Human resources

 Human resources 

Yet another student of mine came to the same conclusion after studying a couple of cases at a construction enterprise: the main problem is the human resources, that the people working on a project have to perform well if projects are to be successful. To be fair, it wasn't purely her own conclusion, it was what she was told in the interviews she conducted with the middle managers - and she took it over, as many others before her had done when researching different aspects of design and construction projects. 

Putting the blame on your workers is always the easy way out. Yes, one should expect every professional to perform at least adequately but if it doesn't happen, what does this mean? Is it just a matter of personal failure or do the organization of the project and the enterprise play a role? People may perform well individually and still fail as a project team - something rather frequent in sport. There, it is usually followed by changes not only in personnel but also in approach, e.g. recruitment structure and game tactics. But even if failure is personal, how does it come? Poor education and poor training are often blamed, as are inadequate tools. Especially with computerization, it's increasingly evident that outdated, irrelevant or cumbersome tools can lower performance by adding an irrelevant burden to users. 

We should keep in mind that people are fallible, that even with the best of preparation and organization they may still fail. So, in addition to them, they should be given the right tools for the job: tools that prevent or correct their mistakes, that nudge them towards the right procedures and steps, that add to their capacities and increase their understanding and appreciation of what they are doing. We shouldn't blame them for struggling to perform with tools that don't meet these standards, just understand what their problems are and solve them at source. Yes, we still need to change the world: we've been saying for a long time but have yet to start doing it in earnest. 

Suffering in the building sector

Suffering in the building sector

Among the news of the day in the Netherlands: the building sector (I can't honestly call that shambles an industry) will suffer from the effects of the corona. Yawn: is there any crisis that doesn't affect the building sector in a profound way? How long will it take us (and especially the politicians) to realize that the building sector is unsound? One cannot rely on cheap labour and volume of activity for ever, and we shouldn't support them in prolonging the agony.

Buildings are a necessity, not a luxury. We'll always need them and hopefully always ask for improvements, either from an environmental or from an economic perspective. In other words, the built environment is full of promise and opportunity, and could become a stable sector that is not that sensitive to crises. You don't hear the super markets complain that much or that often because people need them daily. Are the buildings we use, also daily and moreover constantly, less important to our safety and wellbeing?

It's high time that the building sector accepts that it's in urgent need of reform; that they need new production methods and better organization. It is unacceptable that in the age of data and computation building projects cannot be completed within time and within budget. We're either failing to plan and organize them properly or producing in outdated, inadequate ways - most probably both. The main problem is that too many stakeholders and actors have to accept the need for change and do something about it. Given the complacency and conformism of most, I cannot help being pessimistic. Too much has to change and we haven't had the brain or the guts to start yet.

Trouble with BIM

Trouble with BIM

The optimist would say that support for BIM is consolidating; the pessimist that it's dwindling. There is still a substantial push for BIM but at the same time there are more critical voices - and they're not all Luddites. In my own view, there is a growing number of organizations that is increasingly reluctant to invest in BIM. If there's a hard core of organizations pushing BIM, there's also a periphery that if not turning against BIM, is certainly refusing to adopt and adapt to it. In between there are organizations that reluctantly follow and partially implement BIM.

Critics (e.g. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2017.1293940) stress that the problems are not only practical, such as the cost and complexity of the implementation, but also operational, due to the imposition of a design representation onto activities and processes. They are concerned with the possibility of a digital divide that may disenfranchise smaller firms and create a two-tier marker with benefits only for the most privileged and powerful, who can afford the luxury of being BIM compliant. This, they argue, may reduce the potential of change through BIM.
While I largely agree with the criticism, I fear it suffers from a couple of fallacies. Firstly, it expects technology to bring on change in society rather than technology to meet emerging or latent demand in society. BIM does not bring change; at best it enables change and helps channel it in specific ways. One shouldn't put the cart before the horse and expect the horse to understand how it should push.
Secondly, it equates the technology with its current implementation. The way BIM is deployed today is depressingly limited. The software is underwhelmingly powerful and laden with analogue remnants, while users tend to do as little as possible rather than focusing on returns from a serious investment. We even talk of levels in BIM deployment and maturity but some of these levels do not make sense because they go against the fundamental requirements of the technology (and methodology, I hasten to add to pacify the believers).
If we place this criticism on the above scheme, it becomes obvious that the periphery simply doesn't recognize the necessity of a change to which BIM could contribute, so they don't adopt it. They can also be critical of the way it is implemented and hence unwilling to join in. In any case, they don't care enough, in the same way that not everyone cares about social media and hence doesn't spend endless hours setting up multiple profiles and maintaining their status and history.
This suggests that BIM is being pushed in a direction that doesn't relate to the change required in AECO and the built environment. That such a change is urgently needed is unquestionable but one cannot talk of culture change for implementing BIM; it's the other way around: ongoing culture change should promote BIM.
As for the practical and operational side, if the change was evident and BIM fitted the bill, people would have invested heavily in it. Just compare to the huge investment we have made as societies, organizations and individuals in mobile information processing. What started as mobile telephony was soon recognized for what it could offer and adopted widely and fervently. The adaptation it brought on is simply spectacular. Look around you wherever you may happen to be: people grab every opportunity to do something with their smartphones. Would they do the same for BIM?

Numbers and interpretations

Numbers and interpretations 

Some numbers trouble me, for example official statistics stating that building activity or use is responsible for this much of waste production in a country or that much of global energy consumption. They tend to be hefty percentages that automatically suggest that we should take action: buildings have to change in the way they are designed, constructed, maintained, used, demolished etc. 

The potential seems undeniable but are the specific actions justified? First of all, why do we assume that there are inefficiencies? It may be so that the large numbers relating to the built environment are inevitable, given our needs or habits. It's inconceivable that we stop heating our homes or workplaces but that's not all. Airconditioning, for example, used to be a luxury, even in cars, and nowadays it's more of a necessity. Do we know what the minima or maxima are, even if they exist? 

Secondly, who's going to change things and how? Existing disciplines are keen to take charge and innovate but at the same time they are the ones who perpetuated all the existing ills. Would we expect witch doctors to develop MRI scanning? Would we even train witch doctors to operate MRI scanners? 

Thirdly, is the change feasible? People are not stupid, so if there was something better to be done, they'd have done it some time ago. If the built environment is inefficient in some respects, this may be due to greater efficiencies in other aspects. 

In conclusion, let's dig deeper to find the real problems instead of jumping into arbitrary, unwarranted action. I have no doubt that we can improve the built environment but what is depicted as promise and progress does not always convince me in justification and hence also in potential.