Integrated Project Delivery: What Do Architects Gain? More Importantly, What Do Architects GIVE UP?

August 19, 2012 by Liz O'Sullivan

Many architects are excited about the concept of Integrated Project Delivery. The AIA defines Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) as “a method of project delivery distinguished by a contractual arrangement among a minimum of owner, constructor and design professional that aligns business interests of all parties.” It describes IPD as “a collaborative project delivery approach that utilizes the talents and insights of all project participants through all phases of design and construction.” It sounds great. We architects love to collaborate, and we understand that good buildings depend on collaboration with other team members, such as owners and contractors.

The AIA’s “Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide” indicates that IPD’s benefits to designers are the following:

“The integrated delivery process allows the designer to benefit from the early contribution of constructors’ expertise during the design phase, such as accurate budget estimates to inform design decisions and the pre-construction resolution of design-related issues resulting in improved project quality and financial performance. The IPD process increases the level of effort during early design phases, resulting in reduced documentation time, and improved cost control and budget management, all of which increase the likelihood that project goals, including schedule, life cycle costs, quality and sustainability, will be achieved”.

These are good benefits; this is important information for architects and engineers to have, so that they can do their best in providing their design services to the owner. But design professionals can get these benefits through other means, such as by hiring a construction cost estimator, and by doing a better job of coordinating all the design disciplines.

Architects who engage in IPD need to understand that their role is different under this project delivery method than it is under other project delivery methods. Under IPD, architects are less autonomous than they are in traditional project delivery methods, architects are less influential over design decisions than they are in traditional delivery methods, and the architect’s relationship with the owner is watered down compared to the relationships in traditional delivery methods. This isn’t merely how IPD happens, this is actually how it is contractually conceived.

IPD is one solution to some of the problems in the construction industry today (such as poorly coordinated construction documents, constructability issues with designs, projects coming in over budget, and poor project management by architects during construction contract administration), but IPD is not the only solution.

Architecture firms should not wade into these IPD waters without fully understanding what they’re getting into, and what they’re giving up. They need to understand that they are giving up the chance to work by themselves on the early phases of the design of buildings. They need to understand that they will never have a one-on-one relationship with the owner on an IPD project. They need to understand that they won’t be the party passing communications between the owner and the contractor. They need to understand that although the contractor will have heavy input on the design, the design professional will still have professional liability for the design.

Architecture needs to improve itself as a profession if it is to thrive under IPD, just as architecture needs to improve itself as a profession if it is to thrive at all. IPD isn’t the savior of the architecture profession. IPD cannot make up for architects’ deficiencies in building technology knowledge, deficiencies in understanding of, and administration of, construction contracts, and deficiencies in understanding and implementing building codes. If architecture can improve itself in these areas, maybe architects will find IPD less attractive. If architecture cannot improve itself in these areas, architects are likely to find our profession in just as unhealthy a position when IPD becomes prevalent.

Some comments from others on the subject of IPD:

Thoughts from Barbara Golter Heller, FAIA, in a 2008 article:

“Architects usually assume that their design will be the controlling factor in integrated project delivery; owners want technology to facilitate their control over the project and its process. Owners who focus on cost-saving efficiencies and expedited schedules may not be managing a project in a way that is congruent with the expectations of designers and engineers. If large owners focus as aggressively on economics through technological capabilities as they are currently doing with project delivery methods such as design-build, architects are threatened with lost autonomy. If architecture is to thrive in the new world of technology aided integrated project delivery, architects must clearly communicate the human value of design in the context of cost-driven business incentives.” – Barbara Golter Heller, FAIA

From Antony McPhee, an Australian architect, in a recent blog post:

“Current proposed IPD models marginalise architects… They push the architect out of their role at the beginning of projects, when traditionally architects have had the most influence.” – Antony McPhee

“It explicitly reduces the traditional influence of architects at early stages of a project, and therefore the main driver of design excellence.”- Antony McPhee

“In theory BIM and IPD will provide improved quality of outcomes. But that improvement doesn’t necessarily include better architectural outcomes. It does include reduced time, reduced co-ordination mistakes, the ability to model alternative scenarios. But those scenarios are not necessarily ones involving improving architectural design. As only one member of a collaborative team, it is unlikely the team will appreciate the advantage of letting the architects work through design alternatives. Contrast that with current practice where the architect spends most of the early stages of a project doing just that.”- Antony McPhee

For more thoughts on why architects should become more TECHNICALLY competent, for the sake of DESIGN, see the following:

Ron Geren’s blog post “Towards a More Irrelevant Architect”

Walter Scarborough’s “Specifying Mediocrity? Without a Technical Foundation, Design is on Shaky Ground”

My blog post “Architects, Take Back the Reins!”

And, finally, a paper by Dr. Kevin Burr that explains why a future full of IPD is likely inevitable: “Moving Toward Synergistic Building Delivery and Integration” (scroll down the page to find the paper).

I have not experienced an IPD project, so, even more than usual, I welcome your comments on this post.

Why Does My Spec Writer Ask So Many Annoying Questions?

August 7, 2012 by Liz O'Sullivan

Many full-time specifiers were project architects at some point. We’ve been in your shoes. We are thinking about ourselves in your future shoes, a few months from now, during construction. That’s why we ask you all these questions during the Construction Documents phase.

How do spec writers keep all these questions in their heads?

Well, they’re not always bouncing around in our heads. When we use our master spec sections to prepare project specification sections, we get prompted to think about many little details of construction, spanning a range from bidding to layout, rough construction, finished construction, to warranties and life cycle maintenance. We also think about sequencing, and how things will all get put together, a little more than some other members of the design team do.

But I still have design work, and other stuff to do right now, during CDs. Why do I have to think about these questions now? Why can’t we just address these things in the field?

The process of writing a spec section, much like the process of drawing a construction detail, is part of the process of design. Your spec writer is a design professional, just as your consulting engineers are.

Sometimes spec writers think a little bit like estimators – when we look at product data and specification masters, we consider different product options and selections that need to be made. That’s one reason we ask the project architect questions. We don’t want you to have to make these selections during the submittals part of construction. We want to specify it now. Why? It’s not because we’re control freaks, and it’s not that we’re so concerned about your work load during construction contract administration (although some of us might be control freaks, and I personally am concerned about my architect-clients’ work load during construction). We want to spec these things now because now, during CDs, is the right time.

Some product options are standard and others cost more. We’d rather specify the color you want, now, before the contract is signed, so that there won’t be extra costs in the form of change orders for silly things like colors that are more expensive than the color group the contractor was expecting (and priced).

Sometimes we think like installers or subcontractors. We might ask questions about whether the owner wants vinyl tiles to be under the casework, or to butt to the casework. This is something that might be in spec sections for casework and for vinyl tile. Someone needs to make the owner’s expectations explicitly clear to the contractor. The owner might not care. But the owner might care – the project architect should ask the owner.

Things that ought to be addressed during CDs, and aren’t, often end up costing the owner more money, end up costing the architect more time (and therefore burning through more fee and therefore reducing the firm’s profit) and end up causing the general contractor more stress, because of having to obtain a price on documents that aren’t really complete, and having to then address (argue about) discrepancies between what was actually desired (but not specified clearly) and what was priced (based on fair assumptions).

SOMEBODY HAS TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES. The most qualified person, and the person who might actually be legally obligated, to address these issues, is the architect. The contractor often ends up making these decisions, and it’s not always the way the owner or the architect would have liked it – it’s better to explain how you’d like it, so the contractor knows, instead of letting him do it however he decides, and then asking for it to be redone later. Redoing things costs the owner extra money.

THE ISSUES HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED AT SOME POINT. They will not just go away. The time to address these things is during construction documents phase, when everything can be considered together before it’s too late. (Before it’s too late to make necessary changes to other things in order to get everything to turn out the way you envision. Nothing in design and construction can be considered in a vacuum. Everything affects, and is affected by, other things.) Try to address everything now, and you’ll have fewer surprises during construction.

Your spec writer is thinking about these relationships between building elements right now, and has taken the time to ask you the questions, and wants to write the specs in such a way that your intent can be achieved during construction.

Take the time now, read your spec writer’s provoking emails now, think through everything now, ask your spec writer questions now, and get all those design decisions made now, so that you’re not scrambling later, under the gun, in the field, during construction.

This is what the sophisticated owner expects.

While You’re the Caretaker of an Old Brick Building…

July 30, 2012 by Liz O'Sullivan

We’re doing some maintenance work on our home, a 1904 brick foursquare in Denver (a “Denver Square”). Someone painted the brick years before we bought it, and it’s time for fresh paint. Preparation of the brick for repainting revealed that we needed much more repointing (tuckpointing) of the mortar joints than I had anticipated. So… what does that mean?

Old brick buildings are really interesting. The brick is often pretty “soft,” and the mortar is even “softer.” By soft, I mean that you can gouge it or wear it away pretty easily; it’s, well, kind of weak. Our house has butter joints – really skinny mortar joints – with mortar color that matched the brick color. The house must have been so beautiful before someone came up with the “genius” idea of painting the brick… but I suspect that they painted because they thought they could substitute painting for repointing those mortar joints. Well, now we’re repainting AND repointing, so THAT didn’t work! Whoever made that decision decades ago really wasn’t acting in the best interests of the house. Sometimes, it’s better to do nothing at all than to do the wrong thing to a building.

Masonry walls need to be able to let water out, and need to be able to let water VAPOR out, and individual bricks in a wall need to be able to move a bit, in case they expand due to water absorption. Yes, bricks are a bit porous, and water gets into brick walls. You just can’t keep water out, so you always need to provide ways for it to GET out. Unless you want damaged bricks, you need the bricks to be able to move, and you need the brick wall to be able to “breathe,” at the locations of the mortar joints, so you need the mortar to be “softer” than the brick (weaker and more porous).

When it’s time to do repairs on an old brick building, you need someone who knows how to do it right. (Mortar-in-a-tube is not the right thing to use on an old building! Old mortar was made with much more lime than today’s mixes have – for old masonry, you really need a specialist.) We hired a mason who specializes in restoration of historic masonry. No, we didn’t need some of the fancy things that masonry restorers are capable of doing, such as matching new mortar color to the existing historic mortar color. (Ours will be painted over). But not everything that we do for buildings is for appearances. Much of what the caretakers (you know, the owners) of old buildings need to be doing is for the long-term FUNCTIONING and durability of the buildings. Building elements that function well, and are durable for the long-term, contribute greatly to the beauty of buildings.

Durability should be a primary focus of the sustainable (green) building movement. Build buildings well in the first place, maintain them properly over the years, and keep all that embodied energy in our cities instead of sending it off to landfills. Some well-meaning people are trying to ram an ethic of sustainability into a throw-away society, and it’s just not gonna work unless we develop, train, and properly compensate, our skilled building tradespeople, and develop in homeowners a strong sense of needing to care for their buildings, instead of just selling and leaving when maintenance needs present themselves.

I got off an important tangent up there. Back to that paint – the new paint is a necessary evil for my house, since someone already painted the brick years ago. Paint that is firmly attached to old brick should not be removed – removing the paint almost always removes the toughest part of the brick – the part that got fired. The inside of the brick is a bit softer than the exterior fired surface, so once a historic brick building has been painted, it should remain painted. Removing the paint could cause the brick to slowly erode away. However – you want paint that will not keep water in that wall. You want paint that can “breathe.” Flat paint typically is more vapor permeable than glossy paint, and latex paint is more vapor permeable than alkyd or oil-based paint, so if you have to paint brick, use flat latex paint. I wanted flat paint for aesthetic reasons, so I was thrilled to find out from Diane Travis at the Rocky Mountain Masonry Institute that I was on the right track functionally with flat paint because of its higher vapor permeability. Diane emailed me this great brochure on “Maintenance and Repair of Older Masonry Buildings” when I contacted her for masonry contractor recommendations. The brochure is a good resource, and so is the Rocky Mountain Masonry Institute! You can download a copy of the brochure if you click here.

Regarding those skilled tradespeople – I got two recommendations for masonry contractors who specialize in historic masonry repair and restoration. Both contractors were highly recommended, and were recommended by more than one person. Both do commercial and residential work. I met with Gary Holt of Olde English Masonry and John Voelker of Cornerstone Restoration, and we hired Cornerstone because of schedule availability. Cornerstone did great work. If you need a masonry specialist, either contractor would be great. They’re both busy, so plan ahead. Your old brick building deserves to be maintained by an expert. While you’re the caretaker of an old brick building, do the right thing for your brick.

If You’re an Owner, Do Yourself a Favor: Require Record Specs

June 27, 2012 by Liz O'Sullivan

I have a simple piece of advice for owners who are having buildings built. Require the contractor to submit Record Specifications.

Step 1: Require, as part of the Contract for Construction, that the contractor submit Record Specifications at project closeout. This should be easy. You don’t even need to make up language for it. It’s already in the commonly used AIA A201-2007, the General Conditions of the Contract. Article 3.11, Documents and Samples at the Site, reads, “The Contractor shall maintain at the site for the Owner one copy of the Drawings, Specifications, Addenda, Change Orders and other Modifications, in good order and marked currently to indicate field changes and selections made during construction, and one copy of approved Shop Drawings, Product Data, Samples and similar required submittals. These shall be available to the Architect and shall be delivered to the Architect for submittal to the Owner upon completion of the Work as a record of the Work as constructed.”

Step 2: After Step 1 has been undertaken, request that the architect expand upon this contract requirement in Division 01 of the specifications. CSI’s MasterFormat has created a place for this requirement to be expanded upon – Section 01 78 39 “Project Record Documents.” Arcom’s MasterSpec has some great standard language in this section, including requirements that the Contractor “Mark Specifications to indicate the actual product installation where installation varies from that indicated in Specifications, addenda, and contract modifications.” “Give particular attention to information on concealed products and installations that cannot be readily identified and recorded later.” “Mark copy with the proprietary name and model number of products, materials, and equipment furnished, including substitutions and product options selected.” “Record the name of manufacturer, supplier, Installer, and other information necessary to provide a record of selections made.”

Step 3: If Step 1 has been executed, execute Step 3 (whether or not Step 2 was executed). At project closeout, make sure that the Record Specifications have been submitted by the contractor, along with the record drawings (the “as-builts”). Do not pay the contractor the final payment until these have been submitted.

Step 4: Store the record specifications, in a safe place, along with the record drawings.

A responsible owner might ask me some questions, and I will answer them:

Q1: Will this cost me more money?

A1: Yes, this will add a little bit of money to the construction cost. It will take a little extra time for the contractor to update the record specs every day during construction. It should take a contractor no more than 5 minutes a day, as long as he keeps up with it every day.

Q2: Why would I want to spend this extra money?

A2: Spending this tiny extra bit of money now will save you money in the future. If you have the Record Specifications to refer to in the future, you will save yourself time that you might otherwise have to spend searching for a product name or model number that you urgently need. If you have the Record Specifications to copy and give to other people that you hire to do maintenance on, or an addition to, your building, you will save yourself money because you will be saving the people you have hired some significant time.

Q3: What would these people be spending time on?

A3: If you have an existing building that you want to do an addition to, you might want to match the storefront, the brick, the stucco color, the precast panel concrete mix, the standing seam metal roof profile and color, the tinted glass color, the asphalt shingles, the stone veneer, the tile floors, the wood doors… If you wish to match any of the elements in the addition to their counterparts in the existing building, the architect will have to track down the exact products that were used in the existing building.

Q4: But can’t I just have the architect write “match existing” on the drawings?

A4: Yes, but then the contractor or his subcontractors will have to try to figure out what was used on the existing building. If they don’t really know, or if they have preferred vendors that they purchase from, and don’t try to look too hard beyond those vendors, they might just “do their best” to match the existing. That might be ok, or it might not be ok, but what leverage will you have to make them match it if you really want it to match, especially if you had put your project out to competitive bid?

Q5: Why do I need Record Specs? Isn’t that information on the Record Drawings (the “as-builts”)?

Q6: Usually, specific product names, manufacturers, and model numbers are not on the drawings. That information belongs in the specifications. For example, the drawings should show the extent of, and the details of, a standing seam roof installation. But if you want competitive bids, the specifications should list several manufacturer names and the acceptable product by each, and specific information such as the dimensions of the panel. The drawings might list a generic color, or a specific color might be in the specs, but the type of metal finish (such as Kynar or siliconized polyester) will be in the specs.

Despite your best efforts, things might not go flawlessly. The contractor might not do a great job with these record specs. The architect might not realize that he’s supposed to receive them from the contractor. You might forget to make sure that you get them before you sign that final check. But it’s really, really worth enforcing this common contract requirement.

And, of course, even if everything goes well, you might still waste some time. Last week, a former co-worker of mine received an email from an interior designer who is working on a tenant finish in a space that I worked on 11 years ago. The designer wondered if we remembered the manufacturer of the demountable aluminum and glass partitions in the space. I couldn’t remember, and my old firm no longer had the record documents. The designer actually had the record documents, but “that information wasn’t on the drawings.” I suggested that perhaps she wasn’t looking at the specifications, which were on pages 2 and 3 of the set of drawings. I heard back a few minutes later… the manufacturer’s name was right there, in the sheet specs. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink… But it’s well worth a try.

Lessons Re-Learned

June 14, 2012 by Liz O'Sullivan

Once again, I have realized that we need drawings for every little renovation on our century-old house, even when all we’re doing is replacing something existing with something that is new and (nearly) identical. Last night I drew a soffit detail for the guys doing repairs on our soffit in preparation for painting the exterior of the house. I am glad I still know how to draw with a lead holder and trace and triangle and parallel rule. I still tear drafting dots in half to conserve them. It’s been a while, but I did my best.

I do not mean to make light of the complex issues of international politics and human rights, but Aung San Suu Kyi said something this week that made me think of construction documentation. “Unless we aim at achieving the best that is possible we will have to make do with the least that is tolerable.”

Tolerable: Telling people to take down what they installed yesterday, because it won’t work.

The best that is possible: Giving those workers a clear, concise, correct, and complete drawing before they install.

Onward!

Today’s Webinar on Submittals

June 7, 2012 by Liz O'Sullivan

This afternoon I attended a great CSI Practice Group webinar. You don’t have to be a CSI member to be part of the Practice Groups. There are practice groups with free webinars for BIM, sustainability, specifying, product representation, and construction contract administration. For info on CSI Practice Groups: http://www.csinet.org/Main-Menu-Category/Communities-2109-14280/Practice-Group

Today’s Specifying Practice Group topic, presented by Dave Stutzman and Louis Medcalf, was “Submittals.” There’s one little tangent from the presentation that I want to elaborate on here:

On a recent project of mine, the lack of a submittal for the contractor’s proposed solution to an unexpected situation caused a problem. The contractor didn’t think that a submittal was required by the contract documents, and the architect didn’t realize that a submittal was required by the contract documents. The contractor could have saved himself some money and time, and could have saved the architect and the owner some time, if the contractor had just prepared a submittal for the architect’s review before proceeding with the work. (Oh, yes, some freshly-installed flooring underlayment had to be removed before the project could proceed. THAT was a waste of time and money.)

If something is added to a project, because of an unforeseen condition, everyone (architect, owner, contractor) often acts as if it’s the first time this sort of thing has ever happened. It’s not. Unexpected things happen all the time on construction projects, and that’s why we have standard processes to deal with them.

Anything that wasn’t originally in the project, but is part of the project now, is in the contract as the result of either a change order or a minor change to the contract. Whether it’s a moisture mitigation treatment for an existing slab, or a whole new roof assembly, whether it was initiated by an owner as a late addition to a project, or it was initiated by the contractor as a solution to an unexpected condition, or initiated as a substitution request because of a sudden product unavailability, it ends up in the contract as the direct result of a change order or a minor change (such as the type authorized by an ASI, Architect’s Supplemental Instructions). Even when the change results in no added cost to the owner, and even when its purpose is solely to repair a mistake made by the contractor, it’s a change, and it should be documented (and submitted on).

Architects and specifiers can make sure that the contract documents require submittals for things that weren’t originally in the project. Requiring submittals for items added to the project during construction is a good idea. In fact, requiring submittals for items added to the project during construction may be even more important than requiring submittals for things that were originally part of the design, since the new element wasn’t originally thought through along with the rest of the design. The contractor’s preparation of the submittal, and the architect’s review of the submittal, act as a double-check mechanism to help make sure that the added item will be appropriate.

If the architect is creating a new spec section as part of an ASI or Proposal Request, the architect should include in the specs a requirement for submittals – just as the spec sections in the original documents did. If the architect is modifying a spec section as part of an ASI or a Proposal Request, the spec section probably already calls for submittals. The architect needs to dictate those submittal requirements in the documents issued during construction.

Then, the architect just needs to make sure that the contractor provides the submittal required by the contract documents; the architect then just needs to enforce the contract documents.

We have typical processes that state submittal requirements for Substitution Requests and for contractor-generated Change Order Proposals. So the architect doesn’t need to reinvent a process; the architect just needs to enforce the contract documents.

If there’s a substitution request generated by the Contractor, the Division 01 spec section “Substitution Procedures” can include language that requires product data and samples to be submitted as part of the substitution request. MasterSpec’s master language already does this very well.

Contractor-initiated Change Order Proposals that are the result of unexpected site conditions are addressed in the Division 01 spec section “Contract Modification Procedures.” The MasterSpec version of this section includes some language for this, but more specific language could be added by the specifier.

When unforeseen site conditions pop up, people often panic, and rush through things, trying to find a solution quickly, to stay on schedule. Just remember – there are probably already processes for these situations in your contract documents, in Division 01 of the specifications. Do not ignore them. This is the worst time to throw out the rules. Your schedule may suffer even more if you ignore submittal requirements. If the requirements for typical submittal info get written into the “rules” (Division 01) and are in there BEFORE unforeseen situations come up (before the contract is signed), it’s easier for the architect to enforce the submittal requirements. It can be difficult to extract a submittal from a contractor after a substitution request or a change order proposal has already been submitted and informally approved.

The Fervor of a Convert (part two)

May 31, 2012 by Liz O'Sullivan

People who have read Part One of this post know that although I often write about technical competence for architects, I have not always been technically competent myself. So, why wasn’t I technically-minded earlier in my life? And, if this technical stuff is so important, why don’t architects learn it all in school?

In the family I grew up in, education has been held in very high regard for generations.¹ When formal education is so revered, it is offered up as the answer to everything; the other side of that is that someone’s lack of formal education is seen as something to pity, even when knowledge and expertise in one’s field have been gained through practical experience.

A recent column by Robert Samuelson² discusses the college education issue. Here’s an excerpt:

“The fixation on college-going, justified in the early postwar decades, stigmatizes those who don’t go to college and minimizes their needs for more vocational skills.” – Robert Samuelson

In my opinion, in the field of architecture, not only does this college fixation stigmatize those who don’t obtain a college degree, it also falsely inflates the importance of the university degree in architecture, and it deemphasizes the importance of the things that aren’t taught in college. Many people overvalue the degree and seem to undervalue the practical work experience in architecture. NCARB overvalues the BArch and MArch. Most states overvalue the BArch and MArch. Many employers overvalue the BArch and the MArch.

Although in most states a professional degree (BArch or MArch) is mandatory for licensure, I believe that those states should reevaluate this requirement.³Yes, most people who have been through the rigors of semester-after-semester of design studio will be better designers than most who haven’t, but schematic design is such a small part of the actual practice of architecture. Not every licensed architect will need to do schematic design. But every licensed architect is required to be technically competent.

During one of my summer internships, I didn’t get along very well with a co-worker – our personalities clashed. One day this co-worker said something important, and I responded with a retort that I now recognize was terribly wrong. He said that I should have been learning more about drafting and construction detailing in architecture school. My response was that I wasn’t going to a vocational school – I was going to a university.

In my mind, not only was there a disconnect between the dirty work of building buildings and the work of designing buildings, there was also a disconnect between the technical work of drawing construction details and the work of designing buildings. Looking back, I suspect that this misconception of mine stemmed from the combination of these 3 things: one, the knowledge that I was on the right track to a career in architecture by pursuing a university degree, two, the feeling that since this technical stuff wasn’t emphasized much at my school it must not be that important, and three, the utterly misguided confidence of a 21-year-old that since I wasn’t very good at the technical stuff, it must not be crucial.

So, if this technical stuff is so important, why don’t schools teach very much of it?

I certainly was taught some things about building technology in school. One very relevant class that I remember was in first semester sophomore year; I was pretty lost when we covered wood framing. I was 18, and I had already known for about 7 years that I wanted to be an architect, but apparently I hadn’t realized that designing wood framing was the sort of thing architects did.

We did our thesis projects in the first semester of fifth year, and second semester we fleshed out the construction details of those design projects. I fumbled through my wall section, probably just using Architectural Graphic Standards to guide me, and possibly not listening very well to my professors…

Those 2 classes may have been the only classes in my program that officially addressed building technology. I do not remember building technology being taught or emphasized in any other classes. (Even my 4 semesters of structures didn’t really address building technology.)

Here’s why: It would be impossible for university programs to teach all the technical information that architects need to learn. On the one hand, the schedule is full. School is a great place to learn how to design, and to study architectural history and theory – things that we wouldn’t have the opportunity to learn on the job. And on the other hand, there’s too much technical stuff to know, and it changes frequently. Every building is different. Each region of the country has different requirements. Firms specialize in different areas of practice. The best place for architects to learn technical things is on the job. As I mentioned in Part One of this post, when it comes to the legal obligations of an architect, the technical things are essential, but the subjects we focus on in school aren’t. This causes some people to suggest that architecture programs shouldn’t be in universities at all.⁴

Although schools cannot teach students all the technical things they need to know, schools can do a better job of preparing students to be able to learn technical things later.

Most architecture grads understand that a degree in architecture is not the end of their learning. I did grasp that while I was in college, but I didn’t realize that it was truly only the beginning of my learning. Schools should emphasize that students’ time at the university is only the beginning of learning about practicing architecture.

Learning challenging things is hard, because people who are learning are always slightly out of their comfort zones. It’s unsettling to be out of one’s comfort zone, and to be responsible for production in an architecture firm, at the same time. It’s difficult, or maybe impossible, to learn things when one was not expecting to need to learn things. Schools should emphasize that students should expect to be out of their comfort zones, and learning new things, for years to come.

Every professor in an architecture program should tell his or her students how the subject matter contributes to the knowledge foundation for the students’ future practice. Every studio project final crit could end with a professor explaining that in real-world practice, schematic design phase may be only about 15 percent of a project, and that the architect would need to produce many very detailed technical drawings to create a set of construction documents that someone could actually build the studio projects from. Some of those detailed technical drawings should be explored in school, as a follow-up to that studio project. Schools should take every opportunity to explain to students that although they aren’t learning or doing many technical things now, they will need to learn them, and do them, later.

The mere combination of knowledge of how to schematically design, and mastery of the modeling or drafting software that one’s firm uses, does not make one an architect. Software skills are just a tool, a starting point, that makes it possible for an intern to work at a firm; an intern has to be able to contribute something to the firm, usually production documents, in order to earn wages and be able to have the opportunity to learn from the firm. Schools should emphasize that, although interns will be contributing team players at the firms at which they work, what they gain in knowledge from their experiences should end up being more valuable than their initial contributions to the firm. Interns should expect to work on production documents, and maybe help out with some design. Interns should expect to be given the opportunity to learn about building technology. (Note that I did not say that interns should expect to be taught about building technology. Nothing is handed to us as emerging professionals in architecture. We have to keep consciously working to learn, all through our careers.)

It’s overwhelming to think that a BArch or MArch, and all the time and money and work that degree takes to earn, is only the beginning of learning how to practice architecture. Maybe this is why so many students don’t comprehend that. But schools need to make sure that their students understand this concept. Schools need their graduates to understand that although they should be ready to work in architecture firms by the time they graduate, they still have much to learn before they can engage in the independent practice of architecture. Perhaps more than anything else, schools must prepare their students for a lifetime of learning.⁵

Notes:

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Including my parents, there are 10 of us in my immediate family. My dad and I have bachelor’s degrees, my youngest brother is currently in law school, and among the other 7, there are 2 medical degrees, 4 master’s degrees, one doctorate, and 1 law degree. These were earned from Georgetown, Columbia, Notre Dame, University of Virginia, and the University of Oklahoma, in public health, Spanish literature, art history, and philosophy. The reason that my mom went to medical school in the 60’s when she was 22 was because her brother enjoyed medical school so much. My mother’s father taught philosophy and law at Fordham. Including this grandfather, three of my four grandparents, who were born between 1900 and 1910, graduated from college. My father’s mother, who was born in 1903, didn’t go to college, and that is a fact that was kind of whispered, rather than stated outright… perhaps so that not too many people would find out. As I mentioned, formal education is considered pretty important in my family.
Robert Samuelson is a journalist who writes economics opinion pieces in the Washington Post. Here’s the column, as published by the Denver Post: http://www.denverpost.com/samuelson/ci_20714508/degrees-failure-idea-that-everyone-needs-attend-college?source=rss_emailed
Here in Colorado we still have the apprentice/draftsman route to licensure. A college degree is not necessary for licensure as an architect in Colorado. http://www.dora.state.co.us/aes/licensing/requirements-arc.htm#exp However, my understanding is that most Colorado firms do not want to hire an emerging professional who does not have a professional degree (a BArch or MArch).
Garry Stevens’ “Why Architecture Should Leave the University” is really something to think about, even if we just use it as a starting point to improve architecture programs in universities. http://www.archsoc.com/kcas/leaveuniversity.html
So, how do emerging professionals – and everyone else – pursue learning? I plan to address some good ways in a future post.

The Fervor of a Convert (part one)

May 30, 2012 by Liz O'Sullivan

People who read this blog know that I’m a specifier, and therefore pretty technically-minded. But many people don’t know that I haven’t always been technically-minded. I migrated to the technical side of architecture from a place of relative technical weakness. (I wasn’t utterly ignorant; I did know the actual dimensions of a 2 by 4. Some architecture grads don’t.)

I first realized the importance of specifications when I started doing CA (construction contract administration) on the projects that I’d produced drawings for. But it wasn’t until after I started preparing specifications myself that I started to learn and understand more about building technology, building science, construction detailing, and building codes, and finally started learning how to find out information about how buildings actually get put together.

In hindsight, I realized that the technical weakness that I had when I was working as an emerging project manager and project architect was a pretty bad thing, though not uncommon. That type of technical weakness is changeable, it is fixable – but it is NOT defensible.

In this blog, I try to write to the person that I used to be – the intern architect or architectural project manager or project architect who doesn’t fully realize the importance of building technology, building science, and construction detailing.

I have broadened my own focus in architecture. Others can, too. But they have to be open to learning about these technical things; they have to understand the importance of the technical before they can start drawing good construction details. Only with good construction details can architects’ designs be executed the way they have been imagined. The designer who can’t draw, or even recognize, good construction details that communicate to the constructor how to build his design will not be a good designer of anything but unbuilt work.

I write so relentlessly about the importance of the technical things in architecture because I know what it’s like to not think they’re important. I know the results of that attitude – embarrassing moments on the jobsite – because I used to have that attitude. Now that I’ve become a more technical person, I see this issue from another side, and I see clearly that we can do better as a profession.

Looking back now on the early years of my career, I suspect that I had a number of opportunities to learn about building technology and construction detailing that I didn’t take advantage of, because I just didn’t realize the importance. I knew that there were things I needed to learn, but there were so many areas I needed to learn about. I focused on some other areas of practice instead of on building technology. I had to learn how to put together a set of drawings. I had to learn how to communicate with engineers and general contractors. I had to learn how to communicate with owners and potential clients. I had to learn how to write proposals for fees and services. I had to learn how to budget my hours on a project. I had to get up to speed on new versions of AutoCAD when they came out. All these things are important to the practice of architecture, and, of course, spending time on design is important, too.

But I have realized that when it comes to that stamp and seal, knowledge about building technology and codes is absolutely essential to the practice of architecture. Our professional obligations mandated and regulated by governments, building owners’ expectations, and our obligations addressed in our owner-architect agreements and covered by our professional liability insurance, are related to building technology and codes more than to anything else about architecture.

I am still learning about construction, codes, building science, and detailing. We all are, because technologies and codes change – but I still feel like I am catching up to where I should be on these issues, because I still have to research a number of things on almost every project. But I can catch up. All of us can.

As a brand new intern architect, I didn’t know what specifications were. When I first started doing project management, I barely comprehended that specs and drawings were supposed to work together. Then when I started doing CA on projects, the importance of specifications hit me like a bomb. And now I’m a specifier. We all start somewhere. Regardless of the starting point, and regardless of the career destination, architects who want their constructed buildings to look like the designs in their minds must understand building technology.

When I graduated with my Bachelor of Architecture degree, I knew that there was a lot I would need to learn on the job. But I didn’t realize how much there was to learn, and I didn’t realize which things were most important. One reason I write this blog is to tell others the things that I now realize that I should have been trying to learn earlier in my career.

For more about that degree, see Part Two of this post, coming later this week.

Indemnification: I Do Not Think That Word Means What You Think It Means

May 8, 2012 by Liz O'Sullivan

I’ve been reading contracts again. The AIA A201-2007, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, has an Indemnification article in it.

Article 3.18 “Indemnification” starts like this: “To the fullest extent permitted by law the Contractor shall indemnify and hold harmless the Owner, Architect, Architect’s consultants, and agents and employees of any of them from and against claims, damages, losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys’ fees, arising out of or resulting from performance of the Work, provided that such claim, damage, loss or expense is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease or death, or to injury to or destruction of tangible property (other than the Work itself), but only to the extent caused by the negligent acts or omissions of the Contractor, a Subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by them or anyone for whose acts they may be liable, regardless of whether or not such claim, damage loss or expense is caused in part by a part indemnified hereunder. “

I’m not an attorney, but I’m pretty sure that this clause means that if a passerby is injured on a jobsite, because of something that the Contractor did, if the Owner and Architect get sued for that passerby’s damages, and they have to pay the injured person, the money for the damages attributable to the Contractor will ultimately come from the Contractor, instead of from the Owner and Architect.

I looked at the AIA Document Commentary for this document for some further insight. It says “The contractor’s obligation to indemnify is triggered by an act or omission of the contractor or one of the contractor’s agents or employees, and covers the indemnitee’s loss only to the extent that it was caused by such act or omission. This is comparative fault language: for example, if the indemnitee and all other third parties are found to be 20 percent responsible, the contractor’s obligation to indemnify would extend to 80 percent of the loss.”

The indemnitor is the Contractor, and the indemnitiees are the Owner, Architect, etc. What this says is that if the Owner or Architect is partially responsible for the damages, the Contractor wouldn’t have to pay for the part of the damages that the Owner or Architect is responsible for.

That all sounds fair to me, but, of course, I’m not an attorney, and I do consider myself to be impartial. It sounds fair to me that each member of the team should be required to pay for damages caused by himself, and only for damages caused by himself.

I have come across several Contracts for Construction and General Conditions of the Contract for Construction which have a similar indemnification clause – identical, actually, except that the Architect and the Architect’s consultants are not included. I have worked on at least one project in which the Owner used AIA A201 as the General Conditions, but, through the Supplementary Conditions, deleted “Architect, and Architect’s consultants” from the indemnification clause.

I got into a discussion with someone over lunch today about this particular situation. I asked “How does it help the Owner to exclude the Architect from the Contractor’s indemnity?” I did not get a good answer.

Here’s how I interpret this phenomenon: Owners who do this (strike the Architect from the protection of a Contractor’s indemnity) mistakenly believe that excluding the Architect from this indemnification clause will help to protect the Owner’s interests.

There’s a benefit to an Owner to require that the Contractor pay for damages caused by the Contractor.

There’s a benefit to an Owner to require that the Owner not have to pay for damages caused by the Contractor.

But leaving the Architect exposed to liability for damages caused by the Contractor provides no benefit to the Owner.

The Owner can always sue the Architect. This indemnification clause doesn’t prevent that. Any third party can always sue the Architect. This indemnification clause doesn’t prevent that. If an indemnification clause such as this includes the Architect, it only means that if the Architect gets sued by some passerby, for damages caused by the Contractor, the Contractor will have to cover the Architect’s costs for attorney fees and any damages awarded to the person who brought suit against the Architect.

Owners, please don’t do the extra work of striking the Architect from the AIA A201 indemnity clause. It doesn’t help you, and it could really hurt the Architect.

Loan Relief for Architecture Grads, in Exchange for Pro Bono Work? Ok… But How?

April 26, 2012 by Liz O'Sullivan

We need architects in the world. Architects are, and should continue to be, the interpreters of building owners’ needs, the problem solvers of the construction industry, the people who communicate their design solutions to the people who build the solutions. Architects, and future architects, are critical to our built environment.

Right now, unemployment and underemployment among architects in the U.S. is high – very high. Student loan debt from architecture school is astronomical. Architecture firms’ billings and architects’ salaries are, well, not very high. And they rarely ARE very high. Architects are part of the construction industry. The fortunes of architecture firms rise and fall with the economy.

Yesterday, there was a call by the American Institute of Architects and the American Institute of Architecture Students “for Congress to pass legislation that includes architecture school graduates in the same programs that offer other graduates loan debt assistance if they donate their services to their communities and elsewhere.” Here’s the press release from the AIA.

The press release compares recent grads in architecture to recent grads in medicine, law, and teaching.

Everyone needs doctors, and we have a shortage of doctors in rural areas across the country. All children need teachers, and we have a shortage of teachers in underperforming schools across the country. We don’t have a shortage of lawyers, but we do have a shortage of available, affordable legal help for many disadvantaged people who need legal help, and can’t afford to pay the types of rates that many attorneys charge.

I don’t know much about this, but my understanding of the types of programs that offer loan relief for recent grads entering the types of professions mentioned in the press release (medicine, law, teaching) is that, in exchange for some loan relief, the new doctors go work in rural areas, or the young lawyers go work in low-paying public interest positions, and the freshly-minted teachers go work in underperforming schools. These medical and legal positions are lower-paying than positions in different medical arenas and different kinds of law firms. These teaching positions are much, much harder than positions at other types of schools. These positions are hard to recruit for.

We don’t have a shortage of architects. We don’t have a surplus of people who are in need of the services of a design professional, but who just don’t have access to one. We don’t have easier-or-harder types of architecture jobs for emerging professionals. We don’t even have huge differences in pay for intern architects at big firms vs. small firms, or firms in big cities vs. firms in small towns.

We also have the internship factor to consider. If they wish to become licensed someday, architecture grads must work for a number of years under the direct supervision of a licensed architect. They must become licensed in order to practice architecture on their own. If they are to be the design professional in responsible charge of the construction documents for a building, they must be licensed architects. In this country, nobody, not even an architecture school graduate, can call himself or herself “architect” unless he or she is actually licensed. If they pass the board exams given at the end of school, doctors are M.D.’s when they finish medical school, and can practice medicine on their own. Lawyers are licensed, and can practice on their own, once they pass the bar exam, which they usually take a couple months after graduation from law school.

Many architecture grads and architects already give away, or nearly give away, their services, whenever they participate in a design competition. Sometimes these design competitions are for non-profit organizations, or for governments, but sometimes, these design competitions are for for-profit businesses.

Some interns are willing to work for free for big-name starchitects – although this practice is absolutely NOT condoned by most of the profession, including the AIA. But this is the mindset of some emerging professionals, and a very small number of architects (work for free for the sake of the portfolio – the portfolio will lead to future, paying, work.)

This breaks my heart, but I have to say that I just can’t imagine how a loan relief program like this for architecture grads would work.

What do YOU think? Do any of you problem solvers out there have solutions to this problem?

Comments From a Spec Writer

Liz O'Sullivan's Blog

Category Archives: Practicing Architecture