I have had many titles throughout my career: architect, building developer, software developer and periodically, educator. In the late 80’s I taught a design/CAD class at the University of California, Berkeley, in the mid 90’s design/CAD and lecture classes at Carnegie Mellon, and for the last two years a class, “BIM and the Future of Architecture” at the University of Washington. In each case I was asked by the Universities to help educate students about the future of their profession in the era of rapid technology growth and to inspire other teachers towards integrating more technology into the educational process.

During my years in the technology side of the AEC/FM professions I have been part of creating the tools that have lead to a monumental transition in the ways that architects, engineers, contractors, building product manufacturers, owners and facility managers conduct their businesses, communicate, design and manage their information. We have gone from hand drawings, electric erasers and typewriters to using computers for BIM, project animations, specifications, and data management - all in less than 25 years. The speed of this transition is amazing when you consider what has happened in other industries in 25 years; airplanes-1903-1928 (still in it infancy), telephones-1876-1901 (still a novelty), automobiles-1885-1910 (still more horses than cars).

Constructing, renovating, maintaining, and operating buildings is the biggest business in the world and perhaps the most complicated. This fact makes the technology changes within the AEC professions even more significant. Within the next few years, 2015 at the rate we are moving, I am certain that we can prove that the cost of design, construction, and operation of buildings will be 20% to 25% less (adjusted for inflation) than comparable costs for a building built in 1990.

While AEC/FM professions have been moving at an ever accelerating pace into the Technology Era the educational institutions teaching architecture have been moving at a snail’s pace. It is interesting to look at how the professions have changed since 1985 (significantly) and compare to how the teaching of architecture has changed (very little).

At a time when students could be leaving school with significant talents to help the professions, they are instead leaving with an ever widening gap between education and practice, particularly with regard to the use of technology. There are many reasons for this: Professors 1) may not feel comfortable teaching classes requiring software, computers and automated analysis, 2) may believe that the use of technology during design education does not improve the students abilities, 3) may not like the qualities of computer generated presentations, 4) may not believe computers teach the fundamentals, 5) may not want to expose their lack of hardware and software expertise. The list could go on and on.

I gave a talk in the mid 90’s to a gathering of about 100 technology oriented professors of architecture and design. My topic was on changing the curriculum to increase the number of technology classes. At the end of my talk the first response was that there were no classes that could be dropped, what would I drop? My answer was immediate, “drop calculus” (I did not do well in calculus, and I certainly never needed it to practice architecture or to start and run software companies, and I suspect that computers have eliminated the need for calculus). The overwhelming response from the audience was that calculus taught you how to think (not in my case). My response back was “so would brain surgery” (also not needed to practice architecture). Why not teach how to conduct and understand an in-depth energy analysis of the students design so they could better understand the relationship between design and energy consumption? That exercise would also teach a student how to think. A bit later in the ongoing discussion another professor stated that I did not understand schools; at her school it took over a year to change a course name and number. This was the group that believed in technology!

Schools are complex, the dean could be a leader in technology, the chair could be a leader in technology, but the professor may not be a believer in technology, be tenured, and not about to change. Or, it could be that the professor is a leader in technology, but only teaches a few classes with his/her favorite software, while other classes are still drawing by hand or being taught using software that has no future in the professional environment. Schools are a collection of independent contractors (professors) relatively free to teach how and what they want within a broad definition of the class topic. This is not fundamentally bad; it provides the students with a broad and diverse education. However it is bad when it results in students leaving school and already being behind the professions. Students could be leaving school today with talents and knowledge that could help lead the professions into this new Technology Era.

Architectural schools have changed in the past, within the last 80 years they have transitioned from teaching classical architecture to modern architecture (a big change), however it was started not with a transition, but with a new school teaching modern architecture exclusively, and then other schools transitioning as it was clear that this change was destined to be.

I would not be writing this paper if my efforts and the efforts of CAD vendors, manufacturers and many others had been successful in inspiring the change that is inevitable. So I have a new idea: Instant Change. Below is a proposed curriculum that, if implemented immediately, would graduate students who could enter firms with knowledge and talents to lead the professions into the future. Instead of starting their work career at the bottom of the ladder they would come in with immediate contributions to the firm.

I know people can come up with reasons why this will not work but they are wrong. Any architecture school could adopt this curriculum now with the professors they have now. Professors will be concerned that they do not know the software; they do not need to know the software. Students learn the software, professors teach theory, procedures, and desired results. Some of my students have criticized that in my CAD and BIM classes I teach them little about how to use CAD and BIM, but the assignments require these skills (yes I know how to use both). I encourage them to work in teams, help each other learn, follow tutorials and books. The results are impressive, they end the class able to use the software, and they have experience in a learning process to follow in the future for learning new software.

My hope is that one school decides to take the leap of faith and adopt an aggressive totally integrated technology-based curriculum. They will be the leader. Over the next few decades all the rest will follow and then one final school with be the last to move into this new Technology Era. I wonder, will it be the same school that was last to move from classical to modern architecture?

I welcome your comments and would be happy to talk with anyone that is interested in these ideas.

Member Comments