I have been arguing that the rise of the design-and-build contract (or procurement route) is the architectural equivalent of outsourcing manufacturing: This is an economic order that has been ascendant for the last 40 years, and most industries have embraced it by shifting their focus to services as they deferred production to countries all over the globe like China and Turkey.
Initially, this was a seemingly risky approach; however, many companies embraced it because they believed that they had the monopoly on design and knowledge. They deemed that other countries to which manufacturing has been outsourced will never pose any serious competition because the corporations had the knowledge and innovation accumulated over generations, ergo, that would not be easily replicated.
In architecture, the profession has not followed suit and most architects have dug their heels in, trying to hang on to production. This is unfortunate because there have been myriad opportunities for the architectural profession to specialise in. These unfulfilled opportunities left a void that has been eventually filled in by property agents and other consultants.
The design-and-build route has empowered contractors whilst it was detrimental to architects. The dynamic did not have to be a zero-sum-game where one actor gains power at the expense of the other. There has been an opportunity for a complementary responsibly matrix that may have satisfied everybody to some degree. The main fault with the design-and-build procurement route is not the contract type but rather the architects’ fixation with production.
Novation. This is the holy grail for many architects and failing to attain it is widely viewed as a failure on the architects’ behalf. I have been arguing the opposite. Being novated to the contractor is the crux of the profession’s woes. This is akin to HP or Nike becoming employed by the production factory to which they outsourced manufacturing.
Architects perhaps need to abandon the novation route and fully separate design and production. The manufacturing needs to be wholly outsourced to the contractor and their team whilst architects may strengthen the client monitoring role. This role can be more than a somewhat ceremonial, advisory “yay or nay” vocation. The ERs, laying out the design intent, need to ascertain that the design would be unassailable. As an extra service, the architects may wish to second or contract one or two team members to advise the contractor team but this would be on an hourly rate and when needed. The knowledge that the design architects have of the project is immensely valuable as it will shorten lead-in times and expedite the construction programme. In this case, knowledge means money and if the contractor wishes to avail oneself of this service, it should come at a premium paid to the architect.
A radical uphaul of the profession is needed. The first hurdle to overcome is for architects to accept the facts on the ground: Production has been outsourced and the design-and-build procurement route is here to stay. This is not to the peril of architects and it is full of benefits to clients, contractors and architects alike. What needs to be done is to renegotiate our role within this economy. We need to focus our attention elsewhere and we need to be conscious that our knowledge, accumulated over the years, cannot be replicated and should be purveyed at a premium, not a discount as we do with the novation slope. Like HP, our strength lies in innovation and design, and it’s high time we embraced that.
Sorry, waterproofing packages.