The profession of architecture has changed significantly, but the perception of what an architect does has remained much the same. So what's the big deal? As is often said, perception is reality, and therein lies the problem. What architects do now no longer agrees with what the public, and even architects themselves think they do.
Most people don't really understand what today's architects do. They think architects know about planning and design, and how to create buildings that are responsive to owners' needs. In that, they are correct; architects by training learn how to do these things, and they do them well. Unfortunately, most people also believe the architect is still the Master Builder, who knows everything about construction materials and methods, actively manages the work, and tells the contractor exactly what to do. And in that, they are sadly mistaken.
One of AIA's first goals was to elevate and protect the profession of architecture. They eventually succeeded; today, the practice of architecture, and the word itself, are protected throughout the United States. This protection is based on the idea that only an architect knows about all aspects of construction. While that was true at one time, today's architects, who may be master planners and master designers, don't know much about construction materials or methods. And there is nothing wrong with that - we need master planners and designers.
It is clear, however, that the countless products and the special knowledge they require make it impossible for a design firm to understand the construction part of architecture. Architecture schools do not teach much about building materials, structure, or systems, and they largely ignore construction methods, scheduling, and costs. Many have decried this lack of attention to the nuts-and-bolts part of architecture, but perhaps it now is simply impossible to teach all the things an architect would need to know to perform in the same way they did a hundred years ago, even with the intern development program.
Contractors, on the other hand, do know about construction, and that's what they're paid to know. Once merely workers hired to follow the direction of architects, contractors no longer rely on the architect to explain what has to be done. Instead, they now are expected to interpret the architect's documents and to determine for themselves what must be done to construct the building. They may know little about planning or design, but once construction begins, their practical experience, as opposed to the theoretical experience of the architect, becomes more valuable to the owner, and they are seen by owners as more realistic, more knowledgeable, even more important than the architect.
Architects often complain about contractors making them look bad by telling the owner they can do the same thing for less money, or worse, that the architect is an idiot. Architects find it hard to respond, because they don't know what things cost, and they find it impossible to defend their design decisions with hard numbers. It's a lot easier for the owner to understand saving time or money, than to understand why it's important to resolve the tension between the earth elements and the sky elements.
The evidence suggests the role of the architect will continue to decline. Architects can have a strong role in design-bid-build, but contractors are becoming more important even there. Design-build entities, the modern equivalent of the master builder, typically are led by contractors, rather than architects, which seems to demonstrate the lesser value of Big D design. Not that design-build necessarily means bad design; no project delivery method guarantees either good design or good construction.
Many architects claim they should be the leaders of the IPD (integrated project delivery) team, but given the direction we're heading, that's a tough sell. More than a hundred years ago, architects decided an arts education was more important than hands-on experience, and they have since expressed little interest in how things go together or what they cost. For the past fifty years, they have been trying to minimize their responsibility for construction. With that history, how can they justify again assuming control of the entire project?
If architects are not unwilling or unable to reverse those trends, they must find ways to clarify what they do, and transfer liability to those who are taking on more of what architects once did. They should start by admitting they are not master builders, and should not be considered as such. Instead, they should emphasize the value of good planning and design, and be able to prove to owners that the long term value of good design is more important than first cost.
Despite AIA's efforts to reduce the architect's liability through changes in the general conditions, architects continue to be found liable for things that clearly are excluded from their responsibilities. I believe the main reason is that the public still thinks architects are in control of the entire project. Actively changing the public's perception could help juries understand what architects really control, and result in decisions that more closely reflect the commensurate responsibilities.
Design-build continues to grow, and unless architects are willing to take the lead, many will find themselves working for a contractor. Contractors will continue to see cost and schedule as their main concerns, but many also are sensitive to visual design, and are willing to work with architects who offer superior design and planning services. To maintain their position in design-bid-build, architects should establish relationships with those contractors to better serve owners who still favor design-bid-build.
The bottom line is this: Those who are willing to accept greater risk will see greater rewards, and they will be the leaders.
Links to previous articles in this series:
"What happened to the master builder?"
"What is a Master Builder?"
"What have architects given up?"
"What happened to the architect?"
"Are specifiers weak in faith?"
"How have the architect's responsibilities changed?"
© 2012, Sheldon Wolfe, RA, FCSI, CCS, CCCA, CSC
“One of AIA's first goals was to elevate and protect the profession of architecture. They eventually succeeded; today, the practice of architecture, and the word itself, are protected throughout the United States. This protection is based on the idea that only an architect knows about all aspects of construction.” I would disagree with the last statement in light of division of responsibilities in the AIA General Conditions which were first published in 1911. The divided responsibilities among owner, architect, and contractor have been defined for about a 100 years. Yes the division of those responsibilities has been revised over the years, but not in a revolutionary way.
ReplyDelete“It is clear, however, that the countless products and the special knowledge they require make it impossible for a design firm to understand the construction part of architecture. ……..but perhaps it now is simply impossible to teach all the things an architect would need to know to perform in the same way they did a hundred years ago, even with the intern development program.” If it is impossible for a design firm to understand the construction part of architecture, how is it possible for any type of firm to do so? I would submit that it is just as much a problem for general contractors who rely on subcontractor and suppliers for that specialized knowledge. The expansion of building technology over the last 100 years virtually makes it impossible for any one person to have such knowledge – we have to rely on specialists. The secret is knowing where and who to go to for the required specialized knowledge.
“…..contractors no longer rely on the architect to explain what has to be done. Instead, they now are expected to interpret the architect's documents and to determine for themselves what must be done to construct the building.” What then is the purpose of the increased number of construction drawings and thick project manuals produced by architects today in comparison to a few years ago? A more detailed look at the architect’s design responsibilities versus the contractor’s means and methods are required to discuss this subject.
“More than a hundred years ago, architects decided an arts education was more important than hands-on experience, and they have since expressed little interest in how things go together or what they cost. For the past fifty years, they have been trying to minimize their responsibility for construction.” Why then do the architectural registration exams still contain segments on building materials and methods and on building systems? I believe the current education system depends upon the internship program to teach these types of subjects. The question is can the current internship program carry that burden in light of expanded and ever expanding technical knowledge or does it need some increased technical educational elements? See the CSI Building Technology Education initiative.
To be continued - Bob Johnson
Perhaps one more article is required: a summary of the series, with references for more information. ;-)
Delete' “One of AIA's first goals was to elevate and protect the profession of architecture...This protection is based on the idea that only an architect knows about all aspects of construction.” I would disagree with the last statement in light of division of responsibilities in the AIA General Conditions which...have been defined for about a 100 years. Yes the division of those responsibilities has been revised over the years, but not in a revolutionary way.'
That depends on how you define revolutionary. I believe "a marked change" and "a major or fundamental change" apply, but if you prefer, call it evolutionary. True, the basic relationships (the contractor agrees to build something, the owner agrees to pay for it, and the architect verifies the owner gets what was designed) are much the same. In fact, the larger part of the document is concerned with time and money, and that, too, is much the same, though it now takes more than 20,000 words to say what first took about 7,000.
But - and this is one of the points of this discussion - the roles of the architect and the contractor have changed significantly. In 1911, and for some time thereafter, the architect did run the show, and that relationship was understood when AIA sought to protect the profession. Where once the architect was in charge of construction, and was required to provide more information about how work was to be done, the architect now is required to indicate what the finished product should be, and, if specific materials and systems are required, to describe them. Comparing the original general conditions with the current version shows that the architect no longer has the authority granted in 1911. As illustrated in previous installments, the architect's role has been diminished.
"If it is impossible for a design firm to understand the construction part of architecture, how is it possible for any type of firm to do so? I would submit that it is just as much a problem for general contractors who rely on subcontractor and suppliers for that specialized knowledge. … The secret is knowing where and who to go to for the required specialized knowledge."
Yes, general contractors rely on subcontractors, just as design firms rely on consultants. Because of their education and training, architects don't know about construction, and because of their education and training, contractors don't know about design and planning. Neither knows about complete architecture, i.e., both design and construction. That is where the design-builder comes in, with knowledge and experience in both fields, today's equivalent of the old Master Builder. Other ways of doing work approximate that knowledge as well; a design firm that works with a general contractor and the owner throughout a project does the same thing. And of course you have to know where to go for specialized knowledge; that has always been true and always will be.
"What then is the purpose of the increased number of construction drawings and thick project manuals produced by architects today in comparison to a few years ago?"
My question exactly! Indeed, what is the purpose of the increased volume of construction documents? Obviously, more complex buildings require more drawings and more specifications, but, as was discussed in previous articles, much of what we now expect to see in specifications and drawings is not required, yet they continue to expand. The mere fact that something is done does not prove it is necessary; specifications and drawings have countless redundancies, unnecessary references, and irrelevant requirements.
“Despite AIA's efforts to reduce the architect's liability through changes in the general conditions, architects continue to be found liable for things that clearly are excluded from their responsibilities. I believe the main reason is that the public still thinks architects are in control of the entire project. Actively changing the public's perception could help juries understand what architects really control, and result in decisions that more closely reflect the commensurate responsibilities.” Are you saying that court, arbitration, and mediation decisions are based on perception rather than contractual data? Jury decisions in court cases in specialized areas are always subject to question, but arbitration and mediation decisions?
ReplyDelete“To maintain their position in design-bid-build, architects should establish relationships with those contractors to better serve owners who still favor design-bid-build.” Relationships with general contractors or with specialist trade contractors and suppliers?
I think an important concept that is missing here is the era of specialists and the team approach. The depth of knowledge required for the design and construction of a building of almost any complexity is enormous and continually growing at a rapid pace. All the participants in the process can provide important input to a successful project. Yes, many, many years ago the selection of materials and methods were small and an individual could be a “master builder.” That situation has been gone for a very long time. For many years a successful project has been dependent upon a team effort. We have seen multiple efforts in the last 50 years or so to create project delivery methods to enhance the team approach: negotiated contracts, CMc, CMa, design-build, and recently IDP. Successful projects today are produced when the expertise and experience of many people and firms are utilized in a coordinated team approach. It is not possible to have a “master builder” in today’s complexity.
Bob Johnson
Sorry, these don't match up exactly with your comments.
Delete"Why then do the architectural registration exams still contain segments on building materials and methods and on building systems? I believe the current education system depends upon the internship program to teach these types of subjects."
The fact that they pay some attention to building materials and systems demonstrates only that the exam is tailored to what the schools teach - an overview of construction. Perhaps the exams have changed, but I don't recall any difficult questions related to use of materials, material compatibility, envelope performance, constructability, etc.
"The question is, can the current internship program carry that burden in light of expanded and ever expanding technical knowledge or does it need some increased technical educational elements? See the CSI Building Technology Education initiative."
As you quoted me previously, ”perhaps it now is simply impossible to teach all the things an architect would need to know to perform in the same way they did a hundred years ago, even with the intern development program.” Again, we agree; your promotion of the Building Technology Initiative seems to prove you don't believe the current system works.
"Are you saying that court, arbitration, and mediation decisions are based on perception rather than contractual data? Jury decisions in court cases in specialized areas are always subject to question, but arbitration and mediation decisions?
The reference was specifically to jury trials, which show that juries often make emotional, rather than logical, decisions. Having said that, I would not be surprised to find arbitration and mediation decisions that unfairly assign liability. Companies of all types choose to settle out of court or accept unfavorable settlements because they know the cost of defending their position would be unacceptable.
[Should architects establish] Relationships with general contractors or with specialist trade contractors and suppliers?
I was using contractor in the sense used in construction documents, but good relationships of all types are a benefit.
"I think an important concept that is missing here is the era of specialists and the team approach… For many years a successful project has been dependent upon a team effort. We have seen multiple efforts in the last 50 years or so to create project delivery methods to enhance the team approach: negotiated contracts, CMc, CMa, design-build, and recently IDP. Successful projects today are produced when the expertise and experience of many people and firms are utilized in a coordinated team approach. It is not possible to have a 'master builder' in today’s complexity."
Successful construction has always required a team effort, regardless of the delivery method. Even a low-bid public sector project can be successful if the entities work together, but the earlier the team begins to work together, the fewer problems there will be.
The design-builder is today's master builder, providing both design and construction services to the owner, but similar results can be achieved through construction management or integrated design. An important difference is that the design-builder is a single entity - even if it must hire outside expertise - while the other methods rely on cooperation of multiple entities. Another option is to have a team of separate entities, with one of them as leader - which is essentially the same as a design-builder.
Liz O'Sullivan here.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion is that, to maintain our position in design-bid-build, architects need to prove our value to owners. One thing that your post doesn't mention is the value that a technically-inclined architect who DOES understand building technology AND contracts, can bring to an owner. Under design-bid-build, after the construction contract is awarded, the architect is the impartial interpreter of his or her own documents. UNLIKE THE CONTRACTOR, the architect does not get a financial reward for substituting inferior products on a construction project. Unless the owner has someone on the team who is both impartial AND knowledgeable about the value and durability of construction products and assemblies, there's no external pressure to keep the contractor "honest."
I'm going to quote from one of my own blog posts:
"Some [Construction Managers/General Contractors] have the knowledge and the contacts to do a good analysis of what would be an appropriate design solution in a particular situation. But my personal experience with CMs leads me to believe that many only analyze by cost, and many seem to just forward their questions on to their favorite subs. If the question just goes to one subcontractor, there’s no analysis, just an answer driven by convenience and economics, not by a comprehensive look at what product or detail would be best for the owner, short term performance-wise, or long term performance-wise, or aesthetically.
"On a project team, such as the kind we have under a [Construction Manager as Constructor] agreement, the contractor is the best person to answer questions about cost and schedule, and the availability of installers for systems and assemblies, but the contractor is NOT the best person to answer questions about specific products and technical construction details.
"A good technically-minded architect (who understands building science, durability, product interfaces, assembly transitions, and building codes), someone who DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO GAIN FINANCIALLY by recommending a particular product or solution, is the most appropriate person to explore solutions involving specific products and technical construction details. Now, that architect (a firm’s technical director, or the firm’s construction specifier, in many cases) will be getting some of his or her information from people who do have products to sell. But that architect ought to be doing independent research, and ought to be talking to more than one technical sales rep about more than one product for more than one possible solution. The contractor, even a CM getting a preconstruction fee, might not do anything more than talk to one person about the question. The CM is probably not the right party to do this research."
"...Under design-bid-build and CMc, when different solutions involve products and systems and assemblies that someone sells, the design professional doesn’t get a 'cut' or percentage of that sale for specifying it on the project, but the contractor’s profit figure is always based on the cost of the project. In a team relationship such as CMc, the design professional is supposed to be the party evaluating different solutions for their aesthetic value and their performance value over the life-cycle of a building, and the contractor is supposed to be the party evaluating these different solutions for their scheduling and cost issues and installer issues. The contractor, because of the profit factor, should not be the only party evaluating different solutions. Architects should not be taking direction from contractors on products under CMc."
"My opinion is...architects need to prove our value to owners. One thing that your post doesn't mention is the value that a technically-inclined architect who DOES understand building technology AND contracts, can bring to an owner."
DeleteI have to disagree; it's more than opinion - it's fact.
In the first article, I said, "Put simply, if architects were doing what they claimed they could do, there would be no need to change." In my closing comments, I said, "unless architects are willing to take the lead, many will find themselves working for a contractor."
"Unless the owner has someone on the team who is both impartial AND knowledgeable about the value and durability of construction products and assemblies, there's no external pressure to keep the contractor "honest."
That may be true, but the key is, the architect must be knowledgeable about the products and assemblies to offer that value.
However, there also is no pressure to keep the architect honest; there is an inherent conflict of interest in the architect acting both as designer and as interpreter of the documents. Many years ago, a project architect was having a "discussion" with a contractor, and asked me to back him up. I told him I should review the documents first, but he insisted I join the meeting immediately. After looking at the drawings and specifications, I agreed with the contractor, who claimed what the architect wanted wasn't in the documents.
Regarding your other comments, I'm sure many contractors would respond with similar stories about architects who had no idea what things cost or how well they work, knew nothing about constructability, forwarded questions only to their favorite consultants, and offered answers driven by convenience. As long as humans are involved, we'll have the good and the bad. As much as some architects like to complain about contractors, I'm certain there have been times the contractors did the right thing even though it wasn't in the documents.
Liz
ReplyDeleteThe first question on any project is what are the priorities among aesthetics, design, function, durability, cost, time, etc. as determined by the owner. Ongoing project decisions are then determined or at least strongly influenced by the project priorities.
Other than design-bid-build, the contractor's contract may or may not (fixed fee) have incentives for cheaper products (GMP with bonus clause) or more expensive products (% fee on total cost). How the contract is set indicates the owner's priorities (assuming he is reasonably sophisticated).
I would summarize your comments as saying that the most successful projects result from each project team member playing their proper role in the process in relationship to the project priorities. The architect in designing the project to meet the project priorities and the contractor reacting to the design in terms of cost, time schedule, constructability, etc. That does not mean that each team member might not make suggestions that are in the other member's areas for consideration - everyone should contribute based on their knowledge and experience. This of course requires competence in these areas by the architect (including building technology), contractor, and owner as well as good team play where the success of the project is a high priority for all the players. On projects where this happens results in successful projects and great experiences. We would rather forget projects where some of the players are not competent or have other priorities.
Design-build is another ballgame - how detailed are RFP's and resulting proposals, who controls the D-B team, type of financial contracts, etc.
Bob Johnson
Great material being discussed here by some of my favorite people.
ReplyDeleteMy experience somewhat parallels Bob's feeling that the "Master Builder" is now the team. I find that architects listening to contractors, contractors listening to architects, and both listening to owners (who often have experts of their own), will produce the best product. One entity should not be trying to win the knowledge battle.
I have often deferred to contractors to recommend a course of action on certain topics, based on their experience. I welcome alternative ideas to accomplish the same result for better cost. But on overall coordination of details and best use of specific products & materials, I find they will defer to me (instead of their subs) when I demonstrate the cascading effects of how various materials work (or don't work) together and how various material/product/system decisions are vital to an owner's interests.
Architects needs to be recognized as master coordinators, not master builders. Maybe that's not a very sexy term. And they MUST be educated in building technology and use of materials in order to be effective in that role. Hence the importance of BTE and CSI's leadership towards that end.
An architect is a person trained to plan and design buildings and manage their construction. Many people consider that architects have knowledge about all construction & materials. But architects have knowledge about planning and design.
ReplyDeleteArchitects Perth
The creative mind is always difficult to suppress with an organized system, and that’s because creativity itself is like a wild animal. It is defined by very carefree personalities and work very differently from the traditional project management. Creativity isn’t defined by a system, nor does it conform to it, and is best expressed when it is left as it is.
ReplyDeleteMalik Gaston
I like all information that you provide in your articles.
ReplyDeleteinterior design missouri
Thanks, Alvin! It's good to know someone reads them! BTW, your firm has done some amazing work.
DeleteThanks for showing these. I haven't seen them elsewhere yet, but I'll look into them.Building products
ReplyDelete