Frustration of MEP Design Team with Architectural Changes

Posted by Kuldeep Bwail on November 19th, 2020

When a group of people are involved in the completion of a task, there’s got to be at least 2 people who are going to be at some level of conflict. It’s inevitable. We see it in families, in companies and in government. In the construction industry, we tend to see it between architects and MEP engineers. Architects are concerned with design and aesthetics and an idea of how things should be, where their engineer partners tread a very practical path of how to make those ideas take shape. Differences occur, communication may not be clear or possibly even nonexistent and errors may result. Sometimes, it can be as simple as a beautiful building without proper plumbing or electrical connections or other MEP services.

Traditionally, collaboration between architecture and engineering has been a rocky road, and even now, though the process has improved significantly, lapses may occur. Engineers take detailed measurements, make calculations and determine solutions. Architects develop initial designs and then make changes, sometimes several and sometimes complex. For engineers, the frustration arises due to several minute modifications they are required to execute because of these architectural changes. These changes must be attended to in an almost domino-like fashion, with one architectural change leading to a series of MEP systems changes. When the collaboration involves an integrated design approach, such as 3D BIM coordination, the frustration levels may possibly decrease.

Looking at an example, the orientation of a building is a design consideration that an architect may determine for reasons of aesthetics. When an MEP engineer looks at the same building, the most favourable orientation may depend on energy consumption or green building directives and could be based on topography and resources. An integrated design approach, bolstered by the services of effective BIM service providers, could facilitate dialogue, collaboration and eventual execution that results in a harmonised and holistic alternative. Beautiful design is meaningless without flawless engineering, and that means architects and MEP engineers must work in tandem to produce a cohesive design, rather than create separate components that may or may not come together seamlessly.

So, how can the changes architects make be less annoying for MEP engineers?

Typically, the sizes of doors, windows, rooms, number of bathrooms, etc. are decided by architects, and the placement of light switches, vents and piping is determined by MEP engineers. Architects concern themselves with the attractiveness of a building and engineers work on the functionality and safety of the building. Engineers determine what materials should be used, how much of it should be used and how to ensure both the safety of the structure and those that inhabit them.

First, then, it is the architect that develops a building plan according to customer requirements, likes and dislikes. The engineers use this plan to decide how to bring it into existence with the correct MEP systems in place, such as elevators, lighting, heating, ventilation, air-conditioning, plumbing, fire and more. A team of engineers designs, models and produces design drawings that involve both major and minor details, from efficient window coverings to sound-proof walls to fountains to security alarms.
To design a building:

• The architect plans ideas by making a scaled drawing.
• Engineers then analyse the design and select materials for building safety.
• Engineers must decide whether the design is feasible.
• Engineers must have up-to-date knowledge of new materials and their properties.
• Engineers determine design flaws and research new engineering technology.

An important function of the systems engineer is to measure design progress and maturity. They do this by assessing development at important event-driven points of the development schedule, and the design is compared to earlier given criteria to check if the right level of maturity has been achieved. The events are generally called technical reviews and audits. Developing systems progress through stages from concept to final product, which are called ‘levels of development’ or LODs. Technical reviews or audits follow each LOD to review technical risk, check design maturity and decide when to proceed to the next level. Thus, the functions of these audits or technical reviews include the following:

• Assess design maturity
• Clarify original requirements
• Question the design and its processes
• Check the proposed design with technical requirements, customer needs
• Assess system design at each stage
• Communicate, coordinate and integrate all systems and enable the integration of all disciplines
• Configure a baseline to proceed to the next LOD
• Log decisions in a database

These reviews follow several technical meetings involving the discussion and resolution of numerous issues and concerns. Data required for reviews include design specifications, drawings, schedules, design data, risk analysis, mock-ups, breadboards, hardware, test methods, technical plans and trend (metrics) data. Ideally, regulatory authorities, contractors, subcontractors, vendors and suppliers must take part in the review to confirm the process. Tasks that result from the review are recorded, tracked and include due dates. When architectural changes occur, these processes of review and auditing must be repeated, leading to frustration for MEP engineers.

Though engineers may have credible reasons for feelings of frustration, sometimes the engineers do not ask architects or interior designers relevant questions for clarification. To solve this challenge, engineers can develop and customise standard lists of questions before they begin.

Tips for Smooth Communication between Architects/Interior Designers/Engineers

• Architects/interior designers, right from early stages, must proceed with design while considering space for engineering services.
• Architects/interior designers must provide engineers with a detailed brief. Engineers must be told the number of power points required in a room and how many people may use the space.
• Architects must consult their clients regarding any lighting or AV input and then effectively communicate these inputs to the engineers.
• Architects/interior designers should know which design areas have technical restrictions.
• Continuous, regular team meetings should be mandatory to save time and effort spent on rework.
• The interior design team needs to check the Engineering documentation should be checked by architects/interior designers to minimise potential errors.
• Engineers must provide architects/interior designers with realistic dates of completion of tasks, and architects/interior designers must provide engineers with essential and detailed data of interior finishings.

Ultimately, it may not be possible to completely eliminate all the frustrations of the MEP design team during the course of a project, but a certain amount of relief may arrive with the use of BIM technology. As CAD design services, architectural drawing services and Revit drafting services require experience and technical expertise that may be difficult to find and afford, a growing tendency to utilise BIM outsourcing services is catching on in Western firms. Communication and coordination can be improved between architects and engineers by using BIM coordination services, alleviating some of the frustration felt by MEP engineers and resulting in an overall seamless construction design process.

XS CAD has valuable experience providing CAD design services, architectural drawing services, MEP BIM services, BIM coordination services, and M&E design engineering support for global firms. Our range of services for MEP consultants include MEP drafting, Revit drafting services, MEP BIM modelling and MEP coordination.