Dec 11 2008

RBI construction titles for sale?

Reed Business Information has been looking for a buyer recently but the auction process has apparently just been terminated, prompting all sorts of speculation about a possible break-up of the B2B publishing empire – which includes UK construction titles (and associated websites) such as Contract Journal and Estates Gazette, plus operations such as Reed Construction Data in the US and Canada.

There is also talk of “major job cuts” and “closure of some magazines/divisions”, while “RBI’s construction trade division could get some bids from the likes of Hanley Wood or McGraw Hill”.

Permanent link to this article: https://extranetevolution.com/2008/12/rbi-construction-titles-for-sale/

Dec 09 2008

Building Web 2.0 awareness

Fellow Be2camp organiser Martin Brown (here) and I (here and here, for example) have both written several recent blog postings about the AEC sector’s adoption of Web 2.0 tools. Martin’s post was also picked up by the US-based Construction Software Review blog (Construction needs to embrace technology, not avoid it, part 6: Web awareness) who writes about how the tools could be useful, particularly during a recession:

“For instance, Facebook can allow a business (or anyone with rudimentary computer skills) to create a website, offer contact information and upload photos. A construction firm could conceivably display current projects and provide updates through pictures and blogs — all within the easy-to-use setup of Facebook.

[I know several examples of this – Facebook pages with RSS feeds created by UK construction trade journals Construction News and Contract Journal, for instance, plus corporate pages for the Construction Management Association of America, the National Construction College, BIW Technologies (my employer), and a quick page search found a whole host of small UK firms such as Brackley Fencing and Building Services and SMC Group Building & Maintenance.]

“LinkedIn is another tool that is under-utilized within the construction industry.  It’s a social networking tool that allows you to connect with co-workers, which then will enable you to link with their co-workers. It’s a great way to make new business contacts, especially for freelancers.

[As well as people maintaining their own personal profiles, there are a growing number of online groups in LinkedIn – Be2camp has one, naturally, there is one for local members of Constructing Excellence clubs, and a whole host of networks focused on recruitment – likely to be busy if current job losses continue, sadly.]

“Finally, Twitter is new new-age news service in which users can send text messages to twitter.com for subscribers to read. This is a quick and easy way to stay connected with a large group of people, and it could have practical uses within a workplace.”

[Here I could mention various construction Tweeps, including journalists like Phil Clark (@zerochamp) and some of his colleagues at Building, plus fellow bloggers like Martin Brown, Mel Starrs and Jodie Miners. Twitter has/is also been used, to varying degrees of success, by organisations such as Constructing Excellence and several of the afore-mentioned UK trade publications – though others (eg: NCE) don’t realise that Web 2.0 is not just about one-way broadcasting. If I get spare time, I might try to compile a list of construction Twitterers – similar to this list of environmental tweeters from Jetson Green.]

The Construction Software Review post concludes, somewhat gloomily:

“It appears that Brown, and the rest of the members of be2camp, have an uphill battle on their hands. However, with the economy the way that it is, would you consider using these free applications to promote your business? These are just the early days of Web 2.0 technology, but odds are you can use all the help you can get.”

I am not as gloomy. As I’ve said before, I think we need some trail-blazers to start the AEC Web 2.0 ball rolling, to create some useful spaces in which those new to Web 2.0 can take their first tentative steps, and to show that the technologies have specific relevance to the AEC industry.

Engineering Web too

However, it is not just the construction sector that is slowly beginning to discover Web 2.0 – other parts of the design technology universe are also exploring its potential, according to Beth Stackpole at Design News. In an article, Engineers, Meet Social Media, she describes how various ‘self-proclaimed geeks’ are using social media to open up new channels of communication and collaboration, from blogs to Twitter to Facebook and LinkedIn to wikis (and where the Construction Software Review blogger talked about how Twitter could have practical uses within a workplace, Beth describes the Yammer corporate microblogging platform).

Update (11 December 2008): Beth’s post was also blogged about by Jim Brown at Manufacturing Business Technology. Jim writes:

“social networks can take virtual team relationships even farther. Couple social networking with online design collaboration techniques, and I think we start to see global design and global product development work more like the skunkworks team locked in the basement together.”

Permanent link to this article: https://extranetevolution.com/2008/12/building-web-20-awareness/

Dec 05 2008

Economic Climate Will Accelerate SaaS

The title of an online article, Economic Climate Will Accelerate Cloud Computing, is actually misleading (the content is all about Software-as-a-Service, ie: more “in-the-cloud” than “cloud computing” per se), but it makes some persuasive points about the attractions of SaaS in a recession:

“In an economic downturn, ‘do more with less’ and quick ROI behavior become the norms. But wait, isn’t that what open source and SaaS does? As budgets constrict, as headcounts lower – demands on IT will not decrease; they will almost certainly increase. Open source and Software as a Service will all bring IT staff – and end users – the abilities and cost savings they need and the innovation they want.

“… For example, a SaaS messaging and collaboration offering like 1&1 MailXchange costs between $24 and $60 per user annually, including mobility support. Consider that $1,250 is the total yearly cost of an Exchange account.*

“In a 10-, 20-, or 50- person company, SaaS and open source software can save between 80% and 99% of the current cost.”

Talking to a BIW client earlier this week who asked about the prospects of construction collaboration SaaS businesses in a recession, I found myself making similar points. I also talked about the low up-front investment needed to implement SaaS solutions, the flexibility of the subscription model (it can be turned on quickly, and off again when a project has been finished so that costs can be contained), and the growing financial resilience of the sector’s leading players: profitable businesses with a predictable flow of future subscription revenues from ongoing projects stretching five or more years into the future.

[* Similar figures were being quoted on eweek.com last month when application vendor Serena announced it would switch from Microsoft Exchange (costing $1m a year) to Google Gmail (costing $250,000). Of course, a lively online debate ensued about the exact costs and savings (see here, here and  here, for instance), but the bottom line was still that Google’s SaaS solution was less expensive.]

Permanent link to this article: https://extranetevolution.com/2008/12/economic-climate-will-accelerate-saas/

Dec 03 2008

Blocking internet access blocks innovation and collaboration

Talking about Web 2.0 tools and techniques to fellow Constructing Excellence Collaborative Working Champions in Birmingham last month, one friend told the meeting that his employer limited employee access to the web quite tightly, this restricting his and his colleagues’ ability to try such tools. Another said his organisation blocked access to various networking sites, even those, such as Ning, which hosted work-related communities (Be2camp, for example).

I had thought that such policies were a thing of the past. But apparently, according to a Guardian news story yesterday (also reported in the Telegraph), they remain quite common. It reported findings of a Chartered Management Institute survey (see ‘cyber cynicism’ news release) of 1,000 managers aged 35 and under, revealing some stark contrasts in attitudes between junior and senior managers:

“… employers view Internet activity as a ‘massive timewaster’.  Nearly two-thirds (65 per cent) monitor employee internet access and the same proportion (65 per cent) block ‘inappropriate’ websites. A significant number (18 per cent) also retain tight control over access by imposing curfews on internet usage.

“The data … reveals different usage patterns according to age group.  For example, 67 per cent of those under 25 have ‘read a forum’ in the past 3 months, compared to just 51 per cent of those aged over 30.  Two-thirds (69 per cent) of those aged 25 or under have watched videos online (work or otherwise), compared to 54 per cent of individuals aged 30 plus.  With evidence also suggesting respondents want to use business networking sites such as LinkedIn (6 per cent for both managers and students), the implication is that employers must change their attitude towards technology, or risk alienating their future managers and leaders.

“… many respondents believe their enthusiasm for web-based technology is not yet matched by employers.  Just 4 per cent claim their organisation ‘falls in love with the latest trend’ and 49 per cent say their employer only ‘takes up things once they’re tried and tested’.  Worryingly 16 per cent go as far as describing their employer as ‘dinosaurs’.

“… many UK organisations are slow to adopt new Internet (Web 2.0) technology.  Although 95 per cent use email or communicate with staff via intranets (81 per cent) only small proportions are happy to use web-based applications such as Google Docs (39 per cent), organisational message boards (19 per cent) or web-casting (9 per cent).

The risks of such attitudes are spelt out in two quotes. First, CMI’s Jo Causon says: “organisations need to harness the comfort levels these individuals have with Internet-based resources, because failure to do so will lead to frustration and the loss of top talent at best, or worse, an open door for competitors to build advantage through a better equipped and enabled workforce.”

Second, Jan Hutchinson of Research sponsor Ordnance Survey says: “the longer this situation is allowed to remain unchallenged, the greater the likelihood UK employers will fall behind their international competitors.”

Obviously, organisations need to manage their employees but I suspect that in many organisations such restrictions are harming their competitiveness by frustrating individuals’ wishes to try new technologies and to network and collaborate with professionals both inside their organisations and in related businesses, etc. Surely, they can trust their employees to be responsible adults capable of working within clearly defined internet usage policies? Backed by internal disciplinary procedures, such policies show that organisations take internet usage seriously and trust their staff not to abuse web access but during working hours to use it for work-related purposes.

However, I think employees could also lobby their managers to relax the constraints. If they can demonstrate what networks or tools they want to access and show how such access would benefit them and the organisation, surely the restrictions could be relaxed.

Update (28 January 2009): Good post by Tim at Adoption Curve Dot Net: Unblocking the blockers.

Permanent link to this article: https://extranetevolution.com/2008/12/blocking-internet-access-blocks-innovation-and-collaboration/

Nov 28 2008

Pettifer files for administration

In a painful sign of the times, I read yesterday (Construction News report) that Midlands-based contractor Pettifer Construction has filed for administration. In the late 1990s, I had my own construction marketing and PR consultancy, and Pettifer’s construction management arm, PCM, was a client of mine. The parent group is clearly having a tough time and I was pleased to read “Bosses are now trying to package a deal to sell the group’s consulting business PCM, which would save 85 jobs”.

However, the CN report didn’t mention another Pettifer Group company, KnowledgeOnline. KOL is a mobile technology developer mainly focused on health and safety and other compliance solutions – notably, E-SAFE – for the construction, shipbuilding, healthcare and transport industries, and was briefly a reseller of construction collaboration technologies from BIW Technologies [my employer] during the early 2000s. A year ago, it employed about a dozen people.

Permanent link to this article: https://extranetevolution.com/2008/11/pettifer-files-for-administration/

Nov 27 2008

Construction, ICT, marketing and web 2.0

“The day a computer can lay bricks, is the day I f*** off out of the industry!”

The above words (or a rough approximation of them) were repeated at a meeting of construction marketing people (CIMCIG) I attended on Tuesday evening. The story-teller was agreeing with Construction News editor Nick Edwards that some construction people are, to say the least, sceptical about the value of ICT in the industry; others in the room agreed that such ‘workface’ attitudes were not uncommon.

Paradoxically, this anecdote followed revelations from market research, undertaken for CN, that e-marketing was becoming an increasingly popular and important part of the communications mix for many marketing professionals in the construction industry. Having worked in industry PR and marketing since 1987, I hope that this enthusiasm for IT will quickly spread to other parts of the industry.

Techno-phobia

Over the past 10 years, I have encountered the ‘techno-phobic’ attitude on numerous occasions. This manifests itself both explicitly (people saying outright that they don’t like or aren’t very good at using computers, or regard them as unnecessary or irrelevant to their work) and implicitly (from people who simply avoid using computers altogether, to those who grudgingly use a computer but refuse to go beyond basic office programs and perhaps a discipline-specific application or two).

In trying to implement construction collaboration technologies, for example, we sometimes encounter resistance from individuals who refuse to use on-screen mark-up tools to comment on drawings, preferring to mark-up paper drawings by hand instead, or who insist on sending emails rather than relaying all communications through a web-based platform. I’ve also heard Luddite-type views refusing to countenance Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) solutions as they aren’t “proper” IT (ie: with hardware and software controlled tightly within the company), or arguing that such tools “over-complicate” things (a view I heard repeated yesterday at Loughborough University by an MSc student with extensive experience as a client-based professional).

Clearly – and echoing Monday’s post – ICT (and, even more so, SaaS) still has some way to go before it is widely regarded as a vital part of working life in the construction industry.

Web 2.0-phobia?

Whether it’s down to ignorance, resistance or simply scepticism, such attitudes are even more sharply evident when it comes to thinking about business use of Web 2.0 tools and techniques. Following my recent post, iSite‘s Martin Brown describes (On Web Awareness) how he conducted a quick straw poll of the audience at a recent event, finding almost nil awareness (his findings on IT adoption on site are also strikingly familiar!). I undertook a similar exercise yesterday in Loughborough. Like Martin, I found about a third of the group used Facebook (all socially), one or two were aware of RSS, but there were no ‘Tweeters’ or bloggers.

There are some construction blogs (even a few construction IT blogs), some construction Twitter users, a few discussion forums, a handful of AEC groups on LinkedIn and Facebook, the odd Wiki or two, and there’s even been an industry-specific ‘unconference’ (Be2camp 2007, of course!), but such activities are currently few and far between, and – to take blogs as an example – construction blogs are by no means as common as blogs in other industry sectors. As I drove home last night, I began to wonder if there is something of the chicken-and-egg about this. To build online AEC communities, you need AEC people to network online, but they are not going to network online unless there are relevant communities for them to become part of.

Perhaps this is a challenge/opportunity for construction PR and marketing people to tackle? Judging from the CN research, their apparent enthusiasm for e-marketing tools at the moment seems focused on raising brand awareness, disseminating marketing messages as widely as possible, creating sales leads and driving traffic to their websites (it was freely admitted, for instance, that investing in search engine optimisation could deliver some tasty statistics to dazzle the board). With the exception of PR (mainly disregarded in the research) and some direct marketing, there did not – on the face of it – appear to be much appreciation of engaging with or creating dialogues with their various target stakeholder groups. And yet, this is where some businesses in other industries are putting a lot of effort to try and build brand loyalty, elicit regular feedback, etc. I will be returning to this theme again as I develop my material for a presentation at the CIMCIG conference in February; and, if any construction marketing people want to debate the issues with others in this field, feel free to join Be2camp‘s recently-created ConMarcoms 2.0 group.

Related 2008 posts:

Update (28 November): I attended the Amplified08 Network of Networks unconference yesterday at NESTA in London, finding 150+ passionate Web 2.0 people debating a wide range of technology-related issues. I was struck that much of the debate in one of the sessions I attended focused on how people engaged with existing technology rather than creating yet more tools (reminiscent of my own view that successful collaboration is 80% people and processes and 20% technology).

Amplified08 is the first of a series of quarterly events that are intended to build to a big event in 2010. I wanted to get involved at a personal level and also to wave the flag for Be2camp. With the built environment and its related architecture, engineering and construction professionals playing such a pivotal role in delivering a more sustainable society (and with the sector comprising approximately 10% of GDP), I would like to see more involvement of AEC people in this movement.

Permanent link to this article: https://extranetevolution.com/2008/11/construction-ict-marketing-and-web-20/

Nov 25 2008

Aconex reports…

Australia-based construction collaboration Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) vendor Aconex has published its financial results for the year ending 30 June 2008. As with most annual reports and accounts, there is a lot of dry legal/accounting talk to wade through (thankfully, I am no accountant!), but for me the key points are:

  • Aconex revenues and order book are both up significantly, approximately 70% and 50% respectively. While such growth is down on previous years’ triple-figure rates, these are still excellent figures, reflecting, I think, Aconex’s strategy of establishing small outposts in lots of new markets.
  • As with last year (see Aconex results hit by legal row), a potential profit became a loss due to costs incurred in the legal dispute with Hawthorn Glen, which was settled out of court (post) during the year. However, the dispute appears to have cost twice what Aconex originally expected.
  • Post year-end announcements in September (post) about $107.5m new funding for Aconex did not detail that the funding is in two tranches, some of the initial tranche going to reduce debt, the second focused on acquisitions approved by the investor.
  • And Aconex founder Rob Phillpot has an interest in an office furniture business!
The bottom line

Aconex achieved a turnover of AU$41.6m (£17.7m at today’s exchange rate), up 70% from 2007’s (restated) AU$24.4m (£10.4) thanks to what Aconex again describes as “increased market penetration and investment in foreign markets” – the latter still funded by a combination of cash flow, a AU$12.5 (£5.3m) million debt facility and capital injections.

The consolidated group’s pre-tax loss (EBITDA) was AU$1.04m (£0.44m), down from a (restated) 2007 profit of AU$2.3m (£0.98m). Again, the report notes that the group’s figures have been hit by a legal dispute with a shareholder:

“The Hawthorn Glen dispute settlement costs and associated legal fees amounted to $3,357,175. Excluding these costs and insurance proceeds of $2,000,000, the consolidated EBITDA profit would have been $315,207.”

The Aconex order book at 30 June 2008 stood at AU$62m (£26.37m) – with approximately 85% to be billed over the next 3 years – up by almost 50% on the level reported last year. I think this partly reflects Aconex’s strategy of establishing satellite operations in lots of developing markets. The list of Aconex subsidiaries now has three additional companies, in Romania, Vietnam and the Philippines, making 21 in total, though the international financial crisis may make some of these overseas operations more risky (Aconex’s wrote off bad debts of $1.28m this year, compared to $200k last year). Sadly, compared to two years ago, there is precious little detail about the performance of different geographical Aconex segments.

Hawthorn Glen v Aconex

The Aconex report (Note 3) describes the dispute with Hawthorn Glen in much the same terms as last year, adding:

“The trial was held in October and November 2007. The matter was dismissed on 23 May 2008, prior to judgement, with no order as to costs. Aconex and Hawthorn Glen agreed to a full mutual release, where both parties ended up bearing approximately equal legal costs, after recovery of some costs through the company’s directors and officers insurance policy.”

Aconex had settlement costs of $1.5m and associated legal fees of $1,857,175 – a total twice what Aconex expected. Last year, having already spent some $280k in legal expenses (on top of $3.8m costs to terminate the Hawthorn Glen finance facility), it estimated the company’s costs for these proceedings would amount to approximately $1.65 million.

New funding

After the year-end, Aconex concluded a deal for new investment in the business from US-based  technology investor Francisco Partners (see Aconex gets private equity injection). Initial reports trumpeted a $107.5m injection, but the Aconex report makes it clear that this new equity is in two tranches: an initial $57.5m (£25m – up to $25m of which is to be used to complete a buy-back of existing shares, thus reducing debt), and an additional ‘acquisition tranche’ of up to $50m “to be drawn down to finance acquisitions approved by Francisco Partners that occur within 2 years of the subscription of the Initial Tranche”. Presumably the team that Aconex CEO Leigh Jasper said the company had put together to evaluate acquisition opportunities in the US and Europe includes people from Francisco Partners.

The investment is certainly substantial and Aconex got in just before the global credit crunch had a major impact on investor sentiment. (Incidentally, experienced SaaS watcher Jeff Kaplan has pointed out that investment in SaaS businesses has been affected by the economic meltdown.)

Rob’s furniture sideline!

Under related party disclosures, Aconex reports that ongoing taxation, share registry and statutory services worth $32,600 were received from accounting partnership Sinclair Wilson, the managing partner of whom was Bill Phillpot, the father of Aconex founder and director Rob Phillpot. Rob also part-owns a company, Melbourne Office Furniture, from which the group purchased some $12,500 worth of office furniture and equipment for its Melbourne office!

Update (3 December): I have been asked if the $107.5m injection might be lower, given the use of the words “up to” (underlined above). Those words are certainly used in the Aconex report, so I suppose this gives Aconex/Francisco Partners scope not to use the full $50m (£21.8m) acquisition tranche.

Permanent link to this article: https://extranetevolution.com/2008/11/aconex-reports/

Nov 24 2008

BuildOnline UK revises past performance

New figures available from the UK regulator, Companies House, show that BuildOnline UK, the UK-based construction collaboration vendor that is now part of CTSpace, waived a substantial debt prior to its 2006 merger with Citadon. It appears BuildOnline also substantially overstated its revenues for four years. However, the business was still operating at a loss at the end of March 2007.

While updating a presentation I use for various university lectures, I did another Companies House search on BuildOnline (UK) Ltd and discovered that last month it finally lodged a financial statement for the year ending 31 March 2007. As long-time readers of this blog may recall, this covers the period (December 2006) during which the company merged with Citadon (see post) to become CTSpace. A year later (December 2007), the combined group was acquired by the Sword Group.

In a series of posts in March (listed below), I related the various corporate changes that preceded the Sword group acquisition, and the latest financial report confirms much of what I wrote. The directors report says that on 12 May 2006, following the liquidation of parent undertaking BuildOnline (Holdings) Ltd, BuildOnline (UK) Ltd became a subsidiary of BuildOnline Global Ltd. On 15 December 2006, this company (whose return for the year ending 31 March 2006 is still marked as ‘overdue’) was acquired by US-registered company Collaboration Technology Inc, to become CTSpace.

The report outlines the financial performance of the group, describing a £16.7m profit (up from a restated 2006 loss of £1.4m) – an apparently phenomenal turnaround that is actually largely due to an “exceptional gain of £17,147,741 in relation to the waiver of intercompany loans due to the previous parent undertaking, BuildOnline (Holdings) Limited.” In other words, a substantial portion of the £17.4 debt owed to the company’s shareholders at the start of the financial year was written off by the end of it.

However, previous years’ revenues dating back to 2002 have also all been restated to reflect changes in BuildOnline UK’s revenue recognition policies. As a result, 2002’s turnover was up a little but the turnovers from 2003 onwards are all much lower than previously stated – 2005 is reduced by £681k (ie: its revenues were overstated by a whopping 38%) – with the total adjustment amounting to a downwards revision of £1,724,895 (or 21% over the five years). Add these to changes relating to royalty accounts with other group companies totalling nearly £268k, and the shareholders are left with an additional £2.07m deficit, making the March 2007 closing shareholders deficit £2.75m.

Aside from these transactions, BuildOnline (UK)’s turnover in the year to March 2007 was £2.39m (up just 3% from a restated £2.31m in 2006). Operating losses were down to £0.64m from £1.47m the previous year. UK staff numbers declined from 37 to 26, helping cut the staff costs from £2.4m to £1.6m – accounting for most of the savings by the look of things.

The turnover growth figure is certainly on the low side, given that rival UK collaboration vendors were recording double-digit growth rates over the same period – eg: Business Collaborator achieved 22% growth in 2006 and 20% in 2007, 4Projects achieved 40% in the year to March 2007, BIW Technologies [my employer] achieved 24% growth up to September 2007 and Asite achieved 26% up to December 2007.

Related posts:

Update (25 November 2008): I have just been forwarded a copy of the latest CTSpace newsletter which makes repeated reference to “Sword CTSpace” – presumably the preferred branding for the business. It also says it has “Over 140,000 users across 12,000 projects and 26 countries.”

Update 2 (28 November 2008): I see that one-time BuildOnline managing director Mark Oliver, after a spell as business development director at Laing O’Rourke, is now managing director of H+H Celcon.

Permanent link to this article: https://extranetevolution.com/2008/11/buildonline-uk-revises-past-performance/

Nov 24 2008

Don’t you just love “technoilogy”?

I get lots of e-newsletters and bulletins, some from well-respected trade journals, both in the construction field and in IT. Generally, these are models of professionalism, but occasionally the odd typo creeps through. However, today’s Information Age Bulletin promotes a forthcoming conference and delivers four spelling mistakes and a missing word in just one paragraph. (Wouldn’t “technoilogy” make a great word for the offshore oil and gas industry?)

Permanent link to this article: https://extranetevolution.com/2008/11/dont-you-just-love-technoilogy/

Nov 24 2008

AEC conferences, content and ‘unconferences’

Jodie's fantastic photo of Al Burj My friend Jodie Miners is now back in Australia after a whirlwind trip to Europe (and Dubai) that included co-organisation and participation in the London Be2camp 2008 event at the Building Centre on 10 October. She has been blogging about part of her trip – to the World Architecture Festival in Barcelona – and makes some good points about the presence (or, to be more precise, the lack of it) of ICT in both the content and delivery of the event.

ICT content

Writing on presentations about tall buildings, Jodie complains:

… not one architect discussed anything about the IT systems of the building – … nothing about Fibre Optic cabling, how the building with that many people in it will all connect to the internet at the same time, wireless, or even locations and design of server rooms, maybe having a data centre in the building, or anything remotely resembling IT….

She continues:

On the subject of IT, there was no IT discussed at the conference at all. No practice management topics about the use of computers in architecture, no topics about how Second Life and other virtual worlds are (or are not) changing the face of architecture, or not even any topics on new presentation techniques. … Architecture is about communication – communication of the idea behind the building, communication with the environment, communication with the occupants of the building. How can architects ignore the most prevalent communication medium of our times – the internet?

For the ICT-oriented attendee, too many architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) industry events ignore the ICT aspect (sometimes they ignore the whole related area of building services, despite this being fundamental to the life-time occupation of many buildings). The tendency often creeps into official industry reports and trade journals too. Earlier this year, I moaned about the low profile given to ICT issues in the UK Government’s Strategy for Sustainable Construction; I also felt that proposals, in Construction Matters, for the Chief Construction Officer gave insufficient weight to the role of ICT (though, having seen the brief since expanded slightly to include responsibility for innovation – see post – perhaps this is being addressed). Similarly, the industry trade press can tend to overlook ICT provision (though I know Building magazine has recently done a feature on data-centres, and it had a really interesting article on IT provision in schools), preferring to concentrate on the bigger budget issues during design and construction delivery of foundations, structure, cladding, contracts, health and safety, etc.

Is it just because ICT has become part of the plumbing, just part of the background? The vast majority of today’s professionals are increasingly heavily reliant upon mobile telephones and laptops giving them access to email and a host of other office and more AEC-focused applications, and yet they rarely give much thought to the infrastructure needed to deliver information to them – unless it goes wrong, of course!

Conferences and ‘unconferences’

Any way, back to Jodie’s trip. Excluding the World Buildings Directory online site, she ripped into the online element of the World Architecture Festival:

Technology at the conference was lacking also – there were about 6 PCs available for internet usage (which was at least good) and no wifi. There was no streaming of the presentations on-line for later viewing by attendees and the “social networking” (if you could call it that) on the WAF site was a huge joke, as it only allowed emails to one person at a time. … the main WAF site … was quite ugly and very difficult to navigate.

Here, I think Jodie reflects the insights gained from being very Web 2.0-literate. For many conventional conference attendees, the idea of streaming presentations online will be a novel concept; laptops and mobile phones should remain switched off during sessions; and ‘social networking’ means wine and canapes – not blogs and tweets. The conference organisers here are also being quite conventional, with a traditional conference website, online booking and some use of email. However, new types of events – barcamps, ‘unconferences’ – are breaking the mould, using ICT to open new opportunities for participation.

Attend an ‘unconference’ like Be2camp 2008 (or this week’s Amplified08 in London on Thursday evening, as I am), and you will find attendees wielding laptops, Macs, webcams, mobile phones and digital cameras. Notes and comments on presentations will be live-blogged to the web, alongside video, slide-shares and still photos. This creates a multi-media collage of content, discussion and interpretation that is no longer restricted just to the event venue, but is shared with interested people out on the web. Moreover, this communication can also be two-way – at Be2camp, for example, we welcomed questions from remote attendees, submitted via Twitter or CoverItLive – and will grow after the event as other people add their own ideas and contributions.

And as more individuals become Web 2.0-savvy, conventional conferences may need to adapt accordingly. For example:

  • attending an event might involve some online social networking before delegates even travel
  • event websites could be more interactive, with blogs, discussion forums, etc, and evolve over time
  • the ‘agenda’ (if there is one!) might end up being a more fluid
  • venues might need to accommodate live-blogging participants (power, wifi, etc) and be flexible enough to accommodate different types/sizes of groups
  • speakers might want to consider posting their slides online and think about how they take questions
  • event feedback forms could be augmented by online polling tools, etc.

I am not saying that all industry conferences should be run as unconferences. Clearly, some event organisers and many attendees will be uncomfortable with some of the ideas I’ve discussed above – possibly even more so in the sometimes quite conservative AEC industry. However, particularly as the participative nature of web activity becomes even more pervasive, I think mainstream conferences will need to adapt some of their existing tools and techniques. Failure to do so could result in large numbers of would-be delegates voting with their feet (physical and virtual) and establishing competing alternative events.

Permanent link to this article: https://extranetevolution.com/2008/11/aec-conferences-content-and-unconferences/

Load more