The Wedge Between Us
This Post is by Jon Buerg.
A while back, an article I wrote about history repeating itself when it comes to our profession’s embrace of BIM generated a nice bit of discussion, and a single quote really stood out to me. Shoegnome reader Phil Allsopp may have just made the analogy of the year when he wrote, “One other pet peeve of mine is to hear architects…talk about their ‘CAD guys’ or ‘BIM technicians’…It’s the same thing as someone touting themselves as an orchestra conductor but they can’t read music or play any of the instruments before them.”
I (and several others) had a strong reaction to that analogy, which is to say that I thought it was friggin’ awesome. I’ve been thinking for a while about why I think that quote is so awesome, and that thought exercise lead me to write this article.
Part of what Phil addresses with his comment is the wedge that gets driven between the management and production folks at an architecture firm. On the management side of the wedge, you have professionals who handle everything but the production work. And on the production side of the wedge you have professionals that do all the production work (and hopefully also gain exposure to the some of the tasks of the management side for IDP or training for career advancement). So, you have management bringing in work, defining a scope for that work and setting a budget to get the work done; usually with little to no working knowledge of what it actually takes to get the production portion of that work completed. It’s not hard to see how all this can leave the production side thinking, “hey, WTF!”
If anything, it seems like the emergence of BIM in architecture only serves to drive the wedge deeper. Now we have management speaking in hyperbole to clients about BIM, or asking why the front end of the production work is taking longer than it used to in the good ol’ days. What a mess. At this point, I feel like I should be crafting a killer analogy to drive the point home, but I don’t need to because Phil did that already. Perfectly.
As I’ve advanced in my career as an architect and taken on increasing levels of management, I’ve made a conscious effort to always stay informed and reasonably competent in the latest technology that drives production work. Even when I think I don’t have time to learn or practice by doing some production work, I remind myself that it’s my professional obligation to be competent in all aspects of practice. Then I get down to that production work and I realize it’s also a great way to establish and maintain relationships with those who are at earlier stages of their careers and are hungry to learn more. And then I think back to the start of my career and I remember that my favorite management people to learn from were doers when it came to the production work, too-and they stayed that way throughout their careers.
So to all of you on the management side of the wedge, roll up your sleeves so you don’t wear out the elbows of your shirts from all the mousing and keyboarding as you learn (or re-learn as the case may be) how to draft in the 21st century. Preferably in a BIM environment. Preferably from a talented production staffer that is eager to learn from you as well. Then commit yourself to keeping up with this production work and understanding that you may be a teacher, but you have to learn from those you teach as well. That’s how this works. Got it?
There’s a business rationale behind removing the wedge too. When management has a first-hand understanding of what goes into the production work and how the technology behind that work functions, it has a funny way of creating better outcomes for project delivery, even increased profits and a more stable workplace in the long run. All sorts of amazing realizations will happen for management when they start to understand what it really takes to produce the deliverables for the projects they are managing.
Finally, for all my production peeps out there I say to you, hang in there. Some of us in management have figured this out or will figure it out after reading this article. If you’re still not seeing change, go find a great architect out there who will help you — they do exist.
A special thanks to Phil Allsopp for the fantastic analogy that made me think!
Subscribe to the blog so that you don’t miss future posts from Jon Buerg: Shoegnome on Facebook, Twitter, and the RSS feed. You should also go ahead and follow Jon on twitter. I’m super thrilled whenever Jon sends me something to share. Do you have some awesome things to say about the current state of the architecture profession? Or about BIM? Or any of the other topics I like writing about. I’m looking for more voices to promote.
Steve Nickel
Phil Allsopp’s analogy of the year: “It’s like a conductor touting himself without being able to play an instrument or being able to read music”. Go to the YouTube of Daniel Barenboim conducting the Berlin Philharmonic (and playing the piano) to see how this musical architect gets it done! That’s how the Principal of every Architectural firm should aspire to be! Please forward this to Phil.
Jared Banks
I’ll make sure he sees it! Googling Daniel Barenboim now.
Phil Allsopp
Thanks for the nice comments! Glad my analogy works.
I guess what truly bothers me is the apparent reluctance of many (too many in fact) practicing professionals to embrace and become proficient in what I and others regard as the basic tools of the trade. It is simply not OK to throw in the towel and – as I’ve heard some remark – leave all that technology stuff to younger generations. Clients and society in general demand far more from professionals than that and if those skills and technologies are not applied throughout the entire design and production process to produce better results across the board, the value of the professional services will continue to decline sharply. The problems we face today – financial, social, economic and environmental – demand that better insights into building performance and how this can produce much healthier living conditions, need to be developed and communicated as part of the design solution. Leaving the necessary science and analysis to “younger generations” is a dreadful abrogation of professional and moral responsibilities.
Imagine where we would be if aerospace designers at Boeing or Lockheed refused to embrace 3D finite element analysis so they can stress test their aircraft well before committing to a particular design configuration for manufacture? W’ed see aircraft execs standing at one end of a runway popping Valium with their fingers crossed hoping that their ‘plane will fly without falling out of the sky. Same thing applies to automotive and consumer electronic products sectors.
I can see a time in the not too distant future when BIM systems will operate like the physical models that are built into computer games, especially the simulators which imbue every 3D polygon object with physical properties and where the algorithms describing the force of gravity and its relativistic effects pervade the gaming environment. Imagine being able to assemble a complete building or neighborhood on a piece of laser surveyed terrain and then subject the complete building and landscape physical model to seismic and wind forces to see how the structures perform – or don’t? Goodbye shake tables and wind tunnels, hello dynamic simulation within BIM environments. These environments will, I believe represent the suite of tools that every architect will have at her or his disposal. Designing without using such physical models would be about as effective as doing a re-make of “2001: A Space Odyssey” using wires and gunpowder rockets with a cardboard backdrop for “space”. The tools of the architect’s trade will become much broader and will, when used by designers fluent in each one’s use, result in much higher-performing and cost effective built environments for supporting the bewildering array of human endeavors and needs that we know already are not being properly met by most building projects today.
In that not too distant future, “BIM guys” and “CAD guys” will disappear. We will all be the same – accomplished professionals fluent and highly capable in many different computer-intensive tools which make the process of design and “production” a single integrated endeavor. The benefits of this to society, the economy, to clients and to human health will be enormous. When measured only on financial dimensions, they will easily eclipse the $Trillions we spend (and waste) each year today treating environmentally-induced chronic diseases and paying to utility companies and municipalities as we try to make the places we inhabit safe for human occupancy.
Jon Buerg
As always, very well stated, Phil! You do have a gift for concisely stating the problems with those in our profession who do not embrace or stay current with technology. Your comments here give me even more food for thought. Great stuff!
Phil Allsopp
Thanks Jon. I really liked your article BTW. Well stated indeed!
I think one root of the problems we’ve been discussing lies in the schools of architecture which do not in many cases impose stringent requirements for science, engineering and technology in their programs. Also, environmental and building physics do not course through many programs as fundamental streams of knowledge and competency that students are expected to embrace and use in every one of their studio projects. Some schools of course are better at this than others – without a doubt, but there are a lot out there that permit students to slip through the technologies, tools and science nets.
I spoke to a third year architecture student a while ago about her term project. What shocked me was how little she knew about – or was interested in – how it would be built, how the main components would be assembled, how the building would perform for inhabitants, how energy and air distribution systems would work, how walls, roofs and floor assemblies and sandwiches would be made up etc. Yet this student scored very high marks for the project. I asked her which BIM system she had used for her project. Her answer was that she had tried to learn Sketchup but was not familiar at all with products like ARCHICAD, Vectorworks Revit or Microstation. Apparently – for her – taking courses in Autocad or Revit (and only these were offered) were optional.
Students are being taught by architects (either in full-time or in adjunct capacities) many of whom who have no knowledge or interest in the technology tools of the trade that exist today. My frustration with this state of affairs is that the system of education may be perpetuating a possibly fatal (for those graduating) level of ignorance about technologies, tools and the growing demands for better-performing built environments. Its not that the students are bad or incapable or that some faculty members aren’t as frustrated as I might be about this. Its the system of education in architecture which doesn’t pay enough attention to the technology and scientific underpinnings of effective design and the development, through more scientific research, of a robust and growing evidence basis for design decisions.
Jared Banks
A million yeses. Architecture students can’t learn how to think and design with the tech we have at our disposal if they are being taught by professors who don’t even know that tech exists!
Steve Nickel
Great reading…Jared, I think I forgot to mention that the Barenboim piece I referred to above is Beethoven’s Choral Fantasy, an early precursor of Beethoven’s 9th symphony. Barenboim, the musical architect, is unbelievable.
Richard Jones
As someone who is on the management side I think you really hit the nail on the head. I have heard several of my peers tell me that either they are too old to learn the new tools, or too busy or the worst I have heard is that there is no need because they have CAD or BIM jockeys to do that. Nothing could be further from the truth. In order to manger others you need to know what they are experiencing. How can they look to you for guidance when all you can do is shrug your shoulders. How can you know if they are performing up to par when you can’t even walk in their shoes.
Phil Allsopp
Richard:
Well said. Well said indeed!!
The “I’m too old”, “I’m too busy” or “there’s no need…” comments you mention are dreadful abrogations of professional responsibility. Imagine a dentist or a surgeon telling a patient that they are too old or too busy to learn new diagnostic and treatment techniques and technologies that are known to significantly benefit patients. They’d be drummed out of the medical and dental profession pretty darned fast plus they’d probably be facing a tidal wave of law suits for malpractice. So why is it that the architectural profession and licensing bodies tolerate the careless disregard of the technologies that both advance the profession’s status and value and benefit greatly clients?
Jon Buerg
Thanks, Rich! You’ve always been on the rational side of this issue as the only engineering firm air know of that is comprised exclusively of the doers I describe in the article. Good to hear from you!
Steve Nickel
This topic continues to be fascinating, maybe because I went down this road. Before I became relatively fluid in ArchCAD, we engaged a summer intern to help out. The kid embarrassed me into becoming an ArchiCAD addict. The Principals and senior management of the firms Phil and Richard are talking about above should make some BIM New Year’s resolutions…
1) “I’m too old”: This excuse is truly pathetic. I became an ArchiCAD addict in my late 50s.
2) “I’m too busy”: Good for you, but make time to learn BIM. Set aside a number of hours to
do a 3D model (mostly by yourself). It’s fun and will re-energize you in your practice.
3) “There’s no need”: Resolution: I am determined to remain THE fully knowledgeable
conductor of this architectural firm.
Jon Buerg
Love the idea of these becoming resolutions, Steve!
Phil Allsopp
Just a data point regarding the need for the profession at large too embrace the kind of transformative technologies that are shaping our world and also the kind of services that are needed. Like millions of other people, I get Co.Design Daily and this morning there is an article about new categories of job titles and roles resulting from the rapid advances in digital technologies.
http://www.fastcodesign.com/3054433/design-moves/the-most-important-design-jobs-of-the-future?utm_source=mailchimp&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=codesign-daily&position=1&partner=newsletter&campaign_date=01042016
Not a single mention of an architect or built environments. While business journals have some catching up to so as far as understanding the interplays among human habitat, economic development and wellbeing, I thought it was an interesting marker for the architectural profession in that they are no regarded as operating at the leading edge at all when it comes to digital technologies.
We know this isn’t the case in all cases, of course, but it would seem to me than some major efforts ought to me mounted to change this current perception.
The New Year resolutions are a fabulous idea!! Maybe they get embedded in CPD programs….?
Jon Buerg
Thanks for sharing that article, Phil! I finally had a chance to read it and I see a smidgeon of an indirect reference to architects here with the nomination of the CDO/CCO role. I know many architects get into the corporate world with a that title or something similar, and I agree with the points made in the article about how vital it is for corporations to have that person in their organizations. This is maybe a small example of how architects can redefine their position in the business community and bring their talents to new audiences.
Phil Allsopp
Jon:
I think the opportunities for architects to play major, senior executive roles in corporations and other entities is significant. There’s a tendency for folks with business, accounting and other backgrounds to think of architects as people only interested in—and capable of adding insights and skills to—the facilities and property management area of a business. Not true. Their skills at seeing into and illustrating the complexities that comprise everyday business and policy design and decision-making is largely untapped. Also their ability to devise solutions that provide systemic benefits remains largely ignored and almost completely misunderstood.
I know more and more M.Arch. graduates are doing a joint MBA degree too but my sense is that this extra credential is used for running an architectural practice better. It should enable them to see different career pathways that are open to them and that they may be interested in over and above “doing designs.”
Redefining their role in business and society in general is, I think, critical for the unappreciated talent that currently goes to waste to be far better valued than it is. Also redefining the architect’s role as multi-disciplined, insightful business professionals will not only lead to better business and policy solutions as well as better products that actually work and last, but will enable the profession to play a larger, more prominent role in the blurring of professional demarcation lines that is occurring as we speak.
One of the challenges for those of us who are already thinking along these kind of lines, is to get the professional bodies representing architects (Accredited Schools of Architecture, NAAB, AIA, RIBA and others) to shape their policies, operations and PR machines to address the new realities that all graduating architects face and will continue to wrestle with in the future.
My 2 cents. Glad you enjoyed the article.