High Performance Outcomes

There are two sides to this coin. The first, and obvious, is in reference to their copyright ownership. Architects do indeed 'own' their designs placed on 'paper'; the tangible medium. I've noticed, for the past several years, that when owners use design-build delivery (or other alternative deliveries) they want to 'own' the designs of competing design-build teams included with their proposals. The owners explanation usually goes something like this: "in consideration of a stipend we want to have rights to, or own, the designs submitted by various teams short-listed in the competition. Sounds logical, but in a deeper analysis one sees that this transaction really doesn't move the owner to the "end game"; the creation and occupancy of a building project. Designs have intrinsic value. They are a prescribed 'solution' to the owners stated 'problem'. Granted, there are likely many solutions to any given problem, but each un...

Using a Performance-Based Statement-of-Work instead of the traditional drawings & specifications has one distinct advantage, at least for  project   users ...it is written in their 'language'; proper sentences, grammatically correct, specific in nature, and complete with punctuation.  Traditional drawings & specifications, which define the 'contractual' scope of a project, are created in a 'language' of lines, symbols, abbreviations, tables, and notes; fashioned for use by designers and builders, but certainly not for project owners and users. Often users review and 'sign off' on the 'design' (documented in traditional drawing & specification format) without really understanding the design's resolution of their expectations, or the impact the design's details have on their occupancy, operation, and use of the resulting building. Drawings & specifications are traditional tools to communicate the design  (solution) to t...