 |
| The current AEC notation standard; a large collections of 2D drawings in a file-system. The way this system seems to be used practically it has very low error tolerance and almost no dynamic relationship between different representation of the same data-set. The individual representations are good though in that they leave a lot of space for common sense interpretation on site. Very flat relationship to other nodes/containers/drawings, in that sense not that dissimilar to musical scores. |
|
 |
| Creating 3D models in a unified database is commonplace in product development but not yet entirely practical in architecture. Why? It really seems the way to go. Modeling piece by piece is time consuming to say the least. Procedural systems are attractive but require a high understanding of abstraction and symbolic modeling from the user. Perhaps a different way to describe the relationships, similarities and constraining factors? |
|
 |
| I would love to have the time to dive into things like RUP and UML and their underlying principles and try to apply this to the developing of large architectural projects. Borrow from all the concepts developed in business process modeling and software engineering and create a notation for meta-modeling of architecture. Schematic modeling and sketching in parallel in the early stages of a project. Stop trying to sketch in Microstation or Autocad! |
|
 |
| Wouldn't it be great to create a common language to describe design patterns such as, say, Disability Access building regulations, and then to have a software agents that dynamically searches a current design and advises the designer? Building regulations as software agents. One would have to attach more information to the geometry itself. |
|
 |
| The sharing and reusability of knowledge; How can many people take part in and have access to what is now mostly a structure in the head of the project architect and the chief engineer? Each profession/part of the collaborative force of building generation sees the information differently. Can this be built into a notation? How can we collaboratively capture ideas and evolve concepts in efficient ways? Here an example of a collaborative concept mapping technique I developed while working at Schmidlin |
|
 |
| The Wiki mechanisms are very attractive in capturing and continuously processing collective knowledge. The way topics branch and evolve as knowledge is accumulated and the way topics are continuously kept up to date by ongoing discussion and "open source" consensus is extremely powerful across an organization. Because everyone is allowed to Author, Modify and Comment through a completely horizontal interface the human resource bottlenecks of more traditional ways are eliminated. It becomes more important to foster a culture of collaboration, but this can only be seen as something positive. |
|
 |
| How does one monitor and investigate the integrity and predict/identify errors in a large database with thousands of related nodes? How can many collaborating parties monitor the transition from abstract model to completed designs. Here a branching Walrus diagram with lots of cross relations. |
|