Episode 11

full
Published on:

30th Apr 2025

Navigating The Evolution of AEC Tech

Richard Harpham of Skema joins the podcast to talk about his insights from decades of experience in AEC technology. From witnessing the early days of BIM adoption to leading new software development initiatives, Harpham discusses the industry's evolution and current transformation. He explores how emerging technologies are reshaping architectural workflows, the challenges of market education, and his optimistic vision for the future of AEC software. This engaging conversation offers valuable perspective on where the industry has been and where it's heading.

Episode Links:

Watch this episode on YouTube or Spotify.

-----

The Confluence podcast is a collaboration between TRXL and AVAIL, and is produced by TRXL Media.

Transcript
Randall Stevens:

Welcome to another Confluence podcast.

2

:

I'm Randall Stevens.

3

:

I'm joined as usual with

my uh, co-host Evan Troxel.

4

:

today's guest is Richard Harpham.

5

:

Welcome, Richard.

6

:

Richard Harpham: Okay.

7

:

Nice to be here.

8

:

Randall Stevens: Uh, I'll give, uh, I'll

give the kind of brief background and then

9

:

you can fill in gaps, but, uh, long time.

10

:

Uh, Richard's been in the a

EC industry for quite a while.

11

:

He's appropriately

wearing his Revit shirt.

12

:

He was early stages of team at Revit,

uh, prior to the Autodesk acquisition.

13

:

And then, I don't know if the, I don't

know the exact history, Richard, but,

14

:

uh, whether you went over with the

acquisition or was over at Autodesk

15

:

before, but spent several years

16

:

Richard Harpham: Yeah.

17

:

Randall Stevens: in kind of global

product marketing roles, uh, in,

18

:

in marketing this technology.

19

:

So we're gonna get to

dive into part of that.

20

:

Um, uh, and then, uh, spent, spent a

few years in the, in the, uh, what,

21

:

10 years ago or in the formation

of the Katerra, uh, platform.

22

:

Richard Harpham: Mm-hmm.

23

:

Randall Stevens: um, and

then most recently as one

24

:

of the co-founders of Skema.

25

:

So we're gonna, we're gonna have a

lot to talk about this afternoon.

26

:

Uh, I was mentioning, uh, to Richard, uh.

27

:

Before we jumped on this

podcast, I, I actually saw him

28

:

across the room last weekend.

29

:

We were both out in California for a

Revit 25th year, 25th year anniversary

30

:

kind of party that a mutual friend of

ours, Jim Balding, uh, with the Ant

31

:

Group, uh, kind of pulled together and,

uh, well there was probably a hundred,

32

:

a hundred plus people in the room.

33

:

Richard Harpham: Yeah.

34

:

Randall Stevens: lot lots.

35

:

It's kind of the who's who

of, uh, the people around BIM

36

:

over these last, uh, 25 years.

37

:

Uh, so it was good to see you there, even,

even though we didn't get to catch up.

38

:

So, we'll, we'll try to

do some of that today.

39

:

Evan Troxel: it

40

:

Richard Harpham: Okay.

41

:

Sounds great.

42

:

Evan Troxel: little that get together.

43

:

Richard Harpham: Yeah, it was, um, yeah,

Jim Balding, who was one of the first,

44

:

I would say professional users of Revit

and has been a kind of stalwart passion

45

:

Revit user for the last 25 years, I guess.

46

:

Um.

47

:

Managed to pull together, uh, a group

of people and managed to scam some

48

:

people into giving a bit of money

to put on, put on a nice evening.

49

:

So it was,

50

:

it was, it was, it was great fun.

51

:

And, you know, lots of,

lots of faces from the past.

52

:

You know, I think there's,

53

:

it's strange how some, sometimes,

you know, a company, you know,

54

:

there's, there's kind of little

lightning in the bottle that happens

55

:

that connects people in the ways

that you'd never think they would.

56

:

Uh, it would.

57

:

Um, and that's just one of those

things that was surprising.

58

:

You know, it wasn't, I

wouldn't say it was emotional.

59

:

No one was tearing up, but it was, it

was kind of fun to see some old faces.

60

:

Randall Stevens: I kind of made

the, uh, comment to a couple

61

:

people that evening that, uh.

62

:

You know, we haven't had

the built conference in, uh,

63

:

you know, former RTC built

64

:

Richard Harpham: Yeah.

65

:

Yeah.

66

:

Randall Stevens: in, in

a handful of years now.

67

:

And, know, I I just said it was like

half to two thirds of the people that

68

:

I would normally wanna, you know,

connect with or made, you know, form

69

:

those relationships over the years

with, at those conferences were, were

70

:

there last weekend, so it was good

to, good to see everybody to catch up.

71

:

So,

72

:

Richard Harpham: Yeah.

73

:

Yeah,

74

:

Randall Stevens: let's go back 25 years

to that, you know, joining that Revit

75

:

team and, and getting that started.

76

:

Maybe just talk about, um, you know, this

was, this was all kind of new technology.

77

:

We were going from, you know, largely

2D CAD to this whole new concept of bim.

78

:

Richard Harpham: yeah.

79

:

Randall Stevens: some of your just

thoughts and early experience on through

80

:

into the Autodesk years about, about.

81

:

How, how do you market them?

82

:

How did you, how did you

83

:

Richard Harpham: Yeah.

84

:

Randall Stevens: what all this stuff was

and what are the challenges with that?

85

:

Richard Harpham: Yeah, there's

a lot to talk about there.

86

:

Um, like I said to you this before,

please interrupt me and ask, ask me

87

:

to spend more time or, or less time.

88

:

Randall Stevens: yeah.

89

:

We'll, we'll, we'll

interrupt and ask questions

90

:

Richard Harpham: Yeah.

91

:

Randall Stevens: We make this

92

:

Richard Harpham: I mean, I, I,

I suppose I, you know, how did

93

:

I, how did I end up in Revit?

94

:

Um, well, I started life as an

architect and, and kind of really

95

:

crossed the streams pretty early

into the dark side and joined a

96

:

construction company called Bovis.

97

:

And, um, it was, it was a, they hired

me out of architectural school and,

98

:

uh, they, and I, my job when I joined

was to help them figure out what this

99

:

strange gray box was in the corner they

had, which they spent a lot of money on.

100

:

And it was actually a, a program

from a called Acropolis, which

101

:

was originally BDP Acropolis.

102

:

It was a, it was something that

was developed in, uh, the uk and I.

103

:

And, uh, BDP Acro, BDP Acropolis was

this very, very, um, pro programmable,

104

:

um, Unix 3D design solution.

105

:

So I kind of like, my first taste

of CAD was 3D cad, and so I've

106

:

always kind of been on that side.

107

:

It, it kind of allowed me to

be the brightest guy in the

108

:

room for quite a long while.

109

:

I think all of us who first got

into CAD were, had that experience,

110

:

you know, it was like, I'll go,

111

:

Randall Stevens: I like that you've

called us the brightest guys.

112

:

Richard Harpham: yeah, I know whether

we were bright or not, we just were

113

:

the only ones who could actually

figure out how to connect it to

114

:

a, to, to a pen, uh, pen plotter.

115

:

Do you remember pen plotters?

116

:

And, um, you know, figure out

how to make that thing work.

117

:

Um, and so, you know, I had that

history, uh, which had led me to start

118

:

up my own company, um, because at,

at that moment in time, if you knew

119

:

anything about computers and design

and cad, you know, it meant that.

120

:

You know, the internet and Worldwide

Web just started and, you know, early 3D

121

:

Studio Max and, you know, you could almost

like, you had this palette of things that

122

:

you could do to build a business around.

123

:

So I, I did that for about three

or four years, and I got recruited,

124

:

um, by initially, uh, an Autodesk

company to help them, um, expand their

125

:

dealership in the United Kingdom.

126

:

And I did that as a part-time thing.

127

:

Um, but that led me to meet

the Auto Autodesk crowd.

128

:

And, and I met the Autodesk crowd because

I did the first websites for Autodesk in

129

:

UK and Europe, and I would say infamously.

130

:

I was, I met a guy there called,

uh, Jeff, Jeff Trust, and, uh, he

131

:

said, you know, can you have this

web I want and we need a website?

132

:

Can, could you, could

you do it in two weeks?

133

:

I said, absolutely.

134

:

Never created a website before in my life.

135

:

And sort of managed to get

that done in two weeks.

136

:

And so that meant he could beat.

137

:

Yeah.

138

:

Yeah.

139

:

That meant, you know, we were using,

uh, you know, I dunno, I can't

140

:

remember what editor we were using,

so the early Microsoft one, but I

141

:

had a graphic, a designer in tow,

and we managed to beat the deadline

142

:

working nonstop for two weeks.

143

:

And that led me to do two or three others.

144

:

So I got to know the Autodesk crowd.

145

:

And when those guys got recruited into

Revit, um, I think they remembered that

146

:

I was someone who could get some stuff

done and I knew architecture and, um,

147

:

they recruit, recruited me to, uh, be on

the technical sales side, which is for

148

:

those of us in the industry, it's like

demo Jock, which at the time I was like, I

149

:

don't wanna go back to being a demo jock.

150

:

I'm better than that now.

151

:

But, but then I saw the product and

it was, uh, famously, it was a hotel

152

:

called my Hotel in the Center of London.

153

:

And I met a guy called Ax

House and, uh, James Dyer, who

154

:

James d was exhorted us and.

155

:

They showed me this solution and

it, first thing happened is it

156

:

Blue screened and they rebooted.

157

:

And, and then they said, well,

I said, you know, I've, I've got

158

:

familiar with architectural desktop.

159

:

And I said, well, you know,

what's the big differentiator?

160

:

And they put a dimension between

the wall and a door and put a lock

161

:

on it, and then moved the wall,

and then the door moved with it.

162

:

And I was like, where do I sign?

163

:

Randall Stevens: Right.

164

:

Richard Harpham: You know?

165

:

And, uh, that was, that

was how I got into Revit.

166

:

Um, and, uh, I, you're right,

I didn't join Autodesk directly

167

:

from Revit Technologies.

168

:

I, I, I, I, I was, I actually put

together the demonstration set that,

169

:

uh, my, my now co-founder Marty

used, uh, to demo to the Autodesk

170

:

leadership when Revit got, uh, acquired.

171

:

But I decided to leave about, uh,

a month or so earlier, enjoyed a

172

:

company called Inversoft, um, to

help launch a product there, um,

173

:

which wasn't so successful, but.

174

:

Um, it, it, it, it was went okay, but

then Autodesk came back and recruited

175

:

me, um, initially to run a, to, to,

to launch a product called Buzz Saw.

176

:

Um, I dunno if you remember that, um,

177

:

Randall Stevens: Yep.

178

:

Richard Harpham: working in,

and that was to launch it in,

179

:

uh, UK and Northern Europe.

180

:

And we had a pretty successful

year, year or two there.

181

:

And then they just asked me, they,

they were having problems with Revit

182

:

in United States, uh, and globally

trying to get market traction.

183

:

And Dave Lamont and others from the

original Revit team remembered me.

184

:

And I met a guy called Phil Bernstein

in a conference in, in, uh, Munich,

185

:

and sat down for a cocktail and I

was ready to do something different.

186

:

And I just said, Hey, I think I

can help you with Revit in the us.

187

:

I think I, I know how I can help

you make that, you know, be more

188

:

demonstrable for the market.

189

:

And I guess three months

later I had me running.

190

:

Of marketing and sales development

for the All of the Americas, which

191

:

was a huge jump up at the time for me.

192

:

Um, and that's what led me to

kind of develop a really good

193

:

partnership with Phil and getting

this new concept called building

194

:

information modeling into the market.

195

:

And I'll stop for breath 'cause

I'm sure there's a few questions.

196

:

Randall Stevens: Did that, uh,

wa was bi, was BIM the acronym

197

:

that was invoke at that time?

198

:

I, I can't even remember when

199

:

Richard Harpham: Yeah.

200

:

Um, well, there's a little bit,

little bit of history there.

201

:

Um, so the last, one of the last marketing

efforts, uh, at in, in Revit technologies,

202

:

um, Alex Lee has, and, um, Rick Rendell,

who was running marketing at the time.

203

:

We're trying to find, you know, everyone

in Mark, we can talk more about this as

204

:

we talk about taking product to market.

205

:

You know, you're always trying to

find your corner of the room, you

206

:

know, that you can talk and be

seen to be the leader, you know.

207

:

So it's hard, it's hard if you decide to

at that time say, okay, we, we are, I.

208

:

The next best single building modeling

solution could, which was Graphis Os

209

:

kind of had owned that at the time.

210

:

Um, so the, the initial, um, proposal was

this concept called Concurrent Building

211

:

Assets CBAs, which everyone hated.

212

:

I'm gonna tell you.

213

:

It was like we all just listened to

Rick presented to us, and we were

214

:

just like, what on Earth is that?

215

:

You know, no, no, that's never gonna fly.

216

:

Um, but CBAs was the precursor to building

information modeling, and I think it was,

217

:

uh, I wasn't in the room when it happened,

but, uh, there was a meeting up in New

218

:

Hampshire where they came up with building

information modeling as a concept.

219

:

I think arguably people have suggested

that the term had ex pre-existed, um,

220

:

maybe as building information management.

221

:

Um, but it'd never really been

marketed and no one really claimed it.

222

:

And so when I came to the US and sat

down with Phil is, you know, the first

223

:

thing we did is sit down and try and

figure out a strategy for how we could.

224

:

I would say, uh, it was a, we call, you

know, at the time it was called thought,

225

:

we called it thought leadership, which

no one was really using that term very

226

:

much, um, to create a program that was

not run by the central marketing team.

227

:

That was something that was very

much more about, um, I would say

228

:

the professionals within Autodesk

talking to the professionals in

229

:

the industry, and particularly

into the colleges and universities.

230

:

So we started from, you know, with

a very, very different approach.

231

:

Um, I think, I think Phil's kind of,

uh, scholastic background and maybe I

232

:

had never worked in a corporation before

when really until I joined Autodesk and

233

:

I think my ni naivety around observing

the corporate boundaries of what you

234

:

could and couldn't do in the back of

the room, coupled with Phil really

235

:

not being interested in corporate

at all, much more interested in.

236

:

Uh, almost being more of a lecturer

than a, than a marketer, um, led

237

:

in those early, early few years

to quite a different approach.

238

:

Randall Stevens: Did, uh, was was part

of the, uh, you know, I, the earliest

239

:

things I remember from Phil were the kind

of infamous, uh, you know, saw tooth.

240

:

Uh, drop

241

:

Richard Harpham: Oh, yeah,

242

:

Randall Stevens: information across.

243

:

I'm assuming that that was, uh,

one of your all's, kind of central

244

:

tenets to, uh, why this kind of new

wave of technology was important

245

:

and what problem it was gonna solve.

246

:

Richard Harpham: yeah, yeah.

247

:

And, and, and it is funny.

248

:

People are, and no one really

knows the origin of that.

249

:

I, I, I've done a version of its of try

and persuade back in Revit days to try

250

:

and persuade us to actually almost like

bundle up with AutoCAD LT at the time.

251

:

'cause QD editing Revit was so bad.

252

:

That was my assertion to, uh.

253

:

The, the, the Revit leadership at the

time was like, look, you know, if we can

254

:

position ourselves as the best possible

companion to AutoCAD or AutoCAD lt, then

255

:

we totally disrupt architectural desktop.

256

:

And, um, that didn't really

get bought into that much.

257

:

But, um, I think that, um, when, uh, we

kind of looked at the, the saw tooth as

258

:

a way of describing, you know, moving

from one product to the other, it

259

:

was, yeah, that, that was one of the,

that was one of the big slides we had.

260

:

We had, I think it was about a 15 slide

deck that we used for the, uh, we used

261

:

to call them vision to reality, sort of,

um, we, we were on, um, and it was, it

262

:

was very carefully curated, you know, it

was like, there was, there was, that was

263

:

where, um, the EY curve kind of originated

outta that process, you know, working

264

:

with, um, Working with professionals in

the industry and you know, so there was,

265

:

there were a lot of sort of diagrams that

have become very persistent that kind

266

:

of came out of those two or three years.

267

:

Randall Stevens: Yeah, maybe we can put

our hands on one oven and put it up for

268

:

everybody to see if they haven't seen it.

269

:

But

270

:

Evan Troxel: is

271

:

Randall Stevens: Phil used to.

272

:

Evan Troxel: I'll put it up on

here, but it literally came up on

273

:

my other Troxel podcast, like last

274

:

week that, that people are

275

:

Richard Harpham: Oh yeah,

276

:

Evan Troxel: talking

277

:

Randall Stevens: Yeah.

278

:

It's been around,

279

:

Evan Troxel: diagram.

280

:

Randall Stevens: well,

281

:

Richard Harpham: yeah,

282

:

Randall Stevens: it's sim it's simple.

283

:

It's easy to understand and

everybody's experienced it.

284

:

Right.

285

:

This, this

286

:

Richard Harpham: yeah.

287

:

We use it, we use it in Skema

today, you know, to try and explain,

288

:

Randall Stevens: handoff of

289

:

Richard Harpham: the challenge.

290

:

Randall Stevens: Yeah, there's

always some, some loss, right?

291

:

It's loss, lossy handoff of, uh,

292

:

Richard Harpham: Yeah.

293

:

Randall Stevens: you know.

294

:

So, uh, you know, when I was, I was

teaching part-time, you know, I, uh,

295

:

were talking earlier before the podcast,

uh, surprised one that we didn't cross

296

:

paths back in that day because my, I

had started a company called Avision

297

:

back in the late nineties, and we had

integrated I think the time when you were

298

:

there, Richard, into, uh, into Revit.

299

:

I think it was in the 2000, 2001

timeframe around, uh, 3, 3 3 0.0

300

:

or three point something

release of, of Revit.

301

:

But anyway, the, um, you know, so I

was familiar with Revit, you know, in

302

:

the early stages, but I was teaching

at the time, just part-time at the of

303

:

Design, at the University of Kentucky.

304

:

And, uh, back in the, you know, I

started doing that in the nineties

305

:

and I was very similar to you.

306

:

I was using like AutoCAD, but

using it in three DI was always.

307

:

Enamored with 3D and then 3D Studio.

308

:

And when I was teaching those courses,

I was started in the nineties with the

309

:

AutoCAD and, and then using 3D Studio.

310

:

But, and then we got into SketchUp, right?

311

:

Which was, you know, when you look at

the history of where these things came

312

:

about, it was like kind of Revit and

SketchUp about the same time came on the

313

:

Richard Harpham: Yeah.

314

:

Randall Stevens: And, uh, so I was

just really, uh, eager with the

315

:

students to find something easier to

get 'em started because it was like

316

:

Richard Harpham: Mm-hmm.

317

:

Randall Stevens: you had to

have so much background in

318

:

this stuff to even get started.

319

:

And you know, when Revit, I started

teaching Revit though, I'm pretty

320

:

sure, in either 2003 or 2004.

321

:

And what I wanted to ask, and I'm sure

I didn't drive that being available at

322

:

the university, it was, I probably just

saw it as part of the Autodesk initiative

323

:

of products that were available.

324

:

Is that true?

325

:

And you know, when you talk about

that, you all were with Phil with his,

326

:

Richard Harpham: Yeah.

327

:

Randall Stevens: You know,

education background.

328

:

Was there a str, was there a strategy

to try to use the universities and

329

:

students and get this out there like that?

330

:

Richard Harpham: Uh, somewhat.

331

:

Um, I, I would say it was.

332

:

I would say we didn't really engage

the student community as much as

333

:

we engaged the, the professors,

334

:

Randall Stevens: Yeah.

335

:

Richard Harpham: you know, so we, we,

we tried to hold as many of the events

336

:

as we could at, you know, places like

Penn State or other, you know, colleges

337

:

and universities where there were good,

good populations of architectural folk.

338

:

Um, uh, and uh, so I wouldn't say it

was the students were often, were often

339

:

invited to come along to those events.

340

:

Randall Stevens: Yeah.

341

:

Richard Harpham: Um, but we tried,

we were also trying to make them

342

:

be a little bit exclusive, you

know, so, you know, we did that.

343

:

We know, we, I I think ultimately

we, maybe, maybe we did about

344

:

six, seven or eight of them.

345

:

And, and obviously I say culminated

because, because we didn't do so many

346

:

afterwards for, because we actually

kind of got over the, over the hump.

347

:

We just led up to the Freedom

Tower presentation that we did

348

:

in New York to, I think it might

have been at the Harvard Club.

349

:

Um, I may get, I may have got that wrong.

350

:

Um.

351

:

Where obviously we were, we had, um, SOM

come present and, you know, that that

352

:

was a one thing we did do, we were very

careful to do, which was, if you ever have

353

:

you met Phil, you know, it's hard to keep

him down to less than 10 minutes on stage.

354

:

'cause he can, he's a good talker

and, and he's very engaging.

355

:

Um, but we did five to 10 minutes

of Phil speaking and then most of

356

:

the event was about an architect,

someone who'd taken a risk.

357

:

It was an early adopter doing

the majority of the presentation.

358

:

And we, we put zero constraints

on how they presented.

359

:

You know, we didn't rehearse the,

um, we did technically rehearse them

360

:

of course, but you know, we really

didn't rehearse them quite often.

361

:

We didn't have a lot of sight of the

information that's gonna be presented.

362

:

So there was a lot of trust, I think,

I think at the time, I, I think I.

363

:

I think now it would

gimme kind of nightmares.

364

:

Now, now I've probably been corporatized

a little bit more than I was then.

365

:

I, I, I would want to see everything

and make sure every detail was ready

366

:

and there would nothing could go wrong,

but, you know, we had people, you

367

:

know, you know, just opening up Revit

and showing what they were doing live.

368

:

And I think, I think part of the reason

we got a lot of traction, um, at the

369

:

top of the firms and with, um, I would

say the influencer and advocates that

370

:

come out of the educational side of

the a i a and, and, uh, architects.

371

:

Um, and apologies was because we,

we weren't really, we weren't really

372

:

showing up and throwing up with

marketing speak, you know, it was,

373

:

you know, it was very professorial, if

you like, the way that was presented.

374

:

And so it, so it was, it was quite a

revolution in Autodesk at the time.

375

:

I, out of that, I got asked to help

a lot of the other divisions, which

376

:

like manufacturing and others to.

377

:

To try and figure out their

own thought leadership.

378

:

And actually that was really tough.

379

:

You know, it was because it was trying to

re recreate that was really, really hard.

380

:

And because it's also, it's hard to

kind of, um, imagine that you can

381

:

take something, you know, with, with

architects you've got a professional

382

:

community, and if I can say with a

smile on my face, architects have a

383

:

particular style and way that they like

to consume information, which is very

384

:

different from, from others, you know?

385

:

And, um, I think it's, uh,

it's, it's an enjoyable way

386

:

of engaging with your market.

387

:

It also has its frustrations, you know,

because it's, it's very much harder

388

:

to do a traditional, I would say,

value sell on, um, that you would be

389

:

able to do to a manufacturing company.

390

:

You know, and I, through my time at

Autodesk, I was managing marketing

391

:

teams to addressing all of them.

392

:

Um, but, you know, it's, uh, it's hard

to sell efficiency to an architect.

393

:

Evan Troxel: I just

394

:

Randall Stevens: Yes.

395

:

Richard Harpham: know.

396

:

Evan Troxel: here because I would

love it if, if you're willing to kind

397

:

of go a little bit deeper into

398

:

Richard Harpham: Hmm.

399

:

Evan Troxel: about how

architects consume information.

400

:

I mean, I think one of the things

that I'll just throw out there.

401

:

Is like total skepticism is

typically like the first reaction

402

:

that you get to just about anything.

403

:

is my

404

:

experience with architects,

especially in the

405

:

Richard Harpham: Mm-hmm.

406

:

Evan Troxel: space.

407

:

It's like there's just, and, and

because like is disruptive, there

408

:

are, people don't like finding

new ways to do things necessarily.

409

:

Um, not everybody's

like just open to that.

410

:

Right?

411

:

Um, they're protective over the,

the hard earned lessons that

412

:

they have and the experience that

they have to get to the point

413

:

they have.

414

:

And now you're telling me

415

:

Richard Harpham: Mm-hmm.

416

:

Evan Troxel: to do it or a new,

a new approach or whatever.

417

:

And so I'm just curious, what, what

are the kinds of things that, that you

418

:

see how architects consume information?

419

:

Because I think a lot of

people who probably listen

420

:

to this show are like, yeah.

421

:

Like what is their secret code

that we need to help crack?

422

:

Richard Harpham: if I, if I could can it

and sell it, I would've done that already.

423

:

Um, you know, I, I think that, um,

think I would take it just, you

424

:

know, maybe take it up back up to

50,000 feet from the actual things

425

:

that you, you do in marketing.

426

:

In my, certainly up where I've seen

successes and failures, um, there

427

:

was a conversation I was having

recently where I was trying to find an

428

:

analogy to describe why, um, uh, the

way architects look for and consume

429

:

technology is very different from the

way say, a manufacturing company would.

430

:

And a lot of it, I believe has to do.

431

:

With the fact that we haven't really in

the built space or in, in, in the, in the

432

:

life of the build, if you like, had, uh, a

downstream technology need or an artifact

433

:

that requires technology, uh, that has

forced the designer to change the way that

434

:

they execute the design, which is, which

I believe has led to architects still

435

:

being, for the most part on a digital

drawing board, even when they're working

436

:

in 3D compared to where a manufacturer

who, who through the late, you know, mid

437

:

late nineties and obviously ever since at

a evermore escalating pace, being forced

438

:

to have to provide the design instructions

for machines that create things.

439

:

You know, so, so you originally, the

early CNC machines forced a massive

440

:

change in the way that you created,

uh, output from design software.

441

:

That just kept escalating and

escalating into 3D printing and

442

:

robotics and, and machine controls.

443

:

And we haven't seen that same sort

of requirement put on the architect.

444

:

And I lived through that when I

was at Katerra, you know, because

445

:

fundamentally we were trying to create

that tool chain, if you like, where

446

:

I, I always use this term design for

constructability or, you know, and often

447

:

people often, you know, talk about DFMA

designed for manufacturing, you know,

448

:

design for manufacturing, designed for

constructability, um, is are tough to

449

:

burden the architect with unless there is

a direct pipeline to the machine or, or

450

:

the robot or the device that forces the

output to be created in a certain way.

451

:

Manufacturing had to go through that.

452

:

Um, but I don't, I, I think we're just at

the precipice of that being something that

453

:

the architect is gonna have to deal with.

454

:

One could argue they should have

been doing it for a while now, but,

455

:

Evan Troxel: a divorce between

construction and architecture, right?

456

:

Like for the most part.

457

:

And obviously not

458

:

Richard Harpham: Yeah.

459

:

Evan Troxel: I mean, we had a

guest on the show, Randall and I

460

:

did, it was John Cerrone from Shop

Architects, and they a much tighter

461

:

integration because they're so.

462

:

They, they want to control the

output and they want to have that

463

:

relationship with the ma, with the

fabricators, and they want to be able

464

:

to minimize waste in the process.

465

:

Right.

466

:

There's a lot of reasons,

467

:

Richard Harpham: Yeah.

468

:

Evan Troxel: but but it also depends

on the project type and the delivery

469

:

type and the client and all of

470

:

Richard Harpham: Mm-hmm.

471

:

Evan Troxel: And I think what's so

interesting is like, you're right,

472

:

like the architects have to deliver

ultimately like a PDF to a permitting

473

:

agency then to a contractor, and who cares

what tool you use to get to that point.

474

:

Honestly, like sometimes still the

475

:

Richard Harpham: Yeah.

476

:

Evan Troxel: is AutoCAD or whatever,

whatever, you know, could be

477

:

SketchUp, it, it could be any number of

478

:

Richard Harpham: Mm-hmm.

479

:

Evan Troxel: right?

480

:

That, but, but it's like, it, it kind of

doesn't matter because of the output and

481

:

the outcomes that you're talking about.

482

:

They're not having that kind of, that

pressure on them to, to get to that point.

483

:

Richard Harpham: Yeah, I, and it's

funny, going back, going back all the

484

:

way to, you know, the original, um, Ben

presentations that, you know, Phil was

485

:

showing is like, you know, he always

had this slide, which was describing

486

:

the confrontational relationship

between architects and, and contractors.

487

:

You know, which many companies have

tried to break down, you know, and,

488

:

you know, uh, Kieran Timberlake,

you know, with their books and the

489

:

way that they try to do things.

490

:

And now you see shop architects.

491

:

It's not that people haven't made

the effort to, to tear this down,

492

:

but I still think for, you know, for

a lot of the industry is you've got

493

:

an architect who sees contractors as

gangsters with cranes and contractors.

494

:

Think architects, you know, contractors

think architects create comics.

495

:

I always remember my, my last job as a

real designer is like, you know, every

496

:

time I used to go with my rolled up

drawings onto the building site, my

497

:

director of construction, he'd say,

ah, here he comes with his comics.

498

:

Evan Troxel: Wow.

499

:

Richard Harpham: You know, it was,

500

:

it was just a general attitude towards,

you know, okay, show us, show us what

501

:

you think the building should look

like, and then we'll figure it out.

502

:

You know?

503

:

And I do think though, that I, I,

I'm, I'm a, a great believer in

504

:

trying to follow Inevitabilities.

505

:

It was like, um, it's like that,

that, um, very famous quote, you

506

:

know, escape to where the puck's

gonna be, not where the puck is.

507

:

And I, I, I do think we are now

starting to see a lot of clarity

508

:

about where the puck's gonna be.

509

:

And, and it'll kind of lead on to

maybe talking about, I think how have

510

:

to change in the way that you look at

marketing and also the way that you

511

:

develop software and how you cooperate.

512

:

Um, it's, it's, it's becoming increasingly

clear, clear that there are some

513

:

inevitable things coming towards us,

um, that many, you know, many companies

514

:

have tried and failed, maybe tried

to get there, that that can start to

515

:

dictate and, and guide us and to, you

know, what we should be doing both on

516

:

the software side of the industry and,

you know, the, the challenges of the

517

:

architectural firms and and construction

firms are gonna need to go through.

518

:

Randall Stevens: Uh, Richard, before

we jump into the new, new thing with

519

:

the Skema and how all this came, has

520

:

Richard Harpham: Mm-hmm.

521

:

Randall Stevens: you know, um, you

know, one thing I've observed, and

522

:

I'll just use Revit as the example.

523

:

Um, you know, I would say from

that two thousands, probably up

524

:

through the recession, 2008, 2009

timeframe, I would characterize what

525

:

I was seeing in the industry was.

526

:

Uh, early adopters who

were willing to experiment.

527

:

So it's like, let's try this

on this pro side project over

528

:

here, or, you know, uh, do that.

529

:

really, you know, we probably had to

come out and, you know, step back.

530

:

We probably had to come

outta that recession.

531

:

I always kind of claim that

Revit really didn't tip like

532

:

2012 kind of timeframe, you

533

:

Richard Harpham: Mm-hmm.

534

:

Randall Stevens: and you know, when you

look back and say, okay, here you are

535

:

really 12, 15 years that the technology

536

:

Richard Harpham: Mm-hmm.

537

:

Randall Stevens: and it had

been an Autodesk Hands then

538

:

for, call it eight years, right?

539

:

Richard Harpham: Yeah.

540

:

Randall Stevens: uh, just how much

effort and energy it takes to get

541

:

Richard Harpham: A lot.

542

:

Randall Stevens: get movement.

543

:

It's, uh, and you know,

now, now we're 25 years in

544

:

Richard Harpham: Mm-hmm.

545

:

Randall Stevens: it's

pervasive, obviously.

546

:

Uh, now.

547

:

You know, it's probably, you know, you

would say it's one the, uh, at least

548

:

in North America, the, uh, architecture

firms are, are largely using it.

549

:

Um, we're getting ready to maybe go into

something new that might take another

550

:

25 years of, you know, or will it,

551

:

Richard Harpham: Yeah,

552

:

Randall Stevens: let's bat that around.

553

:

Richard Harpham: yeah, sure.

554

:

Um, I mean, I can get, I guess I, I'll

qualify my comments by telling you my

555

:

little history through that process.

556

:

Um, but my, I would, the last time I had

any responsibility for Revit was I was

557

:

managing marketing globally for all the,

all the AC products in Autodesk, um,

558

:

in a very uncomfortable deal reporting

role where I reported to the CMO and,

559

:

and the, uh, uh, senior vice president

of the AC divisions on opposite coasts.

560

:

I, I managed to do 200,000 air miles.

561

:

Without leaving in one year, without

leaving the USA, bouncing back and

562

:

forth, that's, that's corporate life.

563

:

Um, and, um, I, I'd spent about two, two

or three years between having, uh, the

564

:

responsibility for Revit and North and

South America, I guess in the Americas

565

:

and, and then globally by being, being

responsible for AutoCAD, um, globally.

566

:

And, uh, so I gotta kinda sort of

see many different kind of forms

567

:

of product and the way, you know,

how, how adoption is or isn't easy.

568

:

And also the way that, you know, you

wrestle internally in a company like

569

:

Autodesk to kind of get top billing.

570

:

You know, it's like, you know,

funnily enough, you know, AutoCAD

571

:

was the one that created the most

money with an Autodesk, and it was,

572

:

it was the hardest to get attention

inside Autodesk for that product.

573

:

You know, you had the smallest marketing

budget and you always were really being

574

:

forced to play second fiddle a lot.

575

:

Um, but, but.

576

:

Your, I think your analysis of the,

of the, I would say the, not, not,

577

:

I would say, I've gotta think about

carefully what adoption actually means.

578

:

I think, I think the implementation

of Revit, I agree, started

579

:

sort of 20 10, 20 11 onwards.

580

:

Um, the adoption of Revit really

kicked off in around about:

581

:

There was a, we went from really

struggling to, and it was funny.

582

:

It was like, you know, up until, I would

say the Freedom Tower was a big moment.

583

:

Um,

584

:

up until then, you know, the general

view of the industry was that Rev

585

:

was only good for small buildings.

586

:

And then almost overnight it was like,

well, Revit's only good for big buildings.

587

:

So for as a marketer, it was

kind of an interesting challenge

588

:

to kind of dance that line.

589

:

Um, the funny thing about it being only

good for big buildings was that the

590

:

Freedom Tower wasn't designed in Revit.

591

:

It was designed in Graphisoft.

592

:

Um.

593

:

Everything below ground was designed

in, in Revit, and, and I think the top

594

:

of the tower was designed in Revit.

595

:

Everything in between was Graphisoft.

596

:

So, and I, I've had quite a few

amusing conversations with Victor Vaal,

597

:

who's the, who was the CEO of, um,

Graphisoft and him grumbling about how

598

:

we weren't clear on that being true.

599

:

And I was like, marketing, come on.

600

:

You know?

601

:

So we always had fun with that, you know.

602

:

Um,

603

:

but I, I think that, um, you know, I guess

in your, in your statement you're sort

604

:

of saying, you know, how long does it

take for a product to, to truly mature?

605

:

And it takes, you know, the, the more,

the more there, there's kind of two

606

:

big factors I think that affect you is

like, you know, what is, what is the

607

:

completeness of that product look like?

608

:

So when we, when we decided to that

building information modeling was how we

609

:

were gonna describe Rev, which is all the

information for a building is in the model

610

:

that led us to have to make acquisitions

in structure and MEP and hvac.

611

:

To be able to support the story

and develop those products.

612

:

Um, that led, that led to a

high degree of complexity.

613

:

Um, which I won't say slowed down

adoption, but it complicated adoption

614

:

because, you know, it's very hard to

kind of, uh, create all that, um, all

615

:

the integrations between, you know,

to different, different professionals

616

:

needs in the same product space.

617

:

So that's why platforms

are very difficult to grow.

618

:

Um, I, I think as well that, um, we, I

think as well, you, you kind of have to

619

:

sort of, if you're creating a product

that's for any building type in the

620

:

world, in any country in the world,

then that's also almost like make

621

:

the challenge 10 times harder again.

622

:

So I think Berg has had, has had a

lot of criticism in, in recent years.

623

:

You know, we know about, there

were certainly, you know, groups

624

:

of leading architectural firms,

writing letters to Autodesk,

625

:

being concerned about its future.

626

:

Um.

627

:

I've always looked at it this way,

and, uh, and my co-founder, Marty,

628

:

who used the ex product manager of

Revit when it was Revit Technologies,

629

:

um, can think about it the same way.

630

:

Is that, is that, you know, I, I think

I massively applaud what particularly

631

:

I would say the product team within

Autodesk managed to achieve with Revit.

632

:

You know, because it's very, very hard to,

to satisfy the needs of, of such a broad

633

:

market with a single product, you know?

634

:

And, and you could say that,

yes, of course AutoCAD did it,

635

:

but AutoCAD was a drawing board.

636

:

You know, it wasn't discipline specific.

637

:

It didn't have to know that the

steps in the first step in Italy is,

638

:

is half as high as the second step.

639

:

You know, there are things like

that that just, you know, really

640

:

hard to build in 3D functionality.

641

:

So I think we have to applaud

what Autodesk, you know,

642

:

has achieved with Revit.

643

:

I think at the same time,

you, you, you could say that.

644

:

Anytime a, anytime a product, you

know, becomes so dominant, um, it,

645

:

it, it, it snowplows a lot of issues.

646

:

I, I like using that term a lot.

647

:

It's like you, you end up

snowplowing issues to somewhere

648

:

else in, in the tool chain.

649

:

So, but by finally managing to get

most of what you could get done for the

650

:

architect within Revit, it meant that

a lot of stuff that we'd hope that a

651

:

a, a design tool that was designing the

constructability would do at the start

652

:

would achieve, got pushed out, which

is why there's often there's some kind

653

:

of not in the grin phrase people use to

say, well, you know, most of the building

654

:

is designed by, the supply chain is

not really designed by the architect.

655

:

And I think that's, um, it's cheeky and

there's, but there's some veracity in it.

656

:

When you get down to the detail of

a building is because it's, it's

657

:

almost impossible to, and, and,

and there's also need for it that,

658

:

as you said earlier, to be able to

go out and get a set of permits.

659

:

You don't need to, you know, create the

supply chain design for manufacturing

660

:

information at the point where

you're trying to get a building pump.

661

:

Randall Stevens: Looks, makes sense.

662

:

Well, let's, uh, let's kind of switch

over to, to, you know, Skema and, uh,

663

:

Mar Has, Evan, have you had Marty on?

664

:

Richard Harpham: You

skipped, you skipped ga.

665

:

Evan Troxel: I,

666

:

Richard Harpham: That was,

667

:

Randall Stevens: Well, yeah, yeah,

if you wanted, if you wanted.

668

:

I don't really know

that much about Katerra.

669

:

I knew, I knew it was going on,

but didn't, wasn't deep into it.

670

:

And it was obviously more complex

than, than just software to,

671

:

you know, that was a whole,

672

:

Richard Harpham: Yeah, I,

673

:

Randall Stevens: yeah.

674

:

Maybe, maybe give us an overview of

675

:

Richard Harpham: yeah, I have to, I

have to tell a little bit of the Kate

676

:

story because it kind of preloads, you

know, Skema, um, you know, so Kate,

677

:

you know, at the, the, the CEO guy,

I, I was working directly with CEO

678

:

guy called Michael Marks, who is a

remarkable character, um, very successful.

679

:

Uh.

680

:

Leader and investor.

681

:

And he, he and his partners kind

of came out of, um, uh, electronic

682

:

manufacturing, you know, iPhones and

devices and tried to bring as much of

683

:

their supply chain, think and knowhow into

basically revolutionizing construction.

684

:

And, um, the original, the original intent

of criteria was not to be a construction

685

:

company, um, or to be an architect.

686

:

It was actually to be a, a very

streamlined way of, of supplying

687

:

building products into the industry

without a cost, plus way of, you know,

688

:

building, building out, building an

estimate, you know, estimating the build.

689

:

And it seems when you come from an

environment where that's just the

690

:

way you work into construction, you

know, the initial idea is you think,

691

:

well, we'll just do the same thing,

replicate it, and of course it'll work.

692

:

Of course, you find out.

693

:

There's a lot of barriers

to making that happen.

694

:

So ER blew up into, um, a company that,

uh, it, it had architects, engineers, um,

695

:

factories, uh, construction companies.

696

:

And then the reason it had to

do that is to, to create enough

697

:

momentum in the flywheel of the

supply chain chain that it owned.

698

:

It had to create demand and decided

to create demand by saying, okay,

699

:

we'll, we'll go out and even buy

land and demonstrate, you know, that

700

:

this is a better way of working.

701

:

And, and there was a lot of successful

things that happened through that.

702

:

Randall Stevens: So

703

:

Richard Harpham: And it also

704

:

Randall Stevens: verti vertically

integrate in order to become your own

705

:

Richard Harpham: Exactly,

706

:

Randall Stevens: Yeah.

707

:

Consumed

708

:

Richard Harpham: you know, so it,

it meant like buying 13 companies

709

:

and, you know, I think definitely

under five years, you know, when I

710

:

think when I, when I joined, we were

in the hundreds and when I left, I.

711

:

When myself and Michael Marks left

at the same time, um, uh, I think

712

:

there was somewhere in the region

of six or 7,000 people and that

713

:

happened in five or six years.

714

:

It was a massive, uh, a massive exercise.

715

:

I've, I've never, never

seen anything like it.

716

:

It's remarkable.

717

:

Remarkable.

718

:

And, you know, uh, I think there

was a lot, a lot of things that were

719

:

learned in that for the industry.

720

:

I think you kind of look at these

moments where people come together

721

:

and try to create something.

722

:

And even in failure it starts

a whole load of new things.

723

:

And, you know, I think WeWork

was a kind of sister company to

724

:

us 'cause we were both in the,

the SoftBank kind of portfolio.

725

:

Um, and, and it was around that time

I, I met Marty again 'cause he was at

726

:

DESO Systems and he was trying to sell,

help ka figure out how to go from design

727

:

to factory in a more efficient way.

728

:

Um, ultimately Katerra

didn't choose to sell.

729

:

Um, but you know, we got everything.

730

:

Both he and I were learning a lot

through that process and, um, sure,

731

:

not, not too long after a Katerra, you

know, weren't, weren't around anymore.

732

:

Um, I think, uh, COVID really when

you, when you were in such a cash

733

:

flow intensive environment, you know,

is something like Covid crushes you

734

:

because, you know, a, a big company

might be able to ab absorb it that's

735

:

been around for 20 years, but when

you're a company that's based on

736

:

growth and cash flow, it was very hard.

737

:

And that, that was one of the big

reasons that co criteria is no more.

738

:

Um, we, we found ourselves in a bar

in London and just started ending each

739

:

other's sentences when we were talking

about what we thought industry needed.

740

:

And I, I guess at the center

of the, the concept was, I.

741

:

We, we've been trying, back to my earlier

comments, we've been trying so hard to

742

:

build platforms our whole career, and

we tried to build a software platform

743

:

in consider, by the way, called Apollo.

744

:

You know, we were gonna build, build

a whole new platform to do everything.

745

:

Um, and we kind of said, it's like,

look, what, why, what's wrong with, you

746

:

know, just being really good at 20%,

30%, 10%, 50%, whatever you decide,

747

:

okay, that's what part of the concept.

748

:

And then the other, the other part of

the concept is, is, is that if in, in a,

749

:

in a building design, if I can basically

use automation, ai, gener, generative

750

:

design to, uh, uh, capabilities to do

40, 50, 60% of the building, then if I

751

:

do my just quick math and say, let's pick

the five biggest segments with the most

752

:

repeatable kind of design elements, I.

753

:

That represents six, $7 trillion

of construction a year globally.

754

:

You know, and we may never get to the, you

know, we may, we might only be ever, you

755

:

know, building Toyotas and never building

Rolls-Royces, but that might be okay.

756

:

And

757

:

Randall Stevens: Sure.

758

:

Richard Harpham: if you, if you, if

you look at, uh, that from the point of

759

:

view of, you know, how you could help

company, you know, designers and, and, and

760

:

ultimately as you go down it, go further

down the tool chain into construction,

761

:

help the life of the build, if you like,

is, you know, let's think about it a

762

:

little bit differently than trying to

create an all encompassing design tool.

763

:

Let's think about the, the pieces

that we can automate that ultimately.

764

:

Ultimately they, they might be

tasks that don't differentiate you

765

:

as a firm, they're just execution.

766

:

But if I could do those efficiently, I

could spend more time differentiating

767

:

myself doing other things.

768

:

And

769

:

so it's kind of a big idea.

770

:

Um, but that's ultimately kind of part

of the genesis of where scheme exists.

771

:

Randall Stevens: What, what year was that?

772

:

Richard

773

:

Richard Harpham: That's about 2, 2, 2

years ago, two and a half years ago.

774

:

Yeah.

775

:

Randall Stevens: And,

776

:

Richard Harpham: it was in London.

777

:

It was that next build in London.

778

:

So that would,

779

:

Randall Stevens: you mentioned

keep mentioning we or we all keep

780

:

saying, I think Marty's name.

781

:

Marty Roseman.

782

:

I was gonna ask Kevin, have you

had Marty on, on your TRXL podcast?

783

:

Evan Troxel: to that in the show

784

:

Randall Stevens: Okay.

785

:

Yeah,

786

:

Evan Troxel: for this.

787

:

But yeah, the, I think I became

aware of Skema probably at Confluence

788

:

in Lexington when Marty was

789

:

there.

790

:

Richard Harpham: Yeah.

791

:

Yeah.

792

:

I.

793

:

Randall Stevens: we're here.

794

:

Yeah.

795

:

Evan Troxel: we, started talking

and we did a, a podcast interview.

796

:

And then I met both of you in Vegas

at Autodesk University a couple

797

:

of year, a couple of times ago.

798

:

Um, and that's where I really

got to see Skema for the first

799

:

time.

800

:

And I, I guess my

801

:

Richard Harpham: Yeah.

802

:

Evan Troxel: based on where you

just ended, that part of the history

803

:

there with what you've been up to

is, you know, there's this idea

804

:

that, that there are specific tools

for jobs in an architect's toolbox.

805

:

And at the same time, there's a

lot of internal kind of pressure.

806

:

I, I mean, I've lived through this.

807

:

Richard Harpham: Mm-hmm.

808

:

Evan Troxel: Why don't you

do everything in this tool?

809

:

Right?

810

:

It's always Revit, right?

811

:

But it's

812

:

Richard Harpham: Yeah.

813

:

Evan Troxel: because it does

everything kind of, or well, and then

814

:

Richard Harpham: Mm-hmm.

815

:

Evan Troxel: well, we're wasting

our time doing all this translation

816

:

and this back and forth.

817

:

But I think what's really changed

in the last five years is just

818

:

kind of formats have started to

go away in many respects, right?

819

:

There's a lot of cloud infrastructure,

there's a lot of APIs, there's a lot of

820

:

machines being, you know, apps, being able

to talk to each other without that whole,

821

:

getting back to the sawtooth thing, right?

822

:

I mean, that, that applies

to file, import, and export

823

:

too, right?

824

:

Every time you export, you lose something

and you import it, you gotta add stuff

825

:

back in and then you lose it because

you're doing all these different round

826

:

trips for different use cases, right?

827

:

You might be modeling, you might be

rendering doing visualization, you

828

:

might be doing all kinds of things, you

know, energy modeling, things like that.

829

:

Um, so I'm just curious from, you know,

building a new tool and just in the last

830

:

couple years, the appetite in architecture

and engineering when it comes to having a

831

:

Richard Harpham: Mm-hmm.

832

:

Evan Troxel: that do a thing, but really

well versus, you know, these platforms

833

:

that try to do everything, this horizontal

nature of what Revit ultimately became.

834

:

Right.

835

:

Which was

836

:

like any building anywhere,

um, maybe not perfectly.

837

:

And you, you gotta do a lot of

work around and you gotta fight.

838

:

Like that's most people's,

they're fighting Revit most of the

839

:

time, right?

840

:

But, but then you, there's also kind of

from the other side, there's also this

841

:

kind of fatigue of, oh my gosh, another

842

:

app that does another

thing and now I have to

843

:

Richard Harpham: yeah,

844

:

Evan Troxel: I have to learn it.

845

:

It's ui, I've gotta learn.

846

:

It's all of these intricacies

of, of how it works.

847

:

Is it in the browser?

848

:

Is it a desktop standalone app on, you

know, like, there's so many variables now.

849

:

So what's the appetite

850

:

Richard Harpham: yeah.

851

:

Evan Troxel: right now?

852

:

Richard Harpham: Well, I go back to

that Wayne Gretzky, um, quote again.

853

:

You know, so on the software side,

you, we've gotta try and escape

854

:

to where the puck's gonna be.

855

:

And, you know, is, um,

856

:

that's, that one challenge is the

a of creating a software company.

857

:

It's like if you can be good at that, um.

858

:

Because, and you know, I think

this, we, we, we, we were actually

859

:

trying to edit this stuff out of a

bunch of marketing material we had.

860

:

It's like, you know, can we, can we lose

the word revolutionize, transform, um,

861

:

re the thing, you know,

it's like, I think, um,

862

:

Randall Stevens: Scares a lot of people.

863

:

Richard Harpham: yeah, I,

864

:

Randall Stevens: Those words.

865

:

Yeah.

866

:

Richard Harpham: I wanna talk a

little bit about that as well.

867

:

Is the burden, I think software

companies, which is what you're

868

:

implying, put put on, put on users?

869

:

I think, I think the thing with platforms

is I think, um, I think come up with

870

:

this term, you know, Marty and I use

it a lot, which is we, I think the user

871

:

base is, or the customers are pretty

fed up with being inside wall Gardens.

872

:

Gardens.

873

:

Um, and they might be able to get outta

the walled garden occasionally, but

874

:

that tends to be pretty expensive and

it's not particularly well supported.

875

:

So, um.

876

:

I think the challenge for a

software created now is to

877

:

think about tool chains

in a different way.

878

:

And the reason they can think of it in a

different way is through the availability

879

:

of cloud APIs to have, if you like, non

file based exchanges of information.

880

:

Um, we, we've been a, we've been a

very fairly lab proponent of this,

881

:

and it takes me back to what I

learned in, from the being involved

882

:

with the manufacturing people.

883

:

Like in, it's like there's a

term which, um, I, I, I use

884

:

probably overuse it coopetition.

885

:

And coopetition is something that in

the manufacturing space is normal.

886

:

It's like you see it with car

manufacturers where, you know, multiple

887

:

manufacturers are using the same

platform or you see it with, you know,

888

:

you see LG and Samsung using exactly

the same, you know, components yet

889

:

competing with each other for a market.

890

:

And, and cons.

891

:

And conceptually, I think we

need to see much more competition

892

:

between, particularly the new

technologies coming to the market.

893

:

I, I think the chances of a single

software company emerging, um, that

894

:

would disrupt, you know, an altered s

say, you know, or an Autodesk in the

895

:

United States or, or a graphisoft in,

in, uh, Germany, in Germany, Austria,

896

:

Switzerland, you know, where they have

a particular, you know, strength is,

897

:

is, is going to be extremely hard.

898

:

It's certainly gonna

be extremely expensive.

899

:

And that's not to say someone won't

have the appetite to fund something

900

:

of that ambition, but everything that

I've seen and everything I hear is that

901

:

people are looking for, people have

got used to using apps, if you like,

902

:

on phones, and they've got used to.

903

:

Needing something going and

get an app that does it and

904

:

having it work very, very well.

905

:

And, and to your comment, Evan, and for

and mean and not to, you not have to have

906

:

to learn very much to be able to use it.

907

:

So you can almost think about when's the

last time you, you used an app on the

908

:

iPhone where you found it difficult to

kind of figure it out pretty quickly.

909

:

And although you could, you

can argue that, you know, iOS

910

:

is, um, a platform in itself.

911

:

I think, I think we are going to see

the same opportunity, availability of

912

:

tools for, you know, the designers,

contractors, engineers start to start

913

:

to come, come forward in, in this space.

914

:

I think it, I think it, they have to, I

think it has to happen actually, um, both

915

:

for the software firms to be successful.

916

:

'cause it's incredibly difficult

to build a software company.

917

:

Um, and also for the users to

be able to, if you like, get the

918

:

benefits of having things that do.

919

:

10% of what they need, but

do that extremely well.

920

:

And again, I go back into manufacturing,

that type of specialization emerged

921

:

very quickly because the, the

artifacts that were required from the

922

:

designers to drive machines, robotics,

and everything were very specific.

923

:

And, and so it needed a lot

of specialized specialization,

924

:

specifically from those tools.

925

:

And then it's just down to make sure

the software companies know how to

926

:

cooperate well enough to be able to, they

they've gotta see enough opportunity.

927

:

Opportunity in that cooperation

to, to see it worth investing in.

928

:

And, and, and I, and, and I used the word

cooperation because I think competition,

929

:

I think is a stage that you go through

until an aggregation happens, where

930

:

things come together and, you know, I

think that's where we're at right now.

931

:

You could argue back in

the, in the nineties.

932

:

Autodesk was, was, was cooperating with

multiple professionals creating Lis

933

:

Lisp and EBA tools based on AutoCAD.

934

:

And it's not quite competing.

935

:

Certainly, you know, there was, there

was a period where, you know, there

936

:

was there 10, 20 different tools.

937

:

I mean, you know, you talking, speaking

about Arch Visions and others, and

938

:

there was all these solutions that

you could choose where Autodesk

939

:

might have an alternative, but still

they'd have to cooperate with those

940

:

companies and eventually, eventually

you see these things come together.

941

:

Randall Stevens: I hadn't

really thought about.

942

:

Well, I, I think I agree with you that

there's gotta be these, uh, I'll call it

943

:

micro exchanges of data across these apps.

944

:

Um, really thought about it until you were

saying that, but you know, really geometry

945

:

is probably, I'm gonna, I'll put a stake

in the ground if we can debate this.

946

:

Geometry is

947

:

Richard Harpham: Mm-hmm.

948

:

Randall Stevens: the language

of the geometry is well-defined.

949

:

It's, uh,

950

:

Richard Harpham: Mm-hmm.

951

:

Randall Stevens: vectors

and math and surfaces and.

952

:

it's the rest of this data, I call it

the loose content problem, is the way I

953

:

Richard Harpham: Mm-hmm.

954

:

Randall Stevens: it.

955

:

It's like, and that's stuff that's either

in these files, but it's really this data.

956

:

There is no common EDI in the industry.

957

:

There's no standards to the

way that this, know, even, um,

958

:

Richard Harpham: Yeah.

959

:

Randall Stevens: even down to the way

you describe, um, we did a, uh, we did

960

:

some work, uh, a little side project

with somebody from the Army Corps, uh,

961

:

a handful of years ago for one of the

built conferences where we were analyzing

962

:

because they had, they get a lot of data

sent to them in the form of Revit files.

963

:

So we

964

:

Richard Harpham: Yeah.

965

:

Randall Stevens: experiments about

how many different ways were fire,

966

:

you know, fire ratings, uh, you

know, uh, described, you know,

967

:

indoors in, across these projects.

968

:

And we all this data and we

graphed it out, and it was just

969

:

like, it's all over the place.

970

:

There is no standard, but I,

971

:

Richard Harpham: Hmm.

972

:

Randall Stevens: keep thinking,

um, we're gonna be talking about

973

:

it at our one Day Confluence event

in, uh, San Francisco next week.

974

:

Richard Harpham: Yeah,

975

:

Randall Stevens: um.

976

:

You know, what I'm seeing with the

work that we're doing here is that

977

:

the ai, may be the answer to this

in that then you can take largely

978

:

unstructured data and start to put some

979

:

Richard Harpham: yeah,

980

:

Randall Stevens: to it.

981

:

Whereas that before required lots of

manual translation or humans in that loop.

982

:

But I, I think we're maybe on the path to

that becoming not as big a problem than

983

:

it has been in the past, because that

seems to be, you know, if you talk about

984

:

needing APIs to different kinds of data,

you gotta know what you're asking for.

985

:

That language, you know, has to be,

986

:

Richard Harpham: yeah.

987

:

But you know, here's the

good, here's the good news.

988

:

Machines are really good

at figuring that out.

989

:

Randall Stevens: yeah.

990

:

Richard Harpham: It's like,

you know, I think, um, I.

991

:

I, I could say which company is

speci specifically I'm digging at

992

:

here, but I'm, I'll, I'll spare that.

993

:

Ush is, is like, you know, I, when I hear,

when I hear a software company go out and

994

:

start telling, um, you know, architects

and engineers in particular, that the,

995

:

the first thing they should be doing

right now is figuring out a data strategy.

996

:

It makes me really frustrated

because I don't think we as software

997

:

providers should be burdening, um,

the, the professions with another

998

:

thing that they have to manage.

999

:

Now, that's not to say a firm shouldn't

be good at managing its data, but it's,

:

00:53:59,501 --> 00:54:06,191

I think it's, I think the burden is on

the software, software companies to make

:

00:54:06,191 --> 00:54:08,891

that the easiest thing possible to do.

:

00:54:09,341 --> 00:54:09,881

You know, because

:

00:54:12,046 --> 00:54:13,196

there, I.

:

00:54:13,661 --> 00:54:16,871

There's no doubt that you can create

correlations between disparate

:

00:54:16,871 --> 00:54:18,371

data standards very easily.

:

00:54:18,431 --> 00:54:21,251

I mean, it's like we, we do it on,

we do it on, uh, lookup tables in,

:

00:54:21,701 --> 00:54:25,541

in Excel all the time, you know,

which is what still leaves most of

:

00:54:25,541 --> 00:54:28,661

the construction industry works on

Excel, which is the big dirty secret.

:

00:54:28,871 --> 00:54:32,836

You know, it's, uh, now that's the still

the predominant software people rely on.

:

00:54:33,001 --> 00:54:33,241

Evan Troxel: BIM

:

00:54:33,251 --> 00:54:33,671

Richard Harpham: Um,

:

00:54:33,721 --> 00:54:34,086

Evan Troxel: in the world,

:

00:54:35,681 --> 00:54:36,221

Richard Harpham: yeah.

:

00:54:36,341 --> 00:54:36,971

yeah.

:

00:54:37,226 --> 00:54:37,706

Randall Stevens: I was gonna say

:

00:54:37,781 --> 00:54:38,141

Richard Harpham: Um,

:

00:54:38,306 --> 00:54:40,141

Randall Stevens: data, the most popular

database in the world, for sure.

:

00:54:40,441 --> 00:54:40,661

Yep.

:

00:54:40,841 --> 00:54:41,081

Richard Harpham: yeah.

:

00:54:41,081 --> 00:54:44,771

So what, so what happens when you

have, you know, two, two disparate,

:

00:54:44,771 --> 00:54:47,321

you know, ways of data coming together?

:

00:54:47,321 --> 00:54:50,561

You do look up tables between

those two, two data standards

:

00:54:50,561 --> 00:54:51,521

and you come up with Anset.

:

00:54:51,641 --> 00:54:52,151

Well, guess what?

:

00:54:52,151 --> 00:54:53,861

That's what machines to

do really, really well.

:

00:54:54,026 --> 00:54:54,206

Randall Stevens: Yep.

:

00:54:54,611 --> 00:55:00,701

Richard Harpham: And so I, it, if I can,

if I can talk a little bit about what I

:

00:55:00,701 --> 00:55:05,081

think is awesome about ai, but also what

I think is un unfortunate right now.

:

00:55:05,501 --> 00:55:11,656

Um, I think, um, uh,

I, I think that, um, I.

:

00:55:12,896 --> 00:55:18,416

I think everyone's got very fascinated

by the opportunity to be, or, or

:

00:55:18,416 --> 00:55:21,416

the thought that they could be

another firm that's into parametrics.

:

00:55:22,166 --> 00:55:23,576

No, they could be another Zha.

:

00:55:23,576 --> 00:55:23,876

Did.

:

00:55:24,236 --> 00:55:29,966

You know now, now with the power of ai,

it unlocks me to be able to describe a

:

00:55:29,966 --> 00:55:35,276

structure or describe a building that, you

know, breaks, breaks the norm because, you

:

00:55:35,276 --> 00:55:39,536

know, the algorithm can show me something

that should be able to be constructed.

:

00:55:40,316 --> 00:55:45,386

Um, because it can, you know, it'll

figure out, you know, the math of how

:

00:55:45,386 --> 00:55:50,876

to make something look pretty kind of

wild and impressive, um, without having

:

00:55:50,876 --> 00:55:54,206

to resort to, you know, what Frank

Geary used to do, which is like scan

:

00:55:54,206 --> 00:55:56,066

the paper, he crumpled up kind of idea.

:

00:55:56,786 --> 00:56:01,136

Um, but I, I, I think that's,

um, it's just like three.

:

00:56:01,196 --> 00:56:05,246

When 3D first came in, the first benefit

of 3D was to visualize something.

:

00:56:05,246 --> 00:56:09,446

It wasn't to create

construction information.

:

00:56:10,211 --> 00:56:12,281

It's a, it's a, it's like a drug.

:

00:56:12,281 --> 00:56:15,851

I think the way that we are looking at

AI right now, it's like, you know, we

:

00:56:15,851 --> 00:56:20,711

are not, we're looking at the quick,

kind of fixed, quick, kind of highly

:

00:56:20,711 --> 00:56:22,811

gratifying kind of results you can get.

:

00:56:22,811 --> 00:56:27,581

Say, look, I can, I can see a building

in any type of, uh, any type of, uh,

:

00:56:27,611 --> 00:56:29,096

brick type or any type of finish.

:

00:56:29,501 --> 00:56:31,961

You know, like, and that's

all very interesting.

:

00:56:31,961 --> 00:56:32,261

I think.

:

00:56:32,261 --> 00:56:39,401

I, I don't, I don't discount that being a

great tool, but the really uncool kind of

:

00:56:39,401 --> 00:56:44,651

boring stuff, which is like, I'd say this,

this, this is the one biggest challenge I

:

00:56:44,651 --> 00:56:49,751

think that unlocks an incredible amount of

money for either a, for software suppliers

:

00:56:49,751 --> 00:56:55,871

and for the industry is can we please just

help have, have technical technology that

:

00:56:55,871 --> 00:56:57,671

helps me build a model that I can trust?

:

00:56:59,501 --> 00:57:03,341

And this goes back to the snowplow

is, is that even with some of the new,

:

00:57:03,466 --> 00:57:06,821

new, the new tools we see on coming

into the market that, you know, very

:

00:57:06,821 --> 00:57:08,261

focused on collaboration, which.

:

00:57:08,966 --> 00:57:12,656

Not to say collaboration isn't important,

but a lot of that collaboration is about

:

00:57:12,656 --> 00:57:20,426

finding the issues that were, that were

designed into, into the model, you know?

:

00:57:20,426 --> 00:57:24,506

So, you know, until we can start

doing clash avoidance instead of clash

:

00:57:24,506 --> 00:57:30,026

detection, and then I, I think that's a

real challenge to have a trusted model.

:

00:57:30,656 --> 00:57:34,286

So being able to automate as much

as possible as the model creation,

:

00:57:34,646 --> 00:57:35,786

particularly around building core.

:

00:57:35,876 --> 00:57:39,236

I think building core is such

an obvious place to start, um,

:

00:57:39,506 --> 00:57:40,676

where there are a lot of rules.

:

00:57:40,766 --> 00:57:42,356

Physics actually counts.

:

00:57:42,446 --> 00:57:47,036

You know, anything that physics matters,

you know, you know, and why we don't

:

00:57:47,036 --> 00:57:52,196

design with physics from the get go is

still, you know, I, I, if I'm playing

:

00:57:52,196 --> 00:57:56,276

a video game, I'm playing with physics,

you know, things weigh things, you know,

:

00:57:56,936 --> 00:58:01,076

you know, even I can, I can even get

that sense if I'm, if I'm driving a car,

:

00:58:01,076 --> 00:58:02,936

I feel the physics of that experience.

:

00:58:02,936 --> 00:58:05,126

So, you know, why can't we

have physics in design tools?

:

00:58:06,496 --> 00:58:11,981

We can come back to that if you

like, but, um, I think that, um, I

:

00:58:11,981 --> 00:58:13,331

do think, you know, I'll just say it.

:

00:58:13,691 --> 00:58:16,571

I do think we are, we are, we are still

underserving the industry a little

:

00:58:16,571 --> 00:58:18,461

bit on, on the, the software side.

:

00:58:19,331 --> 00:58:23,651

However, I would go back to that earlier

thing I said, the architects aren't asking

:

00:58:23,651 --> 00:58:30,041

us to change the, the solution to satisfy

a downstream need that's different.

:

00:58:30,821 --> 00:58:34,181

You know, they, they, they, yes, they

want us to help 'em find a faster way

:

00:58:34,181 --> 00:58:38,321

of create getting to permits, which why

you're suddenly seeing this whole new

:

00:58:38,321 --> 00:58:42,341

kind of, uh, bunch of, um, automated

drawing tools hitting the market.

:

00:58:43,271 --> 00:58:46,991

What that not doing is saying it's like,

Hey look, I know the output from my,

:

00:58:47,111 --> 00:58:50,981

my trusted model is going to go to the

supply chain and onto construction site

:

00:58:50,981 --> 00:58:55,901

and they're gonna rely on that to instruct

a robotic vehicle to do something.

:

00:58:56,831 --> 00:59:00,161

So you better make sure the software

model is something that can be trusted.

:

00:59:00,161 --> 00:59:02,891

I, I, you know, that's

the inevitability I see.

:

00:59:02,951 --> 00:59:03,491

Um.

:

00:59:05,501 --> 00:59:06,971

We're not, yeah, I mean, we're not there.

:

00:59:06,971 --> 00:59:07,361

Obviously.

:

00:59:09,641 --> 00:59:10,661

I jumped around a bit there.

:

00:59:10,661 --> 00:59:11,021

Sorry.

:

00:59:14,066 --> 00:59:17,096

Randall Stevens: Now I was trying to

think, uh, you know, just what the

:

00:59:17,096 --> 00:59:22,226

next question on that front would

be, because it's the, um, yeah, I

:

00:59:22,226 --> 00:59:26,036

mean, I, I, I've been, uh, putting

together presentation that I'm going

:

00:59:26,036 --> 00:59:29,786

to use next week, but I keep calling

the work that we've been doing on

:

00:59:29,786 --> 00:59:31,856

the ai, it is the unsexy part of it.

:

00:59:31,856 --> 00:59:33,206

It's like, it's not the

:

00:59:33,971 --> 00:59:34,481

Richard Harpham: Yeah,

:

00:59:34,826 --> 00:59:37,526

Randall Stevens: and all that side

of it, but, uh, there is a, there's

:

00:59:37,526 --> 00:59:41,786

a lot of need to get this data

structured because it's, it's, uh,

:

00:59:43,181 --> 00:59:43,331

Richard Harpham: yeah.

:

00:59:43,331 --> 00:59:47,291

I always, I always, I always like to use

this example, and this is a necessary,

:

00:59:47,291 --> 00:59:49,751

an AI example, but it's implied by this.

:

00:59:49,751 --> 00:59:54,191

When everyone, people ask me, how does

machine learning and, you know, AI work?

:

00:59:54,191 --> 00:59:58,211

I said, well, rather than go into that,

it is just a simple example of what

:

00:59:58,301 --> 01:00:00,791

a, what a machine can do that a human.

:

01:00:01,211 --> 01:00:04,541

Would really struggle with is if you

can imagine a football field full

:

01:00:04,541 --> 01:00:08,921

of elephants and giraffes and you,

and you're asked to count how many

:

01:00:08,921 --> 01:00:10,211

giraffes and how many elephants.

:

01:00:12,341 --> 01:00:15,641

For a, for a hu one human

being, that's a really big ask.

:

01:00:15,851 --> 01:00:18,941

You know, for a start, the, the, the,

the thing, the things keep moving.

:

01:00:20,021 --> 01:00:23,861

So you got 1, 2, 3, ah, damn,

that would just move 1, 2, 3, 4.

:

01:00:24,101 --> 01:00:27,071

And you all just, you know, so you

end up, you end up having to create

:

01:00:27,071 --> 01:00:30,251

corrals and you have to sort of start

hurting them from one side to the other.

:

01:00:30,701 --> 01:00:33,431

And then when you've done that, you've

got all the elephants on one side

:

01:00:33,431 --> 01:00:34,511

and all the drafts on the other side.

:

01:00:34,571 --> 01:00:36,461

Then you count them, but

then they keep moving.

:

01:00:36,491 --> 01:00:41,651

So, you know, so you can sort of, it

is a complex problem for a human, for a

:

01:00:41,651 --> 01:00:44,201

machine that's trained on a difference

between elephants and giraffes.

:

01:00:44,291 --> 01:00:46,991

You just go, it goes,

where are they there?

:

01:00:47,921 --> 01:00:50,501

532 giraffes, 623 elephants.

:

01:00:51,791 --> 01:00:56,861

That's a really simple example of

how something that seems ultimately

:

01:00:56,861 --> 01:00:58,751

mundane can have a massive impact.

:

01:00:59,111 --> 01:01:00,731

If you, if you think about.

:

01:01:01,136 --> 01:01:02,846

You know, how to use

a machine to solve it.

:

01:01:03,326 --> 01:01:05,876

And I, I don't think we do enough of that.

:

01:01:06,026 --> 01:01:10,706

You know, I've been to a bunch of,

um, AI conferences, you know, AI

:

01:01:10,706 --> 01:01:13,556

and AC conferences recently, and

I will be at Confluence next week.

:

01:01:13,556 --> 01:01:14,276

So, um,

:

01:01:14,481 --> 01:01:14,781

Randall Stevens: Okay,

:

01:01:14,966 --> 01:01:17,576

Richard Harpham: I I'm, I'm sure

yours is not gonna be like this, so,

:

01:01:18,911 --> 01:01:19,301

Randall Stevens: I'll take

:

01:01:19,406 --> 01:01:24,416

Richard Harpham: um, but I, I think

we, I, I, I don't, I think there's,

:

01:01:24,446 --> 01:01:26,006

I wanna say it's a lack of ambition.

:

01:01:26,006 --> 01:01:31,946

I would say it's a lack of clarity

on understanding the, how this tech,

:

01:01:32,126 --> 01:01:36,296

how these technologies can ultimately

solve relatively mundane, but but

:

01:01:36,296 --> 01:01:41,576

highly complex in the difficult to

execute things in, in, in our space.

:

01:01:42,386 --> 01:01:46,766

You know, so in, in Skema, you know, what

we decided to pick is like, it's really

:

01:01:46,766 --> 01:01:51,476

hard to get information from a previous

project compiled in such a way that

:

01:01:51,476 --> 01:01:55,646

we can re-execute it in the, the next

project with total assurance that the

:

01:01:55,646 --> 01:01:57,296

machine will take care of then how it.

:

01:01:57,761 --> 01:02:00,671

I've taken our intelligence and fit

it together in the next project.

:

01:02:00,671 --> 01:02:03,581

You know, and we are just gonna

keep edging that up, you know, using

:

01:02:03,581 --> 01:02:05,981

the LOD kind of standard standards.

:

01:02:05,981 --> 01:02:08,321

As you know, we're going up to

LOD three 50 right now, but we're

:

01:02:08,321 --> 01:02:11,171

gonna keep edging up into 400 and

beyond, and that's ultimately when

:

01:02:11,171 --> 01:02:12,431

we'll have a fully trusted model.

:

01:02:12,911 --> 01:02:16,511

And then things like digital twins

could actually maybe happen and, you

:

01:02:16,511 --> 01:02:22,001

know, and, uh, you know, true, true, um,

sequencing, sequencing of construction

:

01:02:22,001 --> 01:02:23,501

might actually be able to be figured out.

:

01:02:23,501 --> 01:02:26,711

There's all these things that unlocks

when you can get to that point.

:

01:02:26,711 --> 01:02:33,701

And so, I, I, I think that, I think

that, uh, rather than thinking about

:

01:02:33,701 --> 01:02:37,721

standards, I think we need to start

thinking a little bit more about tasks

:

01:02:37,721 --> 01:02:43,211

and execution of, of the things that

should, the machines could do really well.

:

01:02:43,211 --> 01:02:46,841

But we are still, you know, we're

still putting our interns and our

:

01:02:46,841 --> 01:02:50,801

first, you know, first year, you know,

you know, post grads onto, because

:

01:02:50,801 --> 01:02:52,361

that's the mundane donkey work.

:

01:02:53,006 --> 01:02:57,146

Know, the, the, that's the, that's

the rite of passage that you have to

:

01:02:57,146 --> 01:02:59,996

do for the first five, 10 years of

your architectural career before we

:

01:02:59,996 --> 01:03:01,406

actually start designing something,

:

01:03:01,581 --> 01:03:02,361

Evan Troxel: when those, when

:

01:03:02,516 --> 01:03:02,726

Richard Harpham: you know?

:

01:03:02,901 --> 01:03:05,091

Evan Troxel: tasks don't

exist for those people?

:

01:03:05,151 --> 01:03:05,901

I mean, and not,

:

01:03:05,901 --> 01:03:07,761

not to say that like the most mundane

:

01:03:08,121 --> 01:03:08,411

Richard Harpham: Yeah.

:

01:03:08,631 --> 01:03:10,071

Evan Troxel: to be the

things that they're trained

:

01:03:10,071 --> 01:03:11,631

on, but

:

01:03:12,161 --> 01:03:12,581

Richard Harpham: Mm-hmm.

:

01:03:12,861 --> 01:03:15,441

Evan Troxel: architects have to

adapt in how they bring people up

:

01:03:16,371 --> 01:03:17,241

in the profession.

:

01:03:17,241 --> 01:03:17,871

And I don't

:

01:03:17,936 --> 01:03:18,626

Richard Harpham: Yeah, I agree.

:

01:03:18,771 --> 01:03:21,891

Evan Troxel: because they can barely do

the, the thing that exists right now.

:

01:03:24,564 --> 01:03:24,954

Richard Harpham: Yeah.

:

01:03:24,954 --> 01:03:30,114

I, I would, I was in NA an AI event

about a year, a year and a half ago,

:

01:03:30,204 --> 01:03:34,794

and I was a little, I hadn't been to

one, it was one, it was one of the

:

01:03:34,794 --> 01:03:36,354

chapters, you know, city chapters.

:

01:03:37,344 --> 01:03:40,344

And it's funny, the number one, the

number one thing that, you know,

:

01:03:40,344 --> 01:03:44,364

this mostly crowded, I would say 25

to 35 year olds that who were there

:

01:03:44,934 --> 01:03:47,934

were asking the panels and asking

everyone was like, you know, how do I.

:

01:03:48,339 --> 01:03:50,559

Get trained, how do I, how

do I find a way to get better

:

01:03:50,559 --> 01:03:52,989

trained on, on Revit, you know?

:

01:03:52,989 --> 01:03:56,349

And it's fundamentally, it's 'cause the

schools aren't, the schools don't really

:

01:03:56,439 --> 01:03:58,149

give you much training, if any on Revit.

:

01:03:58,479 --> 01:04:01,029

You know, it's, they see

a little as constraining.

:

01:04:01,599 --> 01:04:04,269

And the architectural firms are,

you know, it's a highly expensive

:

01:04:04,269 --> 01:04:06,579

exercise to train architects on Revit.

:

01:04:06,579 --> 01:04:09,699

And if you, and if they become any

good, they become a highly marketable

:

01:04:09,699 --> 01:04:11,649

commodity that gets hired away too easily.

:

01:04:12,549 --> 01:04:17,049

Um, so I, I, but it, so it was funny.

:

01:04:17,079 --> 01:04:21,129

Patrick Schumacher did an article

recently at d um, where he was basically

:

01:04:21,189 --> 01:04:26,559

lambasting architectural schools and,

and a profession, uh, saying that, you

:

01:04:26,559 --> 01:04:28,989

know, you could almost do away with

architectural schools now because why

:

01:04:28,989 --> 01:04:33,519

not just have 'em come in and, you

know, learn how to use Revit to do

:

01:04:33,519 --> 01:04:35,079

buildings that aren't that interesting?

:

01:04:35,079 --> 01:04:38,469

Is was his app, which I thought

was a little depressing, but

:

01:04:38,474 --> 01:04:41,229

there was some, there was some

truths in what he was saying.

:

01:04:41,288 --> 01:04:46,179

You know, I, I think that, I

think that, uh, we, what we

:

01:04:46,179 --> 01:04:47,649

are not doing is unlocking.

:

01:04:48,579 --> 01:04:51,519

I don't think we're unlocking the

potential for architecture to evolve

:

01:04:51,519 --> 01:04:54,489

through technology right now in,

in a way that we might be able to.

:

01:04:54,489 --> 01:04:59,169

And, and, and Evan, I think you're

kind of maybe implied in your

:

01:04:59,169 --> 01:05:01,929

question was, you know, well, okay,

Richard, that's very well, but does

:

01:05:01,929 --> 01:05:03,369

that mean there's less architects

:

01:05:05,499 --> 01:05:08,889

if, if the technologies are

doing the automated work?

:

01:05:09,009 --> 01:05:10,689

Um, possibly.

:

01:05:11,859 --> 01:05:12,399

Possibly.

:

01:05:13,779 --> 01:05:20,979

Um, I, I think there is a pretty long

period of, of the same number of people

:

01:05:20,979 --> 01:05:26,859

working more on quality of design and

quality of design artifact that gets

:

01:05:26,859 --> 01:05:32,709

created before you see a reduction in

number of people in architectural firm.

:

01:05:33,639 --> 01:05:38,259

Uh, I, I, I, I think, I think people, you

know, I think there's this kind of race

:

01:05:38,259 --> 01:05:43,719

to get to race to get to the production

phase, or, well, it's almost like you

:

01:05:43,719 --> 01:05:46,869

tr you try to set out a production

as long as you possibly can, but.

:

01:05:47,754 --> 01:05:50,514

You're trying to get there quickly because

you know how long production takes you.

:

01:05:51,474 --> 01:05:55,519

And, and going, going back to, well,

it goes to the claiming curve is that

:

01:05:55,524 --> 01:06:00,714

you built into, this is like, sorry,

sorry, Revit, but know how you work, um,

:

01:06:01,104 --> 01:06:04,434

is like, there, there's so many locked

in dependencies on creating a building

:

01:06:04,434 --> 01:06:08,364

information model and something like

Revit that makes change really hard.

:

01:06:08,784 --> 01:06:09,204

So

:

01:06:09,834 --> 01:06:12,954

you find yourself, you know, if, if,

if you could compress the schedule

:

01:06:13,163 --> 01:06:17,454

of production, of the model, of a

trusted model, give you more time

:

01:06:17,454 --> 01:06:21,744

in the exploration of design and

design quality, um, then I think that

:

01:06:21,744 --> 01:06:22,854

would be a very good place to be.

:

01:06:22,854 --> 01:06:28,824

Because what you could also pull into

there is, is integration and consultation

:

01:06:28,824 --> 01:06:30,504

with engineers and structural engineers.

:

01:06:30,564 --> 01:06:35,904

No, right now it's like, you know, you

could argue they get involved far too late

:

01:06:35,904 --> 01:06:39,384

in the process to impact the production,

the production model that comes out.

:

01:06:39,384 --> 01:06:43,254

The architects, you know, speaking

to BDP, uh, this last week and, you

:

01:06:43,254 --> 01:06:46,404

know, they're trying like mad to

try and get the, the engineers and.

:

01:06:46,989 --> 01:06:51,159

Structural engineers and, and this has

been a story for the last 20 years,

:

01:06:51,159 --> 01:06:54,249

you know, to try and get as many

of the professions working earlier,

:

01:06:54,549 --> 01:06:58,839

you know, not waiting for the design

permit model as it were to be finished.

:

01:06:59,019 --> 01:07:04,839

And I, I guess that's my, my ambition

with Skema, you know, personally is, is

:

01:07:04,839 --> 01:07:11,169

to try and create space during a Skematic

design phase that would dramatically

:

01:07:11,169 --> 01:07:13,059

increase the quality of what comes out.

:

01:07:13,224 --> 01:07:15,864

Evan Troxel: is a perfect segue into

Skema, but I do wanna say one thing

:

01:07:15,864 --> 01:07:18,984

right here, because I've lived that part

of it that you were just describing.

:

01:07:19,704 --> 01:07:22,704

it's, and it's not because, I

mean, there's, it goes both ways.

:

01:07:22,734 --> 01:07:28,134

Architects don't want to design with all

those constraints in place a lot of times.

:

01:07:28,614 --> 01:07:31,644

And engineers don't want

the design to keep changing.

:

01:07:31,974 --> 01:07:32,844

And that's what happens in

:

01:07:32,844 --> 01:07:34,464

design, like design changes.

:

01:07:34,524 --> 01:07:34,974

And

:

01:07:35,049 --> 01:07:35,349

Richard Harpham: Yeah.

:

01:07:35,454 --> 01:07:37,584

Evan Troxel: tell you how many

engineers I've had on projects where

:

01:07:37,584 --> 01:07:44,274

they say, we will come, we will have

our first pass when you are done with

:

01:07:44,274 --> 01:07:46,434

dd, when you are done with design

:

01:07:46,434 --> 01:07:48,384

development, because then it's pretty

:

01:07:48,654 --> 01:07:48,944

Richard Harpham: Yeah,

:

01:07:50,349 --> 01:07:52,989

Evan Troxel: So like, again, it kind

of comes back to like, everything

:

01:07:52,989 --> 01:07:54,759

has to change everywhere, right?

:

01:07:54,759 --> 01:07:56,679

It's like the contracts have to change.

:

01:07:57,009 --> 01:07:59,379

The, the rules of

engagement have to change.

:

01:07:59,679 --> 01:08:03,788

The types of output from drawings

to models has to change for,

:

01:08:03,788 --> 01:08:04,929

for lots of reasons, right?

:

01:08:04,929 --> 01:08:08,979

To manufacturing, also agencies

have to be involved also,

:

01:08:08,979 --> 01:08:11,529

contracts have to be evolved also,

insurance has to be involved.

:

01:08:11,529 --> 01:08:13,509

Like all of these things have to

change, and I think that's what

:

01:08:13,509 --> 01:08:14,799

makes it so difficult, right?

:

01:08:14,799 --> 01:08:17,979

It's like, let's be honest,

this is a tough problem.

:

01:08:18,219 --> 01:08:18,698

Totally.

:

01:08:18,698 --> 01:08:20,049

A, a huge, huge problem.

:

01:08:21,517 --> 01:08:22,176

Richard Harpham: no, I would agree.

:

01:08:22,357 --> 01:08:24,067

I, but I, I think that's changing.

:

01:08:24,067 --> 01:08:28,242

So, you know, one of our investors

actually through, uh, is a group

:

01:08:28,242 --> 01:08:31,841

called the, um, AC Angels, which

is got like shop architects and.

:

01:08:33,247 --> 01:08:38,466

Thomasetti, SSTO, um, DPR

there as well, amongst others.

:

01:08:39,096 --> 01:08:41,197

They're like an investment club

and they look for technology.

:

01:08:41,197 --> 01:08:42,697

It's a very interesting group of people.

:

01:08:42,697 --> 01:08:47,167

And, uh, one, one of the guys who,

who leads it, uh, as the chairman

:

01:08:47,167 --> 01:08:52,627

of Tho to Setti Tom Ello and

things are changing exactly what

:

01:08:52,627 --> 01:08:55,237

you described as a conversation

that we've, we've kind of had.

:

01:08:55,957 --> 01:09:01,176

And I think, you know, he always sort

of says, you know, he, he's gone from,

:

01:09:02,256 --> 01:09:05,527

he said like, you know, he's gone from

like, you know, 20, 20, 30 years ago and

:

01:09:05,527 --> 01:09:08,797

a dinner party being somewhat embarrassed

to say he was a structural engineer.

:

01:09:08,827 --> 01:09:12,697

'cause it seems so dull and boring to

being actually really excited to talk

:

01:09:12,697 --> 01:09:14,317

about being a structural engineer.

:

01:09:14,407 --> 01:09:15,487

And I kind of, I love it.

:

01:09:15,577 --> 01:09:17,287

You know, it's one of my favorite things.

:

01:09:17,647 --> 01:09:18,247

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

:

01:09:18,336 --> 01:09:18,697

I love it.

:

01:09:18,697 --> 01:09:21,636

And it's like, yeah, because now it's

a really exciting dynamic place to be.

:

01:09:22,386 --> 01:09:27,336

Um, and you know, the core studios

there are really are trying to develop

:

01:09:27,457 --> 01:09:31,447

solutions that are flexible enough

to at least get the wire frames.

:

01:09:32,182 --> 01:09:35,752

Part of the process figured out

during, um, Skematic design.

:

01:09:35,902 --> 01:09:40,042

And, and, and I, so I think this

goes back to the, okay, maybe not

:

01:09:40,042 --> 01:09:42,591

a hundred percent structured design

can be figured out that early.

:

01:09:42,591 --> 01:09:47,752

But if we know, basically at least the

wire frame, you know, let's start with

:

01:09:47,752 --> 01:09:52,221

just does the wire frame work, you know,

for whether it's precast or roll, roll,

:

01:09:52,221 --> 01:09:56,092

steel, whatever, and, you know, have we

got the spans at least in the place where

:

01:09:56,092 --> 01:09:59,542

when it gets through dd then it goes,

it doesn't look like an alien landed

:

01:09:59,602 --> 01:10:01,102

in the structural engineering's office.

:

01:10:01,102 --> 01:10:02,932

Like what, what were they thinking?

:

01:10:03,622 --> 01:10:06,292

You know, there has been

some degree of pre-thinking.

:

01:10:06,592 --> 01:10:09,682

I think you look at tools like old

Augment, you know, I think are at the,

:

01:10:09,772 --> 01:10:14,692

the bastion of, you know, being able

to auto route, you know, MEP through

:

01:10:14,692 --> 01:10:17,602

a building, you know, and such a, so

in Skema, you know, where we can sort

:

01:10:17,602 --> 01:10:22,822

of, within our design catalogs, when

we put our unit unitized design using

:

01:10:22,822 --> 01:10:26,002

units to, to set out a building, you

know, we can go down to the light

:

01:10:26,062 --> 01:10:27,862

switch entry, exit points for hvac.

:

01:10:29,332 --> 01:10:31,462

All the equipment within

a unit can be there.

:

01:10:31,462 --> 01:10:35,512

So then a tool like Augmenta, can

we, we can, we can say where, you

:

01:10:35,512 --> 01:10:39,652

know, where the, the, the important

kind of entry exit points are for the

:

01:10:39,652 --> 01:10:42,862

whole system within the building and

where the, uh, the control rooms are.

:

01:10:43,342 --> 01:10:46,132

Um, then it can have

a go at processing it.

:

01:10:46,132 --> 01:10:46,282

Yeah.

:

01:10:46,282 --> 01:10:50,452

That still takes a day for a computer

to figure it out, but that's a lot

:

01:10:50,512 --> 01:10:54,712

quicker than we've had before and we

can get that, that Skematic phase now,

:

01:10:55,267 --> 01:10:55,477

Randall Stevens: We

:

01:10:55,672 --> 01:10:55,972

Richard Harpham: so,

:

01:10:56,167 --> 01:10:59,617

Randall Stevens: we'll put Evan Wa to

put in the, uh, show notes, but we had

:

01:10:59,617 --> 01:11:01,567

Rob Otani that runs the course studio

:

01:11:02,062 --> 01:11:02,362

Richard Harpham: yeah.

:

01:11:02,362 --> 01:11:02,692

Yeah.

:

01:11:03,037 --> 01:11:04,717

Randall Stevens: was on, was on the show.

:

01:11:04,807 --> 01:11:08,827

And, uh, he participated in our, uh, three

day Confluence event, this best fall.

:

01:11:08,827 --> 01:11:12,457

And, you know, I do think that, you

know, maybe Evan, that's, that's

:

01:11:12,457 --> 01:11:16,297

what is gonna get to the, those early

stages when things are moving quickly.

:

01:11:16,717 --> 01:11:16,927

They're

:

01:11:17,032 --> 01:11:17,362

Richard Harpham: Yeah.

:

01:11:17,587 --> 01:11:20,197

Randall Stevens: on technology

that lets them do things very

:

01:11:20,197 --> 01:11:21,517

quickly in those early stages.

:

01:11:21,517 --> 01:11:25,387

At least give you that early

feedback and, uh, around the,

:

01:11:25,387 --> 01:11:27,037

uh, the, the structural design.

:

01:11:27,037 --> 01:11:30,637

So yeah, maybe as those kinds of

technologies progress on that side,

:

01:11:30,637 --> 01:11:32,527

it can help to, uh, ease that tension.

:

01:11:32,857 --> 01:11:33,157

Right.

:

01:11:33,262 --> 01:11:35,902

Richard Harpham: Yeah, and I, I think

you'd have to go back to as well, it's

:

01:11:35,902 --> 01:11:38,902

like, look, I, I would love to, you

can say on the manufacturing side, you

:

01:11:38,902 --> 01:11:41,812

always have to look at a hundred percent

solution, you know, which is, which

:

01:11:41,812 --> 01:11:43,852

is why companies like Ansys exists.

:

01:11:44,152 --> 01:11:47,662

You know, you gotta figure out

all that stuff very, very early.

:

01:11:48,232 --> 01:11:51,652

You know, whether the, the thing you just

designed is actually gonna stand up to

:

01:11:51,652 --> 01:11:54,172

the forces that are gonna be put on it.

:

01:11:54,862 --> 01:12:04,282

Um, I, I think for a while we have

the opportunity to automate and, and

:

01:12:04,282 --> 01:12:09,802

investigate a percent the, the 20%

of the building design that causes

:

01:12:09,802 --> 01:12:13,162

80% of ucs downstream in terms

of change and change management.

:

01:12:13,252 --> 01:12:17,122

It's like, you know, so yeah, because

it's the 80 20 rule, it's kind of a

:

01:12:17,122 --> 01:12:18,592

little bit obvious to say it, but.

:

01:12:19,507 --> 01:12:20,377

That's very different.

:

01:12:20,377 --> 01:12:22,237

Going all the way back to

what we were trying to do with

:

01:12:22,237 --> 01:12:23,437

Revit when we first did Revit.

:

01:12:23,467 --> 01:12:25,717

It's like, nope, we're gonna,

we're gonna create something that

:

01:12:25,717 --> 01:12:31,371

can design any building and, and

keep all the drawings coordinated.

:

01:12:31,731 --> 01:12:31,941

You know?

:

01:12:32,001 --> 01:12:38,181

That's so, so it goes the, it

comes down to the defining the

:

01:12:38,181 --> 01:12:39,171

problem you're trying to solve.

:

01:12:39,171 --> 01:12:42,201

And that goes back to, you know, how we

use ai, as I was saying earlier, it's

:

01:12:42,201 --> 01:12:46,191

like, you know, you've gotta have a very

clear idea of the, the pro, the problems

:

01:12:46,191 --> 01:12:50,031

you're trying to solve and the outcomes

that could have the most benefit to you.

:

01:12:50,451 --> 01:12:55,941

And like I said, I, I think, I think the

industry's getting better at defining it.

:

01:12:56,361 --> 01:13:01,311

You know, the AC specification that came

out of the uk, um, was a great first pass.

:

01:13:01,371 --> 01:13:07,251

Um, I think, yeah, the activist kind of

things where the lettuce group, I think

:

01:13:07,251 --> 01:13:09,951

they were called, you know, started to

tell the autodesks exactly what they need.

:

01:13:09,951 --> 01:13:13,341

I think that these are great things

where the industry, you know, is,

:

01:13:13,341 --> 01:13:15,021

is, is trying to pick the ball up.

:

01:13:15,351 --> 01:13:16,731

I, I think there are too many.

:

01:13:17,676 --> 01:13:20,466

In the architects and engineering

side that are trying to

:

01:13:20,466 --> 01:13:21,546

become software companies.

:

01:13:21,546 --> 01:13:23,256

That's a whole different

conversation we can have.

:

01:13:23,886 --> 01:13:26,706

But uh, but I think the reason

that's happening is because I

:

01:13:26,706 --> 01:13:30,456

think the software side, us on the

software side, would be doing better.

:

01:13:31,896 --> 01:13:32,256

You know?

:

01:13:33,006 --> 01:13:33,726

I think we could.

:

01:13:34,842 --> 01:13:39,432

Randall Stevens: Well, I think, uh,

you know, the, I think what at least

:

01:13:39,552 --> 01:13:43,602

I was hearing you say is that it's

gonna be the interoperability and

:

01:13:43,602 --> 01:13:48,672

exchange of information between these

different pieces and the, more, the

:

01:13:48,672 --> 01:13:50,202

less friction there is with that

:

01:13:50,277 --> 01:13:50,367

Richard Harpham: Mm-hmm.

:

01:13:50,802 --> 01:13:53,772

Randall Stevens: probably means that,

you know, maybe the future isn't, there

:

01:13:53,772 --> 01:13:55,572

isn't going to be a replacement for Revit.

:

01:13:55,572 --> 01:13:58,782

It's gonna be lots of tools that know how

to talk to each other, that ultimately,

:

01:13:59,232 --> 01:14:03,252

you know, there, there isn't gonna be one

big thing that maybe evolves and is ver,

:

01:14:03,362 --> 01:14:04,502

Richard Harpham: No, no.

:

01:14:04,502 --> 01:14:07,167

And maybe, and maybe Revit sticks

around for quite a long time.

:

01:14:07,167 --> 01:14:07,677

Look at audit.

:

01:14:07,677 --> 01:14:09,567

Look, look at AutoCAD, you know, it's.

:

01:14:11,127 --> 01:14:11,307

Randall Stevens: Yeah.

:

01:14:11,307 --> 01:14:16,497

It may just become, uh, you know, it, it

is primarily a documentation tool, right?

:

01:14:16,497 --> 01:14:17,097

So it might

:

01:14:17,692 --> 01:14:18,112

Richard Harpham: Mm-hmm.

:

01:14:18,267 --> 01:14:19,857

Randall Stevens: and have its

strength there, and then pieces

:

01:14:19,857 --> 01:14:21,477

that you know, that it's.

:

01:14:21,537 --> 01:14:26,517

Richard Harpham: I, yeah, I, I, I, I think

I, again, I think, I think for a period

:

01:14:26,577 --> 01:14:30,777

you're definitely gonna see, you're gonna

see solutions including as, and, you

:

01:14:30,837 --> 01:14:39,087

know, efforts to automate drawings and,

and, and I would say engineering improve,

:

01:14:39,297 --> 01:14:45,837

improve the production capabilities of an

architect to create effectively permits.

:

01:14:46,227 --> 01:14:49,617

So I think you should look at the, right

now we look at the, the, the permit

:

01:14:50,427 --> 01:14:54,507

kind of workflow as being a component

of design for manufacturing workflow.

:

01:14:54,987 --> 01:14:58,317

I think you're gonna see a bifurcation

where you're gonna start to be able

:

01:14:58,317 --> 01:15:03,687

to preload your supply chain with,

with one workflow whilst you, you're

:

01:15:03,687 --> 01:15:04,887

getting your permits on the other.

:

01:15:04,887 --> 01:15:07,167

And I know that sounds like,

well, shouldn't they be the same?

:

01:15:07,167 --> 01:15:07,227

I.

:

01:15:08,007 --> 01:15:09,777

I'm talking about the parallel processing.

:

01:15:10,287 --> 01:15:13,887

I think so I think you're gonna have

enough connectivity between those

:

01:15:13,887 --> 01:15:18,027

two workflows such that, you know,

you won't lose, lose connection.

:

01:15:18,537 --> 01:15:23,487

So I, I can tell you if I, if I could,

you know, if I could send at least a

:

01:15:23,487 --> 01:15:29,667

wire frame to my, uh, cold roll steel

supplier for a building in a certain

:

01:15:29,667 --> 01:15:36,267

place, knowing that that piece and, you

know, 70, 80% of the quantities are pretty

:

01:15:36,267 --> 01:15:43,137

much nailed in, then, then your supply

chain can start to become more efficient.

:

01:15:43,617 --> 01:15:46,647

You know, just, that's a very simplistic

example and may be too simplistic.

:

01:15:47,217 --> 01:15:50,277

Um, but it kind of implies the

opportunities that you have.

:

01:15:50,457 --> 01:15:57,207

If I can use some, if on a, uh, on a

Skematic building, preview building,

:

01:15:57,207 --> 01:16:01,557

model preview that we create, a

Skema can have auto routing of

:

01:16:01,557 --> 01:16:03,267

NEP and wiring, and I can send a.

:

01:16:04,002 --> 01:16:08,682

Pretty much effectively a first pass

at wiring to my, to my supply chain.

:

01:16:09,312 --> 01:16:13,752

Then if I'm managing, you know, that, that

part of it, and I trust the information

:

01:16:13,752 --> 01:16:17,622

I'm getting, then you're starting to

see the, you know, the water, you know,

:

01:16:17,627 --> 01:16:20,892

all, all, all waters rise together

on being able to be more efficient

:

01:16:20,892 --> 01:16:22,182

on how you manage your supply chain.

:

01:16:22,752 --> 01:16:24,972

You know, rather than it being

this back to the so tooth as

:

01:16:24,972 --> 01:16:27,192

abrupt kind of what happens now.

:

01:16:27,192 --> 01:16:27,732

What happens now?

:

01:16:27,737 --> 01:16:27,997

Okay.

:

01:16:29,886 --> 01:16:33,171

Randall Stevens: Yeah, I was having, uh

uh, last week when we were out at the.

:

01:16:33,861 --> 01:16:35,481

Rev anniversary party.

:

01:16:35,481 --> 01:16:40,221

I was, I can't remember exactly who I was

talking to, but we, we were both kind of

:

01:16:40,221 --> 01:16:49,131

saying that the, the big finance, probably

what moves, moves this along, right?

:

01:16:49,131 --> 01:16:51,711

The, you can talk about technology.

:

01:16:51,716 --> 01:16:56,871

We we're all technologies and trying

to improve that, but really it's gonna

:

01:16:56,871 --> 01:17:00,591

be money, finance side of it, the

:

01:17:01,011 --> 01:17:01,431

Richard Harpham: Yeah.

:

01:17:01,461 --> 01:17:04,521

Randall Stevens: of it, and that

pressure as those things adjust

:

01:17:04,521 --> 01:17:07,011

and change will drive right.

:

01:17:07,011 --> 01:17:12,831

A lot of this, uh, change, not, not

necessarily software technology.

:

01:17:14,646 --> 01:17:17,436

Richard Harpham: Yeah, I mean, I, yes,

I mean, you know, if you could look back

:

01:17:17,436 --> 01:17:20,826

at the history of IPD, which kind of

started to get momentum at the same time

:

01:17:20,826 --> 01:17:26,346

as BIM did actually is like, I think, I

think everyone thought IPD might become

:

01:17:27,366 --> 01:17:30,906

the thing that would totally tip over

and revolutionize the way we worked.

:

01:17:31,056 --> 01:17:35,316

Um, ultimately we, the way

money moves through the life

:

01:17:35,316 --> 01:17:37,536

of the build is highly complex.

:

01:17:37,536 --> 01:17:43,806

And I, I, I think money follows,

you know, I think, I think you can

:

01:17:43,806 --> 01:17:49,806

create gravity for money by providing

clear trust and efficiency in the

:

01:17:49,806 --> 01:17:51,246

way that you execute the work.

:

01:17:51,756 --> 01:17:51,936

Randall Stevens: Yep.

:

01:17:52,175 --> 01:17:54,666

Richard Harpham: And I, and I, I don't

think, you know, we are clearly not

:

01:17:54,666 --> 01:17:56,826

there because there's not enough.

:

01:17:57,291 --> 01:18:01,431

There's not enough improvement in, in

the tool chain and the efficiency that

:

01:18:01,431 --> 01:18:06,351

can drive to, to provide gravity for

money to move from the way it's currently

:

01:18:06,351 --> 01:18:08,702

spent into a new way it's being spent.

:

01:18:08,796 --> 01:18:10,386

Randall Stevens: I was just

thinking though, Richard, the

:

01:18:10,386 --> 01:18:11,826

way you were describing, which I.

:

01:18:12,471 --> 01:18:17,691

Agree is that, you know, this

information is, gets to some

:

01:18:17,691 --> 01:18:19,611

point and it's all sequential now.

:

01:18:19,611 --> 01:18:21,261

I'll do what I'm supposed to do only, you

:

01:18:21,351 --> 01:18:21,621

Richard Harpham: Yeah,

:

01:18:21,831 --> 01:18:23,271

Randall Stevens: I think

it is a trust problem.

:

01:18:23,541 --> 01:18:26,751

It's a trust in that information

and you know, at some point

:

01:18:27,446 --> 01:18:29,091

Richard Harpham: And there's

a lot of contract risks there.

:

01:18:29,151 --> 01:18:32,091

There's a lot of contract risks

there as well, you know, so, but I

:

01:18:32,091 --> 01:18:35,481

don't think contracts change until

trust happens, and IPD was basically,

:

01:18:35,661 --> 01:18:39,831

we're going to trust each other, but

the artifacts didn't change, which

:

01:18:40,191 --> 01:18:43,581

fundamentally undermined the idea of

the trust because at a certain point

:

01:18:43,581 --> 01:18:44,961

the architects going, well, I don't need

:

01:18:45,351 --> 01:18:45,591

Randall Stevens: Right.

:

01:18:45,681 --> 01:18:48,861

Richard Harpham: provide that information

to get my part of the process done.

:

01:18:51,479 --> 01:18:52,709

Randall Stevens: Go ahead

Evan, did you have a question?

:

01:18:52,754 --> 01:18:55,273

Evan Troxel: one, one of the,

you said, the way money flows

:

01:18:55,273 --> 01:18:56,954

through a project is, is complex.

:

01:18:56,954 --> 01:19:01,604

And, there, there's actually a, a book

i, i, I can't remember the name of it,

:

01:19:01,604 --> 01:19:06,464

but it was by a guy out of Canada, very,

very involved in the building industry.

:

01:19:06,464 --> 01:19:10,454

But it was something like fi the,

the number was 50 cents of every

:

01:19:10,454 --> 01:19:13,394

dollar is wasted these kinds of

:

01:19:13,394 --> 01:19:13,994

projects.

:

01:19:14,804 --> 01:19:15,164

And,

:

01:19:15,824 --> 01:19:16,114

Richard Harpham: Yeah.

:

01:19:16,544 --> 01:19:16,784

Evan Troxel: right?

:

01:19:16,784 --> 01:19:21,584

And so, like back to Randall's point about

money driving this, it's like, okay, you

:

01:19:21,584 --> 01:19:26,384

can see, you can see all the little ways,

but you can also see some really big ways

:

01:19:26,474 --> 01:19:30,674

in which there's some major issues in

the way that the building can, building

:

01:19:30,674 --> 01:19:33,824

industry continues to operate these broken

:

01:19:34,514 --> 01:19:35,204

systems,

:

01:19:35,264 --> 01:19:35,594

right?

:

01:19:35,804 --> 01:19:36,974

And, and you,

:

01:19:37,049 --> 01:19:38,489

Richard Harpham: we don't

have, we don't have, yeah.

:

01:19:38,594 --> 01:19:42,193

Evan Troxel: owners, you get to these

developers who are actually like, I mean.

:

01:19:42,568 --> 01:19:46,949

Incredibly sophisticated driving these

things forward, there's gonna be a

:

01:19:46,949 --> 01:19:50,969

huge amount of pressure to, to come

up with a new way of doing things.

:

01:19:53,579 --> 01:19:54,509

Richard Harpham: We hope so.

:

01:19:55,289 --> 01:20:00,359

I mean, it's like, it's interesting

and, um, it's the only I will mention

:

01:20:00,359 --> 01:20:05,309

some political things, hopefully without

getting political is like, you know, so

:

01:20:05,309 --> 01:20:06,839

there was a very similar kind of cons.

:

01:20:06,839 --> 01:20:12,449

Conceptually, a very similar exercise

to Doge happened in, in the UK in the

:

01:20:12,449 --> 01:20:18,449

late nineties and, and around:

we started with, um, what was called

:

01:20:18,449 --> 01:20:22,019

the Laham report and basically the UK

government, it was back when I lived

:

01:20:22,019 --> 01:20:27,719

in England, basically the UK government

decided that they were spending all this

:

01:20:27,719 --> 01:20:29,999

money, government money on buildings.

:

01:20:30,148 --> 01:20:33,959

Uh, but it was so highly inefficient

that, and the efficiency was large

:

01:20:33,959 --> 01:20:35,398

enough that they should do a study.

:

01:20:36,839 --> 01:20:41,398

Um, so this guy, uh, lay them,

uh, wait, lay, I think Lord lay

:

01:20:41,398 --> 01:20:43,709

them at the end and did a report.

:

01:20:43,709 --> 01:20:48,839

And he identified 30% of construction

is the avoidable cost of error, and

:

01:20:48,839 --> 01:20:51,568

70% of that is informational error.

:

01:20:52,739 --> 01:20:55,859

You know, just wrong information,

wrong time or wrong information

:

01:20:57,239 --> 01:20:59,519

given, so wrong version of

drawings or whatever it might be.

:

01:20:59,519 --> 01:21:03,989

And, and that was followed, I think

it was like three, three to five years

:

01:21:03,989 --> 01:21:08,459

later by, uh, John Egan did, he was

the ex uh, chairman of Jaguar cars.

:

01:21:09,059 --> 01:21:12,764

Um, was asked to do a follow-up

report, the look at the

:

01:21:12,764 --> 01:21:14,609

progress since the first report.

:

01:21:15,269 --> 01:21:17,398

And he came up with almost

exactly the same figures.

:

01:21:18,119 --> 01:21:22,439

And um, and then he was

invited again to do it.

:

01:21:22,499 --> 01:21:25,289

And I, I, I won't get the year

right, but you can look it up.

:

01:21:25,289 --> 01:21:27,059

nd I think it might have been:

:

01:21:27,629 --> 01:21:31,109

So I think his first report was 20,

might have been:

:

01:21:31,109 --> 01:21:33,599

been earlier, but he did one in.

:

01:21:34,544 --> 01:21:39,044

You know, about 10, 10, 10 or 12,

13 years ago to, to, again, to

:

01:21:39,044 --> 01:21:40,454

track what the progress has been.

:

01:21:41,144 --> 01:21:43,064

And there were some improvements.

:

01:21:43,424 --> 01:21:47,294

Uh, most of it was in the digital,

the availability of information

:

01:21:47,294 --> 01:21:50,354

because of digital kind of sources.

:

01:21:51,074 --> 01:21:55,574

But the, what was happening on the

building sites in terms of errors, errors,

:

01:21:55,664 --> 01:21:58,004

errors in waste, hadn't moved that much.

:

01:21:58,934 --> 01:22:03,794

Then, you know, I find myself, you

know, in, within the last 12 months,

:

01:22:03,794 --> 01:22:07,184

speaking to someone very senior, one of

the largest construction companies in,

:

01:22:08,023 --> 01:22:11,684

uh, the United States, uh, who again

I won't mention despair of blushes,

:

01:22:11,864 --> 01:22:16,634

um, said, is that we have this thing

where we say, for every three buildings

:

01:22:16,634 --> 01:22:18,044

we build, we put one in the ground.

:

01:22:19,814 --> 01:22:22,424

You know, that's kind of the statistics

they come up with when they look

:

01:22:22,424 --> 01:22:26,294

back and track back what happened

during construction over many, many

:

01:22:26,294 --> 01:22:28,334

buildings a year that they construct.

:

01:22:29,234 --> 01:22:29,624

So I.

:

01:22:30,943 --> 01:22:31,934

So what does that mean?

:

01:22:32,474 --> 01:22:35,684

You know, what, what it means is that

we might be trying to address the wrong,

:

01:22:36,374 --> 01:22:38,594

the wrong things to solve these issues.

:

01:22:38,594 --> 01:22:43,154

And I, I think it's like, it's almost

like, you know, you could look at

:

01:22:43,154 --> 01:22:46,544

many things, uh, you know, you could

look at, uh, sustainability and

:

01:22:46,544 --> 01:22:48,254

trying to, you know, to do low carbon.

:

01:22:48,254 --> 01:22:52,334

It's like if you wanted to, if you

wanted to dramatically reduce carbon

:

01:22:52,784 --> 01:22:56,504

that you, you should look at the biggest

kind of dominoes you can knock over.

:

01:22:56,504 --> 01:23:01,604

And concrete's obviously maybe steel,

but concrete's probably the biggest.

:

01:23:02,414 --> 01:23:08,234

And, you know, so concrete probably

accounts for 20, 25% of embodied

:

01:23:08,234 --> 01:23:11,504

carbon, uh, that goes into a building

and probably in production carbon

:

01:23:11,504 --> 01:23:12,794

as well, in creating concrete.

:

01:23:13,724 --> 01:23:17,984

Um, probably the equation explodes

somewhat and then you look at concrete

:

01:23:17,984 --> 01:23:21,674

supplies around the world and there aren't

that many companies, you know, so you'd

:

01:23:21,674 --> 01:23:25,364

think that that would be something that

you'd be able to address and manage.

:

01:23:25,364 --> 01:23:26,054

But we don't.

:

01:23:26,339 --> 01:23:27,329

Focus on that.

:

01:23:27,599 --> 01:23:29,009

We focus on other things.

:

01:23:29,219 --> 01:23:33,419

We focus more on how we measure the

outputs, you know, rather than is there

:

01:23:33,419 --> 01:23:36,659

something that should be legislated in

the supply chain or technology you should

:

01:23:36,659 --> 01:23:43,499

point out to, to solve it, you know, so,

um, I I, I think we see this, this goes

:

01:23:43,499 --> 01:23:47,068

all the way back to, I, I think is how

we should sort of be thinking about the

:

01:23:47,068 --> 01:23:52,889

things we should target automation, ai,

next generation technologies at, is that

:

01:23:53,039 --> 01:23:59,729

I don't think it's about how do I, how do

I become a better, more, um, innovative

:

01:23:59,789 --> 01:24:02,369

and expansive thinking designer?

:

01:24:03,449 --> 01:24:07,859

You know, I think the, the profession

of the architect, as we used to say in

:

01:24:07,859 --> 01:24:10,169

the uk, we called it the clerk of Work.

:

01:24:10,169 --> 01:24:13,949

So it goes all the way back to the

architect was also the site manager.

:

01:24:14,009 --> 01:24:17,249

When, you know, we used to build

things, you know, hundreds of years ago.

:

01:24:17,849 --> 01:24:20,339

I think that side of it, you

know, is something that we should

:

01:24:20,339 --> 01:24:25,679

have more focus on and or, or

they should be incentives, uh.

:

01:24:26,894 --> 01:24:30,014

For that to happen, the incentives are

gonna get driven by what you were talking

:

01:24:30,014 --> 01:24:33,464

about Evan, and it's like, you know, is

that the owners are gonna sort of say,

:

01:24:33,464 --> 01:24:34,784

well, like, no, we really want that.

:

01:24:35,804 --> 01:24:38,294

You know, we, we see and

we clearly want that.

:

01:24:39,784 --> 01:24:42,754

Randall Stevens: Yeah, there was a, uh,

Evan, I'll, I'll maybe put my hands on

:

01:24:42,754 --> 01:24:46,294

it and maybe we can put a link to it,

but there was a, uh, interview with Mark

:

01:24:46,294 --> 01:24:52,023

Andreessen two or three years ago, and

in, in there he started, he was saying,

:

01:24:52,084 --> 01:24:56,884

he called it the, uh, fast, fast change

parts of the economy and slow change

:

01:24:56,884 --> 01:25:00,604

parts of the economy and construction

was one of the slow change along with

:

01:25:00,754 --> 01:25:02,044

healthcare and some of the others.

:

01:25:02,044 --> 01:25:06,934

But, you know, besides being

a part of it that they have in

:

01:25:06,934 --> 01:25:08,464

common, that slows things down.

:

01:25:08,464 --> 01:25:14,104

But I think the number he threw out was

like, you know, fully loaded construction

:

01:25:14,104 --> 01:25:16,144

costs have doubled, you know, adjusted

:

01:25:16,214 --> 01:25:16,484

Richard Harpham: Yeah.

:

01:25:16,834 --> 01:25:18,334

Randall Stevens: in the

last, you know, 30 years.

:

01:25:18,334 --> 01:25:22,564

And it eats, you know, his

quote was like, it's eating it.

:

01:25:22,564 --> 01:25:26,974

It's, it's, it's what's driving

the inflation it, you know, the.

:

01:25:27,434 --> 01:25:31,124

Couple of different sectors

largely are eating all of the money

:

01:25:31,124 --> 01:25:33,554

where you get all this efficiency

in other parts of the market.

:

01:25:33,854 --> 01:25:36,224

These things just keep getting

more expensive and more

:

01:25:36,224 --> 01:25:37,394

expensive and more expensive.

:

01:25:37,394 --> 01:25:39,314

Not better, not less expensive.

:

01:25:39,674 --> 01:25:43,514

And uh, you know, but you know, as

we've talked through this, there,

:

01:25:43,514 --> 01:25:49,064

it, it is a little bit different

than traditional but that doesn't

:

01:25:49,064 --> 01:25:50,504

mean that there's not an answer.

:

01:25:50,684 --> 01:25:52,273

There's an answer in here somewhere.

:

01:25:52,424 --> 01:25:57,734

There is gonna be a revolution And I

think to just put a kind of into that

:

01:25:57,734 --> 01:26:02,684

part of the conversation, it's like, I

don't think it's gonna be making what

:

01:26:02,684 --> 01:26:04,634

people are doing today more efficient.

:

01:26:04,634 --> 01:26:10,064

It's gonna have to be some break in

the contractual way, financial way.

:

01:26:10,064 --> 01:26:14,354

Something that's gonna make everybody

go, okay, we've gotta realign.

:

01:26:14,804 --> 01:26:19,634

And, uh, and to your point, Richard,

it's that doing these things in parallel

:

01:26:19,634 --> 01:26:24,584

with a, with a back plane of data

that everybody is trusting in this

:

01:26:24,584 --> 01:26:26,654

process that's gonna, you know, maybe.

:

01:26:27,044 --> 01:26:30,434

Maybe stand a chance of squeezing

the efficiency back out of

:

01:26:30,454 --> 01:26:31,169

Richard Harpham: Y Yeah.

:

01:26:31,169 --> 01:26:34,900

It's like, it it, an old mentor

of mindset, you know, people are

:

01:26:35,080 --> 01:26:38,230

much slower to leave a burning

platform than to go to a Greenfield,

:

01:26:38,420 --> 01:26:38,640

Randall Stevens: Yep.

:

01:26:40,420 --> 01:26:42,460

Richard Harpham: you know, and you

said that just doesn't seem to make

:

01:26:42,460 --> 01:26:46,420

sense, you know, but, but it, this,

and I, you could debate whether that's

:

01:26:46,420 --> 01:26:47,920

true or not, but I, I kind of like,

:

01:26:48,115 --> 01:26:49,165

Randall Stevens: it's a form of risk.

:

01:26:49,195 --> 01:26:51,985

You know, the devil, you know, or

the devil you don't know and, you

:

01:26:52,210 --> 01:26:54,790

Richard Harpham: but it, but it, it

describes why, it describes what you

:

01:26:54,790 --> 01:27:00,309

have early adopters and, and, and, and,

and, uh, late, late, late majority,

:

01:27:00,370 --> 01:27:03,520

you know, you know, so if you know

chasm theory, I dunno if you have

:

01:27:03,520 --> 01:27:07,925

guys who've studied that, you know,

so, uh, Philip Lay, who worked for

:

01:27:07,930 --> 01:27:09,580

Chasm Group as a good friend of mine.

:

01:27:10,750 --> 01:27:13,270

He is saying, it's like, it's,

it's strange that that's, that

:

01:27:13,270 --> 01:27:16,270

book's been around for so long and

yeah, it still seems remarkably

:

01:27:16,270 --> 01:27:17,830

fresh when you kind of look at it.

:

01:27:18,760 --> 01:27:22,990

So talking about how you went through

a market, you know, anyone, if you,

:

01:27:23,110 --> 01:27:27,910

if you, if you're watching this is

like that, that was a great book to

:

01:27:27,910 --> 01:27:30,040

read, honestly, it's in my career.

:

01:27:30,040 --> 01:27:33,400

I'd go back, just go back to those

principles over and over and over

:

01:27:33,400 --> 01:27:35,470

again to, to kind of check yourself.

:

01:27:35,920 --> 01:27:40,270

It's like you can't navigate your go to

market plan unless you know where you are.

:

01:27:41,350 --> 01:27:41,590

You know?

:

01:27:41,590 --> 01:27:46,000

And, and that takes horrible

honesty that most, most teams are

:

01:27:46,090 --> 01:27:49,270

really bad at being honest about

:

01:27:49,580 --> 01:27:49,800

Randall Stevens: Yes,

:

01:27:50,050 --> 01:27:51,880

Richard Harpham: you sit there,

you sit there with your team.

:

01:27:52,000 --> 01:27:54,940

I mean, honestly, we had, we had one,

uh, this morning, you know, where, where

:

01:27:54,940 --> 01:27:59,440

we had to really kind of say, okay, are

we sure we're where we think we are?

:

01:27:59,710 --> 01:28:02,110

You know, it's like, I know

we'd like to think we're at that

:

01:28:02,110 --> 01:28:03,820

stage, but are we at that stage?

:

01:28:04,150 --> 01:28:05,200

Maybe we're at this stage

:

01:28:05,695 --> 01:28:05,934

Randall Stevens: Yeah.

:

01:28:05,950 --> 01:28:06,130

Richard Harpham: it.

:

01:28:06,760 --> 01:28:09,880

It's very important to that, you

know, that if you're gonna plot

:

01:28:09,880 --> 01:28:14,290

what you do next, you know, and

I think I, I, I think that's an

:

01:28:14,290 --> 01:28:15,700

important way of thinking about it.

:

01:28:16,855 --> 01:28:19,735

Randall Stevens: Yeah, I use, I ref,

I teach a entrepreneurship class.

:

01:28:19,795 --> 01:28:24,535

Been doing that for the last 10 or so

years and, uh, at the university, and I

:

01:28:24,565 --> 01:28:26,215

referenced the Crossing the Chasm book.

:

01:28:26,215 --> 01:28:26,875

It's one of my,

:

01:28:27,250 --> 01:28:27,550

Richard Harpham: Yeah.

:

01:28:27,550 --> 01:28:27,910

Yeah.

:

01:28:28,075 --> 01:28:30,385

Randall Stevens: you have to, you

have to, you know, first of all, we're

:

01:28:30,385 --> 01:28:33,835

gonna talk a lot about this very, very

early stage, but it's a weird stage

:

01:28:33,835 --> 01:28:35,005

because you've got a bunch of weird,

:

01:28:36,405 --> 01:28:37,510

Richard Harpham: And it feels great.

:

01:28:37,570 --> 01:28:38,320

It feels great.

:

01:28:38,395 --> 01:28:39,235

Randall Stevens: if you like that.

:

01:28:39,235 --> 01:28:40,075

It's fun, right.

:

01:28:40,105 --> 01:28:40,555

But, uh.

:

01:28:40,780 --> 01:28:41,050

Richard Harpham: Yes.

:

01:28:41,050 --> 01:28:41,260

It is.

:

01:28:41,260 --> 01:28:43,690

Never been easier to

prototype a piece of software.

:

01:28:43,809 --> 01:28:48,280

And it's really easy to engage the

early adopters that are now employed.

:

01:28:48,520 --> 01:28:52,240

It's like, it's, it's a statistic

which I kind of accidentally captured.

:

01:28:52,360 --> 01:28:57,070

Um, 'cause I, I, I did it, it wasn't

long after I left Autodesk, I was in a

:

01:28:57,430 --> 01:29:01,780

company where it was, it was important

information, um, to, so how many,

:

01:29:01,780 --> 01:29:04,059

how many job titles were there in.

:

01:29:04,915 --> 01:29:09,145

In a, in architect s contractors that

had either transformation, digital, or

:

01:29:09,145 --> 01:29:13,675

transformation or, you know, some, some

version of that in their job title.

:

01:29:14,184 --> 01:29:18,235

And I, I mean, globally, I

found less than a hundred.

:

01:29:19,075 --> 01:29:22,195

I did the same exercise about,

I wanna say about two and a

:

01:29:22,195 --> 01:29:23,515

half, three, three years ago.

:

01:29:24,175 --> 01:29:29,875

And there were thousands, you know,

thousands of people employed with, you

:

01:29:29,875 --> 01:29:36,684

know, director of digital transformation,

the director of, um, you know, uh, change,

:

01:29:36,745 --> 01:29:40,735

change on change, man, who's like all

these new job titles have kind of emerged,

:

01:29:40,735 --> 01:29:45,115

which are all about, like, there's someone

in the company who's responsible for

:

01:29:45,265 --> 01:29:47,095

involving the companies to the next stage.

:

01:29:47,665 --> 01:29:48,475

That's great.

:

01:29:48,805 --> 01:29:53,875

But for an early stage software company,

it can be deadly because, 'cause these

:

01:29:53,875 --> 01:29:56,095

guys are employed to spend time with you

:

01:29:56,885 --> 01:29:57,105

Randall Stevens: Yes.

:

01:29:57,145 --> 01:29:58,285

Richard Harpham: and it feels great.

:

01:29:58,385 --> 01:29:59,480

Randall Stevens: I call

'em happy meetings.

:

01:30:00,230 --> 01:30:00,470

I've

:

01:30:00,655 --> 01:30:00,955

Richard Harpham: Yeah.

:

01:30:01,010 --> 01:30:02,180

Randall Stevens: life in happy meetings.

:

01:30:02,210 --> 01:30:02,840

It's like, just

:

01:30:02,965 --> 01:30:03,265

Richard Harpham: Yeah.

:

01:30:03,440 --> 01:30:05,660

Randall Stevens: everybody

shook their head and you left

:

01:30:05,660 --> 01:30:06,860

here doesn't mean that there's,

:

01:30:07,240 --> 01:30:07,510

Richard Harpham: Yeah,

:

01:30:07,760 --> 01:30:09,830

Randall Stevens: something's

gonna happen, uh, after you

:

01:30:09,940 --> 01:30:10,330

Richard Harpham: yeah,

:

01:30:10,520 --> 01:30:10,790

Randall Stevens: Right.

:

01:30:11,680 --> 01:30:11,920

Richard Harpham: yeah.

:

01:30:11,920 --> 01:30:14,410

And, and you know, and it spills

down, you know, the fact that you

:

01:30:14,410 --> 01:30:17,770

can, you know, it is like you, you

see, you see brand new tools coming,

:

01:30:17,980 --> 01:30:19,030

you know, coming to the market.

:

01:30:19,030 --> 01:30:24,400

And the webpage immediately has, you know,

many, many, many quotes from people, from

:

01:30:24,400 --> 01:30:28,570

very, very reputable firms, you know,

saying how awesome your product is and

:

01:30:28,570 --> 01:30:30,010

how it's gonna revolutionize the market.

:

01:30:30,010 --> 01:30:34,840

Investors love it, you know, so

you can sort of see money following

:

01:30:34,930 --> 01:30:38,380

not things that aren't necessarily

completely fleshed out ideas.

:

01:30:38,380 --> 01:30:40,695

No, and it's,

:

01:30:41,480 --> 01:30:41,700

Evan Troxel: Hm.

:

01:30:41,735 --> 01:30:43,870

Richard Harpham: I, I, I'm not

saying you should try and solve

:

01:30:43,870 --> 01:30:46,059

it, I'm just saying that's kind

of, that's kind of what's going on.

:

01:30:48,700 --> 01:30:48,940

Randall Stevens: No.

:

01:30:48,940 --> 01:30:52,870

Well, this has been, uh, this has

been a great, uh, great conversation.

:

01:30:52,900 --> 01:30:55,780

You know, I, I'm just thinking

it's like, uh, we probably

:

01:30:55,780 --> 01:30:56,920

should do another one of these.

:

01:30:57,015 --> 01:31:00,010

This, this, you're gonna be at

the end of our second season

:

01:31:00,010 --> 01:31:01,930

of this, uh, podcast, uh, this

:

01:31:02,230 --> 01:31:02,680

Richard Harpham: Okay.

:

01:31:02,770 --> 01:31:03,250

Randall Stevens: series.

:

01:31:03,610 --> 01:31:08,200

Uh, but maybe sometime in the next season,

I, we can get you and Marty together

:

01:31:08,230 --> 01:31:10,210

back on here, and we can, uh, you know.

:

01:31:11,050 --> 01:31:13,960

do something a little more

directly around the software and

:

01:31:13,960 --> 01:31:15,370

what's going on on that front

:

01:31:15,370 --> 01:31:17,590

Richard Harpham: Yeah, I'll probably

in, I'll probably be in trouble for not

:

01:31:17,650 --> 01:31:19,315

marketing my software enough on this.

:

01:31:19,540 --> 01:31:20,231

Randall Stevens: No, no, no,

:

01:31:20,635 --> 01:31:21,115

Evan Troxel: He can't you.

:

01:31:21,115 --> 01:31:22,285

It's not your fault, Richard.

:

01:31:22,585 --> 01:31:25,000

He bad host, bad hosting there, Randall.

:

01:31:25,110 --> 01:31:25,400

Geez.

:

01:31:27,550 --> 01:31:27,790

Randall Stevens: no.

:

01:31:27,790 --> 01:31:29,411

It, well, it gives us an

opportunity to come back

:

01:31:29,815 --> 01:31:30,085

Evan Troxel: Absolutely.

:

01:31:30,220 --> 01:31:34,840

Randall Stevens: uh, but, but, you know,

I think, uh, you know, as I said, given

:

01:31:34,840 --> 01:31:41,170

your, given your long important history

in the industry at, at critical times

:

01:31:41,170 --> 01:31:46,780

when you know things are changing, uh, I

think it's important, especially if we've

:

01:31:46,780 --> 01:31:51,550

got, other, other people that are trying

to develop software platforms and stuff.

:

01:31:51,550 --> 01:31:55,120

Just what are the challenges with,

uh, how to, you know, anytime

:

01:31:55,120 --> 01:31:58,210

you're trying to educate a market

is always the bloodiest and hardest.

:

01:31:58,210 --> 01:31:58,540

Right?

:

01:31:58,540 --> 01:31:58,870

And,

:

01:31:59,255 --> 01:31:59,635

Richard Harpham: Oh yeah.

:

01:32:00,040 --> 01:32:03,820

Randall Stevens: it's, it's

just a, a minefield and, uh.

:

01:32:03,925 --> 01:32:05,035

Richard Harpham: yeah, it is.

:

01:32:05,035 --> 01:32:08,635

But, but I would say it's like, you

know, I, I think I'm English, so

:

01:32:08,635 --> 01:32:11,095

I could be sitting on a beach with

a cocktail and sound miserable.

:

01:32:11,184 --> 01:32:11,335

You know?

:

01:32:11,340 --> 01:32:13,135

It just can happen, you know?

:

01:32:14,245 --> 01:32:16,735

It's just part of being, it's

part of being English, you know?

:

01:32:16,735 --> 01:32:20,335

It's like, you know, I'm, I'm

really not as upset as I look.

:

01:32:20,335 --> 01:32:22,795

I have to tell people, you know?

:

01:32:23,245 --> 01:32:28,975

But, um, I, I, I, I don't, I think this

is a, I, God, I hope I'm not saying

:

01:32:28,975 --> 01:32:33,715

this in, in five, five years time, you

know, is like, 'cause I think I might

:

01:32:33,715 --> 01:32:37,375

have been saying it five years ago,

but I do think this is an incredibly

:

01:32:38,455 --> 01:32:43,105

fantastic period to be involved in

what's, you know, the transformations

:

01:32:43,105 --> 01:32:44,425

are going on in this industry.

:

01:32:45,085 --> 01:32:48,805

And, you know, I, I would say that,

um, there's a lot of great minds,

:

01:32:49,345 --> 01:32:52,975

you know, thinking about this stuff,

stuff and trying to, to work on it.

:

01:32:53,035 --> 01:32:55,315

Um, you know, I, I, I.

:

01:32:56,090 --> 01:32:58,225

I, I, I, I do think

things like Confluence.

:

01:32:58,225 --> 01:32:59,875

I think next Bill's another great group.

:

01:32:59,934 --> 01:33:03,655

Um, I, uh, another great

conference, Martin Days,

:

01:33:04,080 --> 01:33:04,300

Randall Stevens: Yep.

:

01:33:04,795 --> 01:33:06,355

Richard Harpham: conference

and his magazine.

:

01:33:07,195 --> 01:33:13,434

Um, I do think that, um, there,

that there is, there, there is

:

01:33:13,434 --> 01:33:19,525

an appetite that we have now, um,

for change that I think is great.

:

01:33:20,155 --> 01:33:23,365

You know, I think we're seeing a

very similar kind of revolution

:

01:33:23,365 --> 01:33:26,485

on the technology side that we saw

marketing technology go through.

:

01:33:26,485 --> 01:33:32,125

I think in:

there were some of like 300 marketing

:

01:33:32,125 --> 01:33:36,055

software, identifiable marketing

softwares, solutions in the market.

:

01:33:36,715 --> 01:33:39,745

Um, by:

:

01:33:39,925 --> 01:33:43,465

It was like an unbelievable

explosion of growth in companies.

:

01:33:44,184 --> 01:33:48,325

Um, and I think we've seen or are

seeing the same thing happen here.

:

01:33:48,505 --> 01:33:52,525

Uh, I think the fact that the fact

that we are seeing some of the

:

01:33:52,525 --> 01:33:54,625

larger companies, uh, throw off some.

:

01:33:55,135 --> 01:34:00,895

Some both longstanding people who've

had success as, as well as you know,

:

01:34:00,955 --> 01:34:04,915

others, um, means that they're gonna

be people coming into the market, uh,

:

01:34:04,915 --> 01:34:06,625

that are looking to do new things.

:

01:34:06,985 --> 01:34:08,605

You know, hopefully with a bit of support.

:

01:34:08,635 --> 01:34:12,684

I'm always, as there was, you know,

there's obviously the, the group with

:

01:34:12,955 --> 01:34:17,155

one of my old bosses just, just came

out with, uh, his new software company

:

01:34:17,665 --> 01:34:19,585

out of the Autodesk kind of world.

:

01:34:19,585 --> 01:34:22,225

I'm not gonna say name the

company because my marketing

:

01:34:22,225 --> 01:34:23,215

person will kill me if I do that.

:

01:34:24,865 --> 01:34:26,035

But no, I, I think it's great.

:

01:34:26,035 --> 01:34:26,695

I think it's great.

:

01:34:26,695 --> 01:34:30,535

We, I, I wanna see, I wanna see companies

like that and others be successful.

:

01:34:30,535 --> 01:34:35,094

I think, I think we need to see a

clear demonstration that solving

:

01:34:35,094 --> 01:34:41,875

design challenges with software

over and above creating just another

:

01:34:41,875 --> 01:34:47,395

faster, cheaper replacement for

Revit is like, I think that's great.

:

01:34:47,420 --> 01:34:49,825

I, and we need to, we need

people to be successful.

:

01:34:49,825 --> 01:34:52,465

We need to see, we need to

demonstrate to investors that

:

01:34:52,465 --> 01:34:53,965

this is an area that is worthy.

:

01:34:54,615 --> 01:34:55,990

Of, of being supported.

:

01:34:56,170 --> 01:34:59,950

And I, you know, we've, we've had

on the construction side a few

:

01:34:59,950 --> 01:35:02,260

companies, you know, fulfill that.

:

01:35:02,320 --> 01:35:05,830

You know, I think Procore, you know,

okay, it's the, the longest open

:

01:35:05,830 --> 01:35:07,059

ice success that you've ever seen.

:

01:35:07,059 --> 01:35:09,280

But the fact that they

got there was great.

:

01:35:10,000 --> 01:35:15,910

Um, and we need to see that now happen

in, certainly on the design side, you

:

01:35:15,910 --> 01:35:20,440

know, and, and it is tough, you know,

architects, engineers in particular

:

01:35:20,440 --> 01:35:26,440

don't, don't have, you know, in where,

where the, the per hour cost is the

:

01:35:26,440 --> 01:35:31,180

thing that dictates most of the cost

is hard for technology to, to get

:

01:35:31,210 --> 01:35:34,960

a big share of the pie unless it

can start to take, take money from,

:

01:35:34,990 --> 01:35:38,830

from the, uh, HR if you like, costs.

:

01:35:39,550 --> 01:35:41,710

Which is, it goes back to what I was

saying is like, you know, you've gotta

:

01:35:41,710 --> 01:35:46,900

look at those tasks that now are highly,

highly, uh, employee resource intensive

:

01:35:47,080 --> 01:35:50,230

and figure out, you know, is, is there

other ways that you can use software

:

01:35:50,230 --> 01:35:51,580

to help solve some of those challenges?

:

01:35:51,580 --> 01:35:51,820

So.

:

01:35:52,405 --> 01:35:54,264

This is a great time

to be involved in this.

:

01:35:54,355 --> 01:35:58,615

Um, you know, there's gonna be

failures, there's gonna be successes.

:

01:35:59,005 --> 01:36:01,344

Hope our is one of the

successes, but it's no guarantee.

:

01:36:01,719 --> 01:36:01,930

Randall Stevens: Yep.

:

01:36:02,035 --> 01:36:06,805

Richard Harpham: Um, but I think, uh,

I think if, if you haven't heard, look

:

01:36:06,865 --> 01:36:08,934

me talk a lot about our software here.

:

01:36:08,934 --> 01:36:12,355

I think hopefully you've heard a lot about

our attitude and what we're trying to do

:

01:36:12,490 --> 01:36:12,790

Randall Stevens: Well, I was

:

01:36:12,865 --> 01:36:14,365

Richard Harpham: in the way

we approach the industry.

:

01:36:14,469 --> 01:36:14,650

Randall Stevens: Uh,

:

01:36:14,695 --> 01:36:16,165

Richard Harpham: And hopefully

that gives some trust.

:

01:36:16,375 --> 01:36:16,675

Yeah,

:

01:36:16,870 --> 01:36:19,270

Randall Stevens: soft software is

a reflection of the people that are

:

01:36:19,270 --> 01:36:22,270

building it, and I think it's, you

know, it's important to understand.

:

01:36:23,365 --> 01:36:25,975

The philosophy behind

what people are doing.

:

01:36:25,975 --> 01:36:26,485

'cause it gives

:

01:36:26,815 --> 01:36:27,175

Richard Harpham: yeah.

:

01:36:27,264 --> 01:36:30,445

Randall Stevens: of, you know, uh, a

piece of software that you're gonna use

:

01:36:30,445 --> 01:36:33,475

today is gonna be different, hopefully

six months, 12 months from now.

:

01:36:33,475 --> 01:36:36,925

And it's because of the, uh,

the people behind it and the way

:

01:36:36,925 --> 01:36:38,995

that they're thinking and the

direction that they're going.

:

01:36:38,995 --> 01:36:39,925

You're never finished.

:

01:36:39,925 --> 01:36:41,965

So it's, uh, I think it's important.

:

01:36:41,995 --> 01:36:45,264

And, uh, this has been a fun

conversation to, uh, get,

:

01:36:45,264 --> 01:36:45,684

Richard Harpham: Yeah.

:

01:36:45,805 --> 01:36:47,934

Randall Stevens: to hear a little bit

about the way you've thought about it.

:

01:36:47,934 --> 01:36:50,155

And I, I'm not, wasn't, uh, kidding.

:

01:36:50,155 --> 01:36:53,695

We'll have you and Marty come back

on and, uh, maybe we can dig in.

:

01:36:53,905 --> 01:36:56,695

We've done, we've, it's a little,

been a little bit hard to get people

:

01:36:56,695 --> 01:37:00,085

to do it, but it'll, it's fun to

bring up the software and like dig

:

01:37:00,085 --> 01:37:05,365

into maybe a feature and just talk

through how it came about and what

:

01:37:05,415 --> 01:37:05,535

Richard Harpham: Hmm.

:

01:37:05,545 --> 01:37:08,365

Randall Stevens: discussion was,

why you made certain choices, right.

:

01:37:08,365 --> 01:37:09,055

That you've made.

:

01:37:09,055 --> 01:37:09,325

Because

:

01:37:09,460 --> 01:37:09,850

Richard Harpham: Yeah.

:

01:37:09,955 --> 01:37:12,535

Randall Stevens: trade offs and, uh,

so that's a little bit of the kind of

:

01:37:12,535 --> 01:37:16,375

behind the scenes of how the sausage is

made, uh, you know, in this industry.

:

01:37:16,465 --> 01:37:16,555

But.

:

01:37:17,020 --> 01:37:17,770

Richard Harpham: Well,

it'd be good timing.

:

01:37:17,830 --> 01:37:18,790

It'll be good timing for us.

:

01:37:18,790 --> 01:37:21,940

We've just got a, we've just got a whole,

whole new releases coming out soon.

:

01:37:22,570 --> 01:37:25,150

We, we, we, we did our sketch,

sketch up integration, which

:

01:37:25,150 --> 01:37:27,040

was a big unlock for us.

:

01:37:27,040 --> 01:37:30,010

We now Rhino, the ability to

work with Rhino now is gonna be

:

01:37:30,010 --> 01:37:31,510

a, a huge unlock for us again.

:

01:37:32,139 --> 01:37:36,670

And, uh, you know, our ability to,

you know, at, at the core of what

:

01:37:36,670 --> 01:37:40,660

we're trying to do is we're trying

to make, you know, the ability to do.

:

01:37:42,085 --> 01:37:45,895

Automate the, the parts of the creation

of the design, um, without scripting

:

01:37:45,955 --> 01:37:53,184

available to anybody is like, you know,

so I, I think that for us is, um, a

:

01:37:53,184 --> 01:37:54,625

big piece of what we're gonna do next.

:

01:37:54,625 --> 01:37:58,525

And also the ability to consume a

graph, a very complex description

:

01:37:58,525 --> 01:38:02,275

of the relationships between rooms,

uh, or units within the building.

:

01:38:02,305 --> 01:38:04,559

You know, that's been the first

part of being able to do that in

:

01:38:04,559 --> 01:38:06,505

a, in a highly intelligent way.

:

01:38:06,805 --> 01:38:09,565

So it would be a, I I'm sure you really

enjoy the conversation, hearing what

:

01:38:09,565 --> 01:38:11,065

Marty's cooked up with the developers.

:

01:38:11,125 --> 01:38:12,895

We, we'd be happy to

come and show it to you

:

01:38:13,235 --> 01:38:16,355

Randall Stevens: we will put, uh, we'll

put some links to, to y'all's website

:

01:38:16,355 --> 01:38:18,815

and, uh, stuff in the, in the show notes.

:

01:38:18,815 --> 01:38:21,605

But, uh, and then I'll look

forward to, uh, seeing you again.

:

01:38:21,635 --> 01:38:22,475

Maybe next week.

:

01:38:22,475 --> 01:38:22,745

We'll get

:

01:38:22,825 --> 01:38:23,365

Richard Harpham: next week.

:

01:38:23,915 --> 01:38:25,835

Randall Stevens: spend a few

minutes talking with each other and,

:

01:38:26,575 --> 01:38:26,875

Richard Harpham: Yeah.

:

01:38:26,945 --> 01:38:30,125

Randall Stevens: I think this,

this podcast will be out after

:

01:38:30,125 --> 01:38:31,865

that event, so it's kind of

:

01:38:31,885 --> 01:38:32,455

Richard Harpham: Okay.

:

01:38:32,465 --> 01:38:32,555

Randall Stevens: you

:

01:38:32,710 --> 01:38:32,930

Richard Harpham: So

:

01:38:32,975 --> 01:38:35,825

Randall Stevens: somebody didn't know

about it to, to, uh, get registered.

:

01:38:35,825 --> 01:38:38,195

But we will be in San Francisco

next week with a one day, uh.

:

01:38:38,335 --> 01:38:40,375

Richard Harpham: you, you, you can

edit this piece in and I can say.

:

01:38:41,170 --> 01:38:42,520

Randall, that was a great comment.

:

01:38:42,580 --> 01:38:45,520

That was a great presentation you

made at the, the conference yesterday.

:

01:38:46,315 --> 01:38:47,155

Randall Stevens: Good foreshadowing.

:

01:38:47,275 --> 01:38:47,605

Yeah.

:

01:38:47,605 --> 01:38:48,055

Thanks.

:

01:38:49,825 --> 01:38:50,365

Well, good.

:

01:38:50,365 --> 01:38:52,945

We'll, uh, we'll wrap this up

for today and we'll look forward

:

01:38:52,945 --> 01:38:54,205

to the next conversation.

:

01:38:54,205 --> 01:38:54,625

Thanks, Richard.

:

01:38:55,173 --> 01:38:55,415

Richard Harpham: Great.

:

01:38:55,415 --> 01:38:56,975

And then the next time

we'll get the cat out.

:

01:38:57,075 --> 01:38:57,885

Evan Troxel: looking forward to it.

:

01:38:57,945 --> 01:39:01,335

I, I, you know, it's what, just, just

final thing about that I thought was

:

01:39:01,335 --> 01:39:04,545

so interesting because, you know, I

think about like the guitar that you

:

01:39:04,545 --> 01:39:06,525

were holding, and I think about some of

:

01:39:06,615 --> 01:39:07,035

Richard Harpham: Mm-hmm.

:

01:39:07,305 --> 01:39:08,775

Evan Troxel: shapes back here on my wall.

:

01:39:09,135 --> 01:39:13,635

Um, like people know these brands

because of marketing, right?

:

01:39:13,635 --> 01:39:16,155

And I, and you apply that to

a EC industry, it's like, who

:

01:39:16,155 --> 01:39:17,535

spends the most money marketing.

:

01:39:17,594 --> 01:39:19,755

That's, those are the, the things

that everybody knows, and that's

:

01:39:19,755 --> 01:39:24,645

really what a company in the

startup space is fighting against

:

01:39:24,795 --> 01:39:27,285

is just how do you get the exposure?

:

01:39:27,285 --> 01:39:28,365

How do you get the eyeballs?

:

01:39:28,365 --> 01:39:29,594

How do you build the trust?

:

01:39:29,594 --> 01:39:31,184

How do you build the relationships?

:

01:39:31,885 --> 01:39:35,455

And I think like the things that

you really got to in this deep

:

01:39:35,455 --> 01:39:37,585

cut of an interview today, right.

:

01:39:37,585 --> 01:39:44,155

Really of what's going on in the industry

that you're seeing and that you've

:

01:39:44,155 --> 01:39:46,764

seen over, over decades now, right.

:

01:39:46,764 --> 01:39:49,915

Is just, that's where the,

those were the real issues are.

:

01:39:49,945 --> 01:39:53,365

And to me that's what's so valuable

about these kinds of conversations.

:

01:39:53,395 --> 01:39:58,525

It's like, yeah, there's, there's a, like

those companies, they don't even, they

:

01:39:58,525 --> 01:40:00,264

would never pay a podcast to talk about

:

01:40:00,264 --> 01:40:02,215

them because they get

their marketing for free.

:

01:40:02,475 --> 01:40:02,764

Richard Harpham: Yeah.

:

01:40:02,934 --> 01:40:03,835

Evan Troxel: that's how it works.

:

01:40:03,835 --> 01:40:04,195

And

:

01:40:04,235 --> 01:40:04,525

Richard Harpham: Yeah.

:

01:40:04,915 --> 01:40:06,535

Evan Troxel: talking about 'em

because everybody's using them.

:

01:40:06,594 --> 01:40:10,555

But, um, you know, to your point about

there being a lot of startups, but

:

01:40:10,555 --> 01:40:12,865

they're all competing for against that.

:

01:40:12,895 --> 01:40:16,014

And that, that's a, a tough road,

a tough, a tough thing to do.

:

01:40:16,014 --> 01:40:20,545

But also, I mean, I just really appreciate

the level to which you're, you're really

:

01:40:20,995 --> 01:40:24,865

able to share what your experience is

and what you're seeing here because this

:

01:40:24,865 --> 01:40:28,405

is the kind of place where we, Randall

and I are trying to facilitate that.

:

01:40:29,080 --> 01:40:33,070

To happen and, and I think there's a

lot of value in people overhearing those

:

01:40:33,070 --> 01:40:34,780

kinds of conversations in our industry.

:

01:40:36,093 --> 01:40:37,833

Richard Harpham: And I'd always

be happy to come back and talk a

:

01:40:37,833 --> 01:40:41,943

little bit more about some of the

specifics of, you know, marketing

:

01:40:42,032 --> 01:40:46,593

and how do you get that authentic

ownership of a corner of the room.

:

01:40:46,713 --> 01:40:47,223

It's,

:

01:40:47,733 --> 01:40:51,273

yeah, I I, that, that, that word

authentic is a really important word.

:

01:40:51,452 --> 01:40:54,782

You know, reputational authenticity

is the, that the hardest things

:

01:40:54,813 --> 01:40:59,883

that, the hardest things to, to, to

claim or, or to, or, or to develop.

:

01:40:59,883 --> 01:41:04,743

And the easiest things to lose, you know,

and, you know, the, the fundamentally

:

01:41:04,803 --> 01:41:11,163

it's sadly but often true that the product

isn't the most important piece of it.

:

01:41:11,423 --> 01:41:11,713

Randall Stevens: Yeah.

:

01:41:11,848 --> 01:41:12,058

Yep.

:

01:41:12,093 --> 01:41:14,612

Richard Harpham: You know, it's,

it's often, it's about, you know,

:

01:41:15,183 --> 01:41:17,793

how you present yourself to the

market and how specific you are

:

01:41:17,793 --> 01:41:20,013

about the corner of the room and

the problems you're trying to solve.

:

01:41:20,043 --> 01:41:24,333

You know, and, and I, I, I think

that's, that's something always,

:

01:41:24,393 --> 01:41:26,583

always happy to speak to about more.

:

01:41:26,702 --> 01:41:27,123

Um, I.

:

01:41:29,508 --> 01:41:30,918

It's, it's a fun industry to work in.

:

01:41:30,918 --> 01:41:33,348

Hugely frustrating, hugely rewarding.

:

01:41:33,588 --> 01:41:37,333

And, uh, you, you guys I know have been

trying to solve this for a long time.

:

01:41:37,333 --> 01:41:37,813

Me too.

:

01:41:38,023 --> 01:41:40,543

Um, and, uh, hopefully good days ahead.

:

01:41:40,838 --> 01:41:41,348

Evan Troxel: Thanks, Richard.

:

01:41:41,463 --> 01:41:41,673

Randall Stevens: Good.

:

01:41:41,763 --> 01:41:42,333

Good way to end.

:

01:41:42,487 --> 01:41:42,728

Evan Troxel: time

:

01:41:42,873 --> 01:41:43,473

Randall Stevens: Thanks, Richard.

:

01:41:43,867 --> 01:41:44,287

Richard Harpham: All right.

:

01:41:44,287 --> 01:41:44,582

Thanks guys.

Next Episode All Episodes Previous Episode

Listen for free

Show artwork for Confluence

About the Podcast

Confluence
The director's commentary track for AEC industry software development.
The Confluence podcast is the director's commentary track for AEC industry software. Go behind the scenes with us to learn how and why decisions were made in the creation of your favorite software for the architecture, engineering, and construction industries.

It's a collaboration between Randall Stevens of AVAIL and Evan Troxel of TRXL.

About your hosts

Evan Troxel

Profile picture for Evan Troxel
An industry-leading design and technology expert with a passion for connecting people, Evan is a licensed architect in California and is most well known for his podcasts that focus on the AEC industry.

He has over 25 years of experience in the practice and technology in the architectural profession working with large teams to deliver large public projects for clients. He now brings his experiences together on the Archispeak and TRXL podcasts, and now on the Confluence podcast.

Randall Stevens

Profile picture for Randall Stevens
An AEC industry veteran with 25 years of software development, and sales and management experience, Randall offers a unique combination of expertise in software and graphics technology — coupled with a background and degree in architecture.

In 1991 he founded ArchVision, a software firm specializing in 3D graphics, specifically Rich Photorealistic Content (RPC). Through ArchVision, Randall has built an extensive network with the industry’s leading experts, architectural firms, and visualization software companies, which led him to product development of the AVAIL platform.