...pardon the vent, but, a request from the trade: pricing.

cpoh1

Victor wrote: »

Some architects create 'fussy' designs that cost lots of money - they want a tall, grande, skinny, no-caf, full-milk, full-caf mocha frappuccino with caramel, marshmallows and chocolate powder ... and then give out when you don't give them Hob-Nob biscuits. In other words they want every nicety, give conflicting information, skip important information while demanding thrift be imposed on everyone except themselves and their buddies. Some do it on their own, some do it on behalf of clients.

Some examples of this were:
* Demolition of large, concrete-built shed to rear of terraced house not included in tender documents - only discovered on site inspection. Everything would need to be taken out through the existing house.
* Architect designs balcony balustrade with horizontal bars. Glass panelling needed to be added so that it could comply with building regulations (to stop children climbing over it).
* Workshop shown on to-scale drawings wasn't not actually to scale. Acoustic folding door (€5,000) not actually indicated as new.
* Architect shows traditional glass doors on shop front at tender stage, client needs sliding doors. Architect procrastinates on issuing variation and then refuses to pay.
* Client wanting nursing home to cost less than €2.167m, because that was where the tax break ended, but for an economic size (50+ beds), it would cost over €3m.

And that in a nutshell is why I believe architects should stick to design and let the project managers and their team manage the detail in a job. The type of creative thinking that makes a top architect does not lend well to closing out a project. Had this discussion with a number of Architects we work with and they all agree.

To the original post - pricing jobs is just something everyone needs to factor into getting work. Every large design house in the world (PM's/Jacobs etc.) all have 10-20% of their hours non billable due to tendors that didnt go ahead.

My advice, get clarity up front. Its either budget or detailed quote and how long. Once you have the expectation set you can stay in the game without wasting too much of your own time.

Strolling Bones

cpoh1 wrote: »

And that in a nutshell is why I believe architects should stick to design and let the project managers and their team manage the detail in a job. The type of creative thinking that makes a top architect does not lend well to closing out a project.

I believe architects should design and not let the project managers and their team manage the detail out of a job. That way vision is lost.

The type of non creative thinking that makes a top project manager does not lend well to realizing the vision.

I don't expect you to understand.

kkelliher

Strolling Bones wrote: »

I was thinking of this



Less caustic than Victors post - but influenced by following soon after.
Not sure why a "qs" needs to state "architect" either.

.

I had " " the architect as it could easily be an engineer, arch tech, building surveyor or who ever is running the tender. It was not intended as a rant at architects.

cpoh1

Strolling Bones wrote: »

I believe architects should design and not let the project managers and their team manage the detail out of a job. That way vision is lost.

That makes no sense. Any big job i'm working on we get the architects to carry out the design and "vision". Our civil/structural engineering department along with QS will then develop BOQ and along with the project manager will go from there with tender and project execution. Lets be real, drawings are drawings and once they're done unless there is a physical restriction and resultant rework the vision bit is complete.

Even on a much smaller scale having an architect project manage a house build or extension is madness. The skills are exclusive if you want a top job done. For any good architect I know (in industry) detail around timeslines, scheduling vendors and managing costs gives them a nosebleed.

I dont expect you to understand either.

Strolling Bones

kkelliher wrote: »

I had " " the architect as it could easily be an engineer, arch tech, building surveyor or who ever is running the tender. It was not intended as a rant at architects.

I accept what you say here. wrt what you did not intend.

And yet the thread has become open season on architects.

Strolling Bones

cpoh1 wrote: »

That makes no sense. Any big job i'm working on we get the architects to carry out the design and "vision". Our civil/structural engineering department along with QS will then develop BOQ and along with the project manager will go from there with tender and project execution. Lets be real, drawings are drawings and once they're done unless there is a physical restriction and resultant rework the vision bit is complete.

Even on a much smaller scale having an architect project manage a house build or extension is madness. The skills are exclusive if you want a top job done. For any good architect I know (in industry) detail around timeslines, scheduling vendors and managing costs gives them a nosebleed.

I dont expect you to understand either.

I do understand. You are advocating people approach PM or Jacobs for their one off houses.

cpoh1

Strolling Bones wrote: »

I do understand. You are advocating people approach PM or Jacobs for their one off houses.

Eh, no.

Anyway OP apologies for taking your thread a little offtopic.