Report comment

I don't have a problem with the level of fees the firm I work for charges for services provided, what I do have a problem however is that the scope of services is not defined adequately so it is clear that what we agreed to do is limited. This allows the all too familiar scope creep to set in.

How many times have we all heard statements like 'my Architect always does that on all my other projects', when your client decides you are now also going to be their interior designer/landscape architect/planning consultant?

How many times when working for a D&B contractor, have we all had massive changes forced upon us by virtue of the phrase 'design development', as if we can afford to be endlessly changing otherwise completed construction documents?

I think it is the lack of acumen when it comes to business, of knowing what you are worth and what you are prepared to do for the money paid as fees, along with the lack of willingness to say to a client a polite but firm 'no', that really lets Architects down.

By contrast, can you imagine a firm of (pick one) Quantity Surveyors, Services Engineers, Structural Engineers, Lawyers etc, going to work for a client on a vaguely worded and open ended contract, for half the fee required to do the job properly, and then accepting endless 'minor' additions with no extra fee?