The Role With No Name

At UKREiiF last May, we led a panel discussion exploring the idea of “the role with no name” that we feel exists in the construction, property and infrastructure development sectors. 

These built environment sectors are evolving and are becoming more complex and challenging for clients. Many clients want something more – something different, something else for their consultant teams. They want and need a cross-disciplinary glue between traditional professional service roles. Clients increasingly expect this. We think this is an emergent role, but it has no name, is undefined, unfunded and uninsured. 

Our UKREiiF panel included architects, a client-side development manager, a surveyor and planning consultant, educators and professional body representatives. The discussion centred on emphasising collaboration, evolving client expectations, competency, risk and value articulation.

How the role with no name came about

Construction, property and infrastructure clients face increasing pressures including ESG, viability, regulation, etc. The fiscal, macroeconomic and geopolitical outlook remains uncertain. Clients often need advice that cuts across the traditional specialisms of architecture, planning, surveying, project management and so on. 

Experienced clients now expect turnkey, end-to-end support from their consultant team. 

Inexperienced clients struggle to define briefs and, as a professional team, we must articulate vision, strategy, deliverables, timelines and outcomes more transparently to help them. 

The scope of work is increasingly bespoke. Traditional appointments create gaps, which we then have to fill. The architect’s scope is expanding in response, but often in an ad-hoc manner. We are acting as client advisors, vision shapers, urbanists and delivery navigators beyond traditional RIBA stages.

What does the role with no name mean for clients, architects and other consultants? 

If we believe this role exists, then does it need a name? At UKREiiF, we discussed perspectives on naming, with some advocating a name to enable scoping and fee generation. 

Others emphasised the partnership model: team collaboration over titles. This one-team ethos could involve more integrated teamwork to reduce friction and close the identified scope gaps. Teams that span disciplines are better suited to complex, finance-constrained programmes. But multidisciplinary teams exist already. Yet our projects, and our clients, still need more than these teams traditionally provide. 

When consultants – architects and others – frequently have to do out-of-scope work to keep projects moving, something is not quite right. This out-of-scope work benefits the client, which is why consultants do it. But it may create exposure, risk and potential liability. 

What is the value of the role with no name? 

• It bridges divides and fill gaps for the client.
• It has an end-user focus.
• It could drive productivity.
• It could have social value.
• It promotes adaptability and transferable skills. 

• It promotes lifelong learning. 

   

New ideas and open questions 

Our UKREiiF panel discussion really got us thinking, but we don’t have all the answers. 

We want to keep the debate going and encourage emerging ideas, from you. 

• Who owns this role?
• Should we formalise the role with no name?
• Should we regulate it and insure it? 

• Could we teach it, in schools of architecture and other settings? 

   

Keep the discussion going 

We would really love to hear your thoughts on these questions and other your ideas, so please contribute to further discussion. Email studio@vincentandpartners.com