i've been crunching through a ton of proposals lately and came across this question/answer on the addenda to a project we're shortlisted on:
Question: Definition of Program Manager Role – please provide a description of the PM’s role in this project.
Answer: Program Management role is to serve as the County’s advocate and Partner to develop projects that are well planned, designed and constructed, delivered on time and within approved budgets, and represents a high value for the investment by the County.
(sigh and whimper)
didn't this used to be us as a profession? why, for the love of all that is holy, is this client about to pay an extra 150K + to someone who is doing what i'm already going to do inherently? have that many other architects really sold the profession out that badly???
i'm really beginning to wonder if my professional development (which obviously was far, far better than i could have ever appreciated at the time) happened in some kind of bubble...
sometimes on very large projects where there are multiple architects involved the program manager is there to help coordinate overlapping scopes. i've seen this on a few projects, and it makes a lot of sense from an owner perspective. also, if there is a complex web of consultants it is a way for the owner to distance himself from claims.
i can see your point, outed. simply from the answer above, that's a pretty basic standard of service to expect from an architect.
i guess though after having worked with clients that use program managers, i've started to read a lot more into their motives, and i believe it often is used as a means to cya. on a large project, $150k is peanuts in comparison with the potential claims and liability. a pm is way to mitigate some of the risk. an owner that hires a pm is usually pretty savvy about that investment.
i know that's not quite what you were getting at, but i think does explain a bit why the things that we consider to be "basic standard of service" are now being shifted to more specialized roles. for better or worse. or perhaps it is just a reflection of this thread.
Q: What role will the Program Manager play?
i've been crunching through a ton of proposals lately and came across this question/answer on the addenda to a project we're shortlisted on:
Question: Definition of Program Manager Role – please provide a description of the PM’s role in this project.
Answer: Program Management role is to serve as the County’s advocate and Partner to develop projects that are well planned, designed and constructed, delivered on time and within approved budgets, and represents a high value for the investment by the County.
(sigh and whimper)
didn't this used to be us as a profession? why, for the love of all that is holy, is this client about to pay an extra 150K + to someone who is doing what i'm already going to do inherently? have that many other architects really sold the profession out that badly???
i'm really beginning to wonder if my professional development (which obviously was far, far better than i could have ever appreciated at the time) happened in some kind of bubble...
sometimes on very large projects where there are multiple architects involved the program manager is there to help coordinate overlapping scopes. i've seen this on a few projects, and it makes a lot of sense from an owner perspective. also, if there is a complex web of consultants it is a way for the owner to distance himself from claims.
ja - sure, that makes total sense. what's killing me is the attitude implicit in the reply....
i can see your point, outed. simply from the answer above, that's a pretty basic standard of service to expect from an architect.
i guess though after having worked with clients that use program managers, i've started to read a lot more into their motives, and i believe it often is used as a means to cya. on a large project, $150k is peanuts in comparison with the potential claims and liability. a pm is way to mitigate some of the risk. an owner that hires a pm is usually pretty savvy about that investment.
i know that's not quite what you were getting at, but i think does explain a bit why the things that we consider to be "basic standard of service" are now being shifted to more specialized roles. for better or worse. or perhaps it is just a reflection of this thread.
I agree ja, it's more about CYA than anything, especially on large public projects. They have a single point of contact to sue if anything goes wrong.
does cya means cover your ass?
yes
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.