Pages

Building Taxonomy

So first I read the article recently posted on AECbytes:

Although I love the idea of a taxonomy to discuss building systems, it seemed that the taxonomy described in the article doesn’t reflect the direction of the industry. Whether using Dickens’ “21 Building Systems” or another system (perhaps the increasingly used Uniformat II Elemental System), systems do need to fit into a variety of delivery formats: from design-bid-build to IPD. However, the focus of a taxonomy (especially a new one) shouldn’t focus on more conventional delivery methods as it is unlikely that entities using those aren’t likely to change. Although the article doesn’t ignore an integrated approach for all project activities, it is only briefly mentioned – after a longer discussion of the use of a taxonomy in a design-built-bid scenario.

My suggestion: think about a taxonomy that can be used for a range of integrated teams. It isn’t a taxonomy for architecture; its a taxonomy for the design and execution of built projects.

Then I read the comments on the blog, and just commented this:

I have to be honest - I wrote my initial comments on this article before reading the rest of these comments. I sensed something in the original article that made me feel like builders "should be" excluded from this conversation, but I couldn't put my finger on it. After reading the above comments from the author, I understand where my concern came from. I don't believe that this industry (design, construction, operation of buildings) can create true efficiencies and improvements without working together. Builders, as well as designers, subcontractors, suppliers, engineers, facilities management, etc. DO KNOW what you are talking about and are move forward with discussing integrating around a central 'taxonomy'.
I really bristled at reading this comment from the author of the article and almost completely lost track of the idea of the article (taxonomy):

I’d also have to say that it has become fashionable for old General Contractors to grab the reigns but they know nothing about what we are talking about. For me Construction Management should lie within the Architectural Domain.

Ouch.

5 comments:

Erik said...

It's interesting the things people will say when they are not aware of who makes up their audience.

It's even more interesting when they say things like this when they know EXACTLY who is listening.

The first is somewhat forgivable, the second, less so.

James Van said...

Also interesting is Dennis Neeley's recent post on the Reed Construction Data blog in which he states, "Contractors and sub-contractors will take over the 'contract document' phase and architects and engineers will end their work at 'design development'." Plenty of commentary over there!

http://www.reedconstructiondata.com/news/2010/02/owners-what-should-you-do-about-bim

Peter said...

Our industry is in for some major changes and BIM/VDC, IPD, JOC etc. create a huge gap between those who collaborate and those that do not.

Jyoders19 said...

Assuming that any member of the Building Team is not a full, trusted member of the project is what has made our industry as inefficient as it is today.

Amy said...

I appreciate your PO very much the picture with the article. Continues to refuel!!