Jump to content

Talk:Architect-led design–build

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Traditional design-bid-build contracting agreements, while burdened with the extra complexity of two agreements rather than one, have the advantage of providing the owner with two competing sources of information about the design and construction of their project. Provided by competing sources, this information is very useful to the owner of the project if errors and omissions costs begin to pile up or defective workmanship becomes a daily hazard.

General contractors and construction managers are more likely to carry a log of change orders and explanations of the responsibility for the extra costs if they are protecting themselves from criticism; and architects and engineers, with construction administration responsibilities, will stay in better touch with construction activities and public and private testing and inspections if they are independent of the builder. 

The outcome is the owner has a better handle on the performance of both parties. user paulpotts313   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulpotts313 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Critics of Architect-led Design-Build missing

[edit]

I think that this is a very complete and well organised article. However, the Architect-led Design-Build procedure seems idealised. Maybe the title "Architects-Led Design-Build" would be more appropriate and I would personally prefer "Designer-Led Design-build" or "Design-Led Project-Management", as it would be more representative of the subject covered by the article. The critical aspect of the procedure is only confine within a small part of the article, maybe a more critical approach would have prevented the article to sound like a promotion of architects' services over other professions. I think also that the role of the architect(s) as a designer, contract manager and so on, is already time consuming on a project and overwhelming regarding all the responsibilities attached to the tasks. Adding the construction responsibilities to the designer’s responsibilities presents similar problems when the contractor is architect or not. Issues resulting in mixing the designer and the contractor’s interests are still the same than in the conventional design-build procedure.

Nevertheless it is a very well drafted article. It seems that it was not specially written for publication on Wikipedia as it looks like being part of an in-depth research. --Christophe Krief (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tag added to Talk page and "unreviewed article" tag removed from article page

[edit]

This article was created by one user or two. I have reviewed the article, see critics above. I am of the opinion that it could be improved by changing the tone which implicates a very strong promotion of architects' services for design & build projects instead of approaching the subject with a more neutral view. In fact a balanced approach merged with the design-build article could have been a better tool to promote architects’ services. The article was more likely written by an architect or a future architect. It can also be viewed as advertising architectural practices listed in the article but I do not perceive it this way. This article is a promotion of architects' services for design-build projects and it could have been written otherwise. I have inserted the tag in the talk page to preserve the high quality of the article and to ensure that any proposed changes, if any are necessary, will be first discussed on this page. I have already carried out 2 or 3 revisions to try balancing the point of view. However, so far no one else discussed the subject on this page. --Christophe Krief (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the lead breaks just about every rule in WP:LEAD—it's weird. You've revert to breaches of a basic style principle on WP by reinstating title case in the section titles. The required en dashes as sentence interrupters have been reverted to hyphens, in breach of MOS:DASH. "Design–Build" should be downcased, unless it's a proprietorial or commercial term. The captions are missing from the (huge) diagrams and there's no reference to or explanation of them in the main text, it seems. Most importantly, the article is egregiously under-referenced, so gives the impression of being a paste-in from one or two texts. That's just for a start. Tony (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and a quick check of the first three refs revealed plagiarism and close-paraphrasing issues. Indeed, the text just had that smell about it, as well as a paucity of ref-tags. This is a big problem in business, management, finance articles. Tony (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

[edit]

User:Pgluckwiki, who created this article, appears to be a representative of Peter Gluck, an architect/firm who practices this approach and who has some projects mentioned. Someone more familiar in the field, either professionally or through researching will need to examine the article for bias and make sure it is properly sourced. -- Beland (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Architect-led design–build. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Architect-led_design–build&oldid=1198922810"