Happy Fourth of July, everybody!

I'm taking a three-day weekend, as I hope all of you are. Whenever your firm gives you time off, TAKE IT! You need a break from your work in order to do it well, so take the time, go get some sun and water and fireworks and fun and rest for a few days.

Four great words for disagreeing without being disagreeable

There are times when dealing with others—coworkers, consultants, contractors, even bosses—when you have to disagree in full or in part. This can be difficult when you’re dealing with a) someone who outranks you, b) someone who is partially right, or worse, c) someone who gets easily offended if they’re not always right. This is when you use a verbal concept known as fogging. The four most obvious words used in fogging are: “You could be right.”
You’ve probably fogged before in conversation and didn’t realize it, but there’s sound reasoning behind using it. By acknowledging that the other person has a) spoken and b) has an opinion, you’re able to get to your point or opinion without shutting them down. It allows you to introduce new information or opinion while keeping things civil:

Boss: See, this layout allows people to get a clear shot from the front of the store to the back, and they can see more of the merchandise. It’ll increase their sales.
You: Well, I see what you mean. You may be onto something. However, this layout also leaves the dressing room unmonitored by the staff at the main desk.
Boss: Hm. Yeah, well…
You: If we make the main desk an L shape instead of an H, the staff can see the dressing rooms better. [sketching] See?

Bear in mind that when you disagree with someone, it can give your opinion a little more weight if you have a possible solution to a problem. Even if they don’t use your solution, you’re not just being Dr. No about everything.

Other good fogging phrases:
You may be right.
That certainly could work.
That’s one option (and it could work).
That’s an idea/That’s a pretty good idea.

Getting hired in a down economy: good ideas and sneaky ones (?)

I read an article in the Wall Street Journal section of the 6/28/09 Sunday Denver Post regarding how to get a job in a down economy and a market flooded with applicants. One of the interviewee's comments sounds like a good idea to me, but the other left me feeling a bit like I needed to wash my hands.

The suggestion that made a lot of sense to me is that if you post your resume on a website, don't just wait for people to call you. It makes a lot of sense in a job market flooded with applicants (many of them very qualified) to tailor your application, resume, and cover letter to go after more specific positions if you have some kind of focus that others might not have. It's a way to set you apart from the pack. Let's say you have tons of experience with 3D modeling and/or graphic design--look for job openings that mention those qualities, or send your resume to firms that appear to be able to benefit from that.

The tip that felt creepy to me was to type keywords (especially if they don't explicitly come up in your resume) in white print at the bottom of your resume if you post it online so that your resume will pop up in a wider range of searches. For some reason this feels creepy to me, perhaps because the interviewee states that you type the keywords in white text so that it won't show up when someone views or prints the resume. It feels a little sneaky to me, but maybe that's easy for me to say since I'm not engaged in a job search right now.

What concerns me about interns in the workforce right now is that neither of these tips fully helps. Architecture, as I have described in previous posts, pays for experience and knowledge, not education. They want the best bang for their buck, and the right intern can give them that. To set onself apart on a resume search, it would more likely behoove an architectural intern to emphasize not just technical ability with software but also project type experience (schools, healthcare, commercial) and project phase (construction documents, construction administration).

Communication in architecture and the case against BS

I had a question earlier about BS in this profession. The exact question was this:

This job requires the ability to BS some.Can you describe some etiquette for when to BS and when not to? How much BS is too much? When is humility more beneficial? And when to call people on their BS, contractors, subs, city staff, consultants, project designers, etc.

Here's the short answer: BS is never okay. Here's why: there are generally three types of statements with regards to facts: true, partly true, and not true. Those are easy enough to understand. But bullshit (or BS as we're politely calling it here) is another whole breed of statement. BS isn't even concerned with truth: it doesn't care what's true, it doesn't know what's true, and it doesn't care enough to find out what's true, it's just about smoothing things over and making themselves look good. Moreover, it's lazy communication. The ultimate goal of all professional communication is to be clear, respectful, timely, and appropriate. BS is none of these. That's why there's no place in your job or career for it. Not to sound like your mother, but if you don't want to receive it, then don't give it out.

Some people confuse tact and diplomacy with BS--it's a common misconception, but they're two different animals. Tact is about speaking respectfully. If the contractor hasn't finished picking up all their punchlist items and it's going on 90 days after the owner has moved in and started using the building, then you need to remind the contractor of this:

Wrong: "You people need to go fix that crap. You haven't been doing your job and you'r making us all look stupid. I don't care what the problem is, just finish the damn punchlist."*

Right: "The owner has mentioned that there are still some outstanding punchlist items to be picked up. When are you planning to wrap those up?"

Diplomacy is being mindful that there are two (or more) sides to every situation and being able to problem-solve when you're hearing all these sides:

Contractor: "Well, we've been out there for two weeks straight. I dunno what else they want us to fix. Man, they are such a bunch of whiners."

Architect: "Dude, I can completely understand how frustrating this is, 'cuz you feel like you've fixed everything and we're all ready to move on. What they've mentioned to me is that the sink in the break room barely has any water pressure, and there are still a bunch of dings and scratches in the halls on the north end of the building. And I know we just wanna be done with this project, but they did pay for a nice, new, complete building, and we owe it to them to do that."

Sometimes, people will say things that you may not have the authority to handle, or they may say things that can't be verified easily or that will take some work to verify. When this happens, you call them on it with tact and diplomacy in the service of the job.

Contractor: "Look, they gave us our retainage, so we're done, y'know? And frankly, that place looks frickin' perfect. The subs were just up there fixing that drywall and that sink; they're just being picky."

Architect: "You were just up there? Did any of your sus meet with the facilities manager before they started their repairs to check what needed to be done?"

Contractor: "Uhh, awww they had the punchlist, so that's what they followed!"

Architect: "And you're sure they followed the punchlist? Because sometimes there can be a miscommunication if someone from your office wasn't right there and able to say, 'no, this is the part that needs to be fixed--'"

Contractor: "Naw naw naw, they followed the punchlist. Ricky's a sharp guy--he does good drywall, that's why we use him!"

Architect: "Hm. Well, how about this: before either of us drives an hour and a half to the jobsite again, I'll have them email us some photos and maybe a video of the problems they're still having, and them we can see how bad it really is. Sound good?"

At this point, if the contractor likes the idea, you can follow through with the owner and make certain whether the owner's being picky or if the contractor's shirking his job. If the contractor balks at your suggestion, then you know you just threw the BS flag and you've caught him. Mostly you can cut through BS by probing some: how do you know what you're telling me? How are you so sure? Might there have been some confounding factors that would have given you a bad answer? The parts of the above exchange that you might not have authority to deal with is the money thing, the bit about "we have our retainage so we've been cut loose." Run that by your boss to see if that's an acceptable excuse (it's usually not--mostly it's bad business for a contractor). If you're ever not sure, just say you'll run the situation past your boss and see if you two can come up with a solution.

I suppose you can use humility in the workplace mostly in terms of simply being aware that you too are a fallible human being. That's why you want to speak respectfully when you ask someone "hm, that's interesting, how do you know that?" You never know how they know what they know--either you'll bust them for some nonsense or you'll learn something new. Calling people on BS doesn't have to be a verbal arm-wrestling match. It actually works better if you're respectful about it, especially if there are witnesses. Ideally, you give a BS'er enough rope to hang himself or herself with in front of others.

Possible relief for school loans

According to an article in the Sunday, June 21, 2009 Wall Street Journal section of the Denver Post, some folks will be eligible for lower loan payments on their student loans. If a college graduate has any of the following loans:

• Stafford
• Graduate PLUS
• Consolidation loan made under the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan program
• Consolidation loan made under the Federal Family Education Loan program

they will be able to get lower loan payments starting on July 1st as part of the Income Based Repayment Plan. Any loans in default, parent PLUS loans, or consolidation loans including a parent PLUS loan do not qualify. Under this plan, the annual loan payments will be 15% of the borrower's gross income and 150% of the federal poverty income level (which depends on family size and state of residence). The IBRP will take that 15% amount, divide it by 12, and that'll be your monthly loan payment. If you make less than 150% of the federal poverty income level, you pay nothing until your salary increases. While this plan does extend the life of your student loan, at least it keeps you in good standing. To enroll in the plan, contact your loan lender.

Also of note is that after 25 years of qualifying payments, the principal loan balance may be forgiven. I know that might sound useless, but that'd be a nice payment not to have to make if you're also trying to support a family or care for elderly loved ones.

Contracts and relationships, Part 2 of 2

We've discussed some of the basic contracts and the relationships of owner, architect, and contractor in the last post, but these relationships in general merit further discussion. Understanding the roles of each party and the complications that arise from carrying out those roles and responsibilities can help you figure out what you should be saying to whom when you work on a project.

First, let's differentiate between owner and client--the owner is the entity who will hold ownership of the building or project and may also be providing the funding, while the client is who will actually be using the building or project. Sometimes, they're one and the same--a small-but-growing shoe company needs to expand its operations, so it hires an architect to design a new manufacturing facility and corporate headquarters. Sometimes, however, they're different--an HMO needs a new outpatient clinic facility for its Houston outpost, so the HMO is the owner but the medical and administrative staff of those who will work in the clinic are the client. The owner and client relationship can get fuzzy when the government is involved. Because having the funds to produce a new building that the government will own literally takes an act of Congress, a governmental agency will sometimes contract with a private developer to build a building to their exact standards in exchange for a 99-year lease. In this case, the owner will be XYZ Development, Inc, while the client will be the U.S. Department of the Interior or the Census Bureau, etc.

The reason that the owner versus client differentiation is important because the client (or users) will likely ask for something in a user group design meeting that the owner will strike down. This is where the architect comes in. We architects generally act as the client's advocate. It is our job to do what is right for the client and to design a building that meets their needs and their budget. Sometimes in that role, we have to save a client/owner from themselves. Sometimes, they will ask us to do something that is against code or against best practices--when that happens, it's up to us to say, "Wow, you really really really don't want to do that."

The contractor works for the owner/client, just as we do. In that way, we both must answer to the owner/client and we both must look out for their best interests. The contractor builds what we draw and describe in our specs, of course, but our drawings don't relieve them of professional liability. If they see something in our drawings or specs that don't make sense, is unsafe, is unbuildable, or doesn't meet at least the standard of care, it is incumbent upon them to ask a question about it (usually by asking during a preconstruction meeting or in the form of an RFI out in the field). By that same token, it is incumbent upon us as architects to provide good, clear, coordinated drawings and specs to the contractor so they don't have to waste time asking for basic or semi-basic information. It is also incumbent upon us to ensure that our consultants (engineers, equipment planners, landscape architects, interior designers, and the like) do the same.

Our role as client advocate becomes muddy when we work in a design-build environment with a contractor who is a separate entity from us. Having the architect and contractor as separate entities usually provides a set of checks and balances that ultimately protects the owner/client. But under a design-build agreement, the architect works for the contractor. This can be a problem if the contractor makes changes to the architect's drawings that create an unsafe situation or undermines the standard of care in a building (i.e., substitutes a lower-quality type of insulation in an exterior wall, causing the building to be colder than it should be; or uses duct supports that are less stout than what the mechanical engineer specifies, causing the ducts to fall and crash through the ceiling). While the design-build contractor should in theory take the blame for the change, they can pass the blame to the architect by saying "well, you approved the change". To which the architect replies, "You were in charge! I didn't have a choice, did I?" This argument is being played out in courtrooms across the U.S.; it will be interesting to see how this ends up.

So, the architect produces good drawings and specs and then reviews submittals and shop drawings and performs periodic site walks to ensure that the contractor is building the project to a high-quality standard. Meanwhile, the contractor reviews the architect's drawings and specs and finds and fixes mistakes to ensure, again, that the project is built to a high-quality standard. So who protects the architect and contractor from a crappy owner/client? Well, the short answer is both of you and no one. I do know of architects who have refused to work with clients on future projects because of their inability to make timely decisions and/or inability to pay their bills. What happens more often, though, is that the contractor and architect may get together and figure out how to save the owner from themselves. If an owner/client is unable to make timely decisions, then the architect and contractor sit down together to come up with the best way to explain to them with hard numbers and facts how they're hurting themselves. Sometimes, they'll work together to help frame a discussion so that the owner will understand why a certain decision will benefit the owner in the long run. Occasionally, architect will recommend that a client engage an owner's representative. An ideal owner's rep knows enough about construction as well as the project type to be able to make recommendations to a client about what they should do. This is handy for owner/clients that rarely build new buildings, like a rural hospital or school system. For example, a good owner's rep can help a hospital board make good decisions on what to spend money on so that it won't hamstring the new hospital building's operation or its future growth.

Of course, there are down sides to all these relationships. The architect will whisper in the owner's ear about how the contractor is trying to dumb down his beautiful vision for the owner, which then causes the owner to put undue pressure on the contractor to build something for an unbuildable price. Likewise, the contractor may frame everything for the owner as dollars instead of features, function, and program, which encourages the owner to cut useful stuff out of the project. This leaves the contractor looking like a saint when they return a nice little construction budget refund to the owner at the end of the project while leaving the owner with an undersized parking lot and not enough VAV boxes to properly control the temperature in their building. If the architect and contractor decide to unfairly gang up on the owner/client, they may push them into decisions that they will regret later in the construction project, which will force the owner to pay additional services to the contractor and architect while they "fix" the problem. "You had the chance to put this in the project, and you said no," said the architect and contractor. "But you said I wouldn't need it!" said the owner. "Tough noogies," the architect and contractor retort. "You know what you need--it's up to you to tell us what you need; we work for you." Mmhmm. Sure you do, Frank Lloyd Spite.

Ultimately as an architect, your job is to defend the owner's wants and needs, but not in a way that it will undermine their project's success or future growth. You are a second set of eyes on the contractor's work as well as your consultants' work, but you aren't their mama and daddy, per se. And you need to be willing to speak up when you see something awry, regardless of who needs to hear it and whether they'd like to hear it.

Contracts and relationships, Part 1 of 2

Another good question from an anonymous commentor regarded the difference in contracts and delivery methods and the relationship of contractor, owner, and architect to each other. First, let's parse out the differences in the types of contracts; that will make the relationships make a little more sense in the next part of this discussion.

Up until the last couple of decades, the main form of construction delivery process was design-bid-build. In this process, the architect designs the project all the way through the end of construction documents, but sometimes the architect takes the drawings and specs through about 90% CDs and calls them bid documents. Then, contractors are invited to bid on the project, and the architect gets them copies of the drawings and specs. The contractors have a set amount of time, anywhere from one to three weeks, to review the drawings and figure out a set amount for which they think they can build the project. The bids are written down and placed into sealed envelopes and given to either the client or the architect, and the bids are opened in front of witnesses. The client picks which bid they want, and the contractor is hired. If all of the bids are higher than the client's budget, then the client may select a contractor or independent cost estimator to help them get costs out of the project. Another option is that they may decide to go get more funding or reassess what they're asking the architect to design--maybe they shell out part of the space, or maybe they literally shrink the size of the building.

CM/GC is a form of project delivery that is used often on really large projects, like college or hospital buildings (and the one I happen to be most familiar with). Those letters stand for Construction Manager/General Contractor. A CM/GC contractor is brought on during schematic design or even early design development. Their role isn't just limited to building the project and hiring the subcontractors, but it also involves reviewing the drawings and specs periodically for cost and constructability issues. The idea is to keep costs manageable and avoid the "uh-ohs" of a project going over budget and to solve "what's the best way to build this" problems before you start actually building something. It costs less to fix problems on paper than in 3D.

Design-build showed up in the past twenty-five years. Usually, the contractor and the architect both work for the client/owner. However, in design-build, the architect works for the contractor. It's kind of like CM/GC on steroids. The architect and the contractor show up on the client's doorstep as a package deal. The idea behind design-build is that it reduces coordination issues in the field and again, keeps costs under control throughout the project process. Occasionally, design-build firms also have a developer as part of the firm. This means that if a business needs a building, the client can go to a developer-design-builder and find someone who has the initial capital to build a building, design it, and construct it, and the developer-design-builder can rent the building to the client or set up some kind of mortgage or financing option for that client.

Next time: the relationships between clients, owners, architects, and contractors.