Michael Mioux - Prompt 1

As Stated in NCARB's 2011-2012 Rules of Conduct:

"NCARB Mission: The National Council of Architectural Registration Boards protects the public health, safety, and welfare by leading the regulation of the practice of architecture through the development and application of standards for licensure and credentialing of architects. Core Values NCARB believes in: • Leadership – Proactive, creative thinking, and decisive actions. • Accountability – Consistent, equitable, and responsible performance. • Transparency – Clear and accessible rules, policies, procedures, governance, and communication. • Integrity – Honest, impartial, and well-reasoned action. • Collaboration – Working together toward common goals. • Excellence – Professional, expert, courteous, respectful, and responsive service. NCARB is a nonprofit corporation comprising the legally constituted architectural registration boards of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands as its members."

Select one of the core values listed above, and ask your Mentor to provide an example or case study from his/her practice in which one of these core values has been CHALLENGED. Your response in your journal should:

•Briefly describe this case study

•List a scenario in which one of these core values might be compromised in practice regularly

After speaking with my mentor, he suggested writing about Integrity. He referred to a design-build project for a rec center addition in Beaufort. The client had their own contract with the contractor, and then the contractor had a separate contract with the architects. The contractor had different interests than the architect in serving the client/owner. The contractor didn't have any "oath" to the public like professional architects. That is, they had a different sense of time, money, and to a lesser degree - quality. The project started with the county (owner) issuing a relatively short RFP of only about 10 pages. The contractor got the job and immediately pushed to get the budget down by cutting nonessentials and just going the cheap route. Eventually, key people left on both the owner and contractor's side. The budget wasn't aligned and the owner wanted quality for low money. The contractor wanted all of the architect's communication to the owner to go through them. That is, the architect was not to speak to the owner directly.

During construction, every decision became the cheapest one. Codes weren't black and white, and different people had different interpretations. The specs issued by the architects were ignored by the contractor. One example is the concrete flooring. The contractor went with a lower quality concrete that their engineers said was good enough. When the architects went on-site, they didn't know enough about the final product to be able to defend it.

The example shows low integrity on the contractor's side and how the architects had to deal with it. It's important to realize that the client is more than just an individual, but also the public. Public safety should always come first and then the client's needs and concerns. Ignoring that and trying to cut corners at the expense of the owner's and even the architect's time is bound to end up as a failure.

I can see these core values being put to the test regularly, but on a daily basis perhaps collaboration would be the most challenged. This could be because of the nature of architecture practice working in groups of people, especially in larger offices that are multidisciplinary. Communication and a willingness to cooperate and compromise are vital to ensure a strong collaboration value. The "comm