Will Technology Replace the Architect?
We all know that technology is the future. But how will new technological advances effect design and the small firm architect? Can architects evolve with the changing roles?
This week at EntreArchitect Podcast, Will Technology Replace the Architect? with Clifton Harness of TestFit.
Learn more about Clifton at TestFit.io, or connect with him on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter.
Visit Our Platform Sponsors
Freshbooks is the easy way to send invoices, manage expenses, and track your time. Access your free 30-day trial at EntreArchitect.com/FreshBooks. (Enter EntreArchitect)
ARCAT has huge libraries of free content, Specs, CAD, BIM and more. No registration required. Want to collaborate with colleagues in real-time? Visit EntreArchitect.com/ARCAT and click Charrette for more information.
Mark,
I debated sharing my comments, but I suppose being silent helps no one. I found the podcast engaging, and Clifton certainly has an entrepreneurial spirit. I appreciate how he discovered and filled a gap with technology that makes sense for what it improved or replaced. I found it evident that he enjoys that part of the profession, which is hopeful to others that wish to be in architecture but find some parts not as enjoyable.
His software is something I wouldn’t need for my type of work. My work doesn’t lend itself to that type of repetition, but I believe many firms could benefit and could justify the expense. Repetition is where technology works – but let’s be clear; it does NOT replace the architect. I don’t care for that phrase or to perpetuate a misleading notion. It is another excellent tool, but as a phone, BIM or even a pencil sharpener is a tool, Clifton’s software could help many architects efficiently plan large scale multi-family projects.
My sticking point, call me picky, is he used an example in a misleading way. He used the concept of redlines as an archaic method of communicating edits to “Millennials” – his use of the generational term, not mine. It seemed that he didn’t care for ‘picking up redlines,’ which is a valid feeling. However, later when he used it in his example of changing technology, I believe he drew a false conclusion. I could explain at length why redlines still have value on multiple levels, but the point is he used a part of the profession that he doesn’t enjoy to support his position that architects must change. That’s a false connection. Just because he doesn’t enjoy it, doesn’t render it ineffective.
Architects DO have to address technology and use it at their level, or as it was said, they’ll be left behind. Whatever that means. Call me overly critical, but I’m an architect. I don’t want to take away from the strength of his story or the power of the software he developed. However, his software addresses a narrow part of architectural practice and it alone will not replace architects. His software does not replace the process of communicating edits from one staff member to another. We will always be needed; however, we may lose market areas by not paying attention to the shifting parts of the profession. Let’s not be offended by red pens or legacy items of the profession any more than us older architects shouldn’t be offended by changing technology.
Lee, thank you for sharing your thoughts. This is a very important topic.
I agree with everything you stated. I don’t believe technology will replace the architect, because I believe the profession will evolve.
Our skills as creative problem solvers will always be needed. But I also believe that technology will change the profession significantly. Those who don’t recognize that fact will be left behind wondering why they cannot find success as an architect.
Lee-
Thanks for your perspective. I’ll have to be more clear on my point of view:
Red pen, plotted sheets and a yellow highlighter is something I consider absolutely archaic. There is no connection to the BIM, no accountability, and no version control. There is no objective source of truth. This method is fine in small firms or on small projects where only a few people touch the documents. However, in the commodity world where you have to manage thousands of sheets at a time with razor thin margins classical redlining does not make practical sense to me.
I once had an older principal print out 100 sheets on ARCH D paper (he wanted it large enough to see 3/32″ text), heft it into his car, and return it to me with all of the redlines. Turns out, it was an old set, and he redlined the same things he had the week before (with different results on each set).
Another one of my co-workers used erasable red pens on a massive set to send to our architect. He did all of the redlines, it was ready to go, but he left the set in his car, and the erasable ink evaporated.
The importance of what he needed to communicate about the sets should have been done using a technology stack where stupid mistakes (like this), and the chopping of an entire tree can be easily avoided. All bluebeam did was make this process digital, and most firms use revu now.
If, for example, you were to re-think the redlining process from the ground up what would it look like?
Redlining would be a whole lot better if it looked like github, or something with collaborative version control and accountability. AEC should borrow this method of incremental improvement on projects.
Maybe I will work on solving redlines at some point. For now, I just want architects to stop counting parking spaces.