Architecture and Interior Design is a business, isn’t it?

Time is Money by Tax Credits, on Flickr

My last post on what makes a great workplace client generated some discussion on one of the linkedin groups about if both clients and designers understanding that design is a business. Whilst no one studies interior design or architecture intending to get rich, I think we all like to get paid at least enough to reasonably live on (and for me – buy shoes) without having to work a second job on the weekends to fund our design work. However for us to get paid (and keep our jobs) then the firms we work for have to make money. Meaning our clients have to pay for our time. Pretty simple really. Time = money. So where is the problem? Why do our clients not always appreciate this? Is it because so many interior designers an architects don’t seem to get it themselves?My observations and thoughts on this topic is that there are a number of issues behind this problem. The first is that so many architects and interior designers are passionate about what they do. They have chosen to work in this field because they believe architecture and design makes the world a better place and they love creating. As I said, not for the money. So because you are doing something you love and that can completely engross you, you are prepared to stay up all night when you at uni, and possibly when you are at work too. You are certainly prepared to give away some of your own time when you feel this way, and especially when there is a knotty design problem or detail that you just have to perfect before those documents are issued for construction.

The problems arise if this attitude becomes the standard for how we work. The first problem is that employers may expect us to work these kinds of hours all the time. As profession we have demonstrated that we are prepared to give away our time to our employers for free, so in some cases the fee models have come to depend on this – more on this later.

The second problem is that some architects and designers come to believe that design takes however long as it takes and seem to be incapable of working within any fee structure. Whilst in some ways it appears these architects and designers do not understand or place any monetary value on their time, I believe that it is probably more accurate to describe these designers as believing good design is above money, so valuable it can’t be considered in such a coarse wordly way. This can begin to place architecture and design in the sphere of art, rather than as part of the practical and functional world of which it must be a part if it is to be a business, and if it not to be relegated to a luxury item for the wealthy.

I believe it is these attitudes that have contributed to the way that clients view design services. Why would our clients value our services if we don’t? If our architecture and interior design teams don’t see and approach their work as a business, then perhaps it is no surprise our clients don’t either. I recently came across an interesting article discussing how interior design as a profession is judged by outsiders based upon the terminology we use.

Many large institutional or corporate clients deal with a number of architecture and design firms, and the attitudes of some architects and interior designers influences the attitudes of the clients to the industry as a whole. I have had one client representative question why I would limit the number of user consultation meetings on a small project to 3 or 4, he asked, “but what if it takes 20?” I asked the client if they would want me to charge them for 20 if only 3 were required. He seemed most perplexed – even though this was a full time property client with years of experience – that I needed to charge for our services based upon the time we spent.

Historically architects and designers are also not good at asking for more money, in the form of variations. Our clients expect to pay for contractor variations, but not for design variations. Part of this is because architectural services are so much harder to define, our scope is much more open ended than a contractors lump sum tender scope. However even when we try to define our services it can be hard to manage the process of developing a brief and a design. I would frequently limit the number of design options to be provided – but do have to admit to usually doing a few extras just to be sure I had done sufficient exploration if the design to satisfy myself of the robustness of the solutions I presented. One client put their project on hold after this concept options stage and then questioned my bill (again a client with industry knowledge and understanding of the design process). They felt that because they had not made a decision on a preferred concept they should not pay in full for the concept stage. I then went through our fee proposal scope and what services we had promised to provide during concept stage, and asked the client had we provided each one. They agreed we had done everything we said we would, including providing 4 options that meet their brief (our proposal had offered 3 options so in fact we had over serviced them!) So I asked, why should we not be paid because you have found that your brief might not be what you want? The initial concepts had identified that the client would have to reduce spatial allocations somewhere or rent additional space and provided for various possibilities of how this could be achieved, which made the decision making more complex than the client had expected. We got paid.

You generally don’t expect to see a doctor for a free assessment of your problem, but we frequently spend significant time and money on proposals and tenders, even if we are not providing free design services, these documents are usually expected to provide an individual approach and analysis of the clients needs before we are even guaranteed a single dollar in fees. Whilst many clients take into account a wide range of issues in choosing their architect or designer, and not just fees, frequently the fee structure is a heavily weighted part of this decision. This process is a significant waste of our industry productivity and another indicator of how poorly our clients value our time and resources.

It is these kinds of client attitudes that then lead to the downward pressure on our fee structures which leads to lower qualities of service and design – and this is not good for either our clients or our industry. The lower fees then lead firms to a point where staff have to work additional hours for free to deliver the projects. In the eight years I have been involved in preparing fee proposals, fees in some of the sectors I work in have halved. Salaries and rent has not halved, and whilst tools like BIM can increase our efficiency, they have not halved our workload. Firms have reduced fees during the tough financial items of the last few years, in efforts to maintain sufficient workload to keep staff employed. The problem is that now they are down so low, do we really think they will go up again? So many clients have now come to expect fees so low that the client representatives know that they are ridiculously unsustainable and will either result in poor service or firms going under (or both). But there is often pressure within the client organisation not to spend any more than last project. Unfortunately the only likely thing to change is is if projects go significantly wrong that clients see the value in paying more for design. As long as architects and interior designers are prepared to work for free…of course we ensure this doesn’t happen.

For all architecture and interior design firms to remain viable business and our industry to exist, all architecture and design staff need to contribute to the perception in our industry and beyond that what we do is a valuable service and worth paying for. And of course we need to make sure that we provide a level of service and design to justify this. Architecture and interior design is a business – do you think so? How do we balance the artistic and creative side of what we do with making money? How do we educate our clients and the public to value and understand the services we provide? How do we manage the design process and its very nature of change in order to satisfy our clients, produce great design and still make money?

Image credits:
Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License by Tax Credits

http://taxcredits.net/

Digiprove sealCopyright secured by Digiprove
Acknowledgements: Image by Tax Credits
Some Rights Reserved

8 Responses to Architecture and Interior Design is a business, isn’t it?

  1. “Whilst no one studies interior design or architecture intending to get rich” … this is currently the subject of a civil case between myself (plantif) and my Year 12 course career counselor …

  2. Michael Dudek

    Great post. I agree there is a self fulfilling prophecy aspect to this issue. If we think it – it will come…..well it has. IMO the Beaux Arts design education model does a poor job of preparing architects and designers how to feed themselves and instill a value to their knowledge and skills. If we learn to value and promote our worth to society it will happen. I am dubious the traditional paradigm will change anytime soon.

    • I agree that the Beaux Arts model needs to be left behind. Plans, sections, and elevations are no longer our main deliverable (or shouldn’t be). It is still a radical idea within university to just present a digital model during a design review. Professors still believe that making drawings and scale models are our most valuable learning objectives.

      On a side note, should architects begin to publicly advertise their services (beyond the news making starchitects enjoy or posting on design blogs for everyone else)?

      We should be more visible in the public realm. Currently you have the door of the firm or maybe the front of the office for signage. What about billboards, commercials, web ads? Shouldn’t the AIA be out there spreading the image of the architect? Contractors put up signs all over the place on the construction site, even on their trailers, even the storm water drainage guy. Let’s make sure that we have some highly visible signage present on site too.

      • CeilidhHiggins

        Thanks everyone for the comments.

        Agnes – I agree it can be very hard to determine fees, I’ve got another post coming up on this soon. I’m also interested in the idea of the value based fee, which I’ve read about recently. I’m not quite sure though how this works. If anyone out there has worked with value based fees I’d love to hear from you.

        Michael – I believe our industry has to change, or it will become extinct. The world is changing so quickly, not just with BIM but all kinds of data and computing applications that never could have been possible even 10 years ago. Which moving onto Bryan’s point about universities is scary. Why would you build a model ever again – that’s what a 3d printer is for? I thought the emphasis on models when I was at uni was bad (I graduated in 2001). However right now students do still need to know how to produce 2d drawings. At least in the short to medium term that is till our deliverable.

        On publicity for architects, in Australia architects do sometimes have their names on signboards. And in fact as the specifier you can include the sign board in the spec for the builder to produce. I don’t think the problem for architects is publicity exactly though…I’ll have to think on this further, maybe a topic for a future blog post.

  3. agnes smilskalne

    So true. I guess it would be so much easier if we could present 3 ready-made fantastic results immediately of what the client wants the designer to do, and then put a price tag on nr.1, 2, and 3, Then, no questions asked, they like what they see and we get paid without a blink of an eye.
    It’s just like we buy some Gucci sunglasses-wasn’t that design, too?
    But still- interior design and its price -very difficult to always know just the right price for what the designing was worth! Don’t you agree?

  4. CeilidhHiggins

    Michael, glad you enjoyed the post. Unfortunately I think you are right, it is difficult for entrenched industry attitudes to change. I remember being told at uni I should expect to work an 80 hour week for the rest of my life as an architect because that was how it was and always would be! Crazy isn’t it.

    Agnes, I agree it is very difficult to determine the right price for the design – although I often find the most difficult thing to be able to know in advance is how the client will interact, and this can be one of the most costly. I’m actually planning on writing a post on fees soon so keep a look out for it.

  5. agnes smilskalne

    Ceilidhi- agin so true. We can never know how the design process is going to turn out: like is it gonna cost me more time for the same money for the client, etc. Do you actually tell your client about a possible ”window” where if project gets more complicated, you can get paid for your extra hours? 🙂 thanks, i read your blog about the fees and I also find it more practical to use a mixture of ”arts” of calculating the design fee. I mostly go about how much time it would take me to complete my work. I am still a beginner in this wonderful world of ”reality of design” so i’ll appreciate any tips! 🙂

  6. Agnes
    I usually include the program, scope of work and assumptions as part of the fee submission. This way the client knows up front what was included. It doesn’t mean that we don’t end up debating exactly why the extra client reviews cost us more or what constitutes an option later though.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *