Practice Management Member Conversations

An enticing proposition from Karen.  There are many more than the few of us on this site who have tried and failed before us, and are still working on just that challenge.  Changing public perception requires resources that are far beyond the unified abilities of architects, even if all architects could unite on a single mission.  Even our most powerful agency, the AIA has succeeded only to make a small impact.  Additionally, making regulatory changes has failed to do anything but make the profession of architecture more like a labor union, but has failed to solve anything.  Nonetheless architects continue to solicit the AIA and others to lobby for legislation to protect the profession.  Other historical attempts included publishing fee schedules, but met with federal litigation.  The latest measures have been to control the contracts used for construction to put the architect in a role of leadership, but this too has failed as too many architects were frankly just not educated nor prepared to manage projects with the breadth of knowledge and sensibilities required to produce projects of both value and quality, and so the market has reacted against the profession.

Let me propose an altogether different tack.  Suppose that the AIA and architects were to stop trying to deny the facts that I stated above.  What if we stopped promoting the image of architects as artists and began simultaneously to promote ourselves as technicians and business people and....at the same time began to focus our efforts on becoming better technicians and business people.  What if we formed an agenda specifically against the perception of architect as artist, and at the same time developed a real ability to respond to the market's desire for fiscal responsibility in design, along with a process that supported the quantitative demonstration of that ability.

Doesn't sound like much fun and it probably wouldn't be, and that is the real challenge.  Architects want to be artists with all the freedom of self expression that comes with that title.  But, they want to have their cake and eat it too.  They want the power and financial rewards that come from responding to the market.  We can't have it both ways, or most of us can't, there isn't enough of that market for Frank Gehry to share with the rest of us (no offense to Mr. Gehry).

Periods like this one of economic contraction will thin out the herd and perhaps the remaining survivors will be more amenable to this concept that I propose.  In fact it may become a self fulfilling prophecy.  If it is, why not be ahead of it, and why not let it become a central purpose in the AIA agenda?

-------------------------------------------
Alan Burcope AIA, MBA, LEED AP
VP Project Development
HBE Corporation
Saint Louis MO
-------------------------------------------

This is an interesting proposition, Mr. Burcope, and one that I agree with.  I would, however, change the word "technician" to "professional".  Technicians fix copiers:  Architects are professionals that design constructable buildings.

To me being a professional means providing a design that meets the clients needs, not our own ego needs.  That is constructable, meaning that the contractor has no reason to request changes because it can't be built as it was drawn.  That the drawings were done on time and came back from AHJ review with minimal comments.  That they were coordinated within themselves and with our consultants, and included the entire scope of work.  It's embarrasing to hear of architects that have made changes in their documents at a late date because they have forgotten something, or argue that a contractor should include something because it was obviously part of the design intent from the beginning.

I blog on project management practices because I believe that improving our PM skills will help us better deliver our product.  I don't think our product - the building design - is a continuing or widespread problem, but our methods of delivering is second rate and in need of improvement.  I would encourage the AIA to find a way to teach better PM techniques, and even offer a certificate in PM much as the contractors do with their CCM (Certified Construction Manager) designation. 

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

The comments from Karen, Alan and Klaus have been well communicated.  I find them to be 'on-point' regarding the question of the public's perception of the value of our profession and I am in agreement with almost everything offered.  However, like Klaus, I continue to be troubled by our choice of words to describe ourselves and what we do.  I believe it impacts that perception.

I refer to and agree with Klaus' comment about the substitution of the word 'professional', in lieu of 'technician'. I also continue to be unsettled by the on-going choice of the word 'practice' by far too many of us when referring to our profession; as in the 'practice of architecture', or "been in practice for x years", instead of referring to what it is, a 'business' and that we, as design professionals are 'business people', as Alan has stated and not 'artists'.  This may seem all too trivial for some, but how we think of ourselves and how we describe ourselves and that which we do, when interracting with the public, establishes the framework in which we are perceived.  If I needed brain surgery, I certainly would not have much confidence in a doctor who told me that he 'practiced' brain surgery.

I would also suggest it is time to focus on what I believe to be a primary cause of our profession's difficulty in establishing our value to the public.  The higher education provided to those seeking to become a design professional, is in my opinion, still in the 'Dark Ages'.  To begin with, most universities continue to 'allow' everyone and anyone, without distinction or qualification (other than their SAT score) to enter our colleges of architecture.  The bottom line result is the waste of millions of dollars by parents whose children 'thought' they wanted to become an architect (and 'get rich' someday).  Then, by their junior year, half the students have dropped out and yet another half will have left this major before the end of their senior year.  

In general, the curriculum offered at too many of our colleges of architecture is, in my opinion, not in any way preparatory for those who do manage to graduate and become employees of an architectural firm with any real understanding of how the 'business' of architecture is conducted on a day-to-day schedule.  The University of Cincinnati has long offered a 'Work-Study' program that exemplifies the kind of preparation needed to enter the profession and be able to 'earn' their salary, immediately. Instead, over the course of two, three, four and even five years, the undergraduates have been pumped so full of the message that 'design = architecture'.  That design is the be-all, end-all' of architecture and being a designer is what it means to be an architect.  Only to find out too soon. for so many, that they do not have the skill-set and talent level to design anything, in spite of their design studio grades.  

To be sure, design is a critically needed part of the business of architecture, but no more important than the skill sets needed to detail a project's design so it can be properly constructed, or communicate how the design fulfills the client's program requirements, or how to develop a project fee budget based on the information provided in an RFP, or how to effectively delegate an assignment to a 'green grad', or to an experienced project architect.   All of these are worthwhile and much-needed skill sets that the architecture undergraduate could be exposed to in the curriculums offered, but sadly for most, they are not.  It is my opinion, that the senior year of an undergraduate curriculum include an introductory course on financial management...how to set-up a chart of accounts, properly format the Profit-Loss and Balance Sheet reports and learn how to calculate the 'true' overhead cost and the 'break-even rate to develop an hourly billing rate. Further, why not provide PM courses in the junior and senior years?  The simple, one-day segment of one of these classes should include the reason and importance of not only how, but why a timesheet (electronic or otherwise) needs to be accurately completed twice-a-day, but also why not doing this could cost a firm thousands of dollars of lost revenue each year.  Too many of my own clients and colleagues still do not have an awareness of many of the above skill-sets and it is 'costing' them dearly.  

I believe that if our education system was up to the level of awareness and advancements of the technologies we utilize everyday in our workplace, we might begin to grasp that our education needs to provide our graduates with more than a sense of design and discipline.  It needs to stop catering to a 'design-focused' curriculum and begin to integrate courses that will provide valuable and necessary tools and knowledge that could be applied on the very the first day of the very first job in a professional design firm. 

What I'm suggesting is that we, as design professionals, need to develop a better image of ourselves, of the value of what we have been educated to do, of the value of our extensive professional services and how we can effectively communicate all of these things to promote a better appreciation and understanding of our commitment and contribution to the development and wellness of our built environment and society.  
Respectfully, 

-------------------------------------------
Steve L. Wintner, AIA Emeritus
Founder-Principal
Management Consulting Services
The Woodlands, TX 77380-1414
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 01-19-2011 17:47
From: Klaus Steinke
Subject: Value? A New Proposition for the AIA?

This is an interesting proposition, Mr. Burcope, and one that I agree with.  I would, however, change the word "technician" to "professional".  Technicians fix copiers:  Architects are professionals that design constructable buildings.

To me being a professional means providing a design that meets the clients needs, not our own ego needs.  That is constructable, meaning that the contractor has no reason to request changes because it can't be built as it was drawn.  That the drawings were done on time and came back from AHJ review with minimal comments.  That they were coordinated within themselves and with our consultants, and included the entire scope of work.  It's embarrasing to hear of architects that have made changes in their documents at a late date because they have forgotten something, or argue that a contractor should include something because it was obviously part of the design intent from the beginning.

I blog on project management practices because I believe that improving our PM skills will help us better deliver our product.  I don't think our product - the building design - is a continuing or widespread problem, but our methods of delivering is second rate and in need of improvement.  I would encourage the AIA to find a way to teach better PM techniques, and even offer a certificate in PM much as the contractors do with their CCM (Certified Construction Manager) designation. 

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

I completely agree with Mr. Steve Wintner's assessment of the architecture profession.  I think his message needs to be taken mainstream as I think describes the central reason that so many firms are not thriving as they could.  

From my experience, I think in the processes of the inner workings of some firms is a bit like the blind leading the blind.  Not enough on-the-job training to overcome it.  Too many people reinventing the wheel unnecessarily when so many of the tasks we do have been done before- not referring to the process of design, but- of project management.

I personally think that project management has been a very overlooked, under-developed critical skill within our profession.  And I've often wondered why that is.

I also think it is long overdue that NCARB, the NAAB, and the AIA get realistic and take the blinders off; it is time to take a more critical look at the core curricula of architecture schools.   How does the medical profession accomplish this?  Do they accomplish this?

Thanks for the chance to vent on this topic.

Best,
Tara

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






Original Message:
Sent: 01-20-2011 13:09
From: Steve Wintner
Subject: Value? A New Proposition for the AIA?

The comments from Karen, Alan and Klaus have been well communicated.  I find them to be 'on-point' regarding the question of the public's perception of the value of our profession and I am in agreement with almost everything offered.  However, like Klaus, I continue to be troubled by our choice of words to describe ourselves and what we do.  I believe it impacts that perception.

I refer to and agree with Klaus' comment about the substitution of the word 'professional', in lieu of 'technician'. I also continue to be unsettled by the on-going choice of the word 'practice' by far too many of us when referring to our profession; as in the 'practice of architecture', or "been in practice for x years", instead of referring to what it is, a 'business' and that we, as design professionals are 'business people', as Alan has stated and not 'artists'.  This may seem all too trivial for some, but how we think of ourselves and how we describe ourselves and that which we do, when interracting with the public, establishes the framework in which we are perceived.  If I needed brain surgery, I certainly would not have much confidence in a doctor who told me that he 'practiced' brain surgery.

I would also suggest it is time to focus on what I believe to be a primary cause of our profession's difficulty in establishing our value to the public.  The higher education provided to those seeking to become a design professional, is in my opinion, still in the 'Dark Ages'.  To begin with, most universities continue to 'allow' everyone and anyone, without distinction or qualification (other than their SAT score) to enter our colleges of architecture.  The bottom line result is the waste of millions of dollars by parents whose children 'thought' they wanted to become an architect (and 'get rich' someday).  Then, by their junior year, half the students have dropped out and yet another half will have left this major before the end of their senior year.  

In general, the curriculum offered at too many of our colleges of architecture is, in my opinion, not in any way preparatory for those who do manage to graduate and become employees of an architectural firm with any real understanding of how the 'business' of architecture is conducted on a day-to-day schedule.  The University of Cincinnati has long offered a 'Work-Study' program that exemplifies the kind of preparation needed to enter the profession and be able to 'earn' their salary, immediately. Instead, over the course of two, three, four and even five years, the undergraduates have been pumped so full of the message that 'design = architecture'.  That design is the be-all, end-all' of architecture and being a designer is what it means to be an architect.  Only to find out too soon. for so many, that they do not have the skill-set and talent level to design anything, in spite of their design studio grades.  

To be sure, design is a critically needed part of the business of architecture, but no more important than the skill sets needed to detail a project's design so it can be properly constructed, or communicate how the design fulfills the client's program requirements, or how to develop a project fee budget based on the information provided in an RFP, or how to effectively delegate an assignment to a 'green grad', or to an experienced project architect.   All of these are worthwhile and much-needed skill sets that the architecture undergraduate could be exposed to in the curriculums offered, but sadly for most, they are not.  It is my opinion, that the senior year of an undergraduate curriculum include an introductory course on financial management...how to set-up a chart of accounts, properly format the Profit-Loss and Balance Sheet reports and learn how to calculate the 'true' overhead cost and the 'break-even rate to develop an hourly billing rate. Further, why not provide PM courses in the junior and senior years?  The simple, one-day segment of one of these classes should include the reason and importance of not only how, but why a timesheet (electronic or otherwise) needs to be accurately completed twice-a-day, but also why not doing this could cost a firm thousands of dollars of lost revenue each year.  Too many of my own clients and colleagues still do not have an awareness of many of the above skill-sets and it is 'costing' them dearly.  

I believe that if our education system was up to the level of awareness and advancements of the technologies we utilize everyday in our workplace, we might begin to grasp that our education needs to provide our graduates with more than a sense of design and discipline.  It needs to stop catering to a 'design-focused' curriculum and begin to integrate courses that will provide valuable and necessary tools and knowledge that could be applied on the very the first day of the very first job in a professional design firm. 

What I'm suggesting is that we, as design professionals, need to develop a better image of ourselves, of the value of what we have been educated to do, of the value of our extensive professional services and how we can effectively communicate all of these things to promote a better appreciation and understanding of our commitment and contribution to the development and wellness of our built environment and society.  
Respectfully, 

-------------------------------------------
Steve L. Wintner, AIA Emeritus
Founder-Principal
Management Consulting Services
The Woodlands, TX 77380-1414
-------------------------------------------

Steve Wintner's comments are well spoken as are many about this subject by AIA members, but nothing seems to come of it or is ever done to advance it by AIA members. 

It would be great to have AIA National establish; through GoTo meetings using new technology software and other real firm business software, direct communication by Practicing Licensed Architect members to the Academic Leadership which make up the Great Colleges of Architecture throughout the USA.  

Through an integrated approach using up to date technology, like GoTo meetings, BIM, Deltech, Newforma, MySmartPlans and many other types of software, so much can be illustrated about what is taking place in the real world of architecture.  Practicing architects are the ones that should help illustrate what needs to be understood about the business side of being an architect to students.  If every firm just dedicated one hour a month to a local College of Architecture through a coordinated effort by AIA National, so much could be shared through new technology to help students transition from an academic world into the real world of being an architect.  

So much needs to advance within the academic setting of architecture both at the High School and University/College levels, but it must be communicated by the real practicing business world of architecture.  Only this integrated approach will help advance perception of being a "Valued Licensed Professional", so architects are understood not as individuals who have artistic talent with a passion for design but as valued licensed professionals providing Health, Safety and Welfare to the public. 

Would you like to be known by the public as a Professional Licensed Design Architect or a Professional Licensed Architect of Health, Safety and Welfare for Building Environments?

Also, someone needs to put a stop to the use of the word architect by the IT industry to protect our Professional Architect Value Image.  If you do a search on the Web or Job Boards for Architect you will get more IT links/positions/resumes than Professional Architect links now that the use of the word architect in the IT industry has grown.
-------------------------------------------
William Burmeister AIA
St. Louis MO
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 01-20-2011 13:09
From: Steve Wintner
Subject: Value? A New Proposition for the AIA?

The comments from Karen, Alan and Klaus have been well communicated.  I find them to be 'on-point' regarding the question of the public's perception of the value of our profession and I am in agreement with almost everything offered.  However, like Klaus, I continue to be troubled by our choice of words to describe ourselves and what we do.  I believe it impacts that perception.

I refer to and agree with Klaus' comment about the substitution of the word 'professional', in lieu of 'technician'. I also continue to be unsettled by the on-going choice of the word 'practice' by far too many of us when referring to our profession; as in the 'practice of architecture', or "been in practice for x years", instead of referring to what it is, a 'business' and that we, as design professionals are 'business people', as Alan has stated and not 'artists'.  This may seem all too trivial for some, but how we think of ourselves and how we describe ourselves and that which we do, when interracting with the public, establishes the framework in which we are perceived.  If I needed brain surgery, I certainly would not have much confidence in a doctor who told me that he 'practiced' brain surgery.

I would also suggest it is time to focus on what I believe to be a primary cause of our profession's difficulty in establishing our value to the public.  The higher education provided to those seeking to become a design professional, is in my opinion, still in the 'Dark Ages'.  To begin with, most universities continue to 'allow' everyone and anyone, without distinction or qualification (other than their SAT score) to enter our colleges of architecture.  The bottom line result is the waste of millions of dollars by parents whose children 'thought' they wanted to become an architect (and 'get rich' someday).  Then, by their junior year, half the students have dropped out and yet another half will have left this major before the end of their senior year.  

In general, the curriculum offered at too many of our colleges of architecture is, in my opinion, not in any way preparatory for those who do manage to graduate and become employees of an architectural firm with any real understanding of how the 'business' of architecture is conducted on a day-to-day schedule.  The University of Cincinnati has long offered a 'Work-Study' program that exemplifies the kind of preparation needed to enter the profession and be able to 'earn' their salary, immediately. Instead, over the course of two, three, four and even five years, the undergraduates have been pumped so full of the message that 'design = architecture'.  That design is the be-all, end-all' of architecture and being a designer is what it means to be an architect.  Only to find out too soon. for so many, that they do not have the skill-set and talent level to design anything, in spite of their design studio grades.  

To be sure, design is a critically needed part of the business of architecture, but no more important than the skill sets needed to detail a project's design so it can be properly constructed, or communicate how the design fulfills the client's program requirements, or how to develop a project fee budget based on the information provided in an RFP, or how to effectively delegate an assignment to a 'green grad', or to an experienced project architect.   All of these are worthwhile and much-needed skill sets that the architecture undergraduate could be exposed to in the curriculums offered, but sadly for most, they are not.  It is my opinion, that the senior year of an undergraduate curriculum include an introductory course on financial management...how to set-up a chart of accounts, properly format the Profit-Loss and Balance Sheet reports and learn how to calculate the 'true' overhead cost and the 'break-even rate to develop an hourly billing rate. Further, why not provide PM courses in the junior and senior years?  The simple, one-day segment of one of these classes should include the reason and importance of not only how, but why a timesheet (electronic or otherwise) needs to be accurately completed twice-a-day, but also why not doing this could cost a firm thousands of dollars of lost revenue each year.  Too many of my own clients and colleagues still do not have an awareness of many of the above skill-sets and it is 'costing' them dearly.  

I believe that if our education system was up to the level of awareness and advancements of the technologies we utilize everyday in our workplace, we might begin to grasp that our education needs to provide our graduates with more than a sense of design and discipline.  It needs to stop catering to a 'design-focused' curriculum and begin to integrate courses that will provide valuable and necessary tools and knowledge that could be applied on the very the first day of the very first job in a professional design firm. 

What I'm suggesting is that we, as design professionals, need to develop a better image of ourselves, of the value of what we have been educated to do, of the value of our extensive professional services and how we can effectively communicate all of these things to promote a better appreciation and understanding of our commitment and contribution to the development and wellness of our built environment and society.  
Respectfully, 

-------------------------------------------
Steve L. Wintner, AIA Emeritus
Founder-Principal
Management Consulting Services
The Woodlands, TX 77380-1414
-------------------------------------------

In following this tread of comments, I have been inspired to respond.

In addition to Steve's excellent comments below, I would add business development/marketing and 'leadership' aspects of the profession as well.  One aspect is a more overriding principle (leadership) and the other directly responds to the business of architecture.  I did not want to write a long soapbox about either of these aspects as they are fairly self-explanatory, but let me lend some personal thoughts.

Over the last two weeks, our office has hosted architecture students from Roger Williams University as 'externships' and it has given me reason to reflect on our profession.  Many of Steve's comments (before I read them here) were discussed with the students by me and some of our staff .... ESPECIALLY the recent graduates less than 3 years.  As a licensed architect, I have played virtually every role in my office over the 17 years I have been here - intern, project architect, project manager, IT/CAD director, director of operations, and now a principal overseeing business development and marketing opportunities.  This has given me numerous experiences in all of the aspects of our business.

I must admit I never imagined early in my career that I would be in the role that focused, in a unique way of course, 'sales'.  But it is so vitally important.  Architecture graduates come out of school and have little idea that without business development, you have no work.  Whether you work for a huge firm or go out on your own after getting licensed (and maybe before for some), you have to be a rainmaker by creating relationships and showing your VALUE (finally tied this back to the subject line!).  In a large firm, creating lasting relationships and if possible, bringing in leads, shows more initiative and brings more value to the firm - even if you are very early in your career.  If you are on your own ... its the only way you will make a living.

And whether one is speaking about the art, practice, or business of architecture, LEADERSHIP is what separates those you can ... to those who do.  I have been part of leadership education and "Citizen Architect" discussions at the national AIA levels for several years now and have learned how much the principles of leadership can make a huge difference in the perception of VALUE architects can bring to society (there's that word again!).  Architects do not need to be elected officials necessarily (though it would be nice) - however serving on community organizations, town/city committees, and/or professional organizations would get our profession (and our knowledge) out to the public and maybe change the perception many have.

And on a final personal note, if you will all allow me to, I have realized over the past few weeks how much this is needed just in my community.  Without detail, I have been asked to be involved in, and chair (for some), several committees or subgroups that have been tasked to make major decisions or communicate issues to a broader group or board.  And adding these responsibilities to what I already have on my plate is burning me out.  Now, maybe some would say that it is because I can't say no or I'm a 'nice' guy.  What I know is that I have been asked because of my architectural background/knowledge and my collaborative approach ... mostly due to the experiences I have gained in my field.  And how many individuals with an architectural background, who know about collaboration, are involved in my community ... maybe one.  I can only imagine what it would be like to have other architects involved in my local community ... I would certainly love to relinquish some my duties to others because I know other architects could help and try and make a difference... just like I am trying to do.

-------------------------------------------
F. Michael Ayles AIA
Principal, Business Development
Antinozzi Associates, PC
Bridgeport CT
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 01-20-2011 13:09
From: Steve Wintner
Subject: Value? A New Proposition for the AIA?

The comments from Karen, Alan and Klaus have been well communicated.  I find them to be 'on-point' regarding the question of the public's perception of the value of our profession and I am in agreement with almost everything offered.  However, like Klaus, I continue to be troubled by our choice of words to describe ourselves and what we do.  I believe it impacts that perception.

I refer to and agree with Klaus' comment about the substitution of the word 'professional', in lieu of 'technician'. I also continue to be unsettled by the on-going choice of the word 'practice' by far too many of us when referring to our profession; as in the 'practice of architecture', or "been in practice for x years", instead of referring to what it is, a 'business' and that we, as design professionals are 'business people', as Alan has stated and not 'artists'.  This may seem all too trivial for some, but how we think of ourselves and how we describe ourselves and that which we do, when interracting with the public, establishes the framework in which we are perceived.  If I needed brain surgery, I certainly would not have much confidence in a doctor who told me that he 'practiced' brain surgery.

I would also suggest it is time to focus on what I believe to be a primary cause of our profession's difficulty in establishing our value to the public.  The higher education provided to those seeking to become a design professional, is in my opinion, still in the 'Dark Ages'.  To begin with, most universities continue to 'allow' everyone and anyone, without distinction or qualification (other than their SAT score) to enter our colleges of architecture.  The bottom line result is the waste of millions of dollars by parents whose children 'thought' they wanted to become an architect (and 'get rich' someday).  Then, by their junior year, half the students have dropped out and yet another half will have left this major before the end of their senior year.  

In general, the curriculum offered at too many of our colleges of architecture is, in my opinion, not in any way preparatory for those who do manage to graduate and become employees of an architectural firm with any real understanding of how the 'business' of architecture is conducted on a day-to-day schedule.  The University of Cincinnati has long offered a 'Work-Study' program that exemplifies the kind of preparation needed to enter the profession and be able to 'earn' their salary, immediately. Instead, over the course of two, three, four and even five years, the undergraduates have been pumped so full of the message that 'design = architecture'.  That design is the be-all, end-all' of architecture and being a designer is what it means to be an architect.  Only to find out too soon. for so many, that they do not have the skill-set and talent level to design anything, in spite of their design studio grades.  

To be sure, design is a critically needed part of the business of architecture, but no more important than the skill sets needed to detail a project's design so it can be properly constructed, or communicate how the design fulfills the client's program requirements, or how to develop a project fee budget based on the information provided in an RFP, or how to effectively delegate an assignment to a 'green grad', or to an experienced project architect.   All of these are worthwhile and much-needed skill sets that the architecture undergraduate could be exposed to in the curriculums offered, but sadly for most, they are not.  It is my opinion, that the senior year of an undergraduate curriculum include an introductory course on financial management...how to set-up a chart of accounts, properly format the Profit-Loss and Balance Sheet reports and learn how to calculate the 'true' overhead cost and the 'break-even rate to develop an hourly billing rate. Further, why not provide PM courses in the junior and senior years?  The simple, one-day segment of one of these classes should include the reason and importance of not only how, but why a timesheet (electronic or otherwise) needs to be accurately completed twice-a-day, but also why not doing this could cost a firm thousands of dollars of lost revenue each year.  Too many of my own clients and colleagues still do not have an awareness of many of the above skill-sets and it is 'costing' them dearly.  

I believe that if our education system was up to the level of awareness and advancements of the technologies we utilize everyday in our workplace, we might begin to grasp that our education needs to provide our graduates with more than a sense of design and discipline.  It needs to stop catering to a 'design-focused' curriculum and begin to integrate courses that will provide valuable and necessary tools and knowledge that could be applied on the very the first day of the very first job in a professional design firm. 

What I'm suggesting is that we, as design professionals, need to develop a better image of ourselves, of the value of what we have been educated to do, of the value of our extensive professional services and how we can effectively communicate all of these things to promote a better appreciation and understanding of our commitment and contribution to the development and wellness of our built environment and society.  
Respectfully, 

-------------------------------------------
Steve L. Wintner, AIA Emeritus
Founder-Principal
Management Consulting Services
The Woodlands, TX 77380-1414
-------------------------------------------

I agree with Mr. Wintner's assessment of our architectural education.  While this is not the CAE discussion forum allow me to add a few thoughts on this topic.  My final masters report for my MArch at the University of Arizona supports Steve's arguments.  The findings of a survey sent to both educators and professionals in the southwest region of the United States indicated the students coming out of the architecture colleges were not prepared to handle the demands of running the business of architecture.  While I may have been perceived as a architectural heretic in school for having mentioned "architecture" and "money" in the same sentence, the fact remains, if we don't manage the business of architecture we won't be around to keep being the designers that the schools train us to be.  We won't be able to experience the passion of architecture that is in many of us.  NAAB accreditation outlines a number of business skills that are to be taught to students as part of their well-rounded education. With very few exceptions, like the University of Cincinnati, the schools are not teaching those skills.  From the survey, both the educators and the practitioners have recognized this deficiency and sheepishly admitted that they rely on the IDP program to bridge the gap.  (Thankfully we have the IDP, which I fully support.)  Still the gap in the curriculum and the profession exist.  Ironically, very few interns are given the opportunity to gain experience on the financial side of any firm they work for.

Steve, your wish to implement a financial management class at the junior/senior year is already a curriculum criteria requirement by NAAB.  The quote below is taken from the current 2009 Conditions for Accreditation (similar language was used at the time of my report in 2001):

Realm C: Leadership and Practice:
Architects need to manage, advocate, and act legally, ethically and critically for the good of the client, society and the public. This includes collaboration, business, and leadership skills. Student learning aspirations include:
> Knowing societal and professional responsibilities.
> Comprehending the business of building.
> Collaborating and negotiating with clients and consultants in the design process.
> Discerning the diverse roles of architects and those in related disciplines.
> Integrating community service into the practice of architecture.

There are 9 subsections under Realm C, but I'll highlight only one.
C.5 Practice Management: Understanding of the basic principles of architectural practice management such as financial management and business planning, time management, risk management, mediation and arbitration, and recognizing trends that affect practice.

Please don't take this the wrong way.  I am extremely grateful for my architectural education at the two universities from which I graduated.  Both programs taught me a great many skills that I continue to use and value daily.  But like most of the programs throughout the US, they fall short of the basic skills outlined above, which is a disservice to the students, who then become the next leaders in our profession.

How nice it would be to prepare the next generation with a full architectural tool belt, which should not only include a t-square, lead holder, design skills, computer mouse, history, and analysis, but also business and management skills in becoming the skilled architect that creates value for our clients.  Instead we end up doing things by the seat of our pants and getting educated by the school of hard knocks.  My survey and masters report were done during one of the boom cycles of design/economy.  Now we are in one of the bust cycles with many struggling to stay in the profession and wondering where the next paycheck/commission is coming from.  Business terms like "marketing", "budgets", "taxes", "inflation", "profit", "loss", "timesheets", "payroll", "salary", "severance", and yes, even "money" are now ever-present in the design profession.  We have had to put the design tools back on our belt momentarily, while we try to find our business and marketing tools (if we have them).  I feel that if we had more business skills, we probably wouldn't feel so helpless during the down cycles of our profession.  Knowing how to run our profession better will create value for not only for ourselves, but our clients will see the strength of a profession that can ride through difficult times and still enjoy the creative passion of our profession.


-------------------------------------------
Russell Hansen AIA, NCARB, LEED AP, MBA
Western Architectural
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 01-20-2011 13:09
From: Steve Wintner
Subject: Value? A New Proposition for the AIA?

The comments from Karen, Alan and Klaus have been well communicated.  I find them to be 'on-point' regarding the question of the public's perception of the value of our profession and I am in agreement with almost everything offered.  However, like Klaus, I continue to be troubled by our choice of words to describe ourselves and what we do.  I believe it impacts that perception.

I refer to and agree with Klaus' comment about the substitution of the word 'professional', in lieu of 'technician'. I also continue to be unsettled by the on-going choice of the word 'practice' by far too many of us when referring to our profession; as in the 'practice of architecture', or "been in practice for x years", instead of referring to what it is, a 'business' and that we, as design professionals are 'business people', as Alan has stated and not 'artists'.  This may seem all too trivial for some, but how we think of ourselves and how we describe ourselves and that which we do, when interracting with the public, establishes the framework in which we are perceived.  If I needed brain surgery, I certainly would not have much confidence in a doctor who told me that he 'practiced' brain surgery.

I would also suggest it is time to focus on what I believe to be a primary cause of our profession's difficulty in establishing our value to the public.  The higher education provided to those seeking to become a design professional, is in my opinion, still in the 'Dark Ages'.  To begin with, most universities continue to 'allow' everyone and anyone, without distinction or qualification (other than their SAT score) to enter our colleges of architecture.  The bottom line result is the waste of millions of dollars by parents whose children 'thought' they wanted to become an architect (and 'get rich' someday).  Then, by their junior year, half the students have dropped out and yet another half will have left this major before the end of their senior year.  

In general, the curriculum offered at too many of our colleges of architecture is, in my opinion, not in any way preparatory for those who do manage to graduate and become employees of an architectural firm with any real understanding of how the 'business' of architecture is conducted on a day-to-day schedule.  The University of Cincinnati has long offered a 'Work-Study' program that exemplifies the kind of preparation needed to enter the profession and be able to 'earn' their salary, immediately. Instead, over the course of two, three, four and even five years, the undergraduates have been pumped so full of the message that 'design = architecture'.  That design is the be-all, end-all' of architecture and being a designer is what it means to be an architect.  Only to find out too soon. for so many, that they do not have the skill-set and talent level to design anything, in spite of their design studio grades.  

To be sure, design is a critically needed part of the business of architecture, but no more important than the skill sets needed to detail a project's design so it can be properly constructed, or communicate how the design fulfills the client's program requirements, or how to develop a project fee budget based on the information provided in an RFP, or how to effectively delegate an assignment to a 'green grad', or to an experienced project architect.   All of these are worthwhile and much-needed skill sets that the architecture undergraduate could be exposed to in the curriculums offered, but sadly for most, they are not.  It is my opinion, that the senior year of an undergraduate curriculum include an introductory course on financial management...how to set-up a chart of accounts, properly format the Profit-Loss and Balance Sheet reports and learn how to calculate the 'true' overhead cost and the 'break-even rate to develop an hourly billing rate. Further, why not provide PM courses in the junior and senior years?  The simple, one-day segment of one of these classes should include the reason and importance of not only how, but why a timesheet (electronic or otherwise) needs to be accurately completed twice-a-day, but also why not doing this could cost a firm thousands of dollars of lost revenue each year.  Too many of my own clients and colleagues still do not have an awareness of many of the above skill-sets and it is 'costing' them dearly.  

I believe that if our education system was up to the level of awareness and advancements of the technologies we utilize everyday in our workplace, we might begin to grasp that our education needs to provide our graduates with more than a sense of design and discipline.  It needs to stop catering to a 'design-focused' curriculum and begin to integrate courses that will provide valuable and necessary tools and knowledge that could be applied on the very the first day of the very first job in a professional design firm. 

What I'm suggesting is that we, as design professionals, need to develop a better image of ourselves, of the value of what we have been educated to do, of the value of our extensive professional services and how we can effectively communicate all of these things to promote a better appreciation and understanding of our commitment and contribution to the development and wellness of our built environment and society.  
Respectfully, 

-------------------------------------------
Steve L. Wintner, AIA Emeritus
Founder-Principal
Management Consulting Services
The Woodlands, TX 77380-1414
-------------------------------------------

All of us have tried, from time to time, to convey to our non-architect friends what it is that we actually do.  Most of them think we "draw", but understand very little of the work that has to be done before we draw.  Most are oblivious to some of the most basic code requirements, such as those that define riser height, tread width, guardrail height, handrail height, and picket spacing, let alone more complex questions.

The media shares in this lack of understanding.  I recall a case in Central Florida where the local paper hired a number of college students, gave them some training, and sent them out to inspect newly built residences.  These were builder tract homes, and a number of complaints about construction quality had reached their ears, so they decided to do some investigative reporting.  Overall the report was interesting and somewhat illuminating in regards to construction quality, but a local architect wrote a letter to the editor that highlighted the fact that the student inspectors really didn't know much of what they were looking at.  He pointed out that their report used terms such as concrete "molds" instead of forms, and "seams" instead of joints in masonry.  If they can't get the terms right, what else was missed?  And did they understand construction tolerances?

As Mr. Wintner points out, architecture grads matriculate with the dictum that design = architecture.  Most of the architectural press doesn't go beyond that either.  Now, I like the pictures and descriptions of design as much as the next architect, but how about a little coverage on programming spaces, or how a difficult detail was solved?  The programming discussions can help all of us improve how our buildings function for our clients, while the detailing discussions can help us avoid conditions that are as attractive as a dog's hind leg.

I agree that courses in a senior or fifth year on the economics of running an architectural firm would be of great value to architecture grads.  The only class I had in that line was one on Business Law.  I had to learn from my employers and from books bought from the AIA and other sources.  Ultimately I went back to school to get an MBA, which is not targeted at businesses like professional service firms.

The problem with this approach is that it institutionalizes the worst practices in a profession as well as some of the best.  Most firms arrive at a number for their fee by taking a percentage of construction cost, or charging on the basis of so many dollars per square foot.  They then backcheck by getting numbers from their consultants, taking a percent for overhead, another for profit, and then analyzing the balance to see if they have enough to fund the hours they think the project will take.  If it works out they have a forumula to apply to the next project, and profitablity becomes a SWAG number and luck.

It's an approach that has served many firms well for many years, but it's one that's devoid of any metrics that show where the firm can improve and where it's doing great.  A good project management plan will provide those metrics, as it will:    

•     Define the scope of a project in much greater detail
•     Break down the work to complete the project in more detail than just by design phase
•     Track the progress of the work as it's being done so that the project manager knows if the work is on schedule or not, under or over budget
•     Define quality for the project
•     Plan the communications for the project, so that the people that need to be informed, are
•     Plans the personnel to be used on the project, so that the right staff is in place
•     Analyzes the risks inherent in doing the project, both for the building itself and for the firm
•     Integrates design changes among the team members, minimizing lack of coordination

With information like this a project manager will know very quickly when his project is falling behind and can take measures to correct the situation before it becomes critical.  The PM will also know when the budget is in trouble, or conversely, when additional profit is possible.  At the conclusion of a project the firm should review where things went well, and where they went badly, and plan improvements for the next project.  You can't improve something if you don't first measure it, and most architects don't understand how to do the measuring.

There's a value to this in client relations as well.  The client may be one of those people that believe that all you do is "draw".  Presenting him with a detailed Work Breakdown Structure and corresponding schedule shows the client in detail many of things he may not be aware of.  Compare the schedules that clients typically receive from architects with those that they receive from contractors.  Architect's schedules typically show design phases, delivery milestones, and little else.  Contractors schedules show dates of concrete pours, form stripping, rebar installation, etc.  Who would you trust as more knowledgeable?

If you recall Howard Roark's trial in Ayn Rands The Fountainhead, you will remember that his defense, such as it was, was to roll out drawings of his initial design, the one that had been bastardized by others.  If I remember correctly, all he said was "Behold!".  We look at our drawings and the work and planning is obvious - Behold! how it complies with code!  Behold! how it saves energy! - but our clients often see and do not perceive.  A good project management plan will help them do both.

Respectfully,

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






Original Message:
Sent: 01-20-2011 13:09
From: Steve Wintner
Subject: Value? A New Proposition for the AIA?

The comments from Karen, Alan and Klaus have been well communicated.  I find them to be 'on-point' regarding the question of the public's perception of the value of our profession and I am in agreement with almost everything offered.  However, like Klaus, I continue to be troubled by our choice of words to describe ourselves and what we do.  I believe it impacts that perception.

I refer to and agree with Klaus' comment about the substitution of the word 'professional', in lieu of 'technician'. I also continue to be unsettled by the on-going choice of the word 'practice' by far too many of us when referring to our profession; as in the 'practice of architecture', or "been in practice for x years", instead of referring to what it is, a 'business' and that we, as design professionals are 'business people', as Alan has stated and not 'artists'.  This may seem all too trivial for some, but how we think of ourselves and how we describe ourselves and that which we do, when interracting with the public, establishes the framework in which we are perceived.  If I needed brain surgery, I certainly would not have much confidence in a doctor who told me that he 'practiced' brain surgery.

I would also suggest it is time to focus on what I believe to be a primary cause of our profession's difficulty in establishing our value to the public.  The higher education provided to those seeking to become a design professional, is in my opinion, still in the 'Dark Ages'.  To begin with, most universities continue to 'allow' everyone and anyone, without distinction or qualification (other than their SAT score) to enter our colleges of architecture.  The bottom line result is the waste of millions of dollars by parents whose children 'thought' they wanted to become an architect (and 'get rich' someday).  Then, by their junior year, half the students have dropped out and yet another half will have left this major before the end of their senior year.  

In general, the curriculum offered at too many of our colleges of architecture is, in my opinion, not in any way preparatory for those who do manage to graduate and become employees of an architectural firm with any real understanding of how the 'business' of architecture is conducted on a day-to-day schedule.  The University of Cincinnati has long offered a 'Work-Study' program that exemplifies the kind of preparation needed to enter the profession and be able to 'earn' their salary, immediately. Instead, over the course of two, three, four and even five years, the undergraduates have been pumped so full of the message that 'design = architecture'.  That design is the be-all, end-all' of architecture and being a designer is what it means to be an architect.  Only to find out too soon. for so many, that they do not have the skill-set and talent level to design anything, in spite of their design studio grades.  

To be sure, design is a critically needed part of the business of architecture, but no more important than the skill sets needed to detail a project's design so it can be properly constructed, or communicate how the design fulfills the client's program requirements, or how to develop a project fee budget based on the information provided in an RFP, or how to effectively delegate an assignment to a 'green grad', or to an experienced project architect.   All of these are worthwhile and much-needed skill sets that the architecture undergraduate could be exposed to in the curriculums offered, but sadly for most, they are not.  It is my opinion, that the senior year of an undergraduate curriculum include an introductory course on financial management...how to set-up a chart of accounts, properly format the Profit-Loss and Balance Sheet reports and learn how to calculate the 'true' overhead cost and the 'break-even rate to develop an hourly billing rate. Further, why not provide PM courses in the junior and senior years?  The simple, one-day segment of one of these classes should include the reason and importance of not only how, but why a timesheet (electronic or otherwise) needs to be accurately completed twice-a-day, but also why not doing this could cost a firm thousands of dollars of lost revenue each year.  Too many of my own clients and colleagues still do not have an awareness of many of the above skill-sets and it is 'costing' them dearly.  

I believe that if our education system was up to the level of awareness and advancements of the technologies we utilize everyday in our workplace, we might begin to grasp that our education needs to provide our graduates with more than a sense of design and discipline.  It needs to stop catering to a 'design-focused' curriculum and begin to integrate courses that will provide valuable and necessary tools and knowledge that could be applied on the very the first day of the very first job in a professional design firm. 

What I'm suggesting is that we, as design professionals, need to develop a better image of ourselves, of the value of what we have been educated to do, of the value of our extensive professional services and how we can effectively communicate all of these things to promote a better appreciation and understanding of our commitment and contribution to the development and wellness of our built environment and society.  
Respectfully, 

-------------------------------------------
Steve L. Wintner, AIA Emeritus
Founder-Principal
Management Consulting Services
The Woodlands, TX 77380-1414
-------------------------------------------