A missing link
No, I am not talking about a time gap in what some to believe to be the evolution of humankind (I am not one of those believers). Instead I am talking about a missing link between the producers of construction documents and the users of construction documents.
Recently while looking through the July 2009 issue of AWCI’s Construction Dimensions magazine, I came across an editorial under the Estimator’s Edge column titled Dammit, Jim, I’m an Estimator, Not an Architect! In the article, the writer expresses his frustration about a particular specification requirement for heavy gage wall framing. While the topic of anxiety concerns what the writer sees as a deliberate shifting of responsibility for the structural engineering of the wall framing and foisting it off on an unassuming estimator, it is the reasons given that are of interest. To justify that such requirements are “… nothing more than a blatant attempt on the part of the “design professional” [his quotes] to relieve himself of the liability for any latent flaw or potential failure …” the following reasons are offered:
- The demand to get plans out that are incomplete and lacking information is forcing contractors and estimators to fill in the gaps.
- “Designers receive the same fat fees as always, while investing less time and resources in their work. Simply put: It’s a racket.”
- Designers are looking for others to absorb the liability for documents that are not constructable, or as the writer says, “kicking the can down the road.”
I believe AWCI’s Construction Dimensions to be an excellent magazine and I always find good information in almost every issue. A similar article occurred in the November 2006 issue to which I felt compelled to submit an article in response that was printed in the July 2007 issue. As I corresponded with the editor, I was told that the lack of details in the construction documents is a “huge pet peeve” of those that read the magazine, 90 percent of the more than 33,000 subscribers being subcontractors.
While this is only a single instance, over my career I have heard many comments about this very topic. I have come to realize there is considerable frustration among manufacturers, distributors, estimators, and subcontractors about this. I have also come to conclude there is a missing link between producers and users and that missing link is sufficient technical knowledge on the part of the producers and the impossible position users are being put in by contractors. Producers and users are not communicating.
As I thought through what I believe to be only one of the many disconnects, I was saddened because the actual and perceived decrease in the technical competency of drawings and specifications is yet another symptom of the architectural profession in decline. In the euphoria of the belief that greenness will save the planet, belief that BIM will make designers indispensible to the planet, and that IPD is the only viable project delivery method on the planet, I believe there is an entirely different issue that is being ignored by the profession, and has been ignored by academia for decades.
In spite of the advances being made, architects are no longer seen as crucially important as they were in the past and one of the reasons is this decrease in technical knowledge about buildings. For a number of years now, I have characterized my perception of this state of the profession thusly: if doctors knew as little about the human body as architects knows about buildings, they would still be using leeches.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
