Good question, Chris. Certifications usually say something about documents being “prepared by me or under my direct supervision”, which might be hard to demonstrate if the specifier works for the owner. As noted, assignment of contracts is an option, but one I think most architects would not like, anymore than they would like being required to employ a specific engineer. It happens with engineers, but architects probably see them more as equals than they would a specifier. For a specifier who also is a licensed architect, there should be less concern, because the architect would not be responsible for the specifier’s work.
Marc makes an interesting point. Perhaps specifiers should work for contractors rather than architects, because the contractors are doing most of the work and have most of the liability. Some of that is going on locally, and thus far, the results have been promising. The specifier doesn’t write the specifications, but knows how they were written and is better able to interpret them. Which says something about the way specs are written, but that’s another discussion.
Robert, when I worked for a public agency, I saw just what you describe. A given project would often have two or more certifications, each of which defined the work covered by each certification. I don’t know what was on the drawings, but the project manual typically had certifications restricted to only some of the spec sections, and I recall one project that had two certifications for the same spec section. If I recall correctly, that one broke down responsibility by article. Michael, engineers are different, in many ways, starting with an education based on science rather than art.
Robert, you are correct about the CDI, though it goes further than integrating documents; at one time, architects were responsible for virtually everything. Anon, you also are correct; buildings are different now than they were a hundred years ago. The amusing thing is that those who complain about the poor state of the architect seem not to realize what has happened, or that much of the current situation is due to changes initiated by AIA in response to changes in buildings and construction.
So, how do you prove the value of good specifications and document coordination? How do you prove a negative? When something goes wrong, it’s often easy to see how much an error can cost, but in the absence of problems, how do you show how much is saved when everything goes right? And rarely does everything go right! Despite our best efforts, there will be mistakes, and when a team works together, many problems will get fixed quickly and be all but forgotten. Complicating the analysis is the likelihood that some horsetrading goes on in every project, obscuring costs. “You cover this, and I won’t make you do that.”
What makes good documents? Go to your local builders exchange and look at the bidding documents. You will see things that make you cringe, and you will see things that look pretty good. The problem is, without studying all of the bidding documents, you won’t know if the ugly one was great and the pretty one is garbage. Now consider the results. Lots of fat specs are not necessarily easier to understand (I would argue the opposite) nor do they guarantee a good project. Much depends on the players; a good contractor can take bad specs in stride and make an architect look good, and a bad contractor can screw up no matter how good the specs are and make an architect look bad. That also works the other way, and also applies to owners.
All of these things make it virtually impossible to make a convincing argument that good specs, or using a good specifier, will lead to a good project. Why would an owner look beyond the architect, who is licensed by a state, and, presumably, is eminently qualified to write the specifications, by virtue of education, examination, and experience? Let’s be realistic; how do you compare a license that requires five or more years of college, an internship, and a multi-day exam with a certification that requires only two exams that take a total of four hours, and five years’ experience?
Architects must be licensed because, about 150 years ago, AIA decided that licensing was a top priority. They didn’t just tell each other how important a license is; they worked hard to convince states of the need for licensing architects. It was forty years later that Illinois became the first state to require licensing, and it took until 1951 for all states to fall in line. Today, according to AIA, there are about 106,000 licensed architects, 83,000 being AIA members.
USGBC, which is just over twenty years old, now boasts 181,000 with LEED credentials, which, if I understand correctly, are granted after passing a four-hour exam. Because LEED now has the force of law in many areas, and a point is awarded for having a LEED accredited person on a project, LEED APs, even though they are not licensed, are more important than certified specifiers. Isn’t it interesting that firms boast how many LEED APs they have, but say little about the number of licensed professionals, and rarely say anything about their specifiers or construction administration people?