Project Delivery

The name change of this forum from "design-build" to "project delivery" is significant because it is the crux of our profession and should mean completing projects

• on time
• on budget
• to the owner's requirements.

 

Yet "errors, omissions, inefficiencies, delays, coordination problems, cost overruns, productivity losses..." (Chris Noble in the July 2007 issue of Architectural Record) are the order of the day and are driving owners into the arms of contractors who in turn hire architects and keep them under control.

 

What does this tell you about the profession?

What is the educational system doing to counter this trend and how is it meshing with the professional organizations to ensure that it can meet the necessary goals?

What can the AIA do to elevate the standing of the profession? (other than CES which I view as a self-serving device to maximize income and retain members)

 

The narcissistic view some of us have about our worth to society is kind of embarrassing when one looks at the realities. While the US has the lowest density of architects in developed nations, should we be fewer, but more highly qualified and focussed upon our performance rather than our perceived "value?"

-------------------------------------------
Karl Hartnack AIA
Component Past President
Hartnack Architecture
40213 Dusseldorf

-------------------------------------------

I know I'm not the only Architect who is a sole proprietor that works for residential clients of all income levels. Most of my piers have only designed commercial buildings and don't understand how to price their services for a bathroom addition when they design(ed) 100,000sf schools, stadiums, etc. for a (once) large firm. We have made ourselves absent from the majority of residential clients of middle class income. I keep hearing everyone talk as if we can't be affordable to anyone other than the super rich. I have made a good living working mostly for the middle and you can too!

Thanks to all for a fascinating cross-section of views.

The profession of architecture, and the building industry as a whole, is one of the most localized, fragmented, grass roots endeavors in our country.  Although it represents about 9% of the GDP, construction is essentially an agglomeration of cottage industries, architectural firms included.  That is why is it so hard to normalize  practice.  There is no entity with sufficient authority to serve as a leader for this industry.  Every individual firm defines their own practice and their own standards.

I hope we don't go the way of the medical profession.  Doctors are essentially the victims of a hostile takeover by HMOs.  My conversations with my doctors are uniformly discouraging.  They all believe that the professional mission of medicine is being subsumed to economic considerations, that the quality of medical care is declining and that the quality of medical students is highly variable.  Some specialties with particularly grueling demands (cardio-thoracic surgery is an example)  have significant vacancies in their resident pool.  It's not just that there aren't qualified candidates, there aren't any candidates willing to make the required sacrifices for the restricted rewards available in this new business model.

Will some corporate entity do the same thing to construction and become the General Motors for hospitals, schools or public buildings?  The possibility exists.

-------------------------------------------
Barbara Heller FAIA
Heller & Metzger, PC
Washington DC
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 01-06-2011 08:11
From: Eric Rawlings
Subject: Value?

I know I'm not the only Architect who is a sole proprietor that works for residential clients of all income levels. Most of my piers have only designed commercial buildings and don't understand how to price their services for a bathroom addition when they design(ed) 100,000sf schools, stadiums, etc. for a (once) large firm. We have made ourselves absent from the majority of residential clients of middle class income. I keep hearing everyone talk as if we can't be affordable to anyone other than the super rich. I have made a good living working mostly for the middle and you can too!

Perhaps the 100 person firm carries too much overhead to consider clients of limited means, but I think most Architects aren't thinking outside the box as to what we can provide for someone of limited income, regular people. I believe most Architects have a hard time letting go of some of the control, as we expect each project to get us on a magazine cover, so we must control all decisions. I have many clients who want to design their own house or addition, but lack all the knowledge necessary to do it efficiently and tastefully. I act as a guide and let them feel like they are driving the boat. These people don't need finish schedules, interior elevations, trim profiles, life safety plans...There is a huge wealth of lost potential clients that are not getting what they need from builders, but we refuse to acknowledge them as viable because we can't seem to let go of all of the control and just give these people only what they need. We think every house needs $20K worth of drawings. You don't have to drop your fee to make yourself affordable, just limit your standard services to give the client and code official exactly what they need.

While I hear everyone complaining about how dead it is out there, I don't think they're looking at all the new parents who bought a 2 bed 1 bath house and now are bursting at the seams. They can't sell their house, so renovating is the only option. I've survived this recession on this kind of low rent work, but I keep hearing everyone focus on the smallest portion of the residential work...the wealthy end user. I have competition. I know I'm not the only Architect recognizing this HUGE untapped resource of potential work. For every 100,000sf commercial building a firm spends a year designing, the potential network of clients gained may be no larger than the network you can tap into on a 2 week house addition project. I'm getting my name out there in a way that I never would doing only large projects. These little projects always lead to the bigger and better projects. I think we have become too narrowly focused to understand how to provide services for everyone, so we will continue to be a small, snobby group of broke artists that no one understands. They don't get us because we don't get them! Do you want to be valued? We have to show more than .01% of the population what we can do. Now get out there and find you some of that regular people work!

-------------------------------------------
Eric Rawlings AIA
Owner
Rawlings Design, Inc.
Decatur GA
-------------------------------------------

That is very true.  When one looks at the contributions Architects make relative to other professionals I have to sometimes wonder why we do seem to have a narcissistic view.  In my view the education system is doing nothing to address it - and it may even perpetuate it.

I teach law and practice management at two major universities in their respective graduate schools of architecture.  Each term I relay to my students what happened to me as a student;

When I attended orientation as an architectural student I sat in an auditorium with well over 200 others.  In came the Dean.  The first thing he said was "look to your left and to your right - 2 of the 3 or you won't be here in 4 years".  That was optimistic - as I recall about 82 of us got the Bachelor of Science in Architecture.  Something on the order of 30 of us got the Bachelor of Architecture (forerunner of the Master's degree today) one year later.

From that point on professors reflected a negative view of the profession.  "You probably won't do consistently well in your courses"  "It will be hard for you to complete the degree - most of you won't"  "It is impossible to get a decent job"  "It is hard to get licensed"  "It is hard to get decent work"  "You will have to settle for a sub-par salary" . . . .  on and on and on.  When a student graduates he or she takes a $5.00 an hour job with no benefits and thinks he or she really showed up all that negativity by succeeding.  The reality was that in 1983 McDonalds' paid nearly that much.  The reality was that $5.00 per hour for someone with two degrees was an insult but we were conditioned to view it differently.  Not to equate finances with success, but they are reflective of how we as a society value our professionals.  I actually hear Architects say "I know I will have an Architect's salary' as if they are somehow proud of it.  From a profession I have always loved, it makes me physically ill to hear that sort of commentary. 

Fast forward to 1988 when I started law school.  Again the Dean came in to address night school orientation but the message was much different.  "You are here because you have earned the right to be here - you competed with and beat the best in your respective college classes - you are here because you have demonstrated that you are better, smarter, brighter, that you are more deeply motivated and that you work harder than any of your peers . . . . now . . . . lets set about making you into the best attorneys you can be"

Every professor from then on drilled in the positive spin.  When you get into practice (no suggestion that you won't get there) you will do this and this and this and this . . . all with a positive slant.  The graduate comes out of that process, thinks he or she is worth $125K per year to start, thinks and believes he or she has an important societal role to play, acts the part, and won't listen to anyone who suggests otherwise.

I have represented Design Professionals for 20 years now and I see that reflected in virtually every area.  The Attorney comes to the meeting, puts his or her briefcase at the head of the table, sits down and conducts the meeting (he / she may not know much about what they are doing, but they do know their role is to lead - leaders conduct the meeting).  The Architect comes to the meeting, sits down at the end of the table, speaks only when spoken to, listens to criticism of his or her work product without objection (often automatically assumes at least some of the criticism is accurate), and generally assumes a subservient role despite the fact that he or she likely knows more about the project and the issue than anyone else at the meeting.  The difference in my opinion is, in large part, conditioning.  Each assumes the role he or she is conditioned to assume.

My "bit" with the students takes about half an hour, but that is the gist of it.  I then ask my students whether a similar thing happened to them during their education.  As yet I have not had a student tell me it didn't.

Are Attorneys smarter, better or worth more than Architects?  I doubt it, but they are conditioned to think they are, expect they are, and demand they be treated as if they are, and they refuse to accept anything less.  Architects tolerate it, and indeed, since Architects tend to educate other Architects, to a large degree we perpetuate it. 

I realize this isn't the entire answer, but I do think what we do to our students - to the next generation of Architects, becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. 

On some level it is embarrassing.  And it won't change until we change it.




-------------------------------------------
Frederick Butters FAIA
Attorney
Southfield MI
-------------------------------------------

Mr. Butters is dead on about how we were raised. This type of self-fulfilling prophecy is what keeps most disenfranchised groups in low places. Creativity in general has been treated like this by our society. Very few creative jobs make money, so we tell our kids not to be a fashion designer, an artist, or musician. The problem is that we can't all work on Wall Street or be CEOs of Health Insurance companies. Even Doctors aren't making the money they used to.

I agree that Mr. Butters has definitely hit some great points. All or most of us have heard similar things about our profession. It's amazing that the "attitude" still exists. Are attorneys, doctors, etc smarter than we are? Of course not. We are all intelligent in our respective professions. We have "worth" just as other professionals do so we should never dilute our worth and value. We have to change our perception of ourselves and the perception others have of us.

My original statement re: value related to cost and performance of buildings or building elements, not the value of architects to society.

 

Many architects seem to have an image of themselves and the profession that is not in tune with the expectations of their clients.

 

Having worked most of my professional life overseas for international clientele under a variety of project delivery methods, I found all client owners to want their projects "good, fast, and cheap" and look to the architect to find the balance. Architects enamoured with their designs for design's sake, can and will not be objective. Only by transcending this and learning to deal first hand with the hard facts of design and construction economics and how to deliver a project

• on time,
• on budget,
• to the owner's requirements

will architects be taken seriously by clients and the public in general. Everything else is secondary and will take care of itself.

 

How do we get there?

-------------------------------------------
Karl Hartnack AIA
Component Past President
Hartnack Architecture
40547 Dusseldorf

-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 01-10-2011 10:21
From: Robert Gualtieri
Subject: Value?

I agree that Mr. Butters has definitely hit some great points. All or most of us have heard similar things about our profession. It's amazing that the "attitude" still exists. Are attorneys, doctors, etc smarter than we are? Of course not. We are all intelligent in our respective professions. We have "worth" just as other professionals do so we should never dilute our worth and value. We have to change our perception of ourselves and the perception others have of us.

Mr. Butters hit the nail on the head regarding the "leadership" role. I've seen it many times, whether it's an attorney or a contractor or other third party that becomes the perceived leader and immediately gets the respect and attention of the meeting attendees. We weren't taught to be leaders or expected to be leaders. Seems as though we don't perceive ourselves as leaders and maybe that has something to do with being primarily right brained creative people. An example of lack of leadership is right in our faces. Look at "green" building. Is the AIA or any architectural organization at the forefront? Why isn't it "AIA-LEED" rather than just "LEED."

We have to start realizing our value and worth and then portraying that outwardly. Look around you on your commute anywhere and realize the vast number of structures everywhere. We help create those buildings/spaces that are occupied by every walk of life. We are an integral part of the process in bringing those buildings to reality; and in fact have to be by law (for commercial more than residential). To me that's no small contribution.

Aside from the issues of how we we've been conditioned of the view ourselves I certainly believe we have to show to our clients we know and understand their side and what they do; that we can speak the same language and dial into the needs of their project. It's been my experience over the past 30 years, that many (maybe even most) architectural professionals do not fully understand the intricacies of developing a project from start to finish; from due diligence to land acquisition to C/O. Contractors understand better than we do. The process of developing a project is lengthy and sometimes complicated. The more we understand that process the better we position ourselves to respected and valued by clients. In my experience, this is certainly true in private development. 

We have to continue to educate ourselves and grow in knowledge beyond just knowing about brick and mortar.

-------------------------------------------
Robert Gualtieri
Partner
OB + Architecture, Inc.
Orlando FL
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 01-07-2011 08:04
From: Eric Rawlings
Subject: Value?

Mr. Butters is dead on about how we were raised. This type of self-fulfilling prophecy is what keeps most disenfranchised groups in low places. Creativity in general has been treated like this by our society. Very few creative jobs make money, so we tell our kids not to be a fashion designer, an artist, or musician. The problem is that we can't all work on Wall Street or be CEOs of Health Insurance companies. Even Doctors aren't making the money they used to.

I remember just a decade ago, most people thought Architects made great money, but the cat's out of the bag now. Today, many people seem to know we get paid poorly for what we do and what we're liable for. Perhaps more public awareness will help nudge things in our favor, or it may just create more negative conditioning now directed at us by society and not just self inflicted. How do we make ourselves more valuable when all the negative conditioning says otherwise? 

I'm sorry to keep harping on this, but we need to expand our services to more people. We're never going to find a better fish, fishin' from the same pond. We're not going to become more valuable doing the same thing a little different this time. We need to cast a much bigger net and we will then find our value. I know housing is rather dead in most places, but it will recover before commercial. Banks aren't going to make bigger loans until they're comfortable making the little ones. As the economy picks up, people are moving to new jobs, getting pregnant, etc. Once the wrath of the free market brings the rest of the property values back to where they should have been, the housing industry is going to burst open with a back log of people needing a new house for one of life's many reasons. Until then, they renovate!

We have a hang up about making our services available to the largest group of people with less money. Our exclusivity has been our down fall. Walmart didn't make all their money selling high priced goods to a few people. Regular people always have a few thousand to spare for some good design ideas and permit drawings to remodel their home. They know the builder will charge them for this anyway. Figure out how to tailor your services to give them exactly what they need for the permit. It's much quicker money and most people are grateful that an Architect actually came out to look at their little house addition, so most pay quickly. This is perfect work for sole proprietors with decent CAD skills.

We can't grow our numbers with less work. We can't influence the legal system to our advantage as a small group. Think of all the residential designers that would have to get licensed if larger jurisdictions began to require stamps on residential work. Plan book designs will become less common even if the author has a stamp in every state. Why not hire a local guy if they're required anyway? Many large jurisdictions already require drawings that should be prepared by a professional. This would not be as hard to implement as many make it sound. 

WHY would you not want a sector of business that dwarfs the entire pool of commercial clients we fight over now? How many thousands of houses get built for each commercial building? Of course the big contractors have staff Architects and they will stamp the cookie cutters, but we need to slow down this mass production of cheap boxes. This mentality is based on the concept that all Americans have no personality or individuality and really, really love living in the same house as all of their neighbors. No one wants this, but people buy the cookie cutters because few alternatives are being presented. This is why my spec houses have sold first and for more money than the cookie cutter competition. This is why I went from one builder doing a new design for each house to several. We have to quit sitting around wondering how to be more valuable without recognizing that we only offer our services to a very small portion of the population.

-------------------------------------------
Eric Rawlings AIA
Owner
Rawlings Design, Inc.
Decatur GA
-------------------------------------------

I fully agree with Karl.
I think that we lack informations about this: all the reviews explain design, but often they don't explain the details of the process, from the requirements of the client, to the delivery of the building, with cost and time analysis.
If we want to learn how to have the best results, often we have to learn on the client's skin...or find our own, private, way...
A suggestion could be that every articles reports the names of people involved, not only the firms, but also the constructor, the brand of every material, etc. and the prices.
I know this is very difficult, because often people prefer not to share these informations...but at least in public building this is possible.

It would be great if our association would be helpful in developing such knowledge.
 

-------------------------------------------
Giuliana Barbano Intl. Assoc. AIA
Studio Barbano
Torino

-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 01-11-2011 06:12
From: Karl Hartnack
Subject: Value?

My original statement re: value related to cost and performance of buildings or building elements, not the value of architects to society.

 

Many architects seem to have an image of themselves and the profession that is not in tune with the expectations of their clients.

 

Having worked most of my professional life overseas for international clientele under a variety of project delivery methods, I found all client owners to want their projects "good, fast, and cheap" and look to the architect to find the balance. Architects enamoured with their designs for design's sake, can and will not be objective. Only by transcending this and learning to deal first hand with the hard facts of design and construction economics and how to deliver a project

• on time,
• on budget,
• to the owner's requirements

will architects be taken seriously by clients and the public in general. Everything else is secondary and will take care of itself.

 

How do we get there?

-------------------------------------------
Karl Hartnack AIA
Component Past President
Hartnack Architecture
40547 Dusseldorf

-------------------------------------------

Dear Giuliana,

 

first of all my wishes for a very Happy New Year to you and my friends in Torino. How nice to know that you are out there and reading and understanding my posts.

 

You are certainly right that much knowledge about a photogenic building does not necessarily want to be shared or published, particularly when it is related to project delivery where I think many owners and architects are muddling through.  

 

To those who ask at what point we, as owner's reps, have become involved in projects, my response is: "usually when it's too late." Owners who overestimate themselves working with architects whose primary focus is on design can be a lethal combination. Cost explosions are the order of the day, e.g. the Elbe Philharmonic from 137 million to now more than 340 million Euros. Such news make architects suspect to the general public and owners looking for reliable project and cost management turn to contractors.

 

It would be interesting to hear first hand experiences from users of the AIA Document C191-2009 Standard Form Multi-Party Agreement for Integrated Project Delivery, which appears to me on first reading to have many useful clauses and guidelines.

-------------------------------------------
Karl Hartnack AIA
Component Past President
Hartnack Architecture
40547 Dusseldorf

-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 01-12-2011 06:27
From: Giuliana Barbano
Subject: Value?


I fully agree with Karl.
I think that we lack informations about this: all the reviews explain design, but often they don't explain the details of the process, from the requirements of the client, to the delivery of the building, with cost and time analysis.
If we want to learn how to have the best results, often we have to learn on the client's skin...or find our own, private, way...
A suggestion could be that every articles reports the names of people involved, not only the firms, but also the constructor, the brand of every material, etc. and the prices.
I know this is very difficult, because often people prefer not to share these informations...but at least in public building this is possible.

It would be great if our association would be helpful in developing such knowledge.
 

-------------------------------------------
Giuliana Barbano Intl. Assoc. AIA
Studio Barbano
Torino

-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 01-11-2011 06:12
From: Karl Hartnack
Subject: Value?

My original statement re: value related to cost and performance of buildings or building elements, not the value of architects to society.

 

Many architects seem to have an image of themselves and the profession that is not in tune with the expectations of their clients.

 

Having worked most of my professional life overseas for international clientele under a variety of project delivery methods, I found all client owners to want their projects "good, fast, and cheap" and look to the architect to find the balance. Architects enamoured with their designs for design's sake, can and will not be objective. Only by transcending this and learning to deal first hand with the hard facts of design and construction economics and how to deliver a project

• on time,
• on budget,
• to the owner's requirements

will architects be taken seriously by clients and the public in general. Everything else is secondary and will take care of itself.

 

How do we get there?

-------------------------------------------
Karl Hartnack AIA
Component Past President
Hartnack Architecture
40547 Dusseldorf

-------------------------------------------

I had a similar experience in Architecture School to the one described by Mr. Butters.

Perhaps I have not been at this long enough (licensed less than 2 full years) to chime in, but I am currently taking the reins of my family firm and have a few thoughts. 

First, I've never felt that a client did not value my services, nor have I felt a general disrespect from other members of a project team (GC/ Owner's rep/ etc).  I have, however, learned very fast that our invoices come in at the wrong time for the client.  What I mean is, our work is considered an up-front cost, as opposed to say the realtor who takes his money at a what seems to be a much more convenient time for the client, from a cash flow perspective.  My brief experience has been consistent in this regard.  My fee is often paid before the client has access to his construction loan, and certainly far before he realized any return on his investment.  Basically we architects get paid out of the client's pocket while the realtor and GC get paid by the bank (loan).  No wonder a client balks at a 5% architecture fee, yet doesn't blink to pay a realtor 7%.  It seems to me to be a fundamental flaw in our business plan, and one that can be adjusted to our benefit. 

I've started to offer to postpone my fee (or a portion of it, we still have to pay the troops) in return for a larger piece of the pie later on.  I know this is nothing new, I've watched my dad build wealth through project equity for many years now.  Or what about the inclusion of performance goals tied to a larger 'profit pool'?  Define an added value, achieve that value, get more money.  I know this is becoming a standard aspect of many IPD contracts, why not other delivery methods?

So for what it's worth, I believe we are part of a highly respected profession, and are generally looked to for leadership and inspiration from a diverse group of players on any given project.  We just need to be better business leaders, take into account the position and realities of our clients, understand the financing of the project in order to benefit our bottom line.  If we can take a terrible site and turn it into an asset through design, why can't we take a terrible economic situation and turn it into an asset through the same careful design?  There is nothing inspirational in going out of business, and as it has been stated before, client's do understand and respect a carefully considered, and thoughtfully executed fee structure...less is not always more.  You get what you pay for, yada yada yada.


-------------------------------------------
Adam Hillhouse AIA
President
Hillhouse Architects, Inc.
Broomfield CO
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 01-10-2011 10:21
From: Robert Gualtieri
Subject: Value?

I agree that Mr. Butters has definitely hit some great points. All or most of us have heard similar things about our profession. It's amazing that the "attitude" still exists. Are attorneys, doctors, etc smarter than we are? Of course not. We are all intelligent in our respective professions. We have "worth" just as other professionals do so we should never dilute our worth and value. We have to change our perception of ourselves and the perception others have of us.

Mr. Butters hit the nail on the head regarding the "leadership" role. I've seen it many times, whether it's an attorney or a contractor or other third party that becomes the perceived leader and immediately gets the respect and attention of the meeting attendees. We weren't taught to be leaders or expected to be leaders. Seems as though we don't perceive ourselves as leaders and maybe that has something to do with being primarily right brained creative people. An example of lack of leadership is right in our faces. Look at "green" building. Is the AIA or any architectural organization at the forefront? Why isn't it "AIA-LEED" rather than just "LEED."

We have to start realizing our value and worth and then portraying that outwardly. Look around you on your commute anywhere and realize the vast number of structures everywhere. We help create those buildings/spaces that are occupied by every walk of life. We are an integral part of the process in bringing those buildings to reality; and in fact have to be by law (for commercial more than residential). To me that's no small contribution.

Aside from the issues of how we we've been conditioned of the view ourselves I certainly believe we have to show to our clients we know and understand their side and what they do; that we can speak the same language and dial into the needs of their project. It's been my experience over the past 30 years, that many (maybe even most) architectural professionals do not fully understand the intricacies of developing a project from start to finish; from due diligence to land acquisition to C/O. Contractors understand better than we do. The process of developing a project is lengthy and sometimes complicated. The more we understand that process the better we position ourselves to respected and valued by clients. In my experience, this is certainly true in private development. 

We have to continue to educate ourselves and grow in knowledge beyond just knowing about brick and mortar.

-------------------------------------------
Robert Gualtieri
Partner
OB + Architecture, Inc.
Orlando FL
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 01-07-2011 08:04
From: Eric Rawlings
Subject: Value?

Mr. Butters is dead on about how we were raised. This type of self-fulfilling prophecy is what keeps most disenfranchised groups in low places. Creativity in general has been treated like this by our society. Very few creative jobs make money, so we tell our kids not to be a fashion designer, an artist, or musician. The problem is that we can't all work on Wall Street or be CEOs of Health Insurance companies. Even Doctors aren't making the money they used to.

I remember just a decade ago, most people thought Architects made great money, but the cat's out of the bag now. Today, many people seem to know we get paid poorly for what we do and what we're liable for. Perhaps more public awareness will help nudge things in our favor, or it may just create more negative conditioning now directed at us by society and not just self inflicted. How do we make ourselves more valuable when all the negative conditioning says otherwise? 

I'm sorry to keep harping on this, but we need to expand our services to more people. We're never going to find a better fish, fishin' from the same pond. We're not going to become more valuable doing the same thing a little different this time. We need to cast a much bigger net and we will then find our value. I know housing is rather dead in most places, but it will recover before commercial. Banks aren't going to make bigger loans until they're comfortable making the little ones. As the economy picks up, people are moving to new jobs, getting pregnant, etc. Once the wrath of the free market brings the rest of the property values back to where they should have been, the housing industry is going to burst open with a back log of people needing a new house for one of life's many reasons. Until then, they renovate!

We have a hang up about making our services available to the largest group of people with less money. Our exclusivity has been our down fall. Walmart didn't make all their money selling high priced goods to a few people. Regular people always have a few thousand to spare for some good design ideas and permit drawings to remodel their home. They know the builder will charge them for this anyway. Figure out how to tailor your services to give them exactly what they need for the permit. It's much quicker money and most people are grateful that an Architect actually came out to look at their little house addition, so most pay quickly. This is perfect work for sole proprietors with decent CAD skills.

We can't grow our numbers with less work. We can't influence the legal system to our advantage as a small group. Think of all the residential designers that would have to get licensed if larger jurisdictions began to require stamps on residential work. Plan book designs will become less common even if the author has a stamp in every state. Why not hire a local guy if they're required anyway? Many large jurisdictions already require drawings that should be prepared by a professional. This would not be as hard to implement as many make it sound. 

WHY would you not want a sector of business that dwarfs the entire pool of commercial clients we fight over now? How many thousands of houses get built for each commercial building? Of course the big contractors have staff Architects and they will stamp the cookie cutters, but we need to slow down this mass production of cheap boxes. This mentality is based on the concept that all Americans have no personality or individuality and really, really love living in the same house as all of their neighbors. No one wants this, but people buy the cookie cutters because few alternatives are being presented. This is why my spec houses have sold first and for more money than the cookie cutter competition. This is why I went from one builder doing a new design for each house to several. We have to quit sitting around wondering how to be more valuable without recognizing that we only offer our services to a very small portion of the population.

-------------------------------------------
Eric Rawlings AIA
Owner
Rawlings Design, Inc.
Decatur GA
-------------------------------------------

Adam has the right idea.  He is willing to share the risk that the owner is taking in the project.  His willingness to assume this risk makes him much more valuable to the client, and also puts him in a stronger position to negotiate and to lead the effort.  Adam must be very careful however to understand the risk he is taking.  By deferring a portion of his fees he is taking the chance that project may not continue, and clients often become much less willing to pay those deferred fees when the project is cancelled.  Some are reluctant to pay even if the project is completed.  Collecting fees can be a challenge, even when they are billed weekly.  If an architect can negotiate a share of the results of a project, and is carful in the way he contracts for it, even better.  Needless to say, architects will have to become much better business managers to take on this kind of role, than the average architect has historically been.

If he and others could begin to take on risk in this manner, a little at a time, soon they might find that they have become developers themeselves.  Then, coupled with training in creative design, they would be able to put those creative abilities to work for themselves rather than for others, but with the added discipline imposed by the fact that they are risking their own money.  This is where real creativity is, in solving the whole problem, not just the design, not just the construction, not just the planning or finance problems.

 

Alan G. Burcope, AIA, MBA, LEED-AP

-----------------------------------------
Alan Burcope AIA
VP Project Development
HBE Corporation
Saint Louis MO
-------------------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-11-2011 12:06
From: Adam Hillhouse
Subject: Value?

Perhaps I have not been at this long enough (licensed less than 2 full years) to chime in, but I am currently taking the reins of my family firm and have a few thoughts. 

First, I've never felt that a client did not value my services, nor have I felt a general disrespect from other members of a project team (GC/ Owner's rep/ etc).  I have, however, learned very fast that our invoices come in at the wrong time for the client.  What I mean is, our work is considered an up-front cost, as opposed to say the realtor who takes his money at a what seems to be a much more convenient time for the client, from a cash flow perspective.  My brief experience has been consistent in this regard.  My fee is often paid before the client has access to his construction loan, and certainly far before he realized any return on his investment.  Basically we architects get paid out of the client's pocket while the realtor and GC get paid by the bank (loan).  No wonder a client balks at a 5% architecture fee, yet doesn't blink to pay a realtor 7%.  It seems to me to be a fundamental flaw in our business plan, and one that can be adjusted to our benefit. 

I've started to offer to postpone my fee (or a portion of it, we still have to pay the troops) in return for a larger piece of the pie later on.  I know this is nothing new, I've watched my dad build wealth through project equity for many years now.  Or what about the inclusion of performance goals tied to a larger 'profit pool'?  Define an added value, achieve that value, get more money.  I know this is becoming a standard aspect of many IPD contracts, why not other delivery methods?

So for what it's worth, I believe we are part of a highly respected profession, and are generally looked to for leadership and inspiration from a diverse group of players on any given project.  We just need to be better business leaders, take into account the position and realities of our clients, understand the financing of the project in order to benefit our bottom line.  If we can take a terrible site and turn it into an asset through design, why can't we take a terrible economic situation and turn it into an asset through the same careful design?  There is nothing inspirational in going out of business, and as it has been stated before, client's do understand and respect a carefully considered, and thoughtfully executed fee structure...less is not always more.  You get what you pay for, yada yada yada.


-------------------------------------------
Adam Hillhouse AIA
President
Hillhouse Architects, Inc.
Broomfield CO
-------------------------------------------

Frederick Butters has some good points about the atmosphere in Archy school back in the day.  (I don't know how it is now.)  

It is tempting to think that our perceived failure to achieve riches and power is due to a bad attitude, but I think it has more to due with the laws of supply and demand.  Last year, state and federal legislators created about 30,000 new laws and regulations, some of which were written by lawyers themselves to generate more opportunities to sue.  This has been true every year for a long time.  Naturally, a great pile of resources go to dealing with this growing thicket, which means that they are not available to create productive assets like buildings and the things that go in them.  Architects do not enjoy such a powerful job generator and I hope they never do. 

Most architects I know went into the field for love and in hopes of money rather than the other way around.  Most of them still have the love, notwithstanding the disillusionment that all grownups experience at one time or another.  That keeps them in the field, bidding down their prices in lean times, but it doesn't make them assume that they should be poor.  That architecture as many of us practice it is not a very good pure business proposition does not discourage us because we don't view it as a pure business proposition, not because we suffer from low self esteem.  I have noticed that almost all of the architects I know live comfortable middle class lives, including me. 

As to chairing the meeting, when the topic is design and construction, I chair.  When it is a legal matter, a lawyer does.  I suspect (hope) that Mr. Butters probably attends many more of the latter type of meetings than I do.  That may account for his observation about who is in charge. 

-------------------------------------------
Christopher Carley AIA
C. N. Carley Associates
Concord NH
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 01-06-2011 11:32
From: Frederick Butters
Subject: Value?

That is very true.  When one looks at the contributions Architects make relative to other professionals I have to sometimes wonder why we do seem to have a narcissistic view.  In my view the education system is doing nothing to address it - and it may even perpetuate it.

I teach law and practice management at two major universities in their respective graduate schools of architecture.  Each term I relay to my students what happened to me as a student;

When I attended orientation as an architectural student I sat in an auditorium with well over 200 others.  In came the Dean.  The first thing he said was "look to your left and to your right - 2 of the 3 or you won't be here in 4 years".  That was optimistic - as I recall about 82 of us got the Bachelor of Science in Architecture.  Something on the order of 30 of us got the Bachelor of Architecture (forerunner of the Master's degree today) one year later.

From that point on professors reflected a negative view of the profession.  "You probably won't do consistently well in your courses"  "It will be hard for you to complete the degree - most of you won't"  "It is impossible to get a decent job"  "It is hard to get licensed"  "It is hard to get decent work"  "You will have to settle for a sub-par salary" . . . .  on and on and on.  When a student graduates he or she takes a $5.00 an hour job with no benefits and thinks he or she really showed up all that negativity by succeeding.  The reality was that in 1983 McDonalds' paid nearly that much.  The reality was that $5.00 per hour for someone with two degrees was an insult but we were conditioned to view it differently.  Not to equate finances with success, but they are reflective of how we as a society value our professionals.  I actually hear Architects say "I know I will have an Architect's salary' as if they are somehow proud of it.  From a profession I have always loved, it makes me physically ill to hear that sort of commentary. 

Fast forward to 1988 when I started law school.  Again the Dean came in to address night school orientation but the message was much different.  "You are here because you have earned the right to be here - you competed with and beat the best in your respective college classes - you are here because you have demonstrated that you are better, smarter, brighter, that you are more deeply motivated and that you work harder than any of your peers . . . . now . . . . lets set about making you into the best attorneys you can be"

Every professor from then on drilled in the positive spin.  When you get into practice (no suggestion that you won't get there) you will do this and this and this and this . . . all with a positive slant.  The graduate comes out of that process, thinks he or she is worth $125K per year to start, thinks and believes he or she has an important societal role to play, acts the part, and won't listen to anyone who suggests otherwise.

I have represented Design Professionals for 20 years now and I see that reflected in virtually every area.  The Attorney comes to the meeting, puts his or her briefcase at the head of the table, sits down and conducts the meeting (he / she may not know much about what they are doing, but they do know their role is to lead - leaders conduct the meeting).  The Architect comes to the meeting, sits down at the end of the table, speaks only when spoken to, listens to criticism of his or her work product without objection (often automatically assumes at least some of the criticism is accurate), and generally assumes a subservient role despite the fact that he or she likely knows more about the project and the issue than anyone else at the meeting.  The difference in my opinion is, in large part, conditioning.  Each assumes the role he or she is conditioned to assume.

My "bit" with the students takes about half an hour, but that is the gist of it.  I then ask my students whether a similar thing happened to them during their education.  As yet I have not had a student tell me it didn't.

Are Attorneys smarter, better or worth more than Architects?  I doubt it, but they are conditioned to think they are, expect they are, and demand they be treated as if they are, and they refuse to accept anything less.  Architects tolerate it, and indeed, since Architects tend to educate other Architects, to a large degree we perpetuate it. 

I realize this isn't the entire answer, but I do think what we do to our students - to the next generation of Architects, becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. 

On some level it is embarrassing.  And it won't change until we change it.




-------------------------------------------
Frederick Butters FAIA
Attorney
Southfield MI
-------------------------------------------

Mr. Butters story is interesting.  My experience in architecture school was not the same though.  At Clemson freshman architecture school orientation we received a sermon more like the one described for the law school orientation, but I don't disagree with Mr. Butters' points.  I do feel however, that blaming our education system is just too convenient.  I was told by a phsychologist who tested and interviewed me when I was in middle school contemplating different career paths, that the average architect does not make much money.  I replied "who wants to be an average architect?"  The truth is that architecture attracts many people who don't really want to work for a living, they want to play for a living.  Many of them lack self esteem and an ability to promote themeselves because they don't really want to do what it takes to make their product worth more.  They wind up in the middle of their careers blaming the world and making suggestions to the AIA that it lobby for laws to make their services required when the public doesn't value them.  Architecture is a profession of victims; unrespected, misunderstood, beneficent, and underappreciated.  The individuals cannot be let off the hook so easily for their own personal failings.  No one forced them to choose this career.

The iconic designers, few and glamerous, should not be hero worshipped as they are by the profession and industry media.  In fact, I think it would do the profession a service to distance itself from them, maybe even if we found a different word for them, or a differnt word for architects.  They are the extreme opposite of the architect personallity type I described above, and they are not what the profession should aspire to be either in my opinion, much less be portrayed as.  Many of them suffer from too high a self esteem, and in some cases this is key to their success.  Aspirations of becoming a rock star is not what is going to attract the brightest and best into a profession when competence and discipline and business acumen is what you want in a professional.  Focusing media attention on them is not going improve public perception of architecture in a positive way either.  I hope that our new AIA EVP/CEO Mr. Robert Ivy monitors these blogs.  His history in architecture media (Editor in Chief of Architectural Record among other posts) may be a useful skill if others in the AIA feel similar sentiments enough to take action.
-------------------------------------------
Alan Burcope AIA
VP Project Development
HBE Corporation
Saint Louis MO
-------------------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-06-2011 11:32
From: Frederick Butters
Subject: Value?

That is very true.  When one looks at the contributions Architects make relative to other professionals I have to sometimes wonder why we do seem to have a narcissistic view.  In my view the education system is doing nothing to address it - and it may even perpetuate it.

I teach law and practice management at two major universities in their respective graduate schools of architecture.  Each term I relay to my students what happened to me as a student;

When I attended orientation as an architectural student I sat in an auditorium with well over 200 others.  In came the Dean.  The first thing he said was "look to your left and to your right - 2 of the 3 or you won't be here in 4 years".  That was optimistic - as I recall about 82 of us got the Bachelor of Science in Architecture.  Something on the order of 30 of us got the Bachelor of Architecture (forerunner of the Master's degree today) one year later.

From that point on professors reflected a negative view of the profession.  "You probably won't do consistently well in your courses"  "It will be hard for you to complete the degree - most of you won't"  "It is impossible to get a decent job"  "It is hard to get licensed"  "It is hard to get decent work"  "You will have to settle for a sub-par salary" . . . .  on and on and on.  When a student graduates he or she takes a $5.00 an hour job with no benefits and thinks he or she really showed up all that negativity by succeeding.  The reality was that in 1983 McDonalds' paid nearly that much.  The reality was that $5.00 per hour for someone with two degrees was an insult but we were conditioned to view it differently.  Not to equate finances with success, but they are reflective of how we as a society value our professionals.  I actually hear Architects say "I know I will have an Architect's salary' as if they are somehow proud of it.  From a profession I have always loved, it makes me physically ill to hear that sort of commentary. 

Fast forward to 1988 when I started law school.  Again the Dean came in to address night school orientation but the message was much different.  "You are here because you have earned the right to be here - you competed with and beat the best in your respective college classes - you are here because you have demonstrated that you are better, smarter, brighter, that you are more deeply motivated and that you work harder than any of your peers . . . . now . . . . lets set about making you into the best attorneys you can be"

Every professor from then on drilled in the positive spin.  When you get into practice (no suggestion that you won't get there) you will do this and this and this and this . . . all with a positive slant.  The graduate comes out of that process, thinks he or she is worth $125K per year to start, thinks and believes he or she has an important societal role to play, acts the part, and won't listen to anyone who suggests otherwise.

I have represented Design Professionals for 20 years now and I see that reflected in virtually every area.  The Attorney comes to the meeting, puts his or her briefcase at the head of the table, sits down and conducts the meeting (he / she may not know much about what they are doing, but they do know their role is to lead - leaders conduct the meeting).  The Architect comes to the meeting, sits down at the end of the table, speaks only when spoken to, listens to criticism of his or her work product without objection (often automatically assumes at least some of the criticism is accurate), and generally assumes a subservient role despite the fact that he or she likely knows more about the project and the issue than anyone else at the meeting.  The difference in my opinion is, in large part, conditioning.  Each assumes the role he or she is conditioned to assume.

My "bit" with the students takes about half an hour, but that is the gist of it.  I then ask my students whether a similar thing happened to them during their education.  As yet I have not had a student tell me it didn't.

Are Attorneys smarter, better or worth more than Architects?  I doubt it, but they are conditioned to think they are, expect they are, and demand they be treated as if they are, and they refuse to accept anything less.  Architects tolerate it, and indeed, since Architects tend to educate other Architects, to a large degree we perpetuate it. 

I realize this isn't the entire answer, but I do think what we do to our students - to the next generation of Architects, becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. 

On some level it is embarrassing.  And it won't change until we change it.




-------------------------------------------
Frederick Butters FAIA
Attorney
Southfield MI
-------------------------------------------

I have been in this business for 44 years this year. My first AIA National Convention was in the mid 70's in San Diego. I was struck by these same comments then as now, and why our profession was not interested in working on our "real" image, by being creative and inventive in taking our profession to new levels (at that convention discussion on design-build was tabled in an open general session by the "bow tie" crowd. Our profession has not advanced itself in the eyes of our clients at the same rate as as our creative ability to design wonderful eye catching buildings and environments.

Since then, precesses like D-B, CMAR, D-A and other variations have come and gone in several cycles, and what I find most interesting now, is that mostly due to jurisdictional regulations (legislation), professionals in various areas of the country are either experienced in different forms of Project Delivery, or not, depending on the demand by mostly public clients.

Here in New Mexico, for example, CMAR and D-B have just been made legal by the State legislators (2006 and 2007) and the State agencies have been very slow (for good reasons) to adopt and utilize them because of inexperienced staff, and lack of good contractual documents (no one wants to use the basic AIA contracts) as well as both inexperienced design firms and contractors.

The few Design Professionals and contractors with experience in these alternative delivery methods from either projects out of the State or with the Federal Government and who have been using these alternate (to design-bid-build) delivery methods are in the minority or not effective enough in educating and/or marketing with the clients, and seldom get a chance to interact with the State decision makers to advance the processes to where they could be embarrassed by everyone. Clients automatically are reluctant to give you an audience because either they assume since an individual or firm promotes a particular delivery method, other than design-low bid-build, that they must have some agenda to their advantage and not the clients or that they could be percieved as giving favoritism to a particular firm (rightfully so).

What does this say about the profession and our leadership. We should/could be very pro-active with either traveling free or very low cost programs nationwide to attract government leaders at all levels to attend educational sessions on Delivery Systems and their appropriate application to projects. Trying to do this on a project-by-project basis, firm-by-firm basis is exceedingly difficult and very expensive (educating our clients, soley at our own expense). The current alternate method of private sector programs like this being offered at a high cost to owners and clients is not getting the job done. Many government agencies have cut their training budgets to nothing and will not send their staff to these types of education sessions. Travel and lodging costs are prohibitive.

Isn't it now the ideal time with our economy the way it is that we step out of the crowd and promote these alternate delivery systems and spend more of our collective resources on these types of localized inexpensive programs to better educate our selves and our public/private sector decision makers and program/project managers (as well as learn ourselves) so that we can all do these three critical items to the best of our ability for our deserving clients:

• on time projects 
• on budget projects
• projects completed to the owner's real equirements.

It has to start with our profession as a body, united for a change, not in a piece meal fashion, i.e., catch as catch can. Ignorance and low comfort level are our profession's greatest enemies. Only we can change this.

Instead of big expensive conventions where we hear the same sessions year in and year out, give out awards and honors (like the academy awards) that almost no one cares about, and invest our hard earned funds in alternate programs and you may find our fees rising for our "real value" to our clients in communities, states and our nation as a whole. It is the ideal time to become really creative (as we think we are) and do something earth shaking for a change. You never know, we might increase our "real value" to our clients, not our self "perceived value", as the other the gentleman suggested.

This OUR real challenge in the next decade, or our profession is further doomed to obscurity.

-------------------------------------------
William Davis AIA
Albuquerque NM
-------------------------------------------