Your drawings are someone else's instructions

When you're detailing a roof, you're not just designing — you're writing a set of instructions that a specialist tradesperson has to physically execute, often at height, under time pressure, with tin snips in hand. If a transition flashing, upstand height, or jamb detail hasn't been specified, the roofer has three options: guess, ask, or price low and hope it doesn't come up.

The best roofing contractors will ask. But that only works if we've created the conditions — and the documentation — that make asking possible. Incomplete details aren't just a gap in the drawings; they're a gap in the project's risk management.

Tendering: what you signal before a spade hits the ground

The NTT (Notice to Tenderer) process exists for a reason. When a roofing subcontractor submits detailed written questions during tendering, it signals they've read the drawings carefully and are pricing the job properly. A roofer who asks ten good questions and prices at $100k is a far safer bet than one who prices at $60k and asks nothing.

The uncomfortable flip side: if our documentation is so incomplete that nobody can ask informed questions, we've already set the project up for a dispute. Thorough tender documentation isn't a luxury — it's professional due diligence.

Observation isn't optional — it's where the design gets finished

One of the more confronting points raised at RANZ was how commonly observation is now cut from architectural contracts to reduce fees. The result is that the architect's role ends at consent — and any on-site design questions, detail refinements, or material substitutions get resolved without us. This prevents collaboration between designer and installer which always leads to a better outcome.

That's a problem. Not just for the building's quality, but for our liability. If a detail we drew is modified on site without our input, we have no record of endorsing or rejecting the change. If observation isn't in the brief, it's worth having an honest conversation with the client about what that actually means for the outcome — and for accountability when things go wrong.

Fee pressure is real — but it has limits

Nobody in the industry is pretending the fee environment is easy right now. Design fees on some project types have dropped significantly over the past few years, and that pressure flows through to every hour we spend on documentation and observation.

But there's a line between reducing a scope and producing drawings that aren't fit for purpose. A minimal set of drawings that gets a consent issued but leaves trades guessing isn't a business model — it's a liability waiting to materialise. The roofing contractors on site are specialists. They deserve enough information to do the job properly.

The standard we set for the relationship

Arrogance on the part of architects was raised directly at RANZ — and honestly, it deserved to be. When a roofer flags a concern about a detail, dismissing it isn't design leadership. It's a missed opportunity and, potentially, a future defect.

The trades that work best with architects are the ones who feel safe enough to ask questions and push back. We create that culture — or we don't. Collaboration and communication aren't soft skills. On a complex roof, they're the difference between a building that performs and one that leaks.