The History of our Implementation Process
What is implementation?
Implementation is the execution of an idea, the realization of a specification, algorithm, or vision into a tangible result—whether that be a software system, a workflow, or a process. In the world of design and engineering, it’s more than just installing a program; it’s about adopting new tools, transforming habits, and evolving how we work together to deliver great outcomes.
For Gresham Smith, the journey of implementation has run parallel with the evolution of technology in the AEC industry. Our transition from drafting on mylar sheets to collaborative modeling environments like BIM isn’t just a story about software, it’s a story about people.
The Early Days: Life Before Computers
It was the year 2 B.C.—not before Christ, but “Before Computers” at Gresham Smith—and I had just started as an intern, still in school but hungry to learn. Back then, our design process was tactile and analog. Teams were structured around an architect leading coordinators, detailers, and a few interns like myself, each playing an essential role in shaping the built environment through hand-drafted plans.
We worked with ink on mylar sheets, and a unique system of drafting called Unigrafs, developed by Edgar Powers Jr. Unigrafs wasn’t just a technique, it was a philosophy of precision. It involved photographic processes, printing negatives, and producing finished drawings using plates and printing presses. It was complex, but highly organized, and it left a lasting mark on how we approached documentation.
1983: Enter CAD
In 1983, Gresham Smith began our first major implementation effort: moving from manual drafting to Computer-Aided Design (CAD). Our established Unigrafs standards smoothed the transition, providing a structured method to organize layers, elements, and lineweights in the digital environment.
At the time, Gresham Smith had five offices, each one relatively autonomous, managing its own teams, projects, and software platforms. While this structure allowed for flexibility, it became a challenge as the firm grew and project demands shifted. A downturn in the economy around 2008 highlighted the issue most: some offices were overloaded with billable work, while others had staff charging overhead.
A Call for Consistency
In response, leadership made a pivotal decision—to promote workforce and project sharing across offices. But teams were using different versions of CAD: multiple variations of MicroStation and AutoCAD, plus a smaller contingent on HOK Draw. This software fragmentation made collaboration difficult. Something had to change.
Given that much of our Department of Transportation work relied on MicroStation, and it already represented about 70% of the firm’s CAD platform usage, Gresham Smith standardized on MicroStation. The rollout wasn't easy, training had to be provided at scale, and staff were asked to switch up familiar workflows. But it was a necessary step toward better integration across the firm.
The Rise of BIM: A New Era
While we were refining our CAD standards, the industry wasn’t standing still. A new paradigm was emerging known as Building Information Modeling (BIM). Unlike CAD, which focused on 2D and 3D representation, BIM introduced data-rich models that supported lifecycle management, interdisciplinary collaboration, and a more holistic approach to design documentation.
Rather than dictate a solution from above, this time leadership took a different tack: they empowered the practice. Two leading platforms were placed on the table—Bentley Architecture and Autodesk Revit—and our teams were invited to explore and evaluate both.
Participatory Evaluation: Giving the Practice a Voice
Two teams were formed and assigned similar project tasks using each platform, then asked to evaluate based on a scorecard of key criteria:
- Availability of training materials
- Quality and reusability of component parts
- Technical support and vendor engagement
- User-friendliness
- Third-party development support
- Analytics capabilities
- Ease of configuration
- Documentation efficiency
The project teams didn’t just test the software—they lived with it, developed real work through it, and came together afterward to share their experiences. This open, participatory model of evaluation created a sense of ownership across the firm. Instead of being passive recipients of a top-down change, staff became active contributors to choosing the direction of our digital future.
Implementation by Engagement
Once Autodesk Revit was selected, we modeled our rollout on some of the strategies that had worked well in the CAD transition—but also introduced new methods tailored to our evolving needs.
- We created standardized “starter kits” of components and details to speed up modeling.
- We launched “just-in-time” training, scheduled the week before a team began using BIM in a live project.
- Our Practice Technology staff remained embedded and hands-on, supporting teams in the real-world problems of model complexity, remote workflows, and software quirks.
There were challenges—models grew large, networking between locations got complicated, and the learning curve was steep. But there was one game-changing difference: attitude. Our teams were no longer reluctant adopters, they were advocates. They had helped choose the platform, and were invested in making it work.
Something else clicked too. When surveyed about their biggest struggles, staff didn't complain about the software. Instead, they asked for more structure and standards. They wanted to streamline how we modeled, documented, and collaborated, not because they had to—but because they believed in the value of working more effectively together.
Culture Shift: Knowledge, Not Just Technology
In the very beginning, project delivery was a craft, a knowledge tradition passed down from architect to coordinator to detailer to draftsperson. That spirit hasn’t changed. What has changed are the tools and expectations.
Today, we're still learning and teaching the design craft, but we do so with a broader toolkit:
- Programming and automation
- Data and analytics
- Shared workflows and centralized libraries
- Knowledge management and best practice exchange
By involving people early, listening to their feedback, and giving them the support they need, we made two major implementations succeed—not just technically, but culturally. Staff approached the changes with enthusiasm because they were part of the solution. They researched, supported each other, and built a genuinely collaborative environment.
Conclusion: Implementation as a Team Sport
The partners, practice leaders, and staff at Gresham Smith didn’t just adopt new platforms—we evolved how we work together. That has made all the difference.
We’ve proven that thoughtful implementation isn’t a matter of plugging in software, it’s about people, process, and partnership. The wisdom to engage teams, listen actively, and design change from the inside out has transformed the way we operate.
And that’s what makes Gresham Smith not just a great place to work—but a resilient, innovative, and connected firm ready for whatever the next wave of change may bring.
