In the service sector one ends up in crazy situations, totaly different than what one is used to in manufacturing.

A friend, an architect wants to go in for ISO 9001. People come and tell him, "Look I got a plot here. Build me something good." Simple everyday situation till he tried to design a contract review process.

I have tried to develop something useful for him. Possibly, with help from all of you I can give him something better.

Any ideas?

In the service sector one ends up in crazy situations, totaly different than what one is used to in manufacturing.

A friend, an architect wants to go in for ISO 9001. People come and tell him, "Look I got a plot here. Build me something good." Simple everyday situation till he tried to design a contract review process.

I have tried to develop something useful for him. Possibly, with help from all of you I can give him something better.

Any ideas?

Make sure that both parties agree on what "good" means.

In the service sector one ends up in crazy situations, totaly different than what one is used to in manufacturing.

A friend, an architect wants to go in for ISO 9001. People come and tell him, "Look I got a plot here. Build me something good." Simple everyday situation till he tried to design a contract review process.

I have tried to develop something useful for him. Possibly, with help from all of you I can give him something better.

Any ideas?

Hi Potdar,

I got remembered of a story of blindfolded men trying to figure out which animal are they feeling ? One says a tiger, another a big cat and so on ...:)

I would think that this type of a scenario is very good as the architect can come up with his own ingenuity and experience. For the architect, he can develop his own checklist to get the customer requirements particularly with respect to number of storeys, no of rooms, etc. He can also suggest good layout based on the Feng Shui or the Indian concept "Vaastu". He can offer multiple solutions and once the plan is decided, he can firm it up and get concurrence from the Customer.

This would be his Customer specifications. :D

well, usually an architect will ask a client what they want in terms of:
what are the things that your new home must have
what are the things that you really want
what are the things that it would be nice to have if it fits in the budget
and maybe even a couple of ideas on what would you like if you could have anything in the world in you new home.
what is the budget we have to work with

Then, your review is can we provide the necessities and the clients needs within the allotted budget while either including or providing some sort of alternative to the other luxury or "wish list" items.

One thing that needs to be considered in contract review for an architect, is "can the architect and the client work together"? Sometimes they cannot. (I add this because I worked for an architect part time when I was in school. That was my actually my original choice of career until I got sidetracked by lack of money. lol) There were clients that we just could not do the job they wanted (because it was physically impossible) or that had such different viewpoints that we knew they would never be happy with the work we did.

Architectural works are like pieces of art. Do you need ISO for these kind of things?

Even for mass housing, where a single design is repeated many times, architects are normally chosen based on their proposals, reputation (An architects reputation enhance the value of property), experience etc. I just checked the website of Norman Foster & associates, the architect for the New World Trade Centre - certainly no indication of ISO certification but an impressive list of current and pass projects.

Be careful, ISO is not for everything.

Regards.

Architectural works are like pieces of art. Do you need ISO for these kind of things?

Be careful, ISO is not for everything.

Regards.

Thanks all for your comments so far. I will just put in a word for "why ISO". Just note my identification. It goes "For Improvement".

The ideal situation for an architect's office was identified as the seniors doing the creative work and the juniors doing the donkey work. While doing this, the juniors get a chance to learn and grow, the seniors get a chance to spend time being creative.

None of this was happening. The seniors were doing checking and the juniors were doing rework. Frustration, attrition was high. There was hardly any scope or time for being creative.

Bringing in ISO systems in spirit has drastically improved the situation. And we can measure it.

But my question remains. What about contract review?

But my question remains. What about contract review?

The procedure should address the steps that are involved in determining the requirements, the needs, and the capabilities.

Since ISO9001:2000 does not require a "Contract Review" procedure than make a simple flow chart on the process, in my opinion.

But my question remains. What about contract review?

Contract review is a process. just think Bob the Builder

Can we build it?
Yes we can!

As soon as you cannot meet one of the client's requirements, review done, contract not agreed to, or contract requirements need to change.

FWIW:
I counsel folks to avoid "reinventing the wheel." Thus, why not consider starting with a mere $10 to purchase the American Institute of Architects contract form (http://www.aiachicago.org/resources_for_architects/order_docs_nonmember.asp) With this format, you can approach a local lawyer to adapt to local laws and regulations.
The documents produced by the AIA are the most widely used standard form contracts in the construction industry. They facilitate communication among all the parties involved in construction, which makes it easier to produce a high quality project in a timely and economical fashion.
AIA documents are fair.
AIA contracts and forms are consensus documents that reflect advice from practicing architects, contractors, engineers as well as owners, surety bond producers, issuers and attorneys. AIA documents balance the interest of all the parties, so not one interest, including that of the architect, is unfairly presented.
AIA documents reflect industry practices, not theory.
Where practices are inconsistent or no guidelines for practices exist, the AIA documents provide a consensus-based model for practitioners to follow.
AIA documents reflect changing construction practices and technology.
AIA documents are revised regularly to accommodate changes in professional and industry practices, insurance and technology.
AIA documents reflect the law.
AIA documents are revised and updated to incorporate changes resulting from court interpretations and rulings, legal precedent, and nuances.
AIA documents are flexible.
AIA documents can be easily modified to accommodate individual project demands. Such changes are easily distinguished from the original, printed language.
AIA documents are easy to interpret.
AIA documents use the commong meaning of words and phrases. Industry and legal jargon is avoided whenever possible.
Document Summary
http://www.aiachicago.org/resources_for_architects/spacer.gifhttp://www.aiachicago.org/resources_for_architects/spacer.gif
The AIA Documents Synopses is a quick reference for determining the appropriate uses for each of the contracts administrative forms published by the American Institute of Architects. That purpose naturally presumes independent judgment on the reader’s part, as well as advice of counsel. This introduction is intended to provide an overview for readers who are not yet familiar with the AIA documents.
There are over 80 AIA contracts and administrative forms in print today. The ancestor of all of these was the Uniform Contract, an owner-contractor agreement, first published in 1888. This was followed, in 1911, by AIA’s first standardized general conditions for construction. The 1997 edition of AIA Document A201 is the fifteenth edition of those general conditions.
Many Practices common in the construction industry today became established through their inclusion in AIA’s general conditions and its other standardized documents. Arbitration, the one-year correction period, and the architect’s role in deciding disputes are just three of these. And while the AIA documents have had a profound influence on the industry, the influence also runs the other way. The AIA regularly revises its documents to take into account recent developments in the construction industry and the law. New standardized documents for design/build and for different types of construction management have been published in recent years, and documents for international practice are now under consideration.
Because the AIA documents are frequently updated, users should consult an AIA component chapter or obtain a current copy of the AIA Contract Documents Price List to determine the current editions.
The documents’ relationship to the industry influencing it, and in turn being influenced by it-is paralleled by their relationship to the law. The AIA documents are intended for nationwide use, and are not drafted to conform to the law of any one state. With that caveat, however, AIA contract documents provide a solid basis of contract provisions that are enforceable under the law existing at the time of publication. Case law on contracts for design and construction has for the past century been based largely on the language of AIA standardized documents and contracts derived from them. These court cases are listed in The American Institute of Architects Legal Citator. Recent cases are summarized, and all cases are keyed to the specific provisions in the AIA documents to which they relate.
Sample copies of the entire set of AIA standard forms of agreement and related documents are contained in The Architect’s Handbook of Professional Practice and companion CD.

Disclaimer: My first wife was a registered architect and AIA member, working for Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, designers of Sears Tower, and much of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Exactly Wes. In this part of the world, we follow the British practice - RIBA or the localized version. Architecture and to a certain extend, engineering has practices different from others. Apart from what Wes mentioned, there is also a scale of fees mandated by the professional body.

A young architect starting out on his own usually have no choice. He grabs everything and agrees to anything offered. Hopefully, he create a name for himself along the way. Then, he can practically name his price and pick and choose clients. Contract review???

Regards.

Thanks friends,

Firstly, there's no attempt to write a "procedure" for contract review. Just define it, practically.

Secondly, can we build it? - Yes of course ! But what please?

Wes, here in India too we have a Council of Architecture. And even an Architects' Law. Both constituted by the Parliament. The Law requires the architect to statutorily maintain certain records for a specified period. That includes an agreement with the owner / client.

CoA supplies draft formats that are not mandatory and not practical. Presently what is maintained is only the financial agreement. When the project takes off, the requirements are never crystallised. As per the law, the architect carryies a huge liability on his head. Anyway, presently thats not taken too seriously here. But not for too long.

Thats another reason why some early risers who have the opportunity to peep into the future are trying to put their shop in place.

I may put in a typical example sometime down the line after the topic heats up a little more.

Any of us not comfortable with "contract review"? Please read "Customer relared processes".

I apologize for not being clear in the first post - You can't have meaningful "contract review" without a meaningful contract that covers points about WHO decides WHAT and WHEN and penalties for delays and changes from the original "agreement."

Just because this is an architect, doing a person's home is no different in concept from a job shop or model maker making prototypes for a client who keeps changing his mind as he reconsiders design, materials, even quantities. Job shops and model makers protect themselves with contracts to cover all the contingencies that may happen with a client when they are working with a design which may change.

I once had a client that had us make 15 different prototypes - you can bet he paid top dollar for the privilege when he would walk in and change the design while the machine was still running on the previous one.

We were NEVER exasperated with his indecision because we had made provision for changes in our original contract and made it absolutely clear to the client that he would probably end up paying much more than the original estimate for any changes made once we had set up machines or cut metal. We meticulously delineated costs for things like set-up time, tooling design and purchase, construction of jigs, redesigning inspection plans and instrumentation.

The key is to COMMUNICATE truthfully and completely about the kinds of things that can cause delays and costs and good faith estimates of what those costs might be. The supplier who chickens out on that communication because he is afraid the customer will be scared off is being unfair to both customer and himself.

Architectural works are like pieces of art. Do you need ISO for these kind of things?

Even for mass housing, where a single design is repeated many times, architects are normally chosen based on their proposals, reputation (An architects reputation enhance the value of property), experience etc. I just checked the website of Norman Foster & associates, the architect for the New World Trade Centre - certainly no indication of ISO certification but an impressive list of current and pass projects.

Be careful, ISO is not for everything.

Regards.Greatly helpful link provided by Wes. :applause:

ISO is often misunderstood. While a firm certainly doesn't need ISO to do architecture, assuring customer satisfaction among internal customers, paying customers, the community and government(s) can indeed be helped by making a system that has all its properly fucntioning parts--which IMHO is all ISO is meant to do.

I had to laugh when I read the request to "Make me something good." I envisioned a dog house that looks like the Taj Mahal. What, that's not "good"?

So the contracting process can proceed in a sensible flow through negotiation and counseling. (This is understanding that counseling means helping a person work through his/her own issues and not just spewing advice.)

1. How many bedrooms and bathrooms?
2. Do you want to do much entertaining in your home?
3. Do you need a lot of storage space, big closets etc.?
4. Do you like luxury like candlelit bubblebaths in a glamorous setting, or the rugged feel of a cabin, quaint cottage life,...what? (lifestyle)
5. Do you like to garden, or a highly energy efficient modern structure, lots of breezy light or a close, intimate feeling?
6. Do you like to spend your leisure at home watching movies, playing pool or listening to music?
7. About how much are you willing to pay for your home?

All of these types of questions (and there are far more I'm sure) can help an architect to "get inside the heads" of clients so as to provide a home that fits the personality and lifestyle, which is likely the client's idea of "good" but may not get articulated.

Simply establishing and reliably following such a path, once it's established to be sound, toward the building's design can be considered a part of contract review and can help satisfy the Design element.

Hi Jenny,

I deal and worked with Architects for over twenty years now. Currently as Project Manager as well as part owner of a real estate development company, I deal with them almost every other day.

From my position as a client of Architects and having a good understanding of how they work and operate, I am trying to share my knowledge by cautioning that ISO or QMS systems implementation will not yield similar results as a production or manufacturing outfit and as a client, I attached more value to creativity than this.

We all know that ISO is applicable for all businesses and yet we know that the best results are produced by organizations with repetitive outputs for obvious reasons. Certaintly QMS systems will help such firms to a certain extend but will the overall benefit outweight the hassle of certification and procedures and to a certain extend the rigidity that comes with it?

If I am a friend of that architect, I will caution him so that he will not have too high an expectation. I may be wrong.

Good advice, Harry. Of course, some wisdom may be gleaned from the general operational principles of ISO 9000 that may be applied in almost any business, and contract review is a good example. But contract review is, or should be, a no-brainer kind of thing--two parties want to do business together, and agree in writing to the specific performance required of each. Contract review is just the process of making sure that both parties are capable of performing to the requirements of the contract. No ISO necessary.

ISO can be a good tool, but I agree that registering to it may bring questionable value.

It's worthwhile to question why do it. Manufacturers do it because their customers want it less often than they think it's simply a good idea or simply that it will bring them value. The question "What kind of value relative to the effort" should be answered so the question "Why are we doing this?" can pass what I call the Straight Face Test.

I know of a calibration lab that claimed conformity to ISO requirements without advertising registration. That served their purposes until they decided that going to the next level was important. Each organization's decision can, and should be made internally because the efforts and results tend to reflect the perceived value pretty well.

Good advice, Harry. Of course, some wisdom may be gleaned from the general operational principles of ISO 9000 that may be applied in almost any business, and contract review is a good example. But contract review is, or should be, a no-brainer kind of thing--two parties want to do business together, and agree in writing to the specific performance required of each. Contract review is just the process of making sure that both parties are capable of performing to the requirements of the contract. No ISO necessary.
Yep. I only wrote about contracts and reviews, whch have been used for generations (centuries) BEFORE anyone had an idea of a Standard, let alone a third party certificate of registration to one.

Good business sense says, "Do what's necessary for customers to buy and keep coming back for more." Sometimes, that means getting a registration certificate. However, that certificate won't make your business profitable if you don't have a basic agreement (contract) to get paid when you satisfy customer requirements and the sense to make sure both you and customer fully understand and will abide by terms of the agreement.

From my position as a client of Architects and having a good understanding of how they work and operate, I am trying to share my knowledge by cautioning that ISO or QMS systems implementation will not yield similar results as a production or manufacturing outfit and as a client, I attached more value to creativity than this.

We all know that ISO is applicable for all businesses and yet we know that the best results are produced by organizations with repetitive outputs for obvious reasons. Certaintly QMS systems will help such firms to a certain extend but will the overall benefit outweight the hassle of certification and procedures and to a certain extend the rigidity that comes with it?

If I am a friend of that architect, I will caution him so that he will not have too high an expectation. I may be wrong.


Of course Harry,

Service organisations cant expect results similar to manufacturing orgns using ISO. Even their interpretations have to be different. Thats where this thread st.arted.

But I can share with you all what sort of gains are available to service organisations. In my last three years as a freelancer, I have experimented with a number of different setups. Normally after the project is over, the consultant is forgotten.But I got voluntary feedbacks.

The architect went for certification. After about a year he called to tell me that he just remembered me while sitting on the net and browsing for new developments in his field during office hours. Thats something we had decided should happen when we took up the project. He had never believed it to be possible in his wildest dreams.

The college did not opt for certification. They spend more time in research activities as in industry interaction. Today they are less dependant on government grant than when we started.

The doctor, in his personal clinic, manages to keep patient records. Patient turnover has increased by more than 40% within available time.

A trader, certified, has managed to cut his stock in trade to 7 days from over 6 months. His is another peculiar case which I will like to discuss with you all sometime

The list is unending and will continue to grow...

How much rigidity we introduce in the system is in our hands. In my opinion, a typical manufacturing system is toooooo rigid.