stressfree - thesis

Bluestreak and the birth of a collaboration kernel

David — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 09:11:45 +0000

Successful Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) collaboration depends on the timely dissemination of relevant information throughout the project team. This task is made difficult by the number of collaboration interactions that occur and the diverse range of digital tools used to support them. To improve this process it is proposed that a collaboration kernel could weave together these disparate interactions and tools. This will create a more productive and efficient collaboration environment by allowing design discussion, issues and decisions to be efficiently and reliably exchanged between team members and the digital tools they currently use. This article describes how Project Bluestreak, a messaging service from Autodesk Labs, can be transformed into an effective collaboration kernel. To guide this transformation, the principles of the Project Information Cloud have been used to evaluate the existing service and identify areas for future development. These fundamental digital collaboration principles are derived from lessons learnt in the formation of the World Wide Web. When these principles are embodied within a digital collaboration tool, they have demonstrated an ability to improve the timely delivery of relevant information to members of the project team.

Seamless collaboration within a fragmented digital environment

A successful AEC digital collaboration environment brings multiple parties together so that they can productively work towards a satisfactory and achievable design outcome. During this process participants must engage in a variety of interactions between team members and the digital models used to describe the design. These interactions, and the technologies commonly used to enable them, are summarised in the following diagram and table.

Note: The term 'model' refers to a CAD or BIM digital model that represents the proposed design. Digital models play an important role in the collaboration process as they communicate ideas, impose restrictions and can be manipulated to reflect a participant's opinion.

A diagram illustrating the relationship between the different digital collaboration interactions. (Click to enlarge)

Person to person
Purpose	Productive conversations between design participants are critical for the success of any design project. The intention of these interactions is to present, question and debate all aspects of the design.
Nature	Given the non-linear and bi-directional nature of conversation, the ideas and data communicated are generally fluid and unstructured. To be most effective, the tools used should not introduce latency as this can result in a disjointed conversation. During these exchanges it should be possible for participants to easily reference media such as photographs, documents, diagrams and digital models.
Enabling technologies	The most common person to person interactions during a design project are physical meetings and telephone conversations. In cases where participants are geographically distributed, Internet-based voice and video conferencing technologies are supplanting these 'traditional' tools. Email, and to a lesser extent instant messaging, are also commonly used in situations where person to person interactions are limited in scope, or do not warrant the interruption of a real-time meeting.
Person to group
Purpose	Individuals must be able to efficiently and reliably communicate information about the design to the project team, such as its status, data and any associated decisions or questions.
Nature	This interaction is uni-directional because a group cannot directly add to a conversation. If a recipient of a person to group message responds this spawns a new person to person, or person to group interaction. Person to group interactions typically have a specific topic, but the supporting media referenced during the exchange varies depending on the subject and its context.
Enabling technologies	Email is the most prevalent digital means of communication between a participant and the project team. Messaging systems and discussion forums embedded within project extranets, company intranets or the public Internet are also used. However compared to email their industry adoption is limited. Many document management systems include support for person to group interactions, but this is typically a secondary and underused piece of functionality.
Person to model
Purpose	A participant interacts with the model to understand the design, express new ideas and review the contributed work of others. If the participant cannot efficiently comprehend or manipulate the model, their ability to take part in the broader design discussion is significantly impacted.
Nature	The nature of this interaction depends on the role and technical ability of the individual. It is common for the majority of an AEC project team to be unable to modify the model. For these participants the model simply communicates the design state, whereas those capable of modifying the model can reshape it to reflect their own opinion, or that of others.
Enabling technologies	The primary interface between the individual and a digital model is the CAD/BIM software used to create it. Given the complexity and cost of this software, more accessible formats such as DWF and 3D PDF have been developed to allow the entire project team to experience and provide feedback on the model.
Model to model
Purpose	To simplify and distribute the overall process, a design is typically developed using more than one digital model. It is important that these distinct models can be efficiently and consistently integrated so that the team can comprehend the overall design.
Nature	Given the technical complexity of this task, the flow of data in a model to model interaction typically goes in one direction. This involves extracting the data present in one or more digital models and merging it into a primary 'master' model.
Enabling technologies	Technologies for model to model interaction vary in complexity, capability and industry penetration. The most common means of consolidation is the manual importing of data from standard digital model formats such as IFC or DWG. Unfortunately, incompatibilities between different CAD/BIM implementations mean such interactions can lead to inconsistent data. Many CAD/BIM tools have functionality for collaboratively editing digital models, but uptake is limited due to their operational complexity and the limitations imposed.
Model to group
Purpose	The overall design needs to be distributed amongst the project team for review and eventual construction. The information conveyed by the model is raw data related to the current state of the design, rather than personal opinion.
Nature	Given the physical and technical distribution of a project team, it is usually impractical for a group to interact with a digital model in real-time. To compensate, snapshots of the model's design state are created and communicated in a manner that all interested parties can consume. Given its revision-centric nature, the information transfer between model and group is uni-directional. If group members wish to respond to the information conveyed they must establish a new person to person, person to group or person to model interaction.
Enabling technologies	In larger projects, document management systems such as Buzzsaw, ProjectWise and Aconex are commonly used to ensure the project team is informed of changes to the digital model and supporting documentation. Many of these tools are integrated into CAD/BIM software so that the interaction between model and group is seamless. In smaller projects the cost and complexity of these systems cannot be justified, so manual file transfers using FTP or web servers are often used to distribute the model.

Given these diverse functional requirements it is understandable that no single technology is capable of satisfying the digital collaboration needs of a project team. This poses a problem because participants stand the greatest chance of receiving timely and relevant data when the digital experience is well integrated. Unfortunately the boundaries between two or more collaboration tools generate inefficiencies, confusion and data loss due to the inability of many digital tools to collaborate with each other. As a consequence, using two or more digital collaboration tools can often lead to the following issues:

Lack of Process Integration: The decisions or actions taken in one tool are often not reflected in others. In an ideal world, design decisions made during an email exchange would automatically generate outstanding to-do items within the digital model and have the document management service (DMS) notify the team of forthcoming design revisions. When interacting with the digital model or DMS later in the project, this same trail of messages can be used to understand the motivations and justification behind a design element. Currently these actions currently cannot be automatically undertaken, because a simple means of passing messages between the various collaboration tools used by the team does not yet exist.

No Identity Management: Collaboration tools do not generally use the same system for identifying users or recording information about them. This forces participants to create numerous virtual identities and maintain a record of those used by the team. This becomes problematic when reviewing a series of design decisions that have been made in unison with multiple collaboration tools. For example, a project team using email to exchange thoughts between participants, BIM to develop the digital model and a document management service to distribute the outcomes employs the following identity systems:

Interaction	Software	Identity System
Person to model	BIM software	Account on the local operating system. e.g. COMPANY\username
Person to person	Email	Globally unique email address. e.g. participant.name@company.com
Model to team	Document management service (DMS)	DMS-specific user account. e.g. participant_name

With three different identity systems, tracking a design decision from conception (email) to its finalisation (in the DMS) becomes a complex process. Questioning a design decision is no easier because the participant must first identify who it is they need to talk to, and from there discern that person's virtual identity relative to the collaboration tool being used to conduct the interaction.

Functional and Data Repetition: The lack of messaging or identity integration between collaboration tools results in the repetition of functionality and data-entry tasks. Common information such as the identities of team members, their project roles and general interests cannot be easily shared or consumed by applications. Similarly, common collaboration functionality used by multiple applications must be continually reimplemented rather than being reused. This occurs because utilising functionality present in third-party applications is difficult, and not all participants have access to the relevant software dependencies. This situation is akin to early desktop computing where system-wide functionality such as copy, paste and printing did not exist. Once this shared functionality was introduced, the capability and productivity of desktop computing was improved because all involved could rely on the presence and consistent behaviour of these familiar tools.

Using a collaboration kernel to integrate collaboration interactions

In an ideal world, the various collaboration interactions which occur during a project would be supported by a single, tightly integrated software application. This 'digital collaboration swiss army knife' would promote an efficient and cohesive collaboration environment by reliably recording and seamlessly communicating relevant design information throughout the team. Unfortunately a universal AEC digital collaboration tool is impractical, both now and in the foreseeable future, because of the complications which arise from bundling so much functionality into a single tool that will be used by a diverse audience. Rather than trying to reinvent the perfect wheel, a more practical approach is needed that provides a means for existing digital tools to exchange design discussion, issues and decisions. This will relieve the integration and replication issues that currently exist without having to start from scratch. The most efficient and reliable means of solving this problem is to establish a collaboration kernel that can act as an intermediary between the disparate tools. This Internet-centric service would in effect become the project's digital post office, overseeing the exchange of messages that support, summarise and promote the collaboration interactions taking place within the project team. A collaboration kernel's presence would be subtle, but its influence on collaboration would be significant. For example, consider the following hypothetical scenario set in the not too distant future:

Pam the project manager reviewed the client's email. The design of the entrance foyer for their multi-storey commercial development needed to be enlarged to accommodate more activities than originally projected. This was not a simple task because the layout of the ground floor was tight, so allocating more space meant sacrificing something else. In her email client she highlighted the email, pressed the New Task button and from the list of names assigned it to Andy the architect. She wrote a quick summary of the task ahead:

"From Pam to Andy: Tomorrow can you identify an alternative foyer design based on the criteria listed in this email?"

She pressed the 'Create Task' button and left work for the evening. As she left, the email client uploaded a copy of the email to the architecture practice's internal server where Andy could access it. It then passed Pam's message, along with a link to the relevant email, to the collaboration kernel which would ensure the task would be brought to Andy's attention the next morning.

The next morning Andy arrived in the office and logged into the Practice's Intranet. His personalised homepage checked in with the collaboration kernel, which promptly returned the task Pam had assigned to him. Andy read the message and followed the link to the referenced email. Being newly assigned to the project he was not fully aware of previous design decisions associated with the foyer. To provide some background he queried the collaboration kernel for all the design interactions related to that specific part of the building. The service returned a chronological history showing who had been involved in the design of this aspect and what input had been recorded. The breakdown revealed two particularly active design periods which included references to early 3D models and preliminary spacial renderings. Reviewing this work and the associated discussions, Andy quickly came to terms with the design concepts and issues at work within this part of the building. He opened the project's Building Information Model (BIM), but before starting work on the revision made the following note in the modelling tool's work-log:

"From Andy to everyone: I am spending this morning redeveloping the entrance foyer as per Pam's instructions."

He attached Pam's task to this note and saved it to the work-log. Behind the scenes the BIM software published the message to the collaboration kernel. The kernel broadcast the message to everyone in the team so that they could be forewarned of the changes afoot.

Meanwhile in another part of town Leny the lighting consultant was finalising the design of the building's ground floor lighting. That morning he had received a phone call from the client requesting a change to some of the fittings, but the proposed foyer changes had not been mentioned. His lighting simulation software displayed a notification from one of the architects:

"From Andy: I am spending this morning redeveloping the entrance foyer as per Pam's instructions."

Lenny could not access Pam's referenced instructions as he worked in another office, but he got the feeling this could affect his lighting design. He contacted Andy over instant messaging, and very quickly they identified the change would be a problem and that they should have a telephone conversation to discuss a practical way forward. After the telephone call Lenny quickly made a couple of notes about the conversation and what changes they had both agreed to make to their respective digital models:

"From Lenny to everyone: Andy and I have just discussed the proposed changes to the foyer and have come to an agreement that will suit the client's needs and code requirements."

"From Lenny to Andy: If you redesign the east side of the foyer as discussed I will be in a position to make the relevant lighting design changes this afternoon."

These notes were published to the collaboration kernel where they were distributed to everyone in the team. The second note was addressed to Andy so that his computer would remind him of Lenny's plans.

Andy spent the morning modifying the digital model to include the revised foyer design. On completion he published the revised model to the project's document management system (DMS) for review. On committing the change he wrote a quick summary of what design aspects had been modified:

"From Andy: This revision to this foyer design takes into account the changes to capacity requested by the client. Accommodating this extra space required changes to the surrounding design, which is forcing Lenny to redesign aspects of the lighting."

News of this change and the accompanying note where automatically published to the collaboration kernel by the DMS. Team members tracking this particular model where then automatically notified of Andy's change by the collaboration kernel. Lenny was one of these people, and on receiving this news he downloaded the revised model for checking against his updated lighting design. After confirming there were no conflicts and the design met code requirements he published a note via the collaboration kernel:

"From Lenny to Andy and Pam: I have reviewed Andy's proposed foyer changes alongside my revised lighting layout. Everything checks out, and as far as I am concerned everything can proceed."

The collaboration kernel delivered the message to Pam to her mobile phone via SMS. She was tied up on the construction site in meetings most of the day, but had been keeping half an eye on Andy and Lenny's activity. She sent an SMS message in reply:

"From Pam to Andy and Leny: Good progress. When I get back to the office I will have the client to review both changes."

The SMS went to a service that automatically forwarded incoming messages from approved numbers to the collaboration kernel for distribution amongst the team.

Establishing a collaboration kernel and attaining this level of integration between the various digital tools in use will take a significant amount of time and resources. Fortunately the early foundations of this cohesive environment may already be in place. For example one promising collaboration kernel candidate is Project Bluestreak, a web-based messaging tool from Autodesk Labs.

The untapped potential of Bluestreak

Autodesk Labs' Project Bluestreak is a Web-based tool for exploring the applicability and usefulness of various 'Web 2.0' and social networking concepts within the context of design collaboration. Whilst unique for Autodesk, this is not the first time these technology concepts have been applied within the AEC industry. For example Vuuch and Kalexo are two established and functionally richer products. However, Autodesk is a dominant and pervasive presence throughout the world of digital design. Therefore if Bluestreak testing proves successful, aspects of it could permeate through their entire software portfolio. This would significantly benefit the workflow of Autodesk's customers, and ultimately influence the direction of collaboration within the industry. In the shorter-term, a key differentiator between Bluestreak and its contemporaries is the support pledged to third-party application development on the platform. Of late, developer ecosystems that leverage information and relationships stored within larger, parent networks have achieved significant business traction. SalesForce's AppExchange and Facebook's Application Directory are prominent examples of this strategy. In both cases, large numbers of independently developed applications have flourished thanks to the popularity of the underlying core service. A collaboration-centric application ecosystem would not garner the same levels of developer or media attention, but within the context of the AEC industry would still be a powerful platform. For Autodesk such an endeavour would add considerable value to their product line, whilst for third-party collaboration tool vendors it would significantly ease development and distribution costs.

A screenshot of the Project Bluestreak web interface. (Click to enlarge)

When viewed alongside the concept of a collaboration kernel, Bluestreak in its current form is a lost opportunity. Instead of a standalone website, the service should be repositioned as a social messaging service that will be integrated across Autodesk's software portfolio. This would be a strong move as it would expose the service to a broad audience and position it as a viable collaboration kernel. Internally this would benefit Autodesk as it would allow their various development groups to leverage this collaboration-centric functionality via a set of Application Programming Interfaces (API). Once standardised, these same APIs could be publicly exposed to enable third-party application integration, or entirely new collaboration experiences. Third-party software vendors would be eager to build on this platform as it would simplify development and provide a direct, sanctioned link to Autodesk's applications and customer network. Whilst this strategy may sound simple, transforming Bluestreak into a viable collaboration kernel will not be straightforward. The service shows promise but it needs a considerable amount of redevelopment before it can adequately meet this challenge. Rather than blindly working towards this goal, a more productive approach is to analyse Bluestreak's theoretical performance relative to the collaboration principles set down by the Project Information Cloud. This process will identify a set of functional improvements that are required before it can effectively meet the demands of operating as a collaboration kernel.

A Bluestreak in the Project Information Cloud

The intention of a collaboration kernel is to improve the timeliness and relevancy of information delivered to project participants. To achieve this, the kernel must provide a set of common functionality that can be easily leveraged by other AEC software tools. This will efficiently improve the capability of these tools and allow team members to participate in an integrated and consistent collaboration environment. But what functionality does such a kernel require and how will this ensure the collaboration experience is improved?
One solution to this problem is to apply the principles of the Project Information Cloud to the design of the collaboration kernel. The Project Information Cloud is a proposal for an integrated collaboration environment where a project's digital history is readily accessible to those involved (see Using Project Information Clouds to Preserve Design Stories within the Digital Architecture Workplace). The principles of this environment have been derived from the World Wide Web, which in a relatively short space of time has proven to be a very successful and versatile medium for digital collaboration.

The seven principles of the Project Information Cloud are:

Comprehension: Is the system relatively easy to understand and use by both developers and participants within a project team? Technology should facilitate streamlined and reliable collaboration interactions instead of being an unfortunate necessity.
Modularity: Can the functionality of the system be extended or replicated by a third-party without interrupting the overall experience of the project team? The concept of a collaboration kernel implies that the extra functionality required to achieve each collaboration interaction can be seamlessly 'bolted on'.
Decentralisation: Can the collaboration interactions reliably occur without the presence of a central, mediating body? Likewise can one or more parties leave the project team without effecting the consistent flow of information?
Ubiquity: Can the entire project team access the system from the digital tools that they commonly use? Reliable interaction with the collaboration environment should not require specialised tools that are dependent on a specific software vendor.
Situational Awareness: Is the system capable of gathering and responding to external information generated by other systems within the project team? A system that stands alone is of marginal value as a collaboration tool.
Context Sensitivity: Does the system understand the hierarchy and ongoing activities within the project team, and can it tailor its operations and user-interfaces accordingly? AEC project teams are complex and constantly changing. Collaboration systems that cannot adapt during these context shifts are at best a hindrance, and at worst a liability.
Dynamic Semantics: Can the system's categorisation system change over time so that participants record and navigate information in a way that relates to the current state of the project? No two projects are identical, and as they evolve the vocabulary used to describe the design and associated activities needs to keep pace with this change.

The ability of a collaboration tool to satisfy these principles can be visually illustrated on a seven point spider diagram. Analysing a tool's performance in this manner is a simple yet effective means of identifying its strengths and weaknesses relative to other collaboration technologies. The rating system employed by this spider diagram is illustrated below and described in the following table.

Comprehension
0 - Enigma	The purpose, processes and outcomes of the collaboration tool are impossible to understand.
1	One or two aspects of the tool's purpose, processes and outcomes are somewhat understood by a few users.
2	After significant amount of effort, the tool's purpose, processes and outcomes can be understood by the minority of users.
3	After some effort, the purpose, processes and outcomes of the tool can be largely understood by the majority of users.
4 - Obvious	The purpose, processes and outcomes of the tool are readily understood by all users.
Modularity
0 - Sculpture	The tool is made from a single, large component whose functionality cannot be extended or replicated.
1	The tool is made from a single, large component, but with significant effort minor functional aspects can be extended or replicated.
2	Parts of the tool are modular and with significant effort some its functionality can be extended or replicated.
3	The majority of the tool is modular and with some effort most of its functionality can be extended or replicated.
4 - Lego	The tool is completely modular and with minimal effort all of its functionality can be extended or replicated.
Ubiquity
0 - Exclusive	The tool is only used by a single party and employs non-standard, proprietary technologies and data formats.
1	The tool has some industry use, but it is not readily available and employs non-standard, proprietary technologies and data formats.
2	The tool is readily available, but not widely used and generally employs non-standard, proprietary technologies and data formats.
3	The tool is readily available and widely used, but it generally employs non-standard, proprietary technologies and data formats.
4 - Universal	The tool is readily available, widely used and employs freely accessible technologies with standardised data formats.
Decentralisation
0 - Monolith	The tool in its entirety is bound to a single location and cannot be moved or used anywhere else.
1	The tool is based in one location, but with significant effort it can be deployed to and used in multiple locations.
2	The tool relies on some centralised components, but with moderate effort it can be deployed to and used in multiple locations.
3	The tool has a few centralised components that do not stop it from easily being deployed to and used in multiple locations.
4 - Mesh	The tool's components are distributed and replicated, which presents no single point of failure and allows its use from anywhere.
Situational Awareness
0 - Isolationist	The tool is isolated from the outside world and its processes and interface cannot respond to changes in this environment.
1	With significant effort the tool can monitor a few external resources so that its processes or interface can respond to changes in them.
2	With moderate effort the tool can monitor some external resources so that its processes or interface can respond to changes in them.
3	With minimal effort the tool can monitor a large number of external resources and can automatically respond to changes in them.
4 - Hive mind	The tool is deeply intertwined with its surrounding environment and its processes and interface automatically responds to changes in it.
Context Sensitivity
0 - Oblivious	The tool has no understanding of the project situation and its processes and interface only operate one way.
1	The tool has no understanding of the project situation, but with significant effort, its processes and interface can be tuned.
2	The tool has a very limited understanding of the project situation, but with moderate effort, its processes and interface can be tuned.
3	The tool has a limited understanding of the project situation, and in response can change some processes and interface aspects.
4 - Aware	The tool has a strong understanding of the project situation, and in response automatically changes its processes and interface.
Dynamic Semantics
0 - Meaningless	The tool employs no semantic system to organise the data it collects or transfers.
1	The tool employs a single semantic system that cannot be modified without considerable effort or planning.
2	The tool employs a single semantic system that can be modified with minimal effort or planning.
3	The tool employs multiple semantic systems specific to the user and their context, but modifying them requires considerable effort.
4 - Expressive	The tool employs multiple semantic systems specific to the user and their context, and if need be they can be easily modified.

How each of these Project Information Cloud principles is embodied within collaboration tools currently used by the AEC industry is illustrated in the following diagrams. In this diagrammatic analysis an ideal digital collaboration tool would form a perfect heptagon, but in each case one or more areas are found to be lacking.

A comparison of collaboration tools currently used and their performance relative to the Project Information Cloud principles. (Click to enlarge)

These same principles can be applied to Bluestreak to identify its collaboration strengths and weaknesses. Adequately satisfying these principles will ensure the service has a strong chance of performing well as a collaboration kernel. Bluestreak's immediate and long-term ability to satisfy the principles of the Project Information Cloud are illustrated in the following diagram and proceeding text.

(Click to enlarge)

Comprehension

Bluestreak is currently easy to understand because it has only just been released and therefore lacks functionality or historical 'cruft'. Given this spartan beginning, the greatest challenge facing Bluestreak's developers is identifying what functionality does not need to be added. This is important because a collaboration kernel should be concise so that those using it have a clear understanding of what services it provides and why. A limited scope will help to ensure the Bluestreak platform is easily adopted by developers and end-users appreciate its role in collaboration. This strategy has been very successful for Twitter, which has flourished thanks to the ease by which developers and users alike have understood what it has to offer and how to leverage it to achieve their desired results.

(Click to enlarge)

The difficultly ahead for Bluestreak is that becoming a successful collaboration kernel requires it integrate with a diverse range of AEC tools in a number of ways (as illustrated by the diagram above). This integration breaks down into three forms:

Components: Autodesk and third-parties will build components on top of the Bluestreak API that will form a critical part of its web interface and functionality.
Web Service API: For basic operations many Autodesk and third-party web applications will interact with Bluestreak using a set of web service functions. Web services are a ubiquitous and accessible means of exchanging data between different systems, but these same properties makes it an inefficient means of programming complex tasks.
Client API Libraries: Learning a set of low-level web services and writing custom code poses a significant learning curve and development hurdle. To ease this burden Autodesk needs to provide a set of software libraries which allow developers to reliably and quickly perform a set of complex Bluestreak operations using only a few lines of code.

To improve the comprehension of developers and users it is important that these three integration points are well designed and documented. A developer should not be expected to understand the entire Bluestreak platform if all they wish to do is achieve quick results using a Client API library. In contrast, the experience of the end-user should be such that they are unaware these even interfaces exist. To them Bluestreak should be as transparent as possible so that collaboration across different applications appears to "just work".

Modularity

Bluestreak's capacity to be modular hinges on its API which will allow third-parties to develop new components. As this API is currently not publicly available judgement cannot be passed on its success. However, it is promising that Bluestreak's own file upload component has been developed using a subset of it. Beyond allowing independent parties to add new functionality, a well documented and public API can be reimplemented by other collaboration systems such as ProjectWise, Aconex and Vuuch. If these services reimplemented the API then, at least in theory, Bluestreak components would be able to integrate with, or run inside of these other services. The benefit of this modularity is that a 'killer application' written on top of the Bluestreak API would not necessarily be restricted to Autodesk's collaboration environment. In the programming world cross-platform APIs and runtime environments are popular and powerful platforms. These range from fully portable programming runtimes such as Java, to ports of traditional APIs like WINE, which enables Windows applications run unmodified on other operating systems.

A diagram illustrating the relationship between the Bluestreak service, its API and various Autodesk and third-party applications.

Beyond the as yet unreleased API, Bluestreak employs OpenID which is an open standard for authenticating to websites. This is currently limited to Autodesk's own OpenID provider, but a future iteration could permit third-party OpenID services to be used, for example Google, Yahoo or an internal corporate account. Enabling authentication modularity in this manner lowers barriers to entry, as potential collaborators will not necessarily have to create a new online identity to participate in an online conversation.

Decentralisation

Like most web applications, Bluestreak cannot be installed onto a private server and migrating data stored on it to another service is not straightforward. This may suffice for a consumer application, but it poses a significant problem in the context of the AEC industry. Companies require reliable systems that adhere to entrenched processes and policies. Therefore to be successful Bluestreak must be decentralised so that it can be run 'in-house' or integrated into other systems.

The first step in this process would be to offer Bluestreak as a standalone application that can be installed on a local server. This sounds straightforward, but in practice it would require significant changes to the way Bluestreak is designed and implemented. An isolated copy of Bluestreak is of limited value if it cannot "talk" to other Bluestreak installations. For example if architects and engineers cannot exchange information because they are running different Bluestreak instances, then the service as a whole is of limited collaboration value. Unfortunately enabling this level of reliable and timely data exchange is fraught with challenges. Google Wave captured headlines due to its rich user-interface, but ultimately its long-term success hinges on the ability of the Wave Federation Protocol to allow users on different Wave servers to seamlessly collaborate in near real-time. A viable option would be for Autodesk to follow Novell's lead and implement the Wave Federation Protocol within Bluestreak. This would solve the decentralisation problem, however this would be a complex, costly and inherently risky undertaking.

Ubiquity

Bluestreak shows promise as a collaboration kernel because it is built on ubiquitous technologies and places minimal restrictions on what can be exchanged. Being a Javascript-based web application, it can be accessed from any standards compliant web browser with an Internet connection. Likewise, when using the tool participants are free to exchange whatever data their team can readily access, instead of being forced into specific formats.

Micro-blogging is one area where Bluestreak could enhance its ubiquity. Micro-blogging is a promising AEC collaboration medium (see Using micro-blogging to record architectural design conversation alongside the BIM), but the implementation within Bluestreak is hamstrung by its isolation and inconsistencies. There is currently no means of posting a message without visiting the Bluestreak website, and for no discernible reason 'status' and 'group' messages have different maximum lengths - 150 vs 250 characters respectively. A more ubiquitous approach would be to implement an existing, albeit immature, micro-blogging standard such as StatusNet (formerly Laconi.ca). Extending an established platform would allow Bluestreak to leverage this existing functionality and community. Project teams would then be able to use desktop or mobile-based software clients rather than just the Bluestreak website. From the perspective of decentralisation, initiatives like StatusNet also allow different micro-blogging systems to exchange messages. These federated micro-blogging solutions are simpler than Google's Wave Federation Protocol, and could prove 'good enough' for the purposes of digital design collaboration.

Beyond the promotion of ubiquitous formats and processes, the concept of Bluestreak needs to become ubiquitous across Autodesk's software line. Similar to Ray Ozzie's Mesh initiative within Microsoft, Bluestreak should be portrayed as a collaboration umbrella that touches upon all aspects of Autodesk's activities. Conversations currently taking part within the Bluestreak web application need to be brought to the 3D CAD and BIM tools where the majority of design development, analysis and documentation is taking place. For example, when using Revit an architect should be able to review and participate in Bluestreak discussions without leaving the application. Then when the model is exported to DWF for sending to the contractor, relevant aspects of that discussion could be embedded within the file to preserve its context relative to the overall design process.

Situational Awareness

Currently Bluestreak depends on manual data input and there is no way of externally monitoring the discussion taking place within it. This is a considerable shortcoming because collaboration takes place over multiple communication channels. A successful collaboration kernel should make the team aware of the activities taking place on these other channels instead of being oblivious to them. The API could significantly boost situational awareness by allowing components to pull data from external services, or push data into Bluestreak. Examples of potential components are:

Changes: An agent that monitors files in a third-party document management service and informs the team when modifications take place. Most project documentation will not reside within Bluestreak, so knowing it has changed and to what degree is an important consideration during collaboration.
Progress: An agent that parses the project manager's Microsoft Project file or shared calendar and alerts the team of significant events. The project timeline is continually evolving and those involved cannot be expected to maintain it in multiple locations. Monitoring a project's timeline also ensures the collaboration service satisfies the principle of context sensitivity.
External Activity: An agent monitors an external email account, collaboration tool, or web service for information contributed by a third-party. A sub-contractor may not warrant full Bluestreak project membership, but they could be provided an email address for submitting information and questions. The component could then automatically monitor this email account and publish correspondence to Bluestreak.

Situational awareness is a two-way street, so beyond acting as a data sponge, Bluestreak should expose data to trusted third-parties. Presently users can manually monitor conversations via the website, or elect to have all status/group messages emailed to them. Both of these options are problematic because for many team members Bluestreak will not form a part of their daily workflow. As a result most will not visit the website regularly and will soon ignore, or disable, email notifications. These attention issues cannot be resolved by Bluestreak alone. Instead it must work towards exposing its data and functionality to applications that are regularly used by the team. A prime example of this is that a large portion of Twitter use takes place within third-party tools. Similar results can only be achieved by Bluestreak if it exposes the collaboration interactions it records in machine readable formats (RSS, XML, JSON) that can be parsed by other software used within the project team.

Context Sensitivity

Bluestreak's only nod towards context sensitivity is the use of groups to divide people and conversations. In the future it needs to make better use of the contextual information within a project so that participants can easily navigate, filter and target collaboration interactions. For example project teams have clearly defined, hierarchical relationships that reflect the roles and expertise of each participant. A collaboration kernel that successfully leverages this knowledge will be more able to deliver timely and relevant information to the team. Bluestreak users have profiles, but these lack expertise or fields of interest which would help to bring relevant messages to their attention. Alternatively this information could identify people within the team who are the most capable of resolving a specific design problem.

Beyond filtering and highlighting conversations, context is a useful means of stopping information from reaching participants in the first place. In its current form, a Bluestreak project is like working with a group of people in a large auditorium - anybody can say or hear anything. Whilst fine for general situations, when large numbers of people or sensitive data is involved it becomes important that certain interactions occur in private. At present multiple Bluestreak groups can be created to achieve this, but practically this is unwieldy. A more flexible approach would be to allow messages to be addressed to people within the team based on their profile's meta-data or the project's hierarchical structure. This could be achieved by combining micro-blogging's address (@) and subject (#) syntax at the beginning of a message. For example, a message beginning with @#architect would signify it should be brought to the attention of architects within the team. This same mechanism could be extended to specific phases in the project (@#construction), or fields of interest (@#concept). Borrowing again from micro-blogging, a leading 'd' character (for Direct Message) would signify that the message was intended for a restricted audience. Whilst this syntax is simple, it is compatible with micro-blogging standards and can be clearly presented by software agents.

Dynamic Semantics

At present Bluestreak lacks any means for categorising contributed content. When navigating or searching large amounts of AEC collaboration data this soon becomes a problem because the content of many messages does not reflect its subject matter. For example a discussion centered around "indoor and outdoor flow" maybe conceptual (the floor layout), or specific (the detailing of a door). Micro-blogging services like Twitter have demonstrated that semantics can be embedded within messages via hash (#) tags which Bluestreak could easily support. Components could then be developed using the API that allows the project's semantic structure to be visualised and navigated.

Embedding hash tags within messages is a flexible means of publishing semantics, but participants must also be able to retrospectively apply meaning to content. For example a project's taxonomy will initially focus on conceptual ideas, but as the design is refined, so too will the semantics used to describe it. Semantics are also relative depending on the perspective of the participant, therefore it must be possible to assign multiple semantic layers to content. Achieving this semantic flexibility requires users possess the ability to manually re-categorise any content. To assist in this process the collaboration kernel itself should infer meaning based on a message's context and any assigned relationships.

Applied Semantics

Within Bluestreak users should be able to tag any content that has been contributed so it can be referenced by other data. In a distributed environment embedding new semantic information within existing content is problematic because these changes must be replicated across the team. A more efficient means of solving this problem is to assign all content published to Bluestreak a globally unique URL. These simple URL references can then be categorised multiple times using an existing bookmarking/tagging service such as Delicious, or a native Bluestreak tool.

Inferred Semantics

Beyond manual tagging, semi-intelligent agents could categorise collaboration data based on where and when it was created and what it is related to. This would require Bluestreak to be integrated into other software so that information can be automatically included from this environment. For example, an architect using Revit may identify and highlight an issue with the design's foundations. On posting the issue to Bluestreak using a tool built into Revit, relevant meta-data such as the components affected (foundations), materials used (concrete) and the model's revision details (revision #432) would be included automatically.

Conclusion

A collaboration kernel communicates key design ideas, issues and decisions between the disparate digital tools used by the AEC industry. If it became as digitally prevalent as copy and paste is today, such a service would be an efficient and reliable median between the various collaboration interactions which occur. By helping to weave together these various communication channels, the collaboration kernel would improve the timeliness and relevancy of information delivered to members of the project team. The principles of the Project Information Cloud proved very useful in isolating the key characteristics of a collaboration kernel and its benefit to information flow within the team. Using these principles to assess Bluestreak identified a set of changes that would allow it to better fill the role of collaboration kernel. By implementing these changes and integrating the service across its line of software products, Autodesk could be the first to establish a collaboration kernel, and in doing so ultimately improve the AEC industry's overall collaboration capability.

Suggestions For Improving Your Research Process

David — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 05:43:42 +0000

Below is a presentation I gave today to a group of Honors students at Victoria University's School of Architecture and Design. The presentation covers what I have learnt during my time doing my PhD and the mistakes I made, especially around the research process.

The primary message of the presentation is that research is by no means easy and when things get difficult you need to focus on MUPPET:

Motivate - Eureka moments only take you so far.

Undertake - Write something every (other) day.

Plan - Conciously identify your rainbow (objective), horse (process) and cart (interest).

Ponder - Understand how your actions relate to the research.

Exchange - Talk to everyone (relevant) about your research.

Test - Continually evaluate what you have done and where you are going.

Be2camp presentation on architectural micro-blogging

David — Fri, 15 May 2009 10:34:24 +0000

Below is the slide presentation I will (hopefully) present at tonight's Be2camp North un-conference. Basically the presentation graphically summarises my recent blog post on the use of micro-blogging within architectural collaboration.

The conference is in Liverpool and I am in New Zealand, so if the technology gods are not in a good mood things may go pear shaped very quickly...

Using micro-blogging to record architectural design conversation alongside the BIM

David — Mon, 11 May 2009 10:16:00 +0000

The majority of professionals within the architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) industry use the telephone and email to collaborate on immediate design problems. Unfortunately there is a disconnection between this communication and the underlying Building Information Model (BIM) where the agreed upon architectural solution is recorded. As a consequence it is difficult for a person interacting solely with the BIM to take part or learn from this external conversation because they are often oblivious to it taking place. Micro-blogging is an emerging, Internet-based communication medium that may provide the common thread to tie these disparate sources of project information together. It will achieve this through enabling the issues and outcomes discussed during architectural conversations to be quickly recorded by any member of the project team. Those working on the BIM will be able to actively monitor and search across these conversations to keep up to date with the project’s state and help solve new design problems.

Unlike blogging and instant messaging, micro-blogging can communicate simple messages between groups of people using mobile phones or any Internet connected device. These conversations are published online so they can be referenced in further design discussion, or indexed for searching alongside other sources of project information. For adoption to occur the technology must be integrated within the BIM toolset so that being part of this conversation is a natural extension of the digital workspace. Current micro-blogging services such as Twitter, lack this integration and have not (yet) been tailored to meet the specific demands of architectural collaboration. A focused implementation would likely improve architectural collaboration because micro-blogging embodies many of the principles of the Project Information Cloud. Its qualities of simplicity, ubiquity, decentralisation, modularity, awareness, context sensitivity and evolving semantics make it a promising collaboration medium, and one that could move the AEC industry towards the goal of hyperlinked practice.

What is micro-blogging?

Micro-blogging is an emerging Internet-based communication medium that could significantly improve the timeliness and accessibility of architectural collaboration discussion. Made popular by the Twitter web service, conceptually it is a combination of some of the best features of email, text messaging (SMS), blogging, and instant messaging (IM). The result has the flexibility of email, the ubiquity of SMS and the immediacy of IM, whilst its content can be browsed, referenced or indexed like a traditiona blog. Through this “best of bread” combination, micro-blogging creates a text-based communication platform that can be accessed by any network connected device. The technology has proven adept at conveying news and discussion amongst clusters of individuals who share common interests, for example debating the 2008 US election. Currently adoption is centered around public sites such as Twitter and Tumblr, but efforts are underway to inject the technology into business through initiatives such as Yammer.

At a practical level, micro-blogging is the publishing of a short text message to an Internet service responsible for notifying other users and publishing the message on the Web. The concise nature of these messages (~140 characters) allows them to be produced and consumed by almost any device connected to a cellular network or the Internet. This means taking part in design discussion is not limited to a specific device or context, and as such collaborators are free to participate at a time and place of their choosing. Whilst reaching a broad audience is important, the technology also attempts to solve the communication overload which plagues contemporary communication tools. Ironically this overload stems from their primary benefit; the immediate, unfiltered and low-cost access the telephone, facsimile and email provide. The underlying issue with these tools being the assumption that a recipient is either interested in, or the most relevant receiver of the message, question or data conveyed. For decision making within large groups this becomes unwieldy as it relies on everyone maintains a strong understanding of the team’s dynamic and knowledge distribution. In contrast micro-blogging encourages participants to explicitly state their interests by 'subscribing' to other’s accounts, or ‘tracking’ keywords as they are published. This enables collaborators to control the quantity and type of information received, and as a consequence indicates to others who and what the person is interested in.

i.e. I am interested in receiving messages from these people, and monitoring conversations taking part within the broader group around these topics.

How can micro-blogging improve architectural collaboration?

An evolved, AEC-specific micro-blogging platform could in the long-term prove as influential to architectural collaboration as the facsimile or email. The technology will not replace other communication tools, in fact for direct or complex interactions the telephone and email will always be the preferred tool of choice. Instead micro-blogging will form a digital conversation layer around the BIM where collaboration issues and outcomes can be monitored and discussed by the entire project team. This will benefit architectural collaboration by improving the timeliness and accessibility of information related to project decisions and current issues. From the point of view of the building life-cycle, micro-blog content will help preserve a history of the design and construction process, supporting what is recorded within the BIM.

Conventional collaboration tools assume the conversation initiator knows who should take part, and that those selected can participate at that time using the chosen medium. For example teleconferences are limited to those invited on the call at that time, whilst email involves only those explicitly included, or carbon copied, into the conversation. The collaboration exchanges in both cases are self contained, with outcomes requiring manual dissemination throughout the project team. In comparison recipients of micro-blog messages are not explicitly defined, instead they are inferred through a social networking and search-based syndication process. A recipient may have expressed an interest in receiving some (or all) of the author’s messages, or alternatively may have configured real-time searches for particular keywords. Relevant messages can be delivered to almost any network connected digital device, allowing a team member to monitor or participate in design conversation from any location.

Beyond exposing internal conversations to the broader design team, an added architectural collaboration benefit is that micro-blogging produces HTML artifacts. Each message generates a corresponding HTML document that has a unique address (URI), links to further information, the author’s details and the date of publication. These documents become part of the project’s knowledge base, and can be browsed, referenced or indexed using existing web browsers and search engines. From the collaboration perspective this is important because it enables knowledge reuse, and new members can familiarise themselves with the project’s design history. This is significant improvement over contemporary communication tools whose content cannot be easily referenced by, or stored alongside, other project data such as the BIM.

The following hypothetical scenario illustrates how micro-blogging could be used in practice to improve architectural collaboration. This scenario illustrates nine pieces of functionality that a dedicated AEC micro-blogging platform should enable in order to best satisfy a team’s collaboration needs:

Seamless Integration with BIM applications.
Rich searching of project content.
Hyperlinking to supporting digital media.
Significance derived through identity and meta-data.
Prompting for micro-blog entries on key events.
Monitoring of content for important events or topics.
Publishing to shared messaging channels.
Delivery of messages to a preferred device.
Integration with digital cameras and GPS devices.

"Kelly was helping John, one of the Practice's directors make design alterations to a large office development in order for it to meet the client’s requirements. Prior to an element being modified in the Building Information Model (BIM) the program would list relevant design discussion drawn from the project team's micro-blogs. This worked by Kelly selecting part of the model and asking the search tool to find micro-blogs that had linked to, or included tags relating to, this particular area of the building. Kelly had ordered this information by significance, so in this case content published by her direct supervisors was listed above that of others such as the quantity surveyor. Whilst most of this was unimportant, Kelly often came across micro-blogs published during the briefing process or on-site that highlighted issues she was unaware of. In this instance there were no obvious problems, so Kelly repositioned the wall element within the BIM and saved the changes. As the application registered this as a significant change she was prompted to record a micro-blog entry explaining what she had done and why. Kelly dutifully entered that she moved the wall to satisfy the client, and supported her claim with a link to the change request within the project's document repository. She described the change and her message was automatically tagged "#change-alert" so that everyone who mattered within the project would receive the update.

John meanwhile was running late to the project’s weekly site meeting. His cellphone beeped with the arrival of Kelly's SMS micro-blog message, that let him know the design change had been made and the updated plans were available. As usual the 'idealised' design process had gone out the door months ago, and now the client wanted the internal wall moved only after its construction had begun. Arriving onsite he found the foreman had also received the message and had downloaded the updated plans to his laptop. However on inspecting what was already built they soon came to the conclusion the change would not work due to the existence of a heating pipe that was not in Kelly’s BIM. Needing a compromise, John used his smart-phone to take photographs of the problem, which he posted to his micro-blog along with a few ideas Kelly could explore. At this point Richard, the building services engineer chimed in with a micro-blog that the pipe was a late addition by the client, and that clear access to it was very important. Richard had moved on to a new job, but he had kept tracking the project for any messages about services just in case a problem like this were to occur. John and the foreman had a brief teleconference with Richard to discuss alternatives. Prior to leaving the site John used his cellphone to post a micro-blog stating he had discussed the problem with Richard and requested an up to date services model for Kelly. He would not get back to the office for a while, but by then he hoped Kelly would have at least received and digested the revised services layout from Richard.”

Micro-blogging within the Project Information Cloud

Successful architectural collaboration involves understanding the decisions, compromises and assumptions which occurred during the creation of the built form and its digital representations. The Project Information Cloud is an Internet-centric knowledge network formed around a BIM in order to improve collaboration and data capture within distributed projects. It is the loosely coupled, digital space where these exchanges and associated data can be recorded, shared and referenced to each other or relevant project information. There is a need for such a construct because BIM’s centralised and controlling nature cannot adequately record or properly represent these unstructured data streams. Whereas Intranets consolidate ownership and control, a Project Information Cloud’s goal is to enable seamless collaboration across organisational and contextual borders. Given this ambition the Project Information Cloud is not a single technology, but a set of principles that can be applied to the development of architectural collaboration tools. Tools that embody these principles will improve the timeliness and accessibility of relevant project information, and in the long-term enable the goal of Hyperlinked Practice.

The seven principles of the Project Information Cloud are:

Simple - The collaboration technology is easily to understand and capable of being used by the widest audience, for example architects, clients and contractors. This simplicity should extend beyond that of the user interface into the collaboration metaphors and technical architecture employed. Collaboration is most effective when participants comprehend how their tools help facilitate and empower their role within the project team.
Ubiquitous - The collaboration technology should be readily available and cost-effective to use in a variety of contexts, from design office to construction site. The concept of ubiquity should extend beyond the prevalence of the physical device or software tool to the ability of a broad number people to utilise it. Simple software that is well understood and available to all is ultimately a more powerful collaboration tool than complex tools which only a limited number of participants can understand or access.
Decentralised - Contributed collaboration data should not be dependent on a single, centralised system for its continued existence or be 'owned' by a single party. On leaving a team participants should be able to easily make digital copies of the design conversation they have participated in. Whilst productive within a closed environment, centralised collaboration structures promote control and restrict conversation, which in a distributed team leads to friction and confusion.
Modular - It should be possible to add or remove functionality from collaboration end points, i.e. the software participants use to interact with each other, without breaking the compatibility or reliability of the overall communication system. Likewise participants should not be forced to use specific software in order to take part in digital conversations. Similar to how any certified telephone can be used to make phone calls, successful digital collaboration should emphasise interoperability.
Information Aware - Collaboration systems should assume that they are part of a larger ecosystem and strive to integrate with this environment as much as possible. Integration should include the ability for the tools themselves to automatically seek out and classify relevant digital information from sources within the team and externally. In modern, attention starved workplaces, the more independently a digital tool can operate within a collaboration ecosystem, the more valuable it becomes to the end-user.
Context Sensitive - Information should be presented in a manner that is relevant to the collaboration situation and people consuming it. The sheer quantity of digital data in an architectural project can confuse or overwhelm design conversation if not managed properly. To compensate digital collaboration tools should strive to act as intelligent information brokers to ensure design conversation between participants remains coherent and distinct from a project’s background noise.
Evolving Semantics - Collaboration data should be unbounded by a rigid structure so that those taking part are free to convey any architectural concept. Contemporary collaboration tools such as BIM employ rich, but rigid, semantic models which ultimately prove less versatile than tools which communicate simple, unstructured data. Highly structured data formats cause a great deal of collaboration friction if the consuming tools are not fully compatible, or the concepts conveyed are not comprehensively supported.

If a digital collaboration tool fails to satisfy one or more of these principles the likelihood of it playing a productive role within the Project Information Cloud is reduced. This argument is supported by the limited adoption prior digital architectural collaboration initiatives that have failed to satisfy many of the principles outlined. Consequently these tools have imposed high technical barriers to entry, or have exhibited collaboration shortcomings when deployed within distributed project teams. For example BIM is unquestionably a very powerful architectural productivity tool, but for enabling collaboration within a project team it is weak in many of the described areas. As a result project teams have turned to simpler, more ubiquitous technologies such as PDF, DWF and email to exchange data about a BIM within the project team.

Micro-blogging embodies many of the principles of the Project Information Cloud and therefore stands to become a productive architectural collaboration platform. This is in part because it has evolved as a response to the complexities witnessed in the first wave of Internet-based communication and collaboration initiatives. Whilst simplicity and ubiquity are key factors in its initial success, its ability to satisfy the other principles of the Project Information Cloud are growing with time.

Simple

Publishing 140 character plain text messages is simple to implement, and premise that a person “follows” others or “tracks” ideas is easily understood by a broad audience. With this conceptual foundation in place users and developers have been free to utilise and expand on the concept in a multitude of ways. For example the prevalent use of hyperlinking within micro-blog content has enabled a variety referencing and multimedia capabilities not present in the original implementation. Here rather than introducing complexity to solve new problems, the application of another simple concept, the hyperlink, has enabled sophisticated outcomes. Further examples in simplicity can be found in the evolutionary use of characters such as @ and # to represent reply and topic fields within micro-blogs. Whereas many technologies have added complexity to enable such functionality, recording this information within the message has ensured micro-blogging remained simple.

Ubiquitous

The simple conceptual and technical characteristics of micro-blogging enables its content to be produced or consumed on almost any network connected digital device. This platform ubiquity ensures micro-blogging is accessible to the broadest possible audience in terms of technical ability, network availability or workplace context. From a collaboration perspective this is important because it gives all potential participants the opportunity to passively monitor or actively take part in project discussion. At a technical level micro-blogging has also leveraged ubiquitous communication protocols such as HTML, RSS and XMPP to output a user’s message stream. This has enabled the rapid growth of a broad micro-blogging ecosystem, complete with external services that consume and add value to the underlying data. For example conventional search engines can crawl a micro-blog’s HTML content, whilst newer ‘live‘ search and trend services can monitor XMPP output in near real-time. The benefit of this ubiquity is two fold; the service can integrate with existing infrastructure, and developers can efficiently add functionality using well understood technologies.

Decentralised

Whilst the decentralisation of micro-blogging is in its preliminary stages, if successful it will enable greater levels of scalability, privacy and flexibility. Twitter is currently the most popular micro-blogging implementation, but due to its centralised nature, it is also notorious for its unreliability due in large part to scalability issues. In response decentralisation and cross-platform interoperability are paramount objectives for “second generation” micro-blogging platforms such as Laconica.

"The model I am trying to follow is email. You have different servers that have different domains... But they are all interconnected, and as long as they are speaking the same simple protocol they work pretty well.”

Evan Prodromou, Developer of Laconica, FLOSS Weekly, Episode 37

Initiatives such as this have led to the OpenMicroBlogging specification, which along with OAuth and YADIS establish protocols for the discovery and creation of micro-blogs. Whilst at this time it is unlikely Twitter will adopt all of these standards, their existence will ensure competition and interoperability will be strong within the micro-blogging market.

Modular

The concept and technologies behind micro-blogging are relatively simple and as a consequence the number of implementations of different types is steadily growing. Besides Twitter other examples of independently produced micro-blogging platforms include Jaiku, Laconica, Tumblr, Yammer and FriendFeed. Whilst at this time interoperability between these disparate systems is inconsistent, standards like OpenMicroBlogging, OAuth and YADIS are beginning to enable it. Micro-blogging has also demonstrated its modularity through the rapid and diverse growth of the client software which interacts with the service. Through hyperlinks and semantic syntax (@ and #) developers have been able to add new layers of functionality onto micro-blogging without breaking backwards compatibility. The first and most prevalent of these is the widespread use of URL shortening services such as TinyURL to make long hyperlinks micro-blog friendly (i.e. < 20 characters). Beyond simple URLs, micro-blogging specific photo sharing sites such as TwitPic make it easy for client software to upload and display images within standard messages. From an architectural collaboration perspective this is powerful as the majority of design problems are visual in nature, making communication using only 140 characters difficult.

Information Aware

The most powerful property of micro-blogging is its emphasis on live, customised data streams that are generated based on user lists (follow) and keywords (track). As a result micro-blogging clients are inherently information aware because their purpose is to monitor and clearly display an ever changing conversation space. However evolutionary improvements still need to be made to these interfaces to better manage the continual flow of data and minimise the risk of information overload. Beyond consumption, micro-blogs expose data as HTML, RSS and XMPP streams so that other information aware tools can collect, present and act on this information. For example Yahoo Pipes can aggregate multiple micro-blogs, perform complex operations on the data, (filter, manipulate, etc.) and output the result as a new RSS feed. Finally the simple and ubiquitous nature of micro-blogging is helping it become a medium for third-party applications to publish messages such as event notifications. An early but unique example of this is Tweet-a-Watt, an Internet connected electricity monitor that automatically publishes a building’s daily power consumption to Twitter.

Context Sensitive

The growing use of @ and # characters to identify people and topics is allowing more contextual information beyond creation time to be recorded within a micro-blog message. Emphasis has now shifted to the development of intelligent clients and services that can interrogate and represent these contextual nuances to users in more meaningful ways. For example micro-blog streams are unthreaded, but many clients can recreate message threads through the weaving relevant person, topic and creation time meta-data. Whilst still in its early stages, services like FriendFriend use such techniques to facilitate “real-time conversation”, loosely threaded discussions derived from micro-blog content. Beyond real-time conversation is the eventual integration of micro-blogging content with other digital activities such as the creation of a shared document or digital model. Although no concrete examples have yet to emerge, it is only a matter of time before micro-blogging is integrated within applications such as these to create powerful results.

Evolving Semantics

Micro-blogging has no predefined semantic structure, but the recording of meta-data within a message via hash tags has occurred through a process of community acceptance. Initially these tags have been used to aid in search and to identify semantic trends within micro-blogging communities, for example the hashtags.org service for Twitter. Whilst hash tags have given micro-blogging a flexible semantic mechanism, the drawback is that including tags within a message reduces the space available for content. A consequence of this trade-off is that micro-blogs form shallow, but broad semantic structures with only a limited number of explicit relationships formed between tags. For example a micro-blog message on CAD may apply the explicit tag #revit or #microstation, but the more generic #cad tag may be omitted for the purposes of brevity. This reduces the navigability of the semantic structure because many of the required higher-level links between terms and associated content is omitted. To counter this shortcoming “micro-blog thesauruses” may emerge to allow people to browse micro-blog semantic trees using implicit (rather than explicit) relationships.

Why the AEC Industry needs a dedicated platform

Micro-blogging adheres to the Project Information Cloud’s principles, but consumer micro-blogging services do not satisfy the AEC industry’s operational requirements. Although a consumer service such as Twitter could theoretically be used by a project team, adoption would be mixed and the outcome unsatisfactory. For broad adoption an AEC-specific micro-blogging solution must integrate with existing workflows, respect the team hierarchy, store information securely and operate reliably within distributed environments.

BIM/CAD integration

AEC professionals spend a good portion of their workday interacting with BIM and CAD models. If micro-blogging is to gain acceptance in this field it needs to seamlessly integrate with the tools used to interact with these models and the accompanying workflows. Given this emphasis, to be of most value in the collaboration process micro-blog content needs to be presented alongside the source material. For example displaying and searching for relevant micro-blog content within the BIM or CAD model viewers and editors is an important integration point. Likewise to preserve the workflow, functionality should be provided to create micro-blog messages from within the BIM and CAD applications themselves. This should include the prompting for updates on significant events, and the ability to create and link to screen captures or 3D models when composing a message.

Comprehension of the project team hierarchy

Unlike consumer micro-blogging services a system targeted at AEC professionals needs to comprehend and respect the hierarchical nature of project teams. Rather than placing the onus on the user to manually identify and create these relationships the basic network should be maintained within a project template. Managers would create this template using a tool that lets them map the working and security relationships between project participants. By maintaining this hierarchy it allows the people and topics followed by a user to be automatically updated as the composition of the project team changes. This would save people time by keeping them informed of developments, and in the process expose them to new sources of information within the team.

Context-level security

The AEC industry is a litigious environment and as a consequence any micro-blogging solution used within it must be capable of restricting access to published content. Currently the security options offered by Twitter, or even the business-centric Yammer, are limited in that content can only be restricted at a user-level. For example whilst it is possible to mark a message stream as private, once another user is granted read access they can read every piece of content published by this account. However project teams are distributed and dynamic, so a finer grained, context-level access control system is required that filters access to specific parts of a message stream. For example an external consultant joining a micro-blog conversation should only be able to view messages posted by team members relating to that specific project. Additionally it may be necessary for the project administrators to filter access to users based on specific topics or periods of time. This would enable the consultant’s access to be limited further to messages published between a defined period of time about specific aspects of the design. From a practical perspective this context-level security would be applied at the micro-blog servers as this would allow the client software to operate unchanged.

Decentralised implementation

Architecture projects are temporary collaborations between multiple organisations so it cannot be assumed that all parties will be using the same micro-blogging system. For an AEC-specific implementation to be successful it needs to allow participants to seamlessly collaborate whilst using different micro-blogging services. As discussed earlier this is an important principle of the Project Information Cloud and a primary goal of second-generation micro-blogging platforms. To consistently apply the project hierarchy and context-level security settings across micro-blogging services the relevant information would need to be exchanged. In theory an AEC micro-blog system could operate without this data transfer, but if it were to occur the benefit to the end-user experience would be considerable.

Digital collaboration-fact, not fiction

Although the architectural collaboration example and AEC specific requirements may seem far fetched, much of the functionality highlighted already exists. Therefore implementing a working, AEC-specific micro-blogging collaboration system is more a case of putting the right pieces together than inventing a new wheel. The following examples illustrate how these functional characteristics exist today, and hint at how an AEC-specific implementation may operate in the future.

1. Seamless Integration with BIM applications

There are many standalone desktop micro-blogging applications (for example Thwirl and Spaz), but some developers are taking the concept further by integrating into the desktop itself. MoodBlast and Twitterific are two examples where the line between micro-blogging and traditional desktop functionality is blurred.

The desktop integration of MoodBlast and Twitterific (click to enlarge)

For example when browsing the Web, pressing a hot-key combination will display a MoodBlast message window and pre-fill it with the browser's current URL. When the message is submitted the URL is automatically shortened and the result posted to a variety of micro-blogging systems. Likewise Twitterific regularly displays new content published to your social network so that you can be updated of events while working. Mechanisms such as these could easily be included within BIM applications to allow users to publish and consume micro-blogging content alongside project model data.

2. Rich searching of project content

Building search indexes from micro-blog messages is technically relatively simple given the problem of searching Web content has existed for some time. Unfortunately the message size restrictions limits the quantity of meta-data that can be associated, and as a consequence it is unlikely search relevancy can be improved. However Twitter Search has been able to include unique search parameters such as ‘attitude’, which is made possible by micro-blogging’s real-time, conversational nature. Yet to be fully exploited is the search potential derived from the social network formed through micro-blogging’s acts of following and being followed by others. In a distributed team the ability to ask, “who do I know that may know the answer to this question?” is in many ways more useful than “what is the answer to this question?”

3. Hyperlinking to supporting digital media

Given the limited payload size for a micro-blog message it is very common to include a hyperlinks to external Internet resources. This capability and the resulting obfuscation caused by URL shortening leads to the crafting of messages which succinctly convey what is important about the included link. For example, “The revised ground floor plan showing the realigned internal wall (PDF): http://aecurl.com/GEDJ32”. From a comprehension and search standpoint this is an efficient process as it encourages resources to be described rather than having them exist as anonymous files. Currently for internal documents this process is not as simple as it should be, but services like TwitDoc hint at how this process can be made easier for AEC professionals.

4. Significance derived through identity and meta-data

Unlike the majority of conventional Web content, the current assumption with a micro-blog is that like email it is published by a specific person. This provides a strong mechanism for identifying reliable information as the source and recipients of the message can easily be identified. Likewise by constructing a map of references between micro-blogs and hyerlinked URLs it is possible to quickly identify significant project events and resources. This technique, known as PageRank, is common in search engines, but in a real-time micro-blogging environment it can be used to identify emerging 'flash points'. Two services that demonstrate this functionality are Twitterurls and Twitlinks, both of which monitor and display popular trends, media and hyperlinks published to Twitter.

5. Prompting for micro-blog entries on key events

Like a traditional diary, a micro-blog gains more value as a historical record of events the more frequently it is used. Integrating the technology into productivity tools such as BIM will assist in this adoption process, but to foster regular submissions the tool should proactively seek input. A basic example of a proactive micro-blogging mechanism is the Yammer Time Firefox plug-in for the Yammer service. However whilst a time-based approach would meet with some success, a mechanism activated on key events would be more efficient and less obtrusive. For example saving a BIM after changing identified elements, or crossing an overall model change threshold, could trigger a request for a micro-blog justification.

6. Monitoring of content for important events or topics

Micro-blogs are time-sensitive records and one of their most important characteristics is their ability to display the “real-time” status of a distributed discussion. The most powerful demonstration of this has been Twitter’s trending and tracking functions which allow users to easy monitor events or topics within the broader community. TweetDeck provides a dashboard-like interface where a subset of this dynamic information can be easily monitored and acted upon.

The TweetDeck personalised dashboard (click to enlarge)

Such functionality would be useful to a project manager wishing to keep on top of issues as they could monitor the project stream for trends and specific “problem” keywords. If successful in some situations this may see a shift from reactive to proactive decision making based on issues detected at an early stage of development.

7. Publishing to shared messaging channels

A significant portion of architectural collaboration micro-blog content would not be targeted at a specific person, but instead concern a particular topic. Applying of hash tags to messages would ensure the content was received by relevant people via micro-blogging’s tracking mechanism. The role of a dedicated AEC service would be to make using and tracking these hash tags as simple and automated as possible. One example could be the syndication of project hash tags to desktop clients so that instead of working from memory participants could choose “messaging channels” from a list. This way a team member could follow the project’s conceptual design (#concept) and development (#devel) channels without having to remember the correct hash tag(s) to use.

8. Delivery of messages to a preferred device

The design of micro-blogging services and their ~140 character limitation is to ensure they can be delivered to any network connected device. From an AEC collaboration perspective this characteristic is important because it cannot be assumed project team members will have Internet connectivity. Whilst adoption of Internet-capable smart-phones is growing, the majority of the workforce still uses “traditional” cellular devices and desktops with fixed Internet connections. As a consequence the ability to deliver or publish important micro-blog notifications via SMS is a significant capability should a design problem be identified.

9. Integration with digital cameras and GPS devices

Camera and GPS equipped smart-phones such as the iPhone and Blackberry are pushing the boundaries of micro-blogging client applications. Software like Tweetie and TweetGenius make it simple for photos taken using a smart-phone to be uploaded to a micro-blog along with accompanying GPS data. From an AEC perspective this capability is very useful during construction as the process shortens the feedback loop between the site and office. For example onsite progress or problems are typically recorded using a digital camera, and the resulting images are emailed or physically taken back to the office. Either process takes time and there is no guarantee that the images will make their way into the project’s knowledge base or distributed throughout the team. In contrast a micro-blogging application on a smart-phone can upload a photo and instantly include a reference to it within the project’s message stream.

Conclusion

A correctly implemented, AEC-specific micro-blogging implementation could become a powerful and valuable architectural collaboration mechanism. Success hinges on the service embracing the principles of the Project Information Cloud and respecting the workflows and operational requirements of AEC professionals. Implementing the service would not be a simple task, but the functional groundwork has already been laid in the broader micro-blogging ecosystem.

Google O3D may finally bring 3D to the Web

David — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:23:22 +0000

Today Google released a very early preview of O3D, a cross-platform, open source plug-in that enables OpenGL accelerated graphics within Web browsers. Delivering 3D graphics within browsers is not a new thing, (remember VRML?) but what makes this initiative promising is that it works on all platforms and is backed by Google. Performance-wise O3D seems very snappy when compared to alternatives such as Flash 3D. As a result some of the initial demonstrations are very impressive, and it hints at a future where Google Earth and SketchUp leave their desktop roots behind to become pure web applications.

From an architectural collaboration perspective O3D is valuable for a number of reasons. Firstly in a review situation it would mean remote clients can experience 3D designs without having to download, install and learn a separate "viewer" application. Likewise within an intranet such functionality would be valuable when navigating a project or company knowledge base. Whereas at the moment textual (web) data is quite distinct from 3D models, in a O3D-enabled future the two could be seamlessly intertwined in a variety of powerful ways. Finally by freely distributing 3D capabilities to everyone with a browser O3D opens up the possibility for new types of 3D-centric web applications that allow all design team participants to more effectively communicate ideas with one and other. For examples of these potential markets checkout the section 'Where will Dragonfly land?' in my earlier 'Autodesk Dragonfly emerges from its larvae' post. The people behind O3D's demo applications seem to appreciate this fact too, because the "Interiors" demo showcases such a tool (i.e. it 'copies' Project DragonFly).

A 3D, Google Trends view of the Earth in O3D

I have not yet created or rendered content using O3D, but if I get the chance there is a significant amount of developer documentation online. Anybody with web development experience should feel at home because the rendering engine is initiated and controlled using Javascript. This is a great choice, not only does it make the technology accessible, but it means 3D can be integrated into "traditional" web applications using standard Javascript event handlers. For example if you were creating a web-based CAD application you could create the majority of the user-interface using standard HTML/Javascript and leave O3D to handle just the rendering of the model window(s). Such an approach also means developers who already have already created 3D web applications in Flash and HTML could leverage O3D without being completely rewritten.

Overall O3D comes across as a very powerful and surprisingly polished early preview. Google are obviously very serious about 3D in the browser, and this implementation seems to be the most promising yet.

Autodesk Dragonfly emerges from its larvae

David — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 03:20:37 +0000

Project Dragonfly is an Autodesk Labs technology preview of a web-based, simple to use architectural planning tool. It represents a step towards a future where CAD and BIM model editors are not considered bloated, complex, or desktop-bound. Whilst the current functionality of the tool is limited, it is technically impressive, and the underlying concept hints that Autodesk’s broader web strategy (as discussed in ‘Autodesk Beyond Desktop CAD & BIM’) is proceeding at a slow, but steady pace.

An example of the 3D visualisation capabilities of Dragonfly (click to enlarge)

Dragonfly in flight

Dragonfly runs on any operating system that has a web browser which supports the latest Flash plug-in, for example Windows, OSX or Linux. Designing a floor plan primarily takes place within a constrained 2-dimensional space, but limited 3-dimensional views are available. In a nod towards its Autodesk lineage the toolbar and view controls aesthetically mimic those found in AutoCAD and Autodesk Design Review. As a result the tools are intuitive to use, but slightly limiting for those used to the responsiveness and flexibility of a desktop application. For a web-based tool in its infancy this is unsurprising, and there are certainly no fears (yet) that Autodesk is cannibalizing Revit or AutoCAD sales. However there are very strong signs that with continued development a unique and compelling product will evolve.

At Dragonfly’s core is a Flash-based model editor that enables users to manipulate architectural elements using traditional mouse gestures. In practice this editing process works best when in the 2D viewing mode, but moving of some objects whilst in the 3D view is possible. The graphic performance when making modifications is not up to par with a CAD or BIM desktop application, but for simple tasks it works quite well. What is impressive is the use of visual dimensioning aids to help quickly position elements in their correct location. Although not as powerful as the coordinate-based positioning systems used in most desktop CAD tools, for general layout it does the job admirably.

The dimensioning aids that help size elements (click to enlarge)

Beyond basic modeling the most visually appealing aspect of Dragonfly is its library of architectural furnishings and surfaces. Each element in the library has a detailed 2D and 3D representation that adds a level of scale to an otherwise blank canvas. At the moment this library is small, but there is enough there to get an idea of its versatility, and given time this will undoubtedly grow. Like the modeling tools, library components can be dragged and dropped into place and rotated to suit the designer’s needs. An issue at the moment is that once a component is placed there does not seem to be a way of displaying its name or meta-data information. From the perspective of layout design this would be useful as it would enable details such as the exact shower model and cost to be recorded.

Learning to fly: Where Dragonfly can improve

Whilst a promising initial release, a lot of development needs to take place before Dragonfly can transition from interesting preview to productive tool. Online collaboration is a key area where the Web-based Dragonfly holds a huge advantage over contemporary CAD/BIM modeling tools. Whilst further development of the modeling toolset is needed, being able to save designs as traditional 2D and 3D files is also critical for adoption. Finally expanding the component library through integration with the Seek product index would seem an obvious evolutionary step for both services.

Collaboration is key

The greatest development and deployment advantage a tool like Dragonfly has is that was conceived and built with the Web in mind. In contrast most desktop-based CAD/BIM tools use a file-based paradigm which cannot fully leverage the collaboration possibilities of the Internet. As a result sharing or collaboratively working on a design with Dragonfly is made very simple because the data and the tools are online. Unfortunately the current collaboration feature-set is limited to either exchanging an email link, or exhibiting the design within the public gallery. Whilst both are useful options, this is just the tip of a functional iceberg when it comes to professional architectural collaboration possibilities. Arguably the “holy grail” would be the inclusion of a multi-user, concurrent editing mode like that found in many Flash-based white-boarding tools. But even if technically infeasible, adding configurable read/write privileges and groups functionality would substantially increase Dragonfly’s value.

Exporting the layout for further development

The obvious market for a web-based architectural layout tool would seem to be in pre-design where clients are able to explore ideas by themselves. Once they have something they are happy with they need to be able to share it with their architect in a way that can promote further development. The first step in this process would be the ability to export scale 2D drawings in both DWF and PDF formats for printing and discussing over coffee. Architects should then be able to export the 3D model as a DWG so that more complex designs can be created within AutoCAD or Sketchup. Whilst this would probably not be used as the basis for production drawings, as far as visual exploration goes it would make an ideal starting point.

Growing the component library with Seek

An architectural layout tool is only as good as its component libraries, thus integration with Autodesk Seek would make Dragonfly very compelling. Seek is Autodesk’s product search index which contains a broad range of product descriptions along with 2D and 3D models. Integration with the Seek service would be very challenging, but if it was executed well the result would be far greater than the sum of its parts. The benefit to Dragonfly is that users would instantly be able to access a vast catalogue of components which they could add to their layout. For Seek and its content providers Dragonfly integration would provide that next step in the procurement decision making process beyond search. i.e. I have a product that I am interested in, but how does it physically sit within the space I am designing?

Where will Dragonfly land?

Dragonfly is a great example of how powerful the web browser has become, but how will this materialise into a financially viable product offering? There would seem to be three markets; a value-add service for desktop software, an advertising platform, or an engine for third-party development.

Adding value to existing products

Microsoft refers to this as a Software + Services strategy where online tools are provided alongside desktop software to extend its functionality. In the case of Microsoft this is Office Live, but for Autodesk this could be a version of Dragonfly that allowed Revit models to be interacted with online. In the foreseeable future Dragonfly is never going to match Revit in functionality, but it could allow architects to collaborate on plans with clients. For example an architect could export multi-story office plans to Dragonfly so that clients could experiment with office fittings and layouts. Once determined the Revit model could be synchronised with Dragonfly so that detailed production drawings or light renderings could be produced.

Autodesk as an advertising platform

Dragonfly’s component library would be an excellent advertising vehicle for manufacturers of furniture, fittings and surfaces. It is becoming common for these manufacturers to invest in web-based visualisation tools in order for potential clients to see what they will get. Rather than developing these tools, Dragonfly could be licensed to suppliers and the component library tailored to their promotional needs. These customised visualisation engines would be embedded into websites around the world in a similar manner as YouTube’s video player. Potential customers would then be free to experiment with how products would look and integrate within their own home.

A Dragonfly API: Third-party application development

Dragonfly’s underlying 2D layout and 3D visualisation functionality is something that can be applied to other tasks beyond basic architectural layouts. Google Maps is a great example of an innovative, web-based engine that has spawned a vast market of third-party applications. The underlying Dragonfly engine could fulfill a similar role if the API was exposed and developers were able to layer on functionality and information. Third-party development could be simple as tools for calculating the tiles needed in a space, through to applications in non-architectural domains. What the killer application would be is impossible to say, but being able to leverage Dragonfly within other web applications would be very powerful.

The big picture: bringing Dragonfly, Seek & Showroom together

Dragonfly is a nice technology preview, but its real value will only be realised once all of Autodesk’s online initiatives are seamlessly linked together. What will be most impressive is when Showroom renderings can be produced from a Dragonfly model built using components sourced from Seek. Judging by the state of these three services this day may not be too far off, and once it arrives it will stand as a remarkable online milestone. In the space of ten years something that required dedicated computer hardware and expensive software will be possible from anywhere for free. This will result in significant business model changes and the increased use of architectural modeling and rendering tools by the public.

An example rendering from Project Showroom (click to enlarge)

An unexplored opportunity: consolidating a user’s Autodesk identity

As Autodesk’s web services grow your online identity will be instrumental in monitoring activity across these different applications. Beyond Labs, Autodesk has a lot of identity-centric services, such as discussion boards, license management and an online university. As these elements coalesce it is important that Autodesk make it easy for users to manage their online identity and the information related to it. The most basic step being to ensure each online application uses the same single sign-on (SSO) service in order to create a consistent experience.

Beyond basic plumbing, a user “portal” is required that stitches together the latest news and collaboration updates from all these sources. For example as Dragonfly or Seek content is shared with others there is a need for a central location where this can be managed and monitored. A significant opportunity Autodesk has in this regard is that the majority of their online customers use their desktop software on a daily basis. Integrating online profiles within these desktop tools would add value to the customer, and promote the use of its new online services. It would also mean that no matter what Autodesk application was open, a user’s shared content and their collaboration connections would be available.

Conclusion

Project Dragonfly is a promising release that offers a glimpse into a future where CAD and BIM tools are not the exclusive domain of architects. Assuming development continues and the tool is integrated with other Labs services the end product will break a great deal of online ground. Unfortunately at this time until its collaboration and export options mature, early adopters will struggle to find productive uses for Dragonfly. Still as a technology demonstrator Dragonfly performs admirably and provides a promising glimpse into the future.

BIMserver and the potential of server-side BIM

David — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 10:20:39 +0000

We are now at a stage where a computer's speed and network connection are no longer significant process bottlenecks in digital architectural design. As a consequence the need for efficient digital collaboration tools within the architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) industry is a growing requirement. The BIMserver project from TNO and the University of Eindhoven is exploring how collaborative design can be improved through the combination of Building Information Model (BIM) and open source server technologies. Unlike conventional, workstation-based CAD software, BIMserver stores BIM data within a dedicated server where it can be accessed by all members of the design team simultaneously. Whilst conceptually not a new idea, the project is the first to move beyond the research lab and be promoted as software (almost) ready for production deployment within AEC organisations.

What is a BIM server?

BIM in its most general sense is a collection of 2D, 3D and textual data that when assembled within a computer’s memory creates an accurate and detailed representation of an architectural project. Like its predecessor CAD, BIM data is typically stored in a digital file (or files) where it is accessed directly by complex, workstation-based applications such as Revit and Microstation. In contrast a BIM server stores all design data internally and exposes its information to client applications through a series of well controlled and documented interfaces. This has a number of practical and technical advantages, the most significant being all client applications read from, and write to, the same digital model. In comparison when using a file-based BIM it is up to each participant to ensure they are working on the latest revision of the project’s files. Additionally by centralising the flow of data a BIM server enables near real-time collaboration as changes to the model are reflected on all clients each time their view of the data is refreshed from the server.

A functional overview of a BIM server ecosystem (click to enlarge)

Another important characteristic of a BIM server is that the building model exists as a live entity, distinct from the client applications that interact with it. This means client applications are simpler to write because they do not need to know how to comprehend an entire digital model, they simply need to ask the BIM server for the subset of information that concerns them. For example using a traditional file-based BIM an application that counts the number of doors in a design needs to parse the file, construct an in-memory model, and then count the door instances. In comparison a BIM server handles the parsing of the digital model, all the client application needs to do is construct a query that asks how many doors the design has. Another benefit of a live BIM is that the server can automatically respond to outside events such as scheduled processes or changes to data hosted by external services. For example the BIM server could monitor the pricing and availability of materials used in the design and automatically update the model to reflect these variations. The end result is that instead of being viewed as a static, “dumb” file, the migration of the Building Information Model into a server would create a far more dynamic and accessible project resource.

Why BIM servers are not common place

The use of computers within the AEC industry stemmed from the increased affordability of single-user workstations during the 1980s and 90s. This emphasis on workstations was due to the visually intensive nature of the AEC workspace and the slow networks of the time which could not efficiently communicate such data. In comparison many other industries had already adopted centralised mainframes and mini-computers as core computing platforms well before this desktop revolution. This different pattern of computer adoption has had a significant effect on how AEC software has evolved relative to industries with a history of centralised computing. Rather than relying on a large, server-based infrastructures, tools such as CAD were optimised to run on independent workstations with few, if any ties to external digital services.

This small but significant characteristic has had a profound influence on the evolution of CAD, BIM and how AEC professionals digitally collaborate. As other industries have encouraged consolidation of data around servers and the Web, the AEC industry has instead sought faster workstations to enable the building of more detailed models. Whilst this high-powered, but isolationist strategy has enabled excellent static outcomes, it has come at the expense of a team's ability to efficiently collaborate digitally. This inefficiently stems from the interoperability issues which exist between different applications, and the inherit shortcomings of software designed primarily for use on standalone workstations. For example whilst the majority of CAD and BIM software enable collaborative workspaces, this usually involves partitioning off an area of a model so only a single person can make changes. But as CPU and network performance has begun to exceed demand, researchers and product managers are exploring how collaboration can be improved through the use of centralised BIM servers.

BIM as a Service

The idea of a centralised service that hosts core business data has been a central facet of software architecture since the introduction of mainframes and the client-server paradigm. In the workstation-dominated AEC industry, centralisation is limited to file servers that provide convenient locations for BIMs when it is not being worked on in isolation. However from a collaboration perspective it is far more economical to access and modify a centralised BIM because it is easier to ensure the currency and validity of its data. A centralised model also reduces interoperability concerns as the interactions between client and server are limited simple transactions, for example 'read this' or 'write that'. In contrast a standalone piece of software must correctly comprehend an entire data file, and if modifications are made, write its contents back in exactly the same way. This has proven to be a very demanding problem to solve for relatively simple office documents, but when taken to the level of complexity of a BIM, the task becomes almost impossible.

There have been many AEC research projects that have implemented a client-server architecture for collaborating on CAD or BIM models. Unfortunately for a variety of reasons none have made the transition into mainstream AEC use. Perhaps the most notable of these was the IFC Server from the VTT Technical Research Centre. The project was an Internet-based model server that built upon two significant standards, the Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) building data format and the SOAP web services protocol. Leveraging these existing industry standards made the task of creating software clients simpler because developers could reuse existing knowledge, documentation and tooling. Unfortunately the project never got beyond the research lab, but five years on many of its concepts are alive and well within BIMserver.

BIMserver - Industry meets Research

BIMserver is both an open source model server project and a collection of European organisations committed to developing the concept further. The project lead is Léon van Berlo of TNO, a non-profit organisation established in the Netherlands to encourage innovation within small and medium businesses. Working as a scientific partner is the University of Eindhoven, whilst both the CSIRO and VTT are investigating ways in which to take part. Alongside these research institutions, nine businesses have expressed an interest in making compatible client software and others are simply keen to explore the potential of the server in practice. In an effort to foster broad adoption and encourage developer involvement BIMserver is free and its code released under the GPLv3 open source license. This is relatively unique for the AEC software industry, where closed source licenses and high per-user licensing costs, especially for BIM software, is the norm.

A collection of screenshots from BIMserver 0.1RC2 (click to enlarge)

An underlying theme of BIMserver is to establish a platform that can be used in a variety of situations and software developers can build upon. This philosophy extends to the code itself which is written in Java, a robust and popular language amongst businesses and casual programmers. The application itself can then be deployed to any modern Java web application server, or run as a standalone program using the light-weight Jetty library.

“The technology we are using is based on the latest stable technology. We are using the Eclipse Modeling Framework, BerkelyDB, Tomcat, Jetty, Java, et cetera. This is done to get BIM from IFC (read: Step) into the ‘normal’ world of everyday programming. When that is done every ‘dorm-room programmer’ can work with BIM and IFC (instead of having to learn the Step language first). This could (we hope) be a enormous driver for the adaptation of IFC and BIM.”

Léon van Berlo, TNO

An important factor in these technology decisions is they are all vibrant, open source projects, allowing the BIMserver team to effectively ‘stand on the shoulders of giants’. This makes the tasks of development and support simpler because there exists an extensive knowledge base around the server’s fundamental components. Also from a business standpoint it is reassuring that if BIMserver or one of its dependent projects should cease to exist, the organisation can continue to operate and extend upon the existing open source code.

Deploying and using a BIMserver

The benefit of being written in Java is that BIMserver can be run on any platform that supports Java 6 such as Windows, Mac OSX and Linux. In a production environment BIMserver should be deployed within a Java web application server, for example Tomcat, JBoss or GlassFish, as these provide optimised and scalable web engines. Once operational client applications interact with the BIMserver through a SOAP web service interface that implements the Building Information Exchange Protocol (BIEP). BIEP is a new protocol from the Open Source BIM Initiative which combines the best of the Sable and oBIX projects. Whilst slightly concerning that BIMserver is implementing a new protocol rather than reusing something that exists already, considering the immature nature of this market it is not uncommon or necessarily wrong.

Client-side BIM applications will access the server’s data natively or through third-party plug-ins which translate responses from the BIMserver into instructions the host application understands. The quantity and quality of the client application support will be the determining factor behind BIMserver’s success in the long-term. AEC professionals are primarily interested in efficiently achieving their allotted work using reliable tools they understand. If adoption of BIMserver requires a significant toolset change, or the use of software that is slow and unreliable, the initiative will ultimately be rejected. Unfortunately for BIMserver proponents this poses a chicken and egg dilemma; third-party support hinges on demand, but server deployments will not occur until applications support it. Given this situation perhaps the best long-term yardstick of BIMserver’s success is whether or not it can garner support from one of the major BIM vendors. If this commitment can be achieved then it will almost certainly mark a tipping point in both adoption and third-party client support.

Beyond the SOAP interface’s computer to computer communication there is a limited web interface for the manual management of the BIM models stored on the server. As the project matures this side of BIMserver will be developed, plus extra functionality can be added through the installation of licensed plug-ins. Compared to a file-based BIM the benefit of a web interface is that it enables ubiquitous access to the underlying project data. Whilst in its infancy, over time many tasks related to the consumption of BIM data will no doubt be possible via the Web, for example checking that onsite construction drawings are the latest version. From a collaboration standpoint this is very significant because currently access to file-based BIM data is restricted to those with access to the file itself and the desktop application needed to read it.

Alongside the complex SOAP interface is a limited collection of REST web services. Unlike its often unwieldy and over engineered cousin SOAP, REST web services are easier to understand and use within applications on the desktop or web. REST is a new web service standard, but it has been implemented using proven HTTP concepts and existing technologies. Due to this simplicity and ubiquity REST is fast becoming the dominant standard for web service-based information exchange on the Web. With this in mind it is important that BIMserver has strong support for REST, not only because it is easier for developers to use, but it is also a more appropriate choice for the data communicated by a BIM server.

The Technical Challenges Ahead

The initial release of BIMserver is promising from a conceptual and technological standpoint, but it has a long way to go before mainstream deployment within AEC organisations can be considered. Of highest priority is the growth of the BIMserver documentation and developer community so that third-party software vendors can seriously consider adapting their software to work with it. Beyond growing the ecosystem the server at its core also needs to go through several iterations to expand its feature-set and establish itself as a robust and scalable platform.

“I'm saying it's okay to ship crap - I'm not saying that it's okay to stay crappy. A company must improve version 1.0 and create version 1.1, 1.2, ... 2.0. This is a difficult lesson to learn because it's so hard to ship an innovation; therefore, the last thing employees want to deal with is complaints about their perfect baby. Innovation is not an event. It's a process.”

Guy Kawasaki
How to Change the World: The Art of Innovation

There are three technical areas the BIMserver team need to focus on during these forthcoming iterations; design versioning, scalability and robustness.

Design Versioning

Version control management is an important topic for architectural collaboration or any line of work which relies on comprehending changes to generated content over time. Strangely whilst the AEC industry has checks and balances to monitor design revisions, these are generally manual processes such as file naming standards and revision spreadsheets. In contrast within the field of software development the use of version control systems such as Subversion and Git are not just common place, they are a necessity given the complexity of computer program code. If implemented well the inclusion of a sophisticated design versioning system within BIMserver and its client interfaces may help spark a revolution in digital architectural version control. Unfortunately version control and conflict resolution is a complicated subject which may take years of testing to perfect, but the first product to do so will hold a compelling, and lucrative, competitive advantage.

Scalability

When deployed in production a BIM server will be the digital hub for an AEC organisation’s project information. In order to fulfill this role the service must be capable of scaling to simultaneously serve large numbers of client connections and store vast quantities of data. Appreciating that peak demand will always exceed the capacity of a single computer is the most important aspect of scalability. Hence the components of a BIM server (web interface, processing logic and storage) must be loosely coupled so that they can be easily distributed across multiple computers. Architecturally this is a straightforward task, but getting this to work reliably without severely impacting performance is a challenging, and at times complex process. Fortunately BIMserver’s ability to be deployed within a Java web application server is beneficial in this regard because there is a large knowledge base built around scaling such services. This being the case there are still many application design and coding decisions that can act as scalability bottlenecks.

Robustness

If a firm with a large number of employees is to depend on BIMserver the software needs to demonstrate it can perform reliably under a range of situations and over long periods of time. Most importantly each transaction that occurs between a client and server must be guaranteed because in the context of the architectural project the information exchanged is potentially very valuable. If a single transaction were not to be processed correctly, for example the realignment of a wall, this could have significant and potentially costly ramifications if it was not detected and corrected. During the course of BIMserver’s life such errors will undoubtedly occur, so it is important that a support infrastructure is in place to rectify problems and alert other BIMserver users of their existence. To facilitate such robustness many open source projects have two or more branches of code; a stable, professionally supported release, and a development package in which new features are added and tested. Establishing this infrastructure is vitally important for business adoption, but whether those currently driving BIMserver are capable of undertaking all these responsibilities is yet to be seen.

Is the AEC industry ready?

BIMserver, like any innovation, is concept now in search of its actual audience and problem space. In such a situation the use of open source is wise because it allows potential users to test the software in a variety of situations without having to commit significant resources. This exploration process will highlight aspects of the architectural design process that will benefit from BIMserver and scenarios where its application is unsuitable. Whilst it is difficult to say what these will be, there are broader issues around the BIM server concept in practice which need to be overcome before mainstream adoption can take place.

The most challenging of these issues is whether architectural practice can be sold on the idea of a BIM server and whether the cost of its demonstrated benefits can be justified. A paradigm shift to server-side BIM is a difficult proposition given it must overcome decades of momentum and investment in file-centric workflows. It is harder still when most AEC organisations are still grappling with the transition to BIM and how this will actually benefit their practice. BIMserver’s open source strategy mitigates this somewhat because it allows experimentation without commitment, but at some point actual marketing will need to be used to influence opinion. Here again this will probably rely on a major BIM vendor adopting the concept (once proven) and pushing it through their various marketing and distribution channels.

Beyond actually selling the concept is the hurdle of getting AEC organisations to make room for its implementation within their limited I.T. budgets. Unfortunately this is problematic because most architectural professionals consider the majority of their income is from digital content created on their desktops. This workstation-centric culture means managers will not hesitate to spend $5,000 or more workstations or BIM licenses, but to compensate investments in server infrastructure are comparatively small. Getting companies to appreciate that implementation and support of a business critical BIM server is not a low cost exercise will also pose its own set of issues. Much to the ire of hard-pressed I.T. staff, production BIM servers will behave quite unlike file servers, and given their complexity will undoubtedly require more support.

Conclusion

The successful introduction of BIM servers could revolutionize digital collaboration and the use of BIM within the AEC industry. The BIMserver project is a very good step in the right direction, but it faces a daunting mountain to climb if it is to move from a niche research test-bed into a mainstream piece of AEC infrastructure. The first step in this process is identifying what industry sectors are best suited for BIM server deployment and the benefits it will actually generate. BIMserver is ideally suited for this role because it is open source and can be tested without commitment. Whether the BIMserver ecosystem can achieve critical mass and gain the support of at least one major BIM vendor will be interesting to watch. It is certainly a very promising concept, but whether the big fish bite will be the difference between a nice idea and revolutionary product.

Making digital collaboration "more betterer"

David — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 09:36:40 +0000

Recently I gave a presentation at Victoria University on the work I am doing with my PhD. For posterity I have uploaded this presentation to Slideshare.

View presentation. (tags: construction design)

The talk covered the problem of digital architectural collaboration and how it is an immature field compared to other aspects of architecture. Due to the pressing nature of architectural collaboration the solutions to this problem will not be revolutionary, e.g. Second Life-like, but rather evolutionary, and at times even haphazard.

After introducing the problem-space I went on to discuss the emergence of the Building Information Model (BIM) as a central figure in digital architectural collaboration. However whilst BIM is an excellent productivity tool it does not address many of the industry's collaboration issues - in fact in many respects it compounds them.

WIth BIM identified as a significant yet problematic collaboration technology I outlined the need for an overriding set of digital collaboration principles that can be applied to future collaboration technology decisions. Rather than starting from zero I propose that we build on top of the underlying theories of distributed systems such as the Internet. With this need and methodology identified, I go on to introduce the seven principles of the Project Information Cloud:

Simplicity
Ubiquity
Decentralisation
Modular design
Information awareness
Context sensitivity
Evolutionary semantics

Through application of these principles it is hoped we can establish Project Information Clouds within architectural projects. These unbounded information clouds will link significant amounts of projects data into intelligent, loosely joined, knowledge-bases.

Projjex: Online project collaboration for the rest of us?

David — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 12:53:59 +0000

I have recently been checking out Projjex, a relative newcomer to the online project/collaboration/document management market. The "cool kid on the block" when it comes to this field is 37signals' Basecamp, but it seems like the two companies are after very different audiences. Basecamp is synonymous with "Web 2.0" and has a look and feel that suits this crowd. In contrast Projjex seems to be going after the older (more mature?) audience with an offering that emphasises practicality over design.

My sweeping generalisation is that if you read TechCruch religiously then Basecamp is for you, whereas if you have never heard of TechCrunch (or prefer 'real news') then Projjex is probably more to your liking.

The genre clash dilemma

Before I go over Projjex I need to get a couple of things off my chest. The problem I have with these project/collaboration/document management tools is that they are trying to do too much with too little. It is like a summer blockbuster that cannot decide whether it is an action, comedy, drama or romance film and just ends up being nothing. Pulling something like this off is almost impossible and at some point the software developer has to put a stake in the ground and focus their efforts on one primary thing. For example when you take a look at the 'traditional' desktop each one of these functions is handled by a dedicated product:

Project management: Microsoft Project
Collaboration: Outlook, Notes, Groupwise, Apple Mail...
Document Management: Sharepoint, Alfresco

Every one of the above products has a very deep feature-set and whilst it is possible to monitor projects in Sharepoint or manage documents within Outlook, these capabilities are purely secondary and often accidental.

In contrast both Projjex and Basecamp apply the 80/20 principal (see Joel Spolsky's critique) in order to cover such a broad problem space in a realistic amount of time. On one hand this works well because it provides a slick (a.k.a. spartan) user interface. However on the other hand this limited functionality soon starts coming up short as people gain an understanding of the product. Personally I would much rather use (and pay for) a deep product that seriously tackled the one problem space rather than investing my time in a service that did a little bit of everything poorly.

For example the feature that makes Microsoft Project "kick ass" is its ability to visualise the abstract world of project management. At meetings or in emails nobody is interested in seeing a list of milestones or tasks - what everybody wants to see is the really pretty gantt chart clearly illustrating the process spaghetti going on. Unfortunately what software developers see as important (and easy) when they come to Microsoft Project is the list of dates and tasks. Consequently what we end up with in tools like Projjex and Basecamp is that text-based list of things we all hated looking at in the first place. Personally I think the product that will kick Microsoft Project of its pedestal is an offering that somehow does away with those boring lists entirely.

A consequence of this generalist nature is that these project collaboration services have a walled garden approach when it comes to interaction because the underlying assumption is that every person associated with the project will be a signed up member of the service. However if I am using Projjex and a business partner has chosen Basecamp we should not need to have accounts on both systems to collaborate on different projects. If these services were more focused then I am sure more effort would be placed on getting them working together (e.g. Basecamp for collaboration and Projjex for project management). Unfortunately because every one of these companies are going for the same 'generalist' pie, there is no room for negotiation or partnership. I am sure this tune will change once a major player enters the arena, sending the smaller companies clammering for higher ground. Which leads me to my second thing...

Where is Google?

This project/collaboration/document management market seems ripe for Google to come muscling in. On paper it would seem like a no brainer for a Google Projects like service:

It would tie in nicely with their Google Apps offering.
GMail, Google Docs and Google Calendar would integrate perfectly.
It would support open source development and compliment Google Code.
There is an opportunity to do something really different.

At the back of Projjex and 37signals' minds must be some lingering uncertainty around if (or when) such a service will be released. If past events are any indication the result would not be good as it would draw users away from these smaller services and probably force Microsoft's entry into the online market. As a potential user this is a problem because you do not want to entrust a business critical task on a service that will be run out of business (or at the very least eclipsed) by a major player in the (perhaps) not too distant future.

Why not swim with a big fish?

What we have yet to see is any of these project collaboration tools take the task of desktop/web integration seriously. For example if Google ever do release a project management tool that integrates seamlessly with GMail, GCalendar, etc. would it not make sense to be the competitor with excellent Outlook and Sharepoint support? Alternatively by deeply integrating your product with Google's services it may lead to hesitation before the release a competing product (see Saleforce.com & Google).

The problem with this theory of course is that it breaks the 80/20 rule. If something is to integrate seriously with any of these applications it by definition must be a deep product. Compounding the problem is that building this integration takes far more effort than adding extra features to your proprietary web-interface. Unfortunately the fact of the matter is that integration trumps aesthetics and functionality nine times out of ten. An online project management tool that integrates seamlessly with Outlook is far more valuable to a heavy Outlook user than one that does not.

Only time will tell whether Google or Microsoft enters this market and if they do whether smaller services like Projjex can survive or even flourish. In the meantime lets take a look at how Projjex shapes up as standalone service within a relatively immature market.

Projjex at a glance

If the look of Projjex had to be summed up in a couple of words for the catwalk it would be "subdued practicalism" (note, I don't think practicalism is a real word).

The fact that Projjex is not glitsy is a matter of taste, but personally I believe it is a good thing. When it comes to business critical tools what you are after is something that works when you need it and gets out of the way when not. On this scale Projjex performs pretty well, it is uncluttered and designed with an eye to getting things done first, and looking good second.

Whilst the introductory videos did a very good job of introducing the functionality and setting the tone for the product my initial experience was not very welcoming. When I first went to log in with Safari I was presented with this rather intimidating message:

Note to Projjex developers: If a site works in Firefox 2/3 it will pretty much work in Safari or any other Webkit-based browser. Sure, go ahead and display a warning message if the person is using Netscape Navigator 4, but in the case of Webkit if the only issues are going to be minor bugs then the warning should be more subtle. As far as I could tell things worked fine with Safari except for a couple of negligible graphics issues, all of which looked more like bugs with the site rather than the browser.

What works

Tool-tips

It was a pleasant surprise to see lots of useful tool-tips appear on each new page. Whilst it may seem trivial these aids helped point out things that first time users who never read manuals should know about.

Dialogs instead of page loads

The project creation and data-entry tasks were all pretty straight forward for anyone used to using applications like this. Rather than using lots of different pages Projjex opts for a dialog model that is very reminiscent of a desktop application. This is a wise move because not only is it familiar, it also feels more responsive and more consistent.

Time-sheets

One user interface feature I really liked was the ability to quickly fill in time-sheet information. For this Projjex uses a hybrid spreadsheet/dialog approach that is not only fast but very easy to understand. Time-sheets are a necessary evil and with this in mind it does a very good job.

Minute taking

Lots of applications let you setup meetings, but very few follow through with emailed minutes and attendance. The idea is that as you are having your meeting you record changes to the project (i.e. add requirements, update tasks, etc.). Once the meeting finishes you 'close' the meeting in Projjex and it generates a set of minutes based on the changes made during the meeting. This is a really good idea because it closes the loop between organising a meeting, recording the changes and notifying everyone.

Simple yet sophisticated security

For every entry created in Projjex you can assign sharing rights that range from completely public through to private. There is also an option to share entries only with those in your business. Whilst it may appear simple, the fact that these permissions can be inherited or individually set provides a lot of flexibility when it comes to mapping out your project with others.

What doesn't

The dashboard

Dashboards are the one place on any system where things need to be visually appealing. I would say the most successful dashboard ever is the one provided by Microsoft Outlook. That alone has probably helped sell more copies of Exchange than any other function or marketing campaign. The dashboard is your first impression of Projjex and to say it is underwhelming would be an understatement:

In contrast checkout this one from Salesforce.com:

The dashboard needs to be the place where all this abstract, textual data is aggregated and presented in a clear and visually appealing manner. Currently as it stands the Projjex dashboard is something you want to get away from as quickly as possible because it just feels so stale.

The dashboard is also an excellent place to integrate with other systems, for example an easy place to start are HTML widgets for websites such as iGoogle and Facebook. Beyond that is the fragmented desktop widgets/gadgets environment (Google Desktop, OSX, Yahoo and Vista). The dashboard should arguably be the first and last place you visit during the day, so striving to make it ubiquitous and appealing is the goal.

Lack of visualisation

Beyond the dashboard is the lack of any serious charting functionality to enable project data to be summarised and visualised on a single printed page. When it comes to projects and communication the ability to stick a gantt chart in front of people's faces is the single best way of getting them to understand the overall project and where they sit in it. By not answering this problem Projjex are forcing people to export their data into another, competing product (e.g. Microsoft Project).

Beyond gantt charts is the lack of visualisation of documents. When all your documents are stored on a remote server it is important that you can quickly see the right file without having to download it completely. The fact of the matter is that people never name their files intelligently or take the time to adequately describe them with meta-data (e.g. 'This document describes...'). Projjex needs the ability to quickly preview contents of commonly used files in the same manner as Alfresco Share. For example image files should have thumbnails generated and text documents a preview of the first page rendered.

A screenshot of Alfresco Share's document previews

In conclusion

Overall Projjex is a solid service that contains a couple of really good features (meeting minutes and time-sheets). The interface is very practical and works well in general. Projjex needs to focus on integration with third-party services and develop the depth of functionality in one or two key areas. If you are working in a small team and looking for a low-cost, project/collaboration/document management service then Projjex may fit the bill. However be warned, if you are looking for Web 2.0 glamor, Basecamp maybe more to your liking.

Autodesk Beyond Desktop CAD & BIM

David — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 12:30:52 +0000

or: How they Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Internet

It is my opinion that Autodesk is in the early stages of implementing a bold Internet-centric strategy that if successful will position it as the Software + Services giant within the Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) industry. Excluding the spin-off and re-purchase of Buzzsaw during the Dot-com bubble one could say Autodesk's attitude towards the Web, like the rest of the AEC industry, has been tepid at the best. In a similar manner to Microsoft, the historical and financial foundations of Autodesk lie in the traditional, desktop software market. Here its catalogue of heavy-weight tools compete for domination of the competitive CAD, BIM, animation and rendering markets. Unlike Microsoft vs Google, Autodesk and its competitors (such as Bentley Systems) have yet to face serious competition from an Internet savvy, AEC software heavy-weight. Rather than waiting for such a competitor to emerge Mike Haley, Jeff Wright and the rest of Autodesk's Content division are building it 'in-house'.

The goal: building really big 3D models in the cloud

AEC software vendors have largely ignored the Internet and have been content to focus on what can be done on a single workstation. The problem is that simultaneously other industries have demonstrated what is possible on the network, for example virtual worlds and photo-realistic visual experiences. Hence as our expectations have grown we are finding a single workstation cannot hope to keep up with these perpetually increasing processing demands. Consequently at some point the AEC software industry must make the step from tried and true desktop CAD/BIM to the less understood, but potentially more capable platform now referred to as cloud computing.

But why are really big, 3D models important in the eyes of industry professionals and public? The answer is simple, architecture is not mass production and the first time a design gets built is generally the last. From the perspective of understanding the design and its issues this is not ideal as the shift from the abstract to real world almost never happens painlessly. Not only is there design problems, for example 'does the detailing of the design match the overall aesthetic and its surroundings?', but there are also performance questions such as 'what are the temperature and light qualities like in the lounge in late winter when the sun goes behind the building across the road?'. The ability to digitally realise the entire design - from the exact detailing of its window frames to its geographic context, enables those involved to 'virtually' build and experience the architecture in a very cost effective manner.

At this point many will be thinking, isn't this what I do in Revit, Microstation or ArchiCAD every day? The answer is yes, but on a scale that is almost impossible to fathom. At this level it is not just about what you as a single person can record about a model, but rather the bringing together of vast quantities of data from multiple sources in order for it to be experienced in one place and time.

An outsiders overview of the strategy

Whilst I have recently spoken with Mike Haley and Abhi Singh from Autodesk about Seek and their evolving Internet strategy, what follows is primarily my own summary of the bigger picture drawn from the thoughts of some of those involved. Expect to hear and see more definitive things from Autodesk during the course of the year, especially at December's Autodesk Univserity.

Note: Buzzsaw is not included in this discussion as it is a closed tool that is not widely available on the Internet (i.e. it conforms to the classical notion of the closed, corporate Intranet).

Autodesk's Internet strategy is driven by the Content division within Autodesk. The goal of the strategy is to harness the potential of Internet-centric infrastructure to scale beyond that considered possible on the desktop or traditional corporate network. With the efficient scaling of digital infrastructure comes the ability to push the boundaries of the digital model - not only in its scope and depth of detail, but also in the designer's ability to simulate its properties.

The infrastructure for achieving this goal has been broken down into four distinct functional components as illustrated by the diagram below.

Whilst each functional component is at a different stage of development, aspects of each have been demonstrated to the public in some way, shape or form:

Seek - Product and material index: http://seek.autodesk.com/
Dragonfly - Web-centric modelling: http://labs.autodesk.com/technologies/draw/
Showroom - Render-wall service: http://labs.autodesk.com/technologies/showroom/
Metropolis - Massive 3D environment space: Autodesk University demo video

Individually these projects break a little new ground, but when viewed as an integrated suite of cloud-based services their true potential becomes apparent. Together the four services form a platform that if successfully implemented, may revolutionise the way AEC professionals conceive, produce and experience digital models.

Seek

Seek is a sophisticated data conduit for architectural information. I have covered Seek previously and Mike Haley has an even better video presentation. The intention behind Seek is to build an index of architectural details and materials, their associated meta-data and any digital files which maybe associated to them (e.g. DWG and PDF files). Unlike a supplier-centric materials index, Seek's primary motive is to facilitate information sharing amongst architectural suppliers and professionals. The intention is that this data-store can be leveraged to help construct more precise 3D models, add richness to renderings and provide material performance data for thermal simulations.

Metropolis

Metropolis is the bridging of virtual world concepts (a.k.a Google Earth) and serious 3D modelling. Rather than focusing on the macro OR the micro the emphasis of Metropolis is to create a virtual space capable of handling everything from the planet down to a pencil. The challenge this project is attempting to overcome is how to efficiently retrieve and process massive amounts of 3D data. Whilst the technical barriers are huge, if they can be surmounted being able to quickly visualise fully furnished, architectural designs within their actual geographic context is a real possibility.

Dragonfly

Dragonfly is attempting to bring CAD concepts to the cloud computing environment. The intention of Dragonfly is not to recreate AutoCAD or Revit within the Internet browser, but to leverage this ubiquitous platform to deliver and manipulate 3D content. For example smart-phones ship with Web browsers capable of displaying rich content (i.e. images and Flash). Along another line is the growth of browser-based, virtual worlds such as Google's Lively. Whilst these technologies are currently in their infancy, it is fairly obvious that they will mature into a very capable platforms for interactive 3D experiences.

Showroom

Showroom is photo-realistic cloud rendering made available to consumers. The concept of render-farms is certainly not new, but making the technology easily available to the general public is. The current technology preview illustrates how Showroom can efficiently render dynamic, photo-realistic scenes 'on-demand'. Conventionally this processor intensive work has been conducted on a desktop computer, tying up CPU cycles and requiring installation and maintenance of complicated rendering software. By moving this task into Showroom not only are CPU cycles freed but the software and materials libraries used can be far more sophisticated. The end result is that cloud-based rendering may prove to be faster and of a higher quality compared to its desktop counterpart.

Why the need for change?

Autodesk is a financially profitable company that dominates many of the software sectors it competes in. Why is there a need to branch out into cloud-based computing, especially when success of these initiatives may in the long-term harm their conventional, desktop business?

Moore's Law can't keep up when it comes to 3D

Nothing has reinforced the limitations of working with 3D data on a desktop computer more than my time spent teaching CAD and rendering to architecture students. Experienced digital modellers gain a subconscious understanding of the processing limitations of their desktop computer. However, like children learning about gravity the hard way, those starting out with 3D do not have the same appreciation for these boundaries. Consequently the most challenging part about teaching students how to create effective 3D models and renderings is not the creation of geometric data, it is getting them to stop. The problem is once introduced to the concept of CAD, (or more recently BIM) students have an uncontrollable urge to model every screw and light-fitting. No matter whether this was five years ago on a Pentium 3 or today with a Core2 Duo, students will do their best to overload the available hardware through simple, blissful ignorance.

"Google is like lots of PhDs driving tanks. It is all about brute force - everyone is General Patton. They don't drive around the wall, they drive through the wall. It is dumb techniques used in large scale."

Adam Bosworth
Database Requirements in the Age of Scalable Services (13:04-13:18)
MySQL Users Conference 2005

Google Earth was the first mainstream demonstration of the power of integrating a vast online 2D/3D data-store with the interactivity of a rich client interface. However as far as processing went it is very simple. Digitally representing the Earth down to the individual building is made possible because the only data downloaded and rendered by the client is what can be 'seen' on-screen. This is fine for basic, macro-level visualisation but it does not work for a richly detailed Building Information Model (BIM). In this environment AEC professionals need the ability to digitally represent all aspects of the design - from its 3D properties down to the thermal characteristics of the materials. To make effective design decisions this potentially infinite data-set needs to be right at hand. As a result the challenge facing Autodesk is not just to store the underlying data in the cloud, but also the entire, 3-dimensionally realised model so that it can be efficiently navigated, manipulated and simulated.

Breaking existing vendor relationships with on-demand services

Unlike traditional desktop software an online offering will allow Autodesk to compete head-to-head on competing vendors 'home turf'. Currently the AEC sector is a patchwork of companies each committed to a particular CAD/BIM software vendor. This is primarily due to the licensing and training costs associated with this business critical functionality, but the vendors do their bit by making their products 'more compatible' with their own offerings. If deployed in an open and ubiquitous manner, Autodesk's Internet strategy could overcome these business firewalls by enabling Autodesk-centric functionality to be embedded into competing products. For example consider the following scenario:

John is developing a building model in Microstation, his architecture practice's primary BIM tool. He likes the work-group capabilities of Microstation but wishes that it had better tools for demonstrating to the client what the building will look like in its urban context. On a whim (and without "I.T's" approval) he signs up for an Autodesk.com account and installs the Microstation plug-in so that his model can be loaded into a very large Metropolis model of the city. He then emails the client with a link to a Dragonfly web-viewer that lets them see his building design within the context of the city within their Internet browser. They are really impressed and ask if they could see some renderings of the building from the street at different times on day. As the model is already in Metropolis he takes the plunge and requests some Showroom renders using the most trusted material definitions found on Seek. He is told that the renderings will take some time to complete so he goes back to working on his Microstation model. Within minutes he receives an email from Showroom to say that his renderings are ready. The quality of the results are more than enough to impress the clients, but the practice's part-time renderer/animation guru says he could have done better if there was the budget to upgrade to the latest version of his rendering software (and a faster computer). Overall John is more than pleased with the result, especially considering instead of a large upfront expense his account was billed as he chose to use the services on offer. He could see that even though the practice was not going to migrate from Microstation anytime soon, they were going to use Autodesk's online services more often in the future.

Reaching new customers and markets

After twenty-odd years of fierce competition in the CAD software space the battle-lines are fairly well defined. The Google Earth/SketchUp combination has demonstrated there are vast, untapped reserves of potential customers for 3D tools in unconventional sectors, developing economies and the casual market. Unfortunately trying to sell $1000-$5000 software to people who do not recognise the value, cannot afford the license fees or do not want to pay is an impossible mission. Cloud-based computing can potentially overcome these barriers through its ability to scale and be delivered to users at low cost.

The proven results of this cloud-centric strategy can be seen in the success of Google and SalesForce.com. Both companies have been able to enter markets previously inaccessible to traditional vendors, and simultaneously undermine the position of the well-entrenched competitors in existing, developed markets.

For example:

Google's online advertising (AdWords) gives anyone the ability to advertise and undermined the position (and cost structure) of conventional advertisers.
SalesForce.com uses a Software as a Service (SaaS) model to deliver feature-rich Customer Relationship Management (CRM) services to a broader audience and at considerably lower costs than traditional alternatives.
Google Apps is providing a suite of business services to educators, non-profits and small-businesses at zero cost whilst undermining the unquestioned dominance of Microsoft's Exchange/Office suite in larger corporations.

Autodesk the Software + Services company

A business strategy that includes online services diversifies Autodesk's income stream and protects it from any downturn in its traditional product offerings. The ability to sell additional services to users enables the up-front cost of the software to be lowered on the assumption that lost income will be recouped over the life cycle of the product. This provides a competitive edge over software vendors who's sole income is from the software's initial sale. This lower up-front cost in turn helps make the desktop software more palatable to a broader audience.

This "shavers and razors" approach is certainly not a new business strategy, but it has not yet been exploited within the AEC software industry. It would not be unreasonable to suggest that if Autodesk's Software + Services strategy were to successfully mature, high cost items such as Revit could be sold at a significantly lower rate (currently a Revit subscription is US$725 per year, per user). The mobile phone market uses this model to great effect, so much so that even Apple have adopted it in order to ship more iPhones.

An observation on ubiquity: The part of most value in a 'stack' rises as the components below become ubiquitous

Ubiquity is a powerful yet dangerous asset for a business. Ubiquity drives adoption and product sales which leads to healthy profits. On the other hand ubiquity results in imitation and a stifling of innovation due to the momentum of legacy. Reaping the rewards of ubiquity is the goal of any software company, but escaping its pitfalls is a harder and often undervalued proposition.

"..nobody who was an ice harvester became an ice factory, and nobody who was an ice factory became a refrigerator company, and nobody who is a refrigerator company is investing in biotechnology. Because most people stay on the same curve. Better saw... more horses.... bigger ice factory... more colours of refrigerator.

Very few people have the courage or vision to get to the next curve."

Guy Kawasaki
The Art of Innovation (17:25-17:55)
MySQL Users Conference 2007

Autodesk illustrated great foresight in its acquisition of Revit on the cusp of the Building Information Model's 'tipping point'. The purchase was also timely because it preempted the demise of AutoCAD as their venerable "cash cow". We can confidently state that AutoCAD is on the way out for three reasons:

Competition: There are now many low-cost and free alternatives on the market that do an excellent job of 3D CAD. Thanks to OpenDWG these competitors can read and write AutoCAD files.
Lawsuits: Any company that needs to resort to suing the competition to maintain an edge in the market is destined to loose out in the long-term.
Ribbons: The introduction of a 'ribbon' interface as the primary feature for any software release is a clear sign that its designers are clean out of useful functionality to add which justifies the upgrade cost.

Unfortunately for Autodesk nobody can be quite sure whether Revit will become ubiquitous, and if it does how long its time will last. This initiation of a bold Internet strategy acts as a safeguard to these uncertainties. Not only would a successful suite of Internet services reinforce Revit's hold on the BIM market, but it also allows Autodesk to "get to the next curve" before the competition.

Learning from and living on Amazon's cloud

Whilst it is early days yet, the thinking and implementation of this Internet strategy has no doubt been shaped by Amazon's suite of cloud computing web services. Not only are the services offered by Autodesk hosted on Amazon, but the manner by which functionality has been compartmentalised is very similar to Amazon's architecture.

The very existence of Amazon's services has enabled Autodesk's cloud-centric strategy to be launched with relatively little investment. Only a couple of years ago such a project would have required in-house development of a compute cluster. This expensive proposition becomes very difficult to justify when moving into uncharted business waters. In contrast, the flexibility offered by today's 'pay as you go' compute services from Amazon, Google and others enable clusters to be setup in a matter of minutes at extremely low cost ($0.10 per CPU hour on EC2). A significant and very attractive property of these rented compute clouds is their linear pricing model. This greatly simplifies business models for companies like Autodesk when choosing to build services because there is no cost penalty for success. In contrast choosing to build on a traditional infrastructure does not guarantee cost effective scale. This runs the risk of breaking the business model (operating at a loss) or failing to meet demand (momentum loss) as the service becomes popular.

It will be interesting to see how closely Autodesk follows Amazon's delivery model for these services. Currently the emphasis is on exposing functionality through Autodesk's own desktop and web products. However the opportunity exists to follow Amazon and publicly expose the underlying, low-level services to external developers via a set of for-pay web service APIs. Amazon followed this exact path in the release of their cloud-based web services stack, and what started off as an internal project soon flourished into a multi-million dollar industry. If things play out in a similar manner it is not unreasonable to suggest that one day the rendering engine of ArchiCAD could be Autodesk Showroom, or that Microstation models may happily co-exist next to legacy AutoCAD ones in a Metropolis cluster.

The effect of open source (or you can teach an old dog new tricks)

It is somewhat ironic that for Autodesk, an icon of the proprietary software world, the key enabler of this Internet strategy is open source software. Open source forms the backbone of the virtualisation technology (EC2 is based on Xen) and the host images that run on top of it (currently Linux and OpenSolaris). The freedom provided by the various open source licenses which make up this software stack enable its massive scale. This open source foundation is now beginning to extend beyond the virtualisation layer and is seeping into Autodesk's own programming practices. For example Seek is built on top of Java and makes use of many open source libraries such as Lucene and Spring. Whilst this is not a sign that a Linux version of AutoCAD will be released tomorrow, the acknowledgement by Autodesk that open source is a valid development model is a promising first step.

No plan survives contact with the enemy

Grand thoughts of a cloud-centric Autodesk are nice to postulate, but the reality is in the real world things are not so clear cut. In many ways the group behind this strategy is the Autodesk equivalent of Apple's Macintosh Pirates of 1983. Like the now infamous Macintosh developers, the group is small, intentionally isolated from the mothership and proposing products that may fundamentally shake up the tried and true business model (in this case desktop CAD/BIM). Whether or not such a promising start is allowed to blossom will not simply rest on the ability of the team to execute, but also the response they get from "old school" Autodesk and its competitors as this promising plan unfolds.

What will the "old schoolers" have to say about this?

For any online strategy to be successful it must be fully supported by the traditional software products offered by Autodesk. This goes well beyond the current (minor) integration that currently exists, to a point where venerable desktop products such as AutoCAD, Revit and Max are completely reshaped to take advantage of the possibilities on offer. Such an undertaking is not a simple task, especially when product managers have conventional feature requests to address and limited resources on hand.

Well beyond this practical matter is the degree to which a paradigm shifting Internet strategy can be successfully communicated within a software behemoth. For the Internet strategy put forward to take hold and flourish a significant portion of Autodesk's 7,000+ staff will need to comprehend and fully support the idea. Furthermore this clear sense of direction needs to come from the top and flow through the company in a similar manner to Bill Gates' 1995 'Tidal Wave' memo. This now infamous directive refocused all of Microsoft's software efforts to exploiting the Web's potential at a time where it could have been superseded by others. What is promising is that Autodesk's current CEO, Carl Bass, led the Buzzsaw team so he obviously understands the Internet and does not need to experience a Gates-like "eureka" moment.

Even if the concept is well communicated and Autodesk's desktop offerings are remodelled there is still the question of how internal divisions will react when their sales numbers are impacted by competing, cloud-centric products. For example taken to their ultimate (hypothetical) conclusions Showroom (rendering) and Dragonfly (modelling) will perform tasks well enough that for a subset, or even majority, of users the purchase of traditional desktop clients like Max and AutoCAD becomes unnecessary. Internal management structures within large companies are always fractured and at war with each other, so when this happens one of four things occur:

The new, competing product is terminated (the old guys win).
The new product is hamstrung or merged with a division that cannot manage it properly (the old guys win but the boss doesn't tell the new guys).
The existing product is put out to pasture (the new guys win).
The two products begin competing against each other and loose out to a third party (both guys loose).

There are many cases were internal competition over the same user-base has lead to conflict. Perhaps the most famous example brought to light recently was the 2001 internal struggle within Microsoft between Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer over the future of NetDocs, an Internet-based, Office competitor. The end result of this conflict was that NetDocs was unofficially cancelled, handing Google a lead in the online productivity market which Microsoft may never recover.

Concluding thoughts

Autodesk are making some bold moves when it comes to the Internet. Whether or not these initiatives will be allowed to mature and foster a healthy user-base is another matter. Time to market is crucial, not only will it preempt competition but it will also act as a very clear sign of the company's overall intentions. For the good of the industry we are all hoping that services like Seek, Showroom, Dragonfly, Metropolisis and their competitors flourish. Whilst picking a winner at this early stage is impossible, the mere fact that that CAD and BIM is about to make that 'one small step' from the desktop to the cloud can only lead much bigger (and hopefully better) things.

Autodesk Seek steps towards ubiquitous AEC search

David — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 21:59:29 +0000

Note: Before reading this critque I would recommend checking out this Autodesk Seek presentation as it answers many of the questions raised here.

In May Autodesk released a beta of Autodesk Seek, a web-based Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) specific, 3D model and specifications search tool. Rather than a free for all model index in a similar guise to Google's 3D Warehouse or CADoogle, the service is focused on exposing the model and specification catalogues of AEC suppliers. This is hardly going to interest the armchair designer, but for architects and engineers the ability to quickly locate, access and reference specifications and 3D data could potentially reduce design development time and costs significantly.

Gauging by the initial contents of Seek it would appear Autodesk have partnered with some large U.S. suppliers in order to kick-start their index. Whilst the index signals a clear sign of intent its current contents is hardly awe inspiring. That being said raw index size itself does not ensure success, to really make a mark and stand the test of time the Seek team need to execute on three things:

Quickly build out this index with up to date and relevant content so that it becomes the first place AEC professionals head to.
Create a compelling user experience which overcomes the idea that a specifications catalogue must be dull, unhelpful and always two months out of date.
Work to integrate Seek into as many aspects of Autodesk's existing modeling and drafting tools. By doing so the line between desktop and Web will be blurred and Seek will become a natural extension of their professional digital toolset.

What differentiates Seek from the crowd?

The idea of an online product catalogue for AEC specifications is certainly not new. However Seek is unique in that it is the first online product catalogue backed by a large company who's primary customer-base is not AEC suppliers. In the past online AEC catalogue initiatives have been spearheaded by suppliers or third-parties financially dependent on these suppliers. This close association has hindered growth and because for a Web-based, universal product catalogue to be successful it must stand independently from its data suppliers. This independence establishes trust which is important because users do not want the relevancy of their search influenced by who is paying the bills, nor do they want a 'walled garden' where only products from selected (paying) suppliers are on show. Consequently even though many supplier-backed catalogues exist, none can be considered the Google of the AEC world.

Seek has the potential of filling this 'Google' void because Autodesk's primary income is from people who make material purchasing decisions (architects, engineers and contractors, etc.) and not the suppliers themselves. This difference places Seek in the position of being able to design a catalogue that acts in the best interests of the search consumer. At the same time suppliers are practically forced to take part given Autodesk's vast global audience. The challenge facing Seek it is that Autodesk are not known for producing search indexes or successful Web products.

So given this background and the potential rewards on offer what works and what doesn't in this early beta release? Let's take a look...

Judging a book by its cover

The Seek team have yet to reveal anything about its inner workings so in this beta release all that can really be judged is the front-end usability and functionality. Unfortunately look and feel wise Seek is nothing to write home about. The interface is not confusing, it just has that late-20^th Century database feel that the cool 'Web 2.0' crowd left many years ago. This may sound immaterial but if the target audience is aesthetically motivated people like designers and architects the user interface has to look really good. Adobe understand this and make every one of their websites a work of art, for example just checkout their latest acrobat.com site. This is not to say that Seek should become one big Flash animation, they just need to break down the grid layout, pare back the interface elements and add a dedicated interface/graphic designer to the team.

Aspects that work

Aesthetics aside a good deal of Seek's exposed functionally works well; namely the classification, filtering and linked file support. Whilst these may not not seem that exciting they do illustrate the developers have a solid understanding of what AEC professionals are interested in getting out of Seek.

Classification

Seek applies multiple classification systems to the data stored within its index. As a result rather than coming across as a want-to-be Google for AEC search, the experience is more akin to the 90's-era manual categorisation by Yahoo. This may not sound sexy as we approach 2010 but it actually works pretty well. Experience has shown that performing 'dumb' searches within the rigid world of architecture generally is not very productive. When looking for AEC content we will have specific contexts in mind and classification systems help define their respective boundaries. By limiting search results to a specific subset of the building industry the potential for finding what you are looking for increases dramatically. Unfortunately the option does not seem to be available to perform a sub-search within a specific category. For example there did not seem to be a way to search for the term 'stainless steel' within the Transportion section of the CSI MasterFormat category. It is possible to filter the results from a category search but this is not as flexible as being able to define a custom search term within a category.

What would be interesting to learn about is how these classification systems are applied to the items in the index. Do the manufacturers have to manually define which categories their models/specifications fall under, or have Autodesk developed some intelligent algorithm that classifies incoming data similar to that described in this paper by Robert Amor? If it is the later then that would be very cool, but how accurate is it? Along this same line of thought is whether Seek can add other classifications systems to its index and if so how would this 'foreign' semantic system be mapped to the existing entities in the index? For example in New Zealand many practitioners use the CBI classification system, so for Seek to be accepted in this locale it would ideally need more than just the three categorisation systems currently supported. Personally I hope Autodesk do have plans for supporting a plethora of categorisation systems through some sort of mapping algorithm (i.e. system A, section 1 = system B, section 3 & 4). Such a mechanism could never be 100% accurate but it would make Seek more appealing to international users and future proof it for new categorisation systems which will surely emerge.

Filtering

Seek offers a wide range of attributes to filter on once a category or basic search term has been defined. This mechanism enables quick culling of large sets of results to identify a couple of the most relevant models or specifications. In this regard Seek behaves more like an e-commerce site rather than a search engine because the emphasis is not on providing you 50 relevant suggestions but one or two specific answers. At the moment it is difficult to test the usefulness or performance of the filter functionality given the limited size of the current search index. Still the interface is intuitive, so even when there are only ten search results the ability to quickly filter them still feels useful. This maybe because the filters provide a visual prompt as to how you can drill down to the product you really want, i.e. arctic white, gun grey or stainless steel window frames?

Seek's search results with its filtering system on the left (click to enlarge)

The question remains as to exactly how Seek facilitates filtering of its index. Are the filterable attributes automatically derived from indexed data or are they manually defined by the manufacturer or Autodesk themselves? The solution to this question is a double edged sword; an automatically derived filtering mechanism enables efficient scale (indexing bots) whilst a manual process provides a high degree of trust. Unfortunately automation generally comes at the expense of accuracy and manual data entry will stunt the index's growth. To be judged a success Seek needs to balance these demands to build a large yet accurate index. If it fails in this task the end result will be an index which is large and inaccurate, or accurate but too small to care about. Neither alternative will be suffered by users long before they go back to their conventional, paper-based specification libraries.

Linked file support

Of all the major AEC software vendors Autodesk is arguably one of the worst for equally supporting competing formats. Fortunately this attitude seems to have changed when it comes to Seek as it prominently supports a range of non-Autodesk formats such as Bentley's DGN and Adobe's PDF. The first time you download a linked file you must agree to Autodesk's terms of use which is interesting considering the files themselves are not hosted by Autodesk. Now I am no lawyer and there is probably good reason for this, but it still feels strange to have a search engine imparting terms of use on the content it links to.

Most products have numerous file attachments. Unfortunately the preview option is very limited at the best of times (click to enlarge)

In the future it would be great to see a more comprehensive file previewer be made available. There are currently thumbnail images of many referenced files but something that behaved in a similar way to Apple's Quick Look would be really useful. Whilst this may sound far fetched it is not an impossible considering Autodesk have Freewheel, a Web-based 3D model viewer. If used alongside a Web-based document viewer similar to Scribd it would allow users to quickly preview the contents of files without having to commit to a download. The inclusion of such functionality would not only enrich the user experience but open up further revenue opportunities. Attached files could be made available online through Seek for free and offered for download at a reasonable price from Autodesk or the third-party. This revenue model works well for many book publishers and stock photo distributors, so in theory the same could be achieved within the AEC industry if the content holds enough value.

Aspects that could do with development

Growing the index

To help build out the search index the Seek team will need to make public how interested third parties can get their own content into it. Given the intention of the project it is obvious that strangers off the street will not be granted publishing rights and for the integrity of the index it is important that some validation processes be put in place. That being said in the interests of long-term success the route to participation should be a public, devoid of NDAs, exchanges of money or unnecessary bureaucracy.

When it comes to creating an accurate and timely index blog search engines have demonstrated that the ability to push structured data to the search engine is far more efficient than using a conventional Web crawler approach. With this capability the very nature of the catalogue would shift from that of an online book to a living entity. If suppliers were able to push availability details and news about a particular product into the index it would mean that any consumer of Seek data would also be able to utilise this information. For example consider the following scenario:

An architect assigns a product specification from Seek to a component in their AutoCAD model. On making this assignment they select to be notified of important information on this product until the project is complete. In effect this configures AutoCAD a subscriber to the product-specific RSS feed on Seek. As any new information is announced by the supplier, for example it will be discontinued in December or a national safety test found it did not perform well under certain situations, then anyone opening the model would be alerted of this news. Note: The RSS product feeds themselves would not necessarily need to be contained within the AutoCAD file itself, they could exist in an externally referenced OPML file.

There are two proven means of achieving this push-like model, Seek could consume supplier generated Atom feeds, or Google Sitemap-like structured documents. In both cases the supplier should be able to 'ping' Seek to inform it that new content is available for indexing and be confident that in a timely manner Seek would be accurately displaying the data to users. The key behind such an approach is that the AEC-specific data (classifications, physical properties, etc.) within these feeds would need to be conveyed in a non-proprietary format. Whilst it would be easy for Autodesk to write their own format a wiser approach would be to take an existing Web format, for example GData and build upon that. By starting out with a ubiquitous format it makes the task of gaining third-party support much easier and it ensures effort expended by suppliers to create Seek feeds can be leveraged by other search engines and compatible software.

Exposing the Data

Crucial to the success of Seek is its web service component, i.e. the ability for other applications on the Web or desktop to use the data this service returns. Whilst Autodesk currently describe Seek as a 'web service' this is not the case in the contemporary sense. Seek's value will increase exponentially once it makes the leap from a visual catalogue to a service which forms the functional backbone of desktop and web-based applications. For example consider the following two scenarios and how a service-centric Seek could have:

An architect working on an ArchiCAD model is about to make a design decision regarding a set of shelves. The ArchiCAD Seek plug-in recognises that this is the case because the user has selected the appropriate modeling tool and layer set. The plug-in queries Seek and returns a list of appropriate 3D models based on the properties of the project (a residential dwelling in Auckland). The plug-in filters and orders this data to suit the architect's personal preferences - in this case supplies that satisfy green building standards. Without a single extra mouse click Seek in partnership with the desktop software is able to present a reasonably intelligent set of shelving options. This task, which would have taken hours of searching through conventional product catalogues and manual 3D modelling is completed in seconds.

A design team working on a medium sized industrial plant in Sydney is having a discussion within their Project Intranet on appropriate door fixtures to use. None of the available products seem to suit the requirements so the outstanding issue is recorded as something that needs attention later. The Intranet software constructs a Seek search query out of the issue's defined parameters and begins regularly checking Seek for potential matches. Weeks pass and the problem is forgotten about by the team. Then one afternoon the Intranet service issues an email informing the interested parties that a local supplier has just that morning started producing a new line of industrial strength fixtures which satisfy the design requirements.

In both these scenarios the use of web services transforms Seek from a user-initiated search tool to a context-aware information delivery service. With this relatively simple shift the value proposition of Seek from both the user and supplier's perspective changes immensely. The catalogue ceases to be a passive object and becomes a tool that can proactively solve decisions and sell products.

When it comes to exposing the Seek index via web services this should be implemented as simply as possible. This means following the example of many Internet-savvy companies and releasing lots of well documented, REST-based web services. These services should return simple XML (preferably Atom) or JSON data streams which any application developer can utilise. To support this API there also needs to be a set of Javascript components to enable non-developers (i.e. the CAD managers and "I.T. guys" of this world) to embed Seek functionality within company Intranets. Once Autodesk make this set of web services available it is a relatively easy task for third party developers to integrate Seek into their own applications to achieve the functionality described and more. Unfortunately the cloud hanging over this rosy picture is that Autodesk are not known for producing open and simple to use web services. Time will tell whether they can execute on such a strategy, but let's hope the thought has at least crossed their collected minds.

Sharing search results

Search results from Seek can be emailed to others for later reference but the mechanism for this is very primitive. This option feels like a nod in the direction of useful functionality rather than something that has been given serious attention. When it comes to externally sharing results the feature-set needs to be greatly expanded upon to be of real value. Currently it is not possible to email a subset of your search results or highlight specific results other than writing "here are the results and I prefer options 2 and 5". Also in need of development is the functionality surrounding the email format. Rather than emailing a dull URL there should be the option to send the selected results as a self contained message complete with thumbnails. Many (if not all) AEC companies use email as a quasi filing system, so a URL that displays different results over time is of little historical value. In effect what the email option needs to become is the equivalent of the Amazon or Dell 'wish list'. This way architects can have their clients look through Seek and build a list of 'things' they like the look of, i.e the digital equivalent of turning up to the practice with three Home & Garden magazines.

Seek does not use friendly URLs or have unique meta-data for each page. Consequently tools like Google Reader do not work well (click to enlarge)

Another way that specific items can be quickly shared or referenced is by hyperlinking. Unfortunately this is not made easy because Seek URLs are in no way 'friendly'. Take for example this URL that Seek generates for 'Window Guards':
http://seek.autodesk.com/#query=search%5Edetail%5EH4sIAAAAAAAAAEtMT7fKTU4vSizPyMzJsfILDrG0MDEGAOhs_2kWAAAA
Not only is this meaningless but the meta information within the Seek page does not change to suit the context being viewed. The title of the page is always 'Autodesk Seek' and the meta description a constant 'Autodesk Seek is the online source for building product information (...)'. As a result if you were to bookmark this page in a browser or online service the default bookmark attributes (the name and description) do not accurately reflect the subject matter of the page. In comparison if you take a look at a page from Amazon.com the URL, page title and description all clearly identify what the subject matter is:
http://www.amazon.com/Harry-Potter-Deathly-Hallows-Book/dp/0545010225/

This may sound a little pedantic but it is the details like this that make comprehension of hyperlinks possible for both people and computers alike. A failure of comprehension means that third-party services like Google Reader's ability to share interesting web pages with peers do not work so well, if at all when it comes to Seek.

Trusting search results

Whilst traditional web search engines like Google, Yahoo or Microsoft need to worry about 'search engine fraud' the factual correctness of the information is of little importance as long as it is considered relevant. In comparison for a service like Seek the user's ability to trust the information returned is exceptionally important. There is no point in using the service if it returns models or specifications that are incorrect or out of date. This issue becomes a real problem as the index grows, things get out of date and malicious suppliers attempt to game the system to boost sales by 0.1%. Even well intentioned suppliers and Seek itself are capable of making mistakes. Given these factors there needs to be a feedback mechanism in place for consumers to alert Autodesk and their fellow users of these problems. This feedback could be enabled passively or through active participation.

General purpose search engines establish 'correctness' through the concept of PageRank (i.e. if it is linked to it is probably right). Unfortunately for the closed and competitive world of architectural design this concept cannot be applied even if it was possible for Autodesk to go crawling the design plans of AEC professionals to identify which models and specifications are referenced the most. However it would be feasible to deploy an opt-in system within Seek where users could identify models and specifications they made use of regularly. For example during the drafting of construction details the CAD program could notify Seek whenever specifications stored in the index were referenced by the designer. In practice this would be similar to Google's Web History as the aggregate, anonymised data returned would help assist others to identify popular, and therefore by logical extension trusted, models and specifications.

Beyond passive observation is the ability for users to directly feed into Seek's index their own opinions and content. For example the real value of the Amazon web experience is not the search results but the user reviews. Basic online specifications is one thing, but knowing that someone in a very similar situation as yours found the actual product did not measure up to expectations is considerably valuable. However if this kind of conversation were to take place on Seek itself it may place Autodesk in an awkward position with suppliers who do not take kindly to poor feedback. Whether or not such functionality is possible will depend on the business model Seek eventually establishes. If the intention is to add value to Autodesk's other software offerings then such functionality is a possibility, but if Seek they are looking to generate an income stream through paid listings from suppliers then the chances of seeing such functionality is low. Personally I feel it would be great to see Autodesk take the open road and encourage user feedback on listings through a variety of mechanisms. Unlike dedicated online catalogue companies Autodesk can afford to take such a risk because their customer base is the decision makers in the building process, hence they stand to profit most when they give this group better decision making tools.

Working within an organisation or project team

Currently Seek is a standalone search service that lacks functionality specific to project work-groups. It would be useful to be able to register a practice or project account with Seek in order for selected index items or suppliers to be listed, shared and discussed within this social network. Many architecture practices work with selected suppliers and components that they are familiar with and trust. These trust networks would make the process of browsing, selecting and recalling past decisions easier for users because it establishes an internal hierarchy within the index unique to the individual or group (i.e. another layer of meta-categorisation). For example consider the following scenario and how this trust network would be useful:

An architecture graduate is trying to pick commercial kitchen fittings for the first project he has been issued at his new job. The graduate has no experience in this field so they elect to filter Seek search results to suppliers trusted by their architecture practice. On selecting a fitting Seek informs the graduate that a similar fitting was used in a project two years ago by a senior partner. This is reassuring in two ways; firstly it indicates that this choice is not completely off track (a senior partner made a similar decision), and secondly it identifies a pathway for future research ("hey John, how did that kitchen work out last year?").

Whether or not all the historical information referenced in this scenario would be stored in the Seek 'cloud' would be an operational preference of the organisation or project team. Even excluding the ability to track historical choices made by the collective the ability to create a Seek user account and limit search results to an identified subset of other users would go a long way to achieving this functionality.

Leveraging the social

Without a doubt the "Web phenomenon" of the past two years has been the move towards social-centric networks (e.g. Facebook, MySpace and Twitter). AEC professionals subscribe to magazines and catalogues, visit interesting buildings and attend lectures because they want to know what their peers are up to. Implemented correctly Seek would enable users to track what was 'in' and what was 'out' in the same way that a fashionista attends catwalk shows. Where this could get really interesting is in the field of paid recommendations like that of Amazon's Associate programme . The idea being that if my actions or recommendations influence the purchasing decision of another party then shouldn't I be rewarded by the supplier in some way? The supplier has sold a product, the third-party has solved their problem and Autodesk has promoted their brand - doesn't the person who initiated this transaction deserve some reward? Greed is a powerful motive for participation and a rewards mechanism would certainly encourage use. Such a system would not neccessary have to involve financial rewards, it could operate with the concept of 'Autodesk Points' which acrue in the same way as frequent flier miles and can be redeemed for discounts on Autodesk software. After all a similar concept to this made the AdSense programme Google arguably the largest advertising agency in the world.

In Conclusion

Seek is a promising step in a potentially very interesting direction for Autodesk. If they can continue to evolve its functionality and integrate it into their other product offerings it stands a higher than average chance of becoming a valuable resource within the AEC industry. Central to its success is a demonstration that the search index is capable of growing quickly and that the underlying data can be easily exposed to third-party developers. With these improvements and a lot of luck it is not unreasonable to suggest that Autodesk Seek may become the Google/Amazon (Goomazon?) of AEC specific search and specification.

Harvard Critical Digital Conference 2008 paper

David — Sun, 11 May 2008 10:08:06 +0000

In April I presented a paper at the GSD Critical Digital Conference at Harvard University. The paper was co-authored by my supervisor Mike Donn. The conference itself was pretty good considering it was the first time it had been run. You can find my paper along with all the others online at the Critical Digital website. However for posterity (and Google) I have included the text of my paper below.

Using Project Information Clouds to Preserve Design Stories within the Digital Architecture Workplace

Abstract

During the development of an architectural design a series of design stories form. These stories chronicle the collective decision making process of the diverse project team. Current digital design processes often fail to record these design stories because of the emphasis placed on the concise and accurate generation of the virtual model. This focus on an all-encompassing digital model is detrimental to design stories because it limits participation, consolidates information flow and risks editorialisation of design discussion. Project Information Clouds are proposed as a digital space for design team participants to link, categorise and repurpose existing digital information into comprehensible design stories in support of the digital building model. Instead of a discrete tool, the Project Information Cloud is a set of principles derived from a proven distributed information network, the World Wide Web. The seven guiding principles of the Project Information Cloud are simplicity, modular design, decentralisation, ubiquity, information awareness, evolutionary semantics and context sensitivity. These principles when applied to the development of existing and new digital design tools are intended to improve information exchange and participation within the distributed project team.

1. Preserving design stories within Project Information Clouds

Design stories form within architectural projects through the interweaving of design conversation, decisions and outcomes. These design stories are valuable in determining a project's current state and they increase the accessibility of information within the design team. Unfortunately, current digital architectural design tools emphasise production and communication of outcomes ahead of the preservation of conversations and decisions. To resolve this shortcoming the concept of Project Information Clouds is proposed as a means of digitally recording and maintaining these design stories. The Project Information Cloud is not a discrete entity but a set of principles. These principles when applied to the development of existing and new digital design tools are intended to improve information exchange and participation within the distributed project team. The principles that comprise the Project Information Cloud are derived from concepts similar to those that fostered the World Wide Web.

Although the architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) industry was slow to adopt digital design processes it is now undergoing rapid digital evolution. This digital migration was both a response to and an enabler of increased information processing demands. Hampering the recording of design stories during this evolution was the disconnect between the tools used to communicate and record design outcomes. Whilst digital communication through email and the Web have significantly improved the quantity of project communication¹, this data often fails to be directly or indirectly associated to the digital design outcome in any structured way. Likewise whilst digital tools used to model architecture can record design outcomes in exacting detail, they do so in a closed, virtual environment devoid of real context. Not only does this closed environment restrict participation, it also limits the ability of those interacting with the model to comprehend design decisions. Subsequently, whilst the AEC industry currently has powerful tools for communicating vast amounts of data and recording virtual outcomes in exacting detail, it lacks a digital vocabulary for weaving these two distinct information streams into coherent and maintainable design stories.

2. Deriving value from digital architecture's design stories

Architecture is as much about personalities and decisions as it is about the eventual built form². A project has multiple design story threads, each one is a subset of the personalities, decisions and outcomes contained in the overall design. The understanding of these design stories is instrumental in enabling a project team to collaborate effectively during the course of the design and construction process. Whilst of limited value at the moment of project conception, these stories appreciate over the building’s life-cycle to fulfill the role of decision making aids and historical learning resources. Traditionally design stories were established through direct participation and narrated to others should the need arise. Digital design is eroding these bonds through its ability to break down geographic constraints and consolidate project information around tightly controlled, data-rich models. This has led to more distributed and efficient design processes. However, it has reduced the ability for all design participants to comprehend and in some cases take part in ongoing design stories. Ironically in an effort to improve efficiency and distribution, digital design tools may in fact be degrading the underlying strength of the design process.

The project team must be able to digitally establish, reinforce and derive value from design stories. Therefore, they must be able to participate in the linking, categorisation and repurposing of all project information, whether it be complex virtual model, conventional plan or digital message. In order for this to take place there needs to be a shift in the way design participants treat their digital archives. Digital design artifacts cannot continue to be isolated and shielded from other project data. Instead these data points and their associated meta-data should be considered as part of a larger network, which when viewed as a whole forms a Project Information Cloud. There are two challenges to overcome if discrete project data is to be treated as part of this larger meta-network. The first is the organisational and legal constraints which accompany any professional exchange of data. Whilst a Project Information Cloud will need to respect the ownership and privacy requirements of existing data, the contributed meta-data used in the establishment of design stories should be considered property of the collective project team. Communal ownership is an essential element of this meta-layer because it will ensure all parties are free to copy, preserve and build upon existing digital stories in perpetuity. The second and perhaps more difficult challenge is to overcome the dominant trend within digital architecture to record all design outcomes within a single, complex and highly regulated digital building model.

3. Why digital building models compromise design stories

To efficiently manage the increased amounts of project information, the current trend in digital architecture is to build increasingly complex and information-dense virtual models. The premise of this trend is that the more comprehensively and accurately a virtual outcome can be modeled, the more efficiently the project team will be able to manage the information and processes associated with it. This objective has seen the traditional notion of Computer Aided Architectural Design (CAAD) evolve into the concept of the Building Information Model³ (BIM). Unlike CAAD, which at its core is a digital extension of the drafting table⁴, BIM accurately records the analytical and semantic characteristics of an architectural design within a highly structured, semi-intelligent digital model. BIM is not a fundamentally new idea and draws much of its technical inspiration from Product Model technologies proven within the aerospace, shipbuilding and manufacturing industries. This combination of CAAD and Product Model results in an architectural information modeling tool capable of utilising semantic data structures to create efficient and versatile working environments⁵. However to attain these benefits the design team must consolidate all significant architectural information around a single, highly structured BIM. Regrettably, by establishing this concise and complex point of truth, the ability of all participants to accurately record and comprehend design stories is diminished.

3.1 Complexity reduces participation

Participation is important to design stories because architecture is the physical representation of a collective decision making process⁶. BIM imposes process and knowledge barriers to participation due to its dependence on a single, complex data structure. In an effort to ensure the digital building model's integrity, the authority to manipulate the data is restricted. Even when permission is granted participants must understand and be capable of using the complicated software interfaces which govern the building model⁷. This participation bottleneck means the project team generally relies on selected participants to funnel relevant design data and decisions into the BIM. Owing to their status in the project team and close association with the digital building model, the role of digital shepherd generally falls to the architect. The architect undoubtedly is appreciative of this fact as it reinforces their place as the project's information and decision making hub. Unfortunately, those who take on this role can consciously or subconsciously filter out information vital in the recording and comprehension of design stories.

3.2 Rigid centralisation leads to editorialisation

Compounding BIM’s participation bottleneck is its rigid and often proprietary data structure. This limits the type and quantity of information capable of being stored within the digital building model. Whilst this enables consistency and efficiency it often requires third-party information to be editorialised and associated with a foreign semantic system before it can be included within the project BIM. This manipulation can potentially lead to degradation of the design stories through editorialisation and confusion. Vendors of BIM are aware of these data storage limitations and are continually extending the semantic structures within their products⁸. However this semantic extension occurs at the risk of increased complexity and also with the knowledge that no rigid structure can handle all potential data or semantic needs during the telling of design stories.

3.3 Virtual accuracy confuses practical reality

Accuracy within an architectural project is crucial but it is equally important to know where inaccuracies and tolerances lie. Architecture ultimately manifests itself in the physical environment and it is important for the project team to understand where, how and why the physical form deviates from its virtual blueprint. Traditional design representation depicted an abstract and partial description of the intended built form. In contrast BIM's capacity to depict a highly accurate, yet ultimately idealised, virtual truth risks impeding the ability of design participants to comprehend or accept the discrepancies between the virtual and physical realms. This is an issue that becomes pronounced as rapid design changes and construction inconsistencies are introduced into the process. If those administering the BIM cannot keep pace with these changes then information will be lost, incorrect decisions made and the design stories will suffer.

It is possible that eventually BIM implementations will evolve to account for the issues raised in this discussion. However, it is highly unlikely that within the foreseeable future a single digital building model will efficiently or accurately capture a project's design stories. Therefore, to ensure accurate recording of the design stories, the Project Information Cloud must exist as a distinct yet supporting element to BIM.

4. Learning from the Web to create the Project Information Cloud

Attempting to accurately record design stories using BIM highlights the inherent problem of using a centralised, highly structured data model to capture decentralised, unstructured decision making. A better means of capturing such data is to establish a distributed Project Information Cloud where all participants can contribute equally. Fortunately, many of the underlying principles and technologies necessary to create such a space exist already within the World Wide Web. The Web is the most successful distributed digital information network currently in existence. This success stems from its ability for anyone to create and link to other relatively unstructured data in meaningful ways.

The AEC industry has not ignored the Web but it is yet to embrace its full potential within the architectural design process. As with every industry, the availability of the Web and email has revolutionised the speed and distance across which project teams can communicate and exchange data. However, the actual processes of the industry itself have yet to be considerably influenced by the Web's principles or technologies. Project intranets have been adopted in a limited fashion within the AEC industry. However, these have primarily acted as digital extensions of traditional filing cabinets rather than as new methodology for collaborative design⁹. Whilst these tools can be valuable management and auditing aids, their centralised nature and the fact they are controlled by one group of design participants generally relegates their role to digital document manager for a specific project team or organisation. If implementations of the Project Information Cloud are to be based on similar technologies then they must overcome these shortcomings. This can be achieved by adhering to a common set of principles which emphasise decentralisation and ubiquitous data formats that all participants can utilise. Establishing a common set of principles will ensure that design stories can be created and openly syndicated amongst the distributed project team.

5. The principles of the Project Information Cloud

For the Project Information Cloud to be established seven guiding principles should inform the methodologies and technologies that constitute it: simplicity, modular design, decentralisation, ubiquity, information awareness, evolutionary semantics and context sensitivity. These principles are inspired by the concepts that have driven development of the World Wide Web¹⁰ yet reflect the objective of the Project Information Cloud to be a common, distributed environment for exchanging design meta-data and preserving cohesive design stories.

The principles of simplicity, modular design and decentralisation are intended to ensure implementations of the Project Information Cloud are capable of accommodating the largest and most fragmented project teams. The principle of simplicity aims to ensure that the underlying data formats and structures that form the Cloud's fabric are easy to understand and replicate. This principle will ensure a broad range of digital design tools can evolve to interact with this space and the design stories it contains¹¹. The principle of modular design aims to ensure that undue influence cannot be exerted by a single participant or software vendor. To achieve this, any component of the Project Information Cloud should be able to be replaced by a similar, independently developed component. The centralisation of digital information is a key inhibitor to storing design stories within the Building Information Model. To avoid this problem the principle of decentralisation declares that the Cloud cannot be formed around, or rely upon, a specific digital information source. Within this space all points of data are of equal significance to ensure scalability and equal participation by all project members.

The principles of ubiquity, information awareness, evolutionary semantics and context sensitively are intended to promote the intelligent distribution of design information throughout the project team. The principle of ubiquity should influence the nature of the digital information exchanged. Rather than stipulating data formats the emphasis of the Project Information Cloud should be on identifying the most common formats available within each project team. As this data is referenced in the Cloud, the principle of information awareness will then ensure that these changes are efficiently syndicated throughout the design team. The principle of evolutionary semantics states that the taxonomy of the Project Information Cloud must be capable of changing¹². This will assist in meeting the diverse and shifting classification requirements of the design stories. Finally, the principle of context sensitivity ensures that design team participants are only presented with information that is appropriate for their role or the project's current state. Through the embodiment of these seven principles implementations of the Project Information Cloud will be successful in digitally recording a project's design stories.

6. Conclusion

Design stories are a valuable outcome from the architectural process. Despite this, project teams lack the ability to easily weave digital information streams into cohesive design stories. The current trend towards centralised Building Information Models has further degraded design stories as these models impose barriers to participation and rigid semantic data structures. The concept of a Project Information Cloud is proposed as a means of allowing participants to record design stories within a meta-data layer that inherits properties of the World Wide Web. By learning from the underlying lessons of the Web the AEC industry can position itself to evolve its digital methodologies and tools. This will enable the formation of Project Information Clouds. Once in place these clouds should improve the project team's ability to digitally record design discussion and its relationship to the Building Information Model. It is envisaged that the Project Information Cloud will provide AEC professionals with a more capable means of utilising their design stories for problem solving and collaboration.

References

1 see Aragon, Patrick. 2006. Reinventing Collaboration Across Internal and External Project Teams. http://www.aecbytes.com/viewpoint/2006/issue_28.html (accessed 3 March, 2007).

2 see Kvan, Thomas. “Collaborative Design: What is it?” Automation in Construction 9, no. 4 (2000): 409-15.

3 see D’Agostino, Bruce, Marisé Mikulis, and Mark Bridgers. Eighth Annual Survey of Owners. FMI/CMAA, 2007.

4 see Willis, Daniel, and Woodward, Todd. “Diminishing Difficulty - Mass Customization and the Digital Production of Architecture.” Harvard Design Magazine 23 (2005): 71-83.

5 see Ibrahim, Mary. “To Bim Or Not to Bim, This is Not the Question.” Paper presented at the Communicating Space(s) 24th eCAADe Conference Proceedings, Volos, Greece, 2006.

6 see Cooper, Graham, Cerulli, Cristina, Peng, Chengzhi, and Rezgui, Yacine. “Tracking Decision-Making During Architectural Design.” ITcon (2005): 125-39.

7 see Kiviniemi, A, M Fischer, and V Bazjanac. “Multi-Model Environment: Links Between Objects in Different Building Models.” Paper presented at the CIB W78's 22nd International Conference on Information Technology in Construction, Dresden, Germany, 2005.

8 see Amor, Robert, Ying Jiang, and Xiaofan Chen. “Bim in 2007 – Are We There Yet?” Paper presented at the Bringing ITC knowledge to work, Maribor, Slovenia, 2007.

9 see Al-Reshaid, K, and N Kartam. “Improving Construction Communication: The Impact of Online Technology.” Paper presented at the CiB W78, Vancover, Canda, 1999.

10 see Berners-Lee, Tim. 1998. Principles of Design. http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/ Principles.html (accessed August 10, 2007).

11 Berners-Lee, Tim, and Mendelsohn, Noah. 2001. The Rule of Least Power. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/leastPower.html (accessed March 20, 2008).

12 see Mathes, Adam. “Folksonomies - Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata.” Computer Mediated Communication - LIS590CMC (2004).

Using Blogging as a Research Tool

David — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:26:51 +0000

This post expands upon a talk I gave recently about using blogs as an academic research and thought development tool.

Identify interesting people in your field of study

Academic research is one part original thought and ninety nine parts identifying the limits of existing knowledge. This task can take up a good part of your time and when it comes to the Web identifying movers and shakers in your field can be frustrating and highly unproductive task.

Online communities: social networks and newsgroups

The first place to start when identifying interesting people in your line of study is the various social networks and interest groups on the Web.

As far as social networks go arguably the two most productive for finding people are Facebook and LinkedIn. Whilst Facebook is aimed at the casual user there is a diverse range of interest groups forming around nearly every topic imaginable. Don't despair at the variable quality of the content within these groups, the fact you are almost always dealing with real people makes the effort needed to browse through these groups worthwhile. Likewise whilst the business-centric LinkedIn lacks Facebook's group capabilities you'll be surprised how many people in your extended professional network share similar interests or could be of benefit to your research.

At the more traditional end of the spectrum newsgroups like those at Google Groups and Yahoo Groups are good places to to find clusters of people interested in your research. Most newsgroups are welcoming to newcomers, especially those that have something to offer, but it pays to passively monitor potential groups for a while in order to properly gauge the tone and style of the people involved. Whilst it may seem easy to charge straight in, it is hard to rebuild bridges if you start things off on the wrong foot. For example it is not good karma for your first newsgroup posting to read "can someone tell me everything about subject X".

A typical Google Groups group (click to enlarge)

Social bookmarking

There are a growing number of websites dedicated to storing and sharing your Web bookmarks.

The most notable of these is del.icio.us but there are others such as Diigo and Simpy that are also very good.

These online repositories assist your research by helping you find people with similar interests as yourself. This is achieved by browsing through the 'tags' people associate with their bookmarks, whilst some services can even recommend people who appear to share similar interests as yourself. Social bookmarking can also act like a human powered search engine by enabling you to track popular or new bookmarks on a specific topic. However the drawback of social bookmarking is that for the system to function at its full potential you must publish your bookmarks for the world to see. This maybe a problem if privacy is an issue with your research or you just don't like the idea of being 'on show'.

Traditional search engines

When it comes to academic research most fields of study have large, searchable repositories of published work such as digital architecture's Cumincad and the ITC Digital Libraries. Alongside these targeted resources are generic academic search tools like Google Scholar and many more. Using a traditional search engine like Google or Yahoo for research purposes is possible but it can be of limited value as these tools are tuned to provide relevant rather than current results. Whilst fine for background purposes such a characteristic is not ideal for identifying leading edge thinking.

Blog search engines

Blog search engines like Technorati, Google Blog Search and Icerocket are focused on providing a window into current activity on the Web rather than identifying the most relevant (i.e. linked to) content. Using these tools is beneficial from a research perspective because it helps identify people out there that are currently writing about your field of research. This is different to academic journal repositories and conventional search engines where the actual content can be months or even years old.

Unfortunately by focusing on current events rather than relevancy blog search engines are prone to returning a lot of chaff (rubbish) alongside some useful nuggets of information. As a consequence the value of blog searching needs to be measured over a long period of time rather than a couple of minutes. Like panning for gold the same blog search repeated every day for a month will eventually yield a useful set of results. Performing this search and collating the results every day is very time consuming and subject to error, but fortunately there is a technology called RSS to help you out (more on that later).

Personal and corporate blogs

All going well you should be on your way to uncovering some key people in your field of study. These people maybe visionaries or just very good at keeping track of what exactly the leading edge is in your field of research. At this point it is important to determine whether these people (or people closely associated with them) maintain personal or corporate blogs. A blog is often the most efficient means of information discovery because unlike search engine results or academic journals you are able to access and disseminate the thoughts of these people as soon as it becomes available. Also the casual writing style often used in blogs can provide an emotional angle on research which highly crafted academic papers or books often lack.

Beyond the actual content the hyperlinks within a blog and the comments made about it are two significant research assets. It is very common for a blog to hyperlink to at least one other source of information. These links represent a free research lead which can often prove of more value than the originating blog post. Many blogs also support commenting which is a great way of gaining the attention of the author and understanding what other people think about what has been written. Don't forget that everyone appreciates positive comments and hearing from people with similar interests. If your goal is to get noticed then constructively participating in someone's blog is a great way of beginning this process.

The principle of Really Simple Syndication (RSS)

Visiting multiple websites every day just to see if something has changed is not the best way to spend your time. Fortunately Really Simple Syndication (RSS) exists to enable computers to automatically monitor a website's content and collate it in one convenient place. At its heart RSS is a set of standards for describing new web content in chronological order. On the face of it these RSS feeds may not seem very useful, but to a computer they are a simple means of comprehending a website's content without all the graphical and textual distractions. Most time-centric websites (i.e. blogs, news and search sites) now publish RSS feeds. If you have a modern Web browser like Firefox, Safari, Opera or Internet Explorer 7 you will see a little RSS notification somewhere on your screen when such a resource is available.

Google Reader (click to enlarge)

By itself RSS does not do much until you combine it with a 'reader' application. There are numerous RSS readers available with two of the most popular being Google Reader and Newsgator. Both of these RSS readers are free and require no software to be installed on your computer. Once signed up to the service you can subscribe to any number of websites you wish by following the instructions on the Google or Newsgator websites.

Adding your own content to the mix

Research is a bi-directional process and it is no fun just being a consumer of information. Fortunately there are plenty of free tools out there for writing your own blogs, the hard part is really deciding on which one fits your needs best.

Micro-Blogging tools

Committing to a blog is a big step especially if you have not created online content before. You may find it easier to dip your toe in the online waters by trying out a micro-blogging tool like Twitter or Pownce. These are very simple hosted services that let you write very short statements online. The idea may sound a little goofy but if your primary aim is to scrapbook a bunch of ideas, hyperlinks and images such a tool is a good place to start.

Blogging tools

There are plenty of choices as far as blogging tools go but if you are just getting into it then Blogger and Wordpress are two good places to start. Both services are free and hosted so you do not need to worry about spending money or configuring Web servers. There are limitations to hosted blogging services but for academic research purposes there really is not much need to look at more complicated (or costly) blogging solutions.

Blogging tips

When you start out blogging try to resist the urge of writing lengthy formal documents that could just as easily end up in an academic journal. The key is to try and write succinctly and regularly so that your thoughts are recorded and have time to evolve. There are plenty of blogging tips out there but here are some of the basics:

Keep your posts shortish (250-1000 words) or break long pieces of writing into multiple posts.
Get your idea across very quickly - many people will only read the title and first few sentences.
Treat your post as a moment in time - if you were wrong or change your mind later write a new post.
Visual impact is important - try to get one or two interesting images to break up the text.

Citations

Citing in blogs is difficult because a traditional hyperlink is not very accurate when it comes to pinpointing specific words on a page. Fortunately there is Citebite which lets you highlight a specific quote. The service is free to use and a great way of pinpointing those quotes for future reference.

Getting noticed in a crowded world

The importance of getting noticed by others will vary depending on your personal intentions. Whilst some blogs are for personal use or sharing amongst a group of friends the overriding majority are written by people wishing to broadcast their thoughts to the general public. Attracting attention is useful from a research standpoint because it can result to new information leads or professional relationships. However like a shampoo advert; building an online reputation will not happen overnight - but it will happen.

Get into Google's index (and the rest)

Google is the most popular search engine out there and it is important that your blog gets in it. To submit your blog to Google go to the following page and submit your blog's URL. It will take Google a little while to index your site but once it has it will be regularly checked by Google for changes. If you found that little exercise easy then head over to Yahoo and Microsoft's search sites and do the same thing.

Pimp your blog

Once you have a presence on the web it is easy to direct others to your site by including its URL in the comments you make on websites and in email conversation. When you look around you will find lots of places where you can advertise your blog, for example Facebook, LinkedIn and most photo sharing websites all provide a space for linking to your blog.

Making sure your blog URL is recorded in as many places as possible is important because Google and other search engines rank websites based on the number of other sites that link to them. This concept, often referred as PageRank, was the key behind Google's initial success in web search engine market during the mid-90's. Ultimately your objective is to have your blog linked to by a website that Google considers really important. Once this occurs a few times you will notice a definite increase in the quantity and quality of people taking notice of what you write.

Optimise your RSS feed

These days all blogging software can produce an RSS feed for other people to subscribe to. Unfortunately even though RSS stands for 'Really Simple Syndication' the technology itself is far from simple. There are now three RSS standards (RSS-0.9x, RSS-2.0 and Atom) and many of the programs for reading or writing RSS can only understand one or two of these formats.

Feedburner statistics (click to enlarge)

Fortunately there is a free service called FeedBurner which gets rid of all this hassle by ensuring that your RSS feed can be read by anybody. After signing up for a FeedBurner account point it to the URL of your RSS feed and it will create a special RSS feed that any program can understand. Not only this but FeedBurner will also automatically submit your content to search engines and track who is reading what you publish.

Notifying search engines of new content

Blogging is a time-centric medium; we generally read blogs to get an understanding of someone's thought process rather than for sources of definitive information. Traditional search engines can take a while to index your blog and even after this happens it can take a very long time before your content begins to feature near the top of searches (if at all).

Fortunately there are a range of blog search engines out there ready and willing to index and present your content to the world as you write it. Before this can happen they first must be told you have written something which is where Ping-o-matic is useful. This free tool is very good at notifying all these search engines you have new content on your blog. Within minutes of using Ping-o-matic your content will be indexed and displayed in search results from the likes of Technorati and Google Blog Search.

Tracking your impact

If you are trying to build an online reputation it is important to be able to gauge where you and your content stands. Is all your hard work paying off or are you being ignored? Even when people start reading your work what was it that brought them to your blog in the first place? Believe it or not but it is very easy to answer these questions by studying the behavior of your readers through free web-metrics tools like Google Analytics.

Google Analytics (click to enlarge)

Setting up Google Analytics can take a little bit of effort but overall it is not that hard to do. Like all statistical processes the results you get initially cannot be put to practical use but after six months the accumulated data will paint a very clear picture of who reads your work and what drew them to your blog in the first place.

Concluding thoughts

Contrary to popular belief starting a blog will not lead to instant fame or earn you piles of money from advertising. As a research tool however understanding how to consume and produce blogs can be very beneficial for developing ideas and building links with new people. This being said any results you experience will take time and certainly don't expect to the leading thinkers in your field to come knocking at your door the very next day. Persistence and a little bit of luck is the key; but like any long journey the satisfaction comes from the path you take and not the eventual destination.

A great Web 2.0 Dilbert strip

David — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:36:10 +0000

Sad because it is true...

Wikis in plain english

David — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:59:52 +0000

This is a nice little video for explaining to those who do not know or understand what wiki are without using words of more than two syllables. It does not push the theoretical envelope in any way but it is fun to watch all the same.