Innovations in Project Design & Delivery

The following surveys some recent articles covering trends in design and construction innovation. This author's overall impression: "one step forward, one step backward...":

Innovation In Design
Why Is Europe Winning? (Architecture, 02/2005) argues that cultural and professional differences between the US and Europe conspire to discourage innovation in building technology in the US relative to building design overseas. This provocative article points to factors such as:

• Differences in attitudes toward teamwork and cooperation
• European culture's greater respect for the work of its designers and engineers
• The litigiousness of the US business environment
• The confrontational relationships between the various parties to construction common in US project delivery methods
• Poor craftsmanship in the US building industry
• The higher proportion of building owner/occupiers in the European construction market

Among other ideas, the article makes a case for the use of the British quantity surveyor system in US construction. In one cited case, a quantity surveyor was hired by Rice University in Houston to analyze a project that was budgeted at $16.5 million but bid at $32 million. Based on the quantity surveyor's work, whose fees where roughly $25,000, the bid was reduced to $19 million.

The article ends on a pessimistic note, claiming that evidence points to a decrease in innovation on both sides of the Atlantic due to competitive and economic pressures.

No Easy Stamp of Approval (ENR, February 21, 2005) discusses the challenges in gaining code approval of innovative performance based designs when the codes themselves continue to rely on--and code officials continue to place their trust in--prescriptive methods. In theory, building designers and engineers have two options for complying with building code requirements: either meet the precise, prescriptive requirements of the the code, or, submit alternative, performance-based designs that can achieve the objectives of the code while relying on alternative methods. In practice, gaining regulatory approval of untested designs based on innovative and complex technical models is often an uphill battle.

[Author's comment: Performance-based approaches are most likely to be considered for large projects where the potential savings in construction cost or added value to be gained from improved building performance are sufficient to compensate for the added expense inherent in the development of such designs.]

The article leads off with the following response from San Diego building officials to structural engineers Magnessun Klemencic Associates (MKA), regarding their proposed structural design for a 460-foot tall San Diego highrise:

"Given the serious concerns we have regarding a structure of this height not have a dual lateral force-resisting system, we recommend against the designers proceeding with their proposed [performance-based] design. Instead, we suggest the designers follow code-prescribed methods."

In contrast, MKA's proposed alternative, performance-based design for the 450-foot tall IDX tower in Seattle, met with building department approval, and has been occupied since 2003. These two examples illustrate the difficulties and uncertainties that designers may face in taking such approaches.

This article goes on to discuss recent developments in the use of performance-based design for structural and fire-safety engineering, standards for the development of performance-based design, methodologies for the review of performance-based designs by regulatory authorities or peer-based committees, and the prognosis for future growth in the reliance on performance-based methods.

Intelligent Modeling
The Commoner's CATIA (Architecture, 12/2004) reports on Gehry Technologies recent release of its Digital Project software, a customized version of Dassault Systemes' CATIA 3-D Modeling software. According to the article, Gehry Technologies aims to provide a product that is both more useful to the architectural designer, and more affordable.

Go Direct-To-Fabrication, and Cut Out the Middleman, a related sidebar in the same issue, discusses trends toward the use of CAD/CAM applications to allow the direct translation of design models to fabrication processes. At the Fabrication conference, co-sponsored by the AIA and the Association for Computer-Aided Design in Architecture (ACADIA), participants could get hands-on practice with parametric CAD technology by SmartGeometry Group, as well as Bentley System's Microstration GenerativeComponents software outputting scale models directly to a laser cutter by Universal Laser Systems, a 3-D printer by Z Corporation, or a three-axis router by Techno-Isel.

Why building information modeling isn't working...yet (Architecture Record, 09.04) argues that while the concept that architects should rely on intelligent 3-d models of their work is at least 25 years old, it still isn't ready for prime time. This commentary piece is written by Ken Sanders, FAIA, a well-known prognosticator on the application of information systems in architectural practice.

Sanders argues first that the construction of buildings does not necessarily lend itself readily to the types of design and manufacturing processes used in the automobile or aerospace industries:

• Buildings are not easily transported from place of manufacture to point of sale.
• Buildings are constructed within a complex tangle of varying local and regional codes, regulations, and standards.
• Building construction cannot amortize design costs over large economies of scale as with mass-produced items.
• Buildings are rarely produced using an integrated design-build process.

Next, Sanders goes on to make the point that technology is not the key prerequisite to accelerating the trend toward use of building information modeling (BIM). Rather the key is more meaningful partnerships between the various parties to construction--the owners, designers, and builders. Without fundamental changes in these relationships, the potential value of BIM cannot be realized. Finally, the article concludes with a discussion of practical steps that can be initiated by the design and construction professions to further these goals.

Standards
AGC addresses document software interoperability (The Construction Specifier, December 2004) describes the Associated General Contractors of America's collaboration with Fiatech, a non-profit technical consortium, to develop XML standards for the enabling interoperability among construction management documents and systems. This news item also states that according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a lack of information interoperability costs general contractors $1 billion annually.

Congress Halts Metric Conversion Plans (Masonry Construction, February 2005) reports that the US Congress recently passed legislation stopping federal procurement policy that would have compelled the concrete masonry industry to manufacturer concrete masonry units to "hard" metric sizes for use in construction of federal facilities. According to the article, detractors claim that the change in size amounts to only a fraction of inch, but would require expensive retooling by most masonry manufacturers, and would lead to confusion in the marketplace as the newly-sized units would be visually indistinguishable from, but incompatible with, non-metric units.

Teamwork
The notions of teamwork and effective communicaiton as keys to technical success runs as a thread through much of the above. This sentiment is echoed by the editorial Paris Accident Shows the Need for More Team Building and the companion article, Airport Roof Failure Blamed on Process, (both in ENR, February 21, 2005):

"It seems that the industry must learn its harshest lessons...from disasters rather than in a measured way in classrooms, offices and labs. The partial collapse of the 640-meter long concourse at Paris Charles de Gaulle airport last May 23 should send a signal that there is a need for change in the French design process. The rest of the construction world should pay attention to the underlying principals of teamwork."

In this author's opinion, the more technically challenging the project, the more its success depends on the quality of the communication and collaboration among the parties involved in its design and construction.