Most often an architect sees challenges requiring a unique response to site, desired building spaces and conveniences and design intent. For example, is it an urban lot with setbacks on each side and height or massing constraints? Is the design driven by the need for a master bedroom, or emerging commercial opportunity? Is the design meant to fit perfectly into an established neighborhood?
The best approach for the architect is to work directly with the property owner as a team. The team agrees to see the design problem as a project in all of its pieces, and develops an action plan to see it through efficiently.
An architect is right for the job if the presentation of possible solutions to the problem engages the owner's vision in a positive way, professional fees are competitive and scheduling appears to be realistic under the scope of services. It might help to have third-party confirmation such as references or images of built work that is comparable to the project, but that shouldn't be a bar, particularly since design problems tend to be unique.
Finer points. The architect must connect well with government officials who must approve the project. Experience with and understanding of laws, rules and regulations is a huge advantage the architect brings to the project team. The architect must understand budgeting constraints, and how to provide the owner with realistic numbers early in the design process and maintain accuracy over the life of the project, even to the very specific requirements of engaging contractors and construction administration.
Why is a small architectural firm sometimes better for the owner than a big firm? Efficiency. There are fewer people involved. Directness. There is no established mold a project has to fit. Responsibility. The owner works directly with the principal.
Architects evaluate each other's work by looking at a set of construction documents, the drawings and specifications that make a project a reality. The owner should ask to see a set of construction documents if possible. Determine whether the architect phases the project properly; for example, pre-design, schematic design, design development, construction documents and construction administration. Do the architect and owner agree on the level of service, such as builder's set, office standard or full-custom? This is important in later phases of the project where selection of materials and finishes occurs. It affects how long the architect is involved on one hand, and the outcome on the other. A basic level of service leaves most decisions on materials and methods to the owner and contractor, and a custom level of service on high-end projects results in architectural grade fit and finish.
Verify the architect works directly with the building official. If the architect files the application for the building permit as owner's agent, then all comments on the proposed work go directly to the architect for cure if needed. Similarly, the contractor obtains the building permit on behalf of the owner, but the intricacies of completion are the contractor's direct responsibility.
Does the architect provide a complete, detailed assessment of costs the owner might face over the life of the project? This is done in listing of proposal items that the architect and owner agrees on.
Above all, does the architect seem to be able to handle the challenge, no matter what? To practice, there is a track record for success, so when it comes to the project at hand, it is a matter of the owner and architect developing and maintaining a positive relationship over the life of the project, and accepting an exit strategy, and whatever consequences, when circumstances demand it.
An architect has an outlook, a way of interacting with people, a way of responding to challenges that is professionally unique. It is all in service of the owner, keeping in mind community aspirations and the best the profession has to offer.