This guide is intended for readers preparing under the title RIBA Professional Practice in Architecture examinations Part 1 - United Kingdom. Work through the foundations before applying them to project scenarios. Each concept explains a useful distinction or decision, demonstrates it with a worked example, and identifies a specific error to avoid.
Professional conduct and ethical judgement
1. Qualification, registration and membership
An educational qualification, professional membership and regulatory registration establish different things. A qualification records an educational achievement; membership identifies an association relationship; registration records regulatory status. ARB describes its Register as the definitive record of UK architects. Check each claim against the relevant record rather than treating an educational label as evidence of registration.
Worked example: A consultant presents a degree certificate and a membership badge. The client still checks the ARB Register to establish the consultant’s registered status.
Mistake to avoid: Assuming that completing a qualification automatically establishes current registration.
Source reference: Home - Architects Registration Board
2. Standards and example behaviours
ARB’s Architects Code sets six standards covering honesty, public interest, competence, professional practice, communication and respect. The standards must be met, while supporting example behaviours describe ways to demonstrate them. An alternative approach needs an accountable explanation. The 2025 Code replaced the 2017 edition; historical examples should therefore be read with their applicable context.
Worked example: A practice uses a tailored conflict register instead of a sample format, documenting how its process identifies, assesses and manages conflicts.
Mistake to avoid: Treating an illustrative method as the only acceptable way to meet a standard.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
3. Honesty about evidence and uncertainty
Professional honesty requires distinguishing verified facts, assumptions and unresolved questions. A drawing can be precise while its underlying information remains uncertain. Explain material assumptions and what would establish them, particularly where clients might rely on an apparent confirmation. Correct an inaccurate statement promptly and preserve a clear record of the correction.
Worked example: An existing wall thickness is estimated at 250 mm. The report labels it an assumption and requires verification before the layout is finalised.
Mistake to avoid: Presenting an unverified survey assumption as an established site fact.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
4. Public interest in project decisions
Architectural decisions affect people beyond the paying client, including occupants, neighbours and future users. Identify those affected, consider foreseeable consequences, and explain material concerns when evaluating options. A client’s preference is relevant but does not eliminate professional responsibilities. Escalate unresolved concerns through appropriate project or practice channels.
Worked example: A client favours an entrance that creates difficult access. The architect explains the user impact and develops an accessible alternative for review.
Mistake to avoid: Treating client approval as sufficient justification for ignoring foreseeable harm.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
5. Competence and supervised delegation
Competence depends on the particular task, its complexity and available support. Delegating work does not make review unnecessary. Match assignments to experience, establish supervision, and obtain specialist input where the team cannot evaluate the issue reliably. A person may be competent in general design while needing assistance with a specialised building system.
Worked example: A junior team member prepares a façade detail. An experienced reviewer checks interfaces, while a specialist advises on the unfamiliar system.
Mistake to avoid: Assuming general architectural experience covers every specialist technical decision.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
6. Conflicts of interest
A conflict arises when another interest could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, professional judgement. Identify financial, personal and organisational connections before making recommendations. Disclosure begins the assessment; it does not automatically resolve the conflict. Consider whether safeguards can protect impartial judgement or whether the role should be declined.
Worked example: A director’s relative owns a proposed supplier. The practice discloses the connection and arranges an independent assessment before any recommendation.
Mistake to avoid: Assuming that declaring a relationship removes the need to manage its influence.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
7. Confidentiality and controlled disclosure
Project information should be shared for a defined purpose with appropriate recipients. Separate permission to use information on a project from permission to publish it elsewhere. Where a request raises possible disclosure duties or restrictions, obtain appropriate advice rather than assuming secrecy or unrestricted sharing. Limit any justified disclosure to relevant information.
Worked example: A portfolio image reveals a client’s private security layout. The practice removes that detail and obtains publication approval before using the image.
Mistake to avoid: Treating access to client information as permission to publish it.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
8. Respect and inclusive participation
Respect involves how people are treated and whether they can participate meaningfully. Consider communication needs, meeting arrangements and design assumptions that exclude users. Seek relevant perspectives without expecting one person to represent an entire group. Inclusive participation helps reveal problems that a technically competent team may otherwise overlook.
Worked example: A consultation relies on spoken presentations. Written summaries and a quiet feedback route are added so more participants can contribute.
Mistake to avoid: Assuming that inviting everyone guarantees equal access to the discussion.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
9. Raising professional concerns
A concern should distinguish observed facts, potential consequences and matters requiring investigation. Use an appropriate reporting route and preserve relevant evidence. Urgency should reflect the seriousness and immediacy of the issue. Where the first recipient cannot resolve a material concern, consider further escalation with suitable advice and confidentiality safeguards.
Worked example: A drawing discrepancy could affect a safety-related interface. The architect records the conflicting references and promptly requests review by the responsible specialists.
Mistake to avoid: Replacing a factual concern with an accusation unsupported by evidence.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
10. Environmental decisions over the lifecycle
Assess environmental choices across construction, use, maintenance and eventual replacement. An option with lower initial impact may perform poorly if it needs frequent replacement. Compare alternatives using consistent boundaries and disclose uncertain assumptions. Environmental judgement also involves avoiding unnecessary work and considering retention before assuming replacement is preferable.
Worked example: Two finishes have similar initial impacts, but one needs three replacements during the study period. Its replacement burden changes the comparison.
Mistake to avoid: Comparing initial material impacts while ignoring maintenance and replacement.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
Architectural business and management
11. Workload forecasting
A workload forecast translates promised services into staff hours over time. Compare demand with available capacity by period and skill, rather than relying on annual totals. Several modest commissions can become unmanageable when their deadlines coincide. Update the forecast when scope, programme or staffing changes, and distinguish confirmed work from uncertain prospects.
Worked example: Three projects each need 40 review hours next week. Only 80 suitable hours are available, so 40 hours must be rescheduled or resourced.
Mistake to avoid: Accepting work because annual capacity looks adequate despite a near-term bottleneck.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
12. Fee structures and assumptions
Different fee structures allocate commercial uncertainty differently. A fixed fee needs a defined scope and assumptions; a time charge needs agreed rates and recording; a percentage fee needs an agreed cost basis. Explain what triggers an adjustment. The chosen structure does not replace clear service boundaries or approval for additional work.
Worked example: A fixed fee includes two design options. A request for four more options is assessed against the agreed scope before a revised fee is proposed.
Mistake to avoid: Offering a fixed fee without defining the work that it purchases.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
13. Profit and cash are different
Profit compares recognised income with costs, while cash measures money received and paid. A profitable project can create a cash shortage when invoices remain unpaid but salaries fall due. Management therefore needs both a performance view and a cash forecast. Do not treat issued invoices as money already available.
Worked example: A project records £20,000 income and £15,000 costs, producing £5,000 profit. If only £8,000 has been collected, cash still needs separate assessment.
Mistake to avoid: Assuming a profitable project can always fund its immediate payments.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
14. Break-even fee calculation
A simplified break-even calculation adds project labour costs, allocated overhead and other project costs. It indicates the fee needed to cover those assumptions, before profit or contingency. Allocation methods affect the result, so apply them consistently and check what each cost includes. Break-even is a management calculation, not a universal recommended fee.
Worked example: Labour costs £12,000, allocated overhead £6,000 and project expenses £2,000. The simplified break-even fee is £20,000.
Mistake to avoid: Counting overhead twice because it is already included in an internal hourly cost.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
15. Cash-flow forecasting
A cash forecast places expected receipts and payments in the periods when they occur. Start with opening cash, add receipts and subtract payments to find closing cash. Model uncertain collection dates explicitly. A forecast exposes financing gaps early enough to discuss payment timing, expenditure or other appropriate business responses.
Worked example: Opening cash is £9,000, expected receipts £14,000 and payments £18,000. Closing cash is £5,000; delayed receipts would reduce it further.
Mistake to avoid: Using invoice dates as receipt dates without considering payment delay.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
16. Utilisation and non-project time
Utilisation compares a defined category of project time with available working time. State the numerator and denominator before interpreting the percentage. Training, supervision, business development and administration consume real capacity even when not charged to a client. High recorded utilisation alone cannot establish quality, profitability or a sustainable workload.
Worked example: A team records 120 chargeable hours out of 160 available hours. Chargeable utilisation is 75%, leaving 40 hours for other activities.
Mistake to avoid: Treating every non-chargeable hour as waste rather than examining its purpose.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
17. Professional indemnity and risk prevention
Professional indemnity insurance concerns specified professional liabilities under policy terms. It does not substitute for competent work, appropriate appointments or timely handling of potential claims. Check the actual policy, exclusions and notification requirements with appropriate advisers. Avoid promising that every project, activity or allegation will be covered.
Worked example: A client alleges a costly drawing error. The practice preserves the records and seeks advice on policy notification before making commitments about reimbursement.
Mistake to avoid: Assuming insurance automatically covers every allegation or contractual promise.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB; Home - Architects Registration Board
18. Financial controls and segregation
Financial controls reduce error and misuse by separating approval, payment and reconciliation where practicable. Small practices may need compensating review when complete separation is impossible. Confirm changes to payment details through a trusted independent route. Reconcile transactions against supporting records so discrepancies are detected rather than carried forward.
Worked example: An email changes a supplier’s bank details. A staff member calls an established contact number and obtains separate approval before updating the record.
Mistake to avoid: Verifying changed payment details only through the message requesting the change.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
19. Quality systems and corrective action
A quality system makes important checks repeatable and records their completion. When an error occurs, distinguish fixing the immediate output from correcting the process that allowed it. Proportionate controls should address recurring causes without turning every task into paperwork. Review evidence of effectiveness instead of assuming a new checklist has solved the problem.
Worked example: An obsolete drawing is issued. The team replaces it, then changes the issue process to verify revision status before each release.
Mistake to avoid: Correcting one document while leaving the same release failure available to recur.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
20. Business continuity and recoverable records
Continuity planning identifies essential services, critical information and arrangements for disruption. A backup is useful only if it can be restored and understood. Assign responsibilities for access, communication and recovery, including cover for key staff. Protect confidentiality while ensuring authorised colleagues can continue essential work.
Worked example: The project lead becomes unavailable. A deputy accesses the current appointment, decision log and drawing register, then continues the agreed client reporting.
Mistake to avoid: Keeping essential project knowledge solely in one person’s mailbox or memory.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
UK regulatory and legal foundations
21. Identify the applicable UK jurisdiction
The United Kingdom is not a single uniform setting for every planning or building-control requirement. Establish the project location and relevant jurisdiction before choosing guidance, terminology or procedures. Then identify the responsible authority and applicable current requirements. A familiar process from another UK nation may provide context but cannot establish local compliance.
Worked example: A practice reuses an English project checklist for a Scottish site. It first replaces jurisdiction-dependent items with requirements verified for that location.
Mistake to avoid: Assuming a UK-wide professional context makes every approval process identical.
Source reference: Home - Architects Registration Board; Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
22. Planning and building compliance
Planning generally concerns whether and how development is acceptable in its setting. Building regulations address specified aspects of building performance and construction. These are different assessments, and approval under one does not establish compliance with the other. Identify the applicable processes and coordinate their consequences within the design.
Worked example: An extension’s external form is acceptable in planning terms, but its detailed construction still requires a separate building-compliance assessment.
Mistake to avoid: Treating planning approval as confirmation that technical construction requirements are satisfied.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB; Home - Architects Registration Board
23. Approval conditions and dependencies
An approval may depend on conditions, further information or an agreed sequence. Read the decision and supporting documents together, then identify actions, responsible parties and timing constraints. Track unresolved items explicitly. Whether an activity may proceed depends on the actual condition and applicable procedure, not simply on the existence of an approval document.
Worked example: An approval requires a material sample before a specified stage. The programme includes sample preparation, submission and the necessary response before that stage.
Mistake to avoid: Reading only the approval heading and overlooking conditions that affect sequencing.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
24. Land rights and public approvals
Permission from a public authority and the ability to exercise private land rights are separate questions. Ownership boundaries, access arrangements and other rights may affect a proposal even where an approval is obtained. Flag uncertainties for competent legal investigation rather than interpreting incomplete title information as a design certainty.
Worked example: A proposed service route crosses neighbouring land. The team refers the access-right question for legal review before relying on that route.
Mistake to avoid: Assuming a public approval grants every private right needed to build.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
25. Heritage constraints and investigation
Heritage status can affect which alterations are appropriate and which consents or specialist assessments are needed. Establish the relevant designation and significance before developing intervention proposals. Requirements depend on the building, work and jurisdiction. Conservation advice should inform the design early enough to avoid committing to an incompatible solution.
Worked example: A window replacement proposal concerns a historic building. The team checks its status and significance before selecting a standard replacement system.
Mistake to avoid: Assuming a small physical alteration has no heritage implications.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
26. Appointment roles and regulatory duties
A service appointment describes contractual work, but project legislation may create separate roles and duties. Identify each role from the applicable framework and actual appointment; similar titles do not prove identical responsibilities. Establish interfaces between participants and seek specialist advice where obligations are unclear. Avoid claiming that a commercial exclusion removes a regulatory duty.
Worked example: A project chart assigns design coordination to one consultant. The team separately checks which regulatory roles have been formally established for the project.
Mistake to avoid: Treating a task allocation chart as conclusive evidence of statutory responsibility.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
27. Service obligations and outcome promises
A promise to perform a professional service and a promise to guarantee a particular outcome create different expectations. Read appointments for wording that extends responsibility beyond the intended service. Outcomes can depend on approvals, contractors and information outside the architect’s control. Obtain appropriate contractual and insurance advice before accepting unusual assurances.
Worked example: A draft appointment promises approval by a fixed date. The practice identifies that external decisions affect timing and seeks revised wording.
Mistake to avoid: Accepting an absolute outcome promise as if it were ordinary service wording.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
28. Copyright, ownership and permission to use
Possessing a drawing file does not itself establish ownership of its copyright or unrestricted permission to reuse it. Distinguish authorship, ownership and any licence granted by the relevant agreement. Check the permitted project, purpose and recipients before reuse. Seek advice where ownership or licence terms are disputed.
Worked example: A client wants to reuse drawings on another site. The practice checks the agreed licence rather than assuming delivery authorised unlimited reuse.
Mistake to avoid: Equating receipt of a digital file with ownership of all associated rights.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
29. Evidence of compliance decisions
A compliance record should identify the requirement considered, evidence reviewed, decision made and unresolved limitations. A conclusion without its basis is difficult to audit or update. Link records to document revisions because later changes may invalidate an earlier assessment. Record consultation without representing another person’s comment as broader approval than it provides.
Worked example: A design review records the assessed drawing revision and specialist advice. A later layout change triggers reconsideration of the affected conclusions.
Mistake to avoid: Carrying an earlier compliance conclusion forward after its supporting design changes.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
30. Design risk and specialist escalation
Identify foreseeable hazards associated with a design and use competent assessment to consider eliminating or reducing them. Distinguish identifying a concern from having the expertise to resolve it. Communicate relevant residual issues to the appropriate participants. Risk records should explain decisions and interfaces, rather than imply that paperwork alone makes a design safe.
Worked example: A maintenance-access proposal raises an unresolved safety concern. The architect requests competent specialist assessment before the design team confirms the arrangement.
Mistake to avoid: Closing a risk entry merely because someone has acknowledged receiving it.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
Procurement and contract administration
31. Procurement priorities and trade-offs
Procurement determines how design, construction and commercial responsibilities are organised. Compare options against the project’s priorities, including design control, timing, cost predictability and allocation of responsibility. No route maximises every objective. Make assumptions explicit and assess whether the client and team can manage the responsibilities that remain with them.
Worked example: A client wants early commencement and a fully developed design before pricing. The team explains the tension and evaluates phased information and procurement options.
Mistake to avoid: Choosing a route by its label without testing the client’s actual priorities.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
32. Traditional and design-and-build arrangements
In a conventional traditional arrangement, the client’s design team develops the design and a contractor undertakes construction. In design-and-build arrangements, the contractor generally takes responsibility for an agreed design and construction scope. Actual responsibility depends on the contracts and any transfers of appointments. Map responsibilities rather than assuming the route settles every interface.
Worked example: A designer moves into the contractor’s team. The project updates reporting and instructions to reflect the actual revised appointment.
Mistake to avoid: Assuming a procurement label fully describes who controls or carries each design responsibility.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
33. Comparable tender evaluation
Tender prices are meaningful only when their scope and assumptions are understood. Compare exclusions, qualifications, provisional allowances, programme and other relevant criteria before recommending an offer. Use transparent adjustments where a common comparison is possible, while preserving the original offers. A lower headline price may reflect less included work.
Worked example: Tender A is £480,000 but excludes £30,000 of required work. Tender B includes that work at £500,000, making B lower on the adjusted comparison.
Mistake to avoid: Selecting the lowest headline figure without checking included scope.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
34. Lump sums and measured quantities
Pricing mechanisms determine how payment responds to quantities and changes. A lump-sum arrangement prices an agreed scope; a remeasurement mechanism values actual quantities under agreed rules. Neither removes the need to define work and administer changes. Examine the contract’s mechanism before assuming that a quantity difference automatically changes the amount payable.
Worked example: Under an agreed remeasurement mechanism, 120 units at £45 each value at £5,400, subject to the applicable measurement and payment provisions.
Mistake to avoid: Applying remeasurement arithmetic to a contract that does not use that mechanism.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
35. Contract documents and discrepancies
Drawings, specifications, schedules and conditions work together but can conflict. Identify the discrepancy and use the contract’s stated interpretation or clarification process. Do not invent a universal document hierarchy. Record the agreed resolution and update affected information so different participants do not continue working from incompatible instructions.
Worked example: A drawing shows timber doors while a schedule specifies steel. The administrator seeks clarification through the agreed process before confirming procurement.
Mistake to avoid: Assuming drawings always override specifications, regardless of the contract.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
36. Authority in contract administration
Contract administration powers come from the relevant appointment and contract, not merely from attending meetings or designing the building. Establish who may instruct, assess, certify or decide, and what procedures apply. When exercising an evaluative role, use the required contractual basis and relevant evidence rather than a party’s preferred commercial outcome.
Worked example: A client requests a reduced assessment to ease cash pressure. The administrator evaluates the amount under the contract and explains the supporting evidence.
Mistake to avoid: Treating the client’s preference as the contractual basis for an assessment.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
37. Construction change control
A proposed construction change should identify scope, reason, authorisation and likely consequences for cost, time and coordination. Apply the contract’s procedure and distinguish a request for information from an instruction to change work. Track provisional consequences until established. An informal conversation can otherwise create disagreement about what was authorised.
Worked example: A client requests a different floor finish. The team assesses impacts, obtains the required authority and records the change through the agreed contractual route.
Mistake to avoid: Allowing a design conversation to become an undocumented construction instruction.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
38. Valuation and cumulative payment
A cumulative valuation measures eligible value to date, then accounts for previous certified amounts and any other applicable adjustments. Keep valuation, certification and actual payment distinct. The precise treatment of materials, deductions and retention depends on the contract. State simplifying assumptions before calculating a worked amount.
Worked example: Eligible cumulative value is £150,000 and previous certificates total £110,000. With no other adjustments in this example, the current amount is £40,000.
Mistake to avoid: Paying the cumulative total again without deducting previously certified amounts.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
39. Time entitlement and financial entitlement
An event’s effect on completion time and its financial consequences are separate questions. Examine causation, programme impact and the contractual provisions for each. A delay affecting critical work may justify a time assessment without automatically establishing an additional payment. Notices and records should follow the actual contract rather than assumed universal deadlines.
Worked example: A late instruction affects a critical activity. The team evaluates the time effect separately from the evidence and provisions governing additional cost.
Mistake to avoid: Assuming every recognised time adjustment automatically carries a matching money entitlement.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
40. Completion, defects and outstanding work
Completion decisions depend on the contract’s definition and the condition of the works. Distinguish incomplete work from defects and from later maintenance obligations. Identify who assesses each matter and what evidence is required. A client’s occupation or a contractor’s declaration does not by itself answer every contractual completion question.
Worked example: A building is occupied while several items remain unresolved. The administrator checks the contractual completion criteria and records the remaining issues separately.
Mistake to avoid: Assuming occupation automatically establishes completion under every contract.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
Project delivery and practice management
41. A brief that can be evaluated
Translate broad aspirations into requirements that can guide decisions and be reviewed. Separate essential functions, preferences and constraints, and identify who resolves conflicts. Avoid prescribing a solution before the underlying need is understood. A useful brief includes an agreed basis for assessing whether an option meets the intended purpose.
Worked example: Instead of only requesting a spacious reception, a client identifies visitor numbers, accessible circulation needs and activities the area must accommodate.
Mistake to avoid: Treating an attractive adjective as a sufficiently defined performance requirement.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
42. Site information and investigation limits
Assess whether available site information is suitable for the decision being made. Check its date, coverage, method and stated limitations. Missing information should become an investigation requirement or explicit assumption, with responsibility assigned. A detailed drawing based on incomplete information remains uncertain even when its presentation appears authoritative.
Worked example: A survey covers external levels but omits internal floor levels. The team obtains the missing information before resolving the entrance relationship.
Mistake to avoid: Assuming a document called a survey contains every measurement the design needs.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
43. Responsibility and interface matrices
A responsibility matrix identifies who prepares, checks, coordinates and approves information. Its greatest value is exposing gaps and overlapping responsibilities at interfaces. Agree it with the relevant participants and reconcile it with appointments. Keep deliverable ownership distinct from providing input, because several contributors do not necessarily mean one accountable coordinator.
Worked example: The façade designer supplies connection loads, the structural engineer checks the supporting frame, and the matrix names who coordinates the shared interface.
Mistake to avoid: Listing several contributors without assigning responsibility for resolving the interface.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
44. Coordination beyond geometric clashes
Coordination includes geometry, performance, access, sequence and information consistency. A model with no detected clashes can still contain incompatible requirements or missing decisions. Combine digital checks with purposeful reviews by competent participants. Record the issue, responsible reviewer and resolution, then verify that the relevant information has actually been updated.
Worked example: A service fits geometrically but blocks required maintenance access. A coordination review identifies the access conflict and prompts redesign.
Mistake to avoid: Treating a successful clash test as proof of complete design coordination.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
45. Design reviews and decision gates
A design review tests defined questions against the brief, constraints and available evidence. A decision gate establishes whether enough information exists to proceed, with outstanding matters identified. Review depth should match the significance of the decision. Record conditions of acceptance so proceeding does not conceal unresolved assumptions.
Worked example: A layout review accepts the spatial arrangement but leaves structural feasibility open. The next stage proceeds only within that recorded limitation.
Mistake to avoid: Recording a conditional review outcome as unconditional approval of the whole design.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
46. Risk registers with actionable responses
A useful risk entry describes a cause, possible event and consequence, then assigns a response and owner. Distinguish a future uncertainty from an issue that has already occurred. Review entries as information changes. Avoid presenting arbitrary scores as objective truth; the response and evidence matter more than the appearance of precision.
Worked example: Unconfirmed utility capacity could require redesign. The assigned response is an early capacity enquiry, with a named owner and review date.
Mistake to avoid: Writing a vague risk such as services without a consequence or action.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
47. Dependencies and critical-path reasoning
A programme should show which activities depend on others. The longest dependent path governs the earliest completion under the stated assumptions; an activity outside that path may have float. Changes can create a different critical path. Durations alone are insufficient without relationships, resource constraints and realistic information requirements.
Worked example: Survey takes two weeks, followed by three weeks of dependent design work. A parallel four-week task makes the earliest finish five weeks.
Mistake to avoid: Adding every activity duration even when some activities can run concurrently.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
48. Cost plans and forecast reconciliation
Keep the budget, current estimate, committed cost and forecast final cost distinguishable. Reconcile differences by scope, quantities, rates, risk and changes rather than simply replacing the previous total. A contingency is an allowance for defined uncertainty, not proof that every future change is funded. Explain what each forecast includes.
Worked example: Committed cost is £400,000 and remaining forecast work is £90,000. The £490,000 forecast exceeds a £470,000 budget by £20,000.
Mistake to avoid: Reporting commitments alone as the likely final project cost.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
49. Site observation and supervision
A site visit provides observations within a defined service and at a particular time. It should not be described as continuous supervision unless that is actually the agreed service. Record what was observed, relevant limitations and follow-up actions. Where an issue needs specialist assessment, refer it to the appropriate competent participant.
Worked example: A periodic visit observes an unfinished junction. The report requests clarification and records that concealed work was outside the visit’s observation.
Mistake to avoid: Using a limited inspection report to imply every part of the works was checked.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
50. Handover and performance feedback
Handover combines physical readiness with usable information for operation and maintenance. Check responsibilities for manuals, training, outstanding items and records against the project arrangements. Later feedback compares actual use with the brief and identifies lessons. Separate observed performance from assumed causes so improvements are based on evidence.
Worked example: Users report an overheating room. The team compares operating patterns and available performance information before concluding which factor needs investigation.
Mistake to avoid: Declaring the design cause from a complaint without checking operational evidence.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
Professional services and client relations
51. Terms of engagement
An appointment should make the service understandable: parties, scope, deliverables, responsibilities, fees and relevant procedures. It also needs to address how changes and disagreements are handled. Clear terms reduce mismatched expectations but do not replace competent performance. Check that proposals, correspondence and the executed agreement describe a consistent service.
Worked example: A proposal mentions tender assistance, but the draft appointment omits it. The inconsistency is resolved before the service is agreed.
Mistake to avoid: Assuming a persuasive proposal and a signed appointment contain identical obligations.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
52. Exclusions and service interfaces
An exclusion should identify what is outside the service and how the resulting need will be addressed. Otherwise, an excluded task may remain an unmanaged project gap. Explain dependencies on others’ information and clarify coordination responsibilities. Client understanding matters: an exclusion hidden in unfamiliar terminology may not establish shared expectations.
Worked example: The appointment excludes measured surveys. The client commissions a surveyor, and the team agrees the required outputs and delivery date.
Mistake to avoid: Excluding a necessary task without identifying who will arrange its completion.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
53. Client authority and decision ownership
Identify who can approve the brief, budget, design and service changes on the client’s behalf. Stakeholder preferences and formal instructions serve different purposes. Record decision routes for organisations with multiple representatives. When conflicting directions arrive, seek clarification from the authorised decision-maker before committing consequential work.
Worked example: An operations manager requests a layout change while the client director approves the brief. The architect obtains the director’s confirmation before redesigning.
Mistake to avoid: Treating every client-side participant as equally authorised to alter the commission.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
54. Clear progress and uncertainty reporting
A useful progress report explains what is complete, what remains unresolved and what decisions are needed. Separate forecast dates from commitments and distinguish known cost effects from estimates. Tailor technical detail to the client’s decision. Communicate emerging problems early enough for meaningful choices rather than waiting until the consequences are unavoidable.
Worked example: A report explains that layout work is complete but survey-dependent detailing remains provisional, then identifies the survey decision needed to protect the programme.
Mistake to avoid: Reporting a percentage complete without explaining which critical uncertainties remain.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
55. Option appraisal for informed decisions
Present options against consistent criteria drawn from the brief. Identify benefits, disadvantages, assumptions and consequences rather than presenting a preferred solution alone. Where criteria conflict, explain the trade-off and who must decide. Quantitative comparisons should use comparable boundaries; qualitative judgements should have an understandable basis.
Worked example: A compact layout reduces floor area but limits future flexibility. The client chooses after both options are compared against cost and expansion priorities.
Mistake to avoid: Using different assumptions for each option to make the preferred one appear superior.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
56. Complaints and service recovery
A complaint is a report requiring assessment, not automatic proof of fault. Acknowledge the concern, establish the facts, follow the practice’s process and explain next steps. Separate corrective service actions from disputed responsibility or compensation. Seek appropriate advice where the complaint could involve a claim, while maintaining respectful communication.
Worked example: A client reports unanswered requests. The practice checks correspondence, identifies a reporting failure and agrees a named contact and response arrangement.
Mistake to avoid: Dismissing a complaint because the client expresses it emotionally.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
57. Transparent fee invoices
An invoice should connect the amount requested to the agreed charging basis and work performed. Distinguish professional fees, agreed expenses and any applicable taxes rather than combining them ambiguously. For time charges, use reliable records and agreed rates. Make clear what has already been billed so the client can reconcile cumulative charges.
Worked example: Twenty-four hours at £85 total £2,040. Adding £160 of agreed expenses produces £2,200 before any applicable tax.
Mistake to avoid: Including unsupported hours or unagreed expenses in an otherwise correct calculation.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
58. Additional professional services
A change to the building work and a change to the architect’s service are separate matters. Assess whether a request adds redesign, coordination, meetings or other work beyond the appointment. Explain the proposed service adjustment and its fee or programme effect through the agreed procedure. Avoid assuming a construction change automatically authorises extra professional charges.
Worked example: A late finish change requires revised schedules and coordination. The architect identifies the extra service and seeks agreement under the appointment.
Mistake to avoid: Charging for additional services solely because the construction contract contains a variation.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
59. Meetings, decisions and action records
Meeting records should separate discussion, decisions, actions and unresolved questions. Assign each action an owner and relevant timing, then circulate the record for correction through the agreed process. Minutes do not automatically become contractual instructions. Reference any separate formal instruction so participants understand which record authorises work.
Worked example: A meeting discusses moving a wall but reaches no decision. The minutes record an option review action, rather than an instruction to relocate it.
Mistake to avoid: Recording a suggestion as an agreed decision or authorised change.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
60. Orderly completion or ending of services
When services finish, are suspended or end early, follow the appointment’s relevant procedures and obtain advice where necessary. Clarify outstanding tasks, document status, access permissions and responsibilities for continuity. Distinguish issued work from incomplete drafts. A controlled handover helps prevent another participant relying on information that was never ready for its intended use.
Worked example: A commission ends during detailing. The practice supplies an indexed record identifying issued drawings, incomplete drafts and unresolved coordination matters.
Mistake to avoid: Handing over mixed-status files without explaining which information remains unfinished.
Source reference: Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice - ARB
Sources
Source check:
All study guides