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