Why the drawing won’t die in construction
Simple v complex, fragile v robust, the Lindy Effect, and path dependance
Simplicity is on my mind this week. So much of how we apply digital engineering, BIM, and information management is additive, not subtractive.
This is a problem. Rather than making things ‘quicker’ or ‘cheaper’ it tends to add complexity and fragility.
A lot of the time, legacy ‘non-digital’ workflows and practices live on in parallel to digital solutions. Thus worsening - not solving - our information management problems.
This is not an anti-tech rant. I’ve seen the value of BIM, tech and innovation used well. And when I say “used well” I mean that which solved a specific problem(s) and met the user where they are on their digital maturity journey.
Some of the things ‘digital’ tries to solve for are deeply engrained and still have contemporary value. A great example is the construction drawing…
Why the Drawing Won’t Die
Despite growing maturity of BIM and 3D modelling, the construction drawing isn’t going anywhere. Not yet. It’s not just habit - it’s logic. Drawings are simple, durable, and built into how we work. They’ve lasted this long for a reason.
The Lindy Effect
The drawing has been around for centuries. According to the Lindy Effect, that’s a good sign it’s sticking around. The longer something survives, the longer we can expect it to. Drawings aren’t a relic; they’re a proven tool.
Robust vs Fragile
A drawing is a physical thing. You can fold it, pin it up, laminate it, mark it in the rain. It doesn’t crash or need a signal. On a construction site, that matters. Technology can be fragile. That is, dependent on Wi-Fi, battery, compatible viewers. A paper drawing doesn’t care if you’re in a field in the highlands of Scotland with no reception.
Path Dependency
Our industry has been built around drawings. Training, contracts, site processes—all of it leans on printed drawings. We’re path dependent. Changing that isn’t just about getting better tech; it means rewriting the playbook. That’s not a small ask.
BIM’s Achilles Heel
Models are a game changer. But they still haven’t landed on a shared standard. Every platform uses its own formats, schemas, workflows. It’s fragmented, and that makes collaboration messy. Until that changes, BIM will stay fragile where drawings are strong.
Simplicity Wins
In high-stakes environments, complexity can be a liability. Simple tools work because they’re less likely to fail. An A3 drawing in your pocket beats a frozen tablet when you’re ankle-deep in mud.
Best of Both
That said, it’s not a zero-sum game. The best approach is to blend the best of both: using BIM for design authoring and coordination, and understanding that drawings may be best currently for boots-on-the-ground execution. You’ll see models in the office and laminated drawings on the scaffold. It’s a pragmatic balance, not a turf war.
When is it the models time then?
As augmented reality and smarter devices improve, 3D models will close the gap. Once these tools become as fool proof and accessible as paper, they will find popularity with site workers. The humble drawing still holds the advantage in clarity, reliability, and day-to-day practicality.
Wrapping Up
Drawings are robust. Models, for now, are not. Until digital tools become just as resilient, just as universal, the drawing isn’t going anywhere.
My focus is to meet the team where they’re at. We (digital experts) are not here to dictate the pace of change - the businesses we work for will do that. We are here to show the art of the possible and smooth the transition.
I heard a great phase recently and unfortunately can’t recall it exactly or the speaker but it’s went something like “Adoption isn’t driven by innovation speed—it’s driven by business demand.”