Several problems with the article.
The "poor guys in the field". Who are they? Why have they "gotten worse and worse"? Have they? (They have a far greater financial interest in improve efficiency than it is for the more "professional" end of the construction industry - at least in UK)
These "guys in the field"... something tells me it'll be a while before a main contractor starts giving all his workers ipads.
What's the cost per tablet? how many would be needed? How much training in the use of various software would be required? (for people who may not be particularly prone to... using elaborate software). A typical construction worker might work for a main contractor (via various subcontractors) for a total of 6 months. I'm sure they'd be happy to leave with an extra bonus of a tablet after that. How well does a tablet perform when its screen is caked in concrete?
Then there's the issue of the software. Some of this "amazing software" - (i'm going to pick on Revit as that's what I'm most experienced in) requires a supercomputer to run. If that's how the information is organised, then where is it going to be filtered down to the needs of the contractor in question, (who is "asking the question of the architect")
(According to the article, Revit architecture = amazing software. This I wholeheartedly dispute. For many reasons, but that's another story)
At this point I should point out that the "much better communication" bit is quite inaccurate where it details the process of an RFI. For a start - paper is a cheap way for all workers to have the information at hand - ie with them there and then - not in the "trailer".
Once these over-estimates of the time currently spent are taken out, the two are broadly similar. Replace "looks at problem and makes notes on plans" with "looks at problem, cleans his hands, tries to navigate clunky over elaborate BIM model on underpowered tablet, finally finds relevant part of large and complex building, annotates it, uploads to central server via wi-fi.
The bit about tablets being already massively adopted in construction industry has a link to someone using their ipad essentially for accounting purposes. Sure. People already do this all the time, with smartphones. Nothing to see here.
There's a throwaway comment about green buildings in there as well. To which I say the following:
The typical design lifespan of a building nowadays is 40-60 years. What about when they're demolished quicker than this though, perhaps because they're shit? How green is it to cut costs everywhere to result in a nasty piece of urban fabric which is subsequently destroyed, to be replace, even if it's covered in eco tech? What's the lifespan of a really well considered building which grows and flourishes with the love of those who experience it?
Also, new “BIM” software is often marketed as being able to enable “greener” building design. My current experience suggests it will be 5 years or so before its even slightly adequate at this. The calculation procedures offered are terrible, constrained and offer nowhere near the flexibility or creativity of a good old spreadsheet. Yet they slow down the spatial modelling process and provide inertia to change, iteration and flexibility. There's a lot to be said for centralising information storage (whilst contextualising it with a 3D model), yet at present this is beyond the practical means of most hardware (I personally doubt this, and attribute it to sloppy/inefficient software design. But this isn't my field – I imagine everyone else @ HN knows a lot more on this)
It may seem that I'm an anti tech luddite from this post, but nothing could be further from the truth. I'm reasonably young (late 20s) and generally embrace technological progress.
Also, it can't be denied that the construction industry is very staid and has much inertia against change.
However, I think that there is a lot of external pressure on the industry to adopt new technologies imposed from outside, as they are "the future" etc. In many cases, the technology is not appropriate to the situation at hand.
Building design is then adapted to the needs of the software, rather than the other way round. This results in a lot of terrible buildings (which are, it goes without saying, produced cheaply and efficiently). This is a massive shame, as buildings are part of the shared cultural capital of our civilisation and are unavoidable. Just because you don't work/live in a building, it doesn't mean you don't have to experience it.
Anyway, that's probably enough for now. I can probably elaborate on all sorts if people are interested.