New Buildings and New Design Methods
Design methods grow and develop like cities: it seems chaotic, but if we catch the underlying rhythm, we can ride the wave with serenity...
Welcome to A Bicycle for Design, a newsletter that explores how architectural and engineering design is being transformed by software and computers!
Let's take a throwback to August 2007, when I wrote a partial Masters’ dissertation on the subject of The Effective Use of Computers in Design. There is a parallel between the economics of new and old buildings and the process of adopting new technology. Understanding the rhythm of this process will make you a more effective change agent.
(If you are interested in a quick overview of the whole thesis, check out this two-page summary.)
New ideas must use old buildings
Here is the introduction from my 2007 thesis:
"Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings."1 Jane Jacobs, the celebrated urban planner, explains that established businesses with a proven track record, can afford to take the risks associated with expensive new buildings.
Start-up companies, with new, exciting and unproven ideas and processes, must inhabit older buildings, where the cost of operating and the cost of failure are lower.
To better understand how computers have been (or should be) adopted by civil engineers, consider a slightly modified version of the above quote: "Old design methods can sometimes use new technology. New design methods must use old technology."
When a design firm has a design method in place, they may invest in a new technology to improve that process, confident that the method will work and that the investment will pay off. On the other hand, a new idea, a new way of organizing the work or a new way of doing design will generally be tested alongside the proven method. If it is better, it will gradually be adopted as the technology allows.
The question of computerization is complex because computers on the one hand are a new technology (an expensive tool) and on the other hand are so radically different from any tool used previously that they open up a wide range of new design methods and processes.
When computers first appeared, their status as new technology dominated their adoption. Existing design methods received incremental improvements, and the expense of computerization was recovered. As John Voeller says "computers have changed the landscape of tools and capabilities available to engineers, yet they have also allowed many old ideas to be preserved without rethinking basic principles fully."2 Or take Sutherland’s words: “The gain in our capacity to check quickly is wholly desirable, but it is less clear that the thinking of the designer is advancing as fast as the tools he uses.”3
However, 'buildings' age and computers age in two significant ways. In the first place, the initial expense of computers is paid off and their ongoing expense is accepted as normal. Secondly, engineers become familiar with the computers and their own peculiar terminology and concepts.
Tic, Toc, Tic, Toc
I did not grow up in a very sporty family, and it wasn't until I was around 20 years old that I finally understood the offside rule, in both hockey and soccer / football. Offside rules are very interesting: on the one hand, they are hidden in plain sight, and on the other hand, once you understand it, the rhythm of the game suddenly makes sense.
The tic-toc cycle of alternating new technology adoption (new buildings) and new design methods (new ideas) is a similar rule: hidden in plain sight, but once you see it, the rhythm of technology adoption falls into place.
The adoption of new technology can be stressful. Those advocating for new ways of working can't understand why their grumpy old colleagues aren't jumping at the amazing opportunities. Experienced designers don't always see how the latest fad-of-the-day allows them to bring their knowledge to bear with confidence.
If we can get the beat, we can focus on the specific next step in whatever our context is, rather than spreading our energy across all kinds of initiatives, many of which are not ripe for action.
Let's consider a classic sequence of digital transformation in structural engineering: pencil & paper ➫ Excel ➫ Scripts ➫ platforms.
Starting from pencil and paper, we have a series of tics and tocs:
Tic (new building, old idea): transcribing our calculations from paper to Excel. At this stage, there is generally an effort to make the Excel workbook look like an classic calculation sheets.
Toc (old building, new idea): Once Excel sheets are an accepted part of a practice, someone realizes that we can automatically run hundreds of calculations and writes a VB macro.
Tic (new building, old idea): Now everyone is used to running hundreds of calculations at once, and 18 different versions macro-laden Excel sheet now circulate around the practice. The idea of running a standard calculation on a big data set is now expressed as a python script - maybe the script is even stored in a company-wide version control system!
Toc (old building, new idea): As the team gets used to using scripts and doing basic programming, new tools start to appear.
This process continues on and on. Recognizing the two phases can help us move forward with less angst.
Always ask "Is the next step a new technology that people will have to learn or pay for, or do the tools we already use allow us to work in a new way?"
Keeping this question in mind will help technology advocates push on doors that are already unlocked, and will help those less inclined to be excited about new tech to run ahead without losing their balance.
Jacob, J., [1961] The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Random House, New York.
Voeller, J, [1996] "Editorial: Data-Centered Thinking" J. Comp. in Civ. Engrg., Volume 10, Issue 1, pp. 1-2.
Sutherland, R.J.M. [1999] "The birth of stress: a historical review" in Structural and Civil Engineering Design ed. Addis, W., Ashgate Variorum, Aldershot.