|
|
|
|
I'm sorry Darrel, but I don't share, or buy into, your pessimism. The design process is not inherently crippled by the technology. That's just an excuse. Processes are disrupted more by people and their attitudes than they are by the technology in and of itself. People decided all the time, even today, about how far to explore a design's potential before committing to an "end game" and moving into production mode. BIM technologies just make it easier to run through the permutations faster, with greater depth of knowledge/data. Architect/intern mentorship does not go away just because of BIM processes and tech. On the contrary, I think it puts an appropriately greater responsibility for the experienced architect to more thoughtfully engage and share with the intern, who may have the tech skills and boundless energy, but not the construction knowledge. The relationship also can be more mutual, where the architect, who may be inexperienced with the technology, can learn about what is, or is not, possible with the technology, while learning more about the general concepts of BIM/IPD together. Expense? It is only as expensive as you choose it to be. There are many technology solutions out there (remember they are only tools, not then ends in and of themselves), to accomplish theses goals <http://bit.ly/gflnMW>. And isn't the technology just another capital expense your clients pay for, over time? If you aren't accounting and billing like the contractor does, than you haven't learned your business lessons very well. I haven't met a contractor yet who has REALLY had to swallow any real costs. It ALL gets amortized through fees/billing. And I think the profession, as a whole, tends to underpay its employees. Our direct compensation, as it relates to our education, training, experience, knowledge, and responsibilities, is woefully beneath that of other professionals such as doctors, layers, and engineers of all types. This is an argument for a different day and different thread, but don't blame BIM for bringing more money to the people who deserve it. IPD is NOT anti-competitive. It can be very cost effective, though, and that is ultimately the goal, is it not? The typical (and I don't mean idealized) Design-Bid-Build process has been used and found flawed so often today, that an alternative like IPD is nothing to readily dismiss. IPD/BIM gives the project team the opportunity to see problems/opportunities, costs, and share risk/reward, while delivering better, faster, cheaper, with more value. If you can't see that, then you aren't paying attention. There are plenty of resources available today through the AIA KnowledgeNet for more information on what IPD is, how it works, and how it is actually being done by your peers, today, all around the country. Not every case is a roaring success, and there are learning opportunities from the failures, but the trend forward is clear and, I feel, very exciting. ------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Ouellette Assoc. AIA BIM Specialist Nemetschek Vectorworks, Inc. Columbia MD -------------------------------------------
Show Original Message
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 09-01-2011 09:17
From: Darrel Odom
Subject: Reply to Jeffrey Ouellette, Assoc. AIA
Great designs are not conceived nor refined on the computer just as they weren't on the drafting board. They are generated by the mind of the designer worked out by sketching with, possibly, a little input from other trusted and qualified designers. As soon as the design gets put down in hard lines, model boards, or exact wall family locations in a BIM, then the design is done and the "get it done" part has started. Unfortunately, there is a fascination in the profession with the "get it done" part and a rush into it on many projects without really completing the design. Conflict resolution and shifting windows around is not design, it is just piddling work. Needs to be done correctly, but nowhere near as important as the details of the design itself.
Jeffrey is correct that fewer people are needed now (in the CAD/BIM world), particularly the lower tier draftperson of old. The problem is you are giving the least experienced person in the office the responsibility to make exact and correct major decisions very early in the process. The "least experienced" CAD/BIM person has to be a very experienced project architect with an intimate knowledge of the design details to avoid a lot of stupid and naive decisions that get increasingly harder to undue as the project proceeds. The salary for that person, the software and technology expense (IT people like Jeffrey), all of the support group that allow that person to produce the project all are so extremely expensive, that backing up or refining is almost not affordable, once it hits the CAD/BIM production process. Yes, you can do more with fewer people but those are extremely expensive people now as opposed to the more but less expensive people of the past. You also, as a result, have much less time to "get it right." Instead of the designer having to see the 3D image of the design in his/her head, he/she now has a 3D model very early in the process, so that helps the 3d visually challenged among us. That's good as long as the power of the 3D BIM process doesn't run away with the design before it is completed.
Throwing away the free enterprise, competitive, part of the construction process by allowing the contractors to be locked in early so they are free (in their IPD non-competitive pricing environment) to inflate their costs and markups is a dumb idea. It sells more BIM software to more participants (which is why software vendors push it so hard), but, if the owner cares about his money, it is stupid. JMVHO.
-------------------------------------------
Darrel Odom AIA, LEED AP
President
Odom Peckham Architecture, Inc.
Little Rock AR
-------------------------------------------
|
|
Be the first person to recommend this.
|