perSPECtives Weekly Article

© 2010 Ralph W. Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT

ABOUT RALPH W. LIEBING, RA, CSI, CDT

PerSPECtives is a weekly publication written and distributed by Ralph Liebing, a member of the CSI Cincinnati Chapter. Ralph Liebing is currently a Specifications Specialist with Hixson, in Cincinnati, Ohio. He is a registered architect of some 40 years standing, and practiced with several Cincinnati firms, including Jacobs, Lockwood Greene, Fluor-Daniel, and Glaser & Myers. He served for 15 years as a Code Official in a major Ohio jurisdiction, and holds certifications as a Chief Building Official [from CABO], and as a Professional Code Administrator [from NACA].

Teaching: A 1959 graduate from the University of Cincinnati, Ralph Liebing has taught architecture as an adjunct for 10 years at the nationally-ranked U.C. School of Architecture; 27 years at the University of Cincinnati, College of Applied Science; and full-time, architectural technology for 2 years at ITT Technical Institute, as well as in several other education programs and institutions, for over 20 years.

Publications: Ralph Liebing has published seven books, and several articles and monographs on working drawings, codes and regulations, contract administration, and on the construction industry in general. He has been guest presenter at several seminars, including several sponsored by the University of Wisconsin-Extension. Ralph is also a regular contributor in About.com's Architecture Discussion Forum. His article Building Your New Home appears on the architecture site at About.com.

Ralph W. Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT 
Senior Architect--Specifications
 
Hixson Architecture, Engineering, and Interiors
659 Van Meter St
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Phone: 513-241-1230
Fax: 513-241-1287
http://www.hixson-inc.com
http://www.csicincinnati.org

Issues Directory

perSPECtives No. 91 - THE END RUN! - July 27, 2010

perSPECtives No. 92 - DOESN'T ANYBODY CARE? - August 2, 2010

NO. 91 - July 27, 2010
THE END RUN!
by Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT
Cincinnati, OH

Getting time for “………SOME FOOTBALL!!!!!”, as the pros go to camp. But of the whole game, let?s just hone in on the end run play-- the ol? USC “student body right/left”, or the Fightin? Irish “running 'round Chicago”!!

There is far too much end running in our game [extraneous information to the Owner unilaterally, complaints about work or requirements of other parties, unilaterally, indications of different fallacious cost factors, lack of simple coordination and conversation to protect or promote one's self-interest, etc]. While not illegal in football or construction, it is certainly not creating better relationships, or better construction projects. With the Owner a party to and susceptible to two contracts [which are not tied together but by a loosely and solely “gentlemen?s working relationship”], the ability to run the end [i.e., transmit information along but one of the contract lines to the Owner] is all too tempting-- it is distracting from the true purpose, often times, and anywhere from most untidy to playing nasty havoc on the site.

It?s simple! The design professional [and consultants] concoct a game play with certain selections, options, etc. as they deem appropriate in meeting their Owners? requirements. Owner, IF properly informed, buys into this scheme and thus we go to construction. BUT if at any time, or on any item that which HAS BEEN DONE caused a blip on the schedule the ol? end run appears-- the Contractor-Owner relationship and contract eruptions. Guess who is usually wrong in this situation, even though never made part of the discussion? You bet your sweet bippy!

The result? Issues are never fully resolved; the fat lady never sings; and Yogi Berra remains an insightful oracle that it truly is not over until………

The real problem is that this can become part of the disharmony on a project site and eventually an unneeded distraction. I realize there are two perfectly valid contracts on the table for the Owner, but there really needs to be the proverbial buy-in by those persons so they understand that our efforts to provide projects to their liking is one thing they “buy”. If they then choose to “buy” the who-cares-what-just-so-it-gets-done attitude, and professional considerations and determinations are meaningless, the pox lies NOT on us-- we met our contractual and professional obligations. Allowing rampant free-lancing and unraveling previous decisions may seem to serve well, but Owners must come to “buy” that also.

In addition, there is a need for pragmatic approaches here. What we do and decided is based on our BEST professional information, understanding, skill, talent, and insight. If any tem then becomes a schedule problem that is NOT an unraveling of our effort-- neither is it repudiation! It is simply “another” way to do the project, but with less insight, information, understanding and belief in the originally approved design concept.

It?s more just choosing to buy an apple instead of an orange! And there is added risk that it turns out to be a lemon in the end!!!

We and our design professional colleagues need to defense these “end runs” just to keep the playing field level and coherent. We can?t rotate the defense, slide a „backer over or draw up a safety to defense the end run—we have none! We do have voice, and professional standing to merely engage the Owner in a “if you do this, this can or may happen”; but that does not invalidate our work; at least when such situations arise, please give us the courtesy of a phone call, in lieu of immediate rebuke or anger. We worked with what we were given-- the situation at hand is DIFFERENT and had we known about it we might have made another decision. Also, the contractors are not without liability to schedule projects based on “plans and specs” as given over to them, meeting ALL requirements for products, procedures and documentation. It?s all in the specs if not on the drawings!

Seems to me that plain, simple, old-fashioned fairness and cooperation, in all of this, are both meaningful factors in the “faster-better-cheaper” climate of the day. So, too, adherence to the documents, unless collectively modified by all parties!

NO. 92 - August 2, 2010
DOESN'T ANYBODY CARE?
by Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT
Cincinnati, OH

Does a specifications consultant in private practice/business in Kansas have any educational responsibility for young architects [from students to emerging professionals]? Does an unregistered, but architecturally trained, specifications writer, in a firm of 9 people in Mississippi, have any such responsibility within that office? Does the long-experienced, full-time, registered, in-house specification writer in a firm of 110 or more in Oregon have any such responsibility?

Do any of these folks care? Are they all too busy; too disinterested; or devoid of any feeling of responsibility? Oh, and yes, in all cases what should the depth of their interest be?

Michael Chusid, FCSI, posted an interesting article on his blog recently and one that is both sad and maddening. Friends, it appears that few people [and spec writers are only a small number of these] give a tinker's darn what students….. no, FUTURE architects…. should know and be able to do! Has everyone bought into the shtick that architecture = only design, and there is no need for architects of the future to know materials, construction methods, processes, legalities, project control/ management, developing contract documents, detailing, and the task of “putting buildings together”-- i.e., constructing real touchy-feely architecture from glitzy board mounted, computer-generated, detail-less design concepts?

How can registration laws require experience and education to prevent substandard construction from harming the community and “public, health, safety and welfare”? How can those laws now be subverted to allow minimalized education, simply for convenience of “making more architects, more easily” [forget better training and competency!]-- most of whom still will NOT be able to correctly and adequately document a project for construction? How utterly stupid!!!

It is absolutely baffling how the one profession that is charged so definitively legally; that contributes directly to the Contract Documents; and indeed, that is responsible for the very basis of what is built for the client, is so maligned, ignored, obviate, belittled, scorned and basically set aside! Other allied professions do not suffer from this type of neglect-- engineers exist in many disciplines and are accepted as “experts” in their chosen fields. Contractors certainly claim, and rightly so, expertise in their special work or in overall project control and administration. Yet both of these valuable entities do not receive the dismissive attitude and status. I am not sure how architects, collectively, have come by their diminished status-- sure, there have been and still are “prima donna” architects who excel in design, but does their work then automatically relegate the work of ALL other architects as irrelevant, needless, annoyingly picky, extensive, overly costly, unnecessary[!!!] and "necessary evils" that all other participants must simply “put up with”?

Simplistically, isn’t the architect like the baseball pitcher on the mound-- nothing happens in the game until that pitcher throws the ball! NOTHING! Then isn’t there a cast of supporting characters who function to support the pitcher and prevent runs by the opponent [are they second-class citizens, to be ignored or maligned?]

So the architecture schools claim they can’t; the NCARB and NAAB pretend; the AIA ignores for all intents and purposes; the individual offices both cannot educate [what with fees as they are] and/or don’t think it is their place to educate [except in their office-parochial manner]. Engineers will continue to engineer within their specialties. Reps will continue to rep as products will still be required no matter who uses them. So are architects “odd man out”? I sincerely doubt that although there is a scenario where the architect will be reduced further to simply “designer” while others will take the design [concepts] and schlock together some sort of project that resembles the design [as no one will be around to control, direct or monitor the project for correctness]. In fact, this is a working prognosis in what is known as “plans and specs” practices, where the documents are architect-prepared, and then totally given over for owner and others to execute [with no further architect participation!]

Sad! Everyone involved suffers and is diminished a little.

What is missing is simple understanding of the total architectural involvement and contribution—and not just the design and rendering. Owners are paying “through the nose” for glitzy projects that fail to provide what is needed, leak, or otherwise prove inadequate [despite some quality construction]. Also missing is what is left and what can and will happen when the architect disappears and so do their specifications [it may be that the consultants will also be ignored, or grossly overworked [???].

Maybe you feel no responsibility; but think-- no architect; no drawings and specs = Owner to Contractor “word-of-mouth, arm-waving architecture”! Hmmmm!