What surprised me after the chat was the level of their comprehension on contractual matters. I did not expect them to understand or even know the details of all contract details – actually quite a number of graduates and registered architects cannot say they understand the contract well – but I had expected them to know the basic matters concerning building contract and the uniform building by-law [UBBL].
Afterall, an architect cannot actually design a habitable building, in accordance with the laws in Malaysia, without understanding the UBBL requirements - that is apart from understanding building construction methods - and other governing laws. Furthermore, how can architects manage a construction contract if they do not understand the basics of a contract? And what about design coordination meetings – a sit down with the engineers, contractors and QS to look at minutes of previous meetings? I found out a number of these coordination meetings did not involve looking to coordinate drawings of the various disciplines; rarely plans were opened and gawk at in these meetings.
If the universities have been emphasising on the laws and contracts on their architectural students as well as the importance of being the chief designer cum coordinator cum the team leader, I am yet to see the results; may be the ones I had met were the exceptions rather than the norm students.
But if the universities have been concentrating on design at the expense of the real world needs, we hope something would be done soon. A balance of theories and the practical aspects of architecture need to be achieved. At least before the graduates were let loose into the market, they should have the basic exposures to know that when they design, there are rules and regulations to be dealt with on top of the project brief. And when they manage a construction work, they knew that the reference in managing the contract is the contract documents which include among others, the terms of the contract, specifications and drawings - which normally comprises architectural, civil & structural and mechanical & electrical drawings – and not just refer to architects drawings. The architect must lead.
Otherwise, I am sure that I would still be meeting with soon-to-graduate and fresh architectural graduates who drew blank faces when asked why their designs did not meet the governing laws of Malaysia or why they managed the building contracts on the contrary to the provisions of the contract documents. Or worst, were surprised that the building turned out to be different from their design because actually the structural engineers had designed the building for them since the structures would be constructed first and architects drawings did not match the engineers, hmmm...
