Perspectives on BEST of SHOW 2018: Perez’s Model of Technological Revolutions—BIM, CDEs and VR

[This article has contributions by senior associated editor, Pete Evans, AIA]

 

LET’S FACE IT if all of us could easily identify technology and social trends we would all be big winners in the stock market and rich beyond belief. Even if that wasn’t our goal—getting rich—as architects and AEC professionals we would at least know how to adopt the right technology solutions at exactly the right time. That too is a big win by any standard measure.

The Point Is—Identify Trends and Take Action

Being able to “ID” emerging trends is a clear way to win in just about any field—providing those with a head-start advantage that can be smartly leveraged. As such, we stated in our first Perspective on Architosh’s AIA BEST of SHOW honors that the primary reason to give nods to the best software and hardware technologies seen at AIA National was to identify “emerging trends” impacting practice in the field of architecture. This helps practicing architects in the following ways:

• discovery — educates them on “new technology-enabled processes” that can enhance their practice
• performance — directs them to “higher-performers” in technology solutions and implementations
• business — providing an analytical framework that endeavors to provide insight from which they can formulate “business decisions” regarding technology in practice

This last point is key. We both hope and expect readers to gain insight that makes their next technology decisions more impactful for their operational goals.

Our Criteria 

Our criteria for BEST of SHOW nods is an evolving set of dimensions and frameworks. It is worth recapping this, which we have often called a “lens” in the past. This perspective is a constructed and the developed lens through which technology in the architectural market is measured against both static and dynamic criteria with a particular aim of clarifying, developing, enhancing and ensuring the social value of architects working worldwide in the 21st century. 

So in other words, we want to highlight technology that we feel is going to improve the profession of architecture and its impact on society. Tools that allow architects to make more energy-efficient buildings, is a clear-cut example. Tools that help architects save time on non-aesthetic, non-cultural or non-client-facing work are a not-so-clear example. The superpower of an architect is their specific training in technical creativity and problem-solving. Time is an important variable in the output formula of this superpower precisely because “high-quality design” and “problem-solving” demands contemplation and iterative feedback loops.

Therefore, we have placed emphasis on digital tools that modulate practice in a particular set of directions— nonexclusive directions—that conspire to improve the performance role of architects in society.¹ These directions roughly fall into these broad categories which are discussed in full here.

• Social and Democratization of Information Technology
• Computational Power and the Cloud
• Creativity and the Contemplative Pace

While 2013 setup the above criteria framework, in 2014, 2015, and 2016 we layered in other critical dimensions impacting practice now and in the future. You can read those in full by following the links above or by moving forward with our summary below.

• 2013 — we identified the waning relevancy of “design intent” as a legal concept in the architectural world as architects become “fabricators,” etc.
• 2014 — we discussed Phil Bernstein’s long-view of AEC from the era of documentation to the era of BIM to the era of context. For Bernstein, the era of context is about integrating simulation and validation into architectural practice using new tools and methods.
• 2015 — we noted four inter-connected trends: (1) game-ification of architecture, (2) rise of VR, (3) hacking culture and Maker Movement in architecture, and (4) APFD (accessible programming for designers), visual scripting and computational-design.
• 2016 — we layered in the Gartner Hype-Cycle adding temporal context for innovations, introducing terms like “edge-of-reality” and “edge-of-market” to help clarify tech adoption cycles.

We didn’t attend AIA National in 2017 but each year since 2013 we have continuously developed a richer framework from which to forge an intelligent discourse about information technologies in the AEC industry and the impact for architects in society.

 

 

 

 

This year we are widening our perspective by introducing the compelling theory-model by economic historian Carlota Perez and her landmark work understanding “technological revolutions” in the broadest sense and their specific impact on societies via her concept of Techno-Economic Paradigms (TEPs). Here is a brief introduction to the significance of Perez from the preface of the book, “Techno-Economic Paradigms: Essays in Honour of Carlota Perez” by Wolfgang Dreschler, Rainer Kattel, and Erik S. Reinert.

By now, this has been widely noticed in scholarship and media, by large corporations, governments, and supranational organizations, and NGOs alike, and Carlota has attracted what could almost be called a cult-like following. Well beyond her home base of Evolutionary Economics, we see the economic world, as it is really unfolding, with our eyes because of her theory of Techno-Economic Paradigms (TEPs)—there are few economists today about whom this can be said.

Adding to our lens the economic framework of a famed but obscure economist may seem an unnecessary overreach to our efforts; however, we think otherwise but in the end, the reader here can judge. Regardless, we are excited to share our Perspective this year.

Part 1: From Hype-Cycle to Carlota Perez’s Technological Revolutions

For 2018 we have layered over a “new” larger technology and social model of analysis, as generated by economist and technology historian and theorist, Carlota Perez. A professor at the London School of Economics (LSE) and elsewhere, Perez offers a long-wave theory about technological revolutions, financial capital and the social change all conspire to form unique, time-defined, “Techno-Economic Paradigms” (TEPs) that unfold as a result of interdependences among the three. We find her long-wave theory compelling and we think you will enjoy understanding and thinking about it, regardless of its bearing on AEC technologies.

What is important about her theory model—as we will eventually explain in a moment—is that the relevancy of any innovation and its internal advancement trajectory is ultimately under a stronger force bearing down on all innovations within any Techno-Economic Paradigm. We conjecture that a specific curvature of the Hype Cycle—for any given innovation—has its own “shape signature” depending on its alignment with larger synergistic directions set by an overarching technological paradigm shift. (see image 01) In other words, one cannot apply the Gartner Hype-cycle model in a static way to every single new technology innovation—as if the influence of “time” was constant even with respect to financial, social and institutional dynamics. (see image 02) There is a relationship, a kind of gravitation force, that bends that curve across both its x and y-axes throughout the life of the innovation—ultimately altering the pace, market take-up, and overall success and impact of any given technology innovation.

From Little Picture to Big Picture

Perez refers to this force in two ways. “Each technological revolution results from the synergistic interdependence of a group of industries with one or more infrastructure networks.” (Perez)  This means that any new technology innovation is under the influences of infrastructure networks that exist at the time of the new innovation. The automobile would have been of little use if roads and turnpikes had not already gone before—both products from earlier technology revolutions. Secondly, Carlota Perez speaks about how disruptive innovations, when accompanying a “facilitating infrastructure,” eventually must “overcome existing organizational models of how things get done” before they coalesce into a new “common sense” way of doing things. There is a cultural battle between the old common sense and the new emerging common sense that is eventually solved via powerful inclusion-exclusion mechanisms.

 

The Gartner Hype-Cycle focuses on the innovation at hand by way of its publicity, rise of competitors, the rate of funding, consolidation of competitors, and overall adoption rates. (see image 02) However, it does not take this curve up against an overarching “technology revolution” model and relate it to existing infrastructure and alignment (or divergence) from that model. The Hype-Cycle, therefore, while useful, is far less useful than a larger model such as Perez’ Techno-Economic Paradigm theory.

As we move through this article we will try to apply AEC IT innovations to a combined model that looks not just at the Hype-Cycle as we have done in the past (see 2016 Perspective article here) but at where this curve is being “pulled” or “stretched” by our sense of the overall Techno-Economic Paradigm shift emerging before us. (see image 03 – 04 next page)

next page: Part 2: Technological Revolutions: Explaining Carlota Perez’s Theory (or Model)

Part 2: Technological Revolutions: Explaining Carlota Perez’s Theory (or Model)

Introduction: From Bubbles to Golden Ages

Perez is an economic historian specializing in technology and socio-economic developments. Her landmark book, “Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital: The Dynamics of Bubbles and Golden Ages” (2002) has been widely lauded for clarity and insight of its model. Her theory is that there have been five distinct “Techno-Economic Paradigm” shifts since the first industrial revolution in the late 18th century—initiated via five unique technology revolutions. (see image 03 below)

The most remarkable aspect of Perez’s theory—which she labels five great surges of capital and technology—is that they are destined to cycle based on the underlying natures of capitalism itself. Each “great surge”—as she labels different technology revolutions—also has the exact same number of sub-phases. (more on that later. see image 05 below).

Each revolution begins with what she calls the “Installation” period, where dramatic new technologies sponsor a casino-like financial economy where money chases after short-term gains based on rapid growth of new technologies destined to displace exhausted old technologies. The nature of this short-term-minded financial ethos invariably leads to a financial bubble and financial crash. Then society enters a “turning point” which can span from 2-17 years (as in the current phase) before society, led by government, reorients around what she calls the “Deployment” period which leads to a golden age of stable growth based on long-term views of investment capital. (Recommended: click on the chart in image 03 below and read the Five Great Surges and the blue and tan boxes of each.)

As you can see in the chart above, each great surge is around 50-60 years long on average. The five great surges were: The Industrial Revolution, the Era of Steam and Railways, the Era of Steel and Heavy Engineering, the Era of the Automobile and Mass Manufacturing, and the Information Age (or ICT Revolution). A good primer on Perez’s theory and commentary on where we are today is found here (video of her lecturing). She refers to our era in terms of ICT (information and communications technology) but it is essentially the era that began with the big bang of the Intel microprocessor in 1971.

New Golden Age? — She Says We Are Close

What is most exciting about Perez’ theory is that she says we are on the cusp of the next golden age of prosperity for all. And this is hugely important. (see her in this lecture explain exactly why) And it ties directly into themes from this year’s AIA National Expo. Now at this point, we suggest to the reader to watch at least one of the two videos just referenced prior to reading the rest of this article. If one, we prefer the second one here. Or carry on and watch them later.

From this perspective, it is worth diving a bit deeper to understand her theories and how they connect—not just to themes from AIA 2018—but to where global societies are with respect to our current set of technologies.

Carlota Perez has western economies located within the “Turning Point” phase of the 5th Great Surge. (see image 04 above) In other words, this particular surge’s golden age has not yet happened—we are on the cusp of it. We will only get there if certain specific actions take place—actions that have taken place, more or less, every time in the past four great surges. In a nutshell, the State must intervene after great crashes and organize society and its markets and technology around a unified vision. That vision for Perez is “smart green technology” because it is the natural and logical next step, converging our human progress with information age technologies, solving our environmental impact and energy crises, and reshaping how we physically move people, goods, and services on the emerging infrastructure of our age on a globalized level.

AEC’s Relation to Perez via Infrastructure

Every great surge from the Industrial Revolution on has had a galvanizing pivotal invention (or set of inter-related inventions), combining in a three-way matrix with a key fuel and key set of raw materials. The dynamics between them congeal into a new Techno-Economic Paradigm (TEP). (zoom into the chart on image 03)

As for infrastructure—a pivotal member of the dynamic mechanisms of social change—this is where AEC comes into play and where our discussions about technologies shown at the AIA National this year makes sense. In the next section we will bring together three key concepts or discussions:

1. The Role of Alignment in Golden Ages
2. The next Golden Age: Perez’s Smart Green Future
3. Curve Fitting Hype Cycle to Perez—Impacts on Tech

These three brief concepts will empower our current understanding of AEC technologies—adding a critical new lens under which we can better see key technologies in AEC, like BIM, VR, CAD and visualization and collaboration.

next page: Part 3: Towards a Smart Green Future—The Role of AEC

Part 3: Towards a Smart Green Future—The Role of AEC

The Role of Alignment in Golden Ages

Perez’s model explains the inherent linkages of financial capital to technology in phases that lead to bubbles and golden ages. (We encourage the reader to view a video above for a fast primer.) In the fourth great surge (the 4th revolution: 1908 – 1971) the golden years emerged after the turning point of the Great Depression and WWII. As she says,

“During the golden age of Mass Production, in the 1950s and early 1960s, the interests of business and society converged. With the welfare state and suburbanization, working-class people in many Western countries could become homeowners and consumers. Therefore, when companies paid higher salaries and high taxes, it all contributed to increasing domestic demand. Government support for education and health services freed up discretionary cash for people to spend on consumer products.” (Perez)

In each of the past four great surges, the State and business effectively synergized a common direction after a sizeable financial crash in each surge. The coherence of direction—the “American suburban good life” model after WWII—coherently brought together a mature, industrial mass manufacturing model combined with cheap petroleum products, cheap steel, and a new infrastructure system every bit as transformational as canals and rail in their respective ages—the Interstate Highway System.

Perez notes that in the golden age of the 50s and 60s the key energies and materials of the era were cheap while labor was relatively expensive. Today we experience the opposite with wage stagnation and legacy energy economies which seek out higher costs. “Today, it’s energy and materials that are too expensive (or will become so if growth resumes strongly), and they need to be reduced to cut costs.” (Perez). Due to clear evidence of environmental damage, Perez adds, “Thus businesses are redesigning products for smaller carbon footprints, fewer materials, and zero waste.”

Perez advocates that in order for the next golden age to emerge society must align around a common vision of a smart green future. (again, her lecture on this is compelling)

The Next Golden Age: Perez’s Smart Green Future

For Perez, the natural path for the ICT (information and communication technologies) Revolution that emerged from Intel’s microprocessor in 1971, is for society to build a cool, smart, green lifestyle. But she questions if the new era “giants” will get us there.

“The new technology giants, like Google, Facebook, and Apple, along with others developing robotics and similar technologies, will comprise the high-productivity sectors. That’s understood. But they won’t lead us to a more decent society unless they encourage distribution.” (Perez). She insists that the new jobs come from lifestyle changes that support the new paradigm for society. A good example from the last era was the gas station owner and automobile mechanic, or the motel operator or fast-food chain manager. These were entirely new jobs created in the past great surge just as internet marketing is a brand new position today.

Perez insists that lacking a clear synergistic direction…the possibilities of using ICT in the direction of green is right in front of us. Such a new lifestyle change must be painted in aspirational terms and thus far the advocates for a smart green society have painted in a gloom-and-doom picture of environmental destruction instead. While her book was written just after the turn of the Millennium, much has transpired to sharpen her perspective on what the next golden age might look like. Here’s a key summary:

Carlota Perez’s Smart Green Future

The “accent” is placed on care, preventive health, exercise, and creativity and freedom. There is a shifting to services from products, making durable products really durable and moving towards a rental model in the economy (Uber for everything….) She says we need to print 3d parts as needed for fixing and renting. 

— Smart Green Growth

— Human-Centered Services 

— The Modernization of Production and Construction

Here are some technologies that are key to this vision:

• 3D printing
• Nanotech
• Sustainable Architecture
• New Construction Methods
• Bio-Plastics and New Custom Materials (think Neri Oxman)
• FTTH and wifi Infrastructures Everywhere
• Complex Systems Engineering
• Hydroponics and Urban Agriculture

Perez insists that the good life does not spread by fear or guilt…but by the good life. Each new paradigm shift must first be wrapped in the old. Recall that the first automobiles looked like horse-drawn carriages but with a motor attached; they were luxurious and aspirational. Here are aspects of her vision that are already underway:

• active creative prosumer vs passive consumer…
• fair trade and social responsibility…
• services vs tangible products…
• intense Internet use…
• working from home…

Every golden age has emerged from the country responsible for its technology revolution. But Perez sees the 4th and 5th great surges overlapping in a more time-intensive operation. “The American way of life defined prosperity for the 20th century…the European way of life can define prosperity for the 21st century,” she has said.

Curve Fitting Hype Curve to Perez—Impacts on Tech

Perez does not talk about the Hype Cycle (as far as we have discovered). Nonetheless, we recognize that the Hype Cycle is not constrained to a notion of time itself—a set limited amount of years in which a given innovation matures and grows from edge-of-market to center-of-market. From Perez’s Techno-Economic Paradigm (TEP) model we understand that depending on where a specific technology is born within a given paradigm it will confront different forces of resistance and alignment inherent in four unique phases of Perez’ model. (see images 05 – 08) 

Institutional resistance is the resistance to a new innovation when governments and learning institutions are pre-occupied with and aligned with a previous technology or set of related technologies. (see image 05 above which looks at BIM with regard to resistance and alignment) If a new innovation emerges during the SYNERGY phase and appears non-compatible with the prevailing paradigm, that innovation may face strong resistance. Business or firm resistance takes place when business owners and leaders hold onto their generation’s “common-sense” way of doing things. When firm titans find themselves led by “elder leaders” during the IRRUPTION or FRENZY phase of a new Techno-Economic Paradigm (TEP), such firms may plot themselves onto a course of slow demise as they fail to embrace the new innovations, and thus require a new generation of leaders who see the importance of the emerging Techno-Economic Paradigm shift.

Equally important to the trajectory of a new innovation is the role of financial capital during each of the four phases. In the first two (IRRUPTION and FRENZY) phases capital itself dislocates from production capital and seeks, initially, better sources of higher returns as previous paradigm technologies reach exhaustion. Once a full constellation of the new paradigm’s revolutionary technologies have implanted themselves through the Installation Period, larger levels of investment frantically seek to benefit causing an investment frenzy. New innovations may move quickly during this phase if they are aligned with the new core innovations and infrastructures, as they easily find capital growth potential.

next page: Part 4: AEC in the Smart Green Future—Roles for BIM, CDEs, and VR

Part 4: AEC in the Smart Green Future–Roles for BIM, CDEs, VR

Perez’s theory and model of Techno-Economic Paradigms (TEPs) has influenced our thinking about what AEC technologies matter the most from the perspective of forming “synergistic” directions that can lead to the next golden age as described by Perez. As she describes in the videos lectures we linked to above, we are currently just prior to the SYNERGY stage, the first phase that leads to a golden age in the Deployment period. See the yellow line in image 07 below.

BIM (Buiding Information Modeling)

BIM is less a technology than a paradigm shift that appears to have emerged rather early with respect to the SYNERGY and MATURITY phases of DEPLOYMENT {terms used by Perez’s model} (see image 06 above). We recognize BIM as the base “paradigm shift” for the modernization of construction (and production) that Perez advocates for in her vision. Key to that modernization is the role of bridging the digital to fabrication worlds, something that Autodesk has taken a lead on and advocated for in its Project Quantum work and that Phil Bernstein has spoken about with Architosh. (see: Architosh, “Phil Bernstein of Autodesk on the Changing Role of the 21st Century Architect—The Interview (Part 1),”  16 Apr 2016 ) It’s latest Revit 2019 advances that BIM solution strongly in those directions where connections to engineering and fabrication are critical.

From the perspectives of Perez, BIM’s evolutionary vectors involve “democratizing” access into the new model of manufacturing production and AEC construction. It must resist the establishment into a closed system. “I think the choice facing society is between closed economies, highly concentrated and unequal, and open economies with decentralized ownership.” (Johnson/Perez). Perez makes note that the Internet was “originally seen as a vehicle for decentralized ownership and control. Instead, we’ve moved into the era of Google and Facebook, where the algorithm becomes the means of production.”

Perez’s thinking thus has emphasized in us that the global AEC industry needs to further the cause of democratizing the entire AEC toolchain system. For BIM this means everything from supporting open data interoperability standards like IFC and BCF to the way in which particular BIM apps strive to build connections to other leading tools. In particular, coherence and synergy around more community and open-source-like technologies—those that are tending towards openness and democratization‚ should be encouraged, while those that are proprietary and de-synergistic around competitors should not be emphasized. Perez speaks and writes that the importance of “new consensus-building mechanisms”—and in the AEC world we have some (eg: buildingSMART, Open Design Alliance, The Khronos Group, etc)—are crucial to driving at synergy in the DEPLOYMENT period. (see image 07 and see notes around red line)

We applaud GRAPHISOFT, for example, for its strong advancement of McNeel’s Grasshopper and Rhino for algorithmic design. That toolchain is infused with an open-source-like community where its many leaders and innovators are vested in sharing and distribution. (see: Architosh, “Bespoke Computational Tools at Payette Drive Unforeseen Values for Firm and Client Alike,” 5 Feb 2018) GRAPHISOFT could have chosen to build its own rival tools, much like Autodesk and Vectorworks did, but instead focused on establishing synergy around a democratizing and community-oriented leader.

Some final words about BIM with respect to Perez. During the SYNERGY phase in particular powerful “inclusion-exclusion mechanisms” begin to force alignment with technology innovations as the new “common-sense” takes hold over society. We think these will emerge over the next decade where BIM models move freely between various third-party apps, often in the cloud, and often with very specific functions that begin to connect the creators to the fabricators. When the world of fabrication changes, and it requires digital models, the use of 2D CAD, to the exclusion of 3D BIM, will be minimized in its status within AECO production and operations. This doesn’t mean 2D CAD goes away, it means it finds its remaining optimal purposes.  (see the dashed green segment in the curve in image 07 above)

Algorithmic and Computational Design

Seen as both a technology set and model of production, these technologies are crucial to the larger paradigm shift. Perez sees the “algorithm” as a critical piece of the infrastructure of the DEPLOYMENT period of the ICT revolution. But the threat is that market leaders with massive data will close down economic competitors. It is imperative that the “democratization of data”—something our BEST of SHOW perspective has discussed at length—remains a primary concern in the interest of decentralized ownership of what could be referred to as the “digital commons” of a global smart green future. We, therefore, favor open-source directions for algorithmic and computational toolsets, as already mentioned above in the BIM section. And we wish to match up these tools with open and free data.

We did not award any specific solutions this year that we have referred to in the past as dedicated APFD (accessible programming for designers) tools or more commonly referred to as algorithmic-aided design (AAD) and visual scripting. Computational design, in general, is becoming embedded into mainline BIM authoring solutions and dispersed through the open-source-like community around Grasshopper.

Meanwhile, we’d like to direct attention to where computational design really stands in the AEC world with respect to the larger technology revolution we are in, according to Perez. Using the Hype-Cycle to represent a particular technology invention, (see 08 above) depending on when an innovation emerges within a larger technology revolution plays a big part in where that innovation goes. Take for example Google X’s Flux. Once a promising player in the computational design space in AEC, the company has pivoted again, this time now heading to the real-estate market rather than AEC. Of the three Hype Cycle curves shown in image 08 above, which one most closely relates to where this space of technologies fits under Perez’ Techno-Economic Paradigm (TEP) model? The answer is none of them. If we are in the Turning Point phase, as Perez says we are, (see yellow line in image 07) the Trough of Disillusionment section of the Hype Cycle (see image 02) needs to align somewhere under the pink bar because computational design is likely still less than 5 percent of adoption within architectural practice.

APFD or AAD in AEC is likely a subset of the AI revolution—an early phase that marks a decisive moment where architects and designers are converted into solution curators and editors rather than designers themselves. This is a generational change and one that requires the AI (artificial intelligence) revolution to advance much further. In the near future architects are going to be “centaur-like” professionals, mixing human intelligence with AI.

CDE (common data environments)

CDEs are a crucial piece of the infrastructure investment and naturally align with the SYNERGY and MATURITY phases of the DEPLOYMENT period in Perez’ model. Early versions of such tools failed at the turn of the century for reasons we may choose to explore in a future article from the perspective of Perez’s writing. In a nutshell, though, Perez might suggest that early web portals for AEC (eg: Buzzsaw) were established too early without sufficient “clustering of innovations” to buttress the early CDE movement. “In other words, the great clusters of talent come forth after the revolution is visible and because it is visible.” (Perez) Significant core technologies in the web browser space and with graphics (eg: WebGL) were all lacking 15 years ago to help power the early document and project management online tools.

CDE’s need to function as connective systems across the whole process transformation. Countries, where these tools will naturally advance quickest, are countries already more closely aligned with visions similar to Perez. (Scandinavia). Such tools have not become the new “common sense” (a Perez term) within the world of architecture but large-scale contractors are very much advancing their working methods using cloud-based CDEs that offer dramatic productivity improvements. CDEs are also finding growth via inclusion-exclusion mechanisms and institutional alignments—like government mandates around BIM usage and the BS1192 standards push.

It is utterly disappointing to see so little evidence of the CDE revolution in AEC at the largest architecture show in the world’s largest market. In past shows, key players like PlanGrid showed up for AIA National, and we have already awarded honors to Trimble Connect before it belonged to Trimble. But this year it was really only Autodesk who was touting the benefits of a CDE tool in BIM 360.

Autodesk’s BIM 360 CDE is thought of internally by the company more as a “common data platform” and one can see from the image above (image 09) the degree of API connections from largely “construction-facing” technology providers. What we hope to see in the near future is the robust use of connected offerings that link architects’ BIM and 3D models directly to fabricators as one potential attraction to onramp more architects into these tools. While BIM models inside CDEs are the most obvious place to encourage diffusion of this paradigm shift, so too is collaboration and in particular the revolutionary technologies of VR (virtual reality) and AR (augmented reality) and how they can change collaboration.

VR and AR

Multi-person virtual reality meetings are nothing short of transformational; the technology magically teleports the mind into another three-dimensional world where one can both see and interact with other parties in the meeting. Both IrisVR and several of its competitors are gunning to become nothing short of the next evolution of GoTo Meeting. (image 10)

At AIA National 2018 in NYC, both Pete and I spent considerable time both inside the same virtual model at the IrisVR booth. We were standing next to each other but we could have been halfway around the world. All that is required is your own VR-capable computer and ideally a high-quality VR headset like HTC Vive. We had Oculus units on, which are also very good. With audio configured, we could talk to each other just like we can in a GoTo Meeting. With built-in markup tools, we could sketch out changes to architecture in real-time, co-located virtually inside a building site or building, built or unbuilt, and conduct a true collaboration at a 1:1 real-life scale. It is not far off from truly being “there” in person. But in this case, the there may not exist…it is something planned to exist.

Closing Comments

Perez says that during the first phase of the INSTALLATION period—the period known as IRRUPTION—the “technological revolution also signals a cleavage in the fabric of the economy along several lines of tension.” (Perez). Some of these are listed include:

• between the modern firms—whether new or upgraded by the new methods—and the firms that stay attached to the old ways
• between the new industries and the mature (old) industries
• in capabilities, between those that are trained to participate in the new technologies and those whose skills become increasingly obsolete

There are other lines of tension as well, such as the shift of economic power between regions that dominated the economy during the previous technological revolution and the new regions that dominate the new technological revolution (eg: Pittsburg to Detroit to Silicon Valley). Perez’s model actually sheds much light on and argues for, why the news-worthy second Amazon headquarters location should be placed in a city that is trending towards clustering of expertise in AI and robotics. (eg: Pittsburg or Boston)

Perez writes, “So, the INSTALLATION period (see image 06) is one of tense coexistence of two paradigms, one declining and the other occupying more and more space on the ground.”

In studying Carlota Perez with particular attention to the AEC world, one struggles to relate 2D CAD to 3D BIM. The primary problem is that BIM appears to have emerged nearly at the same time as CAD, in terms of solutions offered to the market. (see image 07) Architrion and ARCHICAD and even some others were there in the market with a virtualized building concept. But 2D CAD and electronic drafting ushered in the new in the guise of the old—just as the early automobile appeared from adventurous carriage makers. In a sense, 2D CAD was simply placing a new digital engine on a draftsman-era analog carriage. —- ANTHONY FRAUSTO-ROBLEDO, AIA, LEED AP, Editor-in-Chief

 

---

Footnotes

1. While we talk about “modulating” practice so that architects have more “design time” and more time to contemplate as part of the socio-artistic aspects of this field, we acknowledge that there are other dimensions not emphasized here that also raise the performance role of architects in society, including their ability to increase responsibilities to owners and operators with regard to construction and operation budgets. Fiscal responsibilities have long been the bane of architects, criticized often, and rightly, for their overzealous personal quests regarding the artistic concerns of their profession.