 |
|
Buy the Bucket Boss Employers, Post your Job for Free on our Listserve Need a Job, Post Your Resume Free Online Approved Continuing Education Courses National Real Estate Listings without the Commissions! Click
Here to Bid on Construction Projects SAVE MONEY on engineering, surveying, and construction supplies - Click Here
 Construction Master Pro Trig Plus III Calculator 4075 Construction Calc Software: The Power Tools of the Building Industry
E-Background Checks for Employers or Job Applicants
Free Construction Email
Construction Add
Your Construction
Materials Construction
Construction
Projects Pre-Screened Construction
Journals Construction
Codes, University/College
Construction Distance
Education Earn a Masters Degree in CM completely online Student Construction
Construction
Jobs Resumes of Cost of Living Educational Research
Free Financial Aid Construction Books
Construction
Construction
Research ASTM UNIFORMAT II
|
ARCHITECTS' ATTITUDES TOWARD DESIGN-BUILD Clifford W. Bedar and Michael W. Behm (Reprinted with the permission of
the authors. Originally appeared in As we begin 1999, the architectural community is embroiled in a circadian period of prosperity; times are good and commissions abound. However, a few visionaries have finally acknowledged our ever-dwindling influence on the design and construction industry. Competition grows fiercer as construction, preconstruction, program, project, process, and design-assist managers invade our territory. As a group, we have waged a sometimes bizarre campaign against the general public's indifference to understanding exactly what we do. While this may have saved a few trees, the forest remains an enigma. There is hope. Right now, design-led design-build is whispering in our ears the secret to regaining influence over the built environment. Will we hear the message or continue to turn our backs on the opportunities this presents? As we share our design-build experiences with architects across the nation, we hear many reasons why architects cannot lead design-build: Ethics. Architects proudly assert that they cannot act in the client's and/or public's best interest if they serve as both designer and builder. It would simply compromise the checks and balances essential to the traditional tripartite process. Ironically, this tells our clients that architects cannot be trusted with their money. The ethical dilemma is a self-fulfilling prophecy that architects helped to create and continue to nurture: the traditional design-bid-build process creates adversarial relationships, which fabricate ethics issues. In response, clients are opting for design-build, where the designer and builder are one entity. If design-led design-build lacks ethics, we have only ourselves to blame. Quality Architects associate design-build with cheap, badly designed buildings. The most arrogant among us believe that only the architect working independently of the builder, and sometimes the client, can protect a project's design integrity. Ironically, project quality is actually diminishing as a result of the conflicts inherent in this system. Projects over budget and schedule often mandate cheaper materials and reduced scope after it's too late. Moreover, we are more distracted with defensive posturing than focused on good design. This lack of quality in product and process is inciting our clients to demand design-build. Liability. Architects have spent an inordinate amount of time and money trying to distance ourselves from project liability. The irony in the liability debate is that no matter how much we try to contractually isolate ourselves from the builder, our clients always perceive the architect and contractor as a team. When there is a problem, it's everyone's problem. When we finally understand our client's perspective, we will understand the concept of a single point of responsibility. And what are insurance companies saying about design-build? Ironically, they are actually encouraging architects to lead design -build because statistics reveal fewer claims. Carriers prefer that architects actively manage their risks instead of just going along for the ride. We wonder if our message will continue to fall on deaf ears. Like the cobbler's children, the architectural profession has no shoes. Our clients hire us to be visionaries, to create opportunities where they perceive only obstacles. Yet when it comes to the health of our own profession, we react too late, when the opportunities have disappeared. Design-build offers a chance to recapture professional and financial success. As architects leading design-build, we have found it very close to our original ideals. While we may have assumed more responsibility by controlling both design and construction, we have also expanded our ability to manage risk. To sustain the profession and the public interest, architects must take the lead in design-build. It places us in the central role of designing and building the highest quality project for our clients within their budget and schedule. Isn't this what architects are supposed to do anyway? Let's put some irons-not ironies-in the fire. Clifford W. Bedar, AIA, and Michael W. Behm, AIA, are directors of design-build services with HDR Architecture in Chicago. They may be contacted at (773) 380-7900. Return to the List of Articles Return to the Association for Project Managers Main Page Email the Association for Project Managers
|
Return
to ConstructionEducation.com's Homepage |