Scott Simpson, FAIA, NCARB, LEED AAP

Former President & CEO, The Stubbins Associates; Senior Fellow, Design Futures Council

21st November 2017

Where did you get such a broad perspective? Design? Collaboration? Leadership? What drove you initially, on the design–management spectrum, and how has that changed?

“A lot of architects engage in what I’ll call ‘voluntary misfortune’. They do it to themselves.”

Simpson: At first, I wanted to be a designer, like 99 percent of my classmates, the next Frank Lloyd Wright. Everybody starts with high ambitions. I really enjoyed the design process, conceptualizing and translating ideas into three dimensions. But as I started my career, it became clear that design is more than lines on paper and compelling graphics. A lot goes into making a building. It's multidimensional. You need to be a good designer, but also good at business, marketing, financial management and team leadership, blending those skills in a way that optimizes the outcome. I didn't lose my interest in design but took on more dimensions as my career advanced – I began to play different instruments. That shifted me toward the management side. I realized architecture and design are a team effort. You need great talent, technical skill, business and financial acumen. Leadership is where you can make the most difference. That's how I migrated to the leadership side.

I remember as a young designer sitting at my desk, thinking the design was emanating from me as I drew lines. It didn't take long to see that other things drove design: cost, schedule, program, information, relationships, technical input. So, I shared a similar migration to yours – to a broader involvement.

Simpson: Clients don't build buildings to spend money, they build buildings to make money. So, we have to approach architecture with a value-added perspective. Looking at design as a way to increase owner value opens windows of opportunity. These issues aren't discussed in design school. There, it's form, space, texture, aesthetics, etc. There's so much more to design. Effective design professionals embrace all aspects.

But there are still those who retain their love for being primarily a designer.

“Clients don't build buildings to spend money, they build buildings to make money.”

Simpson: There are many examples. Bob Stern is one. Michael Graves was one. Rafael Vinoly. Frank Gehry. Plenty of others are primarily form givers. That's where they hang their hats. But when you look at their practices and how they produce work, they're the visible tip of the iceberg in their firms. They're surrounded by all kinds of others with professional skills that make the work possible.

You moderated a Design Futures Council's meeting in New York: “The Business of Design” with Robert A.M. Stern . He was presented their Lifetime Achievement Award. Bob confessed to being the “Last of the Mohicans” when it comes to technology – still printing emails and relegating technology to a subservient role – behind design, architecture, humanity, client service and history.

Simpson: Bob Stern is very smart, and he doesn't want to get bogged down with the business or marketing sides, although he's very good at both. He wants to deal with design and drive the firm on that basis. But he knows that without others in the firm who focus on those things, he wouldn't be nearly as successful as he's been. He knows it. He's done a great job of positioning RAMSA as a design-driven firm. It's a very strong brand.

His comment was: “Some people play golf or network, I think about buildings.” Having led five large, successful firms over your career, what were the prevailing philosophies about managing design? Which came first – management or design? Were any characterized by a division between design and business? Or did you have an integral approach?

Simpson: The Stewart Design Group was my first principal position as VP in Charge of Design. It was an offshoot of Perry Dean Rogers in Boston. In the 1980s, it focused on application of computer technology to architecture. We had our own PDP911 computer. We wrote our own software and used computers in design process. Then I moved to Cannon Design, with a healthcare and higher ed focus. They did some great work but were more process-focused than design-focused. I went to Flad as president and CEO to do knowledge-based research buildings. We tried to change the firm character from mostly healthcare to a broader range of work. Then, I went to Stubbins. Hugh Stubbins was very design focused, a great designer. The Citigroup building in New York is still one of the great buildings of the 20th century. But although he was known as a designer, he was also a very smart business guy, a developer and clever with money. There is no black versus white in terms of design versus process management—they're two sides of the same coin. Hugh embodied that in an underappreciated way.

We morphed into Kling Stubbins to become an A/E firm and work internationally, then got bought by Jacobs. It's a gigantic, publicly traded company, more process focused and concerned with building function and processes—timesheets, budgets and so on. At Stubbins, design always came first, as a strong ethic. But we were smart business people. It's a mutually supporting system if you conceptualize it correctly. This is never taught in design school. Nobody talks about marketing, management or business, but they're the essential underpinning of a successful design practice.

I learned that the hard way. We drew sumptuous drawings. We didn't focus on anything else. I learned from those negative experiences: There's got to be a better way.

Simpson: A lot of people make the mistake of thinking it's design versus business, but it's really design and business – two strands of the same rope. If you weave them together, they're stronger than they are separately. As we got smarter about business, we got better at design. We got smarter tools, better processes, business results, talent and people, all founded on sound business practices.

How about firms where design and management are not balanced – where one side is dominant. Do you have experience with those?

“Design always came first. It was a very strong ethic. At the same time, we were smart business people. You realized it is a mutually supporting system if you conceptualize it correctly. This is never taught in design school – as you well know.”

Simpson: Absolutely. Jacobs, due to its size and scope, is more process-oriented. There, it's more about utilization and a bit less about design quality. That's not to say they don't care about design, but design doesn't drive the business. Some firms are more service or business-focused than design focused, and that's perfectly okay. Markets have a broad spectrum of clients with different goals and strategies. Some clients understand the value of design. They seek firms that are clever, creative and interesting to deal with because they know they're going to get more value that way. Others have a different focus. There's nothing wrong with this; they say: “We're primarily concerned about budgets and schedules and getting things done predictably, and don't mess up my life with all this other stuff called design.” Firms will seek their rightful place in the market, based on what they're good at and inclined to do. There will always be a place for high-end, design-oriented firms, and for service-oriented firms. Clients ultimately control that.

As contemporaries in school, we were both likely taught that plans and a structural grid were a good way to begin design. Generally, a functionalist approach. Most of our work was started with sketches, then migrated into hard lined solutions.

Simpson: Yes. Everyone has a different point of view on how to start to think about design. Some begin with structure. Mies did. Some of the best architects I know are finely attuned to the business aspects, such as meeting budget first. At Pickard Chilton, Jon Pickard came out of Cesar Pelli's office. He and Bill Chilton have a very interesting and powerful marketing message. They do a lot of corporate high-rise headquarters. They tell their clients: “We will create buildings that are distinctive from a design point of view, but our focus is also going to be to increase your real estate value.” They've kept records and have the numbers. They'll prove to their clients that the buildings they design are worth more in the marketplace than comparable office buildings. That's an extremely powerful message because it reinforces the business value of good design. They do wonderful work. As another example, I was involved in a Boston Seaport building for Price Waterhouse Coopers. We pushed hard to use high-tech triple glazing and sustainable design strategies to make it distinctive, arguing it would stand out in the marketplace and command higher rents. As it turned out, before the building was completed, it had sold for the highest price ever paid for a building in Boston. There's an example of taking design, technical and business perspectives and blending them to get great results. The building won awards, but as far the client was concerned, they spent $400 million to build it and cashed in for around $1.2 billion in 9 months.

Let's talk about time and money and the architect's reputation for designing over budget and schedule. How can they overcome these perceptions? What has to change to deliver and measure better value from designers?

“Designing over and over doesn't necessarily improve the outcome.”

Simpson: A lot of architects engage in what I'll call “voluntary misfortune.” Designing over and over doesn't necessarily improve the outcome. If you design without knowing construction cost, all you're doing is guaranteeing change orders and coordination problems later. It doesn't lead to a better result. This is self-punishment in an odd kind of way. People are beginning to realize design has business value. And vice versa. Look at Apple. Apple is a design company that created a product called the iPhone. It's the most profitable product in the history of mankind. Apple's fierce attention on design value is what sets it apart. People are realizing there's genuine business value in this thing we call design. It's difficult to define, but it's real. More and more people are thinking in those terms. We see the convergence of business and design thinking for enterprise values. I wouldn't be surprised to see Chief Design Officers in most corporations soon. It will amplify architects' value and make them more potent, adding design and business value together.

Have you seen firms that have transformed how design is being done? A new secret sauce? Where other forces – technology, management integration, customer service, or research – have changed design thinking? Or is design still being generated via hand sketches then given to production teams to be digitized, with management as a separate overlay?

Simpson: Peter Beck bought a design firm and folded it in to his construction firm. They developed their own software. You can pump in parameters for lot size, circulation, or whatever and algorithms generate options with linked costs. The program spits out solutions in seconds. It's pretty cool. SHoP, Kieran Timberlake, and Norman Foster's firm all have radically advanced processes. Paul Doherty at The Digit Group is doing things with gesture driven software. You can have coffee with a client and create 3D models at the same time. Before lunch is over, the model is ready. Going from an idea into production mode is happening now.

I'm not sure the profession takes advantage of the collaborative options available. Most projects are still delivered conventionally, with plenty of owner changes and RFIs.

“Change is going to come from the client world.”

Simpson: Look at Apple, Google, Uber, and Tesla. They're changing the process of design to execution. Going direct from idea to production. Tesla's stock is now valued more than General Motors. They've automated the process for cars and changed the driver experience. Technology is giving us leverage to connect thinking with doing. The ability to model, make things, 3D printing … I can see using gaming engines instead of construction documents. You see it in manufacturing, the movie and publishing industries. It's tough for design school faculties to keep up with the changes. They're behind the curve. Kids coming out of school are having to relearn design skills to align with the market. It's going to be a new profession in 5 to 7 years.

Arol Wolford is already involved with gaming engines. The leaders are taking us there. What can the rest of us do? Where can emerging leaders make change?

“It's really tough for design school faculties to keep up, the kids coming out of school are having to relearn.”

Simpson: I've been consulting with a prestigious major East Coast university, about to build billions of dollars in projects. Their average project cost overrun was 44 percent – it's an issue. Change is going to come from the client world. Even with those metrics, change is hard for humans. BIM arrived in 2003. Phil Bernstein was an early evangelist at Autodesk, hired to wave that flag around the world. He was very effective, but it took the industry a decade to embrace BIM. I was CEO of Stubbins then. We flipped to 100 percent BIM in 2003. That changed the nature of our practice. We were ahead of the curve for a couple years, and got business because of it, then everybody else caught up. That's the nature of change – humans are reluctant, afraid to embrace change. Most clients are conservative. I was Barbara Bryson's consultant ten years ago, when she put her toe in the water for a version of IPD on a lab at Rice University. We tried it with huge success, but even after that, it took her a while to embrace process innovation on the next few projects. Now she's a huge proponent. Clients across the country now embrace it.

We start too late, without time to set up a more effective process. We miss the opportunity to plan. If we sat down to create a mutually beneficial, “lean” process, we wouldn't come up with one that had 1000's of drawings reissued, followed by thousands of RFIs. But that's the way we build jobs.

Simpson: At CIFE at Stanford, John Kunz said any building of any size can be built in 9 months. Period. That's all it should take as implementation. But this trillion-dollar industry and its processes are disintermediated. Look at the auto industry in 1910. There were lots of players. Now there are only 2 U.S. companies that drive the industry. It's the same in construction. Primarily lots of small firms, guys with pickup trucks. But the larger leaders will shape the future and move the needle.

If you had a magic wand, what would you say to an aspiring design firm to carry them to a prosperous future? What should they do at the intersection of design and management?

“The profession you're about to enter doesn't exist … [It] needs to be reinvented … I have great faith good things will happen … It's inevitable: we're doomed to be successful!”

Simpson: Great question. I gave that lecture at Harvard and Yale. I told students, “The profession you're about to enter doesn't exist. It's clear the AEC Industry has a problem complying with budget and schedule. The old guard isn't embracing change. As you emerge from school, you have to create your own industry and future.” If it's a trillion-dollar industry and we're 30 percent inefficient, we've got a $300 billion-dollar value gap to redeploy. That's enough funding to make a difference. The problem is attitude, not aptitude. The profession needs to be reinvented. I have great faith good things will happen, probably sooner than we expect. In a New Yorker cartoon, two caterpillars are crawling along a branch. They see a butterfly flying overhead. One caterpillar says to the other, “You'll never get me up in one of those things.” But of course, it's inevitable – we all become butterflies someday. The next generation will have the tools we didn't have when we came out of school. Let's start with that. It's inevitable: we're doomed to be successful!

INTERVIEW

Thompson Penney, FAIA

CEO, LS3P

17th August 2017

LS3P has been around a long time and grown to have multiple offices. You must be doing something right. In my experience, a firm's culture and attitude come top-down from its leader. What's your personal philosophy and attitude towards managing design? Big focus? Necessary evil? Impossible? Are there subcultures within your firm – management versus design? And are you succeeding in pushing leadership's philosophy down to the firm?

“The first thing that has to happen is that architects have to value themselves. If we don't value ourselves, why should anybody else?”

Penney: To me, culture trumps just about anything. We've been in business 55 years and have developed a strong culture. I wouldn't describe it as top-down process. It's established by setting examples. It's difficult to say, “This is what it is, and you need to follow it.” We have distributed leadership – 77 shareholders. I became LS3P's president in '89, and we changed from firm names to initials to be able shine a spotlight on others. We did this for two reasons – to let team members develop and to invest in them so they'd feel a part of the firm and stay with us. If you've got five names on the door, clients just want to work with those people. It allowed our people to grow and the firm to grow. In 1999, we opened up ownership because our people were the ones making the growth happen. We're inclusive. With each merger the firm's complexion changes. We have an open view toward culture. Our core values are unchanged, but our culture evolves because our newest offices have good ideas too. Nothing remains the same. We have names for our studios and groups. Our top leadership group is called Evolution. Culture is most important.

The next thing is very close – measurement. Do you have open information? People want to succeed, and they will if you give them the information. It's important to show we're open in the firm's business aspects. If you don't know what's not working, you can't fix it. We're open about metrics. We measure a lot of things. Even when someone isn't succeeding, or we find a problem with a system, we let team members know the facts and figures, so they can help fix it for everyone.

I've talked to other small boutique firms that shun management. Yet you devote attention to trying to manage yourselves with typical fee breakdowns, and manhour budgets?

Penney: A big part of my focus from '89 is the firm's business infrastructure. We use Deltek Vision. It's designed, in my opinion, for very numbers-oriented, linear thinkers. So, we've written programs ourselves. Every person has a dashboard. It gives varying levels of information depending on your position in the firm. When you go up the chain, PA's and PM's see all their project intel. Studio leaders see all their people's data. So, we slice and dice it every which way. The Board sees everything. Everybody knows where we are and how we're doing. We are, I'm proud to say, a very high-performing firm, per metrics of the Large Firm Roundtable. If you give people the right information and tools, they'll be successful! We believe in delegation. Most people know their work better than I do, so I give them the tools and measurements and get out of the way. That part of our culture came from Frank Lucas, our founder. He was one of the best delegators I've ever seen. He has an amazing level of judgment, about anything. He wouldn't tell you what to do, but he got it. Judgment is one of the most valuable skills a leader can have. You can have all kinds of rules and regulations, but you end up breaking them. Because, you're going to run across that client you've been working with for 20 years, who needs you to do things differently. We need that judgment by people with boots on the ground who have the relationship. You have to trust them. Our systems are set up for people to succeed on their own, without us telling them what to do. It's a delicate balance between systems, delegation and trust - one of my favorite things.

Do you work on training your firm's attitude and culture for a management and service focus?

Penney: Yes, but I'd add design focus as well. The book Good to Great has a saying about “the tyranny of the or” and “the genius of the and.” I firmly believe in this. We're not a service firm or a design firm – I think you can be both. Whether we're successful or not, only others can tell, but I think we're doing a good job balancing those two things. Serving the client, doing good design, and managing the business. And those doing the hard work, with the skills and talent, get rewarded.

Years ago, I had lunch with Dr. Eugene Odum, who wrote Fundamentals of Ecology. He was the godfather of Ecology. I asked how he reconciled economic pressures with sustainability. He referenced the Greek root of the word ekos, or “house.” Ecology is “knowledge” of house, economy is “management” of house. They're integral, compatible, he argued. If we don't manage the house, it falls. It's a duality, not an either/or.

Penney: I tell all new employees about our “Paradoxical Balance.” It includes:

LS3P: Our Paradoxical Balance

1. ENR top 20 “A” firm/eight local offices with deep community involvement.
2. We believe in the value of specialized expertise/while keeping a well-balanced generalized portfolio.
3. We are a design focused practice/and understand the value of being a well-run business.
4. We value being a high-performing firm/that balances a commitment to work with a commitment to family.
5. We are both a recognized design firm/and a valued service firm to our clients.
6. We excel by individual initiative/and by collaboration as a team.
7. We have a great respect for and celebrate our past/but we are clearly focused on the future.

Can I assume you're hiring “balanced” people? Not “one-sided” ones who are going to grouse in the back room about how bad things are … “Gripers.” I still see it – the moaning and grieving. It lingers.

Penney: Yes, it drives me crazy. We're our own worst enemies sometimes. The first thing is that architects have to value themselves. If we don't value ourselves, why should anybody else? I get so tired of hearing that self-fulfilling prophecy: “We're not gonna make any money. Woe is us.” I've learned so much from contractors.

Architects can do just as well. We've got leverage and deal with millions of dollars entrusted to us. If we're complaining, why do we expect anybody else to value us? It seems as simple as that.

Penney: Sometimes I find myself getting on my soap box about the negatives, but you have to recognize your deficiencies before you can do anything about them. There are so many positive things: the way we're educated and think. We're problem solvers, but one of the biggest faults is not valuing what things cost. I have two sayings: If you don't know how much something costs, you don't care. And, how can I know if I like it if I don't know how much it costs? If there are no prices on a restaurant's menu, I don't know what I want to order.

I did a project as a young designer, and the contractor looked at the owner and said, “This Bradley electric water cooler is $1,200. I can get you one for $300.” I felt like a fool. As an architect, I'd just picked out the coolest one. It was beautiful, but I didn't have a clue how much it cost. Before everything was online, I restricted catalogs in the office to those that had prices in them. Without prices, catalogs tempt architects to ignore cost and only look from an aesthetic or performance standpoint. Technology will get us there.

Recently CBRE merged with Kahua to access a “Software as a Service” global online database to “change the practice of design, construction and real estate.” We have the data, but don't use it.

Penney: I met with a Kohler rep yesterday, and she pulled up a fixture online and it had all the cost data right there. It is, or will be, integrated into the model. A running tickertape that will have implications for contractors as well.

What are the new generations showing you? Are they pushing to affect your process?

The old guard complains most about their work-life balance: “What do you mean you're leaving at 5:00? I'm staying here all night trying to get the work done and they're ready to leave?” It's a short-term problem, but good in the long run. It will drive efficiencies in a very positive way. One pet peeve: I learned no respect for time in school. I worked all the time. Millennials are more attuned to balance. We have to adapt.

They're already smarter than we were! Years ago, an architect-friend's wife, who was in finance, said: “What the hell's wrong with you guys? Why do you have to stay until 7 every night? Why don't you get your work done and go home?” I've never forgotten it. There'll be a new balanced way.

Penney: Another interesting thing I see is the level of confidence. I'm on a bank board, and we have young graduates. They're confident and know what they're doing. Sometimes, young designers don't feel as empowered or as confident. Maybe our business is so complex it takes longer to grasp it.

In construction, we get entry level people in front of clients and expose them. The old architectural culture puts young professionals slaving away at a desk on details and stairs. We have a responsibility to expose them to reality, not shelter them, so they can do better than we did.

Penney: We do a great job of getting young professionals out in the field. We used to say we don't need 5 people at a meeting, but it's an investment to let them see what goes on. An educational experience.

Looking 5-10-15 years out, do you see anything radical or different?

Penney: Our model is different from most firms our size. We have 340-some-odd people, 8 offices, in 3 states, all within driving distance. All those offices are community ingrained and participatory. That's different from other firms our size in Tier 1 cities, where you have to fly between offices. I'm bullish on our model. I liken it to a regional law firm that has the roots and relationships. They know their clients. They have the expertise of a Big Four, with tax experts and such, but are grounded in their community.

Everything goes in pendulum swings. We've seen over past decades the rise of expert firms. When I got out of school, I worked on a healthcare project with radiology. I didn't know about lead shielding in walls; I figured it out as I went. Those days are over. With knowledge sharing, and firms like ours becoming experts in healthcare, senior living or high-end facilities, we combine the best of both worlds: but our local architects are sitting around a table at the Chamber of Commerce with community leaders and having trust. I think the pendulum will swing back to local experts rather than flying experts in from out of town. I know local owners who regret choosing an out-of-town firm. Our model is to sleep in your own bed more often than not. The excitement of travel soon wears off. I don't know why other firms aren't working this way, but I'm prejudiced.

I'm also excited about technology. It has the power to take the drudgery out of our work, so we can focus on what we do best: leadership, design, and value-based services, not just being a communication tool between designer and contractor. A client recently said “We've got a major problem here! Our architect is not doing complete plans and specs,” but the client was doing repeat buildings, so why draw everything again if the team knows what it is? It was eye-opening. There are many ways to success. In our model we have diverse markets, so every office has a different way of approaching work. You have to give them leeway and communicate.

You have been so optimistic. Anything else you want to share?

Penney: In terms of collaboration bright spots, I'd like to plug the AIA/AGC Joint Committee, where there's so much empathy and collaborative spirit between architects and contractors. Your company taught us how to put BIM on iPads. I'm bullish on collaboration increasing between architects and contractors. We need to look at starting it in the academy. That's where the bad habits start. The good ones too. If we can get colleges to start collaborative supportive thinking there, where we're not at each other, that'll mean something. Architecture and construction need each other. I am so positive about our shared future.

INTERVIEW

John Busby, FAIA

Historically, many of the great three-principal firms used a classical three-part organization to manage their firms. Did you follow that model?

Busby: Yes. Henry Jova was focused on the design, Stanley Daniels led the administrative and management duties, and I focused on technical matters, documents, materials and such, although we all wanted to stay involved in projects and made efforts to enable design and professional growth for others. At its peak, our firm had 75 people, so we were still able to oversee it all. But the firm is no more; we closed the doors in 2010.

It was a leading firm for several decades. Architects have a reputation for being bad at managing design. That is, schedules, budgets, and themselves. Many owners and contractors don't understand the process. They ask, “What's the problem? Why does it take so long? Why can't you get in budget? Let's go from a to b and get it built.” These are the core questions I'm after. How did your firm go about managing design?

“We'd come together and generally see how we were doing on schedules and budgets, but that's it.”

Busby: Like any firm, we'd sit with the three principals and senior associates for meetings every two weeks to discuss policies and approaches. To be honest, we got to the point we all agreed, “Let's do that.” But I'd find out later, we had no continuity or follow up. We didn't track morale, status, continuing education, firm development, counseling employees. We didn't have any “internal management” except as principals and associates, and sometimes even we failed. We'd come together in projects and generally see how we were doing on schedules and budgets, but that's it.

Those processes are quite different in a construction firm. We do projections, multiple management levels, risk management, contingency planning and precise reporting – weekly, monthly, quarterly – to track performance and profitability, by project and company. Processes are clear, visible and managed as company goals. Quite different from your periodic discussions where design and the work were at the fore and managing them was more of an “oh by the way.”

Busby: Very much. For cost control, we'd talk to contractors about CM versus bid. At first, we did a lot of bid work. Then, to control costs we asked clients to bring in capable contractor partners, and we'd interview them and bring them on board. That worked well. Around preliminaries, DD, we'd begin to initiate cost containment and take their advice. However, the last project I worked on the costs fluctuated too much. We didn't get the right advice.

That issue remains. We're still doing something wrong.

Busby: Architectural schools are beginning to diversify. When I was accrediting schools, the architecture school was stand alone. Right next to it was usually an engineering or construction school that offered classes in construction, lighting, cost control, you name it. When I asked if students could cross over and take those classes most of them said, “Oh, no.” How about if the professors came over here and taught? “Oh, no, no.” It was forbidden. They have a budget for their faculty and we have one for ours. Departmental budget limits, quotas, or territorial boundaries ruled.

“Management,” budgets, structure, and paradigms were getting in the way?

“Being aware of how a cost estimate was prepared was unheard of in the education of an architect.”

Busby: Very much so. Isolated schools – still focused on design – had cost programs, but it was out of Means or Dodge, some other book, or their imagination. Academics just didn't get into details for costs or how contractors prepare them. Architects' estimates either worked with a contractor, or were done on average, similar costs by building type – school, lab, etc. – on square foot costs. Maybe add a 10 percent contingency. Being aware of how a cost estimate was prepared was unheard of in the education of an architect. Most of it concentrated on design, design, design.

Most schools have an engineer on the faculty, who would advise fourth- or fifth-year students. Keep in mind, back then, there was a limited range of discipline and curricula in architecture. Today with CAD, BIM, energy, LEED, and so many other things, its explosive. They can't learn it all. Now you can come up with a dynamic, distorted façade that can only be worked out by a computer, but not know how a contractor estimates it. Contractors previously unfamiliar with new materials are working with manufacturers. They're beginning to understand innovative, complex forms and materials, but it takes more energy to figure out, versus the simple forms and buildings of the past.

You taught, mentored, and juried at Southern Polytech, now Kennesaw State.

Busby: I had an exercise where I asked students to calculate the volume of concrete they needed for a slab. Well, you'd be surprised. They couldn't do it!

One of my beliefs, in looking for causes, is the architectural profession's closed culture. We can't cross boundaries to take classes. We stay locked in a “secret studio” working all night. Not enough socialization. Did you begin to see curricula change to fix that closed culture? Are student or faculty mindsets moving that direction? Any collaboration classes? We didn't have any.

Busby: In one class, architecture and construction faculty tried to come together to teach a course collaboratively, on codes. We talked about being compatible; we worked together on the lesson plan. There was also an introductory course in architectural practice that we team taught and that students engaged in. I did see, in juries, courses introduced in work planning, bar chart scheduling, even construction scheduling and work sequencing.

So, some management, scheduling, and planning skills, but not learning to collaborate?

Busby: Right. Some were in the opposite direction from collaboration. I did see difficulty, because of the independent thinking. We would challenge something – and they would resist. Even when we would come up with a clear reason why it didn't work, they would insist. So, I said, “Well, if you insist on that approach, even if after I've given you something which, in a jury, might bring criticism, then go ahead.” Sure enough, a lot of them came back and said, “Well, I wish I'd have taken your advice.” And I said, “That's ok. You learned something.”

That's a great example of what architects have taught and rewarded in our culture: independent thinking, ego-driven intuition, stubbornness. It doesn't work in today's profession. We need teams.

“But the public does not understand design.”

Busby: Yes. But the public does not understand design. They understand the design of their kitchen cabinets and patio area, but when you look at the totality of a project, it gets very complicated. We're having to understand new systems we never thought about. Now we have IT systems, graphic design, and so many new disciplines.

It's always been the case that clients didn't understand design or couldn't read drawings. But now that things are more complex, not even experienced professionals understand what design is anymore. We've got our work cut out for us. So many kinds of – and meanings for – design, all complex. How do we create new ways of working with a collaborative mindset?

“Design is important. I said, ‘Yes, but what the hell does it mean?’”

Busby: I ran into some critical opposition on that, 5 or 6 years ago in the AIA. They all said, “Design is important.” I said, “Yes, but what the hell does it mean?” What about understanding materials, or project delivery, or land disturbance and codes? Preliminary design begins with a sketch on paper or on a digital pad and moves rapidly into a contract. Great. You have a 20,000 SF floorplan, but no definition of materials or scope. How do we know what it costs? What are the finishes? Beginning to understand design is important, but controlling costs is part of design. And presenting owners with options is part of design. Do you want a 5-year or 30-year roof? Maintenance costs? Life cycle costs? Those are part of design. A lot of folks don't understand that. Architects sometimes miss it too. Early contractor involvement and new methods of teaming shape design.

What were some of the biggest issues or challenges you faced as AIA president?

Busby: Liability insurance was big. Prices went up, and the profession screamed, “What the hell?” Another was other countries providing architectural services across the world. Creating accords compatible for registration across the border to bring in a Canadian firm in, or vice versa. We set up accords with Canada and Mexico, then Great Britain, Australia, Japan, and the Pacific Rim. We began to see international practice come into play in Saudi Arabia for the new universities, campuses and big housing projects.

You opened the doors for many of the large global practices of today: Gensler, HOK. That was pioneering work.

Busby: And specialization. For liability insurance, everybody wanted million-dollar policies, when sometimes the entire project wasn't worth that much. So, we looked into pooled, contingent insurance by the owner rather than having individual policies. We dealt with arbitration and negotiation. We approved an updated set of AIA Documents. From '85 to '95 we began to see alternative delivery agreements in the industry. We had to get a lot of architects to understand we were part of the construction industry, not the entire industry. That we provided services to it and needed to get more knowledgeable about what we were designing and why.

We still face these questions. Delegated responsibilities, and how they blur in teams.

“We had to get a lot of the architects to understand that we were part of the construction industry, not the entire industry. That we provided services to it.”

Busby: We even sent a team to Lloyds of London, the documents and insurance committees. Lloyds was the overwriter for Schinnerer and others covering construction. We had to explain how much coverage we needed because the entire project didn't usually fail, just some aspect, and the owner needed to pick up some of that risk. Getting the industry to understand that was difficult.

Groundbreaking work. Those days saw the emergence of CM, fast track, and the erosion of the architect's role as “master builder.” Thirty or forty years later, it's back. To survive, we need to embrace construction partners, specialists and owners in new ways. It's far from being “all about the architect,” as we were trained.

Busby: Yes, even a house is getting complicated. If the architect is going to take on construction administration duties, he has to know what's going in that house, rough-in, framing systems, digital systems, etc. Smart buildings … what is that?

We need specialists, but somebody's still got to coordinate it. There's a place for generalists, but they must be smarter. As we look forward, what would you tell the aspiring future architect? What should they do that you and I might not have?

Busby: Be conscious of what you think you know, and what you don't know, depending on the kind of practice you want. If you want to be a generalist, you can – there will still be small practices in cities across the country. But that doesn't relieve you of the responsibility to understand what else is out there. I advocate for continuing education. Never assume you know everything – there's so much innovation. Be ready to engage in a dialogue to better understand and advise your client and others so you know where to attach yourself and dial in to the process.

I show a slide of Frank Lloyd Wright with his colleagues gathered around in rapt attention. He knew all he needed to know. Now, we can't know it all. Nor are most of us practicing in the same room. We have a more inclusive process that takes management and dialogue with others.

Busby: We had a big debate on continuing education at the Boston Convention. I said: “If we don't pass this, we're not gonna play in the game. NCARB, or the public is going to dictate what we learn. If we want to be in the game, we've got to do this.” We didn't for LEED and lost. Keep in mind, the architect is designing the future, and the contractor is implementing it. We must understand systems, fire codes, and so on. Architecture integrates everything. That's my difficulty with defining “design.” Does it mean the façade? Or how its connected to the structure? What about the curtainwall subcontractor's expertise?

You advocated for many important issues for the profession – liability insurance, globalization, continuing education – and our part in the larger industry. I appreciate your leadership.

Busby: In the '80s, the Institute contemplated the future. We said, “We need to look 10 years out.” In the '90s, we said, “No, we need to change it to 5.” Then we said 3. I said, “The institute needs continuity of programs and message.” I wanted to deemphasize the convention and get to issues the profession needs for the future. Some people will listen. Some ignore it. But the institute has to be aware of the changes.

There was a schism between the profession and architectural education. Professors and administrators complained they didn't have time to explore broader curricula. But we knew we needed to encourage different courses in architecture. In 1966 or '67, Harvard or Penn recommended expanding. They said, “We can't do it all, we're gonna add another year.” That's when we went from a 5-year degree to the 4 plus 2-year program. We understood what a graduate student moving into the profession would require. Now, that graduate student takes the ARE before their experience is fulfilled. That's profound, with the extended practical experience they'll need. That's the progress we need to make. We can no longer plan for 10 years, because change is too rapid. To this day, I still don't know what design is. I know what the design process is, but I don't think we've defined or delivered what design is.

There are so many meanings for it, not just one.

“To this day, I still don't know what design is. I know what the design process is, but I don't think we've defined, or delivered, what design is.”

Busby: Some things the contractor can answer, some the architect can. We have to think about it in all those ways, with all those inputs to get the totality of design process. And we wonder why design costs so much? Well, why does medicine cost so much? Do you want the doctor to leave something out? Even in construction, we must get owners to understand the complexity and process, and understand it's a process of discovery, because we're defining it as we go. It's something you need; we recommend you put it in. If you don't want it, don't blame us, or say we didn't fulfill the contract. We've got to communicate that to the owner's project manager. We're moving into that phase now.

The movement to teaming and new communication tools are taking us there.

INTERVIEW

Agatha Kessler, Assoc. AIA

Chairman, Fentress Architects

21st February 2018

Your personal page on your company website opens with this quote: “What you don't know you cannot manage. Acquire the fundamentals to drive revolutionary change.” That's a core issue of the book. Design manages the unknown. Coming from business to lead a global design firm for the past ten years, how have you approached the challenge?

“If you can find the known you can manage the variances.”

Kessler: I want to praise you first. Your questions are very thoughtful. They show that you listened and did your homework. The book is very well organized, and your questions are connected to who I am. You don't often find all that in one person. I appreciate that.

Thank you very much. That's nice to hear. It's new ground for me, listening, interviewing, the book.

Kessler: Maybe doing the book will make you a better partner?

I hope so.

Kessler: I really believe what that quote says. Because without it, you're just throwing darts in the dark. To know what you know is important because we often don't know what we don't know. But I'd say design is not always unknown. If you can find the known you can manage the variances. Some are fixed continents, others are moving islands. Not all the parts are moving. So, one of the first things I did was listen, watch, observe and learn, like a baby. I was thinking about Aikido, the Japanese martial art. Aikido is a way of combining forces. It's the principle of blending with your opponent's movement to minimize your efforts. You go with the flow, but you use that force to do what you, or your company needs, to get to where you envision. By understanding that rhythm and intent, we can find optimal solutions.

The second thing is to treat people with respect and empathy. I call it different keys to open different doors. When I worked for VISA and Hewlett Packard, my mentors had high expectations. They showed me what I needed to learn. One of the first things they said was necessary to be a good GM was to acquire a repertoire of skills. I can't be the same person for everybody, so I talk to each individual in their unique style and place to unleash their talents.

Great analogies. I agree, design is not all unknown.

“You need different keys to open different doors.”

Kessler: I was also thinking about the technology world. In technology we have just as much creativity as in design. We manage even more unknowns. Think of the folks at Apple who invented the iPhone. They had nothing. A clean sheet of paper. They had to know more than technology. There were many unknowns including inventing a market for their product. When we design buildings, we know the client, the site, the budget. We know many things. A lot more than in technology. Everything is relative.

The more I get into it, the more I'm learning that this book is about empathy and inclusion. Like design – and many stories – you don't entirely know where it's going when you start.

Kessler: That must feel good.

It does. You commented that compared to other industries' willingness to change and adopt new technologies, architecture is a “dinosaur.” There's a “gap” – can you explain?

Kessler: I call architecture a dinosaur because in relative terms it hasn't undergone much change. Take a butterfly and a parrot. Some butterflies live only one week. Some parrots live 50 years. So, for a butterfly, a day is a very long time. Coming from the technology world, we did version updates every 2 months, so we made lots of decisions quickly. In architecture, being slower to change and not making decisions seems the norm. Both for clients and the design team. Architecture has changed relatively little in the last few hundred years. Look at how we teach architecture. We teach it by batch processing – our educational system is a batch processor for the convenience of the processor, not the learners.

In architecture, changes have been more about technology, not culture or radical changes in process. But looking to the future, William Gibson said, “The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed.” Machine design can already use algorithms to do much of what architects do. Artificial intelligence has already composed plenty of music via algorithm. I'm talking about the future. Should we be very afraid? I don't think so – designers will just do more valuable stuff.

Take digital photography. Mass access to digital cameras and iPhone cameras haven't made photography disappear as a discipline, they've expanded it. We're at an inflection point where those who move with the current will thrive and be more valuable. That current will only get stronger. Those who don't will not be around. The cycle naturally screens out some practitioners. We won the national AIA Award for BIM a few years ago. We started using BIM at least 10 years ago – when we started doing paperless projects. We are mindful to evolve with the technology current.

You describe yourself as a global citizen. How can your global background and acumen in building new business opportunities be applied to changing the building industry?

“Should we be very afraid? I don't think so – designers can just do more valuable stuff.”

Kessler: I look at this from two perspectives. One, global practice versus the U.S. The building industry is structured differently outside the U.S. In Asia, and much of Europe, it's almost all design-build. Vertically integrated. In the U.S., it's moving that way. The DBIA would say so. What's similar? Stronger companies can ride volatility because they're prepared and have big projects that span multiple years. For me, it strengthens the idea of discipline. Being disciplined doesn't mean you aren't flexible. When you need to change you can. Working from a position of strength allows agility. Discipline and agility go together. That's what I mean by understanding the fundamentals. Like a good ballet dancer, if you don't know your basics, you can't go beyond them to be creative.

Then there's volatility. The design industry is still like Dallas and Denver were in the 1980s. Houses sold for $10 because they were one-industry towns. Architecture is similar. Some companies don't diversify and are caught by being inflexible. We have learned that lesson. We diversified. One should do something anti-cycle – take work that spans multiple years. Diversify your portfolio and hone your expertise.

Shifting to the human side, you talked about your favorite questions in the studio being: “Are you having fun? And are you learning?” and if the answers are yes, things are good. Teams are happy, productive, the firm does well, clients are happy. What can firms do to ensure the answers are yes?

Kessler: Two things. First, nurture. Second, create a safe, stable environment. We have Fentress University. We do a lot of classes. If you aren't careful, you can be in Fentress University full time. Once you do that, you've created a safe environment. The rest of the time you give staff more rope and coach them. Our young designers – most have master's degrees – get licensed within 2–3 years because we create that accelerated learning and safe, nurturing environment. If it's not safe it's difficult to learn and perform.

On the business side, as leaders, our job is to ensure we're financially strong - so our people can focus on their design. We're not a hire and fire company. If we need to borrow money to keep good people, we do. Otherwise, if they are insecure, how can they give you their trust, talent and effort?

Let's look at the designer's bias. Coming in as an “outsider,” you've had success. Your firm was shrewd to bring you in, and you showed courage to take the helm of a design organization. What lessons from that fresh perspective can we apply to a perennial problem set: closed culture, myopia, ego-driven, lack of inclusivity, and a history of silos?

Kessler: Mr. Fentress is very secure. He says, “I'm a designer. If I were a fisherman, I should be fishing.” So, he looked for someone else to do the other things. I complement him. He was brave to bring me in – it wasn't courage on my part. This is not a hobby. It's a business. Running a badly managed firm is being irresponsible to the people who dedicate their talents. We focus on strong finances and culture. Because of that we've been successful.

I learned quickly that architects are nice conflict-avoidance people. They don't understand if we don't agree, it's okay. If we try to understand each other's perspectives the outcome is likely to be stronger. To begin change, you have to weed, and the architects couldn't do it because they were so nice. They think being nice is most important, but you have to be strong. If your people aren't committed, or don't care, that's not what you want. Build an environment that rewards performers that thrive in our culture first and help those who don't fit find happiness somewhere else. I'm not a hard-hearted person. I'm a people person. I foster people. But being indiscriminate is unfair to the good people.

So, the first thing is weed, then nurture, then hire the right people. Conflict avoidance? I've seen it. The perception is: “architects” are “architects,” but they're all different. They do different things. Some design, some manage, some detail. They're individuals who migrate between roles and evolve. I've jokingly said I got into design because it didn't involve conflict. No life or death situations – inanimate objects. I couldn't work in an emergency room or be a lawyer. But surprise! Design and construction have conflict. Because they attract conflict-avoiders, we aren't pre-disposed to seek it and resolve it. We're content to do what we love. The job of managers and leaders is to seek and address conflict. Designers need tough love to ensure they can thrive. Can you share your future visions of the air travel industry? What can firms look for?

“I learned quickly that architects are nice people—conflict-avoidance people.”

Kessler: Signals for change are not easy to spot. If they were, everyone would see them coming. Industry convergence is the basis for co-founding the Aerial Futures because Artificial Intelligence, machine learning, and automation mean things will be different. Then, we have demographic changes. When those elements come together, the convergence will be amazing. In a few years, millennials will be three-quarters of the work force! Air travel democratization means more people are flying. With driverless cars, drop-off points will be different. Fewer parking spaces. Hyperloops will be part of our mobility system. Commercial supersonic flights are coming back. The changes will be exciting. I love the analogy about horses at the turn of the century. People said, “Why do we need these gas-belching cars? All we need is faster horses.” Myopia happens all the time. Michelin was a tire company. Why did they assign stars to restaurants? To encourage people to drive more. A hundred years later, people are still change resistant. To tie that to the building industry, I see artificial intelligence and machine learning influencing the industry in a big way. Little quakes will occur on the periphery, but a tsunami is coming. Machines can design it. Architects will do higher-level things. You'll still need people to build buildings, but drones can do more – as well as prefabrication. The point is, we need to be ready for change.