-------------------------------------------
Mr. Hartnack aptly describes a debate that each practitioner and firm must examine and resolve: How do we want to practice? Many architects are well prepared to create fully developed contract documents that meet the standard of practice; many are not and don't wish to. As clearly stated in the AIA Code of Ethics, we should not promise to deliver professional services which we are not competent to deliver. This bare truth overrules many high level forum conversations about IPD or the "architect as master builder." The fact is, we're a diverse profession in a diverse industry, and there's room for many competencies.
The second level to the conversation is the question of leaving the development of detailed construction documents to the constructor organizations - CMs, GCs, and trade contractors. There are as wide a range of competencies in this part of the industry as there are in the design professions. Some constructors are highly competent in this arena, and are skilled in collaborating with architects in the development of designs and their subsequent contributions in completing construction details through an enhanced shop drawing/submittal process. There are many who are not. For those clients and projects and teams where this type of project delivery works, do it. It will likely save time and money. Whether it produces a better facility for the client will be determined by experience over time.
Many architects and their firms will engage in an array of conventional and design-build and IPD projects concurrently, based on their capabilities and markets. These teams will figure out how to best leverage their competencies to accomplish the work. Clients will figure out what works best for their own level of need and competence.
However, architects should bear in mind that eliminating the competency of construction document preparation and construction contract administration from their services will eliminate up to 50 percent of their project time and their fees. Will it reduce architects' liability exposure by 50 percent? Not according to the state licensure statutes I've read. While offering reduced services in conjunction with certain project and team types may be a successful solution for some firms some of the time, for the profession as a whole to embrace this approach to architectural practice will mean some wholesale changes, such as reducing the number of professional architectural school programs due to the reduced need for qualified licensed professionals with both broad design and detailed technical competencies.
I believe we should be preparing emerging professionals for a diverse array of architectural practice, and provide for better definition of this diversity, including design and technical competencies, and not just decide that the way that we may currently practice in our own firms is the way the entire profession should define itself going forward.
-------------------------------------------
Philip Kabza AIA
Partner and Dir Technical Services
SpecGuy
Charlotte NC
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 04-07-2011 05:39
From: Karl Hartnack
Errors, omissions and coordination problems usually occur during preparation of construction documents and drive up the cost of professional liability insurance, a major business expense. No set of construction documents is perfect. The cost of correction is usually determined by the point in time at which the error is found.
Is it fair to ask, if architects should be preparing construction documents at all?
Construction documents prepared by a contractor
- are not as voluminous as those prepared by an architect, because he is not covering himself contractually
- are more in touch with current technologies
- are more considerate of construction processes
- are coordinated with and by the general contractor
- are produced more quickly than by an architect
and thus result in overall cost savings; and, unless the profession thinks of something else, less compensation for the architect.
If the architect determines the shape and appearance of the detail and leaves its execution and integrity to the contractor, would the project and client be better served?
This seems to be a major quandary that the profession is in. Are multi-party agreements and integrated design the answer? Any thoughts on this?
-------------------------------------------
Karl Hartnack AIA
Component Past President
Hartnack Architecture
Düsseldorf
-------------------------------------------