Coupled with other factors, this leads to a situation where the design team is asked to switch gears, in some cases quite drastically, in order to meet the needs of the client.  It has been my experience such change leads to the following statement from the owner “I need this minor design revision drawn in 30 days,  permitted in 30 days, priced in 30 days and built in 30 days.”

The ugly truth is, the change is major not minor (e.g. add a new elevated pool to the 15 floor).  The design should really take 60 days, the permitting is out of anyone’s control and the owner really hopes the change will cost $30,000 not $300,000.  The design team is then faced with the unenviable task of producing documents in a timely manor so as mitigate the delays to the project in progress.

Right away panic begins, as the consultants all cower to play CYA (cover your……….) with regards to design deliverables.  Every sentence starts with “I can’t get started with my portion until…..”  or when asked if they can provide components of the design in the interest of keeping the project moving forward, the moans and groans from the doom and gloom section begin their somber symphony “No, we need to design the entire system…”

With the clock ticking and the interest payments climbing the owner attempts to apply a renewed sense of urgency.  However, the momentum has stalled because design development meetings are ineffective.  Since the owner has foolishly decided to contract directly with the consultants, the architect has no leverage over the rest of the team.  This means that the mechanical engineer will not specify the size of the new chiller equipment, the structural engineer won’t design the slab to carry the weight and the architect is unable to coordinate the revised layout of the floor to house the new equipment.

The only way that this unfortunate trend can be reversed is if designers and engineers are able to assert themselves with owners, perhaps through more transparency in their service proposals and a more thorough explanation of the design and permitting process.  Owners inherently assume that drawings just appear from the clouds; courtesy the stork.  Before committing to  an owner driven change; designers need to outline a schedule.  This is no different than what would be expected of the Construction Manager tasked with implementing the design revision.  The schedule should detail the design process with tight integration of owner comments and constructability reviews.

From an owner’s perspective, those who control the purse strings must also be held accountable.  Owners need to recognise that deisgners are operating in an era under where they are under siege by liability litigation.  This leads to a level of “over cautiousness” which is inherently counter productive to the goals of rapid change.  Decisiveness from ownership on the aesthetic and programatic direction of a project is as critical as the execution of the design.

Owner’s also need to exercise their financial leverage over the design and construction teams so that owner precipitated changes don’t reset the tab, giving the designers and builders opportunities overcharge for taking the project in a new direction.

]]> http://www.qualifiedengineer.com/2009/09/100-cds-the-new-design-build/feed/ 1