My take, and only speaking from a site/civil perspective:
The product of a design is not just the resulting document, but the procedural files. If you hire someone to provide what the sum of 2 and 2 is, it would be an incomplete deliverable to just provide a document with "4" written on it. The number 4, standing alone, is the complete and correct answer, but further analysis, auditing or use of that product is impossible without the procedural input (ie, "2+2") Twenty years ago, a piece of paper with both items "2+2" and "4" would have been reasonably expected. What should "reasonably" be expected as an end product has changed with the advent of the PC.
Twenty years ago, a Due Diligence search consisting of phone calls, a search at the courthouse, etc. would have been reasonably complete. Now, a Due Diligence Study including a websearch (AND the documentation of said websearch, including addresses used, not just a summary of findings) is the norm. To provide one without a websearch (AND the documentation of said websearch) would be negligent in my opinion; it would be incomplete, with respect to what is reasonable for a client to expect.
Likewise, twenty years ago, a bound copy of a Stormwater Management Report (again, with input data as well as output results) was reasonable to expect. Today, the computer input should be expected, because it is no longer standard to expect a curve on graph paper as a hydrograph.
As with the examples above, if I am hired to do a site design, I am expected (and usually contractually directed) to provide CADD files...not just the layers which show the end result, but working files. This allows the client further analysis, audit or use of the product; which they paid for. They paid for a design, and a site/civil design in 2005 is a CADD file, not a blueprint.
Remember: The Chinese ideogram for “crisis” is comprised of the characters for “danger” and “opportunity.”
-Steve
