Architects and Structural Engineers: How to Successfully Collaborate on Projects?

So today we bring you a double interview with Petr Žalský and Tomáš Křivka – partners from the structural office STATIKON.

Gentlemen, why do you even do structural engineering?

P: Once, I enjoyed physics, natural sciences, and gradually, it turned into a specialization in structural engineering at the university. Our field is beautiful; many structural engineers dedicate their whole lives to it, often deeply into retirement. It is fulfilling work, a kind of lifelong love. After years of practice in this field, I don't know how to do anything else, nor do I think any other way than as a structural engineer. For me, it is already somewhat given.
It is certain that structural engineering cannot primarily be done for money; one must love it.

T: Since childhood, I have loved numbers. I enjoyed filling out various tables, and it seemed to lead me to the world of finance. Over time, I realized that I also enjoyed mathematics and physics. However, I did not want to be a scientist, and the world of finance seemed too general, so when my parents, who are builders, told me about structural engineering, I started to take an interest in this field, and after a while, it was clear that it was the right choice. Additionally, as a former top athlete, I love challenges, which also applies to my studies and continues to my daily reality.

What do you consider the main problems in your field, whether regarding structural engineering or project design in general?

P: Lack of planning. Constant delays in the transfer of materials and subsequent failure to meet deadlines. Some take it as the norm, and thus all designers ruin their reputations. Clients already assume that the construction project will be prolonged and just hope it won't be too much. Only the largest design firms seem to handle it somewhat better. In my opinion, it is a defect in the profession, the irresponsibility of some designers in taking on an unrealistic amount of contracts and subsequently failing to fulfill their obligations.

Undervaluing one's work, undervaluing prices for design work (and it is not just that one gives a bid 20% lower than another, but the same project can have bids varying by 300-400%), and inconsistency in how to actually value design work.

I perceive the issue of lifelong responsibility for completed projects as current. How long does a designer remain responsible for submitted work and under what conditions?

T: Similar to Petr, I would highlight the disorganization in project design. It is not common to have something like a "Gantt chart" or to track the so-called "critical path." Yet, I believe if this were part of the project assignment with a contract, and it was well specified what each phase of the design entails in terms of workload and what individual requirements correspond to it, this plan could be better fulfilled.

It is common that milestones are set, but rarely do we see timely submission of materials to the professions, including us structural engineers. The investor is conditioned to change the assignment because they probably do not see the details of the project process and do not realize the consequences of their demands. This further prolongs the design process, and many changes arise, making it difficult to decipher whether they should already be considered as additional work and a change to the original assignment. A detailed specification at the start of the project with the investor is thus key for me. Unfortunately, we as structural engineers rarely engage directly with the investor, and thus we cannot influence this process. This is usually on the architect's or builder's side.

How do you look for new team members? Is it easy or difficult, and how many people actually want to do structural engineering?

P: This is a chapter of its own. We find it difficult. Finding a quality structural engineer with experience is almost impossible. Our strategy is to catch new colleagues while they are still in school or just after and train them ourselves.

The general problem in project design is undervaluation and low interest. The number of university graduates in the field of structural engineering is decreasing each year, and it is not surprising – the responsibility for the work is significant, it takes a long time to learn the profession, and it is hard for juniors to become senior structural engineers, with financial compensation being rather average.

T: Although I agree with my colleague, I try to stay positive in this regard. If our field is long-term undervalued, it indicates a lack of structural engineers in the job market, which raises our compensation. Additionally, construction is significantly behind its potential due to the slow approval processes from building authorities, which could mean even more work for structural engineers, who are often already overloaded. The question is how quickly changes will occur in this regard, but if they do come, it will surely positively affect the search for and hiring of capable and experienced people for the team.

We are also thinking about how to attract new colleagues and are trying to do our best for that. We are improving our benefit system – we pay out bonuses before Christmas and ongoing quarterly bonuses on contracts that turn out favorably from a budget perspective. We go to the mountains, cycling, or wine cellars together (because in a healthy body, a healthy mind), and we support our employees to further educate themselves in what interests them, etc. In short, we try to reinvest the company’s profits back into the team and into the most modern software for our development.

What distinguishes your field from others?

P: Generally, we don't seek new work much; it comes to us by itself. And as mentioned above, we have a bigger problem bringing the right people into the team; that's fundamental. Once we have them, and therefore we do good work as a whole, the work finds us. Thus, I believe that compared to other fields, we need to expend significantly fewer resources on acquiring new contracts and opportunities, resulting in low marketing and advertising costs, but conversely, significantly more on searching for and training talented new colleagues and retaining those who are with us.

Our profession is greatly about trust. It is not easy to gain trust sometimes, but if you have it, it is a good foundation for truly long-term collaboration. Therefore, we do not have many big clients; they are stable and long-term, and only occasionally does someone change or a new one join.

T: I believe our field is very complex and requires many skills, knowledge, analytical thinking, the ability to face significant responsibility, and also to master a range of common disciplines, such as communication skills, etc. Simply graduating from our field is not an easy path, and after completing the studies, one is just at the beginning and does not know much in practical terms.

The main difference compared to many fields is thus its long-term nature. Over time, as one works on themselves, they gain experience and become an expert, which also relates to their value in the job market and salary growth. Unfortunately, a student - graduate finds it difficult to accept and understand this reality during an interview. They see many of their friends from other fields and schools, who receive the salary they envision upon starting their jobs, and we cannot blame them.

Do you focus on any specific types of projects or assessments in your work, just on certain clients, or do you work for anyone who comes to you? And what work do you enjoy most?

T: Over time, we have focused more on medium to large projects, as this is the most efficient in our number. We do purely the structural engineering of load-bearing structures and do not divert our attention to other directions, except for conducting building surveys, which we have gradually included in our portfolio.

We design diverse structures of buildings from residential buildings to administrative buildings and civil buildings such as shopping centers or sports halls. Our practice has most distinguished us in designing reinforced concrete structures along with masonry – it is the most commonly used material for buildings. From a business perspective, this may not be the best-chosen strategy, but we believe in a long-term path, and primarily we want to participate in the most interesting projects possible and do not want to close ourselves off from them due to a lack of knowledge in one or more disciplines of structural engineering.

I would divide our clients into three groups: architects (builders), construction companies, and developers. The work for each client is somewhat different.

An architect often does not aim for an economical building at the start of a project, but above all to ensure it is functional, fits well into the surroundings, is reliable, and has an original design, often presenting significant challenges for us structural engineers. We really enjoy this, and it saddens me when I hear about animosity between structural engineers and architects. Everything is about constructive collaboration.

Construction firms and developers, on the other hand, often seek savings in their budgets, which is entirely understandable, and we strive to optimize our designs as much as possible so that the structures are not over-engineered yet remain reliable and functional in accordance with the prescribed standards.

What successes have you achieved in your field? And how is success actually measured or assessed in your field?

P: It has long been said that a successful structural engineer is one who is not publicly spoken of, as it likely means they are not in any difficulties. Yet, there are many beautiful and interesting buildings that would not have come into being without the collaboration of the architect and the structural engineer; it just isn't publicly known.

What most bothers my colleagues at work is when, during the presentation of an interesting building, alongside the architect, designer, and construction company, there is also a landscape architect, HVAC engineer, photographer, marketing consultant, PR agency, sculptor... But not a single word is mentioned about the structural engineer, as if the structure wasn't addressed at all. And unfortunately, this is quite common.

T: We have a whole range of nice projects in our portfolio. In Prague and its surroundings, we have already made a quite nice mark, and we are fulfilled with the feeling that we are contributing to the quality of life of many people who inhabit the buildings and spend a significant part of their time in them. We are also pleased that we have earned the title of "Construction of the Year" with some buildings, even though this is primarily due to the efforts of our architect and builder colleagues, who create the final impression of the building.

We also value that we already have several international collaborations with renowned architects such as Benthem Crouwel, BIG, SOU Fujimoto, and others, with whom we have worked on significant buildings, such as the recent project of the main train station in Brno, which we are cheering for.

What new trends do you perceive in construction (if any), and do they concern you? Do you think they are trends for the better, or are they just "fashionable" issues?

P: There is much talk and writing about BIM design everywhere, but similar discussions were already happening intensively 20 years ago when I graduated from university. Its implementation in practice is gradual, it has its opponents, software obstacles... But it is certainly a strong and correct trend.

Construction plots with geology favorable for simple foundations are gradually running out, leading to more complex foundation solutions than were common in the past. Buildings, sometimes even family houses, are being founded on unsuitable soils using deep foundations on piles. It is necessary to address the dissipation of vibrations caused by surrounding traffic, protection from aggressive groundwater, and so-called stray currents caused by high-voltage electrical systems nearby. All of this complicates the design process, construction, and of course raises the final cost of buildings.

I perceive the notion of investors thinking that everything can be changed almost at any time, with 1-2 clicks, and today, at the latest tomorrow, it will be done, as a trend – a defect. Construction companies then reconstruct and fix things already completed during the construction process simultaneously. Yes, it is possible. But it takes much effort, unnecessary stress, and above all, generates mistakes – sometimes minor, but at times serious.

T: We perceive many trends, and listing them could take up two more pages. We try to monitor their development, adapt, and keep up with the times.

A significant trend is the transition to the so-called BIM standard for project design, so we also process our projects completely in 3D, including the requirements associated with processes pertaining to BIM, although this topic is still vibrant and often debatable.

Personally, I would like to see so-called "paperless projects," where we would hand over a detailed and complete project in 3D to the contractor, containing all the necessary information for construction (from a structural engineering perspective). The contractor would then have their specialist who could work with our outputs, and for example, transfer information from the 3D model to the workers who would build according to it. We are not there yet; huge “sheets” of paper are still printed, and workers on-site read from them. Drawings get dirty over time, lose readability, etc., while working with a model could prevent many potential errors in coordination of disciplines and significantly simplify the entire construction process. However, I recently saw an advertisement where a construction company was looking for someone like that, so hopefully better times are on the horizon.

We are also monitoring the developments and demands related to the sustainability of buildings and tracking the carbon footprint, i.e., how the production of construction structures negatively impacts the environment, and thus the planet as a whole. There are numerous perspectives. For instance, the restrictions are imposed only by the EU with a production volume of around 10% of materials worldwide, and it is questionable what real influence these restrictions could have on our environment globally. We also observe the emerging trend of building with sustainable materials, not just wood, but also using various recyclables in reinforced concrete structures. Hence, we do not underestimate this trend, although it is such a complex issue that it isn't clear where it will lead.

Any wishes to conclude?

Well, I suppose we would wish for nice contracts that fulfill us and are challenges that we can handle correctly. Then clever colleagues for the team, of whom there are never enough, and it still holds true (yes, even for Generation Z) that every person is different, and while some students quickly transform into great structural engineers, from others – seemingly similar on paper – we will never make a structural engineer. And we hope that Czech architecture will soon approach the world standard, and for that, we need enlightened investors and quality architects and builders.

Thank you for the interview!