Scrambled BIM: Digital Art Nouveau from Digital Architecture

de Facto BIM - "It's In My Brain Now"

BIM practice, in the professional world of A/E/C/O, is perhaps one of the most profound experiences I've been involved with during my last 12 years in this industry. No more profound, is trying to catalog my technical experiences within my own use of BIM. It has become somewhat autobiographical, interestingly enough. These days, as I work in the construction management sector, I keep seeing new capacities for its use, and the awe inspired counterparts alike, reveal a cryptic pedagogue.

While there has been very little resistance in a possible push to regulate its use, the direction seems heading in a more widely accepted and common practice use, while still seemingly being an imposing force for standard design practice to contend with.

Standardized techniques are being developed, within IFC (Industry Foundation Classes), so much that models can speak to others in many different languages; between trades, and for many different groups to use. Recently, I acquired all of the most current Wiley and Son's AIA books: The Fourteenth Edition of The Architect's Handbook of Professional Practice; The Eleventh Edition of Architectural Graphic Standards; and the Official Guide to the 2007 AIA Contract Documents, just so I could enjoy reading these in Central Park, every Sunday during this summer, of 2009. In these I have found new revelations of the architecture industry's mild acceptance of BIM.

Within a smaller sphere, through a construction management group I'd worked with, the agreement had been that its practice is evolving and perhaps, as cathartic as this would have been, its adaptation prevails at even greater levels than one might have first expected. And this is based on the perceptions of groups who've practiced traditional techniques their whole careers (still the mainstay). Even they're seeming to accept BIM technology as a future practice, something I thought difficult when stepping into a past role as a BIM modeler (and having the responsibility of convincing the elder tribesmen of this new tool). But I'd also managed to barely retain what I had learned in a 3 year span prior to the most pivotal position I'd held in my career - as a BIM modeler on an important project in Colorado.

In Deceember, 2007, I'd suffered a severe concussion upon embarking on the greatest assignment in all of the 12 years I've been working in architecture. Ironically, I had to relearn a lot of those BIM techniques I was starting to take for granted, all over again. This, only adding to my dilemma of "pushing the practice" as I almost lost everything I knew - regarding the BIM methodology I've used for the past 4 years. It was attributed to a severe concussion that resulted from an ambushed attack (what appeared to have been an attempted mugging, or gang related initiation, in downtown Denver). This, I have no recollection of, whatsoever because the blow to my skull was from behind, I never witnessed my attacker. For a short time afterward, while back at work, I was afraid I couldn't relearn fast enough what I essentially already knew from several years of BIM practice. However, and my point here is, that BIM is very easy to relearn, and the practice of BIM is essentially from some commonalities in our industry, using perhaps visceral temporal techniques, even. But I say this only because I had the privilege of the as-built structure, hlose at hand, on location. This had been a blessing for me while relearning building information modeling, my BIM occupational rehabilitation; temporal - as it were. I'd gotten the opportunity to create dual imprints within my recovering brain tissue. It's definitely more cyberpunk than I would have guessed. But I believe firmly in the notion of "that which doesn't destroy..." Computers can be extremely proficient in teaching humans; BIM is no different. The notion that "It's in My Brain Now", a repetitive verse, borrowed from the Meat-Beat Manifesto song, Helter Skelter
defines also the pain and agony one must be willing to endure to bring new world order. And I think Stanley Kubrick would also punctuate brain activity and technology, as much as Malcolm McDowell's sampled screams appear in the same song.

Reality, as the muse to BIM practice, is, for me, like Dali's exquisite corpse because digital deconstructive practice is one of the best teaching tools towards the paranoid critical methods of construction - especially for the Brain's Right Side. The BIM modeler works well on this side also.

Yet, I triumphed over my would be defeaters. I have relearned a lot while also learning some brand new stuff, from this organism of "BIM". It's either that, or I've learned everything I know from osmosis. Oh my God! That's it! I've learned everything through osmosis! Yeah, not likely, especially since spending, on the average, close to 60 hours per week since August 2007 - with BIM programs exclusively.

I once created tangible imagery for the construction sector, in business development practice, using BIM. Recently, after the concussion, I'd used it to a much more advanced level for actual 3D M/E/P coordination, clash detection, planning, scheduling. I used it on one of the largest LEED planned projects for a town plan, in the Colorado resort community of Snowmass Village. So, for me, it has now gone beyond merely "scratching the surface" of using virtual design and construction software. Even a couple of thugs with a baseball bat in Denver's section, LODO can't take this out of my head. If I had lost the ability to utilize what I had learned, I would've seen that as a major setback for me. I have grown fond of my skills because it is a huge part of who I am as an artist and environmental designer.

As someone who had bypassed architecture school (still trying to get back in, I might add) for the opportunity cost of learning something other, I sometimes feel I've been granted the proverbial Monopoly board, "Go" pass now. I say this because BIM has been in the foreground of what I probably would've chosen to concentrate in (and it having been available) at Univ. at Buffalo, or Univ. of Toronto's graduate architecture programs, back when I got accepted, in 2000. I've even learned a lot about how to design buildings, through BIM, through my own cognition and practical approach. BIM technology has supplemented my learning to a much greater degree. I know I don't test well, at university level; I never considered myself book smart. Design concentrations were something I acquired while in art school through SVA's sculpture program. Sure, maybe I could have become an architect. But I'm just as satisfied with being an anarchitect, on the verge of de Facto BIM. I held on to what I needed and valued most, coming off of my attack. BIM's in my brain now.

More and more construction management firms should position BIM professionals at the job site to document the work in BIM model format, with its built-in intelligence, visualization techniques, and quantifiables. Having this tool, on site, allows for greater definitions in modeling mechanical rough-ins, benchmarks, and allowing architects, engineers, and sub contractors unique opportunities to coordinate their work, in unison.

De facto BIM, the methodology, represents the practice of adaptability, utilitarian control, and greater portability while promoting better communication and computing. Its culture is expanding and permeating every level in the Architecture, Engineering, Construction, and Operator and Owner markets. More at higher decision making posts, within these, are making greater determinations, now, that this practice is useful to them beyond what they first perceived.

In summation, while currently BIM is: practiced, increasingly evident among the building sciences, often qualified, better examined, solicited, and is most valuable to A/E/C/O, it's also ascended to a greater magnitude, amplitude, and is extremely influential in the studio environment.

Its applications are being discovered on a daily basis, because it's gained a reputation of being an exorbitantly powerful tool that digests and feeds back important information quickly and accurately. And that's good, because: BIM practice - makes perfect. What's in your brain now?

-J.J. Nicholson

4D Project Scheduling from Synchro & Google SketchUp

I'm currently reviewing this software but I've already seen its overview through the video (which can be seen at the above link). Through this video, a certain amount of variables are understood similar to other popular 3D to 4D navigations and scheduling support is also examined as shown in the linked flash movie. Visualizations are comparatively understood thanks to its programming and the relationship to SketchUp modeling is best facilitated as being easily compatible for its use with the Google program. I will continue to assess this exciting new software for its 4D output and integration as my available time permits to.

Linked Video Footage provided courtesy of Construction Management Software Advice

Meetings: Dog and Pony Shows; or Brainstorming with BIM?: You Decide

Question: How many meetings does it take to build a building, and do all the participants fully walk away from these feeling they've accomplished what each, individually, initially wanted? My guess is that a good majority do not feel they've progressed thoroughly enough, some even feeling greater deviation and frustration as a result of these endless "meetings". Meetings, I've observed, usually become exhausting, 2-3 hour long, finger pointing sessions with argumentative methodology about the design; design vs. cost; cost vs. schedule; schedule vs. fabrication (or all of these vs. design.) Not to diminish the importance of meetings, they are highly valuable exchanges of ideas, philosophical insight sessions, provocative, collaborative pow-wows, and a way for teams to work and grow collectively. Still the proverbial "let's call a meeting" because someone thinks it's a good idea, often falls short of what I've seen through 3D model fly-throughs, webcasts, and video conferencing, but that's just me.

Ever since my own unofficial induction into the world of virtual design and construction, 4 years ago, I've become obsessed with the ideas of informative convergences. My practices and opinions have been explained, somewhat, over my BIM handle 'Spatia3' - 3 dimensional "walkthroughs", and within this and other blogs. This naming is hopefully understood as 'regions: 3 dimensionally defined'. And, in choosing the scientific Latin word (plural of Spatium,) 'regions' opens up the idea of building science (as most scientific naming is usually Latin). Building science, beyond the naked eye and connected via a digital information superhighway, is already more accessible to potential users, thanks to the internet. The effort is an attempt, like most BIM promoters are emblemmatic of, to become gradually less different and eventually the same - using BIM and web technology. AEC meetings of the future will most likely be directly affected.

The point I'm simply trying to make is this: I feel that many common AEC meetings are perfunctory and have little impact on overall goals over time, much is wasted through traditional practices. Information variables are not succinctly delivered. They have to be recalled again, so that they are redundant, inefficient, non-cohesive, and dull. I also feel this won't change too much. Yet interoperabilty will make for brand new types of meetings that are more efficient to the information necessary for projects. This is already being accomplished within the practice of several virtual AEC means. Still some sort of common meeting practice must lay the foundation for virtual collaborative ones.

Traditionally speaking, where else but through campaigned meetings would the programmatic fervor of AEC/CO be able to fuel the success of a significant building? I say, nowhere, because plans are shared, communicatively, right there. No one can go it alone without the communal order of shared ideas. Minutes are overwhelmingly recommunicated and digested by the immovable "think tank" that the "team Meeting" is or, at least, should be. The organized team, as intellectual engine, drives the design, the activity, the chase, the economics, the duration, and perpetuates healthy growth amongst all important players. But still, I ask, is something lost through all those static meetings, within the day to day? Not all meetings-of-minds prove fruitful. Why does the relationship of designers with owner/developers often fall short of the design's expectations? My answer: design turn around times and change management are hardly ever expedient enough for anyone to feel virtually comfortable. The "meeting" is a wash. Enter a new technological approach that's now here: BIMstorm.

While there is no "I" in team, there is certainly "I" in BIM (Building Information Modeling); "I" for Information (also the "I" of the storm). The communications of designs depend on the individualized scientific and artistic creativity of architects, engineers, and designers. These come from highly individualized imaginations, as much as valuable collective ones. The success of great buildings, which may become monumental acheivements to culture, art, and humanity, often come from a specific cerebral movement that are housed in only a few individuals' brains. However, individualism is also the ego-ideal of interpretive designing where broadcast to those facilitating the design. When owner/developer/operators feel "in the dark" about the design, frustration looms because of mistrust and those not seeming to be "on the same page". Designers have possibly created all the options, but how are these easily communicated? Options are "stored" but how quickly can they be integrated into a redesign process, quickly enough for everyone to feel "virtually comfortable"? Why not open up the role of the designer to a wider audience? Why not include wider participation, especially for publicly utilized designs? Why not offer virtual arena sized charrettes, in cyberspace, so that socially responsible designs are realized? Could this potentially eliminate stagnation, waste, frustration, and poor designing?

When creative interpretations are withheld from the overall archetypes sought after, by a marginally diminishing knowledge base, the ultimate vision may perhaps fade - and the world is left with structures, derived essentially, from mediocrity. The design falls prey to non designers; conformists of banality. Collaborative efforts may seem postulate, but many things also become confused and designers sometimes become resentful at having to always fix and turn around a new set of drawings, over and over again - this seeming to be their main task throughout the entire project, (leaving less attention for a purposeful design). Time is what's always needed.

BIMstorm works to acheive an enlightened vision through careful planning process and greater use of technology toward holistic design focused issues. A democratic process resides out of communicative collaboration that one can follow and intervene as part of a tapestry of information. Brainstorming, and certainly no jab at the pun, to "BIMstorm", is nothing trivial at all. It's much more than just a play on words. ONUMA has been focused on this since 1995. I certainly see this as a strong precedent for the future of virtual design workshops. Webcasting and dreamcasting: making all of this, cathartically avaliable - all thanks to BIM.

In commonly practiced meetings, so many don't make it past the "closed doors". And where are the city planners in all of this? As they campaign to insure that the design is responsible, to community, to sense of place, where is individualized creativity shared amongst the design for, and from, them? How is their situation within broken down dialogues and non-utilizations, possibly against them, being circumvented through design frustration? How can information pass through them so that the design satisfies our collective municipal goals?

I'm assuming (as an accomplished 4 year BIM practitioner), in a BIMstorm executed design, through interoperabilty, where the planning principles better = the architectural designs; better = the engineering; better = consultant circuitry, ultimately = holistic/sustainable/aesthetically efficient/utopian resemblance of a finished product.

In less than two weeks the next BIMstorm is to take place in London. The organization, Onuma, which works to define architecture in the 21st century, is sponsoring a 48 hour design charrette, to design a selected space in London, live, 24-26 June, 2008.

What's unique about this is that the design process is not closed to the public, everyone can participate from behind their own computers, worldwide. This intensifies the "meeting" architects, designers, building owners, contractors, and consultants are used to. But it may just revolutionize the common approach to bringing together everyone in a virtual data control center; a virtual "war room" as it were.

The seemlessness of all this must serve (forgive me because I'm just beginning to follow BIMstorm) to irrevocably define "design" the way only BIM can. And BIM just happens to be the glue that holds it all together while drawing greater attention to all its vital components. It creates a living, breathing design that all necessary information can be derived from. In fact, many different types of BIM platforms may be used during BIMstorm that increases participant awareness of Building Information Modeling. The intent of this is to better understand the promise of interoperabilty while accomplishing designs within broadened intellect and cognitive paramaterizations. I for one will be following BIMstorm because I too have imagined (while merely scratching the surface of what ONUMA has done) workgroups creating entire projects that reap greater shared rewards.

For more information on the upcoming webcast for the London 24-26, June BIMstorm, be sure to visit BIMstorm's website at: http://www.onuma.com/services/BimStorm.php

BIM Splitting: BIM Splitting

Gordon Matta-Clark has been a favorite artist of mine for several years. He's often been an inspiration for looking at design and construction from various psychological ways. To me, his message is peculiar in the world of digital architecture because he's often known with dissociatively connecting architectural space with data. This is exactly what I feel the BIM movement should hearken, and take more into the mainstream.

Ever since being a pre-architecture student at School of Visual Arts, in Manhattan, and being exposed to both his and James Wines’ work, I recognized that their exercises are a kind of symbology to addressing both design, design criticism, social commentary and the contemplations (or preoccupations) with spatial exercise. Learning this as a 26 year old sculpture student was a profound experience - via several instructors (some of whom were brought up in architecture families, or received professional architecture degrees of their own.)

While this blog may serve as a somewhat biographical and tangential exercise: as a current Building Information Modeling (BIM) practitioner, I sometimes can’t help but feel a virtual connection to his renown performance, Splitting, from 1974, done in Englewood, NJ (especially when "splitting" a 3D model from within a BIM program.)

In case you’ve never heard of this artist (non-architect; or anarchitect,) Matta-Clark (1943-1978) was a ground breaking “de-constructivist” who executed intricate carvings out of readymade architecture (buildings) that were (most often) soon to be demolished. His best known works were created, internationally, over a period of 10 years - between 1968 and 1977.

How ironic that, today, with all of our latest computer architecture technology, BIM somehow fits into the concept of de-constructivist theory and contextualization. For me, BIM is somewhere in between CAD and the mind's eye of Gordon Matta-Clark; BIM is Post-CAD.

Because the very solution that all “modeled information”, with BIM technology, may now be that which is virtually carved, sliced, chopped, dissected, examined; and as tangibly as Gordon Matta-Clark might have chosen to do so (from within real situations): takes his method into the cyber-realm. Or, at least, this is what I feel.

It’s almost as though this renegade artist had foreshadowed the future of digital architectural design (process) from within an inert architectural psyche: dealing with deep contemplations of architectural vicissitudes. Usually he's considered as doing this from within socioeconomic contexts: within blighted neighborhoods (in cities), while exercising more artistic or poetic commentary. Yet, had he still been alive today, these works may have also had vast implications for digital-human-ecological reasoning, architectural forensics, sustainability-green building, etc. Could these exercise have also come from his practical sense of addressing traditional drafting techniques vis-à-vis breaking down "real space" through de-constructive method? Was he making renovations of "the virtual" while being inside the reality of his own design, carving; sculpting within the core? Was he thinking similarly, then, to how progressive CAD programs allow users to operate now? In terms of virtual decon - I would argue yes to the above.

This is why I feel he was performing autonomous "computerized" methods as an extension of his cuttings. Some may say this is speculative and not well grounded, or well suited for "art" theory. Whatever the case, there are still arguments to be made, comparitively (with technology), beyond the archetypes of his accomplishments and imagination.

This possibly proves that (as sometimes was suspected) he might have been a visionary to modern computer architecture – as well as being a prolific artist working in the medium of architecture; on the fringes of an inept society.

But, while not all architectural circles agree that BIM technology is a viable resource, [enough that it should even be widely accepted (as often Matta-Clark's renegade behavior was not)] the indications that BIM is, in fact, gaining ground (as phenomenological methodology) fastidiously overrides conservative ferment that it is mere nonsense. The splitting taking the foreground [place] shall not be the same Splitting that’s archaic to the fact-of-the-matter. Cultural splits are never what they automatically appear as, and can make huge imprints on our minds because they haunt us with unearthed truths about autonomous technological advancement.

It should come as no surprise that preeminent architect, Frank Gehry, who has been on the forefront of BIM technology, is also widely influenced by Gordon Matta-Clark.

Like those recognized, who’ve staked their own place within a design theory, the fragments of these findings are usually only initially visible to a select few: my advisors at SVA, for instance. But, as in art and design, as well as in controversial technologies, simple forms can delight and surprise and reflect the very nature of why we perform in such ways.

Recently I visited the Gordon Matta-Clark: You are the Measure retrospective at the Whitney Museum, last spring. I was delighted that the New York Times chose to state at the top of their March 3, 2007 article; that it "should be required viewing for any architect born in the age of the computer screen." This confirmed exactly what I walked away feeling, after attending the exhibit twice.

Splitting progressive CAD is an extensively tough-love (labor-of-love) task. However, there are parallels that, while seemingly are far-off, ostensibly, make perfect sense when looking beyond CAD. BIM is what's most progressive and is splitting into more diverse systems interoperably - especially under the microscope of palpability: as it now is.

Perhaps exemplary pieces of art, as Matta-Clark's, offer reflective qualities in ways only a select few in digital architecture may appreciate. To those modeling with BIM, who exist in the here and now, it’s great to have them compiled and recognized as offerings to their own prodigal examinations. For others, it's still a house divided.

-JJ Nicholson 9/22/07

BIM as Cyberpunk Providence!

So I'm fast away working on a parametric model listening to the re-released Daydream Nation (Geffen) by Sonic Youth, and recollecting on a recent job relocation I made from Manhattan to Denver almost a month ago. I'd just caught the live performance of this very album by the band in Greenpoint, Brooklyn before I left from New York to work here, in Colorado. Now, working on a BIM platform I much prefer, I draw parallel the usage of such technology to that of the innovative post-punk, avant-garde, rock music contained in this late 80's masterpiece. What melodies and harmonies of grunge style guitars (and the manufacturers thereof) have in common with BIM technology are somewhat apparent within their controls and cyberpunk undertones.

But the most important thing to compare is the "post" emphasis. Sonic Youth is considered "post" punk, or cyberpunk, in genre/sub-genre formats. Can it then also be said, if we understand that "CAD" is what's now being superceded: that BIM is also "post"; revolutionary; eclectic, even from progressive CAD? Like post-punk, BIM constitutes a departure from the "norm", in software, and in digital-architecture categories.

I tend to metaphorize about these things, I know. However, working on virtual 3D projects, for me - at least, are like the musically created compositions I enjoy listening to most.

Did you know that the Library of Congress has the Daydream Nation album in its collection as one of the most innovative albums of our time? With the musical style of such a band that both epitomizes the necessity and advancement of technological innovation, (that others surely follow) is, without a doubt, the same direction I feel BIM technology should be heading in - as parallel.

The parallelisms to controlled information (within a studio social order) are absolutely the very next thing generations of designers, engineers, and constructors should be aware of - as a movement. When information is managed flawlessly and effortlessly, and virtual deconstruction is witnessed, then what's attempted is the same as what's resolved. Thus, deconstructivism can be an über attaché for the BIM cause by association of virtual similarities to artistic and architectural process. This deconstructivism, not necessarily the deconstructivism of Gordon Matta-Clark (although the assessment of virtual buildings are easily sliced up with tools similar to his mind's eye,) is, arguably, without the support of the AEC status-quo.

If BIM can be thought of as a haven for the cyberpunk CAD drifters and grifters, the fringe techno-heads working in AEC, or the architecture grads who echo the sentiments of Matta-Clark's AIA, then all focused on BIM right now should carry what seemingly is considered "self interest" to the next level. They should be motivated upon by being as much a self proclaimed evangelist of BIM, as being a pragmatist; and to foster cybernetic awareness at all costs. If you think you fall into this category, you have safety with those who think and behave the same.

If you're not around too many, then, by default, you may have to be the one who is sticking your neck way out there. I was in just this situation recently for a past employer. But this story is not unique, from what I'm finding. We're probably just seen as CAD slackers...if we're using, or attempting to, use BIM - if you're in one of "those" offices.

Even if you're being pleasant about it, fear for your own job being on the line - if you're executing BIM awareness successfully to your peers, it most likely is. It's a risk you take (acting autonomously,) but if you really think you know your stuff, you should prevail in some small way. You'll turn others on to BIM, possibly better than you are aware of. Simply experimenting with BIM programs reveal the secrets because they are developed intuitively to how designers and constructors think alike. Make provisions to others by sharing what you know. Sharing simple tricks of the trade can go a long way - and influences wider usage in AEC.

Be courageous. What have you got to lose? Push the envelope a little. The corporate backing is already there by industry types of the same vein - who know the validity of BIM. They're making it happen.

Change is never going to be widely accepted thing, but before you know it, the strength in numbers thing is more of a reality. If you're getting flack about trying to introduce a new technology within your firm, start a user group. Tell your higher ups it's a good thing - what your doing. If there is no motivation whatsoever to move to at least a small percentage of BIM seats in your firm, maybe it's time you found a new firm. Your bosses will understand. Tell them to think about it in their sheltered corner offices (maybe while listening to Barry Manilow) - hey, I actually like Barry Manilow.

From my own testimonials, and from others, I've concluded stories of a delimited BIM profession. Some, attempting to break out of a mold by using this technology (while getting their wrists slapped frequently) are perhaps seen as "renegades" - occurring especially in firms not fully embracing BIM: perhaps they fear some kind of "conspiracy" or movement against them. Of course, this is as much ridiculous as it is amusing to most BIM users who've already seen the benefits of working in the next generation of proverbial CAD, some of whom have been at it since the mid 90's, or even earlier. Perhaps those who oppose BIM sense BIM as some kind of placebo effect within the industry.


Perhaps it's all about the first glances our ruling class AEC professionals our having on us, the next generation of design professionals. They hold disdain over us for our "business casual" attire. They question our effectiveness with an "out-of-the-box thinking" technology, even though we're quickly absorbing it & proving our proficiency. But we shouldn't be worried about anything to the variables of their underadvancements. After all, we're the generation of Malcolm Gladwell, we listen to Sonic Youth, we love movies like BladeRunner and own the Matrix trilogy. (Ironically, in Denver, the studio apartment I almost rented was "#303", while unrelated: I was assigned seat '#4D' on the flight from NY to Denver, when I first interviewed for a "4D" job.) Coincedence? Perhaps. Although, I still think there's a force to be reckoned with.

BIM is instinctual to a carefully planned chaos - as an approach to conceptualizing, sketching, designing, cost calculation, clash detection; using 3D, 4D, 5D, and beyond.

Did anyone ever consider how environmentally correct BIM is? Paper use, for example, for printed sets is decreasing largely because of its electronic drawing file management system and with IAI's IFC classification structure. This will help conserve our natural resources in a big way.

Just a reminder, while my own wrists have been slapped for using BIM technology, I am hopeful that many others come forward to the fact that many folks are more frightened by our cyberpunk determination (more so than being hypersensitive to the fact that they'll soon be embracing what we already know). One thing I've taken away from witnessed misconceptions, and imperceptibilities, is to persuade that the thinking behind BIM is the only substitution to better designing - from the misconception that it's not. This only because the design is made virtual, and can me managed from infinite amount of angles and explored interstitially that way. It most certainly is "better designing", because BIM allows you more time to design. In studio culture - time is of the essence. Graphically, you can work cumulatively, with parametric controls, not having to go "back to the drawing board" always. What a waste of time that use to be. Not everyone agrees on this, nor will they ever. Still, this is OK because of how that whole horse-water saying goes....

Perhaps the BIM technology preference is not for every AEC professional, just as the music of Sonic Youth is not for every listener. However, the intelligence behind BIM should be acknowledged, historically, whether one feels it's correct or not.

Users of corrected, improved-upon, advanced methodologies usually are on the exits of banal function, as they live/work on the fringe. Perhaps they listen to post-modern music while doing this. BIM users are no strangers. But are these users also going to be leaving a "trail of dead" in their wake? Who knows?

Some BIMheads may know this is a possibility, and either gloat and revel, or take quiet pride in it. There are so many new opportunities out there for us now, why should we take a back seat to CAD traditionalism? Who are the CAD traditionalists? They're most often the architect who just finally learned how to use CAD three years ago and think they're knocking 'em down. Which is fine (I learned much of my architectural skills doing hand drafting and then going to CAD - a valuable experience), it'd also be fine if CAD were the future of design, but it's not anymore. And many established architects are just plain stubborn and don't want to meet, halfway, the promise of Building Information Modeling. They won't change. There's a lot of risk at stake for them, obviously.

Just as a side note, when I used to work back in New York, I'd often gauge BIM use, demographically, by visiting Barnes and Nobles stores to see if any books on Revit where on sale. In about a dozen attempts, in NYC, I came up empty every time. In my first few weeks here in Colorado, I've found 2 different B&N's that carry the book. Interesting, I thought NY would have a greater need, I guess not...

There needs to be providence for correct thinking in the technological exploration of BIM - in the workplace. Until then, it will remain somewhat cyberpunk (just as post-punk rock itself). This is also alright with me - just as long as it's accessible for my own use, wherever this may be: Colorado, (hint, hint).

-Joseph Nicholson

AEC Technocentrism?

If geocentrists tend not to look outside of their own universe and regard the earth as the center, and all else inferior, can the same also be said about technologists within specific disciplines? Do they always hold up their methodologies on pedestals?...(of course they do, we live in capitalism.) Do software developers carry the torch for the methodology behind the product, as much as the practice they wholesale to? Or how about the product's effect on the trade - is it as important as the number of seats sold? Do trade software wizards maintain slow progress while regarding each product version as their absolute best, never to be too much improved upon, too quickly (even when progressive methodological practice has proven otherwise - with advanced standardization)?

Doesn't any of this interfere with what an ideal AEC community should strive to create: (a utopia - through technology.)?

Is there such a thing as technocentrism in the AEC industry? Is there even such a thing as *technocentrism?

In the case of CAD methodology vs. BIM philosophy, perhaps.

The fact that the sometimes ineffable BIM (Building Information Modeling), today, versus established AEC "emerging technologies", over the past 10-20 years, is what might have been - what too often collected dust on the shelves of the CAD managers' and IT departments' quarters. This will probably never happen with BIM programs, but what if it should? Can BIM fall short of our expectations after all the hype dies down? In terms of revamping our current digital architectural standards, probably not. Because BIM is open minded in terms of outside influence - more so than CAD has been in the past. For example, when you take into account IFC (Industry Foundation Classes), IDM (Information Delivery Manual) and AECxml, these systems are based on ISO and information technology benchmarks. With these, there seems to be much more, in place, to insure that BIM won't dry up at all - perhaps even significantly replacing the need for new CAD information altogether.

The attempts to mitigate architectural standards haven't always been easy and many programs and plug-ins have gone by the wayside either because their potency was unrecogonized and untapped, overshadowed by what seemed to work best because everybody else was using it. Other reasons might have indicated that past technologies just weren't successful because no one was willing to give them a fair try, or explore their potentials. Usually they became obsolete because something better was available as soon it was released. In each case: popularity is a contest.

Could this also be happening as part of a recent CAD-BIM shift, within a deconcentration of CAD users journeying over to BIM? My answer is yes, if we regard our specific technology as "the way"; no other way but ours. Because within a technological transgression, technocentrism is rampant. It should never get too comfortable with itself because improvement is right around the corner.

I have worked for many years in the AEC industries specifically as a CAD Technician with well known architecture firms, a construction company, and have seen technologies come and go. Five years ago I had been asked to assess a new quick modeling technology that was unfortunately never widely used. Today, such a technology would be known as a prototype for Google's SketchUp. I have normally used CAD based technology from 1998 up until 2004 when I was introduced to BIM software by a very diligent and passionate architect, a past colleague of mine, Albert Zulps, AIA. He had influenced me to use Graphisoft ArchiCAD for work at Skanska USA Building, Inc. As a 3D modeler I had mostly used AutoDesk Architectural Desktop 3.3, prior to my work there. This marked my first use of technology outside of what I considered practical. Much to my surprise, the relative ease of ArchiCAD's intuitive interface provided the necessary tools to implore from the untapped world of BIM. It's hard to find any other program that matches its capabilities.

In the past 30 years, the industry that has had one of the least expedient transformation with its own technology is the AEC profession. In 1978 when CAD technology was only just starting to be utilized in the field of architecture and design, almost all offices still executed projects through hand drafting. In the 1980's and 1990's CAD technology was gradually replacing the practice, especially in the 90's. Certainly, advances were being made with CAD as the technology of the PC expanded and allowed a shift from DOS based command to more intuitive interfacing. However, the shift was not exactly as profound as we'd hoped for, because it only allowed hand drafting to be replaced with digital. The impact was somewhat felt because we were simulating drafting practices, being progressively more efficient, although it was only a slight advance when compared to BIM; important nonetheless.

If we examine from 1974 to 2004, the major groundbreaking advances that seemingly occurred with CAD, we'd perhaps find that what's occurring now is much more revolutionary with Building Information Modeling. BIM technology (AKA VDC - Virtual Design & Construction) certainly isn't the panacea for all of our architectural woes, but when compared to CAD, is pretty close, and can convincingly overshadow and offer quicker, more prolific solutions, than CAD.

Even if we looked at other, outside technologies in, say, UPC (Universal Product Code) technology, for example, we'd perhaps find better strides having taken place. In doing so, we should find contrasts in chronological advances to that of architecture's CAD to that of bar code technology - although CAD's inclusion with BIM builds stronger momentum with overall assumptions. But it should be looked upon based on the criteria of their standardized practice and overall impact.

Ironically, CAD standardization and UPC share a similar timeline. CAD technology came from MIT in the early 1960's while UPC bar coding can be traced back to work at Drexel in the late 1940's. For making the comparison, we should look no further than to the first supermarket bar code reading device installed in a Troy, Ohio store in 1974. I'm sure if we were to statistically compare the technological advancements between bar code scanners and computerized drafting we'd find a much slower paced technology with CAD since the standardization created by UPC has spread much more widely throughout the world over a very short amount of time. Logistically, it's stated that the standardization of the bar code is one of the most profound in history (http://www.nationalbarcode.com/History-of-Barcode-Scanners.htm). Can this also be said of CAD? What supermarket do we walk into today that doesn't have a laser scanner at the checkout line? Now, we even see this technology associated with automobiles, on stickers in car windows, for leases held in parking garages by car owners. Also, when you look to the standardized practice of UPC bar code (as ANSI regards this system as highly efficient), is there a similar sentiment in AEC today that says we're completely content with our current technological standardization for CAD? While it works for most, it is never 100% automatic and almost never maintains a consistency in such a way as with that compared to inventory tracking in retail chains, etc. (or even BIM, for that matter).

CAD is certainly a widely accepted worldwide practice, but has it hit the comfortable level that other technologies hold, is it really proficient enough?

BIM should be more successful in this regard, because it is based on standardization in the first place. It's automatic for the people, kind of like the supermarket checkout line, or EZ-Pass lane on the turnpike. While it may too someday go by the wayside, it will be that great advancement that the AEC industry has waited for as its poster child, coming of age. BIM is the UPC of the AEC!

While I'm not trying to be too critical of CAD methodology, more, just posing questions about its evolutionary span, I'm curious of its efficiency against BIM. CAD technology is still being improved upon and will always be needed, that's a given. It still works with BIM very much connected to the routine. The question I'm most concerned with is if it has really gotten us to where we need to be? Was it ever so revolutionary that it allowed us to break production records in AEC companies? When the BIM revolution soon enables those in the AEC community to totally harness the full promise of confluence, will CAD users be aware of this phenomenon, will they share the same camaraderie?

While CAD methodology has usually been good to me but, as of lately, is an even better topic to critique, I can't deny the value it's offered for all these nearly 10 years in my career. Suddenly, I'm realizing, is this a farewell letter to CAD?, (Dear CAD...I'm leaving you for BIM). Am I seeking closure to having to use CAD? Perhaps. But isn't everything essentially CAD based if you're working on a computer? It's still Computer Aided Design, and NOT what everyone seems to call just an Auto"CAD" file, a misnomer I was guilty of using, as many others do.

But doesn't "BIM" offer vague labelling. Why not just say CADx...(Extra strength CAD?). There have to be dividing lines drawn separating the two, because they are vastly different methodologies. But what do I know? I'm only a CAD technician blogger obsessed with this kind of stuff 24/7...(did I also mention a Swedish based construction company deliberately bestowed this upon me a few years back). Interesting, right?

The whole VDC (Virtual Design and Construction) acronym whould've been considered more thoroughly had technocentrism not prevented more diplomatic consideration of its use over "BIM".

I'll always remember where I was when making this realization - that I could now do my job better, faster, more accurately as a drafter/modeler. And the situation couldn't have been more superlative. I was a CAD technician, now I'm a BIM Modeler - thanks in part to the guidance of an AIA Architect, a globally minded construction company, and several progressive minded individuals. They'll always have my gratitude.

Perhaps there's a technocentrism somewhere in all of the complacency surrounding AEC's digital drafting dilemma, I just hope I somehow stay out of its spider web. It seems easy enough, but some days feels like a wet paper bag I can't fight my way out of. Written by Joseph J. Nicholson


*While not a true word recognized in the dictionary, according to Seymour Papert in an 1990 article at MIT, "Technocentrism is the fallacy of referring all questions to the technology" http://www.papert.org/articles/ACritiqueofTechnocentrism.html