Technology in Architectural Practice

What guardrails have worked?

------------------------------
Thesla Collier
HNTB
------------------------------

We are drafting an AI charter currently. 

Our parent company has put the brakes on AI a few years ago and has since been adopting more of an "R&D is good" approach. (and to be clear, the pause on AI wasn't universal, but applied to most employees.)

I have been working to insert some 'quadrants' into our approach and focus on use cases.

For example, any company- or client-specific data is limited and only very specific AI tools may be used with that data.

I am suggesting we also have a use-based policy. So, if there is a certain use that isn't work-appropriate, we might allow it for 'personal-hardware and personal-time' so that any AI is used but company hardware, software, and employee time are excluded.

Then I'm also asking that employees pledge to not use AI for very specific excluded practices... for example there was a recent court case where an HOA tried to sue a multi-family developer, and they presented 'evidence' that was nothing more than fake recorded interviews with 'tenants' who didn't like the conditions. While this sort of thing sould be patently obvious to be unethical, I think we have to start with what should be obvious and making it concrete.

------------------------------
Andrew Fisher AIA
Yorba Linda CA
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 02-06-2026 02:04 AM
From: Thesla Collier, Intl. Assoc. AIA
Subject: Are you formally governing AI use, or relying on individual judgment?

What guardrails have worked?

------------------------------
Thesla Collier
HNTB
------------------------------

------------------------------
Thesla Collier
HNTB
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 02-09-2026 01:43 PM
From: Andrew Fisher, AIA
Subject: Are you formally governing AI use, or relying on individual judgment?

We are drafting an AI charter currently. 

Our parent company has put the brakes on AI a few years ago and has since been adopting more of an "R&D is good" approach. (and to be clear, the pause on AI wasn't universal, but applied to most employees.)

I have been working to insert some 'quadrants' into our approach and focus on use cases.

For example, any company- or client-specific data is limited and only very specific AI tools may be used with that data.

I am suggesting we also have a use-based policy. So, if there is a certain use that isn't work-appropriate, we might allow it for 'personal-hardware and personal-time' so that any AI is used but company hardware, software, and employee time are excluded.

Then I'm also asking that employees pledge to not use AI for very specific excluded practices... for example there was a recent court case where an HOA tried to sue a multi-family developer, and they presented 'evidence' that was nothing more than fake recorded interviews with 'tenants' who didn't like the conditions. While this sort of thing sould be patently obvious to be unethical, I think we have to start with what should be obvious and making it concrete.

------------------------------
Andrew Fisher AIA
Yorba Linda CA

Original Message:
Sent: 02-06-2026 02:04 AM
From: Thesla Collier, Intl. Assoc. AIA
Subject: Are you formally governing AI use, or relying on individual judgment?

What guardrails have worked?

------------------------------
Thesla Collier
HNTB
------------------------------

Good question, Thesla - and Andrew, the charter approach makes sense for a firm with a parent company and multiple employees touching AI tools. But I think there's a third option beyond formal governance vs. individual judgment: governance embedded in the workflow itself.

We have five people on our management team using AI across active commercial projects - design, owner's representation, and project delivery. A standalone policy document wouldn't keep up with how fast the tools and use cases are evolving. What's worked better is building the guardrails into the methodology. Our Design Democracy process (https://a.co/d/0f0SSI81) uses structured stakeholder surveys to define the parameters AI optimizes for. The governance isn't a document someone reviews after the fact - it's in who gets to define what the AI is asked to do in the first place. If the inputs are right, the outputs are accountable. That's a guardrail the whole team can follow without a 30-page charter.

I'd also add a dimension that's missing from most firm-level AI governance: the owner's side. Firms are writing charters for how they use AI internally, but who's governing the AI tools being deployed across the project ecosystem - the estimating platform, the scheduling tool, the energy model - on behalf of the owner? That's a governance gap that no individual firm's charter covers, and it's where the architect as owner's rep has a role to play.

-
William Robertson, AIA
Founder & President, Design Build Labs
www.designbuildlabs.com | www.dbldesigndemocracy.com
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/williamrobertson2

------------------------------
William Robertson AIA
Design Build Labs
Santa Monica CA
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 02-06-2026 02:04 AM
From: Thesla Collier, Intl. Assoc. AIA
Subject: Are you formally governing AI use, or relying on individual judgment?

What guardrails have worked?

------------------------------
Thesla Collier
HNTB
------------------------------