He identified how complexity and computation are changing how buildings are designed and constructed. Design and construction went unchanged for literally millenniums. Then in the 1800s various inventions triggered an explosion of changes leading up to the present. Now changes occur so rapidly, we aren’t even quite aware of them and their consequences. There have been financial, social and legal changes that have affected us, but technology has been the foremost. Buildings have gone from complicated to now being complex. Where at one time an individual might have been able to understand everything there was to know about the building, now it requires a lot of people to discuss one system within it.
Another objective in his presentation was how collaboration, Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) and Design/Build are changing who the designer actually is. As he pointed out, “good design” is nothing more than decisions made with the benefit of expertise, creativity and aesthetic sensibility. Owners want predictable outcomes. Collaboration helps reduce the risk associated with unpredictable outcomes. If architects, engineers, contractors and subcontractors are collaborating on the design, whose design is it? Who draws it? Who specifies? Is it the design of the professional or the fabricator? The design professional should shout – “We do!” but it isn’t that clear any more.
Design is essentially decision making. Drawings and specifications are how we record those decisions. It used to be that drawings and specifications communicated the intent to the contractor, but now if the subcontractor participates collaboratively then intent is already clear. If they do the drawings as fabrication drawings – how does the designer’s role change? What if designers began modeling in manufacturing software and those files went directly to production?
Mike went on in his presentation to describe the implications of the shift to customization and a manufacturing paradigm. We are shifting from a construction / assembly paradigm of fitting lots of bits and pieces together, to a manufacturing paradigm of fabricating entire assemblies in a factory environment. Customization becomes easier through computation and manufacturing to create the one off designs. As stated in the paragraph above who does the modeling?
In this environment, how do you specify? Is it performance based, but how is performance described? If it is prescriptive – prescriptive of what? They might focus on materials such as aerogel insulation, composites, etc. They might look at concerns such as resource location, embodied energy, carbon debt, manufacturing pollution, etc. They might consider manufacturing technology such as the software requirements for molds, composite weaving machinery, pressure and heat forming. They also might consider interfaces such as quick couple connectors and structural adhesives.
Mike also discussed how globalization and massive integration will affect building system optimization in the near future, but I won’t address these in this message in an effort to keep this somewhat short. One of Mike’s last slides addressed “change” with the subtitle “Change is not mandatory. Survival is not necessary.” They might not be mandatory or necessary, but you know where that leaves you!
Hopefully you can see the message Mike spoke about. From the emails I received from several of you, it appears his topic was very thought provoking. I don’t know what the future holds for us, but a couple mottos spring to mind. The Boy Scouts have the motto “Be Prepared” and when I took the motorcycle safety course one of the mottos they mention many times during the course was “Expect the Unexpected.” Both of these mottos deal with the future and sometimes it’s more immediate and eminent than other times. So expect the unexpected and be prepared.
Let’s continue this discussion in the Forums on the chapter web site.