The use of extranets among architects doesn’t appear to be increasing as quickly as predicted just a couple of years ago, and analysts and industry insiders say it’s because firms are reluctant to adopt advanced Internet technologies—a symptom of a fragmented, conservative business culture that fiercely protects its turf and methods.

Yet this reality hasn’t dampened the enthusiasm of companies like Constructware and Buzzsaw that outlived the dot-com collapse. [Note: record publisher McGraw-Hill invests in e-Builder, another extranet company]. If anything, these outfits see themselves in better shape than ever.

ADVERTISEMENT

The benefits of extranets seem obvious. Everyone on the project team can work from the latest set of CAD drawings, and there’s a record of e-mails and other documents for all to see; in doing so, they smooth out communication and create a reliable paper trail. In a client study commissioned by Constructware, 65 percent of respondents said the vendor’s products were significantly or critically important in reducing claims and litigation.

Although there exists no comprehensive study on extranet use in design and construction, anecdotal evidence suggests engineers and contractors have adopted the tools faster because they usually stand to gain more than architects from the streamlined communications that extranets provide. But the sales pitches have worked at least once for many architecture firms, as well. About 80 percent of firms with 50 people or more, and nearly half of all firms, have tried an extranet in the past two years, according to AIA’s Firm Survey 2000/2002.

“[Architects] certainly need to know this is the future,” says Scott Unger, founder and president of Constructware. “This is how they’ll manage their information and communicate with team members.”

Even so, skepticism remains among firms both large and small. Jill Rothenberg, Assoc. AIA, principal and chief technology officer at ADD in Cambridge, Massachusetts, says contractors often have their own systems to track change orders and submittal logs; using an extranet required them to enter the information twice. Haden Smith, AIA, CAD manager for Chiodini Associates in St. Louis, has been with his 30-member firm for nine months and has yet to use an extranet. And Geraldine Pontius, AIA, a sole practitioner in Baltimore, had trouble when her client, a Maryland state agency, couldn’t handle the technological demands of the service. “The most important people on the team couldn’t see the files,” she says.

But Yangwei Yee, AIA, an associate partner at Skidmore Owings & Merrill, and Neil Katz, an associate with the firm’s IT group, say extranets have been helpful. “We’ve had a lot of success with [ProjectPoint],” says Katz. “It’s much more efficient than FTP or e-mail.”

Part of the disparity in opinion is related to firm size. Smaller firms have difficulty absorbing the costs of the services—which can run up to $6,000 a year—and must pass them on to their clients.

Another reason is turf battles. “I’m in charge of managing the material from the architect and the owner,” says a project manager at Walsh Group in Chicago who requested anonymity. “I’m not sure I would trust that to anyone else.”

Firms are also doubtful that the extra work and training required for using extranets will pay off in time saved on projects. “If [extranets] all failed tomorrow, architecture would still happen,” notes Paul Doherty, AIA, managing director of The Digit Group, a technology consultancy for owners. “If you pulled the plug on CAD, that would be a whole different story.”

The good news for vendors is that many owners are demanding extranets as part of any bid package. This will speed adoption faster than the industry would do on its own. “It’s one thing to implement technology, it’s another thing to change behavior,” says Doherty. “Extranets may be a little ahead of the curve.”

Objects to See vies to become standard object technology for CAD By Evan H. Shu, FAIA