The missing business education in architecture: Why architects struggle to value their services

Architects today face a relentless financial squeeze – and the problem is deeper than market conditions. Despite a growing demand for business acumen within the profession, architectural education has yet to fully embrace the financial realities architects face daily. As fee undercutting and financial instability become common across practices, it’s clear that architectural academia must reassess how well it prepares architects for the commercial challenges of running a practice.

In recent years, there has been a push to integrate practice management into architectural education, especially at the Part 3 stage. At the Bartlett, for example, students are now tasked with creating a pitch and fee document for a panel, giving them a taste of what goes into estimating resources, costing projects, and negotiating fees. This hands-on experience is invaluable in fostering a commercial mindset early on.

Additionally, students are prompted to reflect on the speculative costs that go into preparing these documents and the impact on practice finances. But while some academic programmes make strides, many architects still graduate with limited exposure to the financial and business challenges they’ll inevitably face.

For Part 3 students in particular, even this limited business training can be difficult to apply. In many practices, fee negotiations and financial decisions are tightly held by senior management, limiting students’ agency and exposure. Many are absorbed in the statutory and technical aspects of their roles, while financial discussions are sidelined. As a result, architects often spend years – even up to a decade post-Part 3 – without active engagement in fee setting or management. It’s an issue that restricts the professional growth of architects and delays their ability to understand, let alone negotiate, the financial value of their work.

Architects are trained to design, not necessarily to sell, and many approach the profession with a vocational mindset. While this dedication to craft and impact is commendable, it can be detrimental in negotiations, especially with hard-nosed clients. Architects are often empathetic and detail-oriented – qualities that serve design but can hinder fee discussions. In an industry that surrendered fee scales long ago, negotiating and justifying fees is essential to sustaining the profession. Without the ability to advocate confidently for fair compensation, architects risk undercutting each other, destabilising fee structures and weakening the industry as a whole.

The pervasive trend of undercutting on fees reflects a reluctance to value one’s own work and has a corrosive effect not only on profitability but on the overall health and resilience of the profession. Failure to charge appropriately erodes individual profits and risks cut corners in project delivery while diminishing the profession’s capacity to invest in critical areas such as research, innovation, and technology. It prevents firms from building the resources necessary to train and mentor the next generation, which is essential to ensuring that the industry evolves and adapts to changing demands.

Architects need to reclaim their value, and that starts with reshaping the way money is addressed in architectural education

When fees are slashed to unsustainable levels, practices are left with limited options for growth, and the focus shifts from achieving excellence in architecture to simply staying afloat. This impacts everything from quality and innovation to a firm’s ability to attract and retain talent, creating a cycle that ultimately weakens the profession’s future prospects.

This financial insecurity also has a psychological impact, fostering an atmosphere where architects feel they are operating in a cutthroat environment. The sense that other firms are undercutting fees – sometimes knowingly at unsustainable levels – fuels a culture of distrust and disillusionment within the profession. Many architects feel pressured to match these lower fees, even if it compromises their ability to deliver work to the best of their ability.

This corrosive dynamic not only affects morale but also chips away at the collective power of architects to advocate for fair compensation and respect for their expertise. In the long term, the perception of architecture as a career that requires constant financial compromise can deter new talent from entering the field, further compounding these issues.

Reclaiming financial stability in architecture requires a cultural shift. Architects need to become more comfortable with talking about money, viewing it not as a departure from their craft but as an extension of it. Breaking down fees into granular, tangible terms – even at the risk of sounding technocratic – can be an effective way to communicate the value behind each pound a client spends.

This transparency not only clarifies what clients are paying for but also sets realistic boundaries around demands, helping to equalise the architect–client power dynamic. It’s about creating a narrative where fees are justified not only in terms of the end product but also in terms of the creativity, expertise, and unique value that architects bring to each project.

In an increasingly competitive marketplace, the architectural profession must work collectively to raise and maintain fee standards. Organisations like SAW are making strides, particularly for emerging architects, in fostering business skills and confidence around money. However, the profession as a whole has a long way to go. It’s essential that architects – individually and collectively – recognise that underselling their work does not lead to sustainability, innovation, or long-term success. Instead, it perpetuates a cycle of undervaluation that benefits no one in the industry.

The economic challenges architects face today require an overhaul in how the profession approaches business training. With practices struggling and architects frequently bidding at unsustainably low levels, it’s time to rethink how architects are educated and equipped for the realities of running a financially viable practice.

Architects need to reclaim their value, and that starts with reshaping the way money is addressed in architectural education. The future health of the profession depends on architects not only excelling in design and its delivery, but also standing firm in recognising and defending the true worth of their expertise and services.