My name´s Pablo, argentinian architect right here.
I´m writing my thesis about architecture workflow in studios, and what problems need to be solved in order to get better results during the process and final results in architecture.
I would appreciate if you could guys take a minute and think:
-what things (in your experience) need to be solved in the actual workflow of your studio to get a better process and have a good final result in a project? (documentation, information access, approvals, trazability, etc?)
I would appreciate if you could be very specific about the problems/issues or omissions ;-)
Trazability ... I'm guessing this is a bad translation of what would typically be a general ability to recognize cognates between Spanish and English (suffix -bility generally translates into -bilidad in Spanish).
Trazabilidad from the verb trazar ... in English; to draw, to design, to plan, etc.
Not sure how this works in the context of the question though. Designability, drawability, planability don't really translate well in the context of the sentence.
Perhaps chart-ability or track-ability in reference to charting or tracking the design throughout the process.
Che, Pablo. Ojo con la gente aca. Muchos aqui te van a chamuyar para darse la risa no mas.
In my experience, a large barrier to good final results is the technical ability of the designers when it comes to building science. It doesn't matter how good the building looks if it leaks. I think too many in the profession are expecting the contractor to figure things out on the job site without putting in the effort to understand how to make their designs work technically.
Actually, what i meant was traceability, not "trazability".
What i mean with traceability, is to have the possibility (in the studio) to verify the history of the project correctly, being this a pre condition to have a good result.
As we all know, lots of professionals are involved during the process and many people leave or change its role during the cycle....so, without a correct traceability of every component of the project (documents, decisions, approvals, etc) it´s not very likely to have a good result. This lack of traceability in projects is very common in south america.
I agree with you Everyday Intern, about the barrier involving the technical focus in architects solutions but i think it goes beyond that...al least in south america.
I think the biggest problem is how the professional focus is given in university (in my experience and colleagues i know) and how market works and what it needs.
Eg: i didn´t have a technical focus in the university, but an artistic one. We almost had none content involving project management.
Being that said, i can tell that the market usually pays very bad for that professional (Generalizing).
But here comes the problem. Why will they pay a good salary if they think that their professionals are not worth it? Or even worse, they know that professionals needs a lot of time working and training in order to gain experience and responsibilities, so they asume that they should be badly or not paid at all.
Sometimes the real problem is that the studios take projects knowing already that they are a low margin business. The question is why should they take that business?By doing that they are asuming that they´ll give a low quality resolution for the projects (as it is a low margin, i will pay very little to my people who are involved directly in the process and therefore, in the final result). The problem also comes to the professionals that take that job very badly paid, as that acceptance means that they are part of the problem, and not the solution).
Jun 25, 15 11:43 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Architecture Workflow in Studios
Hey guys,
My name´s Pablo, argentinian architect right here.
I´m writing my thesis about architecture workflow in studios, and what problems need to be solved in order to get better results during the process and final results in architecture.
I would appreciate if you could guys take a minute and think:
-what things (in your experience) need to be solved in the actual workflow of your studio to get a better process and have a good final result in a project? (documentation, information access, approvals, trazability, etc?)
I would appreciate if you could be very specific about the problems/issues or omissions ;-)
Thank you guys!
Pablo
please tell me more about " trazability".
Trazability ... I'm guessing this is a bad translation of what would typically be a general ability to recognize cognates between Spanish and English (suffix -bility generally translates into -bilidad in Spanish).
Trazabilidad from the verb trazar ... in English; to draw, to design, to plan, etc.
Not sure how this works in the context of the question though. Designability, drawability, planability don't really translate well in the context of the sentence.
Perhaps chart-ability or track-ability in reference to charting or tracking the design throughout the process.
Che, Pablo. Ojo con la gente aca. Muchos aqui te van a chamuyar para darse la risa no mas.
In my experience, a large barrier to good final results is the technical ability of the designers when it comes to building science. It doesn't matter how good the building looks if it leaks. I think too many in the profession are expecting the contractor to figure things out on the job site without putting in the effort to understand how to make their designs work technically.
^ Bingo. All flash, no substance.
Actually, what i meant was traceability, not "trazability".
What i mean with traceability, is to have the possibility (in the studio) to verify the history of the project correctly, being this a pre condition to have a good result.
As we all know, lots of professionals are involved during the process and many people leave or change its role during the cycle....so, without a correct traceability of every component of the project (documents, decisions, approvals, etc) it´s not very likely to have a good result. This lack of traceability in projects is very common in south america.
I agree with you Everyday Intern, about the barrier involving the technical focus in architects solutions but i think it goes beyond that...al least in south america.
I think the biggest problem is how the professional focus is given in university (in my experience and colleagues i know) and how market works and what it needs.
Eg: i didn´t have a technical focus in the university, but an artistic one. We almost had none content involving project management.
Being that said, i can tell that the market usually pays very bad for that professional (Generalizing).
But here comes the problem. Why will they pay a good salary if they think that their professionals are not worth it? Or even worse, they know that professionals needs a lot of time working and training in order to gain experience and responsibilities, so they asume that they should be badly or not paid at all.
Sometimes the real problem is that the studios take projects knowing already that they are a low margin business. The question is why should they take that business?By doing that they are asuming that they´ll give a low quality resolution for the projects (as it is a low margin, i will pay very little to my people who are involved directly in the process and therefore, in the final result). The problem also comes to the professionals that take that job very badly paid, as that acceptance means that they are part of the problem, and not the solution).
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.