Territorial dispute

Chris Malcolm, senior architect, GM+AD Architects

In principle, architects are better suited to specifying than contractors because traditionally, our role is impartial, or at least it closely reflects client aspirations. Contractors aren't impartial, they aim to maximise profit rather than build 'architecture'.

The specification sets out the basic performance and visual requirements of a scheme. The choice of material should define the detailing, quality and spirit of a building. If these choices are being made by another party, it severely limits the architect's creativity. We become a technical drawing service, or are left to seduce planners with pretty pictures of vague materiality.

However, it is tempting to let someone else appear to take responsibility for an element of practice many architects toil with. But ultimate responsibility does come back to us. Architects need to be confident and realistic in what is specified and understand exactly what it is we specify and why, and have the backing of the client for our choices. Someone has to set out the client's requirements, otherwise it becomes a free-for-all. By the same token, good advice given from experience should be listened to, regardless of source, but this should be fed back into the original specification.

In my experience when a contractor has re-specified purely for cost reasons, it has usually reduced a building's quality. However, inexperience on the part of the architect can lead to an inability to adequately specify, which can undermine confidence in the profession, while there is a large knowledge base available from contractors in general.

Responsible architects should be aware of the consequences of specifying materials, providing a long-term view of suitability not just to the end of the defects liability period. And as we are still being asked to warrant designs, architects need to be sure that what is specified is fit for purpose, not just a cheaper alternative.

Charles Lever, director responsible for building services, Taylor Woodrow's Strategic Alliance Partnership

When specifications were put together in the past, by architects or quantity surveyors, the focus was on aesthetics or price. But there's a lot more involved than this. You have to consider maintenance, buildability, material and product availability, delivery and reliability - essentially the quality of service a client can expect.

It's a wider, overall view. And contractors are best placed to lead this process because, generally, construction companies have greater knowledge of the issues that influence specification today. This doesn't mean a project's quality is reduced. For example, there will be no impact on its visual worth because aesthetics are still high on the agenda. Decisions about materials and products are not made in isolation, the full professional team is involved. Nobody is being displaced from the process.

New forms of contract have helped reposition the contractor. PFI has made everyone think about longevity and maintenance so it's important to select durable materials to minimise long-term costs.

On the other hand, design and build is all about the front end and is driven by price. But that doesn't mean we would substitute cheaper materials to keep within budget. It might mean choosing a product that's easier to install and maintain, which brings overall cost benefits without any reduction in aesthetic appeal.

There is another reason why contractors are best placed to lead specification. If the project manager has a good relationship with suppliers and manufacturers, there's the likelihood of repeat business for those firms which then naturally improve their performance. This, in turn, improves the whole delivery process of projects. Contractors take into consideration the whole remit of a project when making product choices - that's the key difference.

Furthermore, manufacturers can provide design expertise for their products and systems to a degree that no-one else can and we are best placed to exploit that.