Working for a global PM / QS Consultancy, I regularly meet archtiects who have dillusions of being able to manage a project. Invariably this goes no further than managing the design. When it comes to PM in the latter stages of a project, the architect cum PM is no where to be seen.
My question to the archinect collective is:
Should architects focus on the design of the building and produce drawings and information on time and leave project management to others in the team?
depends on the scale of the projects, maybe? working for smaller firms (1, 15, and now 10 person offices), i've never had a project for which i wasn't designer, production manager, and construction administrator. if pm includes pay apps, co's, quality control via job meetings and inspections, etc., then yes, it's impt that i do it all.
obviously in a much larger organization doing much larger and more sophisticated projects this model might break down really quickly.
It would depend on the contract as well. Project management (or construction management) is considered an additional service. I think that it goes beyond traditional CA. It would also include reviewing subcontractor bids and, updating and overseeing the construction schedule. If an architect agrees to do project management, he should expect to have the appropriate staffing.
On smaller projects that I have worked on, the owner usually just trusts the contractor do manage the project. If the client feels he needs independent representation, as he would for a larger project, he may go to the architect or project manager.
I agree that scale has a part to play, but maybe my question should have been:
Which do you prefer? A pure architectural role or one incorporating PM duties? If the latter, how does one maintain objectivity when a value engineering exercise requires part of the scheme to be redesigned / removed?
I agree that my profile did show my heart on its sleeve somewhat. This has been duly changed - thanks for the pick up j ;-)
My interest in this topic is, as j pointed out, PM's have carved a niche but I dont fully agree that architects are more than qualified. In terms of design decisions, granted, the architect is the right person. However, in terms of the development at large that need to incorporate the business case and stakeholder view, a third party in my humble opinon, is better suited to make a value judgement.
The future of PM is what I am gunning for and identifying where the boundary between Architecture and Design Management lies. i.e. which RIBA stage does it fall in? etc. Any thoughts??
I work for a technical consultancy firm, and from my view (which tends to be in the middle of everything at times), you can't make sweeping generalities in this regard. I've met worthless architects, as well as worthless pms, worthless contractors, etc. -- and vice versa on all counts. In the end, everybody is trying to get a project built, as close to design intent as possible, on time, on budget -- cliche, but true. Architects often forget that consultants and pms are often doing their best to get the project built (which doesn't necessarily mean they are that good at it). And -- another true-too-often stereotype -- those on the back end tend to think that getting the project built at any sacrifice (except money) is more important than the "design" itself. In a lot of cases -- and I'm not just patting my own back -- the most interesting and overlooked practices are sort of visionary consultants and contractors blur these distinctions, who are capable of standing in the middle and holding things together brilliantly.
however, in terms of the development at large that need to incorporate the business case and stakeholder view, a third party in my humble opinon, is better suited to make a value judgement.
i didn't understand that you were using pm to mean what we typically call the construction manager - a separate entity from the architecture firm. (i thought your pm was still someone within the architect's office.)
in the case of the pm/construction manager:
the pm is better suited to ignore the fact that good design can be a good business decision, equating the 'business case' with first costs only and leaving life-cycle costs to be dealt with after the pm is gone.
also better qualified to make decisions about how much quality can be sacrificed without the client being able to tell the difference.
the pm is probably less likely to include the general public among his 'stakeholder' pool.
In my opinion, I feel that if the PM can save the client more money (by making the construction process run more efficiently, not by compromising the design intent) than they charge in fees, then all power to them.
The PM serves as the owner's rep and is there to make sure that the contractor, as well as the architect, are working to best serve the client. I have worked with some good PM's, ones that do understand the importance of the design intent and the architect's vision. It is the PM's that cross that line that make trouble!
To be honest, I enjoy working with a good PM. It frees up my time to focus on design / detailing issues.
Working for a Nation wide Architects Practice, I regularly meet Project Managers who have dillusions of being able to manage a project. Invariably this goes no further than scratching their arse and deligating tasks. When it comes to PM in the latter stages of a project, the PM is no where to be seen.
My question to the PM collective is:
How can they justify their fee when they are just a glorified paper pusher and deligator of tasks with limited knowlege of the roll of Architect?
I think the PM role is far more intrinsic to the success of a project than your comment suggests.
I agree that PM's may not know everyhting that an architect does in delivering an archtiects service, but judging by your entry, the same can be said of you and your understanding of the PM role.
A PM is there to act as interface between the project / design team and the client. Their role is to act as custodians of the clients need - to get his building up and running to time, cost and budget. This becomes more important in the latter stages of the project when the contractor is blaming architects for late information and hence why he cant build anything and why he wants an EOT.
We as PMs have to figure out how best to resolve the problem and ensure the project is completed as per the brief.
The fee is justified in that they maintain project momentum and keep an eye on the development lifecycle and its interaction with the economic context. We also have to constantly monitor the project team's output in terms of quality & timing of info and progress on site.
We then advise accordingly as to whether an element of the design will affect the yield / sale price or hafve an adverse impact on the programme / budget. To a client, the bottom line is the most important thing in developing a building be it refurbishment or new build.
I dont wish this thread to be an architect vs pm topic as it results in comments carrying way too much aggression. It sounds to me that you have had bad experiences with PM's and that has coloured your judgement and objectivity on this discussion. Might I suggest that you use us next time and you might then see the value that a PM can bring.
The point of this thread is to establish how much of the construction supply chain can be streamlined based on people's conception of what and who it takes to build a building. E.g.
Could the role of QS be automated?
Could the architects role be reduced to conceptualisation and the trawl of generating construction issue drawings be done by software?
Should PM's focus on development or project issues? etc etc
By having this discussion on archinect, I was rather hoping to avoid the confrontational culture we currently build in the UK.
It would appear that you know of no other way to move this discussion on other than by being combatitive. All of which suggests to me that your experience with PM's may not have been through their poor performance but your outdated and obstructive attitude to team working...If you were on my project, I'd have kicked you off.
To be frank, PM's may push paper but your role is run a pack of CAD monkeys, no wonder you are bitter!
1st: patronizing. then moving quickly through: explanatory > diplomatic > defensive > back to patronizing. finishing up with a retaliatory attack!
congrats, ThinKing. exactly what i would have expected from a pm.
i'll admit to having had acceptable experiences with pms in the past, but it does seem that a lot of their job time seems to be protecting their turf - arguing their value to the process. sometimes the only way to prove their value is to position themselves counter to the architect.
Having just made a jump from a 'Design-based' career into a 'Project management' job, I can say this:
1) There is more of the 'Management' & 'Admin' aspect to this type of work than most of us from the Archt world generally have.
2) If the Architect takes arole as Project manager, he should have an excellent understanding of how Architecture relates to Construction, the materials & methods. He must also understand coordination between the trades extremely well.
3) The Project Manager, whether an Architect, or not, must be very well organized.
4) The Project Manager, whether an Architect, or not, must be ready to
fight & stand his ground. He must have BALLS.
I think I generally agree withthe SCALE assertion. Before I got this gig, my projects were all 250,000sf & less with a fair amount of complexity (at least from the Archt side). Now, I'm dealing w/ a large project that I have no experience with & is outside of my expertise. It is one of the toughest learnig curves I've ever put myself through because there is no real design to it, only putting out fires, admin, submittals, dealing w/ the GC, DEV & Owners (+ the ridiculous personalities of those 'entities'....nahh, 'jerks').
All that said, I believe that Architects must go through the Project Manager role that is outside of their comfort zone - the learning experience is worth the trouble. It will make the Architect a better architect.
If that ain't enough for ya, PM work generally pays well, too.
After I do this, though, I think I'm taking this experience back into the design studio...with a daily link to the 'field'.
No its part of what we do at my firm. Its part of our initiative to add value to the Client and it works with a large percentage of our client base being repeat business.
As for Mr.Ward's comments - fair play, but in my defence, BOTS started it, I simply finished it.
Ya know, after reading STEVENWARD's post, I just realized this: Maybe some of us have different perceptions of what a PM is. I am a PM for The Architect, on the Construction site. Basically, the CA guy for the Architect. but each of the other 'entities' (that I love so much) have their own versions of PM, as well.
I think that most of the aggravation expressed, here, with PMs in this post comes from that 'entity ' actually known as The 'Construction Manager', then I fully understand this - they do kinda spend their time justifying their existence more than anything else. Period.
The easiest type of PM to be, I think, is the one for The Owner - all they have to do is beat everyone up - Archt, DEV, Const Mgr & GC. Plus, they probably make the most money. A better gig.
Early in my Architectural education, I decided that I should minor in construction management. Of course, at the time I actually thought it was mostly about the act of building itself - more of the GC responsibility. Turns out it was mostly about $$, scheduling, etc, etc. And once I found out the obvious contradiction with what I wanted to do, I decided to drop my minor. Not only that, but the teachers' disrespectful mocking comments about "Mr.Architect" and "Mr.Contractor" got old real quick.
I know for a fact that a CM can make much more money than an architect. I do know some Arch. people that are good as CMs that are being offered 6 figure paying jobs as CMs. But if it was about $$, I would never have become an architect.
I'm not sure if it is different terminology in the UK, but here in the US, generally the Project Manager and Construction Administrator is for the Architect, and the third party representative of the owner is called the Construction Manager.
Personally, I believe that an architect is generally well-equipped to do a CM's job. I also believe that it has been historically architect's responsibilities. And what some CMs don't realize is that Architects are also working for the owner's benefit. On top of that, 80% of an architect's office's revenue also comes from repeat clients.
I think when CMs are most useful when the client/owner is different than the occupant/tenant or when the client/owner's only priorities are the bottom line (completion of construction date and initial construction cost). Operation cost, quality of architecture/engineering/construction, sustainability, and relationship/impact to context/community are only some of the other considerations that are generally contradictory to the top two priorities of CMs.
Of course, the top priorities of CMs' responsibilities are much more profitable than the rest and explains their generally higher pay than architects. I think they are very useful for clients. The problem is, the clients that generally use CMs are only driven by $$ and their buildings reflect that.
PHILARCH,
I too, really hate that 'Mr. ARHCITECT', 'Mr.DEVELOPER', Mr. PORN FILM MAKER' krap too! It's all a bunch of preparation (H) forthe impending 'arbitration' (law suit) battles that will start 4-6 months after the project is 'complete'
I like Architekture & tolerate Projekt Maingmint for the dough. Otherwise, it's for paper pushers.
ive not read all the responses the site, but ThinKing does seem to have a bias for architects in general, but so do all of us for Project architects. We have some PMs now, and all the work they seem to do is take the same notes over 3 times, and some of them cant even make properly formatted excel sheets....
Architects should absolutely Project Manage and be passionate about it - to allow the designs to be manifest beyond the paper/screen - we are to be measured only by the quality of our products
"Its part of our initiative to add value to the Client"
You just confirmed what everyone posted, and the rationale for your existence. Your definition of PMs can be useful for specific clients and projects. However, it seems the consensus that you can be lumped in with the lawyers: mostly unnecessary creating more work for yourselves and others, impeding the process you were hired to streamline, all b/c you have to justify "adding value to the Client"
This is a beautiful topic and I find the tension reassuring, less because of the reinstatement of turf and claims more because it reveals the commonalities involved into getting construction done right. I've acted in the role of both PM and architect, and I can tell you the former is where I get most of my stress. Having certificatication for many of the international contracts namely EU, FIDIC, E/JCT, etc I've been forced to don my PM hat to, as many clients recall, "sort things out." Many architects are unaware or better uncaring of the realities involved in producing architecture at value, and by that I mean x=x without the added values contractors assume to them (of course I am assuming a rather sophmoric approach excluding the notion of quality into the equation). At the end of the day that's what most clients are concerned about - money first and the architecture a distant second. A PM role is often mistaken, and rightly so, as being primarily about the finances, when in fact their role is meld the two disparate concerns into a singular focus. That said I am extremely cautious of PMs that are not formerly trained architects, because they are by the nature of their jobs prone to be apologetically rational when they need to be more emotive to allow the flexibility needed to create quality architecture.
Apr 18, 06 11:46 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.
Should architects project manage?
Working for a global PM / QS Consultancy, I regularly meet archtiects who have dillusions of being able to manage a project. Invariably this goes no further than managing the design. When it comes to PM in the latter stages of a project, the architect cum PM is no where to be seen.
My question to the archinect collective is:
Should architects focus on the design of the building and produce drawings and information on time and leave project management to others in the team?
depends on the scale of the projects, maybe? working for smaller firms (1, 15, and now 10 person offices), i've never had a project for which i wasn't designer, production manager, and construction administrator. if pm includes pay apps, co's, quality control via job meetings and inspections, etc., then yes, it's impt that i do it all.
obviously in a much larger organization doing much larger and more sophisticated projects this model might break down really quickly.
It would depend on the contract as well. Project management (or construction management) is considered an additional service. I think that it goes beyond traditional CA. It would also include reviewing subcontractor bids and, updating and overseeing the construction schedule. If an architect agrees to do project management, he should expect to have the appropriate staffing.
On smaller projects that I have worked on, the owner usually just trusts the contractor do manage the project. If the client feels he needs independent representation, as he would for a larger project, he may go to the architect or project manager.
I agree that scale has a part to play, but maybe my question should have been:
Which do you prefer? A pure architectural role or one incorporating PM duties? If the latter, how does one maintain objectivity when a value engineering exercise requires part of the scheme to be redesigned / removed?
This is getting good. Now what ThinKing?
I agree that my profile did show my heart on its sleeve somewhat. This has been duly changed - thanks for the pick up j ;-)
My interest in this topic is, as j pointed out, PM's have carved a niche but I dont fully agree that architects are more than qualified. In terms of design decisions, granted, the architect is the right person. However, in terms of the development at large that need to incorporate the business case and stakeholder view, a third party in my humble opinon, is better suited to make a value judgement.
The future of PM is what I am gunning for and identifying where the boundary between Architecture and Design Management lies. i.e. which RIBA stage does it fall in? etc. Any thoughts??
I work for a technical consultancy firm, and from my view (which tends to be in the middle of everything at times), you can't make sweeping generalities in this regard. I've met worthless architects, as well as worthless pms, worthless contractors, etc. -- and vice versa on all counts. In the end, everybody is trying to get a project built, as close to design intent as possible, on time, on budget -- cliche, but true. Architects often forget that consultants and pms are often doing their best to get the project built (which doesn't necessarily mean they are that good at it). And -- another true-too-often stereotype -- those on the back end tend to think that getting the project built at any sacrifice (except money) is more important than the "design" itself. In a lot of cases -- and I'm not just patting my own back -- the most interesting and overlooked practices are sort of visionary consultants and contractors blur these distinctions, who are capable of standing in the middle and holding things together brilliantly.
i didn't understand that you were using pm to mean what we typically call the construction manager - a separate entity from the architecture firm. (i thought your pm was still someone within the architect's office.)
in the case of the pm/construction manager:
the pm is better suited to ignore the fact that good design can be a good business decision, equating the 'business case' with first costs only and leaving life-cycle costs to be dealt with after the pm is gone.
also better qualified to make decisions about how much quality can be sacrificed without the client being able to tell the difference.
the pm is probably less likely to include the general public among his 'stakeholder' pool.
In my opinion, I feel that if the PM can save the client more money (by making the construction process run more efficiently, not by compromising the design intent) than they charge in fees, then all power to them.
The PM serves as the owner's rep and is there to make sure that the contractor, as well as the architect, are working to best serve the client. I have worked with some good PM's, ones that do understand the importance of the design intent and the architect's vision. It is the PM's that cross that line that make trouble!
To be honest, I enjoy working with a good PM. It frees up my time to focus on design / detailing issues.
Is the topic independent CM's, independent PM's, or the normal in-house project management phase (CA)?
this is why i keep on stressing that we need some managment subjects in our course...
Though I am aware of some Schools in India, who are introducing a managment subject in the stream !!
ThinKing
Working for a Nation wide Architects Practice, I regularly meet Project Managers who have dillusions of being able to manage a project. Invariably this goes no further than scratching their arse and deligating tasks. When it comes to PM in the latter stages of a project, the PM is no where to be seen.
My question to the PM collective is:
How can they justify their fee when they are just a glorified paper pusher and deligator of tasks with limited knowlege of the roll of Architect?
BOTS
I think the PM role is far more intrinsic to the success of a project than your comment suggests.
I agree that PM's may not know everyhting that an architect does in delivering an archtiects service, but judging by your entry, the same can be said of you and your understanding of the PM role.
A PM is there to act as interface between the project / design team and the client. Their role is to act as custodians of the clients need - to get his building up and running to time, cost and budget. This becomes more important in the latter stages of the project when the contractor is blaming architects for late information and hence why he cant build anything and why he wants an EOT.
We as PMs have to figure out how best to resolve the problem and ensure the project is completed as per the brief.
The fee is justified in that they maintain project momentum and keep an eye on the development lifecycle and its interaction with the economic context. We also have to constantly monitor the project team's output in terms of quality & timing of info and progress on site.
We then advise accordingly as to whether an element of the design will affect the yield / sale price or hafve an adverse impact on the programme / budget. To a client, the bottom line is the most important thing in developing a building be it refurbishment or new build.
I dont wish this thread to be an architect vs pm topic as it results in comments carrying way too much aggression. It sounds to me that you have had bad experiences with PM's and that has coloured your judgement and objectivity on this discussion. Might I suggest that you use us next time and you might then see the value that a PM can bring.
The point of this thread is to establish how much of the construction supply chain can be streamlined based on people's conception of what and who it takes to build a building. E.g.
Could the role of QS be automated?
Could the architects role be reduced to conceptualisation and the trawl of generating construction issue drawings be done by software?
Should PM's focus on development or project issues? etc etc
By having this discussion on archinect, I was rather hoping to avoid the confrontational culture we currently build in the UK.
It would appear that you know of no other way to move this discussion on other than by being combatitive. All of which suggests to me that your experience with PM's may not have been through their poor performance but your outdated and obstructive attitude to team working...If you were on my project, I'd have kicked you off.
To be frank, PM's may push paper but your role is run a pack of CAD monkeys, no wonder you are bitter!
1st: patronizing. then moving quickly through: explanatory > diplomatic > defensive > back to patronizing. finishing up with a retaliatory attack!
congrats, ThinKing. exactly what i would have expected from a pm.
i'll admit to having had acceptable experiences with pms in the past, but it does seem that a lot of their job time seems to be protecting their turf - arguing their value to the process. sometimes the only way to prove their value is to position themselves counter to the architect.
Having just made a jump from a 'Design-based' career into a 'Project management' job, I can say this:
1) There is more of the 'Management' & 'Admin' aspect to this type of work than most of us from the Archt world generally have.
2) If the Architect takes arole as Project manager, he should have an excellent understanding of how Architecture relates to Construction, the materials & methods. He must also understand coordination between the trades extremely well.
3) The Project Manager, whether an Architect, or not, must be very well organized.
4) The Project Manager, whether an Architect, or not, must be ready to
fight & stand his ground. He must have BALLS.
I think I generally agree withthe SCALE assertion. Before I got this gig, my projects were all 250,000sf & less with a fair amount of complexity (at least from the Archt side). Now, I'm dealing w/ a large project that I have no experience with & is outside of my expertise. It is one of the toughest learnig curves I've ever put myself through because there is no real design to it, only putting out fires, admin, submittals, dealing w/ the GC, DEV & Owners (+ the ridiculous personalities of those 'entities'....nahh, 'jerks').
All that said, I believe that Architects must go through the Project Manager role that is outside of their comfort zone - the learning experience is worth the trouble. It will make the Architect a better architect.
If that ain't enough for ya, PM work generally pays well, too.
After I do this, though, I think I'm taking this experience back into the design studio...with a daily link to the 'field'.
"keep an eye on the development lifecycle and its interaction with the economic context"
Hey ThinKing, you just made that part up, right?
...and well said Mr. Ward.
No its part of what we do at my firm. Its part of our initiative to add value to the Client and it works with a large percentage of our client base being repeat business.
As for Mr.Ward's comments - fair play, but in my defence, BOTS started it, I simply finished it.
Just like on site eh?
Ya know, after reading STEVENWARD's post, I just realized this: Maybe some of us have different perceptions of what a PM is. I am a PM for The Architect, on the Construction site. Basically, the CA guy for the Architect. but each of the other 'entities' (that I love so much) have their own versions of PM, as well.
I think that most of the aggravation expressed, here, with PMs in this post comes from that 'entity ' actually known as The 'Construction Manager', then I fully understand this - they do kinda spend their time justifying their existence more than anything else. Period.
The easiest type of PM to be, I think, is the one for The Owner - all they have to do is beat everyone up - Archt, DEV, Const Mgr & GC. Plus, they probably make the most money. A better gig.
Early in my Architectural education, I decided that I should minor in construction management. Of course, at the time I actually thought it was mostly about the act of building itself - more of the GC responsibility. Turns out it was mostly about $$, scheduling, etc, etc. And once I found out the obvious contradiction with what I wanted to do, I decided to drop my minor. Not only that, but the teachers' disrespectful mocking comments about "Mr.Architect" and "Mr.Contractor" got old real quick.
I know for a fact that a CM can make much more money than an architect. I do know some Arch. people that are good as CMs that are being offered 6 figure paying jobs as CMs. But if it was about $$, I would never have become an architect.
I'm not sure if it is different terminology in the UK, but here in the US, generally the Project Manager and Construction Administrator is for the Architect, and the third party representative of the owner is called the Construction Manager.
Personally, I believe that an architect is generally well-equipped to do a CM's job. I also believe that it has been historically architect's responsibilities. And what some CMs don't realize is that Architects are also working for the owner's benefit. On top of that, 80% of an architect's office's revenue also comes from repeat clients.
I think when CMs are most useful when the client/owner is different than the occupant/tenant or when the client/owner's only priorities are the bottom line (completion of construction date and initial construction cost). Operation cost, quality of architecture/engineering/construction, sustainability, and relationship/impact to context/community are only some of the other considerations that are generally contradictory to the top two priorities of CMs.
Of course, the top priorities of CMs' responsibilities are much more profitable than the rest and explains their generally higher pay than architects. I think they are very useful for clients. The problem is, the clients that generally use CMs are only driven by $$ and their buildings reflect that.
Not that clients without CMs are not driven by $$$.......
We have project management as a subject in our syllabus (rvsa, bangalore).. and I'm very grateful.
Good thread reponse. I'm with Steven, that's my experience.
any way you cut it
__
As for Mr.Ward's comments - fair play, but in my defence, BOTS started it, I simply finished it.
Just like on site eh?
___
that's just funny
evilhomer -are you schizophreic?
I don't understand.
PHILARCH,
I too, really hate that 'Mr. ARHCITECT', 'Mr.DEVELOPER', Mr. PORN FILM MAKER' krap too! It's all a bunch of preparation (H) forthe impending 'arbitration' (law suit) battles that will start 4-6 months after the project is 'complete'
I like Architekture & tolerate Projekt Maingmint for the dough. Otherwise, it's for paper pushers.
ive not read all the responses the site, but ThinKing does seem to have a bias for architects in general, but so do all of us for Project architects. We have some PMs now, and all the work they seem to do is take the same notes over 3 times, and some of them cant even make properly formatted excel sheets....
Architects should absolutely Project Manage and be passionate about it - to allow the designs to be manifest beyond the paper/screen - we are to be measured only by the quality of our products
"Its part of our initiative to add value to the Client"
You just confirmed what everyone posted, and the rationale for your existence. Your definition of PMs can be useful for specific clients and projects. However, it seems the consensus that you can be lumped in with the lawyers: mostly unnecessary creating more work for yourselves and others, impeding the process you were hired to streamline, all b/c you have to justify "adding value to the Client"
Cheers.
This is a beautiful topic and I find the tension reassuring, less because of the reinstatement of turf and claims more because it reveals the commonalities involved into getting construction done right. I've acted in the role of both PM and architect, and I can tell you the former is where I get most of my stress. Having certificatication for many of the international contracts namely EU, FIDIC, E/JCT, etc I've been forced to don my PM hat to, as many clients recall, "sort things out." Many architects are unaware or better uncaring of the realities involved in producing architecture at value, and by that I mean x=x without the added values contractors assume to them (of course I am assuming a rather sophmoric approach excluding the notion of quality into the equation). At the end of the day that's what most clients are concerned about - money first and the architecture a distant second. A PM role is often mistaken, and rightly so, as being primarily about the finances, when in fact their role is meld the two disparate concerns into a singular focus. That said I am extremely cautious of PMs that are not formerly trained architects, because they are by the nature of their jobs prone to be apologetically rational when they need to be more emotive to allow the flexibility needed to create quality architecture.
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.