I was recently asked to participate in a new initiative called Let’s Fix Construction that is being established by some of my colleagues in the Construction Specifications Institute: Eric Lussier who is president of CSI Vermont Chapter and Cherise Lakeside, the #CSIKraken and past president of CSI Portland Chapter. The purpose of the initiative is to separate the complaints from the solutions when we discuss why things go wrong in construction projects, and promote the solutions. Other participants so far are Randy Nishimura, Vivian Volz, Keith Robinson and Marvin Kemp, and the project is open to accepting additional contributors.
My hope, which is why I decided to participate myself, is that we can get past the usual CSI talking points, dig deeper, take a hard look at what is really ailing the industry and come up with solutions and then integrate those solutions into the various professions and trades within AEC. By “usual CSI talking points” I mean the heavy advocacy for certifications, encouragement of improved communications, promotion of the ‘trusted advisor’ appellation, etcetera. None of these are wrong, but to be frank, they haven’t fixed construction yet.
The project is named “Let’s Fix Construction.” I accept the premise that construction is broken (or at least not operating optimally). Undoubtedly this is due to various factors, but I’d argue a good place to look for them is at the real weaknesses in architectural education and in the way that architecture is practiced.
What follows is an edited excerpt from my first post on Let’s Fix Construction, where I outline my view of where the practice of architecture is complicit in the brokenness of construction and is missing the mark on living up to its promise and to its own vision of itself.
* * *
The facility design and construction process (at least in the traditional design-bid-build or design-negotiate-build methods) is for the most part driven by the architect. The architect is the one who is presented the project goals by the Owner and is tasked with generating the design and construction documents and then helping to facilitate its execution. In this architect-centric view, the responsibility to faithfully and skillfully execute the work lies with the architect. The architect comes up with the conceptual design and develops that design, adding more and more technical detail, coordinating the work of engineering and other consultants, incorporating information from myriad sources into one package and shepherding that package through procurement and entitlement, until the job can be built by a contractor. The architect maintains responsibility through construction, working to verify that the project is being built so that it conforms to the design.
As the center of all that activity, the architect is the source of (or at least contributing to) many problems that, if solved, would go a long way toward ‘fixing’ construction. The words “many but not all” should of course be a given in front of each item below.
- Architects don’t view their work as providing a professional service in which they have a duty to put their clients’ interests above all others and to making sure they communicate honestly with their clients and to obtaining informed consent for all important decisions. Instead, architects see themselves as designing for themselves, or believe they’re working for the good of society, the environment, adopting “improving life” or other lofty goals that create real conflicts of interest that they don’t even recognize.
(Before reading on, I strongly recommend reading Ujjval Vyas’s comment to my post on LetsFixConstuction, and also his lengthy comment to Randy Nishimura’s post, Revitalization + Reinvention. The conceptual underpinning of the duty I briefly mention above is his idea, and I will be writing more about that in the future).
- A few architects even go so far as to think of themselves as more important than their own work. As an example, during an interview I conducted with a prominent and outspoken Chicago architect, he mentioned that contractors respect him “because I know how to say ‘fuck'”.
- Architects have inadequate practical knowledge of construction. They don’t understand how their designs and details get translated into physical components in a building and what it really takes for human beings to assemble what they’ve designed.
- Architects, and humans in general, to be fair, have a overly optimistic view of their own knowledge and competence. This is known as the Dunning-Kruger Effect. As a result, they forcefully promote making decisions based on faulty information that they have high levels of confidence in. Most “green” advocacy falls into this category.
- Architects are slow to recognize and adapt to changes in construction technology, and end up lazily copying solutions from project to project long after they’re obsolete.
- Architects are hesitant to participate in the code-writing process, even though the content of the codes and the way they’re developed directly impact their work.
- Architects have very poor knowledge of how much construction actually costs, and use loose rules of thumb to try to determine whether or not their designs are within clients’ budgets. They rarely know how the details they create affect the project cost, and the resulting necessary VE costs them time, money and prestige.
The idea that we’re going to fix construction means that these and other problems should be identified, given serious thought individually and collectively. I look forward to working to affect the changes that the industry needs, and I hope the Let’s Fix Construction project can be on the vanguard of inventing and implementing those solutions. If you think you have an interesting perspective on this problem and would like to participate in this project, it is still seeking additional contributors. Contact Eric at firstname.lastname@example.org for more information.