Giorgio Marfella 0:04
Welcome everybody. Welcome to another ARBV webinar. My name is Giorgio Marfella and I'm the Chair of the Architects Registration Board of Victoria. As always, I'd like to begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the lands on which we are meeting today. I'm in the land of the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin Nation and I pay my respects to the elders past, present and emerging.
So, today's webinar is a follow-up and part of a series of four. We have already covered some ground related to it and it pertains to the outcomes of a research project the ARBV has undertaken in collaboration with Dariel De Sousa. Dariel will be handling most of the presentation today. And today in particular, we thought
was an important opportunity to strengthen the value of compliance and professionalism in architecture by inviting key representatives from the professional bodies. So in addition to Dariel, who's a familiar face for many of us and who has presented before, we have Stephanie Bullock, who is a director at Kosloff Architecture and the President of the Victorian Chapter of the Australian Institute of Architects. We also have Paul Viney, who is the president of the Victorian and Tasmanian Chapter of the Association of Consulting Architects and the director also of two firms, FPPV as well as Jay Architecture in Thailand. And also we have Jean Graham, who's the founding director of Winter Architecture and a director of the ArchiTeam Board. So with these three professional bodies, and Dariel, in addition to Dariel, who's a multi-disciplinary professional with qualifications in law, engineering and business, we thought it would be a good panel to discuss the value of professionalism in line with the previous webinars that we had before.
So as always, just a bit of housekeeping, this is a formal CPD opportunity for all of you who will be in a position to complete the questionnaire that you can access through this QR code. And as always, we like to have a bit of time for you to ask questions that are pertinent to the webinar. Please put them in the Q&A. I'll be collecting them and then selecting potentially some of those or try to go through all of them that might come towards the end.
So with this, I could probably just hand over to you, Dariel. Thank you.
Dariel De Sousa 2:45
Thanks so much, Giorgio, and welcome everybody. I'm going to start off with a little bit about the report. As Giorgio mentioned, this is the third in a series of four webinars where we're sharing the insights from the ARBV’s Compliance Culture Report. So some of the background that I'll be talking about, a number of you will have already heard, so I'll just skirt through that fairly briefly.
The purpose of today's session is to focus on architect's duties to the profession. So in the last webinar, we focused on architect's duties to clients, and the next webinar we will focus on architect's duties to the public. But in this webinar, we're focusing on your duties to the profession.
Stephanie Bullock 3:28
Oh.
Dariel De Sousa 3:29
Now, by way of background, and again, I'll just skirt through this very quickly, the catalyst for the report was really evidence of room for improvement in terms of compliance culture across the profession. And the evidence came from a number of reports prepared by the ARBV in conjunction with the New South Wales ARB on systemic risks in the architecture sector, published in 2022 and 2024, respectively; reports prepared by the Cladding Safety Victorian and published in 2024; and of course, the Shergold-Weir Building Conference Report, which was published in 2018, which did have things to say about the state of compliance culture, including amongst architects. Now, in light of this evidence, the ARBV has decided that it's important to focus on compliance culture, not just reacting to instances of non-compliance, because it's really compliance culture that can drive lasting change in terms of attitudes and outcomes in relation to compliance. And this approach is consistent with a comment made by Commissioner Hayne in the context of the Financial Services Royal Commission back in 2019, where he said that historically regulators don't really focus on compliance culture, they don't see the direct link between culture and misconduct, but that it does really help to address the root causes of non-compliance and in turn avoid harm to clients, users and the profession.
Here are the objectives of the work that has been undertaken by the ARBV on compliance culture. I won't go through all of them, but we're really touching on the last bullet point in this list, to highlight tangible actions that can be taken by architects and firms to really strengthen compliance culture across the profession,
and we will refer to our guest panellists to illustrate how compliance culture can be enhanced within small firms, medium firms and large firms when we get to the discussion section.
In terms of the outputs from the ARBs work, you will already know that there is a detailed report on strengthening compliance culture in the architecture sector. There's also a one-page high level summary. And for most of you, the most important output is a booklet containing practical guidance for architects and architectural firms of all sizes to really try and embed and strengthen compliance culture. That guidance document also includes case studies to illustrate how your duties can be discharged in practice.
To help contextualise the discussion today, just a reference to some key context and concepts. So, what is compliance culture? Well, compliance culture is the combination of the values, the attitudes, the expectations and the assumptions within an organisation that really shape how individuals and the firm as a whole behave, how they take actions, how they make decisions. Why does compliance culture matter? Well, in the first instance, it helps you be protected from regulatory sanction for non-compliance, but more importantly, it helps to ensure positive outcomes: good relationships with your clients, positive outcomes in terms of the built form, but also it helps to enhance trust and confidence in the profession as a whole. What does a strong compliance culture look like in practice? Well, if you look within an organisation and there's a shared understanding and agreement about the importance of compliance, then that illustrates a strong compliance culture. And how can compliance culture be strengthened? It really involves all within an organisation embracing their overarching duties that they bear as professionals, and this really lays a strong foundation for a strong compliance culture.
Now, a strong compliance culture, as I mentioned, are the values, attitudes, expectations, assumptions that really guide actions and decisions within an organisation. And a strong compliance culture within an organisation can affect individuals' mindset. So a strong compliance culture can generate
and internalise commitment within individuals to commit to compliance, even in the absence of oversight. And you can see that this can generate a virtuous cycle, where a strong compliance culture helps to create positive compliance mindset within individuals, and a strong compliance mindset within individuals helps to support a strong compliance culture within the organisation as a whole. Now, how do we know whether an individual has a compliance mindset? Well, typically there is a commitment to learning about compliance, for example, through CPD. A thorough understanding of obligations, not just a mere awareness that there are obligations under the Architects Act and the Code, for example, but a thorough understanding what they mean in practice. An acceptance of responsibility for compliance, not just assuming it's someone else's responsibility, but saying, as a professional, I need to accept responsibility for compliance. A vigilant approach in daily tasks, not just assuming that compliance will take care of itself, but being sensitised to compliance and being vigilant to ensure that compliance is achieved. And then finally, a commitment to a compliant pathway, even when incentives and drivers block you from achieving that compliant outcome, you choose and prioritise compliance over other things that may fall in your way.
Now, I talked about the need for, in order to generate this strong compliance culture, really embracing your overarching duties, and these overarching duties stem from the social contract that exists because of your status as professionals and your relationship with the public in general. These overarching duties are enshrined in the Architects Act, the Regulations and the Code of Professional Conduct and they are supplemented by the common law, which is made by judges rather than parliament, and can help to elaborate what these overarching duties mean in practice. Now, the report sets out these seven overarching duties, which I've put up on the slide. We did go through these duties in the previous webinar. So if you want to understand those, the details of those duties, you can go to the guidance document or the previous webinar, which is on the ARBV’s website. But these overarching duties really rise above the details of the Act and the Code and say, at a minimum, what do we need to do to have a strong compliance culture? So here they are, duty of care, duty of competence, duty to be honest and act with integrity, duty to comply with all applicable laws, duty to act confidentiality in terms of client's information, duty to act impartially and avoid conflicts of interest, and duty to keep records and communicate effectively.
Now, it's important to note that while these duties are overarching in the sense that they apply across the board and across the profession, there are some nuances in terms of how they apply when you are interacting with your clients. That's what we dealt with in the last webinar. But there are also nuances in terms of how they can be discharged in relation to your duties to the public, which we'll cover in the next webinar. But today we're focusing on how you discharge your duties to the profession. And it's also important to understand that your overarching duties apply at an individual level in terms of how you behave as a professional on your own; they apply at a firm level in terms of what the firm needs to do to support you to discharge your duties. It's also important to understand that these duties apply in a project context when you're interacting with other project participants, and these duties also are relevant at a sectoral level across the profession, which is what
we are talking about today. Now, I'm not going to go through these, but these are the top 10 things that we suggest in the Compliance Culture Report for small, sole and small firms, sole practitioners and small firms to do to really entrench a strong compliance culture. And we did the same thing for large firms. And you'll gather from these two discrete slides that what a sole practitioner and a small firm may need to do to embed a strong compliance culture is likely to look different to what a large firm needs to do. And we'll elaborate that and explore that when we get to the discussion with the guest panelists.
So now let's turn to what we're here to discuss today, architects’ duty to the profession. So while your duties to your clients and the public focus on particular relationships and particular outcomes, your duty to the profession has broader systemic dimensions. And those duties to the profession are actually enshrined in the Code. Clause 17 is the duty to engender confidence and respect for the profession. And it says that an architect, through your conduct, must endeavour to engender confidence in and respect for the profession of architecture. And Clause 18 imposes a duty to maintain standards and integrity of the profession; through your conduct, you must endeavour to maintain the standards and integrity of the profession of architecture as a whole. And these duties to the profession help to ensure that professional standards are maintained, to encourage support across the profession for standards to be maintained, and to ensure that public trust and confidence of clients and public in architects and the broader profession exists. Now we explained, explored through the compliance culture work what the state of compliance culture is across the profession. And we did this through a focus group with representatives from across the profession, as well as industry representatives, including a number who are here with us today, as well as survey responses amongst architects, 500 of whom responded to that survey, to get a sense of what is the state of compliance culture across the profession at this point in time. And what I'm going to do in the next slides is to share with you some of the insights from that evaluation, and I'm going to throw to our guest panellists to get their perspective on some of those insights.
So let's start with the first insight in relation to commitment to compliance. So the one key insight was architects generally demonstrate a strong commitment to compliance, they are committed to compliance, but this could be undermined by practical realities.
Stephanie Bullock 15:31
Thank you.
Dariel De Sousa 15:40
So Steph, if I could pass to you first of all, what in your view are the main barriers to firms consistently achieving compliance and do these barriers differ for small, medium and large practices?
Stephanie Bullock 15:55
Thanks Dariel. So first of all, I would say that I definitely agree that architects do understand the importance of having a commitment to compliance, but it's really about within the practise where there is the capacity and the systems to do this really consistently, particularly when you're under time pressure and also potentially under pressure in terms of fees. In terms of a smaller firm, I think some of the biggest barriers are definitely time, as I mentioned, but also what I might describe as bandwidth, because people are generally wearing multiple hats or doing multiple roles; there generally isn't a dedicated person who's managing quality systems or
training, and that can lead to compliance being handled in a more reactive way, because you need to deal with what's in front of you, rather than building a sort of a more sort of standardised or holistic approach. In contrast, I think within larger firms, there are often stronger frameworks, so you know, sort of templates and checklists, things like ISO certification, and specialists in particular areas. But some of the challenges are just because of scale, that you can have inconsistent application of those across teams and between teams. So you may have great processes on paper, but it can be harder to see or to track whether they're actually being implemented and whether the intent of those are truly being understood rather than just being checked off. So I guess for me, the main, I guess, insight I would offer is that really effective compliance culture needs to be built on sort of simple systems that are designed to suit the scale of your practise and that needs to include things like
really clear accountability, creating space to have conversations about risk, structured reviews at key milestones, and most importantly, I think a culture where people feel safe to raise any concerns or questions early. And that's what I think really helps to build that commitment.
Dariel De Sousa 17:54
Thanks so much, Stephanie. Paul, do you have anything to add?
Paul Viney 17:58
Yeah, thanks, Dariel. Thanks, Sarah. Look, I tend to agree with what you're saying in terms of the medium to larger practices, they do have resources and they have defined processes, QA managers, they have systems in place, generally more resources dedicated to staff training and development. But in the larger practices,
particularly, the main barriers with the consistent compliance are complexity and scale of the projects that they're working on, multiple projects being worked on simultaneously, the number of jurisdictions within which their working, delivery models and internal teams increase the risk of inconsistency. Time pressures, fee competition and reliance upon delegated authorities can dilute accountability
without clear governance and leadership oversight. So, whilst large practises have some benefits in terms of resources, they also have a range of challenges, and I think in terms of the context of this conversation, we probably concentrated in terms of our overarching duties on the client and the public, and perhaps we're a little bit silent, in some ways, on our duties to the profession. So I think that's one we perhaps have to put in the forefront of our conversations in offices.
Dariel De Sousa 19:06
Thanks so much, Stephanie and Paul. And it's sort of that that sort of bespoke approach, depending upon whether you're in a small or large firm, begs the question for these different approaches, do we end up with consistent professional standards across the profession? And I'll leave that for you to ponder. Let's just move
to the next insight, which relates to awareness of compliance obligations. So, one of the insights that was reached in the context of the Compliance Culture Report was that some architects may believe that the primary responsibility for compliance
rests elsewhere or that compliance obligations are more confined than is actually the case, particularly in the context of the provision of partial services. So, can I start with you, Paul? In which types of situations can confusion arise about responsibility for compliance and how can this confusion be avoided?
Paul Viney 19:47
Okay, this is one of the things that's really starting to challenge the profession going forward. The brief from the client can often put us in at odds with our responsibilities for compliance. We're often asked to do things that compromise our philosophical and professional values, based on economic drivers. So, we have to have an awareness of our obligations, but there's often confusion from third parties as to who we are ultimately responsible to. So, I think realistically, we've got to be, again, it's got to be in the forefront of our minds as we go forward as to what our obligations are and to make sure we are clear and explaining that to our client base as we go forward.
Dariel De Sousa 20:49
Thank you. And Jean, can I pass to you now?
Jean Graham 20:52
Yeah. Well, one of the ways that I would, you know, address this question is really the confusion can be avoided by communication. And I think often if there are lots of consultants involved, or say different builders who may not be familiar with working with an architect, in our case, smaller practice, that's where, you know, who is responsible for what action can become confused. So, making sure that we have lots of meeting minutes and lots of conversations that are recorded, so that all parties are across the decisions that have been made, and then if there are any questions about who's you know, who needs to answer this question, we can actually resolve it earlier as opposed to having it left unresolved. So, yeah, that way, if we record the questions, then we can action the items. If they're not raised or not noted anywhere, then you just, they may be missed. So clear communication is really important.
Dariel De Sousa 22:03
Thank you, Jean. And that's actually one of the core duties that the ARBV identified, the duty to communicate effectively and to record all the aspects of your interactions with your clients that need to be captured in writing. Let's pass to the third insight. So this relates to architects’ understanding of their compliance obligations, which of course can be enhanced through CPD. So, one of the insights was that CPD is broadly valued by the profession, that was came out very strongly from the survey responses, but compliance with CPD requirements is inconsistent and that comes from the ARBV data in terms of compliance with the CPD requirements. And this signals a gap between the intention to do your CPD and actually doing it. So, I want to start with you, Stephanie. How is CPD generally viewed within the profession and how can CPD compliance be improved?
Stephanie Bullock 23:07
Thanks, Dariel. So, I think given the extent of education that architects need to undertake in the first place to complete their education and then to register, I think there's no doubt that given the complexity of what we do, that all architects understand the importance of professional development. But I think the reality is, again, time and cost pressures do have an influence on that. So, when you're sort of really stretched or you're juggling competing priorities, there can be sometimes a tendency to default to what's sort of quick, perhaps free and is easy to do within those pressures as well. And I don't think there's an issue with CPD that's free specifically, it's just that when you're sort of making again some of those choices on a bit of a reactive basis, it doesn't necessarily build capability in the areas where compliance risks actually sit. I would also say, I guess from an institute perspective, that understanding compliance, your compliance obligations, means that you really should be seeking CPD that supports better judgment, not just general awareness, as you referenced before. And it's about development that helps practitioners recognise the moments when those obligations are actually occurring in real time in practice, understand how to give clear advice, how to manage conflict, how to document decisions and actions, also how to supervise people appropriately at all stages of their careers, and also knowing when something needs to be escalated to another level. So in summary, I guess what I would advocate for is trying to be more deliberate about the CPD that is undertaken both for yourself as individuals, but also in a practice, and the need to really plan that out at the start of the year in the same way that you would plan out resourcing, for example, and planning it out specifically to the types of risks in the work that you do and the sectors you operate in, mapping it in terms of the people within your practice, what their existing competencies are, what their roles are, and then making sure that it is really addressing specifically any gaps that you might have or any needs that you have because of your project typology. And I do believe that's where, you know, the professional bodies such as the Institute of Architects, ArchiTeam and also the ACA can add real value because, you know, we're all very committed to providing CPD that's really credible, it's really current and it's unbiased and that we believe is really directly aligned with our obligations, but also tuned to the realities of practice. So, I think it's really about trying to choose quality perhaps over convenience.
Dariel De Sousa 25:41
I really like that, how you've explained that, and that will help ensure that the CPD actually adds value to practise in practical terms rather than a box ticking exercise to make sure that your CPD requirements have been met. Jean, can I pass over to you?
Jean Graham 26:01
Yeah, just adding to those comments then, it's just really that from an ArchiTeam perspective, we do really prioritise making sure that the competencies that the CPD that's offered is actually in line with what we're seeing within the insurance side of things. So, for each year that we obviously have different claims that might come through and then we can assess what the weaknesses are in the industry and then address them in the CPD. So they're really targeted towards what we know is a weakness. And I guess referring to CPD generally, we're a bit nervous about the generality of CPD that's offered. And you know, it's fine to go to see certain things every now and then, but there's only so many repetitive things you can do each year. So I think if you are a small or medium practice, you know, you're really utilising the resources of the AIA, the ACA and ArchiTeam particularly if you are a member, you can then access the CPD often really cost effectively and in some cases even for free and then they are actually worth it to you and your practice. I think also agree about timing, you know, maybe quarterly personal actions of CPD to make sure they're up to date. I think for me and my practice, we do, I try and do them early. So, I like to get them all done when there's not as much work going on, so in early January. And so then therefore, you know, it means that when you are time pressured, and you do have lots of demands, which we all often do, we're not trying to fit it all in, in, you know, last minute before the end of the year. So yeah, that's what I would suggest.
Dariel De Sousa 28:00
Thanks so much, and it's great to hear how responsive the industry bodies are to emerging risks and threats and tailoring CPD programmes accordingly.
The next insight relates to the capacity or the ability of architects to comply, so, despite this commitment to compliance and the intent to do CPD, another insight that came out of the research is that tight timelines, unclear roles and responsibilities, and builder control of project decisions can undermine architects' capacity to comply in practice. And I know Paul's already sort of touched on some of these themes in an earlier comment. So, the question is, starting with you, Stephanie, what steps can architects take in a project context to enhance their capacity to comply? And what are the key differences in these steps for small, medium and large scale projects?
Stephanie Bullock 28:59
Okay, thanks Dariel. So I guess in terms of talking about capacity to comply, I would say that you need to start with knowing what good practise actually looks like, you know, what is it that you're actually aiming for? But then it's about, again, having those systems, the time and the resourcing to really deliver that. I would say that what's worked well for myself and my own practice, I'm the director of a medium-sized practice, is really thinking about compliance as something that you design in and integrate into the way you run your projects, as opposed to being something that you kind of add on at the end, and I think that's really where having those structured systems can help. And so I'm talking about, you know, frameworks like, you know, sort of ISO-aligned management systems, but it can also be just really
simple, repeatable QA processes, sort of almost like a check it sort of system. And the intention is really to provide everyone within the team with a really shared, consistent way of working that supports their professional judgment. In practical kind of senses, I think that's, you know, things like, you know, really clear project kind of gateways and milestones, you know, disciplined and consistent documentation habits. QA checklists, as I mentioned, are scalable, so that there are some fundamentals that can apply if it's a really small job, but can also then scale up to a really complex multi-stakeholder project. And I think important that checklists need to be framed as, you know, have we genuinely addressed this issue, not just, again, a kind of ticker box sort of response. And they need to be prompting the right conversations around sort of scope clarity, design change, consultant coordination, approvals, and sort of record keeping. And I think the final thing on capacity I would say is that it is also fundamentally about people. So, supervision, mentoring, and again, that role responsibility, sort of clarity. And if you don't allocate time for people to actually review things and have oversight, you are effectively just hoping that the compliance will happen incidentally or through sort of goodwill, which I don't think is enough. I don't think systems can replace good judgement, but I think they make that
more repeatable and scalable across teams and different sort of project styles.
Dariel De Sousa 31:11
Thanks so much for those practical tips, Stephanie. Jean, can I pass to you?
Jean Graham 31:16
Yeah, similar things to what we were saying earlier about communication. I think for a smaller practice, it's harder because often they're not as, builders might not be as up to date, so you have to do a lot more work to keep them up to date. But the way that we do it, similarly, we have checklists and we also have systems and we try and prioritise time to review, but often sometimes that can't always be captured. So the way that we're trying to do it is through keeping communication really informal, so having a lot of conversations with the trades independently on site with kindness and just generally saying, you know, do you know that this needs to occur and how would you, how do you say we resolve this so that we can get it to work? And often we work with builders early in the early contractor engagement is a great way for us to work and means that we can actually inform them early if there is a cost. So, the resistance we find on site might be, oh, we don't do it that way, or we haven't had to do it that way before, or what's that going to cost me? So having those conversations before we sign contracts means that everyone feels informed and there's no wool over anyone's eyes or that sense of feeling difficulty. And it means that that then trades are usually open and they are also resourceful at finding solutions and then it's their choice, not us commanding it of them. And that's just our small practise style, but it could work across all levels of practice.
Dariel De Sousa 32:55
Thanks so much, Jean. It's good to hear about the formal systems, the relation-based communication and the structured documentation, all of which can be used to help you overcome some of these challenges. Now, maintaining compliance, this is an important one. So what the focus groups and the survey responses indicated is that
regulatory complexity and change can make it difficult for architects to maintain compliance and competence. So the question, starting with you, Stephanie, is how can architects in small, medium and large practises practically keep up to date with their obligations, which are prone to change?
Stephanie Bullock 33:39
So I think my initial response is I do think this is about practise culture, because unless it's really part of your culture and it's very clear that that's what's expected, you won't be able to do this fundamentally. And I think that that culture needs to be set by the leadership team, not just on paper, but in terms of what gets prioritised, what gets resourced, and also what gets rewarded as well. And I think one of the indicators of whether you have that effective culture is what happens when there is a problem or when a team member raises a concern. And if the response is, we don't have time for that, or if it just doesn't get addressed, or it's sort of, you know, we'll deal with that later, then you just won't have that happen again. People will learn that there's no point raising things until it's a really, really big issue. But if the response is, okay, I'm so glad you raised that, let's work it out together, then it sort of normalises the idea that things are going to come up. And that it also means that you're dealing with those problems early, which I think we all know is far better than waiting until it's really escalated as well. And I think that leadership in terms of culture also shows up in how we talk about fees and time. So, you know, if we're, you know, routinely accepting programmes and budgets, which are just inadequate in terms of documentation or review or coordination or compliance, then we're accepting that risk from day one. And I think that leaders in practise need to be really willing to have those conversations upfront with clients about what is required for competent and compliant practise and really defend the time that it takes to do that. So it's really about modelling; I guess we're saying that, you know, as leaders within practice, we need to be demonstrating, you know, the habits of compliance. So, you know, communication, transparency, all the things that I think Jean and Paul have also spoken about, but also recording decisions, you know, modelling how do you deal with conflict as well in a respectful way that still supports collaboration. And then I think as leaders, you're also responsible for creating the structures that will support that in terms of project reviews, mentoring and expectations in terms of review of documentation and sign-off.
Dariel De Sousa 35:51
Thanks so much, Stephanie. Paul, over to you.
Paul Viney 35:55
Yeah, thanks, Dariel. Look further to what Stephanie said and Jean. One of the key things for us, I think, is to ensure not only membership of the industry organisations, but involvement in those organisations [Mm]. They're at the forefront of regulatory change, of things that are going on in the industry currently. And we're currently in an environment which is very challenging in terms of regulatory and compliance challenges that are going across the board. So, for small practices, even for medium practices, to try and keep up with those day-to-day changes is near impossible unless you're actually part of these organisations and getting information from them. So, in our practice, what we do, we have a QA manager and we have a fortnightly staff meeting which is done over a morning tea. And the QA manager is responsible for going through the website for the ARBV, from basically from each of the different organisations to look at what are the key issues, what are key changes, what are the new obligations, and that's raised on a fortnightly basis in the office. So, it enables us to keep up to date. But it has to be done by intent. I think, Steph, you talked about the need for leadership to be mandating this. It's got to come from the top and then make everyone aware of what their obligations are. And then try and encourage people to get involved through CPD or other means, in further understanding what these things do and how then that relates to your day-to-day practice. So, you've got to lead from the top on this, but you've also got to rely upon your industry bodies as the primary base, and as I said, the ARBV is the primary base to understand what's going on. And that's the only way we can keep up to date.
Dariel De Sousa 37:39
Thanks so much, Paul. And it just highlights that, you know, there needs to be things that are done internally, but there is support out there through the industry bodies. Let's just move to the next insight, which relates to the reputation of the profession as a whole. And the insight that came out of the survey responses in the focus group is that notwithstanding all these challenges to comply that we've just discussed, architects are widely seen across the building and construction sector as generally ethical and trustworthy, reflecting a strong professional identity, which is very commendable. The question, starting with you, Paul, is which factors could threaten the profession's strong professional reputation and what is needed to maintain that reputation over time?
Paul Viney 38:32
Well, I'm going to start with the key issue that we're currently all facing is the issue of the ARBV and the government's current proposal to absorb it within a new business and professional licencing commission. But they’ve been very unclear as to how that will occur, what it actually means to the ARBV, whether it will exist in its current form within the new organisation or whether it will be abolished and the functions of it will transfer across. The risk to the industry on that front is enormous. It affects the accreditation processes for our universities, it affects, ultimately, our registration processes, our international students, our workforces going forward. So, it's an issue we need to be completely across and we need to be making significant approaches to government to ensure that they understand the role. And I think that's one of the biggest problems. The role of the ARBV is not fully understood by parts within the, particularly within government. I'm talking about the administrative side of government rather than necessarily the political side of government. So, I think we've got to be very overt about what we do, why it's there, why it's necessary, how it sits into the national and international frameworks. But there are other serious challenges that are approaches as well with the different methodology of delivery of projects, changing our roles as we go forward with the new technologies of AI, which everyone is well aware of, but they're advancing at an incredible rate, so universities need to be teaching different things going forward. So, there are a range of issues and opportunities, and I bluntly do see them as opportunities, that if we can be the forefront of these, we can be leading it, or we'll just become a part player in the background, which has tended to happen a bit in the past.
Dariel De Sousa 40:31
Thanks so much, Paul. And just for the audience's information, the ARBV last year ran a webinar on disruptive change within the sector and things that can be done to respond to that disruptive change. So, if you're interested in picking up on Paul's point, there is that webinar on the website. Jean, can I pass to you on this question?
Jean Graham 40:54
Yeah, I think there's; what could threaten the profession's strong professional reputation is that the general public aren't quite aware of what an architect is and how that might differ from, say, other building professionals, like a draftsperson or building designer or interior designer. And I think that there are a lot of professional responsibilities that architects hold that, just general people don't know and some builders don't even know. So, I think from a small practise point of view, recently I've had involvement with very small builders who work with HIA contracts, that kind of thing, and they refer to draftees as architects a lot, and they refer to non-registered, non-educated people in very high-level ways. And so I feel like there's, for me anyway, I feel like in our practice, there's a lot of education to clients of what our responsibilities are and our visibility is, not to mention crossing the line with
some builders and developers wanting to utilise the hero architect nature just as a branding exercise and then actually, you know, design and construct kind of ideas where they want to just have us for the name and the brand and then, you know, substitutions later, which we don't work with. But there's a risk as time goes on that people are starting to encroach on our roles and that's what I'm a bit nervous about. But I think if we continue to communicate and ensure clients are educated on who we are and what we do, that will help the process.
Dariel De Sousa 42:51
Thanks so much, Jean. Just moving along, insight seven relates to, you know, your discharge of your duties within a project context. And one of the insights was that fear of conflict and lack of contractual power may prevent architects from reporting or resisting non-compliance in certain project contexts. So, if I can start with you, Stephanie, what steps should architects take to ensure that they meet their duties to the profession in a project context, even in the face of conflict and lack of contractual power?
Stephanie Bullock 43:32
So I would always go back to our obligation to our clients, which is to provide clear, competent and independent advice. And if we do that well and consistently, then, you know, that does protect that public trust in architects. And that's, I think, what this concept of duty to the profession really looks like in practice. I found personally that a really useful way to approach this is to frame your professional obligations as part of our responsibility to our clients, rather than being against your client or your client's wishes. It's really important it's not adversarial, and it's saying, you know, look, our role is to help you make informed decisions, understand risk and achieve a really fantastic and durable outcome. And that means we need to be really transparent and forthcoming about constraints and approvals, documentation requirements and what the consequences are if you take shortcuts in any of those areas. And I think if we position it that way in terms of, you know, clarity and almost stewardship, then it's much easier for clients to hear that and it also creates a much healthier dynamic across the entire team delivering a project. And then I would also say on larger and more complex projects, you can also use existing project systems to help address this and to raise concerns in a really formal and yet constructive way. So an example would be the Risk Register that you often need to help maintain on a larger project. And that provides you, I guess, with a system to raise concerns about programme issues, scope changes, procurement decisions, design responsibility, documentation challenges. And so we have found that sometimes putting them into that Risk Register is a very disciplined, professional way to make them really visible and then to actually track the response and to make sure, most importantly, that they're addressed without becoming a sort of personal issue or too emotional. So I guess my main point is, you know, we've got a duty profession to the profession through the way that we deal with our clients, and that is about that really clear advice, the documentation of that advice, and where you can, using those governance tools to really raise and manage risk, which protects the client, obviously, protects the project, but ultimately also protects the standing of the profession.
Dariel De Sousa 45:51
Thanks so much, Stephanie. Jean, can I pass to you?
Jean Graham 45:56
Yeah, that was really great. I think I'll just add to that, by being really clear and setting very clear boundaries early, saying no and putting things in writing so that you're raising the awareness with the clients and letting them know about the risk that they're choosing to take on if they decide to go against your advice. Some of the things that can happen in small practise tend to be, I guess, it's almost not laziness, but sometimes there's trades who say, make a comment or suggest something and then the owner takes that on and it sort of might be relocate something and then they think, oh yeah, that's great. And then it goes against what the holistic approach to the project. So, it's really important to pick that up early and say, no, you know, listen to why they want to do it and hear what they're saying, understand what they're saying, but then reflect back why and communicate how that impacts the rest of the project. So, the consequences often are not seen by individuals, there's lots of moving parts on site. So, being really clear and then also clients may feel intimidated or overwhelmed, you know, biassed towards particular things, and so that's where you have to be really clear about the holistic approach and ensuring that they're across exactly what you're trying to determine. And if they do choose not to take on your advice and you have it in writing, you have tried to communicate it and then the risks are clear, but that's, you know, pretty much the only way you can bring these things up and handle these situations.
Dariel De Sousa 47:41
Thanks so much, Jean. And just moving along to the last insight that we wanted to share with you, which relates to sort of sector level issues. And a key insight was that ongoing systemic issues within the broader building and construction sector may expose architects to disproportionate blame for non-compliance and could erode public confidence in the profession. So, if I can start with you again, Stephanie, how can architects use their duties to the profession to protect themselves from undue blame when disputes and defects arise?
Stephanie Bullock 48:20
Thanks, Dariel. So I think I'd probably just going back again to my response to the last point. It's having the ability to raise concerns in a way that's effective and clear, but still professional, and also is maintaining that respect for the relationships that you have. And it's all about how you frame it. And again, positioning any concerns or issues that you're raising as part of our obligations to provide that clear advice. And that really what we're trying to do is protect the client's interests; we're not being difficult, we're actually trying to help them and avoid future problems. And that can be about saying, you know, rather than saying, we can't do that, or you have to do this, it's more about, you know, this is the situation, this is our professional view of it, here are the risks if this isn't addressed. And also perhaps giving some options and the potential implications of different options. I've always found that very useful if you give people some choices rather than saying you have to go down this path. But if you choose to go down this path, you'll need to do all of these things or these are the risks you're going to have to take on. So it's really about trying to keep the approach as constructive as possible. And I think that makes it a lot easier for clients and for whole project teams to respond without it turning into sort of finger pointing and blame, which is obviously pretty destructive. I think the second part about when, you know, those sort of avoiding, I guess, you know, undue blame, is being really specific and documenting those discussions and those decisions as well. You know, vague kind of concerns, you know, that that doesn't get you anywhere. You know, if there is a serious concern, it needs to be raised, it needs to be documented in writing, or ideally even through a kind of Risk Register as well. So, you know, if it's about, you know, pressure on programme that's going to affect quality, you know, actually flagging that, putting it down. And if it's not addressed, say, well, these are the consequences of this, and I think that can be very protective. And again, I said, you know, relying on those kind of systems, you know, things like governance pathways within projects, you know, project control groups, design gateways, you know, minutes, I'm obsessed with, you know, the value of minutes, you know, in terms of, you know, keeping really good, clear minutes that make it very clear what's being discussed and what's been agreed. And I think if you use all of those tools, it does help to create, again, within a project environment, you know, that ability to discuss risk and support good sort of decision making. So, I think it's important to sort of view that process of escalation and raising issues as part of the normal routine of project governance, as opposed to, you know, you know, being seen as difficult or a blocker as well. And I think if it's focused on the best interests of the clients, if it's evidence-based and if it's properly recorded, it makes it much easier to raise those difficult issues and ideally prevent them. And I think you significantly reduce the chance not only of a problem happening, but also in terms of blame being thrown around. And finally, I would say that, I think I mentioned this before, early identification is the key: the earlier you deal with something, that the easier it is to manage it, you know, hoping that an issue will go away never works. The longer that you leave something without it being addressed, the bigger the time and cost impact is going to be.
Dariel De Sousa 51:30
Thank you so much, Stephanie. And finally, over to you, Jean.
Jean Graham 51:35
Yes, just echoing what Stephanie just said. We actively document and record all correspondence. So often with smaller jobs, we find clients can be more invested in the project, especially if their money is an issue and that's very tight. So you might get WhatsApp messages, you might get emails, you might get phone calls, you might have conversations on site around things, so what we tend to do is document them all within the meeting minutes as pre-meeting items, which probably most of you do, but then they're actioned or recorded and then they're noted. If there is an action, they remain on the list continuously. And I have had cases where builders have said, oh, well, we do site meetings minutes so you don't have to, but we still do that and we are constantly referring to the previous minutes. And even if a lot of informal conversations have occurred between our regular site meetings, we issue in between. We also find another way to resolve undue blame or, you know, people are emotional humans usually, with builders even on site or trades or clients. No one wants to feel ambushed and no one wants to feel attacked. So, if there is a tricky conversation, I will often have an individual conversation, offline, with either/or all parties before we step in, the day before or the night before the meeting. So, it's fresh on their mind, it's not a surprise, it's not a shock. Everyone's aware that it's coming. And sometimes, even, that gives people the opportunity to problem solve,
or self-problem solve the solution. And if it isn't resolved, then we just, I just create another meeting within the week to resolve it. And I always do it in person. I think there's something about the feeling about being around a room, in the same room with someone, if you do it without seeing their face, it can escalate, it can get emotional. So, we try, especially if there's a lot of money involved. So that's how we do it. That's how we try and diffuse and come at it. You know, we are a team, we all have the same outcome, obligation. It's not a threat. We all want to do the right thing and that approach tends to work. And without a doubt, there's always some, there's always going to be an issue. It's not that there will be an issue, you can't prevent it always, but it's how you handle the issue. And being quick is the best way to do it. But you know, with strategies of re-touching in, you know, connecting with the people that are involved so that they feel safe and they don't feel like they've been taken advantage of.
Dariel De Sousa 54:30
Thank you so much, Stephanie and Jean and Paul for all your practical insights, which are really appreciated. Just to wrap the formal session up and give you a few minutes for some questions with Giorgio. Just in conclusion, architects, as we now know, don't just owe duties to their clients, they also owe duties to the profession and to the public. These overarching duties that we mentioned at the outset embody the core values and responsibilities that define architects as professionals. And our three guest panellists have illustrated how those overarching duties can be applied in practice. And so compliance with these overarching duties helps to protect your
clients from harm and the public from harm, but also helps to preserve trust and confidence in the profession. But just before I hand over to Giorgio, here's your QR code for the quiz, which you can access and complete the quiz questions before you finish up this webinar.
Over to you, Giorgio.
Giorgio Marfella 55:36
Thank you very much, Dariel. Thank you, Paul, Jean and Stephanie. Now, we're running a bit late, but if you, if our guests are okay, maybe we can push another five minutes. If you're okay to stay a few minutes more, all of you, so we can go through at least the selection of the questions we received, I suppose.
Stephanie Bullock 55:42
Yeah.
Giorgio Marfella 55:56
It's a great opportunity to have the ACA, the AIA, ArchiTeam and the ARBV all in the same room today. So let's maybe push in a few minutes more. So what I will do though, I'll throw some questions around to only each one of you. So I'll start in the same order we follow so far. Stephanie, I'll start with you. There's a question:
one of the elephants in the room today, probably there's a few, it's about the D&C contracts. And so the question is, obviously, as we know, there's a tendency to have much more use of that particular procurement. So the question is, how do you manage your obligation in that context? So I'm thinking about you Stephanie, in particular, because I know the Institute of course has done some [Yeah] solid work in this stuff, yeah.
Stephanie Bullock 56:41
Yeah, so it's a great question and it's certainly something that's increasingly being applied, particularly for larger projects and I've had personal experience of that. So I would say that there are circumstances, I'm not definitively against D&C contracts, if they're properly set up, and I would say in line with the Institute's guide to good novation as well, then they can actually be really useful on certain types of projects. But often the way they are established is really against the interests, not just of architects, but particularly of the clients as well. So, I think, you know, if you haven't seen those guidelines, I'd really encourage you to have a look at them. So the sort of things that can be embedded, that is, you know, things like whistleblower causes. So, you know, maintaining your connection to your clients so that you can ensure that their interests are protected. It's a whole range of other things in there. And I think having, again, having that conversation early is something that we often do. So, you know, we'll often know at the start that the intention is to novate us on a project, and so one of the first things we do in the procurement discussion is to say, okay, can we have a conversation about the novation arrangements? And if you do that early enough, in my experience, you can explain to your clients that that's fine, there might be a good reason to pursue a D&C, but it's really important that you have these principles embedded within it. And invariably, well, I've found, that what you can do is you can shift it, I guess, so that it is a D&C contract that protects everybody's interests. Or sometimes it might be that you have the discussion and everybody actually looks at it and says, well, actually, we shouldn't be doing this as a D&C, for example. So again, I would say have the conversation early. Go through the pros and cons of each different type of contractual and procurement arrangement really clearly, and if it does end up that the decision is made for it to be a D&C, then refer to things like guidelines, to make sure that it is a contract that protects everybody's interests.
Giorgio Marfella 58:38
Thank you, Stephanie. The Institute has a Code of Novation that was published, [That's correct. Yeah, that's the guide] as well as other resources. From the point of view, ARBV, obviously, we also did some webinars where we try to highlight the risks that are involved in that, so, we're definitely aware of those risks. At the same time, we have to stress that some of the professional obligations, which are more overarching for which the ARBV is responsible for, remain. And so obviously, it's then it's the capacity, skill and experience of the architect to set the contractual requirements that allow you to deliver consistently with the commitments you have also as a professional. The next question, Paul, I thought about you because I know you're aware of certain developments that are happening also in the UK and concerns CPD and the idea of potential of having multiple specialised classes of CPD, potentially even specialised classes of qualification within a scheme of registration. And so the comparison that is made in the question is with the medical profession. So, what do you think about that? So, in terms of the future role, potentially, architects could have, by having a more tailored subset of roles that could be somewhat acknowledged better? I cannot hear you for some reason.
Paul Viney 1:00:02
Sorry. Thanks, Giorgio. We had a national executive meeting over Sunday and Monday of this week, and we had meetings with the AACA. And this was one of the topical conversations from this meeting, because if, we can't assume that the roles we are doing in the way we're doing them now will be the same in 12 months’ or five years’ time, and we think that the core competencies need to be adjusted to consider what will those roles be and what is the knowledge bases that will be needed to go forward. There's a lot of work being done through University of New South Wales, even to the point of one of the PhD students through the ArchManu group is doing a reverse mentoring programme, where they're looking at skills that the young graduates can come through that don't exist in offices currently. So they come in instead of being a trainee, they're actually coming in part as a trainer, where things like the integration of AI, the integration of generative design, the one which build is going to be delivered, the prefabrication, modern methods of manufacturing, all these things are going to influence very significantly how we operate as architects going forward. So whilst we are generalists currently, we believe there's going to be a need for specialisation. There'll be architects that will be programmers, there'll be architects that will be code writers, there'll be a whole range of things that require that base level skill, but require much higher levels of skill in particular areas. And I don't think we can expect to go forward thinking we know bluntly everything about everything. We as generalists know a little bit about a lot of things, but we're going to know to have people that have a lot about these things. So I think it is inevitable, but it has to be addressed through the universities. If it doesn't, then I think we'll become anachronisms.
Giorgio Marfella 1:02:02
Thank you, Paul. Yes, and you mentioned that the NSCA, the National Standard of Competency for Architects, which is a national instrument that, hopefully, it's probably due for a review, might come in the future [Yep]. And that's an opportunity to have these discussions. And I want to stress also the fact that the registration boards have a significant role in that because the AACA is an organisation that is owned fundamentally by the Boards, so to speak [Yep]. So yes, there will be more to come on those topics. And, Jean, also, I thought you made a very good point before about distinguishing architects from other professions, or at least the importance of that. So there's a question here I'll try to summarise. Actually, I might just rephrase it,
because I thought it was very well put. So how do we best balance increasing compliance requirements versus decreasing fees and project feasibility? So, can you reflect on competition from other less regulated professions?
Jean Graham 1:02:58
Yeah, yeah, I mean, this is an actual example. I had a client come to me because they were recommended and then we provided them with a fee proposal and they went away and thought that was it. They came back and said, we're really keen to work with you, but we've got this other quote. And so I said, are you open to have a coffee, we can have a look at it if you're willing to share it? They shared it. It wasn't a registered architect. It was a building designer. Their fee was 10% of ours, so it was not feasible. It was obviously they were wanting the work or I don't know, whatever the situation. And I just said, I just outlined what our roles and responsibilities are and the service that we would be providing and the reason why it costs what it costs for each stage. We never reduce our fee, we only reduce our scope. And I explained about how much time these things take to do. And so I said, you know, we would be delivering XYZ. What do you believe this person will be delivering you with? And he couldn't provide me with an answer. And so then I said, look, it's a decision. You could, you know, for the price, if price is the only direction, then that's your decision. We're going to be involved for another two to three years potentially on this project. You have got a considerate site, you've got a decent budget, but you know, there are risks at hand. And I think you just have to weigh out what your life values are and how you want to proceed, you know, because, you know, we all know about the time-cost-quality triangle, and I explained about how that all works. And I just sort of explained that, you know, the service you're getting is going to be different. And I've also had three occasions, where builders themselves or clients who have gone to draftspeople or other consultants, have actually gone down the pathway with them, a year later that come back to us and said, look, it's just not what we want, it's not going to be, it's not cohesive, it's not doing what we want. And so we're actually resolving it from that point. So, I think you just have to be patient, you just have to be clear, you just have to set clear boundaries. You don't compromise on your fee, but you just explain what you do and why it's different, and explain the risks that they're undertaking about going with a cheaper product. And in the end, if the value is important to them and the quality is important to them, they will come to you and they will understand and they'll be informed and they will know that your product or the service that you're providing is different. So that's the only real way, but that's communication and you know, the broader picture is, you know, how many people know that other than the ones we already work with?
Giorgio Marfella 1:05:50
Thank you, Jean. So, make a very strong value proposition, I suppose, that there is, and architects can do that. There is value in what architects do. Now, there's a few other questions that came out that I would really like to indulge further, but I probably have to wrap up at this point. So, Dariel, maybe concluding with you, there was a question that was flagged. It concerns the opportunities or lack thereof for architects to criticise their colleagues. And it was one of the questions actually in the questionnaire. Do we want to maybe stress the fact that of course architects can criticise each other, provided that it is done within the limits of the law and our code of conduct perhaps. So, given your legal background, it's worth highlighting that.
Dariel De Sousa 1:06:35
Yeah, I guess the purpose of the question was really to highlight that your duties as a professional extend beyond the simple provision of architectural services to your client. You are a professional in every aspect of your life. So outside of delivering services to your client, when you're interacting with colleagues or you're talking about others in the profession, that can impact on the reputation of the profession. It's really just to illustrate or highlight that your duties to the profession extend beyond specific relationships with your clients. So, you just need to be aware of that and any conduct, whether it be at a Christmas party or commenting in a competition, for example, about a colleague's work, these can all bring the profession into disrepute. And so you just need to be aware of that.
Giorgio Marfella 1:07:38
Yes, and I think today a wonderful example with three speakers and guests who are engendering their confidence in the profession through the role of service to the profession in the organisation that they represent. So this is an opportunity to close and thank you, Stephanie, Paul and Jean, to come to this webinar. And perhaps I can share also a good word about the professional bodies here. We are the regulator at the ARBV, but the regulators have a role to play and architects over the years have managed to create a very sophisticated governance in Australia and the professional bodies play a very, very important role. So, to complement the role that regulators do, it is essential and it's very supportive and valuable for all of you to join and participate, as it's been said today, in those organisations. So with this, I will leave you and I look forward to see you again and to another webinar. Dariel, you mentioned this is part of a series, so we'll come back and continue talking about a culture of compliance and professionalism. So with that, thank you all everybody, and I wish you all a good afternoon.
Dariel De Sousa 1:08:52
Thanks, everyone.
Updated