www.enr.com/articles/8904-what-the-aec-industry-can-learn-from-steve-jobs-master-of-the-interface

What The AEC Industry Can Learn from Steve Jobs, Master of the Interface

May 15, 2013

(ENR) In 2005, the late Steve Jobs told Time Magazine, “One company makes the software; the other makes the hardware…It’s not working! The innovation can’t happen fast enough. No one takes responsibility for the user interface. It’s a mess.”

Replace the words “software” and “hardware” with “design” and “construction” and Jobs could just as easily have been describing the AEC industry today. The industry should study his solution.

Jobs left us with several remarkable concepts, including how to integrate others’ inventions in uniquely delightful and simple ways, and also with the realization that one can far better innovate superior and unimagined solutions for customers by “walking in their shoes” instead of asking them what they want. But perhaps his most significant—even fanatical—commitment, throughout his career, was to control the entire user experience across hardware, software, product design, and service—even down to selecting the quarry from which to mine the marble for Apple’s stores.

The Harvard Business School professor, Clayton Christiansen, is well known for writing about disruptive innovations and the inability of incumbent managers to adopt better ideas, all the while doing precisely what their stockholders expect of them. Less known is Christiansen’s exploration of integration across product interfaces. He observed that when interfaces are “not good enough”, customizing solutions that integrate across components win out. But over time, when interfaces become clearly understood and standardized, the most efficient creators of the components interfacing with each other wrest the value stream from the integrators, resulting in the greatest rewards migrating to the lowest-cost producers.

In the early 1980s, the interfaces between hardware, software, etc. were “not good enough” and Jobs originally prevailed and grabbed the value stream with a customized solution controlling all aspects of the computer experience. It was the only way to ensure that all components worked seamlessly together.

But as the interfaces improved and components were standardized, manufacturers began competing on price, allowing the Wintel platform to prevail because of its unique position in the value-chain and enabling the lowest cost assemblers of computers (Dell, Compaq, etc.) to surpass Apple. In fact, Apple nearly went bankrupt in 1996.

The market reversed in the late 1990s when the interface between networks, devices, and content became “not good enough.” Apple prevailed once again, in part, because it was first to streamline the interface once more.

In the AEC industry, the interfaces (between architect, contractor, subcontractor, etc.) are clearly “not good enough.” We can learn from Steve Jobs' example.

For instance, estimating practices, design details, means and methods, etc. are hardly standardized, impeding our ability to efficiently analyze and estimate BIM models.

Practitioners and customers are constantly experimenting with new contracts and delivery methods, hoping to improve predictability and eliminate the massive waste and strife. IPD is just the latest method to get everyone to work collaboratively, attempting to align incentives using contracts.



While IPD is an improvement over conventional delivery methods, many clients nevertheless avoid sharing risk in IPD contracts, thereby motivating participants to resort to traditional practices.

As for those who do implement risk-sharing arrangements, one must ask why, as a client, you would pay more by setting up contingencies for contractors and architects, and/or take on greater risk, simply to encourage your service providers to work in a more collaborative manner? Toyota would never have been able to eliminate 80% of the time required to prototype a car if the design and fabrication processes relied on a contract between two firms.

Some owners and practitioners have chosen to innovate better business models instead of relying on such contractual arrangements. A few architects and contractors have formed joint ventures to pursue specific building types over prolonged periods of time, while some owners have created alliances between contractors and architects to deliver many projects over extended periods.

Some industry firms have integrated the AEC disciplines internally, leveraging a much larger pool of resources to significantly improve the delivery process. This business model innovation—an Integrated Enterprise (IE)—is more effective than contractual innovations like IPD because the parties enter each project with a high level of trust between participants that can only be earned through working together long term.

In addition, Integrated Enterprises can afford to heavily invest in training, technology, and innovative processes to better integrate, knowing they can amortize the cost over many projects with the same teams or firms working together. Teams on IPD projects cannot afford this level of investment since the costs are too great to be absorbed by a single project and one cannot predict if the parties will ever work together again.

If the AEC industry is really serious about implementing significant improvement in the delivery process, participants must make tough decisions to integrate internally in some fashion and commit to some form of Integrated Enterprise for the long-term.

Remember that Apple committed to its notion of integration 35 years ago and has been learning from its failures and successes ever since. This is a marathon, not a sprint, but you have to start engaging!

Henry C. (Peter) Beck III is managing director of The Beck Group, Dallas, Texas