How do Simulations Know? by Yanni Loukissas
"The techie-enabled architect understands every bolt in the building and can see and coordinate the work of every person involved. Dietrich looks forward to the day when he will be able to say, 'I understand what this shape is and how it's built and how pieces go together and I can validate and I can stand up and say this thing will work'" (Loukissas 65).While the promises of the simulation as an architectural tool are broad and significant, simulations encounter several layers of resistance in in the field.
Foremost, simulations are questioned for their validity, especially when their results contradict age-old approximate knowledge. Older generations are wary of the inexperienced technician wielding simulation without real-world knowledge to ground the use of the tool. They may point to decreasing field experience of professionals and increasing specialization, but I wonder if these are not symptomatic of larger economic issues, and not a direct argument against the use of simulation. Simulations may also be difficult to comprehend when their results are multiple and at times contradictory. Further, when implementing the process of simulation, it can be difficult to work with contractors in a creative way, asking for their constraints of manufacturing rather than telling them to make a drawing work.
Despite these difficulties, it seems to me that the vast majority of reluctant simulation adopters are simply stuck in old notions of rule-of-thumb knowledge and the authority of the generalist. The singular professional generalist is a model almost completely irrelevant in architecture and engineering, where decisions are now made by multiple collaborating specialists. Within this newer framework of operations, rules of thumb are no longer necessary, and simulations may be wielded with confidence, as they are held in check by corresponding specialists with corollary knowledge.