Erased from the Plans: The Systematic Marginalisation of Architects in State Infrastructure

The South African Construction Action Plan (SACAP) – recently unveiled as a comprehensive framework to fix the country’s “half-built schools, ghost hospitals and ballooning project costs” (dailymaverick.co.za) – has notably downplayed the role of architects in public infrastructure delivery. This is puzzling, given that architects traditionally occupy a central position in the building process, orchestrating design and ensuring that projects meet functional and aesthetic standards.

Instead, authority in public sector construction has shifted toward project managers, with architects often relegated to a secondary or advisory role. This essay analyses why architects are not prominently featured in SACAP’s vision for reform, exploring historical and systemic reasons for the transfer of leadership from architects to project managers in South Africa’s public works projects. It examines how this transition has affected site supervision, design integrity, project management practices and accountability. The implications of sidelining architects in favour of project managers – particularly when some project managers lack equivalent professional credentials – are critically assessed in terms of project quality, cost and delivery outcomes. Finally, the essay proposes reforms and policy actions to restore architects to a more central, accountable leadership role in state construction projects. The analysis draws on SACAP (South African Council for the Architectural Profession) documentation, insights from other built environment professional councils, and relevant policy critiques.

Historical and Policy Shifts: From Architect-Led to Project Manager-Led

Historically, architects were the lead professionals on construction projects, often serving as the principal agent for the client under standard building contracts. In South Africa’s earlier public works tradition, government architectural departments and appointed architects held substantial authority over design, contract administration, and site supervision. Prestigious public buildings were typically designed and overseen by architects, reflecting a paradigm where the architect was the custodian of both the design vision and its execution. Over the past few decades, however, a paradigm shift has occurred in the public sector: the rise of the project manager as the key authority in construction projects. Several factors – legislative, administrative, and socio-economic – contributed to this shift.

Legislative Changes and Professional Councils: In the early 2000s, South Africa reformed its regulatory framework for built environment professions. The Architectural Profession Act of 2000 replaced older legislation and expanded registration beyond architects to include architectural technologists and draughtspersons (comsacapsa.com). Simultaneously, the Project and Construction Management Professions Act (2000) established the South African Council for the Project and Construction Management Professions (SACPCMP), formally recognizing “Professional Construction Project Manager” as a distinct registered role. This created a parallel professional track to architecture – one focused on management of scope, time and cost rather than design. Government departments increasingly began to employ or contract professional project managers to lead projects, sometimes in place of architects as principal agents. Over time, it became common that on large public projects an independent project manager (or a firm of project managers) would coordinate the work of architects, engineers and contractors, effectively taking over the leadership role traditionally held by architects.

Public Sector Reforms and Capacity Considerations: Post-1994, the South African government faced immense pressure to deliver infrastructure and housing at scale (e.g. the Reconstruction and Development Programme’s ambitious housing rollout). To meet these goals, the state often de-emphasized bespoke design in favour of speed and standardization. This was exemplified in mass housing projects where few architects were engaged, and standardised plans were replicated to save cost and time. In parallel, many experienced architects in government service retired or left for the private sector, and public works departments struggled to attract and retain architectural talent. The state increasingly relied on external consultants for design, while trying to build internal capacity in project management to control and monitor these consultants. By creating project management units within departments, the government sought to improve delivery oversight – but this often meant architects were answerable to project managers in the hierarchy. Indeed, the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure (DPWI) today has a Deputy Director-General for Construction Project Management, illustrating how project management is institutionally prioritised over architectural leadership (iol.co.za).

Procurement and Accountability Reforms: Over the years, concerns about cost overruns, delays, and corruption (e.g. contractors abandoning projects or the so-called “construction mafia” disruptions) prompted a tightening of project governance. The government introduced measures to increase accountability and reduce failures, but these often centered on managerial controls rather than professional design oversight. For instance, the newly launched SACAP framework emphasizes blacklisting defaulting contractors, budget ring-fencing, and digital tracking systems (gov.za). A notable feature is the creation of “Procurement War Rooms,” bringing together “supply chain specialists, legal advisors, engineers, and project managers” to monitor projects in real timegov.za. conspicuously absent in this list are architects, indicating that even at the strategic oversight level, the default assumption is that engineers and project managers (along with procurement officials) will drive project decisions, not the architects who design the buildings. This aligns with a broader trend in procurement: standard tender documents increasingly treat architectural services as just one of many consultant inputs, while project managers (often from the SACPCMP roster) are engaged to lead the consultant team and interface with the client.

Regulatory Gaps – Identification of Work (IDoW): The sidelining of architects is further reinforced by how public procurement ignores regulations meant to protect their role. SACAP’s Identification of Work (IDoW) framework, gazetted in 2021, defines what types of projects each category of architectural professional is competent to undertake. It’s intended to ensure complex projects are handled by fully qualified professionals (professional architects), thereby safeguarding public safety and quality. However, government bid documents have largely excluded the SACAP IDoW framework, meaning there is no guarantee that a senior qualified architect will be appointed for complex public projectsstatic.pmg.org.za. SACAP itself has pointed out that this exclusion “exacerbates” the sidelining of architects, because it allows non-architects or less-qualified practitioners to encroach on work that should be led by highly trained architects. The IDoW is a regulatory tool designed to protect the public interest by ensuring only appropriately qualified persons perform certain work, but if tenders do not require compliance with IDoW, the professional authority of architects is eroded at the procurement stage. In essence, lowest-price bidding and non-differentiation of roles have enabled project management firms or multi-disciplinary consultancies to sometimes push architects to the margins, using them only as rubber-stampers of design while managerial roles take precedence.

Shifting Paradigm of Principal Agency: In traditional contracts (like the JBCC Principal Building Agreement), the principal agent – often an architect – administers the construction contract on behalf of the client. Over time, especially in public projects, it became common to appoint an external project manager as principal agent, separate from the architectengineeringnews.co.zaengineeringnews.co.za. This was partly to clarify responsibilities and presumably improve project coordination. However, it introduced confusion too: when an architect and an independent project manager have overlapping duties, it can blur where design authority ends and management authority beginsengineeringnews.co.zaengineeringnews.co.za. The architect’s influence on critical decisions (like contractor selection, change orders, or quality control) can be diminished if the project manager holds contract authority. The shift in authority was systemic – rooted in a belief that professional project management would deliver projects more efficiently. Unfortunately, as discussed below, this came with unintended consequences for design integrity and accountability.

Consequences of Architects’ Demotion in Public Projects

The reduced prominence of architects in public sector construction has had tangible effects on various aspects of project execution. Key issues include weakened site supervision, compromised design integrity, fragmented project management processes, and diluted lines of accountability.

1. Erosion of Site Supervision and Quality Control: When architects are not in a lead role, on-site oversight of construction quality often suffers. Architects traditionally conduct regular site inspections to ensure that the works align with the design specifications and quality standards. In many public projects, especially those plagued by “shoddy work on public contracts”constructionbriefing.com, it appears this vigilance was lacking. Often, the responsibility for site supervision in government projects has been left to either the contractor’s own staff or to a client-appointed clerk of works or project manager with a large portfolio. Project managers, however, may visit the site infrequently or focus primarily on schedule and cost issues rather than craftsmanship. The result has been a spate of buildings with defects, unsafe construction, or outright structural failures. A tragic example is the collapse of a half-built building in George in 2024 that killed 34 workers – an event later found to be “entirely preventable” and rooted in failures of oversight and adherence to standardsen.wikipedia.orgwwmp.org.za. While multiple factors were at play, one must ask: Where were the professionals during such lapses? If an architect had been empowered to supervise works diligently (and had the authority to halt or correct substandard construction), would the outcome have differed? The DPWI’s new plan now emphasizes that both project managers and service providers will be held responsible for lapses in performance or oversightgov.za. Implicit in this is an acknowledgment that previously, responsibility for site quality was not clearly or effectively enforced – a gap that coincided with architects being sidelined in day-to-day supervision. In some provinces, there are calls to reintroduce the practice of assigning a dedicated clerk of works for each project to uphold quality controlecdpw.gov.za, a function historically supervised by the lead architect. Without architectural oversight on site, errors in construction often go uncorrected until it’s too late, and the end-users (communities) end up with “ghost hospitals” that are unsafe or unusable.

2. Compromise of Design Integrity: The design phase of public projects can also be undermined when architects are not central. Architects are trained to balance aesthetics, functionality, and user needs with technical and budget constraints – essentially, to ensure design integrity from concept through completion. When project managers wield overriding authority, design decisions may be driven by short-term cost or time considerations without fully appreciating long-term usability or architectural value. There have been cases of projects where original designs were altered mid-stream by client representatives or project managers to cut costs or expedite work, often against the architect’s advice. The result can be buildings that are less fit-for-purpose: clinics that are “modern” in appearance but lack humane design touches, schools built fast but poorly ventilated or ill-suited to their environment. The SACAP Action Plan itself contains the aspirational phrase “we need… architects who can build modern clinics”gov.za, acknowledging the importance of architectural expertise for functional public buildings. Yet, if architects are not given a leadership platform, their ability to ensure a design’s integrity through value-engineering exercises and contractor negotiations is limited. Design-and-build procurement models, which the public sector sometimes uses to speed up delivery, further marginalize independent architects – the contractor’s in-house technologists may take over design tweaks purely for ease of construction, potentially undermining the design intent. In short, the downgrading of architects’ authority often means that critical design decisions (materials, finishes, spatial configurations) are made without the rigorous oversight of the very professionals best suited to foresee the consequences, thus eroding the overall quality and longevity of infrastructure.

3. Fragmented Project Management and Coordination: Ironically, while the intent of installing project managers was to improve coordination, it has sometimes led to fragmentation in roles. With separate entities handling design versus management, coordination challenges can arise. Communication gaps between project managers and architectural teams are not uncommon – for example, a project manager might commit to a timeline or budget with the client without fully consulting the architect about design complexities, leading to unrealistic expectations or later change orders. The Engineering News notes that where project managers and principal agents (often the architect) have separate appointments, confusion frequently occurs over where each party’s responsibilities start and endengineeringnews.co.zaengineeringnews.co.za. This can result in duplicated efforts or, conversely, critical tasks falling through the cracks. An architect might assume the project manager is handling certain client approvals or contractor instructions, while the project manager assumes the architect will do it – a recipe for delay and disputes. Moreover, project managers who are not deeply versed in architectural or engineering technicalities might not appreciate certain requirements during early project stages, potentially causing misalignment in scope. In effect, the shift in authority introduced new interfaces in the project delivery process, and if those interfaces are not well-managed, the very delays and cost overruns project management was meant to cure can instead proliferate. The prevalence of “half-built” facilities and stalled projectsdailymaverick.co.za in recent years suggests that managerial oversight alone did not solve systemic issues – indeed, weak planning and miscommunication are cited among the vulnerabilities that left projects “open to poor planning and weak communication with communities”mg.co.za. A holistic approach that re-integrates the design leader (architect) with project leadership could improve coherence.

4. Dilution of Accountability: Perhaps the most pernicious effect of sidelining architects is the blurring of accountability when things go wrong. Under traditional setups, an architect who was the principal agent carried clear responsibility for administering the contract and certifying work. If defects emerged, the architect could be held accountable for inadequate supervision; if costs ballooned due to design changes, the architect likewise bore some responsibility. In the current dispensation, accountability is often diffused among multiple parties: the project manager, the architect, the contractor, and even client officials. This diffusion can lead to a “pass the buck” scenario when a project fails. For example, in public investigations of failed projects, one might hear that the architect blames the project manager for not heeding warnings about site issues, the project manager blames the architect’s design for cost escalations, and the contractor blames both for incomplete information – while ultimately the taxpayer is left with an incomplete or unsafe facility. Recognizing this, the new SACAP plan proposes a Policy on Internal Indemnity and Accountability to “make it easier to hold both project managers and service providers responsible for lapses”gov.za. This is a tacit admission that in the past, responsibility was not clearly enforced. Notably, architects employed on government projects have sometimes found themselves carrying liability for design aspects but without the decision-making power to prevent certain failures. Conversely, unregistered or less-qualified project managers in the public sector (some lacking professional council registration until now) have made critical decisions without the same professional accountability standards that architects (through SACAP) are held to. Indeed, one of SACAP’s complaints has been about unqualified persons performing architectural work without accountability, due to the lack of enforcement of the IDoW in public tenders. The DPWI’s commitment that by June 2026 “all Public Works engineers, architects and project managers must be professionally registered with their respective councils”gov.za is a move to instill accountability. It means project managers in public service will need to be registered with SACPCMP (or architects with SACAP, engineers with ECSA) to continue practicinggov.za. This professionalization drive suggests that previously a number of individuals managing projects were not subjected to any professional code of conduct or oversight – a glaring gap when billions of rands of infrastructure are at stake. In summary, sidelining architects contributed to a situation where nobody was clearly accountable for ensuring that design and construction meet the required standards. Reforms are now trying to reintroduce accountability, but to be effective they must also re-empower those professionals best equipped to ensure quality – the architects and engineers – rather than only layering more project bureaucracy.

Impact on Project Quality, Cost, and Delivery

The demotion of architects from leadership roles in public projects has had adverse impacts on the quality, cost, and timely delivery of infrastructure – outcomes that ultimately prompted the government’s recent reform plan. A professional architecture-led approach inherently emphasizes quality and fitness-for-purpose, whereas a purely management-led approach risks treating buildings as just deliverables on a checklist. The results of the latter have been evident:

• Quality: Numerous public buildings have suffered from design and construction quality issues. From schools with leaking roofs and poor acoustics, to hospitals with dysfunctional layouts, the absence of strong architectural guidance shows in the final product. One dramatic illustration of quality failure is the prevalence of incomplete or abandoned structures – “endless cycle of half-built schools [and] ghost hospitals” that SACAP now aims to enddailymaverick.co.za. These unfinished or substandard projects signify not only contractor failure but also a failure in oversight and design adaptation. When architects are sidelined, value engineering can tip into corner-cutting. For example, if a project manager decides to save costs by omitting certain specified materials or finishes without an architect’s approval, the longevity and performance of the facility may be compromised. Furthermore, sustainability and contextual design – hallmarks of good architecture – are often overlooked, resulting in buildings that are environmentally inefficient and ill-suited to their communities. Quality is not just about structural soundness, but also about the building’s usefulness and delight for occupants; here the sidelining of architects has a direct negative correlation.

• Cost: Intuitively, one might think hiring project managers and breaking up services would reduce costs, but evidence suggests the opposite when mismanaged. Many public projects saw ballooning costs due to delays and rework. A lack of early architect-led planning can lead to costly design changes later. Moreover, when designs are not fully thought through (which can happen if architects are pressured to hurry or not involved early enough), variations during construction drive costs up. South Africa has witnessed projects where final costs far exceed initial budgets, partially because the project management focus was on hitting deadlines or starting construction quickly (to show progress), rather than thorough upfront design development. The Department of Public Works acknowledged that diverting funds and stalled works led to waste – hence the new emphasis on ring-fencing budgets and terminating failing contractsgov.zagov.za. It’s telling that the Minister of Public Works bemoaned how often “we have been starting construction on major projects but have failed to complete them”, leading to wasted public fundsgov.za. Each failure to complete is a huge cost sink – often exceeding what a rigorous design and supervision process would have cost in the first place. In essence, marginalizing architects did not actually save money; it has often increased lifecycle costs due to poor quality (requiring maintenance or rebuilds) and inefficient project delivery requiring costly interventions.

• Delivery Time: The proliferation of delayed and stalled projects in the public sector is the most visible symptom of systemic issues. While many factors contribute to delays (contractor insolvency, community disruptions, funding lapses), a strong case can be made that insufficient professional oversight exacerbates them. An architect-led team, empowered to make timely decisions and adjustments on site, can often solve problems before they halt the project. By contrast, bureaucratic project manager-driven processes can be slower to respond – e.g. when a site issue arises, the contractor reports to the project manager, who then might consult the architect or engineer, then get client approval, etc., losing precious time. The SACAP plan’s introduction of a digital dashboard for real-time trackinggov.za is a technological fix to monitor delays, but the human element of proactive problem-solving is equally critical. Architects, being intimately familiar with the design, can propose on-site solutions quickly if given the authority. Without them at the helm, minor issues can spiral into major stoppages as they await managerial decisions. The overall capable state that the government seeks – “one that builds faster, cleaner, and smarter”gov.za – arguably cannot be achieved without reinstating the holistic project stewardship that architects (in partnership with other professionals) historically provided.

In summary, the sidelining of architects has correlated with decreased build quality, increased costs, and slower delivery across many public infrastructure projects. Of course, project managers are not solely to blame – systemic corruption, lack of skills, and poor contracting practices are all culprits. But elevating project management as a silver bullet while diminishing design leadership clearly did not yield the desired results. The SACAP plan’s focus on professionalism and accountability indicates a realization that the pendulum swung too far. It is within this context that reforming the role of architects must be considered – not as a nostalgic return to an old hierarchy, but as a necessary adjustment to ensure projects are delivered with quality, within budget, and on time.

Recommendations: Restoring Architects to Leadership in Public Projects

To address the issues identified, a multi-pronged approach is needed to restore architects to a central, accountable leadership role in state construction projects. Below are detailed recommendations for reform, targeting policy, procurement, and professional practice:

1. Embed the Architect as Principal Agent on Appropriate Projects: Government departments should revise their standard procurement and contract strategies to more frequently appoint the architectural lead consultant as the Principal Agent (or Principal Consultant) for building projects, especially those of high complexity or where design integrity is paramount (schools, hospitals, public buildings). This doesn’t preclude using project managers, but redefines their role as supportive rather than overriding on matters of design and quality. The architect (as Principal Agent) would chair the project team, coordinate the work of engineers and other consultants, and handle contract administration with the contractor. By contractually empowering architects in this way, the state can ensure a single point of overall responsibility. Importantly, this must be coupled with clear role definitions to avoid confusion: the project manager (if one is separately appointed) should focus on facilitating communication, program scheduling, and risk management, but decisions impacting scope or quality should be vetted through the architect. Industry standard agreements like PROCSA already allow for this hierarchy if implemented correctlyengineeringnews.co.zaengineeringnews.co.za. Where separate project managers are used on large projects, establishing protocols that the project manager cannot issue instructions impacting design without the architect’s concurrence would prevent undermining the design authority.

2. Re-incorporate SACAP’s Identification of Work (IDoW) in Public Procurement: The public sector should formally adopt the SACAP IDoW guidelines in its bid qualification criteria. In practice, this means that tenders for professional services must stipulate the required minimum category of registered professional for each role in accordance with IDoW (for example, a complex hospital project’s “Lead Architect” must be a Professional Architect, not a lower-tier professional or an unregistered person). By doing so, the government would align with regulatory standards and ensure that architects of appropriate standing lead design work on significant projects. This addresses the concern raised by SACAP that exclusion of the IDoW from bid documents has sidelined architectsstatic.pmg.org.za. It would also protect the public by guaranteeing qualified oversight. The enforcement can be done via the Council for the Built Environment (CBE) oversight: bids not meeting the professional criteria can be deemed non-responsive. This reform doesn’t add cost – it simply elevates quality by refusing to award on fee alone when the bidder lacks suitably qualified architects. In parallel, quality-based selection (QBS) methods should be considered for architectural services, rather than lowest-fee wins. Selecting architects on the basis of demonstrated competence and design quality (with fees negotiated against benchmark guidelines) will encourage excellence and innovation, delivering better long-term value.

3. Strengthen In-House Architectural Capacity and Leadership Positions: Revitalizing the role of architects in the public sector also means boosting their presence within government staff. The DPWI and provincial departments should create senior posts such as Chief Architect or Chief Built Environment Officer who would provide guidance on design across projects. These roles can ensure that even when external consultants are hired, there is an authoritative internal voice advocating for design integrity and holding project managers and contractors to account on technical matters. The current reform plan’s aim to reduce over-reliance on external consultants by growing internal skills is commendablegov.za. This must include hiring and training more architects within the public service. A professionalisation program (as mentioned in the SACAP plangov.za) should have targeted streams for architectural services – for instance, offering mentorship and fast-tracking young candidate architects in government to professional registration. If the state can field capable in-house architects, it can better supervise outsourced work and also take on design of smaller projects directly. Moreover, giving architects a visible leadership platform internally will gradually shift organizational culture to value design alongside cost and time.

4. Reintroduce Rigorous Site Supervision Protocols: A reform that would have immediate impact on project outcomes is mandating robust site supervision led by design professionals. Contractually, the government should require that the lead architect (or a competent architectural representative) conduct regular site inspections and sign off on key construction milestones. The presence of an architect on site (even part-time) serves as an early warning system for quality issues. To facilitate this, budgets must allocate adequate fees for site monitoring – too often, site supervision is trimmed in cost-saving exercises, to the detriment of quality. Additionally, bringing back the Clerk of Works position, as needed, can support architects and engineers in overseeing workmanship. Some provincial works departments have already recommended appointing a clerk of works for projects involving emerging contractors to ensure quality controlecdpw.gov.za. SACAP and other councils could collaborate to develop a Site Practice Note for public projects, outlining how often professionals should be on site and what they should inspect, thereby professionalizing supervision. Enhanced site oversight not only catches defects but also deters contractor negligence and site-level corruption (it is harder to cover up poor work if a professional is watching). In the long run, this saves money by getting construction right the first time.

5. Clarify Accountability and Enhance Enforcement: While reinstating architects to leadership will clarify many accountability questions, it is still necessary to tighten enforcement when professionals fail to deliver. The new policy to hold project managers and service providers jointly accountable for lapsesgov.za should be enforced by tangible mechanisms. For example, if a project overruns due to design issues that an architect negligently overlooked, SACAP’s disciplinary processes should be triggered by the client (the state) reporting the matter. Conversely, if delays or cost escalations are due to a project manager’s mismanagement, SACPCMP should take action. In practice, a joint accountability forum could be established under the Council for the Built Environment, where for any major project failure, the performance of each professional (architect, engineer, project manager, contractor, etc.) is reviewed. This mirrors an aviation-style “incident investigation” approach, fostering a culture of learning and accountability. Importantly, accountability must go hand in hand with authority – architects cannot be held responsible for outcomes if they were not given decision-making power. Therefore, implementing this recommendation hinges on first adjusting roles as per recommendations 1 and 3. With great power comes great responsibility; thus restoring architects’ authority will make it fair to also expect professional consequences for negligence or incompetence. The state’s commitment to only use registered professionals after 2026 means all individuals in these roles will be subject to codes of conduct and disciplinary sanctionsgov.za. This is a positive step. It should be communicated to all stakeholders that professional registration is not a box-ticking exercise but a lever for accountability – any professional who jeopardizes a public project could face losing their registration (and thus career). This will incentivize higher performance standards across the board.

6. Foster Collaborative Governance and Include Architects in High-Level Decision Forums: Finally, the governance structures around public infrastructure need to include architectural input at the highest levels. For instance, the Procurement War Rooms introduced under the action plan should have architects at the table, especially when evaluating bids for building projects. It is not enough to have engineers and project managers reviewing contractor bids; architects can identify if a proposed construction approach might compromise the design or user experience. Similarly, during project conception and planning stages, having architects involved (e.g. in drafting project briefs or assessing feasibility) ensures that pragmatic design insights inform budgeting and scheduling. The historical separation of design and planning in government should be bridged by multi-disciplinary forums. The Council for the Built Environment (which brings together all professional councils) could be used more effectively as an advisory body to government – for example, a sub-committee of CBE including SACAP representatives could review major infrastructure programs for risks related to design and site management. By institutionalizing such consultation, the government would signal that it values the full spectrum of professional knowledge, not project management alone. Over time, this collaborative approach would rebuild trust between the state and architectural profession, which has been strained by years of marginalization.

Conclusion

Architects have been, in many ways, the missing piece in South Africa’s public infrastructure puzzle in recent years. The drive to fix the country’s construction woes – chronic delays, poor quality, wasted funds – will likely fall short if it does not also re-integrate architectural leadership into the process. The shift of authority from architects to project managers was born from well-intentioned aims of efficiency and accountability, but it inadvertently sidelined the very expertise needed to ensure that infrastructure is not just delivered, but delivered well. By examining the historical context and systemic reasons for this shift, we see that a confluence of legislative changes, capacity challenges, and policy choices led to architects being undervalued in the public sector. The consequences have been detrimental to site supervision rigor, design integrity, and clear accountability, ultimately affecting the quality, cost, and timeliness of projects that citizens depend on.

Correcting this course requires deliberate reforms: from procurement policies that mandate proper architectural involvement, to structural changes in project governance that elevate the architect’s role. The recommendations outlined – bolstering principal agency of architects, aligning procurement with professional frameworks like IDoW, strengthening internal capacity, improving site supervision, clarifying accountability, and fostering collaborative governance – form a comprehensive agenda to restore balance. These reforms are not about diminishing the importance of project managers; rather, they seek to harmonize management with design. A capable state built environment team has room for both strong project management and strong architectural vision – indeed, it requires both working in tandem.

As SACAP and other built environment councils have advocated, and as the new Construction Action Plan tentatively acknowledges, “we cannot build a capable state without capable professionals”gov.za. Capable professionals must be utilized in the correct roles. Architects must be empowered to lead in shaping and safeguarding the built environment, carrying accountability for their part, while project managers ensure that this vision is executed on time and budget. The South African public deserves infrastructure that is safe, functional, and uplifting – outcomes best achieved when architects are not mere spectators but active leaders of the construction process. By reinstating architects to a central role and holding all professionals to high standards, the public sector can improve not only its project success rate but also the quality of the environments it creates for future generations.

Sources:

• South African Government, Press Briefing by Minister D. Macpherson on the South African Construction Action Plan (29 Oct 2025)gov.zagov.zagov.za.
• Illidge, M., “SA unveils tough plan to tackle construction mafias and failing contractors,” BizNews (31 Oct 2025)biznews.combiznews.com.
• Tembo, T., “Macpherson vows that contractors who fail the State will not be given a second chance,” IOL (29 Oct 2025)iol.co.zaiol.co.za.
• Le Roux, K., “Public Works unveils plan to fix ‘half-built schools, ghost hospitals’…” Daily Maverick (29 Oct 2025)dailymaverick.co.za.
• Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr legal briefing, “Project managers and principal agents – who is responsible for what?” Engineering News (28 Jul 2023)engineeringnews.co.zaengineeringnews.co.za.
• South African Council for the Architectural Profession (SACAP), Annual Report 2024/25 (excerpt on Identification of Work framework)static.pmg.org.za.
• SACAP Website – Identification of Work (IDoW) Gazette Notice, 2021sacapsa.comsacapsa.com.
• Council for the Built Environment (CBE), Notice on Professional Registration Requirementsgov.za.
• Eastern Cape DPWI, Infrastructure SMME Support Guidelines (2024)ecdpw.gov.za.
• Construction Briefing, “How South Africa’s government hopes to tackle its construction corruption problem,” (26 Jun 2023)constructionbriefing.com.