Practice Management Member Conversations

 View Only

  • 1.  Looking Down the Road

    Posted 12-12-2010 10:07 PM
    I normally blog on Project Management topics, but I thought that I would start a discussion thread on AIA programs and directions for the coming year.  Part of this comes from things I have thought about recently, part from comments made by David Ludwig, where he announced that he would not be renewing his AIA membership for the coming year.  Mr. Ludwig mentions "few suggestions regarding constructive and effective action" in AIA blogs and news regarding the economy.  He finishes his post noting "There are no longer funds for memberships and classes that do not directly contribute to my economic survival".  Amen, brother.

    I'm posting this in the Practice Management discussion area for two reasons:  one is that it is one of the discussion groups I belong to, and the other is that it is the most visited discussion group on AIAKnowledgeNet.  Current count has 179 messages in Practice Management, followed by 137 in the Small Practitioners, 115 in Technology, 45 in Residential, 44 in COTE, and 32 for Academy of Architecture for Health.  It should be noted that the COTE count just recently jumped in response to a discussion on LEED certification standards.  I mention this because it provides a strong signal for the interest areas of AIA members.  We're worried about surviving as Architects, whether its through efficient management, gaining projects, or having our lunch eaten by some LEED AP that has no clue as to how a building goes together.

    Mr. Ludwig also mentions the Continuing Education process, and laments the lack of ability to gain CE credit for work done on site.  Many of us get our CE credits by means of lunch time presentations, but I've pretty much given up on them.  The quality is too uneven - many are thinly veiled sales presentations - and are fairly useless when it comes to learning something of value.  I now gain most of my CE units via the NCARB monographs, and think its a shame that there are no comparable AIA publications.  The vendor CE programs do provide revenue for the AIA, and I'm not against that.  I'd like to see it become a program that has real value, not just a painless (and semi-useless) means of meeting AIA membership criteria.

    Technology has made a large impact on the profession, but changes have not kept up in laws that define architectural practice.  I'd like to see the AIA take an active role in updating state laws.  What I'm thinking of are the laws that require an architect to personally draw all of his own plans.  What happens when an owner provides a disk with the record drawings of a building he's asked you to make changes to, or an addition to?  Do you redraw all in CADD?  Or do you simply re-use another architects work as a base and add your own on top?  When all work was drawn by hand the current laws made sense, but I'd dare say that many of us have not followed the technical letter of the law on recent work.  (Granted, the existing work is shown differently than the proposed work, but the point in fact is that it is still work that has not been drawn by the Architect of Record.  There is some legal exposure here that needs to be corrected).

    In a similar vein is the contractual assertion that the Architects' drawings are "for design intent only".  It may not be too long before this is struck down by the courts as well in some legal decision over an Errors and Omission claim.  It's common to see Building Departments require UL numbers for rated partitions or penetrations.  Here in Clark County Nevada we now need to provide drawings identifying the thickness of fireproofing on all steel framing members, and the drawings need to be revised if the contractor deviates from them in the field - even if the field detail is code acceptable.  The push is to see the drawing set as Assembly Drawings, not just representing design intent.

    We see a lot of press coverage for Green Buildings, Sustainability, LEED, etc.  Ned Cramer, editor of Architect Magazine, noted that a surprising number of Architects don't believe in global warming/climate change.  You can read his article at:  http://www.architectmagazine.com/sustainability/a-civil-defense.aspx  It's not surprising, given the revelations from the leaked East Anglia University emails, and the more recent assertions in Cancun that the climate change legislation is more about income re-distribution than saving the planet.  Green power, green buildings seem to thrive when they are subsidized by tax credits, or when an owner sees an economic advantage to going green.  I'm all for using resources wisely, and maximizing a building for an owner and future owners.  I'm not crazy about being thought of as a useful idiot for someone's political agenda.

    Last item - AIA governmental structure.  This may have made sense in the past to have Local/State/National chapters, but does it today?  What, exactly, does the state chapter do that the local chapters do not, or are not also invovled in?  Why is voting for National office restricted from the general membership?  My thought here is that people get involved when their voice matters.  Right now it seems that the only voices that matter are the local Executive Committee members.  Barring this forum, where are the channels where individual members can voice their opinion on issues?

    I'm hoping this has stimulated some thought on these and related issues, and I hope many reading this will comment.  If nothing else, it will help the AIA understand what is on our mind and move to being a more useful tool for all of us.

    -------------------------------------------
    Klaus Steinke AIA
    Las Vegas NV
    -------------------------------------------


  • 2.  RE:Looking Down the Road

    Posted 12-13-2010 09:08 AM
    Klaus,
    you make some very pertinent points that will be on the immediate agenda of the incoming AIA EVP responsible for running the organization. I am not certain who that person will be,  the interviews were held over the last two months and the name of the finalist should be presented to the board meeting underway right now. It will be interesting to see who this person is and whether they are an architect or whether they have any experience dealing in the "collegial" world of architecture.
    I am certain of a couple of things about the AIA. Check out the 5 year plan. Unless it becomes a more relevant spokesperson for the profession in the political venues of the country where the rules for the future of the profession are being written and unless the new EVP becomes more engaged in the state and local chapters where the real work is done, then the AIA will become even less relevant to the profession and those who use us too often to get a check mark on the financing form for their projects.
    Keep in mind that there are some 73,000 registered architects in the country and the loss of one or two hundred of us from the AIA does not constitute a movement, but when folks like David Ludwig begin to focus on the future of the profession and the AIA national role in it, they too, will ask Why?

    -------------------------------------------
    Jim Kollaer FAIA, LEED AP
    Managing Director
    Kollaer Advisors, LLC
    Houston TX
    -------------------------------------------








  • 3.  RE:Looking Down the Road

    Posted 12-14-2010 06:53 PM

    Wheels with in Wheels

    I have found that in architecture, and AIA in particular, there many groups with many divergent opinions.  Many of the opinions of the groups that are outside of the political arena of AIA are not heard.  Some just do not care, while others have simply given up.  These who have given up see that AIA as having a ruling class and they have chosen to simply withdraw from the organization.  With a majority of all AIA members being individuals or small businesses of 6 or 7 employees, their voices are seldom heard, or if heard they tend to be ignored.  The reasons for this seem to be several.

    First, larger firms can afford to allow employees to take a more active role in AIA, where the smaller firms or individuals cannot.  The needs and opinions of larger firms differ greatly than those of the smaller firms.

    Secondly, the practice of architecture is divided into two separate and opposing views; that is the Practice of Architecture model versus the Business of Architecture model.

    If one could graph these two view points, one would draw a line on the horizontal axis with firms starting at 0 and then traveling along the horizontal line to firms with 100, 1,000 or even more architects.  Drawing a line vertically, one would have the concept of the Practice of Architecture and the bottom of the list and the Business of Architecture at the top of the list.  If one could then square off the graph into a box, one would then create a Venn Diagram for all architects with in the field of architecture.

    The difference in those in the practice and those in the business is diametrically opposite to one another.  There is a commonality in that all of us got into architecture for the love of building and designing structures.  However, those in the practice view architecture in a more esoteric nature than those in the business who are very concerned about making salaries and getting their next job.  Those in the pure Practice of Architecture model may be architects who are university professors who teach and then practice on the side.  They can also be small to large firms who care deeply about the statement of design but less about the mechanics and the building of the structure itself.  Many large firms who specialize in more institutional work will fall toward the practice side of the Venn Diagram since institutional design, awards, even LEED certification fall into their field of interest.  Cost, schedules, budgets, fees, a shorter term use of a building (sustainability), etc., are usually not high on the list of issues for those architects who find themselves in the Practice of Architecture model.  Many small town architectural firms, where design fees are not an issue, and projects are awarded more relationships with the local business or civic leaders will find themselves closer to the practice side of the diagram.

    On the other hand, those in the Business of Architecture, although very concerned about architectural design, have significant concerns with issues concerning architectural fees, building constructability, building systems, building codes, budget and schedules.  Design/build architectural firms define the upper line of the diagram in the Business of Architecture.  A building's efficiency is very important in the Business of Architecture, but only if it can be quantified and have a proven economical payback period.  A building's sustainability is some what the same.  Many buildings that are built under the Business of Architecture is not expected to have a long term shelf life.  Owners and architects feel that much of what they build under the Business of Architecture model, will eventually be demolished and new buildings with different uses will be constructed due to the changes in needs and demographics of the area in which they were constructed.  LEED is not of major concern to architects in the Business of Architecture.  Owners see no value in the extra cost for a LEED certified building. LEED certification adds no value to the bottom line. Building operating efficiency, on the other hand, using models set by ASHRAE or other professional groups tend be of great interest to those in the Business of Architecture model.

    Clients, in general, for these two groups are also totally different as well. Those in the Practice of Architecture, usually have institutional clients such as the those in the various levels of government, private educational institutions, large health care groups, or wealthy individuals or clients who wish to make a long term statement with their buildings.  Statement or name recognized architects can be a major part of the decision process for those clients in the Practice of Architecture model.

    Clients in the Business of Architecture, tend to be businesses, retailers, developers, manufacturers or those clients who want well designed and functional buildings, but to whom design fees, building cost, speed of construction, maintenance free and economical to run, low initial cost, as well as facilities that can be reconfigured at some point in the future, tend to be the overriding factors in these client's decision making process. Therefore, those in the Business of Architecture could not be farther apart then those who find themselves in the Practice of Architecture model as to each group's needs and issues.

    Unfortunately, the AIA leadership at the local, state and national level is usually from the group that is closest to the Practice of Architecture.  These leaders also tend to be from the large firms or institutions. This group has more time to spend plus the large firm or institution sees their involvement in AIA as something good for the firm.  These larger groups can also heavily subsidize an individual for the time they spend by being active in the AIA.  These leaders also see architectural fees or another layer of practice/consultant, such as LEED, forensic and building system studies, etc., not as a major concern since this extra work and associated fee is usually required and paid for by their clients.  Small firms cannot afford to have a principal take time off to serve on an AIA board.  These firms must produce or die.  As to these additional layers of services, most firms in the Business of Architecture model cannot get owners to pay for these extra services.  If these services are required by an owner or by the codes, the small firms usually must absorb these extra costs into their already highly competitive and low fee structure. The polarity of the these two models coupled with the different needs of a firm due to its size, drives members of the AIA and the profession farther and farther apart.  So it is not surprising that the interests of the larger firms who primarily work in the Practice of Architecture model are far more overriding than the meat-and potato needs of those in the Business of Architecture model.


    -------------------------------------------
    David Hauseman AIA
    The Hauseman Group, Inc.
    Atlanta GA
    -------------------------------------------






    Original Message


  • 4.  RE:Looking Down the Road

    Posted 12-15-2010 09:30 AM
    In this economy, all architects need to be in the "business of architecture." The "practice of architecture" is pure nostagia and not relevant to the new reality. If you are an architect who prefers to be in the practice of architecture and have the luxury to be able to continue, due to repeat clients or strong economy that keeps your phone ringing, more power to you. But the vast majority of us face stiff competition from business of architecture firms crossing state lines and making us reconsider how we do business. Clients have new demands for value and economy that transcend efficient construction and operating costs to include changing the way we think about our own cost of producing our services. This is no longer your father's profession. Architects and the AIA cannot continue to believe we are still living in the 20th Century.

    -------------------------------------------
    David Clarke AIA
    President-Elect, AIA Southern New Mexico
    Senior Architect, Williams Design Group, Inc.
    Las Cruces NM
    -------------------------------------------






    Original Message


  • 5.  RE:Looking Down the Road

    Posted 12-15-2010 05:46 PM
    Good points David....There may actually be four areas to consider: Practice centered Practice Practice centered Business Business centered Practice Business centered Business larger firms may provide opportunities for our professionals to participate, yet I have seen over the last 30 years participation by all sizes of firms in both AIA, NCARB, and State Boards of Architecture at the state level, not so much at the National level. I hope Architects feel that they can get involved beyond the forum level if they choose to participate. Yes, it takes time from other things to care about the profession of Architecture. So the voting might should be done by those actually involved??? The LEED discussion....Sustainability is something most architects would agree is a good thing.....but, getting there has been interesting to observe. Yes, there needs to be a lot of tweaking by those who actually have to implement vs. those who just want to create rules for the rest of us. The level of detail in the documents discussion.......Some Architects have allowed themselves to be forced into doing "fabrication drawings" or "shop drawings" for others. While this might be due to some governing authority that feels it has good reason....maybe the profession needs to engage in this discussion and participate with code officials. Again, there have been so many new agencies created that hire individuals to write new regulations for the design and construction of buildings, that it is almost impossible for anyone to be able to know all the rules, and deal with the conflicts between them. For example........a southern state, and local city required the following for a health care facility: 2003 International Building Code (IBC) 2003 IBC Plumbing, Mechanical, Gas codes 2002, 2005, National Electrical code 2003 IBC Fire code 1999 Standard Building code (SBC) 1997 SBC Plumbing, Mechanical codes 1999 SBC gas code 1991 ADA, with 2002 amendments 2003 Life safety code 2003 NFPA 2002 North Carolina Accessibility code with 2004 amendments State Health Department standards 2006 AIA guidelines for design and construction of healthcare facilities 2003 ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals State environmental and Conservation for water supply State Wastewater regulations State Air pollution Control State Radiological Protection State Hazardous Waste Disposal I am not going to take the time to add all the documentation, and certification requirements, because I think the point is clear that the profession has just taken all this responsibility and liability and not participated much in its formulation. But, I would think that many AIA members might have good ideas about how to deal with this as they are heavily involved in the implementation and liability for this stuff. The updating of state laws because of technology discussion.......A very slippery slope especially when another architect uses another's work product. And, there are cases of professionals stealing another persons work, and owners doing the same. Really..... The internet has allowed great things, but, it seems that many people seem to think that if they can copy it off the internet then they are entitled to it as if it were their own work. Are Architects are becoming a group of "assemblogists" ......someone that just assembles stuff in some sort of pattern? Hopefully not........but, many in the profession are trying to deal with the reality of using standard details, owned in large part, by the companies that make the stuff we put into our designs. IE: doors, windows, elevators, etc. It is possible that the State laws that prohibit plan stamping are designed to protect the public from individuals, that possess a "stamp", from just stamping stuff they didn't create, and or review. Yes, there are some individuals that would do this. It is even possible that they would do it just for the money without regard for the general public's life safety, etc. It is even possible that an owner might decide to take your intellectual property and give it to another professional because they might do the work for less? Surely not........... ------------------------------------------- Richard McNeel AIA JBHM Architects, P.A. Jackson MS -------------------------------------------
    Original Message


  • 6.  RE:Looking Down the Road

    Posted 12-16-2010 08:38 AM

    Richard, David, I agree - wonderful points made concerning architecture as a practice vs. business.

    Especially as applied here to our current circumstances.


    It is ironic, though, that architects are mentioned here as assemblers of other's work.

    The whole "Practice centered Business/Business centered Practice" thing is originally from Charting Your Course, the May/June 1986 issue of Architectural Technology and in a slightly different format in various editions of the AHPP, by Weld Coxe, David Maister, Hugh Hochberg, Peter Piven, et al. http://www.coxegroup.com/images/dynamic/charting_your_course2.pdf

    The ideas stick in part because they have been with us a long time!

    Like so many things architects appear to assemble, they have become part of our DNA.

    -------------------------------------------
    Randall Deutsch AIA
    Winnetka IL
    -------------------------------------------






    Original Message


  • 7.  RE:Looking Down the Road

    Posted 12-16-2010 06:39 PM
    Richard:

    Assemblogists... I like the term.  I think that BIM is pushing us in that direction, for not only can you indicate a 36" door, but you can indicate it from a certain manufacturer (by downloading his graphics) - how far away is showing hinge locations, hardware setbacks, and undercuts?

    I've already seen GC's grumble about how the architects' drawings were wrong because the doors arrived at the jobsite with the incorrect undercut.  Fortunately the doors were long and made of wood.

    In a similar vein, I saw where an architect had shown openings in floor slabs for things like shafts and stairs in concrete floors.  The openings were dimensioned, and for the stair openings the dimension corresponded with the line of the first riser.  Depending upon how the steel stairs are detailed, that first riser is more typically 3" to 6" back from the edge of slab, which meant that all the floor openings were just a bit too small.  The designer pointed to their edge of slab/stair detail that showed the extra room, and the GC's need to coordinate for his own details.  True enough, but I won't dimension a slab opening to correspond with a riser either.

    What if we keep our drawings generic, and the sub then modifies them for a particular manufacturer?  He replaces all  our generic doors with his specific XYZ brand doors, coordinates frames and hardware, including mounting locations.  Do we then go back and update our drawings with the subs' information?  If not, which is the current/correct set of plans?  Over the course of the building phase the architects drawings slowly become useless.

    I think it's issues like this that has the AIA pushing Integrated Project Delivery (IPD).  When architect and contractor share the drawing set and associated liabilities the issues tend to go away.  The whole process of getting a building up for an owner can become more efficient.

    -------------------------------------------
    Klaus Steinke AIA
    Las Vegas NV
    -------------------------------------------






    Original Message


  • 8.  RE:Looking Down the Road

    Posted 12-16-2010 01:05 PM
    From my own experience, I feel that David hits it right on the head - while the AIA recognizes the small firm, it caters to the larger, well known ones.  To me this was very evident in the membership renewal practice this past year.  I found that their membership campaign of "we feel your pain, so we'll take your dues over 5 months because you really need us now more than ever" to be rather insensitive and fairly selfish with regard to what was happening within the profession because of this recession.

    I'm sure there were as many firms who reduced salaries as there were who reduced staff.  My firm painfully did both.  I have heard the unemployment rate in the A/E/C community is somewhere around 45%; I don't know how accurate that number is, but I do know that it seems there are many more people out of work in our realm than there are in other professions to whom I've spoken with.

    I don't understand how the AIA could possibly have thought that they were doing those of us who either lost a portion of or all of our salary a favor by breaking up dues into montly payments AND asking a $30 administrative fee on top of that.  To me that shows a disconnect with what was really happening in the small practice sector of our profession who really suffered in this recession.

    I feel it would have spoken volumes if the AIA would have come to the membership and said those of you who can't afford us in your budget right now let us know what you can contribute so you can stay in the fold, and those of you who can, help us offset some of the losses we might see for the time being.  That was a question I posed to national when the offer was first made to membership.  I knew it was time to leave my 24 year membership when I drew no response to my inquiry.
    -------------------------------------------
    Paul Krutulis, LA
    Chicago IL
    -------------------------------------------






    Original Message


  • 9.  RE:Looking Down the Road

    Posted 12-13-2010 09:59 AM
    Klaus, you hit a lot of important nails squarely on their heads.

    Another important issue that the AIA needs to address is the next generation of architects--or rather the impending lack there of. I'm not referring to the recently licensed architects, but the 20-somethings who are interns or past IDP and taking exams now and then, and even the students about to graduate and enter IDP and beyond.

    My experience over the past few years in Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico, has shown this generation in action: highly enthusiastic in their work, but under-motivated to advance their careers. True, many were laid off in that time adding to the disenchantment with many leaving architecture for jobs of any sort. Those still intent on the profession are only casually scheduling their exams. The technological changes in exam-taking have enabled interns to be less committed to completing their exams, and hence in advancing their careers. Combine that with a generation trend to focus on working a job to support personal pursuits rather than to advance a career, and the profession is bound for a troubling future.

    I do not believe the AIA has adequately addressed this trend or begun to discuss its implications.

    -------------------------------------------
    David Clarke AIA
    President Elect, AIA Southern New Mexico
    Senior Architect, Williams Design Group, Inc.
    Las Cruces NM
    -------------------------------------------