3 Computational Engineering Observations at the 2019 CTHUB Conference in Shenzhen

Introduction

I was lucky recently to represent BuroHappold at the 2019 CTBUH conference in Shenzhen.  Morpheus had been nominated for a couple of categories’ worth of awards and I was along to support our team who were presenting some of our amazing work.  The CTHUB Computational Engineering scene was quite varied so I thought I’d share with you guys what were my main observations from the great conference.

Overall, it was an amazing and busy two days at the conference and a real privilege to see some of the best parts of the best projects in the world on display, distilled into 90-minute segments, each with 3 presentations.  I took lots of notes and noticed some common threads that are related to Computational Engineering.

Whilst I’ve done my best to quote some folks who spoke to the best of my abilities, I may not have gotten their words down perfectly in my mad rush to take notes, so please take any quotes as a paraphrase rather than an word for word quote.

CTHUB Computational Engineering Observations

1) AEC Sucks at Adopting Tech

Being a computational engineer, obviously, I went to the conference to get people’s take on technology and innovation. If there’s one thing that was a recurring theme and something all of the speakers seemed to agree on was that the AEC industry sucks at picking up new technology.  Starting from the opening plenary and continuing throughout the two days, quotes such as this were in many of the conference panels and presentations:

“The construction industry is grossly behind when it comes to tech”  [in regards to the adoption of BIM modelling]

– Andrew Danza, Multiplex Construction

“We struggle to pick up new technology that’s at our disposal, like BIM”

– Steve Watts, CTHUB Chairman

“The innovation threshold in AEC is low”

– Craig Moorfield, Multiplex Construction

In fact, when asked what was one of my key “lessons learnt” from the conference, I laughingly had to admit it was that I had to stop using these diagrams from McKinsey in my presentations  going forward which show how far behind AEC is when it comes to tech.  It was clear at the conference I’m not so clever using them as  I saw them over and over throughout the two days:

It was clear after the two days at the conference, when it comes to our approach to technology, we all agree this diagram sums it all up.  Equally, it came as no surprise the the acronym ‘BIM’ reared its head quite often whenever innovation or technology was mentioned.  I’d chalk this up to the AEC state of the union for the last 10 years  –

BIM =

• Innovation 
• The Ultimate Buzz Word
• “Wow, you must be the AEC Steve Jobs”
• (BitCoin+Artificial Intelligence+Quantum Computing) x 1000. 

Needless to say, I don’t agree with this sentiment.  But then again, what was apparent from the conference was that none of us can agree on BIM…

2) Confusion Surrounding BIM, its Role, and its Value

“Using BIM is in and of itself innovative in construction….BIM is a tool, not the solution”

–Peter Ramstedt, Turner International LLC

It was clear from the conference, the verdict on BIM is far from conclusive – is it innovative, just a tool, or something that we should have adopted 10 years ago and moved on without breaking our arms patting ourselves on the back for it?  If there was any consensus on it at all, it was that BIM is a piece of software that all parties on a project must adopt in order for it to be effective:

“It’s hard to get all parties on a project to use the same technology”

–Abdo Kardous, Hill International

“It’s great if a designer uses BIM, but if contractor can’t use it, it doesn’t help much”

–Peter Ramstedt, Turner International LLC

Of course, this is not what BIM is and the idea that all different parties in the construction industry, with all its specializations, will ever come together to use the same off-the-shelf tool is a fallacy.  Equally, the value of BIM was at best described as neutral throughout the conference.

Listening to these BIM discussions, all I couldn’t help but think that the people presenting, all of whom were well along in their careers and whilst very capable and deserving of their positions, are of the age and generation that they themselves have most likely never put their hands on this thing ‘BIM’ they are talking about and if so, are by no means experts in the subject.  What’s more, they seemed to all have lost touched that

BIM = Building Information Modelling =

• digital representations of physical and functional characteristics of places
• shared knowledge resource for information
• – combinations of “objects“

Building information models (BIMs) are files (often but not always in proprietary formats and containing proprietary data) which can be extracted, exchanged or networked to support decision-making regarding a building or other built asset.

-Wikipedia

If you don’t understand this concept, and were hoping that adoption of an off-the-shelf, proprietary software would bring you high ROI, then you were doomed from the start.

3) Confusion Surrounding the Future

There wasn’t too much looking to the future I would say when it comes to technology at this conference.  This is to be expected and totally fine – after all, it was a conference for people to show off what they have done in the past in hopes of winning an award for their completed projects.  However, there was a bit of talk as to what the future has in store for all of us which was interesting to note.  Logically, it starts with a simple question that was asked:

“What happens after BIM?”

–Peter Ramstedt, Turner International LLC

How many more years are we going to throw around this acronym in the AEC industry and think we’re cool?  You’ll probably say I’m biased, but to me, the project on display at this conference which best answered this question was Morpheus.  In one exchange in a completely in a panel unrelated to Morpheus, Morpheus was brought up:

“….[Morpheus] must have had a 3rd party to force this change [to get all parties to use the same software/tech]”

–Abdo Kardous, Hill International

This (incorrect) statement is directly linked to the omnipresent idea in AEC that there will be some magic piece of software that will come along and solve all the problems for Architects, Engineers, and Construction folks, be user-friendly enough such that you can still utilize you low-cost centers in the Philippines, Vietnam, or India to run them, and therefore will be a no brainer for everyone to adopt.  Of course, this idea that we needed a third party to enforce all parties to work together isn’t how it happened.  In fact, the reality of the situation was discussed in another panel:

“It’s way more than a BIM model…..Of course, we had to make it ourselves”

–Viviana Muscettola, Zaha Hadid Architects

Those of us on Morpheus were working on a project that broke the traditional approach to tech in AEC – buy a piece of software, buy a leather whip, buy a room full of cheap drafters, use aforementioned whip to get drafters to crank out drawings/models.  We had to operate differently and take responsibility for the data behind our designs.  That was the difference in our approach and what I would say is the future of the industry.

One other thing I did notice was that once we start to look beyond BIM, there is a huge discrepancy, even in one discipline, as to what we even call what’s coming next.  In structural engineering alone, in one panel, there were three different terms for doing things beyond just using a proprietary BIM product:

“Parametric Design”

–Winnie Kwong, LERA

“Digital Design”

–Adam Miller, Ramboll

“Computational Engineering”

–Richard Marshall, BuroHappold

“Computational Design” was probably another term floated around, although I don’t have any notes on someone saying it.  The key is that as far as everyone is concerned, what’s coming next is seemingly so new and far away, we don’t even have a commonly agreed name for it.

Conclusion

Now if this post makes me sounds like an AEC debbie downer, BIM basher, or Morpheus promoter, I’ll leave you with this – this conference was amazing overall.  I think it would be fair to say this isn’t a conference geared necessarily towards Computational Engineers, however, for any designer, engineer, or construction professional who loves tall buildings, this is a conference for you.  My personal favorite presentation was of the 181 Fremont project in San Francisco.  Their challenges due to seismic brought me back to my grad school days and I think they deservingly won the awards they did for their work.  All in all, it was a privilege to attend and I hope they come back near Hong Kong again next year and if a conference is near you, you should definitely check it out.