This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Project Delivery and Practice Management Member Conversations .
-------------------------------------------
Apparently ethics are not as big and complex an issue as I thought. Some seem to have it all figured out. I am not certain how many points being made are arguing for arguing's sake, but I do take slight offense at the characterization of me personally. Ideas could be expressed with a little more tact.
Contracts will always be short of perfect, just like construction documents. The point I was trying to make, apparently not so well, is that there are expectations that cannot be written into contract language, on both sides of the project transaction. Just as the Architect might expect that the Owner is as much enamored by the prospect of winning a design award or being published, the client might expect the Architect to make decisions in their financial best interest at all times. Regardless, there will be conflicts that arise, and dare I say so without being accused of resembling my subject, Architects will, and in fact often must, make decisions in their own interest which are not in their client's interest at times. One such example is that of aesthetic imposition. This is the sacred cow of the profession, and I don't expect all to understand or agree with it, after all we are all taught to worship at the altar of aesthetics, and some are more devout than others.
All of the objectives that Architects are taught, or choose to believe are of great value to society; to future humanity; to the environment or to themselves, may or may not actually be of value to the client or the client organization. However, many, if not most of the behaviors created by pursuing these objectives, just coincidentally, serve the architect's own financial interest or the interest of the profession in it's current form. This is not my opinion, it is factual.
Take for example of first cost vs. life cycle cost. There is no absolute right and wrong, yet the Architectural community seems to point a self-righteous finger at clients and contractors as if they lack an understanding of the subject, as if they are being cheap and short sighted. Some may be, but there is a missing sensitivity on the part of the Architectural community, to the financial constraints and business objectives of the Client. The argument is presented as if it is not self-serving for the Architect, but rather is in service of a higher moral purpose, which some client's find insulting, as if they are being accused of no caring about the envronment or community. This self-righteous nature of the profession is at least in part, why the profession is in decline. We care more about the environment, or aesthetics than we do the Client who is paying our fee, yet coincidentally, our fee is often increased by doing so. Can you blame them for being disgruntled? Are they, the client, not capable of making their own decisions about how to address environmental and other such issues when spending their own money?
Many architects have become 10% service professionals, and 90% regulators. No one likes being regulated, particularly when you have to pay for it out of your own pocket.
-------------------------------------------
Alan Burcope AIA, MBA, LEED AP
VP Project Development
HBE Corporation
Saint Louis MO
-------------------------------------------