2 things architecture employers don't want you to know. First, buildings take much longer to build than to draw in AutoCAD. Incidentally, they need employees for the entire construction of the building, but they don't need the employees to necessarily to be busy the entire time. Second, they need capacity and employees with project familiarity. Its not that they are just altruistic enough to keep you around out of mercy when they don't need you. The firm just works better when the client feels comfortable that the same team will be present the entire time.
As a result, employees inevitably have periods of down time. Firms have many approaches to handling this dilemma. From what I've experienced, larger firms play a game of cat a mouse (the higher-ups are the cats and the lower level employees are the mice). Whoever gets caught seemingly without anything to do and with no essential role on a project is mercilessly removed from the company. As a result, people band together in groups that support each other to appear more essential. Pretending to be working and engaged becomes a valuable skill.
Smaller companies are more vulnerable to disruption, and have to value their employees more. Still there is pressure and guilt given from the owners that "time is money" in order to keep employees in their place. If you aren't seeming to be working on something valuable, you must be "wasting" the owners $20/hour, even if the work you are doing is meaningless (let's get real - the owner is making much more than that from doing nearly the same thing).
I can't stand all this running in circles. It is the thing that frustrates me most about architecture firms. As a result I want to propose a "business structure for the modern world". This structure would promote transparency and honesty. What should occur is that employees should get paid to do their jobs well, no matter how much time that takes them. If they do it well and quickly, then let them work on their own pursuits! Many employees in the current structure will literally work slowly in order to constantly be plugged in and busy (able to bill more hours). Instead, they should start up a product design or manufacturing company and share the profits among everyone involved. That way no time is wasted and everyone benefits. It's just silly and backward to support a system in which those that are the best are pretending to be working are the ones who advance the most.
What does everyone think? Has anyone ever worked for a firm with the proposed structure?
chigurh
Apr 8, 14 9:09 pm
I think that is an awesome idea. I was telling a friend, I could probably do my job working 2 or 3 days a week, if all of the work was focused in those days.
Unfortunately, once a project is in construction and you are running CA, you will get calls 5 days a week, sometimes 6 or 7, and you will be expected to answer questions. In addition, if you are out of the office on a 5 day weekend every week, when would you coordinate with everybody else that is working a standard 9-5, 40 hour week. You gotta be around during business hours. dog.
jp22
Sep 7, 15 9:40 am
I like this idea. Seems like there's potential to tap into employee's natural interests and skills to enhance the firm's reputation and skill set. Other industries are already very good at doing this, and it ends up creating some profitable innovations.
I'm not sure architecture can do that kind of thing though because we're so dependent on clients and work to bring in money. It's not like we can typically create a product or a user base, and than sell it for billions of dollars. So I think firm owners would be skeptical of the long term payoff, if the time isn't directly billable.
midlander
Sep 7, 15 11:21 am
um, do you work at firms that just do projects one at a time?
there isn't usually a lot of down time in most offices except right before layoffs. usually mid level architects end up balancing their time on 2-5 projects per year depending on scale and scope.
its a challenge which requires good business and project management teams to maintain, but it seems like the reasonable way to run a fee-for-service business. outside pursuits are interesting and have some value for a firms culture, but i dont see most people having the time or skills to develop a profitable but related side business for a typical firm.
of course there is always the opportunity for talented employees to help an office branch out into related services like product design or interiors, but once that turns into real commissions its just another workload to be billed, staffed and managed.
TIQM
Sep 8, 15 1:15 am
Nearly everyone in our office is working on 2-3 projects simultaneously, usually projects in different phases. No downtime.
JOE-ASC
Sep 8, 15 7:27 am
Yes, I can see the issue but there are a number of problems with the proposed solution. Quick work can lead to errors, will the employee reimburse the Practice for extra time needed when they rushed a job to work on their own Project. Who will monitor this process, it will inevitably involve extra management time. If there is downtime find something to do for the Practice - a competition to get involved in, some marketing, some R&D etc etc. The people that take a proactive approach to finding effective work for their Practice, not themselves, - are often called Partners or become Partners. If you want to be free to do your own work in downtime you are called a freelancer - not an employee.
null pointer
Sep 8, 15 8:04 am
I worked in a great firm once. They gave us R&D time early on in the phase of the projects by just overloading with flat fee projects until we could figure out an expedient and efficient workflow.
Once we did, we spent days fucking around with Revit and making Grasshopper assemblies to automate parts of our work. Put in a ton of front end time, but it paid off exponentially when we kept getting those same types of projects on a flat fee.
2 things architecture employers don't want you to know. First, buildings take much longer to build than to draw in AutoCAD. Incidentally, they need employees for the entire construction of the building, but they don't need the employees to necessarily to be busy the entire time. Second, they need capacity and employees with project familiarity. Its not that they are just altruistic enough to keep you around out of mercy when they don't need you. The firm just works better when the client feels comfortable that the same team will be present the entire time.
As a result, employees inevitably have periods of down time. Firms have many approaches to handling this dilemma. From what I've experienced, larger firms play a game of cat a mouse (the higher-ups are the cats and the lower level employees are the mice). Whoever gets caught seemingly without anything to do and with no essential role on a project is mercilessly removed from the company. As a result, people band together in groups that support each other to appear more essential. Pretending to be working and engaged becomes a valuable skill.
Smaller companies are more vulnerable to disruption, and have to value their employees more. Still there is pressure and guilt given from the owners that "time is money" in order to keep employees in their place. If you aren't seeming to be working on something valuable, you must be "wasting" the owners $20/hour, even if the work you are doing is meaningless (let's get real - the owner is making much more than that from doing nearly the same thing).
I can't stand all this running in circles. It is the thing that frustrates me most about architecture firms. As a result I want to propose a "business structure for the modern world". This structure would promote transparency and honesty. What should occur is that employees should get paid to do their jobs well, no matter how much time that takes them. If they do it well and quickly, then let them work on their own pursuits! Many employees in the current structure will literally work slowly in order to constantly be plugged in and busy (able to bill more hours). Instead, they should start up a product design or manufacturing company and share the profits among everyone involved. That way no time is wasted and everyone benefits. It's just silly and backward to support a system in which those that are the best are pretending to be working are the ones who advance the most.
What does everyone think? Has anyone ever worked for a firm with the proposed structure?
I think that is an awesome idea. I was telling a friend, I could probably do my job working 2 or 3 days a week, if all of the work was focused in those days.
Unfortunately, once a project is in construction and you are running CA, you will get calls 5 days a week, sometimes 6 or 7, and you will be expected to answer questions. In addition, if you are out of the office on a 5 day weekend every week, when would you coordinate with everybody else that is working a standard 9-5, 40 hour week. You gotta be around during business hours. dog.
I like this idea. Seems like there's potential to tap into employee's natural interests and skills to enhance the firm's reputation and skill set. Other industries are already very good at doing this, and it ends up creating some profitable innovations.
I'm not sure architecture can do that kind of thing though because we're so dependent on clients and work to bring in money. It's not like we can typically create a product or a user base, and than sell it for billions of dollars. So I think firm owners would be skeptical of the long term payoff, if the time isn't directly billable.
um, do you work at firms that just do projects one at a time?
there isn't usually a lot of down time in most offices except right before layoffs. usually mid level architects end up balancing their time on 2-5 projects per year depending on scale and scope.
its a challenge which requires good business and project management teams to maintain, but it seems like the reasonable way to run a fee-for-service business. outside pursuits are interesting and have some value for a firms culture, but i dont see most people having the time or skills to develop a profitable but related side business for a typical firm.
of course there is always the opportunity for talented employees to help an office branch out into related services like product design or interiors, but once that turns into real commissions its just another workload to be billed, staffed and managed.
Nearly everyone in our office is working on 2-3 projects simultaneously, usually projects in different phases. No downtime.
Yes, I can see the issue but there are a number of problems with the proposed solution. Quick work can lead to errors, will the employee reimburse the Practice for extra time needed when they rushed a job to work on their own Project. Who will monitor this process, it will inevitably involve extra management time. If there is downtime find something to do for the Practice - a competition to get involved in, some marketing, some R&D etc etc. The people that take a proactive approach to finding effective work for their Practice, not themselves, - are often called Partners or become Partners. If you want to be free to do your own work in downtime you are called a freelancer - not an employee.
I worked in a great firm once. They gave us R&D time early on in the phase of the projects by just overloading with flat fee projects until we could figure out an expedient and efficient workflow.
Once we did, we spent days fucking around with Revit and making Grasshopper assemblies to automate parts of our work. Put in a ton of front end time, but it paid off exponentially when we kept getting those same types of projects on a flat fee.
Those are my anecdotal 2 cents.