Goodbye CAD. Goodbye BIM. Hello PEN.

pa·ram·e·ter (p -r m -t r) n.

1. Mathematics
a. A constant in an equation that varies in other equations of the same general form, especially such a constant in the equation of a curve or surface that can be varied to represent a family of curves or surfaces.
b. One of a set of independent variables that express the coordinates of a point.

2.
a. One of a set of measurable factors, such as temperature and pressure, that define a system and determine its behavior and are varied in an experiment.
b. Usage Problem: A factor that restricts what is possible or what results: "all the parameters of shelter where people will live, what mode of housing they will choose, and how they will pay for it" (New York).
c. A factor that determines a range of variations; a boundary: an experimental school that keeps expanding the parameters of its curriculum.

3. Statistics
A quantity, such as a mean, that is calculated from data and describes a population.
per·for·mance (p r-fôr m ns) n.
1. The act of performing or the state of being performed.
2. The act or style of performing a work or role before an audience.
3. The way in which someone or something functions: The pilot rated the airplane's performance in high winds.
sim·u·la·tion (s m y -l sh n) n.

1. The act or process of simulating.
a. Imitation or representation, as of a potential situation or in experimental testing.
b. Representation of the operation or features of one process or system through the use of another: computer simulation of an in-flight emergency.
meth·od·ol·o·gy (m th -d l -j ) n. pl. meth·od·ol·o·gies
1. A body of practices, procedures, and rules used by those who work in a discipline or engage in an inquiry; a set of working methods: the methodology of genetic studies; a poll marred by faulty methodology.

The architectural and engineering professions are sitting on a technological time-bomb that will soon radically alter the nature of their businesses. It's been coined BIM (Building Information Modeling) for the last few years by some, but I'd prefer to call it PEN (for Parametric-ENabled) as a more accurate representation of things to come, and here's my reasoning behind the acronym change:

With the advent of software tools such as ArchiCAD, Catia, Revit, and Triforma (the alphabetical sequencing is wholly intentional), savvy architects and engineers have begun to understand that such tools now offer a new way to document their work—a re-engineered process if you will—whereby the electronic drafting of lines and circles to represent architectural entities (CAD) no longer suffices and is, instead, replaced by the parametric modeling of 'objects' (i.e. BIM), whereby the direct placement of elements that physically constitute a building are represented and modeled virtually, and then tied into a database for simultaneous extraction into conventional 'flat' plans, sections, elevations, and details. In this manner, the representation of these building objects is transformed from a static portrayal to one that is highly interactive and self-analytical. Walls and doors that are moved in the design, move together and work as assemblies in the model. Detail sections become 'hyper-linked' to their positions within the building design (much as links on web pages are today); change the detail and all door and window assemblies change simultaneously in turn. One can quickly go back-and-forth - as opposed to laboriously searching for the correct 2D drawing or spec sheet. But to where, and to what end, does this new 'Building Information Modeling' actually lead? A more efficient means of producing conventional 2D documentation?

I would posit there's something much greater at hand, and thus an obligation to identify this potential scenario as an iterative methodological change, denoted by PEN—as opposed to a mere linear process change, as denoted by BIM. Stephen Kieran and James Timberlake, in their illuminating new book, 'refabricating Architecture' (McGraw-Hill, 2004), refer to this change as contrasting the present day 'representation' of building with the more informative 'simulation' of building. In plain English, what we're both talking about here is a methodology that gathers, models, visualizes, analyzes, and simulates the performance entailed in conceiving, constructing and maintaining a 'virtual' building—and inextricably links it to the conception, construction, and maintenance of a real building. Put another way, it's what one might label as a 'puppet and Master' scenario.

Let's now delve into what PEN really means for architects and engineers: Until now, the current crop of PEN 'modeling tools' (ArchiCAD, Revit, et. al.) have had minimal impact on the overall culture of design practice. They have, however, pointed the way to a significantly more productive iterative design process for those willing to try them. (In my office, a single designer using PEN modeling was able to produce three fully-developed conceptual schemes in just one week. Previously, using CAD, he was only able to produce a single, semi-developed scheme in the same amount of time). Taken to the next level, a design team working simultaneously on a PEN model—and thus collaborating on various entities of the building itself—would be able to go way beyond the mere linear processes of SD, to DD, to CD, to CA and so on and, instead, utilize PEN to incorporate services previously deemed as 'high-risk' for architects and engineers. These so-called 'liabilities' could now re-present themselves to architects and engineers as potentially 'new' valued-added services and furthermore, would be provided in tandem, as opposed to sequentially. Suddenly, ideas that seemed impossible from the architect's or engineer's perspective would become possible again—because they would essentially be derived from the same single database repository and would include: Direct, 'real-time', collaboration within and between all engineering disciplines, and the owner, and the GC; direct fabrication of building components; material cost-calculation (as opposed to mere estimation); construction simulation and construction-site logistics simulation; electronic radio-frequency identification (RFID) 'tagging' of all building components, thermal energy and computational fluid dynamic analysis (both around and within the building); real-time monitoring of heat-gain within sections of the building, alongside dynamic cooling systems provided on an 'as needed' basis; pre-emptive identification of building component failure, pedestrian traffic analysis, robotic construction techniques; dynamic structural member sizing; delivery of a digital 'owner's manual' for facilities management provisioning; the list of services goes on and on.

As one can readily see, this is not merely about modeling—nor information—but, rather, about providing a variety of services, analyses, calculations, and simulations all derived via a collaborative, non-sequential, series of methodologies—and certainly not dePENdent on a single software solution from one prime vendor.

Is this PEN methodology truly possible? And if so, then how can architects and engineers prepare themselves to incorporate it into their working environments? Simply answered, what's readily clear is that if architects and engineers desire to have greater control over the building process as a whole, then they must assume a willingness to accept the risks for the rewards—or face the possibility of having their roles relegated to an indePENdent, third-party specialist serving the owner. What's at stake is no longer owners waiting for architects to start trying the technology, much as they did with CAD, but bypassing architects altogether (except for their design role) in favor of 3rd party specialist firms who have a variety of PEN tools at their disposal, can do it all, and can do it immediately to start saving time, construction, and operating costs TODAY. Much as architects now outsource glossy 3D CAD models and digital renderings ('eye candy') to visualization specialists because they don't possess the knowledge or the resources to do it themselves, owners and CM's will similarly look to PEN specialists to do the same—only this time the financial stakes will be real, and the PEN specialists will offer a level of design sophistication and construction predictability heretofore unseen by the visualization folks. These PEN firms will consist of licensed architects and engineers who understand construction and know how to do sophisticated analysis as well as modeling. Since the PEN model will offer the ability to automatically derive and generate standard 2D floor plans, sections, and elevations in an iterative, rather than labor-intensive fashion, it's distinctly possible that PEN firms would also produce DD and CD sets, instead of the architects and engineers, in yet another cost-saving measure. Shops drawings produced conventionally would then be checked against the PEN model as a referential source. Questions of outsourcing CAD production to Near- or Far-East, or South American 'production farms' would thus be a moot point. Out-sourcing PEN services, however, would not.

So what can architects or engineers do today? Learn how to use the PEN tools! Then, explore possible collaborative ventures. Unfortunately, the AIA and a vast majority of practitioners in the profession don't understand or appreciate the significance of what's at stake here, or have not been duly informed. There are limited educational opportunities, due in large part to the myopic vision of the educational community in focusing solely on producing the next generation of star designers and, thus, limiting the pool of available practitioners fluent in developing new PEN methodologies. Having been promised for years by various commercial vendors that CAD and technology would revolutionize their practices, architects have boiled their technology decisions down to making the right CAD or BIM software 'choice' from a single source—and have paid the price for it in terms of exorbitant 'subscription' fees. Technology in this scheme of things becomes a nagging cost drain, taking time and resources away from effectively producing designs and running a business. Now, similarly to 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf', the real moment of truth has arrived but will anyone believe the messenger?

To avoid a recurrence of the boy-wolf scenario, it is not yet too late for architects and engineers to set their courses straight. They can start by exploring the PEN tools available now. They can experiment with a variety of products, making sure that any software selection is IFC-compliant and has two-way database capabilities. [Score 2 for ArchiCAD, 1 for MicroStation, and 0 for Revit here]. And that's really the key: Without getting bogged down in the details, these two requirements will ensure that a PEN operation—and any data it contains—will have the ability to interoperate with other programs.

Other options: Start small and train staff with half-day training sessions at the office. Provide collaborative sessions where the staff will be able to interact on more than just flat layers of floor plans and actually get comfortable with the collaboration process itself. Once that's achieved, explore real-time collaboration with outside partners. Go beyond 2D CAD 'information exchange' websites and investigate services whose focus is on synchronous PEN simulation and performance exchange.

In conclusion, PEN is a more apt terminology than BIM in readily defining the daunting tasks and decisions that architects and engineers will face in the next few years. How they meet those challenges and succeed in their practices will be based, in large part, on how they educate themselves and understand that technology can become their chief ally, rather than their insipient nemesis, in moving toward a new collaborative system of practice. Project Collaboration Managers (PCMs), employing PEN methodologies and best practices, will be best positioned to address the new construction environment and its economic concerns. The beauty here is that architects and engineers are still the masters of their own destinies but they must avoid software scenarios and linear business practices that relegate them into subservience—and they must act soon.

About the Author

Paul Seletsky is Director of Technology for Davis Brody Bond, a major architecture firm in NYC, and chairs the AIA's NY Chapter Technology Committee. He can reached via email at pseletsky@davisbrody.com.

© Paul Seletsky 2004. No portion of this article may be copied or used without the author's express written consent.

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 #3 > Printer-friendly format