Or maybe I should be titling this post: Expecting the wrong things from the wrong people.
Not unlike the majority of sizable AEC firms, Columbia College of Chicago has a formidable information technology (IT) team. This group educates adjunct professors, like myself, on the latest and greatest technological tools and programs. It’s a neat system for extended learning, and I take full advantage of the perk.
This past semester, I discovered that I had misunderstood the specific role of Columbia’s IT team. My interpretation was that—not only were they responsible for introducing us to a range of software and tools—they were the ‘go-to’ people whenever we had questions. More than once I would email with questions and/or request a phone appointment. But at some point, they told me in no uncertain terms that their role did not include ongoing support. What?! Why wasn’t I informed that their organizational structure involved another separate group for ongoing support? It took me getting frustrated, and finally speaking out, to realize that I was expecting the wrong things from the wrong people.
NOTE: I know for a fact that I’d get more direct, fast answers from the IT leadership, as opposed to talking to the once-removed, separate support team. In fact, my questions were complicated enough that the support team would have to first consult with the IT leadership before responding to me.
But because this is the way they structure the chain of command/service, then I must respect their wishes to go through the right channels, even if it takes longer to get an answer.
Humph. Herein lies the real frustration. It’s bad enough to be unclear on whom to speak with for what purpose. But then to realize that you are ‘supposed’ to go to someone who will then consult someone else first, it’s more than tempting to go straight to the primary source for information (rather than following some structure/format that is inefficient).
I imagine that clients of AEC may also experience these frustrations from time to time. Think about this: How do your clients perceive the various roles of their service provider team? A typical AE team* looks like this:
– Project Manager (PM)
– Principal in Charge (PIC)
– Principal Designer
– and so forth….
Clients come first, and so you don’t want them to become impatient with long wait times for answers; incomplete answers; or no answers whatsoever. Ideally, you ‘train’ the client to give your structure a chance (provided you yourself believe in your own team structure).
What happens when your client realizes that one person on the team will get something done faster and better than another person? Well, often, that client chooses (or at least desires!) to go directly to the best person for a direct answer. Yet, that best person is often unavailable because they have countless other responsibilities. What is the trick for making the client go through your established, organized system? {Even if it means, for example, that the client might need to ask a junior or mid-level person a question at some juncture, knowing that that person will not be able to give an on-the-spot answer.}
This aspect of communication and communication lines relate to business development and marketing. In these days of heavy competition among AEC firms for the scant available business, we must make life especially easy for our clients, in addition to the requisite ‘meeting of their expectations’ regarding design solutions and successful project delivery.
Feel free to respond privately or by post with your insights on highest and best ways to acheive client satisfaction relating to these lines of communication.
*Notice I put PM at the top; that’s because I recommend that design teams be structured so that even the most unwieldy of partners and principal designers can be monitored (especially from a time standpoint) on the projects. When the PM holds ultimate responsibility, because that is his/her area of expertise: management and coordination. But that’s just me. Not all firms are structured that way, and not all firms are willing to give the final management responsibilities (beyond the paper pushing, processing, and general scheduling) to the PM.