I got the program for a state AIA Convention in the mail recently. I scanned through it and closely read the descriptions of all the seminars involving BIM. There was one focusing on measuring the ROI of BIM. Which is a great topic. But one of the two speakers is a reseller. I don’t know about you, but that makes me a little uneasy. Do we want to hear about ROI from the perspective of someone who sells the software? I’d rather hear from someone who uses it. I worry that someone who sells for a particular company might miss the bigger BIM landscape (seeing it primarily through the lens of software rather than process). Can a reseller be trusted to tell you why BIM might lose you money? Or how not all the products are a good fit for you? Or how BIM is really a design tool? Maybe I’m overreacting; we all know that software costs are just one piece of the puzzle. There is so much more to it. Like people. Yeah…come to think of it. If your BIM software costs you $5,000 or $7,000 to start and then another $700 or $1,000 a year, that’s still small potatoes next to training, support, salaries, and non-monetary investment in people. Because it’s really about people, right?

To be fair, my fears and frustrations are a bit theoretical. I know both the reseller and the other speaker giving the ROI talk. I actually think the reseller will do a good (albeit biased) job. But still…who’s controlling the message here: architects, engineers, contractors, or software companies?

“Once the time limit is up, a winner will be selected…”

There is another seminar at this particular AIA Convention which actually annoys me. A lot. There is no way it’s not going to send the wrong message. This seminar is focused on comparing four tools in a two-hour head-to head competition. Each competitor will use their chosen tool to embellish a given building plan and design brief, ending with a rendered view. The tools are: Hand Drawing, SketchUp, Rhino, and Revit. A nice selection of options, right? Could be an interesting competition, right? Wrong. The tools don’t matter. And here’s why. Let me briefly introduce the Competitors; I’ll leave names out of it:

Intern
2 years of experience and a Bachelors of Science in Architecture

Intern
2 years of experience and a Masters in Architecture

Designer
15 years of experience (and no online presence so I can’t tell you his educational background)

Licensed Architect and Design principal
25 years of experience and a Masters in Architecture

If we were making a bet, without knowing who’s using which tool, where would you put your money? Would you place your money on a particular tool winning or a particular person? In what scenario does the guy with 25 years of experience lose to the intern with two years? Tools are a force multiplier, but come on. This grouping of people makes the event worthless. If, like many of our Revit vs ArchiCAD debates, it were more about showing the what and how of the tools rather than crowning a champion, it’d have some merit. But it seems pretty obvious that this competition is subtly engineered to promote the myth of the pencil, the amazing ease of Sketchup, the esoteric qualities of Rhino and the cumbersomeness of Revit. Which is (let’s all say it out loud together): BULLSHIT.

• Comparisons are only valuable if they teach us something about our own processes.
• Competitors should have similar experience in the profession and with their preferred tool.
• Get scientific. Tainted data is garbage. Anyone who has opened a BIM file and seen a bunch of 2D patches, disconnected views, and manual schedules knows the truth of that.
• To really mix things up: have the competitors use the tool that they are least familiar with.

When Tools Don’t Matter

What do you think will be the driving factor here: Tool or Experience?

I’ve shared this equation before. It’s from a post about comparing CAD, BIM and the pencil while controlling for time, skill, and ability. The trickiest part about comparisons-whether it’s pencil vs BIM or ArchiCAD vs Revit-is that what most often controls the equation is natural ability and skill with the tool. John Henry beat the steam powered hammer because he was the best steel-driving man, and his opponent was a fairly new technology. His ability and skill trumped whatever advantages the machine had. But…against a lesser man, or a year or two later when the steam powered hammer got a little better…this legend would tell a different story.

Is it a man vs a machine or mankind vs all machines?

If you have two people showing off what a tool can do, if one is better at their tool, it might not matter which tool is inherently more powerful. As you can probably guess, another way to look at the Ability/Skill variables in my equation is to shorthand it to Experience. Whether that means being more experienced with technical skills or more experienced with expressing natural ability, the experience of a competitor can make all the difference. Therefore a competition between twenty-five years, fifteen-years, and two years of experience is kind of a joke.

It’s a Man vs a Man

All this talk of experience being the controlling factor brings us back to people. As I’ve stated over and over again tools are force multipliers. They take what you have and give you the power to do more. The proper tools free us to do so much more (remember you can’t run 200 MPH but you can go that fast in a Ferrari). Unfortunately the architecture profession suffers from a self-perpetuating anti-technology cult. Our educators, our practicing elites, and our historical heroes all reinforce this myth. We see our heroes and put more weight on what they used rather than how long they used it. We forget that there are no shortcuts. All solutions take time. We confuse our self-worth and the value of our profession with the wrong things.

Excellence in architecture is gained overtime. It is not a profession of singular prodigal genius. Our pantheon is not full of amazing designers under twenty-five. As a quick validation of this view, pause for a moment and think about all the architectural greats. How many were late bloomers as opposed to young gun upstarts?

We keep preventing the existence of the architect with 25 years of BIM who also focuses on design-and education and firm leadership. Instead increased experience with advanced tools often marginalizes these architects and pushes them outside the central discussions, outside the realm of those listened to and praised for expressing both the essence and future of the profession. These architects sit on the fringe, sometimes invited but rarely seen as an equal. Those of us with an interest in the intersection between architecture and technology often make things worse for ourselves. We let the conversation about BIM and technology get out of balance.

It’s time to end this post for now. But I want to add one more point that will be explored endless in other posts. The discussion of experience trumping all else does not mean that tools and processes don’t matter. Quite the opposite actually.

We know what an architect with 50 years of experience designing with analog tools can do. We have no clue what an architect with 50 years of experience designing with digital tools can do. And that is even ignoring the network effect of how design really happens: within teams.

But those are topics for another time.

It’s time to bring these conversations and questions to a larger audience. We need this discussed in our schools and in our firms. But there’s another problem that is stopping us. I’ll tell you about that later this week. Subscribe to my blog to read more about the future of BIM and the tricky world of being an Architect in the 21st century: Shoegnome on Facebook, Twitter, and RSS feed. And now you can join the LinkedIN group too!