Why Architects Struggle with Procurement and How It Costs Them Control

We can start with an uncomfortable truth: many architects lose control of their projects before a single drawing is issued.

It happens in the meeting room, not on the studio floor. It does not concern design. It is about procurement.

More specifically, it is about the architect’s failure to lead or even participate in the procurement strategy. This process, by which a client decides how a project is structured, how consultants and contractors are appointed, and how risk is distributed, represents the biggest shortsight in the practice of architecture today.

This post explores why architects consistently cede this ground, how it undermines design integrity and professional relevance, and what a more strategic approach could look like.

The Real Role of Procurement

Procurement, at its core, is about choosing between Design & Build and Traditional, or the other options that are not widely used. However, fundamentally, it is about choosing the operating system for the project.

It defines:

• Risk distribution: Who carries design liability? Who gets squeezed when the budget shifts?

• Decision-making hierarchy: Who holds influence at each stage? Is the architect advisory, contractual, or ornamental?

• Scope compression: Where will value engineering hit hardest, and who gets consulted when it happens?

  
  

Put bluntly, procurement determines how much of the architect’s vision will survive contact with reality.

Procurement represents the foundational architecture of delivery. Yet most architects remain outside the room when it is decided.

Why?

Four Structural Reasons Architects Are Out of Their Depth

Educational Neglect: We Train Designers, Not Strategists

Architecture schools idolise form-making and aesthetic expression. Contract law, consultant scope, and risk matrices are bolted on at the end, if at all.

The result is a pipeline of technically competent but commercially under-equipped practitioners. Even Part 3, the final step in the process for any wannabe-architect in the UK, treats procurement as a compliance issue rather than a strategic opportunity.

Ask a newly qualified architect to explain the implications of a lump-sum fixed-price D&B contract with contractor-led novation, and you’ll likely get a blank stare.

As such, I mark this first one down as an institutional one.

Fee Structures That Penalise Strategic Thinking

Architectural fees are often based on RIBA work stages or percentage-of-cost formulas. They reward outputs (drawings, schedules, specifications), not outcomes (design quality, project alignment, client satisfaction). Big mistake, as I flagged in my post about AI-Powered Practices. Output is dead, long live the outcome.

Procurement advice does not map neatly onto this model. It happens upstream, before traditional Stage 1 even begins. It requires lateral thinking, bespoke input, and unbilled hours.

Most architects avoid procurement conversations, not because they are uninterested but because they are not paid to care. The profession’s pricing model disincentivises strategic involvement. Also, do not get me started on how the insurance covers this involvement.

Professional Culture: Aesthetics Over Agency

Architects are still trained to see themselves as master builders, the creators without whom nothing would take place. In practice, most are service providers in multi-headed delivery structures, subject to commercial, legal, and logistical constraints.

Ignoring procurement allows architects to preserve the illusion of creative autonomy. But it is just that: an illusion. Refusing to engage with contract structures does not make them go away. It just means someone else, usually the QS or PM, decides them without your input. You do not want that.

There is a quiet professional cowardice here, wrapped in design idealism. Procurement is messy, technical and political. So we retreat to the safety of sketchbooks and renders while others shape the actual terms of project delivery.

The QS-Client Power Axis

In the UK especially, the QS has emerged as the client’s closest technical ally. The QS controls cost certainty, program risk, and procurement route recommendations. In tight markets, those three factors outweigh almost everything else.

Architects, meanwhile, often enter the process post-appointment, without a seat at the strategic table. If you are not in the room where procurement options happen, you are not shaping the decision. At best, you simply respond to the outcome.

Consequences Architects Prefer to Ignore

Avoiding procurement limits your influence while undermining the very outcomes architects claim to care about: quality, coherence, and integrity.

Misaligned Contracts, Misaligned Outcomes

Take Design & Build with novation. Once novated, the architect’s client is no longer the developer, it is the contractor. The priorities shift. Buildability trumps design intent. Changes are driven by cost savings, not value creation. Regardless of what VE stands for, there is no value consideration in what they are doing these days.

Without early influence on procurement structure, the architect’s role mutates mid-project. You go from leading the vision to policing drawings under someone else’s contract.

Value Engineering as Creative Amputation

Architects often experience VE as a hostile process. But it is not inherently adversarial, it just becomes that way when design decisions are misaligned with commercial priorities set by others. Inherently, the VE was not a bad exercise. It was a tool to assess if all the value was extracted from what the client paid for.

Strategic procurement allows for structured VE frameworks that protect design intent while achieving budget goals. But that only works if you are involved in the procurement framing in the first place.

Erosion of Trust and Credibility

Clients don’t expect architects to be legal experts. But they do expect them to understand how their ideas will be delivered. When architects cannot speak to procurement intelligently, or worse, avoid the topic altogether, it signals a lack of commercial literacy.

That kills trust. And once clients stop seeing you as strategically valuable, you become interchangeable.

What a Strategic Architect Looks Like

Let’s be clear. No one is asking architects to rewrite JCT contracts. But the profession needs a minimum viable fluency in procurement strategy.

What that looks like in practice is simple:

Mapping Procurement to Design Goals

Instead of waiting for the QS to recommend a route, start the conversation. Ask:

• Do we want early contractor input or late?

• Do we need fixed costs or design control?

• Is contractor performance risk more damaging than budget risk?

Frame procurement as a means to an end, not a compliance hurdle.

Advising Clients on Trade-Offs, Not Choices

Avoid procurement jargon. Instead, show clients the design implications of each route:

• “This option will save 10% but gives you less control over finish quality.”

• “This structure protects your timeline but limits late-stage design changes.”

Clients respect advisors who explain consequences in a way that relates to their interest in the project. Not all client see buildings like we do, so speak their language.

Engaging Strategically with QSs and PMs

The goal is to have informed procurement conversations and commit to participating meaningfully in the process.

• Ask the QS what procurement options they are considering and why.

• Suggest alternatives when the design would benefit from it.

• Document the design risks of different procurement routes as part of your early deliverables.

  
  

Building Procurement into Your Fee Proposal

This is critical.

Most architects give away strategic input for free, then complain about a lack of influence. Include procurement advisory in your Stage 0–1 scope. Frame it as design risk mitigation. Price it as such.

If clients want a consultant who understands how to protect design value through delivery, make that a service line, not an extra option.

The Way Forward

Architecture has an identity problem. We talk like visionaries but work like subcontractors.

To change that, the profession needs to reclaim its strategic voice. That doesn’t start with better design tools. It begins with commercial literacy, and procurement serves as the keystone.

The future of the profession is not in drawing better buildings. It is in creating the conditions where better buildings can survive the delivery process.

And that means showing up early and often, where the critical decisions get made.

A Quick Ask

I’m exploring a series of deep dives into the hidden levers of influence in architecture, including procurement, planning, negotiation, and client psychology, among others. If this resonated, let me know. I am considering launching a newsletter, and your feedback will decide if it is worth the effort.