The Asian and Pacific Economic Cooperation is quite aware of the reality of off-shoring and outsourcing as it exists now in an international perspective and it’s transformational trending. We define these business arrangements as those in which architectural firms in developed nations contract with architectural firms in lower-wage nations to prepare their construction drawings, for projects that will be built in the developed nation. This trend has been duly noted. 22% of the gross fees of Australian architects are earned offshore[1]. I will briefly review our understanding of the causes of this business practice, its effects on developing and developed countries and our recommendations for international practice in light of this phenomenon.
We are in the midst of a transformation, both in terms of the ideology of capitalism in a shrinking, integrated world as well as actual business systems pinned to the need for economic viability. In developed countries, ‘symbolic analysts[2] “as architects have been described, are faced with a competition for architectural projects that require, during the bidding process, ensuring quality at a competitive cost (which can be realized through lower wages or expedited work from underdeveloped nations). Furthermore, the near future may present an educated client that requires off-shoring to leverage desired amenities with architectural fees.
The architecture firm in the developed country may use this business process as a way to stabilize their personnel numbers and raise the level of firm professionalism. For many years architects have contracted work locally, but always the wage margins were based on prevailing local conditions. Usually, only the desire to build facilities overseas necessitated collaboration with a foreign architect. Practitioners of architectural services in less developed countries may look upon this work as lucrative income, higher social status, valuable practical experience and possibly an opportunity to build a standard database. Regardless, the social and economic impact can be enormous.
In developed countries within APEC, it can act as a stabilizing medium for the design firm. The average turnover among architecture firms in the last 15 years has been “between 15% and 20%”[3] Savvy partners in the firm can use currency fluctuations as a way to increase the profit ratio. This may even serve to extend the mission of a firm that strives to de-centralize the design process, especially if they have an emphasis on providing value and they set to differentiate themselves in the market for promoting that quality. Off-shoring can also provide an opportunity for firms in the developed countries to set ethically social parameters through discussions with personnel , guidelines to protect the privacy of their documents for the client and structures to ensure copyright protection.
Off-shoring likely to affect architectural practice in the developing nations within APEC in a multitude of ways. Personally, it can be a lucrative source of income in depressed economies. Farsighted managers can use peripheral work, project teaming and other balancing mechanisms to stabilize the workflow. Moreover, the self-esteem attained by providing an essential product cannot be undervalued. Socially, off-shoring provides an opportunity for local leaders (within the framework of their environment) to set cultural and legal standards for the wage and working conditions for these workers. This might be an avenue to redress eras of discrimination or lack of access. Nationally, an underdeveloped country, with an able administration, can explore what the ‘value’ is that their participation in the design process adds. They might initially set out to differentiate themselves in the marketplace of underdeveloped countries as the one knowledgeable and able to add an unique ability in either time or expense and they might use this foundation to raise their expertise to improve the countries overall quality of professionalism. Further, on the national level, they could regulate the ‘professional wealth’ in the country by providing incentives for quality architects to remain. Educational training, apprenticeship and registration are important in this process of ‘raising the bar’.
Therefore, I offer the following recommendations to ensure that off-shoring does not threaten the public health, safety and welfare. Firstly, as a position of APEC, I would strongly endorse the UAI standards [4] and extend our position from their foundation. Within the Principles of Professionalism, we further recommend that the architect “thoroughly consider the social and impact of their professional activities in relationship to basic human rights.” This is true of the architect in the developed country as well as any registered architect that is involved in the procurement of architectural services in the developing country. Secondly, while we acknowledge that developing countries may contain a less adequate mechanisms for training, providing experience and testing of new architects, and the incentive may be there to emphasize architecture as a trade, rather than a profession, we strongly support the UIA Accord in principle, acknowledging the sovereignty of each nation to set priorities within a plan for excellence that gives the full range of knowledge and ability as stated in the Educational policies of the UAI. Thirdly, we look to all nations to develop the proper social structures to allow humane working environments, locally acceptable work hours, benefits, redress, and verify the eligibility of individual to perform the work. Fourthly, we look to the business collaboration to set the privacy requirements for each project and each member country to ensure that international copyright and trademark rights are followed and violations are vigorously litigated. Finally, the position of APEC is that off-shoring and outsourcing provides a great opportunity to both the developed and underdeveloped countries. Use of this business process in a way that ensures public health, safety and the welfare of people are both expected and required. --Mikael Powell
[1] Royal Australian Institute of Architects, (1999) submission to the Productivity Commission Inquiry, Review of Legislation regulating the Architectural Profession, Melbourne, December.
[2] Robert Reich (1991),the Work of Nations, “The Three Jobs of the Future”, Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
[3] Dalal,P. (2000a) “ Staff turnover eases slightly in 1999”, AIA Architect, April.
[4] Union Internationale des Architectes , UIA Accord on Recommended International Standards of Professionalism in Architectural Practice, Adopted by the XXI UIA Assembly in Beijing, China, June 28, 1999.
No comments:
Post a Comment