Is it acceptable that architects , in 2025, aren't yet issuing foolproof Tender/Execution sets for site consumption.

Providing a client-side perspective : 

Under the pretext of being contextual & regionally sensitive, are architects hiding their inability to convey their designs on pen and paper effectively – is it a fault that exists with our education system that hasn’t equipped our architects to draw that which is relevant for procurement & execution processes effectively?

Although, we often believe that design is dynamic and iterative, there is a time and place for all design changes to stop at . More often than not, this lack of farsightedness by the architects/consultants , leaves the clients fire-fighting the last minute challenges of time/cost/liaison & constructability that are irreversible from the business perspective. This delayed pre-emption becomes an unknown risk the client was never made aware of and never factored into the business plans. These diminish the business value that the architect could have multiplied manifold for the client. The architect is now seen as the “spender” and not the “earner” for the business – we need to change that !   

 To change the perception of the value design brings to the table, let’s answer why it is unacceptable for architects to say that they are at their creative best when they visit site , making impromptu changes to design that was once a well evaluated product by multi-disciplinary consultants across a singular board. Let's discuss why it is unacceptable as well to state that design shall continue to evolve through Tender and Execution sets for factors other than material unavailability ,change in market conditions or new site constraints that arose .

Architects need to know the matrix of design aspects that need to get frozen at each stage , Design development being the last stage to allow for any such revisions - stages that follow are purely for correct documentation of a design well-done, well-baked, well-roasted amongst the various consultants including the decision makers at the client's end.  

1. The reason we are architects is because we are able to translate the client's vision and our design ideologies onto a technical drawing format that is directly executable by any vendor any time and at any place on earth. If we can't draw to communicate, we ain't an architect!
2. In the generation of the best site survey mechanisms for both surfacial and underground analysis, it is imperative that as architects, we are specific in our requirements of data requested from the surveys, no matter how unreasonable it may sound. Not asking for it , is not the solution!  
3. Everchanging data such as Traffic surveys & sun path analysis can be mapped through scientific surveys creating futuristic projections. Verification modes can involve regular timelapse surveys at intervals.  
4. Climatological data is available historically for decades & simulations projecting the future behaviour on your building are feasible. The client is building for decades and not for a given static point in time.   
5. In today’s generation of various online 3D modelling tools wherein realtime model overlays are visible to all consultants, plotting the given onsite data onto a 3D model can be made a need of the hour by the architect. Similarly, clashes being self-detected by systems now, consultants should have utilised time saved by the machine to further evaluate the models with their core human experience! Are we going above and beyond the machine here and giving the project the benefit of our experience or are we limiting the output to what the machine provides?
6. Drawing packages issued by Consultants are to be issued as Tender sets to Contractors , who quote to the client based on correctness/alignment of the drawings & BOQ . Any deviations cost the client time, money and negotiation risks which is a price the client pays for the lack of proper documentation. The drawings as well as BOQs should both ,independently as well jointly, be able to stand their ground on credibility of data. The architect's differential belief/interest in excel/BOQ-making cannot redefine the bidding process.
7. At a time when Cloud based portals quantify , how do we explain BOQs that mention incorrect specifications for a product / inadequate brand options to uphold good quality output. Should RFIs even be permissible in this day and age of utmost help by technology in the reduction of drawing errors to NIL?
8. Lack of proper attention to detail by architects/consultants leads to risks of executed work that is neither operationally sound nor safe nor maintenance free , rendering the project to be a white elephant for the client to live with - We all know how to difficult it is to rectify an error vs doing the work afresh . Is it possible to press ctrl-alt-delete a built project and redo it, as it is an incorrect drawing?
9. Last but not the least , in the Post-Covid era where virtual communication is the norm , the claim that site visits lead to better design is a clear indication of why the architect will not be able to stretch themselves beyond geographies. That is a self-limiting statement for a field that believes that there are no boundaries to good design!

Clients will trust , allow exploration & come back only if their experience with a consultant was seamless and there were no residues left behind by Consultants for the client to wash up.

So , in today's day and age , there seems to be no logical need to allow any space for error without accountability attached to it & it is high time our profession realised it.

All of this technology supporting us should have saved us enough time to ensure we deliver an innovative product that truly stands apart as a differentiator for the client despite all ambiguities & stands the test of time for generations to come – yet we seem to be making it our excuse for all that didn’t/couldn’t go right with the project. If we didn’t use this time saved to upskill ourselves , what did we , as architects use this time for ? Time to reflect and reorient , maybe?

--Pallavi Navin [06th Jan'25]