Beyond Ductwork: Why Mechanical Thinking Is Holding Back Smart Buildings

That’s the equivalent of letting the person who installs your car’s exhaust system decide which sound system or navigation package you get. In construction we’ve normalized this backward approach and built our entire industry around it, letting the mechanical mindset, which is essential for comfort and efficiency, take charge of technology decisions that have far greater long-term impact.

The problem with mechanical thinking

Let’s be clear: mechanical contractors are experts at what they do. They’re trained to think about airflows, pipe sizes, scheduling, fabrication and coordination. But building automation and digital infrastructure are completely different animals.

Smart technology isn’t just another trade to coordinate; it’s the central nervous system of the building. It can be the source of information on space utilization, monitor key performance indicators and an incredible asset to the occupant of the building.  When technology decisions are made as an afterthought, based on install cost instead of long-term performance, the result is predictable: inefficiency, poor integration and premature replacement.

We see huge building projects all the time that, only a couple years after opening, are already replacing their building automation system. How does that happen in a brand-new state-of-the-art facility? Because the low-bid, mechanically driven decision didn’t account for the pace of technology. Controls have become a commodity, but programming is the real value. The system might turn on, but it can’t adapt, integrate or learn. It’s “smart” in name only. What looked like savings on day one becomes waste by year three. The system wasn’t designed to evolve, connect or adapt. It couldn’t keep up with modern analytics, cybersecurity requirements or software integrations. In short, it was obsolete almost the moment it was installed. That’s not just a missed opportunity, it’s a costly mistake that locks owners into years of inefficiency and expensive upgrades.

Fragmented systems and missed opportunities

In most projects, systems are divided between trades: mechanical contractors handle building automation while electrical contractors handle fire alarm and security.

Imagine three mechanics, each trying to install a different part of your car’s electrical system. One handles the ignition, one handles the radio, one handles the lights and none of them talk to each other or operate together well. You’d end up with something that technically works, if you interact with each system in its’ own way and one at a time.  That’s what happens in buildings every day.

Instead, building technology should be managed holistically by a dedicated technology partner or contractor who looks at how all systems connect and communicate. Integration shouldn’t be a bonus; it should be the baseline. And that partnership shouldn’t end at turnover. True smart buildings need long-term service: constant tuning, updates and optimization to keep performance high as technology, energy costs and occupant needs evolve. This isn’t a one time install; it’s an ongoing relationship that protects the investment.

A smarter approach

Technology moves fast, in fact far faster than the traditional construction process. Expecting a mechanical contractor to stay on top of every new automation protocol, network standard or cybersecurity update just isn’t realistic. Even most MEP engineers aren’t fully fluent in smart building design yet. They’re experts in load calculations, airflow and sizing but not necessarily in how data moves through a building or how to ensure that is secure.

That’s not a knock; it’s just a gap the industry must close. The solution is to bring in technologists early, at the same level as mechanical and electrical contractors. Just as mechanical input affects structure and space planning, technology input should shape how the building’s digital backbone is designed and ensure the systems will meet the owners project requirements.

Because right now, we design backwards. We design around equipment instead of operation. Engineers size systems before defining how they should perform. We ignore smart solutions that could transform efficiency because the sequence was an afterthought. Instead of designing for how the building should think, we design around the hardware and live with the limitations. That’s why the juice never feels worth the squeeze.

When technology is elevated to a first-tier conversation, owners get systems that work together from day one rather than stitched together later. They get flexibility to adapt as technology evolves. And most importantly they get buildings that actually deliver on the “smart” promise.

Planning for the long game

Once you commit to a building automation system, it shapes how your building performs every single day. So shouldn’t the person choosing it understand your long-term goals, not just your install schedule?

The real cost of mechanical thinking isn’t in construction, it’s in the 20 years of inefficiency that follow. Every reactive service call, every weekend spent chasing down performance issues (and the incurred costs that come with it). Every system that needs to be replaced early chips away at profit and comfort. These are inevitable losses that happen because we didn’t future-proof the building from the start.

Rethinking who makes the decisions

Smart buildings deserve smart thinking. That starts with changing who’s at the table when technology decisions are made.

Owners and general contractors need to bring in technology professionals early who understand how technology and smart solutions work together. They should ask questions about future compatibility, user interface and lifecycle cost, not just first cost.

Breaking the old-school paradigm starts with honesty. Architects and MEP engineers can’t keep relying on the same design habits and expect different results. Division 25 has been around for years, but it never gains traction because people see the price tag, panic and go back to traditional methods. We need to stop pretending smart systems are a luxury. They should drive the process from day one.

The bottom line

Mechanical systems will always be the heart and lungs of a building. But the brain (the system that makes it intelligent, adaptive and efficient) can’t be treated as an afterthought.

This isn’t about gadgets or hype. It’s about future-proofing buildings for an unpredictable world. Rising electrical costs, tighter budgets and fewer skilled trades are already reshaping how we operate. Smart systems solve those problems. They save energy, reduce service time and make the building work harder for the owner. The question isn’t whether smart buildings are worth it. The question is whether we can afford not to build them.

If we want to build truly smart buildings, we need to go beyond ductwork. We need to move past mechanical thinking and treat technology as the strategic long-term investment it is.