Right then,

During such financial crises as we are experiencing now, there is an opportunity to reinvent and revitalise the ways in which architectural practices operate - if we agree that there is opportunities to improve or that we shoud improve [to be discussed].

Over my [rather short 7 year] professional career I have worked as a freelance architectural designer [and still do], worked in property development, construction and within a design/build company. I am not a registered architect as for most of my career I have worked for myself or outside of traditional practice by choice.

The key issues I have experienced from all of these perspectives in relation to the weaknesses of architectural practice and the general consultant team are the following:

1. Lack of surety over scope of work and final fees for architectural work. Will the architects deliver what is required, and what are the fees going to be. Where are the shortfalls, overlaps etc.

2. Coordination between consultants. Often comes down to multiple consultants, differing opinions, different software platforms, time wasting due to trying to coordinate key people in a project.

3. Disconnection and lack of understanding between client and designer. What the client needs is often delivered in convoluted terms, specialist language and deliverables that relate well to construction phasing, but may not be fully understood by the client.

4. All Architects are not equal - lack of promotion of specialties or weaknesses/lack of knowledge leading to faults and problems

5. Everyone recognises the power of BIM, but it is not being used - often because of the coordination issue above, as well as lack of resources, time, and skilled staff.

6. General lack of acknowledgement of the 'value' of design. Often this can only be measured after construction.

7. General lack of thought and knowledge of construction process - especially in terms of junctions of materials, clashing of systems, phasing etc.

8. Perception of underpayment or undervaluing of architectural services by architects.

9. Add stuff here...




To remedy the above, and to transform the way buildings are produced I advocate the following principles:

1. Customer oriented focus - reframe everything to the particular type of customer you serve or want to serve. Marketing, language, fee structure, responsibility and advocacy, everything...

2. Attracting customers through your designs and principles - allowing for the talents and interests of the practice to be its main selling point. Sell your strengths.

3. Focusing on getting paid for production and deliverables, to getting paid for management of production and deliverables.

4. Switch to a preconstruction services focus - the first half of a design/build firm. Structure your fees as management fees, not hourly, tied to dleiverables etc. A fixed cost per month. Allow for expansion into a full design/build/development firm if the opportunity arises.

5. Front end planning - take responsibility for the management of the consultants, client, process from the beginning.

6. Ramp up technology and knowledge - especially of BIM and green building

7. Strategic alliances and relationships with manufacturers and suppliers. Look at yearly peformance guarantees with key suppliers and use their knowledge to help you and your client out. Embrace the potentials of modulation and prefabrication where it exists.

8. Strategic alliances with builders and other consultants. Assemble teams, sell strengths to clients. Reciprocate work and network.

9. As much as possible, market value not cost. This weeds out low quality clients anyway.

10. Advocate a holistic design philosophy to the entire practice. Practice what you preach. Endorse flexible working arrangements, innovate workplace standards, allow for freedom and creativity. Be lean and mean. Look at employee equity/profit share. Experiment, develop and build.

I would be interested in your thoughts...

d

Zeitgeistecture

Add to point 10. above, wear black ;)

Also, as much as you can, factor in printing and local travel disbursements into your fees. Clients and developers hate the unknown...

I'd like kickbacks for placing products. Theres nothing un-ethical about it.

Well it could be kickbacks, I was more thinking of signing exclusive use agreements in exchange for top service, fixed prices [either passed on to the client, shared, or provided to the builder partner/architect as developer], access to knowledge, marketing and after completion service...

I have worked on similar endeavours and it has been really well recieved...

dia - great list. one adage you have proven, so far, is that people like to respond to bitching more than actual, constructive dialogue...

once i clear a little more time in my schedule, i'll respond with a few more items.

Dia, one item you are missing, which maybe the most important of all:

11. Hire the very best you can possibly afford and manage them as best as you possibly can and create a partnership structure that allows the best access to the very top, especially if going design/build/development. Without an adequate partnership structure, those kinds of ventures tend to fall apart and it is usually best to team up with someone who has strengths were you are weak. There aren't enough hours in a day for one person to be a builder, architect, and developer if they are standing alone at the top of the firm.

evil: I'd like kickbacks for placing products. Theres nothing un-ethical about it.

?

From the AIA Code of Ethics:

Ethical Standard 3.2 Conflict of Interest: Members should avoid conflicts of interest in their professional practices and fully disclose all unavoidable conflicts as they arise.

Rule 3.201 A Member shall not render professional services if the Member's professional judgment could be affected by responsibilities to another project or person, or by the Member's own interests, unless all those who rely on the Member's judgment consent after full disclosure.

Commentary: This rule is intended to embrace the full range of situations that may present a Member with a conflict between his interests or responsibilities and the interest of others. Those who are entitled to disclosure may include a client, owner, employer, contractor, or others who rely on or are affected by the Member's professional decisions. A Member who cannot appropriately communicate about a conflict directly with an affected person must take steps to ensure that disclosure is made by other means.

file, I think he was being sarcastic.

My thoughts on strategy 6 -

We are still at an early stage in the life of BIM (maybe not infancy, but at least early childhood) and it is going to take time for the design community to embrace it completely. It has only been in the past few years that BIM use has really started taking off in the profession realm and it will just have to trickle down slowly at a natural pace as more and more people come into the profession and eventually into leadership positions who've never worked in anything but BIM.

Almost no one in the design profession who has more than 5-10 years of experience "grew up" with the software and for those of us who didn't it just takes time and experience to harness some of the capabilities it has beyond 2D drafting (especially for those of us who don't have a natural inclination toward computers and software). BIM also has major weaknesses that need to be recognized and addressed as it moves forward. BIM is simply a tool, not a panacea.

As for green building, it seems with the recent sustainable everything trend a lot of people have learned just enough about green building to be dangerous but not enough to be innovative or even helpful. Rather than everyone becoming a green "expert", I think sustainability is an area where it is useful to have highly specialized firms or teams within firms who can really focus specifically on developing a deep understanding of issues and solutions.



Strategy 7 would never work in any kind of public or competitively bid project.

I'm interested in what people think about adding non-traditional semi-related design services to architectural practice. more trouble than it's worth? should the focus be on more specialization - not in specific building types but in developing certain kinds of strategies and innovation?

also - why can't we go back to the early 20th century style practice where artisans worked along side architects? has architecture become almost completely about picking stuff out of a catalog?

mgrt, i think that's a great idea and something i want to work towards...the artisan is extremely valuable.

Strategy 7 would only really work on residential work I agree.

Strategy 6 - this week I had an introductory meeting with a well known multi disciplinary practice, offering architecture, structural, mechanical and surveying. The arch section was using Revit, the mechanical wasnt. And they were marketing themselves as an effective 'one stop shop'. Thats an example of not taking opportunities...

Please keep going...

I would not dismiss Strategy 7 quite so quickly for non-residential work ... taken to its logical conclusion, Integrated Project Delivery would embrace just this idea. Some commercial and institution projects already are sticking their toes into these complex waters.

Stitching archinect together...

Quillian's essay on critical activism:
link

So far the discussion has been focused on revitalizing the profession, but not on reinventing. Many of the issues being discussed here are management issues (making more efficient the existing model), as opposed ideas of a new model. Can the new technologies and spirit lead us to create a new practice rather than simply improve on the existing? Is it a process of regaining territory that we have lost, or of creating (or rather recognising) new territories of potential in which we can fill and expand?

this is an intriguing thread, but I'm inclined to think it's not going to be much more than mental masturbation unless we really start thinking long and hard about what the marketplace wants and is willing to pay for.

the vast majority of what I read above is about what we want -- my view is that self-centeredness is pretty much what got us into this mess (as a profession) in the first place.

doctors and lawyers and accountants (all typically more successful than architects) generally define their services around the health or success of their clients -- realistically, how often do we do that? firms that do pursue a client centered / client service approach tend to be looked down on by the design elite.

IMO client centeredness is the key to changing the profession and the profession's prospects -- designing and delivering services that fully understand and embrace the real needs of the client and the user are the only way we're ever going to reverse the incessant slide that's been happening for us over the past 30-40 years. that understanding requires real hard-nosed investigation, not just a flash of intuition or an assumption about what the client needs or wants.

but, even if we can design and deliver such services, we still must be able to sell those ideas to the marketplace. we've got to make a business case for what we needs to be done and convince the people who hire us that this truly is a better way.

I confess -- about all I've done in this post is reframe the problem -- I really don't have concrete solutions to the issues that I raise -- wish I did.

apart from efficiency issues, what is really different? many of the ideals are being covered by well-managed firms. my own office back in day did the one-stop shop (because an architect in japan is a licensed structural engineer not a architect and we chose to do HVAC too ). there were some inefficiencies sure...but nowadays the way to get projects of a substantial size has required partnerships with contractors - all public jobs require it. so we already, even in small offices, are doing partnerships with manufacturers, with construction crews, with all kinds of players. and it doesn't make that much of a difference. the reason being that those things are not about quality but streamlining an existing process. and frankly i am convinced that quality of the sort we are interested in as architects is not amenable to massaging.

inefficiency is also important to us and must be protected.

so while i am interested in the idea, the complaints feel a bit tired and the solutions pretty much just business as usual. they are all coming from the same box.

which box would work better? no idea.

the AIA code of ethics is stupid.

In my bizarre architecture period I've seen both busyness models full tilt.

In big cities with big projects - the fucked up disorganized method above predominates...they charge too much and waste time and money and act like pretentious ass holes along the way (not to offend the pretentious ass-holes). Most energy is expended licking boots or talking about licking boots or looking at expensive boots in the shop window or buying expensive boots you can't afford (and can't afford not to have, by the way).

In small town uh-Merica the latter, holistic approach is more common - generally out of necessity and survival...community connection is key and instinctive - as are alternate paths of income and marketing (drinkin' beer and gambling at a local bar, for example). Strategic alliances are common between professions and trades. Most energy is expended getting by anyway possible...innovation is commonplace.

...we should feel free to do whatever we want as business people so far as we don't harm one another...protect the public, yada yada.

wow ... danger is such a DEEP thinker. after that inspirational and authoritative post, I'm defininitely going to see what I can do to get my "pretentious ass hole" out of my way.

One new model. Two examples of it.

free green

open source

Since most of our clients are in business to make money, or at least (the public sector, usually) interested in saving money, perhaps we could make more money for ourselves by figuring out how to design for them in a way that will make them more profitable.

Response to digger: NAH, I just think its interesting how the more dynamic model outlined above happens naturally in smaller communities...that's all.

And "pretentious ass hole" was a compliment! ..way to read between the lines!

also, I just read what I wrote earlier...

It was profoundly shallow so I don't know why it was even considered at all...chill yo!

I would like to join this discussion by saying that architecture as a business model is different than architecture as a career model. While the above goals are honorable they walk a fine line between a successful business and a successful architectural practice, which are not one and the same. Architecture schools do little to foster or identify the entrepreneurs who would be best guided towards invention in creating new architectural products and service products, while the talented designers would continue to be guided towards better design. Both do not exist within one person.

re: jump: inefficiency is also important to us and must be protected.

right... this is really tough, though... I wonder at what point does our drive towards efficiency come at the cost of good design?

I understand babs' point... but you also have to be able to challenge the client's assumptions about what they think they need - and do so intelligently and carefully without alienating them. Many clients often think we are talking down to them, or suspect that we really don't understand what we are talking about.

the marketplace doesn't always act in its own best interest (as we've all recently experienced).

toasteroven -- we're actually on the same wavelength -- client centeredness is not about rolling over and playing dead -- it's all about serving the client's real needs, even when the client doesn't fully understand those needs.

clients aren't interested in our inefficiency -- that's why when a client wants to build a retail project, (s)he wants to choose an architect who's successfully designed many hundreds of thousands of sq. ft. of retail space before. clients really aren't interested in us learning about new project types on their nickel. I can see that point of view.

however, when we become project type experts, I think the main challenge is not losing the ability to look at each new commission with a fresh and innovative eye. too often when we're designing that 15th elementary school, we apply the same predictable thinking that we used on the previous 14 ... dull, stale designs are the result.

for me, client centeredness is all about listening well, knowing a hell of a lot about the problem the clients putting before me (through lots of prior experience with that project type) and then being able to interpret the clients needs and wishes in such a manner as to bring a new and fresh solution to the table each and every time.

IMO, most clients want a project that works and is efficient but they also want a project that has its own distinctive nature. too often what they get is a project that works (maybe) and is efficient (maybe) -- or -- a project that is distinctive (maybe). these are not either-or propositions -- client centeredness embraces both characteristics.

right - the danger of specialization in project types - I like the idea of developing and selling design strategies rather than specific building type expertise - but you are right about clients seeking firms with extensive experience in what they want to build.

also - can a model like IDEO work for architecture? we don't design products...

Sorry guys,

I have just spent a week relaxing in Fiji in a manner and style that most architects could not afford...

I had a few revelations and I am working on a plan right now - an idea I have been knocking around for a couple of years now. I will keep you posted on that...

There is alot of discussion at my work place [a construction company] about how to innovate. At the end of the day, building can be done by anybody, any company. Essentially, its putting together an assemblage of building materials according to a set of drawings, which in themselves conform to a code. Price is important, but essentially there is nothing inherently intelligent that separates one builder from another. It is about capability, but capabilities can be bought and acquired.

Drawings are pretty much the same. I can design a house, and then subcontract the drawings to any number of draftspersons for a fee.

Its not the production where we can offer a difference, its the ethos, strategies and techniques where we can differentiate.

hmmm .... how do you get paid your measely sum on freegreen opensource or whatever when pretty large pictures and floor plans are right there to give to your builder?

really, comes down to the management of clients and expectations, dia. I honestly agree with most of your principles, whether you are jesting or not, but if you aren't, there are obvious oversights:

there are true craftsmens, artists, that can be the only ones who build a certain cabinet, door, piece of millwork, metal, ect. of a project in a certain way ... and behind that there is skill, an ethos you say, to detailing out there that only a great architect can perform. You could say that these are capabilities that can be bought, but not always, these transcend cost in many aspects, and depend on the caliber of the site, project and/or team involved.

I don't know freegreen's exact plan, but I imagine they will get paid through advertisements and referral fees. Open source will get the same income plus the money they receive from the designers who post their plans.

I didn't say that this was a new model for the designers. It is a new model put together by the Architects who started free green and open source. I think it will be a great success for them and probably bad news for residential architects who continue to rely on more traditional business models.

Dia- I too am not sure about your post. Are your contradictions sarcasm? How is capability not a form of intelligence? Capability has a direct impact on production which is the entire basis of construction operations and is exactly what differentiates Bechtel from Mom and Pop Excavating Company.

I was not being sarcastic - I was referring to capability in terms of having the in-house skills and resources to perform work. In some ways, this can be fleeting because the people with capability can be [to put it crudely] bought and sold.

But I agree that people with capability stay with their employers fot other reasons - most of all the company ethos, the people, the vision.

I think that there has to be a strong, focused, underlying mission to an architecture practice, that focuses on a distinct set of values and functions. Its the old adage that if you dont stand for something, you will fall for anything...

link

Own-Design-Develop for yourself. Architects complain about not being 'fairly compensated', yet continue to bend over at any whiff of getting an ego boost.

Control your work.

And, a pre-emptive 'bite me' to the underwhelming masochists who wanna complain about this post.

Yup, I like designing for us, not a client. The efficiency is dramatic and the sense of fulfillment is high.


I, also, don't understand why there aren't more architects in the development world. Risk, I suppose, but still doesn't make tons of sense to me.

I think it's because we don't have all that fancy creative financing in our curriculum. We just kinda learn how to design & hope that the world notices. But Trace, wouldn't it be great if we could start or modify a program that preaches the answer to your last question?

Architects have given away perhaps most of the building process to other disciplines & consultants. rightly so in many regards, but maybe if we were better at (dare I say) 'management', we would own more & control the design more.

In a profession full of control-freaks, you'd figure that we'd aspire to that.

most architects don't like to learn about stuff like finance and taxes and accounting and negotiating and leases ... all the sort of stuff you need to master in order to suceed in real estate development. we'd rather whine about being poor and not being able to design what we want to design.

don't ever expect colleges of architecture to teach you this stuff ... it's not going to happen to any meaningful degree. if you want to know about this stuff you'll either need to educate yourself or pursue an MBA or a degree in real estate.

work in the trades/millwork/shop/etc...this why you can open up your detailing visions a bit

I think it is changing a little. With people like Segal getting a nice spotlight, both from a design/architecture standpoint and a business success, we are seeing that there is glamor in development.

But yeah, most schools coudl care less about practical business. Stupid, imho, taking a bunch of structure classes you'll never use (sizing rebar lately??) or a ton of theory classes you'll forget a week out of school. Both are important, but not a half dozen classes. Business skills is what everyone needs.



You DO NOT need tons of financial experience. Sure, if you want to build a 200 unit mixed use project, but c'mon. For a simple project, duplex, or whatever you just need some basic common sense, ambition and a calculator. And a stomach for risk, patience on getting paid/making money and a lot of luck!

"you just need some basic common sense, ambition and a calculator. And a stomach for risk, patience on getting paid/making money and a lot of luck" -- sounds just like the requirements for the practice of architecture.

i'd argue that the discounted cash flow accounting methodologies used in real estate are pretty fancy.

What's fancy is how them developers & other business-types learn how to lie. We don't study financial flim-flam in Architecture (we've got our own delusions).

vado -- while it does take some study, discounting cash flow is a lot less complex than some of the things we deal with as architects. mostly it takes patience and a good master of Excel.

These were the only things I liked about my planning degree-- government accounting, program accountability and real estate law.

Those three courses will not only make you support the government but lose all faith in humanity.

I'm assuming it gave me really good insight to see how government is actually run (and not according to how it is run in a washington post op-ed piece) and large developers themselves operate almost in governmental terms.

This was basically was and still is the best arguement on density is high-density (over 6,000 people per square mile) has a ROI of 5 years compared to standard suburbanism that has a 50/50 chance of ROI at 20 years.

When I approach architecture, I always try to assume to the costs and returns on both sides and most buildings unnecessarily complicate this with their designs.

The difference with arch as a business is that there are very few 'leaders'.

Developers, by nature, must be 'leaders' and don't require many employees, depending on the scale of their projects.


Ethics can be questioned at the top of many businesses. I know of plenty developers that have great integrity as I know those that don't.

I think it just becomes more visible because it is all malleable - prices fluctuate, people can be negotiated to different levels, etc. Architecture is more or less one fee, as most services are.

babs,

client centeredness in architecture cannot be compared to doctors and lawyers. Doctors and lawyers goals are completely objective (win cases/stay healthy). Design is far from objective.

aking - yes, you are correct - however, the vast majority of clients don't look at what we do the way we look at what we do - they're looking for objective, concrete results, mostly tuned to function, cost and schedule. clients are rarely, if ever, tuned to the theoretical solutions and whimsy that we are taught to love in school and in the press.

Another issue I have been thinking about,

With the increase in the use of BIM and the advantages it has in terms of time, coordination etc, do you think there will be an impetus to drive down production costs for contract documentation?

Of course, there are also labour and time savings for BIM production but also software/training/software expenses.

One exampe of this that I know - a firm using Archicad had their documentation fees challenged because they were essentially charging Autocadesque rates for their drawings, when they alread had done extensive design development drawings using the 3D capabilites of Archicad.

diabase: "do you think there will be an impetus to drive down production costs for contract documentation -- once the profession understands how to produce building designs efficiently using BIM, then there will be a choice to make: a) do we keep the rewards from higher productivity for ourselves, or b) do we pass along most, if not all, of those savings to the owner in order to compete more effectively for new projects?

cynic that I am and given the performance of the profession in the recent past, I'm betting on b).

Diabase - i don't know how familiar you are with BIM or IPD, but one of the main marketing points that I keep hearing from those touting the technology and process is that, "it is so efficient and will save the client money". Well pretty soon the client is going to ask, " Ok... how did that save me money"?

I see production of construction documents by all designers as an area that could go away in an integrated or collaborative delivery method. When you think through IPD and other attempts at a lean delivery method, this is a redundency that could be cut out. Similar to how many high design projects have both a design architect and an architect of record, this could translate into architecture firms all being hired as design architects. Then after the job has been awarded to the trades their in house architects and engineers would complete the CD's based on proprietary materials and methods, combining the CD phase with the traditional shop drawing requirement. Now will that result in a shift in fees from the design arch or eng to the trade company? I would say yes, but I would see an argument where the owner would also tell the trade that some of that would be offset because they had to figure something for shop drawings potentially lowering the cost of the project.

I don't know how design liability would shift, but, intuitively, it seems that the sub contractor would be taking on additional liability, but that would depend on the contract. I really don't know why the AIA is becoming a cheerleader for IPD. I don't see how it benefits the Architect in terms of revenue. It's a process that, I see, allows Architects to assume less liability and design more. Maybe someone else has more insight.

in the AIA's vision of full-blown IPD, the architect and the contractor evolve from being hired hands to become true partners with the owner on the project. this puts those parties more at risk, but also provides them more economic opportunity tied to project success.

in the new business model anticipated by IPD, work activities accrue to the party best equipped to complete that activity. BIM is merely an enabler of IPD, not the prime motivation. A prime objective of IPD is to remove the adversarial (and destructive) relationships inherent in D/B/B and D/B project delivery methods.

if you have not already done so, I recommend that you read: Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide. An updated version of the Guide will be published toward the end of 2009 -- watch for that.

this chapter of history has yet to be written ... however, I believe we have a real opportunity here if we don't squander it or give it away.

I've read the IPD guide put out by the AIA a while back, but I still don't see many owner's who are going to be willing to share their cash savings. Or on the contrary many owners who aren't going to want some one's ass when a huge mistake happens. I know there are several success stories about this fledgling process, but I can't think of one developer or owner who would be interested in this. What is the value that it brings to the project?

wurdan: the concerns (objections) you raise are widely held and will not be easily erased. right now, in those sectors of the industry where IPD has made a foothold, the impetus is not coming either from the design team or from the contractor side -- it's coming from the owner. Some owners -- mostly public agencies and large institutional organizations -- are quite unhappy with the conflict and delay and inefficiency inherent in the current D/B/B and D/B process.

Through such organizations as CURT and COAA some owners are putting a lot of time and resources into looking for a better way to deliver projects -- right now, IPD is receiving a lot of positive attention among such owners. If the owner derives sufficient benefits from a new approach, they are willing to invest some of those savings in their contractor and design team, as a motivating factor.

Private sector owners with a commercial orientation traditionally maintain a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality and, quite frankly, don't understand where, and why, the current process is broken. That sector is not likely to become early adopters of IPD. Among such owners, the same was true with respect to sustainability. They may eventually come along - or, they may not.

I don't minimize your reservations ... but, an open mind to the changes possible and a willingness to advocate such process changes to our clients is the first step in a possible better future for us all.

Alternative business model for architecture?

You know that firm SOM (and many like it) ?

Just don't do that.

I've been thinking about this a lot more lately -

my current question is: what/where are our markets? Have we started thinking about how to provide services for a non-traditional client base? Our profession is completely reliant on a very small base of wealthy clients (individuals and large organizations), and I think we should be asking how to expand who we reach and serve - and what services/goods we could possibly supply that other industries cannot. should we be creating a completely new market? we keep talking about ways to better serve our current market (through things like IPD, BIM) but is this something that can expand who we do business with?

I think there are several people who have already attempted to explore these non-traditional areas (i.e. design for underserved communities) - however, are these areas sustainable for the entire industry or profitable enough to weather the cyclical nature of our profession?

also - We keep lamenting the lack of traditional skills our recent grads are coming into the field with, but do we really know how to utilize their other skills? and are recent grads well equipped to be able to change or expand our profession through their non-traditional skill set?

"It's not the strongest or most intelligent species that survives; it is the one most adaptable to change" - Charles Darwin

I believe we're living through a very interesting (and exciting) chapter in the history of our profession. There is great opportunity for those who don't wait around for someone else to tell them what the "rules" are, or to describe the path we must follow. This is a time for entrepreneurship -- this is a time for each of us to invent our own future.

As we go forward, a herd mentality is not going to serve us well. I see a profession currently populated by a hugely diverse group of talented - and stubborn - and fearful - people. Potentially, that diversity could lead us off in wildly diverse directions.

Some of us will be spectacular successes -- some of us will be spectacular failures. Those who walk this path according to the staus quo are doomed - I believe - to live the frustration that is, today, architecture.

What's your vision?

What are you prepared to do?

What are you prepared to ignore?

I totally believe in the value of entrepreneurship in architecture, and would argue that by and large, architectural practice as a business model is not particularly creative.

I remember seeing an article on TV in Melbourne some years ago about a practice that was selling the idea of an apartment building on land they owned in the same way as you might sell a financial instrument.

They were the client. The weren't selling necessarily to prospective apartment buyers, but basically selling a building wholesale, and making a cut on the design and project management.

A small shift in thinking, but a successful one.

Toasteroven.
I agree w/ your premises in general, but the facts are:
1) Compainies & Wealthy people do the most projects. That will always be a fact.

2) Underserved communities means what? Low-Income Areas? or does it mean Low Intelligence areas? Low Income areas have bigger problems than worrying about Architecture. They need funding or desire to save their community...if they have developed an actual 'community'. And if they have, they are just fine because that is an elusive foundation that they have set. That is your best hope to do Architecture.

Low Intelligence, or better yet, High Ignorance Areas are Architecture's greatest enemy. Indeed, they are enemies to anything or any ideas of value. As long as the majority of America, the hayseeds, greasers, rednecks, welfare grizzerds, 'libertarians', and generally people who think that metal bldgs/drywall/Williamsburg = Architecture, & they are the majority, Architecture is unimportant in this country.

My bottom line: Architecture should be thought of as a hobby. I am trying to Tailor my life (not just career) to get independent (& GAWD-willin' wealthy) enough to think of it that way - then it will be much more enjoyable.

GAWD -

1. Yes, this group currently comprises most of our projects, but is there another "consumer architecture" that could be developed as a viable client alternative? There is not enough of this wealthy client work to support the current number of people in the field - I'm thinking of ways to keep talented people from leaving the profession (the "weeding out" mentality to me is mostly protectionist of the status quo).

2. I simply meant people who would normally not enlist the help of designers. I've worked with non-profit community organizations and schools on projects that range from design education and workshops to stuff that actually gets built. All of this work has been pro-bono, but I've seen a lot of potential in design education at the primary, secondary, and community levels which could have a huge impact on the perception of our profession and could potentially expand the kinds of work that we do.

I was recently involved on a local parent's committee for an elementary school's redesign of their school yard. The school district actually hired someone to help facilitate communication between the committee and the landscape architect. In my mind, our ability to communicate why design is important and and how we work is where we've been failing - all of our current "solutions" (i.e. BIM, IPD) are centered around ways to help us communicate better (albeit with people who already have some idea of how we work). i think our future success as a profession hinges on our ability to communicate with a wider range of people outside of the AEC industry.

and there are some skills that are very unique to our profession that could be put to use elsewhere. I think we could learn a great deal from the alternative career paths that people from architecture backgrounds have taken.

go non-profit.

"go non-profit"

I think a lot of us already have done that - but not intentionally !

if the world prefers to pay specialists mulitples of what it is willing to pay creative artists, shouldn't the profession simply market itself as a group of building technology experts and tack on "design" as another line-item in their billing expenses?

I'd argue the opposite - label design as the specialty. There are no shortages of function buildings, but there is certainly a lack of quality design.

I still believe architecture will continue to segregate this way.

isn't design already the labeled specialty?

*as a note...i don't really advocate this, i just find this to be an interesting discussion.

"shouldn't the profession simply market itself as a group of building technology experts and tack on "design" as another line-item in their billing expenses?"

I think we make a huge mistake trying to get our head around these issues as "a profession".

Those design firms that do well do it one firm at a time. They do it by connecting consistently with one or two sectors of the marketplace, providing services valued by those sectors, and delivering the needed services efficiently and effectively.

In our profession, one size doesn't fit all - and never has. We each must find our own way - there is no formula or standardized approach to success.

how do larger corporate firms fit into your framework? i would argue that they all have relatively similar business models. and if they are successful at attracting lucrative projects, what elements can/should "the profession" adopt at a smaller scale?

Many larger businesses segregate the chores - ie designers, business managers, construction docs, etc., etc. This isn't just architecture big business, but any bigger business.

By isolating the skillsets you can optimize the knowledge, further the talent and form efficient strategies.

It is the "Jack of all trades, Master of none" that architect's tend to lean towards.

right - i understand this. however, the implication of this thread's title (as well as those of many other threads) is that this model does not seem to be compensating architects appropriately or facilitate better design practices (see points 1-9).

there's an old saying - attributed to Warren Buffet, I think -- that goes: "when a manager with a reputation for brilliance takes on an industry with a reputation for poor economics, it's usually the industry that emerges with its reputation intact."

I'll say it again - there are no 'easy buttons' for individual firms that magically provide those firms with immunity from the basic economics of our industry. the basic economics of our industry suck.

while individual firms might implement tailored strategies that allow them to be reasonably successful, overall the broad spectrum of firms in the industry will be subject to the basic economics of the industry.

if you want to be successful in this industry, be prepared to go your own way - with all the risks that entails. looking for a 'magic bullet' template that any firm can apply won't get you very far.

xacto - I was answering your question about what smaller firms could adopt. Most small firms do it all - design, documentation, etc., etc. And often times it is the same time person taking it from design through documentation.

My point was that there is very little segregation of skills and talents - everyone wants to design, then everyone works on CDs, etc.


The only way I see design being brought to the forefront and compensation higher is if you can sell design as a 'we are better than them' strategy. As it is now, there are a handful of firms that are known for design that can charge more, other than that the public perceives things as equal.

Other professions, from Lawyers to Graphic Artists, distinguish themselves (and charge more) due to their talents. Architecture is one of the few businesses that charge an almost flat fee, regardless of design talent.

That's my point - that you need to distinguish yourself/firm by highlighting your talents. This could be amazing design, strict budget concerns, etc., etc. But it has to be great and easily seen and understood.



But as file points out, the industry isn't exactly a model for efficiency, business wise. It'll take a field-wide transformation (which most don't want) to elevate things.

Lastly, this is like a see-saw - if people can distinguish themselves and charge more, then there will be those that have to charge less to compete.

a "business model" is not some simplistic structure. it's a combination of elements, including a) strategy, b) operating plans to execute that strategy, and c) administrative and technical services.

in the field of design, organizations like AIA, ASID, etc. are quite adept at helping to develop and distribute tools in support of both administrative and technical services. these are the most "standardizable" aspects of our profession and can be transferred from one firm to another with a fair degree of ease. often these aspects of a firm can be "templatized".

operating plans generally respond to what's taking place in the realm of administrative and technical services but really need to tailored around the firm's basic long-range strategy. a common mistake design firms make is to establish operating plans primarily around what the firm is doing administatively and technically -- this often proves to be limiting -- it's akin to the "tail wagging the dog".

what I think file's getting at above is the idea of "strategy" -- strategy needs to emerge from a) a realistic assessment of opportunities in the marketplace; b) the special skills and abilities of the individuals within the company; and c) the long-range aspirations of the firm. this is the most individualistic aspect of any business model and can only be established by careful planning and considerable thought. only rarely can strategy be transferred from one firm to another -- when it comes to strategy, emulation is pretty dangerous territory.

for these reasons, I agree with file -- each firm is pretty much on its own when it comes to strategy. we each have to figure this out for ourselves and should not look for the profession to define the business model that's right for us.

I remember reading this essay a while back and thought it might be useful to provide the link here: Discovering New Design Firm Models

well then, good luck!

wow,

this was one of the best threads i have read in a long time. We are doing our bi-annual business review and we have been dancing around these themes for months / years.

I love

<<
What's your vision?

What are you prepared to do?

What are you prepared to ignore?

>>

Probably we will be ignoring new construction. Our niche is the analysis, design, and construction of adaptive reuse projects.

I still don't quite get how BIM will help us on sub 10,000 sqft buildings. maybe I am getting old.

Here's the advice one wise old sage from New York once gave to me:

"Volunteer your ass off doing stuff for your community 80 hours per week, and make friends with everyone in your city. If you have any basic communications skills, you will find a great job in two or three months, most likely even in the field you want to be in. Finding a job is as much about networking and drive as it is about specific skills."

This advice seems to work. I know an architect in Ohio who got really involved in health issues - she found a high paying epidemiology planning job, even though she had no real training in the field. She has time on the side to continue her architectural work until the economy gets better or she starts her own firm.