How a narrow definition of competency could have unintended consequences for architects

Under the Building Safety Act, clients must now satisfy themselves that the designers they employ are competent. This seems to be a requirement that could become loaded with unintended consequences.

I can tell you that I have qualifications in architecture and engineering; am a registered and chartered architect; wrote a book on architectural history; was awarded a Rome Scholarship; did 42 hours of CPD training last year; and can list the projects I am leading for the practice I work for. But other than concluding that my free time is limited, would you really be able to conclude that I was competent to work on your building project?

This is the dilemma clients now face. Of course, if they’re a large developer or professional client, they are probably well-placed to conclude either way. If they’re Mr and Mrs Smith building their own home, or a small NGO refurbishing their building, would they be able to decide? All of the above may sound interesting, relevant, or even impressive, but does that really tell them that I can competently coordinate their design project, or select the right building materials for the conservation of their listed building?

If I were in the shoes of a non-professional client, I would be tempted to look through these CVs and statements for experience very similar to their project—following the thought that ‘if they’ve done it before, it must be OK’. (Incidentally, this is the same logic that applies to far too many tender pre-qualification questionnaires).

It makes a kind of logical sense, but it’s where the growth of new talent in our industry will die. If tomorrow I decided to set up my own small practice, I might follow that well-trodden path of finding a small domestic project to start with. Following the above logic, my client (or my insurer) might read my CV and happily conclude that I am competent to work on high-rise residential towers, university and arts buildings, but that a residential extension would be beyond my competency. I wouldn’t argue that my learning curve might be steep, working at a new scale and in a new typology—but I’m not sure that would make me incompetent.

Competency is an excellent thing, but we need to be careful how we define it and the skills and education we look to characterise it

Say I were already a little more established. Historically, many smaller practices have turned into larger ones by winning one big significant commission. Following the logic above, this would not be possible. A client may reasonably conclude that having only worked on residential extensions and one-off houses, a larger commission is beyond a practice’s competency. Many larger projects now ask for larger established firms to partner with SMEs to allow these firms to grow while mitigating the risk to the client. Does this really work in giving opportunities to these practices to grow, though? A column for another day perhaps.

To pick a figure from history, Sir Christopher Wren, say. Wren was appointed as King’s Surveyor of Works in 1669—if we were to look at his CV prior to this role, it would be roughly as follows:

• Qualifications in mathematics, physics, and astronomy
• Researcher, All Souls, Oxford
• Overseer of harbour defence construction, Tangier (1661)
• Professor of Astronomy, Gresham College, London
• Designer of the chapel for Pembroke College, Cambridge (1665, financed by his uncle)
• Travelled around Europe to study architecture, including meetings with noted Italian architects

To go into a little more detail, his design work for Oxford’s ‘New Theatre’ (1665-ish) was received in lukewarm fashion. Even his defenders noted that he was not yet “capable of handling a large architectural composition with assurance”. Within a year, though, he was overseeing the rebuilding of the City of London. I am sure the learning curve was steep, and he leant heavily on those he worked with to fill in the gaps in his knowledge—but his enquiring mind and polymath nature meant he was able to rise to the challenge and become one of the UK’s most noted architects. Under modern competency rules, though, it is likely he would have never been given the chance, never been allowed to take the job by his insurers—and we would never have seen St Paul’s Cathedral.

Competency is an excellent thing, but we need to be careful how we define it and the skills and education we look to characterise it. Having done something before does not mean we are competent, and being new to something does not necessarily make us incompetent. There is a risk that in defining relevant experience too narrowly, we miss out on our next Christopher Wren.

Safety is crucial. Building quality is imperative. However, a stranglehold of poorly considered guidance, or guidance defined largely by an insurer’s risk profile, may kill off the great practices of the future before they even really start.