I work with a firm of about 60 employees which specializes in educational architecture...large projects...$50-$300M. I'm interested in how other firms marshal the "Design Process".
A snapshot from 10-15 years ago at this firm would look like this. Job comes in, Partner-in-Charge meets with Design Architect and conveys project requirements. Project Manager may be brought in regarding Owner interaction, schedules and budget. Design Architect is solely responsible for generating concepts and critical details for exteriors based upon interactions with PIC and to a lesser extent, the PM. While the DA must have technical knowledge, their output is pretty much creative; a series of sketches/concepts with increasing commitment and refinement as the process continues (based on Owner feedback, code reviewers, PMK input, PIC input and sometimes in-house peer-reviews (crits). Designs are handed off to production crew and technical drawings are developed. Work is largely a standard 40 work week with occasional deadline pushes that might require 50+ hours.
The current model has changed. The two senior DAs have died. There are more young people who want to be part of the design process and actively participate. (who want's to come out of school and be relegated to stair sections and toilet room elevations for ten years?) Sometimes PMs will have a great deal of weight in terms of design concepts and development all the way through details. Sometimes a PIC will develop a strong interest in a project and direct design concepts and even participate heavily in how the concept is implemented and how it's detailed. So essentially the model has gone from linear/hierarchical to lateral/ "democratic" (also known as Too Many Cooks in the Kitchen). Most of the team are functioning in some technical or administrative role and are also participating in design. The firm now sees employees as technical and administrative production and the role of design is completely secondary. It probably would not even appear on a current job description.
In the past ten years I have been primarily in the role of a designer but also involved in DD, CD and CA. I live in SketchUp and I tolerate Revit. I see myself much more in the old-school model than the new model. It's really challenging (in a bad way) when there are so many people vying for authority in the Design Process. And the roles are not clearly defined. The BIM Manager, PIC, PM, code reviewer, and those with special areas of expertise are all participating and there's absolutely no telling how the concept /design will resolve. Sometimes the PIC or PM will just overrule everyone and "make it so". Needless to say, this lack of clarity in roles and boundaries makes for a lot of tension and frustration.
So I'm interested in other medium-sized firms doing large projects. How do you manage the design process? Have you found methods of working with a team that feels efficient, results in design integrity and leaves the participants feeling like respected professionals?
The office get a contract for design services, design team does a preliminary set of elevations / layout, gets approved for CD's & sent back to my desk, I redraw it from scratch to be constructible, repeat.
The intent is that if you squint your eyes it looks similar to the original design but someone on the job site isn't cutting CMU with a saw because someone in the design department doesn't understand block coursing or framing dimensions.
Unrelated to my work place experience, but I do think the workplace has gotten a bit too democratic. Not even just in our industry but throughout many industries.
I have seen a situation where the firm is clearly bifurcated into a design side and a technical side.
The design side does what a design architect would do when the 2 scopes are contracted to different firms - Photoshop, renders, napkin sketches, mood boards, picking materials, formal ideas - while the technical side does everything else.
Staff on the design side do not participate in the production work of the technical side - they basically function as an in-house starchitect. Direction flows mostly from the design side to the technical side. The latter is largely staffed by foreign internationals waiting for their green cards and so are not in a position to complain about long hours caused in part by the design team's ambitions or lack of technical knowledge. It all works out fine commercially I guess, as the lower wages of the foreigners function as a subsidy of sorts.
Jul 21, 22 1:59 pm ·
·
blackdogsketch
Interesting. On the design side of the wall...how do you think the team for a typical project would would work? Something like Senior Design Architect and two others on the team? Three people working together with equal weight?
Lmao I was in full agreeance with what you were saying, just nodding along. Then I got to the part where you started describing me as a foreign international waiting for my green card working long hours. Went off the rails so fast I actually chuckled out loud. I work at a 17 person firm in the US. Our "design department" is a director of design & two subordinate younger folks that are often given the opportunity to contribute ideas / work freely. But then everything gets run by the director of design for approval as it goes out the design door & to the technical side of the "wall" (there's not actually a wall I can see them from my desk). The technical side is a bunch of regular white collar professionals broken up basically into PM's & essentially draftsmen who help produce CD's but don't handle the outside interaction / paperwork. 40 hour weeks, no slavery involved.
Jul 25, 22 3:57 pm ·
·
RJ87
Basically what happens is design side gets the site layout & preliminary plans / elevations approved by the client, we handle the rest. I do wish they had more construction knowledge, but they'd have to spend money to pay someone with construction knowledge to also photoshop an image like a 17 year old could. There's a balance in there somewhere. I also kind of like the freedom to alter things a bit simply because it makes my life easier, if someone else had already hammered a design down I wouldn't have that luxury.
Work at a firm that mostly does custom residential. I'm the greenest hire fresh out of school with 1yr co-op experience.
Partner(s) come up with concept and parti. Work is mostly done on grid paper for initial meeting or two. Then it's sent to cad land and sketchup. It bounces between grid paper and computer as the project evolves. While the partner(s) are still driving the bus conceptually, someone like me doing the cad/3d work has constant moments of problem-solving to maintain the integrity of the concept. Internal and client attended design sessions occur where grid paper sketches are shown finessed in cad and/or 3d and then sketched over again. Whether collaborating in a meeting or working individually, the environment encourages everyone to suggest options as issues arise. Doesn't matter who in the hierarchy suggests something, if it's the strongest move that works with the concept the team rolls with it.
That's exactly how I work in my office of one, and how I used to work when I managed a small team of residential architects and designers. It does work well, as long as the team members doing the drafting/modeling don't get upset at changes after something seems settled, and not getting full credit for their contributions.
If there's one thing I've learned in my short career, it's that nothing is ever settled. I honestly like that about this office. We're constantly revisiting and being self-critical in a chase towards the simple and conceptually strong.
I'd like to hear about how different firms handle the "Design Process"
I work with a firm of about 60 employees which specializes in educational architecture...large projects...$50-$300M. I'm interested in how other firms marshal the "Design Process".
A snapshot from 10-15 years ago at this firm would look like this. Job comes in, Partner-in-Charge meets with Design Architect and conveys project requirements. Project Manager may be brought in regarding Owner interaction, schedules and budget. Design Architect is solely responsible for generating concepts and critical details for exteriors based upon interactions with PIC and to a lesser extent, the PM. While the DA must have technical knowledge, their output is pretty much creative; a series of sketches/concepts with increasing commitment and refinement as the process continues (based on Owner feedback, code reviewers, PMK input, PIC input and sometimes in-house peer-reviews (crits). Designs are handed off to production crew and technical drawings are developed. Work is largely a standard 40 work week with occasional deadline pushes that might require 50+ hours.
The current model has changed. The two senior DAs have died. There are more young people who want to be part of the design process and actively participate. (who want's to come out of school and be relegated to stair sections and toilet room elevations for ten years?) Sometimes PMs will have a great deal of weight in terms of design concepts and development all the way through details. Sometimes a PIC will develop a strong interest in a project and direct design concepts and even participate heavily in how the concept is implemented and how it's detailed. So essentially the model has gone from linear/hierarchical to lateral/ "democratic" (also known as Too Many Cooks in the Kitchen). Most of the team are functioning in some technical or administrative role and are also participating in design. The firm now sees employees as technical and administrative production and the role of design is completely secondary. It probably would not even appear on a current job description.
In the past ten years I have been primarily in the role of a designer but also involved in DD, CD and CA. I live in SketchUp and I tolerate Revit. I see myself much more in the old-school model than the new model. It's really challenging (in a bad way) when there are so many people vying for authority in the Design Process. And the roles are not clearly defined. The BIM Manager, PIC, PM, code reviewer, and those with special areas of expertise are all participating and there's absolutely no telling how the concept /design will resolve. Sometimes the PIC or PM will just overrule everyone and "make it so". Needless to say, this lack of clarity in roles and boundaries makes for a lot of tension and frustration.
So I'm interested in other medium-sized firms doing large projects. How do you manage the design process? Have you found methods of working with a team that feels efficient, results in design integrity and leaves the participants feeling like respected professionals?
Thanks for any feedback you care to provide.
The office get a contract for design services, design team does a preliminary set of elevations / layout, gets approved for CD's & sent back to my desk, I redraw it from scratch to be constructible, repeat.
The intent is that if you squint your eyes it looks similar to the original design but someone on the job site isn't cutting CMU with a saw because someone in the design department doesn't understand block coursing or framing dimensions.
Unrelated to my work place experience, but I do think the workplace has gotten a bit too democratic. Not even just in our industry but throughout many industries.
I'm interested in the "design team" and how they are working together.
I have seen a situation where the firm is clearly bifurcated into a design side and a technical side.
The design side does what a design architect would do when the 2 scopes are contracted to different firms - Photoshop, renders, napkin sketches, mood boards, picking materials, formal ideas - while the technical side does everything else.
Staff on the design side do not participate in the production work of the technical side - they basically function as an in-house starchitect. Direction flows mostly from the design side to the technical side. The latter is largely staffed by foreign internationals waiting for their green cards and so are not in a position to complain about long hours caused in part by the design team's ambitions or lack of technical knowledge. It all works out fine commercially I guess, as the lower wages of the foreigners function as a subsidy of sorts.
Interesting. On the design side of the wall...how do you think the team for a typical project would would work? Something like Senior Design Architect and two others on the team? Three people working together with equal weight?
Sounds so much like a form of slavery that is prevalent in the industry. Look no further to distant lands of Dubai and such.
Lmao I was in full agreeance with what you were saying, just nodding along. Then I got to the part where you started describing me as a foreign international waiting for my green card working long hours. Went off the rails so fast I actually chuckled out loud. I work at a 17 person firm in the US. Our "design department" is a director of design & two subordinate younger folks that are often given the opportunity to contribute ideas / work freely. But then everything gets run by the director of design for approval as it goes out the design door & to the technical side of the "wall" (there's not actually a wall I can see them from my desk). The technical side is a bunch of regular white collar professionals broken up basically into PM's & essentially draftsmen who help produce CD's but don't handle the outside interaction / paperwork. 40 hour weeks, no slavery involved.
Basically what happens is design side gets the site layout & preliminary plans / elevations approved by the client, we handle the rest. I do wish they had more construction knowledge, but they'd have to spend money to pay someone with construction knowledge to also photoshop an image like a 17 year old could. There's a balance in there somewhere. I also kind of like the freedom to alter things a bit simply because it makes my life easier, if someone else had already hammered a design down I wouldn't have that luxury.
Work at a firm that mostly does custom residential. I'm the greenest hire fresh out of school with 1yr co-op experience.
Partner(s) come up with concept and parti. Work is mostly done on grid paper for initial meeting or two. Then it's sent to cad land and sketchup. It bounces between grid paper and computer as the project evolves. While the partner(s) are still driving the bus conceptually, someone like me doing the cad/3d work has constant moments of problem-solving to maintain the integrity of the concept. Internal and client attended design sessions occur where grid paper sketches are shown finessed in cad and/or 3d and then sketched over again. Whether collaborating in a meeting or working individually, the environment encourages everyone to suggest options as issues arise. Doesn't matter who in the hierarchy suggests something, if it's the strongest move that works with the concept the team rolls with it.
Also even when I'm on cad for 8hrs I'm still jumping to sketch paper quite often to work out details. Overall I really enjoy this way of working.
That's exactly how I work in my office of one, and how I used to work when I managed a small team of residential architects and designers. It does work well, as long as the team members doing the drafting/modeling don't get upset at changes after something seems settled, and not getting full credit for their contributions.
If there's one thing I've learned in my short career, it's that nothing is ever settled. I honestly like that about this office. We're constantly revisiting and being self-critical in a chase towards the simple and conceptually strong.
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.