Digital COM

About the Author: Sasha Reed has 10 years of experience working directly in the Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) market, with over 15 years of experience in Customer Relations. As the Director of Strategic Alliances at Bluebeam Software, Sasha interacts with AEC industry leaders to better understand the long range goals of the industry and to help guide Bluebeam’s technology development. Drawing on this real world experience, Sasha has spoken at numerous industry events including the American Institute of Architects’ DesignDC Conference, American Institute of Architects California Council’s Monterey Design Conference, Construct Canada, NTI Danish BIM Conference and the Associated Builders & Contractors EdCon & Expo, the International Highway Engineering Exchange Program and the International Facilities Maintenance Association Conference.  Before Bluebeam, Sasha was a Project Manager for M3, a Herman Miller dealer, where she learned firsthand the everyday challenges that the AEC industry faces, from project conception to completion.

Follow Digital COM:
         

The paperless office debate: A gladiator challenge awaits you

The paperless office debate: A gladiator challenge awaits you
February 06, 2013

One of the email responses I received to my first blog post was from an engineer who offered his opinion on the concept of the paperless office or in construction terms, the paperless jobsite. Apparently I am not the only one who cringes every time I hear this term thrown around in the AEC world.  Although I think we may be on different sides of the spectrum in this case, I appreciate his perspective. His view is that the paperless office is a myth and the less-paper office should be our goal.

One of the examples he offered to support his opinion was the workflow of design review. He stated that viewing full-scale paper drawings will always result in greater accuracy than reviewing drawings electronically. To which I couldn’t help but suggest a gladiator like “review-off,” pitting two reviewers against each other. Can’t you just picture it; one reviewer with a set of full-scale paper drawings, pen, and architectural ruler and the other reviewer with a 24-inch monitor, keyboard, mouse, and an electronic markup tool (preferably Bluebeam Revu; sorry, I gotta give the contender a fighting chance). Each would review feverishly, marking up, tracking issues, trying not to miss a single detail. Why do I hear the main theme for the Gladiator playing in my head right now?

To counter, I offered up the idea that perhaps this is more an issue of preference than anything else. The reason I say this is because over the last five years I have spoken with engineers and architects who’ve become extremely comfortable with both methods, and for different reasons.

I’ve seen reviewers who can quickly detect an issue within a design just by seeing the drawing laid out on a table, reviewing the design in context of the whole. On the other side of the spectrum, I’ve met reviewers who demonstrate how leveraging technology has allowed them to more easily track issues with greater efficiency and accuracy, eliminating a lot of the redundancy in the review process.

There are times when a head-to-head comparison can settle a debate, but in this arena I think the results can speak for themselves. So let me ask you, what results can you share for either side of the debate? Have you seen results swaying you to prefer and mandate one method over the other? Is this one AEC workflow where we can truly be, dare I say, paperless? 

Excuse me as I raise my shield and await the spirited debate to ensue!  There it is again, the main theme from the Gladiator soundtrack.

         
 
 

Other posts from this author

Comments on: "The paperless office debate: A gladiator challenge awaits you"