Each section contains a summary of comments made in relation to the four themes that were covered during the focus groups – namely, client-architect relationships and agreements, D&C procurement, NCC compliance and disruptive change. Where necessary, comments have been added by the Steering Committee to clarify misconceptions reflected in the focus group comments. However, it should be noted that there were only a small number of instances where such clarification was necessary.
While this summary of comments made by focus group participants has informed the findings in this report, it is important to note that the comments were made by a limited number of sectoral participants. The comments cannot be taken to be representative of the relevant stakeholder group, nor reflective of the views of the ARBs.
Client-architect relationships and agreements
Main obligations in a client-architect relationship
During the focus groups, participants were asked to identify what they consider to be architects’ main obligations. The primary purpose of this question was to determine whether architects’ understanding of their obligations to their clients is aligned with what clients and other sectoral participants understand those obligations to be.
As context, the point was made by clients/users that an architect’s specific obligations will depend upon the particular project and architectural services that have been procured.[1] Nonetheless, focus group participants were able to articulate in general terms what they consider to be an architect’s main obligations. While it is difficult to draw detailed insights from participants’ individual responses, they were helpful in collectively revealing the issues that are considered most important in the context of a client-architect relationship.
The range of architects’ obligations identified by the various stakeholder groups fall within the following broad categories:
- scoping and delivery of design services;
- management of the client-architect relationship;
- management of fees;
- regulatory and contractual compliance; and
- risk management.
The main obligations identified by Victorian architects focused on two of the above categories – namely, the scoping and delivery of design services and management of the client-architect relationship.[2] NSW architects also identified obligations that fell within these categories, but additionally made reference to obligations concerning regulatory and contractual compliance as well as risk management.[3] Clients/users referred to obligations across a number of the above categories but emphasised those that related to scoping and delivery of design services as well as management of fees.[4] Academics emphasised risk management as a core obligation for architects.[5]
Developers/builders stated that client-architect relationships are, in general, managed well,[6] suggesting that architects are successful at discharging obligations to their clients. Clients/users agreed that, generally, architects are successful at discharging their obligations but noted that other sub-consultants may compromise architects’ ability to discharge their own obligations.[7] Victorian architects suggested that the management of client-architect relationships have improved over time as architects have developed better processes and systems.[8]
It was also noted by clients/users that the relationship between architects and clients is a mutual one and that clients have obligations as well.[9] Clients’ obligations were not considered in any detail during the focus groups as the focus was instead on architects obligations.
Factors that have an adverse impact on the client-architect relationship
The client’s brief and the detailed design
Focus group participants discussed the role that the client’s brief can play in ensuring a successful client-architect relationship, particularly to clarify design expectations. The client’s brief outlines the client’s vision, requirements, constraints and expectations for a construction project. It serves as a key document to guide the architectural design process, particularly to scope the design services that are required to deliver the client’s vision, while complying with the client’s requirements including about completion time and budget for the project.
Clients/users stated that competing views on the client and architect sides about the brief can undermine client-architect relationships.[10] Developers/builders agreed that getting the brief right and managing the client’s expectations are critical for a successful client-architect relationship.[11] Victorian architects acknowledged that a client-architect relationship may be undermined by misalignment in design expectations.[12] Clients/users also stated that an architect’s lack of responsiveness to client’s requirements can be detrimental.[13]
Engagement for partial services
When partial services are procured, an architect may be engaged to develop the initial design, but the builder, other type of practitioner or client may progress the project without further input from the architect.
The Systemic Risks Report refers to the practice of engaging architects for “partial services” in the context of residential and non-residential projects and states that it can expose architects to risk, particularly when the demarcation between the responsibilities of the architect and other parties involved in completion of the design services is unclear.[14] The issue of partial services was also raised during the focus groups. In particular, NSW architects stated that partial engagement for services can undermine client-architect relationships.[15]
Fee arrangements and variations
Academics stated that the scope of design services and associated fee arrangements must be clearly defined.[16] NSW architects agreed that there needs to be clarity regarding the fee arrangements, but stated that the architect’s fee proposal must be sufficiently flexible to enable recovery of the costs of services provided by the architect.[17] Clients/users said that fees that do not adequately account for cost escalation and fee variations can destabilise client-architect relationships.[18] Developers/builders agreed that fee variations can adversely affect the client-architect relationship.[19] Building surveyors added that costly variations to rectify defects after construction is complete and the occupation certificate has been issued (e.g. waterproofing) can be damaging to the client-architect relationship.[20]
Inadequate skills and expertise
It is essential for architects to have adequate skills and expertise when delivering architectural services to their clients so that they can discharge their professional obligations under the regulatory frameworks administered by the ARBs but also to ensure that their designs comply with broader contractual and regulatory obligations that require buildings to be safe, functional, sustainable, cost-effective and aesthetically pleasing. Focus group participants discussed the importance of architects having adequate skills and expertise.
Clients/users stated that architects need to know their skill set and, where appropriate, refuse projects if they do not possess the requisite skills.[21] They also stated that the client-architect relationship could be undermined when architects fail to alert clients that extra skills are needed.[22] Victorian architects acknowledged that the wrong skill set could undermine a client-architect relationship.[23] They also stated that skills and expertise may be compromised due to staff churn (particularly in large practices) and architects managing too many projects concurrently (particularly in small practices).[24]
Clients/users also emphasised adaptability and flexibility as important characteristics for an architect. They stated that architects need to be prepared to respond to external forces, including organisational politics and changes in the budget that may not have been anticipated when the budget was established.[25] Developers/builders added that architects need to be more adept at the practicalities of project delivery, not just design delivery.[26]
Ambiguity of roles and responsibilities
Clearly defined roles and responsibilities in any kind or relationship can reduce the likelihood of confusion, misunderstanding and conflict. Efficiency of processes and decision-making may be enhanced because each party understands their respective obligations, avoiding unnecessary duplication of effort or gaps in responsibilities. Risk may also be effectively managed by ensuring that important tasks are clearly assigned to a party and that this party is accountable for completion of that task.
During the focus groups, NSW architects noted that a lack of clarity of roles and responsibilities can lead to poor client-architect relationships.[27] However, developers/builders stated that understanding roles and responsibilities, particularly ensuring compliance in the context of novated D&C contracts, can be challenging.[28] Novated D&C contracts involve multiple parties, including the client, the original designer, the contractor who assumes responsibility for the design upon novation, and the sub-contractors engaged by the contractor following novation. The complex nature of these arrangements can lead to confusion about the roles and responsibilities of each party.
Onerous contractual obligations
A contract is a legal tool to govern the legal relationships between parties. It can help to foster and sustain a positive and constructive relationship between the parties by outlining expectations, roles and responsibilities of each party, including deliverables, timelines, and fees. It may establish protocols for communication between the parties by specifying lines of accountability and mechanisms for communication. It will typically include provisions dealing with dispute resolution to create a structured framework for addressing disagreements and conflicts, if they arise. The contract may also help to minimise uncertainty by clarifying each party's exposure to potential losses or liabilities.
In design and construct (D&C) contracts, the contractor typically assumes responsibility for both the design and construction aspects of the project. To mitigate potential risks associated with the design process, contractors may impose obligations on architects in relation to the completeness and accuracy of design documentation and architects may be required to provide warranties or indemnities against design errors or omissions. Architects may also be required to co-ordinate and integrate multiple design disciplines and may be required to produce design deliverables within compressed timeframes.
Clients/users acknowledged during the focus groups that bespoke client contracts may be onerous for small architecture practices to review and noted that the imposition of uncapped liability on architects can undermine client-architect relationships.[29] Victorian architects stated that bespoke contracts put forward by clients focus on risk allocation and management, rather than the architect’s design obligations.[30]
Inefficient and ineffective communication and engagement
Communication and engagement between an architect and client are essential for fostering an open, positive, trusting and productive working relationship between the parties. In turn, this helps to ensure that expectations are managed, the project progresses smoothly, issues that arise are addressed in a collaborative manner, and the client’s needs are met.
There was general agreement among focus group participants about the importance of communication and engagement for a positive client-architect relationship. Clients/users referred to the importance of transparency, openness, connection, good listening and communication, and trust for a well-functioning client-architect relationship.[31] NSW architects agreed that failure to be transparent and communicate clearly could compromise client-architect relationships but stated that there may be unreasonable expectations on both sides.[32] They added that a successful client-architect relationship depends upon the existence of honest engagement at the outset.[33] Victorian architects also agreed that poor communication can compromise a client-architect relationship.[34] Academics echoed that a key requirement for a well-functioning client-architect relationship is communication.[35] The point was also made by Victorian architects that communication goes both ways and clients need to listen to architects too, but may be unduly deferent to other parties such as planners, lawyers, marketing bodies etc.[36]
The discussion also covered lines of communication between the client and architect. Clients/users stated that the absence of clear lines of communication and limited opportunity for an architect to communicate with the client can undermine client-architect relationships.[37] They referred to a lack of ongoing communication with, and reporting to, the client, particularly in the context of novated D&C contracts as undermining client-architect relationships.[38] In that context, the contractor is typically the primary point of contact for the client, which can result in barriers to direct communication between architects and the client.
Focus group participants additionally discussed the manner in which architects engage with and communicate with clients and other stakeholders. Developers/builders stated that architects need to be trusted and confident in order to effectively advocate their position.[39] They suggested that it is important for the “right person” to represent an architectural firm to ensure that the architect can be an effective advocate, but this will depend upon the other stakeholders involved in the project, including the client and builder.[40] Clients/users also stated that failure to effectively manage stakeholder engagement, particularly for large public infrastructure, could undermine client-architect relationships.[41] Clients/users[42] and NSW architects[43] agreed that relationship incompatibility can undermine a client-architect relationship.
Lack of detail in design documentation
Insufficiently detailed documentation can lead to misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the architect's design intent by contractors, subcontractors, or other project stakeholders. This can lead to errors, omissions or substitutions during the construction process and can, in turn, lead to building defects. Incomplete or ambiguous architectural documentation can also lead to delays if clarification must be sought from architects. It can also lead to cost overruns if the contractor and subcontractors are forced to make assumptions or interpretations that result in additional work or changes to the project scope.
Building surveyors stated that more detail in design documentation could help to avoid defects that can lead to poor client-architect relationships.[44] NSW architects suggested that “under documentation” of standard essential details in design documentation may be a form of risk avoidance for architects as well as a tactic to reduce documentation. However, a range of essential details should be noted on the design drawings as well as in the specifications so that builders can easily find it and source it themselves.[45] Regulatory non-compliance
Clients rely on architects to ensure that the designs and design documentation that they deliver comply with all applicable regulatory requirements. By ensuring compliance with these requirements, architects can reduce the likelihood of disputes, claims, and legal liability but can also help maintain a good client-architect relationship. Conversely, failure to comply with regulatory requirements can undermine the client-architect relationship because addressing non-compliance can result in costly variations and delays, which could jeopardise the viability and overall success of the project.
Developers/builders stated that compliance issues can lead to a break down in client-architect relationships.[46]
Factors that can affect communication between architects and clients
By way of context, clients/users noted that there are multiple levels of communication between an architect and client, including oral communication, drawn communication and written communications.[47] Academics added that effective communication by an architect needs to be understood as a continuum that relates to design intent so that architects can communicate about design outcomes, and value, as well as the status of a project.[48] Victorian architects added that the level of communication needs to be tailored to the client and project.[49] NSW architects stated that learning how to effectively communicate with clients comes with experience.[50]
The following main factors were identified as helping to enhance effectiveness of communication:
- Brevity: Clients/users stated that brevity of communication is important.[51]
- Relevance and usefulness: Clients/users noted the volume of information associated with project delivery and stated that it is important for architects to know how to triage information so that clients receive the right information at the right time.[52] They also stated architects need to be able to explain the rationale for a proposed approach to their clients, rather than merely describing the approach.[53]
- Regularity: NSW architects stated that regular communication is important for a well-functioning client-architect relationship.[54] Victorian architects agreed that this is important, even when there is nothing specific to update but work is continuing in the background.[55]
- Responsive: Clients/users stated that architects need to be prepared to be flexible in their thinking and responsive to the views of the client and other stakeholders.[56] A collaborative approach is very important; team members should be changed on the client and architect sides if communication and engagement is not working.[57] However, Victorian architects noted that effective communication may be challenging in the context of complex projects where there are a number of stakeholders involved.[58] Clients/users noted that architects may be educated about how to communicate about design services but less about understanding and listening to clients, particularly where there are broad stakeholder groups.[59]
- Open: Focus group participants highlighted the importance of open and frank communication. Developer/builders stated that an architect’s failure to be frank and up front with the client about bad news may prevent issues from being resolved expeditiously and may destabilise the client-architect relationship.[60] Victorian architects conceded that architects may be reluctant to deliver bad news and can knowingly or unknowingly withhold bad news from the client.[61] Clients/users added that architects need to be trained about how to deliver bad news.[62]
The impact of client-architect agreements and their use on client-architect relationships
The Systemic Risks Report notes the importance of client-architect agreements, which are mandatory under the Victorian and NSW regulatory frameworks, particularly because they can help shape the interactions between an architect and client.[63] However, the Report finds that there is room for improvement in relation to the documentation of client-architect relationships.[64] The focus groups were used to identify whether the obligation to have a client-architect agreement in place is well understood and to assess how these agreements are used in practice.
Clients/users stated that the client-architect agreement, and the level of engagement needed with the client-architect agreement, need to be tailored to the particular project.[65] Clients/users also pointed out that the client-architect agreement is typically put forward by the architect for small projects and by the client for larger projects.[66] They added that, for small projects, the client-architect agreement will typically only be read or referred to at the beginning of a project but helps to establish the framework for the project; this should be used as an opportunity to outline the work, the key stages, the way work will be undertaken, and potential risks and issues at each stage, whereas for larger projects, where the agreement is put forward by the client, the client needs to walk the architect through the agreement.[67]
Client-architect agreements for smaller projects
In relation to client-architect agreements for small projects, NSW architects stated that many architects do not use the standard client-architect agreements that are available; for smaller projects, those agreements may be perceived as too lengthy and for larger projects they may be perceived as not client-centric enough. This may lead architects to draft their own agreements.[68]
NSW architects stated that architects can have a better relationship with their clients if they take the time to explain the details of the client-architect agreement so that clients have a better understanding of the work and process.[69] NSW architects added that the client-architect agreement is not referred to enough during the course of a project and this may mean that the client does not have a clear recollection of roles and responsibilities.[70]
This sentiment was echoed by Victorian architects who suggested that it may be worth reading through the client-architect agreement with the client, clause by clause, to make sure that they understand what it means.[71] Victorian architects added that a user guide for client-architect agreements could be helpful for architects to explain to their clients what contractual terms mean.[72]
Client-architect agreements for larger projects
Regarding client-architect agreements for larger projects, clients/users noted the importance of these agreements to establish the framework for the project and should be used as an opportunity to outline the work, the key stages, the way work will be undertaken, and potential risks and issues at each stage.[73] However, clients/users suggested that the client-architect agreement is not well read by the architect and the client; the agreement tends to be referred to when things are “going off the rails”; this can disadvantage the architect by not facilitating compliance.[74]
Participants also noted that bespoke rather than standardised contracts are typically used for larger projects. Clients/users also noted that AS 4122 General Conditions of Contract for Consultants does not adequately deal with novation, which then opens all aspects up to negotiation when novation is proposed and, in turn, leads to bespoke rather than standardised contracts.[75] However, they also noted that the AIA Code of Novation and Deed of Novation helps to address some of the issues facing architects in the novated D&C context.[76]
Victorian architects stated that bespoke contracts put forward by clients pose risks for architects.[77] These agreements tend to focus on risk allocation and management and less about the detailed parameters of the architect’s design obligations.[78] Clients/users acknowledged that the imposition of uncapped liability that may occur under these types of client-architect agreements is unfair, although many architects are forced to accept it to win work.[79] Clients/users suggested that architects may need to run these types of client-architect agreements past their insurers to understand their exposure to liability on a case-by-case basis and negotiation with the client may ensue.[80]
Victorian architects added that, in the novated D&C context, these contracts may not provide enough protection for architects, because they do not adequately reflect the shift in roles and responsibilities; a standard contract for this context would be useful.[81] Developer/builders agreed that that client-architect obligations can change during a project, such as in the novated D&C context, which may necessitate changes to client-architect agreements but the agreements do not always keep pace with changes in roles and responsibilities.[82] They added that, in this context, contractors often water down the requirement in the client-architect agreement for an architect to directly report to the client following novation to avoid having a situation where there are two clients (i.e. the original client and the contractor).[83]
Tools to enhance effectiveness of client-architect agreements
Clients/users suggested that the most important part of the client-architect agreement is the detailed schedule of services and the timeline.[84] Victorian architects noted that the Royal Institute of British Architects in the UK (RIBA) has prepared a detailed “Plan of Work” that specifies types of design services and could be used to prescribe the scope of design services in the context of a client-architect agreement.[85] The RIBA Plan of Work[86] describes architectural design services for eight stages of a project, including briefing, designing, constructing and operating building projects. The Plan of Work explains the core tasks, information exchanges and core outcomes for each stage. RIBA has also published the Plan of Work Overlays, which provide detailed guidance on specific design and built environment considerations, such as security, engagement and “smart buildings.”
Academics also noted that a calculator has been developed by the Association of Consulting Architects Australia (ACA) that could be used to help architects understand the relationship between the scope of services, hours to be worked and fees for documentation in the client-architect agreement.[87] The ACA’s “Architects’ Time Cost Calculator” (ACA Calculator) [88] is a tool designed to help architectural practices to assess the time and costs involved in providing architectural services for a range of building types. The ACA Calculator combines information about overheads, costs, expertise and project particulars with historic data about required hours to generate a suggested fee. The ACA Calculator is also a benchmarking tool, enabling practices to compare the office overheads of similar sized practices with their own. The ACA Calculator seeks to ensure that architects are better informed about the real time and costs associated with projects so that they are in a better position to negotiate fair and competitive fees that are reflective of the value of their services, while ensuring that they adequately cover their costs and meet their professional obligations.
The impact of fee structures on client-architect relationships
Transparent fee structures can help manage client-architect relationships by clarifying the fees payable for particular design services, the deliverables that can be expected at each stage of the project for particular fees, and additional services that may incur extra costs. The Systemic Risks Report discusses how the approach to project costing and architects’ fees can have an adverse impact on client-architect relationships.[89] The Report finds that client-architect disputes can arise as a result.[90]
During the focus groups, various fees structures were discussed to identify whether and how they could compromise client-architect relationships. Clients/users noted that the appropriate fee arrangement will be linked to the type of project; there is no one-size-fits-all.[91] NSW architects added that, apart from the type of project, the type of client may also affect the appropriate fee approach.[92]
Percentage fees
Clients/users stated that percentage fees are simple and easy to use for smaller scale projects; they are harder to make work where there is a fixed budget for larger projects but can be used to estimate costs/as a guide.[93] Developers/builders stated that if a percentage fee is used, there should be clarity regarding the trigger for increase in fees in order to reduce the risk of conflict.[94] Clients/users suggested that percentage fees could be used with a sliding scale (i.e. the percentage applies to particular ranges of construction costs, but progressively reduces as construction costs increase).[95]
Victorian architects stated that clients want to understand how fees relate to the actual scope of services provided; this may not be obvious if percentage fees are used.[96] However, they added that, clients are generally reluctant to accept this type of fee, particularly for large projects where the budget is fixed.[97] Victorian architects stated that percentage fees can be useful to ensure that inflation is accounted for.[98]
Victorian architects noted that percentage fees may erode the client-architect relationship.[99] NSW architects elaborated that, apart from destabilising the client-architect relationship, percentage fees may lead to arguments and disputes.[100]
Fixed fees
Clients/users stated that, from the client’s perspective, an accurate estimate of design costs is desirable and should be done as a lump sum or, for smaller projects, on the basis of an hourly rate.[101] Victorian architects noted that fixed fees are increasingly required for government projects and for private commercial projects.[102]
Victorian architects added that fixed fees rely on fully scoping the services, but this places significant burden on the architect to understand the scope of services up front.[103] They added that specifying inclusions and exclusions is important in the context of fixed fees.[104] Clients/users explained that a detailed schedule of services to determine fees involves a lot of work and may delay conclusion of an agreement. It may also be difficult to cost certain aspects of the work (such as work involving the development approval).[105] NSW architects also noted that a risk with fixed fees is scope creep; flagging scope creep early and providing the client with options can help overcome this risk.[106] If hourly rates are used, ongoing communication is needed to avoid bill shock for clients.[107]
Other challenges with fee arrangements
Clients/users noted that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) previously banned the architectural fee scales, but some architects are still informally using them.[108] Academics noted that there is research planned to examine the abolition of the architectural fee scales and to determine the impact over the past 20 years.[109]
Clients/users noted that there is a lot of scrutiny on the client side regarding compliance with the scope of services, variations and costs.[110] There may be many iterations in design documentation, and it may be difficult to accommodate all of these within an architect’s fees.[111]
Education and training to improve client-architect relationships
There were a range of issues identified by participants during the focus groups that may benefit from further education in order to improve client-architect relationships.
Role and scope of services
NSW architects stated that there is scope for a better understanding of the type and scope of services provided by architects, regardless of procurement method and scale of a project.[112] Clients/users agreed that clients need to be educated to understand the work that goes into delivering design services and what the agreed fee covers.[113]
Communication and engagement
Academics stressed that it is important that students and graduates are capable of clearly communicating to the client what their responsibilities are and the limits of what they are able to do; this is being tackled at universities through implementation of the 2021 National Standard of Competency for Architects (NSCA).[114] Academics further stated that architects need to have better risk management and negotiation skills, which will enhance their ability to communicate with their clients.[115]
Client/users stated that architects may be educated about how to communicate about design services but less about understanding and listening to clients, particularly where there are broad stakeholder groups.[116] They added that education for architects early in their careers about stakeholder engagement, conflict management and having difficult conversations would be useful.[117]Value of services
Academics stressed that architectural students need to be educated about how to value their work and understanding how long it takes to do things is very important.[118] They noted that the ACA Calculator helps price architectural services, and accounts for project complexity and risk. It provides benchmark fees for costing particular types of architectural services.[119]
Project delivery
Academics stated that there should be more emphasis on education about the “nuts and bolts” of a project.[120] They stated that education is needed to help architects negotiate and manage bespoke client-architect agreements.[121]
Role of the ARBs to improve client-architect relationships
Advocacy about value of architects
There was some debate during the focus groups about whether the ARBs have a role in advocating on behalf of architects. NSW architects stated that the ARBs could help to articulate the value offered by architects.[122] Clients/users agreed that architects should be assisted to better communicate their value.[123]
Academics also stated that the ARBs could advocate for higher standards of education, not minimum competence.[124] Developers/builders added that the ARBs could bring all stakeholders together to clarify the desired outcomes from each stakeholder’s perspective and to identify how those outcomes could be achieved.[125] However, Victorian architects stated that the ARBs should focus on consumer protection, rather than advocacy because that is done by other bodies.[126]
Education about the role and scope of architectural services
NSW architects stated that there may be a role for the ARBs to better communicate to the general public about what architects do and the specific services architects provide.[127] They suggested that an explanation of the architect’s roles during the various phases of a project would be helpful, particularly in a visual format.[128] Clients/users added that information about roles, responsibilities and risks in the context of different procurement models would be useful.[129] In addition, information for the public about how an architect can de-risk a project could be useful.[130] Building surveyors stated that guidance regarding the level of detail required in design documentation would be useful to establish a better understanding of what must be included in design services, particularly in design documentation.[131]
Clients/users also stated that it would be useful to have information about the role of the principal architect versus the architect, particularly in the context of large projects, as well as architects’ project management role.[132] NSW architects stressed that the ARBs need to understand the complexity of small practices and the various hats that architects in those practices wear.[133]
Client education
Clients/users stated that information about what makes a good client would be useful because good projects occur with good clients.[134] Victorian architects added that it would be useful for information about client-architect agreements to be passed on to developers, particularly in relation to novated D&C arrangements.[135]
Design & construct procurement
Driver for D&C contracts
An initial threshold issue that was discussed during the focus groups was the reason for the dominance of the D&C procurement model in the Australian construction industry. Developers/builders explained that, for some construction projects (particularly small to medium size multi-residential buildings), banks will not provide finance unless the project is covered by a lump sum D&C contract, where a single lump sum covers the cost of the entire project.[1] The centralisation of responsibility for design and construction in the contractor under a D&C contract and the incentives to complete the project within budget and on time may make this procurement model a relatively attractive option for banks, because they may perceive that this model minimises project delivery risks and enhances accountability for project delivery through a single point of contact.
Impact of D&C procurement on the design process
De-prioritisation of the design process
Comments were made during the focus groups that suggested that the design process may be de-prioritised in the novated D&C context. NSW architects stated that it is possible to deliver quality and excellence under a D&C contract.[2] However, the time pressure and “peaky” nature of design services implied by D&C procurement places significant pressure on architects and de-prioritises design within the project schedule.[3] Design is often treated as a flexible element that has to be accommodated within other uncertain processes, such as gaining approvals for the project.[4]
Client/users stated that clients rely on architects to ensure that the design intent is carried through the project and that architects need to work with all stakeholders and drive the process rather than relying on the contractor.[5] Yet, Victorian architects stated that D&C procurement has prompted a defensive approach to protect design intent.[6] They also noted that architects are required to scope a project much more thoroughly during the initial stages of the project without adequate information about the technical details, which affects the actual design. This may make downstream changes more challenging after the contractor takes over the project; the inability to make these changes may ultimately compromise quality in the final built outcome.[7]
Clients/users suggested that, in the past, architects and design may have been deprioritised over the contractor and the construction process because architects were considered not to have construction knowledge adequate to ensure the “buildability” of a design; design intent was relied upon instead of detailed design documentation.[8] More recently, more detailed design documentation is required up front and architects are being retained to maintain the design intent and to ensure that it is carried through into detailed construction.[9]
Speed of design process
The focus group discussion also addressed the speed with which designs must be prepared by architects. Victorian architects stated that time and cost pressures that exist in the D&C context may have an adverse impact on the provision of quality architectural services.[10] They explained that D&C procurement leads to a “performance-based approach” in relation to the design because there is insufficient time to get detailed design documentation ready for tender.[11] Such an approach involves developing designs with a focus on achieving specific performance requirements, rather than adhering to prescriptive “deemed-to-satisfy” requirements in the National Construction Code (NCC).
Building surveyors elaborated that the speed of the design process in the D&C context is resulting in inadequate detail in design documentation; the builder is then left to address the gaps in the design documentation during the construction process – such as materials or products to be used.[12] They stated that time and cost pressures in the D&C context can have an adverse impact on the quality of building design.[13]
Limited design documentation
The design development phase typically consists of several stages that guide the progression of the design from initial concept to detailed documentation. During the concept design stage, a high-level initial design is prepared based on the client's brief. For the design development stage, the concept design is further refined and developed into detailed architectural designs. This typically involves architects working closely with consultants, engineers, and other specialists to ensure that all relevant requirements are integrated into the design, including technical, sustainability and regulatory requirements.
During the focus group discussion, it was suggested that the level of design detail required at the time of novation may affect the extent to which the original design intent is respected through the construction process. Victorian government representatives stated that, under D&C procurement, documentation is only completed to a stage required by the contractor and there is no obligation to complete or provide full documentation.[14] Victorian architects added that D&C procurement means that architects are not required to provide fully resolved design documents; important architectural elements are typically documented, but less important elements are left to be documented and worked through with the contractor to avoid abortive work.[15]
Inadequate contact with client
When a D&C contract is novated, the responsibility for design is transferred from the architect to the contractor. This can alter the dynamic between the architect and the client. In particular, NSW architects noted that architects may be contractually removed from having a relationship with the client, which can lead to uncertain outcomes during the construction phase.[16] More specifically, the loss of contact with the client following novation means that architects cannot have a clear sense of the client’s position, they are unable to offer a perspective on contractor changes, and they cannot control or guide project outcomes to ensure the client’s objectives can be achieved.[17] Even if the architect has a strong relationship with the client at the time of novation, the contractual arrangements and attitude of the contractor can undermine this relationship.[18]
Victorian architects added that a direct line of contact with the client is important, but this is contrary to existing contractual structures in the D&C context.[19] Victorian government representatives agreed that the lack of direct interaction between an architect and client may compromise design outcomes.[20] Architects are needed throughout a project, not just at discrete times during the project.[21] NSW architects stated that architects should be the final arbiters of the fitness for purpose of a design.[22]
Lack of adequate collaboration and integration of design
In the context of novated D&C procurement, while the contractor is responsible to the client for delivering the design (and the construction) of the project, a range of design consultants are typically engaged by the contractor to provide specialist technical expertise for the project. These design consultants may include architects, structural engineers, mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, civil engineers, environmental consultants and sustainability experts, among others. In this context, architects may be required to collaborate with the other design consultants to ensure that the architectural design takes account of all relevant technical requirements.
When considering challenges faced by architects in the D&C context, focus group participants discussed the siloing that may occur, which may impede collaboration and integration of design as a whole. Academics noted that the procurement model should accommodate early involvement of all consultants, including building surveyors, but the D&C model does not allow for that.[23] NSW architects stated that builders are willing to silo the design team and overrule the design team on design issues, typically on the basis of time pressure.[24] Insurers/brokers added that D&C procurement can have the effect of siloing consultants and prevent them from giving advice to ensure quality outcomes at the time the advice is needed.[25] They added that the siloing of consultants in the D&C context may compromise the quality of buildings.[26] Victorian architects acknowledged that, initially, architects were not treated as a collaborator but, more recently, the design process and architects have been better integrated into the D&C process, although this can depend heavily on the particular parties involved in a project.[27]
Use of building designers to take over design
While architects typically offer comprehensive design services, building designers that have not been registered as architects may be engaged by the contractor to undertake design services for a project. Victorian architects noted that architects might be replaced with low-cost building designers once a contractor takes over.[28] Victorian government representatives agreed that architects may be changed when the D&C contract is novated, and other less qualified designers may become involved.[29] Implicitly, this could compromise the integrity of the original design and have an adverse impact on the final built outcome.
Failure to ensure consistency with design during building process
Under D&C procurement, the contractor is responsible for ensuring the design developed by the design consultants is used for the construction process and that the built outcome is consistent with the design. The contractor may engage subcontractors to undertake parts of the construction work, such as plumbers, electricians, HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning) technicians, and carpenters.
Academics stated that there is an assumption in the D&C context that a project can simply progress from design to construction.[30] Insurers/brokers further noted that consultants who are under the control of the builder are rarely on site and, at times, only permitted on site to inspect when directed by the builder.[31] These factors may mean that the design intent is not adequately reflected in the final built outcome or, at worst, the design documentation has not been complied with. Building surveyors stated that the architect needs to provide more oversight and be the conduit of information between a number of different practitioners to ensure that the design intent is carried through to project delivery.[32]
Building surveyors also noted that they may encounter challenges in addressing gaps in design documentation when the architect is no longer involved in the project.[33] The building surveyor is expected to certify compliance when there is limited and inadequate information about the design, particularly for staged permits; there is no scope under Victorian legislation to revisit a permit after it has been issued by the building surveyor when more information may be available.[34]
Limited fees for architectural services
The scope of services provided by the architect in a D&C context may be limited, particularly if the contractor assumes responsibility for managing the design process or coordinating design activities with other project stakeholders. Victorian architects noted that, in a D&C context, there is an expectation that architects’ fees should be reduced because they are not responsible for project delivery; the contractor bears responsibility for this. However, the point was made that the ruling in the Lacrosse case highlights that significant responsibility may be imposed on architects, which needs to be priced into architects’ fees.[35] Academics stated that the change in methodology and approach implied by the D&C contract (e.g. the need for up front design work to be undertaken) needs to be accounted for in fee structures to ensure that architects are appropriately remunerated for their work.[36]
Limited budget
The focus group discussion also touched on the adverse impact of budgetary limitations. NSW architects stated, after novation of a D&C contract, there may be inadequate budget for design finalisation and substitution requests by the contractor that involve deviation from the original design may be motivated by cost-cutting.[37]
However, clients/users suggested that the design must be commercially viable and architects need to be willing to change the design; builders are typically more open to change and to providing alternatives.[38] Clients/users further stated that architects may need to evolve their services and work with all stakeholders to ensure that designs can be delivered within budget and in a manner that is aligned with commercial imperatives and client expectations; otherwise, by the time the building is constructed (and is likely over-budget), the focus will be on cutting costs rather than realising design intent and maintaining building quality.[39]
Factors that contribute to adverse outcomes for architects and the design process in the D&C context
Selection of inappropriate procurement model
There are various factors that may cause clients to favour D&C procurement over other procurement models. A significant factor is the centralisation of responsibility in the contractor for design and construction, which can simplify and enhance efficiency of project delivery. The integrated approach to project delivery can also mean that the project is more likely to be delivered on time and within budget. However, during the focus groups, it was suggested that the D&C procurement model may be used by clients without due consideration. Academics stated that some organisations automatically opt for a particular procurement model without adequate reflection on the appropriate model for the particular project; there are other procurement models including hybrid models that may be more suitable depending upon the type and complexity of the project that is being undertaken.[40]
Poorly prepared developer
Developers can play a critical role in D&C procurement by guiding the project's development, managing its financial and operational aspects, mitigating risks, and ensuring successful project outcomes. However, during the focus groups, NSW architects stated that developers may have unreasonable expectations for the project and/or be ill-prepared.[41] This may mean that a project is poorly planned, risks are not properly managed, and built outcomes are compromised. There will be implications for all parties involved in delivery of the project, including architects.
The Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW) (NSW DBP Act) imposes obligations on builders and architects and effectively binds these parties together by virtue of their respective obligations but the Act does not apply to developers.[42]
Profile and approach of contractor
The profile of the contractor may also affect architects and the design process. Victorian government representatives stated that the D&C procurement model is based on a belief that the contractor is the most appropriate party to assume full responsibility for project delivery, which means that built outcomes are prioritised over design outcomes. However, this is not necessarily the case.[43]
Victorian government representatives stated that the ability of a contractor to give effect to design intent will depend upon how collaborative the contractor is.[44] NSW architects also stated that early contractor involvement in the design process can lead to the death of innovation.[45] Moreover, once risk is transferred to the contractor, it may feel emboldened to take on technical roles that are not within the contractor’s expertise.[46]
Uncertainty created by the D&C context
NSW architects stated that the D&C procurement model creates an uncertain context. More specifically, there are a lot of moving parts and uncertainty in the D&C context, which means that architects need to be on their toes.[47] There is more scope for things to change and an architect’s duty of care is not altered by the procurement model.[48] Victorian architects added that staged development, with multiple building permits, requires the design for each stage to be prepared without visibility of the bigger picture of the entire development, which may compromise quality overall.[49]
Lack of adequate education and training
The adequacy of education, knowledge and skills of architectural students, graduates and practising architects in the D&C context was also discussed during the focus groups.
Victorian government representatives stated that graduates and early career architects lack the competency to administer D&C contracts because they are not getting adequate experience in contract administration.[50] Victorian architects stated that it is critically important for architectural students and young practitioners to be equipped with the tools to navigate D&C contracts but noted that, over time, architects have gained knowledge and sophistication in terms of how to approach D&C procurement and documentation is now better tailored to the context.[51] Academics noted that many people in leadership positions within architectural practices have not been trained in D&C contracts and it is only in the last 10 years that these contracts have appeared in university curricula.[52] They acknowledged that education of the profession about D&C contracts is needed as early as possible but noted that the current generation of architects may be better equipped than previous generations.[53] NSW architects agreed that architects need to develop skills and expertise in understanding their contractual obligations in the D&C context and to liaise with insurers in advance to avoid signing up to indemnities that compromise their insurance cover.[54]
Developers/builders stated that education of the client is also important, so that objectives and outcomes of D&C procurement are well understood.[55] Academics added that there are cultural issues regarding what is celebrated in the architecture sector; there may be benefit in revisiting the metrics for successful architectural projects – e.g. linking them to good client and end-user relationships.[56]
Impact of D&C contracts on allocation of risk, liability and insurance
Victorian government representatives stated that, under the D&C model, the transfer of risk to the contractor means that architects lose responsibility for the delivery of design services; architects (and other consultants who are sub-contractors to the contract) become the agent of the contractor, not the client.[57] Victorian architects stated that, following novation, the exposure of an architect to unfair contractual terms and risk can increase but that there are different views of what is reasonable in this context.[58]
Developers/builders stated that the allocation of risk, liability and indemnities can affect finance for a project and some smaller developers may have limited capacity to negotiate with the major banks.[59] They also noted that the risk profile of a project can evolve as the project progresses and this can lead to renegotiation of indemnities and insurance requirements.[60]
NSW architects stated that architects need to develop skills and expertise in understanding their contractual obligations and liaise with insurers in advance to avoid signing up to indemnities that compromise their insurance cover.[61] Developers/builders agreed that there needs to be a rethink and reconfiguration of the allocation of risk.[62]
Professional indemnity insurance (PI insurance) provides financial protection to architects and architectural firms against claims for damages arising from professional negligence, errors, omissions, or other professional liabilities. During the focus groups, Victorian architects stated that, whereas $10 million PI insurance was once the standard requirement for engagements to provide architectural services, increasingly $20 million PI insurance is being required by clients for building projects.[63] NSW government representatives acknowledged that concern has been expressed about excessive PI insurance requirements for some government contracts.[64]
Insurers/brokers stated that some of the requirements being imposed on architects in the D&C context amount to unfair contract terms and could compromise insurance coverage.[65] Insurance cover may not be available when the contractual arrangements contain clauses that distort the normal common law obligations applicable to architects, such as contractual indemnities, disproportionate allocation of liability, and attempts to contract out of liability; it can be complex to determine what is covered by insurance and what is not covered.[66]
In relation to the cost of PI insurance, insurance/brokers explained that PI premiums have risen in the last 5 years due to a challenging PI insurance market overall that is impacting all professionals, especially in the construction industry. The architect-specific impacts (and impacts on other professionals, such as engineers) are due to the significant and continuing cost of cladding claims.[67]
Insurers/brokers further stated that there is limited specific data about the impact of D&C procurement on PI insurance for architects.[68] Based on available evidence, D&C procurement can produce the same quality outcomes as traditional procurement, but only if there is an active commitment to quality, a vigilant superintendent, a good and experienced builder and client/financier who is realistic about costs, and a good consultant team.[69] Anecdotally, absence of these features in the D&C procurement context could give rise to more claims against architects but there is no data to confirm this.[70]
However, insurers/brokers did state that claims can arise when there is a mismatch between the design and construction phases.[71] D&C procurement can have the effect of siloing consultants and prevent them from giving advice to ensure quality outcomes at the time the advice is needed.[72] They stated that obligations of practitioners under the NSW DBP Act, including architects, should, in the long-term, reduce the risk of a mismatch between design and construction and produce better buildings.[73] However, the retrospective duty of care obligations in the NSW DBP Act have increased the number of claims made against architects and other consultants.[74] They recommended that architects need to price for the NSW DBP Act appropriately. They should be charging higher fees to account for the additional work required and the “up-front” nature of design work under the NSW DBP Act. Leaving aside the commercial risks of not doing so, under-resourced and under-priced projects are a source of PI claims.[75]
Impact of D&C contracts on built outcomes
Victorian architects stated that it is important to clarify what is meant by “quality”; it extends beyond aesthetics and the look and feel of a building and essentially relates to whether a building is fit-for-purpose.[76] NSW architects stated that D&C procurement does not necessarily lead to reduced quality in building design; meaningful engagement may optimise design and deliver innovation and excellence.[77] Insurers/brokers agreed that D&C procurement can produce the same quality outcomes as traditional procurement but only if certain factors exist – such as a commitment to quality, a good and experienced builder that is realistic about costs, and a good consultant team.[78]
However, NSW architects stated that D&C procurement is often used as a tool to prioritise time and cost, which may lead to quality being compromised; pressure on quality is the main challenge associated with this model of procurement.[79] Victorian architects stated that the quality of architectural work has decreased over time with the D&C procurement model; better quality design will produce less defects in the long run and a better product.[80] However, the pressure to get a building, or parts of a building, to market diminishes quality.[81]
Having said that, Victorian architects acknowledged that, under D&C procurement, the builder has more control over quality, which can lead to better outcomes because constructability issues are taken into account but can also lead to poor outcomes when designs are modified and short-cuts are taken.[82] The most important input to ensure the buildability of a design is from trade intelligence.[83] Victorian architects stated that sophisticated builders can bring “building intelligence” to a project but some builders are simply there to manage sub-contractors.[84]
Mechanisms that can mitigate the adverse impacts of D&C contracts on design and the delivery of architectural services
Client engagement
Victorian architects stated that an engaged client that insists on full design documentation post-novation can help avoid adverse quality issues, but this involves co-ordination and alignment among all relevant consultants.[85] They suggested that clients need to remain involved throughout the D&C process, engage with all parties on an individual basis, (including architects, builder and other consultants) and make key decisions when required.[86]
Clients/users suggested that there is a role for architects to educate clients to ensure that important issues are fully documented up front.[87] Victorian architects stated that having architects on the client side can lead to a more collaborative approach.[88]
Early engagement of contractor
Developers and builders suggested that the earlier a builder is engaged, the more efficient and cost-effective the process to ensure that constructability issues can be effectively addressed early in the design of the project.[89] Early engagement of the builder will help enhance constructability and ensure that the trade packages can be tailored accordingly.[90] Victorian architects agreed that the use of trade intelligence during the early stages of design to address constructability issues can minimise disruption during the construction process.[91] However, Victorian architects also stated that sophisticated builders can bring building intelligence to a project but some are simply there to manage sub-contractors.[92]
Clarity about design process and design documentation
It was also suggested that greater clarity about design and the design process may lead to better outcomes. Victorian architects stated that the concept of design development has been lost in the D&C context and is not well-understood by project managers and developers; there needs to be more clarity about the design development process and the phases of design development and architects need to get better at explaining this process.[93] Victorian government representatives agreed that there is a lot of confusion about the design process; the various aspects of the design process should be clarified, distinguished and standardised. This could be helpful when specifying design requirements at the time the construction tender is issued.[94] Academics agreed that more clarity is needed about the design process. [95]
NSW architects suggested that, at novation, the design of important elements should be fully documented leaving the less important elements for the contractor to resolve, but a nuanced approach is needed depending upon the particularities of the project; early discussions with the client about outcomes and expectations can help to ensure a tailored approach.[96]
NSW government representatives stated that the NSW DBP Act and the Residential Apartment Buildings (Compliance and Enforcement Powers) Act 2020 (NSW) help to ensure that design is prioritised up front and is changing the relationship architects have with other sectoral participants in the D&C context.[97] The NSW DBP Act does not preclude D&C contracting but it extends designers’ obligations beyond the developer/contractor to the customer.[98] By prioritising design during the early stages of a project, the NSW DBP Act helps to reduce defects; there is early evidence indicating a lift in the quality of design and a reduction in defects post construction.[99]
The key features of the NSW DBP Act highlighted by NSW government representatives during the focus groups are listed below: [100] The NSW DBP Act
- prescribes the standard of work expected of architects, which enables them to have more forceful conversations up front with contractors about costs to ensure compliant designs and outcomes; it is important to ensure that design practitioners involved in the production of quality, compliant building design are being paid accordingly.
- incentivises all consultants to integrate their designs so that designs are not being created in isolation.
- facilitates the early identification of defects in design work, which then avoids those defects being translated into defects in the building work.
- creates a paper trail, which reduces the risk that those who are not responsible for a defect are unnecessarily involved in legal proceedings; this could reduce the amount of legal fees coming out of PI insurance, which may help to reduce the costs of PI insurance cover.
NSW architects agreed that the NSW DBP Act has helped to reframe the conversation around the design/building relationship by ensuring the design is complete before a building is built; however, it imposes obligations on builders and consultants but not on developers.[101] Academics suggested that a legislative solution (like the NSW DBP Act) may help to ensure better design outcomes but there is likely to be resistance from developers and contractors because of the perceived cost impost associated with compliance.[102] NSW government representatives responded that there was initially push back from architects about the additional work that architects need to undertake under the NSW DBP Act, but that has settled down. There was also push back from developers about increasing costs associated with compliance with the Act but there appears to be more acceptance now, particularly in light of the risk of audit by the NSW Building Commissioner.[103]
More collaboration and open lines of communication
Focus group participants also discussed the need for a more collaborative approach and open lines of communication. Victorian architects stated that transparency and open communication can mitigate some of the risks and challenges that could otherwise arise.[104] A more collaborative approach during the entire process can help ensure alignment of interests and outcomes but can negate the perceived benefit of D&C procurement – namely, to have a single party responsible for project delivery.[105] Developers/builders agreed that value is maximised through a collaborative architect-builder relationship.[106] They stated that the design concept should be developed with relevant stakeholders upfront, including the developer, architect and builder.[107] Clients/users stated that collaborative approaches are increasingly being used to overcome some of the challenges associated with D&C procurement.[108]
Reference was also made to whistleblower clauses. NSW architects stated that they can be used by architects to alert the client to significant issues arising in relation to the design of the project and the contractor is typically informed about the issues and the outcome of the discussion between the architect and the client.[109] However, client/users stated that the relationship between the client and architect should be strong enough to avoid the need to rely on whistleblower clauses.[110]
Regulation of developers
Academics stated that architects are heavily regulated but in the D&C context they are dealing with other players that are unregulated or subject to much less onerous regulatory obligations, like the developer and other designers.[111] Victorian government representatives stated that continuing responsibilities need to be imposed on developers for the buildings they deliver, including once the buildings are sold to another party.[112] Developers/builders stated that developers would love to take more time to do things properly and have a tighter set of design documents, but this could be detrimental from a competitive and commercial perspective.[113] Nonetheless, they acknowledged that the regulation of developers could be helpful to differentiate market players and weed out the “fly-by night” operators.[114]
NSW government representatives noted that, in NSW, developers can be issued orders during the construction phase, which helps to ensure that defects are rectified during that phase.[115] Developers are being required to give undertakings to remediate defects.[116] Developers are also being required to obtain iCIRT rating (an Independent Construction Industry Rating Tool that uses a five star system to rate builders in NSW).[117]
New contractual structure
Victorian architects stated that there is scope for innovative thinking about the next contractual structure.[118] The Australian Institute of Architects (AIA), Association of Consulting Architects (ACA), Office of the Victorian Government Architect (OVGA) and Australian Architecture Association (AAA) need to do more to support architects in this space so that a collective approach can be presented to the wider industry.[119]
Role for the ARBs
Focus group participants also discussed the role that the ARBs could play to address some of the challenges and risks associated with D&C procurement that were identified during the discussion.
Suggestions were made about clarifying the role of architects in the D&C context. NSW architects suggested that the ARBs should promote a better understanding of the role of architects.[120] Building surveyors agreed that more information about roles and responsibilities in the D&C context could be beneficial, together with information about how architects can influence design.[121] NSW government representatives noted that architects are regulated to a higher standard than many other professionals in the construction industry. It is important to clarify what architects are legally responsible for, rather than things architects are expected to do because no one else is doing them.[122]
There were also some suggestions regarding education and training about D&C contracts and administration. Academics noted that the current generation of architects are being educated about procurement models and may be better equipped than previous generations.[123] They suggested that the ARBs could play a role in ensuring that graduates emerge from university with a whole-of-project understanding of the implications of D&C procurement.[124] More specifically, they suggested that a vision is needed of what is expected of graduates and early career architects in the future so that they can be adequately supported.[125] There is also a role for the ARBs to ensure the quality of education being provided, particularly in relation to how a D&C contract can affect design and compliance with professional standards obligations.[126]
NSW architects stressed that there is a need for assistance at all stages of an architect’s career.[127] The ARBs could help to enhance architects’ skills in navigating the D&C context.[128] Work on how to empower architects in a D&C context would be beneficial.[129] Scenarios, case studies and examples of good outcomes in a D&C context would be useful.[130] While there’s value in educating architects about what has gone wrong and what not to do, there is also value in talking about what best practice looks like.[131] In addition, it would be useful to have evidence-based information about claims made against architects, including root causes, to help avoid future claims.[132]
Victorian government representatives also stated that there is an educative role for the ARBs – specifically, publishing practice notes and advice and running CPD seminars in relation to the architect’s role in the D&C context and associated competencies in relation to contract administration.[133] They suggested that the ARBs together with the AIA could publish commonly used D&C contracts and include a checklist or short commentary on what to look out for under each contract.[134] They also suggested that the ARBs could offer a service similar to the AIA Senior Counsellor Service to support young architects.[135]
Compliance with the National Construction Code
Context
As context for the discussion about NCC compliance and, particularly, to identify the types of buildings where NCC compliance issues could arise, Victorian architects noted that there is a relatively small percentage of buildings that involve design by architects; this needs to be accounted for in considering NCC compliance and quality issues statewide.[136] Victorian government representatives also noted that small-scale residential buildings generally just involve standard NCC compliance and that there aren’t many architecturally designed buildings at that end of the market.[137] Building surveyors also highlighted the importance of distinguishing between building defects arising from NCC non-compliance and other defects that have nothing to do with compliance (e.g. finishes).[138] Developers/builders stated that most defects are not related to NCC compliance but, rather, are workmanship defects.[139]
Various focus group participants stressed that the NCC only establishes minimum standards. Victorian architects stated that the NCC prescribes minimum standards in terms of design quality rather than the upper bound of what is required.[140] Building surveyors stated that these minimum standards establish a low bar and quite often will not yield the best built outcome.[141] However, implicit in the NCC is the expectation that the entire design for a building should be fit-for-purpose.[142] Clients/users suggested that the minimum standards in the NCC should be used as a guide to be built upon.[143] Victorian architects agreed that NCC compliance should be used as an opportunity rather than a constraint by defining minimum standards that designers can go beyond to enhance building quality.[144]
Link between NCC compliance and quality built outcomes
Focus group participants considered whether NCC compliance will deliver good quality built outcomes. As a threshold matter, the definition of “quality” was examined. Building surveyors stated that the concept of quality is subjective, although quality is likely to go beyond compliance with the minimum standards in the NCC and extends to matters that are not covered by the NCC, such as aesthetic issues and finishes that are likely to be particularly important for the end-user.[145] Victorian architects agreed that NCC compliance and design quality are not the same thing.[146] Academics suggested that quality means fitness for purpose, but students may not understand this notion of design quality nor how to integrate NCC requirements into designs to ensure design quality and built outcomes that are fit-for-purpose.[147]
Academics stated that the NCC has an impact on the quality of building designs.[148] However, NSW architects stated that the link between NCC compliance and building quality is not direct and clear because the NCC is primarily about health, safety, amenity etc.[149] The NCC drives an expectation of compliance but not good quality design; it creates compliant performance of a building but falls short of ensuring good design outcomes.[150] Nevertheless, Victorian government representatives stated that buildings that are not NCC-compliant are likely to be poorly designed.[151]
Victorian government representatives also stated that there may be a mistaken impression that compliance with the minimum standards in the NCC will ensure quality built outcomes.[152] NSW architects agreed that buildings can be NCC-compliant but poorly designed.[153] Clients/users stated that the impact of the NCC on building quality will depend upon the project and procurement process; compliance is easier for standard designs but more challenging for complex designs.[154] Victorian government representatives suggested that there may be a race to the minimum standards for high volume, low margin building projects, rather than use of the design flexibility and the various compliance pathways that are available under the NCC to achieve higher quality.[155]
Roles and responsibilities regarding NCC compliance
Procurement model, project type and parties
Focus group participants were asked to identify which party bears primary responsibility for NCC compliance. Victorian architects[156], Victorian government representatives[157] and academics[158] all agreed that NCC responsibilities may vary depending upon the procurement method used, the project type and parties involved.
Victorian architects clarified that time and budget pressures will have an impact on the procurement model and then the procurement model will affect how responsibility for NCC compliance is distributed between the parties.[159] Clients/users agreed that responsibility for NCC compliance depends upon the procurement approach and noted that the client takes responsibility for the procurement strategy initially.[160] They suggested that it is critically important for the client to choose the right procurement approach at the outset for each project on a case-by-case basis.[161]
Shared role but different responsibilities
Victorian architects,[162] clients/users[163] and developers/builders[164] all agreed that NCC compliance will largely be a shared role, although the responsibilities may differ. Developers/builders suggested that responsibility for NCC compliance can be allocated to anyone.[165] Building surveyors clarified that there are different responsibilities for different practitioners and liability is apportioned accordingly.[166] The architect is responsible for the design in the first place, the builder is responsible for the building, and the building surveyor is responsible for oversight, but it is the courts that ultimately decide who is responsible for NCC compliance.[167] Victorian government representatives agreed that NCC compliance is a shared responsibility among the key actors in the project chain, but this may be challenging to communicate up and down the project chain.[168]
Client
Developers/builders stated that, under a D&C contract, the client will always want to pass primary responsibility for NCC compliance to the head contractor but then responsibility is passed on to consultants and sub-contractors under the various professional services contracts and other sub-contracts.[169]
Contractor
Clients/users stated that the contractor is generally responsible for NCC compliance under the D&C procurement model because it must obtain the occupation certificate and other approvals.[170] Developers/builders suggested that, under this model, there is limited ability for the contractor to make innovative changes; the contractor must ensure co-ordination of the concept, services and built outcomes to ensure that everything is compliant at the end of the day.[171] However, Victorian architects noted that the contractor is incentivised to reduce costs and that, in turn, may involve reduced quality.[172]
Victorian architects stated that the contractor should be required to demonstrate compliant construction while giving effect to the design intent, but the interface between the architectural documentation and the built outcomes can lead to grey areas as to who is responsible for NCC compliance; responsibility should be clearly articulated in any contract and the scope of works.[173] Insurers/brokers added that contracts are being used to unfairly allocate responsibility for NCC compliance from contractors to architects and building surveyors even though at common law builders should be responsible for compliance; insurers are regularly seeing contracts that result in the unfair allocation of responsibility.[174]
Building surveyor
Victorian architects stated that although NCC compliance is largely a shared role, the building surveyor has primary responsibility.[175] Building surveyors agreed that they are the “gate keepers”.[176] Insurers/brokers noted that, in the context of insurance claims, the building surveyor tends to be held accountable for NCC non-compliance more often than the architect.[177] Nonetheless, building surveyors are not design consultants and, at times, they are held accountable for design compliance issues.[178]
Building surveyors noted that there is a broad spectrum of expectations about the role of building surveyors, ranging from those architects who use building surveyors for oversight and those architects that rely upon building surveyors for NCC compliance.[179] Victorian architects stated that, for smaller architectural practices, time and fee limitations may mean that heavy reliance is placed on the building surveyor to ensure NCC compliance.[180] Building surveyors stated that the Code of Conduct for Building Surveyors in Victoria[181] attempts to avoid undue reliance on building surveyors by clarifying that the role of the building surveyor is to provide third party review.[182] Victorian architects stated that there is a need for more information for architects about the role of building surveyors.[183]
Victorian architects suggested that the building surveyor’s responsibility should probably be shared with the builder because the building surveyor cannot be across everything occurring on-site.[184] Building surveyors noted that they apply a risk-based approach to assess NCC compliance because it is not possible to review each and every aspect of the design and construction; they rely upon designers and builders to ensure compliance for all work that takes place between the mandatory inspections.[185] The building surveyor should be engaged to focus on high risk areas and complex issues rather than being drawn into standard compliance issues.[186]
Architect
Building surveyors noted that those responsible for design are also responsible for co-ordination of disciplines and documentation, but this is not always clearly documented in contractual arrangements.[187] In a D&C context, this should be the contractor because they have control over the design, even though this can be dangerous because of the competition between client outcomes and costs.[188]
As noted above, insurers/brokers stated that they are regularly seeing contracts that result in the unfair allocation of responsibility for NCC compliance from contractors to architects.[189] They suggested that the ARBs should have access to claims and insurance data.[190] Victorian government representatives noted that there is a question as to whether contracts can override statutory responsibility for NCC compliance.[191]
NSW architects suggested that some architects do not have a sufficiently thorough knowledge and understanding of the NCC and unduly rely on consultants with NCC expertise (BCA consultants) or the construction certificate stage to identify any compliance issues.[192] Architects may not see themselves as NCC experts.[193] Building surveyors suggested that there may be limited understanding of the performance solution pathway available under the NCC.[194] Further, based on audit results, there are apparently issues regarding architects’ awareness of their obligations regarding NCC compliance in relation to architectural documentation.[195]
Building surveyors stated that BCA consultants should be used to verify NCC compliance, rather than building surveyors, if architectural practices do not have capacity to do so themselves.[196] NSW architects added that there may be ambiguity about whether something is NCC-compliant; BCA consultants can be engaged to advise on NCC compliance, particularly for ambiguous issues, but BCA consultants and the building surveyor may have different views regarding NCC compliance.[197]
Victorian architects noted that the extent to which architects rely on BCA consultants or the building surveyor for NCC compliance may vary and be linked to fees.[198] NSW architects suggested that architects need to ensure that they remain abreast of the NCC rather than relying predominantly upon NCC consultants.[199] Academics stated that over-reliance by architects on building surveyors and BCA consultants may lead to a lack of understanding of the NCC; there is a need for more education about the building surveyor’s role. [200]
Other consultants
Victorian architects noted that there are various other specialists who assist the architect to ensure NCC compliance, including structural engineers, fire engineers and façade engineers.[201] NSW architects stated that architects are often the glue that holds all professional specialists together; architects practically rely upon inputs from other design professionals to assess and ensure NCC compliance.[202]
NSW architects also stated that architects need to have a clear understanding of their role and responsibility in relation to NCC compliance but should not have to assume responsibility for work that is beyond their remit.[203] The scope of works should clarify the roles and responsibilities of different consultants in ensuring NCC compliance; education of clients on this issue could be helpful.[204] Building surveyors stated that there needs to be clarity about who is responsible and accountable for what; this may drive more consistency and higher quality outcomes across the sector.[205] Victorian government representatives stated that the lines of communication and responsibility need to be clearly established for every single project.[206]
Scope of architects’ obligations to ensure NCC compliance
Focus group participants discussed the nature and scope of architects’ obligations to ensure NCC compliance. Building surveyors noted that there is a standard expectation that when something is designed, it is compliant with the NCC.[207] Developers/builders stated that an NCC-compliant building starts with compliant architectural documentation.[208] Victorian architects suggested that, in the ideal world, designs should be fully NCC compliant when prepared by the architect and the building surveyor should simply undertake an auditing role to confirm that the design is NCC compliant.[209]
Building surveyors stated that NCC compliance of architectural documentation has an impact on compliant outcomes in the built outcome.[210] If there is insufficient detail in the architectural documentation to demonstrate compliance, this can compromise the ability to deliver compliant built outcomes on-site.[211] Victorian government representatives suggested that higher quality architectural documentation is more likely to deliver better built outcomes.[212] Building surveyors agreed that the clarity of documentation is very important for all those involved in the process, including assessment and construction.[213] They noted that audit information indicates that non-compliance in architectural documentation can lead to non-compliant built outcomes.[214]
Building surveyors stated that NCC compliance issues can arise in relation to architectural documentation in two ways – namely, there is insufficient documentation (i.e. the documentation does not describe how the work will comply and how the building should be built) and, in rarer circumstances, the documentation does not comply in the sense that the work will not be compliant.[215]
NSW architects observed that architectural documentation should be compliant with the NCC because it only sets minimum standard, and this should avoid defects but it is up to contractors to interpret design drawings when building.[216] As the NCC just contains minimum standards, architectural documentation typically goes well beyond NCC compliance.[217]
Victorian architects stated that it is important to distinguish between delivering a compliant design and demonstrating that a design is compliant; D&C procurement may affect the extent to which NCC compliance must be demonstrated in design documentation prepared by architects. For example, there may be projects where architectural services are not required beyond schematic design and further design and documentation may be undertaken by others.[218]
Victorian government representatives stated that high quality architectural documentation is essential. References to NCC requirements and Australian Standards requirements within the documentation are very helpful.[219] NSW architects noted that the architect’s specification explains in detail how NCC compliance has been met and includes references to the NCC and Australian Standards; adherence to the specification should ensure that a building is NCC-compliant and does not have any defects.[220]
Clients/users stated that clients should be informed throughout the project delivery process about NCC compliance, including whether and how NCC requirements are being met or exceeded and the cost implications.[221] Developers/builders suggested that there are generally good quality assurance processes in place with architects and other consultants to ensure that a good set of design documents is obtained in the first instance.[222] Victorian architects stated that the design process incorporates regulatory check points/reviews with regulatory compliance professionals, including a consultant building surveyor, followed by certification by the relevant building surveyor.[223]
Factors that can compromise architects’ ability to ensure NCC compliance of designs
Focus group participants identified the following range of factors that can compromise architects' ability to ensure NCC compliance of designs, which are discussed in more detail below:
- procurement approach;
- regulatory features of the NCC; and
- lack of adequate oversight of interpretation of design documentation; and
- onerous obligations regarding compliance declarations.
Procurement approach
Academics stated that the procurement method is a big challenge – it may affect apportionment of responsibility and architects may not be paid sufficiently for the volume of documentation they are expected to produce to demonstrate NCC compliance.[224] Victorian architects agreed that the procurement approach may disempower architects, which may lead to NCC compliance being compromised in the built outcome, prompting the need for an alternative solution; whistleblower clauses can help to address this problem.[225] They also suggested that the pricing of design services may prioritise the design documentation over the conceptual design to ensure NCC compliance; fees for schematic design and design development are typically too low.[226] Academics suggested that there is a need to consider new procurement methods to determine how NCC compliance could be assured more comprehensively, like the old “Clerk of Works”.[227]
Lack of adequate oversight of interpretation of design documentation
Victorian architects stated that where the architect is not involved throughout the project delivery process, the quality of architectural documentation could be called into question because that documentation is then taken over or interpreted by other parties, which could lead to defects.[228] Defects can arise if a building is not built according to the design specification.[229]
Victorian architects[230] and NSW architects[231] noted that architects are not on site every day and are not in a position to confirm NCC compliance in relation to the construction of all elements of a design by the builder because not all aspects are observable; the architect and the building surveyor will need to make certain assumptions in this context. Victorian government representatives stated that defects may arise when on-site practitioners are trying to interpret design documentation; it may be challenging for building surveyors to determine whether what is being built is consistent with the design documentation.[232] Building surveyors stated that there is scope for better communication about how architectural documentation should be interpreted and applied on site to ensure compliant built outcomes.[233]
Obligations regarding compliance declarations
NSW architects noted that the NSW DBP Act requires that architects certify that what they have designed is compliant with the NCC.[234] These compliance declarations can be challenging because architects are not experts in the NCC, they may be asked to take on responsibility for matters that are beyond their realm, there may be a myriad of other design professionals involved in a project, and there may be grey areas regarding who is responsible for NCC compliance.[235] NSW architects also suggested that NCC compliance needs to be embedded into every facet of the design, not just at the end of the process when the design gets signed off, although the NCC only sets baseline minimum requirements.[236]
Regulatory features of the NCC
The NCC is intended to be a comprehensive legal framework for regulating building construction. However, Victorian architects stated that the NCC is a rather crude document, does not communicate some requirements well, and includes provisions that come into conflict (e.g. waterproofing and universal access requirements).[237] The NCC provides limited guidance regarding building materials and access to information about compliant building materials may be challenging, particularly where suppliers do not provide that information or restrict use of certification documentation for intellectual property reasons, where CodeMark certification does not exist,[238] and where testing is too time-consuming and/or costly.[239]
Materials used in construction projects may need to be tested to demonstrate compliance with relevant performance requirements in the NCC. Building surveyors stated that there is scope under the NCC to use and test new materials, but there may be complexities associated with certifying these new materials and/or gaining access to certification information for intellectual property reasons.[240] Victorian architects noted that the cost of testing materials to determine whether they are NCC-compliant is substantial.[241]
The NCC references certain Australian Standards as part of the regulatory framework. These Australian Standards provide technical requirements and specifications for materials, products, systems, and construction methods used in building projects. NSW architects stated that access to Australian Standards can be costly and practically challenging and referencing these standards in design documentation to demonstrate compliance can be problematic for intellectual property reasons.[242] They suggested that Australian Standards should be made freely accessible.[243] Building surveyors also noted that Australian Standards do not comprehensively address all site-specific design issues and stated that the lack of access to Australian Standards can lead to building defects.[244] Victorian government representatives added that the Australian Standards may be ambiguous or nuanced and this may affect the level of detail in architectural documentation, particularly in the context of residential development.[245]
Mechanisms to mitigate the risks of NCC non-compliance
Focus group participants touched on possible mechanisms to mitigate the risks of NCC non-compliance, particularly in relation to architectural design.
Building surveyors suggested that the reliance on minimum standards in the NCC, rather than pursuing the performance solution pathway, may hinder good, innovative design that suits the particular context.[246] A challenge is to get the sector to move towards best practice and fit-for-purpose built outcomes.[247] However, building surveyors noted that there appears to be limited appetite in the sector to pursue the performance solution pathway under the NCC that can lead to good, innovative design because the sector prefers a black and white approach in relation to compliance.[248] NSW architects suggested that education of clients and consultants about the use of performance solutions may be required to drive good quality built outcomes; this may involve a reinterpretation of the intent of the NCC.[249] Victorian architects further suggested that it is necessary to establish a “beyond compliance” culture from an early stage in an architect’s career.[250]
Building surveyors noted that technology could be used to assess and document NCC compliance.[251] However, NSW architects stated that software to check NCC compliance may be risky because of the overseas entities that have developed it and the dynamic nature of the NCC, which means that the software may not be up-to-date.[252]
Enhancing awareness of NCC obligations
Victorian architects stated that there does not appear to be any evidence that there is a lack of awareness of the need to ensure compliance with the NCC among architects, nor a resistance to achieving NCC compliance.[253] However, they also noted that staying abreast of NCC issues is a luxury for small practices, although NCC compliance is likely to be less of an issue for small residential buildings.[254]
As for architectural students, academics stated that there may be a lack of understanding regarding how universities educate architecture students about NCC compliance; it is untrue to state that the NCC is not being taught in universities.[255] Nonetheless, academics stated that universities need to ensure that architectural students have the right mindset regarding NCC compliance – that it needs to be addressed at the outset.[256] Students need to understand that NCC compliance is integrated into every facet of the design process. However, it is challenging for educators to communicate the details of NCC compliance; a basic understanding provided at university is best reinforced through practical experience.[257]
Building surveyors stated that more education is needed about the linkage between the design and the final built product and the critical importance of NCC compliance in the end-to-end process.[258] Academics suggested that consistent practical training about NCC compliance by experienced practitioners across all universities would be helpful.[259] Case studies about how to comply with the NCC would also be helpful for students.[260]
Victorian architects also raised the question about how architectural graduates can be better educated so that employers can rely upon them for a basic understanding of NCC compliance issues when they emerge from university.[261] Academics noted that students emerge from university with an understanding of how to navigate the NCC, but do not necessarily have a detailed understanding of the NCC itself and an ability to apply it.[262] Practical training after university should augment understanding of the NCC.[263]
NSW architects suggested that the onus falls on employers to help graduates’ understanding of the NCC and how NCC compliance can be achieved, which can be quite onerous.[264] Academics stated that the quality of training graduates receive about the importance of ensuring NCC compliance in architectural documentation will vary depending upon the type of practice they work for.[265] Victorian architects stated that it is incumbent upon architect directors and other people running an architectural practice to ensure that students undertaking their two-year training understand the importance of ensuring NCC compliance in architectural documentation.[266]
NSW architects suggested that there should be regular NCC training for architects from graduation and throughout their career and they should be incentivised to attend (e.g. by making them free to attend).[267] They also suggested that there should be a helpline to clarify technical questions about NCC compliance, particularly in light of the ambiguity associated with some aspects of the NCC.[268]
Academics suggested that there is also scope for more education about the role and responsibilities in relation to NCC compliance among all sectoral participants.[269] NSW architects agreed that education about procurement models and associated NCC compliance roles and responsibilities would be beneficial for all sectoral participants, not just architects.[270] Building surveyors stated that there would be benefit in more education about the complexities of the roles and responsibilities of parties in ensuring NCC compliance across the project delivery process, from beginning to end.[271]
Role for the ARBs
Focus group participants discussed the role that the ARBs could play to address some of the issues raised in relation to architects’ NCC obligations. NSW architects suggested that the ARBs could undertake advocacy work to clarify the role of architects in relation to NCC compliance.[272] Victorian architects stated that the ARBV’s remit and funding needs to be expanded so that it can promote architects, not just focus on non-compliance.[273]
Disruptive change
Architects awareness and preparedness for disruptive change
NSW architects stated that architects are focused on their everyday practice so may follow the status quo rather than being ahead of disruptive change, unless a response to change is mandated.[274] They suggested that architects favour the status quo partly out of fear of going first and taking risk; they respond to change on an iterative basis, particularly in relation to technology, which may not adequately address disruptive forces.[275] NSW architects added that there is a lot of complacency within the profession, a lack of business acumen and entrepreneurial spirit; architects need to acknowledge that they have agency in securing change for themselves rather than waiting for others to act in their best interests.[276] Academics observed that the architecture profession is conservative by nature, and there may be an assumption that things have always been done the same way.[277] Victorian government representatives noted that for those that are willing to respond to disruptive change, there may be unexpected and unintended risks and consequences (e.g. cladding).[278]
Focus group participants were asked to consider how aware and prepared architects are for likely future disruptive change associated with climate change and technological developments. The discussion started with a recognition of the importance of the context for the delivery of architectural services. Victorian architects stated that architects’ preparedness for disruptive change is contextualised by a myriad of societal, political, economic, and structural factors.[279] Clients/users agreed that architects’ preparedness for disruptive change is linked to various factors including societal attitudes, government policy, clients’ policy as well as exposure to particular issues in the context of projects that they have undertaken (e.g. electric vehicles (EVs)).[280] Academics also stated that the preparedness of architects for disruptive change is linked to how well prepared the broader society is; it was noted that some other cities around the world (such as Denmark) are far more prepared and know, for example, the precise amount of carbon each building can emit to ensure sustainability.[281]
According to the academics, research suggests that architects are not prepared for disruptive change and tend to be reactive rather than proactive.[282] Victorian government representatives stated that there is a spectrum in terms of the level of awareness and preparedness for disruptive change.[283] There is a long tail of architectural practitioners, including those involved in high volume and less complex developments, that are less aware and less prepared.[284] Victorian government representatives also observed that other practitioners in the sector who may also be unprepared for change (such as builders) will prefer to work with like-minded architects and other consultants.[285]
NSW architects explained that architects are focused on their everyday practice so may follow the status quo rather than being ahead of disruptive change, unless a response to change is mandated.[286] Victorian architects noted that some architectural practices are trying to lead the way by embracing disruptive change, being early adopters of approaches and technology, and pushing boundaries.[287]
Clients/users stated that despite the complexity of factors, and the fact that architects may have limited influence or control over responding to disruptive change, architects should nevertheless be aware and prepared for it.[288] Victorian architects agreed that architects need to be part of a society that pushes against resistance to change.[289] Academics noted that the dilemma for architects is that they are in the middle of a transformation which could result in a dramatic change in what it means to be an architect in Australia.[290] Academics further suggested that some activities and projects that architects currently undertake may become “extinct” in time; computers can already produce architectural documentation.[291] The Steering Committee considers that this comment implicitly underestimates the need for human involvement in the use of technological tools that can be used to facilitate the delivery of architectural services.
Academics observed that there is evidence to indicate that there are companies with a lot of capital that are looking to chip away at traditional architectural practices by taking advantage of the opportunities that disruptive change presents.[292] Developers/builders stated that big multinational firms are investing in sustainability and technology consultants in order to gain leverage in this environment.[293] NSW architects stated that the profession has the opportunity to embrace disruptive forces and radically reinvent what a more agile and responsive practice might look like; this could set a benchmark for the rest of the profession.[294]
Challenges faced by architects in responding to disruptive change
Focus group participants identified the following range of challenges that architects face in responding to disruptive change, which are discussed in more detail below:
- client’s budgetary limitations;
- regulatory pressures; and
- lack of adequate education, training and tools.
Client’s budgetary limitations
Victorian architects noted that architects are already seen as an expensive option for design services; performance solutions that respond to disruptive change are likely to increase costs.[295] NSW architects added that there is a significant financial and practical cost to respond to disruptive change for small-to-medium sized businesses and the benefits are not obvious.[296]
Building surveyors suggested that clients are focused on getting the highest yield from their buildings, and this may preclude appropriate responses to change (e.g. through energy efficiency measures).[297] Building costs affect the quality of buildings; these costs may wind back design ambition.[298] Victorian architects agreed that there is typically limited budget to respond to disruptive change.[299] They added that clients typically don’t want to spend more; architects need to find a way to justify an approach that may involve higher costs in this context.[300] Clients/users acknowledged that the biggest obstacle is the client.[301] Buildings need to be “future proofed”, but this may not be possible in light of the imperatives of the owner, client and builder.[302] Developers/builders added that developers are constantly looking to provide value for their clients, including by reducing costs.[303] Victorian government representatives suggested that clients typically do not want to move beyond the minimum standard of compliance towards a best practice model.[304] NSW government representatives noted that in the market for high rise apartments, there is little appetite to respond to disruptive change among all sectoral participants, including developers and builders.[305]
Developers/builders suggested that architects are often reactive to clients’ briefs.[306] However, Victorian government representatives noted that the client may not support the design response and there may be competing priorities and pressure in the context of the broader construction process.[307] NSW architects added that clients may lack understanding about regulatory requirements, technological developments and design choices.[308] In addition, there may be insufficient time for architects to respond to disruptive change in some contexts[309]
Clients/users suggested that clients need to be educated to achieve the best solution (i.e. one that is functional and responds to disruptive change) because the client drives the aspiration, the budget and the fees for the project; architects are the “meat in the sandwich” in this context and need to be in a position to educate and influence the client.[310] Architects need to play a role in collaborating, co-ordinating and synthesising information; they need skills to undertake this for complex organisations with varied stakeholders.[311]
Academics noted that younger clients, who are slowly assuming control of more conservative organisations, are easier to influence because they have a different perspective on disruptive change, particularly because the change will affect their future.[312] Victorian government representatives added that architects need to find a way to integrate themselves within the broader system to address some of the challenges associated with responding to disruptive change.[313]
Regulatory pressures
NSW architects stated that keeping up with relevant regulatory change can be challenging for architects (e.g. EV requirements).[314] Building surveyors suggested that the pace of recent legislative change in NSW may make it challenging for architects to respond to other changes, like climate change and technological change.[315] More specifically, the NSW DBP Act increases the burden on practitioners to document compliance, which may deter responses to disruptive forces that may be seen as a lower priority.[316]
NSW government representatives observed that the NSW DBP Act places more responsibility on practitioners involved in the construction process, including architects, which may lead to a reluctance to try new tools and techniques, especially since the statutory duty of care under the NSW DBP Act owed by architects and others carrying out construction work is for 10 years.[317] Developers/builders added that obligations under the NSW DBP Act means that developers expect more from architects in relation to NCC compliance; it is unclear whether they can meet these expectations as well as addressing climate change and technological change.[318]
Victorian government representatives noted that policy and regulatory standards may not keep pace with a changing context; this could compromise the ability to achieve best practice.[319] Victorian architects added that regulatory impediments may exist to reuse buildings (e.g. heritage protections).[320] NSW government representatives noted that major disasters can prompt the necessary response to disruptive change.[321]
Lack of adequate education, training and tools
Academics suggested that the education framework for architectural students is not capable of adjusting quickly enough to external change.[322] Digital tools enable architectural services to be provided at scale and at speed; architectural students need to be educated about the use of these tools.[323]
Victorian government representatives noted that it is important to consider whether new practitioners can meet increasing building demand while having the capacity to respond to disruptive change.[324] NSW architects stated that architects are not trained to adapt to significant disruptive change.[325] Developers/builders stated that CPD for architects should be broadened to cover disruptive change.[326]
Victorian architects also noted that tools to respond to disruptive change may not be readily available or may be too expensive.[327] Architectural practices should “test the water” with new tools as they become available.[328] Victorian architects added that fewer staff will be needed as a result of disruptive change but staff with skills to use new tools may be needed.[329] NSW architects also noted that disruptive forces may drive specialisation of services.[330]
Improving architects’ capacity to respond to disruptive change
Focus group participants put forward a number of suggestions to improve architects’ capacity to respond to disruptive change. Academics suggested that it is critical for architects to reflect on their business model for the 21st century given the dramatic change in the market in which they operate.[331] Developers/builders stated that architects need to have a vision of where they see themselves in the evolving market.[332] They need to take an active role and grow the value that they can offer, including by continually learning to keep pace with change, being across sustainability issues, and helping to ensure a joined-up approach in the context of a building project.[333] Further, architects need to become experts and claim the position of being able to solve problems caused by disruptive change, particularly climate change.[334]
Clients/users stated that architects have a high level of capability and sensitivity to the need to respond to disruptive change (particularly climate change), but they need to get a seat at the table when a client’s policy settings are being developed and be proactive rather than reactive.[335] NSW government representatives suggested that a collaborative approach with all relevant stakeholders to address the entire life cycle of a building will help overcome some of these challenges associated with disruptive change while delivering quality outcomes.[336] Academics suggested that, in the context of particular projects (e.g. government projects), cost-benefit and value-for-money assessments should account for longer-term issues associated with the life cycle of a building, such as carbon implications.[337]
Responding to climate change
The Systemic Risks Report discusses some of the opportunities, risks and challenges associated with climate change.[338] These issues were considered in more detail during the focus groups.
In terms of opportunities, Victorian architects stated that climate change presents a significant opportunity for architects and may help them differentiate themselves from other building designers.[339] Some practices have invested in how to mitigate the impact of buildings (e.g. by reducing energy usage), but there is more work to be done in relation to adapting buildings to the impacts of climate change.[340] NSW architects stated that good design can be achieved by using local materials, which should be used as much as possible; sourcing “sustainable” materials from overseas could be more harmful to the environment than sourcing materials locally.[341]
A variety of challenges and risks for architects in responding to disruptive change caused by climate change were identified by focus group participants:
- Contradictory information: NSW architects stated that some of the available information is contradictory, which make it challenging to respond.[342]
- Financially unviable: NSW architects also stated that some sustainable design solutions may not stack up financially.[343]
- Uncertain outcomes: NSW government representatives stated that the quality of a building must be assessed by determining whether it actually works in the context in which it is used; it may be difficult to predict whether a building achieves quality outcomes until after the project is complete and the building is in use.[344] NSW architects also stated that sustainable solutions may be rejected by building surveyors when NCC compliance is assessed (because, for example, a product has not been locally tested)
- Regulation outpaced by the context: Academics suggested that there needs to be a shift from “efficiency” to “sufficiency”; regulation may be needed to rule certain projects out.[345] Victorian architects stated that the concept of future proofing buildings is impossible; buildings will instead need to adapt to a changing context over time.[346] There needs to be a recalibration of what “heritage” is to enable reuse of buildings.[347]
- Lack of adequate skills: Academics stated that, in the future, building development will need to involve significant re-use, but these skills are not common within the profession.[348] Clients/users stated that architects need to understand the whole life cycle of a building when considering up front capital costs and ongoing operational costs; often this is left to engineers who may also be under-prepared.[349] NSW government representatives stated that architects need to use the local context (including climate) and local knowledge and collaborate with the local community to ensure that a building best suits local needs.[350] Ensuring quality in regional and remote areas is especially an issue, particularly where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities reside; a commitment to community and collaboration is needed in this context.[351]
Responding to technological change
The Systemic Risks Report also discusses some of the opportunities, risks and challenges associated with technological change.[352] These issues were considered in more detail during the focus groups.
In relation to opportunities, NSW architects stated that new tools (e.g. algorithmic design) are emerging, which may enhance the provision of architectural services, reduce costs and make design better.[353] Academics noted that digital tools enable architectural services to be provided at scale and at speed; architectural students need to be educated about the use of these tools.[354] Victorian architects also stated that new design tools can be used to architects’ advantage but there may need to be mechanisms to ensure that these tools don’t result in bad design.[355] NSW architects suggested that architects should use new tools to highlight their value.[356] However, developers/builders stated that to demonstrate value, architects need to be able to back up an understanding of feasibility with good design; business acumen and entrepreneurship are important.[357]
Developers/builders stated that artificial intelligence (AI) will have a significant impact on the provision of architectural services as well as construction.[358] Academics agreed that AI is a major disruptor, but uptake has been slow; there is a lot of anxiety and suspicion around AI within the profession in terms of what it means for the scope of architects’ services and how those services should be priced.[359] NSW architects stated that AI is concerning for small practices, particularly the prospect that some home owners can use AI apps to design their own homes.[360] Nevertheless, architects must jump on board with technological change or risk being left behind.[361]
Regarding challenges arising from technological change, Victorian architects stated that a lot of effort needs to be invested to stay ahead of some disruptive change, particularly technological change.[362] Architects need to be aware of technological change that is occurring throughout the sector (e.g. in relation to construction methods), not just in relation to the provision of architectural services.[363] Academics noted that, in order to achieve quality design in this context, humans will need to work with computers; humans will be involved in understanding the client’s needs and then translating that into a design with the use of a computer.[364] NSW government representatives referred to advances in manufactured housing and stated that an important challenge is getting repeatable factory-made buildings.[365]
Risks associated with technological change were also discussed by focus group participants. Developers/builders stated that manufactured housing may change the need for architectural services.[366] Academics stated that architecture essentially involves geometry, which can be processed by a computer better than a human so there is a huge potential for significant technological disruption.[367] Victorian architects stated that some clients may expect to pay less for architectural services because they assume that technology can substitute some of those services.[368] There is also a risk that technological change could lead to a reduction in quality because of the assumption that technology makes things easier, more efficient, and faster whereas design is a non-linear process.[369] NSW architects noted that new digital tools may make bad design more accessible.[370]
Other types of disruptive change
While the Systemic Risks Report focused on disruptive change caused by climate change and some technological changes, focus groups were asked to identify other causes of disruptive change that could affect the architecture profession. These have been summarised below.
Market instability and failure
Victorian architects stated that volatility in the construction industry is a significant issue, particularly in the context of D&C contracts; architects have to do more work to salvage projects but there are also time and cost pressures that can lead to poor design outcomes and non-compliance.[371] Clients/users agreed that construction insolvencies are a major challenge, although they were predicted by courts during the Covid-19 pandemic.[372]
Victorian government representatives added that market failure is a disruptor, such as market exit due to over-regulation, increases in PI insurance, and unprofessional conduct leading to poor outcomes.[373] The culture within the construction sector of doing the minimum rather than doing the right thing is a significant risk.[374] NSW architects added that key disruptors are interest rates and the financial position of clients.[375]
Over-regulation
NSW architects stated that there is too much regulation which increases the cost of doing business; increased compliance or regulatory requirements do not necessarily lead to better design.[376] Victorian government representatives added that lack of confidence in the building sector may lead to further regulatory reforms that may have a direct or indirect impact on architects; there may be greater pressure to document compliance and “self-certify”.[377] Victorian architects stated that some regulation has softened (e.g. planning regulations), which makes it easier for less qualified designers to navigate requirements; regulation needs to be tightened in the interests of better urban design.[378]
Geopolitical developments
Clients users stated that pandemics (the next one), the global economy and the effects of war are major disruptors because they have an impact on fragile global supply chains.[379] Victorian government representatives noted that international instability has an impact on supply chains and access to materials. It also puts pressure on local markets and may compromise the capacity to deliver the best design solutions.[380]
Skills shortage
Victorian government representatives stated that Victoria’s Housing Statement is a significant policy initiative around increasing the volume of affordable houses; it is unclear whether there are sufficient skills across the industry to meet demand and deliver safe, durable houses.[381] Building surveyors added that getting the right people to fill the right roles can be challenging given the current labour market.[382]
Role for the ARBs
Advocacy
Victorian architects suggested that the ARBs should advocate for architects and the profession in the context of government policy.[383] The marginalised role of architects in the D&C context could be addressed by advocating for architects to be included in tender review panels, thereby providing architects with a “seat at the table”.[384] Victorian government representatives stated that providing opportunities for sectoral participants to come together to discuss systemic issues and have their voices heard is very useful and will help provide an evidence base for policy making and legislative change.[385]
Leadership and culture
NSW architects stated that the ARBs can support leadership and positive culture within the profession so that the profession can drive the necessary change rather than waiting for other bodies to do that for them.[386] NSW architects suggested that the ARBs could establish an opportunity for architects to reflect on the nature and role of the profession in light of disruptive change; insights from different practitioners and sectors could be useful.[387] Clients/users also suggested that the ARBs could help address the variability in the quality and standard of services provided by architects.[388] The diversity and complexity of the profession should be recognised and accounted for in the support provided by the ARBs.[389] Academics stated that the ARBs need to consider how to cater to all their constituents given their very different skills and needs, including the two main types of architectural practices – the small practices and the large practices.[390]
Education and training
NSW government representatives stated that education and training of architects is critical and, over time, will help to mitigate risks.[391] NSW architects stated that educational support by the ARBs to help architects navigate disruptive change will enhance architects’ ability to influence those around them.[392] More specifically, academics stated that there is a need for CPD that helps architects navigate disruptive change, including courses about how to run a business and about the use of digital tools.[393] Developers/builders stated that shifting the profession’s approach from reactive to proactive is important.[394] Developers/builders and academics stated that there needs to be a commitment by architects to lifelong learning.[395]
Victorian architects stated that the ARBs and educational institutions need to work harder at ensuring that education is robust and that students emerging from university have the necessary knowledge and skills.[396] Developers/builders suggested that consideration could be given to accreditation of different types of architectural specialists.[397]
NSW architects suggested that clients also need to be educated about the impact of disruptive change.[398] Victorian government representatives stated that clients or consumers of architectural services could be better educated about the architect’s role but also the client’s role in ensuring an appropriate level of service and quality outcomes, not just price.[399] NSW government representatives also stated that the public needs to be educated about the benefits of using architects.[400]
[1] Developer/BuilderFG1.
[2] ArchNSWFG1.
[3] ArchNSWFG1.
[4] ArchNSWFG1.
[5] Client/UserFG1.
[6] ArchVicFG1.
[7] ArchVicFG1.
[8] Client/UserFG1.
[9] Client/UserFG1.
[10] ArchVicFG1.
[11] ArchVicFG1.
[12] BuildSurvFG1.
[13] BuildSurvFG1.
[14] GovVicFG1.
[15] ArchVicFG1.
[16] ArchNSWFG1.
[17] ArchNSWFG1.
[18] ArchNSWFG1.
[19] ArchVicFG1.
[20] GovVicFG1.
[21] GovVicFG1.
[22] ArchNSWFG1.
[23] AcadFG1.
[24] ArchNSWFG1.
[25] Insurer/BrokerFG1.
[26] Insurer/BrokerFG1.
[27] ArchVicFG1.
[28] ArchVicFG1.
[29] GovVicFG1.
[30] AcadFG1.
[31] Insurer/BrokerFG1.
[32] BuildSurvFG1.
[33] BuildSurvFG1.
[34] BuildSurvFG1.
[35] ArchVicFG1. The Lacrosse case concerned a fire at the Lacrosse apartment tower in Melbourne that was linked to flammable cladding used on the building. The judgement in that case can be found in Owners Corporation No 1 of PS613436T v L U Simon Builders Pty Ltd [2019] VCAT 286.
[36] AcadFG1.
[37] ArchNSWFG1.
[38] Client/UserFG1.
[39] Client/UserFG1.
[40] AcadFG1.
[41] ArchNSWFG1.
[42] ArchNSWFG1.
[43] GovVicFG1.
[44] GovVicFG1.
[45] ArchNSWFG1.
[46] ArchNSWFG1.
[47] ArchNSWFG1.
[48] ArchNSWFG1.
[49] ArchVicFG1.
[50] GovVicFG1.
[51] ArchVicFG1.
[52] AcadFG1.
[53] AcadFG1.
[54] ArchNSWFG1.
[55] Developer/BuilderFG1.
[56] AcadFG1.
[57] GovVicFG1.
[58] ArchVicFG1.
[59] Developer/BuilderFG1.
[60] Developer/BuilderFG1.
[61] ArchNSWFG1.
[62] Developer/BuilderFG1.
[63] ArchVicFG1.
[64] GovNSWFG1.
[65] Insurer/BrokerFG1.
[66] Insurer/BrokerFG1.
[67] Insurer/BrokerFG1.
[68] Insurer/BrokerFG1.
[69] Insurer/BrokerFG1.
[70] Insurer/BrokerFG1.
[71] Insurer/BrokerFG1.
[72] Insurer/BrokerFG1.
[73] Insurer/BrokerFG1.
[74] Insurer/BrokerFG1.
[75] Insurer/BrokerFG1.
[76] ArchVicFG1.
[77] ArchNSWFG1.
[78] Insurer/BrokerFG1.
[79] ArchNSWFG1.
[80] ArchVicFG1.
[81] ArchVicFG1.
[82] ArchVicFG1.
[83] ArchVicFG1.
[84] ArchVicFG1.
[85] ArchVicFG1.
[86] ArchVicFG1.
[87] Client/UserFG1.
[88] ArchVicFG1.
[89] Developer/BuilderFG1.
[90] Developer/BuilderFG1.
[91] ArchVicFG1.
[92] ArchVicFG1.
[93] ArchVicFG1.
[94] GovVicFG1.
[95] AcadFG1.
[96] ArchNSWFG1.
[97] GovNSWFG1.
[98] GovNSWFG1.
[99] GovNSWFG1.
[100] GovNSWFG1.
[101] ArchNSWFG1.
[102] AcadFG1.
[103] GovNSWFG1.
[104] ArchVicFG1.
[105] ArchVicFG1.
[106] Developer/BuilderFG1.
[107] Developer/BuilderFG1.
[108] Client/UserFG1.
[109] ArchNSWFG1.
[110] Client/UserFG1.
[111] AcadFG1.
[112] GovVicFG1.
[113] Developer/BuilderFG1.
[114] Developer/BuilderFG1.
[115] GovNSWFG1.
[116] GovNSWFG1.
[117] GovNSWFG1.
[118] ArchVicFG1.
[119] ArchVicFG1.
[120] ArchNSWFG1.
[121] BuildSurvFG1.
[122] GovNSWFG1.
[123] AcadFG1.
[124] AcadFG1.
[125] GovNSWFG1.
[126] AcadFG1.
[127] ArchNSWFG1.
[128] ArchNSWFG1.
[129] ArchNSWFG1.
[130] ArchNSWFG1.
[131] GovNSWFG1.
[132] ArchNSWFG1.
[133] GovVicFG1.
[134] GovVicFG1.
[135] GovVicFG1.
[136] ArchVicFG2.
[137] GovVicFG2.
[138] BuildSurvFG2.
[139] Developer/BuilderFG2.
[140] GovVicFG2.
[141] BuildSurvFG2.
[142] BuildSurvFG2.
[143] Client/UserFG2.
[144] ArchVicFG2.
[145] BuildSurvFG2.
[146] ArchVicFG2.
[147] AcadFG2.
[148] AcadFG2.
[149] ArchNSWFG2.
[150] ArchNSWFG2.
[151] GovVicFG2.
[152] GovVicFG2.
[153] ArchNSWFG2.
[154] Client/UserFG2.
[155] GovVicFG2.
[156] ArchVicFG2.
[157] GovVicFG2.
[158] AcadFG2.
[159] ArchVicFG2.
[160] Client/UserFG2.
[161] Client/UserFG2.
[162] ArchVicFG2.
[163] Client/UserFG2.
[164] Developer/BuilderFG2.
[165] Developer/BuilderFG2.
[166] BuildSurvFG2.
[167] BuildSurvFG2.
[168] GovVicFG2.
[169] Developer/BuilderFG2.
[170] Client/UserFG2.
[171] Developer/BuilderFG2.
[172] ArchVicFG2.
[173] ArchNSWFG2.
[174] Insurer/BrokerFG2.
[175] ArchVicFG2.
[176] BuildSurvFG2.
[177] Insurer/BrokerFG2.
[178] Insurer/BrokerFG2.
[179] BuildSurvFG2.
[180] ArchVicFG2.
[181] The Victorian Code of Conduct for Building Surveyors can be found on the website of the Victorian Building Authority (VBA): https://www.vba.vic.gov.au/surveyors/code-of-conduct.
[182] BuildSurvFG2.
[183] ArchVicFG2.
[184] ArchVicFG2.
[185] BuildSurvFG2.
[186] BuildSurvFG2.
[187] BuildSurvFG2.
[188] BuildSurvFG2.
[189] Insurer/BrokerFG2.
[190] Insurer/BrokerFG2.
[191] GovVicFG2.
[192] ArchNSWFG2.
[193] ArchNSWFG2.
[194] BuildSurvFG2.
[195] BuildSurvFG2.
[196] BuildSurvFG2.
[197] ArchNSWFG2.
[198] ArchVicFG2.
[199] ArchNSWFG2.
[200] AcadFG2.
[201] ArchVicFG2.
[202] ArchNSWFG2.
[203] ArchNSWFG2.
[204] ArchNSWFG2.
[205] BuildSurvFG2.
[206] GovVicFG2.
[207] BuildSurvFG2.
[208] Developer/BuilderFG2.
[209] ArchVicFG2.
[210] BuildSurvFG2.
[211] BuildSurvFG2.
[212] GovVicFG2.
[213] BuildSurvFG2.
[214] BuildSurvFG2.
[215] BuildSurvFG2.
[216] ArchNSWFG2.
[217] ArchNSWFG2.
[218] ArchVicFG2.
[219] GovVicFG2.
[220] ArchNSWFG2.
[221] Client/UserFG2.
[222] Developer/BuilderFG2.
[223] ArchVicFG2.
[224] AcadFG2.
[225] ArchVicFG2.
[226] ArchVicFG2.
[227] AcadFG2. See Hegarty, M., Bring Back the Clerk of Works, 17 January 2019 on the ACA’s website for more information about the Clerk of Works: https://aca.org.au/bring-back-the-clerk-of-works/.
[228] ArchVicFG2.
[229] ArchNSWFG2.
[230] ArchVicFG2.
[231] ArchNSWFG2.
[232] GovVicFG2.
[233] BuildSurvFG2.
[234] ArchNSWFG2.
[235] ArchNSWFG2.
[236] ArchNSWFG2.
[237] ArchVicFG2.
[238] CodeMark is a voluntary third-party building product certification scheme, administered by the Australian Building Codes Board.
[239] ArchVicFG2.
[240] BuildSurvFG2.
[241] ArchVicFG2.
[242] ArchNSWFG2.
[243] ArchNSWFG2.
[244] BuildSurvFG2.
[245] GovVicFG2.
[246] BuildSurvFG2.
[247] BuildSurvFG2.
[248] BuildSurvFG2.
[249] ArchNSWFG2.
[250] ArchVicFG2.
[251] BuildSurvFG2.
[252] ArchNSWFG2.
[253] ArchVicFG2.
[254] ArchVicFG2.
[255] AcadFG2.
[256] AcadFG2.
[257] AcadFG2.
[258] BuildSurvFG2.
[259] AcadFG2.
[260] AcadFG2.
[261] ArchVicFG2.
[262] AcadFG2.
[263] AcadFG2.
[264] ArchNSWFG2.
[265] AcadFG2.
[266] ArchVicFG2.
[267] ArchNSWFG2.
[268] ArchNSWFG2.
[269] AcadFG2.
[270] ArchNSWFG2.
[271] BuildSurvFG2.
[272] ArchNSWFG2.
[273] ArchVicFG2.
[274] ArchNSWFG4.
[275] ArchNSWFG4.
[276] ArchNSWFG4.
[277] AcadFG4.
[278] GovVicFG4.
[279] ArchVicFG4.
[280] Client/UserFG4.
[281] AcadFG4.
[282] AcadFG4.
[283] GovVicFG4.
[284] GovVicFG4.
[285] GovVicFG4.
[286] ArchNSWFG4.
[287] ArchVicFG4.
[288] Client/UserFG4.
[289] ArchVicFG4.
[290] AcadFG4.
[291] AcadFG4.
[292] AcadFG4.
[293] Developer/BuilderFG4.
[294] ArchNSWFG4.
[295] ArchVicFG4.
[296] ArchNSWFG4.
[297] BuildSurvFG4.
[298] BuildSurvFG4.
[299] ArchVicFG4.
[300] ArchVicFG4.
[301] Client/UserFG4.
[302] Client/UserFG4.
[303] Developer/BuilderFG4.
[304] GovVicFG4.
[305] GovNSWFG4.
[306] Developer/BuilderFG4.
[307] GovVicFG4.
[308] ArchNSWFG4.
[309] ArchNSWFG4.
[310] Client/UserFG4.
[311] Client/UserFG4.
[312] AcadFG4.
[313] GovVicFG4.
[314] ArchNSWFG4.
[315] BuildSurvFG4.
[316] BuildSurvFG4.
[317] GovNSWFG4.
[318] Developer/BuilderFG4.
[319] GovVicFG4.
[320] ArchVicFG4.
[321] GovNSWFG4.
[322] AcadFG4.
[323] AcadFG4.
[324] GovVicFG4.
[325] ArchNSWFG4.
[326] Developer/BuilderFG4.
[327] ArchVicFG4.
[328] ArchVicFG4.
[329] ArchVicFG4.
[330] ArchNSWFG4.
[331] AcadFG4.
[332] Developer/BuilderFG4.
[333] Developer/BuilderFG4.
[334] Developer/BuilderFG4.
[335] Client/UserFG4.
[336] GovNSWFG4.
[337] AcadFG1.
[338] Systemic Risks Report, Chapter 8.
[339] ArchVicFG4.
[340] ArchVicFG4.
[341] ArchNSWFG4.
[342] ArchNSWFG4.
[343] ArchNSWFG4.
[344] GovNSWFG4.
[345] AcadFG4.
[346] ArchVicFG4.
[347] ArchVicFG4.
[348] AcadFG4.
[349] Client/UserFG4.
[350] GovNSWFG4.
[351] GovNSWFG4.
[352] Systemic Risks Report, Chapter 9.
[353] ArchNSWFG4.
[354] AcadFG4.
[355] ArchVicFG4.
[356] ArchNSWFG4.
[357] Developer/BuilderFG4.
[358] Developer/BuilderFG4.
[359] AcadFG4.
[360] ArchNSWFG4.
[361] ArchNSWFG4.
[362] ArchVicFG4.
[363] ArchVicFG4.
[364] AcadFG4.
[365] GovNSWFG4.
[366] Developer/BuilderFG4.
[367] AcadFG4.
[368] ArchVicFG4.
[369] ArchVicFG4.
[370] ArchNSWFG4.
[371] ArchVicFG4.
[372] Client/UserFG4.
[373] GovVicFG4.
[374] GovVicFG4.
[375] ArchNSWFG4.
[376] ArchNSWFG4.
[377] GovVicFG4.
[378] ArchVicFG4.
[379] Client/UserFG4.
[380] GovVicFG4.
[381] GovVicFG4.
[382] BuildSurvFG4.
[383] ArchVicFG4.
[384] ArchVicFG4.
[385] GovVicFG4.
[386] ArchNSWFG4.
[387] ArchNSWFG4.
[388] Client/UserFG4.
[389] Client/UserFG4.
[390] AcadFG4.
[391] GovNSWFG4.
[392] ArchNSWFG4.
[393] AcadFG4.
[394] Developer/BuilderFG4.
[395] AcadFG4; Developer/BuilderFG4.
[396] ArchVicFG4.
[397] Developer/BuilderFG4.
[398] ArchNSWFG4.
[399] GovVicFG4.
[400] GovNSWFG4.
[1] Client/UserFG3.
[2] ArchVicFG3.
[3] ArchNSWFG3.
[4] Client/UserFG3.
[5] AcadFG3.
[6] Developer/BuilderFG3.
[7] Client/UserFG3. In particular, the point was made that sub-consultants may delay providing information to architects.
[8] ArchVicFG3.
[9] Client/UserFG3.
[10] Client/UserFG3.
[11] Developer/BuilderFG3.
[12] ArchVicFG3.
[13] Client/UserFG3.
[14] Systemic Risks Report, paras. 33 – 34.
[15] ArchNSWFG3.
[16] AcadFG3.
[17] Client/UserFG3.
[18] Client/UserFG3.
[19] Developer/BuilderFG3.
[20] BuildSurvFG3.
[21] Client/UserFG3.
[22] Client/UserFG3.
[23] ArchVicFG3.
[24] ArchVicFG3.
[25] Client/UserFG3.
[26] Developer/BuilderFG3.
[27] ArchNSWFG3.
[28] Developer/BuilderFG3.
[29] Client/UserFG3.
[30] ArchVicFG3.
[31] Client/UserFG3.
[32] ArchNSWFG3.
[33] ArchNSWFG3.
[34] ArchVicFG3.
[35] AcadFG3.
[36] ArchVicFG3.
[37] Client/UserFG3.
[38] Client/UserFG3.
[39] Developer/BuilderFG3.
[40] Developer/BuilderFG3.
[41] Client/UserFG3.
[42] Client/UserFG3.
[43] ArchNSWFG3.
[44] BuildSurvFG3.
[45] ArchNSWFG3.
[46] Developer/BuilderFG3.
[47] Client/UserFG3.
[48] AcadFG3.
[49] ArchVicFG3.
[50] ArchNSWFG3.
[51] Client/UserFG3.
[52] Client/UserFG3.
[53] Client/UserFG3.
[54] ArchNSWFG3.
[55] ArchVicFG3.
[56] Client/UserFG3.
[57] Client/UserFG3.
[58] ArchVicFG3.
[59] Client/UserFG3.
[60] Developer/BuilderFG3.
[61] ArchVicFG3.
[62] Client/UserFG3.
[63] Systemic Risks Report, para. 90.
[64] Systemic Risks Report, para. 111.
[65] Client/UserFG3.
[66] Client/UserFG3.
[67] Client/UserFG3.
[68] ArchNSWFG3.
[69] ArchNSWFG3.
[70] ArchNSWFG3.
[71] ArchVicFG3.
[72] ArchVicFG3.
[73] Client/UserFG3.
[74] Client/UserFG3.
[75] Client/UserFG3.
[76] Client/UserFG3.
[77] ArchVicFG3.
[78] ArchVicFG3.
[79] Client/UserFG3.
[80] Client/UserFG3.
[81] ArchVicFG3.
[82] Developer/BuilderFG3.
[83] Developer/BuilderFG3.
[84] Client/UserFG3.
[85] ArchVicFG3.
[86] Information about the RIBA Plan of Work can be found on RIBA’s website: https://www.architecture.com/knowledge-and-resources/resources-landing-page/riba-plan-of-work.
[87] AcadFG3.
[88] Information about the ACA’s Architect’s Time Cost Calculator can be found on the ACA’s website: https://aca.org.au/architects-time-cost-calculator/.
[89] Systemic Risks Report, paras. 98 – 104.
[90] Systemic Risks Report, para. 111.
[91] Client/UserFG3.
[92] ArchNSWFG3.
[93] Client/UserFG3.
[94] Developer/BuilderFG3.
[95] Client/UserFG3.
[96] ArchVicFG3.
[97] ArchVicFG3.
[98] ArchVicFG3.
[99] ArchVicFG3.
[100] ArchNSWFG3.
[101] Client/UserFG3.
[102] ArchVicFG3.
[103] ArchVicFG3.
[104] ArchVicFG3.
[105] Client/UserFG3.
[106] ArchNSWFG3.
[107] ArchNSWFG3.
[108] Client/UserFG3.
[109] AcadFG3.
[110] Client/UserFG3.
[111] Client/UserFG3.
[112] ArchVicFG3.
[113] Client/UserFG3.
[114] AcadFG3. The NSCA is administered by the Architects Accreditation Council of Australia (AACA). Information about the NSCA can be found on the AACA’s website: https://aaca.org.au/national-standard-of-competency-for-architects/2021nsca/.
[115] AcadFG3.
[116] Client/UserFG3.
[117] Client/UserFG3.
[118] AcadFG3.
[119] AcadFG3.
[120] AcadFG3.
[121] AcadFG3.
[122] ArchNSWFG3.
[123] Client/UserFG3.
[124] AcadFG3.
[125] Developer/BuilderFG3.
[126] ArchVicFG3.
[127] ArchVicFG3.
[128] ArchNSWFG3.
[129] Client/UserFG3.
[130] Client/UserFG3.
[131] BuildSurvFG3.
[132] Client/UserFG3.
[133] ArchNSWFG3.
[134] Client/UserFG3.
[135] ArchVicFG3.
Updated