It looks good on paper...

Here’s the scenario: You have been contracted to build a large leisure centre complex, but when work beings on site you notice that the architect’s drawings for the plant room frames and equipment are incomplete. With a tight schedule to stick to and costs escalating you decide to get on with the job at hand and specify the cranes you think will be required to lift the plant room equipment into place.

During the job however, the architect decides to make significant changes to the plant room layouts, which requires a redesign of the internal equipment. Much to your annoyance it means the installed cranes are no longer suitable for the lift loadings required and 400-tonne mobile cranes have to be used instead. It has cost the project nearly £1.5m in wasted cash and you’re probably going to have to shoulder the blame.

This painful experience, which is actually a real-life story related to CM by John Pile, director of Denton Pile, is by no means unusual. Over the past few weeks CM has spoken to several firms whose projects have been blighted by architects that have either failed to include important details before a project goes to site, or delivered unworkable designs that were not to scale, leaving builders to fill in the blanks.

It is a problem that seems to affect projects of all sizes under many different forms of contract. And although it has been going on for years, things appear to be getting worse: ‘The general quality of architects’ work is worse these days, even quantity surveyors and estimators recognise this,’ says Mike Smith, managing director of Corniche Builders.

Smith provides another example: ‘Last year we carried out the reconstruction of a flint barn. If we had stuck with the architect’s tender drawings for the roof it would have fallen down – luckily the site manager was trained as a roofing carpenter. During the project we had to make constant changes to the foundations and general structure, constantly asking for new and better drawings. We even had to set out the brickwork details, which were definitely not our responsibility,’ he complains. ‘We’re not a contentious firm by nature, but we have now been driven into a claims situation as things got so bad.’

When important details are left out at tender stage it’s either being left to the contractor to resolve on site or the architect has to provide extra information, causing hold ups. ‘Contractors often flag this up when it occurs on site, either to the client or the architect, but very little is done about it,’ says one contractor who wished to remain anonymous. ‘Missing detail is a common problem when dealing with complex interfaces, between the cladding and the structure or the cladding and roof for example.’

Another builder complains of architects’ improperly dimensioned drawings, leaving notes on the plans such as ‘do not scale from this drawing’, but the contractor has to do just that because no other drawings are forthcoming. ‘On domestic jobs we often don’t even get a proper spec so we’re having to do our own bill of quantities and schedule of works – normally the quantity surveyor or architect’s responsibility,’ says Smith.

These omissions and inaccuracies lead to escalating costs and an ugly process of blame as the client seeks an explanation for botched work and delays. ‘It is usually the contractor or subcontractor who is the subject of blame because the design team consider their drawings to be precise,’ says Pile. ‘Delays are never appreciated by the client or the client’s agent when it comes to extension of time,’ he adds.

So how did this ‘let the builder sort it out’ attitude emerge and why are architects submitting inadequate drawings? There are various factors at play: lack of skills, time pressures, late decision-making by clients, reduced fees and confusion over the myriad different forms of contract.

Like most other professions, architects are struggling to find the right people to fill the middle ranks. ‘Skills shortages are affecting the whole industry and at architectural practices there is a definite lack of seasoned resource,’ comments John Enyon, regional design director at Wates. ‘I go to practices and see lots of younger people sitting at their screens, but there’s a lack of really experienced professionals who have gone through the mill and understand how buildings fit together. Since university became the preferred route into the profession, architects in general are much more distant from the construction process than they used to be.’

‘I suspect the problem lies between the partners and junior staff,’ confirms another contractor. ’Skills shortages have left a deficit of architects and technicians.’

I think architects are interested in maximising their fee income for doing as little as possible.

Mike Smith, Corniche Builders

Pressure from clients to get on site quickly also mean that both the architect and contractor have insufficient time to get pre-contract work completed beforehand. ‘My experience is that architects, even on major schemes, back away from planning their design work, by which I mean they fail to identify what drawings and details they are going to produce,’ says Pile. ‘Contractors generally aid and abet this by not submitting meaningful requirements at the outset.’

Bizarrely, advances in IT have also contributed to the problem. Computer aided design is a powerful design tool, but it can also become a convenient way of leaving changes until the last minute. ‘There are definite issues around management of changes and late decision making,’ says Richard Brindley, executive director of RIBA professional services. ‘The client says “let’s get started now” so often decisions wait. IT was meant to make life easier, but all it means is people can leave taking decisions to the last minute.’

The increasing complexity of building technologies and the supply chain also affects the architect who is reliant on input from specialist subcontractors for cladding, roofing, brickwork and other areas. ‘There are generally a lot more people involved in the whole process of building, which complicates things,’ says Enyon. ‘There are specialists for everything: project managers, fire engineers, CDM coordinators, Building Control, consultants for all sorts of things. And then the contractor comes onboard banging on the table saying “we want the packages”.’

And then there’s fees. For Smith laziness and fee-grabbing are the driving principles for many practices: ‘I think architects are interested in maximising their fee income for doing as little as possible. “Leave it to the builder”, they think.’ RIBA’s Brindley has another take on the issue: ‘The key thing is procurement and payment practices. Architects have been asked to cut prices to provide stripped down services,’ he explains.

‘I firmly believe it’s down to the change in various procurement systems.’

Professor Bob Giddings, director of postgraduate research at the University of Northumbria, agrees: ‘When we had traditional procurement and a fee scale [for designers] everyone knew where they were, what they were doing and how much they would get paid for it. Now there is a whole host of arrangements and I don’t think anyone is really clear what happens in any of them,’ he says. ‘Where previously there was a standard fee scale, now architects bid in competition with other architects on services and can choose which services to provide, all or part. Deregulation has caused these holes, which traditionally somebody, usually the architect, would have picked up. Now nobody’s quite clear who is supposed to do these things.’

There isn’t a simple solution to the problem. More collaborative working, a reduction in the number of procurement routes, a return to the coal face for architects, and more resource given to pre-construction preparation would all improve the situation.

‘If people adopt more of a partnering approach it would be more successful,’ says Enyon. ‘I don’t think anyone is to blame for this problem, it’s a result of the process. Ideally you want people who design the packages on board as soon as possible so you can design the responsibility out. Too often you get packages bought too late so you’re building and designing as you go.’

Streamlining procurement systems would facilitate this. ‘By adopting a standard number of ways of procurement we would have proper documentation, a full understanding of who does what and we would avoid odd variations where no one knows what’s going on,’ says Giddings. During the design stage the architect could therefore identify the drawings he needed to prepare, including content and scale. ‘There’s a lot of work to be done on streamlining procurement systems,’ adds Brindley. ‘RIBA is looking at PFI for example.’

It’s clear that architects need to improve their understanding of how buildings fit together, which will involve spending more time on site both at university and in the real world. More reasonable expectations of the building process from the client would also help. Building shouldn’t always be about ensuring the cheapest capital cost. Money and time spent on the design would ensure a better building in the long term.

So next time you’re on site with a batch of dodgy drawings, don’t jump to conclusions and blame the architect. At least, not straight away. It may not be their fault… CM