What is the value of our Architectural Services?

What is the value of our Architectural services? How should we be compensated for our services? Typical compensation is based on a projected scope of services (budget, schedule, how many square feet, how many details, how many site trips, etc.).

Our profession evolved from the master builder model which managed the project (design through construction) to more fluid models of design/build and construction managers. With the change of management, so went the question of defined scope to how can you do this cheaper?

Our own industry practices complicate the value of design services because we are:
1. Willing to complete design competition (including design/build) for no fee.
2. Willing to be paid months after the work is complete.
3. Willing to complete work, then argue if we should get paid for the services.
4. Taking on projects with limited fee and scope; then completing additional scope for no additional fee (scope creep).
5. Weak document coordination and reliance on performance type design for building components. The comment is aimed at all disciplines managed by the architect. The result is the contractor is finalizing the design of the building with Owner (not the design team).

Are services purely an hourly value? Should my services be defined by a percentage of the construction budget? What if I create an iconic structure forever linking a company to a building, a building that does not leak, or a ground breaking school with a new learning environment?

The comments are generics, but what is the value of architectural services?
Within my practice, I’m continually trying to define my services, what is the value of the services and who are my clients? How do I address accepted industry practices (#1-#4)?

Why change for 'Y'?

"Why should I change how the office operates and feels just to accommodate generation ‘Y’? Why should we bend over backwards for this arrogant, self-centered, A.D.D. generation? When I got out of school I had to learn how to work in the environment already established.”

So many leaders of our current corporate world think like this. And, while yes, they did have to adjust to the work place created by their elders, I would argue that very little adjustment had to take place on their part.  The work place didn’t need to change for Baby Boomers and Gen X’ers. Their upbringing was not vastly different then the generations that came before.  There historically has been very little change in the learning environment in almost all of history until the last 10 to 15 years.

I think the pictures below speak for themselves.

1910s

One Room Schoolhouse

1930s

School building filled with lots of one room schoolhouses

 1950s

Ditto

1970s 





Don't let the color image trick you into thinking something has changed

1990s

Same desks....Same rows....cooler clothes

2010s

OMG!

WTF!

ANFSCD! (look it up Boomers and Gen X'ers)



Do you really think young adults growing up in these environments will excel at work in the same environment as Boomers and Gen X'ers?

It's not about bending over backwards for a needy generation. It is about creating an environment for maximum productivity and success by supporting a generation that values collaboration, risk, connectivity, and being an integral part of a much bigger picture.

Signed: A Gen X'er often called Boomer but extremely supportive of the Y's

First Things First...

I know that I speak for the entire class when I offer a very heartfelt thank you to all of our sponsors, firms, organizers, guest speakers, and heads of local firms that have taken time out of their busy schedules in order to make this program possible.

Your efforts and insights into what it takes to be a leader in our industry are very much appreciated. We know that this will be an extremely formative and successful program due very much in part to everything that you have offered us.

Thank you!

Welcome

Welcome to the AIA Cincinnati Vision Blog. For information on the program, please view our website here.