The more thorough and rigorous preparation that can be done before hiring an architect and then a contractor or construction manager, the more the results – and costs – can be controlled. A well-developed facility planning process reduces risk, cost and stress, and increases the likelihood of success for facility projects.

Facilities as a Strategic Resource

Institutional development is not an even process, but a mix of business-as-usual and sudden change. Periodically organizations need to call everything into question and reaffirm or redefine relationships among core values, products and services, projected identity, physical facilities, and financial and human resources. In doing so they can create revolutionary new synergies among these basic elements and support long term evolution of the institution.

Of these central issues, physical facilities can seem the residual one, simply reflecting demands made by the others. (This despite the facts that facility expenditures are generally the second largest budget item after personnel, and that the facility investment usually dwarfs the non-real estate portion of the endowment.) However, institutional identity, collective values, and even educational programs can inform and be informed by the process of planning facilities.

Physical facilities can be understood most productively not as a disparate collection of problems to be solved by isolated interventions, but as an evolving resource with a positive role to play in strategic planning. If the planning and design process is pursued with full commitment and sophistication, it will cause an organization to think comprehensively and simultaneously about all possibilities (not just producing one project at a time, but evolving a running master plan) and scales (from reevaluating the classroom or office in light of current understanding of teaching, learning, and working, to reassessing the overall physical plant).

Synthesis Partnership designs integrated, comprehensive, transparent processes and introduces each discipline of specialized expertise at the appropriate moment. Through such a process an institution can discover how all foreseeable projects inform each other and help to set priorities and sequences for action. At the same time, all of those affected are brought into the assessment process, their views are aired and evaluated, and they are made to feel vital, valued participants.

Master Planning Strategy

For many institutions, the first reaction to any perceived need in facilities is the instinct to hire an architect (or even a design-build contractor). The design skills that an architect can offer are only one factor in a wise, cost-effective, and long-term solution to facilities issues. And they are far from the first step. Design and construction are expensive acts of execution; major expenses (and major mistakes) can be avoided by starting with the most fundamental steps of institutional planning and following them in sequence, to make certain that all of the right questions are being asked. We have found, more often than not, that the needs and answers that initially seem obvious often miss the real opportunities.

The first step must be some form of strategic planning. Only with a fully current consensus on mission and strategy can an institution hope to conceive, design and build the right facilities (see Strategic Analysis).

Following a strategic analysis, strategic implementation planning can offer the participatory inclusiveness that might otherwise have characterized the initial strategic planning (see Process Transparency). While strategic plans are grounded in governing board responsibilities, the staff or faculty need to develop program master planning to chart the operational course of the institution. This is true for small organizations in their entirety, as well as programs within hospitals, colleges and departments within universities, and divisions within other complex organizations. A schedule of meaningful strategic planning and program master planning alternating every few years can enrich an institution with both self-awareness and high morale.

Only on the basis of this sort of strategic planning and program planning can a physical master plan have any meaning. A physical master plan is as much an act of design implementation as it is of planning strategy, and it must always be tested against, and measured by strategic goals. It should be thought of not as a long-term recipe, but as an evolving approach based on strategic and program conditions. After each round of strategic and program planning, the physical master plan should be updated.

Message-Based Programming

Institutional clients often know far too little about their specific needs and objectives before moving into the design of physical facilities. Often they identify some very general issues and expect an architect to figure out the details. Left to their own devices, architects will necessarily invent forms and functions that represent only a limited insight into the wisdom of their client.

An institution is far better served if it can prepare an architectural program (a complete list of rooms or spaces, with their purposes and sizes) and a project budget before selecting an architect. Beyond these quantitative parameters, it can be especially effective to develop a qualitative program, as well. This qualitative program can consist of characteristics of work spaces, values of the organization, and messages about the organization to be communicated to the public.

By articulating carefully issues of function, expression and meaning, the qualitative program can mold the facilities of an institution closely to its mission, identity, and marketing objectives.

Given the considerable investment made in facilities, it is remarkable how rarely institutions take the initiative to add substantial value in tailoring them to their purposes. If architects are given clear and precisely articulated goals, they will be able to succeed far more fully in reflecting the substantive objectives of their clients.

Selecting an Architect

There are almost as many ways to select an architect as there are reasons for building. The trick is to find the right match between your objectives and your methods.

• You may need to work on a very tight budget.
  
  
• You may think of the building you need in purely utilitarian terms.
  
  
• You may expect a building to take on a significant role in raising the visibility – the “brand identity” – of the institution.
  
  
• You may feel the need for an architect with specialized expertise in a certain type of building.
  
  
• Or you may wish to retain a local architect for a variety of reasons.

Client-Favorable Contracts

An institution contemplating the construction of a new facility may be surprised to learn that the client is often the least protected of all the parties in many of the so-called standard contracts (such as those written by the American Institute of Architects) for architectural services and construction. A strong contract for the client will clarify for all the parties exactly what the rights, obligations, and expectations are for the client, architect, and contractor. A strong contract will serve as a useful tool to prevent disputes later, and as a method of resolving those disputes when they arise. Although clients are often inclined to begin a business relationship on a friendly basis by avoiding confrontation, a robust negotiation of contract terms at the outset, led by an expert consultant or an attorney, will yield many benefits in keeping the project on track.

Contracting with Architects
After developing a detailed facility program (see Message-Based Programming) and selecting an architect (see Selecting an Architect), the client will usually be ready to enter into a contract for the design of the facility. The architect will want to limit liability for errors and omissions, to avoid being tied to strict definitions of performance and time, and to have an unfettered right to payment. Most complaints from clients about their contracts with architects involve misunderstandings about deliverables, the right of the architect to fees for additional services, use of the drawings, and project cost overruns.

A prudent client will be aware of a variety of issues not covered in the industry standard contract with architects:

• the responsibilities and rights of all of the parties involved
  
  
• the protective role that budgeting and periodic estimating can play
  
  
• ways to minimize unanticipated costs from unrequested services
  
  
• conditions that should be placed on required payments to the architect
  
  
• the need to assure the ability to use the work they have paid for, and not be obligated for additional payments, if the contract is terminated
  
  
• the value of requiring professional malpractice insurance

A successful project will recognize the crucial and distinct responsibilities of client, architect and contractor. While a design-build approach (putting the contractor in control) can work for projects in which qualitative decisons are unimportant (a warehouse), it hands over decisions that should be made by client and architect to the party whose only concerns are solidity and cost. Similarly, if the client hires an architect before determining precisely the qualitative and quantitative characteristices of what is to be built (including budget), the results are likely to be less than fully satisfactory, and substantially more costly. Once design and construction are under way, there remains a major oversight role for the client – at both staff and governing board levels.

Cost Control

Construction costs can be as little as half of total project costs. The costs of facilities can be shaped most effectively at the earliest stages of planning – ideally, at the strategic planning level, when the setting of goals may suggest non-facility solutions. By the time an architect is hired, the course is set, and there is relatively little room for maneuver. At this point cost cutting becomes a process of giving up pieces rather than envisioning possibilities, and the result is reduced cost-effectiveness. While construction managers handle large sums, they have even less opportunity to affect the full project budget. As part of a responsible project relationship, a client-favorable contract can provide extraordinary assurance of keeping both architect and contractor on budget.