The Effects Of Computer Automation On The Design Development Process In Architecture

Computer automation and information technology has changed the design development process in architecture. Students no longer use a transparent, linear design process facilitated through the craft of hand drawing. Instead, the design process has become increasingly fragmented and hidden through the use of this new technology. The dilemma we face as educators is: one, how to teach and assess this new process in the context of existing ideas of how students experience and acquire design knowledge, and two, how to prepare students who will work in a profession that is increasing embracing the use of this new technological process for economic reasons. This paper outlines characteristics of this new design process and examines the effects in a Construction Design course. Student survey data is presented showing student behavior along with other examples to support the theory. Recommendations for new assessment are offered. This topic should have broad appeal for anyone teaching a design development course that seeks to prepare students for the profession. Introduction Throughout history, handcrafted processes have been transformed by technology into new and different processes. Technological changes affect the very nature of an activity, our perception and understanding of it. As processes are transformed, some skills become obsolete, other aspects of the process become hidden, particular activities become more focused, new skills developed and knowledge acquired. It should then come as no surprise that technology, as later defined, is now transforming the design development process in architecture. 1 The design development process in architecture was originally a handcrafted process that involved a pencil, tracing paper, and drafting equipment. It started with exploratory layout sketches followed by a linear series of overlays, one on top of the other, with tracing paper. The entire process produced a refined design solution for assembling and constructing building components. Each component and assembly in the design process was hand drawn by the designer. Through this act, a level of knowledge and ownership of the process was obtained. The process began to change with the introduction of CAD (Computer Aided Design) drawing. The perception of scale changed and the pencil was substituted with a mouse in this paperless drafting platform. Recent advances in CAD automation software 2 coupled with computer information technology systems have combined to further transform the design development process in architecture from the original handcrafted process. The result of this new design process is one that has become increasingly fragmented and hidden through the use of this new technology. Design automation reduces the designer to observer by hiding the process rather than having one see and experience it. The coping and pasting of components into the design solution further removes the designer from coming to know, on some level, parts of their solution. Both of these technological features combined challenge and question our basic understanding of ownership of the design process itself. The dilemmas we face as educators are many. What is the new design process? What knowledge is and is not P ge 11282.2 relevant? What does ownership mean? How do we teach and assess this new process in the context of existing ideas and faculty experiences of how do students traditionally acquire design knowledge? How do we prepare students for work in today’s profession that is increasingly embracing the use of this new technological process for economic reasons? This paper will apply a series of existing theories developed from the post World War II period to the pre CAD period of the 1980’s to explain technological changes and apply them to computer automation design process of today. These ideas will help to develop a theory to understand this new design process. It will outline characteristics of this new design process and present a framework to examine the effects in a Construction Design course. Student surveys and supporting data are presented. Recommendations for new assessment are offered. The larger goal of this paper is to obtain feedback for a more serious journal length article. Theoretical Background There is a substantial body of theoretical work that explains how technological changes affect and transform handcrafted processes. Many of these theories were developed during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries to explain the effects of the Industrial Revolution. Until recently, the design process itself has remained relatively unchanged because no new technology has transformed it. This paper examines the very narrow effects on how technology changes a particular design process; design development, also known as construction design or working drawings. It will build on a theoretical framework of established ideas to explain and develop a new understanding. Three important works are used in this paper: (1) Siegfried Giedion’s Mechanization Takes Command 3 for the historical lessons learned from mechanization, (2) Peter McCleary’s article, “Some Characteristics of a New Concept of Technology” 4 for ideas on how we experience technology and (3) Christopher Alexander’s work on contextual appropriateness and fit, 5, 6 along with my own writings. Lessons from Mechanization Siegfried Giedion’s 1940’s work is important here because there are parallels between the effects of CAD and computer automation, in parts of the design process now, and the lessons he learned when complicated handcrafted processes are transformed through mechanization during the Industrial Revolution. Giedion argues that the mechanization process requires three things: (1) the understanding of the steps of hand movement, (2) standardization of components and (3) the assembly line [linear] process. First is the notion of movement. Understanding movement allows one to understand the steps that lead to the division of a process. 7 The medieval handcrafted process was a continuous singular process versus the modern mechanization which is a divided process. The design development process is now divided through the use of CAD and computer automation. Second is the standardization of components. Building components have becomes highly standardized as a result of mechanization. When CAD became the drawing platform for design, the natural process was to standardize information. The result is standardized blocks of details and assemblies that are then copied and pasted into the design development solution. This information is no longer designed by the architect, rather it is selected from a library of standardized assemblies; like an old catalogue of standard mechanical parts. We will see this trend continued in the design process where design solutions will become more and more standardized through the use of technology. Third is the linear assembly line. The assembly line becomes the time synchronous process by which the sub processes from the P ge 11282.3 divided act and standardized components come together to form the solution. If a desired design solution is known and the outcome is predictable, then CAD automation now has the capacity to do this linear form of design easily and in real time. We may not be conscious of this because of the effects are slowly creeping into the design process but this is part of the larger paradigm of modernism. It started with the Industrial Revolution and is now continuing through the computer and information technology revolution. Experiencing Technology Peter McCleary’s article is important because it describes how we experience and perceive the effects of technological transformation. His article specifically applies to architectural technology and not the design process itself; the article is also pre CAD. He discusses three technological factors that affect how we view and respond to architectural form: (1) transparency and opacity; (2) amplification and reduction; and (3) appropriateness to and appropriation of context. The first two concepts are elegantly presented and relate to this paper’s theory. The third concept could be used here but instead we will rely on Christopher Alexander’s work. McCleary gives a simple example of how technology transforms the process of cutting the grass transforms the process, “My grandfather cut the grass with the short-handled sickle; my father reduced the stress in his back by using the long-handled scythe; I experienced the cutting of grass with a hand-driven lawnmower; my daughter encounters the characteristics of grass with a fuelpowered (or self propelled) hand-guided mower; her child will use a lawn-tractor where the experience is driving and not of cutting; my great-grandchildren will, in all likelihood use, if anything, an automaton or mechanical goat.” The transparent experience of cutting grass by hand becomes completely opaque by the technology of the mechanical goat. Although McCleary uses a different example of the “tele” (i.e., telephone, telescope, television) to explain amplification and reduction but we could apply it to the grass cutting example also to highlight this space time idea. 8 Aspects of the mechanical goat’s function are amplified (i.e., how to turn it on, how long does the battery last, etc.) while the time and space proximity to the grass and experience of cutting it is reduced. Parallel concepts here can be applied to CAD automation and the copy and paste function in the design development process. Contextual Appropriateness Christopher Alexander's theory states that we should measure design in terms of how appropriate the form fits the context. 9 His binary fit and misfit test and reliance on analysis of patterns for appropriate contextual fit are some of the foundations of his architectural theory. His theory is not explicitly intended for application at the level of building system component design or this technological issue, but it can be. It is us