I am a drafter. Why does there have to be somebody, let us say a Project Manager, that basically just repeats everything that the Architect just told them (minus a couple of key points) instead of the Architect just telling me directly. It seems that it would be much more efficient. Am I missing something?
Ok so given all the snarky responses I will give you a real answer. consider it my public service for the day.
I understand the sentiment. As an early project manager / project architect I often had the opposite reaction. Which may be helpful for you to understand. I often found myself thinking "why do I have to hand this off to someone to draft who is going to take twice as long. Even though the drafter is working at a lower rate I could draw what I want way quicker than sketching it, explaining it, and then waiting for it to be picked up by a drafter. My client will end up paying more, the project already has a tight budget and I want to know its done right. But what I realized is that this is the quick road to burnout. Because I have other projects and things to worry about too. I need to get more done. and the work that i do needs to contribute to company's bottom line in the most efficient way possible. Peoples lively hood literally depend on there being more work. This is just the reality of a practice larger then just one person. You have to keep work moving on multiple fronts and that means delegating and relinquishing some degree of control.
Lets do some math to explain Here is a typical example for something that needs about 8 hrs of drafting
Doing it yourself is better for the client but worse for the business' return on investment. Except when you multiple that times 20. I can't work 80 hrs a week doing it all. That is not sustainable and surely the work product would suffer. Everyone loses
Now lets take your example of just eliminating the PM, The architect would probably have to take more time to explain things, perhaps answer follow up questions and coordination as the PM does in his .5hrs in the above example. so lets increase his time to .6hrs
.6 instead of the .75hr with both seems like a reasonable assumption it's .15hrs more efficient right? this is the perspective you currently have.
So your scenario, while it seems more efficient to you, actually results in a lower return on investment for the company.
The question I have is if your purchasing architectural services, why would you ever want to go with a bigger company? I think the answer is that those at the top have relationships, both with officials and experiences from past projects along with resources, libraries and systems that create efficiency the one man shop cannot. This eventually lowers the cost to client back inline with the cost of the one man shop. but I have not yet grasped how to quantify that to clients really clearly. It is also the small government argument that is popular in politics but that a whole other thread.
I understand what you saying. What I do not understand is how does the Architect having to explain something to somebody else twice versus once to me help his situation?
Because the project manager likely understands more about the project specifics than the arch hence, the PM is in a better spot to organize the drafting folks as needed.
God forbid anyone on a project besides the "Architect" be given agency over their work. That might devolve into a team effort, and we can't have that, can we?
Ok so given all the snarky responses I will give you a real answer. consider it my public service for the day.
I understand the sentiment. As an early project manager / project architect I often had the opposite reaction. Which may be helpful for you to understand. I often found myself thinking "why do I have to hand this off to someone to draft who is going to take twice as long. Even though the drafter is working at a lower rate I could draw what I want way quicker than sketching it, explaining it, and then waiting for it to be picked up by a drafter. My client will end up paying more, the project already has a tight budget and I want to know its done right. But what I realized is that this is the quick road to burnout. Because I have other projects and things to worry about too. I need to get more done. and the work that i do needs to contribute to company's bottom line in the most efficient way possible. Peoples lively hood literally depend on there being more work. This is just the reality of a practice larger then just one person. You have to keep work moving on multiple fronts and that means delegating and relinquishing some degree of control.
Lets do some math to explain Here is a typical example for something that needs about 8 hrs of drafting
Doing it yourself is better for the client but worse for the business' return on investment. Except when you multiple that times 20. I can't work 80 hrs a week doing it all. That is not sustainable and surely the work product would suffer. Everyone loses
Now lets take your example of just eliminating the PM, The architect would probably have to take more time to explain things, perhaps answer follow up questions and coordination as the PM does in his .5hrs in the above example. so lets increase his time to .6hrs
.6 instead of the .75hr with both seems like a reasonable assumption it's .15hrs more efficient right? this is the perspective you currently have.
So your scenario, while it seems more efficient to you, actually results in a lower return on investment for the company.
The question I have is if your purchasing architectural services, why would you ever want to go with a bigger company? I think the answer is that those at the top have relationships, both with officials and experiences from past projects along with resources, libraries and systems that create efficiency the one man shop cannot. This eventually lowers the cost to client back inline with the cost of the one man shop. but I have not yet grasped how to quantify that to clients really clearly. It is also the small government argument that is popular in politics but that a whole other thread.
JonathanLivingston, thank you very much for the thoughtful post!
I understand and agree completely with the scenario that one have put forth. This is the way that process should work.
However, the situation that I find myself in time and time again is that the PM, interior designer or another designer will markup drawings, I make the changes then when the Architect (the one stamping the drawings) makes changes different from what I was directed to do by the PM, designers etc. Maybe this situation is unique to the office that I work at?
I must say, in my defense that, while not an architect, I have over 20 years’ experience and take direction, interpret sketches, do research, problem solve, propose potential solutions etc. fairly well. Therefore I feel at times that it would just be more efficient to take direction directly from the Architect and possibly save a round or two of redlines.
But I will admit that it is very possible that I am misjudging my own skill set and that is why I do not work more closely with the Architect.
I wouldn't say the scenario you describe is unusual, but more a typical process of iteration. I frequently go back on ideas or ask for things to be drawn differently then I originally asked. I think that's just part of refining, reworking and designing. Often there are opportunities or mistakes that the architect or designer will not see until it is drawn. Don't fight it. and don't take it as a personal affront to your work.
That being said, the drafter is an important part of the design process. Operating with some degree of autonomy so that you too can create a positive influence on the project is important. You must think critically about your roll. and the task you are undertaking. Which it sounds like you are doing. based on your questioning and experience i doubt you are misjudging your skills. At the same time being willing to scrap it all in search of a different solution. You must move with the team. The Arch, PM, Interior designer and you are all on the same team and often the direction changes mid stream. As the drafter at the end of the train you experience these changes a bit of whiplash.
When I was first starting out someone shared with me a quote from Emerson: "The reward for a job well done is having done it" this ended up have a large impact on my work ethic, as I realized that the satisfaction I gained from my work was not in its completion or utilization but the work itself. It made the whiplash of being a drafter at the end of the design train bearable because doing something twice or having to redraw something because of miscommunication or changing design decisions above me became not a burden, but opportunity. A chance to complete the task again, better, faster, with more satisfaction.
I seriously miss those days. If I could support a family and afford a house and lifestyle that I want I would gladly do all my own drafting, or could even be content as just a drafter, or an artist, a sculptor, or a homemaker. Professions that would provide me some of the greatest personal satisfaction. But I am a slave to the money. which brings me back to my previous conclusion of its a business. You must find your own way to be happy despite that.
Process question regarding flow of information
I am a drafter. Why does there have to be somebody, let us say a Project Manager, that basically just repeats everything that the Architect just told them (minus a couple of key points) instead of the Architect just telling me directly. It seems that it would be much more efficient. Am I missing something?
1 Featured Comment
Ok so given all the snarky responses I will give you a real answer. consider it my public service for the day.
I understand the sentiment. As an early project manager / project architect I often had the opposite reaction. Which may be helpful for you to understand. I often found myself thinking "why do I have to hand this off to someone to draft who is going to take twice as long. Even though the drafter is working at a lower rate I could draw what I want way quicker than sketching it, explaining it, and then waiting for it to be picked up by a drafter. My client will end up paying more, the project already has a tight budget and I want to know its done right. But what I realized is that this is the quick road to burnout. Because I have other projects and things to worry about too. I need to get more done. and the work that i do needs to contribute to company's bottom line in the most efficient way possible. Peoples lively hood literally depend on there being more work. This is just the reality of a practice larger then just one person. You have to keep work moving on multiple fronts and that means delegating and relinquishing some degree of control.
Lets do some math to explain Here is a typical example for something that needs about 8 hrs of drafting
.25hr of architect billed @200hr, paid $70/hr = $50 billed $17.5 cost
.5hr of PM billed @175/hr, paid $60/hr = $87.5 billed, $30cost
7.25hr of Drafter billed @125/hr, paid $40/hr = 906.25 billed, $290 cost
8 hrs = $1,043.75 billed / 337.5 cost = 3.09259 ROI
4 hrs @ 200/hr = $800 cash flow / 280 cost = 2.86 ROI
Doing it yourself is better for the client but worse for the business' return on investment. Except when you multiple that times 20. I can't work 80 hrs a week doing it all. That is not sustainable and surely the work product would suffer. Everyone loses
Now lets take your example of just eliminating the PM, The architect would probably have to take more time to explain things, perhaps answer follow up questions and coordination as the PM does in his .5hrs in the above example. so lets increase his time to .6hrs
.6 instead of the .75hr with both seems like a reasonable assumption it's .15hrs more efficient right? this is the perspective you currently have.
.6hr of architect billed @200hr, paid $70/hr = $120 billed $42 cost
7.25hr of Drafter billed @125/hr, paid $40/hr = 906.25 billed, $290 cost
7.85 hrs = $1,026.25 billed / 332 cost = 3.09111 ROI
3.0911 is less than 3.0925
So your scenario, while it seems more efficient to you, actually results in a lower return on investment for the company.
The question I have is if your purchasing architectural services, why would you ever want to go with a bigger company? I think the answer is that those at the top have relationships, both with officials and experiences from past projects along with resources, libraries and systems that create efficiency the one man shop cannot. This eventually lowers the cost to client back inline with the cost of the one man shop. but I have not yet grasped how to quantify that to clients really clearly. It is also the small government argument that is popular in politics but that a whole other thread.
TLDR: because you work for a business.
All 15 Comments
Because the architect likely has 10 times more things to do than manage every aspect of the project.
I understand what you saying. What I do not understand is how does the Architect having to explain something to somebody else twice versus once to me help his situation?
Because the project manager likely understands more about the project specifics than the arch hence, the PM is in a better spot to organize the drafting folks as needed.
Not sure there is a real problem here.
I guess that would mean the problem is a incompetent PM. At least in my situation. Thanks. That makes sense.
...or less than reliable drafting staff and the main architect does not want to waste their time instructing them directly.
That is possible.
I will be quiet now.
God forbid anyone on a project besides the "Architect" be given agency over their work. That might devolve into a team effort, and we can't have that, can we?
I apologize. I was just trying discuss the possibility of a more efficient flow of information.
Architect (principle) to project lead (senior) to draftsman is a pretty damn efficient use of the Architect's time.
somebody needs to get paid for doing nothing.
Ok so given all the snarky responses I will give you a real answer. consider it my public service for the day.
I understand the sentiment. As an early project manager / project architect I often had the opposite reaction. Which may be helpful for you to understand. I often found myself thinking "why do I have to hand this off to someone to draft who is going to take twice as long. Even though the drafter is working at a lower rate I could draw what I want way quicker than sketching it, explaining it, and then waiting for it to be picked up by a drafter. My client will end up paying more, the project already has a tight budget and I want to know its done right. But what I realized is that this is the quick road to burnout. Because I have other projects and things to worry about too. I need to get more done. and the work that i do needs to contribute to company's bottom line in the most efficient way possible. Peoples lively hood literally depend on there being more work. This is just the reality of a practice larger then just one person. You have to keep work moving on multiple fronts and that means delegating and relinquishing some degree of control.
Lets do some math to explain Here is a typical example for something that needs about 8 hrs of drafting
.25hr of architect billed @200hr, paid $70/hr = $50 billed $17.5 cost
.5hr of PM billed @175/hr, paid $60/hr = $87.5 billed, $30cost
7.25hr of Drafter billed @125/hr, paid $40/hr = 906.25 billed, $290 cost
8 hrs = $1,043.75 billed / 337.5 cost = 3.09259 ROI
4 hrs @ 200/hr = $800 cash flow / 280 cost = 2.86 ROI
Doing it yourself is better for the client but worse for the business' return on investment. Except when you multiple that times 20. I can't work 80 hrs a week doing it all. That is not sustainable and surely the work product would suffer. Everyone loses
Now lets take your example of just eliminating the PM, The architect would probably have to take more time to explain things, perhaps answer follow up questions and coordination as the PM does in his .5hrs in the above example. so lets increase his time to .6hrs
.6 instead of the .75hr with both seems like a reasonable assumption it's .15hrs more efficient right? this is the perspective you currently have.
.6hr of architect billed @200hr, paid $70/hr = $120 billed $42 cost
7.25hr of Drafter billed @125/hr, paid $40/hr = 906.25 billed, $290 cost
7.85 hrs = $1,026.25 billed / 332 cost = 3.09111 ROI
3.0911 is less than 3.0925
So your scenario, while it seems more efficient to you, actually results in a lower return on investment for the company.
The question I have is if your purchasing architectural services, why would you ever want to go with a bigger company? I think the answer is that those at the top have relationships, both with officials and experiences from past projects along with resources, libraries and systems that create efficiency the one man shop cannot. This eventually lowers the cost to client back inline with the cost of the one man shop. but I have not yet grasped how to quantify that to clients really clearly. It is also the small government argument that is popular in politics but that a whole other thread.
TLDR: because you work for a business.
JonathanLivingston, thank you very much for the thoughtful post!
I understand and agree completely with the scenario that one have put forth.
This is the way that process should work.
However, the situation that I find myself in time and time again is that the PM, interior designer or another designer will markup drawings, I make the changes then when the Architect (the one stamping the drawings) makes changes different from what I was directed to do by the PM, designers etc. Maybe this situation is unique to the office that I work at?
I must say, in my defense that, while not an architect, I have over 20 years’ experience and take direction, interpret sketches, do research, problem solve, propose potential solutions etc. fairly well. Therefore I feel at times that it would just be more efficient to take direction directly from the Architect and possibly save a round or two of redlines.
But I will admit that it is very possible that I am misjudging my own skill set and that is why I do not work more closely with the Architect.
Contradicting redlines? That's not unique, but is a sign the project team needs to communicate better.
SideMan,
I wouldn't say the scenario you describe is unusual, but more a typical process of iteration. I frequently go back on ideas or ask for things to be drawn differently then I originally asked. I think that's just part of refining, reworking and designing. Often there are opportunities or mistakes that the architect or designer will not see until it is drawn. Don't fight it. and don't take it as a personal affront to your work.
That being said, the drafter is an important part of the design process. Operating with some degree of autonomy so that you too can create a positive influence on the project is important. You must think critically about your roll. and the task you are undertaking. Which it sounds like you are doing. based on your questioning and experience i doubt you are misjudging your skills. At the same time being willing to scrap it all in search of a different solution. You must move with the team. The Arch, PM, Interior designer and you are all on the same team and often the direction changes mid stream. As the drafter at the end of the train you experience these changes a bit of whiplash.
When I was first starting out someone shared with me a quote from Emerson: "The reward for a job well done is having done it" this ended up have a large impact on my work ethic, as I realized that the satisfaction I gained from my work was not in its completion or utilization but the work itself. It made the whiplash of being a drafter at the end of the design train bearable because doing something twice or having to redraw something because of miscommunication or changing design decisions above me became not a burden, but opportunity. A chance to complete the task again, better, faster, with more satisfaction.
I seriously miss those days. If I could support a family and afford a house and lifestyle that I want I would gladly do all my own drafting, or could even be content as just a drafter, or an artist, a sculptor, or a homemaker. Professions that would provide me some of the greatest personal satisfaction. But I am a slave to the money. which brings me back to my previous conclusion of its a business. You must find your own way to be happy despite that.
Now I must go herd cats for the day.
Thank you again for taking the time to write a thoughtful response.
You have been very helpful!!
/!\whoa bot budddy!
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.