Moving Practice Beyond Analog

Contract is pleased to introduce Evelyn M. Lee, AIA, as a regular columnist. An architect who is now a design strategist, she will be writing for our audience of both architects and interior designers about how the built environment design professions can and should evolve. Lee is focused on bringing influence and prosperity to architects and designers, ensuring their relevance in an ever-changing economy. Here, Lee introduces her expertise and her point of view, and sets the stage for her forthcoming columns.

The practice of architecture is stuck in a rut, running in circles similar to the hands of an analog clock. Some would argue that this reoccurrence is not our fault. Rather, it is the result of the economy in which we participate and the nature of the construction industry. 

The chief economist of the American Institute of Architects (AIA), Kermit Baker, may agree. In The Architect’s Handbook of Professional Practice, 15th Edition, authored by the AIA, Baker begins a chapter on financial management by stating, “Architects serve an extremely cyclical sector of our economy. To thrive, therefore, they need to be able to adjust to the regular ups and downs of the construction industry.”

Alternatively, I believe that while an architect or designer’s final deliverable is often something that is constructed, the services we provide ultimately create innovative solutions to some of our clients’ more complex organizational problems. If this is truly the case, why does architecture and interior design practice have to be so reliant on the ups and downs of the construction industry?

Active in the AIA for a number of years, I have attended enough meetings with firm owners and local and national architecture leaders to see and hear the perpetual wheel of practice spin. Other professionals are taking our services, especially contractors and construction managers. We continue to be under-valued by our clients, often delivering our services for a lower fee in order to remain competitive within the industry. And even though the male-to-female ratio of students in architecture schools has been evenly split in recent years, the architecture profession itself has not seen a dramatic increase in diversity and equity within practice.

Many of the discussions that the AIA national board of directors had in 2008—when I served as the associate director—are too similar to the discussions at the national level now as I am serving on the newly minted AIA Strategic Council. As a profession, we have earned a reputation of being risk adverse and not entrepreneurial; the innovations of our designs and practice are often limited by what our clients are willing to pay within the scope of the projects. Our method of doing business has kept practice from evolving within an economy that will continue to keep pace with changing technologies. When I first left traditional practice to manage Public Architecture’s 1% Program in 2007, the most interesting conversations I had were those with non-profit organizations, helping them understand the value architects can provide their organization even if they did not have the need nor the funding for a new office or building. 

Now, as I hold graduate degrees in public administration and business administration, I have those same conversations with MKThink clients, and I identify strategies for them to gain operational efficiencies within their existing capital assets. My clients often seek my advice well before they decide a new building or strategic planning process is needed.  

I believe that the future of practice is here, and that if we do not adapt as a profession, we will find ourselves being sub-consultant to a prime contractor rather than knowledge leaders of the built environment. Technology in our industry has to evolve beyond discussions of BIM and 3-D printing; architects need to implement emergent technologies to make better decisions at the building and city scale. Changing architecture and design business practices have to expand beyond different project delivery methods and talk of an integrated design process. Practitioners must seek new revenue sources and different business models beyond fee for service alone. As a profession, we need to leverage our expertise in design thinking and identify other opportunities.

In the coming months, this column will focus on changing business practices in design and professional development and their applications. I realize that not everyone will agree with my views or perspective, but I hope readers will at least consider how they may adapt their own practice to be more influential, prosperous, and open to evolution. 

—–
This article was originally published in Contract Magazine.