There’s no stopping the evolution of industry. Even in the relatively short space of just one hundred years, nearly all industrial sectors have been upgraded and updated to some degree by a rapid rise in technological advances. From automated processes to cutting-edge efficient programmes, the introduction of technology has often proved an asset, particularly in terms of work speed.
But this rise in the use of technology has prompted questions surrounding whether or not the continued advancement of such machinery and software will, eventually, lead to the redundancy of human input. Will we get to a stage where people are simply not as fast, accurate, or efficient? Will we get to point where it is simply not needed to have people in our work spheres?
It’s highly unlikely. Computer programmes can, after all, only produce quality designs if used correctly, with human input a crucial component to success. While a good engineer can benefit from using such software, a bad engineer may find their designs worsened by the addition of technology they haven’t the skill to use properly. Put simply, there’s really no replacement for genuine engineering skill.
Computer assistance should be treated as such: as assistance. The successful link between computer programmes and engineering skill varies depending on which part of the AEC industry they are being used in. To understand how this factor can impact their relationship, we should first look at the three main stages of engineering design.
- Concept design: At this stage, the majority of the design comes from the imagination of the engineer, supported by some simple sizing elements or calculations.
- Drafting and analysis: This stage brings the concept design into the real world more earnestly, checking that it is feasible and how it will succeed. This stage is predominantly computer-based, using programmes such as structure design software to help engineers work to a greater degree of accuracy.
- Detailed design: This stage is when, as the name suggests, the design becomes much more detailed. At this point, the design is almost completely computer-based, with analysis happening in the background.
Anything that needs understanding and imagination will require human input. But it’s not just the imaginative aspect that machines cannot replicate in full: fine tuning, for example, still needs a guiding human hand in order to ensure the outputs are correct. While leaps and bounds are certainly being made in machine learning, whereby computers can now make decisions based on historical data and records, it is highly unlikely that this will develop to the point where human skill and judgement become obsolete.
Of course, our judgments are not always accurate. Mistakes can be made when writing the programmes designed to support design, or further along the line when inputting data into these programmes. Either error will result in an inaccurate output. For this reason, the topic of automated checking — whereby computer programmes will check the input against previous projects and their success or failure — has been a hot point of discussion within the AEC industry lately. However, it is worth bearing in mind that the majority of engineering disasters have occurred due to something unusual; that is, something that has not happened in previous related projects. While rule-checkers help when situations where rules apply, they aren’t able to flag something that hasn’t happened in previous records, i.e. something unusual.
One example of this is the Millennium Bridge’s infamous wobble, which was missed by the design’s code. Programmes failed to predict the wind instability of Tacoma Narrows. While engineers can make use of a value judgement, computer programmes do not. As the world changes, engineers will make a value judgement to adapt their designs accordingly.
Both machine and human judgments can be refined by formulas. There are several structures and designs that have had formulas developed exclusively for them. For example, the original formula creation for shell structures had to be created by expert mathematicians to ensure success. Now, with Finite element Analysis, almost any form can be analysed — but that does not mean these forms are always sensible. There’s a certain amount of tension between architects and engineers surrounding this. Where engineers are seen as wanting functionality, architects are seen as wanting novelty first. But this disparity makes for the perfect partnership towards the best designs.