Listen to an AI-generated, text-to-speech version of this article.
Welcome to our second series on computational thinking (CT). In the first series, we introduced the key elements of CT: investigation, decomposition, pattern recognition, abstraction, and logic design. We also discussed why CT is relevant to the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry and briefly shared a few examples of how architects and engineers are applying it in real-world scenarios.
This series will focus on the practical application of CT by analyzing the case study of a computational tool created by Henderson Engineers. Through this case study, we will explore CT from various perspectives, starting with a discussion of the managerial and other leadership considerations in part one of this series. In part two, we’ll look at how computational engineers apply CT during the logic derivation process. Finally, we’ll connect it to the computational developers’ development of computational tools in part three.
This series will examine the case study’s real-world challenges, strategies, and insights to offer information for anyone seeking to harness the power of CT. It will show how each role utilizes the elements of CT and how these roles work together. We aim to provide a blueprint for project teams to follow as they develop their own custom computational tools.
Case Study Overview
The Office Space Automator (OSA) project was a pioneering initiative by the innovation department here at Henderson Engineers. It aimed to develop a computational design tool to streamline the office space design process in Revit. By leveraging CT principles, the project sought to optimize and automate the intricate tasks involved in office space planning across all the relevant engineering disciplines. Most importantly, the goals of this project directly supported Henderson’s core values and overarching strategic plan.
The OSA project had two main objectives. First, it aimed to formalize the business logic of the firm by encapsulating the collective knowledge and expertise of various technical experts into a computational framework. Second, it aimed to create a user-friendly tool that could generate optimized office space layouts based on user inputs and Revit model information while adhering to building code standards and industry best practices.
The OSA project followed a structured approach, divided into distinct phases for logic derivation and tool development. In the logic derivation phase, computational engineers worked closely with technical experts to translate their domain knowledge and intuition into computational logic. This process involved abstracting and deconstructing complex design principles so that they could be translated into a computational tool.
Once the computational engineers derived the design logic, they passed the baton to the computational developers, who led the tool development phase. This phase focused on converting the documented design logic into executable computer code. They also developed the user interface, creating an intuitive experience for end-users. Iterative development and user feedback were vital in refining the tool’s functionality and usability.
While the OSA project primarily focused on developing a computational design tool, the application of CT principles extended beyond the technical aspects and proved invaluable for leaders across various organizational roles. From project directors to managers and team leads, CT provided a structured framework for problem-solving and decision-making.
This case study demonstrates why it is essential for leaders to embrace CT, as it equips them with an understanding of the objectives and processes of computational engineers and computational developers. For design engineering projects, project managers typically need at least a basic understanding of each discipline involved. In this case, CT is the technical discipline shared by both Computational Engineers and Designers. Having a working knowledge of CT allows leaders to set clear goals and constraints for the project and effectively communicate their vision to stakeholders and team members.
Examining the Case Study
Each project phase presented unique challenges and opportunities for applying CT principles. From the initial project conception to the final product deployment, the project leaders helped set the vision, align resources, and guide the team towards successful implementation.
In the early stages, the project director and project manager deployed CT by decomposing the complex problem of office space design into its constituent elements. Breaking the problem down into smaller, more manageable components enabled them to identify the relevant engineering disciplines and stakeholders, allowing for a structured approach to the project’s logic derivation and tool development phases.
While the OSA project team members focused on applying CT as their primary discipline, the project’s leaders were responsible for its overall progress. While their tasks sometimes necessitated applying CT principles directly, their main priority was to oversee the successful execution of a project where CT was the core competency.
From an early stage, the project leaders recognized the importance of gaining a foundational understanding of CT concepts to communicate effectively with the team and stakeholders. By familiarizing themselves with principles like abstraction, decomposition, and pattern recognition, they could set clear expectations and align the project’s goals with organizational objectives.
Throughout the OSA project, leaders leveraged their broad understanding of CT to foster an environment conducive to effective collaboration and knowledge sharing. They facilitated open communication channels between computational engineers, designers, and technical experts, ensuring a seamless flow of information and a shared understanding of the project’s objectives.
Moreover, leaders played a pivotal role in translating the team’s technical progress into tangible updates and milestones that stakeholders and senior leadership could understand. By abstracting away the intricate details of the CT process and focusing on the overarching goals and constraints, they could effectively communicate the project’s status, challenges, and achievements.
While the project team handled the technical aspects of CT, the leaders provided the necessary resources and guidance to ensure the team’s success. Projects driven by CT tend to be iterative, so the leaders fostered an environment conducive to this repetitive process and continuous improvement.
Just as project managers overseeing traditional engineering projects need a basic grasp of the respective engineering disciplines involved, leaders with basic knowledge of CT principles and an understanding of how they are implemented in a project can effectively manage a team practicing this discipline.
Leadership Challenges
3.1. Resource allocation
One of the initial challenges faced by leadership was effective resource allocation for the OSA project. Unlike design engineering projects with well-established workflows and timelines, developing a computational design tool like the OSA was a leap into uncharted territory and involved a significant learning curve for everyone involved.
Leadership recognized the need to allocate sufficient time and resources for computational engineers to consult with technical experts and derive the computational logic and for computational developers to engage in a trial-and-error process during the development phase. They also acknowledged the importance of securing continuous time commitments from technical resources for testing, troubleshooting, and tool refinement.
Leadership separated the project into distinct phases and milestones to address resource allocation challenges. They leveraged the expertise of computational engineers to estimate realistic timelines and resource requirements for each phase. Furthermore, they recognized that developing a computational design tool was an iterative process. They remained flexible and open to adjusting resource allocations as the project progressed, ensuring the team had access to the necessary support and resources throughout the journey.
The iterative nature of this project also meant that attempting to pursue both the logic derivation and tool development phases in parallel would have been less efficient. As a result, the team scheduled the tool development phase to begin immediately after completing the logic derivation. This allowed them to preserve their momentum and minimize redundant efforts.
3.2. Coordination and collaboration
The OSA project brought together a diverse team of technical experts from various sectors and backgrounds. Coordinating and fostering collaboration among these cross-functional teams posed a significant challenge for the project’s leaders.
To address this challenge, they first leveraged their understanding of the CT principles to convey the project’s objectives to the technical experts working with computational engineers and designers. For the OSA, it was necessary to explain to the technical experts that the project aimed to express not only the building codes and other explicit design rules as an executable program but also the rules of thumb and gut feelings that many engineers use to design projects. This built a mutual understanding of the expectations and allowed for a more seamless knowledge transfer between the technical experts and the computational engineers.
The OSA project team comprised various technical experts, computational engineers, and computational developers. This team composition is typical when developing computational design tools, but the implication is that team members might not have any previous experience working together. Because of these dynamics, leadership plays a significant role in the internal coordination between team members and the external coordination with other stakeholders. They facilitated regular check-ins, demonstrations, and feedback sessions throughout the OSA project lifecycle.
3.3. Setting goals and measuring success
Defining and evaluating success for a project focused on developing a computational design tool presented a unique challenge for leaders. Unlike traditional design engineering projects that produce tangible deliverables or measurable outcomes, the OSA project aimed to create a tool to optimize and streamline processes, with the true impact and benefits to be realized over time.
Leadership adopted a CT approach to address this challenge of setting goals and measuring outcomes. They recognized the importance of decomposing the project’s objectives into specific, measurable targets that could be tracked and evaluated throughout development. They divided the project into two phases: a logic derivation effort led by the computational engineer and a tool development effort led by the computational developer. The logic derivation phase was further separated into stages for each relevant discipline.
Project leaders worked closely with the stakeholders to define the project scope and system requirements for the tool. Much of this work was completed as a byproduct of the Conceptual Abstract Narrative, which we will discuss in the next section. This narrative was a guiding light and enabled the team to regularly check progress against expectations at the Slice Demos.
These Slice Demo meetings were another critical aspect of measuring progress throughout the project’s life. Following an approach called Vertical Slicing, they split the product into several vertical segments consisting of a piece of back-end structure and a piece of the front-end design, which are integrated and functional in isolation from the rest of the project. Regularly demonstrating the functionality of these pieces allows leadership to objectively evaluate the project’s progress and communicate its value and impact to stakeholders and senior management.
Process Tools
Developing computational design tools like the OSA requires a structured approach to align the project’s goals with stakeholders’ interests. Throughout the OSA project, leadership leveraged two essential process tools: the Conceptual Abstract Narrative and the After-Action Review. These tools proved invaluable for the leadership team, enabling them to navigate the complexities of a computational design project. As the importance of CT and computational design tools continues to grow, these process tools will become increasingly critical for leaders and managers across various roles throughout the AEC industry.
4.1. The Conceptual Abstract Narrative
The Conceptual Abstract Narrative (CAN) is a powerful tool that is the foundation for any project, including computational design projects. Similar to the Basis of Design or the Owner’s Project Requirements, the CAN articulates the essential elements and guiding principles of a project. It encapsulates the project’s vision, scope, constraints, and success criteria, providing a clear roadmap for the entire team.
Creating the CAN involved a collaborative effort between the project leaders, stakeholders, and subject matter experts. It began with thoroughly investigating the problem and identifying the key challenges and opportunities. Through discussions and workshops, the team broke down the complex issue of office space design into its constituent elements, identifying the various disciplines and stakeholders involved. The team distilled the essential requirements and constraints, translating them into a concise and actionable document. The CAN was a reference point to guide the team’s efforts and communications with stakeholders.
Throughout the project lifecycle, the CAN acted as a compass, enabling leaders to remind the team of the overarching goals and constraints. By identifying features to be intentionally excluded from the project or added in future versions, the team could proactively avoid scope creep. The CAN fostered a shared understanding among all team members, ensuring that the final product aligned with the defined objectives and adhered to the established constraints.
4.2. The After-Action Review
The After-Action Review (AAR) is a structured process that enables teams to reflect on their experiences, identify lessons learned, and implement improvements for future projects. The AAR process for the OSA project began well before the project’s completion. From the outset, leaders encouraged team members to maintain detailed documentation and weekly notes, capturing their expectations, decisions, and observations throughout the project lifecycle. This practice of thoughtful documentation laid the foundation for a thorough AAR. It allowed the team to revisit their decision-making processes, understand the reasoning behind specific choices, and critically analyze the outcomes.
During the AAR, the team convened to review the project holistically, discussing both successes and challenges encountered along the way. They analyzed the effectiveness of their strategies, resource allocation, and team coordination efforts, identifying areas for improvement.
One of the key insights gained from the AAR for the OSA project was the need to formalize the user acceptance testing process and allocate dedicated resources for post-deployment testing and troubleshooting. The team recognized that input from technical experts doesn’t stop at the logic derivation or even the tool development but should extend into the testing phases. This involvement is crucial for obtaining the tool’s final approval and buy-in and helps ensure successful adoption and utilization.
By conducting a comprehensive AAR, the OSA project team documented valuable lessons learned and developed a deeper understanding of the nuances involved in leading computational design projects. This knowledge will inform and strengthen future endeavors, enabling Henderson Engineers to improve its processes and approach to innovation.
Future Outlook
The success of the OSA project is a testament to the potential of computational design tools and CT within the AEC industry. As digital technologies continue to advance and computational power becomes increasingly accessible, the importance of these tools and the leadership approaches required to harness their capabilities will only escalate.
We believe computational design tools like the OSA represent the foundation for the future of engineering here at Henderson. By enabling teams to accomplish exponentially more work with the same resources, these tools offer a pathway to increased efficiency, reduced stress, and enhanced profitability. Moreover, developing and adopting computational design tools are essential for Henderson to remain at the forefront of innovation within our industry. Clients and stakeholders increasingly demand more sophisticated, optimized, and sustainable designs, and firms that fail to embrace computational approaches risk becoming obsolete.
The prevalence of computational design tools continues to grow, and leadership approaches must evolve to guide and support these projects more effectively. We envision a future where the roles of project leaders will extend beyond dictating the specific methodologies or processes employed by their teams. Instead, they will focus on establishing clear objectives, constraints, and desired outcomes, allowing their teams to leverage CT principles to explore and optimize various solutions. This shift toward a more outcome-oriented leadership style will enable teams to harness the full potential of computational power.
The next generation of project leaders will need to cultivate a deeper understanding of the critical elements of CT that underpin computational design tools in the same way that leaders of traditional design engineering projects understand the engineering principles and calculations relevant to creating construction documents. The principles of CT offer a systematic approach to identifying opportunities for improvement and developing innovative solutions. By gaining insights into how computers “think,” we can more effectively leverage computational power to streamline workflows, reduce errors, and enhance overall productivity.
Individuals within the organization who become proficient in applying these principles are also better equipped to bridge the gap between client expectations and reality. They will be prepared to engage in meaningful discussions with their clients and teams, troubleshoot potential issues, and make informed decisions regarding tool optimization and future development.
These leaders will define the constraints and boundaries that align with client values, organizational goals, and industry best practices. By providing a clear framework within which their teams can operate, leaders will foster an environment that encourages creativity while ensuring adherence to essential requirements.
Ultimately, embracing CT early in one’s career empowers individuals to become more adaptable and forward-thinking leaders. Those who have mastered the principles of CT will be better positioned to navigate the complexities of digital transformation, drive innovation, and guide their teams toward success.
Conclusion
Throughout this article, we have explored the role of leadership in successfully developing and implementing computational design tools. By examining the case study of the OSA project, we have gained valuable insights into the challenges, strategies, and best practices that leaders can adopt to navigate the complexities of projects driven by CT. Key takeaways from this analysis include:
Gaining a foundational understanding of CT concepts empowers leaders to communicate effectively with their teams, set clear expectations, and translate technical progress into tangible updates for stakeholders.
While project team members focus on applying CT principles, leaders guide the project’s progress, ensuring alignment with organizational objectives and effective collaboration across disciplines.
Effective resource allocation, coordination, and outcome measurement are essential for the success of computational design projects. Leaders must adopt structured approaches and leverage tools like the CAN and AAR.
As the importance of computational design tools continues to grow, leadership approaches must evolve to foster environments that encourage exploration, optimization, and innovation while adhering to essential constraints and requirements.
The growing importance of computational design tools within the AEC industry presents challenges and opportunities for leaders across all roles and disciplines. Managers and leaders must recognize the potential of CT and take proactive steps to integrate its principles into their leadership approach. We encourage managers, leaders, and those aspiring to these positions to:
Seek opportunities to enhance their understanding of CT principles and their practical applications.
Encourage team members to explore and embrace CT methodologies.
Utilize structured processes and tools, such as the CAN and AAR, to support the effective management of computational design projects.
Cultivate an environment promoting collaboration, open communication, and cross-functional teamwork to integrate diverse disciplines and perspectives seamlessly.
Embrace a mindset of adaptability and curiosity. The landscape of computational design tools is constantly evolving, and leaders must be willing to adapt and innovate to remain relevant and competitive.
By actively embracing CT and adapting these leadership approaches, managers and leaders across the AEC industry can drive sustained success and position themselves at the forefront of innovation.
More from Henderson on Computational Thinking:
