Marc L'Italien, FAIA

Principal, Associate Vice President, HGA

28th July 2017

Let's talk about flaws in our industry's process: Projects are over budget; we have cultural differences; and owners don't seem to manage their teams anymore. What issues do you see around process and are you doing anything different to cope?

“Re: over budget: We've had success with contractors on board as our partner from the beginning … At the end of the day we all have to think like we're on the same team.”

L'Italien: Process is a great place to start. It's at the epicenter of everything we do. It's a different world from when I went to school, and the expectations of people coming out of school are too. I recently left a firm of 80 people in one studio to join one that's ten times as big, with ten offices. So, we have a deeper bench and more resources and experts. Technology helps that. We meet every week. If it wasn't for technology, we couldn't have that smooth communication. The meeting technology – not even drawing technology and programs – enables that. And BIM has been a real game changer.

My work is more front-end, client relationships, setting up expectations and a process that works with the client, and determining early concepts. I still draw by hand a lot. But many of the graduates coming out of school don't have hand drawing skills. I've tried to work with them, but success has been mixed. I'm a big believer in bringing technologies together: Overlay a computer drawing, hand sketch, then sweeten it in Photoshop. We're starting to see more Revit models at early stages as staff becomes more facile – put in the parameters and let it evolve. It's interesting to see how staff combine software systems. That's going full tilt today.

Physical modeling is still in play, but not as much as it should be. We have a Digital Practice Group and do a digital profile for each project. I think a physical model is valid at every step. That's met with resistance: “Why? We have the BIM?” But I've yet to witness a client, after they see a physical model, not have a positive reaction, like: “This is fabulous! Or, Wow, I like it, but I had no idea it was going to do this.” It's fascinating to see how they react to physical models. Digital only tells part of the story; it goes hand in hand with a physical model.

For all its promise, pure BIM doesn't seem to provide as much client comfort. The interfaces aren't quite there yet.

L'Italien: We're doing virtual reality work. We just won a research award for the visual impacts of modeling eye diseases. What's to be determined is how that affects the spaces designed around those conditions. Before we didn't have that user perspective, now we do. It's going to be groundbreaking.

What about the architect's value proposition? At Yale, Phil Bernstein is challenging students to invent a firm whose value proposition isn't based on fixed fee or hourly services. They have to propose another way to be compensated and derive value. Are you thinking about that?

L'Italien: I wish I had a succinct answer. It's a major problem. Architects don't have much skin in the game anymore. No more master builders. With the separation of architecture and contracting, things went in different directions. You have firms doing interesting work that's expensive to build and prone to more liability; it's a mess. It doesn't always align with client needs, budgets or schedules. That fringe is trying to create value, but it's risky.

How is your firm dealing with the perennial problem of designs being over budget? Do you have a strategy for changing that?

L'Italien: We've had success with contractors on board as partners from the beginning. Sometimes we have two parallel estimates because there's too much at risk. If you can keep a project vision in line, it's money in the bank later. Design-build now presents more opportunities for architects and contractors to come together. I wish it could be set up equally for architects to share in the risk and the profits. We've got to think like we're all on the same team. It benefits everybody. The adversarial relationship doesn't work. We struggle with it. We have a good reputation for keeping our projects in budget. It's difficult to balance everything. Having great partners makes a difference. When difficult people work only for their faction's benefit, it breaks down.

Maybe if we just keep trying, in 20, 30 years we'll be better collaborators. I'm teaching classes at both ends: design sensitivity training for contractors and what contractors need from architects.

L'Italien: Students need to be exposed to that. When I was in school, any class in management or construction wasn't interesting. We saw our time in school as the opportunity to learn the craft. Now, people are discovering if you don't come out with those chops, you're at a disadvantage.

“We're looking for those kinds of people.”

I want to come back to something you said: we might have a great relationship with the architect and contractor, but the challenge is with the clients! They often want it all, but don't have the budget. They're not always good at deciphering conflicting needs within their own organization and giving proper direction; it often falls on the architect. Sometimes there's stubbornness: “You're doing something wrong! It's gotta be cheaper! We're gonna beat this out of you!” We're developing sophisticated buildings to last 50–70 years. They have to recognize how complicated this is and be better equipped to collaborate with us on streamlining decisions about what they're going to give up. If not, we're all at risk and not a good reflection on anybody.

It doesn't take long for architects and contractors to agree that owners are a common problem. We're trying to do something about it. We're using Owner Decision Tracking lists. So many people do nothing but complain. We're taking ownership and action.

L'Italien: Thank God people like you are doing this because they're good at it. They get us the kind of answers we need so we can do our job better. We live in a complicated age. Technology, the internet, more stuff to respond to. As we've rebranded and looked at our internal design process, we've realized the solo-hero-designer model is gone. We're looking for facile people, good listeners, leaders, and collaborators who can rally teams collectively. A lot of designers have that need – a comfort zone – to be able go off in a corner and “create greatness.” They get offended when things don't go well, or design gets eroded. We want to empower a team collective. We see better results, satisfaction, and buy in. The more people you train to collaborate and work with different personalities – the more it helps. We're looking for those kinds of people.

It's a sign you've recognized it and are doing something about it. Get rid of the Howard Roark ¹ model. We've earned this (bad) place we're in; we've got to do something different.

L'Italien: It's exciting. Its gonna take time to turn the ship, though. Leadership is embracing it. In the future, collaboration will define the firms that survive versus the ones that wither on the vine.

It brings to mind the books on practice in the '80s and '90s by Gutman, Cuff, and Kostof, on firm evolution. Big firms and boutique firms survive with the mid-sized ones focusing and the ones afraid to change going away. I'm heartened by what you're talking about.

L'Italien: The collective is better than the individual. A lesser performance by a huge firm with expert resources can have more significant environmental impacts than one by a boutique firm.

Mediocrity can creep in on the big projects and big firms too … Maybe you command a bigger fee if you can deliver more, and find an owner who will listen? I don't know how we got into this commodity position. CM's are better negotiators. We need to learn.

L'Italien: Yes, clients want more service without paying for it. Because technology can streamline our processes, they assume it equates to less time and we can credit them these costs. Then architects undercut each other up competing because they want it so bad. I love talking about this stuff. It's great you're doing this.

“The collective is better than the individual.”

INTERVIEW

Bob Carnegie, AIA

Director of Architecture, HOK Houston

6th August 2017

You began your career in the real estate industry, working with Trammell Crow.

Carnegie: Yes, most of my experience is as an owner, but still in project management. These are my answers, not necessarily HOK's.

Tell me about your design process.

“We now spend more time (and labor) in DD than CD.”

Carnegie: I've been doing this long enough that I've seen and used traditional and nontraditional design delivery methods. Most of the time, we're hired by the client to study or design something they can price for feasibility. If the seed germinates, we're asked to proceed with design and construction.

For architecture, at HOK, the process is organized and managed. We have dedicated project managers, responsible for initiation (in some cases even pursuit and capture), work planning (with project architect input), negotiating agreements, managing the team (including morale), and project financial success. Project designers are responsible for design, and project architects are responsible for technical delivery. “Dedicated” mean's that's their project role. They may have multiple projects.

How have BIM/VDC and digital tools impacted your design process? What systems effects, or unintended consequences good or bad, are you seeing?

“Project designers are responsible for design, and project architects are responsible for project delivery.”

Carnegie: The level of detail demanded by clients and collaborators has grown with technological advances. Unfortunately, fees have lagged – architects do a lot of work for free. The other trap is the capability to quickly show options; we spend too much time looking at every possible solution. We should stick to what we've been asked to provide: 3–4 options in enough detail to be decision-ready. BIM and other technologies have changed the way we design and document. The impact is most evident with the level of detail documents can provide today. It's created a labor shift from CD's to DD. We now spend more time and labor in DD than CD.

Consequences include the expectation that some work traditionally done by the contractor and their subcontractors is now expected to be done by us and isn't accompanied by a transfer of fee. Today, tremendous additional detail is included in a set of CDs, including some not required to construct the work. While it's an amazing tool, Revit can lead architects to spend more time in production.

Are concepts still generated via sketching, or direct to Revit models or other software?

“The best experiences are on projects with people who really know what they're doing and are willing to share experiences and best practices. This creates a positive environment and enables broad sharing team members can use for the rest of their careers.”

Carnegie: “Old school” was hand sketching, which evolved into hard-lined drafting. Today, we start with a hardline drafted (Revit or AutoCAD) plan or massing diagram. Then comes sketching, by hand, or with software (depending on who's doing it). There are a lot of new tools – software and hardware – that give us options. It comes down to what the designer's comfortable with, so the medium doesn't get in the way of the art.

This doesn't necessarily serve the transition into production well. If the design concept is created and finalized by hand, or in specialty software, it's got to be regenerated into production format; 95 percent of the time that's Revit. If it started and evolved in Revit, that would be better for production, but can limit the concept's potential. It depends on the users. Today we design in whatever medium allows the most flexibility and creativity, then transfer it to a production format.

If we had the best of all possible worlds, designers and technical architects agree on a medium, design is born, and progresses to completion in a single format. That's not happening in our firm yet; the best design tools differ from the technical delivery tools.

How has your process changed over the last 10 or 20 years?

Carnegie: BIM is the major change in how we deliver design. Before that, CADD. The big question is: what's next? We're nearly to the end of the cycle and should see the “next big thing” on the horizon. Virtual reality (VR) is big, but focused on design and visualization, not technical delivery.

Are you still doing physical models?

Carnegie: They continue to be a great way to visualize design. Model methods have changed and continue to evolve. We use several, depending on the assignment, and what we're trying to communicate. Modeling's not just a good way to visualize a design. In the next decade, we'll have component design in our models used by manufacturers to fabricate building components. What was previously thought of as “custom” will become the norm. That will put more demands on A/E's – more detail required in CD's, more time and cost.

Any other innovative ways of parallel processing or automating your processes to cope with schedule and fee demands?

Carnegie: Small innovations are happening. Sometimes it's simply discovering something the software already does. On some projects, a partnership is formed between the architect, engineers, and GC around BIM and the detail the design team includes for the construction team's benefit. This collaboration doesn't always form, but when it does it can be effective.

As you contemplate your design process “reinvention,” or “evolution,” what are you focusing on to drive out waste, add value, work faster, and keep people happier?

Carnegie: One I've struggled with: the new generation of architects has a different paradigm of architecture. Everything processes faster and is more complex due to technology, code requirements, sustainability, and other priorities. As technology evolves, not just for design tools, but for construction means, methods, and materials, architects will be challenged to come up with different ways to document. Keeping people happy is tough. The youngest generation of architects seems to have different priorities than older generations. They're not as willing to work long hours; their work space is important, and amenities are as important as income.

What's the 5 or 10-year future vision for your firm to ensure survival? How might you be practicing differently than today?

Carnegie: Diversification. Reduce work in the corporate sector and increase other sectors like commercial, healthcare, science and technology, aviation and transportation, and government. If we can't open our markets, the next cycle may be difficult.

What trends or behaviors, specifically from owner and contractor partners, are giving you pause?

Carnegie: We've recently had some contractors target design as an excuse for poor management or bad estimating. They blame imperfect design for their delays or cost overruns. It's more than the distraction of frivolous RFIs and can be dangerous and disheartening.

What changes would improve your ability to practice and collaborate? (i.e. “We hate it when …”)

Carnegie: My biggest “stop-doing” relates to trust, or lack thereof. Projects are smoother and more successful when team trust is built. Without trust the team struggles and the project suffers. Trust has to be earned, so the best projects are usually with repeat clients and contractors. Second is the attitude that owner, architect, and contractor relationships are adversarial. We see this with an owner who thinks of the project as purely a commercial venture – cut expenses, maximize profits. I've worked with owners who believe the project is successful when the architect and contractor barely break even or lose money. They feel like they did their job controlling expenses. The reality is, if they allowed the architect and contractor to focus on the project rather than control their costs, projects would be more successful. It's about the project, not individual success. I wish everyone got that.

It's not just a transaction. Are there are emerging best practice behaviors from owners and contractors that should be continued? Or start doing (i.e. “We love it when …”)

Carnegie: The best project experiences are with people who know what they're doing and are willing to share experiences and best practices. This creates a positive environment and broad sharing team members can use for the rest of their careers. Personal commitments are formed between team members – some last well beyond the project.

That's how I got half the tools I use!

Knowing architects are challenged to be profitable, would you entertain alternative incentives or compensation models if added value resulted?

Carnegie: I'd absolutely be open to alternative compensation if it makes sense and is achievable. With my development background, we've looked at many compensation models. As an architect, there are few choices: percentage of hard cost or cost per square foot, which are translated to hourly (with a cap, always with a cap) or lump sum fees.

How do you develop design schedules? Who does it? What do you use? And does it work?

Carnegie: Project managers create work plans. They work with the project architect to develop a team and plan labor for each phase. This is communicated to the team, with the deliverables, so everyone knows their objective and how much time they have to reach it. I use a quick Excel spreadsheet to rough out the plan and align the proposed fee and labor model. Formal work plans are entered into Deltek and blended with accounting, but there are other platforms. It works inconsistently. Plans need to be updated constantly, either due to a schedule shift, change order, or over or under working the plan. The good news is even a loose plan helps with staffing and lets us see where help is needed and where folks have availability. It helps fee forecasting.

What are you doing to combat the perennial overbudget condition that plagues projects, causes value analysis and redesign, and demoralizes and bankrupts teams? How can architects change the rampant owner/contractor perception that they spend other-people's money, not manage it?

“Many times, the architect (yes, on my teams too) just assumes their design is what the project needs.”

Carnegie: We remind owners that design is a process and they're a participant. I remind my teams there should always be options to reduce cost. While we have the habit of pushing for the best possible solution, often the most expensive one, we're doing it for project benefit, with owner input and buy-in throughout. To change, we need to be more budget sensitive and communicate cost issues to clients. If we conceive a way to improve the design, we need to approach our client early to warn of the potential budget impact, and give them the chance to say no. Many times, the architect (yes, on my teams too) just assumes their design is what the project needs. While they're not ignoring cost, they don't highlight it, and probably don't do enough to find less expensive worthy alternatives.

Are CM, Design-Build, and IPD project delivery having an impact on your practice? Do you behave differently under these collaborative modes versus a Design/Bid/Build delivery? Why?

Carnegie: We do behave differently – there's usually an incentive to collaborate as a single team!

That tells us something.

INTERVIEW

Matthew Dumich, FAIA

Senior Project Manager, Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture

1st February 2018

Let's start with process. Your firm is a leader in technology use to inform complex, high-rise, high-performing buildings. Your intention is buildings that respond to environmental and urban issues. That's a more integrated approach than we were taught in school decades ago, using sketches, physical models, and only our brains and intuition. How do technology and other forces shape your design process? How do you manage the many experts you must need to execute such integrated work? Is it different from practice decades ago? Do “management” activities weigh in? Testing budgets, manhour limits, deadlines? That's several questions, but let's start there.

Dumich: There's a misconception that we do only high-rise work. I've done very few tall buildings with AS+GG. We do highly complex, large-scale master planning and architecture projects all over the world, including lots of arts and cultural projects. Recently we've had the privilege to shape two different world expos or world's fairs – Expo 2017 in Astana, Kazakhstan, and the Dubai Expo 2020.

We couldn't do what we do without leveraging technology – in every way. We have consultants in 9 time zones on four different continents on a current project. We are on videoconferences, WhatsApp, texting back and forth, Skype, or FaceTime, communicating in multiple ways every day. Our projects are often fast track with advanced package delivery to start construction during the design process. We need a detailed work plan and robust design software to coordinate complex, high performance buildings. Early in the design process, we're working in all formats – physical and digital. On a recent project, the first “sketch” was a physical “model”: two balloons and some string, tacked to a site plan. That became the building. It was a tent with structural elements, represented by this initial sketch model.

The balloon represented a membrane structure?

“We couldn't do what we do without leveraging technology – in every way.”

Dumich: Yes. The idea was that it was responsive to the environment, with openings in the membrane that could respond to temperature but shade the space inside. This was the first hour of the project, after reading the brief and doing some precedent research. The balloon idea came from the project being in a harsh desert climate. It was a tent. The tent metaphor was also a practical decision that the roof canopy could be built first to shade the construction workers completing the rest of the building below.

Constructability, environmental context, worker comfort, and safety integrated into the design concept from day one – hour one, even. Not something you encounter every day.

Dumich: That's one example of a kernel of an idea. We work in hand sketches. I'm sitting in a field of foam models right now. We do a lot of crude massing studies in master planning, stacking blocks to find the first group of big ideas. We're sketching in the computer, usually Rhino with plugins, for computational design to develop algorithms to manipulate forms and surfaces. You come up with this idea, then apply rules to the surface to rationalize the shape into panels or modules. They give an underlying rationale to an otherwise complicated thing. You hear about architects using the computer to enable wild form making – but the computer can rationalize complex forms into a constructible building. This might be optimizing mullion spacing or panelization of a sculpturally complex surface into repetitive panel modules. At Expo 2017, we created a wild, undulating interior wall with cast glass hexagonal panels but made it efficient with limited panel types.

The two-way nature of that never struck me before. The computer allows generation of complex form, but also allows translation back into rationalized, buildable pieces.

Dumich: How are we working differently from 20 years ago? Although we typically have a contractual requirement to produce 2D drawing sheets, we don't necessarily need to do thousands of drawings. We just exchange digital files with the contractors. Some things can't be communicated in 2D in a useful way. You can take a million section slices through a complex thing, but that doesn't tell the whole story. Sophisticated partners prefer the digital model files. We start modeling in Rhino and have scripts and workflows to bring Rhino models into Revit. Our projects are all documented in Revit. We feel strongly about using the best technology. Most people in the office, particularly the younger ones, don't know Autocad, or life at a hand-drafting table.

Throughout the design process we make iterations of physical models. We have a fantastic model shop. I'd put it up against almost anybody's. For everything from building massing to detailed full scale mock-ups, we make tons of physical models at all scales. Sometimes it's a ¼ scale model of an exterior wall, or a detail. Some are presentation models for clients and some are study models to inform our design process. We also have a 4-axis router that cuts metal, wood, or plastic into complex forms, 3D printers, and a vacuum form to mold plastic and silkscreen on. We can create wild shapes and make professional models in-house. Looking around the office now … we have tower models, façade details, a custom doorknob, and furniture. We study projects at all scales. Digital doesn't tell the whole story. We want to touch, feel, kick, and experiment with it.

Our design is rooted in context. We often work in emerging cities that don't always have what you'd traditionally think of as context – neighboring buildings. So, our context is cultural and environmental. Solar positioning and prevailing winds are drivers that shapes the design. All our projects are designed to be performative in passive and active ways. Extending exterior surfaces to maximize areas exposed to solar radiation for photovoltaics, canting walls to reduce heat gain and glare. We shape buildings to optimize wind impacts, with ribbed elements to disrupt wind, in some cases, scoop and collect it, integrating wind turbines to generate energy. The goal is to have the buildings be power plants. We aim for net zero or positive energy. That's an exciting thing about our work: we have ambitious design and performance goals, and forward-thinking clients who support those goals. That's our brand, if we have one: advancing performative design.

It's good to see you using such a vast toolset – for communication, design, documentation, analysis, and representation. All methods, hand and automated, are still employed. You won a national AIA Technology in Architectural Practice award recently, right? It enabled what you're talking about.

Dumich: Absolutely.

Let's overlay management attitudes. Design is iterative. To orchestrate such complex, integrated, global designs needs minute-by-minute, networked schedules showing inputs, exchanges, decisions, and outputs. In an integrated process like yours I could see design as all-encompassing and separate “swooping in” to beat schedules and budgets into shape. How is it really done?

“The irony is we have all these complex design tools, but we don't really have great management tools, say for deliverables tracking or manhours.”

Dumich: Yes, we do all that. The irony is we have all these complex design tools, but don't really have great management tools. A little about the firm structure. We have 3 partners and 10 directors, structured in the classic three parts: design, technical, and management. I'm one of three project managers that cover all our projects, all over the world. Each project has a design, technical, and management lead. My style is to put an organizational framework on a project and have a regular rhythm of meetings. But I stay flexible. A great Chicago architect, Dan Wheeler, told me once I was overplanning an AIA initiative. He said, “Don't overthink it. Just make it, break it and fix it.” So, you develop a plan, implement, and reassess as you move forward. We use MS Project for scheduling and other Excel management tools we created. We set up project schedule and staffing plans, then monitor them. We do weekly internal and consultant team meetings, monthly in person workshops with clients with weekly videoconferences. International clients often want us to be local, onsite, but we insist that all design work is done in Chicago. As a result, we need to be available for extended work hours. I have a matrix that shows each time zone and workhours. There's no time when they all overlap for all consultants and the client. As a team, we're working a 36-hour workday. We also travel a lot. It's exhausting.

Your description is thorough. Being at the top of your game, you must command market level or above fees to support the tools you need. You've changed the game for the architect's value proposition using automation to add client value - and make more money for your firm. True?

Dumich: AS+GG has an amazing team of leaders with a proven track record and reputation for executing iconic, world class projects. Our fees reflect the value of our ideas and high level of service. These projects are difficult to benchmark due to scale, complexity and accelerated delivery. We tailor our services to the project and work with clients to establish an appropriate fee range. Success relies on a strong team. We have excellent people and recruit the best, all over the world. Diversity makes design dialogue richer and helps us interpret different cultures.

Having just wrapped up two first-of-kind mega projects, I'm sensitive to meeting budgets. Both had designs and budgets set day one. How do you deal with budget control on integrated, first-of-kind, global projects, with little precedent and predictability?

“We take budget very seriously. If you're over budget you don't have a job. You have to fix it.”

Dumich: It's a daily conversation. We take budget very seriously. If you're over budget you don't have a job. You have to address it. Budgets are set in a variety of ways, with and without our input. We are often required to have a cost consultant, not just for milestone estimates, but almost real time cost tracking. We submitted a 100-page cost estimate in a recent competition submittal that was later adopted as the project budget. The cost consultant does market testing to validate systems. On complex assemblies we rely on mock-ups and specialist contractor involvement early in the design process. For Al Wasl Plaza in Dubai, we designed a 200-foot-high domed canopy structure over a civic plaza that is 400' diameter at the base that we call the “Trellis.” It's not just a shade, it's an immersive, 360-degree projection surface, like an outdoor IMAX theater. How do you estimate that – the world's largest domed, IMAX trellis structure? The client brought on a design-assist specialist contractor to work with us as the design developed. Should steel members be cast, welded, bolted? Visual mock-ups? Constructability? We completed our documents for competitive bidding and we held our breath hoping the bids would align with the cost planning and market testing. Through this process of due diligence, the bids were on budget. When you look at value analysis on performative buildings with integrated design strategies, you can't just cross off line-items. This can protect design, for better or worse, so you better be in budget.

At times in my career this issue drove us to a “nonintegrated” design approach where we could trade out systems to meet budgets. On your projects, you can't just change the skin to a standard storefront, or EIFS. You have to pay more attention. Your process sounds thoughtful, integrated. What's the catch? Any dirty laundry you can share? It sounds like such a well-oiled machine.

Dumich: It's not. It's high pressure. Our projects represent national or civic pride. To execute iconic architecture is a huge responsibility. You better have the right team and a client willing to take risks for things never done before. What can go wrong? Lots. In the case of this Trellis dome, our process was right. But, because it's so custom, we're at the whim of the bidders. We're doing fast-track delivery – designing while building. That speed inherently brings potential for mistakes. Everyone needs to understand the process and risks. Coordination will take time and drawings will need to be updated and reissued. Great projects are never easy. We always have to fight to maintain design and performance quality through many challenges for the benefit of the project.

Few of us want to be managed. How often do you set up a planning phase?

Dumich: I'm big on culture. We work hard. The office environment needs to be mutually beneficial – where people learn and grow. Bigger projects never have enough time. We absolutely should be doing some team bonding with the client and consultants to get to know each other, but we never have time for it. Worse, the client interface often starts with contract negotiation. It's the worst way to start a relationship. In some ways it would better to have lawyers handle this, but we know the project and what's important to us as architects, so we lead the negotiations ourselves. We miss that early “get to know you” part. We try to build rapport, to get outside the board room to build trust so we can go to war together. But the speed doesn't afford time to do it right.

Well, it took me some digging, but I finally found a chink in your armor. One place for improvement. At least you're aware and working on it, but it may be owner driven. We suffer from the same thing, but that's why people come to us. We get it done. I just wish we could design a happier, smarter process – to get home to see our kids more. Have you always been on the management side?

“We absolutely should be doing some team bonding with the client and consultants to get to know each other, but we never have time for it.”

Dumich: I've grown into a management role. I was trained as a generalist. As a young architect, I had a hotel project where I coordinated the complex structure and picked the drapes. I saw all sides of the project from the inside-out. As I gained more experience I gravitated to larger, complex projects that required dedicated management. I enjoy the personal interaction, I'm client-facing. I'm an orchestrator and communicator, organizing and leading multidisciplinary teams. While I'm not drawing or modeling anymore, I'm still part of the design dialogue. Because of the breadth of my experience, I am able to take calls from the client, defend the design and solve problems on the spot. So, I've played many roles, but gravitated to team leader and team therapist.

We share that migration. It probably comes as no surprise to you, we need people like you. Connectors and people skilled at being good listeners.

Dumich: As architects we are well trained in graphic communication, but verbal and written communication is fundamental to success. We believe in honest communication and dealing with issues head on. That goes a long way with clients and contractors. Leave the ego aside. Demonstrate a commitment to mediate problems, not fight, but to roll up your sleeves, work together, and solve problems for the benefit of the project.

“I believe design leadership is more about being the master collaborator or ringleader than being the lone genius.”

That comes up so often – our cultural heritage: ego-driven, lone heroes. As a member of the design profession's future leadership demographic, I'm glad to hear you say that.

Dumich: I believe design leadership is about being the master collaborator or ringleader rather than a lone genius, with a cape. We are facilitators and connectors solving complex problems through design. The other thing I wanted to touch on is the AIA. It's important to foster healthy and inclusive professional culture. I've always tried to do that. I've been lucky to have had great mentors that have guided my career. I've always tried to be a mentor, seek leadership opportunities that advance the profession, and create tools for others to succeed. I co-founded the AIA Chicago Bridge mentoring program that has been replicated as a national model. I also helped launch a partnership with AIA and the Black Spectacles online ARE training as a resource for all architecture school graduates. I've been fortunate in my career and I want to equip the next generation to lead. I have a passion for sharing my experiences and supporting the pipeline or talent and leadership to ensure our profession continues to have a strong voice in the future.