Today the Institute and the ACA will jointly send a letter to an organisation requesting an architectural tender which requires a significant amount of design work to be completed as part of the tender submission.

I always recall sitting in a meeting with a charismatic property developer who liked to go surfing. The ‘deal’ was getting more and more difficult until he declared..

“I can go for a surf and earn nothing, so why would I sit here and do it?”.

I’m not sure if ACCC allows me to tell people that working for nothing does not make sense, but I think I can probably express a personal view, that surfing for nothing seems like a lot more fun.

When we talk about working for nothing I assume we are not talking about pro bono work where we, as a respected profession, may choose to contribute voluntarily with our time and expertise to a worthy cause. Rather, we are talking about working for nothing in a more commercial sense, in the same sense as low fees and over servicing.

The truth is that setting fees or determining reasonable scope of production are commercial decisions that individual architects and practices will make every day. To use some fad phrases, the globalisation of service and the democratisation of data means that our practice is very different to the past and the ways in which we may undertake, resource, or be remunerated for our service are more varied than ever before.

The Institute already had a past letter on the topic of free work in submissions – yes, apparently this has happened before – so it was interesting to read it in an editorial capacity. I particularly liked it.

I liked it because it didn’t actually make a case for payment based on architects receiving fair reward for their work. Rather, it made a case for the right process. 

We as architects often speak of architecture being a process not a product, and yet the propensity to provide visualisation almost at inception, to effect design solutions before thorough briefing and to take a kit of parts approach to spatial resolution are all significant contributors to the commoditisation of of our work. 

It’s a relatively short step then for clients to begin to believe that different architects will have a different product solution to their project and they should window shop until they choose one.

The letter composed by the Institute makes a case for the need to engage in a design process with thorough briefing, interaction and mutual understanding which will lead, through an iterative process, to a bespoke solution. A solution best resolved for that client and delivering them the benefits which a compromised path will not.

Whatever fee you choose to set is your own business. 

How we as a profession deliver the design process is something which involves us all. 

If you engage in a collaborative, iterative, exploratory architectural journey with your client then the process is right. You may do this pro bono and that’s your choice.

It may be that you are supporting people in need through your expertise and time, it may be that someone else is getting wealthier through your expertise and time… that’s your call.

What isn’t a choice for us as a profession, is whether we do the job properly. Paid or not, the architectural journey and the design process are paramount. We should only be engaging in processes where the solution is an outcome and not an initial offering.

Mario Dreosti
SA Chapter President