This forward-thinking panel features some of the most influential voices in the AEC industry as they discuss the top trends set to shape 2025. With a focus on the impact of AI, this virtual panel explores how technological advancements are revolutionizing the AEC landscape.

Panelists:

• Jeff Echols, Executive Director & Senior Advisor at KP Reddy

• Ryan Cameron, AIA TAP Chair & Digital Practice Leader at CMBA Architects

Host: Jack Sadler, Co-Founder & CEO of Part3

AI-powered Submittal Assistance

While we're on the topic of AI, we'd be foolish not to tell you about AI-powered Submittal Assistant. It takes the review process from days to minutes! What will you do with all that free time?

Transcript

Jack: Hey everybody, we're excited to get straight into it today. We're pretty pumped! I've got with me some absolutely fantastic panelists, and we're pretty excited to talk about AI, automation, innovation—everything that we see coming down the line. Everything that we hope is going to help architects, engineers, and contractors set up for 2025 the best they possibly can.

This is the best time of year to start looking further ahead. We're going to try and keep most of our speculations contained to the next 12 months, but we might end up looking further afield, which will help us better plan next year and know how to set that up.

For those of you who know me already, I'm Jack, and I'm the CEO of Part3. I get to spend all of my time working with architects and engineers across the country. So, everything that you hear me say—I’m lucky enough to funnel all of these really, really interesting and exciting thoughts and clever comments from thousands of architects across the country and pass them off as my own to sound smart sometimes.

Part3 is a construction administration software helping give control back over that process to architects and engineers. I'm joined by two absolutely fantastic panelists today.

Ryan, you're a man who needs very little introduction. Ryan is the AIA TAP Chairman, just about coming to the end of that term, and lead digital practice at CNB+A Architects. Ryan, why don’t you tell us a little bit more about yourself?

Ryan: Yeah, so I’m also a licensed architect in a couple of different states here in the U.S. I’ve worked on about $3.5 billion worth of work and stamped about $150 million of that under my own license. So, I’m still doing specs, still working on projects, and things like that.

As you mentioned, I’m the AIA TAP Chair. It’s a five-year commitment, and I’m about halfway through. It’s been an exciting journey. I’ve had the opportunity to present at a couple of different state conventions as well as the national convention.

Without further ado—Jeff!

Jack: And Jeff Echols, I think, is maybe one of the most popular men in architecture. That’s what I think of. Jeff, you’ve done just about everything.

Jeff’s been a podcast host, an MC of so many different events, an architect, and an AIA Indiana member in the past. He’s been involved in many different firms as an executive, a marketer, and a salesperson as well. He brings tons of different perspectives on innovation in the industry, especially in his most recent role at KP Reddy, formerly Shadow Ventures. Jeff, over to you.

Jeff: Yeah, thanks, Jack, and thanks, Ryan.

I differ from Ryan in that I’m not a licensed architect. I went to architecture school, got a couple of degrees, and worked in the industry and in firms for about 20-some-odd years before taking a pretty alternative path.

As Jack mentioned, I’ve been in executive roles in firms before, but now I find myself immersed in innovation for the built environment, as we call it in the world of KP Reddy company.

I lead our masterminds program, which means I’m immersed all the time with innovation leaders—firms that have directors of innovation, chief innovation officers, etc. I hang out with them all the time. I also work with people focused on construction technology and head up our incubator program.

As Jack said, I also host our podcasts and live events, as well as live events for other folks on the MC side. All of that equates to me being immersed in a place that I love—looking at the future of AEC.

Wherever you fall—whether in the A, the E, or the C—I’m looking down the list of attendees, and I’ve met many of you because I’ve spoken at 20, 30, 40, or more conferences over the years. I’ve talked about the future of practice and the future of technology.

I still teach professional practice at the graduate and undergraduate levels, so this is a space I love to be in and a space where I love to have conversations like the one we’re about to have.

Jack: We’re pretty well-covered today. I think between the two of you, we can cover an awful lot of ground.

When we’re talking about innovation and disruptive technology—what’s going on right now—it’d be pretty hard to go much further without getting straight into AI. Now, we’re going to try our best not to let AI dominate the entire conversation, but the reality is AI is probably the single biggest impact area in technology this year.

We’re seeing AI impact the way teams work on their projects right now, and we’re going to see a lot more of that in 2025. I think companies and problems just coming into existence right now are going to start becoming standard next year and in the years beyond.

But we also know AI has the potential to go much further. It can impact the way we do business, the way clients view the work of consultants, architects, and engineers, and it can change the competitive landscape around us in so many different ways.

We’ll try to start practical and tangible here, slowly moving further out. Hopefully, we’ll leave off with some actionable ways to think about introducing AI into your firms and companies next year.

Ryan, I’d love to get your perspective here. You’ve traveled the country over the last few months, speaking a lot about AI and helping firms get ready for it. What are you seeing right now in terms of AI adoption among architects across the country?

Ryan: Absolutely. And you have “where is it overhyped?” Well, it’s overhyped everywhere, right?

I mean, we have CIOs and CTOs across the country saying, "It’s going to take your job," and that’s not technically true. It’s still a tool.

Where do we see it delivering value right away? It doesn’t have to be an immediate ROI. You don’t buy new software and expect a 200% ROI right away. There’s always a curve you have to slope into.

So, I always suggest firms just get started now. It’s better to start now and start filling in the gaps and getting people used to it, rather than waiting and waiting. The technology out there is packaged to a point where it’s very usable and practical. 

But, uh, we talk a lot about the "low-hanging fruit" or something like that. Never go after low-hanging fruit; always go after the ripe fruit. Like, if you get some low-hanging fruit that isn't ripe and you give it to somebody, it's going to be a regret.

So, the ripe fruit right now that I've been noticing in AEC at the moment is marketing. It's not, you know, a tool that designs faster or replaces creativity or something like that—or some robot. It has the right low-risk, low-learning curve, and that fear-reducing adoption cycle that we need to get people used to the ideas of AI as a helper, a co-pilot, rather than, like, a design-enforcing robot.

I'm making the argument that people have to come to an aha moment where they see its use as a tool to help them.

It's frustrating to think that one day AI is going to design a code-compliant, budget-friendly, constructible marvel of architecture. Like, that's just not in the cards today, right?

It's hard enough to do that as it lies now. So those are the kinds of things that we're looking at. And all the states that I've traveled to, all the different conferences of folks attending—it's pretty low adoption right now.

So, I’d say marketing is a good spot to evaluate, and then some visualization. Those are kind of the two ripe fruits that I feel there are proper products out there for you to experiment with.

Jack: That's right in your territory as well—marketing. I actually haven’t heard that a lot, Ryan, but that’s an awesome starting point. Jeff, what are your thoughts as a former marketer in an architecture firm?

Jeff: What Ryan just said, I think, is exactly right. I mean, we see lots of opportunities and lots of use of things like ChatGPT, Gemini, or Claude, or whoever, for marketing purposes.

You know, we see firms learning how to build their own GPTs so they can silo information, which is going to be a big question always. You know: what happens to the data? Where’s my data going? Where’s my information? Is it being protected?

But marketing is a good area—low-hanging or ripe. It’s a good area where these tools can be applied. But I think what we’re seeing across the board right now—most commonly, I suppose, is the best way to say it—is efficiency.

Anything that’s redundant, you know, repetitive—those types of things. These are places where AI shines. AI as a tool shines.

We don’t see a lot of generative design, although in our incubator, with just about every cohort, we see some sort of generative tool. But I think earlier this year, I sat on a panel talking about AI and AEC at a conference.

The next day, I think it was Phil Bernstein from Yale who gave a presentation. He’s got a new book out on AI and architecture.

What Phil said, which I think is very practical and pragmatic—it’s not wrong—he said that the best uses of AI right now are small, very well-defined problems. Solving small, very well-defined problems where there’s relatively low risk. You’re able to manage that risk, and you’re able to manage the process.

So, anywhere that you can find a scenario like that—that a tool can come in and solve a repetitive task, whether it’s a calculation, research, or iterating on design—I think those are good uses.

We have one of our Mastermind members who’s a civil engineer, and he says, “You know, every day I come into the office and think, ‘What is it about my job that I don’t want to do anymore?’”

Meaning the repetitive things, the mundane things. And he says, “Then I set about building an AI tool to replace myself in that role.”

I think this person is a bit of a savant when it comes to how they work and their knowledge and everything, but I think that’s a pretty good way of looking at the way that we can expand our use of AI.

Jack: Does that count as low-hanging fruit or ripe fruit?

Jeff: Ripe.

Jack: That's what we've got to stick to now. It reminds me of a story as well when people were talking a lot about AI. Not in the industry for a second, but people saying, "I want to stop producing AI that takes over my arts and crafts. I want AI that does my laundry and dishes so I can spend more time doing my own AR and CS." That kind of speaks to what you're talking about, right? We want the AI that does the administrative functions, does the sort of back-office work, and lets you be a designer, right?

Ryan: Absolutely. I think every part of the architecture and construction process is ready for something to start helping with that, whether it's checking submittals or doing a little bit of color sampling for a pattern or something we want to put on an exterior wall. To be able to kickstart and create an immediate Pinterest board, if you will, of ideas, and really flourish, as opposed to the way we do it now, which is like, "Oh, I remember I saw this somewhere," and then you try to make it yourself. You've wasted a bunch of time without really making any progress. I'd almost rather ask AI for something and then check those results, rather than having to write the test, take my own test, and then check my own test. I'd rather just check the test, let AI do the test, and then I can give the thumbs up or thumbs down. 

The speed at which we move is faster, but speed is worthless if you don’t pick the right direction. This can help set those directions, and then you can go in multiple directions fairly quickly. Well, that's a different paradigm shift, right? So where are these tools, and how do we bring them into our processes? How do we pick apart our processes and find where all these friction points are? We need to do so in a way that doesn’t increase more interoperability, which we’ll probably get into later, because it’s like, “Okay, now we’re fixing a problem that we know is a problem. We’ve identified problems, but now we’ve come up with a solution that ends up creating more problems.” You’ve got to do this smoothly. The investment needs to be there, everything needs to align, and it’s really going to be a challenge for this industry to make all those kinds of alignments.

Jeff: Yeah, I think it’s also important for us—I mean, we naturally talk a lot about how we’re going to use AI inside the firm, how we’re going to use AI to do the work that we do, to create or replace deliverables, whatever that is from the firm’s point of view. 

But we need to make sure that we don’t lose sight of—or, I think, focus more on—how can these tools help us deliver a better client experience? Because ultimately, when we have this fear... you know, I was just emceeing our executive briefing down in Miami last week, and we had people on panels from the owner side talking about what they see in the future in terms of hiring architects, hiring engineers, hiring contractors. 

There are plenty of owners out there, especially on large-scale projects, who say, "Why don’t I just bring all of this in-house? Why don’t I bring the design, the development, the construction in-house? Why do I need to hire architecture firms, because now I have these tools to do this, that, and the other?" 

So we have to keep track of the fact that anything we’re thinking about can’t just be about how we do our work. We have to be thinking about how this affects the experience that our clients have, how it affects the value. And value is determined by the client, by the way. We often say, "Oh, this is the value of an architect," but if your clients don’t agree, then that is not, in fact, the value of an architect.

How are we using these tools to generate or deliver more value to our clients? There are a lot of ways we can leverage them if we think creatively.

Jack: I’m interested to know, Ryan, since you’ve been touring a little bit as well, have you seen any good examples of how firms are actually adopting AI? Maybe in the spirit of what Jeff is saying too, like in the spirit of a better client experience. Have you seen anything like that yet?

Ryan: So yeah, it all comes down to value alignment, right? There are still things that we can value, that we think are important, that maybe the client doesn’t realize are important. But we still have to do them. So, in that regard, I just want to put that out there. But in the other sense, Jeff is absolutely right: why do we do what we do, who do we do it for, what are the ramifications of that, and where do we insert AI to improve that client experience? That was literally a discussion yesterday at our all-staff meeting here at CMBA. Client experience is a huge part of our business. In a way, it is the business. So, what are we doing to improve that?

You know, I don’t know that I saw or heard a lot of people talking about how they’re using AI to improve the client experience. Sometimes it’s the employee experience, and that’s where we’ve started with a couple of things here. You know, as far as just workflow—not even AI, but technology workflow—how do we keep our people happy so that they do a great job? If we do a great job, the client, therefore, should have a great experience and a great product at the end of the day.

I didn’t see a lot of hands go up when I asked firms—and this is different in every state—but I didn’t see a lot of hands go up when I said, “How many of you are using AI right now?” This could be anything: ChatGPT, Veras, Clot, or any kind of process that’s out there now.

I would say at most 25% of the crowd raised their hand. I think iIt’s good to point out that we are kind of just now in the early adoption stage. This is like the adoption of Revit between 2003 and 2007. It was out there but wasn’t highly adopted. Most firms— I don’t have a stat to back this up, but it feels like most firms started picking it up in 2007 or 2008 after it had been rolled out and there were lots of materials and resources available. 

I think that’s where we are now. Products are just now vetted and working, and people are just now starting to use them. I think in four years, that’ll be a totally different story. There will be more adoption and more products that do different things—taking away the small tasks we don’t want to do so we can focus on what we do want to do.

Right now, though, I can’t say there are a lot of firms, other than the really large ones, solely focusing on client experience with AI tools. I’m sure there’s one or two out there, but I haven’t seen that.

Jeff: I had a couple of students a few years ago. So, I run my graduate pro-practice class like an incubator. I had this group of students—two or three years ago—who said, “Hey, we’re going to pull in the available APIs from places like Lowe’s and other suppliers. We’re going to tie that to the Revit model.”

And what’s going to happen is as we design, we’re going to be able to pill in supply chain information, availability of products, (that’s going to help us layout a reasonable construction scheduled) and pricing information. 

And what I told those students is that “If you can build that, you can quit school now.” Because what they were talking about is ansswering the question that terrifies every single architect out there: "Am I going to go through this whole design process, and I'll get to the end of it, only to find out from the contractor that half of the materials we ordered won't be available for a year?" It's going to take a year to get them on-site, and all of a sudden, our $2 million budget—now that we've priced it out—is $4 million because of fluctuations in building material costs.

What these students were designing was essentially a plug-in for Revit that would provide real-time schedule and pricing information, allowing architects to answer those questions for their clients. That's an incredible client experience.

Now, the risk managers are going to say, "Wait a minute, wait a minute—we can't talk about estimates and schedules. Our AIA contract documents..." You know, yada yada.

But a couple of weeks ago, Andreessen Horowitz announced they invested $25 million in Pantheon AI, which is billed as an AI-enabled architecture firm. We need to accelerate our thinking about how to use tools creatively to solve these types of problems.

We heard from the stage last week on the owner side: "You design these ‘sustainable’ buildings for us, and we go through the design process, but I really don’t know what this is going to cost. Even worse, you call it sustainable, but what are the operating costs going to be? I have a budget to get me through construction, but then I have to operate this. How are you going to help me with that?"

Those are big questions, and maybe that's a little broader than AI because all kinds of technologies are wrapped up in that discussion. But in terms of adoption and thinking about how to use these tools, I think you're exactly right, Ryan.

Here we are playing with ChatGPT in the marketing department, but there are people out there pushing hard. On the VC side, the AEC industry has been identified as one of the top three industries most ripe for disruption by venture capitalists. They're coming, and they're looking for ways to crack this wide open and throw aside the notion of "this is the way we’ve always done it and this is how we’re going to adapt to using AI tools in the way we’ve always done it.”

Jack: So how do we bridge this? We’ve got this paradigm where, I’m seeing the same thing as Ryan, when I’m out there talking about AI, and you ask for raised hands about who’s using AI, it’s less than 25%. That’s okay—we’re still early, and I agree with that. But of those 25%, it’s mostly ChatGPT or a feature from Part3, Autodesk, or someone else that’s tacked onto an existing solution. So it’s just getting started. Which for everyone watching this in 2024, that’s okay. 

But how do we bridge this gap? Where that's where we are. We're using ChatGPT, playing with some features, and just scratching the surface. At the same time, to reiterate what Jeff just said—because that is a big deal—Andreessen Horowitz is one of the biggest venture capital firms in the world. They don’t half-ass anything, and this is the first time we've seen them do anything in the architecture and engineering space. For them to jump in and create a solution that flips the script—instead of an architecture firm or a consulting firm with tech, it's a tech firm with architecture—is flipping the script completely.

This happened in the same week that Microsoft announced they're jumping into AI, architecture, and engineering. How do our architecture and engineering firm leaders today plan for 2025 with these two arms? We're just getting started with ChatGPT, but meanwhile, the biggest VCs and people with the deepest pockets in the world are thinking five years into the future and trying to disrupt things.

So how do we put that into an actionable step for folks looking ahead to 2025, saying, “Okay, I need to take a step, but where do I start?”

Ryan: Yeah, no, that’s a good question. I would say you want to get an idea of how to use technology in your business. There’s still time left this year to do that, and really ask yourself: Who do we want to be? It doesn’t have to be about technology, right? Technology is the support system. Who do we want to be, and where do we want to be? You have to ask those really dumb but big questions. 

And then, as Jeff mentioned, client experience and client needs—really align that technology, that support level, to your client needs, your needs, and then find the overlap. I’ve got this diagram in a slide that’s like red color and blue color, and you find where the overlap is. That’s where your alignment is.

There are so many ways to unpack this, and we only have 45 minutes. Everyone on the call, just realize there are more thoughts here. We’re trying to unpack it as quickly and succinctly as possible. But that’s where I would start.

Imagine a diagram: an empty circle, another empty circle, another empty circle, then a half-filled circle, and finally a fully-filled circle. You don’t start at the fully-filled circle on day one—nobody does. It’s not possible. You work your way to that vision and those goals.

You’ve just got to get started because it takes a while. It might take two circles before you get there; it might take ten circles. Just get started. It’s not that scary. You’re going to have to do it anyway.

Jeff: Yeah, yeah, I think that’s great advice. You just have to start, right? That’s where it all begins—starting. You’ve got time today.

What I’m seeing in the industry—and some of these are very large firms, certainly, but some are not—is that the first thing you’ve got to do is have the leadership of your firm install ChatGPT on their phones so they can play with it and get used to it. If 25% or less are using AI, start using it.

There are consultants out there who’ll help you learn how to use ChatGPT or something similar, which is great—it’s their business model. But it’s a little like saying, “Hey, can you bring someone in to help us learn how to use the internet?” Nobody did that back when the internet was new, and we finally had it on our desktops. Everyone should be learning how to use these tools. Start with something as simple as ChatGPT.

If you’re using Microsoft products, you might consider investing in seats of Copilot—it’s out there as a plugin for your Microsoft tools. Get people, especially your leadership, used to the idea of using AI and seeing its power.

Another thing you can do—and we see this with an architecture firm we work with—is hire a Director of Innovation. I don’t remember their exact title, but they’ve brought in a 20-something digital native, plugged into all the emerging technologies, whose job is to envision how the firm can innovate. Not just how the firm can innovate, but how it can help its clients innovate.

The question I ask my students on the first night of class is this: “Go out there and look for problems you see—problems you think need solving.” We can apply that. What are problems we see in our clients' businesses that need solving? Can we come up with solutions to those problems? See if your clients agree there needs to be a solution.

We have to start thinking forward. We have to become forward-thinking. We can’t just look backwards and ask, “How do we adapt this to what we do?” Instead, ask, “What does this allow us to do moving forward?” It’s a shift in mindset.

Ryan’s exactly right—we just have to start. We’re behind. It’s no surprise. The AEC is typically a laggard industry. We’re behind other industries. But that just means we need to keep moving forward.

So, I think that's the beginning of bridging the gap, but being intentional about adopting technologies. But first thinking—Ryan, I think you said this first—looking for and identifying problems that need to be solved and can be solved through these technologies. Those are great first steps.

Ryan: Oh, I was going to say, if anybody needs help, like, "How do I even identify problems?" there's a great book. Typically, I give this away to the audience. It's called What's Your Problem? by Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg..

I found that book really, really helpful. It's been a great help, just identifying problems—literally reframing and identifying what your value proposition is and things like that. I'll just leave that there.

Jack: It's a good idea. By the way, we should also do a "favorite books that would help with this space." There are a few.

I want to shift a little bit. I know we're sort of venturing beyond AI. Anyway, we're in all aspects of innovation, trying to talk about how to get started and the reasons why, and tying those together. But there's a lot going on outside of AI.

I'm seeing an awful lot of pilot projects. I'm seeing a lot of things get done on a small scale, with mixed success, but in some cases really, really successfully. In particular, drones—I think drones have come an awful long way. We're seeing a lot of technological improvement there.

And robotics—I think, in the last 12 to 24 months, we've started to see the first use cases for robotics that can be more autonomous. For example, seeing the Canvas C.A. robot that could actually hang drywall autonomously. It could work in hot or cold conditions, during the day, at night, and on weekends. So, we're starting to see other on-site technology move us forward a little bit.

I'm interested in your perspectives here. You both have different views. Jeff, I think you're looking really far into the future. You're probably seeing prototypes and concepts that haven't come to market yet. Ryan, you're speaking to such a good group of people who are interested in trying to adopt technology that exists today.

Have you seen any good use cases yet of new hardware or new site-based technology that's starting to help the design phase?

Ryan: Yeah, and I look at it as, "Is it a low barrier to entry? Is it a high barrier to entry?" Sometimes it's about how big your wallet is. That's how this stuff gets adopted.

The early adopters pay a little more. I'm thinking of the Boston Dynamics robots that can go in and scan your building. I'm sure there's probably something to develop for drones.

Side note: 10 years ago, I was slated to be part of the United States' first drone airport. I can't say where, but that was going to be really cool. It didn't pan out, but I think drone technology is out there.

I've got a friend in Omaha, Nebraska, who teaches this technology and has a company that can scan from a drone pretty accurately. He's getting better at it.

So, I see those things developing. But again, it's all about affordability. How valuable is it? Is the client willing to pay for it? What value is it to us? You've got to do that value-alignment strategizing exercise to see where it fits.

Jeff: I look at this in a couple of different ways. Certainly, if you're talking about drones or robots, robot assist, or anything like that, it's big dollars—it's hardware. But there's a lot of it being implemented every day, especially on the construction side.

On the other side of that is data. I don't think we've even used the word "data," but that's at the heart of everything we're talking about right now.

What is the drone doing? What's the robot doing? Is it hanging drywall? Is it painting? Is it printing? Is it scanning? What are those things doing?

What are we doing with that data? There are great examples like Track 3D, which tracks construction progress based on your use of handheld digital cameras or drones.

Sometimes it's robots walking the site. Those Boston Dynamics robots are really expensive, but they’re using a combination of that data being collected by various methods and bringing it in, using AI, to very accurately track construction progress.

For the design side, like if you're doing construction admin, that's very helpful. You've got to go through and look at percentages of construction and materials on-site. Tools like Track 3D are great for that.

There's also a tool from Aeriu that uses various scanning technologies. You get to decide—do you use a digital camera, a drone, or whatever? They're able to scan and then use machine learning and AI to assess conditions of things like bridges or large physical assets and track the deterioration of those assets. So, there are things like that going on. 

You've got people like Occupspace, who—very, very simply—use sensors that can be deployed throughout a building to help an owner understand how their space is really being used. What the occupant load is, temperatures, things like that. And then, maybe that's part of what's developing the program for the new building, addition, or renovation.

Okibo is probably one of those you were referring to, Ryan. That’s a robot on-site that does drywall, painting, and things like that. But what we see in automation and robotics is really opportunities for us to do a couple of things: get into places that are hard to reach, and get into places that aren’t the safest for us. Imagine how the Brooklyn Bridge’s condition was documented 20 years ago—how many interns were crawling all over the structure trying to document cracks, spalling, and things like that. Now, we can use drones and other technology to do that.

We also see these technologies being used in areas where humans don’t want to be—warehouses, cold rooms that are 10 degrees below zero. Someone has to drive a forklift, but autonomous forklifts can handle that now. Or, consider job sites where we can’t find enough drywallers to work 24 hours a day—we’ve got robots for that. We have all kinds of opportunities to deploy technologies, hardware, and software to solve problems that aren’t currently being solved, making us more efficient and safer.

For example, BotBuilt is doing framing in a factory. Their next step is to set up on job sites and frame wall panels there. There are all kinds of examples like that out there, and we’re going to see more and more of it coming faster and faster.

Jack: We’re starting to see the first design firms use these, but I haven’t seen anyone doing it at scale yet. It’s still pilots and one-offs. No one is massively jumping into it yet on the design side.

I think you’re right. Budget is the main reason. But have you seen good examples where this has been rolled out effectively and consistently? Or do you think adoption has plateaued?

Ryan: I’d say look where it is effective. It’s not necessarily about where it’s not effective. I always use this quote: Make it simple to innovate with complex technology. There’s no doubt this technology is complex—the way it works, the computation involved—but I just want to be able to use it.

At our firm and my previous one, we used laser scanning and 3D reality capture. It’s a fairly complex technology, but we adopted it really quickly. We use it all the time. The learning curve was small—it’s simple to innovate with complex technology in that case.

The next thing we’re looking at is the second-worst industry buzzword of all time: digital twin. These ideas of sensors throughout a room can feed into a digital model. My office has a light detector and a noise detector built into an app, and we’re feeding that data into a digital model. One of our clients wants to do the same for a school. For example, on a testing day, we could check CO2 levels because high levels make people drowsy. Then we flood the system with fresh air and adjust the temperature for optimal testing conditions.

Right now, schools across America have no idea about the air their students breathe. I don’t want to scare folks but isn’t that something architects and engineers should be good at? We design spaces, stamp them, and move on—but we should check in on those spaces periodically.

Look for simple ways to innovate with complex technology. 

My other quote is “The leaders will be movers of data that create an enhance spaces that enrich the user experience.” We’re movers of data. We always have been and always will be. The ones who do that the most efficiently, effectively, and beautifully will be the leaders of the space.

Jack: Not only that, but you're answering two other questions we've brought up today. The first was when Jeff said, "Try and figure out what matters to your client." Well, clearly what matters to a school board is test results and the education of kids. So, you've managed to address the single biggest motivator of their success.

The second is something I feel like we haven't gotten into today, and we're going to run out of time, but the business model is changing. The timesheet model is difficult; it's hard to scale for architecture firms. And you're introducing opportunities to price differently and provide a different kind of value. It's a different kind of consulting service—it's ongoing maintenance, it's future work that helps keep the building running as efficiently as possible. Right? You've found new ways to charge for new value.

Ryan: Well—and sorry, I know Jess probably has a great response to this too—but we also use it to engage our staff. Think about it: you majored in something in college, you graduated, and then what was the next step? We want to do that at our firm. I've proposed this before, so it shouldn't come as a surprise. But what do you want to "major in" at CMBA and specialize in for four years?

People get bored, or they master something, plateau, and want the next challenge. Hopefully, they stay with us, but you see this at all kinds of firms—they leave for the next challenge. And it's like, "Well, we've got all the challenges here." We're setting it up: do you want to be our 3D reality capture laser scan person? Do you want to be our data analytics person? Things like that—things you could also be doing, BIM manager, things like that, things that you could also love doing here and continuing to scale and grow at our firm. That's what we want: to ask people what interests them.

What about what's on the screen here excites you? Where do you see this going? We ask our staff questions like, "Where do you see your career going, and how can we help plug you into these things the firm is growing into?" So, that's... yeah.

Jack: I love that. Sorry, Jeff, I'm going to move us on because I think we're pushing up against time, and we need to make sure we leave off here with some really useful, tangible tips. I'm going to come to both of you, and you can let me know who wants to go first. Why don't we, for the audience here—or anyone who's going to watch this in the future—as they look ahead to next year and start to plan beyond, what advice would you have for firms looking to adopt one tech trend or take concrete steps forward?

Ryan: Jeff, I talked a whole bunch. I feel like... Jeff…

Jeff: That was only to keep me in check and keep me from running wild. Haha!

Um, I would say, you know, something that both of you mentioned just a second ago when we had the other slide up there was business models—that was one thing—and then almost like career development was another thing, right?

So here we are heading into 2025, and one of the things that doesn’t typically come up in these types of conversations is that we’re on a precipice right now of change, or this, uh, generational change, right? If you want to call out the generations—from Boomers to Millennials—in terms of leadership, perhaps.

But one of the biggest issues that we have across the industry is knowledge transfer. We haven’t touched on this at all, but what a fantastic way to work on knowledge transfer! Why should anybody stay in an architecture firm or in the AEC industry? Well, because we literally affect the way people live, the way people learn. I mean, we’re affecting the built environment. We’re designing and building the built environment.

Well, how do we do that? There are plenty of people in your firms who will retire in the near future, and there are plenty of people coming in to backfill those roles. But how do you get the knowledge from the more experienced to the less experienced?

You can do that with a simple chatbot, and we see this in firms that we work with all the time. So I would say, in the realm of bolstering your own firm, consider using technology—it can be very simple—to think about knowledge transfer within your firm.

And, you know, Ryan, you mentioned data, right? Data—what data are you collecting?" You’ve got data in emails, data in Revit files—you’ve got data all over your office, all over your hard drives. How can you collect that data and organize it into something that allows you to transfer knowledge on how you do this, how you do that, and why you do it?

There are examples of that out there already. And, Jack, you mentioned business models. This doesn’t directly answer the question, but the more that we can understand about our clients’ business models, the more we can adapt what we do to help them with their business.

When we help them be more successful at their business, we are, in fact, the trusted advisors. That’s what we want, right? We can research; we can use simple technologies. We talked about drones, robots, and really complex things, like Ryan said—how do we make it simple to use complex technologies?

A great first step would be not to worry about those things and instead ask, "How can we transfer knowledge?" How can we figure this out for our clients? How can we solve problems for our people?

If you’ve got someone in their 20s or 30s in your firm, they think about a career in architecture very differently than I did. I graduated from school 30 years ago. They graduated five or 10 years ago. They have a very different view of the profession. So, how can we help them solve their problems using some of this technology?

At the end of the day, it becomes a very human thing. All of this technology is fantastic, but the question is always, "How does it affect what we, as humans, do and how we interact with it?" Don’t take the humanity out of any of it, even as we try to be more efficient and less repetitive in our work.

Ryan: Absolutely. Yeah, I was going to touch on knowledge transfer as well.

We use a platform called Knowledge Architecture—I think we have a mutual friend, Chris Parsons. They’ve been a great partner for us.

We developed a system where we can search our portfolio of projects. We call them our "baseball cards." You know, the glossy cover photo on the front and stats on the back. That was our initial process when we started about two years ago.

Now, we’re at the point where we can start cataloging and harvesting that data, but it takes time to build those muscles. I feel like it’s one step easier to transfer knowledge now.

But that can mean a lot of different things. How do I transfer a 40-year veteran’s knowledge to a five-year veteran? That’s a different experience; it requires a different solution.

Another thing I’d suggest is getting a technology roadmap. It doesn’t matter if you have a consultant or do it in-house—just get a three-year plan. Evaluate where you are now and where you need to be in three years.

It’s unbelievable how many firms don’t do this. Some don’t even write it down. It’s not in a place where everyone at the firm can see it. Without a roadmap, new things come up and replace what you thought you were working on. A roadmap makes everything easier.

Jeff: That’s a really great point. One of the things I talk about as a mindset coach is how fear holds us back.

When we think about that roadmap—which is critical—we might hesitate to include something like ChatGPT or AI because of fear. What if this happens? What if that happens?

The reality is, most firms don’t have AI policies in place. If only 25% of firms are adopting AI tools, even fewer—maybe 10%—have policies for using them responsibly.

If anyone needs an outline for an AI policy, feel free to reach out to me on LinkedIn. I’m happy to share a simple framework you can customize.

We want people to use AI while reducing risk. It doesn’t have to go off the rails if we put guardrails in place. Think of it like putting bumpers on a bowling lane. Once those are in place, we can confidently start experimenting with these tools.

Ryan: I feel like we’re going to need a part two with Part3. Haha! We’re out of time!

Jack: Agreed. We’re all building out. Haha.

On that note, I do think there were some excellent points. We’ve covered so much ground and left so much ground we still want to cover. But this has been really cool. We’ve got tangible steps, tangible tools that we can check out and adopt. I think we’re hearing a good perspective between the three of us here and the experience of all the architecture firms we interact with. 

Hopefully, this gives some helpful tips but if you take anything away it’s: start now, start small, and start deliberately.

I hope this has been helpful to everyone. Feel free to reach out to any one of the three of us on LinkedIn or email, and we can keep the conversation going. 

Thanks to everyone for joining!

Ryan: Thank you!

Jeff: Absolutely. Thanks, Jack. Thanks, Jeff. Thanks, everybody!

Jack: Thanks, guys!