How can we improve the traditional design to construction process? We have created the below diagram to explore the problems that arise from the traditional relationship between the architect/designer and the builder. We would love to hear your thoughts!
Recent Posts
- Residential builders learn to use CAD software for construction
- What to look for when purchasing 3D Software for Residential Construction
- Sketchup Estimating Plugin for Builders
- Importing a Revit Model into Sketchup via IFC & create a report, BOQ or full estimate
- Transforming BIM, with a commitment to continued development & customer focus
Categories
- Architects are from Mars Builders are from Venus Podcast
- Building Products
- Customer Success
- Industry Insights: Design, Construction, Estimating
- News
- PlusSpec/SketchUp Tips & Tricks
- PlusSpec/SketchUp Updates
- Uncategorized
3 Comments
Drew
Hi Andrew,
Thank you for responding to this post.
Although this topic is overtly complex, I personally believe that the main reasons can be surmised as follows:
Most of the software that is being used is incredibly expensive. It is hard enough for an Architect or designer to invest in these platforms, let alone a builder. Not only does the available software cost a significant amount per annum, but it also requires a vast amount of time and training. The simple truth is that many architecture firms are not even able to deliver the amount of training that is required to successfully manage these software platforms. The learning curve is so steep, and yet not many companies are capable or willing to pay vast sums to acquire the required expertise, and to ensure that their team is sufficiently trained. Therefore, the only builder that would even consider utilizing these programs are the ‘big boys’, dealing with government run projects, or big-budget projects.
I also believe that many architects do not want to deliver a 3D model to a builder because they are aware of the modelling inaccuracies or fudging (especially at the early stages). Again, this is a symptom caused by the design software, due to their difficulty to use intuitively, and their steep learning curve.
If these main problems were to be resolved – I truly believe that it would be a revelation, and cause a revolution within our industries. Imagine if we could all communicate effectively – if the design intent was clear, without any need for interpretation.
From an architects/designers point of view – this would be paradise!
Drew
Hi Andrew,
Thank you for responding to this post.
Although this topic is overtly complex, I personally believe that the main reasons can be surmised as follows:
Most of the software that is being used is incredibly expensive. It is hard enough for an Architect or designer to invest in these platforms, let alone a builder. Not only does the available software cost a significant amount per annum, but it also requires a vast amount of time and training. The simple truth is that many architecture firms are not even able to deliver the amount of training that is required to successfully manage these software platforms. The learning curve is so steep, and yet not many companies are capable or willing to pay vast sums to acquire the required expertise, and to ensure that their team is sufficiently trained. Therefore, the only builder that would even consider utilizing these programs are the ‘big boys’, dealing with government run projects, or big-budget projects.
I also believe that many architects do not want to deliver a 3D model to a builder because they are aware of the modelling inaccuracies or fudging (especially at the early stages). Again, this is a symptom caysed by the design software, due to their difficulty to use intuitively, and their steep learning curve.
If these two main problems were to be resolved – I truly believe that it would be a revelation, and cause a revolution within our industries. Imagine if we could all communicate effectively – if the design intent was clear, without any need for interpretation.
From an architects/designers point of view – this would be paradise!
Andrew Dwight
Hey Drew, thanks for adding this post. Early collaboration on a project is by far the best way to achieve a more streamlined result. Regardless of the job size. Even a small extension has a variety of construction methods and solutions. Sure the likely hood of the client getting 5 quotes is reduced yet it is not unusual for the client to get 3 quotes. Essentially 2 people lose or do not even bother quoting. This is why builders get such bad press. Many do not even get back to the architect designer or the client. ) This is a frustrating waste of all of our time and effort.
Allowing the builder and the client early access to the design (IN 3D) is a sure method of seamless construction and pricing on a project. In our construction company we will do this for free if we win the job and we will charge a nominal fee if we do not. The client & Architect still gets our advice for the fee they pay. I have spoken to many builders who do the same thing. I would like to hear from architects and designers why they have reservations in early collaboration.
Is it time?
Is it software limitations EG. The builder does not have the software they use?
The builder will not purchase the software?
The architect does not know how to deliver a model?
The architect wants to keep a tight leash on the the intellectual property of the design.