Doing some research and would like to leverage the knowledge of the Archinect audience. What would you all say are the differences between a Studio Director and a Project Manager within a firm?
I know some firms might have one Studio Director that oversees a group of Project Managers, each with their own small teams. And that there are firms (like Gensler, for example) that have multiple "Studios" under the umbrella of the corporation that each have their own Studio Director who is essentially running their own small firm (finances, hr, mentorship, responding to RFPs, acquiring new work, etc.). The difference here is a bit clearer, but I know this isn't true for other models similar to this.
A variation of the Gensler structure are those firms that have multiple studios within a firm, each with a Studio Director, but it's more to divide up work that the firm acquires as opposed to each Studio Director having their "own" clients (if the firm gets an interiors project, for example, it'd go to the Interiors Studio. This is where the Studio Director seems similar to a project manager to me, since they'd likely still report to/collaborate with a Design Principal or otherwise throughout the project), and they wouldn't be involved in all of the administrative things that the "Gensler example" would be involved in.
Ultimately, just looking for some different perspectives on this role within a firm/studio. Thanks!
Architects make the same mistake time and time again, which is to make a firm standard the idea that a Project Manager is some sort of higher position than Project Architect or Designer.
This is foolish. A Project Manager in its purest form does not design. The PM is responsible for the financials, scheduling, and client relationship. The PM should not be dipping into the design. This is the charge of the designer and the PA.
There should, in my opinion, be a clear demarcation of roles within a project, and these roles MUST NOT equate to a hierarchy within the firm as a whole. Roles such as Designer, PM, PA, and the like MUST NOT be used to generate salaries, benefits, or promotions. This forces talented people who have specific skills to eschew those skills if they wish to move up in the firm.
Better to have a track of leadership and value to the firm which controls salary, benefits, and the like (Associate, Senior Associate, etc) and leave the project roles to be filled by the most qualified candidate.
To answer your question directly; a studio director is an individual with oversight of the projects under their purview. They are responsible for guiding the projects. A PM is an individual who is in charge of the financials, scheduling, staffing, and client relationship for individual projects under their purview.
archanonymous, I did not know this. Does it work? All of the things I wrote are ruminations I have been having during my career, but I like firms that aren't big enough to have the clear roles. The better firms at my preferred size manage to figure it out, and most projects aren't large enough to need a PM and a PA (and if they do the individuals have been able to coexist since they've been colleagues for a while), but I've had a few experiences where revenue was lost due to
inefficiencies of the PM and PA having different design opinions.
Dec 20, 19 1:32 pm ·
·
BabbleBeautiful
archanonymous: What's the difference between Title and Job Title?
Dec 20, 19 3:16 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
Title: Firm Leadership Track: Associate, Senior Associate, Principal
There's definitely no standardized definition of these roles. And, having been a "Studio Director", I can tell you that there are some pitfalls to using that title, exactly because there are no standardized roles.
In the firm where I was Studio Director, what it meant was an experienced architect and project manager, who had a supervisory and QA/QC role over all projects and teams, and who was responsible for implementing and enforcing the firm's procedures and standards, developing project budgets, and allocating staff to projects and juggling staff and projects to keep it all going smoothly. In this firm there were five mostly-separate studios (large firm, separate disciplines), each with its own Studio Director, two of whom were partners and the other three of whom were architects with 15+ years of experience, as project managers and/or design leads.
The problem I've encountered in having that on my resume is that in some firms in which I've interviewed since, "Studio Director" means "Office Manager / Bookkeeper / Receptionist for the whole firm" - which of course is a fine and essential role - but it's not at all what I did. That's led to some awkward discussions - some because the firm was actually looking for an office manager type and I turned out to be an architect type, and others where they were looking for a senior project manager type but seeing "Studio Director" on my resume made them think I was an under-qualified, over-reaching former architecture firm secretary.
Dec 20, 19 1:18 pm ·
·
bowling_ball
So then change the title on your resume and if they ask about it any inconsistencies during the interview, you can clarify.
Dec 21, 19 5:11 pm ·
·
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.
How does a Studio Director differ from a Project Manager?
Doing some research and would like to leverage the knowledge of the Archinect audience. What would you all say are the differences between a Studio Director and a Project Manager within a firm?
I know some firms might have one Studio Director that oversees a group of Project Managers, each with their own small teams. And that there are firms (like Gensler, for example) that have multiple "Studios" under the umbrella of the corporation that each have their own Studio Director who is essentially running their own small firm (finances, hr, mentorship, responding to RFPs, acquiring new work, etc.). The difference here is a bit clearer, but I know this isn't true for other models similar to this.
A variation of the Gensler structure are those firms that have multiple studios within a firm, each with a Studio Director, but it's more to divide up work that the firm acquires as opposed to each Studio Director having their "own" clients (if the firm gets an interiors project, for example, it'd go to the Interiors Studio. This is where the Studio Director seems similar to a project manager to me, since they'd likely still report to/collaborate with a Design Principal or otherwise throughout the project), and they wouldn't be involved in all of the administrative things that the "Gensler example" would be involved in.
Ultimately, just looking for some different perspectives on this role within a firm/studio. Thanks!
Architects make the same mistake time and time again, which is to make a firm standard the idea that a Project Manager is some sort of higher position than Project Architect or Designer.
This is foolish. A Project Manager in its purest form does not design. The PM is responsible for the financials, scheduling, and client relationship. The PM should not be dipping into the design. This is the charge of the designer and the PA.
There should, in my opinion, be a clear demarcation of roles within a project, and these roles MUST NOT equate to a hierarchy within the firm as a whole. Roles such as Designer, PM, PA, and the like MUST NOT be used to generate salaries, benefits, or promotions. This forces talented people who have specific skills to eschew those skills if they wish to move up in the firm.
Better to have a track of leadership and value to the firm which controls salary, benefits, and the like (Associate, Senior Associate, etc) and leave the project roles to be filled by the most qualified candidate.
To answer your question directly; a studio director is an individual with oversight of the projects under their purview. They are responsible for guiding the projects. A PM is an individual who is in charge of the financials, scheduling, staffing, and client relationship for individual projects under their purview.
This is actually the gensler model. Title and job title are separate.
Thanks SneakyPete! Great insights
archanonymous, I did not know this. Does it work? All of the things I wrote are ruminations I have been having during my career, but I like firms that aren't big enough to have the clear roles. The better firms at my preferred size manage to figure it out, and most projects aren't large enough to need a PM and a PA (and if they do the individuals have been able to coexist since they've been colleagues for a while), but I've had a few experiences where revenue was lost due to inefficiencies of the PM and PA having different design opinions.
archanonymous: What's the difference between Title and Job Title?
Title: Firm Leadership Track: Associate, Senior Associate, Principal
Job Title: Project Role: Designer, PA, PM
Addendum: the purity of roles doesn't work for smaller firms / projects. Generally the PM and PA roles are filled by a single individual.
I think this is my dilemma, trying to find a universal definition for these roles.
That's asking a lot, since no two firms are (dis)organized in the exact same way.
There's definitely no standardized definition of these roles. And, having been a "Studio Director", I can tell you that there are some pitfalls to using that title, exactly because there are no standardized roles.
In the firm where I was Studio Director, what it meant was an experienced architect and project manager, who had a supervisory and QA/QC role over all projects and teams, and who was responsible for implementing and enforcing the firm's procedures and standards, developing project budgets, and allocating staff to projects and juggling staff and projects to keep it all going smoothly. In this firm there were five mostly-separate studios (large firm, separate disciplines), each with its own Studio Director, two of whom were partners and the other three of whom were architects with 15+ years of experience, as project managers and/or design leads.
The problem I've encountered in having that on my resume is that in some firms in which I've interviewed since, "Studio Director" means "Office Manager / Bookkeeper / Receptionist for the whole firm" - which of course is a fine and essential role - but it's not at all what I did. That's led to some awkward discussions - some because the firm was actually looking for an office manager type and I turned out to be an architect type, and others where they were looking for a senior project manager type but seeing "Studio Director" on my resume made them think I was an under-qualified, over-reaching former architecture firm secretary.
So then change the title on your resume and if they ask about it any inconsistencies during the interview, you can clarify.
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.