Keywords

1 Introduction

1.1 Digital World of Architecture

Architectural practice is undergoing a digital transformation, a transition that has been met with significant resistance as professionals grapple with integrating new technologies into established workflows. It appears that we are still in the early stages of implementation despite the impact of digital technologies on the nature of professional services. Insights from the Architects’ Council of Europe (ACE) Sector Studies conducted between 2018 and 2022 indicate increased use of Building Information Modeling (BIM) between 2018 and 2020; however, its usage seems to have decreased since. We can identify the highest adoption rates in 3D modeling and rendering tools, hovering around 50%, and BIM at approximately 25%. Other tools, such as common-data environments, augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), and 3D printing, are significantly trailing, with adoption rates of 15% or less [1].

The scenario in architectural education appears even more critical. The introduction of digital planning methods in architecture courses seems to be in its infancy. There is an urgent call to articulate expectations and strategize the integration of digital planning into architecture curricula [2]. That necessitates a profession-wide effort to define the minimum level of digital literacy students should learn through courses and studios at educational institutions.

The “Digital Planning in University Education” guide by the Federal Chamber of Architects in Germany (BAK) raises several relevant questions on what digital knowledge, skills, and competencies are essential for architects entering the third millennium, why, and how to integrate digital methods into the design process. [2] At the same time, digital methods integration requires the teachers to identify what advantages digital technologies offer compared to traditional methods, balancing the risk that faculty courses and studios could transform into software training sessions. That transformation could be incongruent with the principles of the Bologna system, which emphasizes the importance of experimental and innovative teaching content.

Our sector is notably atomized [3]. This fragmentation presents a challenge in adopting new digital technologies, and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which dominate our field, are at risk of being left behind. The American Institute of Architects Firm Survey Report highlights that 75.2% of architectural firms are considered small companies (1–9 employees) and account for only 18% of the total staff and 12.8% of billings in 2019. [4]. The situation in the European market is even more alarming, with the ACE reporting that 96.1% of firms are small-sized (1–10 employees), including a staggering 62.2% solo practices, 16.2% two-person offices, and 13.7% with 3–5 employees [5]. Digital solutions, often designed with larger enterprises in mind, are challenging to scale down to SMEs due to cost, lack of human resources, or a lack of digital competency necessary for adoption.

Aside from these challenges, the digital world is evolving at an unprecedented pace, with a 100-million-fold increase in computing power across various AI systems domains over the past decade [6]. Digital tools, particularly those integrated into the Building Information Modeling (BIM) process and the emerging suite of AI-enabled tools, could significantly enhance architectural processes and the overall quality of architecture. The AEC AI Hub [7], initiated by Stjepan Mikulić, sheds light on these tools in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry, presenting both their potential and limitations. As we enter a new phase of the digital revolution marked by the Internet of Things, deep learning, and artificial intelligence, it is vital to recognize this as a continuation of the technological evolution in architecture, not a disruption. These advancements, especially AI text transformers and AI image generators, are reshaping the design processes, offering innovative approaches and efficient design exploration. While both bring the risk of generating mediocre content, they also provide opportunities for high-quality, innovative work, making it essential for architects to stay informed and proficient with these tools. The digital transformation in the building industry, exemplified by BIM, underscores the need for architectural services and education systems to adapt more effectively to these technological advancements. Benefits of BIM, such as advanced project data management and cost control, highlight the importance of data structure and management skills not emphasized in standard architectural education.

This rapid development widens the gap between small and large companies, potentially intensifying the SMEs’ challenges. Even in large firms, issues such as data inconsistency across projects persist, a point highlighted by Martha Tsigkari and Sherif Tarabishi of Foster + Partners [8]. Paradoxically, this inconsistency could be providing a lifeline for smaller firms. However, this paper posits that now is the crucial time for the architectural community to engage proactively, offering insights and strategies to navigate this digital landscape.

1.2 Balancing Adoption and Adaptation

This research explores how the distinctions between adoption and adaptation can significantly influence outcomes and implications within the architectural profession. This inquiry is especially pertinent in environments dominated by SMEs. In the context of this paper, I will define adoption as selecting, implementing, and embracing new digital technologies, tools, and methodologies within architectural practice. Conversely, adaptation refers to adjusting existing practices, tools, and methods to accommodate the shifts brought about by the digital era. While we cannot guarantee adaptation only by adopting new technologies, it is often a crucial step in the broader change process.

But what influences these choices, and how are they manifested within the architectural practices? Moving beyond the classic adopter categorization curve based on innovativeness as outlined by Everett M. Rogers, Moore introduces a nuanced perspective, identifying psychological gaps between different adopter groups. The Chasm, as he terms it, is highlighted as a critical gap in this context. To the left of the Chasm, we find Innovators and Early Adopters - individuals motivated by the prospect of revolutionary change, architects typically characterized as risk-takers, prioritizing long-term impact over immediate practicality. On the opposite side of the Chasm are the Early Majority and Late Majority adopter groups [9].

Our focus, particularly for broader adoption, is on the Early Majority group. These architects are open to new technology, simultaneously seeking incremental improvements of existing practices, tools, and methods. They could play a pivotal role in guiding the architectural community through the digital transition, striking a balance between embracing innovation and preserving professional integrity. The challenge, and at the same time the goal, is to make the digital transformation accessible and advantageous for the majority.

1.3 Hypothesis

Within the architectural profession and education, there is a visible tension between the slow-paced evolution of systems and practices and the rapid progress characterizing the contemporary digital era. This dichotomy is particularly pronounced due to the atomized nature of the market, leaving architects in an uncertain position regarding the sustainable future of the profession. The building industry sector, by contrast, seems to be outpacing architects, intensifying the pressure on the profession.

Notably, resistance to change is a persistent issue rooted in a complex web of psychological factors, including fear, emotional responses, and individual biases. This research posits that these psychological elements play a critical role in shaping decision-making processes for architects and their ability to adapt to change. The study maps these psychological factors against the industry-specific challenges that are most influential in the decision-making processes of architects.

Multi-criteria analysis is conducted based on the data collected from three surveys to understand these complex challenges, providing architects and educators with insights that could help navigate these uncertain times and contribute to a more flexible and resilient profession.

2 Challenges of Digital Transformation

Resistance to change among people appears to originate from various factors, which we could categorize into two main groups: individual and situational factors [10], where individual factors represent the behavior caused by personal features, and situational factors represent behaviors caused by the environment. While these factors in the research by Darmawan and Azizah initially describe employee resistance within an organization, they can also apply to a market characterized by its atomized nature, where employers often double as employees. Several factors from each group significantly affect adoption in our environment and are relevant to this paper.

We can identify six main individual factors: lack of confidence due to insufficient training and resources, fear of failure, increased stress, feelings of uncertainty, low motivation, and poor self-efficacy. Out of situational factors, we can identify high ambiguity and inadequate information, inadequate communication and organizational silence, lack of participation in change processes, insufficient work integrity, an ever-increasing sense of job insecurity, and a weak organizational culture with professional associations and universities failing to be transparent leaders.

Additionally, often unrealistic timelines for adoption and existing organizational culture and norms play a crucial role at the organizational resistance level.

Finally, the endowment effect, a well-documented cognitive bias, plays a crucial role, revealing itself as a significant resistance factor. Experts, architects in our case, tend to overvalue their established knowledge and show reluctance toward adopting new methodologies. This reluctance becomes particularly pronounced in situations that demand significant technological advancements and a transformation in organizational standards, all necessitated by digitalization.

Within the specific context of our field, I have identified five main areas of industry-specific challenges.

Market Dynamics: Issues of productivity and market fragmentation strain the architectural profession. Efforts are continuously underway to deregulate the profession at a European level, as highlighted in the ACE The Economic Benefits of Regulation in Architectural Services report [3].

Historical Processes: The long-standing traditions influence the architectural profession, which has ingrained the way of doing business. Altering these established methods carries associated costs, contributing to resistance against change.

Collaboration: The atomized nature of organizational structures in the architectural field hinders effective teamwork. A notable issue is the collaboration paradox, which refers to the inability to achieve real-time collaboration in such a fragmented market, amplified by limited human resources. Here, we can also observe the form of the productivity paradox (also the Solow paradox) in a situation where IT collaborative tools designed to enhance efficiency consume more time than they save if they are not utilized adequately or are misused.

Education and Research: There is a noticeable delay in adopting new technologies within educational institutions and research bodies [2]. Moreover, there is inadequate dissemination of knowledge in schools, universities, and through continuing professional development programs within professional associations, which is especially accented on an interdisciplinary level [11].

Complexity and Variability: A diverse array of stakeholders and constantly changing regulations characterize the architectural field, which leads to high levels of volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA) [12].

Each of these areas has unique issues, ranging from market volatility to the challenges of real-time collaboration, all of which contribute to the overall resistance to change in the industry.

3 Survey

To validate my initial hypothesis, I conducted a survey targeting architects in Croatia to gain insight into the adoption of technology within our profession, customized for three distinct groups: practicing licensed architects, architecture students, and architecture faculty members, with minor adjustments in questions to suit specifics of each group. The distribution of the survey was as follows:

Practicing Licensed Architects: Disseminated through the Croatian Chamber of Architects, the survey saw participation from 120 out of 2,834 active members. Among the respondents, 84 categorized themselves as employers.

Architecture Students: Conducted at the University of Zagreb, Faculty of Architecture, where undergraduate and graduate programs participated, with 130 out of 862 students responding. That included 43 Master's students and 87 Bachelor's students.

Architecture Faculty Members: At the same University, 32 out of 106 teachers participated.

The survey aims to analyze the current level of integration of new technologies among practicing architects, students, and educators. Apart from general demographic data, a self-assessment of respondents’ knowledge of computers, data protection, and cloud storage is collected. These questions, deemed irrelevant to this analysis, will form the basis for broader research in the future.

Table 1. List of software tools
Full size table

The questions relevant to this paper delve into three topics: integration, education, and frequency of use of different digital technologies in the work environment. The survey covers the most frequently used digital tools, categorized into eight major software groups. In the following diagrams, the alpha-numeric symbol within specific groups represents the software tool, as is presented in Table 1. Additionally, two hardware categories, Virtual/Augmented reality (VR/AR) and 3D printing, are assessed.

3.1 Integration

Participants responded to five questions in this category.

In Question 1, participants self-assessed the digital tools integration, regarding their familiarity and usage of various software tools in their work through the 7-level scale: ? = never heard of; 0 = did not use; 1 = installed and opened; 2 = introduced to interface and tried elementary functions; 3 = used elementary functions in work; 4 = used advanced functions in work; 5 = expert with certificate (Fig. 1).

In multiple-choice Question 2, participants indicated why they had not integrated specific software tool groups into their work through multiple-choice answers, such as I use the tools intensively, I do not use/need these tools, lack of support, lack of time for learning new tools, I feel that technology limits my creativity, fear of negative impact on my obligations, high price.

In Question 3, participants indicated the integration of virtual/augmented reality technologies, and in Question 4, if they had incorporated 3D printing into their work, teaching, or studio assignments.

In Question 5, only practicing architects were asked if they had developed a digital transformation strategy for their company, and those participants who responded positively selected the activities planned by this strategy in multiple-choice Question 6. The participants chose from various digital transformation activities: implementation of BIM, website creation, social networks management, development of proprietary add-ons in the field of BIM, improvement of cybernetic security, integration of VR/AR technologies, development of applications for E-commerce, development of proprietary software/tools in the field of artificial intelligence, and integration of 3D printing technologies.

Fig. 1.
figure 1

Question 1 – self assessment of the digital tools integration (survey data diagrams), 2023, (by Damir Mance, previously unpublished)

Full size image
Fig. 2.
figure 2

Question 9 – Usage frequency of software tools (survey data diagrams), 2023, (by Damir Mance, previously unpublished)

Full size image

3.2 Education

In this category, all participants evaluated their level of agreement with the statement regarding the necessity of providing students with additional education on digital tools and technologies in Question 7, rated on a scale from 1-Disagree Completely to 5-Agree Completely. Only practicing architects evaluated the digital literacy of students and interns within the work environment in Question 8, also rated on a 5-point scale.

3.3 Frequency of Use

Through Question 9 participants evaluated how frequently they use specific software tools in design assignments within the office setting. Only practicing architects were included in this part of the survey, with students who had participated in internship programs (totaling 67 students).

Figure (Fig. 2) displays the usage patterns of various software tools, where participants rated their frequency of use on a scale from 1-Never to 4-Daily.

4 Analysis

I used the Microsoft Power BI engine to analyze and visualize the data collected from the surveys, allowing for specific options and filters tailored to each respondent group. This chapter provides insights based on the key findings from the eight major digital tool categories: BIM, CAD, Office, Programming, Visualizations, Photo and Graphic Design, AI and Data Analysis, and Urban Planning.

4.1 Integration

The visual data from Fig. 1 highlights a predominant unfamiliarity with many tools among the respondents, marked by the red bars indicating a lack of tool use in the work environment. Despite this, essential tools like CAD, Office, and Adobe Suite maintain their status as industry standards, with the growing use of Archicad indicating a slow but positive shift toward BIM. Students showed similar trends, favoring Rhinoceros and Sketchup, albeit at beginner levels, which also reflected in the skills of teachers.

The usage of BIM tools has slightly improved compared to past studies, but it is still not at the desired level within architectural offices and education. We could attribute the lack of certifications among respondents to factors such as employer indifference, cost, time commitment, low perceived value, and overconfidence in personal skills.

A surprising 40–60% of practicing architects cited lack of time for learning as the main reason for not using certain tool groups, a sentiment echoed by 30–75% of students, especially when it comes to more complex tools like BIM, programming, and AI. Teachers shared similar concerns, with the added fear of courses transforming into software training sessions.

VR/AR and 3D printing usage remains below 15%, except for students engaging with these technologies in their free time, at 24.6% and 36.2%, respectively. Respondents mostly use these tools for design presentations to clients.

Regarding digital transformation strategies, only 13.1% of participants confirmed their development, predominantly at early stages and revolving around BIM implementation, website creation, and social network management.

4.2 Education

Over 71% of all participants firmly believe that students should receive additional education on digital tools and technologies. Practicing architects rated students’ digital literacy at an average level, suggesting that professional practices are more advanced in applying certain digital technologies than current academic curriculums.

Additionally, participants responded to specific questions related to learning material sources and the potential benefits of digital tools in architectural practice. The majority acknowledged the significant advantages digital transformation could bring to the field.

4.3 Frequency of Use

Data on tool usage frequency reaffirmed the dependence on CAD, Office tools, and the Adobe suite, with limited utilization of other technologies. Predominantly selected were Never and Rarely categories, indicating a substantial untapped potential in various digital tools. Students’ responses mostly mirrored those of practicing architects, with notable differences in the less frequent use of Office tools and Adobe Acrobat and more frequent use of SketchUp and Photoshop, likely due to their educational and studio work contexts (Fig. 2).

5 Conclusion

Survey data highlights significant skill gaps, particularly in emerging technologies like BIM, AI, and data analysis, underscoring the need for focused training and education. Traditional tools such as CAD, Office applications, and the Adobe Suite continue to be the mainstay of architectural practice, signifying resistance to change while providing a foundational basis for integrating new technologies. The findings from the survey bring us to a pivotal question: What role can educators play in addressing the evident skill gaps in digital literacy within the architectural profession?

Today, only a small percentage of SMEs have embraced advanced technologies or developed a digital transformation strategy, representing a niche of industry innovators poised to lead the change. Being architects, adapting to these changes is crucial to remain relevant and competitive. In a market characterized by a predominance of micro-sized architectural offices, the sustainability of the architectural profession is at stake. Large architectural companies typically employ 2–4% of digitally advanced staff, focusing on tech implementation and research. That is not a feasible model for smaller firms, where dedicating architects solely to tech subjects is considered a waste of resources. While outsourcing is an option, it often results in time delays and losses in an increasingly productive environment. Due to the inherent limitations of SMEs, they cannot carry the responsibility for digital transformation. Therefore, it is imperative to promptly adjust architectural school curricula to meet the growing demand for digitally literate architects.

While the lack of education in schools and faculties is a significant issue, there is no need to educate all users to an expert level. Larger offices typically reserve advanced and expert tool use for a small percentage of their staff, indicating a possible pathway for educational institutions. Implementing minimum standards for various digital tools and technologies in the curriculum is crucial, with advanced and expert levels reserved for enthusiasts through elective courses and higher education.

Fig. 3.
figure 3

Digital Transformation – Research, Development and Implementation Strategy, 2023, (by Damir Mance, previously unpublished). The diagram is based on BIM – Research, Development and Implementation strategy [11] and Building Information Modelling maturity matrix [13] and adapted for digital transformation of construction industry in general.

Full size image

With the digital standards in the architectural sector being relatively low and lack of time frequently mentioned as a significant barrier to adopting new tools, identifying and addressing areas for improvement is essential. Key areas to focus on include:

Active Engagement with Technological Advancements: Tailoring the adoption of new technologies to match the current maturity level of users is crucial [13], which is especially important in integrating new digital technologies such as BIM or AI into the design studio at architectural schools [11]. That ensures a gradual and sustainable transition, enabling users to implement new tools into their workflows effectively (Fig. 3).

Use Case Analysis:

It is vital to evaluate the suitability of each tool for specific business objectives, assessing how well a technology addresses the needs of a particular use case. This process not only aids in selecting the right tools but also provides guides on how they contribute to achieving the set objectives (illustrated in Fig. 4).

Enhanced Communication Strategies:

Developing platforms dedicated to e-learning and the experiences exchange can foster a collaborative learning environment, ensuring that knowledge is shared efficiently across the board.

Integration of Advanced Project Management Techniques:

Planning for the integration of digital technologies in both educational and professional settings requires advanced project management strategies. Emphasis should be placed on effective time management to ensure a smooth transition.

Fig. 4.
figure 4

Adoption of Digital Technologies decision-making process diagram, 2023, (by Damir Mance, previously unpublished). The diagram is based on Construction Technology Adoption Framework (CTAP) [14] and adapted for the architecture sector. The CTAP is a framework that delineates the phases of the process that customer organizations use when deciding to adopt a new digital technology as well as the parallel vendor activities [15]. In this adaptation, instead of vendors, government incentives, along with professional associations and schools of architecture, are positioned as facilitators in the transformation.

Full size image

Extracurricular and Summer Learning Opportunities:

Introducing students to new tools and digital processes early in their undergraduate studies is essential. By doing so, we can prevent studio sessions from becoming mere software training classes, ensuring a holistic educational experience in compliance with the Bologna process.

Leveraging Government Incentives:

Proactively working towards digital technology adoption is critical, and government incentives can play a crucial role in facilitating this transformation. Encouraging policies and funding opportunities can provide the necessary support for educational institutions and small architectural practices.

In future research, I intend to refine the survey to engage more respondents and critically examine digital transformation, including AI. While the limited sample size of the survey necessitates caution in interpreting the results, the implications are significant if non-participation reflects a disinterest in digital change.