The construction industry is perpetuated by a truly symbiotic process, in that all parties involved – project initiators, architects, engineers, contractors and more – rely on one another in order to achieve the best results possible. This coordinated effort is absolutely essential; the sum of all these parts equals a successful end product. That said, each one of these parties has the capability of completely ruining a construction project! In this 4-part series, we’re talking about how construction projects get screwed up. So what happens when Architects make a mistake? This article will be focused on 11 ways Architects screw up construction projects.
Check Out The Other Parts In Our “Screwed Up Construction” Series:
Part 1: Contractors | Part 3: Engineers | Part 4: Clients
Architects: What’s Good About Them
Let’s start with the positives! Here are a few good things to say about Architects:
- The First Ones On Board: When an initiator begins to plan a construction project, Architects are often the first ones they call. Architects have the burden of bringing the project from concept to a plan on paper, whilst dealing with the most amount of unknowns during this phase of planning.
- Big-Picture View: Architects are responsible for designing the building or structure on a big-picture level. This includes the overall appearance, required features and incorporating it into the surrounding area of the future site – all while accounting for codes, egress, standards, etc.
- They Must Understand Constructibility: While Contractors are the ones executing the physical work, Architects must have at least some working knowledge of constructibility and feasibility in design. This includes knowledge of manufacturers, means/methods and so on.
Now with that said, let’s get into it…
Disclaimer: I have a B.S. in Civil Engineering but have worked my entire career as a contractor. The content within this article is based on my anecdotal experiences working with architects and the feedback I get from others only.
Here Are 11 Ways Architects Screw Up Construction Projects:
- Leaving Design Details ‘To Be Coordinated’ By Contractors
- Not Using ‘Basis-Of-Designs’ When Designing & Specifying The Project
- Excessively Noting ‘Verify-In-Field’ On Drawings
- Not Considering Constructibility In Design
- Unclear Or Vague Design Specifications
- Delayed Review Or Approval Of Contractor Documents
- Changing Design While Project Is Underway
- Requesting Materials Or Building Components That Don’t Exist
- Inflexible In Design Specifications
- Untimely Review & Processing Of Contractor’s Requisitions
- Nitpicking Finished Products (‘Never Ending Punchlist’)
Note: There is a bit of overlap on this list between our engineer & architect articles in this four-part series. We will provide specific examples of each point listed to illustrate how each item applies in context.
1. Leaving Design Details ‘To Be Coordinated’ By Contractors
In part 1 of this series, we described the importance of contractors coordinating their work together onsite. When it comes to the means and methods of construction, contractors are certainly responsible for this.
This real issues begin to arise when contractors are expected to not only coordinate their work, but also coordinate the design details of how their work will interface with other adjacent finished products.
On some projects, the architect will not include any visuals of how a particular building detail is to look when constructed onsite, but will instead note that the details are ‘to be coordinated‘ between contractors, usually where multiple components come together. This is particularly common in instances where multiple contractors are required to submit shop drawings of their design for approval before work starts.
This isn’t wrong in all scenarios, as the architect may simply not have access to certain proprietary details of the contractors or manufacturers that provide the shop drawings. It also depends on how the contracts are written.
In many cases though, leaving excessive details ‘to be coordinated’ can lead to:
- Prolonged / additional reviews of shop drawings to further coordinate details, which can create schedule delays.
- Increase in RFI submissions.
- Confusion & installation issues in the field, which can in turn produce delay claims, change order requests, etc.
As they say, the best medicine is preventative. While leaving details ‘to be coordinated’ seems like it will save design costs/time up front, Architects make a mistake in many instances when they leave too many details unfinished.
Related: The Difference Between Shop Drawings And Construction Drawings
2. Not Using ‘Basis-Of-Designs’ When Designing & Specifying The Project
As a general rule of thumb, construction projects that run the smoothest are the ones that are set up right from the very beginning.
This places a lot of responsibility on the architect and other designers that get brought on board early. For this, they should be commended.
That said, there are some big missteps that can be taken during these early phases of a project. One of them, as discussed in section 1, is leaving finer details to be coordinated once contractors are on board. We covered a few of the many potential risks this presents.
One way Architects make a mistake early on in a project is by not using a Basis-of-Design.
In short, a Basis-of-Design (B.O.D.) is a making reference to a specific manufacturer, building system, product or even another completed project with similar features when designing a project on paper.
Using a Basis-of-Design is helpful in the following ways:
- Understanding products that are actually on the market and usable.
- Getting potential manufacturers/etc. on board early allows them to gain at least some momentum for if and when they’re hired for the project. This isn’t possible in all scenarios, but can be in some.
- The architect can understand finer details in a more tangible way, while spotting any potential issues or items that require refinement.
Without B.O.D.s, contractors will be left figuring out these details later, which often leads to delays, change orders and constructibility issues.
Related: The Purpose Of Mockups In Construction & Why They’re So Important
3. Excessively Noting ‘Verify-In-Field’ On Drawings
The term ‘Verify in Field (VIF)’ refers to any dimension or condition in the design documents that is either not clearly defined, unknowable or is subject to change when the project gets going.
In fairness, an architect cannot always estimate exactly what the dimensions of a finished product will be, nor can they understand all of the conditions that will be present when work gets going.
Unfortunately, design documents can sometimes be riddled with ‘VIF’ comments to the point where contractors must make assumptions in the bidding and execution stages of the project. ‘VIF’ notations are sometimes used for bad reasons (queue the dramatic music). Here are a few:
- The architect is short on time: They must produce a design quickly, sometimes under constraint of a fixed budget. When time is short, Architects could end up marking ‘VIF’ of certain conditions simply because they don’t have time to dig deeper.
- Budget / due diligence is limited: Services like 3d computer modeling (BIM), site surveying, geological reports and feasibility studies are meant to provide valuable information about building conditions as an upfront investment. Unfortunately, the need for services like these are only seen in hindsight; services like this are oftentimes left out in order to ‘save money’ in the early planning stages of a project.
- Laziness: For lack of a better word, some architects may not wish to get down into the fine details to determine how certain conditions will look in the field and instead leave them to contractors. What’s the worst that can happen?
Architects make a mistake when leaving too many conditions to be verified in the field, as it can leave the project vulnerable to underestimated work/material quantities, unforeseen conditions and a host of other issues – all of which ultimately cost money and time.
Related: Avoiding Rework In Construction: 10 Common Causes & Solutions
4. Not Considering Constructibility In Design
Beautiful designs on paper are wonderful, but can they be brought to life?
This is the crux of a designer’s burden – optimizing appearance and feasibility. Making matters worse, many projects are often constructible as a whole, but certain elements of the project are not. Of course, even a few portions of the scope of work that run into constructibility issues can drag the whole project down with them.
Rather than talk about why architects make a mistake by not considering constructibility in their designs (fairly obvious), let’s talk instead about how constructibility can be considered:
- Use Basis-Of-Designs For Building Systems & Materials: As described in section 2, a B.O.D. can remove a lot of the guesswork that designers have in terms of how components look and get put together.
- Reference Other Projects: When something has been done before, it becomes a lot easier to determine if/how a particular building component comes together. Architects and design professionals can even consult the manufacturer, designer and/or installer from that other project.
- Bring On Contractors Early: When considering constructibility of a project, why not ask the people who know how to put things together already? Bringing a contractor on board – particularly one with broad experience – to assist in the design phase of a project can eliminate a lot of these issues. The term used to describe this type of arrangement is known as Design-Build.
At the end of the day, the greatest looking, most state-of-the-art design is only as good as its’ ability to be built…within budget!
Related: How Do You Read Blueprints? Our Step-By-Step Guide With Examples!
5. Unclear Or Vague Design Specifications
This issue echoes similar sentiment to the points already covered, but in short – the more specific the specifications (heh) are on a project, the fewer questions and guesswork will be required.
The purpose of written specifications is to supplement design drawings with additional pertinent information. Some of the more important information contained in written specifications includes, but is not limited to:
- Product Types/Grades/Etc. (Basis-of-Design)
- Dimensional Tolerance Requirements For Finished Products
- Applicable Building Codes & Regulations
- Performance & Testing Standards
- Required Warranties
- Copies of Certifications & Similar Qualifications
- Required Documents For Submission/Approval
If these topics are not clearly defined in the written specifications, it’s easy to imagine how a construction project can be screwed up as a result!
Related: What Are The Basics Of Project Scheduling? 9 Essential CPM Steps
6. Delayed Review Or Approval Of Contractor Documents
Schedule, schedule, schedule – everyone cares about getting the job done quickly, or at least on time. Therefore, any delay one or more parties may encounter on a project is never a good!
The review, response and approval of construction documents is no exception. Many architects make the mistake of taking too long to respond to documents that contractors submit for approval. Make matters more complicated, most project documents clearly state how long the design team has to respond to them once they’ve received a document.
PROMOTION
Because of this, it makes it more likely that contractors will point to this prolonged review as a delay, meaning a time extension request and everything that comes with it is more legitimate.
Of course, architects are by no means the only party capable of delaying a project, even in terms of submittals.
Related: The Construction Submittal Log: 5 Best Practices (FREE Excel Template)
7. Changing Design While Project Is Underway
For laughs, let’s use an example – a restaurant example.
Let’s say you sit down and order an appetizer and drinks at a restaurant, followed by an entree. It is very easy to know exactly what the price for the meal will be, and it’s somewhat easy to gauge how long the food will take.
Changing it up a bit. Let’s say that 10 minutes after you order an appetizer, you make a request for an alternative choice instead. The order for the original one was already placed so you now must buy both the original and the new appetizer. Seems reasonable, right?
You then make a change to the entree you selected as well – instead of cooking it medium, you decide on well-done. You also order an additional side dish.
It’s fairly obvious that the ‘revised’ meal will cost more than the original one. But now, the waitstaff spends more time and effort on your order and the kitchen spends more time coordinating the changes as well.
Now imagine debating the price of the second appetizer because it took longer and arrived at the same time as the main course. Imagine butting heads over how much longer the well-done meal takes compared to the original. In this dystopian world, tensions will flare over the amount of time the food takes as well as the total bill!
Meanwhile, food is no longer timed right, customers wait longer, the kitchen has unexpected delays and the waitstaff is running around more than expected.
This example is parabolic, but it illustrates the effect that changes have on the final end product, the end product’s price and the time it took to get there. Only in construction, the ‘tensions flaring’ isn’t dystopian – it’s reality!
As we can imagine, making changes to a building’s design once work is underway has a very similar effect on the construction schedule, timing/phasing of events, pricing, management and so on. Making design changes can be a big way architects screw up construction projects.
Related: What Should A Project Manager Do If The Customer Delays A Project?
8. Requesting Materials Or Building Components That Don’t Exist (Or At Least Aren’t Easily Found)
Building off of earlier sections, many design ideas sound great on paper but are not so great in reality. One way architects make mistakes in terms of budgeting and schedule is by expecting something completely custom that isn’t commonly found…without knowing it’s hard to get.
Of course, custom work is done all the time. So how is it that expecting custom items on a project is a mistake?
It’s not so much the custom aspect of it, but rather the research into:
- What it’s going to take to get a custom item like that.
- Who/where could it be made (think Basis-of-Design again).
- The means in which a custom item could be made.
- Is it even worth it, given the time and money it’ll take?
There are infinite anecdotal examples one could come up with to either justify the need for a ‘non-existent’ item vs. why it’s a bad idea. Generally speaking though, it’s not a great idea in terms of time or money to expect materials that are extremely hard to get unless the client has a surplus of both.
For example, I was involved in a structural steel project several years ago. A high-quality, top-of-the-line exterior coating was called for to recoat the original structural components that were still in good shape. The architect wanted a very specific color shade of paint.
The specified manufacturer (Basis-of-Design!) had about twenty stock colors that looked pretty close to the color the architect had in mind, but we ended up having to get a special batch mixed to match an exact color. A series of samples and mockups ensued. It ended up taking double the amount of time to get in comparison to the stock colors and costed a fair margin more per gallon than the stock colors, too.
Was it really worth the extra leg work? I don’t know. We got paid for it, at least.
Related: Procurement Strategy For Long Lead Items In Construction: A Few Tips
9. Inflexible In Design Specifications
A highly detailed, fully defined set of written specs is generally a good thing – it’s the opposite of what we discussed in section 5 earlier.
On the flip side, specifications that are too rigid can also be problematic.
What’s written in the specs is sometimes just not possible to achieve. It’s harder to prove this statement wrong than the contrary – the opposite being that the written specifications can never be wrong and they must be upheld no matter what.
The issue with unwavering written specifications is that they’re usually drafted early on in the project’s initiation phase, and the client comes to expect them as what they’re going to get when all is said and done. In turn, the architect or whoever else wrote the specs does their best to stick to exactly what they wrote.
They can’t always do so, though. The specs are typically modified out of necessity, not out of choice.
Here are some examples of work items I’ve managed that don’t (or can’t) comply with what’s written in the specs:
- Custom-designed glass systems that cannot meet certain window performance standards.
- Manufacturers unable to provide the level of warranty that’s expected.
- Specified products that don’t work in all required conditions onsite.
- Substituting one product for another due to availability.
There are other times when alternatives to what’s specified are objectively better for the project. This is when a stubborn designer is REALLY….fun to work with.
Related: Don’t Miss These Construction Management Rules Of Thumb & Hacks!
10. Untimely Review & Processing Of Contractor’s Requisitions
This one is not always architect’s faults – sometimes architects get assigned the role of owner’s representative in addition to design duty. This often includes the review and approval of contractor’s monthly requisitions.
Regardless of whether or not this responsibility is warranted, an untimely review and approval of monthly contractor’s requisitions does not help move the project along, to say the least. It’s made worse when these bills are overly scrutinized and reduced.
Of course, many contractors don’t bill the client correctly or fairly either.
Related: What Should Be Included In A Schedule Of Values? 7 Tips For Contractors
11. Nitpicking Finished Products (‘Never Ending Punchlist’)
Last on our list of ways architects screw up construction projects is by nitpicking the finished results. Said another way, finding fault in the work performed and requesting certain parts be redone over…and over….and over.
This is otherwise known as the “never-ending punch list“.
To be totally clear, we’re talking about work that’s otherwise within compliance of plans and specs. If a contractor installs subpar work, the architect has every right to demand it be redone, as does the client.
What we’re talking about here are the designers who just aren’t satisfied no matter what.
Some of this unnecessary criticism happens in the throes of the project, well before the end. That can be bad, but the worst part is the punch list work that takes place during the project’s close out, when everyone just wants to get the heck out off the job – including the client.
Punch list work holds up collecting final payments and extends the project indefinitely. Of course, if the work is within compliance, the architect or anyone else can’t just make a contractor do the work. It can go on and on for some time, though!
Related: 10 Things To Exclude From A Construction Bid, Proposal Or Contract
PROMOTION
11 Ways Architects Screw Up Construction Projects: In Summary
We’ve talked about the many possible ways that architects screw up construction projects, along with what happens when architects make a mistake. All that said, there are plenty of great architects and other design professionals that do excellent work and are essential in getting the project to a successful completion. On this website, we remove as much bias as possible and beat up on all parties equally! I hope this article has been helpful and informative – thanks for reading.
