Many principals in Fallon's survey commented that people who know how buildings go together are isolated from the CAD process because of the tools. Most CAD systems are not as easy to use as vendors claim they are, and they are certainly not accessible to the principals of architecture firms. Principals who were good CAD users at one time but are no longer able to devote time to ongoing training find themselves sidelined by changes in the user interface.

These issues all relate to ease of learning and use. The assumption has always been that CAD is and will always be difficult to use. This study indicates that, until CAD products become much easier and more intuitive, their effectiveness and value to design firms will be severely limited. This finding has significant implications for CAD vendors.

Reliable Productivity Data?

It has always been difficult to get hard figures on productivity with technology, largely because companies are reluctant to make blanket statements about their productivity. They know something has changed, but they're so busy keeping their business moving that they don't have time to check on progress.

Perhaps a year or so after a technology purchase they come to realize that, as a result, they may be able to hire fewer staff or hire more staff for higher level jobs, thus increasing productivity. Their business has grown but they can't attribute it to any one change in their workflow.

Another issue is that principals of AEC firms see that the work is getting done without making major upgrades, or they see that they are no less busy than they were a few years ago when everyone worked on a drafting table.

In Search of Best Practices

Quantifying the business benefits of information technology (IT) has always been difficult because well-deployed IT is integrated into work processes. It is difficult to know if overall productivity and quality have improved, and, if so, what amount of that improvement can be attributed to the technology.

The CAD for Principals Council is pursuing that question through a Best Practices committee chaired by Kenneth Stowe, of the George B.H. Macomber Company in Boston.

The committee has been developing computer-based work process models that quantify the benefits of advanced technology, including 3D parametric CAD, in terms of time and cost reductions for design and construction planning activities.

Stowe embraces the builder's perspective and believes that the design team and the builder can work together far more efficiently than they do now if they had a new process. That process would involve optimizing a 3D model, a comprehensive schedule, and a cost model.

However, one barrier to this ideal is that coordination between the electrical, mechanical, and architectural members of project teams hasn't been resolved. "Up to 50 percent of professionals' time is spent on coordination activities," says Stowe, which demonstrates the need for better technology to assist coordination on all levels of the design/build process.

The 3D model would be accessible to all players on the team for concurrent, individual tasks, but it would be still governed by the architect.

Fallon and Stowe concluded that best practices should include: intelligent building models, a model shared by all players, mechanisms for accountability, views and tools of the model appropriate for different users, cost and scheduling ability earlier in the process, and better follow-up with the builder and trades.

Issues for resolution included the following:

Stowe suggests that we can learn from best practices results. We also need pilot projects to implement the best practices, and metrics for understanding the results of projects.

New developments he predicts include: alliances, virtual corporations, continued standards evolution, object-oriented models, the Web as a utility, and integration as a science.

Susan Smith is principal of Susan Smith & Associates, a technical editorial and consulting firm. She is also managing editor of GISCafe.com, a portal and e-magazine offering timely technology information for the GIS user community.

For additional design practice survey information, see Green CAD and 3D Design Survey in ArchitectureWeek No.9.