Operations consulting for architecture and engineering firms.
Billable utilization, project profitability, fee-versus-effort tracking, timesheet discipline, additional-services capture, and resource scheduling — the business side of running a design practice.
Despite the name, Applied Architecture Group is not an architecture firm. We don’t design buildings, draft, stamp drawings, or provide engineering services. “Architecture” here refers to systems architecture — how a business is put together. Design practices are one of the industries whose operations we advise. If you’re looking for a design firm, we’re not it. If your firm designs well and still can’t tell which projects made money, keep reading.
To be straight about scope: our expertise is operations, systems, data, and reporting — applied to design practices — not decades inside the A/E industry. If you need a consultant who has run an architecture practice, that is a different hire. If your problem is that time, fee, and project data don’t line up and nobody can see profitability until it’s too late, that is squarely what we do.
Built for design practices that have outgrown informal project management.
- Architecture firms roughly 10–150 people, growing past what principals can track by memory.
- Multi-discipline A/E practices coordinating structural, MEP, and outside consultants.
- Engineering and design firms billing on phases, percentages, and hourly-not-to-exceed fees.
- Interior design, landscape architecture, and planning practices with the same project-economics problems.
- Firms adding a second office or studio and finding their processes don’t transfer.
Sound familiar between design reviews?
These usually look like separate problems. More often they’re one operating problem showing up in different places.
- Timesheets land late, so fee burn is always known in arrears.
- You find out a phase went over after it’s already over.
- Out-of-scope work gets absorbed instead of billed as additional services.
- Utilization targets exist but nobody trusts the number.
- Staffing the next three months happens in a spreadsheet, by feel.
- RFIs, submittals, and consultant coordination live in email threads.
- Project accounting and the PM’s view of a project disagree.
- Proposal → contract → project setup is re-keyed by hand every time.
How operational technical debt shows up in a design practice.
It’s rarely the software. It’s the workarounds that accumulated while the firm grew — each one sensible at the time, collectively expensive.
- Project setup done differently by each project manager.
- Fee schedules maintained in spreadsheets alongside the project accounting system.
- Phase percent-complete estimated informally rather than measured consistently.
- Additional services tracked in someone’s notes, if at all.
- Resource planning disconnected from the actual project pipeline.
- Reporting rebuilt by hand each month because the system won’t produce it.
Where the business of the practice actually runs.
What better practice operations look like here.
Fee burn visible during the phase
Effort tracked against phase progress while there’s still time to act, not at closeout.
Utilization you can actually trust
One definition of billable, applied consistently, so the number means something.
Additional services captured, not absorbed
A repeatable way to notice out-of-scope work and turn it into billed revenue.
Staffing tied to the real pipeline
Resource planning connected to projects and probability instead of a standalone spreadsheet.
Project setup that doesn’t depend on who does it
Proposal to contract to project record, once, consistently.
Reporting principals don’t rebuild by hand
Project and firm-level reports that agree with each other and with accounting.
- Map how a project moves from proposal through setup, delivery, invoicing, and closeout.
- Define utilization, fee burn, and percent-complete so every report uses the same meaning.
- Design a practical additional-services capture process principals will actually follow.
- Connect resource scheduling to the live project pipeline.
- Assess whether your current practice management system is under-used or genuinely outgrown.
- Hand over a prioritized roadmap of what to fix first.
- Practice architecture, engineering, or design of any kind.
- Draft, model, stamp, or review construction documents.
- Resell or implement practice management software.
- Run your IT or provide ongoing managed services.
- Touch your Revit models, drawing sets, or design files.
What we tend to find — anonymized.
We don’t publish client names or invented results. These are common patterns in design-practice operations.
A firm with strong backlog and poor margin almost never has a design problem. It has a measurement lag. When time is captured weekly-at-best and phase progress is estimated informally, the earliest a fee overrun becomes visible is after the phase closes — which is after every decision that could have prevented it. Shortening that feedback loop is usually worth more than any software change.
Design practices are unusually prone to absorbing out-of-scope work, because the client relationship is long and the individual asks are small. Without a lightweight way to flag and price additional services in the moment, the cumulative giveaway routinely exceeds the firm’s entire annual profit margin.
Leadership can separate process problems from software problems before signing another platform contract — and knows which two or three changes would most improve project profitability next quarter.
Anonymized illustrative patterns, not specific client case studies.
Spend the right amount on practice management software.
A/E software vendors sell the enterprise configuration to firms that need about a third of it. Here’s how we right-size it.
Full-suite practice management
A complete ERP-class platform bought for the reporting, with modules the firm never turns on.
Fix time capture and fee tracking first
Reliable timesheets and honest percent-complete fix most reporting complaints without new licences.
Multiple studios or disciplines
When cross-office resourcing and consolidated project accounting genuinely exceed the current tool — then buy deliberately.
Into design staff
Budget not spent on shelfware goes to the people doing billable work.
Vendor-neutral; illustrative guidance, not a specific client case. See what an assessment costs.
The Practice Operations Assessment
One focused engagement that maps how projects actually move through your firm, finds where fee and effort diverge, and hands you a prioritized roadmap — before you spend on software or restructure anything. See what’s included →
Straight answers for firm principals and practice managers.
Is Applied Architecture Group an architecture firm?
No. Despite the name, we do not practice architecture and provide no design, drafting, engineering, or stamped services. We’re an operations and business systems consultancy — “architecture” refers to how a business is structured. Architecture and engineering firms are one of the industries we advise on how the practice runs.
What does an architecture firm operations consultant do?
We work on the business side of the practice rather than the design work: how projects are scoped and staffed, how time is captured, how fee burn is tracked against phase progress, how additional services get identified and billed, and how your project accounting, timesheet, and project management systems fit together. The goal is predictable project profitability and less administrative drag on principals.
Why do we lose money on projects even when we’re busy?
Usually because fee burn is discovered after the fact rather than during the phase. When timesheets land late, effort isn’t tracked against phase percentage, and out-of-scope work is absorbed rather than captured, a project can be well past its fee before anyone sees it. Busy and profitable are separate problems and need separate measurements.
Do you replace Deltek, BQE Core, or Monograph?
No — we’re vendor-neutral and don’t resell or implement practice management software. In most organizations, the system already in place has more capability than is actually being used. The usual first improvement is getting consistent, well-adopted use out of the system you already pay for, and only then deciding whether a change is justified.
How small a firm can benefit from this?
Practically, these problems become worth paying to fix somewhere around 10–15 people, when a principal can no longer hold every project’s status in their head. Below that the informal system usually still works. The work applies to practices roughly 10 to 150 people in size.
Do you need access to our drawings or Revit models?
No. The assessment looks at how business and administrative work moves — proposals, project setup, timesheets, invoicing, and reporting — not design files or drawing sets.
What does the assessment include?
A structured review of practice operations, workflows, technology, bottlenecks, and risks, ending in clear recommendations and a prioritized roadmap. Request one here.
Where this work usually connects.
Business Systems Assessment
The recommended first step toward a prioritized operational roadmap.
Learn more →Workflow Optimization
Fix the handoffs between proposal, project setup, delivery, and invoicing.
Learn more →Business Process Improvement
Standardize how projects get set up and managed across teams.
Learn more →Construction & Trades
The delivery side of the same projects, with its own operating problems.
Learn more →Signs You’ve Outgrown Spreadsheets
When resource planning and fee tracking stop scaling.
Read →All Industries
See how we work across other industries facing similar complexity.
View all →Find out which projects actually make money.
Tell us how work moves through your practice today. We’ll point you to the highest-impact place to start — usually a Practice Operations Assessment.
Prefer email? [email protected]