Identifying the crunch points in architects’ relationship with contractors is the key to better project choreography, says Dale Sinclair.
The satisfaction ratings from contractors are disappointing but no surprise. They were foreshadowed during the very first RIBA for Clients roundtable meeting with contractors in 2014, findings that were subsequently written up in our 2015 Client & Architect report.
Contractors agreed that architects were great at design but not so good at providing the wrapper around the design process, such as good design management. Contractors concluded that the design manager role would not have been created if issues around risk, information delivery and accuracy were properly considered by the design team. There was the sense that this had been a necessary evolution, but that the door was open for architects to reprise the role.
Architects need to consider a number of issues in response to contractors’ comparatively low satisfaction ratings.
First, we need to address the crucial relationship between architects and specialist subcontractors at Stage 4, that is, where the latter runs with the architect’s design intent information (known as the Contractor’s Design Portion on a traditional contract). In design and build procurement, the contractor takes responsibility for all aspects of the design.
It is easy, therefore, to fall prey to the assumption that this alters the relationship between the design team and the specialist subcontractor, especially since it is not typically framed in appointment documents. In practice, of course, there is no difference. We urgently need to bring clarity to this topic to ensure our Stage 4 information is prepared appropriately.
The second issue is the lack of quality assurance processes, a portmanteau term for a number of pressing topics. They range from adequately checking detailing to the late issue of information or poor coordination of the design team’s work.
A better understanding of the gremlins here, backed up with robust data on the specific issues involved, would allow improvement.
The third point is that as lead designer, architects need to produce better design programmes based on our detailed understanding of the iterative nature of design and knowledge of design dependencies. We need to learn how to communicate the status of our designs against the design programme more effectively. We should also improve our project management skills as lead designers in charge of the design team.
Architects frequently work for contractors after they have been novated to the role on design and build projects. As part of better conveying design status, novated architects need to disclose more detail on design risks with the contractor’s perspective in mind. What aspects of the design are robust? Where is further design development required? What aspects of the design have still to be drawn?
Explaining the rules-of-thumb underpinning our work would communicate our designs better and allow the project team to make more considered decisions about cost and risk.
BIM-driven industry-wide design responsibility matrixes would clarify many of these issues. We need to engage with contractors as valued clients to understand their concerns in greater detail. Continuing professional development (CPD) is essential if we are to recalibrate our understanding of good Stage 4 deliverables and to learn how to better coordinate, record design status and lead our designs to a satisfactory conclusion.
Dale Sinclair is director of technical practice at Aecom, a RIBA ambassador for collaboration and technical advancement and a CIC BIM Champion
