The mandated introduction of 3D object based modelling in Denmark as of 1 January 2007 sparked, at least for some architects and consulting engineers, a transition from drawing to modelling, from CAD to BIM, from two to three dimensional design processes. Various spokes persons saw or articulated the transition as a “revolution”, a “shift of paradigm”, or a “new way of thinking”. Given the hype about BIM (Building Information Modelling) I welcomed, during the second half of 2007, the unique opportunity to observe and study the design, the partial becoming of a specific building information model and the partial emergence of building information modelling processes. In fact, the processes that I followed were the simultaneous becoming of tools, organisational routines, and users as well as the building information model and modelling methods, in sum, the managing of modelling.
Taking a process view (Clegg, Kornberger et al. 2005; Hernes 2008) on practice based studies (Gherardi 2009) calls, in this case, for a sensibility to enactments and performances, for the specific and provisional as well as multiplicity and fractal overlaps, for non-coherence, for contradictory and sometimes controversial associations and relations between non/human actors – i.a. humans, tools, objects, organisational routines (Law 2004; 2007), yet pragmatic approach to describing and analysing representations, transformations, displacements, circulations, attributions (Latour 2006 (1991): 215) as well as dynamic, recurrent, unfolding relations (Emirbayer 1997).
Asking, among others, how drawing and modelling practices are combined and, to that end, examining how building model, modelling practices, tools, actors and organisational routines become, I draw on but a few, yet paradigmatic episodes where the design process appears rather tangled; describing the far-stretching (rhizomatic, i.e.) ethno-epistemic assemblage (Irwin and Michael 2003) of but a few specific enactments of the building information modelling process may illustrate just how difficult it is, in practice, to manage relational effects associated with modelling. Indeed, taking up the idea that BIM – like e.g. the similarly flawed wide-spreading technological systems within health care (the Electronic Patient Journal, i.e.)(Jensen 2004; Svenningsen 2004) – is a technology in the making, might stress just the how tricky it is to manage, to manage something that is fluid, partially dis/connected, not one, but less than many (Law and Mol 2002; Mol 2002)). Furthermore, “management” (which in this case must be determined empirically, in non a priori terms, i.e.) becomes bi- or even multi-directional, because the suite of object-based, digital modelling tools that architects, engineers, technical assistants and others employ, seem to dis/organise or (re)structure the design processes. (At least some of) The effects of object-based modelling are hard to manage – but what are the effects, how do we come to terms with modelling.
(Potential) Cases - Managing Modelling
Managing objects. Knowing about objects is central to BIM. The relation between hardware, applications, models and virtual building objects is delicate in several ways: Objects are tricky, objects are demanding, objects must be developed (ad hoc), applied, stored and re-used. Ideally objects should be subject (sic) to some kind of quality assurance, validation, but more often than not, they are not… Yet, objects are knowledge mediators, supposed to act intelligently. Worst of all, virtual objects are often heavy and don’t always act as expected (unless we expect them to slow down the design processes and to mess up our business). Observations of modelling in practice and interviews emphasise just how (non)trivial the handling of objects is.
- The apparently simple operation – moving, modifying or even deleting an object - may last several seconds; and users do it all time, again and again.
- The acknowledged complicated operation, e.g. changing the datum of a building, may produce an excess of errors wherever objects were not perfectly defined, assigned, anchored
- The relational character of the building model requires new ways of distributing / organizing the design processes; changes may have unforeseen consequences elsewhere
- Objects slowing down the processor’s capacity may force users to review the building model – and thus entirely remove objects that are not strictly necessary or replace them with symbols – in a transition from 2D to 3D and back again...
Managing work flow: 3D objects slow down even the biggest and fastest computers, simulation servers or visualization farms; where we expected re-use of data we may observe virtual buildings being torn down long before physical completion. The relation of heavy weight virtual objects and fast, but never fast enough computers, has effects on users’ capacity to plan e.g. when they begin a specific job – unless of course, it should be have been finished even before they got it… In the case of visualization of design or simulation of e.g. the interior climate of the future building users need to think ahead and plan what to do next, once their PC is busy rendering an illustration for a project. It may take hours, if not the whole night. And the job may go wrong – time will tell.
Managing intelligent objects and straight lines. Architects go by the looks. Not only the aesthetics aspects are important - plans, elevations and incisions must be in accordance with industry standards or legal proceedings is a likely outcome. From that follows that the 3D model need some elaboration, post 3D modelling, i.e. Combining intelligent objects with what has been referred to as “dead lines” (in English I think “straight lines” works better) may very well produce nice drawings, but whenever the combination is associated with IFC, the Industry Foundation Classes, the dead lines do not exchange – at least not correctly, across platforms or proprietary applications. Problems exchanging data across platforms is a well known issue within and beyond construction, however, given the numerous digital tools and suites applied across the design process require more checks, more and more time seem to go into controlling whether or not the technology performed a given operation correctly; users may have to check e.g. whether or not the number of doors, pillars or cubic meters of concrete translated according to expectations – and explain deviations.
Adding up data. We know from Yaneva’s studies of Koolhaus’ practice (Yaneva 2005; 2009) that all that architects know about a building is the adding up of data. At the time Yaneva observed the becoming of the NewWhitney, CAD was still the leading and preferred design tool, but in the sense of adding up data BIM is not that different; there is only more adding up data than ever because, as I have learned, the additional third dimension (the height as in the Euclidian space) requires at least one more parameter to be defined, namely the objects relative position in the model – to what does it anchor. In the case of BIM, objects are virtual, parametric building blocks, yet they must be handled with care. Not that they are fragile, rather they are potentially explosive or, at least, their effects on the design process may prove rather harmful.
Manning up and down. At time of writing I dare say that two parallel practices co exist: CAD and BIM. This is one way of understanding how drawing and modelling practices combine. The co-existence of those two practices adds additional stress on the handling of e.g. human resources, not least whenever project teams need reinforcement to meet milestones, client demands etc. The association of CAD, BIM, limited human resources (in number and competence-wise) and tight deadlines may have unfortunate effects on the day-to-day management and organisation of teams and projects – creativity in design and architectural quality risk being traded for narrow technical capabilities; this, on the other hand, allows for otherwise peripheral actors’ inclusion in the community.
Draft conclusion
BIM was introduced to boost productivity in the construction industry, among other things by allowing for extended re-use of data (objects). In practice, this case study shows, objects or data are hard to re-use and sometimes they are stillborn and hence they must be removed from the model. In the ongoing, practical processes users, tools, architecture as well as work methods and routines are continuously shaped, becoming; how to manage a technology in the making, when the socio-material effects of its becoming are (necessarily) unpredictable. Digital 3D construction holds many promises but in practice the relational effects following from the introducing of BIM tend to propagate in various, sometimes unforeseen directions – making modelling hard to manage.
Litterature
Clegg, S., M. Kornberger, et al. (2005). "Learning/Becoming/Organizing." Organization 12(2).
Emirbayer, M. (1997). "Manifesto for a Relational Sociology." The American Journal of Sociology 103(2): 281.
Gherardi, S. (2009). "Introduction: The Critical Power of the 'Practice Lens'." Management learning 40(2): 115-128.
Hernes, T. (2008). Understanding organization as process - Theory for a tangled world. London, Routledge.
Irwin, A. and M. Michael (2003). Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge. Madienhead, Berks, Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.
Jensen, C. B. (2004). Researching Partially Existing Objects:. Working Papers from Centre for STS Studies. P. Lauritsen, S. K. Madsen and F. Olesen., The Faculty of Arts, University of Aarhus.
Latour, B. (2006 (1991)). Vi har aldrig været moderne, Hans Reitzels Forlag.
Law, J. (2004). After method – mess in social science research. London
New York, Routledge.
Law, J. (2007). Pinboards and books. Education and Technology. D. W. Kritt and L. T. Winegar. Lanham, Lexington Books: 125-150.
Law, J. and A. M. Mol (2002). Complexities – social studies of knowledge practices. Durham
London, Duke University Press.
Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple: ontology in medical practice. Durham, Duke University Press.
Svenningsen, S. (2004). Den elektroniske patientjournal og medicinsk arbejde på sygehuse. København, Handelshøjskolens Forlag.
Yaneva, A. (2005). "Scaling Up and Down: Extraction Trials in Architectural Design." Social Studies of Science 35(6): 867-894.
Yaneva, A. (2009). The Making of a Building: A Pragmatist Approach to Architecture. Oxford, Peter Lang AG.
Opslag
Ingen kommentarer:
Send en kommentar