|
The
promise of the 1980's was that computer-aided drafting (CAD)
would revolutionize how architects and engineers design and
produce drawings. I still have an old coffee mug from one of
those now defunct CAD vendors that proclaimed: "CAD - 10
Times Faster." In my former life, as a technical consultant
for that same vendor, I tried to temper the salesmen's claims
by contending that CAD could be "5 to 10 times as fast
as manual drafting" - which could be demonstrated under
carefully controlled conditions. The macro that automatically
generated ceiling grids and the function that positioned an
entire wall of window symbols on a floor plan were really quite
impressive. But how many times did you get to use these tools
during the course of a design project? Like many that jumped
on the CAD bandwagon in the early 1980s, Buchart-Horn would
have been happy if we could have reduced drafting time by just
20 or 30 percent. Instead we sometimes treated CAD files like
scrap paper, continually changing and refining our ideas as
if we had unlimited time and budgets. With CAD it was, and still
is, so easy to erase, move, rotate, rescale, and even start
over. In the pre-CAD era designers were considerably more cautious
about making changes, especially once their basic concepts were
inked on Mylar. However, over time CAD has had a profound impact
on the design process, and the business of design and construction.
Equipped as we are with extensive libraries of details and symbols,
level standards, naming conventions, and menu systems for streamlining
drawing creation, Buchart-Horn continues to see improvements
in design and drafting quality and efficiency.
In the 1990's CAD software developers were extolling the power
of database links, and the ability to integrate specs and automatically
generate bills of materials. We were told how we would be able
to click in a door symbol, enter a classification code, select
a hardware set and finish, and in just a few minutes save our
spec writers and estimators untold hours of work. CAD users
would create "intelligent drawings" with all the necessary
embedded data to generate quantity takeoffs and relevant specifications.
Of course, this process required a comprehensive library of
standardized symbols, all predefined with every possible combination
of size, shape, configuration, and other optional parameter
that a designer might want to specify. There were a few CAD
products that actually delivered this capability, most notably
to those in the home building industry. An architect could draw
a simple wall line and the software would locate studs, calculate
the amount of sheet rock needed, and produce materials reports
detailing the pounds of nails and gallons of paint required.
However, due to their inherent need to be creative, most engineers
and architects won't allow themselves to be constrained by the
limits these applications place upon their ideas. As a result,
I know of few mainstream design disciplines that apply these
tools in the manner promoted by the software vendors. It seems
that we as design professionals once again failed to see the
potential of automation. If only we would design rectangular
buildings, use no more than two types of windows, and make all
of our material selections at the same time that we draw that
first room layout! Instead, we continue to make steady progress
by applying the best-of-breed applications, even if they don't
always share data as we once hoped they would. Even though it
may not be easy to link MicroStation or AutoCAD data with specifications
from SPECTEXT, estimating tools like Timberline, or Primavera
project management capabilities, the advantages of each of these
applications in a standalone environment are still considerable.
Now,
in the 2000's, the new focus seems to be on improving communication
among the various team members, and applying e-commerce principles
to "project collaboration." At the 2000 AEC Systems
conference in Washington, there was very little evidence of
CAD and design-oriented software. Instead, even the leading
CAD purveyors of the past were now reinventing themselves as
extranet service providers. (An extranet is a special type of
web site that allows team members to post and download project
documents, update schedules, and circulate tasks - all using
software and disk storage resident on the extranet provider's
web-connected server.) Now we are being encouraged to make all
of our non-integrated project information (drawings, specs,
materials databases, meeting notes, budgets, schedules, and
RFIs) instantly accessible to any organization involved in the
project, from anywhere in the world. And it no longer matters
that the team members don't all use the same software to generate
this information. The more advanced extranet applications include
all the viewing and editing tools necessary to document and
communicate our ideas. Thanks to the Internet and the decreasing
cost of network bandwidth, perhaps we'll soon be storing all
of our project records at an extranet host site, so we'll be
able to work just as easily from our office, a hotel room while
on the road, or from home on the weekend. It's all about "being
connected" (electronically, if not politically). The technology
is ready, but are we as an industry?
Early Adopter or Cautious Follower? At Buchart-Horn, essentially
our entire professional and technical staff make regular use
of design, drafting, planning, accounting, and office automation
applications. Every new employee, regardless of which branch
office they call "home," is issued a network login,
an email address, and access to the Internet. Our wide-area
network (WAN) links every employee to the centralized financial
database, email server, planning calendar, and standardized
forms. Access to these tools is recognized as fundamental in
today's work environment, regardless of the individual's job
title or responsibility. In most cases time sheets are filled
out using spreadsheets, meetings are set up with online calendars,
sales performance reports are distributed by email, and project
completion estimates ("percent completes") are updated
via real-time access to the central project accounting system.
The days of product vendors faxing cut sheets and updating catalogs
are dwindling, as most product information is readily accessible
on the web. CAD, design, and analysis tools have been in general
use since the early days of desktop PCs, and vendor-supplied
product selection and sizing applications are commonplace.
Those
Buchart-Horn employees who are regularly on the road - business
development reps, managers with multi-office responsibilities,
and some project managers - also need remote access to server-based
email, centralized financial data, and web access. But the firm
is proceeding very carefully when it comes to the issue of home
offices. Not only do they present a number of technical challenges
(network security, supporting disparate systems, limited data
transfer rates), but they also raise a number of management
concerns. We're not quite ready to promote "CAD-at-home"
as an effective way to address what is generally taken to be
a highly collaborative process.
The
degree of efficiency derived from today's information technologies
can vary significantly among those firms that choose to adopt
them. Gaining a true competitive advantage depends upon the
care taken in planning, implementation, training, support, and
(perhaps most importantly) the ongoing evaluation of business
processes. While we avoid letting systems and software dictate
how we conduct business, we also work hard to prevent the replication
of the inefficiencies of previous processes. We view any new
application as an opportunity to change inefficient behavior,
or better still, eliminate processes that don't contribute to
corporate objectives. During our implementation of a new project
accounting system in 1998, we spent nearly a year analyzing
work breakdown structures and how best to organize, track, and
report financial information. The result was a much simpler
and consistent approach to budgeting, cost accounting, and profitability
analysis - and with greater benefits to the end-users.
But
of course, this ideal approach to IT management frequently falls
victim to that familiar impediment to sound engineering project
management - the contractual "client requirement."
Rather than using the tools, standards, and procedures we have
developed and refined over time, some of our clients ask us
to use a specific CAD package, scheduling application, or word
processor. In their view, this will benefit them in the long-term
use and occupancy of the facility being designed. Theoretically,
the benefits derived will outweigh the added costs that may
be incurred during design, which can be substantial. However,
rather than evaluating the costs and benefits to both partners
in this enterprise, the design professional too often consents
to using a less efficient approach, and then fails to adjust
fees and schedule to accommodate this client-imposed requirement.
This may explain the opinion expressed by 36% of the respondents
to Zweig White & Associates 2000 Information Technology
Survey of design and planning firms: that improvements in productivity
resulting from IT come at the expense of profitability. Rarely
is the client questioned as to just how rigid their CAD or word
processing format specification really is. They may have simply
copied boilerplate wording from a previous project RFP, and
not even intended to use the electronic design information.
What Does the Future Hold?
The current focus of the AEC systems industry seems to be squarely
on universal, Internet-enabled access to information, in a manner
that makes software and systems irrelevant to the process. While
I don't expect to be redlining construction drawings on my wireless
telephone's LCD anytime soon, in the not so distant future we
will be using "Internet appliances" for all sorts
of tasks not yet envisioned. Scott McNealy, CEO of Sun Microsystems,
believes that information should be as easy to access as electricity
(except in California), and that we shouldn't have to struggle
with "overengineered access devices" (the PC). This
point of view is leading many of the Internet-savvy software
and system vendors of the 90s to exploit cheap data storage
and burgeoning network bandwidth in hopes of coaxing us into
scrapping our old-fashioned local-area networks (LANs) and overdeveloped
desktop computers. Why are vendors taking us down this road
- did we ask for worldwide, handheld access to all the same
information our office-bound counterparts have? Whether we in
the AEC industry feel a need for this ubiquitous connectivity,
all those people buying laptop PCs, PDAs, and Internet-ready
wireless phones have turned the heads of software and service
vendors in all lines of business. The Gartner Group reports
that more cell phones were sold in 1999 than cars and PCs combined!
When
Buchart-Horn installed their original WAN, we opted for a centralized,
star-type configuration, with branches linked only to host servers
in our corporate headquarters. This allowed everyone to access
a single email server, our centralized project accounting system,
and a single Internet Service Provider (ISP) connection. Even
our Frankfurt/Main, Germany branch was tied solely to the main office,
which seemed logical and more cost-effective given that the
WAN was used primarily for email and interoffice file transfers.
But as time passes, and the demand for Internet access balloons
(for external email communications, product information, and
other types of Internet research), we have had to add bandwidth
and explore alternatives for diverting Internet traffic to local
providers. The use of a local German provider makes particular
sense for Frankfurt/Main, due to the higher cost of carrying this
traffic back to the US, as well as the additional "hops"
(and corresponding degradation of service) needed to reach Internet
servers that reside in Europe.
Whereas
one of the primary responsibilities of management is to monitor
and exploit change, now we also have to cope with the drastic
rate of change. We used to worry about having to replace computers
every three or four years, just to keep up with software's continuously
expanding appetite for processor speed, RAM, and disk storage.
Now we also have to keep feeding the growing demand for gigabit
LAN speeds and expensive T1 WAN links, just to handle the day-to-day
volume of digital information exchange. Gone are the days of
waiting for the overnight express package containing two or
three floppy disks.
So
are we really ready for mobile computing, home offices, and
universal sharing of real-time project data? Although much of
the necessary technology already exists, few of us in the design
profession have the management policies and liability safeguards
in place to deal with such radical changes in operational practice.
Synchronizing home and office data, protecting proprietary information,
and coordinating workflow present significant challenges in
the mobile computing environment. As visual and collaborative
as the design profession tends to be, it works best when it
involves frequent deliberation among team members and the client.
Unfortunately, the current state of data sharing technologies
falls short of being able to duplicate the synergy that occurred
when participants leaned over the same set of drawings. Even
with CAD editing and viewing tools accessible to all Buchart-Horn
project managers, we still produce nearly as many check plots
as when CAD was the private domain of the technician/draftsperson.
As often as contracts call for electronic deliverables, and
in spite of the increasing expectation of extranet access, it
is still a rare occasion when a project submittal goes out without
a full set of hardcopy documents. The paperless, virtual office
may come someday, but I don't think we should expect to see
it in the very near future!
|
|
