Systemic construction
Lego or Fischertechnik?
Jan-Hendrik Goldbeck (JG): Lego, always has been.
Goethe or Beethoven?
JG: Both.
Construction magnate or technology leader?
JG: Technology leader.
Steel, concrete, or wood?
JG: All of them. Currently, we use steel and concrete in our buildings. But wood also has its place today.
JG: I would classify the hype surrounding wood as populism. It is a renewable raw material that certainly has its place as a building material. Wood has useful properties that meet certain aesthetic requirements. It is relatively light and very easy to work with. So it has many advantages—but there are also disadvantages. When I think about true sustainability, for example, wood has certain ambivalences or multivalences. Because what does sustainable mean? Sustainability has more than just an ecological dimension and energy aspects. The socio-ecological dimension is just as important—especially in the field of architecture—as is the economic dimension. The only way to determine in which dimensions wood is good or bad is to test it. This is a very broad field. Basically, wood is rather difficult to evaluate in terms of "cradle to cradle." The issue of recyclability is complicated, as wood usually occurs as a composite material.
In terms of cost-effectiveness, wood is not yet on a par with other building materials. There are also certain challenges in terms of structural stability and weather resistance on the construction site, i.e., water resistance. That is why it is important not to idealize the hype surrounding the "building material of the future." Instead, we must realistically assess its capabilities and weaknesses and bear in mind that there is still a lot of potential for development in this field.
We are also addressing this issue and researching alternative materials—in addition to wood, for example, carbon. In doing so, we always advocate for the appropriate use of materials. Every material has its raison d'être in a specific context. The optimal solution lies in a sensible combination of steel, concrete, wood, and other alternative building materials according to their individual properties.
JG: That's a question we constantly ask ourselves: When is insourcing worthwhile? We purchase materials that are piece goods or that are very special or complex to manufacture. Windows are a good example. We buy the profiles, but build the windows ourselves in our own factory. We then install them in the wall, which we deliver en bloc to the construction site and install there.
We produce everything in cycles, like on an assembly line. The window frame is welded by robots in Bielefeld, then it goes to our precast concrete plant in Hamm. There, the frame is placed in the formwork, concrete is poured in, set, windows are sealed, sun protection is added, and it's done. It's a structurally optimized process that delivers the necessary elements to the construction site just in time.
A system consists of standardized subsets, so how does everything fit together to form the overall Goldbeck system?
JG: The beauty of a system is that it can essentially be described as a complex network of if-then relationships. If, like me, you grew up in the 1980s, you will surely remember the Basic programming language from the C64: If – then go to. Our system can be interpreted in a similar way. And that's how construction generally works.
The magic of the system is that I set the parameters and the rest takes care of itself. That's the famous green button, which automates everything, right down to the information that goes to the CNC-controlled production machines. However, to be honest, this green button does not yet exist. Work is currently underway on a large number of small green buttons that together represent a process.
If, for example, I want to install a row of windows in a logistics hall, the dimensions are determined and the cuts for the facade are automatically calculated. If I change something, everything else adjusts automatically. That's the kind of button I'm talking about...
This works in planning and, of course, in production. And it will work more and more in the future. As an architect or construction company, I can concentrate on how planning and construction can be even better integrated. This is not antagonism, but collaboration. Like with Holger Meyer, for example. But by integrating the two, I can enter into a planning and creative dialogue earlier on.
JG: Over the last 15 years, we have increasingly opened up the framework conditions in the system to architectural diversity. The more we have improved technically, the more flexible we have become. And that makes us all the more interesting for architects and builders. Ultimately, it's about finding a partner who enjoys exploring the possibilities offered by the system and says: "The restrictions aren't so great that they limit my professional aspirations."
Holger Meyer (HM): That's right. We, and many of our colleagues, realize that optimizing processes in this way is essential in order to achieve our goals more efficiently and quickly. We can concentrate on the things we want to customize, because other things are systematically faster than with a completely customized solution. The tight deadlines in the planning and construction phase are something that often cause us a lot of pain. A modular system with fixed parameters helps us to make many correct decisions quickly and early on. It becomes an acceleration factor that frees up resources. Resources that we can in turn use to create architectural quality. For us, this is an extremely constructive and positive collaboration. We have a clear process and competent contacts at the table who can always provide the right answers.
For me, however, the question arises: Is this the real challenge? Goldbeck is a rapidly growing company with a modular system that promises its customers and architects individuality. For some architects, this is a contradiction in terms. And a balancing act for every employee in the company: What am I allowed to do, and what am I not allowed to do?
JG: We didn't develop the system because it's particularly easy to build. Rather, we asked ourselves what the market demands and how we can implement that effectively. That's a different approach. We think in terms of products and customers rather than "building mass" and "builders." The product is configurable—similar to a car, only more individualized and with more options. The basic logic, the modular system, is always the same.
But the product isn't the only thing we've systematized. The process is too. The workflows, how I get things done, in terms of planning and on the construction site. How I interlink them, intertwine them, interlock them in such a way that the best possible outcome is achieved for the customer and for us. This is process parallelization. And both the product and the process always follow this logic of guard rails and rubber bands. The guard rails are the system. And there are the rubber bands that allow for freedom. Here we have a dialogue based on trust and responsibility – that's in line with our corporate culture. Or to put it another way: we trust that you, dear engineers and architects who work at Goldbeck, will decide for yourselves what is right for each project.
HM: That's the tension. We repeatedly have modular construction tasks and systematic considerations. The interesting thing is that we often lack exactly what you just described—the early implementation of systematic thinking in the planning process. We often work on office buildings, and everyone involved wants to reinvent the wheel. In the end, we arrive at a systemic solution because it arises from the task at hand.
But architects, as well as builders and project managers, like to take the long way around and question everything again: the grid, the heights, the support positions. It's actually an interesting and creative process. But it can be shortened. It's a learning curve, and the if-then system forces you to think consistently at the beginning. In this respect, we don't see the system as a restriction at all, but rather as a systematization of the process that gives us freedom in our thinking.
Gregor Gutscher (GG): It helps to focus on the area where you can be creative. This building reflects everything I always have to explain to new employees when they start working for us: grid patterns, floor heights coordinated with an underground parking garage, 400-square-meter units—a conceptual modular construction system—the basics of planning. And Goldbeck offers to build it that way because it has already been implemented in parameterized modules. This allows me to concentrate on the essentials. That's what I like about our collaboration: the system is good – let's explore where we need to start so that it's not "just" a system.
JG: This is where our strength lies. How many buildings are there, and how many of them claim to be unique? You can count on one hand how many buildings are actually built to be so individual in a decade. Conversely, this means that most buildings follow a systemic logic in terms of usability—because it makes sense for the workplaces, for the living situation, or for the functional relationships between rooms and supporting structures. This is precisely where the opportunity we always preach opens up: as a good architect, this is where you can make your mark.
HM: Architecture is a social task that addresses current issues: How is living changing? How will we work in the future? How will we shop? These three questions outline the social upheaval in which we live. We need to address how cities will function in the future.
Retail and the world of work are changing. When it comes to housing, we are still stuck in the archaic 1950s. Whatever constitutes today's standards of lifestyle and quality of life has not yet been incorporated into the system processes. The "solutions" that we are rapidly implementing in response to the crisis are not really of high quality in terms of space, urban planning, or content. In Germany, we tend to make construction too complicated. We have a housing (construction) crisis – but we are suffocating in regulations. We can hardly implement the energy requirements for residential buildings anymore – and we are generating 30 percent higher construction costs to save 3 percent energy. We are stuck in a dead end – but no one dares to correct this, neither legislators nor associations.
JG: That's the problem. Let me give you an example: We took part in the GDW competition for cost-effective housing construction. The aim was to develop a serial concept. In the overall review after the competition, it was found that the solutions were no cheaper than conventional ones. No one had considered that serial effects don't work without series production. You can't achieve serial production because a) every state has different regulations and b) even where it could work, it fails due to the structures and the will.
This means that it is not possible to reduce the gross price per square meter of living space from €2,000 to €1,600—a figure that, in my opinion, would be entirely achievable if serial production were implemented consistently.
On this basis, it would then be possible to concentrate on the overall system, on purchasing processes as well as on structural improvements, and optimize step by step. But to do that, you first have to build the projects. The whole thing doesn't work on the drawing board. Otherwise, others would have done it already.
JG: The digitization process in construction: I have always imagined a wave model that overlaps in time. The first wave is in the area of digitizing planning. It generates a coherent three-dimensional building model—our goal is to create this in the normal process flow for every project. Added to this are the dimensions of time and cost. However, this is still a problem today. The problem is that there is no software that can display all planning-relevant dimensions in full and in an uncomplicated manner, so that the model can then be used in a meaningful and holistic way. Our 30-strong BIM development team is working on the necessary solutions – together with 1,500 architects and engineers from various calculation, design, and planning departments.
The second wave is the capture of reality on the construction site using sensors, drones, photogrammetry, 3D laser scanning, or other techniques—in real time and continuously, stored in the database, accessible and optimizable at any time. This enables us to continuously compare the virtual target with the actual reality.
And once you have all this information, the third wave follows. Then you improve augmented reality applications and optimize the use of machines to derive concrete options for action from the delta between target and actual.
Finally, the fourth wave follows: understanding the planning and construction process as a cybernetic system. I adjust my actions depending on what is happening in real time. As soon as I notice a difference between the actual and the target, I can respond specifically to the delta. This then gives rise to all possible conclusions for the entire further construction process.
Only then will we truly have understood the power of digitalization and implemented it in planning and construction. But that is a process that I believe will take another 20 to 30 years. At least we are now gradually getting new features that we can use. We are currently trying our hand at the topic of costs. One of our first goals is to derive quantities from the system in such a way that they can be used in a qualified manner in a tender. There are currently no really good tools on the market for this either.
Once all the waves have gradually flowed into the process, construction will become faster and therefore cheaper. All this with better traction, i.e., higher quality. I am convinced that we can expect a great deal in this regard. Over the last ten years, there has been a lot of hype, but hardly anyone has noticed that this means a fundamental change in the minds of all planners, all architects, and ultimately all those involved in construction.
HM: That completely changes the planning process, of course. We have to implement this information into a model from day one, so to speak. We architects are anachronists in certain respects—we come from a time when there were still "Rapidographs." I draw it, and the preliminary design was an exaggerated line, and that was the outer wall. Today, it's a wall element that has a specific structure and contains all the information such as building physics, statics, design, construction and assembly process, costs, delivery times, maintenance, and recyclability.
If I don't define and install this element correctly at the beginning, I'll just have to build the model several times. For me, that means I have to take the employees who do this with me and first teach them to think in a 3D model. And I have to explain to the builders that this way of thinking in the model changes the planning process.
We need more time for the preliminary design because I first need to have this information. In addition, our fee model is no longer correct. No chamber has really understood this yet. No builder has really understood this yet either. But we now have to take our employees on this journey, which we are doing with a lot of money and effort. At the same time, we have to try to make it clear to them that if they don't join us on this journey now, they will eventually be left behind.
JG: That's right, it ultimately changes job profiles. Both for architects and for us. Our BIM development team consists of around 30 employees, mainly architects, programmers, and colleagues who deal with 3D reality capture. Scan to BIM using drones or photogrammetry—this is one of many topics that the BIM team is advancing, among other things, through research collaborations. In addition, we now also have media designers on the team who translate Goldbeck's system situation into VR.
JG: First of all, the different culture and spirit of Silicon Valley. The whole world comes together at the Stanford Institute, which is sponsored by construction and architecture companies worldwide. When we have a meeting of sponsors there, 30 to 40 companies from all over the world that are involved in the digitalization of construction come together. That's unique.
The Valley tech companies seem to have endless capital at their disposal and therefore operate at breakneck speed. These are completely different dimensions of thinking. Completely different rules of the same game. This is where I really start to worry. I don't know anyone in Germany who thinks this way, even remotely. This is a strategic question that will arise very specifically for us in 2020: How do we respond to such challenges? This issue will affect us; that is already foreseeable today. And we will notice it in one form or another on the German market in ten years at the latest. The question is what answer we can give in advance so that we are not overwhelmed later.
JG: Basically, we feel quite comfortable in the product worlds we are currently operating in. We want to offer the opportunity to create good architecture using systematic approaches—not only in terms of the basic structure of the building, but increasingly in the area of technology, right through to a product-service ecosystem. The same applies to interior design, to the impressions and the experience while using a building.
Unfortunately, many construction companies fail to focus on the fact that customers do not build for the sake of building, but to use the building later. In their minds, the usage phase is actually just a necessary evil. After all, it only begins after acceptance. At this point, most of their work is done. For them, the usage phase is limited to five years of tedious warranty work. What many fail to see is that this also means five years of institutionalized customer contact, which should be used to continue to generate satisfaction.
It is only during the use of a building that you gather the crucial experiences and insights. I believe that if we institutionalize this feedback and learn from it, we can create real added value.
