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)?