Hierarchy and process in architectural working structures
Maria Barreiros
Painting For the last years I have worked in two different architecture practices. Similar in size and kind of work they are, however opposites in their working processes and, as a consequence, in their workload. At first, the hierarchical structure also looks similar but the presence of a non-architect as the manager in charge, and […]
Painting
For the last years I have worked in two different architecture practices. Similar in size and kind of work they are, however opposites in their working processes and, as a consequence, in their workload. At first, the hierarchical structure also looks similar but the presence of a non-architect as the manager in charge, and the management of, not only the design process, but also of the construction work by the entire architecture office, completely changes the office complexity. This is reflected in the map of relationships created through the entire process, the amount of responsibilities assumed over the design process by the entire team members and the produced quantity of support material.
Type A
In Portugal, the typical author-workshop seems to persist, where one figure and one only – the architect, concentrates in itself the search for clients, the investment prospect, the team management, and the pursuit of design decisions and solutions. Plus, and quite frequently, these tasks are overlapped with a teaching position in an architectural school.
Here, the creative process, as well as the team coordination, is usually open to input from all the team members. Normally, one or more architects (depending on the practice size and amount of work), adopts the position of project manager and assumes a higher position in the hierarchic pyramid taking on more responsibilities, but not precisely more decision power. The project manager works closely with the architect in the development of the entire design process. This figure develops, following the architect first ideas and input, a complete design proposal, from the conceptual to the detailing stage, crossing in between the needed and specified phases of a design process and the contact with all the involved workers, entities, specialists and suppliers. The collaborators, and/or interns, of the architectural practice, answer directly to the figure of the project manager and the architect, and usually produce support material to each and every phase of the design process.
When contacting this practice, the client is in search of, even if not voluntarily, a specific design made by a specific author. Here, one buys a piece from an author. In this sense, the work cost cannot be easily compared to current market indicators and negotiable parameters. By default, a higher starting price is assumed and defined by an a priori cost classification.
After the design process, the relationship with the client moves forward to the construction phase. But, by this time, the main responsibility shifts from the architect to the contractor, which reduces its position to a consulting one.
Type B
When the managing figure of a practice is a non- architect, the office seems to open up and pursue a more entrepreneur structure. The manager concentrates the search for clients, the investment prospect, the team management, and above all the control of all budget ceilings and production timings, among contractors, workers and suppliers.
Here, the creative process, as well as the team coordination, is mainly supported from the team members, with few input from the manager, but deeply coordinated by the existing figure of the project manager. This figure coordinates the development of the entire design process, distributes work accordingly to each team member, controls time and cost production, contacts and assures the dynamics between all the involved workers, entities, specialists and suppliers. The collaborators, and/or interns, of the architectural practice, answer directly to the figure of the project manager and the manager, and usually pro- duce support material to each and every phase of the design process. Depending on their capacity, and due to the workload, they see their responsibility quickly increased.
When in contact with this practice, the client is in search of a service. Here, one buys a product. This is especially relevant, when the practice not only offers an architectural service, but a complete control of the entire phases of the process developing afterwards. The practice does not only suggests and comments on contractor‘s proposals, and monitories construction work, but assumes entire responsibility over the construction phases including the contact with every contractor and their workers, the handling of all legal issues, the negotiation with suppliers, the control of time and costs involved, and all the unpredicted events that occur during the construction process.
This obviously increments the responsibility over the architectural practice, overloading the workers availability and time, but at the same time increases the practice margin for economical profit. By controlling the entire process, every choice of worker, supplier and material, is revised time and time again in search of a better price. The building process is deconstructed and
reorganized in small packages to allow the negotiation of each of every phase and /or work needed. The same happens to one and each material and equipment supplier. This process demands a huge capacity of negotiation from the practice manager. And, since the client budget is discussed in the beginning, this continuous negotiation allows to increase the practice income, and leaves margin for the definition of extras not considered in the previous handled budget.
The negotiation of a construction work phase by phase, also allows for a phased payment. After the completion of each construction phase, a charter, with the quantities, measurements and percentage, of work done is emitted, and the payment is made accordingly to what has been really done in the construction site.
However, even though the economical advantages, this continuous negotiation demands a tremendous capacity from the practice architecture professionals to juggle and be flexible. Since the choice of suppliers and materials is in constant negotiation, the design proposal also needs to be in constant adaptation. To assure quality and the utmost respect of the architectural proposal, the team needs to be one move ahead to prevent mistakes and misconducts from oscillations in previously selected solutions.
Carving
By enlarging the work spectrum and responsibility of a practice to the construction process, one may find a way out for stability in a profession that is, in its current state, economically not viable. In this sense, the difference lies not on either the management is made by an architect or a non-architect but mainly on the chosen attitude towards the current market and service provided.
At the same time, this position allows for a greater responsibility from the architecture professionals which comes hand in hand with an increase in training, by the way of learning by doing. Here, the discipline autonomy is maintained, even improved by the exchange of know-how and information between the entire team, workers, suppliers, entities, etc. And every professional is positioned at a correct and fair place in the decision and responsibility hierarchy and in the productive process. With this, not only the entire working structure assures an increased dynamic but it also tends to feel and be more involved in the complete working process.
But if a positive view can be carved out from this type of practice in what concerns the work process and experience, something lacks. At this point, we are left again with the ghost of the author-architect. The idea of a practice future, built together with the collaborators support never appears as a concrete possibility. The openness from the employer-employee structure to alternatives such as partnership, limited liability company, etc., is never considered.
A closer, partial and sequential involvement of the collaborators in the company structure would allow for the sharing of responsibilities and, as a long term solution, for the practice sustainability and team maintenance. The sharing of responsibilities would extend not only to the work production but also to the financial and organizational model of the practice. Investments, partnerships, customers collection and selection, payments, contracts, budget control and negotiations, would be done with a more professional approach. The finances of the practice would not be turned into a mixture between the manager private expenses and the company ones, as frequently happens in Portuguese companies. Staff hiring and management, schedule, timing and wages would effectively be discussed and well provided, avoiding burned out collaborators, precarious and badly paid working positions, with a scarce quality free time.
If this kind of practice, conduct and structure are not odd to many countries, it seems to be far away from most of Portuguese architectural practices. To treat the architectural practice, not as an author workshop, but as a profitable and regular service, but still aim to reach a high quality standard, guaranteeing a social, urban and aesthetic commitment and a sense of respect for the entire working team, seems to be the logical approach of a discipline, alike many others which strives in the actual market economy.