As structural engineers, our responsibility extends beyond ensuring safety and stability-we are also collaborators in a multidisciplinary design environment. Among the most common challenges we face are disputes with architects, often stemming from differing priorities. While architects may emphasize aesthetics, space, and functionality, structural engineers must safeguard constructability, efficiency, and public safety. Without a structured approach, these differences can escalate into disputes that affect both project delivery and professional relationships.
The following guidelines, informed by ASCE's collaborative practice principles and research on interdisciplinary project delivery, provide a framework for structural engineers to manage and resolve such disputes effectively:
1. Engage Early in the Design Process
Conflicts are most easily avoided when engineers are brought into the conversation during the conceptual and schematic stages. Early technical input helps align architectural vision with structural feasibility before significant resources are invested.
2. Establish Clear Communication Protocols
Communication gaps are a leading source of conflict. Structural engineers should advocate for regular coordination meetings, shared documentation, and, where possible, BIM-enabled collaboration platforms. Clearly documenting agreements and changes reduces ambiguity.
3. Respect and Acknowledge Architectural Expertise
Disputes often intensify when either party feels undervalued. Structural engineers should demonstrate respect for the architect's design intent, while ensuring that technical constraints are communicated clearly and constructively. The aim is to support, not suppress, creative vision.
4. Address Conflicts Professionally and Promptly
When disagreements arise, it is critical to focus discussions on technical facts and project goals rather than personalities. If direct resolution is not possible, structured approaches such as mediation, peer reviews, or neutral design review boards can help.
5. Promote Contractual and Role Clarity
Many disputes stem from unclear responsibilities in professional service agreements. Structural engineers should encourage precise definitions of scope, authority, and decision-making responsibilities in contracts. This clarity prevents escalation into formal legal disputes.
6. Prioritize the Project and Public Safety
Ultimately, the client and community expect a safe, sustainable, and inspiring outcome. Structural engineers should frame their positions around these shared objectives, ensuring that safety is non-negotiable while remaining open to design innovation.
Conclusion
Disputes between architects and structural engineers are inevitable, but they do not need to be adversarial. By engaging early, communicating clearly, respecting disciplinary expertise, and upholding contractual clarity, structural engineers can transform disputes into opportunities for stronger, more resilient design solutions.
ASCE encourages structural engineers to approach these challenges not as barriers, but as integral parts of collaborative practice-ensuring that our profession continues to build safely, innovatively, and in harmony with our design partners.
------------------------------
Jaher Wasim S.E., M.ASCE
Managing Director & CEO
D8 Consultants Ltd. (D8CL)
jaher@...------------------------------