Digital COM

About the Author: Sasha Reed has over 12 years of experience working directly in the architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) market. As VP of Strategic Alliances at Bluebeam Software, Sasha interacts directly with AEC leaders to better understand the long-range goals of the industry and help align Bluebeam’s technology partnerships. In addition, Sasha is acting Chair of the Construction PDF Coalition.  The purpose of the Coalition is to establish Guidelines to provide Architects, Engineers, Constructors and Owners (AECO) with a common framework in which to create and maintain Construction PDF Documents. Sasha has been featured as the keynote speaker at the 2014 Bentley Florida User Group and spoken at numerous industry events including the American Institute of Architects’ DesignDC Conference, NTI Danish BIM Conference, the International Highway Engineering Exchange Program and the International Facilities Management Association Conference. Sasha has also contributed articles to numerous national publications and authors the Digital Com blog for Building Design + Construction magazine. Before Bluebeam, Sasha was a Project Manager for M3, a Herman Miller dealer, where she learned firsthand the challenges faced by the AEC industry 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.

         
 

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