I approach the subject of the design-build process with respect for the strong feelings it arouses in the environmental graphics industry, but I am also convinced it is an important topic that should be discussed in a serious and balanced way. This topic resides just below the surface of the relationship between sign manufacturers and environmental graphic design firms; when it rises to the surface, it is often accompanied by acrimony and hostility.
Why is it so important? I participated in a panel presentation at the SEGD conference several weeks ago in San Diego, and at the conclusion of the session I asked an audience of about 3 dozen designers the following question: If you add up all of the construction projects in the United States that require an architectural sign program, what percentage of these sign programs are designed by an independent SEGD member or firm? When I received no response, I asked that they speculate… did they touch 50% of the projects? No. Did they touch 25% of them? No. Finally, a verbal consensus began to emerge that they probably were not involved with more than 10% - 20% of these projects.
I then asked another question: If SEGD designers are not responsible for the signs that are going into all of these projects, who is doing the design work that is necessary for signs to actually appear on the wall? A fellow sitting next to me, an architect who had been a co-panelist for the presentation, spoke a single word: manufacturers. The designers in the audience quietly murmured their agreement, and a pretty disagreeable conclusion was apparent.
It is likely that up to 80% of the sign programs implemented in the United States each year are not designed by members of the professional organization that has been created to foster a responsible and design-sensitive approach to the performance of this exact function in the marketplace.
So what do we think this means? At one level, it means that design control of many sign programs resides with manufacturers. But it also means that an opportunity may exist in the marketplace for environmental graphic designers and manufacturers alike. Let’s step outside the box and really examine the nature of design-build, what it could mean for the architectural signage industry, how it works, and how it might be made more design-sensitive. The observations I make here are my own, drawn from experience over more than two decades, and they reflect the perspective of a designer as well as a fabricator. My goal is to initiate a conversation, and to that end, at Identia we plan to continue an exploration of various aspects of the design-build process. Our purpose is to identify financial opportunities, and to foster collaboration between designers and sign manufacturers.
Observations:
1. Design-build in the architectural sign industry is a reality. It fills a gap in the marketplace, especially for projects with limited budgets.
2. Design-build appears in 2 principal configurations: (a) architectural sign companies may provide design and programming services with in-house staff or (b) architectural sign companies and independent EGD firms may form joint venture partnerships for specific projects.
3. The quality of design/programming/documentation work, and the overall sign product quality executed, supplied, and installed by firms working in the design-build mode varies wildly from poor to excellent.
4. Adoption of professional standards for sign program documentation by design-build firms would be beneficial to owners, designers, and manufacturers alike.
5. There are advantages to working in the design-build mode, and they include establishment of a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) at the beginning of a project, a single source of responsibility, overall cost savings, and faster project timelines. There are also disadvantages: design-build sometimes considers a narrower range of product solutions, there is always a potential downside to “putting all your eggs into one basket”, and design-build forgoes competitive bidding as one means of lowering total implementation costs.
6. The idea that the design-build model is not capable of producing architectural sign programs that are well-designed is simply not correct. Highly skilled and independent EGD firms can partner with manufacturers, or, alternatively, sign manufacturers can employ qualified and experienced design professionals within their own organizations. The quality of sign programs that emerge from the design-build approach vary as widely as they do under the independent design / competitive bid model.
7. Owners are capable of making sound decisions about the way the work on their projects is executed. There are various approaches to managing different types of building projects that professionals in the construction industry are familiar with. Each approach defines its own particular set of professional roles, responsibilities, and relationships. It is important for us to provide owners with accurate information about the design-build process, as it relates to signage, so they can make intelligent decisions.
8. A number of factors determine whether or not design-build is appropriate for a particular project. Is it financed with public funds and therefore subject to competitive bidding requirements? Is the project large or small? Is it straight-forward or complex? Are the sign requirements connected to other segments of design work such as identity or brand development? Is the project schedule compressed? All of these factors, and others, must be taken into consideration when considering design-build.
9. Architectural sign companies that are involved in design-build projects should not cut documentation corners, they should not disparage the value of environmental graphic design, and instead, should retain the services of competent design professionals, both within their own organizations, and through their project partners. Architectural sign companies that do not take this approach will reinforce the stereotype that design-build is long on build and short on design.
10. Professionals within the EGD community should not talk about “blackballing” manufacturers who participate in design-build projects. It would be more productive for the EGD community as a whole to recognize the compelling evidence of a need in the market for a model by which sign programs can be delivered with shorter project timelines, and with a lower total implementation price-tag.
Well-designed signs give us the safe and easy access we need to the places where we live, study, and work. It is unlikely that one process model for signage can effectively serve as a universal solution for all projects. We can see how forcefully the market has worked to define and select design-build as one alternative method for creating and implementing sign programs for certain types of projects. At Identia, we are working to develop tools and products that
enable designers and fabricators to be more productive, no matter what project approach they adopt. I look forward to your thoughts and comments!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I think it would be beneficial to put together a panel of competent, experienced EG Designers and Product Manufacturers to discuss this issue in detail together.
As a manufacturer, we bring EG Designers on board for projects that are outside of our ability range however seldom it happens.
Otherwise, we are talking about a set of channel letters for a store front or CO signage required as a minimum for occupancy.
In these cases the owners are just not willing to spend the money to come up with a fancy design and comprehensive program. They just want the minimum required to pass inspection.
This accounts for 60% or more of construction projects I would suspect.
The question here is, how involved do EG Designers want to be. Do they want to be involved in the store front channel letter and CO signage projects? If so then they need to get in touch with the landlords of those strip centers and the architect designing those Co signage project buildings.
I can tell you that the tenants and GC's respectively will not pay for the service unless it is a requirement.
If it isn't a requirement they will avoid the additional expense as long as their needs are still met and any sign manufacturer and EG Designer team will collectively loose the job.
I think you left them speechless, Travis. I thought this was an excellent and accurate opinion of the reality of design-build in this business. As someone who is technically a designer but works for a fabricator, I've seen or heard about all of these scenarios.
In a way, I take offense to the suggestions of the people I associate with on a professional design level who consider the manufacturer the "enemy" and that our designs could never match their level of quality or fairness.
My employer offers design-build sign work but only for the right projects, as you indicated in your points. We don't feel we compete directly with EGD firms and we have worked fairly with these firms by identifying what fits us and what doesn't. We will gladly refer our clients to these firms when it's appropriate, such as when bids are required.
We match our offerings to the client's needs, business model, identity and budget. This is always my goal when I work on a sign program. I don't sell signs, I offer the best solution to whatever situation is presented. If you want modular, we'll get you a modular system. If you want to maintain your system, we'll help you set that up.
Every project we do isn't going to be design award worthy and I don't mind that so much. What I value and in turn what my employer values, is when the clients call back and say "I really love how my signs look and they're so easy to maintain" or "I appreciate the ideas you gave us without charging an arm and a leg for them."
Effective, thoughtful solutions, good tools and smart individuals will take one much farther than a dynamic trendy design.
Post a Comment