Who will eventually provide the common language for everyone?

Digitization is one thing, but aren’t we mainly digitizing our confusion? That’s the question Pim van Meer asks in this Digital Maze. “I always get a little nervous when the first answer to an organizational question is a new software package.”

I recently spoke with Bas de Haan, our Deputy Director of Timber Construction, about the industrialization of circular building products. That sounds like a conversation about wood, factories, and parametric design. But after an hour, we actually ended up discussing a completely different question.

Not: How can we design faster?
But: How do we ensure that everyone means the same thing?

Because if you want to industrialize in a circular way, you’ll have to make some choices.
Will you build your own platform?
Will you work exclusively with a fixed group of architects who know your products and processes inside and out?
Will you develop yet another software package that ties all the steps together?
Or will you first invest in a single, uniform language that allows manufacturers, architects, structural engineers, and clients to understand one another?

My first reaction is honest. I always get a little nervous when the first answer to an organizational question is a new software package. Software is fantastic, after all. Until you realize that you’re mainly busy getting everyone to use the same program, while no one understands the same thing by “wall,” “connection,” or “circular performance.” Then we’re essentially digitizing our confusion over terminology.

Bas outlined a great vision: designing the way you configure a car—not starting from scratch every time, but building on proven products, design rules, and clear parameters. Plenty of freedom, but not the freedom to reinvent the wheel every time.

That really appeals to me. But during our conversation, one thought kept coming back to me.

The biggest challenge is probably not configuring products. The biggest challenge is configuring collaboration.

After all, suppose an architect uses a different design package.
A structural engineer works with different software.
A manufacturer adds a new product.
And a client has additional sustainability goals.

Will the system still work then? Or does it only work as long as everyone uses exactly the same platform?

I think that’s where the real difference lies between digitization and industrialization.
A platform can be fantastic.
A dedicated team of architects can work incredibly efficiently.
A smart AI system can answer hundreds of design questions.
But none of those solutions prevents stakeholders from continuing to talk past each other. In fact, sometimes we’re just making the chaos more expensive.

That’s why I’m becoming less and less convinced that the solution starts with software. The solution starts with a uniform language—a language in which it’s clear in advance what information is needed and when.

What performance criteria must be demonstrated?
Within what ranges can designs be created?
When is a deviation acceptable?
And above all: who will prove it and who will assess it.

Only then will software become interesting. Because software is excellent at processing agreements. Software is terrible at replacing them.

Perhaps that is the biggest mistake we’re still making in the construction industry. We try to link systems together first, when we should actually be agreeing on what we really mean.

I don’t just see this with circular products.
I see it with BIM.
With AI.
In sustainability.
With permits.
And soon, it’ll be the same at the factory, too.

Everyone is going digital. But everyone still speaks a slightly different dialect.

And that creates a remarkable situation.
Vendors are building their own platforms.
Software vendors are building their own platforms.
Clients are building their own platforms.
Consultants are building their own platforms.

After five years, we’re proud to note that no one has to retype data anymore. However, no one still understands each other’s information.

That’s not industrialization.
That’s a collection of digital islands, connected by very expensive bridges.

My conversation with Bas therefore made me optimistic.
Not because we already have all the answers.
But because we finally seem to be asking the right question.
Not: “Which platform are we going to build?”
But: What unified language will ensure that every platform can work together in the future?

I think that’s the real innovation.
Not just another system.
But an industry that finally decides to speak the same language.

Filing moment

Perhaps this is the most uncomfortable conclusion of all.
Everyone says they’re in favor of collaboration—until collaboration means letting go of your own definitions, your own way of working, or even a small part of your competitive advantage.
Perhaps that’s why the biggest obstacle to industrialization isn’t technical.
Perhaps it’s us.