Design Management for Architects

Stephen Emmitt

• Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781118394458
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Architecture
• Subtopic: Architecture General

This guide integrates theory and practice to offer practical solutions for architects to improve their design management skills.

This unique guide helps architects improve their management skills by addressing the relationship between the management of the design project and the design office. The author demonstrates how a professionally managed project, conceived and delivered within a professionally managed office ensures that client values are translated into construction without loss of creativity.

Design Management for Architects divides into two parts. Part 1: Managing Creative Projects covers the context and infrastructure of projects; looks at client values; describes developing, detailing and realising the design; and shows how to learn from projects. Part 2: Managing Creative Organisations describes the business of architecture; explains how to manage creative people and the design studio – covering communication and knowledge-sharing, information management, financial management and attracting/retaining clients.

This second edition has been extensively rewritten in response to student feedback and to the rapid evolution of design management in architecture. New features include:

• the 'Why Management?' question addressed in a design context
• Vignettes to demonstrate the value of design management
• practical advice is incorporated into each chapter under 'Project to Office Interface'
• more specifics on the design manager role, and the contribution of ICTs (including BIM) to effective design management.

By integrating theory and practice, and offering practical solutions for architects to improve their design management skills, this book provides clear guidance to all designers and (design) managers.

Chapter One

Why?

Architects play a pivotal role in the delivery of value to their clients, building users and community alike. The unique value architects add to their clients’ lives and businesses is grounded in an ability to deliver something that their competitors cannot: design vision. Design ability is, however, not enough in a highly competitive market as clients seek suppliers who can provide a professionally managed service, effectively and quickly. This means that architectural practices need to constantly monitor the business environment in which they operate and continually improve the way in which they approach the business of design. Design management plays a crucial role in this regard, helping professional design offices to deliver a consistent level of service, which in turn helps the business to secure a continual flow of finance, return a profit on its projects and provide a platform for creating great architecture. However, there may be some doubts in the minds of architects as to the true value of management to their profession. Therefore, this introductory chapter seeks to explain why management and design management is so important to the modern architectural business. This helps to provide some context to the chapters that follow.

Why management?

Architectural practice is a ‘conversation’ with projects and society – a process of testing, developing, applying and reflecting on design knowledge. Architects learn from projects and from the work of others by developing ideas, propositions and ways of working to suit the culture of their office and the needs of their clients. We develop a way of working, a type of (architectural) language, which becomes ever richer over time. This informs the practice of architecture, which flexes and adapts to each new project. The way of working also informs the business of architecture, a parallel (commercial) language that underpins and nourishes the language of architecture.

Good design management should be one of the core values of a successful architectural practice, the controlling mechanisms that allow the chaotic creative process to be transformed into fee generating activities. Management is, however, often seen as a way of coping with the chaos of design rather than something that adds value to the business. Indeed, it is not uncommon for the business aspects to be viewed as a ‘necessary evil’, with the vast majority of professional designers preferring to concentrate on design rather than business. This could be interpreted as architects’ reluctance to embrace management, although it is rarely so clear-cut given that elements of management are inherent to all projects. It is not easy to divorce the act of designing from the business of design, although this is rarely acknowledged in architectural education (which tends to ignore management issues); nor is it particularly well demonstrated in the architectural literature.

The stereotypical view, which architects’ competitors like to promulgate, is that creative designers lie outside the bounds of managerial control. This is a convenient image for some designers to hide behind when it suits. It is true that creative people do not respond particularly well to tight control and the tick-box mentality of many management approaches. The challenge appears to be less with the concept of management per se and more with applying sensitive and appropriate managerial frameworks. Managerial principles and methods should place minimal demands on the designer and provide adequate space to accommodate the inherent uncertainties that come with design projects. At the same time the managerial frame should provide guidance to the individuals who work within the office and hence reassurance to the clients who commission the work. Good managerial frameworks tend to be relatively simple and largely invisible. Poor managerial frameworks tend to be unnecessarily complicated and highly visible because they disrupt the way in which designers like to work.

According to many research reports and anecdotal feedback from clients, it is the managerial skills that architects need to improve. One indicator of the architect’s lack of managerial acumen can be found in the reports issued by the Architects Registration Board (ARB). Their annual report of 2004/5 presented a list of the ten most common complaints it receives from clients. The ARB advises architects to adhere to the Architects Code as one way of avoiding the pitfalls that can result in an appearance before the Professional Conduct Committee. Following good management practices and procedures also helps, since all of the complaints listed by the ARB are concerned with management (and the failure to communicate). These complaints are listed below with a brief comment on how to avoid them.

1. Excessive delay in the project being completed.
The problem here is primarily related to poor predictions of project duration and the failure to discuss with clients the potential reasons for delay. Architects must make it clear to clients how the project duration has been calculated and by whom. They must also explain the measures put in place to try and ensure projects will be complete to the planned timeframe. If progress starts to suffer then the architect must be proactive and advise the client, and if appropriate take measures to get the project back on programme.

2. Client expectations were raised too high.
Raising client expectations too high can occur as the architects discuss design possibilities that are beyond the scope of the budget (and the brief). Having a good knowledge of realisation costs can help to mitigate unrealistic expectations. Similarly, bringing specialists early into the design phase can help with the realistic estimation of construction costs as the design matures.

3. The client was expected to pay for mistakes/errors made by the architect.
Architects must be open with clients and acknowledge when they have made a mistake. Using quality management systems and good design management practices will help to mitigate the number and extent of errors, although it is impossible to eliminate all problems. Tracking the cause of design changes and variations will help to identify those that were a result of an error and those requested for other reasons. Adopting a collaborative approach may go some way to sharing responsibility for errors and the cost of rectifying them.

4. Contract papers were not clear.
There should be no excuse for failing to set out fees, roles and responsibilities clearly and concisely before work commences. This is required by the client and also for the smooth running of the office. A short meeting with the client to discuss contract papers before the project starts can help to avoid uncertainty and problems at a later date.

5. Attempted work outside area of competence.
Architects must clearly state the extent of services that they are experienced and qualified to undertake. This varies considerably between architectural practices, and clients cannot be expected to know the scope and limitations of the services on offer. Open and frank discussions with the client can help to explore areas of uncertainty and identify the need for additional services from fellow consultants.

6. Failure to reply to the client’s letters/emails and/or telephone calls.
According to ARB, communication problems are the cause of many complaints. One of the biggest complaints is the failure to advise clients about increased costs. All professionals should have a clear policy on how they respond to communications from clients and project participants, and this should be set out in the quality plan and/or office manual. Failure to reply is unprofessional and bad business practice. Good architectural practices tend to be proactive in tackling problems and taking the initiative to contact clients before they discover the problem from another source. This is about managing the client/architect relationship, which can be helped by bringing the client into the project at strategic intervals, for example at design reviews.

7. Failure to deal with post-completion issues.
The failure of architects to deal with problems that arise after completion of the project and the payment of fees is not a sensible policy. Quality of the ‘after sales’ service will be instrumental in helping to retain and further develop a positive architect/client relationship, which will influence the possibility of future work from that client. The problem is usually that the fee has been spent and the resources are not always available to deal with the post-completion issues. Accurate estimation of design effort and the allocation of resources to post-completion issues are essential management functions, which allows the office to function efficiently and helps to ensure that enough time remains to maintain a professional service after project completion.

8. Clients given bad advice.
This tends to relate to architects advising the client on matters outside their scope of expertise, for example on engineering matters and financial/VAT issues. This can be avoided by clearly setting out the extent of the services provided and also defining areas that are not covered by the fee agreement. This is best done via face-to-face discussion and confirmed in writing.

9. Conflicts of interests.
All business relationships, for example with contractors, must be declared to clients early in the appointment process. Clients expect their professionals to be open about such matters and with many architectural practices working with formal and informal alliances, it is particularly important to be clear about how such relationships may influence the client’s project.

10. Work delegated to juniors.
It is common for projects to be secured by partners and directors, and after some initial involvement by them, for the work to be delegated to design managers and the less senior members of the office. This is common practice in all professional service firms, but the failure to explain how the work will be handled within the office can cause problems with the client, who may be expecting the partner to work on the project, not a junior.

Adopting a professional and consistent approach to the management of the architectural practice and its projects may not eliminate all problems, but it will help architects to avoid the problems reported above and will go some way to keeping clients happy. Adopting a consistent approach to management will also help the business, as demonstrated in Vignette A.

---

Vignette A – why apply management?

By looking at the performance of two architectural practices it is possible to further address the question: why management? The architectural practices were both located in the same metropolitan area, were the same size and had similar mixed project portfolios. From the perspective of a client there appeared to be little to differentiate them. Indeed, a large client body decided to appoint each practice to work on a project. The projects were comparable in size, complexity and programme, and the outcome of the competitive tendering processes resulted in the same contractor being appointed for both projects. This allowed the possibility to make some comparisons between the two architectural practices in terms of their performance.

From the outset of the monitoring period one of the architectural practices appeared to be more efficient and effective than the other, that is it gave the impression of being well managed. Office A delivered information on time, responded rapidly to requests for information, dealt with design changes quickly and interfaced very well with the contractors and the client representative, resulting in a high quality project, delivered on time and to budget. Office B was consistently late in supplying information (which was often incomplete), was slow in responding to requests for information and dithered over design changes. The amount of communication between the architect and the contractor was considerably greater compared to that with Office A, mainly a result of trying to deal with issues that should have been right first time. This project was also completed on time and to a high quality, due mainly to the contractor’s efforts, but it was slightly over the original budget. The final artefacts (the quality of the design) were not very different, although the effectiveness of the projects differed markedly, as did the profitability of the architects and the contractor.

On the first project, both Office A and the contractor reported a profit. On the second project, Office B claimed that the project had been a financial disaster, (unfairly) blaming the contractor and the client. On this project the contractor also claimed to have lost money, mainly because of the poor service delivered by Office B. The client and the contractor reported that they would welcome the opportunity to work with Office A again, but not Office B. Indeed, a few months after the projects were completed the client commissioned Office A to work on two new projects, but not Office B, preferring to give a different architectural practice a chance to demonstrate their worth.

What made one office more successful than the other? Office A was well managed, employing appropriate management systems and the staff was happy using the office management protocols, which had been designed to help them do their job more effectively, efficiently and consistently. Office B also had a management system, but few of their staff used it because it was regarded as too cumbersome and time consuming, resulting in inefficient working practices and an inconsistent service for their clients. Although it was not possible to obtain any financial data from the owners of the architectural businesses, Office A claimed to be ‘doing okay’ in the middle of an economic recession, while Office B claimed that it was ‘almost impossible to make a profit’ on their projects, citing low fee levels as the problem. In conversations with the owners of the business it was clear that Office A understood the benefits of simple, yet well designed, manage ment protocols: Office B did not. Office A regarded manage ment of design (as a process and a product) as being essential to everything they did, that is it was integral to their daily activities; Office B saw management as something additional to the design of buildings, and hence had failed to integrate management and design. In addition to the financial implications for the businesses, the difference in managerial approaches was also evident in the morale and wellbeing of the staff. The staff in Office A appeared to be happy in their work, and when questioned reported that they were content and that the management procedures of the office helped them to do their job more effectively. The atmosphere in Office B was less positive, with the staff reporting high levels of stress and claiming to have to work very long hours to complete their tasks.

---

Why design management?

It is not necessary for every member of an architectural practice to be a business executive, or for that matter passionate about management, but it is important that architects understand the commercial environment in which they work and the value of managing design consistently and efficiently. The challenge for the business owners is not to impose restrictive managerial and administrative constraints on creative individuals; rather it is to provide better, more appropriate, management that both supports the creative process and facilitates the delivery of an excellent service. To do this it is necessary to understand the value of good design management and the role of the design manager, the rationale behind this work.

In many small and medium sized architectural offices it is the owners (directors, partners and associates) who manage and oversee design quality, which is often performed in a ‘hands on’ manner. Close proximity of staff within an intimate environment allows informal exchange of knowledge and relatively consistent sta...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title page
• Copyright page
• Preface
• About the Author
• Chapter One : Why?
• Part One : Managing Creative Projects
• Part Two : Managing Creative Organisations
• Further Reading
• Index