10-Jun-92
The architect is the lead consultant because the involvement of each other discipline is to hang its contribution on a framework designed by the architect and therefore it is natural that the architect should control, coordinate and integrate these inputs into the whole. On the other hand designers are not the natural choice as leader of the construction team because they are not driven by the bottom line of Time, Money and Quality. Such, in essence, are the arguments which are involved in either the soul searching of, or the mud slinging at architects.
This essay examines the case that architects could make for promoting themselves into project management and incidentally provides a rebuttal of the idea that the profession should be consigned to merely the role of concept designer.
Project management is taken here to be that branch of the discipline which relates to the building construction industry. It’s task is to manage the process by which a building project is delivered in accordance with a client’s requirements. The role comes into being when the need is first identified for a building, a modification or a renovation and finishes when that process is complete. It is to be distinguished from construction management which is only part of the process and relates purely to construction operations on site.
There is some feeling amongst architects that project management is an up to date version of the role which they have traditionally performed. This tradition stems back three decades to the publication of The Architect and His Office and is enshrined in the Blue Book as the Plan of Work. This put the architect at the hub of pre-contract activities and only just off-centre during the contract. As a result of being at the centre the architect had by necessity to assimilate the inputs of all the other disciplines. At its lowest level this activity is just a mechanical response required by circumstances and does not embody the proactive approach which would distinguish project management from it. Thus although being central is a requisite of project management and puts architects in good stead to be project managers, it does not necessarily mean that what the architect has always been doing constitutes project management.
Architects, well positioned as they are within the structure to undertake project management, cannot actually draw on their formal education to equip them directly with the tools for this role. If Cost, Time, and Quality are the triangle forming the life blood of project management, Commodity, Firmness, and Delight are the emphases for architectural education. Quality is the only matter which receives extensive treatment and Time and Cost are generally areas of some weakness. This simplistic view obscures some qualities, crucial to project management, which do derive from an architectural education. As Frank Duffy writes in a recent article on architectural education: “Design is the core…. but the teaching is largely project based and always results in propositions for action…..Architectural propositions are always holistic and bridge gaps which other disciplines are free to avoid, for example: between……. art and science…… demand and supply.” This latter relates to briefing and design (demand) and construction (supply). To this could be added the bridge between the level of strategic overview and the level of prosaic detail.
Further to his education the architect, in his professional life, to a greater or lesser extent, experiences all the fields in which a project manager works. It will be taken as self evident that this statement is generally true of all the following fields: defining the project, estimating cost, fixing price, planning timescale, scheduling resources, evaluating risks, managing design, procurement, managing modifications, implementing programme, monitoring. One benefit of this is that an architect is already acquainted, to some degree, with the principle tools and techniques of project management, such as critical path analysis. There is not, therefore, a “cultural” barrier facing architects attempting to practice project management.
Good underlying educational pedigree and working exposure to project management concerns do not alone qualify architects for the task. An interest in the process as well as the product; perceptiveness to select the salient facts from a set of data or particular arrangement of circumstances; ability to probe the validity of statements; a proactive approach to make things happen; perspicacity to identify problems before they are imminent, leadership to motivate, direct and control team members are all characteristics important to project management. They derive not so much from external training and experience as from an individuals own interests and aptitudes.
In light of the fact that an architect’s credentials for project management are good, though by no means complete, it is somewhat suprising that this is not more widely recognised amongst clients. Clients are increasingly favouring the ability to grasp overall project concepts, leadership and team management skills more than design skills. There is a perception that architects are not good managers and moreover do not take a client’s Cost and Time interests as seriously as Design. Architects have done very little so far to counter this view because there is still a lingering notion amongst many participants in the construction industry that architects have the highest social status. A survey in New Builder a little over a year ago testifies to this. Architects have taken it for granted that the role of team leadership is theirs.
If architects wish to embrace project management, and there is no reason why they should not and indeed many good reasons to, they should positively demonstrate that they can be capable in the matters of importance to clients. The RIBA, undoubtedly reflecting attitudes of their membership, has done virtually nothing so far to promote project management as a service that architects can provide. This is now changing with the advent of the new Conditions of Engagement, the Strategic Study of the Profession in which Touche Ross have been involved, and the current re-assessment of architectural education.
Despite the positive advantages of status, central positioning in the team, education and experience which can qualify an architect for project management it is extensively claimed that other disciplines are more suited to act in the clients best interests. Consultant quantity surveyors are generally the most favoured. This stems from the fact the most commonly used and most commonly understood measure is money. There is a requirement to translate all factors, be they Time or Quality, into the cash equivalent. It is therefore perceived that the leader should be the one who can effect that translation and there is an assumption that it is he, who will understand what it means to a client. Other factors contributing to this favoured position are: that those appointing project managers freqwuently come from a surveying background; that the surveying profession has done much to promote the service as one which their members can provide; and that surveyors have fostered an image that they are the experts on the contractual matters. The perception has been reinforced by the fact that others, notably architects, have generally demonstrated poor understanding of the subject, have not promoted their suitability and often shied away from contractual matters. The largest disadvantage facing surveyors is that their training and experience does not encourage holistic or proactive attitudes.
Engineers and surveyors from the contracting side are also well favoured because, like consultant quantity surveyors, they understand money. They have an advantage over surveyors in a number of areas. They can bring buildability into the equation which is a significant factor in terms of money. They do have a holistic and proactive approach stemming from their stock in trade: construction management which is a branch of project management. Indeed many of the tools and techniques used by the project management profession as a whole come from this one branch. The major disadvantage facing these professionals is that they have little fundamental knowledge of the development and design of projects although, arguably, they are better than architects at design management as a result of their management contracting and design and build.
As with architects it is not the prerogative of any of these discipline to claim project management as their preserve; as with architects each in their own way does have much that they can bring to project management; and as with architects it is those individuals with the correct blend of characteristics other than those typical of their profession who will succeed as project managers.
It can be seen therefore that architects do not have a natural superiority over the other disciplines which would allow them to claim a right to project management but neither on the other hand do the other disciplines. At present the Association of Project Managers is dominated by surveyors and engineers. It would not be a discerning client who allowed himself to be convinced that just because the market is dominated by project managers of a certain discipline it is that discipline which is best qualified to carry out the work.
