We are here because there are not enough good caves for all of us to live in. As an art, architecture is the most tangible and influential. We live, shop, work, and entertain in buildings. The influence of buildings is a background to so much human activity. Good buildings must be beautiful and functional. Is it not compelling to want to conceptualize and then realize such a powerful ideal? It has compelled us and that is why we do what we do.
A fence represents a barrier or constraint that we place between or around concepts to allow us to better focus on our goal. We will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of this fence with regard to the project delivery process.
The 1850’s were an important watermark for the profession of architecture and the building industry as a whole. In 1857, the AIA was created to control and elevate the practice of architecture from something of a self-proclamation to an organized profession with significant education and licensing requirements. In 1853, what would become the Smith Group was born. It is the oldest and one of the largest A&E firms in the US. Before this time, the line between the designer and the constructor was less distinct. Moving forward through the 20th century, buildings, site conditions and the socio-economic environment grew increasingly more complex. The foresight of the early players to better define and constrain the practice of architecture and create the defining fence between designers and constructors is clearly understood in retrospect. The Smith Group’s response to this growing complexity was to diversify and try to cast a broad net over the whole industry. What the Smith Group discovered through this increase in scope was that they were unable to focus on their core value – design. They have since tightened their focus and apparently been the better for it.
A relatively recent addition to the associations that support the members and businesses of the building industry is the DBIA – the Design Build Institute of America. Their mission statement indicates that they are bridging the gaps or white spaces around the fence that divides architects from constructors. The DBIA speaks with some hubris about the noble goals of the master builder of yesteryear. While there are many good attributes of this old model that we should consider, we now practice in a very different environment. The bottom line is that design build is primarily a legal definition describing one contract to the owner for the entire project delivery process. While this may seem appealing to the owner or client, it is not the focus of this discussion. Specifically, we want to consider issues surrounding communication during the project delivery process. While the single contract concept suggests better integration of the process, it does not inherently include that feature.
Our goal as a designer-led project delivery firm is to focus on the issues surrounding communication and optimization for the client. We do not fall under the purview of the DBIA. Our intention is not to remove cost variability risk to the client, but to help manage expectations and bridge the gaps that exist in the triangular diagram defined by quality, time, and money. In our experience, we have never had a client come to us prepared to fully pay for their expectations with regard to features and quality. As the primary building expert on the owner’s radar screen, we are compelled to manage their expectations at the beginning of the process. I am sure that we have lost customers because we are not “yes” people. We are instead “yes, but” people. More importantly, because we manage construction on a daily basis and experience craft and craftspeople firsthand, we are part of a meaningful dialogue exchanging knowledge, intent, which builds investment by team members. It is the notion of a learning circle where information is shared from schematic design through punch-out in a natural way that is part of our daily routine.
We have been asked in various ways, “Do you fear an increase in risk due to a broader practice?”. We believe that fear is not the relevant issue, but rather control. It may be statistically true that the construction site is a more dangerous place than the office, but creating a safe working environment is of an absolute importance in any situation. The risk associated with life safety in the work place can be easily managed. A much more critical issue in the building industry is that which is associated with seamless communication between the architect and the constructor. This full-scope understanding that gets woven into the design, planning and constructing processes can provide an earlier and deeper anticipation of project aspects. This notion should reduce the risk of errors, omissions and improperly executed details. My stock answer to the question of risk is that, ”We do things this way because it’s what makes us happy, but also find that it’s a good way to deliver a project.”
Perhaps our greatest inhibitor in practicing this method of integrated delivery is market perceptions. The term design-build carries a wide range of meanings within the industry, most of which have little relationship to our operation. At the same time we resist using the individual terms of architecture and construction because these words are suggestive of independent and separate activities without consideration of a single focus. After ten years of attempting to communicate to the market what we do, I can say that our biggest failure is indeed that.
It is useful to consider the difference between the firm and the individual. Architecture for me appears to be an industry with centricity about the individual. The AIA is an association of individuals rather than an association of businesses. The DBIA on the other hand is supporting design build firms or the process in general. The broader focus required for an integrated project delivery and is met more easily by groups than a single individual. On the other hand architectural firms are often identified by a style that is associated with an individual rather than the intellectual capital of the firm. This has a significant impact with regard to how we compete in the marketplace. Consider this individual centricity as you consider a broader focus. You don’t need to do it alone.
How is your firm differentiated from others? Be it a sole practitioner or perhaps a large firm like the Smith Group, it must communicate its strengths. Differentiate through design, price, process and scope. Consider your own strengths and weaknesses as you build your collaborative for project delivery.
Cottam Hargrave, Company