Firm of the future: Challenges and ideals

What will architectural and engineering (A/E) firms look like in 15 to 20 years? ZweigWhite—a business information consulting firm that focuses on the A/E industry and the publisher of Structural Engineer—presented the Firm of the Future Conference at the Charles Hotel in Cambridge, Mass., on Sept. 29-30, to explore the answer to that question. To focus the dialogue into the realm of the structural engineering profession, I hosted a roundtable discussion around the same topic, which included several practicing structural engineers, architects, and owners.

The group discussed the challenges they see on the horizon and then we explored some ideal situations in which future firms could find themselves.

CHALLENGES

MORELLI: I have a tendency, as a client, to challenge the building information modeling conversation a bit because one of the things that concerns me is that we’re not bringing the tools of technology onto the project itself in a meaningful way.You can have a vision of a bunch of plasma screen TVs and no drawings whatsoever, just a 3-D model of everything. It would always be a perfectly coordinated set of drawings, because otherwise the big dialog box pops up and says, "You now have a pipe running through your hallway." As a client, I want to deliver the closeout faster. What can technology do to deliver the project faster, or to make that closeout part, which is so painful, better?

PARKER: The analogy I like to use is the competition between Boeing and I think it was Lockheed Martin on the new fighter jet.We in the A/E industry always have this excuse of, "Well, we don’t have those kinds of tools," because every building we do is one-of-a-kind.

But those two jets were one-of-a-kind.

What won that competition was the creative concepts that went into it. The aerospace guys, the electrical guys, and the computer guys weren’t getting hung up on the coordination, communication, and the integration of ideas between the parties, so the conceptual ideas got to shine through. I think that in the A/E industry, we’re using just a small fraction of that potential technology.

But as we do move to that and it addresses your need, Jill, of the production and process being done faster and better, what will differentiate the A/E firm of the future will be, which I think is good news, the conceptual and creative ideas. And I think that the other end of it will be to understand and solve problems creatively during construction to keep things going. This is very important to the client because a lot can go wrong in that process.With technology, that may become a little bit more achievable.

MCCLEAN: I agree with James. I think that freeing up the designers to do more innovative and creative designs will lead to better coordination by its own nature.We’ll have faster coordination with the contractors, so that we can expedite shop drawings or questions in the field, and integrate all of that. Using the technology to do the things that are relatively easy—and do them really fast—frees us up to do the heavier conceptual, creative-type work and to focus our efforts on the coordination. That’s really key, and I think we’re on the verge of being able to do that.

BARR: One conclusion that we, as software tool providers, have come to is that there has to be tools of the future and [we need to consider] what will those tools look like. I’d propose that the firm of the future will rely heavily on the quality of the tools that are provided in the future. Of course that’s a challenge for us, as well.

LEW: I’d like to respond to Jill’s question. You want to know how all this new technology gives you something better, faster, cheaper, and more coordinated. It will happen and it will happen very fast. We’re all adopting software these days that merges architectural plans with structural plans and so that future is very close. We’ll all put our files in, the computer program will tell it what to do, and it will get done. But there’s a price to pay for that.

Certainly with automation comes less manpower, more efficiency, and prices come down. The underlying concern about improvement on computers in our industry is that there are less than equal skill challenges, as opposed to computer challenges, and that’s affecting our industry. Aside from our increasing skill level with computers, I believe overall skill levels are diminishing, and that’s throughout the entire industry. I face it every day in many ways: with our people,with outside consultants, and all phases of consulting and architecture. Computers are wonderful, and we’re deeply committed to computers in our firm. But, they do not make our staff smarter. It diminishes their intelligence.

An internal challenge that we structural engineers have to fight is the temptation to just put it in the computer, press the button, and it’s all done.

And what’s happening to the industry? The talent pool is diminishing, academic departments are shrinking, and overall attraction to our field is probably at the lowest point in the history of civil/structural engineering. I see it every day because I do all the interviewing for our firm. And it has to do with the dumbing down of the challenges and it has to do with money. We don’t live in a sexy world, our world of building design. And those stars that come into our field get disillusioned very fast, I find.

So there’s a challenge, as we talk about improving computers to do analysis, how do we keep our skills sharp and the projects exciting and achievable? MORELLI:Well, I think that there’s an additional point to what you’re saying there. I believe that you are right, that the talent pool is going down. But, I think that the inherent worth and importance of the eyes that are looking at the computer is critical. I think it’s important for you folks to educate owners such as ourselves that just because something is computerized, it does not make it right.

The other thing is that as we talk about technology, the reality is we’re still building buildings one brick at a time. So we have to understand here that we are taking a system that hasn’t changed for thousands of years and imposing a computer model or methods and technology on top of that.

How does that rationalize itself or make it more efficient? I think that that’s a very difficult challenge for folks in your industry and for engineers such as yourselves, to deliver a product to folks like Pam and me.

PARKER: And I agree with Stephen, the skill levels are going down. Because of our market, we’re driven to take any productivity gains we can, so we rarely get the opportunity to take and use the computer to help enhance our knowledge of the performance of structures, we’re using it only to shorten our efforts, to reduce the production time, and that goes for architects as well.

Jill mentioned building one brick at a time, another difference between the analogy I drew with the fighter jet competition is that they were in control of how the plane was going to get constructed, and that was an integrated process, too. Now, there’s been a lot of hoopla about design/build and we’ve all probably seen pros and cons of that.We can have great ideas, but another challenge we have is how to integrate our concepts with the actual construction side of it.

IDEALS

GOUPIL: Let’s dream a little bit and say what we would like to happen to our profession and in our industry in 15 or 20 years.

DELPHENICH: I would say one of the things that I’d like to see are products and technologies that solve more than one problem, such as a structural system that has a mechanical system integrated, which is also sustainable, and so forth. I think it’s possible.

BARR: That’s a minimum mandatory requirement for the future. Multiple disciplines must work together in the same environment, so it’s not just a structural engineering deliverable, it’s also integrated with architecture, building services, HVAC, plumbing, and electrical, as well as the site.

DELPHENICH: That’s right, and fully integrated solutions.

BARR: Absolutely.

DELPHENICH: Along with precoordinated, so that there are fewer change orders.

BARR: Then you can begin to make decisions between the disciplines and not just amongst the structural decisions systems.

I’d like to get back to what Stephen said about skill sets and I don’t want to disagree, but certainly there are subsets of skills that are much better today, and so I think we need to focus where we want those skills to be strong and where some of the skills that people are losing can be handled with tools or with other means. I think that challenges which skill sets are important for the future.

MCCLEAN: The diminishing skill sets that I think Stephen and James might be referring to are that there’s a lack of practical knowledge. They create a model and then take what they learned to produce another model, but they don’t really practically understand all the impacts as it relates to the architecture, the plumbing, and everything else. I hate to say it, but because of the time constraints, people are drawing buildings instead of designing buildings. That’s the kind of practical application that is lacking.

It used to be that we would figure everything out on paper and pieces of trace before anything got drawn.

Nowadays, it seems that everything is drawn first and then people figure out where it’s wrong. That has really set us back. But the tools that in some ways have caused that problem, such as the advance of CAD that made it so easy to start drawing, is the same tool that’s going to fix that problem. Once it becomes easier, it will free people up.

DELPHENICH: The tools become crutches.

MCCLEAN: I agree.

PARKER: It certainly isn’t that tools aren’t the problem, they aren’t the cause of the problem. It’s just the way we’re using them. The structural engineer of the future needs to be adept at moment distribution in an approximate manner.

They will certainly have to understand why those things work and understand it, but they don’t necessarily have to be fast.Obviously, there are certain skill sets that are important such as doing multiplication in your head, but to be able to do a lot of numbers really fast in your head isn’t as important as it may have been at one time because there are tools.

But you said something, Jim, that’s really critical. It is that the quality of the tools can become really important and we have to address how we are going to do that. Are we just going to say, "Okay, we’ve been given this from the software vendors and everybody’s using it, so we’re going to use it, too?" I think quality firms of the future will be focusing on one set of tools, understanding them and penetrating them. Tool providers are going to start to become sub-consultants to the firm of the future, because the better you know those individuals and know what’s going on, you’ll have better and more reliable use of the tools. And that will be very different than the way we do now.We’re going to start having to have relationships with the builders of those tools.

MORELLI: I think that the firm of the future won’t even talk about the tools that they’re using, because they’ll be so ingrained in their culture that it won’t even be a discussion point. Then, as owners, we’ll be looking at leadership.

Who is providing the strength of leadership that’s necessary on these projects? And so ultimately speaking, it’s just not a matter of knowing how to do the multiplication or knowing how to turn the machine on or not, it’s a matter of how do we lead these projects, because I think that’s where we’re really short.

PARKER: Jill mentioned leadership and I wonder if we see the industry looking for that leadership when we see the emergence of firms that are just doing project or program management.

Perhaps that’s a sign that there is the need for leadership out there and the industry is struggling for other ways to provide it.Consider the delivery systems of design/build. Perhaps what we’re really struggling for is somebody to take charge and be a leader on a project.

Maybe not only is that something you’re looking for as an owner, maybe that’s something that’s really an industry-wide issue now.

DELPHENICH: I think it goes back to the issue of integration, integrating all of the disciplines, integrating the construction, the structural engineering, the architectural design, and the mechanical design, and deliver a fullyintegrated complete product, and there’s less of that now than there should be. I think one-stop shopping is very appealing to a lot of owners. If you’re willing to abdicate control, which I’m not, then design/builders are a really wonderful solution, because one person is responsible for it. That’s what I’m looking for and I think that the firms of the future are going to have to become more and more integrated, work with the owner and with each other, to produce a product that’s obviously a team effort.

MORELLI: But I don’t think that means, for integration or a high degree of integration, that every firm has to have all disciplines within their firm.

DELPHENICH: Oh, I agree completely.You’re required to know a lot of different players so that you can build a team that’s appropriate to the project—a project-specific team—with the right players for the right project.

Absolutely!

CONCLUSION

GOUPIL: What would your ideals be if you could wish or desire anything for your firm personally or for the profession?

MCCLEAN: I’d like to see every municipality adopt the exact same building code. And stick with it for the next 20 years. [Laughter]

LEW: I don’t know if this is what I’d wish for, but I predict that we’re just at the birthplace of automation, and that automation is only going to be better.

[Speaking to Delphenich] As an owner, you want more integrated, you want it faster, you want it more coordinated, and if you want all that, computers are your answer. It will happen.

But outside of that, I just see the technical field as being diminished.

Everything is reducing down to using the tools, rather than using skills. That’s my prediction of the future.

PARKER: My hope and my wish is that, although there may be fewer of us in the future, that we will [be able to harness the power of technology so that we can] spend more time and talent on good solid conceptual thinking and on leadership, versus just using the benefits to finish a project in less time.

MORELLI: That’s actually a vision that I can get pretty comfortable with as well. [Perhaps] you’re right, there may be fewer firms, and there may be fewer people within those firms, but the piece that will be there will be the leadership and that will be where the value is. I can certainly see that happening.