Welcome to aimexec.net

So far in this introductory chapter I have highlighted the following:

During the latter half of the 20th Century there was an increase in demand for technology in buildings. This technology was also becoming more sophisticated and complex. This lead, in turn, to an increased need for experts and specialists on Design and Construction teams, thus heightening the demand for better management and communication tools and methods.

Information Technology (IT) and Information Systems (IS) have provided excellent solutions, but, compared with other industries, the AEC sector is lagging behind. We are all seeking to achieve the ultimate goal, namely, to improve business by outmanoeuvring competitors. However many still complain that achieving any clear strategic differentiation remains an illusive dream.

The model below presents three scenarios which you may have confronted.

The first one ignores IT altogether and focuses on achieving results by better project management. The technology will be called upon only when required to facilitate good manage practices.

The next scenario is one which relies on IT Vendors and Developers to present a solution that most comfortably suits the Business’s needs and challenges.

The last scenario suggests that it is possible to beat the competition by simply acquiring the best and most modern technology. This will surely eliminate those competitors who cannot afford to keep up.

I present to you another alternative. This is one which has been developed from the valuable lessons learned through the successes and failures of other industry sectors regarding their formulation and implementation of IT / IS. I am referring to Information Management.

The Chapters (Categories – in Blog speak) which follow will deal with Information Management and its application in AEC Businesses and Practices.

In the previous posting I presented the Information Systems Applications Portfolio and used this to gauge the success or maturity of an Organization’s IT / IS capability. From the matrix it is clear that IT /IS capability is not achieved simply by acquiring ‘IT for the sake of IT’; borne out by the close relationship between Applications and Business Strategy. Business Strategy clearly provides the purpose behind the choice and application of IT, and, “…IT is at the heart of every significant business process and is crucial to innovation and enterprise success…” Broadbent and Kitzis (2005)

It follows too that if Management holds this view of IT, surely they share a parallel view of IT and Information Managers. Hence Broadbent and Kitzis (2005) say that those with the view that “IT is irrelevant to competitive advantage lead(s) to a role (of the IT Manager) that might be called chief technology mechanic, a role that, while valuable, is far from being part of the Executive Team”. This is certainly true across all industries.

Therefore, in the AEC sector it can be said that how Business Managers view CAD (Computer Aided Drawing) Managers is another telltale gauge of the Organization’s overall IT / IS success. In turn, this flows through to how CAD Manager’s view themselves.

During my research I interviewed an Engineer who also happens to be the CAD Manager at the Practice. When I asked him how he came to have the CAD Manager role he responded: “In a land full of blind people, the person with one eye will reign.” This strongly suggests that at that Practice there is a poor perception of the CAD Management role. On the other hand, I have seen Architectural Practices advertising roles such as “Architectural Information Systems Manager”, and, “Design Systems Manager”, suggesting that they attach far more importance to this role.

Finally, let’s return to the Information Systems Application Portfolio. Note that the Support segment tends to have these features:

• IT / IS Manager role is not valuable.
• Business Strategy is not clear to IT / IS Manager and this person is not party to these decisions.
• Vendors and Suppliers tend to advise and direct on IT / IS decisions.

In contrast the Strategic segment has these features:

• IT / IS Manager is part of the Executive Team.
• IT / IS Strategy is closely aligned to the Business Strategy.
• Vendors, Suppliers and Outsourcers are managed and directed by the IT / IS Manager

Where does your business fit? Where do you fit?

In the last few postings we have touched on the evolution of IT / IS systems. We grouped them into the Data Processing (DP) era, the Management Information System (MIS) era, and the Strategic Information System (SIS) era.

Please do not conclude that I am suggesting that the success or maturity of an Organization’s IT / IS capability is to be measured by the “era” which it can be identified with. Neither does it depend on how heavily its IT / IS leans towards SIS (the most modern of the three eras). So then, how would we go about determining the level of IT / IS implementation in an organization or industry?

F.W. McFarlan (“Information technology changes the way you compete”, Harvard Business Review, May-June 1984) provided what is widely recognised as the most helpful application classification scheme.

The information systems applications portfolio

McFarlan’s scheme classifies information systems based on the contribution they make to business success. It takes the form of a matrix.
Ward and Peppard (2003) contains the following brief description of the portfolio:

• Strategic applications are critical to future business success. They create or support change in how the organization conducts its business, with the aim of providing competitive advantage. Note that whether the technology used is ‘leading edge’ does not indicate that the application is strategic – assessment must be based on business contribution.
• Key operational applications sustain the existing business operations, helping to avoid any disadvantage. It can be argued that, in many industries, substantial numbers of applications have become so pervasive that they have become ‘mandatory’ for survival in the industry.
• Support applications improve business efficiency and management effectiveness but, in themselves, do not sustain the business or provide any competitive advantage.
• High potential innovative applications may create opportunities to gain a future advantage, but are as yet unproven.

Refer also to Edwards et al (1995).

Try this on your own business…

Step one: Make a list of all the applications which your business uses. For applications which can be customized for various purposes (Eg. Excel, AutoCAD) list each customization as a separate application.

Step two: Now consider each application on your list, and, which of the four quadrants describes that application according to its current and future contribution to business success.

By the early 1980s a third model was evolving. This new model sought to “improve competitiveness by changing the nature or conduct of business” - Ward and Peppard (2003). It flows from the notion that Information System (IS) / Information Technology (IT) investments can be a source of competitive advantage, hence it is referred to as the Strategic Information Systems (SIS) model.

From the research of  Ward and Peppard into those businesses which have successfully improved competitiveness by changing the nature and conduct of business, they identified various key factors that frequently recur and underpin success. It is particularly interesting to note that these factors are often at odds with traditional IS / IT approaches. Here are the seven key factors which they identify:

• External, not internal, focus: Traditionally IS / IT was focused on internal processes and issues. SIS looks at customers, competitors, suppliers, other industries and the business’s relationships and similarities with outsiders.
• Adding value, not cost reduction: The aim is for businesses to differentiate themselves with competitors; not the goal is to do it better, not cheaper.
• Sharing the benefits: In the past systems benefits have not been shared between departments or functions. This new model addresses sharing within the organisation, with suppliers, customers, consumers and competitors.
• Understanding customers: How do Customers use the product and obtain value from it? What problems do they encounter?
• Business driven innovation, not technology-driven: System change must be driven by marketplace developments.
• Incremental development: A stepped approach works better. Develop systems by experimentation, and building on success.
• Using information gained from the systems to develop the business: Make information available where it is needed in ways which reach beyond traditional practice or format.

The three evolutionary models considered here were named by Ward and Peppard (2003) as the Data Processing (DP) era, the Management Information System (MIS) era, and the Strategic Information System (SIS) era. Andresen et al (2000) referred to them as Automate, Informate and Transformate; terms which precisely describe the focus of each model.

It is important to note that while it has became progressively evident that IS / IT in business has evolved, this does not mean that the newer models have superseded earlier models. In any given organisation it is not unusual to identify more than one type in use at the same time. For example, Banks have Automated Tellers and also provide management with instant information about their clients. Retailers have automated sales and inventory records, forged strategic relationships with suppliers and manufacturers, and by providing Courtesy Cards they attract customers away from competitors in the market. Airlines who were first to provide online booking facilities to their customers were able to gain a competitive advantage in the market. Transport and shipping businesses provide their customers with online access to information about the location of their goods and delivery programmes.

Ah, but perhaps you feel that this is all good for financial, retail and transport businesses, but, business in the Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) industry is too complex to accomplish anything like that. Is this true? Can the AEC industry benefit from the lessons learnt in other industries?

So, what have other industries and business sectors achieved with Information and Systems Technology?  Also, how and why are they ahead of the AEC sector?
Looking back at what has happened since the start of the computer age it is possible to identify three evolutionary models. Since the 1960s we have had the Data Processing Model which is primarily operational in nature. Initially there were two types of systems (Ward and Peppard, 2003):

• Monitoring – transaction handling and control;
• Exception – triggered reporting and/or action.

By the early 1980s the personal computer (PC) was introduced. Soon new software tools , such as word processors, spreadsheets, electronic mail and user graphics, added two new functions for Information System (IS) and Information Technology (IT) developers and managers to consider:

• Enquiry – flexible access to data and information initiated by user request;
• Analysis – decision support, with flexible processing of data and information.

These applications provide managers with information and the ability to transform it in order to make effective management decisions. Yes, as computers stored more data, managers realized that this information could increase the effectiveness of decision making, so that, from the 1970s onwards, there was a move towards the Management Information Systems Model.

This transition was not an entirely smooth process. “The rationale for investment had reverted, in many cases, from ‘business pull’ to ‘technology push’ and the management style often regresses accordingly.” (Ward and Peppard, 2003) Ward and Peppard identified a number of lessons learned at this time. Here is a list of those which, in my view, are most important:

• Justification of IS investments is not entirely a matter of return on investment / financial analysis.
• The IS resource needs to move from a productive to a service orientation to enable users to obtain their own information from the data resource – the information centre concept.
• There is a need for organizational policies, not just Data Processing methodologies.
• Personal computers and office systems enable better MIS to be developed, provided that users and IS specialists both focus on the information needs rather than the technology.

By the early 1980s a third, and very significant, model was evolving. Indeed, it is in this third model where Architecture, Engineering and Construction businesses and professionals are laggards, and where the attention of this blog is to be focused.

Are you excited about the new technology? Are you brimming with ideas for improving your organization? Are you thrilled at the prospect of getting your work done more efficiently? Do you believe that technology could enable the business to improve its profits – make more money? Can you see your career growing from strength to strength? Yes, where do you think you could be in five or ten years from now?

There certainly is very good reason for you to feel positive about the impact that technology has on the Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) business. We have come a long way from the ‘electronic drawing board’. A BIM model is packed with intelligence which, in the past, would have required numerous Drawings, Schedules and Reports to maintain – not to mention the high level of duplication that so commonly occurs when people are afraid of overlooking detail. Besides the CAD and BIM technologies which we have, we also have a wide assortment of computer applications and technologies which can also be introduced to improve our business.

Nevertheless, in spite of this, do you find yourself frustrated at the slow pace with which your organization is adapting to new opportunities? Do you often feel that management pays only ‘lip service’ to ideas? Do they appear to have a different agenda when it comes to following through on meaningful change?

Nine years ago Andresen et al (2000) wrote that the AEC sector was “lagging behind other industries”. Four years later AEC experts repeated this claim, referring the industry as “technology laggards”. (Love P, 2004(2))

Some observers might consider the description ‘laggard’ as somewhat extreme. However, you will surely agree that, before simply dismissing these experts, it would be worthwhile considering what other industries have achieved ahead of our industry. The next posting will address this topic.

Yes, technology has definitely changed the way Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) Professionals and Businesses operate. First it was the Technology used in buildings which forced this change. Then, largely to enable the effective management and coordination of design information which the inclusion of this technology imposes, new technology in the office was invented.

For the most part, Office Technology has been vendor-driven, which, in the opinion of many in the AEC industry, leaves Professionals free to focus on getting the job done. However, is this relationship likely to produce tangible business benefits? Also, is the acquisition of new technology enough to drive meaningful business change?

Consider what has happened during the past two decades in the architectural profession. This discipline, when reduced to its most common denominators, is made up of Design, Documentation and Supervision - refer figure below. As Project Management emerged as a professional discipline the role of the Architect has, on various occasions, been steadily eroded. Project Managers’ were able to do this by highlighting the benefits which they are able to provide to their clients, benefits which are centered on project cost management, time management and scope management.

Project Management and Architecture

The fact that this has happened draws attention to the fact that AEC Professionals are not immune to the most basic premise of business, namely; that every successful business delivers maximum benefit to the customers. Yes, customers require and pay for benefits!
 
Have ‘customer benefits’ reached their limits? Already back in 1989, Ken Stowe, then a charter member of the Computer Integrated Construction Association, had this to say about a “Construction Future”: “Soon, construction project players will no longer conceptualize, draft and transfer project information from office to office on computerized two-dimensional blueprints with volumes of printed specifications. A computerized project database will emerge from team sessions with the architect, owner and builder starting with conceptual design. The database format will be standardized to allow for automated materials quantities takeoff and expert decision / support systems to suggest and analyze various design alternatives.”

Twenty years later we do have the technology available to deliver Stowe’s “Construction Future”. However, while many have adopted this new technology, many feel that it has provided them with any particular strategic advantaged over their competitors. The benefits are not attracting new business.

Post – Technology Transforming Business Practices

Technology in buildings and at the ‘coal face’ certainly has changed the way Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) professionals and businesses operate. Eddy Krygiel et al (2007) writing about the Power and Light Building in Kansas City, Missouri, and which was built in 1931, have this to say: “The drawing set for a building of this size in the 1930s would have been about 30 pages long. The Power and Light Building was more complex than its predecessors but far simpler than today’s large commercial projects. There were no data or telecom systems, no air-conditioning other than operable windows, and no security systems other than locks on the doors.”

Today the drawing set for buildings can run into the hundreds. This calls for better management, coordination, communication and control. Hence, according to our custom when in a time of need, we responded by inventing, yes, inventing new technology for the workplace. Information Technology (IT) and Information Systems (IS) were designed and adapted. CAD, Word Processors, Spreadsheets, the Fax Machine, the Internet, Networking, and so on. And, more recently we have BIM.

To illustrate the impact that this technology has had on the workplace we only need to consider the roles and responsibilities of people working in AEC. Large Professional Practices have always appointed an Office Manager to oversee the production process. As Computer Aided Drawing (CAD) gained a foothold in these organisations the need to have an IT / CAD specialist became apparent, and so the CAD Manager entered the scene, soon to be followed by the BIM Manager, and other related roles and titles. To illustrate how IT has impacted on the workplace consider what Jack B. Rochester wrote in 1993 (Rochester, 1993): “… a recent U.S. government study concluded that by the year 2000, three out of five jobs that people will need to be trained and educated for do not exist today. Moreover, these jobs will almost certainly involve the use of computers.” Certainly back in 1993 many work opportunities for AEC professionals were only beginning to emerge.

Unfortunately, these roles have come to mean different things to different organisations. For example, some CAD Manager’s are recognised as key members of the management team while others are perceived as simply ‘techno-grease-monkeys’, there to get the work done without in anyway recognizing their contribution to developing the business.

What has been your experience in this regard?
What do you believe should be the role of IT (and similar) Managers?

We are now going to address the influence that technology has had on changing how business are managed in Architecture, Engineering and Construction - AEC. This discussion is divided into two Parts. The first Part addresses technology in buildings.

By the middle of the 20th-Century the demand for technology in buildings was increasing. HVAC, security, transport, and services all required an ever increasing level of sophistication. Those responsible for the Design and Documentation of Buildings needed to be abreast of all these developments. In addition to this, it required careful control and coordination to avoid costly clashes between the various technologies. Many new professionals were drawn into the project team mix; persons known as Specialist Consultants.

More recently the demand is to have Greener, more environmentally friendly buildings. This does not mean that technology must go; rather, it means that Designers’ need to find Eco-friendly solutions and ways to reduce the ‘carbon footprint’ while still providing the required services and comfort.

Those people responsible for project documentation were confronted with a tremendous challenge, namely, how to keep up with drawing and other documentation revisions. Yes, revisions are inevitable, particularly as more professionals joined the team. Indeed, revision management did play an important part towards promoting Information Technology in AEC. Next time we will discuss this technology and how it has transformed AEC business practices.

Once again, please note that if you have any opinion or experience which relates to anything written here, please send your comments.

Throughout our history there have been individuals who where known either as Architect’s or Engineer’s. However the emergence of these roles as professional disciplines is a fairly recent development.

Prior to the Industrial Revolution Builder’s depended on experience and ‘trial and error’ to successfully erect structures. However, when empirical systems and methods of calculation for designing stable structures became possible, Engineering was transformed.

As early as one hundred years ago, in order to become an Architect, a person would become an apprentice draughtsman to an Architect. Then, depending on the quality of that experience, the particular talent of the individual, and whatever opportunities were available at the time, the Apprentice would eventually become and Architect. Otherwise, he (at the time this was a male dominated profession) continued as a Draughtsman.

How things have changed. But, not all the change has been directly due to discovery and research, or technological advances. Much of the change was also due to the new business environment. Prior to the Industrial Revolution there were fewer opportunities for Architects and Engineers. True, many Palaces, Mansions, Civil Structures, and Churches were built, however, those were few compared with the number of Factories, Commercial Buildings and Banks that have been built during only the past one hundred and fifty years.

The business environment was changing, and, in turn, AEC professionals and businesses needed to change. This would not be the last time that business conditions would promote change in this industry.

The next posting will consider other changes that have occurred during the past forty years.