Technology in Architectural Practice

 View Only

  • 1.  A Tale of two Eras: Master Builder vs. Virtual Building

    Posted 11-21-2011 05:32 PM
    During the Faster Forward Conference Bruce Cousins claimed the Master Builder Era is over and that we're entering the Virtual Building Era. Do the two have to be mutually exclusive? Can Virtual Building Technology augment the "master builder concept" or does it negate it completely?

    -------------------------------------------
    Morgan Robberson Assoc. AIA
    Oklahoma City OK
    -------------------------------------------


  • 2.  RE:A Tale of two Eras: Master Builder vs. Virtual Building

    Posted 11-22-2011 08:48 AM

    Hi Morgan, Great question. And equally great suggestion.

    Yes, these two concepts are not mutually exclusive. The Virtual Building Era may indeed be upon us, but it provides an opportunity for architects to lead again and regain something of their role as master builders.
     
    In BIM and the Return of the Master Builder from my book, BIM and Integrated Design: Strategies for Architectural Practice, I describe three approaches to the topic of BIM and the Master Builder

    1. Arguments in favor of the Return of the Master Builder

    2. Arguments against the Architect as Master Builder

    3. Argument for the Composite Master Builder or Master Builder Team

    "BIM changes not only the technology, process and delivery but also the leadership playing field."

     I then go on to talk about the emergence of the Virtual master Builder:

     "The argument goes something like this: If architects are able to learn and navigate the mindsets, attitudes and skills necessary to truly collaborate with others - and learn how to design buildings that are optimized to give owners, contractors and other team members what they need of high quality, low cost, sustainable, delivered faster and with less waste - then they will be trusted, newly esteemed, and return to their rightful role of virtual Master Builder. The greatest value of BIM to architects is the change in the relationship between architects, engineers, contractors and owners and the collaboration it enables. And that change in relationship provides an opening for architects to once again lead the design - and through the dictates of BIM, construction - process. One concludes that BIM provides a great opportunity for the architectural profession to regain the role of "Master Builder."

    The book describes four ways in which the architect can regain Master Builder status in the coming years:

    • More Complete Architects
    • More of a Leadership Role
    • Architect as Virtual Master Builder
    • Constructor as Master Builder: Architect-led Design Build

    The concept of The Composite Master Builder is the brainchild of environmentalist Bill Reed. As described in a blurb for his exceptional book, "With whole building design, the project team can be guided once again by a collective vision. This structure, along with the process by which the design team works together, has been termed by Bill Reed as the 'Composite Master Builder'. The term recasts the historical single Master Builder as a diverse group of professionals working together towards a common end. The intention is to bring all of the specialists together, allowing them to function as if they were one mind. The process avoids, as Mario Salvadori says, the 'reciprocal ignorance' of the specialists in the design and building field.I don't think that I'm giving anything away by saying here that I wholeheartedly believe that the Composite Master Builder or Master Builder Team is the way forward for our project teams, firms, profession and industry and say as much in my book.

    http://www.amazon.com/BIM-Integrated-Design-Strategies-Architectural/dp/0470572515/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321968219&sr=1-1

     
    I also discuss the subject of BIM and Leadership in the soon to be published Jan-Feb 2012 Trends issue of DesignIntelligenceinin an essay entitled "Leading in the Age of BIM" http://www.di.net/

     

    -------------------------------------------
    Randall Deutsch AIA
    Co-founder
    Deutsch Insights
    Winnetka IL
    -------------------------------------------






    Original Message


  • 3.  RE:A Tale of two Eras: Master Builder vs. Virtual Building

    Posted 11-23-2011 01:16 AM
    the master builder is a interesting concept.  i think there are two issues:  1.  many architects are technically incompetent.  the emphasis is placed on design with very little emphasis placed on execution, integration, etc.  2.  many of the owner-architect contracts limit the architect's responsibility...hence the emergence of construction managers, inspectors, etc.  until architects are willing to accept more responsibility, there will not be a master builder...which is a separate discussion (liability, e & o, etc.)

    -------------------------------------------
    Stephen Angelo AIA
    Architect
    Offices of Stephen Michael Angelo, Architect AIA
    Livermore CA
    -------------------------------------------






    Original Message


  • 4.  RE:A Tale of two Eras: Master Builder vs. Virtual Building

    Posted 11-24-2011 10:43 AM
    BIM:
    I've been working with BIM models since 1997. I've modeled hundreds of buildings from a 21sf chicken coop, 120,000sf schools, and everything in between. No matter what the project size, the number one problem is trusting in the process and educating everyone, including the principles, about the limitations and advantages. All too often a principle promises a client a front elevation a week after the project begins and immediately we have interns drawing stuff in 2D. Once you divert from the process of 3D modeling the important elements (everything clearly visible at 1/4=1'-0"), the process becomes very cumbersome. By constructing the building in the virtual world, the geometrical forms are valid. If they aren't, it becomes painfully obvious. You can't fake a roof or a stair like in the FlatCAD days. I crank out lots of low brow single family residential work and my builders rarely have problems with designs working in the field. Even in renovation work, where things become more fuzzy, I find the BIM model invaluable. Sometimes these guys think I'm a magician when an interior wall meets a ceiling vault on a new second level renovation within less than an inch of my section dimensions. If they build it like the drawings, it turns out like the drawings. Like any other tool, you get out of it what you put into it. The green interns that should be on job sites learning about why construction works, can be dangerous if not managed properly. A good template file that has all your CAD standards, favorite construction elements, and other pre-sets is a must for keeping office consistency and teaching them basics like the stud lines up with the concrete. You need the right tool for the job. Scissors can cut paper better than a Skil saw.

    Masterbuilder:
    I think many of us have developed quite different ideas about who this fantasy MasterBuilder was from antiquity and some are drifting quite far from what we really know about ancient cultures. Most of you know the word 'Architect' is a Greek word. Any of you that understands a little about the Greek language knows that each word has many meanings and most words are made of more than one word (compound). In Greek the word looks more like 'Apxitektonas' and sounds sort of like Ar-hee-tek-to-nas. Archi - means: ancient, beginning, origin, first, and can be considered "master" in the sense of a person who is first. Tektonas - means: mason, not builder. The word Builder is Oikodomos or Ktistis. At best we're talking about a Master Mason. Granted, masonry was the most important component of the most important buildings, so the mason "drew" the most important "drawings", even if they were "sketched" at full scale on site. If we look at the society who coined the word we might look at Athens in the height of the 4-5th c BC. They were building many masonry buildings at a massive scale. Archeologists have discovered an extremely complex system of trades at that time. They didn't just have shoe makers, they had sole makers, shoe lace makers. I have a real hard time believing any one person was the Master Builder. The roof systems on buildings like the Parthenon were wood. If they had shoe lace makers, I'll bet they had a master carpenter heading up the setting of the rafters. The Spartans at the same time period (i.e. post Mycenaean era) did not build masonry buildings. What's left of their masonry buildings were mostly built before the Trojan War and Dorian invasions. Did they have no Master Builder? Certainly they didn't call the carpenter a Master Mason, he was a Xylourgos, not an Architektonas. I have a feeling the building industry at the time of our title's invention was more complex like it is today than some simplified design-build entity with one omnipotent Master. The big difference is that we were the masons that had to design and implement our work and there was no specific job for a person to only draw theories with no practical involvement. It's more realistic to think that building was a complex venture and it's likely each trade did their own "shop drawings", sometimes on site with a stick in the sand. Coordination happened on site. For complex masonry monuments, I'm sure the Architektonas had a comprehensive design in mind that included more than their work, but each building was different and made of different materials requiring different types of builders who may be the master designer due to the fact that their trade constructs the majority of that particular building like the Spartan Xylourgos. Now that few of us design structural masonry or wood buildings, I suppose most of us are closer to the Spartan Sidirourgos or iron maker. Doesn't that just roll off the tongue?

    At the end of the day, I think our retreat to the office and limited time on site puts us in a position of not being able to prevent problems and keep the GC in check. I'm sure I'm not the only one who suspects that a GC or two has let a simple problem get out of hand rather than solve it quickly & cheaply, just for the change order. We're doing infinitely more work than our counterparts did just a few generations ago for less fee in part because we're "saving time" not being on site. What happened to the days when an Architect from the office was on site most of the time and drawing much less? How else are the interns supposed to learn to "build"? We can't trust the GC to be in charge of the BIM model if the theory of BIM is to truly integrate design and construction. It's happening around the world already, but I believe we Americans need an on site Architect for larger buildings just for managing the BIM model for the obvious reason of not giving 100% control to the guys who take college classes and have text books based on creating expensive change orders while blaming the Architect. Perhaps the future of BIM will get us back on site to keep a better eye on things?


    -------------------------------------------
    Eric Rawlings AIA
    Owner
    Rawlings Design, Inc.
    Decatur GA
    -------------------------------------------






    Original Message


  • 5.  RE:A Tale of two Eras: Master Builder vs. Virtual Building

    Posted 11-23-2011 01:37 AM
    Interesting post.  Though I agree with much of what you have said, I strongly believe that the role of the architect as the Master Builder has long gone the way of the dinosaur.  This primarily because of how disconnected the architect has become from the advancements in the means and methods of construction due to the extremely tight tolerances that the environmental design community has imposed on builders.

    I agree with you that BIM provides the architect an opportunity to once again be the lead of the design and construction process, rather than its regulator.  However BIM also brings about substantial legal and professional liability issues that are just now surfacing through litigation directly related to BIM projects.  Much of course is due to the enormous chasm that has developed in our industry between how buildings are designed and how they are built.  Until the legalities and professional liabilities of the role that the architect, engineers, specialty consultants and builders can be clearly defined within BIM projects, the relationships between the design professionals, the owner and the builders is not likely to change much.

    I have had the fortune to have been a member of a design team on a few different BIM projects (although each had a different project delivery method). Though the collaboration amongst the design professionals was substantially greater than traditional design methods and resolution of issues during construction were handled with greater expediency, the BIM process always seemed to fall short when dealing with the subcontractors that were actually building or assembling the building and unforeseen field conditions.  It was exceptionally frustrating to the owner, when both the contractor and the architect (including the design team) had to continually meet to resolve constructability issues by "antiquated" non BIM methods in the field in order to maintain the construction schedule.  Though the BIM model and all associated data was still of great value to the owner and the project team, the disconnect between the virtual world and the actual world could never have been greater.

    It was quite a learning experience. But I felt that a particular commentary from a very experienced older subcontractor to their prime put the entire BIM process into perspective.  He said "...you can't call yourself a builder, if you're not actually building anything!". . . he had a very valid point.  Unless the architects are the ones swinging the hammers and plumbing the walls to master the craft of building, we can never again call ourselves the Master Builders....Virtual Master Builders maybe, but only if we are the masters of the BIM process as you have stated.

    -------------------------------------------
    Ricardo Ramos Assoc. AIA, LEED® AP, CSI
    Alpha Analysis, Inc.
    Arcadia CA
    -------------------------------------------






    Original Message


  • 6.  RE:A Tale of two Eras: Master Builder vs. Virtual Building

    Posted 11-23-2011 11:29 AM
    Hi Folks,

    The difficulty with BIM that I have observed is that the architect must understand the details of building construction in order to create a virtual building.  Unfortunately, in my forty years experience, most of the recent graduates from architectural schools can create building images that are attractive but have very little idea as to how a building is built.  In the era of the Master Builder (distant past) , the architect would draw ( on linen with ink ) the floor plan, front and side elevations and a representative building section.  Then, in collaboration with the builder, the details would be developed. 

    The blessing of BIM is the collaboration requirement.  Each player on the team learns from the others.  I am an advocate for having the architectural team that created the contract documents be involved in the construction process, actual or virtual. When there are expensive mechanics sitting on their hands waiting for clarification of something obscure or incorrect in the construction documents, one learns quickly doing what I call guerilla architecture. 

    We need to get more owners to buy into integrated project delivery where everyone benefits and learning from others is standard practice.
    -------------------------------------------
    David Ringer AIA
    Lambertville NJ
    -------------------------------------------






    Original Message


  • 7.  RE:A Tale of two Eras: Master Builder vs. Virtual Building

    Posted 12-03-2011 10:10 PM
    This has been a topic of my push for BIM use by architects.  With BIM, the process, the documents, to the renderings can allow the architect become once again 'the master' builder.  The historical master builder has long been gone.  The majority of current architects  do not fall under the definition of 'the master builder'. And as a 2007 graduate with a Masters in architecture and a certified Revit Expert, this is very frustrating.  

    There are several points made in the responses to the original post that in a way, explain this loss of the master builder.  One, Many architects are technically incompetent.  
    I agree, but even worse many are unwilling to 'learn' technology passing the work off to interns.  
    Two, regulations enforced upon architects limiting their responsibility.  Truly, let the owner and the designer decide the design and regulate it themselves.  Heck, they are paying for it.  

    This week I was an attendee to Autodesk University in Las Vegas and if building designers don't lead the way, building design will be done by someone else.  And this design will use the BIM process, the modeling, the collaboration, and systems integration.  The definition of the architect has changed and it's about time.  

    -------------------------------------------
    Alissa Ogen Assoc. AIA
    Denver CO
    -------------------------------------------






    Original Message


  • 8.  RE:A Tale of two Eras: Master Builder vs. Virtual Building

    Posted 12-06-2011 01:44 AM
    Alissa,
    I understand your frustration. 

    As to your first point, this is usually just an economic response by most firms.  A senior architect's pay scale leaves little room for production work and is mostly sold as a management position to most clients.  The clients seek the knowledge, skill and experience of a person at that pay scale and not their ability to make production drawings.
     
    As to your second point, the legal precedent here is absolutely tremendous.  To put it in perspective, 60% of all litigation in the U.S. is construction based.  That is all law suits combined - family law, contract law, medical malpractice, civil suits, etc.  It seems disproportionate on the surface, but when one considers that building construction and development are the most expensive capital ventures regulated by law it becomes a little more understandable. This is why architects must safeguard there practice in contracts the clearly spell out their role and responsibility, even from their own consultants.  Their fee structure must also be able to pay for the professional liability that their contracts have them shoulder. 

    Errors and Omissions along with Indemnity clauses have terminated many an architects careers and firms.  Even huge firms like CH2M Hill fall prey to clients seeking restitution for projects that failed to be delivered to their expectations.  When owners sue, they sue everybody...even if the failure had nothing to do with your portion of the work...and you must still pay the attorney's legal fees to defend yourself for the duration of the litigation even if you are found not to have had any fault in the matter.  The legal implications always put a chilling effect on even the best client relationship, so I don't anticipate this paradigm to change anytime soon.


    -------------------------------------------
    Ricardo Ramos Assoc. AIA, LEED® AP, CSI
    Alpha Analysis, Inc.
    Arcadia CA
    -------------------------------------------






    Original Message