Re your eloquent and provoking article "Does Technology Diminish Design," I think that you address the issue well with your proposition that these attitudes are at root due to a reaction to 'transient misapplication' of the technology and a 'misperception based on lagging indicators.' The primary manifestation of the 'transient misapplication' phenomenon is in the use of a lowest common denominator approach when applying available technologies. Design professionals choosing not to leverage these robust capabilities can be due to variety of reasons, ranging from a desire to be able to easily exchange data (and the false premise that simple electronic pencil data is easier to exchange) to a lack of recognition of the opportunities inherent in doing so.

I'm reminded of an allegory I once heard to describe why people resist change: "The lumberjack doesn't want to stop cutting down trees for an hour to sharpen his saw because he fears he'll fall behind. But with a sharper saw he'd cut down trees twice as fast." Well, imagine how that lumberjack feels about taking a few days to buy and learn about chainsaws!

However, while perhaps 'misapplication' may still be a common condition, it's certainly not the prevalent trend. It seems clear that the building industry has begun to significantly embrace the potential that the integration of computers into their process can offer. In fact there are many segments of the industry and firms that are extensively leveraging the new methodologies, extended services, and enhanced capabilities that these technologies offer. There are quite a few allegorical lumberjacks getting good use out of their new chainsaws!

That said however, the building industry is generally a fairly long-cycle industry—it can take years to move from originally identifying the objective a new building would satisfy to actualizing that building. In any such environment the indicators used to evaluate that process are likely by nature to be 'lagging' behind the current state of affairs.

Another idea I'd offer for consideration is that these evaluations are a reflection of an often evidenced imbalance between changes in firm processes vs. changes in the tools used to support those processes. There are certainly cases where a new process requires a change in tool, and vice versa. In a progression that you've described as the elevation from a "Computer Aided Practice" to a "Computer Integrated Practice" there are inherent aligning changes in process that accompany the changing supporting or enabling technologies. If the robustness of the technology being applied is not aligned with the corresponding processes (and vice versa) then a misapplication is unavoidable.

What is so exciting is the other side of the story. There are a great many firms that have embraced a 'new generation' of technology. We at Bentley are proud of the incredible work being done around the world by our users leveraging these new capabilities. From simple benefits like automated document coordination, and information management to expanded capabilities such as managing design intent, change history and accountability, interdisciplinary coordination, constructability and 4D simulation.

The key is how you consider "CAD" and its application to the process. If it is simply the "electronic pencil," and is used largely by 'drawing producers'—its very mission is to be a crutch to the core activity of designing and delivering buildings, and to be primarily targeted at marginally reducing the design firm's bottom line. Conversely, when the underlying process has leveraged the potentials of technology to inform and enhance the core activity of designing, constructing and operating buildings, the results have proven to be truly extraordinary.

These benefits are significant when viewed within a particular segment of the project team such as architects, engineers, constructors, or owners and facility managers. However they are exponentially valuable when integrated across the value chain from design through construction and into operation of the building, and the resulting information is well managed and appropriately available to all the key participants of that process. The ultimate beneficiaries are the consumers in this process, the facility owners and operators.

The reality many of our users are seeing is that where changes in methodology have been balanced to leverage new capabilities, and the technology has been embraced, the benefits are quite evident and the prospects for the future are increasingly bright.

Huw W. Roberts, Building Industry Marketing Director, North America Bentley Systems, Inc.



< back