Alan H Bridges
University of Strathclyde
Department of Architecture and Building Science
131 Rottenrow
Glasgow G4 ONG
Scotland, U.K.
Telephone: +44 141 548 3013
Fax: +44 141 552 3996
e-mail: a.h.bridges@strath.ac.uk
The author has been a member of two important U.K. reviews of
construction computing (references [1] and [2]). The paper draws
on these reports, other U.K. Government Reports and theoretical
work on collaborative design undertaken at the University of Strathclyde
to present an evaluation of Information Technology use in practice
and its implications for education.
Building IT 2005 [1]
UK Technology Foresight: Construction [2]
Construct IT [3]
Whilst the above recommendations provide a focus for development,
the communication and co-ordination between the divided segments
of the construction industry remains the major obstacle to the
integrated use of computer based design tools. Developments in
building systems software have tended to imitate existing manual
procedures and so have remained confined to particular sections
of the design team. Such separate development can never resolve
the problems of communication between the various individuals
and organisations that constitute the project team. To blame the
lack of international standards for data transfer is to miss the
real problem: a complete re-evaluation of the industry structure
is necessary.
Many companies still use IT to automate existing routine tasks
(and in some cases consolidate inefficiency). Some tasks are not
worth automating as they intensify existing poor practice. If
IT is to be effective then business process innovation rather
than business process improvement may be needed.
| Feature | Improvement | Innovation |
| Level of change | Incremental | Radical |
| Starting point | Existing process | Clean slate |
| Frequency of change | Continuous | One time |
| Time required | Short | Long |
| Participation | Bottom-up | Top-down |
| Typical scope | Narrow, within functions | Broad, cross functional |
| Risk | Low | High |
| Primary enabler | Statistical control | IT |
Table 1. Business Process Improvement and Innovation.
In summary:
Current standards work has concentrated on defining interface formats to enable data to be exchanged between program modules in the different sectors of the industry. However, the sectors and specialised organisations that currently make up the industry are not well defined - there are no clear lines of demarcation separating the industry into distinct and specialised functions. Indeed, several different categorisations are possible. For example, finance, design, manufacture, construction and operation, could define the construction process. Within this breakdown each sector is likely to have differing ideas of priorities: the developer may be seeking to minimise non-lettable space, the architect will be concerned with aesthetics, the engineers the servicing, and so on. Each of these broad sectors may themselves be subdivided: design may be subdivided into architecture, structures, mechanical, electrical, cost estimating, project management, and so on. Mechanical design may in turn be divided into heating, air conditioning, plumbing, fire protection, etc. This breakdown disguises the fact that all these endeavours are focused on the production of one object - the building. Formally approved standards are not the only relevant ones as many design teams adopt ad hoc "standards" from job to job.
There is a lack of systems which can span the whole of the construction
process for specific projects - from clients brief, through design,
commissioning the contract, construction, final account, handing
over, operation and maintenance. Significant gains may be expected
from project-based systems which record and allow exchange of
data between the parties involved and provide ready access to
project databases for all parties. There are particular opportunities
for innovative business process through data transfer. Business
process innovation involves using IT to overcome fragmentation
and elimination of interfaces leading to major efficiency gains
through wider applications of IT. The UK has high construction
costs compared to other EU countries and some of the lowest wage
costs. The Latham Report [4] advised there should be 30% reduction
in cost by 2000. Better collaboration between specialists could
deliver it. Efficient capture, transfer and management of information
will be seen as a core competence in the construction process.
There are, however, legal implications of data ownership, sharing
information and resulting liability responsibilities.
CAD was originally sold to architects as a productivity tool which
would enable small practices to compete effectively against better
resourced large practices and the design-construct companies.
Currently a two-tier CAD market has developed with small scale
systems being sold to individual architectural companies and big
networked systems being sold to the large multidisciplinary practices.
The implications of this split are already becoming apparent.
The competitive advantage that Information Technology offers a
vertically integrated design and construction organisation is
so great that the isolated practitioner is forced to operate in
increasingly specialised "niche" markets. The larger
companies, meanwhile, are forging links with construction companies
and developing customised "integrated systems" for design
and construction. The official standards will arrive too late
to prevent the dominance of the market by those large organisations
who have been organised enough to grasp this opportunity.
UK Technology Foresight: Construction [2] identifies the following technical requirements:
Business Process Engineering defines the overall business process and its key components and then looks for opportunities to improve it before seeking the enabling technologies to support it. Project-based systems which record and allow exchange of data between the parties involved and provide ready access to project databases for all parties are the key to re-engineering the construction process. The major problem in using a common database is Data Sharing. At the moment the different representations in computer applications are independent and, therefore, so are the presentation outputs. The data models underlying each system are disparate and the systems themselves have no clearly defined interfaces. System integration is thus limited and cannot reach a level where benefits accrue. Problems of information co-ordination and real co-ordination of work on site are the costly result. Even with an integrated data model the problem of differing views of the model remains. For example, What is a wall? To the Architect: a functional space divider, the finish of which is important; Structural engineer: material, strength; HVAC engineer: environmental barrier Acoustic engineer: sound insulation Q.S: material quantities Builder: material procurement and erection Client: cost, time, quality. Application tools will filter and interpret the common information to suit different needs [5].
The most sophisticated approach is based on total automation of communication facilities. Different databases based on different hardware and software platforms can be linked in such a way that the communication network is largely invisible to the user. These differing collections of databases are called heterogeneous databases and the technical issues surrounding their co-operative use are called inter-operability. Four key issues arise:
The key requirements of the database itself are:
Object Oriented systems are likely to be used and the Object Management Group is developing standards. Even though the technical problems appear solvable a number of practical problems remain:
These points raise a number of issues related to IT training:
Training is necessary at all levels in the industry. Given the
state of IT experience generally there is a requirement for extensive
CPD (Continuous Professional Development) training. Again the
larger practices are taking the lead (Table 2).
| Consultants | Partner | Team Leader | Prof Staff | Admin | Site Staff |
| % firms with any training | 69% | 66% | 78% | 27% | 15% |
| Median of staff trained | 65% | 55% | 72% | 74% | 11% |
| Median no of days training | 3 | 3.5 | 5 | 3 | 2 |
Table 2. Levels of IT Training in Large UK Consultancies [6]
Training recommendations: