Architects determine whether a wall will be brick or metal panels, so we all know that we have to make architects aware of the benefits of our basic type of product. However, beyond the basic level of education required to get our product type selected, does it make sense to try to distinguish a quality product offering from an ordinary product offering?
The AIA 2010 National Convention will be held in Miami from June 10 thru 12. I hope our architectural colleagues have a great convention and I suggest one of the questions that they ponder is the following:
Have Architects Become Irrelevant After Basic Product Selection?
For those of us in the construction industry who attempt to adhere to all specifications, codes, etc. it has become increasingly difficult to overcome the assault from bidders who do not comply strictly with these requirements.
In decades past, architects were powerful advocates for their clients (Building Owners) during the building process to assure that all specification and code requirements were met. Today, general contractors seem to have the power to make most of the calls. In many cases, the advice and consent of architects is either ignored or “set aside” for a lower price without much consideration for value or compliance.
This not only degrades the project, but it is patently unfair to those subcontractors and material suppliers who provided proposals that aligned with the stated requirements.
I will give you a specific example within the Metal Composite Material panel system industry. The International Building Code requires that panel systems do not deflect over a prescribed limit. That means that in high wind load conditions, for wide panels, stiffeners are required to achieve this criteria. This requirement is continually being ignored. Therefore, those bidders that supply the stiffeners are at a distinct disadvantage.
Where is the enforcer?
If building owners feel that general contractors are providing more valuable information to them than architects, then architects are perceived to be less valuable.
The counter measure to this perception is for architects to be more forceful in support of their product selections and code knowledge. That takes effort; not only on the part of architects, but also on the part of the product manufacturers who are the real experts on their products.
The dilemma for product manufacturers is this: “If architects will not dutifully enforce their product specifications and code compliance, why should I invest in educating architects? Many feel they would do better by avoiding the cost of education (promotion) and keeping their price lower.”
So the cycle becomes something like this:
- General contractor uses the lowest price
- Building owner wants lowest price
- Architect does not know enough about the product to convince building owner of the merits of the specified product
- Lower value product is accepted
- Specified product manufacturer becomes less likely to do further education
- Architect becomes less and less informed
- Building Owner’s perception of architect’s value diminishes
- Therefore, the architect’s specification is perceived to be less important and the specified product is utilized less often
- Then the general contractor is emboldened to use the lower price more and more
- Etc, etc, etc
If architects want to be perceived to be more valuable, they must take charge of the situation. Otherwise, their relevance will continue to diminish, product selection will continue to fall to the lowest common denominator in every product category. and there will be less and less educational promotion.
Tool of the Week – www.scriblink.com – Scriblink is a free digital whiteboard, which provides the following features: shapes, hundreds of colors, a size bar, a text feature, and a grid to help guide drawings. It also gives you options to email, and save and print your work. An image up-loader is also provided to use images on the whiteboard.
That is it for this week. Post your comments on the Blog and let us stimulate the discussion.
Thanks,
Ted S. Miller
