Going Further: Process Evolution in the Building Industry

Architects have relied upon drawings to mediate design and construction since the earliest organized buildings. The abstract language of plan, section, elevation and detail has evolved into a consistent, global standard for conveying design intent to engineers, builders, and owners. So why change now?

In December 2003, 30% of American architectural firms reported a decline in billings for the third consecutive month ("Work-On-The-Boards," AIArchitect, Januay 19, 2004). While the U.S. economy shows early signs of recovery, the arrival of "more robust construction activity is still some ways off," according to a January 2004 article in Architecture magazine, and significant increases in construction activity are not expected until 2005 ("The Year Ahead," Architecture, January 2004). Continued economic challenges are one of many factors compelling building industry professionals to re-examine their practice models.

Recent research further supports the case for change. A real estate and construction survey with 350 senior executives conducted by Deloitte and Touche in late 2003 ("Deloitte & Touche Real Estate and Construction Dispute Survey Indicates Rise in Disputes," Press Release, Deloitte & Touche, September 25, 2003) found that construction-related disputes are on the rise, most commonly:

• Architect/engineer error (43%)
• Excessive change orders (36%)
• Owner/contractor interference (35%)
• Non-performance of sub-contractors (30%)
• Differing site conditions (26%)
• Acceleration (24%)

Clearly, there's a need for process innovation, and the industry seems poised for change. But how can this transformation be implemented on a broad scale? What are the axes of the solution?

I've seen these problems from multiple perspectives during my architectural career—as a practitioner, a teacher of professional practice, and, most recently, as a technology provider. As I consider the perspectives of key industry stakeholders, I conclude that the only way to effect fundamental changes within the building professions is to move forward on many fronts, working together to:

• Change the culture of practice
• Revise contractual arrangements
• Embrace new team structures
• Develop new fee approaches
• Deliver enabling technologies

The culture of architectural practice has always placed a premium on design. The narrow definition of "design" as exclusively form-making needs to be balanced by a heightened engagement in the entire building process, with equal emphasis on designing operational innovation. Just as importantly, the traditional adversarial relationship between architect and builder needs to give way to a culture of cooperation sustained by new contractual arrangements and exchange of information. Much of the inherent risk of the design-to-build process is a result of this tension.

The resulting boundaries in the building process, memorialized by current contractual agreements and the standard of care, limit collaboration and reinforce a closed, risk-adverse culture that inhibits the complete sharing of design and construction information across disciplines. New contractual arrangements that mitigate risk and share liability among all of the participants will encourage trust and make it easier for cultural change to occur. As a member of the AIA Documents Committee, I can report that progress is being made on this front, as we develop contractual standards for new delivery approaches and information sharing.

In the past decade, we have already seen the emergence of alternate project delivery models like design-build, multi-track construction, and its variants. Outside the U.S. many novel approaches—project alliance, privately financed initiatives, and framework agreements—are beginning to gain traction as building process stakeholders search for innovation. These models are creating new team structures that change the distribution of power and influence, moving away from the roles in the traditional owner-architect-builder triad that pits good design against cost-savings, and risk mitigation against benefits to the owner. Their paybacks are clear. The findings of a 1997 Construction Industry Institute and Pennsylvania State University study (National Project Delivery Systems Study, Construction Industry Institute and Pennsylvania State University, 1997) show that design-build projects, while exceeding quality expectations at all levels, have unit costs 6% lower than design-bid-build and deliver projects as much as 33% faster.

While these cultural and contractual changes will move us significantly forward, new fee approaches—fresh business models for design, construction and building operation—will be required to open doors to process transformation. Getting paid for the rich information created during design and subsequently delivered to owners is made possible by the advent of a building information model, which will drive building industry professionals to adopt new technologies that simultaneously increase their productivity and enhance the quality of their work. For architects and engineers, these services could include more sophisticated performance-based analysis of designs, integrated cost estimating, design information used to support fabrication, facility and asset management, and the final delivery of the building information model itself to support building maintenance and operations. For builders, the availability of a building information model facilitates more efficient cost estimating, 4D construction planning, fabrication and procurement, reducing uncertainty and risk. In this way the players will have a dual motivation for change—achieving greater efficiency in providing basic, traditional services while being rewarded by delivering new revenue-generating services from design data.

At the same time software providers must deliver robust technologies to support process innovation, offering purpose-built solutions that reduce the inefficiencies and errors that are created in large part by the data discontinuities of current practice. In fact, I believe that building information modeling—a concept that Autodesk first introduced in 2002, and the rest of our competitors subsequently embraced—can serve as a significant new catalyst for structural change.

At Autodesk we define building information modeling as a design approach that uses the power of information technology to solve problems across the building lifecycle. Ongoing access to reliable, up-to-date, and fully coordinated building information (integrating the parameters of design scope, schedule, cost, quality, and performance) offers a potent capability for architects, engineers, builders, and building owners to dramatically transform how buildings are designed, built, and managed. A variety of existing technologies offer building information modeling capabilities, but they vary in the degree of effort required to be effective. Only the parametric building modeling technology upon which Autodesk Revit is built, for example, eliminates the most common sources of errors by maintaining a fully-coordinated representation of the building at all times, while accessing that information through the language of plan, section and elevation.

Direct exchange of building model data with other applications is essential if the models that designers create are to have value beyond the generation of traditional drawings. Autodesk is committed to supporting industry standards for integration and interoperability. We are a founding member of the International Alliance for Interoperability, and support the implementation of Industry Foundation Classes, as a data exchange mechanism, in all of our products. In addition, we support a variety of other open standards for data exchange and integration, including CAD file formats such as DGN and DWG, published formats such as DWF, other data exchange methods including ODBC, and a number of XML initiatives.

Much work lies ahead to effect meaningful change in our industry. It is Autodesk's mission to provide leadership at this crucial juncture, and to serve as a strategic partner to those who are now joining together to forge solutions to these very complex problems. As the new year begins, my team and I look forward to partnering with you as we go further together.

About the Author

After 20 years in architectural practice, Phillip G. Bernstein, FAIA, joined Autodesk, Inc., a leading provider of software for architecture and engineering, to serve as Vice President of the Building Solutions Division. In this role, he is responsible for setting the future direction of technology solutions for the building industry. Prior to joining Autodesk, Phil was an Associate Principal at Cesar Pelli & Associates, where he managed many of the firm's most complex commissions. He has served as Lecturer in Professional Practice at the Yale University School of Architecture since 1988. Bernstein writes and lectures extensively about practice and technology issues. He received a Bachelor of Arts magna cum laude with Distinction in Architecture in 1979 from Yale University and a Master of Architecture in 1983, also from Yale University.

Note: The views expressed in Viewpoint articles are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect those of AECbytes. Also, no advertising or sponsorship is accepted for Viewpoint articles.

Viewpoints > Issue #2 > Printer-friendly format