Practical tips on making BIM work.

practical BIM29 January 2016

How to define BIM UseFor those that don't know, a BIM Use is a task, outcome or deliverable that a BIM model isused for. For example when a BIM model is used for structural analysis, or to create a doorschedule, or provide data for an FM system.

When talking about BIM Use we mean "Building Information Models" (actual digital models),not as in "Building Information Modelling" (BIM processes). Because of this some call itModel Use, but I shall stick to BIM Use, as there is a world beyond BIM with other types ofmodels.

BIM Use is at the core of BIM. The basic concept of BIM is that data created is captured in aform and format that can be directly used as a resource for other purposes. So doors are created in such a way that a door schedule can be produced directly fromthose doors. That modelled structural elements behave in a way that allows for structuralanalysis.

Yet there seems to be massive confusion around BIM Use. What should be simple is madeincredibly complicated by BIM standards, BIM contract clauses and BIM theorists.

I've written before about BIM Use and how it is being applied to LOD, in my posts LOD, arewe there yet? and What is the use of BIM Use. But those posts don't offer a solution.

Unfortunately when confronted with something unintelligible and unworkable we tend toavoid the whole thing. But BIM Use can not be ignored. If we are going to really do BIM wehave to have a workable way of managing BIM Use.

Let us start with the basics. Why have a BIM Use?

A particular BIM Use must have a useful real world outcome. It should only be listed as aBIM Use for a project if there is a specific reason to do it; a specific party who will do it; aspecific party who will receive the results; a specific outcome that aids the design, building oroperation of the project facility.

This sounds so obvious yet is missing from most definitions of BIM Use. Discussion alwaysseems to be around what is possible, rather than what is required, let alone practical.

BIM Use is invariable talked about as the uses of external parties. Typically uses by the BIM

The purpose of a BIM Use

Who employs BIM Uses

Subscribe via RSS

Subscribe via email:

2016 (1) January (1)

How to define BIM Use

2015 (8)

2014 (6)

2013 (16)

2012 (18)

Blog Archive

Antony McPhee

Registered architect since 1986, Ihave been a project architect onprojects ranging from largecommercial and cultural developmentsto house extensions. Developing CADsystems since 1988, involved in BIMsince 2001. Now running a smallarchitectural practice and consulting toarchitectural practices on IT, BIM andpractice management. My particularskill is bridging IT based processeswith practice deliverables.View my complete profile

About Me

11 mais Próximo blog» Criar um blog Login

model author are ignored.Apparently if a structural engineer uses the architect's BIM model for structural analysis thatis a BIM Use, if they use their own it is not.I suspect this is because no crossorganisation agreement (or demand) is required it is notconsidered part of "BIM Process".

The problem is these inhouse BIM processes are then not considered when agreeing onother BIM Uses. This can create problems when externally required BIM Uses compromise,or completely prevent, an author's own BIM Uses.

To capture who is doing what it is useful to define BIM Uses against who they are between:

1. Within a discipline e.g. schedules from model

2. Between disciplines within a team (e.g. architect, engineer, QS etc.) e.g. energy analysis

3. Between teams (e.g. design, construction, operation, etc) e.g. asset management

4. Across disciplines e.g. estimates

5. Across teams e.g. clash detection

Doing this not only ensures all BIM Uses are considered but also reveals what contractualrequirements might be or not be needed for the project.

For a particular BIM Use to be achievable the BIM model must have certain requirements.Currently these requirements are described via LOD descriptions. Typically an LOD hascertain BIM Uses associated with it. This is the AIA [US] approach. From their E203 guide:

"The E202's Model Element Table provides a vehicle for defining AuthorizedUses, Model element by Model element and milestone by milestone."

But in practice how do you define "Authorized Uses, Model element by Model element andmilestone by milestone."?Considering there are literally hundreds of different possible "Authorized Uses" are we reallyexpected to list them not only against each Model Element, but against each Model Elementat each Milestone?

The most practical LOD guide created thus far, BIM Forum's LOD specification, has tried todeal with this stipulation by kind of whitewashing it. From their 2015 edition:

"Because BIM is being put to an ever increasing number of uses, the groupdecided that it was beyond the initial scope to address all of them. Instead, thedefinitions were developed to address model element geometry, with three ofthe most common uses in mind – quantity takeoff, 3D coordination and 3Dcontrol and planning. The group felt that in taking this approach theinterpretations would be complete enough to support other uses."

But the AIA[US] approach is fundamentally flawed, it is the wrong way round.BIM Uses should be listed with the required LOD against them, not LOD with allowed BIMUses.

What LOD tables actually do is to define the level of development each element is to have asthe project progresses, at each milestone.This is a reflection of reality project information progresses at the rate it is gathered,decided and created. You can't make information and decisions magically appear becauseyou need it for a BIM Use, and have put it against an LOD table in a contract.

LOD specifications, matrices, tables, whatever you want to call them, need to removereferences to BIM Use. It just confuses and complicates them.

A proper LOD table is an indication of model progression, when which parts will have whatinformation available, based on what is realistically achievable.

BIM Use should be a completely separate list, referencing LOD's to describe what isrequired for them to be done. By comparing BIM Use requirements with LOD inclusions andprogression a realistic assessment of what BIM Uses are feasible, and when they can be

LOD is not BIM Use

undertaken, is possible.

The current process of using LOD definitions to determine what "Authorized Uses" arepossible is delusional, it will never work in practice.

Another problem with the AIA [US] approach is that it defines what BIM Uses are "permitted",not what uses are necessary or even desired. Again from E203:

"The term “Authorized Uses” refers to the permitted uses of Digital Data"

Wouldn't a better approach be to define BIM Uses on a project by what uses participantswant to perform? Not what a BIM author says they are permitted to perform?

In the E203 guide it states that the "usual approach" is to take the position "because some ofthe information is not reliable don't rely on any of it". And that their intent in E203 is tochange that to "because some of the information is not reliable you can only rely on theinformation that I explicitly say you can."

Now that seems a sensible approach. If an architect tells you the walls in their model areLOD 200 then ignore any materials in those walls.The problem is when LOD 200 also means the architect is saying these walls are suitable fora particular BIM Use by some other discipline. Because then we have gone from thetraditional "we provide our information to you at your own risk" to "we will provide yousufficient information for you to perform your professional responsibilities."

The result of this can be the BIM author allows no Authorized BIM Uses at all, which is nobetter than providing it at receiver's risk.Or the author claims information is adequate for an Authorized Use but it is not (and theyrefuse to rectify it), because they have no idea of what is actually required.Or a third scenario where the BIM author is penalized (or sued) because the model theyprovided was demonstrably not suitable for an Authorized Use they permitted (or wereforced to permit under their contract).

Either way those attempting to use the BIM model for a legitimate BIM Use are left in thelurch, and BIM authors are left at risk.

As bad as letting BIM authors decided who can do what is, there is another, worse, (andvery common) approach to deciding BIM Uses. That is the assumption the owner should doit. Not only that, but the owner should do it at the very beginning of the project before thevarious experts required are engaged.

Of course it is legitimate that the owner make decisions on their own BIM Uses facilitiesmanagement, building control etc., and BIM Uses that may effect their decision making andbuilt quality crowd flow simulation, 3D visualization etc.But asking owners to list all BIM Uses for their project is absurd. The reality is the majority ofBIM Uses are by the design and construction teams, to assist them perform their work, thework the owner has engaged them to be responsible for.

Normally you would expect the owner to select design and construction professionals thathave the skills to do the things they would like done. I don't understand why when it comesto BIM the expectation is that by simply listing a BIM Use in a document is will magically bedone by whoever gets engaged, no matter what their skills.

I know owners are the ones that pay everyone, and so can tell everyone what to do, but thatdoesn't by definition make them the best qualified to make decisions about all BIM Uses on aproject. Expecting them to do so is delusional.

For something so fundamental there is a surprising dearth of standards that directly addressBIM Use. Maybe it is too much like hard work to be so specific about particular BIM Uses.

BIM Excellence.org has started a list of BIM Use definitions, 125 listed so far, although not allhave actual definitions. A good start, to avoid duplication and standardize terminology.

At first sight COBie could be considered a kind of BIM Use standard. Although it sets out therequired output it doesn't directly describe required model progression, and it takes no

Who decides BIM Uses?

What about Standards

account of the LOD concept. For example it makes no distinction between data neverapplicable or just not available yet any empty fields must contain "n/a" in a COBiedeliverable.

A real BIM Use standard would set out what LOD requirements are for model elements toachieve the use.

The BIMforum LOD Specification is probably the only real BIM Use standard. It clearly setsout LOD requirements for quantity takeoff, 3D coordination and 3D control and planning.But it should be renamed the BIMforum BIM Use Specification for: Quantity takeoff; 3Dcoordination; 3D control and planning.

As BIM Use is invariably performed by software you would think software vendors wouldhave an interest in establishing standards that optimise their software performance.Although competing software specific standards are not necessarily the best approach.IFC is kind of in this space. MVD (Model View Definitions) define elements required forspecific views of a model, which could them be used for a BIM Use. But IFC is really aboutsoftware standards, not software use or BIM processes performed by humans.

I believe some standard definitions around BIM Use would be really useful. Currently beyondasking specific people on my projects I have no way of knowing what is required for a BIMUse I don't participate in.

Although standards can be part of the solution they can never be the only solution. Theexpectation that every BIM use for every discipline or team for every project will be coveredby a standard is delusional. And what do we do while waiting for standards to be authored,discussed and agreed?What we need are processes that establish BIM Use protocols.

The process doesn't have to be complicated. Let's think about it from first principles:

1. Someone wants to use something for a specific purpose.2. They say what that is and what they require for them to do it.3. Whoever is best placed to provide that is identified.4. Negotiations occur between the provider and user.5. Agreement is reached on what processes will be followed.

But in the world of BIM planning the procedure is:

1. An authority figure decides what BIM Use everyone wants.2. They guess what is required to achieve these BIM Uses (or use a "BIM expert" to guess).

3. They impose these requirements on everyone.4. BIM authors, not the owner, decide what specific information they will provide for aBIM Use.

When confronted with the obvious impracticality the usual snake oil response from BIMevangelists is that "the BIM Execution Plan is a living document that can be changed." That

(with apologies to BIM Forum)

Current BIM Use process

Posted by Antony McPhee at 16:50 No comments:

might be a method to fix impractical outcomes but it doesn't justify why there is animpractical process in the first place.

That said negotiation is still the best method. It not only ensures everyone is doing thingsthey are happy(ish) about, it provides an opportunity for everyone to have their say.

But negotiations have to occur in a framework that is realistic. Pretending they can occurbefore everyone is appointed (or that everyone be appointed at the very beginning of aproject as in IPD), or that parties will agree when there is no incentive to do so (when onlyauthors decide what "Authorized Uses" are permissible), is delusional.

The owner should be the one to set up the framework, project participants the negotiating.

Therefore the process for owner is:

1. The owner lists the BIM Uses they intend to do. e.g. FM, budget management, etc.

2. The owner lists possible BIM Uses that others may do, and are desirable for theproject. BIM Uses that may or may not be used on the project that participants may be calledupon to provide BIM models capable of being utilized for.

3. The owner acts as arbitrator in participant negotiations.

Then as each project participant is engaged they must have shown the ability to satisfy therelevant owner's BIM Uses, and the capability to satisfy the the relevant possible BIM Uses.As the exact requirements of the possible BIM Uses are unknown, and may not even occur,fees do not need to specifically allow for them, ensuring owners are not paying forsomething they may never need, or that someone else (the BIM Use recipient) may pay for.

As each project participant becomes involved in the project they are required be involved ina BIM Use identification and negotiation process:

1. BIM Use request. A participant nominates what they intend to use BIM models for (including uses thatthe owner may have engaged them specifically to do).

2. Define and communicate data required. For each of their BIM Uses clearly describe what data they require and at whatstages.

3. Identify source/author of data. Based on data required, and through negotiation, identify who will be generating thedata, or who is best placed to create the data.

4. Agree on extent/format/form of data that will be provided. Negotiate with that party on what data they can provide, and/or are willing to provide.

5. Agree on process to supply data. Negotiate timing, degree of reliance (LOD) and checking & rectification procedures.

The owner may become involved at point 3 if there is dispute over who the appropriateauthor is, and at point 4 if agreement on extent of data can not be reached.

If it is determined extra data is required the provider and recipient can exchange services(you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours); the recipient pays (because it saves them money);or the owner pays (it adds value to the owner and/or project). Or it is not done as there is nomeasurable benefit.

There you have it.There is obviously a lot of nuance around the detail but the above process is, to me, a morerealistic way of approaching BIM Use management.It is not a radical proposal, nothing unfamiliar is introduced to BIM Execution Planning.Indeed most current BIM Planning guides would only require slight adjustment to formalizethis approach.

Let's take BIM from the theorists and make it genuinely practical.

A better BIM Use Process

Labels: BIM Plans, Management, Standards

Recommend this on Google

30 October 2015

Should Owners ask for BIM?There is this idea in the BIM evangelist community that owners, the ones who commission afacility, should specify what BIM is to be used on a project. Not just what BIM will bedelivered to them, but how BIM will be used by everyone involved in the project.

To me it makes no sense. Do you tell your dentist what instruments to use, your accountantwhich software (or calculator) to use, your lawyer which case law to take heed of?

And I suspect owners are just as perplexed. Why are they being asked whether thestructural engineer should use the BIM model for structural analysis, whether the contractorshould use 4D, 5D, field BIM? Aren't they paying these experts to make those decisions?

Actually I know they are just as perplexed. I've sat in meetings and workshops where theowner's representatives are bombarded with these types of questions, and not surprisinglythey don't want to answer them. They're smart people, it not that they don't understand BIM,it is that they don't see themselves as the ones responsible for it.

Yet that is how BIM evangelist see it. In their eyes the problem is owners don't understandBIM. After all the owner, as the one with the money, is the only party who has control overthe whole team. Therefore, the evangelists surmise, they are the ONLY ones who canenforce BIM on a project. The fact they are unqualified, uninterested and don't see why theyshould take on that risk are wilfully ignored.

Besides the absurd impractically of it, what also bothers me with this approach is the ideathat BIM must be enforced. That BIM is only possible if all participants are coerced toengage in it. If that is the case it suggests BIM is only beneficial to a few, that others have tobe forced as they gain nothing. This is so far from the truth. BIM processes improveefficiency and effectiveness of all participants. Sure it takes money up front to invest, time tolearn new ways. But after that investment you can do more with less effort. As they say, worksmarter, not harder.

So if you are an owner, should you ask for BIM?

There are a number of ways an owner can approach BIM on a project. The approach usedwill inform what processes need to be put in place for the project to be successful (in a BIMsense).

Ignore BIMTotally ignore BIM, assume it doesn't exist and make no concessions for it to occur.

Allow BIMAccept BIM can occur and not stand in its way. Make concessions for it to happen.

Encourage BIMAppreciate BIM is worthwhile and actively encourage its use, but not directly engage in BIMprocesses.

Participate in BIMIntegrate your own BIM processes into the BIM processes of others.

Demand BIMEnforce BIM of your own design on all project participants.

All are valid approaches and depend on the particular circumstances of the project and theavailable people. But what is critical is that there is honesty in the approach taken. Don'tpretend you are encouraging BIM when in fact you are ignoring it, don't demand BIM whenall you need is to participate in it.

Before deciding which approach seems right let's debunk some myths about BIM for owners.

APPROACHES TO ASKING FOR BIM

One of the misunderstanding going around (sometimes I think wilfully) is that BIM isequivalent to facilities management. That the only thing BIM means is the use of a 3D modelconnected to a database to manage the maintenance of a facility.

At the extreme end of this view you have people who think that if you get the design andconstruction teams to use BIM you will have a fully functional BIM FM system at the end ofthe project.I don't understand how anyone could think this was true. Why would a BIM model created todesign, analyse, and coordinate a building, or one to cost and program it be suitable forfacilities management? Yet I have had clients say they want our Revit model provided tothem, complete with paint modelled, so they can use it directly for facilities management.

A lessor, but none the less just as mistaken view, is that the BIM done during design andconstruction is just there to provide the data for the FM system. And further, that if BIM is notused during design and construction it is not possible to have a BIM based FM system.

Lets think about this a bit. To use BIM for facilities management you need a graphical 3Dmodel and a database of information. You could pay someone to create the model andpopulate the database when you set up the FM system. Or you could get the whole designand construction team to change they way they do their work just so they produce a 3Dmodel and populated database at the completion of their work.Does that second method really sound sensible? Why would you compromise a much biggerprocess (the design and construction of a facility) to reduce the effort of a smaller process(populate an FM database)? BIM evangelists go on about how much larger the cost ofrunning a facility is compared to building it. But design and construction BIM can only evercontribute to the initial set up of the FM database, it has nothing to do with the ongoingoperation.

But BIM is not just FM. It is used for much more than that. And once that is realised thebenefits can be captured.If design professionals use BIM for their processes, they will have a lot of data, including 3Dgraphical data. The contractor can utilize this data for their purposes and add data they use.This data won't be structured to suit FM, after all it has been created for other purposes. Butthere is a fair bit that can be used for FM. The cost of restructuring this data to suit FM istheoretically less than completely recreating it. That is the benefit of BIM.

So don't ask for BIM if the only reason is to provide completed data for your FM system.There may be cheaper ways of doing it.

And don't ask for BIM, or BIM deliverables, if you have a paper based rather than BIM basedFM system (I know, kind of obvious, but surprisingly common).

Do ask for it if you want to access to BIM data created for other purposes for your FMsystem.

BIM IS NOT JUST FM

DON'T KILL THE GOLDEN GOOSE

Of course you may not have a BIM based FM system, nor intend to implement one. That's acommercial decision for the owner.If you don't need BIM for FM, why have BIM on the project at all?

BIM is a tool, a tool to do real world things more efficiently and effectively. It is useful foranyone who uses it properly and for the right reasons.

If your design and construction teams use BIM on your project there is an opportunity for theproject to be done more efficiently and effectively. You, as the owner, benefits from a projectthat is less likely to suffer delays, is less likely to spring surprise additional costs, and willresult in a building with a higher quality of design and workmanship.

So if you want a well run project you will want BIM to be used.

But the owner is not responsible for timing, cost overruns and building quality. The designand construction team, via their contracts, have these responsibilities. And if the ownerinstructs them on how to do their job, how to undertake their responsibilities, the owner takeson some of those responsibilities.

The best way an owner can ensure BIM is used is to not dictate, not enforce, but toencourage BIM. How might this be done?

The first step in encouraging BIM is to engage BIM capable professionals, to include BIMcapabilities in bid requirements.By that I don't mean a description of what BIM processes a bidder must undertake, but arequest the bidders provide a description of the BIM processes they already do. In this earlyperiod of BIM take up you may extend this to include BIM processes bidders intend or areprepared to implement.The aim is to get them to make an offer, for the use of BIM to be their responsibility.

But keep in mind BIM is but one aspect of why you select a particular bidder. Professionalsare primarily engaged for their capabilities in their area of expertise, and serviceperformance. BIM is only a tool, it won't compensate for lack of expertise or poor service.

ENCOURAGING BIM

SELECTION

AGREEMENTS & CONTRACTS

The second step is to ensure agreements and contractual arrangements allow BIMprocesses to work freely. As mentioned above all BIM processes (except facilitiesmanagement) are between the design and construction teams. This is a challenge for thosedrawing up and approving agreements. Traditionally contracts have been designed to bebetween the person paying and the one doing the work. BIM capable agreements requireadditional clauses that set out how those being paid will interact with third parties otherproject participants.

Obviously there are a whole raft of issues to consider, and the type of BIM processesundertaken will influence what specific requirements will be. Which is another complication.The owner is not a participant in these BIM processes (with the exception of facilitiesmanagement), nor are the exact BIM processes known at the beginning of a project beforeeveryone is signed up. The BIM evangelist's answer is to ignore reality and assume the owner HAS to be a BIMparticipant, and that everyone HAS to be signed up at the very beginning of a project (asevidenced by the push for Integrated Project Delivery type contracts).

But it doesn't have to be this way. Contracts need do no more than ensure the free flow ofinformation in BIM type format. That is, BIM information created by project participants mustbe freely available to all other project participants. Sounds simple but there is a paranoiaabout theft of intellectual property throughout the industry. The default position is to withholdinformation. Contracts need to specifically override this position.

Tied in with this is that all information in deliverables must match. That information ondrawings and schedules match information in BIM models. And that recipients of BIM modelscan rely on the information in those models. It must also be specified this only applies toinformation a participant would ordinarily provide. If an architect includes some ducts in theirmodel for context, that doesn't make them responsible for the completeness and accuracy ofthose ducts.

Contracts could be further extended to be BIM friendly. For example allowing for projectparticipants to do modelling for others participants, whilst responsibility is retained by therequesting party. So the architects might model ductwork for the mechanical engineers (orsubcontractor) but the engineers or subcontractor must check and approve that modellingwork.

BIM capable agreements and contracts are in their infancy and no one can predict what theireventual form will be. But I believe if we approach them with a view to encouraging, orallowing BIM, rather than enforcing BIM, we will end up with much more useful agreementsand therefore BIM workflows.

Rather than demanding direct BIM deliverables they will never use owners should look atrequesting evidence of BIM. Requesting evidence also means that even if specific BIM is notdefined by owners they can still influence the use of it on their project.

There is nothing wrong with requesting evidence of BIM processes as deliverables. Theowner may not participate in the creation of a BIM Management Plan, but they can include itas a deliverable. They may not attend clash coordination meetings but minutes of outcomescan be requested.

However evidence of BIM should never be provided for 'approval'. Not only does this passsome responsibility back on to the approver (the owner) but has the potential to hold up theproject.The purpose is purely to ensure what has been promised (see SELECTION section above)is being done. An owner may reject a BIM Management Plan as being incomplete orinadequate, but should never 'approve' it.

BIM is often touted as 'costing more'. But research has shown overall a project using BIMprocesses is more cost efficient. It may be directly cheaper and/or quicker to build, or a morecomplex result is achievable for the same time and money.

The problem is that not all participants share these cost savings equally. Which is easy tosee when you look at how BIM works. BIM models are created early in a project and passedon to participants through the term of the project. The architect models the building, themechanical engineer uses that model to do energy calculations, the mechanical engineer'smodel is passed on to the mechanical subcontractor who uses it as a basis for shopdrawing and CAM, this model is passed to the facilities manager to populate their energy

EVIDENCE OF BIM

REMUNERATION

management system. The further up the chain the more complete the model is and greaterthe savings in time and effort. And of course the owner is at the top of this chain.

Another issue is some participants are required to do more than they have previously done.Engineers traditionally produce diagrammatic drawings and performance requirements forequipment. With BIM they have to model their work accurately and select specificcomponents (otherwise you can't model them). Of course paying them extra to do this workis not the only solution. But someone has to do it, and no one is going to do it for free.

BIM also requires more work up front. The mechanical engineer can't do an energy analysison a half modelled building. If the point of BIM is to create a complete virtual building to testits buildability then it has to be completely designed and modelled before construction starts.

BIM may 'cost more' for some, but overall it does not. So it is not necessarily about spendingmore (although that will certainly bolster use of BIM!). To encourage BIM there needs to bea rethink of where and when money is spent. More money is required at the preconstruction BIM model creation stage.This may be in the form of extra for design professionals, the appointment of additionalprofessionals, or bringing forward engagements (e.g. services subcontractors).And within those engagements payment schedules need to be revised. Fees are normallybroken up into stages. With BIM more work is done more hours expended in early stagesthan traditional work methods.

I don't believe a similar concession is required at construction as BIM processes bringenormous cost benefits to contractors. In fact I believe owners need to be careful they arenot paying for BIM efficiencies that the contractor will pocket. Any BIM from the design teamshould be treated as an asset that benefits the contractor.

And of course owners can directly encourage use of BIM. Not by demanding it, but by havinga strong expectation that the team will use BIM processes. Owners don't need to haveintimate knowledge of those processes, but they can expect their design and constructionprofessionals do.

So what is the answer, should owners ask for BIM?As is the case with most questions, that depends. But here are some recommendations.

Not recommended. If you don't understand BIM or don't want it don't stand in the way ofthose that do. The fact others use it will not cost you more, nor will it increase your workload.

If you are unsure and don't really understand much about BIM this is a valid approach. Itprovides an opportunity to learn from others.

Encouraging BIM is the best approach if the owner does not have a BIM based FM system.It allows the design and construction team to make best use of BIM for their purposes. It alsocreates a wealth of BIM data. It is not structured for FM use, but can still be mined for usefulFM data.

A truly BIM project has everyone participating in BIM, including the owner. Owners canparticipate by having their own properly set up FM system that uses BIM.Having skin in the game, so to speak, means BIM deliverables can be properly valued as totheir worth. And if everyone is a participant BIM planning can be undertaken with confidence,and result in even greater benefits than individual use of BIM brings.

Not recommended. Unless you are a conglomerate with architects, engineers andcontractors all under the same roof you should not be dictating what BIM is done. Even thencare must be taken to ensure some participants are not working inefficiently for questionablebenefits elsewhere.

DIRECT ENCOURAGEMENT

CONCLUSION

Ignore BIM

Allow BIM

Encourage BIM

Participate in BIM

Demand BIM

Posted by Antony McPhee at 10:48 3 comments:

Labels: BIM, Management

+4 Recommend this on Google

29 August 2015

Everyday BIMThis month 3 years ago, August 2012, I started the practicalBIM blog.My original intention was to blog about practical ways to make BIM work. But when I startedreviewing the literature on BIM I became alarmed at the misunderstandings and directionBIM was heading. It soon became apparent that as well as things that should be done tomake BIM work, there are also things that should NOT be done to make BIM work (or atleast not more work than it needs to be).

It seems to me the misuse of BIM stems from some basic conceptual misunderstandings, (orintentional misconstructions) of BIM. If I believe these people are mistaken, what is myconception of BIM? How and why is it different?So on this anniversary I thought it timely to do a post setting out my views on BIM; notspecial, world changing BIM, just ordinary Everyday BIM.

First some thoughts on what BIM is not.

BIM is a set of processes that manages certain technologies. It is, and always will be,changing. As new technologies become possible new process will evolve. And it willeventually be superseded by a new acronym for a different approach, just as BIMsuperseded CAD.There is no end, no point in the future where BIM will be perfected and stabilized.

Why is this important to appreciate? If you are adopting BIM under the assumption it is a oneoff exercise that leads to an amazing outcome you will be sorely disappointed. If you arewaiting for BIM to reach perfection before adopting it you will be waiting forever.There will be improvements, but the perfection promised will never arrive, and the need forfurther changes will not evaporate.BIM is not an end in itself. It is a process of continuing improvement.

BIM is not A UTOPIA

BIM is not AN EXCUSE FOR SOCIAL ENGINEERING

There is a myth a particular type of contractual arrangement is required for BIM to work, socalled Integrated Project Delivery. This is allied with a work arrangement being called"Project Team Integration".There is nothing wrong with Integrated Project Delivery, its aims of shared responsibility, riskand decision making is laudable. But just as you don't need to use BIM to achieve theseaims (e.g. The National Museum of Australia used CAD), using BIM doesn't require IPD.

The insistence that the construction industry must move to IPD type contracts and workarrangements for BIM is a naked attempt to use BIM as a driver to improve the way the waythe industry works. This is great for bettering the AECO industry but detrimental to BIMadoption. BIM is not the only, and certainly not the most critical, driver in the selection ofcontractual arrangements. Making the assumption IPD is necessary for BIM leads to BIM notbeing considered for projects that require other contractual arrangements for reasons otherthan BIM.

There is an underlying assumption that a BIM model must become a single unified 'thing'("Integrated Data Environment"), and that all BIM processes must be under the control ofone entity.This view is promoted by the UK Levels of BIM Maturity (as per the Bew Richards diagram),where 'Level 3' BIM is an integrated web based solution (so called 'iBIM').

The only realistic way this can happen is if all participants use the same platform, or allrigorously comply to the same Standards, (assuming multiple platforms will be able tocommunicate via data that adheres to Standards).

Whilst it is true greater efficiencies are theoretically possible by tight integration of all aspectsof design, construction and operation, there are consequences of this approach that arebeing ignored.

Forcing all participants use the same platform will lead to inefficiencies amongst individualparties. Each of us make choices about technologies and processes that are the mostefficient at fulfilling our responsibilities. And because of competition the best available comesinto common use. These individual actions add up to an efficient and cost effective overall

BIM is not RESTRICTED TO ALL IN ONE SOLUTIONS

process. Any 'all in one' platform will never contain the best in breed across all disciplines.The result of this approach will be the dominance of proprietary software monopolies, asituation all the software houses are currently scrambling to take advantage of.

The requirement for such tight integration will also encourage the ascendancy of large multidisciplinary firms and vertical integration into AECO conglomerates. Say goodbye to thebespoke architectural design firm, medium size contractors and specialist subcontractors.

The expectation that iBIM will be possible through the use of Standards is just a fantasy,more on that below.

The whole idea of iBIM is analogous to a command economy. In theory a fully managedeconomy with centralized decision making should be more efficient. But in practice a marketwhere individuals make the decisions is more efficient. Blatantly demonstrated when theUSSR collapsed, and more recently the problems in Venezuela.

BIM is a set of processes that manages certain technologies. There is no reason thoseprocesses can not be tailored to suit ways of working that maintain the efficiencies of amarket approach.

That is not to say iBIM is not a realistic prospect, nor that it will never happen. The problemis when it is assumed it will be the ONLY future for effective BIM.

There is an enormous expectation that Standards will make BIM not just more efficient, butin the minds of many BIM will not be truly possible until Standards are in universal use.

Now, I believe Standards are a good thing, which is why I follow their development soclosely. But they are not the panacea they are portrayed to be. And the main reasons areinherent in how Standards are created.

Standards take a long time to be developed and agreed. Most work on Standards aroundthe world is done for free by volunteers. The process for approving Standards is also unpaidand requires many people, often from widely dispersed places, to come together. This isparticularly pertinent for technology dependent processes like BIM where Standards trailcurrent practice not by years but by decades.Because Standard creation and agreement is largely unrewarded the best and brightest,most experienced, are not attracted to participate. Although it does tends to attractacademics, where their participation does bring reputational rewards. They may be thebrightest, but lack practical experience and tend to create obtuse documents noone elsebut fellow academics can comprehend.

So Standards invariably document out of date practices in a manner that can not beunderstood by those who are supposed to follow them.

I don't see how it will ever be possible to entirely rely on Standards and their adherence todeliver BIM. Processes and conventions developed by individual people, firms and projectteams will always pay a major role in BIM. Just as proprietary software and formats willalways be at the forefront of BIM technology. Standards development should focus on supporting market driven BIM, not be put forwardas BIM itself.

BIM is not A BUNCH OF STANDARDS

BIM is not A WAY TO GET OTHERS TO DO YOUR WORK

BIM is often portrayed as a process where someone will provide someone else with aproduct that reduces that persons work. For example a facilities manager who receives aBIM model will gain a record of the constructed building that can be used to manage it.

Whilst this is broadly true, this is interpreted to mean that the provider will do the work of thereceiver. That if the facilities manager can't directly use the BIM model, use BIM data topopulate their FM database, the provider has not done their job properly.This is propagated by the myth that a BIM model can be used for any purpose, even ifcreated for a specific purpose. An architect creates a BIM model to communicate what is tobe constructed, not to manage a built facility (in any case they wouldn't know how to architects are not facility managers).And if a BIM model can be used for any purpose, there is no requirement to pay someoneto make it fit for particular purpose. So there is an expectation this work being done on thereceiver's behalf is free.

I can see no justification for this belief, yet is surprisingly common among owners. It is oftena roadblock to BIM adoption. An owner wants BIM, but doesn't expect to pay for it. When acost is put on it by the AECO participants BIM gets dropped in its entirety. The projectbecomes a 'nonBIM' project and BIM is actively discouraged.

So what is BIM?

At its core BIM is a concept the idea that the physical building, systems within it andprocesses used to realize it are modelled before a building is built.This sounds simple but is a paradigm shift from how most architects and engineers viewtheir deliverables. The norm is to privilege drawings that the firm's output are drawings. Ofcourse their real output, and what everyone else expects, is information. Drawings merelycommunicate this information, they are nothing more than a tool.When training CAD users to use BIM software the biggest hurdle is to get them tounderstand that the drawing is not the most important aspect. To get them to stop obsessingover line weights and concentrate on ensuring wall definitions reflect what the wall is to beconstructed from.

Once people get it that their job is to model, not to draw, everything becomes much easier.And if you don't understand this, you will never use BIM to its full potential.

BIM is A CONCEPT

BIM is TECHNOLOGY

The degree BIM is possible is dependent on available technologies software and hardware.When I first started using AutoCAD in the 1980's I got excited when I saw you could uselayer names to describe what elements represented. Back then that was all we hadavailable, but it was still a form of BIM.

It is often said that BIM is process, not software. Whilst this is true BIM is process thatmanages softwares. Therefore BIM processes are limited to what software can do.It is pointless developing BIM processes and Standards that are independent of availabletechnology. Pointless because noone can use actually them, or are forced to inventelaborate and time consuming workarounds that mimic those impractical processes.

BIM is in practical terms technology. Ignore this fact and you will soon paint yourself into acorner.

BIM is a set of processes that manages AECO technologies. Individual processes that canbe linked to and linked from other processes. Processes that work in parallel, branch off andhave different outcomes, a bit like they way a molecule is structured. BIM is not one singlelinear process that will only work if all parts are in use.Any part of the design, construction or operations of a building can use BIM. It doesn't haveto be used all the time for every task.While it is true some processes aren't possible if other processes are not being used, it doesnot necessarily follow that one process justifies the implementation of all its precursorprocesses.Nor is the fact a particular BIM process is not being used reason enough to not use otherBIM processes.

BIM entails multiple processes, each of which should be justifiable for its own sake.

The original intent of BIM was that by capturing work in a digital format it would be moreuseful to those that utilized the results of that work.It was never intended to mean that BIM is a new, additional task that produces the raw datarequired by others to do their work. That BIM data provided will be structured to suit the work

BIM is PROCESSES

BIM is OPPORTUNITY

processes of others.

The workflow envisage was that someone provided their BIM model to someone else, whothen extracted and restructured the information they required. The provider remainsresponsible for their data that it represents their area of expertise and deliverables, butthey are not accountable for its use by others for purposes outside of their responsibilities.

A services engineer provides a BIM model of ductwork to the contractor, which thecontractor may use to create fabrication BIM. If there is an error in the fabrication model it isnot the services engineer's responsibility, but if there is an error in the capacity sizingprovided it is. If architects model a building in 3D, and the structural and services engineersdo the same, then this provides sufficient information to use software to check for clashes.Providing someone with BIM data gives that person the opportunity to use it for theirpurposes. It may require validation and adjustment, but it is still usable and useful.

What BIM does is provide an opportunity for improved efficiency and quality of outcomethrough the availability of data. And this is best done through fostering cooperation andcollaboration, not rigid demands, especially from those outside the immediate process.

How might this approach be used everyday for real projects in the real world?Some general suggestions:

Restrict BIM demands to things you need directly (e.g. asset management), and to ensuregeneral BIM proficiency (e.g within discipline expectations like drawing and schedulesgenerated from BIM).Don't make BIM data a deliverable if you don't need it yourself, instead include engagementcontract clauses that allow for the exchange of data between project participants.

Use BIM capable software in the way it is designed to be used.Document how you structure your data and make both the description and data available toothers.

Take advantage of the BIM data available on a project.Foster BIM processes, along with cooperation and collaboration across project participants.

Embody BIM processes in supply chain and work management. Tailor those processes totake advantage of available BIM data.Allow others to use the data you produce.

Develop FM solutions that take advantage of available BIM data.Become involved before facility handover so you can make your requirements known toothers.

Notice I haven't mentioned Standards. That is not because Standards are never useful ordon't have a place. It is because Standards should only be used if they are beneficial; if theyassist in achieving the underlying aims. The decision to use Standards has to come fromproject participants, the ones who create and use BIM data, the only ones who can assesstheir usefulness.

I hope you find these general suggestions helpful, even if they are perhaps too brief to be

EVERYDAY BIM

OWNERS:

DESIGN PROFESSIONALS:

CONTRACTORS:

TRADES:

FACILITY MANAGEMENT:

Posted by Antony McPhee at 13:14 4 comments:

Labels: BIM, Management, Standards

truly practical, something I will aim to ameliorate in future posts.

+13 Recommend this on Google

28 July 2015

Procuring BIM PAS 11922 and acif PTII feel sorry for owners and managers who need to make decisions about BIM on a project.The information available is vague; it is hard to extract practical advice that can be actedupon. And confusing, mixing up BIM issues with management practices that have nothing todo with BIM.

I recently worked my way through the UK PAS 11922:2013. Full title: Specification forinformation management for the capital/delivery phase of construction projects usingbuilding information modelling.It is a "Publicly Available Specification", which are documents created for a sponsor bythe British Standards Institution (BSI). In this case the sponsor was the UK ConstructionIndustry Council (CIC). Not that the BSI do all the work. The PAS is done via consultationand a number organizations have been involved (24 are acknowledged). It was published inFebruary 2013 and is 68 pages.

Its audience "includes businesses and those responsible for the procurement, design,construction, delivery, operation and maintenance of buildings and infrastructure assets."

What interested me is that PAS11922 is an attempt to holistically capture BIM processesfrom beginning to end of a construction project. It is one of the few examples which tries toproscribe how to commence a BIM project, how to create a BIM brief.

The other documents I recently slogged through were a series on BIM by the AustralasianConstruction Industry Forum (acif they prefer lowercase), a peak body of peak bodies,including the likes of The Property Council, Engineers Australia, Master Builders, FacilitiesManagement Association to name a few. The BIM documents are authored by the StrategicForum for the Australasian Building and Construction Industry, a body within the acifthat that "brings together key stakeholders".

PAS 11922

acif BIM & PTI

Documents include:A Framework for the Adoption of Project Team Integration & BIM, published December2014, acknowledges 11 participants, and is 60 pages.

Building and Construction Procurement Guide: Project Team Integration and BuildingInformation Modelling (BIM), published June 2015, acknowledges 8 participants, 56 pages.

These documents essentially cover the same ground, with the later one containingmarginally more specific 'advice'.The first "is designed to guide and assist industry stakeholders in the adoption andimplementation of PTI and BIM."The later "is to provide asset owners and project procurers with an outline of potentialprocurement practices, processes and steps which might be followed in developing effectiveprocurement strategies for implementation of Building Information Modelling (BIM) andProject Team Integration (PTI) on specific projects within the built environment."

There are also two documents on Project Team Integration (PTI): The Case for ProjectTeam Integration and Project Team Integration Workbook

Despite their titles and self descriptions all of the acif documents are more BIM and IPTsales pitches than practical advice or structured workflows.

It is interesting to look at these documents side by side as the UK is heading for mandatoryBIM, whereas Australia is, well, on its own. The current federal government doesn't believeanything needs to be done about global warming, so BIM is way too avantgarde for them toeven comprehend, let alone mandate.But governments change, and what the acif is spruiking may end up in the form that PAS11922 takes, or indeed the wholesale implementation of an unchanged PAS 11922.

So how do they stack up?

In a word, no.

PAS 11922 is acronym city. I had to spend a lot of time memorizing the myriad ofabbreviations:BEP, TIDP, MIDP, RM, PlM, PIP, SCCS, SMP, CPix, EIR, Capex, Opex, CDE gates, RACI,WIP, AIM, CDM, and not only LOD but also LOI.

Although PAS 11922 has a glossary, not every acronym is listed. It wasn't until page 13 thatI found out what PAS stood for.

AN EASY READ?

Terminology varies to a frustrating extent. You kind of expect some variances, particularly asPAS 11922 is from the UK, acif documents from Australia. But the authors seem to revel increating their own unique terms. The Owner is called "Employer" in PAS 11922, "ProjectSponsor" in acif documents. acif have invented a new term for Integrated Project Delivery(IPD) "Project Team Integration" (PTI). They explain that PTI is a more generic term, IPDbeing a form of contract rather than a description. I don't see it. IPD is already a term in usein Australia, and perfectly adequate. Why invent a new one?

PAS 11922 is a document you study take notes, reread sections, draw your owndiagrams, google a lot (to find out what the acronyms mean). Just reading it will leave youconfused and be of no practical benefit. A lot of thought has gone in to it, but golly, does BIMhave to be this complicated?

The acif documents are easier to read if you can stay awake. The same things areconstantly repeated, not just within documents, also across documents. There is really nopoint reading the Framework document, the same information is repeated in the Buildingand Construction Procurement Guide.

But to be fair all documents of these types are tedious to read. Both sets of documents areextremely well structured, have good contents pages, glossaries and definitions. Andunfortunately repeating information is de rigueur for these types of reference documents.

PAS 11922 describes workflows, the acif documents really describes objectives, and nowand again, if you know what to look for, actions to achieve objectives.Generally both have a good grasp of BIM, with inklings of evidence there are at least somepeople involved with direct experience. But there are some areas that I believe push thebounds of practicality.

The requirement for a pretender BIM plan in PAS 11922 is unrealistic. I don't see how thisis even possible unless the tender process is severely limited to only seeking bids fromconsortiums. A BIM plan needs all parties to get together to agree on a plan. How can thisbe done at tender or RFT stage when multiple parties are bidding for the same work? If it isenforced it sets up an environment where collusion could run rife. All those tenders gettingtogether and just discussing BIM?Unless, that is, PAS 11922 really means something other than a traditional BIM plan. Isearched for this possibility but could find nothing that suggested otherwise.

But I smell a rat. Although PAS 11922 explicitly states it is suitable for all contract types theunderlying assumption that comes through is that only IPD (Integrated Project Delivery),Alliance and other combined risk contracts are suitable for BIM.

This assumption is also explicit in the acif documents. Their introduction of a new acronym IPT, (Integrated Project Team), and the time spent extolling its virtues belie their underlyingintent. More on that below.

PAS 11922 includes "Gateways", where BIM data is approved before the data is releasedfor use by others. This is not a new invention brought about by BIM, many QA processesalready contain such procedures.Hold and review points are good in theory, but if not structured and managed carefully canend up being blockage points instead. In my experience the reality does not always matchthe intent:

Adding review points should extend the program, but this never seems to happen(what owner volunteers to extend the completion date for the sake of atechnology?). Instead work programs are condensed to unrealistic levels to thepoint that work continues into the review period, leading to poor work andinadequate checking.

Owners, or more usually the poor sods they appoint to oversee all this checking,don't want to take any additional responsibility (nor workload) so refuse to, ordrag their feet in officially signing off on anything. So work continues on, as it hasto, using unapproved deliverables.

Your boss sees checking as a nonproductive use of time, so if someone else is

REALISTIC WORKFLOWS, OBJECTIVES?

PRETENDER BIM PLAN

GATEWAYS OR BLOCKAGES

doing it why are you doing it? Leading to unchecked documents leaving theoffice.

Any review point is an opportunity for designers to "tweak" the design, leading torushed reworking.

These problems can be addressed, but PAS 1192 seems ambitious when it comes to signoff at Gateways (which it admits may be difficult for "some contracts"). The problem in PAS 11922 is sign off is assumed to mean a shift of responsibility fromauthor to approver. Any mistakes become the fault of the checker for not picking them up.Which means the checker must have expertise in the area they are checking. So an ownerneeds to appoint a second architect to check the primary architect's work, structuralengineer, services engineer etc. Not very efficient.

There is a trade off between mistake free documents and project progression. To ensurecomprehensive and mistake free documents takes considerable time at each check point.A more practical approach would be to check only for completeness, the professional riskstill being carried by the author.

PAS 11922 has a concept it calls "Volumes". The idea is that the project is broken up in to anumber of volumes (3D spaces) that are allocated to different project team members. Theexample of a rail tunnel is illustrated with linear volumes for different services.

This may work for simple infrastructure but I don't see how it works on a even moderatelycomplex building. Different services often share the same space (e.g. ceiling space).Allocating specific space for different purposes is possible, but is generally not the mostefficient way to design a building.

Further "all members of the design team shall agree volumes as fully as possible at the startof the project". How can you do this before designing the building? The allocation of space isa huge part of design, most of what an architect does. Does PAS 11922 assume thearchitect's work is complete before BIM is started?It wouldn't surprise me. There is a pervasive belief that BIM only starts once a contractorgets involved. Part of the absurd push for IPD (aka PTI): that BIM is only possible if thecontractor is involved during design.

How about the acif documents?These documents are mostly 'motherhood' statements with a sprinkling of useful advice.For example on page 31 of the Framework document out of 15 objectives;

3 are general statements ("the dismantling of traditional barriers or silos of effort")

3 are not relevant to a project but to the industry as a whole ("furtherdevelopment of national templates, content and Standards")

2 are repeats of issues already stated.

VOLUMES

So just over half are not useful. One wonders why they didn't have two lists of objectives,one for industry and one for practitioners.

Recommendations made years ago reappear, like "undertaking pilot projects to display thebenefits of BIM." Not more pilot projects! How many more BIM events must we sit throughwhere all you get are syrupy presentations of (apparently) extraordinarily successful BIMprojects.

And there are contradictions. Under Asset Management "Proposed Activities to deliver onObjective" one 'activity' suggests another is not possible.How can:

"A contractual obligation (clause) binding on all parties from initiation of a builtproject for the development, transfer and maintenance of an asset registeracross the asset life cycle."

be achieved until:

"The asset/facilities management industry must define data sets andinformation asset register outcome requirements to enable the transition fromdesign and construction to operation in a BIM environment."

It is a classic chicken and egg situation. How can AEC team members provide somethingthat is undefined?

There is quite a bit of extra work for owners ("Employers") in PAS 11922. From beingresponsible for proscribing the entire BIM process to checking it has been complied with. Tofollow PAS 11922 owners will have to beef up their project management teams, not just intraining and expertise, but in bodies on the ground to do the additional work.

PAS 1192 also introduces a raft of extra requirements for tenders. Although the owner maynot directly pay each tenderers for the additional work, the industry as a whole will need torecoup those added costs.

COBie deliverables and assignation of Uniclass classification codes are mandatory, eventhough there may be noone using these on the project. Why provide COBie if an FMsolution is part of the construction contract and data can be placed directly into the chosenFM system? Sure, preference COBie and Uniclass coding where FM data and cost codingare required, but only if team members have no viable alternative.As I have written in earlier posts, both of these imposts create additional work. Work thatneeds to be paid for, whether directly paid for by the owner or as a cost to the industry as awhole.

Sure BIM may bring savings elsewhere, but strict compliance to PAS 19922 will be anadditional cost. Therefore be wary of statements like "must comply with PAS 11922".Owners making statements like this are adding possibly unnecessary costs to their projects,others with it in their contracts need to make sure they have allowed for the extra work intheir bids.

The acif documents are not proscriptive enough to identify where there might be additionalcosts. As they are primarily about introducing BIM the most obvious cost is in education andtraining. Although the implicit assumption throughout their documents that owners must takea bigger role in BIM is a potential additional cost for owners.

Building contracts are structured to achieve many outcomes, and attempt to createagreement on many issues, BIM is only one, and is by no means the most important. Yetboth PAS 11922 and the acif documents assume that BIM processes can only be achievedunder one contractual arrangement.

Interestingly both PAS 11922 and the acif documents specifically state that they arecontract neutral, acif documents even warning that owners ("Project Sponsors"):

"... need to be careful that changing contractual arrangements for BIM doesn'tlead to a degradation of other aspects like design, innovative construction,innovative engineering solutions."

But when you read the documents as a whole it becomes obvious the only way the

THE COST

DOES BIM DRIVE THE FORM OF CONTRACT?

requirements (PAS 11922) and objectives (acif documents) can be met is with an IPD typecontract.

In the acif framework document there is a good description of different contract types,including existing "traditional" contracts. Then there is a table comparing contract types withtheir effect on BIM Implementation. Except they lumped all existing contract types togetherand compared them to alliancing ("partnering") and consortium ("financing") contracts. Whatwould have been far more interesting, and actually useful, would be to compare BIMimplementation between each of the existing contract types (Construct, D&C, ManagedContract, Construction Management etc.).

l don't understand where this idea comes from that only certain types of contracts aresuitable for BIM. Any contract type can use BIM. The truth is (as mentioned, butcontradicted elsewhere in acif documents) the form of BIM is set by the type of contract, notthe other way round.

As mentioned PTI (Project Team Integration) is a substantial part of the acif documents.There is talk of PTI Protocols but I couldn't find anywhere that lists or describes what theseprotocols are. There is a list of their purpose, and why they are important but not what theyare. Are they talking about specific existing protocols, future protocols, a protocol, or a seriesof protocols?

I got excited when I found the acif Project Team Integration Workbook. A workbook,something practical, something that should tell me what PTI is.Sadly I was mistaken. It is a series of 18 tables of generic project management topics, like"Environment and Culture", "Project Leadership", "Wasted Effort". Each is divided into 5colour coded columns, red is bad, blue is exemplary.

You guessed it, existing contract types only appear in the red column, PTI type contractsdominates the blue. Amazing, doing PTI (whatever that entails) will miraculously makeeveryone a better manager!

Choose PTI and your project goes

from "This is the worst project I've ever worked on in 30 years" to "This is the best project I've ever worked on."

from "We're at war. The client's the enemy"to "We have the greatest respect and admiration for our client. He leads withoutinterfering."

Hallelujah, praise to the god of BIM. All management sins will be washed away by acceptingthe wisdom of PTI.

In the acif Framework document section headed "Agreed definition of PTI and BIM" it states:

"PTI is a process to facilitate integration and encourage collaborative behavior ..."

But what is this process? It also states:

BIM AS SOCIAL ENGINEERING

WHAT IS THIS PTI?

"PTI is a project delivery approach that encourages clients to engage a team(including design consultants and building contractors) at the earliest stages ofa project to enhance the level of integration between them."

OK, the team gets together early. But what explicitly do they do that is different, to make itPTI instead of business as usual? Besides more motherhood statements like "reduce waste"and "optimise project outcomes" there is nothing about what specific procedures constitutesa "process".

The give away is the word "collaborative". This is nothing more than another version of the"we must collaborate" myth I have written about in other posts. I do not know, and havebeen searching for, what I should be doing beyond what I, and the people I work with,already do to achieve this "collaboration". The only logical thing I can get a firm grip on is theidea that we should be providing additional information for others to use, which I call for whatit is, exploitation, not collaboration.

But I don't believe that is what is behind the acif documents. I think they are under theimpression they can foster a revolution in the quality of construction project managementthrough the adoption of BIM. My suspicions were reinforced when I read theacknowledgements in the acif PTI Workbook document. There are no practitioners of BIMmentioned, and it is based on a 2001 publication by two academics: "Projects as WealthCreators".

I'm sure their ideas for better project management are fantastic and worth adopting, but theyare trying to hijack BIM to push for unrelated issues. Using a new technology to justify a callfor social change, otherwise known as social engineering.

BIM is not going to change the way people behave. An owner who tries to squeezeeveryone's prices and goad them into extra work is still going to do that. This is alreadyhappening with BIM in the attempts by owners to get the AEC team to provide FM data in aformat of their choosing at no additional cost.

And it simply won't work. No manager thinks what they do is poor practice. When they readsomething like BIM requires "a well informed client who knows what they want" they neverthink it applies to them. Statements like that achieve nothing.

What should be explained is that anyone can utilize BIM, it is just that better managers willreap better rewards. That those who are open to adjusting their management style willbenefit more than those that don't. To say to a manager you must throw out how you havedone things in the past to use BIM is not only untrue, but counterproductive.

To summarize my main criticisms:

EMPLOYER (Owner)Assumes all is known about the project before it starts.Expects employer to define how professionals conduct their business.Expects employer to have expertise to check and approve professionals work.

PROCESSAssumes design team all engaged at same time.Assumes RFT from consortium how else does a "precontract BEP" get done?Assumes IPD type contracts (even though says it doesn't).Assumes building has been designed (e.g. expectation of "volume" definitions)

DELIVERABLESInsists Uniclass codes allocated to BIM objects even if not used by the project team.Insists on COBie even when there may be no reason to use COBie

Doesn't explore how BIM can be used on existing contracts.Mixes project specific objectives with industry wide objectives.Many objectives are not actionable.No decisive description of PTI protocols.Inconsistent: advice is often contradicted by other parts of the document.

SUMMARY

PAS 11922

acif DOCUMENTS

Posted by Antony McPhee at 16:14 5 comments:

Labels: Management, Standards

You may, by now, have noticed this post is not a precis of the documents reviewed, but acritical review that carefully avoids spoilers (sorry, you are going to have to read themyourself).

But having read them I believe both PAS 11922 and the acif documents are worthwhileadditions to BIM literature.

My criticisms are born of a frustration, that they are so close but miss the mark.My belief is that there is enough knowledge out there to create useful, practical BIM guides.The reasons why this rarely happens lie elsewhere. You can literally see the tussle betweenthe BIM practitioners and BIM evangelists as you read the acif BIM & PTI documents.A good edit cleaning out the myths and rearranging the truths would do wonders for thesedocuments. I believe all PAS 11922 needs some time in the real world getting practical experience tosee what works and what doesn't. Some parts probably need to be watered down but theunderlying logic and workflows are sound.

So my advice is to make use of PAS 11922; for guidance on setting up a BIM procurementprocess, and the acif documents; for an overview of possible BIM procurement methods,with some gems of practical advice.

Just don't ever mandate that PAS 11922 'shall' be followed, and approach the acifdocuments with a dose of skepticism, mine it for the gems and leave the tailings behind.

CONCLUSION

+21 Recommend this on Google

26 June 2015

Classification not so EasyI have written about adding classification numbers to Revit before. Back then I thought itgood practice to include them, even if you didn't have a specific need for them.

That was before I did some digging and found it is not as simple as it sounds.

Before you get bored and go back to looking at kittens on YouTube or BIMporn, I appreciateyou are probably not interested in classification systems. I certainly am not. So I'll put thepractical information first, then at least you might know something useful before your eyesstart glazing over.

Classification codes (see here for a description) are promoted by some as a panacea for allBIM uses. The truth is they are mostly used for costing and specifications. They are not thatuseful for Facilities Management as a classification code might tell you a thing is a door, butit doesn't tell you where the door is.

If you do estimating and will use classification codes (they are not the only method to identifycomponents) then yes, they are necessary. If you use them for specification purposes thenthey are also necessary, although again, they are not the only, or even most common, wayof managing specifications.

If you don't do estimating and are requested to include classification codes in your modelsask why.Are you doing it so the cost consultant or contractor doesn't have to? If so why are you doingit and not them? Who will pay you to do their work?

HOW TO DEAL WITH CLASSIFICATION

QUESTION THE NECESSITY FOR CLASSIFICATION

If there is no specific reason, if it is explained as "necessary for BIM", or simply "goodpractice", put a price on it and see if it is still a requirement.Or pose a series of questions about the specifics of what it is they require (read to thebottom of this post for ammunition).As a last resort, if they still insist, be comforted in the fact that they have no idea what theywill be receiving, will never use it, and will never know if you have done it properly or not(whatever "properly" means).

If you can't get out of providing classification codes, and you have no clear direction on whatis expected, you need to define what you will deliver.

1. Which classification system will be used.If you are in the USA or UK the answer will be obvious, possibly even mandated. In othercountries (like Australia and many Asiapacific countries) it may not be so obvious.

If it is not clear use whichever one is easiest for you to access and use.

2. Which version will be used.Classification systems are pretty much constantly under review, and every now and again anew version is released.As there are legacy work practices and softwares that rely on old versions these old versionstend to still be in use well after a new version is released.Also draft versions exist for years and may be used on real projects as they are the onlyoption available (as Autodesk did see below). Keep in mind whoever you are providing classification codes to may not necessary requirethe latest version, or may require you to use a draft version.You could offer to provide the version most convenient for you to accomplish, which is notnecessarily the latest (more on that below). However if whoever you are providing it to hasnot stated what they require you may have trouble arguing that an old version is 'fit forpurpose'.

Best practice is to ask which version is required. If that is not possible explicitly state whichversion you will provide.

3. Which tables will be used.Omniclass has 15 tables, Uniclass2015 has 11, you don't want to commit to providingrelevant codes from every table to all objects.

Offer to provide codes from one table: Omniclass Table 21 Elements, or Uniclass2015Table Ss Systems.

4. Number of Codes per object.Classification tables describe different things that might apply to the same object. Also ourBIM objects often contain multiple things that might attract a classification code (e.g. a doorhas many components locks, handles, closers, hinges etc).

Restrict your offer to a single code per object, that is, a single classification parameter perobject.

5. Depth of Codes.Omniclass Table 23 is 7 levels deep, Uniclass2015 Table Ss is 4 levels deep. The deeperthe level the more specific the information. The more specific the information the moreobjects required in your model. If you provide codes down to the level of door locks, you willneed an object for each lock to hold the code (as opposed to a door parameter thatdescribes the type of lock).

Only offer to provide codes to the first level of the classification system.

Now, all this sounds complicated, but can be captured in one sentence:

We [normally/can/may/offer to/will] provide a single classification code to each appropriateobject in our models conforming to Omniformat 2012, Table 21 Elements, to a level ofdetail equal to Level 2.

DEFINE YOUR SCOPE

Omniclass:

We [normally/can/may/offer to/will] provide a single classification code to each appropriateobject in our models conforming to Uniclass2015, table Ss Systems, to a level of detailequal to Subgroup.

You can of course provide more than this, that is your commercial decision. Myrecommendations are a base line, a minimum that is reasonable. The point is to place avalue on providing classification codes for others to make use of. Classification data entrytakes time and effort and should be paid for.

Before embarking on the task of assigning classifications, including prepopulatingcomponent families, establish the methods you will use. Poor choices and decisions can turnthe task into a job that eats up hundreds of man hours.Don't assume anything. Test every step, and verify every result.In particular make sure you are aware of the abilities and limitations of the software youintend to use.I've only investigated Revit (which I will go into more detail below). Amongst other things Ifound that:

The default Omniclass Table 23 Products data in Revit is WRONG (kind of, see below).The default Omniclass Table 21 Elements data in Revit is OUT OF DATE

This doesn't mean you can't, or shouldn't, use Revit. These issues can be resolved. But onlyif you know about them. Software vendors never take responsibility for the results theirsoftware produces (read any T & Cs), so don't trust files provided by vendors containingdata you are responsible for. Check they are correct.

If you really don't care about classification systems you can stop reading now. Perhapscome back when your client or boss requires you to become a data entry operator pluggingin classification codes.

By classification systems I mean Omniclass from the USA, and Uniclass from the UK. Thereare other nonenglish classification systems which I am not familiar with, nor ever hope tobe. There are also various standards, but I'm not going to go there either.Classification systems are hierarchical numbering systems (although some contain letters)that attempt to provide a unique number for everything that needs to be described in thebuilding process.

An example from Omniclass Table 21 Elements:2103 10 30 Interior Doors2103 10 30 10 Interior Swinging Doors2103 10 30 20 Interior Entrance Doors2103 10 30 30 Interior Sliding Doors

An example from Uniclass2015 Table Ss Systems:Ss 25 30 Door and window systemsSs 25 30 20 Door, shutter and hatch systemsSs 25 30 20 16 Collapsible gate and grille doorset systemsSs 25 30 20 25 Doorset systemsSs 25 30 20 30 Frame and door leaf systemsSs 25 30 20 32 Frameless glass door systems

Both systems are made up of a number of tables. Uniclass has 15, although Uniclass2015has 11 (maybe 10 now see below). I counted 15 in Omniclass but the last one is numbered49. I don't know if this is because there are yet to be release tables, existing tables havebeen deleted or the numbers are just not sequential.

Uniclass:

WORK OUT HOW YOU ARE GOING TO DO IT

THE BORING DETAILS

WHAT ARE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS?

Some tables come from preexisting classification systems, Omniclass Table 21 fromUniformat, Omniclass Table 22 from MasterFormat.

Oh, and there are two Uniformats, plain old Uniformat and Uniformat II.And there is Uniclass, Uniclass2 and Uniclass2015. Uniclass is the original developed beforeBIM, Uniclass2 was going to be the new version with better integration between tables. Thatpartially complete system has now been rebranded as Uniformat2015 by the UK NBS whoare working on it as part of their government contract to create a "BIM Toolkit".

Which classification system is best? Who knows (or cares). If an article from the UKNBS: Omniclass: a critique is anything to go by Uniclass2 is better structured for BIM thanOmniclass.Except Uniclass2015 (remember, Uniclass2 is now called Uniclass2015) is incomplete, onlyfour tables are available (I hesitate to say 'published', they are still draft), so may or may notbe usable, depending whether the bit you need is sufficiently complete to be useful.

It seems that most tables grew from cost estimating requirements, with the exception of theWork Result tables which seem to come from specifications systems. Omniclass Table 22 isbased on MasterFormat, and Uniclass Table J (Table WR in Uniclass2) is based on CAWS(Common Arrangement of Work Sections for building works) classification.

Except that Uniclass2015 Table WR has now been withdrawn. Apparently is is redundant as"it has become clear that this table is confusing (why have objects got two nearidenticalcodes?), redundant (objects only need one code) and unnecessarily restrictive on the othertables (the number of levels was limited in every case)."

I suppose they know what they are doing.

As mentioned above historically classification codes have been used for cost estimating andspecification writing.

Sometimes they are used for classifying product libraries, or naming systems in CAD andBIM software. Attempts at the latter are rarely successful. Not many people know that 210310 30 means interior door, but every knows what "DoorInterior" means. I have seen the sadremnants of misguided attempts to introduce naming based on opaque classification codesin a number of architectural offices.

So it is the cost estimators who mainly use classification codes, working for the owner, thecontractor; or as a consultant to owners, design professionals, or contractors.Classification codes may possibly be used for specifications but they are the providence ofdesign professionals, there is no need to pass that information on to others within a BIMmodel.

Classification codes are hardly information that is required by all participants within theAECO work chain.

When computers started to be used it was found classification codes and their tables werenot as logical as everyone assumed, hence all this reworking and new versions.But there seems to have been a knee jerk reaction that classification systems are necessary,even critical, for BIM to work.

I don't see it. BIM software brings its own structuring of data that can be utilized for costingand specifications. I don't see that it is absolutely necessary to add another layer ofinformation that duplicates existing data.Particularly when existing classification systems do not provide enough coverage. TheUniformat codes produced for Autodesk (see below) have an extra 3 levels of numbers.Presumably because Uniformat did not have enough codes to cover all the things that Revitcan model.

And where does IFC fit into all this?IFC is a 'schema', it not only identifies objects but also locates them in relation to otherobjects. So IFC not only knows something is a door, it knows which wall it is in, which roomsare around it, which lock it has.Which raises the question of why have IFC and classification? Or why can't classificationcodes be built into IFC? Match IFC attributes to classification codes within IFC software so

WHO USES CLASSIFICATION CODES?

ARE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS NECESSARY FOR BIM?

users don't have to manually enter them.

Of course it is not that simple, or more precisely, practical.Whilst Uniclass2015 has a whole lot of codes for door hardware, there are no definitions fordoor hardware in IFC. Both are incomplete, but in different ways.And the logical structure is different. Classification system grew from a system designed forhumans to use, IFC is for software to use. Is the effort to make them align worth it, will itproduce a practical result? Something that will actually achieve useful outcomes in the realworld?

I'm not advocating that classification systems be abandoned altogether. It is just that theyare 'nice to have' rather than a necessity. Don't be fooled into thinking they are critical part ofBIM.

Apparently it is really simple. You just add the appropriate classification code to parametersattached to objects in your BIM model.To put this in perspective, the appropriate code from a choice of 6,905 codes in OmniclassTable 23; a choice of 6,470 in Uniclass2015 Table Pr. Added to parameters in each of thethousands of objects in a typical BIM model.

But, I hear you say, we use BIM, the software will do it for us. Yes and no.

I'll restrict my discussion to Revit, because that is what I use. And because I couldn't bebothered respending the time I wasted discovering how things don't work in Revit on othersoftwares.

Revit has two built in places for classification values, and a third that can be repurposed todo it. The fourth way is to manually create custom parameters.

Each family file (components like doors, furniture, etc) has a file based parameter calledOmniclass Number. This is for Omniclass Table 23 Products. When this parameter isselected Revit provides a dialogue box where you can select the appropriate code from adrop down list that can be sorted by Revit category. So if you are in a Door family only codesappropriate to Doors are offered for selection. Revit also fills in the Omniclass Titleparameter automatically. Nice.

All types of objects also have a parameter called Assembly Code. This is not file based socategories that don't exist as separate files, like walls, floors, ceilings, roofs have thisparameter. It works the same way as the Omniclass parameters, the user is offered aselection from Omniclass Table 21 Elements that only applies to the category of the object.Revit automatically fills in the Assembly Description parameter.

The third way is to use the Keynote parameter. All types of objects have this parameter.When Keynote is selected a user defined tab delimited text file is read that lists the codeopposite its title. The user selects from the list. Some organisations have created Keynotefiles for use with their classification systems. In Australia NatSpec has done so for theirspecification codes (get it here). Note that the one that comes with out of the box Revit inAustralia is not the latest version.

The Omniclass Number and Assembly Code values also come from tab delimited text files(although formatted differently).Omniclass Number values are in OmniClassTaxonomy.txt. This file is located in bowels ofwindows on each users local computer at %APPDATA%\Autodesk\Revit\<product name andrelease>.

Assembly Code values are in a file called UniformatClassifications.txt. A copy can also befound in the bowels of windows, but you can change the path to this file, and even path to adifferent file.The command to do this can be found under the Manage tab > Additional Settings >Assembly Code. In this command there are a number of ways the definition file can bepathed, one of which is relative the Library set in Options. It seems AutoDesk assumeAssembly Code values may be associated with particular component libraries.

The path and file to the Assembly Code definition file is set in each file. So individualprojects, and individual family (component) files, can be linked to different Assembly Codedefinitions.

ADDING CLASSIFICATION CODES

The automatic assigning of Assembly Description (and Omniclass Title) only happens if thecorrect files are associated with the file you are in.

Revit also provides a keynote file based on Omniclass Table 22 Work Results (akaMasterformat).

Because Revit uses separate text files it is possible to replace those files with different ones;a different classification version, or completely different classification system. As long as thefiles are formatted correctly. Which is sort of great.Except to replace OmniClassTaxonomy.txt you need to replace it for every user on everyindividual computer. And it will then apply to ALL projects and family files used by that useron that computer. It is an office wide change, not an individual project change. And you willneed to do it every time there is a new version of Revit. You can't change the filenameeither, it has to be OmniClassTaxonomy.txt, which makes it hard to identify what the filecontains.

UniformatClassifications.txt is a little easier. As described above you can change the pathand filename via a menu command. Although it is a bit tedious if you want to associate adifferent definition file to family (component) files, as you have to open, make the change,and then save every individual family file.

Why would you need to change the files? Obviously if you need to use Uniclass (more onthat below), but also if you intend to use Omniclass.

As mentioned above the default files that come with out of the box Revit are not correct.

The default OmniClassTaxonomy.txt is based on a 2006 draft version of Omniclass Table23 Products. There are valid historical reasons for this, Autodesk are not beingbelligerent. They introduced Omniclass for families files so they could use it to classify themin their web based component library AutoDesk Seek. It was never their intention to supportOmniclass for general users.

A newer version based on Omniclass 2012 is available from Autodesk at Update OmniClassTaxonomy File. However the new file doesn't associate Omniclass values with Revitcategories. I'm not sure why, there is no technical reason it couldn't. I'm also not sure whyRevit 2016 still ships with the draft version of Omniclass.

If you use the Omniclass Number parameter it is important you make a decision, becauseOmniclass values for the 2006 draft are DIFFERENT from Omniclass 2012.

Default Omniclass Interior Doors: 23.30.10.00Omniclass 2012 Interior Doors: 23.15.11.15

The default UniformatClassifications.txt file is a modified version of Uniformat II. It wascreated for Autodesk by RSMeans, a USA costing data provider. They modified it by addingup to an extra 3 levels for a maximum depth of 7 levels, whereas Uniformat has a maximumof 4 levels.

Autodesk now also provide with out of the box Revit the UniformatClassifications_2010.txtfile. This is an updated version of Uniformat.Again, there are differences in the numbering between the two versions:

UniformatClassification.txt Interior Doors: C1020UniformatClassification_2010.txt Interior Doors: C1030

You could also make your own OmniClassTaxonomy.txt or Assembly Number definition filefrom publicly available excel files of Omniclass tables. Although you will have to reverseengineer the file structure from Revit's files.

I couldn't find any Uniclass equivalents of OmniClassTaxonomy.txt or UniformatClassifications.txt. I did find some people who have created their own, so it ispossible, although you will have to reverse engineer the file structure.

ALTERNATIVE CLASSIFICATION FILES

OMNICLASS

UNICLASS

Older PostsHome

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Posted by Antony McPhee at 13:46 1 comment:

Labels: Management, Standards

Some Uniclass 2015 tables are available as excel files from the NBS BIM Toolkit site (scrollto the bottom of the article).

But there is a deeper problem. Uniclass 2015 is not complete, it is still being developed.Admittedly the tables you are most likely to use, Ss Systems and Pr Products are moredeveloped than some other tables. But noone will guarantee they won't change. In fact thedownloadable excel files have a suffix of 'latest'. Doesn't exactly instil confidence. I wonder ifthey don't finish this year they will still call it Uniclass2015.

Classification systems are probably useful, to certain people in certain circumstances. Butthey are not a requirement for BIM to work.

Although my comments about the lack of completeness may have come across as captious,my view is that it is always worthwhile making improvements. The process is disruptive but ifwe don't constantly strive to improve we will be stuck with impractical systems. Imaginehaving to use the Roman numbering system! I encourage those working on updatingclassification systems to continue their good work.

But there appears to be quite a way to go. Not only do we need the the classificationsystems to be BIM friendly, complete and stable, they need to be available in a consistentand durable way so that software houses can access them for integration into theirsoftwares.

To be honest, I don't see how anyone can take them seriously until this happens. Thejourney I had to take just to identify which codes I should apply to our inhouse componentlibrary has been ridiculous. Time in my life I'll never get back.

If you have managed to get down to here, well done. You now know a bit more aboutclassification systems. Not everything mind you, there are even more boring things youcould be abreast of.And of course everything I have explained may not be 100% correct. If you see anythingwrong, or misinformed, please comment. I'm quite happy to be proved wrong, but don'texpect me to care.

CONCLUSION

Recommend this on Google

Awesome Inc. template. Template images by moorsky. Powered by Blogger.