INTERVIEW

Jeffrey Paine, FAIA

Founding Principal, Duda|Paine Architects

16th January 2018

Please share your background including career influences, and their impact on your thinking about an approach to practice. Do you see management as integral to design or as an overlay – a necessary evil?

Paine: Management of design varies from firm to firm. Early in my career I worked for Kevin Roche John Dinkeloo and Associates. At the time, they were very departmentalized, with a similarly departmental management style, and an ad hoc approach to design, documentation and getting things built. In the field, they believed in a somewhat adversarial contractor-architect relationship, which wasn't unusual then – most architects saw their role as protecting the client from the contractor and change orders. Design-build and “construction management at risk” didn't exist. An architect produced 100 percent construction documents, put them out to bid, helped the owner select the winning bid, and argued all the way through the project on behalf of the client.

In 1982, I started working for Cesar Pelli and, at 28, was “the gray beard.” Back then, Pelli's firm mostly did design only, working with an architect of record, which produced the CDs. I became liaison between two large firms in New York and Toronto on the World Financial Center in New York City to ensure the documents and construction met our design intent. I'd redline their drawings over and over. It started out adversarial, but we evolved into a collaborative relationship. That spirit transferred into how we worked with contractors and subcontractors. This was long before any mention of “construction manager at risk” – that came later in the mid- to-late 1990s, but was something Pelli's firm, and then Turan and my firm, were suited to – engaging with a construction manager as a member of the design team. Some CMs were good at preconstruction services, cost estimating, constructability, and detailing assistance. Some aren't. But we've always had this mentality of seeing everyone we work with – engineers, consultants, contractors, and subcontractors – as collaborators.

In terms of design management, Kevin Roche and Cesar Pelli are very different. Kevin's approach was mysterious in that he would not involve the client much in the design process, then he would overwhelm them with presentation models and drawings. The firm had a warehouse devoted to building models large enough to poke your head inside to get a sense of its spaces. Kevin's philosophy was you hired an expert, so you should listen to him.

Cesar Pelli was different. He taught us to bring three or four potential design solutions to a meeting, from early concepts through schematics. Clients were involved and engaged. Even when talking about materials, we showed options. You'd think that Kevin Roche's design management process would be more efficient, but Pelli's was, because the client bought in quickly and on schedule. Along the way we built a belief we were creating the right solution. The design process wasn't haphazard, but about engaging clients, so they felt involved and believed in the solution.

One of the most fulfilling moments for Turan and me is on the site, when our building is completed, standing next to someone unfamiliar with the design, and he or she explains why things look the way they do or why certain things were done. We're teaching clients the value of design and a well-managed architectural process. We're demystifying design and engaging them. By doing so, we're making them believers in what we do, why we do it, what the best design solution is, and why it was done.

Your use “oxymoron” to describe the conflict between design and management. We've never been interested in the idea of a master builder or designer. We don't engage clients artificially. We like being challenged with budget, context, usability, and functionality issues. It makes for a better building, and we don't have problems after the fact because our client has seen and been a part of the process. Engaging everyone is more interesting, more collaborative, and provokes us to produce better work.

Working for commercial and higher-education clients, do you tailor your design approach?

Paine: They're different. Not to generalize, but in commercial projects, especially build-to-suit, you're often designing for an organization's key leaders. That might be one person or a small leadership group. Academic clients typically have more layers of approval.

“We're pulling back the curtain.”

Building consensus in an academic environment involves hard work and buy-in. When you're designing a project such as a student union, the process can be complicated. Forty or fifty different users might be involved. Leading a consensus building process takes skill and patience. It requires you to be more than a good designer – you often need to build consensus among a conflicted group. It's not speculative; you are designing for the people using the building, so you become engaged with their goals and aspirations, the work they do and how they intend to use the building. For example, for the Duke University School of Medicine, we learned how Duke's Medical Center aspires to change the way future medical education is conducted.

How has your design process evolved with virtual and digital tools? Are there unintended consequences? Are concepts still generated by sketching and physical modeling?

Paine: We use the latest 3D modeling technology, which allows us to work simultaneously with our teammates using the same digital model. However, with digital tools it's sometimes easy to jump over a step or two, and short circuit the design process. That's our biggest concern. Because there's a market expectation now, even when we're competing for a project, that we'll produce 3D photorealistic renderings of the exterior and interior spaces. This pushes the project forward before we have a sense of what is needed or wanted. It often doesn't give us enough time to consider whether what we are presenting is this the best alternative.

“The client thinks it's what we're going to build. And we're scratching our heads saying, ‘Is it really what we want? Are we really there?’”

The process between your brain and the computer screen is different than between your brain and a sketch pad. With a computer, you pick a point on a screen, pick another point and connect them. When you're drawing on paper, you're not sure where the line's going. It's a different way of thinking and talking. We encourage people to communicate design ideas in sketch form. So, it's not just a matter of the tool a person uses, it's a matter of thinking and having the capacity to generate ideas and talk about them.

“We're leading a consensus building process that takes work, talent and patience. It requires you to be more than simply a good architect, you need to be a good communicator who can build consensus among a sometimes-conflicted group.”

The visual sophistication of digital technology can also make a rendering look too finished, and clients can believe we're ready to start construction documents and build the project. In an iterative design, digital tools add efficiency, but you have to make sure they don't short circuit.

One interviewee said, "You can always keep designing." You have to set limits, or it goes on and on. While a change can always be made, it isn't always necessary. With your early client involvement, as you get closer to a finished project, are changes more manageable?

Paine: Trust is an enormous part of any project, especially a large, complicated, expensive one. Clients want to trust they're hiring a firm that will spend their budget dollars wisely while creating a great building. Because we engage clients from the beginning, and they are invoiced in the process if changes are made – whatever the reason – they generally understand. We don't abuse the trust they put in us, but part of managing design is rethinking design solutions when situations require.

Do you develop design schedules? Who does it? What tools do you use? Since design can be a messy, uncontrollable process, how do you reduce the unpredictability?

Paine: The first thing is to constructively argue with the client and CM to allow the time necessary to design and document the project. They're chomping at the bit to put a price to our drawings, and we're usually pushing for a little more time. B.I.M. forces more work to be done in schematic design, and expectation for a design resolution in schematics is greater. We used to give a 50 percent CD package to a contractor for pricing and create a guaranteed maximum price, or GMP. Now we're seeing owners asking the CM for a GMP at 50 percent DD, or earlier. Budgets are becoming hard numbers before the design is adequately resolved.

The pressure to produce design work and release documents earlier is a risk for the entire industry, not just for architects. Buildings are being commoditized – design work is banged out and documented to make it cheaper and faster. We have to start asking, "To what end?" What does this push mean to future of the built environment?

“They're chomping at the bit to put a price to our drawings. And we're always asking for a little more time.”

How can architects change the owner/contractor perception that architects are adept at spending money and not so good at managing it?

Paine: In the 1970s, architecture stepped away from confirming and documenting construction costs. The result? Contractors became construction managers and got involved earlier. We welcome that, but it comes with baggage. We've become reliant on the CM to provide accurate information early in design, before being able to give subcontractors fully developed drawings to estimate materials. Thus, the CM has to forecast construction costs and fill in blanks to come up with estimates before documents are done. Some CMs are much more adept than others at this, and we sometimes have to change the design to stay on budget. We need CMs to be responsible team members and advise us accurately. This is one reason we like to work with a competent CM like Holder – having experience working together is a plus.

The desire for accurate estimates early reflects an expectation to produce more information in less time. It's a push-pull, but we need time to work back and forth the CM, and we need client involvement. The CM can help us teach clients about the entire project process and warn them when decisions are negatively impacting the budget or schedule. It's not us trying to spend the client's money and the conractor trying to save it – staying on budget is a shared responsibility.

“It's not a matter of us trying to spend the client's money and the contractor trying to save the client's money – maintaining the budget must be a shared responsibility.”

Do you work with a CM on a repeat basis or do you start relationship building fresh?

Paine: We're often asked to help the client select a CM. We'll create a set of drawings illustrating the basic project parameters and schedule, and then interview three or four CMs with our client to hear their initial thoughts and how they'd approach cost estimating and construction. We meet their team to see how we'd work together. We check references. It helps to be part of that process, because we're picking teammates with whom we and the client can work well. Again, it's easier when we've worked together before.

If you haven't worked with a CM before, is your role to drive the relationship-building process?

Paine: Relationship building is part of our work. We have an excellent reputation as people who listen, who don't dictate or try to control the conversation. We're willing to learn something from a contractor or subcontractor. We want to be locked arm-in-arm with the CM, strategizing and looking out for the owner's interests together from the beginning. Then, risks become more apparent and we both protect the owner.

Do you use any BIM costing technology?

Paine: The scale, technology and complexity of our projects typically prevent this. And we rely on our CMs for cost estimating. However, I do believe in “tandem cost estimating.” We encourage clients to let us add a qualified cost estimator to the team. Not to question or push back on the CM's pricing, but to create a system of checks and balances, with two sets of eyes looking at the details and costing them.

What's bugging you about the practice of architecture? What can your owner-contractor partners do to make things better? You've mentioned time and spoken about contractors getting engaged and looking out for the team as opposed to their own interests.

Paine: We're finishing a corporate campus with a CM at risk. Although we had some frustrations throughout the process related to budget and schedule, the project ended both on time and on budget. However, a few things were taken out that didn't need to go. We can't put those back when we find out later we can afford them. It's frustrating when design features are lost in this process.

Having a strong working relationship where we can ask each other tough questions during design and documentation is welcome. It comes down to the people involved. I remind clients, when talking about any architect, consultant, or contractor, a good design process is not just whose name is on the door, but who's doing the work? Because we've had excellent and terrible experiences with banner firms. It's always about relationships. To be successful, we need trust and respect between all parties. And friendly accountability where people are willing to say, "Why are you proposing that when it doesn't fit the budget?" or "We think this should be in the budget.”

What issues does your firm face in managing design around staffing, skills, risk/reward, training, financial, recruiting, short-term and long-term perspectives? You've talked about young staff, and the need to give them a range of experiences.

Paine: I've been thinking about this. Our 20th anniversary was in 2017, and Turan and I are excited about where we are and what we have accomplished. We've built a body of work and are working with the next generation to continue what we've begun. We spend more time co-laboring in the design studio and onsite to make certain the work meets our expectations. Our typical employee is just out of school, and we want them to learn the unique way we work. It's not the most efficient way, but it can be if everyone learns the routine of studying different options, using three-dimensional models, sketching, and thinking about what we're designing and why. When we hire people, we look as much at attitude as aptitude. We've become more selective. We look for good judgment, not just design, and how a person talks with others: in the office, with clients, consultants, and contractors, and how someone builds relationships to accomplish what needs to be done. We depend on our teams to elevate the quality of our design work. That helps us push design boundaries and investigate new solutions and builds trust with our clients.

Anyone can step up if they have basic life skills, good judgment, and know how to treat people with respect. They also need people backing them up. Many firms have a synthetic mentoring process. Not here – one of my biggest joys is going from desk to desk to ask individuals, "How are things going?" It gives me opportunity to connect one-on-one, and opens them to say, "Well, I'm struggling with this issue." Then, I can pull up a stool and offer advice. It may not be about a design; it may be a personal issue, or a problem they're having with a client, consultant, or contractor. Them knowing they can ask questions and get advice is important.

What trends or behaviors from owner and contractor partners are giving you pause? Things that, if you changed them, would improve your ability to practice and collaborate, i.e. “We hate it when …” Conversely, any positive emerging behaviors from owners and contractors, “We love it when …”?

Paine: It's easy to typecast architects as having their heads in the clouds and being clueless about the impact they may cause on a client's budget or schedule. And it's easy to forget we too are in business to make money. We look to our contractor partners to help us expedite construction review and approval. For example, if the standard closeout procedures aren't being followed, and we have to go back multiple times to see that the work is being complete, we lose any profit we may have in the project.

“What does this push to get it faster and cheaper mean to future of the built environment? Will it be commoditized, or simply value-engineered to be efficient? What are we losing in that transfer?”

Beyond conscientious cost estimating, I'd ask our CM partners to focus on constructability, and schedule review to ensure our time for design and on site is used efficiently. For instance, lately we're seeing submittals only date-stamped; that takes more time to review. We expect the CM to review all submittals before sending them to us. This means we must spend extra time in review, and time is money.

On the owner side, being an advocate for design, realizing once the design has been presented and approved, that we need to protect it and not change our minds. Things like paying invoices on time, treating the architect and consultants with respect, and listening to their ideas make a great client. Architects do their best work for great clients.

In just date-stamping shop drawings, is the contractor is trying to avoid the cost of reviewing the submittals themselves?

Paine: I think it's often a lack of training. We're seeing younger people on site representing contractors. They could say the same about us, but I'd argue our people in the field are supported daily by senior people. And we don't send shop drawings back that were only reviewed by an intern. They'll do an initial review, and then sit with our construction administration director to make sure they're marked up correctly.

Can you share a 5- or 10-year future state for your firm? Will you be practicing differently than today? Any new compensation models or value propositions to increase the architect's value?

Paine: Our business model is simple: a design process that's inquisitive, led by experts who are generalists. One that engages our clients but is not a free-for-all. Turan and I are involved in all the work, and our experience brings direction to the design process. We've created a firm purposefully not made up of studio groups. Instead, we've created thinkers – people who don't take things for granted, who want to look at any design problem in a fresh way.

“There has to be a degree of a level of trust and respect between all parties. And friendly accountability.”

A firm of thinkers can take a design problem, whether it's 2 million square feet or a lifeguard station on the beach, give the client what they need on time and on budget, and make two plus two equal five – something no one anticipated. In Cesar's forward to our book Individual to Collective, he writes, “There's a place for the mega firms in the future, but there's still going to be a place where a firm like Duda|Paine led by people who clients want to be engaged with, who bring a more personal approach to design and engaging the client in the design process.”

INTERVIEW

Peter Styx, AIA

Director of Architecture, AECOM, Minneapolis

2nd August 2017

Let's start with process.

Styx: I just reread a memo I wrote 16 years ago about how to work with contractors – and the things I said all hold true. I wouldn't change a thing that was said. Process is number one. For all the talk of design and construction processes changing and getting better, I'm struggling to see any real differences in the way we collaborate with contractors. What's different is that we're technology driven. We prefer to start in SketchUp, then switch to Revit to flush things out. I feel the same today about technology as I always have: it's wonderful when it works; miserable when it doesn't. The learning curve is long, the intricacies are amazing.

“ Email is the scourge of our industry because it decreases or disjoints information.”

Communication is still king. The inclination is to “throw something over the wall.” Even more so today, communication has to be reinforced. It's so easy to rely on an email. It's hard work getting people on the phone, getting face to face, bringing people together, but if you don't, you're buried in a myriad of emails that are worthless on their own. One becomes a hundred by the time you get all the people involved. Email is the scourge of our industry because it decreases or disjoints information. The amount of time to reread them and sort priorities is massive. Unbelievable.

I joke that despite the promise of BIM, we're really building our buildings by email, crude, marked-up pdfs, and RFI's.

Styx: You've characterized it well. We've dumbed it down, but at least it's visual, so people can understand it.

Has becoming a part of AECOM impacted your process?

Styx: Not yet, because I haven't interacted with our construction arm, which will be a big change. I like that estimating is internal now and can directly support the design effort.

That prompts the perennial overbudget question. If you were to work together, conceivably you could solve it. Even when we pull out all our best tricks, our projects still spike over, and we have to bring them back. Are you doing anything to break the cycle?

Styx: We're looking at project budgets instead of only construction budgets – that's one thing we're doing differently. We want clients to look at permits, financing fees, FFE, and all pieces of a project. We push them to ensure they have a total project cost. When they forget something, it doesn't work because it typically erodes money available for construction. We also work hard to set big volume square-foot budgets and get in the right cost range. We use published cost database services and work with clients to establish our place in the range. When we start macro, we don't have the massive Value Engineering or Value Analysis that comes later.

You're changing the scale by using total project budgets and dealing in comparable ROM costs vs. getting into the weeds. We've taken the opposite approach to get into detailed scope and CSI checklists early. You've gone high end, and we've gone low. Anyone who can get us out of VA is a saint.

Styx: We could go on forever on that, but both of us work to get the total picture, not just the construction costs.

You get to the point you can't take it anymore. Same people, same remarks, and you say: Oh God, are we doing this dance again?

Styx: Absolutely. An intern works directly with me now, and I work on what to impart to her, but the biggest thing is to think like an owner. We've been driven by budgets and methods to think, “Just tell us what you want, and we'll execute it.” Now I'm coaching people to think as if the building is for them! How comfortable do you want it? Traffic, acoustics, etc. It's difficult to get people to think that way. Then, after we're told what to do, if it needs to change, we have to say, “It's at your expense, not ours,” and then we get into these value engineering (VE) wars and we're no longer offering professional services, we're simply executing.

And then the team is demoralized. They think, “Just tell me what to do.” That's not why we got into this industry. Firms say, “I'm afraid to do anything really good and interesting, it'll just be VE'ed out.”

Styx: I've been lucky to work on a variety of projects. It takes the right attitude – and more research. We're having to think about markets, business sectors, tourism. Who would have thought architects would do that?

That's outside the normal limits. It's client and business focused. I only hope there's more fee and value in it, which would give more room to be creative, add value, design …

“Oh God, are we doing this dance again?”

Styx: For years using the word “sell” was a horrible thing in architecture, but we do it every day. We sell to our clients, we sell our ideas to other disciplines, yet we're not really taught to sell. We're taught not to. Young professionals must be encouraged to accept sales as their work, to get out of the belief that I'm “just” somebody who designs a building. We're not waiting, we're finding those kinds of clients and employees.

When I see the higher profitability of contractors vs. architects it makes me wonder. How did architecture become a commodity? Because we let it? Why is the superintendent's truck paid for and not the architectural principal's? It's a continuum. On one end, you have risk management smarts and negotiation ability. On the other, you have sales and persuasion. Believing both are your job is a new mindset for architects – or needs to be.

Styx: My best “worst” story is when I asked a colleague to go to lunch with me and a client. “Why do you need me?” he asked. “I don't personally know that client. I don't know what to say to them.” That was so indicative of how people have to get out of their technician mindsets. You want clients as colleagues and friends – more than just clients, so you're more than a stilted professional who says, “Oh no, I can't do that.”

What can we as contractors do to help?

Styx: Quit sending us those damn RFI's! No, I can honestly say that for 20 years I've worked with very good contractors. It's a compliment. It shows they get it; they're being client driven, helping architects, not being adversarial.

If architects haven't caught on as readily, what are you doing to catch us up? Are you hiring differently to create the breed of architect we'll need in ten years?

Styx: We're looking for younger people, and Revit is a required proficiency. That's quite different from just 5 years ago, but we also don't want them just to be chained to the screen. We're exposing them to clients, and I demand they truly participate if they attend a meeting. You also need colleagues as “partners,” not just employees. Also, outside your own employees, you should decide who is going to be supportive and go back to them. This group is broader than it used to be, including CMs, subs, and vendors.

“For years using the word ‘sell’ was a horrible thing in architecture, but we do it every day.”

Yes, you were our “go to” partner. Sometimes owners call us “cronies,” but it's their money and risk. If they want to go to the low, risky people, fine. We'll all see what that's like.

Styx: I think it's really cool you're doing this – it's a great initiative.