Blog Viewer

Why is it that whenever I ask a licensed architect why he or she is doing something a certain way, the answer is usually “because that’s how it’s always been done”?

The fact of the matter is that most contemporary architecture-related business practices have only been around for about fifty years. It was not until architects began touting the "professional" nature of practice in the 1950s that we began to disconnect ourselves from the services we provide. Up until 1957—the infamous year when the AIA Trust began advocating Professional Liability Insurance—architects were the ultimate controller of the building process. We were master builders. We had our hands directly on the work that we were producing. We spent time on-site, directing craftsmen and laborers how to pour concrete, lay brick, or connect timbers.

That all changed when clients began to realize that they could sue architects for "alleged negligent acts, errors, or omissions" (Casso & Schultz, 2007). They could sue us for money, and still walk away with a completed building.

This was a turning point for architects. Instead of standing up and fighting, we backed down. We ran away. We allowed contractors to assume a larger portion of the risk, hoping to unburden ourselves. And it worked, at least for a little while. The time has come for us to realize that we have lost control of the process and we only have ourselves to blame. Clients have all the power. Contractors have all the money. And we are left wondering why business seems so hard.

Irrelevant. Obsolete. Inefficient.
No. These aren’t words to describe Wall Street…or Washington…or your 1985 gas-guzzler. These are words that I overheard architects using amongst themselves at the 72^nd Annual Texas Society of Architects Conference last month. They were referring to themselves, their services, and the way that they felt the public perceived architects. For example:

“There is so much information available online these days, I feel like my knowledge is irrelevant.”

“Clients don’t see the value in hiring an architect. I think we’re in danger of becoming obsolete.”

“Even with the introduction of BIM, I feel like my office is totally inefficient.”

I didn’t turn around and introduce myself to these individuals. What was I going to say?

“Hi, I overheard you calling your fellow architects ‘irrelevant’. It’s nice to meet you too.”

Instead, I sat and wondered, “What have I gotten myself into?”. You see, I am a recent graduate. I entered the workforce in August of 2010. Like most college graduates, I felt a sense of eagerness to get out into the real world and use the knowledge that I had just spent five very-tiresome years attaining. But the deeper I delved into the profession: my own workplace, online forums, professional magazines, and organizations—I began to see what I now recognize as weariness.

Architects have worn themselves out trying to remain ahead of the game. The profession is backpedaling as architects try to balance the ever-growing needs of clients to the ever-diminishing budget. The traditional Design-Bid-Build method has turned the architect into a commodity rather than a service-provider. The general public believes that architects simply produce drawings that a contractor then turns into a building on his own.

The craftsman has been divorced from his craft; but there is hope for reconciliation. New project delivery methods have emerged and older versions have resurfaced. These delivery methods, combined with new financing mechanisms, offer a way for architects to reclaim their role as design facilitator while engaging other design professionals throughout the entire process. As part of the Texas Society of Architects Conference, I attended the Project Delivery Symposium that was sponsored by the AIA Project Delivery Knowledge Community (PDKC). The symposium hosted three sets of speakers that addressed these new project delivery methods.

Public-Private Partnerships (P3)
While discussion of Public-Private Partnerships (P3) was included in the Project Delivery Symposium, it turns out that P3 is more of a financing mechanism than an alternate project delivery method. Public-Private Partnerships are created when a private entity offers resources (usually capital) to a public entity in exchange for a share of the profits. Public entities (municipalities, state governments, etc.) are limited in the ways that they are able to raise capital. By allowing private corporations to share in the risk of the project, the private sector can usually deliver the building faster and with fewer change orders. This financing mechanism works with traditional Design-Bid-Build, Design-Build, as well as Integrated Project Delivery. In each case, the owner is comprised of both a public and private entity. Proactive architects should engage private companies (most likely developers) to fund unsolicited public projects, creating design opportunities that might not exist otherwise.

Architect-Led Design Build (DB)
Peter Gluck is the owner of Peter Gluck and Partners, an Architect-Led Design-Build firm in New York. He shared his insight on these issues in a session titled "Design-Build Status Report". Early in the session, he asked the audience one question: "If something bad happens on a construction site, you are responsible. Why wouldn't you want to be there?" Gluck and his office, staffed entirely by architects, document every aspect of each project. Structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and many other systems are designed by outside engineering firms—but Gluck doesn't see the value in having those firms pay their draftsman to do the drawings when his office could do them just as well, if not better. His documents give exact figures, eliminating the double contingency often included in traditional Design-Bid-Build projects. He assumes more risk, but it gives him more control over the final design. He also sends his project supervisors to the construction to help with building layout—this takes the pressure off subcontractors and ensures that the right information is being acted upon in the field. He explains that the jump from architect to builder is a short one, and that the jump from builder to developer is even shorter. His most poignant piece of advice was that "if architects don’t get involved in the construction, they will get relegated to drawing cartoons.”

Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) and "IPD-ish"
Many architects believe that Integrated Project Delivery is little more than a bunch of professionals sitting around a table singing Kum-Ba-Yah. The thing that strikes me about IPD is that it is more about communication than anything else. Betsy del Monte, of the Beck Group, explained that when using Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) all disciplines are brought in early. Depending on contractual relationships, this early participation may be compensated from the beginning as in full-on IPD, or later in the process leaving the disciplines to participate at their own risk as in IPD-ish projects. IPD is more expensive at the outset of a project because it requires a "front-loading" of knowledge. This expense, however, can often be recuperated throughout the process. Increased knowledge sharing leads to less confusion, which, in turn, lowers the need for contingency budgets. Shared decision-making typically ensures that systems are compatible and that the design is optimized for efficiency. Efficient design will repay the added cost of front-loading the design process.

Changing Course
The difference between these three methods and the traditional design-bid-build method is the reliance on partnering and increased communication. In the traditional method, when architects, contractors, and owners are having to communicate one entity usually loses—be it program, fee, or control. In public-private partnerships, communication is essential to the allocation of risk and reward. In Design-Build, communication is passed between two entities, the design-builder and the owner; this reduces the likelihood of miscommunication. In IPD, all entities are working toward the same set of goals and are involved in the decision-making that ultimately fulfills those goals. The twenty-first century is about communication—as evidenced by our increasing reliance on smart-phones and email. These alternative delivery methods embrace communication as a way to facilitate a better building design process. Will you recognize and embrace this change in contemporary practice, or will you allow yourself to become irrelevant, obsolete and inefficient? 

Reference List

Casso, A., & Schultz, F.W. (2007). Insurance coverage. In the American Institute of Architects (Ed.), The Architecture Student's Handbook of Professional Practice  (14^th ed., pp. 194-208). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Del Monte, B., & Wilson, D. (2011, October). Integrated Project Delivery Method—The Real Story, Project Delivery Symposium at the 72^nd Annual Texas Society of Architects Annual Convention and Design Products & Ideas Expo, Dallas, TX.

Gluck, P. (2011, October). Design-Build Status Report—Real Lessons from Real Practitioners. Project Delivery Symposium at the 72^nd Annual Texas Society of Architects Annual Convention and Design Products & Ideas Expo, Dallas, TX.

Stricker, G., Van Arsdale, C., Merriweather, T., & Martin, C. (2011, October). Public-Private Partnerships, Project Delivery Symposium at the 72^nd Annual Texas Society of Architects Annual Convention and Design Products & Ideas Expo, Dallas, TX.