Digitization is great and all, but without automation, getting to that teeny-tiny curated playbook I talked about in the previous post in this series, The Solution | Digitization, is near impossible. Digitizing the Codes really only helps those who already know how to navigate them…which is not a lot of humans.
To completely revolutionize the industry, we need to automate. And to automate, we need an army of Code Geeks to train AI to understand the Shakespearian written labyrinth that is the Canadian Construction Codes. I’ve recruited some of this army. Meet our ever growing squad of Villagers.
the kilo's notes | automation
As mentioned in The solution | digitization, there are five different model Codes. For this post, I’m only going to be talking about the Building Code. And getting even more focused, I will be honing in on Division B, Part 3 – Fire Protection, Occupant Safety, and Accessibility. Partly because it’s where the most confusion lies, and partly because it’s my personal favourite (what fun are are things if they’re not enigmatic chaos disguised as rules).
The requirements for buildings falling under Part 9 – Housing and Small Buildings are pretty straightforward, and I like to think of them as a paint-by-number. You are less likely to get tripped up by a requirement (or eight) tucked elsewhere. You want to know about roofing, you go to the roofing section (9.26.). Buildings falling under Par Part 3 are often called ‘complex buildings’, and things aren’t as simple. Figuring out roofing requirements would depend on a whole number of things spread throughout various sections. Is your building required to be (not just permitted to be) noncombustible (a defined term with very specific testing requirements – not just ‘fire rated’ as a lot of product spec sheets would lead you to believe is sufficient)? Well then Section 3.1.5. says if the roofing is combustible , it needs an A, B or C classification (which sends you to Section 3.1.15. to find out more) and also needs to meet a bunch of requirements like being above a concrete deck. There could be an entire post taking you through all the different elements to consider when choosing roofing material for a Part 3 building, but I’m stopping here. Long story short, Part 3 has rules layered in rules layered in rules, and unless you spend your days in the Code, the likelihood of missing something is decently high.
When it comes to the ability to automate, I like to break Code requirements down into three categories: The Black and White. The Labyrinth. The Grey.
In my experience, the latter two are often combined by non-Code Enthusiasts, but they are fundamentally different. I often say ‘there is a major difference between ‘interpretation’ and ‘I never had to do that before’. People don’t often like to hear that though. Misreading or completely missing a requirement is not ideal. Human nature is often to place blame elsewhere, and frequently it’s on the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) and saying it’s an interpretation issue. I will digress here, but will leave you with the advice to never take things at face value if you don’t understand for yourself what the ‘interpretation’ issues really are. Ask why, educate yourself, and perhaps give a read to A mechanism of trust – third party reviews.
Back to the categories and the purpose of this post.
The Black and White | Although there are a lot of them, much of the requirements in the Building Code are very straight forward and laid out in a way that most can find if they have a general understanding of how the Building Code is organized. But the problem is, the book is so big, that it takes time. A lot of time. And when things take more time than necessary, they can be considered inefficient. Which leaves room for improvement, which I love. The first layer of automation starts with items that can drastically reduce the amount of time Code users spend on repetitive tasks. I’ve personally performed over a thousand drawing set reviews for compliance between my time as an AHJ and Code Consultant, and while I don’t have the data outside of my brain yet, I’ve got bar and pie and gantt charts galore in my head of how we go about doing it.
This includes, but is definitely not limited to, reliable calculators of everything from spatial separation tables to occupant loads and washroom requirements, easy to follow Code analysis through auto-populated forms, critical design element check lists, guidance on subsequent required fire-resistant ratings and suggestions for approved materials that actually meet Code and the AHJ will approve, need to know sections of referenced standards that are applicable, and so on.
The best part may been when The Solution spits out a clear and concise Building Code report summarizing it all, tailored to the end user so that it’s actually useful beyond permit stage. Because what the ahj wants to see, is what the owner should be aware of if they want to protect their asset.
The Labyrinth | This is where, if you’re like me, things get fun. But if you’re like 99.314% of people who have to use the Building Code, this is where things get incredibly frustrating. Part 3 starts off with Section 3.1. General, which is literally everything that had no where else to go. The most logical place to start when finding out what requirements apply to a building would be the start, however the Building Code is not written logically. So more often than not, an answer seeker goes to Section 3.1. and gets incredibly overwhelmed (if you want the roadmap to part 3, let me be your guide).
The Building Code tends to jump around haphazardly, throws people for a loop with finicky and/or statements tucked within and/or statements, uses jargon like ‘except as provided/except as permitted/except as required’ that all mean very different things.
Yes, the organization and layout of Building Code is a problem. A riddle and a puzzle that will likely never be reorganized. But once a passionate Building Code nerd has a mental map of it and thoroughly understands the infinite pathways, The Labyrinth can be easily translated into computer speak. Think about this like turbo tax but for the Canadian Construction Codes.
The Grey | This part is where actual matters of interpretation exist. The Grey can’t be automated as it can vary from location to location, and often includes human judgement and specialized knowledge. There is no ultimate right or wrong in The Grey. But just because it can’t be automated, doesn’t mean it can’t be made exponentially easier to navigate with The Solution. I’ve worked on both the AHJ and design side of projects, and trust me, The Grey (in this context) is no fun for anyone to be. But it can be a lot easier to navigate if you know the expectations at project onset. Some municipal and provincial government websites have information on interpretations, but most don’t. And even when they do, this information can be near impossible to find. I could write a million reasons on why The Grey is a challenge (and my recommendation of the accompanying solution to each of these), but I can’t go ahead and give all my secrets away, now can I?
next up | indigenous world view
Next post we’ll talk about how critical incorporating Indigenous world views in with innovative building and development practices is to ensure we get to where we need to go.
We can rebrand traditional knowledge all we want into concepts like biomimicry and passive design, but let’s not fool ourselves into thinking they are new concepts. Our world is full of much genius that was sloughed off as we entered the industrial era, but it’s making a resurgence. And that genius, combined with efficiencies brought along with the industrial era, boosted by tools created in the digital age are exactly what is going to catapult us forward. It’s a balancing act though, and finding the right formula requires neutrality, which can be an incredibly challenging thing to do in today’s polarizing world.
Now while the term ‘traditional knowledge’ depends where in the world you are, and we will be leveraging world-wide innovation and knowledge sets in The Solution, I reside on Treaty Four land in Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada and will be focusing on how that applies to me on a personal level. Think global, act local.
And when I say we, I mean myself and the trusted partners I’m aligning myself with for The Solution. And now feels like the right time to tell you about Sundance Robson of Spirit Wealth Collective. Sundance wears many hats, one being Indigenous Relations. Sundance has been led to a focus on land as it applies to Truth and Reconciliation, with his most recent White Feather event being centered around Regina’s history, how it came about being known as Pile O’ Bones, and how the way land was developed and colonized has led to the current challenges we face as a society (news article on that here). Sidebar | I haven’t missed a White Feather event to date, and each time am blown away at Sundance’s ability to open minds and captivate hearts. His website notes that ‘White Feather was created for corporations and government to serve powerfully in the area of professional development’, and in my opinion is a needed experience in every workspace.
I’m very much looking forward to next week’s post and sharing some of Sundance’s thoughts on what he sees as possible when Truth and Reconciliation and The Solution collide.
want to stay up to date?
The best way to stay up to date with what we’re working on over here is by subscribing to our newsletter.
In this section of the previous post in this series I promised you I don’t spam my newsletter list. However the definition of spam is ‘irrelevant or inappropriate messages sent on the internet to a large number of recipients’, which I find incredibly subjective. So I guess I can’t actually promise I don’t spam as I don’t know your personal thresholds of ‘irrelevant or inappropriate’. So subscriber beware.
want to dive deeper?
Back in October 2023 I presented at the National Trust for Canada Conference. Part way down this post (starting at BARRIERS FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS AND THE UNEXEPCTED SOLUTIONS) is what I shared there. If you’re a visionary type as well and want to know the birds eye view of how this is all going to happen, you may want to give it a read. I scripted my fifteen minute timeslot as if I’m left to my own devices when talking about the high level plan, goddess knows where I’d end up.
A key element to getting to the reimagination of the construction industry I have is a mindset that is not typical in today’s world…one of abundance. To make this all happen it’s going to take collaboration, the roadmap outlined in Bold: How to go big, create wealth, and impact the world, and a few other wild card ideas I’ve currently got cooking.
If you are in the construction industry, can see or feel the reimagination, and also believe that as a collective we should screw business as usual, perhaps you’re a piece to this puzzle and this is your sign to reach out and say hi.
One Response
This is interesting, and I too have been pondering what AI might mean to codes practitioners, and other fields of expertise.
One caution that looms large in my brain is the “dumbing down” effect that automation inevitably has on the user. How many writers catch their own spelling mistakes any more? How many cashiers can count back change without electronic help? How many drivers have lost the knack of hooking up to a trailer without a rear-view camera? I fear that as we begin to rely ever more on AI to assist with our work, the less sharp and competent we will become. As machines do more of our thinking, will the quality of the thinking that is left to us, be diminished?
Not that I’m a complete Luddite – I use spreadsheets to assist with many of the mundane parts of plan reviews and myriad other tasks. However, it’s myself that designs and builds these spreadsheets, and to do so I have to completely understand the processes that I’m automating. AI, on the other hand, thinks for itself, or at least that is its goal: in effect, it will “design its own spreadsheets”. Will this level of automation eventually leave building officials with not much more to do at the plan review stage than filling in forms and ticking boxes? Or perhaps not even that – AI can certainly learn to read CAD drawings and tick its own boxes.
AI is coming at us fast, and Kelsey has a clear vision of how to put it to work effectively. AI is also, apparently, inevitable (as long as its jaw-dropping energy requirements can continue to be met, but that’s a different story).
I just wonder what it will mean for those whose pride in their work is derived from the knowledge and mental acuity required to do it well. Ask a watchmaker (if you can find one) how they feel about digital timepieces!
Thanks, as always, for the thought-provoking article Kelsey! Keep being human 🙂