Please, Not Another Software Tool

A big reason I took my current role was the chance to tackle a few stubborn problems that keep building simulation from being used at speed and scale across the design, renovation, and operation of buildings.  There are hundreds of challenges to be addressed here.  I think every one of those challenges traces back to a single word: value.  Every building and portfolio is ultimately shaped by investment – it’s what drives construction, operation, and renovation.  Anyone who works in this space knows this, at least on some level. 

By speed, I mean two things: how quickly simulation gets adopted (ideally as a stand-alone digital twin for every building), and how quickly the software itself runs.  

By scale, I mean both the size of individual buildings and the ability to look at entire portfolios, campuses, neighborhoods, and towns in one place – studying energy conservation measures (ECMs), decarbonization measures, and other performance parameters across large swaths of buildings.

Speed and scale are hard enough on their own.  Add in everyone with a stake in a building – architects and engineers, energy and facility managers, investment banks, materials and equipment manufacturers, and more – and it gets overwhelming fast.  

After more than two decades in this space listening to all sorts of perspectives on building performance, I’ve found there are three interconnected categories we have to address to move at speed and at full scale:

• Technology

• Talent

• Time

I call these the three T’s.  (Alliteration is fun.)

While technology has made simulation more accessible, it’s also limiting in its current state. I’ve heard even a grizzled energy modeler groan about having to “fight” the current tools available – especially on large and/or complex projects.  I’ve heard owners, manufacturers, and other stakeholders mumble about how simulation takes too long or is too complex to deliver value directly to their product or enterprise.  I’ve heard similar complaints about the talent development pipeline from AEC firms: the young modeler grows their skills and knowledge then moves on to the next role and takes that knowledge and skill with them.  Meanwhile, time gets squandered on lengthy learning curves, limited tools, and too few skilled people. Organizations are left in the untenable position of having to continually re-invest in new talent, take the “L” on the balance sheet, and hope the new talent is as good as the old talent and won’t leave. Organizational knowledge is only progressing in “fits and starts”.  And modelers themselves can get pigeonholed as the “expert in a software tool” that can feel hindering to them in their career progression.

Think of the three T’s as a three-legged stool: fix only one or two legs and the whole thing wobbles.  We can’t fix technology without also developing talent.  We can’t free up time without better technology.  And we can’t build better technology without the time, talent, and knowledge to do it.

It also means the solution isn’t “yet another software tool.”  Technology alone won’t fix talent or time, and throwing more talent at poor technology won’t solve the time problem.  Doing things faster without developing talent doesn’t scale; it just gets you to the same bottleneck faster. 

Over the next couple of weeks, I’ll share more about the solutions we’ve been working on to tackle the technology, talent, and time challenges in building simulation – and beyond.  

And yes, AI is a big part of the story.  But it’s far from the only part of that story.  It’s a much bigger re-framing of building performance over the entire building lifecycle.