Leading Collaborative Architectural Practice

Erin Carraher, Ryan E. Smith, Peter DeLisle, Christopher Henderson

• Publisher: Wiley
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN:
  9781119169246
• eBook ISBN:
  9781119169260
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Architecture
• Subtopic: Professional Practice in Architecture

The groundbreaking guide to modern leadership in architectural practice

Leading Collaborative Architectural Practice is the leadership handbook for today's design and construction professionals. Endorsed by the American Institute of Architects, this book describes the collaborative approach to leadership that is becoming increasingly prevalent in modern practice; gone are the days of authoritative "star" architects— today's practice is a brand, and requires the full input of every member of the team. This book builds off of a two-year AIA research project to provide a blueprint for effective leadership: the ability, awareness, and commitment to lead project teams who work together to accomplish the project's goals. Both group and individual hands-on exercises help facilitate implementation, and extensive case studies show how these techniques have helped real-world firms build exemplary success through collaborative teamwork and leadership.

Highly illustrated and accessible, this approach is presented from the practicing architect's point of view—but the universal principles and time-tested methods also provide clear guidance for owners, contractors, engineers, project managers, and students.

• Build a culture of collaboration, commitment, and interpersonal awareness
• Adopt effective leadership techniques at the team, project, or practice level
• Handle conflict and resolve communication issues using tested approaches
• Learn how real-world projects use effective leadership to drive success

The last decade has seen a sea-change in architectural leadership. New practices no longer adopt the name and identity of a single person, but create their own identity that represents the collaborative work of the entire group. Shifts in technology and changing workplace norms have made top-down management structures irrelevant, so what does it now mean to lead? Forefront presents effective contemporary leadership in the architectural practice, and real-world guidance on everyday implementation.

PART 1
COLLABORATION IN CONTEXT

Part 1, “Collaboration in Context,” presents the historical and contemporary factors that affect architectural practice, collaborative versions of the most common project delivery types, the value of collaboration (as well as addressing times when it is not appropriate), and outlines the factors needed to create a culture of collaboration in teams and organizations.

CHAPTER 1
Collaboration in Practice

The Changing Landscape of Architectural Practice

Over time, the process of designing and constructing buildings has transformed from a holistic master builder model in which all aspects of the design and construction process are orchestrated by one individual, to the fractured landscape of the early twenty-first century, in which industry professionals are hampered by archaic procurement models and disincentivized from working together for fear of litigation. The causes of this devolution are varied, but the resulting state of practice is one of inefficiency, with architects facing constant value engineering to meet project budgets, poor coordination, and disintegration between parties in the construction document phase (Figure 1-1). The result is most often excessive change orders and requests for information, which breed constant anxiety on the part of the client over exceeding the project budget and schedule. All of these contribute to delays, compromises, and the failure of most projects to fulfill their full potential (AIA/AIA CC, 2009). In the midst of this chaos, architects are losing revenue and relevance at an alarming rate.

Figure 1-1 Culture of practice over time

Welcome alternatives to these siloed, contentious, and risk-adverse practices have emerged with the rise of Building Information Modeling (BIM) and the development of collaborative contract structures in the early 2000s. These structures showed how the creation of joint partnerships between key stakeholders—owners, architects, and contractors at a minimum—who share both the risk and reward for a project’s success could incentivize an integrated delivery approach. Analysts projected that the industry-wide adoption of such collaborative tools—as with any paradigm-shifting change—would be slow and gradual.

However, economic, societal, and technological agents of disruption brought about by the Great Recession of 2008 accelerated this timeline. The future of practice (and to some extent the current state) is now one in which collaborative teams work together for the success of the project as a whole rather than prioritizing their own interests. This significant and necessary cultural shift requires that training and best practices be developed not only to help architects through the transition but also to foster ongoing collaboration and innovation.

The American Institute of Architects has been a leading voice in the national conversation regarding integrated and collaborative project delivery, calling for an industry-wide change. It developed Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) as one possible project delivery model that promotes a collaborative approach. The AIA also published a series of robust resources addressing the technical and procedural nature of IPD that have been widely utilized: Integrated Project Delivery: A Working Definition (AIA CC/McGraw-Hill, 2007); Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide (AIA/AIA CC, 2007); Experiences in Collaboration: On the Path to IPD (AIA CC/AIA, 2009); IPD: Case Studies (AIA/AIA MN, 2010); and IPD: Updated Working Definition (AIA/AIA CC, 2014).

In 2008 the AIA published a series of contract documents to provide three approaches to integrated delivery:

1. Transitional forms that are modeled after existing construction manager agreements (including owner–contractor, owner–architect, and general conditions contracts);
2. Multi-party agreements that create a single agree- ment that parties can use for IPD projects; and
3. The single purpose entity (SPE) contract that creates an LLC comprised of key stakeholders for the purposes of the project, which demonstrates the most robust engagement with this project delivery model.

Despite its promise, most practitioners have been slow to adopt IPD in the fullest sense, struggling to justify its value over traditional practice, to understand how to integrate the approach into existing practice structures, and to anticipate what the ramifications might be to changing the status quo (AIA CC/AIA, 2009). In 2008, a group of early adopters, made up of owners, architects, and contractors, gathered at a symposium conducted by the AIA California Chapter to share their practical experience. Although very few had participated in a “full” IPD project, all were engaged in integrated forms of project delivery and identified the following characteristics and structures that define Integrated Project Delivery:

Characteristics

• Results in efficiency and reduces redundancy
• Gets the right information to the right people at the right time
• Results in more accurate cost estimating earlier in the design process
• Decreases the risk of construction delays and additional costs
• Values people over technology
• Is unique to each project and team
• Is not appropriate in all situations

Structures

• Requires the right people
• Requires that all parties buy into the process
• Relies on trust
• Requires the owner’s direct involvement throughout the entire process
• Requires a clear understanding of the process by all parties
• Requires clearly defined goals for the project and for all parties
• Requires leadership and structure
• Requires technical excellence
• Requires clear roles and responsibilities for each team member
• Requires a clear definition of risks and rewards
• Requires investment in team building, not just team assembling
• Often requires training to shift team members into a collaborative mindset
• Requires continuous education as new members join the team
• Requires transparency
• Results in personal rewards such as ownership and enjoyment of the process in addition to financial rewards
• Requires starting with “who” before “how”
• Requires a plan of action be developed at the beginning of the process by the key stakeholders collectively
• Requires clear decision-making processes and rules of engagement
• Requires regular, frequent meetings by the key stakeholders
• Requires personal, face-to-face communication
• Requires careful listening and asking questions
• Requires addressing issues and concerns in real time (AIA CC/AIA, 2009)

With such a list of clearly beneficial qualities and requirements, the question remains, why have there been so few projects that implement IPD holistically? The answer is that collaboration is simple in theory but difficult in practice. It is not easy for any industry to make the shift to a collaborative approach and maintain the energy required to collaborate well over time, especially in one with as long a history of contention as that of the design and construction industry.

Collaboration has long been seen as either requiring the magical convergence of an ideal group of people or as hindering the “lone genius” model of traditional architectural mythology. It is, however, a skill set that can be taught and developed. Such skills, including leadership, collaboration, trust, and communication, need to be understood by architects in a way that provides both a conceptual grounding as well as the practical tools necessary for implementation. Although collaboration is rewarding when done well, it is not easy.

The Rise of Integrated and Collaborative Project Delivery

Effectively structured, trust-based collaboration encourages parties to focus on project outcomes rather than their individual goals. Without trust-based collaboration, IPD will falter and participants will remain in the adverse and antagonistic relationships that plague the construction industry today. IPD promises better outcomes, but outcomes will not change unless the people responsible for delivering those outcomes change.

(AIA CC, 2007)

A collaborative practice is distinguished from that of a typical, multiperson office by the intentional integration of diverse voices and expertise in all stages of the design process. Although architecture is by nature almost never a solitary act due to the size and complexity of its products, traditional models of practice and education have conditioned architects to develop a singular voice. The real fear in collaborating is that we and our work will be mediocre; a race toward the lowest common denominator, and with it, irrelevance; we will be seen as just one more designer among designers. The truth, of course, is by not collaborating architects become marginalized. Not knowing how to effectively collaborate will lead to their irrelevance” (Deutsch, 2014).

A defensive posture led to architecture being surpassed in significance by numerous allied fields such as engineering and manufacturing, which had long since streamlined their development and fabrication processes with great success. In 2004, Stephen ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title page
• Copyright
• Foreword: Integrative Practice—Enabling Adaptive, Collaborative Design
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• PART 1 COLLABORATION IN CONTEXT
• PART 2 COLLABORATION TOOLS AND TACTICS
• PART 3 LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS
• PART 4 COMMUNICATION AND CONFLICT
• PART 5 LEADERSHIP IN PRACTICE
• Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Index
• Eula