Arol Wolford, Hon. AIA

Owner, VIMaec, Building Systems Design

27th October 2017

You've had a vision of technology's power to manage design information for almost 40 years. What is the source of your various visions for informing designs?

Wolford: Three blessed events shaped it. First, Dad was a mechanical engineer who had gone to Berkeley. He saw an inefficiency in how projects were bid, and quantity surveys were done. As a mechanical engineer working for Carrier, he realized we were all looking at the same set of plans counting things. So, he started a company in 1957 to get back to the real pursuits: helping engineers configure the right equipment in the design phase and making sure that the specified equipment was sold to the Mechanical contractor. Those were the fun parts of the job. But he would spend 25–30 percent of his time on plans, counting and measuring things. He recognized the English and German concept of AEs doing that work up front was better.

Here's a little-known fact – I did the research: in 1929, the AIA, AGC, and SME agreed for efficiency, the best thing would be to have architects and engineers create the quantity surveys. They'd be paid 2 percent for commercial projects and 1 percent for residential ones. Then the depression came, and they didn't do it. Today, it's still inefficient and we haven't fixed it, even though Revit and other software can count objects and do quantity surveys. AEs won't do it because they're wondering how they get paid. The inefficiency continues. Out of $700 billion of commercial construction in the U.S., $70 billion is still spent counting and measuring things. Total AE design fees are only 50 billion. This is a travesty I'm still passionate about solving. With objects, we can link Revit to R.S. Means cost data and do quantities, but AEs aren't interested in doing it because they don't get paid and it's not the fun stuff. But it's necessary, and an impediment to our industry.

And there's the historical risk aversion, or “That's' the contractor's job.”

Wolford: Bill McDonough, the environmental champion told me, “We need that same quantity survey data for the environmental analysis! I want to know how many SF of curtainwall there are.” I'm still on that pursuit. But the start came from my dad. He started the business and was quite successful. He fell ill and couldn't expand it, so I took over.

My second blessing was growing up in Silicon Valley in the 1960s. I was a “boring hippie.” I liked the '60s spirit and idealism, but not the drugs. Silicon Valley was a hotbed. It grew so fast, we had the 6th-highest GDP in the world. That idealism included the notion it was okay to make a mistake. To not try to fulfill your dreams was the biggest mistake. The message was, “If you had talents, try them.” That supported entrepreneurs. It led to me meeting my wife, who became my partner, and our idea was to set up branches around the U.S. doing quantity surveys. So, we did that, at 22, in 1975.

As we opened these places, we needed good plan rooms. Dodge and Builder's Exchange let us but cut us off in 1981. They forced us to compete with them. That was ridiculous, because Dodge was a $150 million, profitable business with no competitors. But I was too young and dumb to know better. We started using low-end, less expensive IBM computers and selling face to face. We did things in a different way.

In 1982, we started Construction Market Data. By the 2000s, we had moved ahead of Dodge. We had 1,200 employees. In 2000, we sold that business for $300 million to Reed Elsevier. I was on Revit's board at the time. Leonid Raiz, Revit's Founder, used to say, “We need to the virtual design, the virtual construction, then fly the building. Autodesk has done a great job with the design part, but we can do better on virtual construction.” John Hirschtick was also on the board. He created Solidworks, a leading CAD manufacturer. I was on the board, and Dave Lamont, a brilliant guy from Apple. I think he came up with the name BIM. When Autodesk bought it in 2002, Phil Bernstein evangelized BIM and did an awesome job.

Leonid said, “Arol, you've gotta keep making objects because we're making the building, and it's important to have the virtual chillers and windows.” They were an outgrowth of CAD blocks. When Revit and ArchiCAD came, they had to have virtual objects. Leonid said, “You're putting the “I” in BIM, and without that, BIM is just BM – worthless.” We made a wide library of generic objects. These guys were leaders, an awesome team. But it needed a large company like Autodesk to take it to the next place by virtually building it and, to your focus, adding collaboration. Having a guy with a manufacturing background was key. Dr. Jungreis was a brilliant software guy. They were idealistic and believed what they were creating would change the world. We knew the industry was inefficient and Revit would help that. People don't know we had a deal to have Reed-Elsevier buy Revit too. I wanted to give Revit to AEs to exchange information to the construction community without having to use the phone. Revit was set up on our own server back then, on a cloud, accessed through the internet. I thought, I'll give it away free. We'll get our data and turn our reporters into trainers. Then Reed's magazine business tanked, and they pulled back at the last minute. A year later Autodesk bought us. Carl Bass said, “Arol, I just bought the gun. I want to make sure you'll keep making the bullets.”

He was smarter than me. I said, “If we keep making the objects, will you let me have the quantity surveys?” He said, “Yes, with limits.” I still wanted to give the quantity surveys to the marketplace to help efficiency, but they didn't want the responsibility. But I continue on!

“‘To design great buildings’ was always [student's] answer. Now, their answer is: ‘To save the world.’ They are interested in climatic change, and bigger issues.”

You've consistently led the industry by managing and reusing information and connecting design and construction. Others followed; catch us up on those.

Wolford: My other blessing was my wife, Jane Paradise Wolford. After our daughters grew up, she went back to school and got a PhD in architecture. Her theory was called F.A.C.E., for Function, Aesthetics, Cost, and Environment, advocating architecture's need to balance those factors. Now, the concept of holistic architecture is obvious, but it wasn't then. We need a software and process for managing design that integrates those factors. How can you do one without the others? Function and aesthetics have been served, but cost and environment are open opportunities.

That's when Chuck Eastman stepped in. He was one of the founders of BIM – its godfather. His colleague, Jim Glymph was working with Gehry early on, doing progressive models. They had a great database. He said, “I know you want to bring Revit and objects to the people, but when it goes onto 2D plans, no one gets to see those objects.” The manufacturer's reps were frustrated because they never see it. He said, “If you'd take a Revit model and put it in the Unity Gaming engine and bring in the data, people would use it.” $7 million and 4 years later, we can do it.

Anybody can use this gaming engine and fly the building. You touch a wall and it shows the data. Manufacturers like that. At the start, we charged $25K to do it. We knew that was high, so we made a “factory” to do it efficiently. Now, we can do it for $100 to $500. That's what VIMaec does. It can be a great collaboration tool. We can translate Revit, ArchiCAD and others into Unity's gaming engine. When we distribute it for collaboration, it's much less expensive. Owners, architects, everyone can afford it; it's almost free.

“We need tools to help collaboration.”

Your theme has been connecting people and information. You've never practiced as a designer, but you've brought them together. Did you see resistance or support?

Wolford: I'm a genetics major so I was driven to have good data. As a science guy, I believe good design needs good data. In 1981, I got criticized for the company name Construction Market Data. They wanted to call it “Information” or “Wisdom,” but data was the basic unit. I was driven by that and presented it visually – I'm an architectural groupie. I could serve because I loved architecture. I was lucky to be on a panel for the AIA's 150th celebration. We went to Windsor Castle with Prince Charles and a panel of famous architects. Michael Brown told us we had the key to the environmental future: the lion's share of energy is used by buildings. We were shocked. We came back and did a survey. Architects didn't know either. Forty percent thought cars were the culprit. We'd uncovered an opportunity. For 15 years, I've been on the Georgia Tech Board. I ask students, “Why do you want to go into Architecture?” “To design great buildings,” was always their answer. Now, it's “To save the world.” They're interested in climate change, bigger issues. That's gratifying.

You and I know systems thinking like this is key. But we need tools to help collaboration. We're starting to get them. I've seen projects virtually designing and building together. They run option analyses and get data to show impacts and outcomes. Cost impact, environmental. Now, we can run through Revit into a virtual information model with cost data. That's exciting. But changing minds takes tenacity and idealism. After we sold Revit to Autodesk, it took them 5 years to go from $1M to $5M in sales. But once they broke through, it took off. The 2008 Recession made it, but many architects lost their jobs. To respond, firms started using Revit, and it went from $5 to $500 million in five years. People called us stupid selling Revit for what we did. Now it's worth billions. But I don't regret it, because it needed a large organization like Autodesk, with marketing breadth, to advance the technology. Even with these tools, we have to change minds and overcome silos.

Having always worked in the power curve to leverage information and technology, you've been successful building and selling companies. But architects aren't. Our culture is strong at designing from scratch. How can we change?

“The way forward is gamification and the principles of gamification. It includes the pure joy of creating collaboration.”

“It's hard to change people's minds. It takes tenacity and idealism.”

Wolford: Now is an exciting time for architects. Younger ones are gaining comfort around virtualization, computers, Rhino, Revit, collaboration. Beyond the Unity gaming engine, I'm excited about the “Unity mindset.” The way forward is gamification and its principles including the pure joy of creating collaboration with Minecraft! You talk to a 5-year-old, a 12-year-old kid. Girls, boys, collaborating, using Lego blocks to create. We've got a generation coming who have been using Minecraft, an amazing software collaboration tool. It collaborates well, but it's not straightforward software. But kids help each other; they share things. That spirit and model – what kids are doing with Minecraft, the passion, excitement, creativity, collaboration – is what we need.

We need to learn from those kids. They understand those factors. When you say Unity mindset, you don't just mean Unity software, you mean working collaboratively too, correct?

Wolford: Both. They chose me as a partner because a lot of people are using visualization, but I was the first to bring in the data.

I can think of a third meaning. Unity software, the unity of connecting people, bringing information together, and the unity mindset in the collaboration sense – three ways to look at it. Maybe this “triple unity mindset” is a way to leverage architect's talents through collaboration – through the wisdom and power of crowds.

Wolford: You just recapped the truth that will let us break through: the concept of a unified trinity.

Casey Robb, FCSI, CDT, CCPR, LEED AP

CF Robb Consulting Services, LLC

1st August 2018

You've been in the industry for decades. As a designer, I needed people like you to keep me straight. I couldn't possibly know what you knew to keep informed. What issues are shaping product knowledge exchange from your perspective?

“Can the internet buy you lunch?”

Robb: Can the internet buy you lunch? Can it share experience and knowledge? I don't think it can replace the knowledge of a trusted advisor. Architects have more information at their fingertips than ever but it's often incomplete or lacking application knowledge. Design and construction professionals are working 24x7 to compete and meet time constraints. They don't have time to collect the information they need to produce quality construction documents. Data they might have gotten in the past from McGraw-Hill SWEETS®, desk references or product catalogs now comes from the internet. They used to rely on professional architectural product representatives. They still need people.

I'll share an analogy. If I'm looking at a Ford, I can go on the internet, choose a model, custom build one with my colors and features, and price it with lots of information – an amazing digital capability available in minutes. But if I need a replacement part, or to know if they've had trouble with it, I call the dealer's service rep, or better yet, go in and talk to the mechanic. That's how I really know it works.

BIM is a big change. Concepts still need to be analyzed for constructability and coordinated before rushing into final CDs and bidding. Contractors are forced by schedule pressures and incomplete documents to say, “We can do this better, cheaper, faster.” This dilutes design professionals' value. Seeking knowledge from trusted resources like professional architectural product representatives can help in this transition.

The firmwide specifier role of the past has all but vanished or been outsourced. When I started my career as a product rep, the typical architectural firm had a traditional “specifier” as the gatekeeper or knowledge broker. This technical resource typically had the architectural background and constructability knowledge to coach others. Firms are now building their own technical teams around specialties like high-performance building enclosures and sustainability. They also use independent specifiers – people who worked at these firms in the past but now share their talents with multiple firms. As more product decisions are made by younger professionals there's a knowledge gap. This is where experienced architectural product representatives can help.

What plagues you or drives you crazy?

Robb: Are you ready? Just don't call me “vendor,” please! I'm not selling hot dogs on a street corner or offering you trinkets from the inside of my sport coat. We exist to educate architects and provide solutions. We offer technical expertise on specialty products and new concepts for architects to consider. Experienced reps are conceptual and strategic in their approach with designers. There's a turnover with the “Golden Rep” generation. Many of the “legends” I once admired early in my career are retiring. Newer product reps have limited training options. This is where I hope to help in my consulting role. My initiative is to teach and mentor the next generation of architectural reps.

Architects should remember: architectural product reps want to earn your respect for the knowledge they bring. Many are certified as CDT (Contract Document Technologist) or CCPR (Certified Construction Product Representative) through CSI (Construction Specifications Institute). Look for those credentials to ensure your reps have been educated on construction documents, formats, standards, and project delivery. This is their career. They've worked in the field training contractors and solving technical issues. They provide technical knowledge and guidance. That can be invaluable in ways that raw internet data can't. Experienced reps reduce your risk and liability, help establish a quality level, a basis of design, and defend design decisions. A few reps could give us all a bad name. If you've had a bad experience, try another one. Seek those who can help and who you can trust. Please don't call me “vendor.” Respect what we do.

They don't appreciate your role? Is the architect's insensitivity to supply chain issues a culture, or attitude problem?

Robb: Yes. Many long-term specifier-rep relationships are no longer in place. Younger project managers do internet research and don't rely on the rep. “I don't need a rep – I can find it online.” Thousands of us want to serve you and be part of your team to bring you knowledge. We have a vested interest to make your project succeed by using products correctly. I'm working on a network of tools and training to reestablish relationships by training a new generation to provide architects what they want, when they want it. Manufacturers need this training for those new to the business or moving from pure sales roles into architectural promotion. That's is a big step. It needs a different skillset. I've built my business around helping manufacturers with business development strategies, tactical promotion and education. I hope this will be my legacy.

In my day we relied on “trusted advisor” manufacturer's representatives'. Not just to update the catalogs, or conduct a lunch-and-learn, but answer project-specific questions. Has that changed? What do architects, engineers, specifiers, owners, and builders need to know about your world?

Robb: Offering “lunch-and-learns” used to be for product or project-specific discussions, not just generic features or CEUs. They helped design professionals understand product categories, solutions, design considerations, advantages and limitations. With the growth of the AIA-CES program and continuing education requirements, “lunch-and-learns” have become an expectation – your ticket to get into a firm – a free-food entitlement rather than an education forum. Professionals can find CEUs on the internet – just-in-time learning at their fingertips. Many firms do internal CEUs on their own. So why do so many architects require lunch-and-learns just to get in to see them? I don't think we ask the right questions in advance. The dynamics must change.

Lunch-and-learns transfer knowledge and train new generations of architects. Design Principals and manufacturers have to encourage respect for the education, not just expect a free lunch. I've seen promising signs with some firms having rules for lunch-and-learn education programs, such as attendance policies and sharing. We respect the need for CEUs. All we ask is you respect your reps. Welcome them into your firm and connect them with the right people. That's “outside collaboration” – your network of “trusted advisor” representatives.

Are technology and information-rich 3D objects reshaping designing and specifying? Because of the differences between generic model objects and proprietary, manufacturer-specific features, this aspect hasn't taken off as predicted. Do you agree?

Robb: It depends on the firm and their BIM adoption level. Not all have fully adopted BIM, and some products aren't as well suited to BIM. Flashing and waterproofing, for example, aren't easy to model, and are hard to describe and detail at transitions. Every product doesn't need a parametric model for download. It's different across the product matrix and depends on the Level of Development and project stage. If you're in final design and have furnishing or hardware, then yes, you may want to invest in BIMs others can import. If you promote through-wall flashing and are asked to develop expensive BIM objects for architects, maybe less so. BIM object creation has been slow because manufacturers are being solicited to spend huge sums of cash to develop product-specific models that may not be preferred by designers. In the discussions I've had with manufacturers, not all are on board with BIM objects.

Budgeting products has always been as issue. I see this differently now that I've worked with a contractor for 20 years. Manufacturers can only speak to part of the cost. Your thoughts?

Robb: It's still a challenge. Architects ask for budget pricing at the concept level. Reps can talk ballpark pricing all day long. When architects get specific on cost you can see the design-build or value engineering influence. It's better to collaborate and refine budgets along the way. For budget pricing, reps typically have broad-scope discussions with architects and go to reliable subcontractors for detailed input. The best way is in teams with trades involved.

On a recent visit with an architect, she said, “Contractors tell me basis of design doesn't matter.” Well, what's happened to level of quality and design intent? Many times, this is “vulture engineering” – attempts to lower the quality for another party's benefit. If you want to drop the quality level to every product under the sun, you'll end up comparing “apples to oranges.” Basis of design needs to mean something with architects and GCs. Professional arch-reps can defend design intent and specifications they helped develop.

Are you seeing transformational things in firms? New tools? Processes? As specialization and complexity increase, how are you behaving differently to keep up and be of value?

Robb: I'm seeing new tools from new apps to parametric detailing models. You understand this better than most. AE's are in a unique position to manage information. But to turn the architect's model into a parametric model ready for construction, the GC needs to add interference detection, logistics and constructability. Designers who embrace BIM tell me they can enter 95 percent of the design data into models. But that last 5 percent causes the trouble. Models have design information, but without the knowledge to execute in the field, building them can be a nightmare.

Has your role changed? Where will your kind be in 20 years?

Robb: Yes. Staying relevant is key. In twenty years? I'm not sure. A lot will happen in the next 5 to 10 years. The industry is ripe for change. Early adopters want it to happen quickly and we see it with innovative designers and manufacturers. But, there's not enough critical mass to drive change or long-term investment. That's where leadership helps. Boomers know change is difficult and we struggle with knowledge transfer to younger counterparts. It's a two-way street. We can learn from each other if we listen.

If you're a product rep planning to call on a firm to secure a project, you better have a compelling reason. Architects don't seem to have time for reps or see their value to their daily work. They resort to doing product research on their own and are reluctant to call you back. In six months, when they need an answer, can they find a quality rep when they need one? With all the consolidations, will that trusted rep I had yesterday be there in six months? What are we doing about it? We follow the architects' lead and are a resource when needed (or a pest when not), or wait for them to reach out. If more firms reach out, we can help. Maybe having an inter-rep or trusted advisor network is the answer. We'll see.

We see too many projects with all kinds of design challenges – structural complexities, substrate conditions and cladding types. The architect is rushed to get the project off their desk and onto the street for bidding. They don't see the constructability issues or have time to coordinate construction documents. Bidders are frustrated. “How can I bid this project?” is the repeated call. What can we do in a few days to meet the bid day next week? You can tell there will be substitutions, RFIs, change orders, and maybe legal issues. Having a trusted resource at their side can avoid this. In 20 years I hope we see improved CDs coordinated in a virtual model to get designer's visions to contractor with less chaos.

The architects do it to themselves by introducing complexity and not managing their design?

Robb: In some cases, yes. When design firms deliver poor documents on compressed schedules it opens them up to risk. It's a negative influence on the value they bring. Some firms are leading design delivery in positive directions. Some have internal enclosure specialists and LEED® and LBC experts on-staff with online databases of sustainable products and performance history. That's the dichotomy: they're getting better internally, building knowledge, but they still need trusted external resources. Especially with new project delivery forms.

What is consolidation doing to your business? Are firms adapting to survive?

Robb: Consolidation and acquisition is affecting the entire AEC and manufacturer arena. As companies merge with related products and segments, they have more solutions, relationships, and service ranges, like sustainability, building enclosure commissioning, LEED® and energy efficient design. Some are racing to provide an “all-in-one” approach that needs less skilled labor. Some are looking at partnering, modular thinking, integration of assemblies, and prefabrication. It's a race to differentiate and survive. Many reps are fed up with the status quo and want to see change. Some will be become independent. If you're a paint or hardware rep for one of the big guys, you have a quiver of solutions. There's value when product reps offer a wider range of solutions. In the future, how likely will you be to get an audience with a busy architect with only one building component?

What do you wish the rest of us knew about what you do?

Robb: Architects need to know good product reps are still working for them, even though it might seem we've disappeared. We need you to include us, and we need your honesty. Tell us what you want. We make mistakes too, but we're here to help and do the right thing, not work against you. We're here to share technical expertise and knowledge. I may even call my competitor if it helps you.

The good news – relationships are not dead!

INTERVIEW

Josh Kanner

Founder, SmartVidio

19th October 2017

You don't have an architecture, engineering or construction degree. How did you get into this field?

“I learned on the fly … the need to have technology in the field with the software products to manage it.”

Kanner: I learned on the fly. The cofounder of Vela was Adam Omansky. He was an owner's rep at the Four Seasons and had a master's in architecture. I learned a lot from him, from our customers, and from being in the field. The original Vela idea came from work he did the Harvard Graduate School of Design and the MIT Center for Real Estate. He thought it would be interesting if the industry could use RFID tags to communicate with mobile devices in real time what was wrong in a room. Instead of using painter's tape on the walls, he'd use RFID tags that would “wake up” and notify a mobile device. We started working together in 2004. My background was in enterprise software, working with companies around their software needs. We learned no one needed RFID tags. They were more excited about having a mobile device with plans on it, so they could do workflow in the field. That was the beginning of Vela: combining the need to have technology in the field with the software to manage it.

That was a novel idea at the time; were you one of the first companies with mobile files?

Kanner: Others were trying to do it, from different perspectives, primarily existing players like Prolog, Primavera, Constructware. They tried to make mobile apps as add-ons to their desktop solutions. But no one was thinking, what do field personnel need? A superintendent? An architect? We came at it that way. It was a different approach.

Interesting formula: one guy with an architecture background and another with an MBA and experience in building an enterprise software company. An alliance of two different skillsets around a technology vision to manage design information. How did that happen?

Kanner: I had experience building software products. I graduated from business school in 2000. I had run products working directly with the engineering team and customers. We grew from 10 people with 1 customer in 2000, to 250 people with 100 customers in 2005 when I left to start Vela. I'd been through the process of helping design and grow a product with customers in that mode. When Adam and I started Vela, I had an idea what we needed to do – muscle memory around growing a product and a company.

“The way design bridges from concept to reality is in a bill of materials and a way to manufacture and assemble it.”

I brought two disciplines to bear. One was quality management. An original use case was punch list management. Once we started working with contractors, it was obvious that software quality management and the concept of watching for bugs was similar to construction punch lists. Root causes and related practices were important. I thought quality management was a discipline that could translate from software to construction. The other was that the first software I spent five years building was for manufacturing. At its core was the idea of a bill of materials. The way design bridges from concept to reality is in a bill of materials and a way to manufacture and assemble it. We focused on managing data from the beginning, because we wanted to bring the best concepts of manufacturing into construction.

Even though you hadn't built buildings, you built a company with parallel aspects. The manufacturing-to-construction shift was as much adaptation as invention. The promise of manufacturing processes informing design and construction is still untapped.

“Architects and owners are losing control of the data, because it's not theirs anymore. It's up to the contractors, trades and specialty experts. Others are creating the data to get the project built.”

Most of your work has focused on the “back end” of design: CDs, construction and closeout. Not the creative process. A core question is how to get designers to think systematically – the way you do – to reuse data and work in a business context. How have your efforts to automate and manage design information been received by practitioners? What mentalities are you seeing towards managing, being disciplined or informed in design?

Kanner: There are a couple dimensions to this. One is the same continuum every new technology is on: Geoffrey Moore's “Crossing the Chasm“: early adopters, early majority, and so on. User distribution is always an issue. In AEC, another dimension is: where are you in the project delivery chain? What's your relationship to value flow? Are you the owner, architect, engineer consultant, contractor, trade? Value flow changes how you think about technology and risk. Through those lenses, the people who get excited are the early adopters. They also care passionately about the problem. When you're solving problems for field execution of construction documents, the Venn diagram of folks who care is largest in the contracting community. By the time you get to delivery and execution, most folks on the design side are down to the last bit, the CA portion of their fee, and there's not a lot of risk or financial gain in it. They're abrogating to the CM. In those two diagrams, we found greater reception in construction firms than in design firms. There were exceptions. Architectonica did their CA on Vela's systems. They wanted to get a handle on their complex, forward design ideas as they were executed.

There's plenty of risk for design firms during construction, but I think the issue is more that architects love the early process of design more than they do the messy reality of construction.

Kanner: Another interesting concept at the intersection of technology in the design-to-construction flow is managing data versus constructible data. You go through greater specificity, from SD to DD to CD. Because of tools like Navisworks, Revit for contractors, trades modeling steel, and MEP, more modeling is being done later, and detail, by necessity, added later in the process. As a result, architects and owners are losing control of the data, because it's not theirs anymore. It's the contractors, trades and specialty experts. They're creating the data to get the project built. Many times, as you know, that requires rebuilding the model.

“Where are you in the overall project delivery chain? Your relationship to the flow of value? … The flow of value really changes the way you think about technology and manage risk. Through both of those lenses, the segment of people who get really excited is the early adopters.”

For those who embrace it, the movement to use data goes on, but as a construction company we deal with the laggards. The older leaders at the sunset of their careers still have the old mindsets; they don't embrace it early enough to make a difference. Architects' and owners' reluctance is real; any advice for late bloomers?

Kanner: First, it's never too late to improve your craft. Next, these are tools. Do you want to use tools that get you the best quality and improve productivity? You do. You're going to get better quality, go home earlier and be prouder of what you deliver. I'd deal with those first: you're not too old to learn, and these are just tools.

You're a technology advocate. We get it intellectually, but once we start doing it, we need new hardware, software, training, and infrastructure. For all its advantages, technology also invokes a host of other management complexities. How are you coaching customers to cope?

Kanner: It's time for the industry to think of itself as a series of best practices that can improve outcomes. The industry doesn't believe in the concept of technology ROI, because each project floats on its own bottom, runs on its own P&L. There's a cultural blind spot compared to other industries. The software I built before Vela was for manufacturing companies. They said, “The electronic component industry is a tough industry. Increasingly commoditized. New competition is coming. Margins are squeezed by price pressures. We need technology – the electronic component manufacturers are saying this – to help us improve our margins and differentiate ourselves!”

Then fast forward two years. I'm talking to senior executives in multi-million-dollar AEC firms and I hear the same three inputs: “Our industry is tough. It's commoditized. There's new entrants all the time and our margins are increasingly squeezed, and I don't have time or money for technology.” That blew me away. This cultural mindset doesn't see technology as a way out of the problems, it sees it as an additional problem. Until that mindset changes, and it is in some companies, we face an interesting problem.

“Cultural blind spot” is apt. It shows the contrast between industries. Manufacturing is more capitalized than AEC, as productivity graphs show. You've been able to attract money, but most architects don't wake up to do that. They don't have the skills, inclination or motivation. They don't know how look for entrepreneurial opportunities. That's the essential conflict. Any advice from a guy who's had a few successes in a row?

Kanner: A couple questions are posed here. One is: where can architects go for funding? The other is: how can AEC folks get started, even before funding? How can they start thinking about a technology or startups they want to do? Now is the best time in the AEC industry's history to do it, for many reasons. Component technologies are accessible. You can develop a new Amazon app and start working with little investment, almost free. More products are becoming open. You can use their Application Programming Interface and build on components already there, not rebuild a bunch of stuff. So much is open source. Getting an idea off the ground is not a high bar anymore. Folks in the design space are doing this. Thornton Tomasetti had so many ideas they've figured out a way to spin them out as little companies. Others are entrepreneurial, like Ian Keough. He thinks we need a new class of architect: a coder. There's never been a better time to get funding in A&E. In just the last few months several initiatives launched.

“This is why I really love the AEC industry. What's been easier than I expected is finding passionate early adopter users, excited to try new tools and be a part of trying to change the industry.”

You need the right mindset and the will to try. For the not-so technology-inclined, maybe there are “nontech” entrepreneurial ideas that can improve their process and value. What have been some of the hardest issues you've faced?

Kanner: Necessity is the mother of invention. People were tired of doing “bloogie” things to translate data or perpetuate dumb processes, so they built software. There are all kinds of risk-building companies. Technology risk: can you build it? Team risk: can we execute? And market risk: is the target market ready for it? At Vela in 2005, we could never have planned that tablet PCs were all that existed for mobility. They were expensive – $4,000 – and only had a 2-hour battery life. They weighed over 5 pounds and required a special operating system and stylus pen. They generated excitement, but we were held back because they were clunky and expensive. Part of my advice is to persevere. The iPad was a turning point. In retrospect, it was a no-brainer, but it wasn't an easy decision. We moved our entire mobile client – what field guys use – to the iPad as soon as it became available. That unlocked our growth. But we had to persevere when it was hard to get field users on board.

Beyond the risks you talked about, there's luck. But you were shrewd enough to see it – you had to be looking – agile enough to pivot, and courageous enough to put your eggs in a new basket. It worked. But if one of those goes wrong it's a different story. Any easy ones along the way?

Kanner: This is why I love the AEC industry. What's been easier than expected is finding passionate early adopters, excited to try new tools and be part of changing the industry. A certain group is passionate. We show up at the conferences. We meet again. There is a bond – we're a crew.

The choir. That's fascinating, your take on the past and the future. Intentional or not, you made some great connections to the book's premise, and “designer's mind” questions.

“AEC has a cultural blind spot compared to other industries.”