Opinion
Applying Agile methods to building design When it comes to how teams are managed and work is delivered, it might be time for building design professionals to follow the lead of software developers and get Agile, writes Andrew Corney of Trimble Sketchup
B
elieve it or not, building design Waterfall problems and software engineering have a To answer that question, it’s helpful to lot in common. In both cases, understand how modern software is develyou’ll see diverse technical oped. At one time, this was a ‘waterfall’ teams, made up of individuals working process, in which all decisions were made independently on tasks that together add before development work could begin. up to an integrated product. But with the introduction of Agile proSometimes, these individuals will work cesses, that has changed. Now, the delivon multiple projects simultaneously, each ery of work is structured so that progress project with its own managis constantly checked and ers and clients. Balancing design direction can be the competing demands of altered accordingly, with When design multiple projects makes very little wasted effort. careful time management professionals are Building construction, essential – but it’s probably by contrast, is almost by assigned multiple necessity a ‘waterfall’ profair to say that, while doubttasks, they may cess. A design must be less highly skilled, individuals working on building end up pulled in completed before its credesign teams aren’t always ation can begin. While different as good at time manageagile execution may be posdirections and ment as software engineers. sible in large-scale buildconfused about ing projects, it still feels a Building design, after all, tends to take a macro- the prioritisation long way off in most cases. level focus, bringing However, when we of work together large teams from directly compare the credisparate firms. Software ation of a working piece of project management, by software to the creation of contrast, takes a micro-level focus, a documented building design, some enabling small teams of engineers to be important parallels emerge. Both have: highly productive. Which leads me to a question I’ve often • A loose conceptual vision, which wondered about: Could a more micro-levneeds to be developed and refined el focus, as seen in software development, over time into a working solution help to improve the effectiveness of • A need for flexibility and adaptability, building design teams? as more information becomes avail-
‘‘
’’
48
November / December 2021
p48_49_50_AEC_NOVDEC21_Sketchup.indd 48
•
able or project requirements evolve A high level of interrelated dependencies, which need to be developed individually, but can easily trigger change requirements in each other
Arguably, many building design teams seek to minimise cost by operating with a waterfall mindset. That essentially means waiting for a perfect set of design requirements before starting so that change can be avoided. The notion that we need to know everything before we can begin is somewhat ingrained in engineering, but it may not be the most costeffective way to operate. In other words, the way that software development teams are structured around agility could potentially lead building design teams to big productivity gains, too. To illustrate how this might work, let’s compare three approaches to organising technical tasks and work.
The ‘business-as-usual’ approach This is the familiar approach most commonly seen in building design, especially at consulting firms. Here, each company involved in a project is unique and has different management styles and organisational processes. Projects are run by project managers, who may also lead the technical design of a project, or who may simply be project managers. They plan out the resources www.AECmag.com
30/11/2021 14:36
