come up with more half-a-million results and the realization that it's a very lucrative business at the expense of architecture.>>

Then, you said:

<<The only chance I see for the profession is a radical change in the manner in which we do business. Discussion that focus on our value to society, such as I have seen on this forum, are not much help.>>

I agree wholeheartedly with your first statement.  Regarding the latter, how would you better frame the discussion?  What specific changes can we make in order to change the manner in which we conduct business?  What types of discussions, then, should we be having?

I looked back at your initial post on this topic of "Architects preparing construction documents" to see what you'd written prior.  Here it is, copy/pasted for ease of review:

<<Is it fair to ask, if architects should be preparing construction documents at all?

 

Construction documents prepared by a contractor

• are not as voluminous as those prepared by an architect, because he is not covering himself contractually
• are more in touch with current technologies
• are more considerate of construction processes
• are coordinated with and by the general contractor
• are produced more quickly than by an architect

and thus result in overall cost savings; and, unless the profession thinks of something else, less compensation for the architect.

 

If the architect determines the shape and appearance of the detail and leaves its execution and integrity to the contractor, would the project and client be better served?

 

This seems to be a major quandary that the profession is in. Are multi-party agreements and integrated design the answer? Any thoughts on this?>>

Your above observations of how the A/E/C industry currently "works" raises more questions for me, such as:

If contractors are producing construction documents, then who's stamping and signing them?  Isn't it the architects they have hired on staff?

You'd also asked: "if the architect determines the shape and appearance of the detail and leaves its execution and integrity to the contractor, would the project and client be better served?"  That is a very good question.  It may help the client, in the long run- although I don't see how it could- but it sure seems to be dumbing down our profession, as emerging architects and even seasoned architects need to know how does a building go together.  Otherwise, what does it mean to be called an architect?

I haven't been practicing with any medium or large firms for a while, so I am not very clear on exactly what is BIM, IPD, etc.- at least not in day to day execution of these methodologies.   I am educating myself further on these concepts.

I do agree with you that, due to the complexity of building design with today's modern technologies, it does require better coordination amongst the disciplines.  "Team" members working in "silos" simply won't cut it.

That's why, one architect in particular that I know of, has changed his firm's entire approach to doing architecture.  He's brought inter-discplinary teams together under one roof- and they sit next to each other, not in separate departments.  So, in adjacent cubicles or work spaces, he has architects, civil egr's, structural egr's, landscapers, interior designers, etc. 

Another major innovation he instituted in his firm is that there were to be no more quiet discussions.  So, he erected a big screen- maybe several screens throughout his firm (I would need to contact him to verify exact details)- but the main gist of it is that anytime someone asks a detailed question about a project, the conversation gets filmed on the spot and video-taped live throughout the firm.  I think this is a radical concept and I like it.

He said he had some folks, some in higher level positions, to leave the firm after making these radical changes.

But I think he's onto something.  Somehow, we're taught in school that "we're supposed to know everything."  At least that's the impression I got.  This can result in an atmosphere of pretension where people are afraid to admit they don't know something.  Or, at the very least, it can result in information-withholding and the tendency to want to hide and/or "work in silos."

In the book "The Owner's Dilemma- Driving Success and Innovation in the Design and Construction Industry," by Barbara White Bryson with Canan Yetmen (c. 2010, Ostberg Library of Design Management, Greenway Communications), the author writes on pages 41-42:
 
"Lack of interdisciplinary exposure permeates every aspect of the industry, impacting each discipline's values systems, creating divergent vocabularies, and often buttressing a culture of information hoarding.   Even the prevalent and unreasonable competitiveness among disciplines can be traced to an educational experience that does not necessarily cultivate respect for each other.  The result is that in many teams, each project believes his or her knowledge to be the most valuable, and differences of opinion become cause for arguments worth winning.  Is design going to trump constructability?  Does a vast number of change orders and requests for information prove one team member is more capable than the other?  The inescapable temptation to portray others as uncooperative or less knowledgeable overwhelms opportunities for innovation."

I think what she has written is brilliant and honest.

Thank you for starting this conversation on aia KN.  I apologize if I have misunderstood anything you've said, misconstrued it, or otherwise gone off on a tangent that you do not agree with.

I am simply interested in this discussion and would like to see it more specifically framed.

Thank you,

-------------------------------------------
Tara Imani AIA
Principal
Tara Imani Designs, LLC
Houston TX
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 04-09-2011 09:40
From: Karl Hartnack
Subject: cross post to Project Delivery .

Ms. Graham,
 

That makes sense. The master builder role was OK when building construction consisted of masonry and timber while statics and structural engineering were mostly gut feelings and lots of luck.

The approach to delivering architectural services was devised during a time of much simpler buildings and construction methods. Our mistake, as I see it, is that we are trying to work with a system that is no longer suited to current technology.  Modern buildings are so complex that no single person can understand, much less coordinate all of the technology that goes into making them into smoothly functioning entities. Even after thousands of hours spent in coordination and with help of BIM and CAD, errors and omissions, faulty coordination, delays and cost overruns are rampant and owners are turning the other way.

When I google the words "errors and omissions by architects" I come up with more half-a-million results and the realization that it's a very lucrative business at the expense of architecture.

The only chance I see for the profession is a radical change in the manner in which we do business. Discussion that focus on our value to society, such as I have seen on this forum, are not much help.

-------------------------------------------
Karl Hartnack AIA
Component Past President
Hartnack Architecture
Duesseldorf DE
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 04-08-2011 08:54
From: Mary Graham
Subject: cross post to Project Delivery .

Mr. Hartnack makes interesting points.  Should architects be the contractor to take advantage of precisely the issues he states?   Sounds like the master builder role again.

-------------------------------------------
Mary Graham AIA

-------------------------------------------

Ms Imani, Mr. Steinke,

 

Thanks for your attention to my posts and for your interesting comments:

 

Project Delivery is the preparation and presentation of the instruments needed to turn what is in our minds into what should be well-designed, functioning buildings that meet the requirements of the owner and the users. It's the central task we as architects should be performing and I think the Knowledge Net provides a good opportunity to look forward and explore and discuss how we can more effectively provide this service.

 

How we deliver a project is the biggest dilemma facing the profession today (thanks for the book reference! I'll order it today) and I believe we are hanging onto too many traditions that are no longer relevant in today's world.

 

Is the act of stamping and signing construction documents not more of a symbolic one? We, as architects, undertake great risks, sometimes putting everything we own on the line in certifying that they are complete, concise, and correct, only to have them picked apart by contractors by virtue of their greater hands-on experience and the fact that they also carry much of the liability. They also have the ear of the owner.

 

The sharing of responsibility is not necessarily the dumbing down of the profession, but rather the admission that we do not have all the answers.

 

While we, as architects, should be in charge of projects and be dealing from a position of strength, we also need to get a contractor on board as early in the game as possible, to facilitate decision making. How to do this is part of the "radical change" I mentioned in one of my previous posts.  It means a re-thinking of the procurement process and an understanding of building costs, something we architects may in the past have been too dignified to discuss - even though it is the most frequently discussed topic on any project.

 

If 80% of the cost of a building can be tied down during DD, that leaves only 20% to be defined during CD's. If the contractor comes on board at 80% and collaborates with the architect, would this not greatly reduce or eliminate errors, omissions, coordination problems, cost overruns and time delays?

 

With suitable contractual mechanisms, there is no reason for this not to work to the satisfaction of owner, architect and contractor.

 

While I have read much of the commentary of the AIA Document C191 Multi Party Agreement for Integrated Project Delivery, and find the descriptions complicated, it would be interesting to hear more comment from those who have used it.

 

-------------------------------------------
Karl Hartnack AIA
Component Past President
Hartnack Architecture
Duesseldorf DE
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 04-09-2011 15:50
From: Tara Imani
Subject: cross post to Project Delivery .

Mr. Hartnack, I am interested in your discussion.  In your most recent post, you said:
<<When I google the words "errors and omissions by architects" I come up with more half-a-million results and the realization that it's a very lucrative business at the expense of architecture.>>

Then, you said:

<<The only chance I see for the profession is a radical change in the manner in which we do business. Discussion that focus on our value to society, such as I have seen on this forum, are not much help.>>

I agree wholeheartedly with your first statement.  Regarding the latter, how would you better frame the discussion?  What specific changes can we make in order to change the manner in which we conduct business?  What types of discussions, then, should we be having?

I looked back at your initial post on this topic of "Architects preparing construction documents" to see what you'd written prior.  Here it is, copy/pasted for ease of review:

<<Is it fair to ask, if architects should be preparing construction documents at all?

 

Construction documents prepared by a contractor

• are not as voluminous as those prepared by an architect, because he is not covering himself contractually
• are more in touch with current technologies
• are more considerate of construction processes
• are coordinated with and by the general contractor
• are produced more quickly than by an architect

and thus result in overall cost savings; and, unless the profession thinks of something else, less compensation for the architect.

 

If the architect determines the shape and appearance of the detail and leaves its execution and integrity to the contractor, would the project and client be better served?

 

This seems to be a major quandary that the profession is in. Are multi-party agreements and integrated design the answer? Any thoughts on this?>>

Your above observations of how the A/E/C industry currently "works" raises more questions for me, such as:

If contractors are producing construction documents, then who's stamping and signing them?  Isn't it the architects they have hired on staff?

You'd also asked: "if the architect determines the shape and appearance of the detail and leaves its execution and integrity to the contractor, would the project and client be better served?"  That is a very good question.  It may help the client, in the long run- although I don't see how it could- but it sure seems to be dumbing down our profession, as emerging architects and even seasoned architects need to know how does a building go together.  Otherwise, what does it mean to be called an architect?

I haven't been practicing with any medium or large firms for a while, so I am not very clear on exactly what is BIM, IPD, etc.- at least not in day to day execution of these methodologies.   I am educating myself further on these concepts.

I do agree with you that, due to the complexity of building design with today's modern technologies, it does require better coordination amongst the disciplines.  "Team" members working in "silos" simply won't cut it.

That's why, one architect in particular that I know of, has changed his firm's entire approach to doing architecture.  He's brought inter-discplinary teams together under one roof- and they sit next to each other, not in separate departments.  So, in adjacent cubicles or work spaces, he has architects, civil egr's, structural egr's, landscapers, interior designers, etc. 

Another major innovation he instituted in his firm is that there were to be no more quiet discussions.  So, he erected a big screen- maybe several screens throughout his firm (I would need to contact him to verify exact details)- but the main gist of it is that anytime someone asks a detailed question about a project, the conversation gets filmed on the spot and video-taped live throughout the firm.  I think this is a radical concept and I like it.

He said he had some folks, some in higher level positions, to leave the firm after making these radical changes.

But I think he's onto something.  Somehow, we're taught in school that "we're supposed to know everything."  At least that's the impression I got.  This can result in an atmosphere of pretension where people are afraid to admit they don't know something.  Or, at the very least, it can result in information-withholding and the tendency to want to hide and/or "work in silos."

In the book "The Owner's Dilemma- Driving Success and Innovation in the Design and Construction Industry," by Barbara White Bryson with Canan Yetmen (c. 2010, Ostberg Library of Design Management, Greenway Communications), the author writes on pages 41-42:
 
"Lack of interdisciplinary exposure permeates every aspect of the industry, impacting each discipline's values systems, creating divergent vocabularies, and often buttressing a culture of information hoarding.   Even the prevalent and unreasonable competitiveness among disciplines can be traced to an educational experience that does not necessarily cultivate respect for each other.  The result is that in many teams, each project believes his or her knowledge to be the most valuable, and differences of opinion become cause for arguments worth winning.  Is design going to trump constructability?  Does a vast number of change orders and requests for information prove one team member is more capable than the other?  The inescapable temptation to portray others as uncooperative or less knowledgeable overwhelms opportunities for innovation."

I think what she has written is brilliant and honest.

Thank you for starting this conversation on aia KN.  I apologize if I have misunderstood anything you've said, misconstrued it, or otherwise gone off on a tangent that you do not agree with.

I am simply interested in this discussion and would like to see it more specifically framed.

Thank you,

-------------------------------------------
Tara Imani AIA
Principal
Tara Imani Designs, LLC
Houston TX
-------------------------------------------

Karl:
While i agree with you, that buildings are increasingly more complex. i think that it is only the architect who has the braod understanding to lead the process. Yes, there are errors & omissions, they are not necessarily the ressult of lack of understanding but more the result of our reliance on CAD technicians rather than the training ground for our developing interns. It is our profession that should still be the "Master Builder".
Regards,
Burt
-------------------------------------------
Burton L. Roslyn, FAIA
President
Roslyn Consultants, LLC
Roslyn Heights, New York
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 04-09-2011 09:40
From: Karl Hartnack
Subject: cross post to Project Delivery .

Ms. Graham,
 

That makes sense. The master builder role was OK when building construction consisted of masonry and timber while statics and structural engineering were mostly gut feelings and lots of luck.

The approach to delivering architectural services was devised during a time of much simpler buildings and construction methods. Our mistake, as I see it, is that we are trying to work with a system that is no longer suited to current technology.  Modern buildings are so complex that no single person can understand, much less coordinate all of the technology that goes into making them into smoothly functioning entities. Even after thousands of hours spent in coordination and with help of BIM and CAD, errors and omissions, faulty coordination, delays and cost overruns are rampant and owners are turning the other way.

When I google the words "errors and omissions by architects" I come up with more half-a-million results and the realization that it's a very lucrative business at the expense of architecture.

The only chance I see for the profession is a radical change in the manner in which we do business. Discussion that focus on our value to society, such as I have seen on this forum, are not much help.

-------------------------------------------
Karl Hartnack AIA
Component Past President
Hartnack Architecture
Duesseldorf DE
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 04-08-2011 08:54
From: Mary Graham
Subject: cross post to Project Delivery .

Mr. Hartnack makes interesting points.  Should architects be the contractor to take advantage of precisely the issues he states?   Sounds like the master builder role again.

-------------------------------------------
Mary Graham AIA

-------------------------------------------

The observations about the Architect's loss of control are certainly accurate and are in my view at the heart of the difficulty.  Some you you may have read my commentary on how we craft the expectations of young professionals.  The circumstance discussed here is nothing more than a simple extension of that unfortunate approach we seem to take regarding the role of the Architect.

Back when I actively practiced architecture a firm I worked for began doing some facility management work for the owners of the Book Building.  For those unfamiliar with downtown Detroit, the Book building covers several blocks with a 12 story presence, and it has a tower section at one end that rises 36 stories.  2 mechanical and elevator equipment mezzanines are located above the top occupied floor, and the building has a full basement and a sub-basement.  The entire set of documents for that building, including mechanical, electrical, structural and plumbing, was less than 40 sheets, many of which contained large scale drawings of the terra cotta detailing.  That was possible because much of the design information was conveyed through a constant on-site presence, the Architect observing the work and saying "no - do that this way" . . .  "put that here" . . . . . etc.  In sum, an extension of the old master builder.

That worked relatively well until the 50's.  at that point, tort law began to rapidly change such that the manner and number of claims the Architect could be exposed to began to expand.  The reaction of the documents committees has been to withdraw the Architect from the construction process in an effort to limit liability.  Starting in 1960 a discernable trend emerged with each successive iteration of the AIA documents that, little by little, ceded portions of that master builder role to other groups.

In the recession of the early 1980's we had withdrawn the Architect from the construction process to a point where a vacuum was created.  Until then, an Owner saw no real harm if a project remained in design and documentation for a year, possible two.  However, with interest rates hovering close to 20%, waiting cost money - and quite a bit of it.  In order to accelerate the process, the idea to overlap the design and construction was born, and a new term entered the lexicon "fast track".  Developing a project in that manner requires a higher degree of hands on management than the traditional design-bid-build approach, but the Architect had withdrawn from the process for fear of liability.  Another new term entered the lexicon - "Construction Manager" and the CM stepped into that void. 

We say "design matters" yet we ceded control of the construction process - the process by which the visions of Architecture become reality - to a group of managers who don't care a whit about design.

We didn't stop there.  We ceded virtually the entire field of urban planning to social scientists who don't give a whit about design

We are in the process of ceding interior design to various groups who might actually wreak worse havoc because unlike the manager and the social scientist who admit they don't care about design, many interior designers would argue that their design sensitivity is superior to that of an Architect.

We refused to consider the possibility that an Architect could be a broader leader in the built environment and  we even had ethics provisions that prevented an Architect from serving as a project developer - at least until John Portman decided he was going to be an Architect / Developer and that the AIA could punish him for his ethical lapse in so doing if it wished.  The ethics limitations quietly went away.

It doesn't end there.  In the most recent version of the AIA documents the Owner and the Contractor now have the option of hiring an initial decision maker instead of referring disputed to the Architect as had traditionally been the case.  The best answer I have ever been able to get as to why that change was made has been "many Architects are uncomfortable in that role".  Maybe, but when the Architect made the initial decision the odds that the initial decision would implicate the Architect were . . . . well  . . . . .  zero.  An IDM other than the Architect will not labor under that limitation.

We bemoan the fact that as Architects we aren't respected leaders in the process yet rather than lead we seem to just give the profession away - for minimal reason or no reason at all.  Has it led to a limitation of liability?  A rhetorical question obviously that doesn't require an answer.  A leader leads.  A leader knows that at times it necessary to step up, sit on the hot seat, and make a decision.  Other professions don't seem to have any difficulty understanding that, yet we as a profession seem conditioned to shirk that responsibility and then complain about the effects of doing so.

While I believe the question posed is certainly worthy of discussion, I don't see how as a profession we could really seriously entertain ending participation in the documentation process.  Not only would that cede virtually all remaining control (and as others others have recognized, severely limit opportunities within the profession I would personally believe it would reduce employment by 2/3 to 3/4, virtually overnight), the vision of Architecture would be completely divorced from the delivery process, ending any real hope that the vision would become anything more than what a contractor decided he or she thought it should be instead of what the Architect thought.

It is a catch 22 indeed.  We can't be perceived as leaders if we divorce ourselves from the process yet we don't seem to be able to stop divorcing ourselves from the process.  I think we as a profession have unfortunately become conditioned to do that (perhaps as an extension of some of the negativity we seem to impart on our younger professionals?).  Until that changes, the results won't likely change either


-------------------------------------------
Frederick Butters FAIA, Esq.
Attorney
Southfield MI
-------------------------------------------

What insightful posts!

 

Ms Graham, when you decided to become an architect, you had no idea how much time you would be spending in the checking and coordination of drawings. And I don't suppose you were earning much either.

 

Mr. Rawlings, your point about better qualified trades people applies to many, but not all European countries. The trades are very much alive in Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Austria. Germany has the DIN, the Industrial Norm, and the trades people learn it, attend continuing education courses and know their trades. An architect would be hard pressed to learn all the intricacies of construction physics, i.e. thermal and acoustical design, fire protection and other specialized technologies.  Building laws are tough and most of what is built in the US does not qualify technically in Europe. I may have mentioned that the profession developed out of the trades and artisan systems in each country. Although the professions may operate differently in each country, the problems are the same as in the US in the high risk associated with construction documents and site supervision, part of the service in Germany.

 

Mr. Butters, you have put your finger on the real sore point in that a reduction of the architect's services could result in less compensation for the architect.

 

Why not take that fee and spend a) one part of it on a more highly developed DD and b) the other part up front on design programming and functional descriptions of the project. Even if the owner wants to see drawings, and the architect wants to draw, requiring the owner to respond to many questions and understand his project may be a difficult, but rewarding task. It has been my experience that in a thorough preparation of this kind, many issues that usually surface during the preparation of CD's come to light and can be addressed and solved early in the project. The longer that information and decisions are delayed, the more difficult and expensive they become to implement.

-------------------------------------------
Karl Hartnack AIA
Component Past President
Hartnack Architecture
Duesseldorf DE
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 04-12-2011 10:00
From: Frederick Butters
Subject: cross post to Project Delivery .

The observations about the Architect's loss of control are certainly accurate and are in my view at the heart of the difficulty.  Some you you may have read my commentary on how we craft the expectations of young professionals.  The circumstance discussed here is nothing more than a simple extension of that unfortunate approach we seem to take regarding the role of the Architect.

Back when I actively practiced architecture a firm I worked for began doing some facility management work for the owners of the Book Building.  For those unfamiliar with downtown Detroit, the Book building covers several blocks with a 12 story presence, and it has a tower section at one end that rises 36 stories.  2 mechanical and elevator equipment mezzanines are located above the top occupied floor, and the building has a full basement and a sub-basement.  The entire set of documents for that building, including mechanical, electrical, structural and plumbing, was less than 40 sheets, many of which contained large scale drawings of the terra cotta detailing.  That was possible because much of the design information was conveyed through a constant on-site presence, the Architect observing the work and saying "no - do that this way" . . .  "put that here" . . . . . etc.  In sum, an extension of the old master builder.

That worked relatively well until the 50's.  at that point, tort law began to rapidly change such that the manner and number of claims the Architect could be exposed to began to expand.  The reaction of the documents committees has been to withdraw the Architect from the construction process in an effort to limit liability.  Starting in 1960 a discernable trend emerged with each successive iteration of the AIA documents that, little by little, ceded portions of that master builder role to other groups.

In the recession of the early 1980's we had withdrawn the Architect from the construction process to a point where a vacuum was created.  Until then, an Owner saw no real harm if a project remained in design and documentation for a year, possible two.  However, with interest rates hovering close to 20%, waiting cost money - and quite a bit of it.  In order to accelerate the process, the idea to overlap the design and construction was born, and a new term entered the lexicon "fast track".  Developing a project in that manner requires a higher degree of hands on management than the traditional design-bid-build approach, but the Architect had withdrawn from the process for fear of liability.  Another new term entered the lexicon - "Construction Manager" and the CM stepped into that void. 

We say "design matters" yet we ceded control of the construction process - the process by which the visions of Architecture become reality - to a group of managers who don't care a whit about design.

We didn't stop there.  We ceded virtually the entire field of urban planning to social scientists who don't give a whit about design

We are in the process of ceding interior design to various groups who might actually wreak worse havoc because unlike the manager and the social scientist who admit they don't care about design, many interior designers would argue that their design sensitivity is superior to that of an Architect.

We refused to consider the possibility that an Architect could be a broader leader in the built environment and  we even had ethics provisions that prevented an Architect from serving as a project developer - at least until John Portman decided he was going to be an Architect / Developer and that the AIA could punish him for his ethical lapse in so doing if it wished.  The ethics limitations quietly went away.

It doesn't end there.  In the most recent version of the AIA documents the Owner and the Contractor now have the option of hiring an initial decision maker instead of referring disputed to the Architect as had traditionally been the case.  The best answer I have ever been able to get as to why that change was made has been "many Architects are uncomfortable in that role".  Maybe, but when the Architect made the initial decision the odds that the initial decision would implicate the Architect were . . . . well  . . . . .  zero.  An IDM other than the Architect will not labor under that limitation.

We bemoan the fact that as Architects we aren't respected leaders in the process yet rather than lead we seem to just give the profession away - for minimal reason or no reason at all.  Has it led to a limitation of liability?  A rhetorical question obviously that doesn't require an answer.  A leader leads.  A leader knows that at times it necessary to step up, sit on the hot seat, and make a decision.  Other professions don't seem to have any difficulty understanding that, yet we as a profession seem conditioned to shirk that responsibility and then complain about the effects of doing so.

While I believe the question posed is certainly worthy of discussion, I don't see how as a profession we could really seriously entertain ending participation in the documentation process.  Not only would that cede virtually all remaining control (and as others others have recognized, severely limit opportunities within the profession I would personally believe it would reduce employment by 2/3 to 3/4, virtually overnight), the vision of Architecture would be completely divorced from the delivery process, ending any real hope that the vision would become anything more than what a contractor decided he or she thought it should be instead of what the Architect thought.

It is a catch 22 indeed.  We can't be perceived as leaders if we divorce ourselves from the process yet we don't seem to be able to stop divorcing ourselves from the process.  I think we as a profession have unfortunately become conditioned to do that (perhaps as an extension of some of the negativity we seem to impart on our younger professionals?).  Until that changes, the results won't likely change either


-------------------------------------------
Frederick Butters FAIA, Esq.
Attorney
Southfield MI
-------------------------------------------

Fred:
Thank you for the insights. It is unfortunate that the profession has abdicated so much. this even transcends to the way we produce drawings, CAD Techs Draw & Older CAD Techs check. There is no longer a real understanding of how buildings go together. Until we can reclaim our role, and yes the responsibility & liability, which is insurable we will never again be "The Master Builder".
Burt

-------------------------------------------
Burton L. Roslyn, FAIA
President
Roslyn Consultants, LLC
Roslyn Heights, New York
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 04-12-2011 10:00
From: Frederick Butters
Subject: cross post to Project Delivery .

The observations about the Architect's loss of control are certainly accurate and are in my view at the heart of the difficulty.  Some you you may have read my commentary on how we craft the expectations of young professionals.  The circumstance discussed here is nothing more than a simple extension of that unfortunate approach we seem to take regarding the role of the Architect.

Back when I actively practiced architecture a firm I worked for began doing some facility management work for the owners of the Book Building.  For those unfamiliar with downtown Detroit, the Book building covers several blocks with a 12 story presence, and it has a tower section at one end that rises 36 stories.  2 mechanical and elevator equipment mezzanines are located above the top occupied floor, and the building has a full basement and a sub-basement.  The entire set of documents for that building, including mechanical, electrical, structural and plumbing, was less than 40 sheets, many of which contained large scale drawings of the terra cotta detailing.  That was possible because much of the design information was conveyed through a constant on-site presence, the Architect observing the work and saying "no - do that this way" . . .  "put that here" . . . . . etc.  In sum, an extension of the old master builder.

That worked relatively well until the 50's.  at that point, tort law began to rapidly change such that the manner and number of claims the Architect could be exposed to began to expand.  The reaction of the documents committees has been to withdraw the Architect from the construction process in an effort to limit liability.  Starting in 1960 a discernable trend emerged with each successive iteration of the AIA documents that, little by little, ceded portions of that master builder role to other groups.

In the recession of the early 1980's we had withdrawn the Architect from the construction process to a point where a vacuum was created.  Until then, an Owner saw no real harm if a project remained in design and documentation for a year, possible two.  However, with interest rates hovering close to 20%, waiting cost money - and quite a bit of it.  In order to accelerate the process, the idea to overlap the design and construction was born, and a new term entered the lexicon "fast track".  Developing a project in that manner requires a higher degree of hands on management than the traditional design-bid-build approach, but the Architect had withdrawn from the process for fear of liability.  Another new term entered the lexicon - "Construction Manager" and the CM stepped into that void. 

We say "design matters" yet we ceded control of the construction process - the process by which the visions of Architecture become reality - to a group of managers who don't care a whit about design.

We didn't stop there.  We ceded virtually the entire field of urban planning to social scientists who don't give a whit about design

We are in the process of ceding interior design to various groups who might actually wreak worse havoc because unlike the manager and the social scientist who admit they don't care about design, many interior designers would argue that their design sensitivity is superior to that of an Architect.

We refused to consider the possibility that an Architect could be a broader leader in the built environment and  we even had ethics provisions that prevented an Architect from serving as a project developer - at least until John Portman decided he was going to be an Architect / Developer and that the AIA could punish him for his ethical lapse in so doing if it wished.  The ethics limitations quietly went away.

It doesn't end there.  In the most recent version of the AIA documents the Owner and the Contractor now have the option of hiring an initial decision maker instead of referring disputed to the Architect as had traditionally been the case.  The best answer I have ever been able to get as to why that change was made has been "many Architects are uncomfortable in that role".  Maybe, but when the Architect made the initial decision the odds that the initial decision would implicate the Architect were . . . . well  . . . . .  zero.  An IDM other than the Architect will not labor under that limitation.

We bemoan the fact that as Architects we aren't respected leaders in the process yet rather than lead we seem to just give the profession away - for minimal reason or no reason at all.  Has it led to a limitation of liability?  A rhetorical question obviously that doesn't require an answer.  A leader leads.  A leader knows that at times it necessary to step up, sit on the hot seat, and make a decision.  Other professions don't seem to have any difficulty understanding that, yet we as a profession seem conditioned to shirk that responsibility and then complain about the effects of doing so.

While I believe the question posed is certainly worthy of discussion, I don't see how as a profession we could really seriously entertain ending participation in the documentation process.  Not only would that cede virtually all remaining control (and as others others have recognized, severely limit opportunities within the profession I would personally believe it would reduce employment by 2/3 to 3/4, virtually overnight), the vision of Architecture would be completely divorced from the delivery process, ending any real hope that the vision would become anything more than what a contractor decided he or she thought it should be instead of what the Architect thought.

It is a catch 22 indeed.  We can't be perceived as leaders if we divorce ourselves from the process yet we don't seem to be able to stop divorcing ourselves from the process.  I think we as a profession have unfortunately become conditioned to do that (perhaps as an extension of some of the negativity we seem to impart on our younger professionals?).  Until that changes, the results won't likely change either


-------------------------------------------
Frederick Butters FAIA, Esq.
Attorney
Southfield MI
-------------------------------------------

Mr. Roslyn,

 

Are you suggesting that that incidence of errors, omissions, coordination problems, time delays and cost overruns are prevalent on those projects in which CD's are prepared by CAD technicians instead of architect interns? Would this not then mean that nobody is checking their work and that nobody is in charge? How would you address the problem?

-------------------------------------------
Karl Hartnack AIA
Component Past President
Hartnack Architecture
Duesseldorf DE
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 04-11-2011 06:51
From: Burton Roslyn
Subject: cross post to Project Delivery .


Karl:
While i agree with you, that buildings are increasingly more complex. i think that it is only the architect who has the braod understanding to lead the process. Yes, there are errors & omissions, they are not necessarily the ressult of lack of understanding but more the result of our reliance on CAD technicians rather than the training ground for our developing interns. It is our profession that should still be the "Master Builder".
Regards,
Burt
-------------------------------------------
Burton L. Roslyn, FAIA
President
Roslyn Consultants, LLC
Roslyn Heights, New York
-------------------------------------------

Let's clarify the term "Master Builder" to better understand what the role of the original Architect was. As a Greek, let me explain the Greek origins of the word Architect.

-------------------------------------------
Mary Graham AIA

-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 04-09-2011 09:40
From: Karl Hartnack
Subject: cross post to Project Delivery .

Ms. Graham,
 

That makes sense. The master builder role was OK when building construction consisted of masonry and timber while statics and structural engineering were mostly gut feelings and lots of luck.

The approach to delivering architectural services was devised during a time of much simpler buildings and construction methods. Our mistake, as I see it, is that we are trying to work with a system that is no longer suited to current technology.  Modern buildings are so complex that no single person can understand, much less coordinate all of the technology that goes into making them into smoothly functioning entities. Even after thousands of hours spent in coordination and with help of BIM and CAD, errors and omissions, faulty coordination, delays and cost overruns are rampant and owners are turning the other way.

When I google the words "errors and omissions by architects" I come up with more half-a-million results and the realization that it's a very lucrative business at the expense of architecture.

The only chance I see for the profession is a radical change in the manner in which we do business. Discussion that focus on our value to society, such as I have seen on this forum, are not much help.

-------------------------------------------
Karl Hartnack AIA
Component Past President
Hartnack Architecture
Duesseldorf DE
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 04-08-2011 08:54
From: Mary Graham
Subject: cross post to Project Delivery .

Mr. Hartnack makes interesting points.  Should architects be the contractor to take advantage of precisely the issues he states?   Sounds like the master builder role again.

-------------------------------------------
Mary Graham AIA

-------------------------------------------