The re-invention of a paradigm OR going forward by going backward.

In the not to distant past being a "craftsman" was noble accomplishment, today it mostly suggests the menial.  Similarly an Architect was a "master builder" but now he's the "designer."   This was more than a change in terminology it was a fundamental change in roles and responsibilities.  What's done is done the remaining question is: where do we go from here? 

It is not enough to simply redefine the relationship with a new euphemism and it is not possible to return to the old paradigm but it is possible to create an environment and develop the mind set of the master builder.  A mind set uniquely focused on maximizing the value of the built environment.  The concept of Design Build is one such attempt. 

Design Build from the client's perspective: 

If the term "Design Build" had been used fifty years ago it would have been considered redundant, but today design is treated as a separate profession from building and, paradoxically "Design Build" sounds sort of like "cats and dogs living together."  How two components of the of the same process have ended up in a struggle for dominance must be at least partially understood before they can be effectively remarried. 

One issue is the increasing complexity of building technology and the resulting trend towards increased specialization.  Another issue is a more knowledgeable cost driven marketplace.  Another is the intrinsic difference in focus between the conceptual/programatic design environment of the Architect and the concrete reality of the builder.  And another is the diminishing status of the practitioners of the practical and the growing elitism of the abstract and conceptual.

The paradox is that buildings are both very conceptual and highly technical objects that require the dedicated and active participation of every level of the work force, technical and non technical, professions or trades.  Buildings may be conceived with complex abstractions but to be successful they must be clear and effective expressions of reality.  Roofs must keep out the rain, structures must resist earthquakes, and bathrooms must accommodate the handicapped. 

In today's typical relationship the Architect is contractually expected to be the client advocate, the interpreter of the documents that he, his consultants, and his client create.  He is also expected to be the intermediary between the owner and the contractor, the interpreter of the documents that describe the end product.  The contractor is the executor whose task is to follow orders with no contractual obligation to contribute to the design at the same time burdened with the responsibility to turn the concept into concrete.  The Architect is the expert on the "big picture' with little responsibility with the how of building and consequently little concern for that simple fellow the builder who is a necessary but unpleasant part of the building process.   Fortunately the reality is different almost in spite of itself; a partnership, though sometimes uncomfortable, out of the necessity of survival, exists between the practical and the conceptual. 

The old way, the master builder way, was a seamless and continuous "design process" from conceptualization to the last coat of paint.  Responsibility and authority wore the same hat, the technical was married to the conceptual, and all of the participants were a team linked by a common goal. 

The way it works today is to have three or four [or more] independent "teams" connected only by a chain of "command", isolated by a voluminous contract, all struggling to reach the end at the same time and with the same expectations.  The "purpose" [the design], of necessity in this sort of relationship, is finished before the builder even has contact with it, virtually isolating him and all of his experience and expertise from the planning process.  Each entity has its own agenda, the designer; his "vision", the owner; the "bottom line", and the builder a profit, yet even as adversaries they are bound to the same end. 

The Architect is compensated as a percentage of an estimated cost, the builder a lump sum, and the owner gets the use of the end product and maybe a profit on that use.  The Architect's fees  increase as construction costs increase regardless of the amount of his actual work, the builder must create an end game, with limited information. in order to "win" the contract, and the owner must leverage his purse strings against the conflicting agendas hoping that the result will be close to useable [forget about exceptional]. 

Recognizing the existence of a problem without identifying the cause some developers/owners have gone another route but instead of improving the process [and giving up some control, heaven forbid!] they introduce another element: the construction manager.  This helps, sort of, as a reactive solution to conflicts but does little to improve the value of the final product.  The fundamental elements remain: a completed before the fact "design", a rigid contract, and one more entity charged with following the same orders....  one more layer of management and a lot more distance from the opportunities.   hmmm..  the building process has changed from one layer of management to three or four, all with the same basic responsibility,  that's a lot of managers.

A slightly more insightful solution is to reduce the complexity of the process with a negotiated construction contract where the builder at least gets a hearing.  Big improvement... hmmm, the beginning of teamwork, ask and listen [at least a little], however the system remains substantially the same, a little more process friendly perhaps but much the same.  Still it is an improvement and the end user can expect a little more value for his money and probably less hassle. 

The really "revolutionary" approach to building is "Design Build" [moving forward to the past]. 

Design that accepts the building process as one of the primary criteria, that brings together the vision and the execution, is the ultimate service to a client.  The "how to" are considered on the same page as the "what."  The client is provided, at the front end, with all of the tools necessary to completely understand the consequences of a project, without having to wait until the bidding [or negotiation] process [or the completion of the project].   At every level responsibility is assumed by the authority which, as any effective business manager knows, is the best and most effective management strategy. 

The perceived down side is that with all of the "apples in one cart" the owner has given up some of his control [there's that word again] and the checks and balances [micro management?!] present with all of the layers of managers.  But... the down side is also the upside; he has gained a vastly more efficient and effective organization with the potential to make more timely, intelligent, and effective decisions.  [funny how similar this seems to what has been happening throughout the business world since the early 80's] 

At its core The "design build" decision is an opportunity to build an effective trust based partnership between the designer and builder. 

With the change in responsibility inevitable In the concept of Design Build a couple of other important questions enter the picture:  Can an Architect really manage both design and construction without compromising his relationship with the owner, and, can an Architect really be a contractor?   Can the contractor deal effectively with the conceptual?  Can the conceptual and the practical live together?  Unfortunately, in practice, the answer is frequently no to all of the above.  But it doesn't have to be no in fact it is actually easier for it to be yes.  It is possible to build and organization where all of the elements can function in sympathy.  The conceptual needs the practical if it is to see the light of reality and the practical needs the direction of vision to have a purpose. 
 

Obviously there can be no front-end guarantee about the success any of this, or for that mater about any relationship.  Each extreme must have a more than little sympathy with and respect for the other and be willing to share the responsibility of a joint venture if a design build relationship is to succeed.   However, but you can be assured that the more contracts there are, the more managers there are, and the more layers of managers there are; the more the opportunities for misunderstanding and errors and the more the opportunities for increasing the cost. 

Design Build from the Architect's and Builder's perspective 

Design Build is not so much a methodology as it is a culture and a mind set.  It involves an extraordinary [by today's standards] blending of the conceptual with the execution.  Design Build requires cooperation and shared ownership, it involves and exceptional amount of mutual understanding between the "designers" and the "builders" even to the point that the distinction becomes blurred; and therein lies the biggest obstacle for the potential design builder. 

Today's typical Architect is a dreaded presence at the construction site and the typical Builder is an obstacle to be overcome for the Architect.  In the extreme the builder must ignore his experience and knowledge and bend to the will of the Architect without giving up responsibility for the success of the end product.  All too often the conclusion is award winning designs with leaky roofs and a plan that bends the user to its will.  While design build is no guarantee of good programmatic design, or of roofs that don't leak, it does create a potentially more cooperative design environment and it is an attitude that is more sympathetic to the concerns that allow a building to survive its expected life cycle with a minimum of cost and a high degree of performance. 

Design Build is more than bringing the contractor under the Architects authority or the Architect under the Builder's , it is bringing both under one spirit. 

The construction of buildings could be said to have three major responsibilities: Conceptualization, Communication, and Execution.   Each area is distinct and each equally important.    Good conceptualization means consideration of all aspects of the building process including a sensitivity to materials, technology, methods of construction,  and the programmatic needs of the client.  Knowledge of the how of a building, at the earliest conceptualization, affects all of the remaining planning processes in sometimes subtle but always profound ways. 

Understanding the systems that comprise a building leads to early accommodations that minimize the efforts of the various technical specialists, maximize the efficiencies of the building systems. and simplify their construction.   It also means that the programmatic requirements of the client are allowed more of an opportunity to shape their future home rather than adapt their functioning to it.  Louis Sullivan's notion of form following function is the paradigm of a good design process and the test of its success is how much the function has to adapt to the final form. 

In today's Architectural practice with CAD, CD libraries, and electronic transmission of data, isolation from the reality of construction is compelling.  The renderings of the recorded image are more real and more precise than reality.  No human hands touch the final product, no rain days, no dimension limitations, no wear and tear, overtime, and no human idiosyncrasies interfere with the vision.  Life is all sunshine and roses, no matter how complex the problem some abstract electronic fix can be found and instantaneously implemented.  But at some point the abstraction and reality have to come together and this takes cooperation, understanding, and above all the kind of ownership that comes from a partnership. 

A 500 page specification spelling out every aspect of construction site life handed to a contractor as law is not a partnership.  More pictures and more details and more specifications do not create a partnership any more than they can contain all the choices.  Partnership is created by a sense of ownership and ownership comes, at least in part, from authority being connected to responsibility. 

Good communication means that the intent is sufficiently clear, concise, and correct to facilitate the accurate and fluid execution of the concept within the context of familiar and efficient methodology.    While the documentation process is generally the accepted responsibility of the Architect the communication process is a shared one.  Appropriate [good] communication considers all aspects of the process including the native and anticipated cultures of the various participants, budgets, antipathies, infrastructures, and organizational structures.  It is a significant and often neglected part of every project whether visionary or common in much the same way that it is in every business enterprise.  Effective communication follows the shortest path to its object and is  diminished in direct proportion to the length that it must travel. 

Good execution means that appropriate technologies support the program and appropriate methodologies are used to implement them.  This is the paint that fills the canvas, the substance that supports the program, and the cost that must be mortgaged, it is ultimately the material that makes the concept work.   Good execution depends on good communication of sound materials and methods. Good Buildings depend of both good conceptualization and good execution. 

When you look to improve a product the item at the top of the list to improve is the process.   All industries have faced the same challenge in recent years and found many of the same answers, to the point of creating an almost meaningless litany of dogma: Flatten the organization, empower the employees, build ownership throughout the organization, recreate the link between authority and responsibility, and put the decisions in the domain of those most capable of making them.  Design build is one of those dogmas, a simple sounding common sense solution but at the heart of it a very complex and difficult one to effectively and fully integrate.   Bringing together the conceptual with the concrete is very much like "cats and dogs living together."  It is not enough to simply put the whole process under one leadership what is required is a profound change in attitude of all of the components of the process. 

The attitude at the core of the decision making and creative process is what must change.   That change is more profound than simply one of organization, it is one of technique, it means different priorities and a completely different thought process. 

The making of a built environment is one process and needs to be looked at as one process.  The Architect and Builder are components of that process dependent on each other for the success of the total .  They are not independent of each other they are interdependent.   When building is considered as one process the necessity of a separate, formalized,  contractual communication process can be reduced to the minimum, decisions become less complex, responsibility is shared, authority attached to responsibility, adversarial relationships minimized,  and a better more competitive and less costly product is produced. 

"Design build" is not a separate unique specialized approach to making buildings, it is THE way all good buildings are made regardless of the contractual or organizational commitments of the components; whether they are a group of separate organizations working under the umbrella of an  "owner contractor" agreement or one organization containing all of the elements.  "Design build" is an attitude not a thing.  "Design build" means sharing resources, skills, responsibilities, and allegiance. 

The attitudes and sympathies of the "design builder" are essential for all building professionals if they are interested in creating the best value.  What is more important is that they may even be a fundamental requirement of survival. 

pd