I am doing some research related to litigation in the architectural field. There was this great diagram one time noting the correlation between an increase in the number of drawings now being produced yet the litigation against projects has continued to increase. This also correlated to architectural/prime consulting fees hitting a plateau (or in Canada, decreasing). The diagram was showing the empire state building and it's +/-120 drawing set to build the world's tallest building at the time. Then it progressed through the years showing an exponential growth of drawing quantities with a higher curve of litigation in the field.
Has anyone else seen this. I wish I saved the blog/image but can't seem to find the resource anymore. Other related information would be great, too.
In thirty years of practicing architecture, by far the most common source of claims/litigation as I've seen it has been bad project management, not errors/omissions in drawing sets.
Having said that, it would stand to reason that there is some correlation between the size of drawings sets and claims, simply because more information in drawings dramatically increases the complexity of managing the project effectively.
I do think that drawing inflation has become a big problem in our industry. Way back when drawings had to be done by hand, it was much easier to focus on spending effort in creating them only on including information which was essential. With CAD/BIM, it's possible to generate lots and lots of additional drawings without a direct 1-to-1 cost in labor to draw them. So the mindset of providing 20 building sections (or details, or whatever) where 3 will do the job, just to try and be comprehensive and look like we did a ton of work, has become prevalent.
TL;DR - more drawings does not necessarily equal better communication of information. Bad communication leads to conflict. Conflict can result in claims if it gets too far.
I think there is some good point you have on the correlation. The larger the documents are, the more error-prone it would be. We get paid basically the same as we did 100 years ago, yet our documents are easily 3 - 5 times larger. So, it is more likely to have errors or omissions because you have to read through the plans in less time. Just like it is easier to write a 5 page report and proof read and remove all errors than a 15-25 page report especially if you have to make that 15-25 page report in the same time frame as the 5 page report with no increase in amount of time. As a profession, we are part of the problem. This relates back to project management problems. Either not enough human resource or not planning enough time to do it right.
Ultimately, I agree with your point overall. Bad communication and bad project management = poor results or error-prone delivery of services.
Nov 13, 23 6:37 pm ·
·
curtkram
they're all the same windows going up the empire state building. there are like four materials on the building. big drawing sets happen when you have 14 different materials and every eight feet is a unique section
I agree and would add that the number of drawings doesn't have a bearing on litigation. As gwharton said, it's all about communication. You can have good communication with a large set of drawings and bad communication with a small set.
Thanks for your post. I recently completed 80 million worth of construction. The drawings were the worst I have ever seen. Revit and BM is all about the transfer of liability - nothing more this profession needs to get it's shit together.
likely that as an industry there is more opportunity for suits about drawings now that more drawings are produced. However, I don’t think, as a firm in the current market, doing less drawings would correlate with less suits though. There is probably a sweet spot where doing too few would correlate with a different kind of lawsuit.
Anyway, I’m guessing this is all a bit moot as I think the number of lawsuits as a whole for the country has increased over time. If this aspect of the industry had not changed, the amount of lawsuits probably would have increased regardless.
AIA A104 specifically has language protecting the architect from liability resulting from errors and omissions in the contract documents. As the contract (in a design bid build project) is held between the owner and the contractor, thus the owner foots the bill for architect errors and omissions. This does not prevent litigation, as no contract language prevents litigation in itself.
Nov 13, 23 7:14 pm ·
·
gwharton
"no contract language prevents litigation in itself."
This is a very important and underappreciated point. In America, anybody can sue anyone for anything. It's our national sport.
That doesn't mean they're going to win, but filing a suit in the first place is trivially easy. This is the essence of lawfare and nuisance litigation as a negotiating tactic. Back in the days when I was doing work for billionaires directly, an owner's rep once told me: "I know you have a contract. Understand that [your client] has the personal resources to financially destroy you regardless of what that contract says. Take care to make sure he's happy."
E_A, that is true but there is something called causal correlation. This is quite often a fact for many errors because you can point to 90% of the errors and omission cases has some flaw in the project management process. A perfectly executed project management case would have zero errors and omission because one part of project management is TIME MANAGEMENT and HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. This means, YOU, the professional determines the human resources and the scheduling.
This means there is a clear causal link between project management errors and the E&O issues that may exist in plans. This is because errors and omission are caused by rushing and not putting the due diligence time necessary to review the plans thoroughly. If you do not put the time to thoroughly review plans against every single error, even typos and mispellings and grammar errors in actual technical submissions, your error begins with the deficient time allotment.
Correlation does not IMPLY causation in the strict epistemological sense, but it's a pretty good indication of some sort of connection, direct or indirect. That's why it's a very useful analytic tool in statistics. OP's question is interesting and reasonable.
Yes, but there is an intrinsic link between the things correlated and the causation factors that they aren't separate and unrelated to each other. It is an entangled web linking the cause and the correlation points that they are largely inseparable. The cause is ultimately due to project management errors. If your drawings have litigation over it, it is 90% likely to be resulting in errors in the project management. Project management isn't one area but encompassing many if not virtually all aspects of all projects of a firm and essentially firm operations. Firms operations are mostly project-based. It's the nature of project-orientation of professional services of the architectural professions.
I don't think the number of drawings has anything to do with it. Way more claims probably results from too few drawings and information and project management/communication problems.
It happens on both ends of the case. Sometimes, spending too much time in one area results in too little time in other areas. Problem is rooted in a project management issue. Be it not enough human resources or too much human resource, not alloting the appropriate amount of time. You name it. Where do you start?
Nov 17, 23 6:37 pm ·
·
midlander
i think much of the problem comes from modern construction being too complex to be fully conceived and known by a single person, yet having a legal-professional system that assumes there is one party in charge of knowing everything and working under direction of the licensed architect.
i think of all the claims i've witnessed or read about due to material incompatibilities, limitations on product installation methods, bolt specifications, load paths - things a licensed architect might be accountable for but isn't at all qualified to know, and realistically isn't capable of keeping track of for dozens of projects during any five year period.
some part of the drawing bloat is compliance. in addition to building codes directly addressing safety there are planning codes, environmental regulations, and sustainability standards which add layers of requirements that sometimes need separate drawings to explicate. merely complying with the regulation in practice isn't sufficient; you must use drawings to prove it.
or more accurately, you must use drawings to prove the intent to comply. since compliant drawings aren't the intent of the regulations, but a lot easier to review.
Very good point and yet, not really paid more nor allowed the additional time to properly prepare all the new additional work this profession has become responsible for. It really put itself in a pickle of doing the impossible and always going to result in projects with errors and omissions. It becomes bloated and sloppier prepared work because that's the reality you'll get. Maybe it is time to maybe redefine the role of architect and have maybe some other profession emerge like where these other things are borne and not on the architect who can not possibly bear the legal responsibility over these tasks. How do we go about it.
FWIW, Victor Insurance (formerly Victor O. Schinnerer and Co.) published an AIA Best Practice which outlined the top 5 most risk-prone areas of architectural practice. It was excerpted from an article published back in 1973. They claim the top 5 areas that most frequently give rise to claims have remained the same since then. None of them were the number of drawings produced.
You should read the article, it's a quick read, but here are the top 5 (numbered, but I don't think the article means to imply any particular order or ranking):
Failure to supervise inexperienced employees
Inadequate project coordination and in-house communication
Failure to communicate between the prime professional and consultants
Bonus, if you mention doing better, or implementing strategies to do better on any of these 5 things with the people who have power in the firm, you'll be seen as a valuable employee.
However, if you mention that you think you should produce less drawings because of dubious correlations they'll think you're not very intelligent.
1973, drawings were still hand-drawn. Project management errors is the issues to all those issues including to a part, number of drawings but number of drawings is potentially an outcome of improper project management. The problem is not necessarily number of drawings but flawed drawings which results from... frankly put negligence at various points. Project management of the architectural services is where is begins and flaws here anywhere is going to result in issues that may lead to litigation.
The number of drawings isn't the issue. The lack of allotting adequate resources to produce the drawings properly is at heart the issue. You can have a 10,000-sheet pile of crap drawings or a 25-sheet set of high-quality drawings that have been well executed. The more drawings and sheets, the more that has to be reviewed which would in turn require more time because you can't just review faster. The review is being done faster and faster to there is a point that you aren't reviewing at all. Just glancing at the sheets and affixing your stamp and signature. The problem is architects are stretching themselves too thin doing too much without an increase in pay from clients and time allotment. That is what I am getting at.
Failure to supervise inexperienced employees
Inadequate project coordination and in-house communication
Failure to communicate between the prime professional and consultants
Lack of quality control on design changes
Poorly worded contract documents
All of these are project management issues. I don't mean the client's project manager or the construction manager. I mean project management of architectural services of the architectural firm.
Litigation & Drawing Correlation
I am doing some research related to litigation in the architectural field. There was this great diagram one time noting the correlation between an increase in the number of drawings now being produced yet the litigation against projects has continued to increase. This also correlated to architectural/prime consulting fees hitting a plateau (or in Canada, decreasing). The diagram was showing the empire state building and it's +/-120 drawing set to build the world's tallest building at the time. Then it progressed through the years showing an exponential growth of drawing quantities with a higher curve of litigation in the field.
Has anyone else seen this. I wish I saved the blog/image but can't seem to find the resource anymore. Other related information would be great, too.
In thirty years of practicing architecture, by far the most common source of claims/litigation as I've seen it has been bad project management, not errors/omissions in drawing sets.
Having said that, it would stand to reason that there is some correlation between the size of drawings sets and claims, simply because more information in drawings dramatically increases the complexity of managing the project effectively.
I do think that drawing inflation has become a big problem in our industry. Way back when drawings had to be done by hand, it was much easier to focus on spending effort in creating them only on including information which was essential. With CAD/BIM, it's possible to generate lots and lots of additional drawings without a direct 1-to-1 cost in labor to draw them. So the mindset of providing 20 building sections (or details, or whatever) where 3 will do the job, just to try and be comprehensive and look like we did a ton of work, has become prevalent.
TL;DR - more drawings does not necessarily equal better communication of information. Bad communication leads to conflict. Conflict can result in claims if it gets too far.
I think there is some good point you have on the correlation. The larger the documents are, the more error-prone it would be. We get paid basically the same as we did 100 years ago, yet our documents are easily 3 - 5 times larger. So, it is more likely to have errors or omissions because you have to read through the plans in less time. Just like it is easier to write a 5 page report and proof read and remove all errors than a 15-25 page report especially if you have to make that 15-25 page report in the same time frame as the 5 page report with no increase in amount of time. As a profession, we are part of the problem. This relates back to project management problems. Either not enough human resource or not planning enough time to do it right.
Ultimately, I agree with your point overall. Bad communication and bad project management = poor results or error-prone delivery of services.
they're all the same windows going up the empire state building. there are like four materials on the building. big drawing sets happen when you have 14 different materials and every eight feet is a unique section
I agree and would add that the number of drawings doesn't have a bearing on litigation. As gwharton said, it's all about communication. You can have good communication with a large set of drawings and bad communication with a small set.
Thanks for your post. I recently completed 80 million worth of construction. The drawings were the worst I have ever seen.
Revit and BM is all about the transfer of liability - nothing more
this profession needs to get it's shit together.
Internet topic/ …pop corn is ready
*Interesting
likely that as an industry there is more opportunity for suits about drawings now that more drawings are produced. However, I don’t think, as a firm in the current market, doing less drawings would correlate with less suits though. There is probably a sweet spot where doing too few would correlate with a different kind of lawsuit.
Anyway, I’m guessing this is all a bit moot as I think the number of lawsuits as a whole for the country has increased over time. If this aspect of the industry had not changed, the amount of lawsuits probably would have increased regardless.
AIA A104 specifically has language protecting the architect from liability resulting from errors and omissions in the contract documents. As the contract (in a design bid build project) is held between the owner and the contractor, thus the owner foots the bill for architect errors and omissions. This does not prevent litigation, as no contract language prevents litigation in itself.
"no contract language prevents litigation in itself."
This is a very important and underappreciated point. In America, anybody can sue anyone for anything. It's our national sport.
That doesn't mean they're going to win, but filing a suit in the first place is trivially easy. This is the essence of lawfare and nuisance litigation as a negotiating tactic. Back in the days when I was doing work for billionaires directly, an owner's rep once told me: "I know you have a contract. Understand that [your client] has the personal resources to financially destroy you regardless of what that contract says. Take care to make sure he's happy."
jeez what a bluntly worded lesson - and terrible attitude by client rep. guess they took the rep. part very seriously
Here for the inevitable dumpster fire, and also to point out that correlation != causation.
E_A, that is true but there is something called causal correlation. This is quite often a fact for many errors because you can point to 90% of the errors and omission cases has some flaw in the project management process. A perfectly executed project management case would have zero errors and omission because one part of project management is TIME MANAGEMENT and HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. This means, YOU, the professional determines the human resources and the scheduling.
This means there is a clear causal link between project management errors and the E&O issues that may exist in plans. This is because errors and omission are caused by rushing and not putting the due diligence time necessary to review the plans thoroughly. If you do not put the time to thoroughly review plans against every single error, even typos and mispellings and grammar errors in actual technical submissions, your error begins with the deficient time allotment.
Got to make sure luvu hasn't wasted the popcorn.
::passes EA a beer and popcorn:: I miss anything yet?
Correlation does not IMPLY causation in the strict epistemological sense, but it's a pretty good indication of some sort of connection, direct or indirect. That's why it's a very useful analytic tool in statistics. OP's question is interesting and reasonable.
Have a beer gwharton. Remember who you're 'debating' with.
LOL right
Ignoring Balkins is much simpler than trying to 'debate' him.
Can't argue with that
Yes, but there is an intrinsic link between the things correlated and the causation factors that they aren't separate and unrelated to each other. It is an entangled web linking the cause and the correlation points that they are largely inseparable. The cause is ultimately due to project management errors. If your drawings have litigation over it, it is 90% likely to be resulting in errors in the project management. Project management isn't one area but encompassing many if not virtually all aspects of all projects of a firm and essentially firm operations. Firms operations are mostly project-based. It's the nature of project-orientation of professional services of the architectural professions.
Beer and popcorn is a horrible combination coming back up. Tastes like Balkins word vomit.
I don't think the number of drawings has anything to do with it. Way more claims probably results from too few drawings and information and project management/communication problems.
It happens on both ends of the case. Sometimes, spending too much time in one area results in too little time in other areas. Problem is rooted in a project management issue. Be it not enough human resources or too much human resource, not alloting the appropriate amount of time. You name it. Where do you start?
i think much of the problem comes from modern construction being too complex to be fully conceived and known by a single person, yet having a legal-professional system that assumes there is one party in charge of knowing everything and working under direction of the licensed architect.
i think of all the claims i've witnessed or read about due to material incompatibilities, limitations on product installation methods, bolt specifications, load paths - things a licensed architect might be accountable for but isn't at all qualified to know, and realistically isn't capable of keeping track of for dozens of projects during any five year period.
agree that the problem is not the number of drawings - that's just a symptom of the complexity.
some part of the drawing bloat is compliance. in addition to building codes directly addressing safety there are planning codes, environmental regulations, and sustainability standards which add layers of requirements that sometimes need separate drawings to explicate. merely complying with the regulation in practice isn't sufficient; you must use drawings to prove it.
or more accurately, you must use drawings to prove the intent to comply. since compliant drawings aren't the intent of the regulations, but a lot easier to review.
Very good point and yet, not really paid more nor allowed the additional time to properly prepare all the new additional work this profession has become responsible for. It really put itself in a pickle of doing the impossible and always going to result in projects with errors and omissions. It becomes bloated and sloppier prepared work because that's the reality you'll get. Maybe it is time to maybe redefine the role of architect and have maybe some other profession emerge like where these other things are borne and not on the architect who can not possibly bear the legal responsibility over these tasks. How do we go about it.
What needs to be changed for things to be better and work better for all? What can be done better?
FWIW, Victor Insurance (formerly Victor O. Schinnerer and Co.) published an AIA Best Practice which outlined the top 5 most risk-prone areas of architectural practice. It was excerpted from an article published back in 1973. They claim the top 5 areas that most frequently give rise to claims have remained the same since then. None of them were the number of drawings produced.
You should read the article, it's a quick read, but here are the top 5 (numbered, but I don't think the article means to imply any particular order or ranking):
Bonus, if you mention doing better, or implementing strategies to do better on any of these 5 things with the people who have power in the firm, you'll be seen as a valuable employee.
However, if you mention that you think you should produce less drawings because of dubious correlations they'll think you're not very intelligent.
*fewer
;-)
1973, drawings were still hand-drawn. Project management errors is the issues to all those issues including to a part, number of drawings but number of drawings is potentially an outcome of improper project management. The problem is not necessarily number of drawings but flawed drawings which results from... frankly put negligence at various points. Project management of the architectural services is where is begins and flaws here anywhere is going to result in issues that may lead to litigation.
The number of drawings isn't the issue. The lack of allotting adequate resources to produce the drawings properly is at heart the issue. You can have a 10,000-sheet pile of crap drawings or a 25-sheet set of high-quality drawings that have been well executed. The more drawings and sheets, the more that has to be reviewed which would in turn require more time because you can't just review faster. The review is being done faster and faster to there is a point that you aren't reviewing at all. Just glancing at the sheets and affixing your stamp and signature. The problem is architects are stretching themselves too thin doing too much without an increase in pay from clients and time allotment. That is what I am getting at.
All of these are project management issues. I don't mean the client's project manager or the construction manager. I mean project management of architectural services of the architectural firm.
This is true even to us BUILDING DESIGNERS.
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.