Once upon a time, I was retained for a consulting engagement that had me making a hastily-planned out-of-town trip to the client’s office. The client had gathered several engineering and construction practitioners from around the country, along with several of the client’s staff to help them plan a new project. A few of us made brief presentations about our past work as it applied to the problem at hand and the remainder of the workday comprised a series of interesting and wide-ranging discussions of various aspects of the project.
The difference between this engagement and the typical process of using consultants in Architecture, Engineering and Construction (A/E/C) was striking. A lot of clients approach consultant engagement as an exercise in obtaining a report or construction documents at the lowest possible fee. The consultant’s knowledge, experience or problem-solving ability is not particularly important because the client will not authorize the scope or budget to fully take advantage of their consultants’ capabilities as the project develops.
In contrast, this client, at substantial expense, brought together several people with diverse perspectives to provide input into their project at a very early stage. Sure, sometimes architects and planners will hold a workshop with members of the community in which the project is located or some other stakeholders, but this is more likely to be a result of the visibility of the project rather than reflect the importance of the project to the owner.
It makes a lot of sense to seek input from the end user before committing to too many design decision for a new project. However, programmatic requirements, user experience and aesthetics are just the beginning of the design process. A lot of design effort is required to make the project work as intended, although this is invisible to most stakeholders and often other members of the design team. For most A/E/C projects, the planner or architect often hands off the design for a particular discipline to a consultant. In appearance, and sometimes, in fact, this process has the consultant “completing” the architect’s design, often in isolation, working within constraints of the conceptual plan through the narrow application of their technical knowledge and applicable codes and standards.
In reality, design is iterative and all components and systems have to be compatible. If consultants’ scopes are too narrow, preventing them from weighing in during conceptual design, too many variables may be fixed too early. If the consultants cannot provide input on construction documents in their respective disciplines, the drawings and specifications may be incomplete or too generic. This results in a sub-optimal design. In addition, the siloed approach inherently leads to poor coordination. The combination of the two leads to poor quality construction documents, high construction costs and elevated risk.
Making appropriate use of consultants can add value to the project by increasing performance and/or reducing cost and risk. Better consultants, or more specifically, better consultants for the particular project, can add more value. Retaining good consultants early in the design process and allowing them to collaborate for the duration of the project increases the likelihood of complete and well-coordinated project planning and design and provides opportunities for creative and innovative solutions. The same logic applies to involving key contractors and vendors in the design process, when possible. There is an undeniable cost to such a proactive approach, but a much better chance of a successful project.
As an engineering consultant, I always like to see a client seek advice early and often and receive value from that advice. It is even better if a client can be advised by a diverse group. There is a lot of research in management science suggesting that applying multiple perspectives to a problem results in better decisions. I have found this to be true in my own experience, particularly with respect to parts of a project intersecting traditional discipline boundaries. These points of discipline interaction, like foundations and mechanical penetrations, are not well addressed by siloed design and are a common source of construction problems and claims. Given how small consulting fees are relative to construction and life-cycle costs, it is somewhat astounding how short-sighted and unwittingly risk-seeking owners, developers and prime consultants can be in resourcing their design processes. Using consultants in a more holistic way contributes value to a project, that can be several times the additional cost.
The information and statements in this document are for information purposes only and do not comprise the professional advice of the author or create a professional relationship between reader and author.
See more: Due Diligence & Feasibility Studies, Construction Phase Services, Design Services, Problem Solving & Consulting for A/E/C Firms