I just attended the CEO Large Firm Roundtable (LFRT) conference of the AIA which was held last week in Vancouver, Canada. One of the speakers was Edward Mazria, an activist for the AIA’s Architecture 2030 program, and one of the most compelling and erudite speakers in our profession on the subject of climate change.
I am proud that TRO Jung|Brannen is one of 38 LFRT member firms to underwrite the Architecture 2030 program, and I left Ed’s lecture with renewed energy to rededicate our firm’s resources to the daunting sustainable design challenges that lie ahead. However, the moment I returned to my office I was confronted with a copy of the October, 2009 issue of Architect magazine. In it are the results of a recent survey of 960 design professionals on the subject of climate change. As a well-known gameshow host once cried “THE SURVEY SAYS…… 13% of design professionals think global warming is a hoax!”
Who are these people? Is our profession really so woefully misinformed that a significant percentage actually believe the political spin rather than the scientific evidence?
I hope the magazine was just kidding.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Take Care
One of the frustrating things that I see going on in our profession during this recession is the draconian “standard of care” expected of architects by some program managers and clients.
The AIA B141 Owner-Architect Agreement speaks to the issue in Paragraph 1.2.3.2 of the 1997 edition, Part 1, as follows: “The Architect’s services shall be performed as expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the work.” To further clarify the standard of care clause, I routinely recommend the following amendment: “The Architect’s services shall be performed consistent with the degree of skill and care ordinarily exercised by practicing architects performing similar services in the same locality, at the same site and under the same or similar circumstances and conditions, and the orderly progress of the work.” Both versions are reasonable. They comply with our professional liability insurance, and are consistent with professional service case law. They make it clear to all parties that the architect shall not be held to a standard of perfection when performing his or her duties.
Designing and constructing buildings is a complex undertaking involving thousands of tasks completed over many years and mistakes are, unfortunately, made during the course of the process. For that reason, owners and contractors alike are advised to carry suitable contingencies in their budgeting. Most do, but many do not. For clients with inadequate contingencies, money gets tight at the project’s conclusion and some are increasingly inclined to blame the architect for change orders and cost overruns and to seek unreasonable financial redress in order to balance their budget.
Our firm is very proud of our service record and change orders within our control rarely exceed 2 – 3% of the construction cost. In short, although we may strive for perfection on every project, we are typically only 97.5 % perfect, not 100%. By comparison, a 5% change order rate is thought to be a reasonable standard of care benchmark.
As a profession, I would suggest that we do three things: First, strengthen the standard of care language in our contracts to remove any ambiguities or potential for misinterpretation; second, have a candid discussion with the client and program manager at the onset of the project to obviate unreasonable expectations of perfection regarding the design team’s performance; and, third, insist that suitable contingencies are incorporated in the project budget.
We all work hard to protect our clients. Let’s see that we take care to protect ourselves as well.
The AIA B141 Owner-Architect Agreement speaks to the issue in Paragraph 1.2.3.2 of the 1997 edition, Part 1, as follows: “The Architect’s services shall be performed as expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the work.” To further clarify the standard of care clause, I routinely recommend the following amendment: “The Architect’s services shall be performed consistent with the degree of skill and care ordinarily exercised by practicing architects performing similar services in the same locality, at the same site and under the same or similar circumstances and conditions, and the orderly progress of the work.” Both versions are reasonable. They comply with our professional liability insurance, and are consistent with professional service case law. They make it clear to all parties that the architect shall not be held to a standard of perfection when performing his or her duties.
Designing and constructing buildings is a complex undertaking involving thousands of tasks completed over many years and mistakes are, unfortunately, made during the course of the process. For that reason, owners and contractors alike are advised to carry suitable contingencies in their budgeting. Most do, but many do not. For clients with inadequate contingencies, money gets tight at the project’s conclusion and some are increasingly inclined to blame the architect for change orders and cost overruns and to seek unreasonable financial redress in order to balance their budget.
Our firm is very proud of our service record and change orders within our control rarely exceed 2 – 3% of the construction cost. In short, although we may strive for perfection on every project, we are typically only 97.5 % perfect, not 100%. By comparison, a 5% change order rate is thought to be a reasonable standard of care benchmark.
As a profession, I would suggest that we do three things: First, strengthen the standard of care language in our contracts to remove any ambiguities or potential for misinterpretation; second, have a candid discussion with the client and program manager at the onset of the project to obviate unreasonable expectations of perfection regarding the design team’s performance; and, third, insist that suitable contingencies are incorporated in the project budget.
We all work hard to protect our clients. Let’s see that we take care to protect ourselves as well.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Staying Connected
It seems to me that we are altogether too “wired” to one another.
Like most business men and women I carry my iPhone wherever I go and am always checking it for everything from emails to stock quotes. It keeps me connected to my business, my home, the internet and just about anything else that I want to access.
But, last week I took a much needed break from work and spent a week flyfishing in a remote area of New Hampshire where my iPhone had no reception. At first I was anxious and used a nearby landline periodically to call the office. But I soon realized that I needed to connect with nature more than the office and began instead to invest my time in appreciating the remarkable beauty of the mountains and the haunting call of the loons rather than obsessing about work. I returned to my job much refreshed as a result.
It seems to me that we would all do well to stay connected with nature a bit better, particularly our children and grandchildren who are too often transfixed by computer games or text messaging. As design professionals we hope the next generation embraces sustainability as we do and seeks to preserve our natural environment. But how will they do so if we do not see that each of them gets frequent opportunities to enjoy all that Mother Nature has to offer?
I called my Godson when I returned and we are going flyfishing in three weeks – just to stay connected!
Like most business men and women I carry my iPhone wherever I go and am always checking it for everything from emails to stock quotes. It keeps me connected to my business, my home, the internet and just about anything else that I want to access.
But, last week I took a much needed break from work and spent a week flyfishing in a remote area of New Hampshire where my iPhone had no reception. At first I was anxious and used a nearby landline periodically to call the office. But I soon realized that I needed to connect with nature more than the office and began instead to invest my time in appreciating the remarkable beauty of the mountains and the haunting call of the loons rather than obsessing about work. I returned to my job much refreshed as a result.
It seems to me that we would all do well to stay connected with nature a bit better, particularly our children and grandchildren who are too often transfixed by computer games or text messaging. As design professionals we hope the next generation embraces sustainability as we do and seeks to preserve our natural environment. But how will they do so if we do not see that each of them gets frequent opportunities to enjoy all that Mother Nature has to offer?
I called my Godson when I returned and we are going flyfishing in three weeks – just to stay connected!
Monday, September 14, 2009
Just Listen
“Listen, my children, and you shall hear…”
This week I had the distinct privilege of speaking with some of the region’s leading oncologists while touring two newly completed cancers centers, designed by TRO Jung|Brannen, at both Newton-Wellesley Hospital and South Shore Hospital.
At the dedication of the former yesterday evening I met Dr. James Vernon, for whom the cancer center is named. He spoke to me of his tremendous pride in the new facility and the empathetic connection he felt throughout the design process with our team. “They really listened to our input,” he told me, “and helped us create something inspiring!”
The previous day I had toured the Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center at South Shore Hospital, scheduled to open on October 5. The center’s Director, Dr. David Rudolph, led a tour for business leaders from the south shore region and I tagged along. Stopping near the chemotherapy area, he remarked “this beautiful patient lounge was not in our original program, but our architect, Scott Mueller, told us of several conversations he’d had with our patient focus group. They convinced him that such a space would contribute significantly to their healing, both emotionally and physically. He urged me to include it, and here is the wonderful result!”
As designers, we should listen more and talk less. The results will speak for themselves.
This week I had the distinct privilege of speaking with some of the region’s leading oncologists while touring two newly completed cancers centers, designed by TRO Jung|Brannen, at both Newton-Wellesley Hospital and South Shore Hospital.
At the dedication of the former yesterday evening I met Dr. James Vernon, for whom the cancer center is named. He spoke to me of his tremendous pride in the new facility and the empathetic connection he felt throughout the design process with our team. “They really listened to our input,” he told me, “and helped us create something inspiring!”
The previous day I had toured the Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center at South Shore Hospital, scheduled to open on October 5. The center’s Director, Dr. David Rudolph, led a tour for business leaders from the south shore region and I tagged along. Stopping near the chemotherapy area, he remarked “this beautiful patient lounge was not in our original program, but our architect, Scott Mueller, told us of several conversations he’d had with our patient focus group. They convinced him that such a space would contribute significantly to their healing, both emotionally and physically. He urged me to include it, and here is the wonderful result!”
As designers, we should listen more and talk less. The results will speak for themselves.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Business as Usual
The Boston Globe is preparing a story about the urban blight caused by stalled developments in our city. Interested in engaging the Boston design community in exploring ideas to mitigate the eyesores, the Globe recently contacted the BSA, hoping it could assist by approaching architects who might be willing to participate in a “visioning” exercise, pro bono.
Some members of the BSA do not feel that our chapter should be cooperating in this effort, suggesting that the Globe is giving us the business, so to speak, by taking advantage of BSA members who are disproportionately suffering in a depressed economy. Like many of my colleagues on the BSA Board, I respectfully disagree.
First, I believe that if an architect chooses to participate in the Globe’s initiative, he or she is doing so voluntarily and in alignment with the guidelines for pro bono services published by the AIA, which encourages its members to contribute “to the highest aspirations of the architecture profession…in service to society…and in the eyes of the public.” Larry Chan, the BSA’s President-Elect, eloquently made this point to Tom Keane, the BSA’s new Executive Director, in a recent email on the subject. Second, I would argue that there is keen public interest in the project sites in question, and that our profession would be well served to be an integral part of the civic discussion by exploring design solutions to address the problem, rather than passively waiting for others to take the initiative. Finally, isn’t it time that our profession redefined itself? BSA Board member Peter Wiederspahn recently wrote that architects need “to engage the development and building communities in new, more aggressive ways.” I agree.
Business as usual isn’t working.
Some members of the BSA do not feel that our chapter should be cooperating in this effort, suggesting that the Globe is giving us the business, so to speak, by taking advantage of BSA members who are disproportionately suffering in a depressed economy. Like many of my colleagues on the BSA Board, I respectfully disagree.
First, I believe that if an architect chooses to participate in the Globe’s initiative, he or she is doing so voluntarily and in alignment with the guidelines for pro bono services published by the AIA, which encourages its members to contribute “to the highest aspirations of the architecture profession…in service to society…and in the eyes of the public.” Larry Chan, the BSA’s President-Elect, eloquently made this point to Tom Keane, the BSA’s new Executive Director, in a recent email on the subject. Second, I would argue that there is keen public interest in the project sites in question, and that our profession would be well served to be an integral part of the civic discussion by exploring design solutions to address the problem, rather than passively waiting for others to take the initiative. Finally, isn’t it time that our profession redefined itself? BSA Board member Peter Wiederspahn recently wrote that architects need “to engage the development and building communities in new, more aggressive ways.” I agree.
Business as usual isn’t working.
Monday, August 17, 2009
This Much is Certain
I’m not certain about much in the present economy, but this much I do know: fear mongering has no place in the health care reform debate.
The recent provocation by Sarah Palin and others that the health care reform legislation contains provisions that will establish governmental “death panels” to adjudicate end of life decisions is altogether inaccurate and inappropriate. I find it regrettable that, as a result of the inevitable and ensuing public outcry, the provision to reimburse patients for vital services such as hospice consultation was removed from the bill.
The one thing that our economy does not need more of is uncertainty, inflamed by unfounded fears. We deserve better from our elected officials.
The recent provocation by Sarah Palin and others that the health care reform legislation contains provisions that will establish governmental “death panels” to adjudicate end of life decisions is altogether inaccurate and inappropriate. I find it regrettable that, as a result of the inevitable and ensuing public outcry, the provision to reimburse patients for vital services such as hospice consultation was removed from the bill.
The one thing that our economy does not need more of is uncertainty, inflamed by unfounded fears. We deserve better from our elected officials.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
The Price is Right
Do you remember that goofy game show, The Price is Right? As I recall, the contestants had to guess the price of a household appliance, such as a washing machine, and whoever came the closest to the actual retail price, without going over, won.
Regrettably, the architectural profession during this current recession has begun to resemble The Price is Right. Many clients are now inclined to stress price before value and are “bidding” fees as if selecting a design firm was like buying a washing machine. Last week a prospective client called to tell me that a competitor’s “bid” was a full percentage point lower than ours (I had proposed a very competitive fee, by the way) and that unless we agreed to drop our fee accordingly, he’d award the project to the other firm even though he readily acknowledged that we were more qualified……price before value.
I decided that the cost of “winning” that project was too high, thanked the client for their interest, and declined.
In my experience, when the design fees are insufficient to cover the professional services required to properly do the work, bad things usually happen: the firm fails to adequately service the project; construction administration is short-changed; junior staff are substituted for more experienced professionals; the design process is rushed; consultants are underpaid, etc. Everybody, including the client, suffers. And what will the client gain by a fee savings of one percent of the construction cost? Nothing! That savings, and perhaps more, will probably be lost as the result of a compromised design and construction process.
My advice to clients is simple: Stress value before price and select a design firm based on their qualifications; then, negotiate a fair fee for the services you require. Most reputable firms, like TRO Jung|Brannen, are open to reasonable fee negotiation, once selected.
Don’t play games.
Regrettably, the architectural profession during this current recession has begun to resemble The Price is Right. Many clients are now inclined to stress price before value and are “bidding” fees as if selecting a design firm was like buying a washing machine. Last week a prospective client called to tell me that a competitor’s “bid” was a full percentage point lower than ours (I had proposed a very competitive fee, by the way) and that unless we agreed to drop our fee accordingly, he’d award the project to the other firm even though he readily acknowledged that we were more qualified……price before value.
I decided that the cost of “winning” that project was too high, thanked the client for their interest, and declined.
In my experience, when the design fees are insufficient to cover the professional services required to properly do the work, bad things usually happen: the firm fails to adequately service the project; construction administration is short-changed; junior staff are substituted for more experienced professionals; the design process is rushed; consultants are underpaid, etc. Everybody, including the client, suffers. And what will the client gain by a fee savings of one percent of the construction cost? Nothing! That savings, and perhaps more, will probably be lost as the result of a compromised design and construction process.
My advice to clients is simple: Stress value before price and select a design firm based on their qualifications; then, negotiate a fair fee for the services you require. Most reputable firms, like TRO Jung|Brannen, are open to reasonable fee negotiation, once selected.
Don’t play games.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)