The central argument
Using the wrong tool for the job — especially over-engineering with BIM on simple projects — is the default posture of a broken industry. The same logic applies to startups trying to compete directly with Revit, and to architects clinging to old contracts.
There’s no amount of incredibly well-made automation software that will change the owner-architect relationship without fixing the contracts.
— Clifton Harness
BIM adoption reality check
~50%
of US firms use BIM in some capacity
~10%
of all projects are truly BIM soup to nuts
80%
of US firms have fewer than 10 people
Simple buildings — housing, warehouses
Mixed complexity
Hospitals, $1B+ projects
If you know your floor-to-floor heights are gonna be 11 feet the entire time, how much BIM do you need? If you have very few services — how much BIM do you really need?
— Clifton Harness
Bazooka vs. banana — right tool for the job
Overkill
Full BIM on a 500k sf warehouse
BIM manager + standards committee
Competing directly with Revit
Building a parametric engine from scratch
One tool mandated for all projects
BIM manager + standards committee
Competing directly with Revit
Building a parametric engine from scratch
One tool mandated for all projects
vs
Right tool
CAD on simple commodity housing
Subcontractors who own their domain
Attack what comes after Revit
Own one specific problem for 5 years
Best tool matched to each phase
Subcontractors who own their domain
Attack what comes after Revit
Own one specific problem for 5 years
Best tool matched to each phase
TestFit’s strategic path
High-density multifamily
Started here · parking garages · urban infill · new urbanist mission
Garden apartments & townhomes
Followed customers as interest rates rose · beating heart of commodity housing
Warehouses & data centers
Large box in a field · partnership with Prologis · very different DNA than urban
Urban Planner (manual)
20% of business · competing with SketchUp & Forma · thoughtful manual tools still in high demand
There are now copycats trying to create TestFit because we’ve owned housing so effectively for so long. There’s 7,000 markets you could go attack in AEC.
— Clifton Harness
5 takeaways
1
The existing system is outdated and inflexible
No amount of automation changes the owner-architect relationship. The contracts govern everything — and they haven’t changed.
2
Staying in the box means diminishing value
Architects have become commodities, disconnected from outcomes that matter. Challenging norms is how you reestablish relevance.
3
Culture must change to attract talent
Work harder not smarter won’t attract Gen Z or the AI generation. Architecture isn’t scalable in its current culture.
4
Tools and processes are misaligned with reality
Forcing BIM on every project is the bazooka. Match tools to actual project needs, not industry-mandated defaults.
5
Developers lead by innovating — architects wait
Developers invest in the future because they have skin in the game. Architects are still waiting for commissions. Proactive vs. reactive.
The future: intent-based design
Clifton’s vision for what comes after BIM — a drawing environment that learns from what you do, captures design intent across hundreds of models, and applies it forward. Not tectonic modeling. Stereotonic BIM — where the decisions you’ve already made teach the next project.
Don’t try to compete with Revit. Try to moonshot for the thing that happens after it.
— Clifton Harness