The Struggle of Design Communication

Observing the Evolution of Symbology in a BIM World

In architectural design, where groundbreaking designs and technology meet, there’s a part of our work that often goes unspoken yet remains essential: the symbols, schedules, and tags in our plans. With BIM becoming central, many of us are noticing new questions surfacing about how we communicate through this “visual shorthand.” Why do symbols vary so widely, even within similar project types? How did these differences come about? And what does it mean for those relying on our plans, like contractors, estimators, and code officials?

The Language of Symbols in Architecture

Architectural drawing sets are filled with symbols and tags—elements we use to quickly communicate complex ideas. Contractors, estimators, and code officials use these symbols to navigate designs, and although each firm’s symbols represent similar ideas, their differences in line styles, thicknesses, or shapes make each plan set unique. It's very common that we even include symbol legends to clarify this visual language, showing how critical and, perhaps, how varied our communication methods have become. This shouldn't be read as differences in client requirements, but in some projects it would, but in how we communicate our ideas at a typical level within similar requirements.

How Symbology Developed Over Time

The symbols and tags we use today are not just random choices; they’re part of each firm’s history. Older, hand-drafted drawings allowed firms to create symbols tailored to their workflows and projects, influenced by regional practices or specific client needs. Over time, these preferences built up, and symbology adapted to each firm’s approach.

Industry-specific demands also left their mark on symbology. Clients in healthcare, aviation, and government often required unique symbols to meet particular standards. So, as firms adapted, we saw an evolution of tags and symbols tailored to different industry needs—a variety that adds both richness and complexity to our field.

Tags: More Than Just Labels

Tags, often small in size but vital in role, give us added information about materials, finishes, or ratings. While these tags may look different across firms or offices, their role is the same: to clarify, distinguish, and direct. Variations in tagging might add an extra step for those cross-referencing documents across multiple firms, but they also serve as a reminder of each firm’s unique way of communicating.

To help with this, symbol legends are often added to plan sets, giving readers a reference point. These legends are more than a list—they’re a practical response to the diverse approaches in symbology that have developed over time. It’s one of the ways we have accommodated variation while aiming for clarity.

BIM and the new Spotlight on Standards

The move to 'BIM" has transformed collaboration and information-sharing across teams, shedding light on the differences in how we communicate design intent. But does BIM make standardization in our plans any more necessary than it’s always been? Perhaps not for those items we are documenting the same way and for the same reasons as 50 years ago. But it does raise the question again: As we recreate our libraries, change our processes, and decide on how to commicate our intellectual capital, do we need all these distinct methods for communicating the same ideas?

For this article I am not suggesting answers, but mentioning a trend that I believe most of us have seen or have known about for a long time. As we build new BIM content, many of us are revisiting questions we’ve always had: Should we change our standards to reflect a more holistic standard, or is there value in preserving the variety and our history? In the firms I've worked for it's been a bit of both. It has been about:

Finding Common Ground

Discussing symbology isn’t about altering how we work but recognizing a shared experience in our field. Each firm’s symbols and tags carry a unique character, representing not just elements but years of refinement and adaptation. This diversity shows the influence of different industries, regions, and firm histories on our plans and expectations from our clients. But we can't forget the value of developing our work as a unified firm or unified project team and why communicating our designs in more standardized ways has value.

As we continue developing content for documentation and navigating these variations, it’s worth pausing to consider how symbology reflects our collective approach to design communication, internally and externally. Because a tag that is text, or a rectangle, or a pill shape, or a hotdog shape... well, all may have advantages, but now is the time to decide if one might be adventageous internally and externally over another while reducing the amount of content that needs to be created to communicate the same idea.

A Shared Reflection

If you’ve noticed on projects and in firms the differences in symbols, tags, schedules, and more you’re not alone. It’s a conversation we’re all part of, reflecting on a collective experience that spans firms, regions, and even project types. It’s time to take a closer look (while also acknowledging the fact that your own firm may follow a strict standard that is generally accepted industry wide) at the way we use this content. Not to change them for the sake of change, but instead to appreciate the depth they add to our shared profession and determine if the variety of symbols we use is the best option TODAY and represents our firm and industry the way we wish it to. We should always be looking for areas we could improve to fascilitate the design communication and construction process and ideally standardize how we share information outwardly where it makes sense to do so. In a world filled with Information, improved, standardized, and streamlined design communication can not be forgotten.