Even traditional project delivery methods have room for alternatives. Take mOrphosis, for example. Aleksander Tamm-Seitz, the project designer for the Perot Museum of Nature and Science, splits his time between the job-site in Dallas, Texas, and the office in Los Angeles, California. Most design firms would leave Construction Administration up to a local architect-of-record. Morphosis, however, operates as a full-service design firm and an architect-of-record in its own right.

The project was awarded to mOrphosis through the typical RFQ and interview process. After selection, mOrphosis engaged a local architect, at the request of the owner, as a consultant to help with the local permitting process and other pertinent issues. In the pre-design phase, mOrphosis assisted the owner in the selection of a Construction Manager. The owner and CM entered into a contract for a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) with Design Assist. The CM became an integral part of the project team throughout the design process.

The project only strays from the traditional GMP with Design Assist in the Construction Administration Phase. Morphosis believes that it is in the client’s best interest if there is at least one member of the design team on-site during the construction process, preferably the whole design team. This expanded scope of services, however, must be included in the contract. Most owners see the benefit of bringing the contractor in early. With a little education, they can also see the benefit of increasing the presence of the architect on the job-site. This scope can then be added to the contract.

The project designer is the only one who knows the full extent of the design intent; the complexity of mOrphosis’ projects does not lend itself to being conveyed through drawings. The client and CM benefit from easier and faster access to the design architect when design issues arise. The designer’s presence can limit and address change orders and RFIs, as well as clarify design intent, and facilitate a smoother construction process The on-site designer has the same contractual relationship that is found in traditional contract documents. The same channels of communication exist. He is unable to direct sub-contractors; all communication must be directed through the CM. There is no inspecting or testing; he is simply there to observe and report. “We’re here to help the contractor,” says Tamm-Seitz of his role on the project site.

In the case of the Perot Museum, the project designer spends 2-3 weeks on-site and then returns to the L.A. office for 2-3 days for meetings with the entire design team and consultants. Similarly, the project architect spends the majority of his time in the L.A. office handling the technical side of project management, but occasionally travels to Dallas to meet with the CM. Tamm-Seitz joked that “it’s feasible to fly between Dallas and L.A. every two to three weeks; it’s not feasible to do the same if the project is in Shanghai”.

Regardless of contract structure, all parties have the same goal: to produce a great building. Through early collaboration, the design team facilitates a greater understanding of the project by all parties. Through this project understanding, the CM knows what is expected as far as quality and design intent. “It is in the CM’s best interest to solve issues in their construction sequence,” says Tamm-Seitz. He shared that his CM will come to him with items he knows are unacceptable, rather than waiting to address them later. Similarly, Tamm-Seitz says that he might occasionally give the GC a heads-up on issues that may arise in an upcoming Observation Report in order to foster a good working-relationship with the GC.

Through additional services, mOrphosis is able to better serve its clients without entering into a full-blown Integrated Project Delivery method. The early collaboration, lines of communication, and shared goals are all the same as in IPD, they are just structured differently in the contract.

Why is it that whenever I ask a licensed architect why he or she is doing something a certain way, the answer is usually “because that’s how it’s always been done”?

The fact of the matter is that most contemporary architecture-related business practices have only been around for about fifty years. It was not until architects began touting the “professional” nature of practice in the 1950s that we began to disconnect ourselves from the services we provide. Up until 1957—the infamous year when the AIA Trust began advocating Professional Liability Insurance—architects were the ultimate controller of the building process. We were master builders. We had our hands directly on the work that we were producing. We spent time on-site, directing craftsmen and laborers how to pour concrete, lay brick, or connect timbers.

That all changed when clients began to realize that they could sue architects for “alleged negligent acts, errors, or omissions” (Casso & Schultz, 2007). They could sue us for money, and still walk away with a completed building.

This was a turning point for architects. Instead of standing up and fighting, we backed down. We ran away. We allowed contractors to assume a larger portion of the risk, hoping to unburden ourselves. And it worked, at least for a little while. The time has come for us to realize that we have lost control of the process and we only have ourselves to blame. Clients have all the power. Contractors have all the money. And we are left wondering why business seems so hard.

Irrelevant. Obsolete.Inefficient.
No. These aren’t words to describe Wall Street…or Washington…or your 1985 gas-guzzler. These are words that I overheard architects using amongst themselves at the 72^nd Annual Texas Society of Architects Conference last month. They were referring to themselves, their services, and the way that they felt the public perceived architects. For example:

“There is so much information available online these days, I feel like my knowledge is irrelevant.”

“Clients don’t see the value in hiring an architect. I think we’re in danger of becoming obsolete.”

“Even with the introduction of BIM, I feel like my office is totally inefficient.”

I didn’t turn around and introduce myself to these individuals. What was I going to say?

“Hi, I overheard you calling your fellow architects ‘irrelevant’. It’s nice to meet you too.”

Instead, I sat and wondered, “What have I gotten myself into?”. You see, I am a recent graduate. I entered the workforce in August of 2010. Like most college graduates, I felt a sense of eagerness to get out into the real world and use the knowledge that I had just spent five very-tiresome years attaining. But the deeper I delved into the profession: my own workplace, online forums, professional magazines, and organizations—I began to see what I now recognize as weariness.

Architects have worn themselves out trying to remain ahead of the game. The profession is backpedaling as architects try to balance the ever-growing needs of clients to the ever-diminishing budget. The traditional Design-Bid-Build method has turned the architect into a commodity rather than a service-provider. The general public believes that architects simply produce drawings that a contractor then turns into a building on his own.

The craftsman has been divorced from his craft; but there is hope for reconciliation. New project delivery methods have emerged and older versions have resurfaced. These delivery methods, combined with new financing mechanisms, offer a way for architects to reclaim their role as design facilitator while engaging other design professionals throughout the entire process. As part of the Texas Society of Architects Conference, I attended the Project Delivery Symposium that was sponsored by the AIA Project Delivery Knowledge Community (PDKC). The symposium hosted three sets of speakers that addressed these new project delivery methods.

Public-Private Partnerships (P3)
While discussion of Public-Private Partnerships (P3) was included in the Project Delivery Symposium, it turns out that P3 is more of a financing mechanism than an alternate project delivery method. Public-Private Partnerships are created when a private entity offers resources (usually capital) to a public entity in exchange for a share of the profits. Public entities (municipalities, state governments, etc.) are limited in the ways that they are able to raise capital. By allowing private corporations to share in the risk of the project, the private sector can usually deliver the building faster and with fewer change orders. This financing mechanism works with traditional Design-Bid-Build, Design-Build, as well as Integrated Project Delivery. In each case, the owner is comprised of both a public and private entity. Proactive architects should engage private companies (most likely developers) to fund unsolicited public projects, creating design opportunities that might not exist otherwise.

Architect-Led Design Build (DB)
Peter Gluck is the owner of Peter Gluck and Partners, an Architect-Led Design-Build firm in New York. He shared his insight on these issues in a session titled “Design-Build Status Report”. Early in the session, he asked the audience one question: “If something bad happens on a construction site, you are responsible. Why wouldn’t you want to be there?” Gluck and his office, staffed entirely by architects, document every aspect of each project. Structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and many other systems are designed by outside engineering firms—but Gluck doesn’t see the value in having those firms pay their draftsman to do the drawings when his office could do them just as well, if not better. His documents give exact figures, eliminating the double contingency often included in traditional Design-Bid-Build projects. He assumes more risk, but it gives him more control over the final design. He also sends his project supervisors to the construction to help with building layout—this takes the pressure off subcontractors and ensures that the right information is being acted upon in the field. He explains that the jump from architect to builder is a short one, and that the jump from builder to developer is even shorter. His most poignant piece of advice was that “if architects don’t get involved in the construction, they will get relegated to drawing cartoons.”

Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) and “IPD-ish”
Many architects believe that Integrated Project Delivery is little more than a bunch of professionals sitting around a table singing Kum-Ba-Yah. The thing that strikes me about IPD is that it is more about communication than anything else. Betsy del Monte, of the Beck Group, explained that when using Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) all disciplines are brought in early. Depending on contractual relationships, this early participation may be compensated from the beginning as in full-on IPD, or later in the process leaving the disciplines to participate at their own risk as in IPD-ish projects. IPD is more expensive at the outset of a project because it requires a “front-loading” of knowledge. This expense, however, can often be recuperated throughout the process. Increased knowledge sharing leads to less confusion, which, in turn, lowers the need for contingency budgets. Shared decision-making typically ensures that systems are compatible and that the design is optimized for efficiency. Efficient design will repay the added cost of front-loading the design process.

Changing Course
The difference between these three methods and the traditional design-bid-build method is the reliance on partnering and increased communication. In the traditional method, when architects, contractors, and owners are having to communicate one entity usually loses—be it program, fee, or control. In public-private partnerships, communication is essential to the allocation of risk and reward. In Design-Build, communication is passed between two entities, the design-builder and the owner; this reduces the likelihood of miscommunication. In IPD, all entities are working toward the same set of goals and are involved in the decision-making that ultimately fulfills those goals. The twenty-first century is about communication—as evidenced by our increasing reliance on smart-phones and email. These alternative delivery methods embrace communication as a way to facilitate a better building design process. Will you recognize and embrace this change in contemporary practice, or will you allow yourself to become irrelevant, obsolete and inefficient? 

Reference List

Casso, A., & Schultz, F.W. (2007). Insurance coverage. In the American Institute of Architects (Ed.), The Architecture Student’s Handbook of Professional Practice  (14^th ed., pp. 194-208). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Del Monte, B., & Wilson, D. (2011, October). Integrated Project Delivery Method—The Real Story, Project Delivery Symposium at the 72^nd Annual Texas Society of Architects Annual Convention and Design Products & Ideas Expo, Dallas, TX.

Gluck, P. (2011, October). Design-Build Status Report—Real Lessons from Real Practitioners. Project Delivery Symposium at the 72^nd Annual Texas Society of Architects Annual Convention and Design Products & Ideas Expo, Dallas, TX.

Stricker, G., Van Arsdale, C., Merriweather, T., & Martin, C. (2011, October). Public-Private Partnerships, Project Delivery Symposium at the 72^nd Annual Texas Society of Architects Annual Convention and Design Products & Ideas Expo, Dallas, TX.

 My name is Morgan Robberson and I have been selected as one of the AIA Knowledge Scholars who will “virtually” attend the “Faster Forward live-event at Build Boston”. I wanted to take a moment to introduce myself and tell you all how excited I am to be able to share my experience at the upcoming conference with you. 

Design is a way of doing business and it must continue to evolve in order to remain relevant in the 21^st century; as clients continue to demand extensive services, funding remains scarce, and technology continues to change, architects must adapt their ability to render architectural services.

Faster Forward aims to discuss these emerging trends in architectural service delivery. The majority of the sessions will use Building Information Modeling as a lens through which Integrated Project Delivery (IPD), Lean Architecture,  Interoperability, and Energy & Eco-friendly Design are examined.

On November 17th, keep an eye on the AIA Knowledge Net TAP Discussion Forum and Blogs. Many of us joining the conference via the web will be engaging in discussions there.

For you those of you who are on Twitter, I’ll be tweeting from my account (@arch_morganizer) during the conference. You can also follow the conference tweets by using its hashtag (#FasterFW).

I hope to “see” you there!

Sincerely,

Morgan Robberson, Associate AIA

It’s clear that today’s students rely heavily on electronic devices even when they’re not incorporated in the classroom. In one survey of college students, 38% said they couldn’t even go 10 minutes without switching on some sort of electronic device. But how students are using their devices, h…

The following is a Letter to the Small Business Administration, written against the proposed increase in the size standard that determines “small business status” for Architecture Firms and those in similar industries.

I do not support the SBA’s proposed change in size standard for architectural services to $19 million. By increasing the limit on yearly billings to $19 million, the Federal Government would allow over 97.7% of AIA member firms to participate in small business set-asides, rather than the current total of 91.7%.

The intent of the SBA incentives is to allow small businesses to be able to compete with larger firms for smaller jobs.  Before deciding to change the definition of “small business” the SBA should determine if the current definition is meeting its intent. First of all, the number of firms qualifying for small business status (according to its current definition) is misleading. One needs to look at the number of people employed by “small business” firms to see if the SBA small-business incentive is having its desired effect—to provide incentives and opportunities for “smaller” firms to compete for work and therefore provide jobs to individuals.

As the regulation is currently written, approximately half of the individuals in the architectural workforce are employed by firms that qualify as “small businesses”. If the limit were increased to $19 million, more than80% of the architectural workforce would work for firms that would then be eligible for small business incentives. Rather than focusing on the number of firms that qualify, the SBA should be looking at the total number of people involved in the industry and split them accordingly. By skewing the numbers to allow more mid-size firms to compete as a “small-business”, it would in fact be a detriment to those in the workforce who already qualify.

The current system for establishing the status of “small business” in the architectural services industry is flawed. As it currently reads, small business status is determined by a firms’ annual billings/gross receipts. Billings/receipts have many factors, the first being the contractual relationship between the client and the architect. Most firms still use a base fee which is determined as a percent of the overall budget or construction cost, which is directly affected by the economy and cost of construction material. Higher quality construction and a better economy, therefore, beget more fee—which does not reflect whether the business fits the definition of “small” or not. Secondly, Gross Receipts/Billings for architectural services are often inflated due to the fact that much of the fee that goes into an architectural firm’s pocket actually passes right through onto consultants and independent contractors.

Rather than focusing on the annual billings as the criteria for determining “small business status”, the SBA should look to relying on the actual size of the firm.  The number of those involved in production and design services is directly correlated to the scope of work for which a firm can complete, which is not necessarily reflected in its billings and/or receipts. By using an equation that takes into account the number of design/production staff, the SBA would be able to better gauge the size/complexity of any given firm.

If the SBA insists on staying with a financial standard, rather than one based on the number of employees, it should look to establishing a Net Receipts standard, as opposed to the current use of Gross Receipts. This would at least allow medium size firms to take into consideration the fact that much of their work is outsourced to consultants, while giant corporations do much of their own specialty work in-house.

                                      ~written by: arch-morganizer