In other design fields, technology has been embraced by designers. I think they would argue that, indeed, it has improved design, or at least made possible design work that would have been difficult to achieve without the technology tools they use. Graphic designers certainly have found that products like Adobe Photoshop are essential tools of the trade. Automotive designers and engineers certainly believe that tools like CATIA enable an efficiency of design and sophistication of styling (not to mention reduced time-to-market) that would be impossible without technology.

So why is technology such a mixed bag for Architects? I believe that this stems from the fact that while most architectural firms use CAD, the most experienced architects—the designers and principals—don't. 2-D CAD has created a sub-class of "CAD Operators," many with limited architectural design experience or professional level education. In many ways, the CAD Operator is an electronic throw-back to the days of the journeyman drafter with sleeve garters and green eyeshades. Often, the principal doesn't feel comfortable standing with the CAD operator looking at the monitor, coaching, mentoring, designing, the way he once did with a paper drafter. And on paper, the principal would never hesitate to pick up a pencil and make changes, but picking up a mouse is another story.

Part of the problem is the technology. The de facto standard 2-D CAD is a very sophisticated and complex tool that seems inaccessible to most principals of architecture firms. And while 2-D CAD may be an efficient way to draft, it doesn't encompass the full process of design and delivery. 2-D CAD makes for a discontinuous process in which initial design tends to be done by hand and then is "thrown over the wall" to the CAD operators who create multiple files to document the design for construction. As the AIA survey has found, this proliferation of files generated by non-designers can be difficult to coordinate, resulting in downstream errors and omissions. What one ends up with are multiple views of a design that, indeed, may be contradictory.

Part of the problem is cultural, in that many Architects have not embraced the process change needed to take full advantage of the technology. Conversely, mechanical designers and graphical designers have found such a process change worthwhile, and have reaped the benefits of advanced technology. Part of this is due to the fact that these kinds of designers looked at the entire process from concept through product delivery, whether it be manufactured product or printed image.

This is changing, though, and the trend towards increased building project delivery through Design-Build is one of the factors driving the change. These people think about the entire process, and are looking for ways to leverage technology to deliver a quality, cost-effective building in less time and with greater predictabilty. This segment of the market, whether a small home builder or a large commercial Design-Build firm, has been among the first to adopt model-based design. For them, the benefits of parametric design, coordinated documentation, automated quantity takeoffs and cost-estimating, and 4D construction simulation, are more than worth the cost of process change inherent in the model-based design approach. The other benefit these firms enjoy is that the principals are back in the game, and have technology that they can and do use.

As far as technology improving design, one need only look at the BLIS project to see what is possible. In BLIS, using the open object model described through IFC2.0, the design can be refined through its analysis in terms of performance with respect to energy usage, construction costs, and design rules and construction codes. When an architect uses technology to improve the design in terms of its performance as a built environment, that, to paraphrase Martha Stewart, is a good thing.

Chris Barron, VP for Architecture Graphisoft US

< back