1/6 Just attended the Building Design Practitioners briefing tonight. I can confess that I am none the wiser than when I entered the room. There’s an essay or article into the things that are clearly flawed with it and it’s not about Architects = martyrs.

2/6 it appears to be another layer of process laid over a process that is already flawed. ‘Design Compliance Declarations’ won’t work to ‘keep the bastards honest’ for the reason that ‘Design Certificates’ and ‘Installation Certificates’ don’t.

3/6 for a process that is meant to discourage the ‘retrofitting of the design to the process of building’ submitting ‘Design Compliance Declarations’ for the OC and not the CC would appear to leave the door open for that to happen.

4/6 legal precedents and PI insurances hold professions up to a standard that requires them to operate to a ‘reasonable’ level of competence. The ‘Design Compliance Declarations’ require anyone signing them to be an ‘expert’ or have relied on the advice of an expert.

5/6 Many of the experts Architects rely on for at least some of the Codes and Standards are not referenced by the BDP Act, Accordingly requiring Architects to sign a swathe of Codes and Standards they could not profess to be an expert in.

6/6 And that’s just scratching the surface. The most significant power the Commissioner currently has is inspections and stop work orders that only a truly independent third party can provide. Ummm..... is that not the beginning of the actual solution?!

Would love to hear your thoughts @AssoConsultArch @AusINSArchitect @LHSyd @ShaunCarter70 @PhilipThalis @FoxJohnston_ @EventualHorizon @BTBArchitecture

Oh! And the icing on the cake is design coordination role (‘Registered principal design practitioner’, not necessarily Architect) could be left open for project managers to adopt. Never in my 28 years experience has a PM demonstrated that capability. They’re not trained for that!