Part II - Views of the Professions

INTRODUCTION

In any given construction project, there is a set of tasks to be performed to ensure its success. As amazing as it may seem to those who are not truly familiar with our industry (i.e. most owners; many self-styled managers; and some regulatory officials) those tasks and their appropriate pattern of undertaking are generally well-known to architects, engineers and builders.

Who gets to do those tasks, under contract to whom, in what sequence, for how much money and under what terms of reference, however, is the source of much frantic energy these days, especially in the private sector. Owners are often motivated to minimize their short-term costs (as opposed to obtaining greatest long-term benefit) and are advised to maximize their control by breaking down the process into its smallest units, working at greatest speed. Unfortunately, reputed advantages are often illusory because the natural outfall consists of larger numbers of working units, many more points of contact (read: gaps), loss of time for due consideration, and unhealthy pressure—without proper contractual definition.

It then becomes exceedingly difficult to ensure responsible action and coordination. When that is further compounded by low-bidder selection, the die is cast. “Cheap professional advice” is inherently contradictory. The Station Square delivery system had all the ingredients for trouble. Unfortunately, this time the recipe boiled over.

MANAGEMENT BY DESIGN

It is the AIBC’S belief that while there were a host of factors variously contributing to the collapse—from technical incompetence to playing ostrich— those factors are all byproducts of a more profound problem, i.e. fragmentation of the “traditional” delivery process, especially as it relates to the design and construction of the project for the owner. That process is becoming increasingly ill-defined by market forces (not public interest) and “bought” in shifting guises by uninformed or poorly advised owners, within an insufficiently monitored and controlled operating context, Frequently, socalled “project managers” are no small part of the problem and give “project management” a bad name.

Let us make no mistake: the processmodel by which specific people cause a project to happen is something which must not be allowed to happen by accident. What is needed is Management By Design so that there is a well communicated and understood clarity of roles and relationships that has been designed by persons who know what is necessary and how to achieve that in the best interest of all affected parties.

It is indeed possible and practical to have someone provide overall coordination at least as far as the efforts of the “design” consultants are concerned; as to their review and certification of construction; and the Owner’s related role. Most architects are darn good at it. That’s a fundamental part of our background, approach and skill.

In those areas, other layers of management are both redundant and counterproductive. In fact, it is folly to allow the Owner or an unqualified manager to define and allocate such project responsibilities (which happens now all too often).

MOTIVATION AND TRUST

Very often the Owner has little or no long-range commitment to the project, its users or the public interest, seeking short-term gains and frequently for a quick flip (re-sale) at which point it becomes someone else’s problem.

The licensed consultant, however, is in for the long-run and has public responsibility along with its attendant accountability and potential liability— even to his estate after death. The consultant (unlike the Owner, the builder and the manager) is regulated and could (should) stand on those grounds supported by his professional association and enforced government legislation, in opposition to unwise owner-parameters.

The authorities and any consumer (2nd or 3rd parties) are entitled to expect and to receive ethical, technically sound actions. Policing of that has to come from the professions. No other body is qualified.

RESPONSIBILITY AND REGULATION

The missing components in the overall system are: responsible owners, licensed constructors and authorities’ enforcement of regulations, all in the public interest.

Responsibility cannot be delegated. Notwithstanding the industry-paranoia often fostered by insurance companies and legal counsel (all who urge parties to back away from responsibility), someone has to take charge of things and provide (or ensure) sufficient checks and balances. Whatever may be the scope of government inspection, the involvement of such authority does not alter the architect’s or engineer’s responsibility, already derived from licence and well-defined under statute.

The typical (commercial) owner is in it to make money but is a construction-process innocent. That’s a large problem in an entrepreneurial society, wherein we cannot feasibly regulate an owner’s competence, knowledge or attitude. What we could do is regulate an owner’s actions. That way, an innocent (or avaricious) owner and/or an unsuspecting public would not be victimized by recommendations to install fragmented delivery models that have the appearance of saving time and money but which effectively reduce coherence and quality while increasing risk unnecessarily.

Owners should be required to file (with the local authority) undertakings as to the project’s delivery model, including roles and relationships of all consultants; nature of construction contract(s); and primary activity sequences. At the very least, the authority should be empowered to require that professional statutes and building regulations be adhered to and (in the event of a non-traditional model) that its appropriateness be demonstrated— all as a condition of permitting the project to proceed.

FIRST PRINCIPLES

Let us not forget that in advance of the real need for a proper checking regimen, there are a whole series of creative, constructive, integrative and progressive tasks-i.e. the generation of ideas and the construction itself— which are far more difficult, time-consuming and valuable than any after-the-fact monitoring.

That is where the best management energies and stratregies are needed; that is where professionals and owners need to make informed judgments first. And that is where we need to ensure that proper standards of engagement (including remuneration) and practice are both invoked and enforced.

It is absolutely essential that there be sound application of professional service; proper application of risk; and appropriate government involvement. All the participants need to understand roles and relationships; responsibility and liability.

The “Save-On-Foods” roof collapse or similarly unfortunate event must not be allowed to recur. There is a real need to ensure clarity and quality in the public interest.