Client Architect Architecture - Essay Example

Client Architect Architecture Introduction In our days, the relations that are created in the professional areas and mostly those between the professionals and the clients are a basic element for the positive performance of the business involved. The level of importance of this factor is such that in many cases there have been proposed specific strategic plans in order to achieve the highest possible level of client satisfaction while keeping the quality of the services offered to its standard. However, because of the rapid development of technology and the extremely hard competition that characterize the modern commercial environment, a firm of any kind, and the architectural one has to confront a series of important problems in order to achieve its survival in the area. In this context, the architect client relation has to be adapted to the challenges imposed by the industry environment and find points of interaction and areas of communication in order to survive. Architect – Client, the dynamics of interaction According to Duffy and Hutton, a very important issue regarding the identification of the architect’s relation with his client is the definition of the knowledge which the former has to obtain in order to proceed to a successful co-operation with the latter. This knowledge, however, has to be analyzed and distinguished from the other ones of its kind as it refers to different area of interest. More specifically Duffy and Hutton state that: ‘Knowledge is our only real source of power, our only real lever to achieve change’. It is also noticed that ‘architectural knowledge is quite different from other forms of knowledge’. They also examine possible ways of ‘development, application and transmittal of this special kind of knowledge’ and they admit that ‘the possession of this knowledge gives architects both an intellectual duty and a practical imperative’(Duffy, Hutton, 1998, 152) The relation between the architect and the client as been created and formulated on the basis of an existed commercial activity (the creation and delivery of a building-related project) can be characterized as an action of public relations from the architect’s side and moreover as a chance for developing a marketing strategy with the aspect of cultivating the existed order and prepare the field for more areas of co-operation with the specific client (i.e. a kind of ‘reservation’ of the client regarding his current or future needs for architectural work). Porter (2000) notices that ‘the notion of presenting a building design as synonymous with marketing a product at its ‘point of sale’ becomes a discrete object-lesson’. However, he makes clear that ‘the ultimate delivery of a student design project and, indeed, an ideas competition submission, tends to appear as a complete package of information and is presented as a singular event whereas such a climactic happening does not usually occur in the professional world where a building design proposal tends to be disclosed in a succession of developmental stages’. According to his assumptions it seems that ‘each point of client contact along the design journey represents another selling opportunity’. In fact, as it characterized by Porter ‘it is an exercise involving subtle ‘tricks of the trade’ that have been evolved and practised by both large and small and by young and well-established architectural firms’. (Porter, 2000, 194) Moreover, Jenkins (1961) studied the form and the structure of the relation between the architect and his client in order to locate its level of importance in the social context. He found that ‘the relation between the architect and his client is a very important and personal one; as delicate in its own way as that between medical consultant and patient’. However, according to his findings, ‘the architect - client relation does not always follow such an easy course as that between the doctor and his patient’. This assumption was explained by the following example: ‘When a man consults his doctor the circumstances are generally not of the happiest; the former is in some sort of danger and is prepared to put himself with complete trust in the hands of his professional adviser. He does not presume to argue with the doctors advice’. On the other hand, ‘When the man engages an architect, the position is normally quite different. He feels with justification that he is employing someone to carry out his wishes; he seldom seems to realize that his architect is--or should be--capable of interpreting those wishes more clearly than he can himself’. Under these circumstances there is a chance that ‘the client may be caught up with the tide of public taste and, although both he and his architect are the product of the same social and ideological circumstances that have produced that taste, there may well be discrepancies, and even conflict, between their respective views’(Jenkins, 1961, xiv). It should be noticed that the relation between the architect and the client should not be seen as a typical and ‘clearly professional’ one (Hon-Childers, 1998). This assumption can be explained by the fact that the project involved, i.e. the particular design, is by its nature related with the aesthetic, the thoughts and the general emotional condition of its creator – in order for the specific work to be a in the targeted standards. In this context, Porter (2000) noticed that ‘too often, the architect is seen as the purveyor of the fait accompli’. In order for such a situation to be avoided, Porter suggested that ‘design presentations must involve the client through a coherent storyboard, which records and reflects the dialogue between parties’. (Porter, 2000, 193). It has to be noticed here that the architecture is an ‘autonomous’ scientific area, independent from other services of similar object, like the urban design. A first difference refers to the ‘size’ of the projects, as the ‘urban designer, as compared to an architect, is concerned with objects of a larger scale’. Moreover, ‘Urban design is better understood to have as its focus not large scale per se, but rather those features of the built environment that transcend the individual parcel or property or take place in the public realm’. In a general view, ‘urban design inquires into the human experience that the built environment evokes across private properties or in the public realm’. To the level of responsibility, ‘the urban designer confronts issues that are quite different from those of an architect working for a single client; the urban designer engages a physical world driven by the dynamics of private commerce and public affairs’ (Sternberg, 2000, 267). The role and the responsibilities of architect Before examining the whole net of rights and responsibilities of the architect – as imposed by the commercial environment – we should refer to his competence and his specific knowledge regarding the project offered. In order to be delegated a specific project the architect should have the particular competencies that are required for its completion. As Erault (1994, 165) noticed, ‘in professions where work is relatively homogeneous, there will be little confusion between statements of general and specific competence because the one can be reliably inferred from the other’. On the other hand, ‘in professions or specialisms where the work is relatively heterogeneous and one professional may handle a completely different set of situations from that of another, general statements become rather dangerous’. Under these terms, ‘the client or prospective employer will need a profile of specific competences which clearly demonstrates those aspects of the job in which each professional is competent’. However, the above principle ‘ignores the fact that in many occupations the nature of professional work is changing quite rapidly, not only as a result of technical change but also as a result of social change and institutional change’. Referring especially to the knowledge that an architect should have acquired, Erault (1994) makes the following distinction: ‘the specialist knowledge-base, autonomy and service’. According to Erault, ‘each of them has been significantly affected by social and cultural changes over the last two decades’. The main result of this ‘expansion of the knowledge base is the increase of specialism within many professions and the increase of numbers of professions, so that a single client needing a service, for example, in health care or construction, may encounter both several specialisms within the same profession e.g., medicine or engineering, and members of several different professions’ (Erault, 1994, 223). In addition to the above, there is an issue that tends to appear in the architect client relation, this of the knowledge acquired by the architect and its necessity for application in a specific project. In cases that the architect has innovative ideas, he has ‘to deal with new concepts, ideas and techniques’. Moreover, ‘he is honour-bound to his client to understand the new and its implications, to do his homework and prepare as well as possible if he intends to question the rules and move architecture forward in some way’. It has be observed that ‘where innovation in architecture occurs there is an implicit requirement for the architect to resort to experimentation, dedicated shepherding, continuous love and care, testing, mocking-up and going back again and again to get things right’. However, in such cases, ‘mock-ups are required in order to explain and demonstrate, to learn, refine, tune and to achieve the right overall assembly and performance’ (Brookes, Poole, 15). According to Blyth and Worthington (2001) architects should try to interact with their clients explaining to them all the particular issues related with the specific project. This procedure of provision of information towards the clients could be referred as ‘briefing’. The definition of this procedure could be summarized as follows (Blyth and Worthington, 2001, 54): ‘briefing is a process of clients and users reaching decisions which are then communicated to the design team through briefs. It involves continuous communication between the user and the design team each of whom has different expectations’. In the above context ‘good design arises from well-informed clients who are able to communicate their needs to the design team’. At a next level, ‘the design team should imaginatively communicate opportunities back to the client in a form that is understandable’. As Blyth and Worthington admit ‘the best briefs are succinct and can be tested against the original statement of need’. Lowe (2004) also admits that ‘one of the root causes of these marketplace misfortunes is that professional service firms, by and large, have difficulty understanding (and adapting to) the changing roles of their clients’. Moreover, according to the Lowe’s study: ‘customers, in the professional service sector, are not merely consumers. They are also competitors of a sort and need to be studied and treated accordingly’. This can be explained by the fact that ‘clients knowledge of the service and their needs for the service literally change as they “consume” the service’. In the specifically area of architecture and when the project offered involves to an area where the client works, ‘the clients own experience and understanding of the circumstances under which it works give it critical perspectives’. (Lowe, 2004, 6) The net of client’s rights and obligations In the relation between architect and client, both parties should be treated as having equal rights and responsibilities. Under these terms, although architect has the responsibility for the completion of a specific project, the client has also to be adapted to particular behavioural patterns, in order for his co-operation with the architect to lead to a positive result. Regarding this issue Nicholson (1992) noticed that ‘Paradoxically, the greater the ignorance and/or inexperience of the client, the greater is the trust likely to be placed in the designer and the less is likely to be the client’s appreciation of the need for efficient communication to articulate design objectives’. He also states that ‘Trust, while generally positive, may here have the negative consequence of encouraging the designer to make assumptions or even decisions which are not compatible with and are increasingly divergent from the client’s badly explained wishes and beliefs’. In order to justify the above assumptions, Nicholson explains that ‘The designer does this by no means always because of the arrogant belief that he knows better than the client what the client wants. The reason may be a (superficially well-intended) desire to give the client the benefit of superior knowledge/experience’. (Nicholson, 1992, 23). In his area of interest, the client has primarily the right to ask for the realization of a specific task and to agree to a certain amount as for the architect’s payment. Moreover, the client has other rights as they are provided by the relevant local and international legal principles (even the right to destroy his property which however is under discussion (Strahilevitz, 2005). However, it should be noticed that the client’s rights end where the architect’s rights begin. Apart from the part of procedure until the delegation of a project to a specific architect, the client has not any other ‘direct rights’ to the particular ‘business binding’ as it has formulated with the contractual agreement with the architect. Of course, he retains the rights of information while the project is on-going; however his only clear right remains that of the acceptance of the project as soon as it is completed. Points of conflict in the architect – client relation When the co-operation between the architect and the client is poor then the most possible result is a work (a building) that will present important differences regarding the initially targeted use, the structure, the materials used and so on. In a brief, the finally delivered building will be out (in a high or a low level) of its standards. In this context, Nicholson notices that ‘The divergence is not, however, always discovered sooner rather than later. Clients may only become aware of the performance capabilities of a building when they try to use it, or try to use it fully’. (Nicholson, 1992, 24). The above situation, whether it occurs soon after the delivery of the building or later, can create a lot of severe problems to the relation between the architect and the client and – according to the level of the damage caused to the client – may be extended to the legal research of the problem (Gonzalez-Herrero, Pratt, 1996). The issue of the appropriate method of handling the customers’ complaints has been a subject for extensive analysis in the literature. According to research that ‘has focused on the organizational view of consumer complaints, this issue must be regarded in accordance with the method which is applied for their handling’ and more specifically ‘what response is given to the complainant (if any), how timely the response is, if a refund is given, etc’. As an example Gilly, Stevenson and Yale (1991) refer to the theory of Gilly (1987) who found that ‘consumer perceptions of complaint response were more important than the response itself in determining satisfaction and repurchase and that the appropriate method of management for an organization to make full use of the information provided by complaints is called complaint management’. According to these authors, ‘in addition to handling individual consumer complaints, an organization practicing complaint management also deals with consumer dissatisfaction by tracking complaints and taking steps to see that future consumer dissatisfaction is minimized’. While not specifically using the "complaint management" term, Landon (1979) (in Gilly, Stevenson and Yale) also ‘recognized this dual function in his article on consumer affairs departments’ Moreover he stated that: ‘It can be seen that the consumer affairs unit mist manage more than the correspondence with the consumer; the unit must also manage the flow of information from the consumer throughout the company’. (Gilly, Stevenson, Yale, 1991, 297). In order to face the above problems, Gilly, Stevenson and Yale (1991, 305) tried to create a new method for the management of the clients’ complaints. In these terms, they found that in order ‘To determine factors affecting the flow of information about consumer complaints, a new technique could be developed. Rather than surveying employees about past complaint management behaviour or attempting to follow actual complaints where little in the way of written records exists, an effort could made to simulate the introduction of consumer complains to customer contact personnel’. They also refer to ‘Studies of organizational communication that have been done using a variety of methodologies such as: experiments in which information is planted in the organization and traced by questioning organizational members after the dissemination of the information; surveys in which people are asked whether they have heard of some incident or rumour; and relational studies in which information is actually traced through the organization by having each respondent pass the information to others and inform the researchers. Under this context, ‘a relational approach, having its roots in sociology, was developed to trace information about consumer complaints as it flowed through the organization’. Although the need for effective management of the clients’ complaints is really intensive and also ‘despite the obvious importance of disseminating information about consumer problems to organizational members who can take steps to prevent future dissatisfaction’, it seems that ‘this aspect of consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction and complaint behaviour has been virtually ignored by consumer affairs and marketing scholars’ Gilly, Stevenson and Yale (1991, 297) In order to avoid such a situation the architect should inform the client prior of the beginning of the project for all the parameters, the ‘risks and the alternative options’ regarding the required project, i.e. as Nicholson states to ‘take the client with him’. In any case, the architect should explain to the client all the details of the planned work and furthermore, he should ‘obtain the express approval of his client in a written format so that all the parties will be protected in case that disputes arise afterwards’ (Nicholson, 1992, 26). When referring specifically to the area of architecture, ‘the service ideal is based on the belief that professional action should be based on the needs of the client alone, and not on the needs of the professional nor even those of society’. However in practice, ‘the assumption has been that because of their specialist knowledge it is only the professionals who can determine what their clients needs are’. This assumption ‘has been increasingly challenged and concepts such as client rights and client choice are widely accepted in many countries, though not fully implemented’ (Erault, 1994, 225). These assumptions stated by Erault, although complet regarding the protection of the client have however to be controlled for the potential of their application to the specific relation. More specifically, in the architect client relation there is the element of co-operation which is considered as absolutely necessary for the successful completion of the project involved. Under these conditions, if this element does not exist in the above relation then the relation can face severe problems and the most possible result is the failure of the project’s completion. Of course, when designing the above principles, Erault focused to the protection of the client from the risk of damage (in case where the relation with the architect is mainly characterized by the power of the architect’s opinion in absolute terms. On the other hand, by using the principle that the professional knowledge that an architect possess, the achievement of a successful professional relation can be seen as feasible. When examining the architect client relation, a very important issue that should be under research is the level of acceptance of client’s views on the required task. As Duffy and Hutton admit, the ‘client’s opinion is often ignored in favour of architect’s personal aspects. In fact it has been proved that ‘there is constant bickering within the construction and property industries and much failure to perform’. According to the above researchers, part of this failure belongs to architects. As admitted ‘an architectural vice is exclusivism—the tendency to be far too aware of the barriers that separate architects from clients, from fellow professionals and from construction’. This behavioural pattern, exclusivism, which was mainly observed in the architects of the early nineteenth century who had to rely on because of their urgent need to distance themselves from graft, has far worse effects than snobbery and self interest—exclusivism cumulatively diminishes the development of knowledge’. According to Duffy and Hutton, for the professional area such a behaviour is equivalent to death’. (Duffy, Hutton, 1998, 152) The net of architect client relations was analyzed by Brown (2001) who accepted the existence of five ‘gaps’ in the service provided by the architect to his client. This theory as first stated by Parasuraman (Parasuraman et al. 1985) can be presented in the following diagram. Parasuraman (Parasuraman et al. 1985) – in Brown, 2001, 11 Gaps of perception between customers and organisations in relation to service Gap 1 Between consumer expectation and management’s perception of consumer expectation. Gap 2 Between management’s perception of consumer expectation and management translations of those perceptions into quality service specifications Gap 3 Between service quality specifications and the actual service delivery Gap 4 Between actual service delivery and external communications about that service Gap 5 Between actual service delivery and the consumer’s perception of the service In order to apply the rules contained in the diagram in the specific area of architecture, we should proceed to an analogous use of ‘service’ as ‘opposed to the communication interface per se within a building project context’. Moreover, the above theory of ‘five gaps’ was used by RIBA (1993, p. 11) who used these principles ‘directly on the gaps between client and architect’. More specifically, his study uses the ‘five gaps’ in order to ‘describe and explain gaps between expectation and perception of both client and consultant over a range of issues, including product and service’. It is stated that although ‘the study of RIBA focused on the role of the architect; the generic gaps identified are clearly relevant to the relationship between most construction consultants and employers’. (Brown, 2001, 12). Influence of the environment In the modern market, the position of architectural firms is under threat. Architects have started to face a lot of challenges related with their retention in the business. A reason for that – according to (Eckhouse, 1999, 12) is the ‘increasing number of competitors as well as the growing awareness of the architectural firm as a business enterprise’. Under their existence architectural firms have started to explore the commercial area regarding the creation of powerful and time-lasting (as possible) of competitive advantages. However, such an effort is rather difficult to achieve a positive result. In fact, as Eckhouse admits, ‘although these firms continue to market the quality of their traditional services by emphasizing design, many have found that this is simply not enough to differentiate them in a competitive marketplace’. In order to face this situation, some of these firms ‘have begun to look at a different kind of design -- the design of their client interview -- as a way of distinguishing their services from those of their competitors’. The above proposal of Eckhouse although very effective in its first view, it should however be formulated in accordance with the circumstances and the general environment of the specific relation in order to operate successfully. With the aspect of equality regarding the quality of services offered – among the particular firms – as well as the innovation of designing and presentation methods, it is this specific ‘technique’ that could possible create a competitive advantage for the architectural firms towards their competitors. Possible solutions of the problem – areas for improvement When treating a client, an architect should always bare in mind that there is a net o principles which he should follow. These series of responsibilities are presented in the following diagram: • Access equity among clients, convenience for clients. • Cost in time as well as money. • Relationships good communication, friendly and respectful manner, responsive, relieving rather than causing distress. • Quality of process, of judgment, of service, of outcome. Responsibilities of an architect, Erault, 1994, 225 When having to co-operate with the client, the problem that sometimes the architects have to face is that of the preparation and presentation of the method that is going to be used. There are cases where ‘architects would admit that they are unprepared to craft an oral presentation with the same degree of expertise and talent that they apply in designing buildings’. Moreover, ‘some of them have recognized that their training in architecture may place them at a disadvantage because it orients them not to the interests of the client but to the requirements or aesthetic of the design’. Towards this direction, ‘a way of understanding and assessing the design of the architectural interview should interest both those in the industry and those who study communication in the professions’. (Eckhouse, 1999, 12-13). Orsborn (1992, 29,30) developed a strategy for the delivery of successful professional services. This strategy is based on the following ten principles that a professional (no matter of the specific type of his business should follow). ‘1. Build consensus within the professional firm. The best way to build consensus is for the professional firm to assign marketing responsibility to one person or a small committee.. 2. Educate the professionals about what public relations can and cant do. If done effectively, public relations creates a positive environment for a firms expertise to be communicated to target audiences. 3. Set clear goals and objectives. 4. Develop a strategic public relations plan. Know exactly where youre going and how youre going to get there. Use benchmarks to measure progress. 5. Decide on public relations tools. Some possible tools are: publicity (develop sources, hard news, features, by-lined articles in print and broadcast media), speaking engagements, produce seminars, collateral materials, and so forth. 6. Do your homework. Both the professionals and the press expect you to be conversant in the practice of that profession. 7. Learn how a professionals practice fits into and affects society as a whole and the regional community.. 8. Develop unusual stories and hooks. This swill more easily gains the attention of both the press and target markets. 9. Public relations is more than just news releases on new hires. 10. Finally, make sure that the person or firm who is implementing the public relations program is passionate about professional services and professional issues’ Furthermore, when referring to the examination of the cultural behaviour of professional groups of any kind we have to take into account that there are usually ‘barriers to interaction which need to be overcome’. At a first level, ‘it may be effective to identify those who have a number of contacts across groups and formally designate them as complaint handlers’. Furthermore, there is a need of specific research in order ‘to determine the characteristics of those who are likely to have contacts that cut across professional groupings, and who can overcome barriers that are often characterized by large disparities in technical expertise, status, and power’. At a next level, ‘managerial personnel are important links between the initial customer contact employee and feedback to the rest of the organization’. Moreover, ‘any attempts to improve service to consumers need to focus on procedures for managerial personnel to follow when receiving service information as well as on the procedures for initial customer contact personnel’. Finally, ‘as part of service training, managers should be warned about the tendency to forget feedback to the customer’. (Gilly, Stevenson, Yale, 1991, 307) Conclusion The architect client relation cannot be presented in its whole aspect without the reference to its particular elements, those who distinguish this type of relation from the relations formulated in other professional areas. At a first level, architecture has been distinguished from (Ellis, Mayer, 1994) other types of services provision even of these that could be characterized as ‘connected’ like the urban design. On the other hand, the role of the client has been examined under a multi-dimensional aspect in order to conclude the variables that tend to appear in modern business activities, like the personal views, the specific knowledge and the changes in environment. Under these terms, an architect should prioritize his responsibilities placing the relation with the client to an important level of attention and try to be informed on all the changes involved in his area of activation. This necessity has also been recognized as a fundamental one in an ABA conference related with the area of financial services. More specifically, in this conference it was stated that ‘future success in financial services depends on an ability to build profitable customer relationships’. In order for such an aim to be achieved, the customers should be identified ‘by their tastes, likely behaviours and potential profitability’. Another necessary requirement is the existence of ‘finesse to turn this insight into the right set of solutions to fit customer interests’’ (ABA Banking Journal, 2002, 2). From the above mentioned, the architect client relation is considered as similar to any other professional relation – at least regarding the general rules of co-operation and mutual respect. This assumption leads to the application of the general accepted principles of professional services to all the areas of the above relation although there are elements that tend to differentiate – because of the particular ‘character’ of the specific profession – and which should be treated with the appropriate behaviour. References ABA Financial Services Customer Conference: What Do You Really Know about Your Customers? (2002). ABA Banking Journal, 34(3), 2-8 Blyth, A., Worthington, J. (2001) Managing the Brief for Better Design, London: Spon Press Brookes, A.J., Poole, D. (2003) Innovation in Architecture, London: Spon Press Brown, S.A. (2001) Communication in the design process, London: Spon Press Duffy, F., Hutton, L. (1998) Architectural Knowledge: The idea of a Profession, London: E & FN Spon Eckhouse, B. (1999) Competitive Communication, A Rhetoric for Modern Business, New York: Oxford University Press Ellis, S.R., Mayer, M.A. (1994). Keeping the client satisfied. Journal of Accountancy, 178(1), 49-52 Erault, M. (1994) Developing Professional knowledge and Competence, London: Falmer Press Frank, J. (1961) A Survey of Professional Relations and Practice in England from the Sixteenth Century to the Present Day, London: Oxford University Press Gilly, M.C., Stevenson, W.B., Yale, L.J. (1991). Dynamics of complaint management in the service organization. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 25(2), 295-310 Gonzalez-Herrero, A., Pratt, C.B. (1996). An Integrated Symmetrical Model for Crisis-Communications Management. Journal of Public Relations Research, 8(2), 79 Hon-Childers L. (1998). Demonstrating Effectiveness in Public Relations: Goals, Objectives and Evaluation. Journal of Public Relations Research, 10(2), 103 Low, S.C. (2004) Marketplace Masters: How Professional Service Firms compete to win, Westport: Praeger Nicholson, M.P. (1992) Architectural Management, London: E & FN Spon Orsbom D. (1992). Keys to Success in Professional Services. Public Relations Quarterly, 37(3), 29-32 Porter, T. (2000) Selling Architectural Ideas, New York: Routledge Stemberg, E. (2000). An Integrative Theory of Urban Design. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(3), 265-280 Strahilevitz, L.J. (2005). The Right to Destroy. Yale Law Journal, 144(4), 781-834 Read More