BIM, Change, and Leadership—A Call to Arms?

It's been studied, analyzed, written about hundreds of times. It's been proven: The construction industry needs to change. We're wasteful to the tune of billions of dollars per year. We're stuck in a viscous cycle of litigation, risk aversion and anti-collaboration.

Design/Build has proven itself beyond doubt. How long has it taken this obviously superior way of doing things to grow roots? If it's so advantageous, why aren't more people doing it?

Technology has presented numerous opportunities to save time, money and improve quality, all at the same time. But why, even with all of the obvious advantages, does it take so long to change?

The answer is simple: it's complicated. Relationships. Precedent. Complacency. Investment. Shifts in responsibility. Shifts in liability. Insecurity. Fear. It takes time to change industries. It takes time to change professional institutions, companies, processes, and people.

There's a difference between changing processes and changing industries. The move to CAD was mostly a change of process. Like the move from horse and carriage to the automobile where the resulting output was basically the same; you drive down the street, you turn at the corner, maybe stop along the way, and end at your final destination. The Automobile automated the process. CAD automated drafting. Not revolutionary, evolutionary. The move to BIM (sorry, not the right place for an opinion on the acronym) is revolutionary. It's a change of concept. It will eventually reshape our industry and the way we do things.

The Industry

We're not the only industry dealing with this challenge. The music and film industries are also struggling with the problems associated with a major shift. They're being forced to change by their customer base. Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, most of our clients haven't been in a position to push the change in the AEC industry (Paul Teicholtz's AECbytes article does a good job of explaining why). This is one of the biggest reasons the move has been slow. Based on the fragmentation of the industry, the rest of us lack the authority and motivation to commit the appropriate resources. In the end, the client is the primary benefactor. What's in it for us?

There are leaders in the change, however. Forward-thinking teams including designers, consultants, builders, sub-contractors. There is much to be gained for these entrepreneurs. The real potential ofBIM will only be realized through the unbridled collaboration and the acceptance of risk that these entrepreneurs embrace. They're out there, discovering and learning what works and what doesn't. They're moving forward and their success is being measured in profitability.

In the Silo

There are plenty of efficiencies to be had through the implementation of tools likeBIM even within the silos that most of us are limited by. Many of us have explored, implemented and currently benefit from these efficiencies on a daily basis. Even internal change is tough though. The same aversion to risk that exists between external team members exists between internal team members in most firms. It's in our nature as humans and in our cultures as companies.

Most of us have heard of the term "advance cultures." We've read articles about them. Some of you may work for companies with cultures that encourage and embrace change. How do the rest of us, the majority of us that work in common cultures, deal with change? The kind of change necessary to leverage revolutionary tools likeBIM?

Managing Change

Change Management. Process Change Management. Business Process Re-Engineering. We've all heard these terms used over the last decade. Some are fads. Some are grounded in science that seems to work at least for a few companies. I've read more than a few books on these subjects, attended a BPM conference or two, and spent a couple of weeks at expensive Six Sigma sessions. A lot of what I've learned has been useful. But, even armed with this information and even when an organization wants to change, it's a huge challenge.

Some would argue that Change Management is an oxymoron. We've certainly experienced our fair share of frustration, anticipating problems and spending considerable time and money planning to minimize them, only to find that most people really don't learn unless they actually experience the problems themselves. Unless they feel the pain.

So, why not just demand the change, deal with all of the problems, and then move on with it? Because: A) we, as technologists are not usually in a position to demand; B) we all know that it would be chaotic and potentially catastrophic to our companies; and C) what would firms need technologists for if it was as simple as demanding that everyone do it with no plan or support?

Some firms have taken this approach withBIM and based on the fact that the commitment came from the very top, they were fairly successful. As far as I know, they're doing quite well. Keep in mind that these are relatively small companies without the burden of hundreds, or even dozens of people and the associated investment in process and procedures that come with them.

I would encourage any CIO or Technology Manager to learn how to better understand and manage change. It is probably the most critical aspect of implementing almost any technology. I've seen a number of technically excellent implementations go bad because of the lack of attention to the impact of change.

What to do?

So with all that we know and understand of the challenge before us, how do we, as AEC technologists, implement technologies likeBIM that demand change of process and concept? I wish that I had the "silver bullet" answer. I wish that someone did. At WATG we typically use a methodical plan when implementing any new technology. We adjust the plan as we go and as we learn.

The WATG plan includes four basic pieces:

• Plan
• Communicate
• Train
• Support

For ourBIM implementation, the plan is an internally focused, company-wide, project by project move. It's not a question of if; it's a question of when. We have two and half people solely dedicated to the implementation of the plan. We're placing a lot of emphasis on minimizing failures.

We plan on a project by project basis what will be done inBIM and what won't. Who will be trained. What the deliverables are. What the goals and objectives are.

We communicate the concept and advantages ofBIM to management, to staff, and again to the teams that useBIM on their projects. We communicate the problems of others. We communicate the goals and objectives for the project. We communicate the successes and challenges to all staff in the monthly newsletter and during office visits. We answer questions.

We do a three-day out-of-the-office training class for as many futureBIM users as we can, although it's difficult scheduling people for three days out of the office when things are busy. So we do the best that we can, scheduling around project work load, which creates a situation where we don't always train the most appropriate staff. We do a lot of on-the-job training by placing an advancedBIM user on each project, at least on a part-time basis to train and support. We use Instant Messenger and Application Sharing software ways of providing remote support. We also do cross-team info sharing on a monthly basis.

While the thrust of our current focus is internal, we do experiment withBIM with some external partners. Through this experimentation, we hope to address some of the more cross-profession opportunities. We're talking to clients about the advantages ofBIM and how it benefits the design and building processes.

Best Guesses

In the end I believe that it will take time. Lots of time. It took us over 15 years to truly embrace CAD. CAD wasn't even a change in concept, it was a change in process. Granted, we did have to deal with the daunting task of getting computers on everyone's desk during the implementation of CAD. At least we don't have to go through that now. My guess? It will take another 10 years to implementBIM and an additional 10-15 to leverage its true potential. I'm an optimist.

Will architects be relegated to "stylists," giving up the responsibility of coordinating the constructability of the buildings they design to third parties brought on by the client? Although there is some movement in this direction, my guess is that most architects will rise to the challenge before them.

In the mean time, we, as the technologists for our respective firms, are being challenged to shift our focus from managing technology to managing change. Change in the way that we do things and change in the way that we collaborate with our external partners. The technology is here. How do we get people to use it? By learning how to lead our firms through change we arm ourselves with the tools that we will need to help reshape our industry. It's not a technology problem. It's a leadership challenge. I do believe that we are the most appropriately suited and situated to lead the effort.

"The world hates change, yet it is the only thing that has brought progress."

Charles F. Kettering
Inventor of the battery-powered electric car starter, which relieved the populace of the dangerous and arduous operation of cranking the automobile.

"He who rejects change is the architect of decay. The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery."

Harold Wilson
Prime Minister of the UK 1964-1976

About the Author

As Vice President and Chief Information Officer, Lawrence M. Rocha is responsible for the design, implementation and maintenance of WATG's computer and information systems worldwide. WATG is in the process of converting from traditional 2D based CAD systems to Building Information Model based systems. Mr. Rocha has also served as the Director of Computer Advancement for the AIA, Orange County Chapter, and has participated in the creation and direction of several professional groups. In addition, he has been published in several professional journals including Architectural Record, Progressive Architecture, ENR, and CIO Magazine on the subject of technology in architecture. Mr. Rocha has presented at several industry conferences and symposiums including the Harvard Graduate School of Design and A/E/C Systems. He can be reached at LROCHA@watg.com.

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 #6 > Printer-friendly format