- Email: [email protected]
Introducing computers into the multidisciplinary practice of Reiach Hall Blyth
Introducing computers into the multidisciplinary practice of Reiach Hall Blyth Reiach Hall Blyth Partnership is a multidisciplinary practice based in Edinburgh. The technical staff of RHBP are seconded from its founding practices of Alan Reiach Eric Hall & Partners, and Blyth & Blyth. At present the potential resources of technical staff exceeds 200, of whom 30 are architectural, 120 civil/structural, 38 mechanical/electrical engineers and 18 quantity surveyors. RHBP's recent projects have included the £1.8m RIBA award winning offices and amenity buildings for the British Steel Corporation at Airdrie.
EFFICIENCY The practice felt that it needed to improve its efficiency for three reasons: • The increase in the complexity of buildings, particularly services, together with the associated increased specialization of the design team had not been matched by any improvement in the tools available to management. • The large fluctuations in the level of building activity in the public and private sector discourage longterm planning and create a cycle of scrambling for quality staff followed by painful redundancies. • The probable changes in the professional fee scales will accentuate the differences between efficient and inefficient practices.
and coordinating power of the compule= to be grafted directly onto the skill and experience of existing staff. Apart from increased accuracy and consistency, the plans, elevations, sections and schedules produced are entirely conventional. The computer hardware for RUCAPS (Figure 1) consists of a minicomputer, VDU with lightpen, digitizer, magnetic cartridge discs, plotter and keyboard.
TRAINING Figure I. A typical RUCAP5 instal/at/on at RHBP project during 1977, RHBP concluded that, while coarse design alternatives could be compared, the programs that had been used lacked the sensitivity to differentiate between more subtle alternatives, and thereby contributed little to the judgement of experienced designers. Attention then turned to production aids and after studying RUCAPS, a development of GMW Computers Limited, RHBP decided to install it in their offices. RUCAPS has been designed in such a way as to allow the production speed
While waiting for the hardware to be delivered, three members of staff began training at GMWC's offices. The training took the form of a one-day introduction after which the three returned to Edinburgh to apply the concepts to a project in their office. Two weeks later they returned to use that project as a basis for two further days training at GMWC's offices containing a high proportion of hands-on experience, on one of the two inhouse computers. The remaining time was spent in Edinburgh preparing for the training proper which would begin as soon as all the hardware had been installed in March 1979.
EXPERIENCE RHBP decided, therefore, to investigate the potential role of computers. They first used computer aids to assist in solving planning problems. After a considerable involvement in a hospital RHBP and GMWC are members of the Design Office Consortium, an association for promoting the use of computers in the construction industry, Guildhall Place, Cambridge CB2 3QQ, Tel: 0223 311246
358
Figure 2. 5yntex electrical overlay
computer-aided design
® rill ~
imB
FII ~
MllmlY
BI
÷
one who wished to use the system, or just to watch others. This policy was welcomed by those whose projects were not directly involved, and was pursued until July 1979, at which time the office had ten trained operators. Half of these are now very skilled and act as trainers for other staff. It is now felt that training is most effective when carried out with real rather than fictitious projects.
PRODUCTION
@ Figure 3. Library of electrical symbols Three distinct types of training were arranged: • Management implications for Partners and Associates • Basic training for those not having used the system before. • Advanced training for the three partially trained users. This phase lasted for 3½days after which time the GMWC staff left, enabling RHBP to gain the essential experience of the system, both in its operation and management, which no amount of formal training can provide. To encourage all interested staff to become familiar with the new facility, one hour a day was reserved for any-
volume 11 number 6 november 1979
Two major projects were selected to be run on RUCAPS. These were the Syntex Research Building Phase II (£2.8m): a fully multidisciplinary project within RHBP (Figures 2 and 3), and the Borders and District General Hospital (£I I m) for which all the 'out of house' consultants have potential access to the system (Figure 4). To maximize the time available for users to work with the system, drawings can be requested during the day and produced in a batch by the plotter working unattended overnight. Using this technique, RUCAPS is currently working on average of 60 hours a week, with peaks of 90 hours a week when called upon to meet exacting deadlines. RHBP have brought RUCAPS into their office to be a tool which enhances the performance of the practice. The effort involved in the actual production of drawings and schedules has been reduced, and established work patterns have, therefore, changed. It is argued that, with a successful system, direct comparisons of activities made before and after are, therefore, only of marginal
Figure 4. Borders and District Genera/ Hospital (I: 100) relevance, since one is inevitably not comparing like with like. The full impact has to be assessed at the strategic level and on the practice as a whole. Even after only six months of usage, the indications are that the reasons for adopting RUCAPS have been justified and that such techniques will inevitably become increasingly common in the building professions as they continue to look for greater efficiency.
I A Paton, Reiach BaH B/yth Partnership and] A Davison, GMW Computers Limited
359
EFFICIENCY The practice felt that it needed to improve its efficiency for three reasons: • The increase in the complexity of buildings, particularly services, together with the associated increased specialization of the design team had not been matched by any improvement in the tools available to management. • The large fluctuations in the level of building activity in the public and private sector discourage longterm planning and create a cycle of scrambling for quality staff followed by painful redundancies. • The probable changes in the professional fee scales will accentuate the differences between efficient and inefficient practices.
and coordinating power of the compule= to be grafted directly onto the skill and experience of existing staff. Apart from increased accuracy and consistency, the plans, elevations, sections and schedules produced are entirely conventional. The computer hardware for RUCAPS (Figure 1) consists of a minicomputer, VDU with lightpen, digitizer, magnetic cartridge discs, plotter and keyboard.
TRAINING Figure I. A typical RUCAP5 instal/at/on at RHBP project during 1977, RHBP concluded that, while coarse design alternatives could be compared, the programs that had been used lacked the sensitivity to differentiate between more subtle alternatives, and thereby contributed little to the judgement of experienced designers. Attention then turned to production aids and after studying RUCAPS, a development of GMW Computers Limited, RHBP decided to install it in their offices. RUCAPS has been designed in such a way as to allow the production speed
While waiting for the hardware to be delivered, three members of staff began training at GMWC's offices. The training took the form of a one-day introduction after which the three returned to Edinburgh to apply the concepts to a project in their office. Two weeks later they returned to use that project as a basis for two further days training at GMWC's offices containing a high proportion of hands-on experience, on one of the two inhouse computers. The remaining time was spent in Edinburgh preparing for the training proper which would begin as soon as all the hardware had been installed in March 1979.
EXPERIENCE RHBP decided, therefore, to investigate the potential role of computers. They first used computer aids to assist in solving planning problems. After a considerable involvement in a hospital RHBP and GMWC are members of the Design Office Consortium, an association for promoting the use of computers in the construction industry, Guildhall Place, Cambridge CB2 3QQ, Tel: 0223 311246
358
Figure 2. 5yntex electrical overlay
computer-aided design
® rill ~
imB
FII ~
MllmlY
BI
÷
one who wished to use the system, or just to watch others. This policy was welcomed by those whose projects were not directly involved, and was pursued until July 1979, at which time the office had ten trained operators. Half of these are now very skilled and act as trainers for other staff. It is now felt that training is most effective when carried out with real rather than fictitious projects.
PRODUCTION
@ Figure 3. Library of electrical symbols Three distinct types of training were arranged: • Management implications for Partners and Associates • Basic training for those not having used the system before. • Advanced training for the three partially trained users. This phase lasted for 3½days after which time the GMWC staff left, enabling RHBP to gain the essential experience of the system, both in its operation and management, which no amount of formal training can provide. To encourage all interested staff to become familiar with the new facility, one hour a day was reserved for any-
volume 11 number 6 november 1979
Two major projects were selected to be run on RUCAPS. These were the Syntex Research Building Phase II (£2.8m): a fully multidisciplinary project within RHBP (Figures 2 and 3), and the Borders and District General Hospital (£I I m) for which all the 'out of house' consultants have potential access to the system (Figure 4). To maximize the time available for users to work with the system, drawings can be requested during the day and produced in a batch by the plotter working unattended overnight. Using this technique, RUCAPS is currently working on average of 60 hours a week, with peaks of 90 hours a week when called upon to meet exacting deadlines. RHBP have brought RUCAPS into their office to be a tool which enhances the performance of the practice. The effort involved in the actual production of drawings and schedules has been reduced, and established work patterns have, therefore, changed. It is argued that, with a successful system, direct comparisons of activities made before and after are, therefore, only of marginal
Figure 4. Borders and District Genera/ Hospital (I: 100) relevance, since one is inevitably not comparing like with like. The full impact has to be assessed at the strategic level and on the practice as a whole. Even after only six months of usage, the indications are that the reasons for adopting RUCAPS have been justified and that such techniques will inevitably become increasingly common in the building professions as they continue to look for greater efficiency.
I A Paton, Reiach BaH B/yth Partnership and] A Davison, GMW Computers Limited
359