Project Managers – are they a necessary evil?

Brian, here in Scotland and also in the rest of the UK, the way the majority of buildings are now procured has as much to do with the rise of the “Project Manager” as architects surrendering the role of team leader. Design and Build, where the building is completed quicker and the overall work is subcontracted into smaller tendered packages, has meant that the architect is novated to the contactor, usually after RIBA Stage D or E who then becomes the architects client. The building’s owner/client though still requires an agent project manager)to oversee the project, report on cost and act directly on his/her behalf. The difficulty is that the agent usually is not another architect and is often a quantity surveyor who although may understand costs and tender documentation does not really understand what makes a good building. If we could get architects to accept that to be a designer is not the only thing to be and get more into project management the quality of our buildings might improve. Design and Build or Design and Construct or whatever you call it is here to stay, and if architects are guilty of anything it is in refusing to acknowledge this, work with it and move on.

Hi Alan..agreeing what you say is to comply with what happens in Finland. Project Management is widely used as one part of project and well…too well paid. I´ve just completed two school reconstruction projects of the value apx 2 million each. Project Manager was paid the same as to the architect and you may well know of what kind of the services. System is not old ..it came up about 15 years ago and the services were taken out from architects. Ideas were brought by our large contractors from Europe and US. But now some critics has rosen: project managers´ fee is connected with the result of the (main)contractor (timetable and costs) and that is why sometimes they follow the needs of the contractor and pass the problems in the project. Clients are not satisfied. In larger projects the need of a special client (supervising) architect is to come..how and when it depends only of ourselves..architects and our marketing. This is close to that here we have a new system were building approval officials expect that in every project a nominated chief designer (archited) is found and that this person can prove his qualifications. It is widely now approved that project manager normally can not be this chief architect. Discussion continues..

regards Mikko

Mikko, there is a positive side to the involvement of a project manager during the building work, I feel. Much of the drudgery involved in contract administation is removed from the architect, and he/ she can concentrate on design development and detailed construction. As in all things, the system works well until cost becomes an issue and “value engineering” or cost control kicks in. So the specification contained within the pre competative tender process has to be unequivocal, so the contractor is clear what has to be provided. The architect has to be heavily involved in pre tender specification, as leader.

It is my contention that the difficulty is that not enough architects want to dirty their hands over cost wrangling and money issues,architecture is after all an art, so management of that process is left to the bean counters who often can not distinguish a good building from and a bag of golf clubs but still have the ear of the client. If more people with a design architectural training were to move into project management, and lets face it not all architects are talented designers, over time gain the confidence of clients we would I’m sure get a better quality of building.

Brian, I read a report today from the front page of Building Design concerning Michael Hopkin’s Manchester Art Gallery which is ten million over budget and one year late. Hopkin’s reaction seems to be ” tough, I want it done my way” Now, faced with a reaction of this sort, most clients will think twice about using an architect to run a job. According to a City Council Rep and a Manchester Architect he will never work again in that city. Maybe all his staff are independently wealthy and he has other interests and money in the bank. These type of stories occur all the time here, and it is this attitude that gives the bean counters their power. We work on many types of building and use different types of contract, ecxept “traditional” where a full detailed design is tendered and bills of quantities are used and because construction time is important now we are generally happy with working with a type of project manager, who understands what we are trying to do and takes away all the administartion duties leaving use free to concentrate on design, which is what architects are best at. I only wish more designersand architectswere also project managers then we would not have to argue quite so much over what makes a great building when costs are tight.

My experience has been that clients want project managers when they don’t want to be heavily involved themselves – a way to shed some responsibility, which in reality they can’t do. This certainly limits the kind of building that can be designed for, not with, such a client. The selection of the particular PM is revealing since this will constrain the process in different ways. We all have choices in what we will accept and what we will not. Some opportunities are worth the price, others not.

I agree deepnote, to a certain degree. The success of a project as “architecture”, depends on the commitment and support of the client rather than the use or otherwise of a project manager. Our least successful projects have been speculative commercial developments for corporate clients who want to sell the building on. It’s a struggle to involve the client and because you are usually dealing with someone quite low in the corporate pecking order, get their commitment to build something special. Of course I would argue, that is why good architecture is rarely produced from a commercial development, and that those who manage it should be credited.