The software industry has been moving towards a subscription model for quite some years now. While this shift is more intuitive for products and services on a smaller scale, such as music streaming (e.g., Spotify), these changes have also rapidly spread to other types of platforms and services across various industries, including the AEC (Architecture, Engineering, and Construction) sector.

As updates become more frequent with shorter intervals between them, the change in the business model becomes quite visible, and the process is now complete. Tech companies in the AEC sector have transformed into service providers, with updates often serving as additional justifications for their pricing.

This isn’t a criticism of the business model itself – that’s an entirely different discussion. Instead, this article focuses on students and study plans that struggle to keep up with an industry repackaging its products at lightning speed, and how we can better ensure that our students aren’t outdated from day one.

Step into any classroom or school that operates under an asynchronous delivery model (online tutoring videos), and you’ll notice that any “content producer” or “teacher,” as we used to be called, will get slightly irritated at the mere mention of an upcoming “content update.” This reaction isn’t because we don’t embrace change – our schools are arguably more prepared for future education reforms than most. Rather, it’s because uncontrolled changes to software structure can trigger all sorts of unexpected events in the educational chain.

In the case of formal education, it’s not farfetched to say that we are constantly running as fast as we can to keep up with industry updates. However, we cannot update faster than the regular academic year allows, and in many cases, we’re faced with outdated educational plans approved by slow-moving ministries of education that are not fully in touch with the world’s needs.

The question then becomes: how can we guarantee the best outcome for our students? After all, they’re the ones trapped between government bureaucracy and tech companies’ marketing strategies.

A possible way out- Skills

I would argue that the best solution is to focus on processes rather than specific software. This approach ensures that, unless there’s a major overhaul of the software, students acquire knowledge that is better insulated against change and, in a sense, more permanent.

In my particular case, for instance, I’ve been an AutoCAD user since around version 2000 (not a typo). I got into the program mostly out of personal curiosity during my teenage years. By the time I completed my technical education, I realized that drawings were essentially still the same medium. As an architect, I even have enough credits in architectural history to know that this is indeed the case. 

Therefore, I would argue that the focus should be on the skill of “drawing” instead of on a specific piece of software (which would have changed by the following year anyway). While I might not have gone back to that version software I don’t see why delivering a project would not be possible.

This strategy is not only tested but wise, as anyone who has actually worked in the AEC industry knows that construction companies are quite fond of their old program versions and resistant to change. We may discuss the reasons for this and its downsides at a later time, but when it comes to actually starting your career, it’s important that students are capable of jumping right into production mode.

In this regard if they understand there is a set of basic commands and processes they might be able to re-learn or implement the process themselves while on the field. To their advantage and our peace of mind as educators.

The next essential element and implementation would be addressing how and where to find the information required for self-updating.

But that is a topic for another week!