|
 The
Key Role of the Architekt in the Construction Process
A Particular
Role : The Prüfingenieur
The Changing
Role of the Architekt
The
Generalunternehmer
Generalübernehmer
Projektentwickler
While the client is the legally dominant actor in
the project coalition, the key actor in the German system is traditionally the
Architekt. The Architekt is the classical agent of the client -
mainly of the casual client, but also of the experienced one, who does not
employ in-house professionals himself. This key role has been changing recently.
Other actors are taking over the role of the Architekt. This simple fact
is not new, because the work of the Architekt has always been performed
in different ways. But to describe a traditional role of the Architekt it
is useful to present a scheme which then makes it possible to understand both
this crucial role in the project coalition and its recent change.
The
Key Role of the Architekt in the Construction Process
Figure 1 - Traditional Trades Contracting
The right to bear the title of an
Architekt in Germany is dependent upon to a professional education at a Fachhochschule
or a university, a certain period of professional experience under the
supervision of an admitted Architekt, and inscription in the Chamber of Architekten.
As a member of this Chamber the Architekt has the right to sign the
application, which will be presented to the public authorities to obtain the
building permission - and it was until recently only the Architekt who
had this right. This so-called Planvorlageberechtigung is the main basis
of the key role of the Architekt. But a more detailed analysis
demonstrates that the term Architekt in Germany has the same twofold
meaning mentioned in the introduction. It indicates on the one hand a certain
professional qualification and competence, acquired through a particular
education. On the other hand it has a functional connotation, because the Architekt
traditionally is the one, who as an independent professional is working for and
on behalf of the client by contract. As an expert with a specific professional
education, an Architekt can do - and in many cases does - the same work,
when he is employed by a client as an in-house-professional. But then nobody
would use the term Architekt to indicate the actor in the project
coalition who performs this role. It would be said, that the client has taken
over the role of the Architekt, although the professional qualification
and competence is still in use in the same way. The only thing the Architekt
as a person has lost, is the status of independence in economic and tax terms.
So what is called the key role of the Architekt in the
project coalition (equivalent to the maître-duvre in France) is not
the role as professional expert, but the functional one and the legal and
economic status as an independent professional. And it is this functional role
and this status which are under pressure and undergoing change, not so much
their professional expert's qualification and competence. If today other actors
take over the role of the Architekt, which they in fact have done for a
long time, they probably will continue or start to employ Architekten as
in-house-professionals and not replace their qualification and competence as
professional experts. Apart from this, the qualification and competence
of Architekten may and should change to meet the needs of a modern
project organisation in construction, but these changes will keep their
particular value for the construction of the built environment.
The key role of the Architekt in the project coalition
can be described best by taking the traditional form of running a project. The
process responsibilities and structural (contractual) relationships within the
project coalition are illustrated in figures 1 and 2 respectively. This role
consists of a threefold mediation.
Figure 2 - The Traditional
Project Coalition
It is the Architekt, who first transforms the needs
and wishes of the client into something which can be built. He makes the first
draft of the project and by doing so, he first mediates between the idea of the
client and the reality. So it is the Architekt, who decides not only the
form and dimensions of the building, but also the technology and very often even
the materials. He then makes a technical description of the building and he
later works out the detailed design, which is the basis of the application for
the building permission, the tender documents, the work of the structural
calculation, the production planning, as well as the layout of formwork and
reinforcement, made by the contractor. He also makes a rough cost estimation.
Those structural engineers, who normally are employed by contract to work out
the structural calculation in this phase, normally have a contractual relation
only to the client.
The second mediation task concerns the building permission.
It is the Architekt, who on behalf of the client obtains it. The urban
planning scheme, to which every building must fit, represents the public or
societal interest in the construction of the built environment. The single
building on the contrary represents the individual interest of the client, who
wants to consume land or to realise the value of a building. These two interests
differ and can be opposed and it is the Architekt who has to mediate
between them.
After obtaining the building permission the Architekt
prepares the tender documents, (i.e. the specified list of performances, the Leistungsverzeichnis)
required. He coordinates the tendering process, assisting the client as a
consultant to place orders with the contractors or selecting them in the tender
process. Here too, all contractors are in contractual relationship only to the
client. This process means thirdly, that the Architekt mediates between
the demand for construction facilities and the supply of them. This process
results in a certain amount of cost for the client and therefore in a ratio of
appropriation of economic means to particular needs. And it results in a price
for the construction performance and therefore is a measurement of the value of
construction work in the society, valid for companies, workers and professionals.
Finally it is the architect, who normally makes the time schedule and the
overall organisation plan (who starts when and works how long on site) and who
supervises the works on site, regarding programme, and the conformance of work
to the specification, on behalf of the client.
A
Particular Role in the German Contracting System: The Prüfingenieur
At the structural calculation stage, another actor enters the
stage of the project coalition, whose particular role is not found in other
contracting systems. In Germany the structural calculation, be it done by
in-house professionals of the contractor or by independent professional
consultants engaged by the client, has to be examined by an independent actor
before the work on site is allowed to start. This is the so-called Prüfingenieur.
For every building, a Prüfingenieur must be engaged by the client, who
has to pay all the expenses and fees. But the Prüfingenieur is
independent from the client and responsable only to the public authorities, by
which an engineer is given the permission to act as Prüfingenieur.
The Prüfingenieur examines the structural calculation,
the construction drawings and the layout of formwork and reinforcement. If he
finds errors or mistakes he can demand changes in all these documents before
letting them pass. So the structural engineers have not only the possibility to
correct faults, but there is an obligation to do so, because without the
examination of the structural calculation by the Prüfingenieur the
building permission can not be obtained. The same procedure has to be undergone,
if there are changes concerning the structural design, while the construction is
under way. Without construction drawings and layouts signed as correct by the Prüfingenieur,
works on site must not go on.
It is not the business of the Prüfingenieur to act as
a consultant and even in the case where changes have been executed on his demand,
he does not take on any liability, which remains completely with the other
actors. But quite often a Prüfingenieur informally gives help to the
structural engineer working out a structural design and his remarks can be
considered from the very beginning - so that in fact often there is not a
big difference from how a bureau de contrôle is working.
A Prüfingenieur in person is normally a very well
experienced structural engineer. His task is to check structural design and
drawings and he can demand changes in them before letting them pass and
construction works can start. However the function of the Prüfingenieur
is not seen as an overall censor or as a "hostile" agent of the
client. On the contrary, structural engineers estimate this function as helpful
to them. If a building is simple, the work of the Prüfingenieur is
fairly a routine one, if it is difficult, it provides for the structural
engineer and the construction firm the benefit of what is called "The
Principle of Four Eyes". Because errors or mistakes can occur to the best
professional, everybody feels better if somebody else is checking what is
difficult and responsible work which can have severe consequences in the case of
error.
Moreover engineering firms having a licence as Prüfingenieur
normally also work as structural engineers, so that it is quite common, that in
a building project the one engineering firm is engaged as structural engineer
and the other one as Prüfingenieur, and in the next project vice
versa. So Prüfingenieure, although they act towards the single
building project from outside the project coalition, with respect to a local
network of the construction business are far from being outsiders.
The
Changing Role of the Architekt
Despite the fact, that the Architekt
is still a key actor in many project coalitions, his role is recently more and
more changing. In principle the role he can play in the project coalition is
obviously bound to his personal capacity and that of his team. So very efficient
architectural offices can even work on very big and complex projects or they can
act as project managers. Others who work on their own or with one or two
partners only, or who restrict their work to the aesthetic part of the design
and do not take much care of the growing needs for cost saving, the
possibilities of production-oriented design, and the requirements of project
management methods may lack of the competence to play an equivalent role in a
complex and efficiency-orientated project coalition. But despite their ability
to meet even the needs of very complex projets their key role is increasingly
overtaken by other actors. An growing number of buildings recently are
undertaken by Generalunternehmer and in particular by Generalübernehmer
or Projektentwickler. These actors have not appeared recently, but have
existed for some time.
The forces which are ppushing the recents development are
various. First, some building types have became more complex, so that new
competencies are required. Second, especially in the private sector, more and
more seller-clients occur, to whom cost and time are most important parameters
and who prefer to give their orders to Generalunternehmer or to Generalübernehmer.
Third, and obvioulsy most important, contractors more and more tend to move into
that field. In all cases the functional role of the Architekt or at least
parts of it will be taken over by contractors. This leads to the result, that
the threefold mediation task, which has been traditionally part of the Architekt
role, has also been taken over by contractors. This provides new tasks and new
requirements for their professional organisation and sets new qualification
demands for their employees. Although it is observed, that this will result in
employment of Architekten by contractors (Syben, Stroink 1995), this
will save the role of the Architekt as professional, but not his
functional one as an independent actor with a key position inside the project
coalition.
Figure 3 - The Construction
Process : the Generalunternehmer Form
The contractor in the German system on the other hand is
inside the project coalition in a very uncomfortable position. It is situated at
the end of the line, starting its work when all decisions are made. So it has
the turnover and the chance of a profit, but it also has by far the greater part
of the risk and only a small chance to control it. All it can do is to try to
meet the needs of the client, but he is rarely able to influence them, neither
by defining his needs nor by doing the design. That is why for bigger projects
very often contractors try to build an Arbeitsgemeinschaft so that they
can share workload and risk. If the construction firm fails to perform what it
contracted for, the client also carries the risk, that it did not get what it
ordered in terms of quality, time or cost. But the client can require the
overhaul of the work at the expense of the contractor and he can hold back or
reduce the final payment. All these possibilities are at the full risk of the
contractor; even more, it risks loosing not only money, but also its good name
as an effective and trustworthy contract party.
So in particular the big contractors, but also medium and
even small ones have for several years tended to avoid the situation, in which
they can only react to decisions made by clients and Architekten. They
mainly use two ways (which are well known from the recent development in other
countries in the European construction industry too): the one "upwards"
is to take over the design process and in particular (with the help of a bank)
the financing of a project; the other one "downwards" is to take over
the management of the building, sometimes (but until recently very rare) doing
both in the form of concession contracting. There is in fact a great difference
between the traditional experienced client, who employs Architekten as
in-house professionals and those new strategies to take over the role of the Architekt
in the project coalition by contractors. These new strategies will lead to the
result, not that the client takes over the design and thereby integrates the
role of the Architekt into its professional organisation, but that the
contractor now integrates the role of the client and therefore takes over the
whole process. It indicates a shift from demand priority to supply priority, or
from consumers towards producers.
The
Generalunternehmer
For the construction firm the
step from acting as a contractor for the structural works on site being in a
legal relation to the client towards acting as Generalunternehmer can be
seen as a strategic decision towards a fundamental change of its role in the
project coalition. It can be considered "fundamental", because the
contractor starts to leave its traditional role at the end of the decision line
and takes over itself client-like functions of organising tender processes and
placing orders with other actors. The Generalunternehmer is in the
construction phase the only one to have a contractual relation to the client and
is the only one responsible directly to the client for the whole process and the
whole building. As Generalunternehmer the contractor integrates a greater
part of the construction project and enables itself to control it more
extensively. Its turnover and therefore its possibility to make profits
increases, but so does the economic risk, in particular, because under German
law all warranties and obligations remain to the Generalunternehmer and
cannot be shifted to subcontractors. This is illustrated in figures 3 and 4.
Consequently, with increasing number of Generalunternehmer
projects the number of subcontractors grows. Between 1980 and 1994 the big
contractors increased the ratio of subcontracted works from 25 to 35 per cent (Syben
1995 p 43). But this is not the only reason why the construction process is
more and more fragmented and the number of actors in the project coalition goes
upwards. One reason is that contractors try to ease their own business by
subcontracting as many trades as possible, because they save the expenses for
calculating themselves every single task by shifting that work on to the
subcontractors. The other reason is that firms (not only in construction) more
and more often decide not to make, but to buy even those services that they
traditionally have made in-house.
Figure 4 - The Generalunternehmer
Project Coalition
This concerns, for example, EDP services, production planning
and work preparation, and structural calculation. If the respective departments
were outsourced and transformed into self-reliant acting commercial units (although
they become economically not totally independent), the process of integrating
more phases of the construction process into the construction firm will be
accompanied by a process of disintegration of the construction firm itself (cf.
Syben 1995).
The contractual relations between the Generalunternehmer and
the Architekt can be different. Some clients still employ an Architekt
in his traditional functional role, so that contractual relations exist only
between the client and the Architekt on the one hand and the Generalunternehmer
and the client on the other, but not between the Generalunternehmer and
the Architekt. The Architekt (or the planning department of the
client in the case of an experienced client such as a public authority or a
bigger company) then prepares the specification (Leistungsverzeichnis).
In these cases the Generalunternehmer receives the Leistungsverzeichnis
by another actor and works on its basis in the traditional way of a contractor.
In particular it itself produces the superstructure mainly with own workers and
subcontracts all other trades.
For very big projects with a large project sum, for very
complex ones with a lot of participants and actors, or for projects which need a
particular, highly professionalised control of cost and time schedules, clients
may employ a special project manager - the Projektsteuerer or Baubetreuer.
This is normally a specialised or a very experienced consultant, typically a
civil engineer by education, whose role is to control the project on behalf of
the client. He is in contractual relation only with the client and normally paid
on a fee basis, which is sometimes linked to results. He is a consultant to the
client and has no directing authority over any other actor, but because he acts
on behalf of the client, he in fact has a great influence on the decisions.
Figure 5 - The
Generalübernehmer Process
One change the contractor undergoes if it becomes a Generalunternehmer
concerns the need to tender for subcontractors, not only, in particular
those for the finishing trades. In bigger firms this new demand results in a
change of the professional organisation. A department for tender will be
established, and the departments for work preparation, supervision and control
on site will be reinforced. Quite often these firms meet the new qualification
demands by hiring new staff, which can consist of employees, who have an
education as Architekt (Syben, Stroink 1995). In small and medium
construction firms acting as Generalunternehmer, these tasks are taken
over by managers or owners, who by profession mostly are civil engineers.
Also the situation of the finishing trade contractors
changes. As long as they had contractual relations only with the client, their
situation was not too disadvantageous. The Architekt as overall
controller was an expert in design and construction, but often not in project
management. So contractors have had sometimes plenty of space in which to manuvre.
If a construction firm becomes Generalunternehmer and the finishing trade
contractors become its subcontractors, then their counterpart changes
fundamentally. It is now a company, which not only has a totally different
economic and financial background, but which employs also highly experienced
construction professionals, by far superior to that of the subcontractors in the
relevant technical and managerial expertise. So the situation for subcontractors
becomes very uncomfortable. Some Generalunternehmen reported that they
intend to establish stable, long term relations to particular subcontractors,
but until recently this seems to be more intention than action.
Sometimes in the case where a construction firm is employed
under the label of Generalunternehmer, the client prefers to give also
the design and the detailed planning to it. This creates different contractual
relations and at the same time changes the roles and the relations of the actors.
For better analytical distinction the contractor then should be titled as Generalübernehmer,
a term often, but not always used to indicate this type of contractual
relationship between the actors.
Generalübernehmer
Figure 6 - The
Generalübernehmer Project Coalition
The step from Generalunternehmer to Generalübernehmer
is made if the contractor also takes over the design and the whole of the
traditional functional role of the Architekt. It is then the contractor
which has to make the detailed planning, to provide the structural calculation,
the building permission, and a detailed cost estimate for the whole project, as
illustrated in figure 5. Now it crosses the border of the phases defined in the
generic model of the construction process above and takes over the conception
phase. It integrates a greater part of the work and therefore of turnover and of
the possibility of profits. The risk situation is now different. On the one
hand, risk is reduced because the contractor now has made the design itself and
thus is able to eliminate problems on site. Lower risk is a result of increased
control. On the other hand, increased control means also increased
responsibility, and because the contractor as Generalübernehmer is now
responsible for the design also, it has integrated another source of risk. The
structural relationships within the project coalition are illustrated in figure
6.
A Generalübernehmer is usually able to execute all
design and planning work in-house and therefore also employs those who are Architekt
by education. Small and medium contractors, because they only very exceptionally
employ structural engineers and because they are not prepared to take the risk
of a whole project, very seldom work as Generalübernehmer. If a Generalübernehmer
employs an Architekt by contract, this one nevertheless undergoes a
fundamental change not of his role as a professional expert, but of his
functional role as an independent professional. He is still independent in a
legal, but not in a real way. And also the Generalübernehmer, if it is a
contractor, may itself produce the structure mainly with its own workers and
subcontract all other trades.
The client in contract with a Generalübernehmer is
much more likely to employ a project manager or Projektsteuerer to win
back an equivalent control power to that of the Generalübernehmer, which
has integrated also the design functions of a project and therefore increased
the range of its control possibilities.
Projektentwickler
The last step for the contractor is to integrate finally also
the clients function in the decision phase defined by the generic model above is
in Germany mostly named by the term Projektentwickler (project developer)
(cf. Syben 1994). This illustrated in figure 7. A Projektentwickler is
very often a construction firm and there are not only the big companies, but
also some medium sized firms which participate in this phase. Different from a Generalübernehmer,
for whom it is significant, that he takes over the design phases and functions
of the Architekt, for the Projektentwickler it is significant,
that he takes over the clients functions. In principal it then has integrated
the whole process from the definition of a need for a building to the
performance of the work on site. So he has integrated all the turnover, the
profits, and the control. He may have further reduced the typical risk of a
contractor, but now carries the full risk of a seller-client. This risk is very
often tried to be reduced by leasing or selling the building or parts of it in a
very early stage of the project, if not before works on site have started. In
this case the later user regains some of the clients possibilities and
responsibilities, so that he shares a part of the burden of the risk with the
Projektentwickler. The structural relationships associated with this form
are illustrated in figure 8.
Figure 7 - The Projektwickler
Process
The characteristic lack of personnel which are employed on
design and structural engineering tasks, prevents medium contractors from
becoming Generalübernehmer, but not Projektentwickler. Here the
crucial question is that of the financial and technical dimensions of a project.
If the project to be developed is a 50 storey office block, a sports and
recreation area or a whole city quarter, it may be reserved to big companies,
which are able to take the economic risk and provide the technical competence
even in-house. But a project in this sense of the word can also be a housing
development with 20 to 30 one family houses, and these types of projects open up
possibilities for medium contractors too.
Figure 8 - The projektwickler
Coalition
Contractors, which start to work as Projektentwickler,
very often form an Arbeitsgemeinschaft with a professional property
developer, a real estate company and/or a bank. These actors on the other hand
sometimes themselves can act as Projektentwickler on their own. In this
case in the project coalition the contractor can act again as Generalunternehmer,
Generalunternehmer or in the traditional way as contractor.
If a contractor takes over not only the clients functions in
the design phase, but those in the phase of using the construction after
completion, this is named Betreibermodell. This form is mainly discussed
in connection with concession contracting. One reason is that it seems to be an
easy solution to many problems of the public authorities at once, to relieve
them from the financing both the investment and the running of public
infrastructure. The other one is, that it is mainly the construction industry
which proposes the integration of constructing and running infrastructure
facilities.
But both concession contracting and the private financing of
public infrastructure were until recently seldom used in Germany. Even strong
supporters of the private financing of public infrastructure do not support
building them on a private at risk basis. The private financing of public
infrastructure in most cases means that private companies intend to get their
money back not by fees from customers or users, but by interest payments from
the state. So fee systems are only discussed as a way of re-financing public
and not private investment. But this form of private pre-financing of
public infrastructure has come into doubt after the Bundesrechnungshof (the
federal auditing board to supervise the finances of public authorities) has
mentioned in its recent annual report on the basis of a detailed analysis, that
the private financing of public investment is more expensive to the tax-payer,
than public financing (cf. Deutscher Bundestag 1995 p 58-62). The
key argument of the Bundesrechnungshof is that between private and public
financing there are no differences either in contracting sums or in the
extension of refinancing periods, but that the interest rates given to public
authorities are lower than to private capital. Because - under the condition of
missing fee systems for refinancing - in the end it is always the public
authority (or in other words the tax payer), who has to pay for either the
investment or the interest, and it has to pay more or it will get less, if the
investor is private.
|