Use of Gaming Technology to Build 20K SF in 4 Days Part I

Early in our 2016 conversation, Chris from DIRTT described a design process that began with the client. Chris said, “it really starts with the client.”

The rest of the conversation showed what that principle required in practice. The client needed to see the proposed space, respond to it, and understand the price effect of a change before the project had committed to a direction.

Let the owner learn while the options can move

Chris from DIRTT described the client, architect, interior designer, and product team working through a model together. The design changed during the session, and the software produced updated views and pricing from those choices.

In his 2016 comparison, Chris said the live work replaced a design exchange that could take four to six weeks. That timing was his example, not a promise for every project. The shorter loop mattered because the owner could respond while the design was still moving.

The important result was not a faster drawing by itself. It was an earlier conversation about the effect of the drawing.

Price is more useful before it becomes a constraint

Chris from DIRTT said clients often learned the cost impact after a project was already deep into the build. By then, they had to make difficult choices that were not necessarily what they wanted.

That sequence turns price into late news. When design and pricing are reviewed together, price can instead help the team decide while alternatives remain available.

A project team can test its own sequence with one recurring owner decision. Identify when the owner first sees the design, when the price effect becomes visible, and whether the choice can still change at that point. The answer shows whether the review is supporting a decision or reporting a commitment.

A long delivery period can age an early assumption

In 2016, Chris from DIRTT used schools and hospitals to explain how a long delivery period could age an early assumption. He described projects that could open long after the first design decisions were made. During that interval, devices, user expectations, and clinical practices could change.

Chris did not suggest that every early decision would become outdated. His point was to decide which choices truly needed to be fixed and which ones should remain adjustable longer.

A walkthrough cannot choose the priority

The 2016 software could produce plan views, three-dimensional walkthroughs, and immediate pricing from the design intent. That made the proposed space easier to inspect before occupancy.

Visualization did not remove the owner's judgment. A walkthrough could show a room and a price change. It could not decide which tradeoff mattered most, whether the priorities were aligned, or whether the team had considered the right future use.

Keep the decision open long enough to understand it

The owner should not have to wait until delivery to learn what a major choice means. The better review point is the moment when the team can see the space, see the price effect, and still choose a different direction.

That is the practical value of putting design and pricing in the same conversation. It gives the owner a chance to understand the decision before the decision becomes a constraint.