Subject: Professional Judgment & Reasoning A. Goals: Use the various scenarios of the Case Study (at the end of this document) for the assignment to develop an illustration of professional judgment and reasoning – from analyses, to alternatives, to recommendations – in both and explanatory and persuasive manner. The assignment is divided into sections that follow and support the reasoningprocess: Section 1) demonstrates awareness and discernment of competing concerns inprofessionaljudgment and ethics, by describing several aspects of the issues facing aproject. Section 2) demonstrates knowledge of the project/process and the reasoning ability. Section 3) demonstrates the ability to explain the reasoning behind your recommendations to others in a manner compelling to non-professionals. Additionally, it is important to remember to be aware that this assignment test and understanding of the Standard of Care. B. Assignment Specifics: For the Case Study provided (below), develop the following in an organized manner: 1. Identifytwo “main” issues 2. Analyze both characteristics consequences as the relate to the project success and performance of the architect 3. Describe two alternatives that might resolve the chosen main issues, emphasizing how the alternatives would impact the consequences you have identified in your analyses. 4. In addition to the two alternatives you identified, articulate the reasoning and consequences associated with terminating the contract between the architect and owner. 5. Choose the most appropriate alternative and provide reasoning that could be used to convince the other parties involved with the project. C. Assignment Components & Format: To maintain the Assignment’s intended focus, used the following outline as a guideline and to the individual component lengths: Approx.length: Outline of Components: 1) Introduction: Overview A brief paraphrased summary of the situation 0.5 page (max) Note: Absolutely NOT a full recap of all of the case details 2) Section 1): Analysis What are several issues standing in the way of the project? Select two. (0.5 page per issue, for two issues) 1A) & 1B) take the two “main” issues and analyze them using these aspects: a) General Principles - The wider concept involved: i.e. ethical principle, contractual principle, etc. Specific Circumstances - The particulars of the situation that modify the generalprinciples Evolution of the Case - Changes in the general principles and specific circumstances Continuity of Response - Adapting to the changes Some of these may not apply to particular issues, so use at least 2 of the 4 characteristics. b) Consequences for each issue Short-term consequences: - How bad/good are the outcomes that might arise? - How can/should we respond in order to restore a positive outcome? Long consequences: With respect to the entire Project: - By what sequence of events did we get towhere we are now? What were the specific choices wecould have made? 3) Section2): Alternatives What might resolve the judgement issues and move the project forward? Describe two alternatives, emphasizing how the alternatives would impact the consequences you identified in your analyses. Foreach alternative, include pros and cons. Example alternatives: 2A) Seek Additional Services, to allow effective completion of un-scopedwork. 2B) Re-negotiate a portion of the Owner/Arch Agreement, to eliminate or transfer theunscoped work. 2C) Terminate the contract (consistent with provisions), due to inability to carry forward the un-scoped work within the bounds of Section 2.2, the Standard of Care paragraph. Of whatever three alternatives you define, one alternative must be the possible needto terminate the contract. 4) Recommendation From an architect’s perspective, choose the most appropriate alternative for recommendation, and support your reasoning convincingly to the other parties involved. D.G rading Rubric: Of the 10 points for the assignment, the points are broken out asfollows: 1) Overall Writing 4 point 2) Critical Thinking & Analysis 6 points Note regarding the above: It is better to be (effectively) concise and be closer to four pages in length, than to blather on just to increase the length of the paper. - Other significant deviations from format and submission requirements. - Significant grammar and proofreading issues are deducted at a higher rate of 0.5 pts.; deductions of 1.0 to 1.5 points (10%) have occurred on some previous papers for grammar-items because some paragraphs are not followable as reasoning-statements. E. Additional Background Comments: G1. Format and viewpoint of the Assignment: The most useful approach to understanding the format of this Assignment is to see it asanalogous to the draft of a topical outline for a project letter to a client -- one of many you’ll probably have to write throughout your professional career. The viewpoint of this Assignment is also targeted toward what would frequently be encountered in a project letter to a client -- in that: The very wide topic area of Ethics is narrowed down to more typical ProfessionalJudgment Reasoning concerns (focusing on the Project/Process continuum); And, Professional Judgment Reasoning itself is further narrowed down to specifically what is needed to uphold the Standard of Care (and how to use the Project/Process continuum to do so). G2. Reference back to the Ethics Text’s consideration of the “Process for Ethical Reasoning”: The form of this Assignment generally follows the “Process for Ethical Reasoning”, as outlined on p.180 of the Ethics Text, just prior to the beginning of the Case Studies. The process on p.180 uses three stages, which are re-named here in Assignment #2, tomake them more directly relatable to actual use, as described below: “Assessment” re-named to Analysis Analysis is used here because it better describes the actual process used of breakingdown the Case Study into constituent parts, as we have done in our Discussion Boardquestions, notably in Module 4. “Evaluation” re-named to Alternatives Alternatives are the real-world essence of what this process must generate -- they are the basis of moving forward, either directly and simply as a recommendation, or indirectly as a step in negotiation. Further, as noted in research on brainstorming: “evaluation” should come after the generation of alternatives, so as not to constrain the thought processwith too many (apparent) limitations beforehand. Paraphrasing a statement from research on creativity and brainstorming: “The way to generate good alternatives is to generate lotsof alternatives then choose the good ones.” “Resolution” re-named to Recommendations Recommendations is used because they are the most frequent short-term outcome ofthe process: In a real-world, multiple-actor, project-team situation, all you may get to do initially is propose your Recommendations. “Resolution”, as in an “ethical conclusion”, is worthy of merit but typically relates to only the individual thinker, not to the team asa whole. A true “Resolution” of the issue, as in “closure”, may be a long way off: after your recommendations (and the recommendations of others on the project team) areweighed, negotiation takes place, and an overall outcome is reached. The process as outlined on p.180 is, in turn, a shortened version of the more general “methodfor inquiring into ethical questions” or “model of applied ethical reasoning” found on p.94, prior tothe first example of Case Study analysis. The slightly different terms used there are: “Definition” and “Assessment”, which are constituent parts included in Analysis “Speculation”, which is the ability at the root of generating Alternatives “Deliberation” and “Resolution”, which are constituent parts included in Recommendations Note: Re-read the paragraph at the top of p.95, which succinctly summarizes the character ofthis approach and process. G3. Standard of Care considerations: “Threshold of implementation” of the Standard of Care: An noted above, the “threshold of implementation” of the Standard of Care could bethought of as those considerations within the spectrum of alternatives that distinguish workable alternatives from situations where the Standard of Care (and other professional andpersonal values) can no longer be supported while proceeding forward. The generalized directives of Project/Process contractual provisions, or of ethical injunctions such as those found in the AIA Code of Ethics, can often appear to be – or actually be – in conflict with one another, or otherwise un-achievable in certaincircumstances. As we have seen in most of the Case Studies examined so far, discerning “the most appropriate” professional-judgment reasoning regarding conflicts in the midst of realworld situations is often difficult. While sometimes the specifics of the project may allow a clear choice, or mutualresolution via negotiation, at other times, the Architect may have to take a position that would require re-negotiation, or even termination of the contract. To help you further articulate your “threshold of implementation” of the Standard of Care, the Assignment requiresthat one of the Alternatives you discuss must be Termination of the Contract, along with an explanation to the Client of your reasoning behind this alternative. “Modifying” the Standard of Care: From the Module 2 Overall Module Notes, p.2, “Approach to the Standard of Care for the purposes of this course”, re-read the entire section, and take specific note of thefollowing: “For the purposes of this course, specifically in Discussion Board and in Assignments #2 & #3, it will be considered not-acceptable to suggest “raising the Standard of Care”, either directly or indirectly, as a response or as a proposed solution. Instead, to characterize reasonable intended variations in the level-of-services “extent” or "quality", usephrases such as "level of effort" or similar constructions.” Continue to the Case Study on the next page. F. Case Study for Assignment #2 / The Situation: The Case Study for Assignment #2 is a further example of the level of monitoring necessary for managing project scope, quality, cost and schedule. In this example, the pressure on professional judgment and performance is driven by scope, quality, and cost issues. The project involves creating new offices for a local sustainable-community-services coordinating organization. The organization (the Owner) is a non-governmental entity, but is involved publicly and is publically visible; with a Board of Trustees, a small staff with many volunteers, and most importantly, a committed, hard-working, strong-willed, and well-likedDirector. As first conceived, the project program and budget were modest, calling for new offices in a renovated building, incorporating sustainable characteristics where possible. However, shortly after the project was announced publically, a community Donor decided to provide asubstantial endowment. This endowment represented a significant change in organization’s ability toimagine its future: both its future services and its future impact on thecommunity. The Director’s enthusiasm immediately carried the organization and the project forward onthe basis of the new endowment. Well-known as striving to be innovative and one step ahead, the Director began to push the project beyond just “incorporating sustainable characteristics”. The Architect that had been selected was also local, knew the Director well, had worked withhim previously on community efforts, and welcomed his enthusiasm and broadthinking. As the contract was being finalized in the early weeks of the project, the issues ofrenovation expertise and LEED expertise were raised. In various email exchanges, the Architect assuredthe Board that renovation and LEED expertise was “typical; normal these days”; and further: “Wehave the necessary expertise in our current architectural staff and LEED APs to handle what thisproject will entail; we can provide a renovation that meets performance goals ranging from a basicbuilding to a high-performing LEED project.” The contract was signed with these emails as attachments. In order to “get going on the work”, the contract was also signed using the original scope of a “renovation with sustainable characteristics” (since the revisions to the scope were still being discussed), presuming that future scope/budget adjustments would be handled withamendments to the contract. The original scope was paired with a commensurate %-of-construction-cost-fee appropriate to that scope. The fee had been based on typical local $/SF construction costs; with MPE costs and site costs having a “reasonable” percentage added on top of the typical $/SF costs to allow for sustainable features. Heading into Schematic Design, the project immediately began to change. The Director’s suggested possibilities for the “expanded” project were coming fast, and the Architect chose to respond to them as informal “options” memos. Hesitant to draft an additional service request for each and every “option”, the Architect chose to treat them as isolated pro bono services, saying “we’ll update the contract when final scope is determined.” The scope and cost were clearly increasing, but the Director assured the Architect that the project budget and endowment could absorb it. From a “renovation with sustainable characteristics”, the project evolved to a “renovation ofa downtown building”, and from there to a “renovation of a downtown community historicbuilding” which was a central symbol of the community that had been languishing over the last decade. In terms of “sustainable characteristics”, the project evolved to a much more extensive renovationof an historic building in pursuit of LEED points for this, to seeking LEED certification, and from there to LEED silver, then LEED gold, then incorporating energy-savings examples of developing technology. For the Director and those sharing his vision, the building project was to be symbolof both the community’s past and the community’s future. After responding to a quite a few of these suggested possibilities, the Architect began tohandle them even more expeditiously as “general options”. One such “general option” providedan approximate renovation cost for the historic downtown building, based on typical $/SFschematic costs as the Architect knew them locally. Another such “general option” provided anapproximate cost evaluation of the relative costs/benefits of achieving LEED certified / silver / gold in termsof non-high performance building equipment. The Architect acknowledged this approach was difficult for the team to manage, and he was becoming concerned about it. The Board of Trustees and the Donor were also becoming concerned. Acting on requests from the Board, other community partners offered to assistwith the project: A Construction Manager (known for aggressively value-engineering theirprojects, beyond what was required to meet the budget, in order to “save the Owner money”); an Owner’s Representative Project Manager (entering Project Management from an accountingbackground, and advocating “rationality in decision making”); and a Lawyer (known to take tough stances on municipal-government-contract defense, but not experienced in constructionlaw). At the insistence of the Board, the Architect gathered up the various current “options” into an “updated scope” for the project. As a part of doing this, the Architect did some additionalspecific investigation into the condition of the historic building, and found that structural and envelope conditions were worse than he had expected. He called in regionalenergy-efficiency-technology installers for preliminary system descriptions, and found that the equipment was more sophisticated and costly than he had expected. The Construction Manager’s preliminary Schematic Design cost estimate based on the “updated scope” was nearly double the originally-budgeted construction cost. The Architect’s fee -- basedon a %-of-construction-cost -- also doubled, but since extensive structural and envelope consulting was needed, and specialist mechanical electrical & plumbing engineeringconsultants were needed, the net increase in fee was reduced substantially. The Board and Director advised that the project cost now used up substantial amounts of the endowment funds for construction alone, with additional professional fees pushing up against the limits further. The Lawyer looked at the Architect’s contract -- with no previous requests for additional services -and suggested that at the very least, the Architect needed to get the project back in balance atan acceptable construction cost, within the Architect’s original Schematic Design fee, until a basis fora revised fee was established and agreed upon. Although the Construction Manager and Project Manager together questioned the rationalityof renovating the historic downtown building and demonstrating new technologies, the Boardstill supported the Director’s basic direction (just not his process of getting there). Unfortunately the Construction Manager and Project Manager went further to question the Architect’s ability to handle the scale of such renovation and sustainability aspects, given the current state of the project. All parties did acknowledge that the need for some sort of project remained, andthat there were indeed more funds available for construction than had been available before the endowment was granted. In a Board of Trustees meeting, the newspapers were present due to the involvement of the historic downtown building. Many vocal people in the community, including the Donor, still supported the Director’s essential vision. In discussion, the Director was clearly in a difficult spot, caught between roles as steward of the organization and of the endowment funds, vs. as aforwardthinker and a community leader. It seemed that the project would move forward in some form, despite the initial difficulties. However, having not even reached “Preliminary Design” -- the one-third point of Schematic Design -- the Architect questioned the viability of the firm’s further involvement with the project. The Architect acknowledged to himself and to his firm that this was now a verydifferent project, a very different team, and a very different client decision-making interface: The Architect agreed that the firm was not an experienced specialist in either complexhistoric renovation projects or cutting-edge LEED projects, at the level of expertise now being considered. The Architect also resigned himself to the fact that the architectural / structural/ mechanical, electrical and plumbing engineering services would almost certainly need to involve these higher levels of expertise as the project moved forward. The Lawyer had extended his previous statements about fees. Having looked at the emails regarding renovation and LEED expertise -- with no subsequent mention of specialist consultants -- the lawyer suggested that if indeed renovations-experience andLEED-expertise were “standard” in the industry, then the Client should not have to pay additional large amounts for extra specialists -- that per the original contract the Architect should beproviding any such necessary specialized services themselves. Or, alternately, if additional expertise was required, then the Architect could hire-out the services, but at the Architect’s own cost, absorbed within in their fee, with no increase in fee. (In retrospect, the Architectconsidered this “expertise” provision from the original contract to be one of the most disturbing aspectsof moving forward.) The fee situation was made worse when the Construction Manager & the Project Managerhad indicated that, if the project was not re-opened for a new round of proposals from awider range of architects, then, at the very least, the current Architect’s fees would have to be held to competitive local percentages. And as much as the Architect supported the vision of the Director, it was clear that the Director was no longer at liberty to be the primary decision-maker for the project. Rigorous review both internal and external would now be involved in almost any decision, far more than would be expected for any similar office renovation. The Board and the Donor were somewhat irritated that things had run off the rails so quickly, and looked to the Architect to demonstratechanges in his approach that would prevent this from happening again. The Architect was thus confronted with high-level technical requirements,competitively constrained fees, and evidently unsympathetic reviewers anddecision-makers. In your responses to this Case Study, you must think through the particular elements of the Standardof Care being served here, think through your own professional priorities, and arrive at your resultant priorities for a solution or for other actions.
Purchase answer to see full attachment