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