The breakdown of trust

Methods of specifying have developed and changed considerably over recent decades. Traditionally, the specifier was able to include all necessary and relevant information on the drawings, which are painstakingly produced by hand. This tended to mean that the final "deliverables" ended up cluttered and inconsistent. Such drawings were produced with the sole purpose of instructing the builder precisely how to use his skills to craft materials into a building on site.

Working methods were very hands-on, and there was a high level of trust and understanding between tradesman and designer – there had to be, since there was little other documentation. Quality control was entrusted to the skills and pride of the directly employed artisans; contracts were simple and payment disputes minimal.

Today, things are very different, but key similarities remain. For example, there is still a need for designers and modern artisans to combine their skills to produce a building that meets a client's requirements; unfortunately, the trust and understanding appears to have been replaced with myriad contractual agreements and an "every man for himself" philosophy.

The Latham and Egan reports provoked a great deal of debate, but little real change. The whole construction process is controlled by "managers", rather than "designers" and "fabricators". And there is alarmingly little trust or understanding between prime movers.

Contractual muddle

The industry is plagued by new forms of contract that create barriers between key players, making it difficult to provide the teamwork necessary to complete projects.

The construction industry may have made substantial technological advances in every field of design and construction, but still we erect barriers where co-operation is required.

Take a typical management contract, with anything between 30 and 75 trade packages. These are determined by the construction manager to suit the construction process, with very little acknowledgement of what the designer needs to actually design the building, even though that designer is relied on for information.

Each of the trade packages consists of a matrix of documents. These will include drawings, specifications for the trade concerned, as well as for any related packages, instructions to tender, forms of contract, bills of quantity, health and safety … the list goes on.

The purpose of these documents is to produce "fair tenders", which supposedly "test the marketplace" and ensure the best price is obtained. But does it produce the best product? Is there not a better and more efficient way? The advent of partnering seeks to simplify this process, but it is really applicable only to clients that place a lot of repeat work.

The importance of self defence

The current system often results in contractual arrangements being set in place before the design is sufficiently advanced, resulting in a stream of disputes and claims. Designers have to produce information legally compliant with all other contract documents, which often appear to take preference.

So, one job of modern specification in this environment is to offer legal protection to the designer. Architectural firms should not rely on the documents produced by others. Rather, they should ensure that any information they produce for use in the contractual process stands alone in representing the design and all other obligations. Designers should never remove critical sections of the specification at the request of others who advise that their document covers the item.

Risk management

Modern specifications are highly contractual documents that contain key information, demonstrating compliance with the designer's terms of appointment. They should be written with those terms firmly in mind.

Equally important is active involvement by the designer through the procurement and construction process to ensure that all trade contracts comply with the requirements of the drawings and specifications. Lack of design definition, or vaguely defined areas of responsibility can mean that contractors take on risk inadvertently. Obviously, this should be kept to a minimum, and the designer should always be aware of any information gaps before agreeing to an order being placed.

There seems to be an industry trend towards allowing contractors to take a risk, or forcing alliances between designers and contractors – which often have little in common. It is thought that this will somehow solve the problems of co-operation and co-ordination. I would suggest that all it does is shift them to another doorstep. The real answer is to concentrate on the design.