Construction Clients: Who is the conductor of your project
orchestra?
As a career starting architect, some 30 years ago, I considered
Jørn Utzon as one of my top 5 hero architects to look up to.
Even in the pre-internet
era, I searched internationally for related material and read everything I
could get to, regarding his life, work and projects.
While how the Sydney
Opera House came to life, and to large extent Utzon’s role in it, was then and still
is a controversial topic, for me, he is an excellent example of ‘an architect’.
The type of architect,
that no longer exist.
Not necessarily because
of lack of skills, talent or dedication, exceptional people still ‘architect’
exceptional buildings worldwide, but because the role Utzon played at the time
the Sydney Opera House was built, no longer exists.
For better or worse, up
to 30 or so years ago, architects were in ‘charge’ of building projects.
Depending on one’s
interpretation of the word ‘charge’ it could have been perceived that they poked
their noses into every aspect of the building process, its looks, its
functional performance, make up and cost.
Or from a different
viewpoint, they had the responsibility to take care of all aspect of the
building under their care. In fact, more often than not, architects were
contractually in charge of the building design and construction.
Not every architect was,
of course, of Utzon’s caliber in marrying the design aspects of the building with
constructional viabilities and functional requirements while managing the financial
and planning aspects of the creation process. The role being a ‘generalist’
type role, it was inevitable that some functions were performed better than others
by the architects of the time.
Then, the eighties
happened, followed by the nineties and on to the new millennium and the
traditional role of the ‘architects’ has disappeared, all together.
Sure, it is a touchy
topic, and no party likes to explore it in a rational way. The architects of
the old times, that lost their ground by choosing to specialize in ‘design’ yet
forfeit construction management and contract admin, are all but gone and the
new ones do not seem to know any different.
It is apparent, that the
role of the ‘person in charge’ was taken up by the professional project manager
they do not like it questioned either.
No more a ‘Jack of all
trades’ (and master of none) once reclaimed by project managers, the role of the
‘project architect’ came with a more focused scope of works, management for
quality, time and money with special importance on client representation.
Over these 30 years,
project management matured into an industry on its own, with a good handle on
client and (generally) project management. Architects seem to have also found
their peace in the creative design and documenting.
The shift was not
seamless.
At the beginning of
this transitioning process, to justify their existence project managers used tactics
to dirty the names of their architect predecessors often by implying design expertise
naturally came with financial/managerial inadequacies. The institutions looking
after the retreating architects did not help either, by promoting risk management
based on ever diminishing responsibilities within project management for their
members.
There is one unacknowledged
victim of this fight for project supremacy, and that is the Project Itself and ultimately
the client that is shortchanged.
Creating buildings can
be looked at as two different processes.
On one side, there is a
need/want (brief) around what a set of consultants are engaged to come up with
an optimal solution (design) that is to be constructed into a physical something
by a group of specialist building-element makers. The process is led and overseen
by the project manager.
The above process is
not that different to many other PM jobs, like organising an event or shooting
a feature film.
What makes construction
projects different to many other, is that the Design (the ‘what’ are we making
thing) is by no means defined at the outset, in fact rarely if ever fully
before the building is completely finished.
This aspect of the
process is generally undervalued if not fully disputed, not necessarily due to
any malice, more how design development has changed over years.
The variable part of
the design process become larger as the industry evolved over the last 3-4 decades.
Buildings became more complex,
detailed, comprehensive documenting up front expensive and often redundant due
to procurement strategies available. A dynamic and ongoing design management
has become the norm.
Yet, if it is usually
clear that the PM is in charge of the project development as a process, who is
in charge of this second, parallel process of Design Management?
Back in early 2000s, having
lost their contract admin role, for a while, architects still managed to retain
their positions of Lead Designers. They were able to perform and get
compensated for the tasks of pulling the design together and maintaining its
integrity throughout the process, including construction.
This seem no longer to
be the case. These days, architects are often just ‘one of the group of
consultants’ signed up at design stage, their influence fizzled to nothing once
construction starts. Novated arrangements, if in place at all, give them barely
enough wiggle room to try maintain the integrity of their design (read: the
looks and feel) – ongoing coordination and design development is left to the
Contractor.
And this is the stage
that the Design loses all the love and care it desperately needs to survive.
Not to survive as the ‘pretty
thing’ the architect dreamed up at the outset, but to come together as a
functioning product at an optimal cost that the consultants only partially defined
and even less coordinated.
Yes, the design is half
done at the sign up of the main contractor, even the most ‘traditional’ of
design then build contracts.
Sure, ‘designy’ tasks are
given to most parties post contract-start, consultants retained to review and
approve shop drawings, the main contractor responsible for the commissioning
and production of the same through their own subcontractors.
Is this process truly
working under (ultimately) the Project Managers’ directions?
It must be, since projects do get finished successfully all
the time!
But is it? Or is this neglect to look after the design process
costing us time, money, quality, buried somewhere in the cracks of building
delivery?
It is time, to take Design Management seriously.
Clients might flinch at the idea of ‘adding another
consultant’ to the never-ending list of specialist advisors they already are
paying for.
But here, I am not talking about another musician to be added
to an already crowded stage.
I am referring to the missing conductor that will have the
holistic integrity of the building at heart till the very end.
Not saying it should be the architect, nor that it can’t
be the PM.
Not even implying that contractors aren’t doing their bit
already.
Just that someone’s got to do it and at the very least
construction clients should know who that person is at any one time of the
project delivery.
(picture borrowed from the net)
