I have been in this business for 44 years this year. My first AIA National Convention was in the mid 70's in San Diego. I was struck by these same comments then as now, and why our profession was not interested in working on our "real" image, by being creative and inventive in taking our profession to new levels (at that convention discussion on design-build was tabled in an open general session by the "bow tie" crowd. Our profession has not advanced itself in the eyes of our clients at the same rate as as our creative ability to design wonderful eye catching buildings and environments.
Since then, precesses like D-B, CMAR, D-A and other variations have come and gone in several cycles, and what I find most interesting now, is that mostly due to jurisdictional regulations (legislation), professionals in various areas of the country are either experienced in different forms of Project Delivery, or not, depending on the demand by mostly public clients.
Here in New Mexico, for example, CMAR and D-B have just been made legal by the State legislators (2006 and 2007) and the State agencies have been very slow (for good reasons) to adopt and utilize them because of inexperienced staff, and lack of good contractual documents (no one wants to use the basic AIA contracts) as well as both inexperienced design firms and contractors.
The few Design Professionals and contractors with experience in these alternative delivery methods from either projects out of the State or with the Federal Government and who have been using these alternate (to design-bid-build) delivery methods are in the minority or not effective enough in educating and/or marketing with the clients, and seldom get a chance to interact with the State decision makers to advance the processes to where they could be embarrassed by everyone. Clients automatically are reluctant to give you an audience because either they assume since an individual or firm promotes a particular delivery method, other than design-low bid-build, that they must have some agenda to their advantage and not the clients or that they could be percieved as giving favoritism to a particular firm (rightfully so).
What does this say about the profession and our leadership. We should/could be very pro-active with either traveling free or very low cost programs nationwide to attract government leaders at all levels to attend educational sessions on Delivery Systems and their appropriate application to projects. Trying to do this on a project-by-project basis, firm-by-firm basis is exceedingly difficult and very expensive (educating our clients, soley at our own expense). The current alternate method of private sector programs like this being offered at a high cost to owners and clients is not getting the job done. Many government agencies have cut their training budgets to nothing and will not send their staff to these types of education sessions. Travel and lodging costs are prohibitive.
Isn't it now the ideal time with our economy the way it is that we step out of the crowd and promote these alternate delivery systems and spend more of our collective resources on these types of localized inexpensive programs to better educate our selves and our public/private sector decision makers and program/project managers (as well as learn ourselves) so that we can all do these three critical items to the best of our ability for our deserving clients:
- on time projects
- on budget projects
- projects completed to the owner's real equirements.
It has to start with our profession as a body,
united for a change, not in a piece meal fashion, i.e., catch as catch can. Ignorance and low comfort level are our profession's greatest enemies. Only
we can change this.
Instead of big expensive conventions where we hear the same sessions year in and year out, give out awards and honors (like the academy awards) that almost no one cares about, and invest our hard earned funds in alternate programs and you may find our fees rising for our "real value" to our clients in communities, states and our nation as a whole. It is the ideal time to become really creative (as we think we are) and do something earth shaking for a change. You never know, we might increase our "real value" to our clients, not our self "perceived value", as the other the gentleman suggested.
This
OUR real challenge in the next decade, or our profession is further doomed to obscurity.
-------------------------------------------
William Davis AIA
Albuquerque NM
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 01-05-2011 08:15
From: Karl Hartnack
Subject: Value?
The name change of this forum from "design-build" to "project delivery" is significant because it is the crux of our profession and should mean completing projects
- on time
- on budget
- to the owner's requirements.
Yet "errors, omissions, inefficiencies, delays, coordination problems, cost overruns, productivity losses..." (Chris Noble in the July 2007 issue of Architectural Record) are the order of the day and are driving owners into the arms of contractors who in turn hire architects and keep them under control.
What does this tell you about the profession?
What is the educational system doing to counter this trend and how is it meshing with the professional organizations to ensure that it can meet the necessary goals?
What can the AIA do to elevate the standing of the profession? (other than CES which I view as a self-serving device to maximize income and retain members)
The narcissistic view some of us have about our worth to society is kind of embarrassing when one looks at the realities. While the US has the lowest density of architects in developed nations, should we be fewer, but more highly qualified and focussed upon our performance rather than our perceived "value?"
-------------------------------------------
Karl Hartnack AIA
Component Past President
Hartnack Architecture
40213 Dusseldorf
-------------------------------------------