Over the past month Mike and I have had three meetings that for one reason or another I haven't documented. The weather has been very nice, usage of my Webmin Theme has taken off like a rocket (1,300 downloads and counting) and I bought the complete third and fourth seasons of the West Wing on DVD the other week.
Our meeting on the 20th of September primarily dealt with versioning and the problem of identifying when and how a change takes place. I have a post that is three-quarters written that deals with this subject so I will leave this topic for the time being. The next meeting covered the question of how whatever model come up with can be tested. Whilst the notion of making an interesting piece of software is worthwhile from a technical perspective through the academic lense such a folly is unjustifiable if the end result cannot be soundly analysed through critical testing.
I looked at a number of papers (and Rowan Bailey's thesis) which used different methods for testing a piece of software. Unfortunately the papers were too theorectical whilst Rowan managed to prove his thesis in his opening test that had nothing to do with computer software. This subject followed on to the third meeting which actually ended in the conclusion that I needed to clarify exactly what the problem was before any useful tests could be formulated. This is a pretty good observation given that up to this point and time the potential solution has been identified through the isolation and analysis of a number of separate Architecture, Engineering and Construction Information Technology Communication (AEC ITC) issues:
- Problems successful briefing in a dynamic project environment
- The unrealistic expectations of 'knowledge management' in the industry
- The limited uptake of ITC within the industry
- Potential benefits and pitfalls of the Building Information Model