Solnosky, R; Parfitt, M K and Holland, R (2015) Delivery methods for a multi-disciplinary architectural engineering capstone design course. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 11(4), pp. 305-324. ISSN 1745-2007
Abstract
Changes in industry practices, as well as advancements in technologies have moved Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) to the forefront in our industry. Practitioners and educators alike see BIM-based technologies changing the fundamental way we design, construct and deliver buildings to the client. It is unreasonable to expect that we can completely duplicate industry practice in an educational setting. However, we can focus on developing specialized knowledge and skill sets in students by implementing a focused practice-based environment around these topics. In this case, the learning environment selected was a senior engineering capstone (senior/comprehensive) design course. This paper describes a comparison of offerings of such a course over four years by conducting a multidisciplinary team collaborative capstone design course using IPD/BIM in architectural engineering at Penn State. The pilot program developed, which includes extensive industry involvement, is centered on teams of engineering students comprised of the structural, mechanical, lighting/electrical and construction engineering disciplines. Also included in the discussion are lessons learned and course management techniques developed that the authors feel are of value to other academic programs involved in incorporating IPD/BIM into some aspect of their curriculums.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | architectural engineering; building information modeling; capstone course; engineering education; multidisciplinary teams; problem-based learning |
| Index terms: | lessons learned, practitioner, architectural engineering, construction engineering, problem-based learning, program, engineering education, delivery method, integrated project delivery, multidisciplinary team, building information modelling |
| Subjects: | engineering methods, software systems, design practice, professional development, teaching methods, sociology, professional education, delivery method, information systems, practitioner, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Digital Applications, Education, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Information Management, Procurement, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here