Study Findings

All members of the council participated in the CAD for Principals Study, which involved in-depth interviews with both principals and CAD end users within AEC companies. The study found widespread dissatisfaction among principals with the use of CAD tools at their firms. Principals were less likely than others in their firms to use technology and many felt that their CAD tools did not contribute to the primary goals of the firm – delivering high quality designs and responding quickly and effectively to client needs.

Principals and CAD users credited CAD technology for accelerating the production of drawings and documentation, for supporting the exchange of design information among groups using the same CAD systems and for providing visualization tools. At the same time, council members reported that CAD had not made a positive difference in the design process or the practice of architecture. Representing a wide spectrum of successful practice, council members called CAD inadequate and expressed concern that current tools might even have a negative impact on the profession. Concluding that CAD users often "are solving computer problems about how to draw, not architectural problems," principals observed a gap between "people who know how to put a building together and CAD technicians that tends to isolate people rather than support a communicative team environment."

The research found widespread agreement among principals that the costs of using CAD systems often outweigh the benefits. Many questioned the "ease of use" claims from suppliers, reporting that the benefits of CAD had not compensated for the costs of the learning and relearning curves with software releases.

CAD for Principals Study		Where's the Pain? Participating Firm Statistics Application Importance CAD Impact Evaluation Management Issues
All members of the council participated in the CAD for Principals Study, which involved in-depth interviews with both principals and CAD end users within AEC companies. The study found widespread dissatisfaction among principals with the use of CAD tools at their firms. Principals were less likely than others in their firms to use technology and many felt that their CAD tools did not contribute to the primary goals of the firm – delivering high quality designs and responding quickly and effectively to client needs. Principals and CAD users credited CAD technology for accelerating the production of drawings and documentation, for supporting the exchange of design information among groups using the same CAD systems and for providing visualization tools. At the same time, council members reported that CAD had not made a positive difference in the design process or the practice of architecture. Representing a wide spectrum of successful practice, council members called CAD inadequate and expressed concern that current tools might even have a negative impact on the profession. Concluding that CAD users often "are solving computer problems about how to draw, not architectural problems," principals observed a gap between "people who know how to put a building together and CAD technicians that tends to isolate people rather than support a communicative team environment." The research found widespread agreement among principals that the costs of using CAD systems often outweigh the benefits. Many questioned the "ease of use" claims from suppliers, reporting that the benefits of CAD had not compensated for the costs of the learning and relearning curves with software releases.