Kia ora koutou
First of all, thank you for attending to your liability insurance renewals. Hopefully the process went smoothly for all our members, but if you have any particular feedback, please feel free to email nzacs@aon.com. If you have yet to complete your renewal, we encourage you to give it priority as the expiry date has now passed.
We begin this issue with updates and a link to the next paper on risk from last year’s NZACS scholarship winner. This has also prompted another reminder to forward Communiqué to your staff. AI has certainly been a hot topic of 2025, but its use comes with risks, so we have a brief article on that.
We’ve seen some recent notifications arising from issues associated with lifts, so the Claims Committee has prepared some watchpoints for those.
Over the years we have highlighted the risks of partial services, in particular where architects have no site observation role. We are now seeing a trend, presumably to reduce costs, where project managers and clients are requesting a lower level of observation services. NZACS Board member Melanie Lochore discusses the risks and management of this.
Disagreements arising from architects’ requests to be paid for variations to their services are not uncommon, and so we have a few tips on that.
Finally – all the very best for the holiday season and hopefully a prosperous 2026.
Ngā mihi
Applications for the 2025 scholarship closed on November 30th. These are currently being assessed, and a decision will be announced in the new year.
In November the recipient of last year’s Scholarship, Mikayla Exton presented in person in Auckland and Christchurch on the topic ‘Risky Business: Navigating Risk in Architecture’. These presentations aimed to encourage architects to think critically about identifying and managing risks in practice. These events were in partnership with NZIA Emerge and were very successful in attracting a younger cohort of architects and graduates. Thank you to those members who attended these insightful presentations.
Mikayla’s third-of-five risk related papers – ‘Risks Shaped by Culture’ – is now available. This short paper is definitely worth a read followed by some reflections on your own practice culture – particularly in relation to the management of risk. It also includes advice on how you can bring about organizational cultural change, which can be applied more broadly to your practice.
This article was initially prompted by a member query about the use of AI for writing meeting minutes, but as AI becomes more widely adopted it’s important to consider some of the risks of its use.
Accuracy and Accountability
AI-generated meeting minutes or reports may misinterpret discussions, omit key decisions, or introduce errors. All meeting minutes – whether you are the minute writer or an attendee – should be reviewed and confirmed as a true and fair record of a meeting.
Data Confidentiality
Feeding sensitive project details into AI platforms—especially cloud-based ones—creates exposure to data breaches and intellectual property theft. Confidentiality clauses in contracts may be breached unintentionally. Also, some service contracts have very onerous liability for IP related claims.
Don’t take short-cuts
It seems reasonable to use AI to summarise a report for you, but you must take the time to actually read the report yourself to then assess the accuracy and relevance of the summary. AI is nowhere near perfect but can give the impression that it is, so don’t be seduced by its authoritative tone
Lifts are becoming more prevalent as we design to use land more efficiently. We now see many more multi-level buildings like schools, retirement homes, healthcare buildings etc which require lifts. With an aging population they are also showing up more in single dwellings.
The following are a few pointers to be aware of if your project has a lift.
That’s a long list but we’ll reiterate one item – a careful review of the fabrication drawings is the minimum that you can do to avoid a problem.
A number of members are telling us they’re feeling increasing pressure from clients to reduce their construction-phase fees and services. While this isn’t happening everywhere, there is a definite trend toward design-only appointments and reduced site involvement, especially on budget-driven or developer-led projects.
Most of this pressure comes down to cost. With the construction industry facing higher material and labour costs, supply-chain challenges, and tighter margins, clients are looking for savings wherever they can, and unfortunately architectural observation is often one of the things they consider.
This article focuses on reduced construction observation situations where you’re still involved in the construction phase, but you’re being asked to attend site less often, perhaps not review shop drawings, spend less time monitoring the work, and generally scale back your oversight.
For guidance on partial services (where the architect is removed from construction stage services entirely), there are several articles in the Members Resources area of the website. Most recently the June and October issues of Communiqué have relevant articles and a link to a template disclaimer letter.
What Risks Come with Reduced Observation?
While reducing the extent of construction observation may provide short-term fee savings, the long-term risks could be significant for you and your client.
1. Higher Professional Liability Exposure
Even when you have clearly limited your liability for reduced services, you are still likely to be drawn into disputes if something goes wrong on site. Disputes have often found that inadequate site observation has contributed to building defects. The less often you’re on site, the more likely it is that issues will go unnoticed which increases the risk of being held partly responsible later.
2. More Room for Non-Compliance and Defects
Reduced monitoring increases the likelihood that construction work will be carried out incorrectly. Errors involving weatherproofing, sequencing, structural connections, membrane installation, and fire separation are common when no one is consistently checking alignment with the consented documents. Council inspections do not necessarily verify all aspects of design intent and should not be relied upon as a substitute for thorough construction monitoring.
3. Greater Risk of Losing Design Intent
With fewer site visits, the architect loses opportunities to help contractors interpret the design. Builders may unknowingly alter details, substitute products, or make informal adjustments that undermine performance, durability, and visual quality. These changes often stem from a misunderstanding rather than deliberate substitution, but such issues are far less likely when the architect is regularly present on site.
4. Challenges With Contract Administration
If you are expected to sign off payment claims, variations, or practical completion, reduced observation can make this difficult. Issuing payment schedules without fully knowing what has been built can put you in a difficult position and can easily lead to disagreements between the parties.
How You Can Mitigate Your Risk
The good news is that there are straightforward, practical steps you can take to protect yourself when observation levels are reduced.
1. Clearly Define the Reduced Scope
Spell out exactly how often you’ll be on site, what you’ll be reviewing, and what you won’t. Be especially clear about high-risk elements and only agree to monitor them if that work is included in your scope and fee.
The scope and limitations of your role must be clearly defined, and reviewed/amended in respect of changes in project circumstances, including timelines, contract procurement, change in consultants, change in end users, change in funding arrangements. Many such changes may not be made known to you, or may gradually evolve, so the initial engagement terms fees and scope needs to identify how they will be dealt with.
2. Give Written Risk Warnings to Clients
Make sure clients understand what reduced observation actually means. A brief written explanation of the risks including the chance of defects, non-compliance, and extra costs later helps ensure everyone is on the same page. It also helps protect you if issues arise down the line.
If reduced monitoring is known about early, you could consider increasing the level of documentation that you do for detailed design, and advising the client of the additional costs for this.
3. Recommend Independent Monitoring
If you’re stepping back from observation, it’s reasonable (and often very helpful) to suggest the client engages a clerk of works, building surveyor, or independent QA provider. Someone needs to keep an eye on workmanship and sequencing and if it’s not you, it is better that another professional is filling the gap.
4. Avoid Partial Oversight of High-Risk Elements
Make it very clear that you’re not checking items such as cladding, waterproofing, membranes, junctions, fire-stopping, or structural connections unless specifically contracted to do so. Reduced observation must not be interpreted as “partial checking” of these critical details.
5. Set Expectations Early for any Design Statements and Certificates
A common issue we hear about is clients requesting reduced observation early on, then later asking for Construction Check Certificates or other design-based statements that may imply more monitoring than you’ve actually provided. With reduced observation it is important to set expectations at the start. If your observation is reduced, you cannot issue certificates that imply otherwise. Having this conversation upfront avoids awkward surprises later.
6. Keep Detailed Documentation and Communication Records
When you are less present on site, your written records matter even more. Record all site visits with a site visit report that clearly outlines what you have seen and when. Keep copies of every report, instruction, clarification, RFI response, sketch, and decision. Good documentation is one of your strongest protections if a dispute arises.
If elements of your design are altered on site, and made known to you, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes unless you clearly advise otherwise.
Reduced observation is becoming more common but the risks for quality, compliance, design integrity, and professional liability are real. With clear communication, careful documentation, and well-defined boundaries, Architects can provide reduced observation with less risk to themselves and their clients.
In addition to a reduction in scope of services (see above), another way that project managers and clients are looking to reduce costs is by making it harder for consultants to make variation claims for additional services beyond the agreed scope. We’ve seen contract terms that require consultants to advise if an instruction from a client constitutes a variation within as little as 2 days. Members are finding themselves in situations where project managers and clients are simply refusing to pay for variations.
Some tips to deal with these issues are as follows:
Architects often seem coy about raising the issue of variations – leaving these discussions/notifications until late in the design or construction process. From the client’s perspective these claims for additional fees can be quite unexpected and often come at a time when they are low on project funds. They sometimes react to this in a combative manner which can include threats of legal action or complaints to the NZRAB.