How many of you, either as an employee or consultant, worked for, or are working for, design firms that seem to be designing their projects till the last possible moment before sending the drawings and specifications off to the printer or client? I’m not referring to the preparation of drawings or specifications, which normally continue till the very end. No, I’m referring to significant design decisions; decisions that could affect a project if not thoroughly researched and analyzed.
Why do architects and engineers do that? As an architect myself (I cannot speak for engineers), it seems to be in our blood. The title “architect” could easily be a synonym for “procrastinator.” A fellow classmate in architecture school once stated during an all-night marathon design session that “Rome may not have been built in a day, but knowing architects, it was designed in one night.” This “infliction” not only affects your typical design professional, but renowned designers are also known to have no immunity.
Those familiar with Frank Lloyd Wright have probably heard the story (which is fact, by the way) of his last-minute design charrette for Fallingwater. Edgar Kaufmann, Jr., the client, was in Milwaukee on business and called Mr. Wright to see how the design was coming along for the Kaufmann’s vacation home in Bear Run, Pennsylvania. Mr. Wright told Mr. Kaufmann that the design was done, when in fact it had not even started. As Mr. Kaufmann drove the 140 miles from Milwaukee to Spring Green to look at the design, Mr. Wright started putting pencil to paper as apprentices handed him sharpened pencils to keep him going nonstop. The design was completed in time and Mr. Kaufmann was none the wiser. Miraculous as that accomplishment was, it was, nonetheless, just preliminary design drawings and not a full set of construction documents.
For years the standard design process for basic architectural services has consisted of three phases: schematic design, design development, and construction documents. Each phase adds further detail and refinement to the previous phase. The schematic design (SD) phase provides preliminary information including floor plans, elevations, and some building sections, to give the client a general overview of the building’s design. The design development (DD) phase adds more information, including integration of mechanical and electrical systems, building materials, and some details that show how it all goes together. The construction documents (CD) phase takes the design from its preliminary status to a set of drawings and specifications from which a contractor could construct the building.
Early in the CD phase, the design work should have stopped so attention can be placed on developing the drawings and specifications. However, some design work may be required to address some constructability issues that arise late in the CD phase; but overall, the design should be well established by this time—including the selection of materials and finishes. Unfortunately, from my experience, that seems to be the exception and not the rule.
As minor as material and finish selection may seem to some people, it appears odd that some designers put off making those selections until late in the CD phase, even though they play a significant role in the visual aesthetic of the building—something that should be high on an architect’s list. I am not talking about selection of colors or patterns, but actual product types, such as carpet versus vinyl tile, or curtain wall versus storefront. I have on occasion received specification information from clients within 24 hours of the CD due date. On a few rare ocassions I have received some information after the due date, which had to be handled by addendum (recently I had one project that required the deletion of one specification section to be replaced by a new section, all handled through an addendum).
It might appear that I am complaining (to some extent I am), but it goes beyond that. Some materials and finishes have implications on the building design—not just from an aesthetic point of view, but from a performance one, as well. To delay a decision may have unexpected consequences that create the trickle-down or domino effect. This may require alteration of completed documents, thus wasting the design team’s time and money.
For example, a late decision to use a vapor-sensitive flooring material over a slab-on-grade may require the addition of a vapor retarder if none was previously indicated in the documents. This would affect both the drawings and specifications. Another example would be a change from metal roofing to clay tile. That change would affect the drawings—architectural as well as structural (for added dead load)—plus the specifications (delete one section and add a new one).
In some cases, procrastination is not the culprit behind changes made late in the CD phase. Some designers just cannot resist the temptation to continue tinkering with the design until the end. But at some point the designing must stop so that the construction documents can be completed. Another reason to stop designing early in the CD phase is that frequent changes near the completion of the CD phase may lead to errors and omissions in the documents.
Change is inevitable, but it does not have to be self-inflicted. In this period of reduced budgets and staffing, it is irresponsible to re-do work that was essentially complete if it could have been avoided by earlier decision making. I, too, am guilty of putting things off, but it can be managed through effective prioritization. Although the construction documents phase is considered one of the phases of design, it does not mean you should continue to make significant design decisions till the very end.
What are your experiences and horror stories involving last minute design decisions?
Comments