Here’s how the American Heritage Dictionary describes a paradigm: “A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them . . . .” Sound familiar? Fish spend their whole lives swimming in water—they live in it, they breathe it, and as far as they know, that’s all there is or ever will be. Similarly, the commercial real estate industry has spent the last half century living and breathing Design-Bid-Build and its variations. Most people in the industry don’t even have to think about it; because despite their many frustrations, they simply know that there’s no other way to do business.

But no paradigm lasts forever. Just when we think nothing could ever replace ancient tales told and retold over a campfire, boom! Here come monks in a scriptorium, laboriously committing precious information to hand-inked manuscripts to be treasured and read by privileged elites. And just when their illuminated art had reached its zenith, boom! Here comes Gutenberg and his printing press, distributing the words of the few to the masses. And just when books and bookstores are everywhere to be found, boom! Here comes cyberspace and a whole raft of undreamed of possibilities. In the words of Kurt Vonnegut: and “so it goes.”

Design-Bid-Build is an old paradigm that is crumbling at the edges and springing leaks in the middle. If you still think it can be shored up and fixed, you can read more about the dysfunctional systems this dying commercial real estate paradigm has spawned in the pages of The Commercial Real Estate Revolution.

What would it take to walk away from a 50 year old strategy of success?

Patrick Doyle, the new CEO for Dominos, shares how their company confronted the brutal facts about their pizza and began a campaign of change. It is interesting to hear the process.

1. Acknowledge reality – the pizza just isn’t very good
2. Change the pizza formula and process
3. Change the internal culture
4. Get the word out by going to the very channels that were criticizing them – social media

When the world forces change we all resist – at first.

Confronting the “brutal facts” is hard but also the 1st job of leadership.

In a recent ENR article a respected industry leader dismisses the rise of Integrated Project Delivery and calls it hype. Nowhere, however, is there any acknowledgment of the miserable track record of the 50+ year formula for design and construction. The formula once worked, and worked well. However, in an era of speed and complexity the old model becomes inefficient. That inefficiency leads to conflict and conflict erodes into systemic dysfunction. The by-product is tremendous waste and dissatisfaction.

I’ve been tracking IPD’s rise for five years along with the different emerging components driving change in the AEC industry.

First – it works. There are 18 case studies in The Commercial Real Estate Revolution showing the results of the various elements of IPD. The AIA recently published 6 case studies of “pure” IPD projects.

Second – any leader who challenges the reasons that owners are adopting IPD (because the pizza is lousy) needs to also demonstrate what they are doing to improve the poor coordination, conflict and waste in the current model.

I picked Dominos example because it parallels the kind of passion and willingness to confront the brutal facts that AEC leaders need – before a real dialogue can take place.

I also picked it because pizza makes the analogy simple. There are still skeptic – this is for them.

Click HERE for the video link.

Domino’s Pizza : Interview with Domino’s Pizza CEO, Patrick Doyle from Petrus Hansen on Vimeo.

I attended an AGC BIM Forum this summer and heard that very sentiment. These contractors and subs said, “If architects don’t begin to behave more collaboratively then all we really need them for are schematic design models, we’ll be to do the rest ourselves.”

Those sentiments were precipitated by a frustrating presentation by three architectural firms to a forum of contractors and subs. During this presentation the architects presented a traditional role of controlling the design process, owning the documents and keeping clear separation between providing design intent and the contractor providing means and methods. In addition, when an architect in the audience shared their expanded role with BIM, the blurring of roles and the positive benefits it provided their client – this panel challenged both the validity of their claims and questioned why they ventured into collaborating deeply on the means and methods of construction.

This exchange represents a crossroads for architectural firms that could determine the industry’s future.

Architectural firms can view BIM as an opportunity to expand their domain, provide better solutions for projects and improve their margins by delivering higher value to clients. Or, they can hide behind the traditional separation of roles and try to ward off other stakeholders using BIM and encroaching on design and the design process. They can point to liability issues, problems with insurance, the challenge of charging more and added risk as reasons not to change. By doing so, however, architects will narrow their boundaries and influence.

The architects who have fully embraced BIM and make it part of their standard practice have somehow found answers to liability, insurance and risk questions. They do not see BIM as an added cost that they must find a way to convince owners to pay more. They earn more because these architects shorten the schedule, reduce the cost and nearly eliminate change orders.

The traditional firms who feel a sense of encroachment and loss of influence due to BIM are at a disadvantage to contractors when adopting BIM. I’ve heard from many that it is hard to make the investment in BIM when clients are resistant to pay a premium for the added cost. This logic makes perfect sense when the mindset focuses on the added time and cost, not the added value.

Contractors, on the other hand, are no more progressive or smarter when it comes to BIM. But the traditional contractor can find immediate financial value using BIM simply by removing trade collisions, more accurate quantity take-offs, more detailed means and methods and tighter coordination.

This is why McGraw Hill sees contractors adopting BIM at a faster rate, using it at a deeper level.

I’m rooting for the architect because they offer something that no one else can. They see the whole and are able to translate concepts and vision into something tangible and meaningful. However, here is the choice I see:

1. Adopt BIM to the greatest level possible because of enlightenment self-interest.
2. Adopt BIM to the greatest level possible because if not, you’ll become marginalized as providers of concept and style.

The slide show below is embedded from a website called Slideshare. Marc Goldman created the presentation. He provided an excellent overview defining BIM and illustrating many of its applications and value. I’m providing this because for every 2 architects I hear fully embracing BIM technology I still hear 8 that are debating the many challenges I referenced above.