In general, the construction industry is often regarded as being slow to adapt to technological changes. 

There is significant resistance to software adoption and a general skepticism toward new tools. This reluctance stems from various factors, including stagnant compensation and an ever-expanding scope of responsibilities and legal liabilities.

However, one unexpectedly positive aspect of this situation is that it has somewhat insulated the profession from the widespread automation of solutions and design production. Until fairly recently, the idea of software that could auto-generate solutions was virtually unthinkable, and to some extent, this remains true today.

Only recently have larger practices begun to recognize the value of their design production as a means of generating value for their offices and creating innovative solutions. However, the ongoing challenge is ensuring that the value of these ideas remains, at least in part, within the organization.

Many may wonder why this approach isn’t more actively shared within the industry. From a business perspective, however, it’s undeniable that the real value for design consultancies lies in the ideas they create. These ideas often represent their most significant and sometimes only truly unique asset.

For years now, the software industry has steadily transitioned to a subscription model, which increasingly erodes ownership of design work. The underlying message seems to be: “Yes, your work is yours—as long as you remain a subscriber.”

Practitioners are gradually finding themselves in a hostage-like situation, where their most valuable assets—information and data—are at risk of being inaccessible or lost annually. This reality is part of the reason why traditional drawings still persist and why old-school paper is often regarded, even today, as the one reliable way to keep information accessible to both paying clients and firms.

The slow adoption of models as a form of legacy information is largely due to the absence of a more flexible system that allows for the seamless exchange of 3D information—essentially an editable IFC format. Without such a system, models often fall short compared to traditional PDFs in terms of usability and reliability.

Perhaps the software industry should recognize that the construction sector’s hesitation toward integration isn’t rooted in a desire to return to hand-drawing. Instead, it reflects a genuine interest in preserving the design value where it rightfully belongs.

Stick around for Part 2 next week, where I’ll dive into potential solutions and emerging tech that might just help bridge the gap between design ownership, innovation, and integration in construction.