Executive summary

Background

In 2022, the Architects Registration Board of Victoria (ARBV) and the NSW Architects Registration Board (NSW ARB) undertook a joint research project to identify current and future systemic compliance issues and associated risks affecting regulation of the architecture profession in Australia. The report on “Systemic Risks in the Australian Architecture Sector” (Systemic Risks Report) contains the results of that research project.[1]

The Systemic Risks Report was largely based on a desktop review of Australian and global sources of information, including surveys and studies of the construction and architecture sectors, both in Australia and abroad. To further interrogate the results of the desktop review reflected in the Systemic Risks Report, in 2023, the ARBV and NSW ARB (collectively referred to as the ARBs in this report) decided to collaborate once again to conduct a series of focus groups to undertake “deep dives” in relation to key themes identified in the initial research – namely, client-architect relationships and agreements, design and construct procurement (D&C procurement), compliance with the National Construction Code (NCC compliance) and disruptive change. The focus groups included representatives from Victoria and NSW and from across the sector, including architects, industry bodies, clients, developers, builders, building surveyors, insurers, academics, government agencies and other regulatory bodies.

The analysis and findings from the Systemic Risks Report have been combined with the insights from the focus groups to prepare this “Deep Dive Report into Systemic Risks in the Australian Architecture Sector” (Deep Dive Report). The main purpose of this report is to share the insights gained by the ARBs in relation to the four themes addressed during the focus groups as well as the implications for the ARBs and for other sectoral participants so that built outcomes can be improved. The primary focus of the discussion in this report is on issues relating to architects’ professional standards obligations under the regulatory frameworks administered by the ARBs, although many issues identified in this report extend beyond this scope given their systemic nature.

Key insights

The comments made during the focus groups confirmed the existence of systemic risks identified in the Systemic Risks Report. However, the focus group comments helped to add detail and nuance to the findings in the Systemic Risks Report and deepen the ARBs’ understanding of systemic risks. This, in turn, has enabled more specific recommendations to be made to address those risks.

The key insights about systemic risks facing the Australian architecture sector are summarised below:

Client-architect relationships and agreements: Sound communication between the architect and client is critical for a good relationship, yet this is an area where there is scope for improvement both by the architect (particularly in relation to project delivery) and by the client (to ensure that clear lines of communication are in place and working effectively). The sector could benefit from a better understanding of the different facets of communication between architects and their clients and how they can be employed to enhance outcomes. There is also evidence to indicate that bespoke client-architect agreements are common and these agreements are not being used effectively to manage client-architect relationships and associated risks in the context of both small and large-scale projects.
D&C procurement: D&C procurement can result in a shift in responsibility for, and control of, the design delivery process away from the architects, which can ultimately compromise the quality of built outcomes and may mean that architects are unable to discharge their professional standards obligations. High-level design documentation may be favoured under D&C procurement. This, coupled with limited on-site presence, may hamper the ability of architects to manage design intent during the construction process.
NCC compliance: There is disagreement among sectoral participants about whether NCC compliance can drive quality built outcomes because the NCC only establishes minimum standards in relation to certain built outcomes. This disagreement may affect architects’ understanding of the NCC and the way they use the NCC in practice. Specific roles and responsibilities to ensure NCC compliance are not well understood, particularly in the context of D&C procurement. In addition, architects’ ability to demonstrate that their designs are NCC-compliant may be compromised when the scope of design services procured from the architect is limited. Design documentation that is not sufficiently detailed may lead to NCC non-compliance in built outcomes.
Disruptive change: Overall, the level of awareness and preparedness to respond to disruptive change across the full breadth of the architecture profession is likely to be limited, particularly climate change and technological change. While larger architectural practices may have the capacity and resources to be responsive to disruptive change, this is less likely to be the case for smaller practices and sole practitioners. The profession may need to make adjustments to their services, and the way in which they are delivered, in light of these changes to ensure that professional standards can continue to be met but also to avail of the opportunities that disruptive change presents.

The focus group discussions also revealed the following overarching insights:

Roles and responsibilities Even though sectoral participants appear to recognise the important contribution that architects can make to good quality built outcomes, the specific roles and responsibilities among project participants are not well understood, particularly in the D&C context. This could compromise the well-functioning of relationships, especially between the architect and client.
ARBs’ role: There is also some confusion across the sector about the ARBs’ role. Some stakeholders appear to be under the misapprehension that the ARBs are advocates for architects in a similar way to industry bodies. Misunderstandings about the ARBs’ role under the regulatory frameworks they administer could hamper their ability to discharge their regulatory functions and, in turn, impact their contribution to positive outcomes in the sector. There is a need for more education about the role of the ARBs.

The table below summarises the main findings, insights and implications arising from the analysis for this report, followed by a list of recommendations for key stakeholders that could play a role in mitigating risks facing the Australian architecture sector. Please scroll across to view the full table.

	TOPIC	FINDINGS	INSIGHTS	IMPLICATIONS
CLIENT-ARCHITECT RELATIONSHIPS AND AGREEMENTS
	Factors that can have an adverse impact on the client-architect relationship	There is a broad range of factors that may have an adverse impact on the client-architect relationship throughout the process of procuring and providing architectural services, including: misalignment of design expectations between the architect and client about the brief and the design inadequate skills and expertise (including in relation to project delivery) ambiguity of roles and responsibilities engagement of an architect for partial services onerous and unfair contractual obligations fee arrangements and variations inefficient and ineffective communication and engagement lack of detail in design documentation regulatory non-compliance.	A number of the factors that can have an adverse impact on the client-architect relationship arise in the context of particular procurement processes and may be outside the control of architects. However, some factors are at least partly within architects’ control regardless of the procurement process.	Architects could benefit from more guidance about how to effectively address factors that can have an adverse impact on the client-architect relationship that are within their control. Raising awareness among sectoral stakeholders about factors that are outside architects’ control could enhance the client-architect relationship and outcomes for all parties.
2.	Roles, responsibilities and obligations	There isn’t a clear and common understanding of architects’ roles, responsibilities and main obligations to clients among sectoral participants. The mutuality of the relationship between clients and architects has not been thoroughly explored, particularly identification of clients’ responsibilities and obligations to architects. Better understanding of clients’ roles and responsibilities could facilitate architects’ delivery of services in accordance with their professional standards obligations.	The lack of a clear and common understanding of roles, responsibilities and obligations of architects and their clients may stem from the fact that these may change under some procurement processes. This lack of clarity could compromise the well-functioning of the client-architect relationship and undermine architects’ capacity to advocate for themselves and the design process.	More information is needed for sectoral participants about the roles, responsibilities and obligations of architects and clients in the context of different procurement processes.
3.	Factors that affect communication between architects and clients	Communication between clients and architects is multifaceted and bi-directional. It is unclear whether the scope, form and content of communication required to ensure successful outcomes from procurement through to delivery of architectural services is well-understood. The lines of communication between architects and clients may be unclear or limited in the context of certain procurement processes.	Architects are likely to have strong skills in communicating about design, but may find communicating clearly about some aspects of project delivery more complex, even though these aspects are likely to be important for the client. Architects’ ability to discharge their communication obligations to their clients may be compromised if lines of communication with clients are unclear or limited.	Given that communication issues are common in the provision of architectural services, more education and training about all aspects of communication between clients and architects could be beneficial, particularly in relation to project delivery and in the context of different procurement processes. Client-architect relationships could also be improved if clients are more aware of the impact of poor communication between architects and clients on project outcomes.
4.	Use of a client-architect agreement to drive a positive client-architect relationship	There is evidence to indicate that client-architect agreements are not being used effectively or constructively in the context of small construction projects as well as large projects; bespoke contracts are common in both contexts. For small-scale projects, architects may fail to adequately educate clients about the terms and conditions of client-architect agreements. For larger projects, where clients may provide the client-architect agreement rather than vice versa, bespoke contracts may focus predominantly on risk allocation and management. Some lending institutions may only provide credit for construction projects on condition that D&C procurement is used and the contract contains certain terms and conditions.	There appears to be a lack of appreciation of the value of adopting and implementing a standardised client-architect agreement that is consistent with the regulatory framework. Architects may be unduly deferent and may accept terms and conditions put forward by clients in the context of some procurement processes, notwithstanding their obligation to ensure the client-architect agreement complies with their regulatory obligations regardless of the procurement process. The use of standardised client-architect agreements can help ensure transparency and clarity about roles and responsibilities which, in turn, may reduce the risk of disputes.	A better understanding of the drivers for the preference of bespoke contracts for small and large projects could help identify how greater uptake of standardised contracts that are compliant with the regulatory framework could be achieved. Architects need to adopt a proactive approach in all procurement processes to ensure that the client-architect agreement complies with the regulatory framework.
5.	Impact of fee structures on client-architect relationships	The fee structure, which may affect the well-functioning of the client-architect relationship, will be dictated by a range of factors, including the type of project, client and design services that are required. In general, fixed fees are likely to be preferred by clients because they provide relative cost certainty whereas percentage fees are likely to be favoured by architects because they can enable cost-recovery for inflation and unforeseen developments that can occur during a project.	Percentage fees may destabilise client-architect relationships because of the cost uncertainty that they imply. Fixed fees are onerous for architects because they involve a detailed specification of services that need to be costed. Fixed fees also need to anticipate and provide for inclusions and exclusions, which may be difficult to predict at the commencement of a project.	There may be scope for architects to improve their capacity to demonstrate their value to clients through different fee structures. The use of standardised specifications of services for different types of building projects could help alleviate the burden on architects when setting fixed fees.
6.	Education and training to enhance client-architect relationships	Architects are looking for more guidance about what a good client-architect relationship looks like in practice. More education and training about communication between architects and their clients would be particularly helpful.	While architects may understand what their obligations to clients are under the regulatory framework, they could benefit from more education about how those obligations can be used to forge positive client-architect relationships. Clients could also benefit from education about their role in enhancing client-architect relationships.	Guidance and case studies for architects and clients to highlight factors that lead to positive client-architect relationships in different procurement and project contexts would be useful.
D&C PROCUREMENT
7.	Impact of D&C procurement on the design process	The combination of the following features of D&C procurement can result in a shift in responsibility for, and control of, the design delivery process away from architects: cost and time imperatives complexity of relationships and lines of reporting siloing of functions unfair contractual arrangements.	Architects are likely to have reduced influence over the design process in the context of D&C procurement. The shift in responsibility for, and control of, the design delivery process away from architects under D&C procurement may have an impact on: the level of detail of design documentation that an architect is expected to prepare the quality of the design the translation of the design into the built outcome. NCC non-compliance and poor quality built outcomes may result from: design documentation that is not sufficiently detailed failure to ensure consistency with the design during the building process.	Mechanisms to ensure that architects retain adequate control over the design process and are able to manage design intent when the project is being built are critically important in the D&C context. More oversight is needed of the interpretation of the design during the construction process to mitigate the risks of NCC non-compliance and poor quality built outcomes. In order to minimise the risk of NCC non-compliance, documentation of critical aspects of a design should be required before a D&C contract is novated or a building designer takes over design services from an architect.
8.	Factors that contribute to adverse outcomes for architects and the design process in the D&C context	There are various factors that can contribute to adverse outcomes for architects and the design process when D&C procurement is used, such as limits on the project budget and the lack of a sufficiently collaborative approach among all key stakeholders in the project delivery process.	A number of the factors that can contribute to adverse design outcomes are outside architects’ control, such as the culture and approach among project participants.	Architects could benefit from training on: the pros and cons of different procurement models which models are best suited to particular contexts how professional standards obligations can be complied with in each of those contexts the possible impact on built outcomes in each case. Broader education among sectoral participants about the impact of cultural issues on built outcomes is essential if adverse outcomes are to be minimised in the D&C context.
9.	Impact of D&C contracts on allocation of risk, liability and insurance	Contractual mechanisms are being used in the D&C context to unfairly allocate risk and responsibility to architects beyond what is reasonable and, potentially, beyond the common law duty of care.	The allocation of risk and indemnities under D&C contracts may be designed to ensure finance is available for a project; developers suggest they have limited capacity to negotiate with the major lending bodies to deviate from standard contractual terms. Unfair contractual arrangements can also compromise insurance coverage which could lead to negative outcomes for clients if a claim is made. Architects could potentially face more claims if the following are not effectively addressed: cultural factors regarding approaches to D&C procurement among key sectoral participants the “mismatch” between the design and construction phases of a project.	Without support and advocacy on their behalf, architects are unlikely to have sufficient leverage to negotiate more favourable terms in the D&C procurement context, even though these terms could affect exposure to liability and insurance coverage. Engagement with key lending institutions to highlight the risks associated with unfair contract terms that can arise in the D&C context could be helpful.
10.	Impact of D&C contracts on built outcomes	D&C procurement can be used as a contractual tool to prioritise time and cost of a construction project, which can undermine the chance of achieving good quality built outcomes.	D&C procurement can lead to good quality built outcomes, but only where “buildability” is prioritised over time and cost. Alignment is needed in relation to a number of factors, including: a commitment to quality among key project participants an experienced builder that is realistic about costs a sound, collaborative consultant team.	While architects have limited control over many factors that can support good design and the delivery of good quality built outcomes in the D&C context, they could still benefit from stronger skills to robustly advocate for and protect their interests and design intent in this context.
11.	Mechanisms that can mitigate adverse impacts of D&C contracts on design and delivery of architectural services	Early collaboration between designers and those with trade intelligence is likely to deliver the best results from D&C procurement.	A legislative response has been employed in NSW to drive a more integrated approach to design and buildability, but there may be other less interventionist options.	Sector-wide cultural change that focuses on early engagement and collaboration coupled with appropriate regulatory support through practitioner regulation may help to drive better outcomes from D&C procurement.
12.	Education and training to improve D&C outcomes	Evidence from the focus groups indicates that there is a need for more education and training for architects about: procurement models negotiating and navigating contractual arrangements in a D&C context risk management.	The full scope of education and training that is currently available to architects about D&C procurement and associated risks is unclear.	A stocktake and analysis of current education and training about D&C procurement could be beneficial to ensure that future education and training is appropriately targeted. There may be benefit in providing sectoral participants with case studies to illustrate good practice in the context of D&C procurement.
NCC COMPLIANCE
13.	Link between NCC compliance and quality built outcomes	There is disagreement among sectoral participants about whether NCC compliance can drive quality in the final built outcomes because the NCC only establishes minimum standards in relation to certain built outcomes.	There is an apparent ambiguity among some sectoral participants about the outcomes that the NCC is designed to achieve, particularly in relation to the quality of built outcomes.	There is work to be done to determine how NCC compliance can be used to ensure quality built outcomes, particularly in the context of different procurement processes.
			This ambiguity may affect architects’ understanding of the NCC. It could also affect the way the NCC is used in the context of design, particularly the compliance pathway that is followed.
14.	Responsibility for NCC compliance	There is general agreement that responsibility for NCC compliance is a shared role among building sector participants involved in a particular project, but there is less clarity about the specific roles and responsibilities of each participant.	There appears to be a perception among at least some sectoral participants that allocation of responsibility for NCC compliance to parties for aspects of a building project that are beyond their expertise and/or control is reasonable and lawful, particularly in the context of certain procurement models. The interface between the provision of architectural services and the construction of a building may give rise to ambiguity about who is responsible for NCC compliance in the final built outcomes.	There is a need for greater clarity about roles and responsibilities for NCC compliance in the context of particular procurement models and in other contexts where responsibility may change during a construction project.
15.	Scope of architects’ obligations to ensure NCC compliance	Architects must ensure that their designs and design documentation are compliant with the NCC, but it can be difficult to demonstrate compliance if the level of detailed design documentation required by the client is limited, such as in the context of novated D&C procurement.	Criticisms have been levelled at architects about inadequate design documentation and the impact on NCC compliance, but the level of detail of design documentation may be driven by the client and the procurement model, rather than by the architect.	The sector would benefit from greater clarity about the different levels of detail of design documentation, the possible consequences of each level of detail for project outcomes, and the process of interpreting and building in accordance with the design, in each case. More analysis is needed to determine whether limited design development requirements in D&C procurement is more likely to lead to NCC compliance issues in built outcomes and/or more defects.
16.	Factors that can compromise architects’ ability to ensure NCC compliance	Evidence from the focus groups indicates that it is more likely that design documentation does not clearly demonstrate NCC compliance than that the designs themselves are non-compliant with the NCC. There are various factors that can compromise architects’ ability to support NCC compliance of built outcomes but they are mostly outside architects’ control, particularly in the context of D&C procurement. The NCC has gaps and limitations (such as limitations on accessibility of Australian Standards) that could also affect architects’ ability to ensure NCC compliance.	The impact of the procurement approach on NCC compliance is likely to be largely linked to project priorities and compliance attitudes of the parties involved in a construction project, particularly the client and contractor. It is likely to be difficult for architects to help ensure NCC compliance of built outcomes if responsibility for, and control of, design delivery is shifted away from the architect and/or the architect has limited oversight of the interpretation of the design in practice during the construction process, which may occur in the context of D&C procurement.	There is a need for better communication about how architectural documentation should be interpreted and applied on site to ensure NCC compliance in built outcomes. More work could be undertaken to determine whether gaps and limitations associated with the NCC have any impact on NCC compliance and, if so, how these limitations could be overcome.
17.	Mitigation of risks of NCC non-compliance	There is a view among some participants that following the performance solution pathway under the NCC may deliver better built outcomes and may also mitigate the risks of NCC non-compliance, but demonstrating NCC compliance may be more challenging under this compliance pathway.	Architects may be deterred from reliance on the performance solution pathway under the NCC because of the challenges associated with demonstrating NCC compliance for this pathway and the risk of a design being found to be non-compliant.	Greater guidance may be needed to illustrate how NCC compliance can be achieved using the performance solution pathway, particularly for design aspects that could lead to defects (such as waterproofing).
18.	Enhancing awareness of NCC obligations	The NCC may be a challenging document for some architects to read, interpret and apply in practice.	Architects’ use of consultants to assess and ensure NCC compliance may help to reduce architects’ exposure to legal liability but may also lead architects to have limited awareness about NCC compliance issues and may mean that compliance issues are not detected by reviewing architects. Limited awareness of NCC compliance obligations and compliance issues may compromise architects’ ability to advocate and defend their designs from a compliance perspective.	Architects could use the provision of advice by consultants on NCC compliance as an opportunity to enhance their own understanding of compliance issues.
DISRUPTIVE CHANGE
19.	Architects’ awareness and preparedness for disruptive change	While there is a spectrum in the level of awareness and preparedness among architects to respond to disruptive change caused by climate change and technological change, there are likely to be many architects who are ill-equipped to respond to this change, particularly those in smaller practices and sole practitioners.	Architects’ awareness and preparedness to respond to disruptive change is linked to a broad range of external factors, including society’s broader preparedness to respond to disruptive change as well as the attitude and approach of key stakeholders within the construction sector. The profession is potentially in the midst of a transformation that could affect what it means to be an architect in very practical terms as a result of disruptive change.	Building architects’ awareness of the sources and implications of disruptive change for the profession and for the delivery of architectural services must be a priority. Architects would greatly benefit from support as they adjust to disruptive change. Education and training should focus on enhancing architects’ understanding of disruptive change and building practical skills so that they can respond to disruptive change in a cost-effective way.
20.	Challenges faced by architects in responding to disruptive change	There are significant financial and practical imperatives within the construction sector that do not support a responsive approach to disruptive change.	Architects may be complacent about disruptive change because the sector as a whole is not responsive to this change.	It is important for architects to identify the opportunities that disruptive change can present to help progress a more responsive approach. Architects will need to build advocacy skills so that they can demonstrate the value of responding to disruptive change to key stakeholders in the context of the provision of design services.
21.	Improving architects’ capacity to respond to disruptive change	As the market for architectural services is highly competitive, the ongoing viability of practices that fail to build their capacity to respond to disruptive change may be compromised.	The speed and scale of disruptive change affecting architects is significant and may require a dramatic reinvention of the nature of and way that architectural services are provided.	A commitment to continuous learning may mean that architects keep abreast of disruptive change and become experts capable of solving problems as the market for architectural services changes. Specialisation of architectural services may be a cost-effective way for some practices to adapt to disruptive change.
22.	Responding to climate change	Architects could miss out on the opportunities that climate change presents for architects because they are not sufficiently prepared.	Architects who take the time to understand and are responsive to changing market needs in light of the impacts of climate change are more likely to thrive.	Architects will need to build expertise in a range of areas in order to capitalise on opportunities presented by climate change, including: whole-of-life-cycle building analysis integration of reuse into building design design development that is appropriately tailored to local conditions and needs.
23.	Responding to technological change	There is a lack of sectoral awareness and understanding of how technological developments will change the provision of architectural services, particularly emerging digital tools and AI.	AI and digital tools could have a significant impact on the market for architectural services but it is unclear how architectural practices need to change in order to keep pace with these developments.	More information is needed about the likely impact of AI and digital tools on the market for architectural services so that architects are better equipped to respond.
24.	Education and training	There is a need for more education and training to help architects respond to disruptive change, including availing of the opportunities that disruptive change presents and mitigating the risks that disruptive change could entail.	A dynamic approach to education and training that keeps pace with external change is necessary.	Advice and support on accessing and using tools to respond to disruptive change in a cost-effective way would be useful.

Recommendations

The systemic nature of the risks facing the Australian architecture sector that have been identified in this report means that there are implications for the ARBs as well as a range of other stakeholders that may have the capacity to mitigate those risks. On this point, it is important to note the positive, constructive attitude exhibited by the broad range of sectoral participants who contributed in the deep dive focus groups. They displayed a genuine interest and concern in addressing systemic risks facing the architecture sector in a collaborative and joined up manner.

Set out below are the Steering Committee’s recommendations, which have been organised according to the stakeholder group each recommendation is directed to and the recommended types of interventions. In making these recommendations, the Steering Committee is cognisant and appreciative of the significant efforts various stakeholder groups have already made to address the recommendations in the Systemic Risks Report. However, as is evident from this Deep Dive Report, there is still more work to be done.

				CLIENT-ARCHITECT RELATIONSHIPS		D&C PROCUREMENT		NCC COMPLIANCE	DISRUPTIVE CHANGE
architect registration boards
		Continuing Professional Development for architects		Scope and content of architects’ communication obligations to their clients under the regulatory framework Required contents of client-architect agreements and the use of standard form client-architect agreements for all types of projects Managing client-architect relationships in accordance with professional standards obligations in the context of different procurement contexts		Discharge of professional standards obligations in the D&C context		Achieving NCC compliance in the context of the delivery of architectural services and design documentation	Sources and implications of disruptive change for architects’ compliance with professional standards obligations
2.		Published guidance		Architects’ professional standards obligations in the context of different procurement models Explanatory information about communication obligations under client-architect agreements		Links to relevant reports and research about D&C procurement
industry bodies
3.		Continuing Professional Development for architects		Strategies to ensure effective management of client-architect relationships in the context of different procurement processes		Advocacy, negotiation, collaboration and risk management in the D&C procurement context		Mechanisms to protect design intent and ensure NCC compliance in the built outcome throughout the construction process	Likely impact of disruptive change on the architecture profession
4.		Published guidance		Standardised specification of architectural services that is suited to the Australian construction context Mechanisms to demonstrate value to clients through different fee structures Case studies to illustrate well-managed client-architect relationships, including identification and management of factors that are within and outside architects’ control		Publicly available information about what to be aware of in the context of D&C procurement, beyond what is already available such as the AIA Code of Novation Case studies to illustrate the key factors that support good outcomes when D&C procurement is used		Explanation of the various levels of detail for design documentation and the practical implications for the construction process for each level Guide for architects regarding the use of the NCC in the design process
5.		Stakeholder engagement and advocacy		Encourage greater use of standard form client-architect agreements Work with other relevant bodies to ensure standard form client-architect agreements are suited to different procurement contexts Engage with government bodies to improve standard form government contracts		Identification of alternative procurement models that reduce the risks of poor quality built outcomes (such as co-operative contracting) Practical mechanisms to enable architects to maintain design control throughout design and construction in D&C procurement Determination of how a more collaborative approach can be hard-wired into the D&C procurement model		Establish an agreed view of roles and responsibilities for NCC compliance under different procurement processes Consider mechanisms to ensure greater on-site oversight of the construction process by architects to ensure NCC compliance, particularly in the context of D&C procurement	Identification of how a more responsive approach to disruptive change across the sector can be achieved that is supportive of architects, the design process, and good design outcomes
6.		Research and analysis		Survey to better understand the main drivers for the preference for bespoke contracts over standard form contracts for small and large projects		Analyse the legality of relevant D&C procurement contracts in light of recent legislative reforms concerning unfair contract terms and identify action that can be taken by architects			Strategic analysis and assistance to enable architects to assess their strengths and weaknesses in light of disruptive change and to capitalise on opportunities
education and training providers
7.	Education and training		Architects’ roles and responsibilities under different procurement models Types, scope and content of architects’ communication obligations to clients Use and interpretation of client-architect agreements Pros and cons of different fee structures and the use of tools to better quantify and value architectural services Strategies to overcome challenges that could arise in the context of client-architect relationships		Build advocacy, negotiation, collaboration and risk management skills that are tailored to the D&C procurement context		Roles and responsibilities for NCC compliance in the context of different procurement processes Approaches to ensure NCC compliance, including using the performance solution pathway		Build practical skills to respond to disruptive change, including using available tools Build skills to advocate for a more responsive approach to disruptive change in the context of particular procurement processes Specialist courses that respond to opportunities presented by disruptive change
RESEARCH BODIES
8.	Research and analysis		Legal analysis of contractual arrangements that can ensure effective communication in practice		Stocktake and analysis of adequacy of existing education and training for architects in the D&C context Legal analysis of unfair contract terms in D&C contracts Research to determine whether limited design development requirements in the context of D&C procurement are more likely to lead to NCC compliance issues in built outcomes and/or more defects		Research to determine whether gaps and limitations associated with the NCC have any impact on NCC compliance Research to clarify root causes of defects in the construction sector and to determine whether recent efforts to increase NCC compliance (including through legislative means) are likely to result in reduced building defects		Analysis of the likely impact of AI and digital tools on the market for architectural services
GOVERNMENT BODIES (OTHER THAN THE ARBS)
9.	Legislative reform		Coordination of a national standard for project delivery of design services, drawing from models that have been established overseas		Consider whether there is a case for prescribing a minimum level of design documentation for critical design elements, particularly in the context of novated D&C procurement

[1] The Systemic Risks Report can be found on the ARBV website at: https://www.vic.gov.au/systemic-risks-australian-architecture-sector and on the NSW ARB website at: https://www.architects.nsw.gov.au/download/Report%20on%20Systemic%20Risks%20for%20the%20Architecture%20Sector%20in%20Australia.pdf.

Updated 27 June 2024