Bim solutions - Blog by Ebrahim

Different BIMs for different Purposes

Wed, 31 Jul 2019 15:54:12 +0000

How does BIM work, like really work, in the real world?

There are a proliferation of diagrams with arrows and graphics invariably arranged in a circle,

or as a seamless flow.

But none of these are explanations of how BIM actually works, they are blueprints of how the authors think BIM should work.

It is an attempt to promote the myth that "BIM is about process, not technology", so that you will use the standard, guide, paid advice or academic career being pushed.

BIM does involve some new and different processes, but try doing it without technology. It would go from being a highly efficient process to one that involves an enormous amount of work and time that is error prone and tedious. Basically the benefits would evaporate.

The reason those of us that use BIM do so is for the efficiency benefits, both in time and accuracy. And as each of us has different deliverables and responsibilities we use BIM in distinctive ways, using the different "technologies" available to us. These "technologies" limit what we can do, and as it advances, we change the way we do things. To those of us working in the real world it is technology that drives the process.

But all that doesn't matter. The original meaning and purpose of BIM (see my post on this issue) was that each player in the process used BIM to do their job more efficiently. The fact the information generated doing this could be easily provided to others was a bonus, not the purpose of using BIM in the first place.

Rather than do another diagram I thought I would try and describe the different BIMs that are happening in the construction industry now. There are sub-BIMs I haven't mentioned, some of which with new technologies may grow into full BIMs.

An example is Costing BIM. Quantity data can be extracted from design and construction BIMs to assist costing, but currently a separate Costing BIM, or cost model, is not created. That may change if (or when) cost estimating includes future operational costs. A separate cost model would be required as neither the design professionals nor contractors include this data in their models, their expertise and responsibilities are in building creation, not building operations.

I've counted four major types of BIM in current use.

SURVEY BIM

Survey BIM is the creation of a virtual model of what already exists.

It is very new field as advances in technology make it economic, with new players entering the field. Traditionally design professionals have modelled existing conditions, but one would expect Land Surveyors to become the main creators of survey BIM.

The deliverable is an virtual model of existing buildings, services and terrain, which can be used by design professionals for new works, or by facilities management as the basis for FM BIM.

Technologies like drones and laser scanning are used to gather data, but a Survey BIM is more than gathered data. This data is used to create a virtual model of intelligent objects.

Currently software used is the same that design professionals use (see below) as the functionality required is similar. There is the potential for much of the process to be automated, although I doubt it will ever be fully human free. Design professionals and facility management require simplified virtual models, which will always require some judgement.

A Survey BIM will only contain what has been requested. Although a lot information may be gathered, it is still not absolutely everything, nor is all data gathered necessarily included in the virtual model. The reality is, and always will be, that it is uneconomic to create a virtual world that exactly matches the real world.

Therefore the contents of a Survey BIM will vary depending on the purpose it is commissioned for. One done for alteration works is unlikely to be useful for an FM BIM, and one done for FM unlikely to provide all information required by design professionals for alteration works.

DESIGN BIM

A Design BIM is started when the need or desire for a building (or facility) is turned into something that can be built.

It involves design professionals - architects, engineers, cost consultants.

Contractors, facility management, and others may provided advice, but they are not responsible for the contents of design BIMs.

Deliverables include sufficient information to describe design solutions, to construct the building, and cost it.

BIM is used at this stage to create virtual design models. The main purposes of these models is to create a representation that can be tested - used for various analyses, from structural, cost, energy use, to visualization.

Most BIM software can also generate traditional deliverables from the model, (drawings, schedules etc.), and is currently the most common use for design BIM.

Software that is used to create design BIM models requires certain functionality to be useful for design purposes. Changes must be easy to make, and those changes must propagate throughout the model. Not all design decisions can be made at once so there needs to be the ability to "placehold' information. And there may be more than one design solution in play at any time.

Typical software currently in use includes Autodesk Revit, ArchiCAD, Tekla, Bentley, Nemetschek.

It would be reasonable to expect a design model to:

have all elements critical to the project's construction modeled.
that those elements are consistently categorized (eg identifiable as walls, floors, doors etc.)
materials used in those elements are consistently categorized

I've used the weasel words "critical" and "consistently" because the actual requirements will depend on which particular standards (and there are many) are used, and what specific deliverables are being paid for.

All this is only to the extent required to satisfy the deliverables and responsibilities of the model authors. What is crticial is that what is provided is consistent within itself, and that the data in the model is the same as other deliverables from the same author.

If available a Survey BIM may be included or form the basis of a Design BIM. But generally Design BIMs are where project BIM models are initially created, and become, or form the basis of, most future BIM models.

It is important to keep in mind what a design BIM is created for. That it is created for the authors' particular purposes, not for the future use of others. Its use to others is limited to extracting information useful for their particular purposes.

CONSTRUCTION BIM

A Construction BIM model is used to organize the construction of a building (or facility).

It involves the head contractor and their subcontractors - particularly if they provide shop drawings and\or designs.

Design professionals may be involved, but only to the extent the design is changed, or if they are providing services directly to the contractor (e.g. Design & Construct contracts). In any case it is the contractor who holds responsibility for Construction BIM.

The ultimate deliverable is a completed building, BIM merely assists the process. Although there may be an As-Constructed deliverable in the form of a BIM model.

BIM is typically used during construction to assist processes: installation coordination, setout, time scheduling, cost control, safety management. A BIM model is increasingly being used as a location coordinator for everything, from task allocation to defect rectification.

A construction BIM makes use of Design BIMs. The various design models are combined to create a single model representing the complete building (or facility). More detailed models from subcontractors are included, as well as representations of construction equipment and facilities like cranes and site sheds.

Typical "federating" software includes Navisworks, SoIibri and a growing number of web based solutions. There are also other specialist software that can plug into these to do specific tasks, like costing, defects tracking etc.

A Construction BIM model is not really a model as much as an aggregation of models. Data can be extracted and new data associated with elements within this aggregation, but no changes in the underlying models can be made. Only the providers of the original models can do that (hence the continued involvement of design professionals).

At the completion of building works the construction BIM model is still made up of other models. It also contains information of no further use, like time scheduling data and resource allocation.

In theory a construction BIM model could provide the basis for a facility management BIM model. But this relies on available software. To my knowledge none of the currently available BIM federating softwares can provide automated exports suitable for FM, that is, exports that don't require major manipulation and auditing. This is an area I am sure we will see technology providing new opportunities for BIM processes, but at the moment it falls short of any of the BIM utopias we read about.

FM BIM

The last BIM is the FM BIM which is used as a visual database of the things that are managed during the operation of a building (or facility). Rather than data being in text documents and spreadsheets it is linked to a BIM model where it can be found by looking through this virtual model.

The FM BIM model is for the facility managers of the building, not just the ones around when the building is complete, but all future facility managers. This differs from the Design and Construction BIMs which are only useful for a limited time, and therefore can be less rigid as whoever set the model up is still around to ask questions.

An FM BIM model needs to be a static model. A virtual model of what is - not what is to be, (which is what Design BIMs and Construction BIMs are).

The contractor, and sometimes design professionals, role is limited to providing the BIM information they have created for their own purposes. Relevant information is re-purposed from this data to populate the FM BIM model.

There is information not in the design or construction BIMs that needs to be added to an FM BIM. Maintenance manuals, warrantee information etc. supplied by subcontractors as part of their contracts. This data is generally not required for design or construction so is provided just before, or even after, construction is completed.

Besides removal of redundant data an FM BIM needs to be simplified. There is no point graphically representing something if the FM team have no method to update those graphics. It is better to link lots of text data that can be easily updated to major objects. For example it is easier to change data if the lock data is part of whole door rather than represented by a separately modelled lock that has to be remodelled to reflect the change. Note that many FM BIM systems do not have a method to update graphics, for example systems based on IFC (see my post on IFC).

Timing of the creation of an FM BIM is critical. If it is not created during the last stages of construction so it is ready when the building opens the data provided by the design and construction team may be out of date by the time the FM BIM is usable. For example things like equipment replacements due to failures, or commissioning changes due to things discovered after occupancy. There may be few differences, but without doing a complete audit no-one could tell - which defeats the purpose of using design and construction BIM information in the first place.

The deliverable for FM BIM is an integrated data repository of information required to manage the building (or facility). There is little to gain by having only some information in the FM BIM, its purpose is to unify data to make it easy to find and avoid duplication. There is little point having a whole lot of information that is not needed, or included "in case" it will be required. The more data the more work to keep it all up to date,. The amount of data should be based on the resources available to maintain it, not the amount of data available.

One of the ideals of BIM is to eradicate the work required to re-purpose information for FM uses. But as can be seen by what is involved in Survey, Design and Construction BIMs there is a lot of information not required for FM, and information that is useful is structured for purposes other than FM.

Data from an FM BIM may be useful for future Survey and Design BIMs, but an FM BIM is not adequate to simply become either of those BIMs. To do so would mean carrying and keeping up to date all the extra information those BIMs require for the life of the FM BIM.

CONCLUSIONBIM is a fantastic technology, it allows us to engage in new, more efficient processes. But it is important to remember it is being driven by individuals harnessing BIM for their own purposes.

If we concentrate on what people are actually doing, supporting each other's workflows, rather than fantasizing about a Utopian future built around theoretical processes, BIM will come to dominate naturally as the preferred way of working. Without the need for it to be mandated, by government or big business, with the loss of control over our destinies that entails.

Author : Antony McPhee

IP - it is not all yours, get used to it

Tue, 30 Jul 2019 15:59:00 +0000

When discussing BIM with those yet to take it up the topic of Intellectual Property invariably comes up. It is so important to them it comes across as a major reason they are not using BIM (although I suspect it is more of an excuse).

For some reason BIM authors (architects, engineers, etc) think that because they create the initial BIM information they have the right to full control and to charge for the BIM model throughout the life of the building.

Then on the other hand we have contractors and owners who believe, because they are paying the authors, that they have absolute rights over all BIM created to do as they please with it.

IP and BIM PROCESS

One of the tenets of BIM is that all information is contained in one place; the BIM model (which may be an amalgam of several BIM models). And that all parties have access to this information so everyone is working on the same, up to date, information.

One of the effects of this is that there can be no duplicates of the same information.

The architect schedules doors, the hardware supplier adds to that schedule, they don't create their own. The architect doesn't model ductwork, they use the mechanical engineer's model.

So for BIM to work at all project participants must not only have unrestrained access to each other's BIM, they are not allowed to create their own version of some-one else's.

If any party tries to restrict access the whole process starts to collapse.

However access doesn't necessarily mean unfettered control. This is still a place for IP rights.

IP CONCERNS

One of the problems discussing IP is that often people are talking about different things. They have different reasons for, or place more emphasis on, particular concerns.

But even then I don't see much mileage in these concerns, certainly not enough to withhold information.

THEFT OF EFFORT

The old "why should I give away my work for free" argument. It has the appearance of taking the moral high ground but has a number of flaws.

Money is only one form of compensation. Barter is another. In the BIM context if everyone shares everyone benefits. For example allowing the quantity surveyor to directly measure from your BIM model means more timely estimates reducing the risk of you doing unpaid abortive work when the estimate blows the budget.

We work in a market economy, just because you place a dollar value on what you have produced doesn't mean others will. There is little point with-holding something from others that has no actual value, or a lessor value, to them. All you do is damage your reputation, and possibly the chances of future work.

And lastly the reality of the industry. If information is withheld that is required contracts will be changed to ensure that information is made available. The danger here is contracts invariably overreach, they are more onerous than they need to be. We are already seeing this with contracts that take all IP rights away whether justified or not.

THEFT OF IDEAS

BIM doesn't make any difference to IP rights over original ideas which are already covered by copyright law.

Does the possession of a BIM model make it easier for some-one to copy your design, to break the law? In a sense, because BIM contains more information that is structured more efficiently than traditional product like CAD files, spreadsheets and drawings. But the theft itself is no easier. In fact it could be argued it would be more straightforward to identify a stolen BIM model due to the uniqueness of how data is arranged, as to compared to a drawing consisting just of lines and text.

There is also a belief among some that every idea they come up with is unique and universally cherished.

That parametric door that can represent nearly every possible type of door is just as valuable to the contractor who just wants to know what each door is. The clever equipment schedule that you believe gives you a competitive advantage so will be copied by everyone who sees it because it is so brilliant.

Your innovative work practices are important to you but are rarely suited to anyone else.

Experienced BIM authors know that components sourced from elsewhere are never exactly what is needed to fit their own work practices. Many a time I have spent more effort trying to rework some-one else's component than it would have taken to recreate it from scratch.

LOSS OF CONTROL

Some have concerns that if they provide their work in an editable format (whether BIM or CAD) some-one will make changes to their work without their knowledge and/or permission.

To make changes to work attributed to some-one else is fraud and clearly illegal. To withhold your work is overkill and the equivalent of never getting out of bed to avoid anything bad happening.

Some believe if they maintain control they are in the best position to ensure their intellectual effort, their design, will be carried through in a way that they will be happy with. That if they are not in full control others will make poor decisions compromising their brilliant ideas.

This argument is hard to convince owners and contractors as they expect the documents you provide as part of your service to contain enough information for your design to be fully realised. If you argue otherwise they just see it as evidence your documents, and your design, is deficient and you intend to 'fix it up' later at their expense.

There is also a belief that with a copy of an original work contractors or owners are free to get others to take over the job. Again most jurisdictions have laws that already cover this, and in any case possession of your IP is unlikely to be the deciding factor in your client making this decision.

It ignores the fact that BIM output is the result of expert knowledge and professional responsibility. It is not like a set of Ikea instructions anyone can use. Only very cavalier professionals would take on the responsibility of some-one else's work without spending a significant amount of time checking it.

BIM IP APPLIES TO

IP applies to many things but this post is about BIM. The 'products' of BIM that IP may impact include:

Whole BIM model (federated or integrated)
BIM Model contribution (as separate model or co-author)
BIM model components (e.g. equipment, doors, etc)
Editable drawings from the BIM model (e.g. CAD files).
Editable schedules from the BIM model (e.g. Excel files).

Note that the last two items existed before BIM. Generally BIM has not created new IP issues, just extended existing ones.

RIGHTS

There is often a misconception that obtaining IP protection means complete ownership, giving full control to the 'owner'. This is not correct, IP is a safeguard, not a title to ownership.

IP applying to a 'product' is managed by assigning 'Rights' to it, who has the right to do what with it. Often IP discussions are really about Rights, not the application of IP per se.

Rights are something authors should be concerned about. It is where the risks and rewards lie.

What are the types of Rights people are concerned about when it comes to BIM?

The right to:

be identified as author.

Sometimes called 'Moral Rights'. This is covered by IP law in many countries and does not change with BIM.

decide what uses are permitted.

An author should be able to stipulate what their model is suitable for, or more realistically stipulate what it has been created for and let others make the call if it is suitable or not (authors don't necessarily know what other professionals require so how could they be definitive about what their BIM is suitable for?).

But this shouldn't extend to complete denial of access for uses not permitted. Firstly, not all possible uses can be predicted, and secondly even a model unsuitable for a particular use may still be of some use as long as its limitations are known and acknowledged.

The best way to deal with this Right is for authors to stipulate what their BIM model has been created for (i.e. their particular uses), and an affirmation that it contains all information they, as authors, are engaged to produce.

For example an architect would say their model "contains sufficient information to describe the materials and location of those materials". What they shouldn't say is their model is "suitable for estimating uses" as it infers they have modelled every material in accurate quantities.

decide who can use it.

Some believe their 'ownership' of their BIM contribution gives them the right to withhold it from whomever they choose. Whilst an author may have a good reason to prevent certain parties from using their work their reasons may conflict with the needs of other project team members and the project as a whole. The outright power of veto doesn't work in a BIM project.

However it is reasonable to insist you be notified if some-one else receives your work. There may be matters you need to inform other parties about the content and status of your work. An all too common occurrence is contractors providing design professional's work to sub-contractors that is inappropriate, incomplete, or not reissued when superseded. I have personally experience a situation where the piling contractor was given our documents (architect's) to put directly in their survey total station, when all our documents had were roughly placed piles for context. They should have been given the structural engineers drawings, but neither ourselves or the structural engineer knew they had been provided with our BIM model.

The usual way to deal with provision to inappropriate parties is to stipulate the work can only be provided to those directly involved in the particular project it was created for. The way to deal with inappropriate use is to define uses that are permitted.

demand payment for its use.

Traditionally only drawings and written material were provided to others, which they referred to but didn't directly use to generate their work. But a BIM model can be integrated into other's work, for example running an analysis or directly measuring quantities. Because of this some believe they should get a cut in the obvious windfall others are getting.

But there is no windfall. Everyone is relying on getting the information they require from everyone else, no-one has budgeted to pay extra.

That is not to say there are no situations where you can charge. Certainly if your work is to be used for a different project, or purpose not involving your particular project. But charging project participants is not normal practice. If you intend to do it within your project you need to make that clear at the very beginning of the project, when negotiating your engagement agreement. And good luck with that!

use it for other projects and purposes.

It is perfectly reasonable for authors to expect their work will not be used for projects and purposes they are not a party to. This is what standard IP covers, and is what is lost when all IP is signed away.

There is no reason for IP to be completely signed away for BIM to work, as long as all parties agree to provide their work to other members of the project team. It is when there is a belief that there will be resistance to this that owners and contractors try and take everyone's IP via contract clauses.

The best way to fend off attempts to take complete control of your IP is to be accommodating. Show that you will make your work available to all those that will require it for the project.

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR

But with Rights come responsibility.

If you claim authorship you are forever associated with the project.
If you dictate what your BIM model can be used for you accept responsibility that it is suitable for that use.
If you refuse to provide your BIM to some-one you will be expected to provide good reasons and prove it does not impinge on your obligations to the project.
If you insist on the Right to charge for use of your BIM model you take on the responsibility of your BIM model being suitable for the purpose you are charging for.
In most legal jurisdictions the act of accepting money infers you have provided a useful product, no matter what any written agreement says. You can't charge a Quantity Surveyor for using your model for measurement and not accept responsibility for it's accuracy and completeness.

You might consider forgoing Rights you may be entitled to avoid responsibility.

For example forgo the right to dictate what your BIM can be used for and instead provide it on an 'as is' basis.

WHAT CAN YOU DO

Always keep in mind that BIM processes require information to be not only shared, but shared in particular formats. That means you have to provide your computer files to others, there is no way around this.

But that doesn't mean you have to forgo all IP protection. The best approach is to assess whether the rights you want impede the flow of information within the project or not. If they don't, insist on them, if they do, work out a way to achieve your aim another way or accept it is not going to happen.

Specific advice on IP in contracts and agreements is beyond my expertise so I leave that to others. Some resources:

Designing Buildings Wiki (UK)

National BIM standard - US

BIM / IPD [AUS]

Generally you should expect that each participant retain IP rights over their contribution, and that the rights of others only extend to their requirements for the particular project.

You may have limited control over agreements with others but what you can do is manipulate the data you provide to others. For example sheets and annotation (text and dimensions) are not required in the BIM model you provide when you are also providing drawings and written schedules.

Methods include:

Make recipients aware of limitations:

Have standard written "conditions of use" that can be included in agreements with others and included with all document issues.

Use non-editable file format:

Provide IFC, Navisworks, DWF, PDF etc instead of your authoring software.

(These formats, to varying degrees, allow access to BIM data.)

Remove temptation:

Strip BIM models of all but essential elements and data.

Identify your work:

Embed ownership data within BIM objects.

EXAMPLE REVIT SPECIFIC METHODS

There may be others, but I have used these in the past:

Embed "Conditions Of Use":

Create a Starting View and put your Conditions Of Use on it.

(Revit always displays this view when opening the file so it is hard for someone to argue they didn't see it).

Only export the model, excluding all annotation and sheets:

Create 3D view, hide what you don't want to include, place this view on a sheet. In the Project Browser right click over the sheet and pick Save to New File. Open the new Revit file and add a Starting View with Conditions Of Use.

Delete specific views and sheets:

Create a schedule of views, manually delete views. Do the same with a Sheet List.

Or use an add-in to delete views, sheets, etc.

Make your work identifiable:

Add parameters to all your families that contain copyright information (place as a formula so it can't be easily edited).

Prefix all your shared parameters with your organization's acronym.

CONCLUSIONGet used to the fact that no-one is using BIM as a pretext for stealing your IP. Others don't want to own your BIM, they just want to be able to use it.

They want the right to use the model to check if a hole can be drilled without hitting any pipes or wires. Everyone understands use of BIM doesn't give them the right to construct an identical building somewhere else.

IP is an issue of concern, as it always has been, but not sufficient to block or hobble the use of BIM.
Let's stop chasing windmills and get on with the real game, making IP in BIM fair to everyone.

Bored with BIM?
Need a present for that special woman in your life?
The Lost Woman series follows the adventures of Christina as she makes her way through a world of design, fashion, new media and ... men.
The complete series, "AWAKENING the lost woman", "CAPTURING the lost woman" & "FINDING the lost woman" is available now on Amazon,Kobo, Google Books, Barnes & Noble and iBooks.

Author : Antony McPhee

NBS BIM Object Standard - Where is the Impact Statement?

Mon, 29 Jul 2019 15:50:13 +0000

When the NBS BIM Object Standard first came out I eagerly grabbed it to see if it contained any useful insights, anything that might help me structure the way I do my work.
Sadly I was disappointed. Not only did I found nothing I could immediately apply, I barely understood it.
But for me it didn't matter. I don't work in the UK, I could afford to ignore it.

A few months later I noticed a post in the NBS National BIM Library LinkedIn group asking for comment. So I thought I would revisit the NBS BIM Object Standard, try a bit harder to follow it, and work out why I was unimpressed.
After posting my comments on the LinkedIn group someone from the NBS posted a prompt reply. That was over a month ago. Since then no more comments from anyone else, which is disappointing. Seems no one cares.

WHAT IS THE NBS BIM OBJECT STANDARD?But first, for those not in the UK, some background information.
NBS, the National Building Specification, is a commercial firm owned by the RIBA, the Royal Institute of British Architects. They provide specification products and other services - "information solutions to construction industry professionals." BIM services is a good fit for their business, so they are developing a range of BIM 'products'. As we all know establishing standards is necessary for any BIM system, the NBS BIM Object Standard is one of those standards. They have other BIM documents, for example I commented on their NBS Shared Parameters in another post.

The NBS National BIM Object Standard is available for free on-line. There is an on-line version and a downloadable PDF. The on-line version has guidelines built in (click on a clause). The web site is very well designed and easy to use.

In 2014 they won a UK government contract to "take forward development of the Digital Toolkit for Building Information Modelling (BIM)". So any standards they develop are likely to become UK government endorsed, and quite likely government mandated. At the very least they are likely to be referenced in owner BIM requirements in the UK.

MY APOLOGY TO THE NBS

This post is critical of the NBS BIM Object Standard, and I apologize in advance. The standard is not a complete dud, there are many good things in it. A BIM Object Standard is necessary. Kudos to the UK government for funding it, and the NBS is an appropriate organisation to develop it. Much of BIM is new and untested, the NBS are, to an extent, finding their way, like the rest of us. I don't necessarily advocate abandonment of the standard or the NBS as author.

I'm more disappointed than anything else. There are real efforts being made elsewhere, standards that are much more comprehensive and, well, useful. ANZRS, Australian and New Zealand Revit Standards, and BIM-MEP [AUS] come to mind. But these efforts are Revit specific and don't try and use IFC or other global standards.

As I say above, I don't work in the UK, as many of you probably don't either. We won't be directly affected by the NBS BIM Object Standard. I'm using it as a specific example of some of the problems I see in many BIM standards. I hope my criticisms are taken in that light, not as an attack on the NBS, but as a comment on all BIM standards, and a cautionary tale for future BIM standards.

WHAT IS ITS STATUS?

It is not entirely clear to me what the status of the NBS BIM Object Standard is. Is it the NBS in-house standard for creating objects for their library, or is it supposed to be a national (UK) standard for all creators of BIM objects?
No where does it state that it is a national standard, but the language and structure seem to assume that it is. The fact that the names of properties defined in the standard are not identified (e.g. by prefixing with COBie_ or IFC_) suggests they expect there will be no competing standards. Or perhaps they assume the thousands of people involved in the AECO industry will just know that 'Grade' is a COBie property.
The exception are properties specifically for the NBS proprietary specification service (e.g. NBSReference). At least they recognize they have competitors in the specification market, but it seems they don't expect to have any in the BIM market.

The scope of this standard is so narrow I can't see how it could seriously be taken as anything other than an in-house document. It should have been called the NBS BIM Object Library Standard to avoid confusion.

DIFFICULT TO FOLLOW

Even though I work in the BIM sphere, and have read way too many BIM reports, guides and standards, I found the NBS BIM Object Standard a difficult document to understand.

A large chunk of requirements seem to be hidden within BS 8541. I don't know if reading BS 8541 in conjunction with the NBS BIM Object Standard would make it more understandable or not because I don't have a lazy few hundred pounds sterling. But really, no document should rely on another to make it comprehensible.

There is an assumption IFC, and IFC terminology, is understood by readers. IFC is for computer nerds, not construction or FM professionals. If you actually want to engage them it needs to be explained in terms used in the AECO industry.
Does anyone know what this means?

"The BIM object may include Pset BuildingElementProxyCommon if no IFC common property set (Pset xxxxCommon) exists for that object in IFC 2x3. Where PsetBuildingElementProxyCommon is used, the BIM object shall include a ‘Reference’ property completed with an alphanumeric value acting as an identifier for the specific object type."

Some parts are particularly unclear. Clause 2.2 talks about "The BIM object property". Is it the value of the property which identifies the object (if so what is the property name?), or is it generic - applies to all property values?

Each property is described, but many are not clear on what they are to be used for. Things like Features, Grade, Constituents. When is something a Feature instead of a Constituent? Generally examples would be helpful. I have trouble imagining how most of how the standard could apply to what I do (as an Architect).

UNCLEAR STRUCTURE

Properties included seem to privilege FM. For example I didn't see anything there that would help me do a door schedule.
The response from the NBS was that COBie is mandated by UK BIM so must be included (presumably to comply with NBS's government contract).

That's fine, but if you are trying to develop a standard shouldn't it cover all use cases?
Their response to that was that the NBS standard is "not a static document". Again, not an unreasonable intent, although perhaps challenging to the usual concept of a 'standard'.

But there is no recognition of this in the structure of the document. I get that it is not possible to instantly produce all information, but I would expect a standard to have a structure that reflects long term goals, that won't require constant restructuring to include new information.

This issue is partly the reason I find it so difficult to follow. Under section 2: Information Requirements, there are heading for IFC, COBie and NBS_General. So these are presumably requirements, but there is no definition or explanation around them.
From what I can gather COBie is data for operations (i.e. FM), NBS_General are for specification co-ordination. Perhaps IFC is for all other uses? I don't know. It is not clear.

REPEATED AND UNCLEAR INFORMATION

I thought the point of standardizing data was to avoid unnecessary duplication.
Yet there are a number of parameters that appear to be for the same information.
Clause 2.6.1.16-18 defines 'NominalLength', 'NominalWidth' and 'NominalHeight'. Clause 2.6.1.21 defines 'Size'. Aren't they describing the same thing?

As an aside it is disappointing 'NominalLength' and 'NominalWidth' are not more clearly defined. NominalLength is defined as "primary horizontal dimension", NominalWidth is "secondary horizontal dimension", which leaves it to users to interpret which is "primary" and which is "secondary".
More definitive would be to define 'NominalLength' as left to right horizontal dimension, and 'NominalWidth' as front to back horizontal dimension, something I've written about previously.

There are parameters that contain more than one piece of information (e.g. Category - number, colon then name), yet other single parameters that would only apply to a limited range of objects and would be best contained in one general description parameter, things like 'Grade', 'Constituents' and 'Features'.

To be fair these problems are due to inadequacies in COBie, another issue I have previously written about. But is it sensible to propagate poor practices without question?

Use of Classification is confusing. There are two main english language classification systems, Uniclass from the UK, and Omniclass from the USA.
In the NBS BIM Object Standard there are two places to put classification; COBie, clause 2.6.1.2 has 'Category', and NBS_General, clause 2.7.8 has 'Uniclass2'.

In addition to the two classification parameters there is a third, NBSReference, which is for an NBS Clause Reference. (as well as NBSDescription which is for an NBS clause title, presumably the text that accompanies a clause reference, so I don't know why you need both).

The reason behind all this, according to the NBS, is so you "can have more than one classification associated with a product (BS ISO 15686-4)".
Which on the face of it seems prudent. But why would you want to have more than one classification system associated with a product? How does that work?
Are we supposed to completed both parameters with the same value, or can we leave on blank?
Do we put Omniclass in one and UniClass2 in the other for all components?
Or have a mixture so some components have Omniclass, others Uniclass?

And why is there a separate parameter for specification? Isn't the whole point of a unified classification system that the same classification number is used for all purposes - specifications, costing, scheduling, asset management?

But to me the silliest parameter is BIMObjectName, which is the same as the actual name of the component. Why? The object has a name so why repeat it as a parameter? It just adds another layer of work and potential error in the data.

INEFFICIENT NAMING CONVENTION

In section 5: Metadata Requirements all naming follows the same format:

role / source / type /subtype / differentiator

Where 'role' means BIM object author and 'source' means product manufacturer.

I'm not sure how you would apply this to components made of multiple products by multiple manufacturers. Objects that have layers of materials like walls, roofs, ceilings and sometimes floors.

The naming schema does follow the "major to less minor" structure that lists similar things together, which is the best strategy.
Except this structure lists by component author, then product manufacturer. Neither of these bits of information are important to the vast majority of people who will be using BIM objects.

Who cares who the author is when you are searching a list to find a door, or a pump, or a sprinkler? It doesn't matter if is was NBS, or Arcat, or BIMobject, or BIMcomponent.
Next most useless information is manufacturer. The actual product, and hence manufacturer, is not known for many components until a contractor is appointed. Architect and engineers do design intent BIM, our work is largely finished by the time the manufacturer is known.

For those of us who have to use standards (as opposed to those who just create them) this introduces an enormous inefficiency when trying to select components by their name. We are confronted with lists sorted by who made them, then sorted by manufacturer. What we need are components listed by what they are, not who made them.

To make it worse clause 5.2.3 says "The manufacturer name shall not be abbreviated." So not only are our components sorted in a manner useless to us, we can't read the information we need as it is hidden when the name extends beyond the width of our dialog boxes. For example names like Australian Sustainable Hardwoods (30 characters), BAC Advanced Composites Technologies (33 characters).

Complying names in Revit:

in Windows:

But interestingly in the NBS National BIM Library components use what sort of thing they are straight after author. Did the NBS find their own standard unworkable?

And what happens when a product is selected, when it goes from being a generic component to a specific one? Currently we just change, or more likely add, the relevant information. Replacing our well structured components with manufacturer components is not a realistic option. That would possibly cause them to relocate themselves in our model, and almost certainly destroy our existing schedules.
So realistically the standard requires us rename the component. Not only do we complete the manufacturer and model information we have to rename the component and change the value of the NBS BIMObjectName parameter. It may not sound like much but it effectively doubles our work.
Oh, and COBie also has a Name parameter for the component's name, but apparently it is not, or doesn't have to be, the name within the BIM platform. So the component has two names?

As an aside names of things in a BIM system should be treated as the HUID for the object - Human Understandable ID. Just like computers need a GUID to identify objects, those of us that create BIM need a human understandable way to identify objects. A name that suits our working practices so we can be efficient. Names should NEVER be used as a data field as they are unreliable and invariably repeat data already embedded in proper data fields.

And the justification for all this?
"The NBS BIM Object standard draws upon BS 1192 and BS8541 for naming conventions. This document states that ‘Source’ e.g. Library author/ Manufacturer is the first field within the naming convention."

Why draw on something that is inappropriate?

UNREALISTIC

We get this all too often in standards, rules and requirements that are impossible or difficult and time consuming to comply with.

Clause 2.3.5 states "The BIM object shall map hard coded properties that do not conform to naming conventions in section 5 ‘Metadata Requirements’ to a correctly spelt property based upon the order of selection in clause 2.3.3, e.g. ‘Fire Rating’ (hard coded) should be mapped to the IFC property ‘FireRating’."

You can't do that in Revit. You can't map a text parameter to another text parameter. Now, admittedly you should be able to, Autodesk should hang their head in shame. But the reality is the majority of people authoring BIM use Revit, so none of us can comply.

Which brings up another issue. Why are we being made to put things into our BIM model, the one we rely on to produce the work we are contracted to do and are responsible for? Why are we being made to wade through a sea of parameters that we don't use?
And it is so unnecessary. Our parameters can be mapped to what others want on export. They don't HAVE to exist as separate parameters in our models. All we should be required to do is ensure we have the necessary parameters to map to IFC and/or COBie properties for export. Particularly since one of our parameters is likely to populate multiple IFC / COBie properties, as described above.

This comes under the 'are they serious' department.
There is an overarching requirement to fill values not applicable or not known with 'n/a', including, bizarrely, revision.

I can understand why you might put n/a as a value for parameters that never will be applicable to a particular object (which makes you wonder why they are there in the first place), but why do it if the value is simply not know?
And how do you, or how does compliance checking software, tell whether it is not applicable or not know - not available?

But what irks me the most is the amount pointless effort that will be required to fulfil this requirement. Generally software will leave a value blank if it is not filled in. What the NBS BIM Object Standard is demanding is that someone take the time to go through and change all these blank values to n/a. Across tens of parameters in an object, hundreds of objects in a project, thousands of different firms, and projects within those firms. Millions of man hours per year across the industry. And why?

"During consultation, feedback advised us that having blank COBie fields resulted in failed COBie compliance tests. BS1192-4 suggests unknown values are entered as ‘n/a’."

So rather than the few hours it would take to make some COBie compliance software cope with null values, the whole AEC industry is expected to waste millions of man hours.

FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS

A summary.

POORLY STRUCTURED

For an industry document I find the NBS BIM Object Standard poorly structured and not clearly written. It reads like an internal document between Standard writing wonks. What appears to be explanatory clauses are really just lists that could have been formatted in tables.
Unfortunately the NBS BIM Object Standard is not the only BIM document to attract this criticism.

LIMITED SCOPE

The NBS BIM Object Standard only covers a very small part of BIM processes. It tries to cover FM by including some COBie parameters, and specification coordination through the NBS parameters. Mind you, very limited specification coordination as NBS is only one of many available systems, and of no use to those who do in-house specifications.

And you do wonder if it is appropriate for COBie data to be in objects contained in what is design software. Software like Revit and ArchiCAD are fundamentally unsuitable for FM. There is no intrinsic reason for FM data to be embedded in these softwares, as it is of no use to anyone making use of the BIM benefits they bestow. There are other junctures, and other softwares, in the construction process where inputting of FM data would be much more efficient.

DOGMATIC ACCEPTANCE OF OTHER STANDARDS

A few of the shortcomings of the NBS BIM Object Standard stem from the unquestioned following of other standards. I suppose the argument is that the purpose of the NBS BIM Object Standard is to assist in compliance with other standards. But are those standards appropriate?
Is it really necessary to follow another standard's internal requirements, requirements developed for purposes different from the needs of a BIM Object Standard?
The real question here is should a standard be the same as other standards or should the aim be to make it compatible with other standards. To be something useful rather than recycle things that exist elsewhere.

NO IMPACT STATEMENT

But perhaps the most disappoint aspect of this, and most, if not all, other standards for BIM, is the lack of any thought to industry impact. I'm not talking about supply chain impact, but additional work that will be required across the industry to comply with a standard.

The argument that the overall gain in efficiency of a common standard will surpass any additional individual effort doesn't hold water.

Firstly any irrelevant effort should be eliminated as a matter of course.

Secondly, how do you know what the overall gain will be if you don't deduct new inefficiencies?

And thirdly, the burden of additional effort is not equally shared. Only some parties are weighed down with additional work and inefficient practices, whilst other benefit with no or little effort. This may not be completely avoidable, but where it does occur there should be robust assessment of costs and benefits to ensure it is a worthwhile sacrifice.

CONCLUSIONStandards are boring and often difficult to understand. But make no mistake, once published they will affect what you do.

The NBS BIM Object Standard may in reality only be an in-house document for their library, but they are promoting it as a national standard. And as we know standards, even ones pretending to be national, are invariably included in contracts by people who have no understanding of what they are.
We are already seeing this with the inclusion of COBie in contracts with no definition of what is to be included in the COBie deliverable. Thousands of man hours wasted on providing something those requesting it have no capacity or intention of using.

What can be done?
Don't take it lying down. If your boss makes you do something to comply with a standard that takes extra time make it known, if a client demands compliance with standards question the need, and charge if it takes additional effort, and if your BIM consultant suggests you should include a standard in contracts demand a proper cost benefit analysis, don't accept 'you might need it' or it is 'what everyone else is doing', and don't believe them if they say 'it shouldn't cost extra'.

And when comment is sought on new standards take the opportunity to have your say. Or pester your industry association to comment, they are, after all, supposedly there to protect the interests of their members.

Author : Antony McPhee

Procuring BIM - PAS 1192-2 and acif PTI

Sun, 28 Jul 2019 15:34:00 +0000

I 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 acted upon. And confusing, mixing up BIM issues with management practices that have nothing to do with BIM.

PAS 1192-2 I recently worked my way through the UK PAS 1192-2:2013. Full title:

Specification for information management for the capital/delivery phase of construction projects using building information modelling.

It is a "Publicly Available Specification", which are documents created for a sponsor by the British Standards Institution (BSI).

In this case the sponsor was the UK Construction Industry Council (CIC).

Not that the BSI do all the work. The PAS is done via consultation and a number organizations have been involved (24 are acknowledged). It was published in February 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 PAS-1192-2 is an attempt to holistically capture BIM processes from beginning to end of a construction project. It is one of the few examples which tries to proscribe how to commence a BIM project, how to create a BIM brief.

acif BIM & PTI

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

Documents include:

A Framework for the Adoption of Project Team Integration & BIM, published December 2014, acknowledges 11 participants, and is 60 pages.

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

These documents essentially cover the same ground, with the later one containing marginally more specific 'advice'.

The first "is designed to guide and assist industry stakeholders in the adoption and implementation of PTI and BIM."

The later "is to provide asset owners and project procurers with an outline of potential procurement practices, processes and steps which might be followed in developing effective procurement strategies for implementation of Building Information Modelling (BIM) and Project Team Integration (PTI) on specific projects within the built environment."

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

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

It is interesting to look at these documents side by side as the UK is heading for mandatory BIM, whereas Australia is, well, on its own. The current federal government doesn't believe anything needs to be done about global warming, so BIM is way too avant-garde for them to even comprehend, let alone mandate.

But governments change, and what the acif is spruiking may end up in the form that PAS-1192-2 takes, or indeed the wholesale implementation of an unchanged PAS 1192-2.

So how do they stack up?

AN EASY READ?

In a word, no.

PAS 1192-2 is acronym city. I had to spend a lot of time memorizing the myriad of abbreviations:

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 1192-2 has a glossary, not every acronym is listed. It wasn't until page 13 that I found out what PAS stood for.

Terminology varies to a frustrating extent. You kind of expect some variances, particularly as PAS 1192-2 is from the UK, acif documents from Australia. But the authors seem to revel in creating their own unique terms. The Owner is called "Employer" in PAS 1192-2, "Project Sponsor" 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, IPD being a form of contract rather than a description. I don't see it. IPD is already a term in use in Australia, and perfectly adequate. Why invent a new one?

PAS 1192-2 is a document you study - take notes, reread sections, draw your own diagrams, google a lot (to find out what the acronyms mean). Just reading it will leave you confused and be of no practical benefit. A lot of thought has gone in to it, but golly, does BIM have to be this complicated?

The acif documents are easier to read - if you can stay awake. The same things are constantly repeated, not just within documents, also across documents. There is really no point reading the Framework document, the same information is repeated in the Building and Construction Procurement Guide.

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

REALISTIC WORKFLOWS, OBJECTIVES?

PAS 1192-2 describes workflows, the acif documents really describes objectives, and now and 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 some people involved with direct experience. But there are some areas that I believe push the bounds of practicality.

PRE-TENDER BIM PLAN

The requirement for a pre-tender BIM plan in PAS 1192-2 is unrealistic. I don't see how this is even possible unless the tender process is severely limited to only seeking bids from consortiums. A BIM plan needs all parties to get together to agree on a plan. How can this be done at tender or RFT stage when multiple parties are bidding for the same work? If it is enforced it sets up an environment where collusion could run rife. All those tenders getting together and just discussing BIM?

Unless, that is, PAS 1192-2 really means something other than a traditional BIM plan. I searched for this possibility but could find nothing that suggested otherwise.

But I smell a rat. Although PAS 1192-2 explicitly states it is suitable for all contract types the underlying 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 underlying intent. More on that below.

GATEWAYS OR BLOCKAGES

PAS 1192-2 includes "Gateways", where BIM data is approved before the data is released for use by others. This is not a new invention brought about by BIM, many QA processes already contain such procedures.

Hold and review points are good in theory, but if not structured and managed carefully can end up being blockage points instead. In my experience the reality does not always match the 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 a technology?). Instead work programs are condensed to unrealistic levels to the point that work continues into the review period, leading to poor work and inadequate 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, or drag their feet in officially signing off on anything. So work continues on, as it has to, using unapproved deliverables.
Your boss sees checking as a non-productive use of time, so if some-one else is doing it why are you doing it? Leading to unchecked documents leaving the office.
Any review point is an opportunity for designers to "tweak" the design, leading to rushed reworking.

These problems can be addressed, but PAS 1192 seems ambitious when it comes to sign off at Gateways (which it admits may be difficult for "some contracts").

The problem in PAS 1192-2 is sign off is assumed to mean a shift of responsibility from author 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 owner needs to appoint a second architect to check the primary architect's work, structural engineer, services engineer etc. Not very efficient.

There is a trade off between mistake free documents and project progression. To ensure comprehensive and mistake free documents takes considerable time at each check point.

A more practical approach would be to check only for completeness, the professional risk still being carried by the author.

VOLUMES

PAS 1192-2 has a concept it calls "Volumes". The idea is that the project is broken up in to a number of volumes (3D spaces) that are allocated to different project team members. The example 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 moderately complex 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 most efficient way to design a building.

Further "all members of the design team shall agree volumes as fully as possible at the start of the project". How can you do this before designing the building? The allocation of space is a huge part of design, most of what an architect does. Does PAS 1192-2 assume the architect's work is complete before BIM is started?

It wouldn't surprise me. There is a pervasive belief that BIM only starts once a contractor gets involved. Part of the absurd push for IPD (aka PTI): that BIM is only possible if the contractor 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 ("further development of national templates, content and Standards")
2 are repeats of issues already stated.

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 the benefits of BIM." Not more pilot projects! How many more BIM events must we sit through where all you get are syrupy presentations of (apparently) extraordinarily successful BIM projects.

And there are contradictions. Under Asset Management "Proposed Activities to deliver on Objective" one 'activity' suggests another is not possible.

How can:

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

be achieved until:

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

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

THE COST

There is quite a bit of extra work for owners ("Employers") in PAS 1192-2. From being responsible for proscribing the entire BIM process to checking it has been complied with. To follow PAS 1192-2 owners will have to beef up their project management teams, not just in training 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 may not directly pay each tenderers for the additional work, the industry as a whole will need to recoup those added costs.

COBie deliverables and assignation of Uniclass classification codes are mandatory, even though there may be no-one using these on the project. Why provide COBie if an FM solution is part of the construction contract and data can be placed directly into the chosen FM system? Sure, preference COBie and Uniclass coding where FM data and cost coding are 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 that needs to be paid for, whether directly paid for by the owner or as a cost to the industry as a whole.

Sure BIM may bring savings elsewhere, but strict compliance to PAS 1992-2 will be an additional cost. Therefore be wary of statements like "must comply with PAS 1192-2". 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 in their bids.

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

DOES BIM DRIVE THE FORM OF CONTRACT?

Building contracts are structured to achieve many outcomes, and attempt to create agreement on many issues, BIM is only one, and is by no means the most important. Yet both PAS 1192-2 and the acif documents assume that BIM processes can only be achieved under one contractual arrangement.

Interestingly both PAS 1192-2 and the acif documents specifically state that they are contract neutral, acif documents even warning that owners ("Project Sponsors"):

"... need to be careful that changing contractual arrangements for BIM doesn't lead 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 requirements (PAS 1192-2) and objectives (acif documents) can be met is with an IPD type contract.

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 with their effect on BIM Implementation. Except they lumped all existing contract types together and compared them to alliancing ("partnering") and consortium ("financing") contracts. What would have been far more interesting, and actually useful, would be to compare BIM implementation between each of the existing contract types (Construct, D&C, Managed Contract, Construction Management etc.).

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

BIM AS SOCIAL ENGINEERING

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 these protocols are. There is a list of their purpose, and why they are important but not what they are. Are they talking about specific existing protocols, future protocols, a protocol, or a series of 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 5 colour coded columns, red is bad, blue is exemplary.

You guessed it, existing contract types only appear in the red column, PTI type contracts dominates the blue. Amazing, doing PTI (whatever that entails) will miraculously make everyone 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 without interfering."

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

WHAT IS THIS 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:

"PTI is a project delivery approach that encourages clients to engage a team (including design consultants and building contractors) at the earliest stages of a 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 it PTI instead of business as usual? Besides more motherhood statements like "reduce waste" and "optimise project outcomes" there is nothing about what specific procedures constitutes a "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 have been 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 the idea that we should be providing additional information for others to use, which I call for what it is, exploitation, not collaboration.

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

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

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

And it simply won't work. No manager thinks what they do is poor practice. When they read something like BIM requires "a well informed client who knows what they want" they never think 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 will reap better rewards. That those who are open to adjusting their management style will benefit more than those that don't. To say to a manager you must throw out how you have done things in the past to use BIM is not only untrue, but counterproductive.

SUMMARY

To summarize my main criticisms:

PAS 1192-2

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.

PROCESS

-Assumes design team all engaged at same time.

-Assumes RFT from consortium - how else does a "pre-contract BEP" get done?

-Assumes IPD type contracts (even though says it doesn't).

-Assumes building has been designed (e.g. expectation of "volume" definitions)

DELIVERABLES

-Insists 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

acif DOCUMENTS

-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.

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

But having read them I believe both PAS 1192-2 and the acif documents are worthwhile additions 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 between the 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 these documents.
I believe all PAS 1192-2 needs some time in the real world getting practical experience to see what works and what doesn't. Some parts probably need to be watered down but the underlying logic and workflows are sound.

So my advice is to make use of PAS 1192-2; for guidance on setting up a BIM procurement process, 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 1192-2 'shall' be followed, and approach the acif documents with a dose of skepticism, mine it for the gems and leave the tailings behind.

Author : Antony McPhee

Everyday BIM

Sat, 27 Jul 2019 15:29:23 +0000

This month 7 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 started reviewing the literature on BIM I became alarmed at the misunderstandings and direction BIM was heading. It soon became apparent that as well as things that should be done to make BIM work, there are also things that should NOT be done to make BIM work (or at least not more work than it needs to be).

It seems to me the misuse of BIM stems from some basic conceptual misunderstandings, (or intentional misconstructions) of BIM. If I believe these people are mistaken, what is my conception 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; not special, world changing BIM, just ordinary Everyday BIM.

First some thoughts on what BIM is not.

BIM is not A UTOPIA

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 will eventually be superseded by a new acronym for a different approach, just as BIM superseded 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 one off exercise that leads to an amazing outcome you will be sorely disappointed. If you are waiting 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 for further changes will not evaporate.

BIM is not an end in itself. It is a process of continuing improvement.

BIM is not AN EXCUSE FOR SOCIAL ENGINEERING

There is a myth a particular type of contractual arrangement is required for BIM to work, so called 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, risk and decision making is laudable. But just as you don't need to use BIM to achieve these aims (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 work arrangements for BIM is a naked attempt to use BIM as a driver to improve the way the way the industry works. This is great for bettering the AECO industry but detrimental to BIM adoption. BIM is not the only, and certainly not the most critical, driver in the selection of contractual arrangements. Making the assumption IPD is necessary for BIM leads to BIM not being considered for projects that require other contractual arrangements for reasons other than BIM.

BIM is not RESTRICTED TO ALL IN ONE SOLUTIONS

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 of one 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 all rigorously comply to the same Standards, (assuming multiple platforms will be able to communicate via data that adheres to Standards).

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

Forcing all participants use the same platform will lead to inefficiencies amongst individual parties. Each of us make choices about technologies and processes that are the most efficient at fulfilling our responsibilities. And because of competition the best available comes into common use. These individual actions add up to an efficient and cost effective overall 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, a situation all the software houses are currently scrambling to take advantage of.

The requirement for such tight integration will also encourage the ascendancy of large multi-disciplinary firms and vertical integration into AECO conglomerates. Say good-bye to the bespoke architectural design firm, medium size contractors and specialist sub-contractors.

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 managed economy with centralized decision making should be more efficient. But in practice a market where individuals make the decisions is more efficient. Blatantly demonstrated when the USSR collapsed, and more recently the problems in Venezuela.

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

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

BIM is not A BUNCH OF STANDARDS

There is an enormous expectation that Standards will make BIM not just more efficient, but in 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 so closely. But they are not the panacea they are portrayed to be. And the main reasons are inherent in how Standards are created.

Standards take a long time to be developed and agreed. Most work on Standards around the world is done for free by volunteers. The process for approving Standards is also unpaid and requires many people, often from widely dispersed places, to come together. This is particularly pertinent for technology dependent processes like BIM where Standards trail current 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 attract academics, where their participation does bring reputational rewards. They may be the brightest, but lack practical experience and tend to create obtuse documents no-one else but fellow academics can comprehend.

So Standards invariably document out of date practices in a manner that can not be understood 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 to deliver BIM. Processes and conventions developed by individual people, firms and project teams will always pay a major role in BIM. Just as proprietary software and formats will always be at the forefront of BIM technology.

Standards development should focus on supporting market driven BIM, not be put forward as BIM itself.

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

BIM is often portrayed as a process where some-one will provide some-one else with a product that reduces that persons work. For example a facilities manager who receives a BIM 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 the receiver. That if the facilities manager can't directly use the BIM model, use BIM data to populate 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 if created for a specific purpose. An architect creates a BIM model to communicate what is to be 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 some-one to make it fit for particular purpose. So there is an expectation this work being done on the receiver's behalf is free.

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

So what is BIM?

BIM is A CONCEPT

At its core BIM is a concept - the idea that the physical building, systems within it and processes 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 view their deliverables. The norm is to privilege drawings - that the firm's output are drawings. Of course their real output, and what everyone else expects, is information. Drawings merely communicate this information, they are nothing more than a tool.

When training CAD users to use BIM software the biggest hurdle is to get them to understand that the drawing is not the most important aspect. To get them to stop obsessing over line weights and concentrate on ensuring wall definitions reflect what the wall is to be constructed 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 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 use layer names to describe what elements represented. Back then that was all we had available, 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 that manages softwares. Therefore BIM processes are limited to what software can do.

It is pointless developing BIM processes and Standards that are independent of available technology. Pointless because no-one can use actually them, or are forced to invent elaborate 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 a corner.

BIM is PROCESSES

BIM is a set of processes that manages AECO technologies. Individual processes that can be linked to and linked from other processes. Processes that work in parallel, branch off and have different outcomes, a bit like they way a molecule is structured. BIM is not one single linear 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 have to 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 does not necessarily follow that one process justifies the implementation of all its precursor processes.

Nor is the fact a particular BIM process is not being used reason enough to not use other BIM processes.

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

BIM is OPPORTUNITY

The original intent of BIM was that by capturing work in a digital format it would be more useful 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 data required by others to do their work. That BIM data provided will be structured to suit the work processes of others.

The workflow envisage was that some-one provided their BIM model to some-one else, who then extracted and restructured the information they required. The provider remains responsible for their data - that it represents their area of expertise and deliverables, but they 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 the contractor may use to create fabrication BIM. If there is an error in the fabrication model it is not the services engineer's responsibility, but if there is an error in the capacity sizing provided it is. If architects model a building in 3D, and the structural and services engineers do 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 their purposes. 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 outcome through the availability of data. And this is best done through fostering cooperation and collaboration, not rigid demands, especially from those outside the immediate process.

EVERYDAY BIM

How might this approach be used everyday for real projects in the real world?

Some general suggestions:

OWNERS:

Restrict BIM demands to things you need directly (e.g. asset management), and to ensure general BIM proficiency (e.g within discipline expectations like drawing and schedules generated from BIM).

Don't make BIM data a deliverable if you don't need it yourself, instead include engagement contract clauses that allow for the exchange of data between project participants.

DESIGN PROFESSIONALS:

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 to others.

CONTRACTORS:

Take advantage of the BIM data available on a project.

Foster BIM processes, along with cooperation and collaboration across project participants.

TRADES:

Embody BIM processes in supply chain and work management. Tailor those processes to take advantage of available BIM data.

Allow others to use the data you produce.

FACILITY MANAGEMENT:Develop FM solutions that take advantage of available BIM data.
Become involved before facility handover so you can make your requirements known to others.

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

I hope you find these general suggestions helpful, even if they are perhaps too brief to be truly practical, something I will aim to ameliorate in future posts.

Author : Antony McPhee

Should Owners ask for BIM?

Fri, 26 Jul 2019 14:57:00 +0000

There is this idea in the BIM evangelist community that owners, the ones who commission a facility, should specify what BIM is to be used on a project. Not just what BIM will be delivered 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 accountant which 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 the structural engineer should use the BIM model for structural analysis, whether the contractor should 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 the owner's representatives are bombarded with these types of questions, and not surprisingly they 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 understand BIM. After all the owner, as the one with the money, is the only party who has control over the whole team. Therefore, the evangelists surmise, they are the ONLY ones who can enforce BIM on a project. The fact they are unqualified, uninterested and don't see why they should take on that risk are wilfully ignored.

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

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

APPROACHES TO ASKING FOR BIMThere are a number of ways an owner can approach BIM on a project. The approach used will inform what processes need to be put in place for the project to be successful (in a BIM sense).

Ignore BIM

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

Allow BIM

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

Encourage BIM

Appreciate BIM is worthwhile and actively encourage its use, but not directly engage in BIM processes.

Participate in BIM

Integrate your own BIM processes into the BIM processes of others.

Demand BIM

Enforce BIM of your own design on all project participants.

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

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

BIM IS NOT JUST FM

One of the misunderstanding going around (sometimes I think wilfully) is that BIM is equivalent to facilities management. That the only thing BIM means is the use of a 3D model connected 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 and construction teams to use BIM you will have a fully functional BIM FM system at the end of the project.

I don't understand how anyone could think this was true. Why would a BIM model created to design, analyse, and coordinate a building, or one to cost and program it be suitable for facilities management? Yet I have had clients say they want our Revit model provided to them, 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 and construction is just there to provide the data for the FM system. And further, that if BIM is not used 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 3D model and a database of information. You could pay someone to create the model and populate the database when you set up the FM system. Or you could get the whole design and construction team to change they way they do their work just so they produce a 3D model and populated database at the completion of their work.

Does that second method really sound sensible? Why would you compromise a much bigger process (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 of running a facility is compared to building it. But design and construction BIM can only ever contribute to the initial set up of the FM database, it has nothing to do with the ongoing operation.

But BIM is not just FM. It is used for much more than that. And once that is realised the benefits can be captured.

If design professionals use BIM for their processes, they will have a lot of data, including 3D graphical 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. But there is a fair bit that can be used for FM. The cost of restructuring this data to suit FM is theoretically 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 based FM 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 FM system.

DON'T KILL THE GOLDEN GOOSE

Of course you may not have a BIM based FM system, nor intend to implement one. That's a commercial 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 for anyone 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 the project to be done more efficiently and effectively. You, as the owner, benefits from a project that is less likely to suffer delays, is less likely to spring surprise additional costs, and will result 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 design and construction team, via their contracts, have these responsibilities. And if the owner instructs them on how to do their job, how to undertake their responsibilities, the owner takes on some of those responsibilities.

ENCOURAGING BIM

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

SELECTION

The first step in encouraging BIM is to engage BIM capable professionals, to include BIM capabilities in bid requirements.

By that I don't mean a description of what BIM processes a bidder must undertake, but a request the bidders provide a description of the BIM processes they already do. In this early period of BIM take up you may extend this to include BIM processes bidders intend or are prepared 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. Professionals are primarily engaged for their capabilities in their area of expertise, and service performance. BIM is only a tool, it won't compensate for lack of expertise or poor service.

AGREEMENTS & CONTRACTS

The second step is to ensure agreements and contractual arrangements allow BIM processes to work freely. As mentioned above all BIM processes (except facilities management) are between the design and construction teams. This is a challenge for those drawing up and approving agreements. Traditionally contracts have been designed to be between the person paying and the one doing the work. BIM capable agreements require additional clauses that set out how those being paid will interact with third parties - other project participants.

Obviously there are a whole raft of issues to consider, and the type of BIM processes undertaken 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 facilities management), nor are the exact BIM processes known at the beginning of a project before everyone is signed up.

The BIM evangelist's answer is to ignore reality and assume the owner HAS to be a BIM participant, and that everyone HAS to be signed up at the very beginning of a project (as evidenced 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 of information in BIM type format. That is, BIM information created by project participants must be freely available to all other project participants. Sounds simple but there is a paranoia about theft of intellectual property throughout the industry. The default position is to withhold information. Contracts need to specifically override this position.

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

Contracts could be further extended to be BIM friendly. For example allowing for project participants to do modelling for others participants, whilst responsibility is retained by the requesting party. So the architects might model ductwork for the mechanical engineers (or sub-contractor) but the engineers or sub-contractor must check and approve that modelling work.

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

EVIDENCE OF BIM

Rather than demanding direct BIM deliverables they will never use owners should look at requesting evidence of BIM. Requesting evidence also means that even if specific BIM is not defined 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. The owner may not participate in the creation of a BIM Management Plan, but they can include it as a deliverable. They may not attend clash coordination meetings but minutes of outcomes can be requested.

However evidence of BIM should never be provided for 'approval'. Not only does this pass some responsibility back on to the approver (the owner) but has the potential to hold up the project.

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 or inadequate, but should never 'approve' it.

REMUNERATION

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

The problem is that not all participants share these cost savings equally. Which is easy to see when you look at how BIM works. BIM models are created early in a project and passed on to participants through the term of the project. The architect models the building, the mechanical engineer uses that model to do energy calculations, the mechanical engineer's model is passed on to the mechanical sub-contractor who uses it as a basis for shop drawing and CAM, this model is passed to the facilities manager to populate their energy management system. The further up the chain the more complete the model is and greater the 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 for equipment. With BIM they have to model their work accurately and select specific components (otherwise you can't model them). Of course paying them extra to do this work is 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 analysis on a half modelled building. If the point of BIM is to create a complete virtual building to test its 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 spending more (although that will certainly bolster use of BIM!). To encourage BIM there needs to be a re-think of where and when money is spent. More money is required at the pre-construction BIM model creation stage.

This may be in the form of extra for design professionals, the appointment of additional professionals, or bringing forward engagements (e.g. services sub-contractors).

And within those engagements payment schedules need to be revised. Fees are normally broken up into stages. With BIM more work is done - more hours expended - in early stages than traditional work methods.

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

DIRECT ENCOURAGEMENT

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

CONCLUSION

So what is the answer, should owners ask for BIM?

As is the case with most questions, that depends. But here are some recommendations.

Ignore BIM

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

Allow BIM

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

Encourage BIM

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 also creates a wealth of BIM data. It is not structured for FM use, but can still be mined for useful FM data.

Participate in BIM

A truly BIM project has everyone participating in BIM, including the owner. Owners can participate 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 to their 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.

Demand BIMNot recommended. Unless you are a conglomerate with architects, engineers and contractors all under the same roof you should not be dictating what BIM is done. Even then care must be taken to ensure some participants are not working inefficiently for questionable benefits elsewhere.

Author : Antony McPhee

How to define BIM Use

Thu, 25 Jul 2019 14:50:01 +0000

For those that don't know, a BIM Use is a task, outcome or deliverable that a BIM model is used for. For example when a BIM model is used for structural analysis, or to create a door schedule, 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 it Model Use, but I shall stick to BIM Use, as there is a world beyond BIM with other types of models.

BIM Use is at the core of BIM. The basic concept of BIM is that data created is captured in a form 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 from those doors. That modelled structural elements behave in a way that allows for structural analysis.

Yet there seems to be massive confusion around BIM Use. What should be simple is made incredibly 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, are we 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 to avoid the whole thing. But BIM Use can not be ignored. If we are going to really do BIM we have to have a workable way of managing BIM Use.

The purpose of a BIM UseLet 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 a BIM Use for a project if there is a specific reason to do it; a specific party who will do it; a specific party who will receive the results; a specific outcome that aids the design, building or operation of the project facility.

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

Who employs BIM Uses

BIM Use is invariable talked about as the uses of external parties. Typically uses by the BIM model author are ignored.

Apparently if a structural engineer uses the architect's BIM model for structural analysis that is a BIM Use, if they use their own it is not.

I suspect this is because no cross-organisation agreement (or demand) is required it is not considered part of "BIM Process".

The problem is these in-house BIM processes are then not considered when agreeing on other 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:

Within a discipline
- e.g. schedules from model
Between disciplines within a team (e.g. architect, engineer, QS etc.)
- e.g. energy analysis
Between teams (e.g. design, construction, operation, etc)
- e.g. asset management
Across disciplines
- e.g. estimates
Across teams
- e.g. clash detection

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

LOD is not BIM Use

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 has certain 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 Authorized Uses, Model element by Model element and milestone by milestone."

But in practice how do you define "Authorized Uses, Model element by Model element and milestone by milestone."?

Considering there are literally hundreds of different possible "Authorized Uses" are we really expected to list them not only against each Model Element, but against each Model Element at each Milestone?

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

"Because BIM is being put to an ever increasing number of uses, the group decided that it was beyond the initial scope to address all of them. Instead, the definitions were developed to address model element geometry, with three of the most common uses in mind – quantity take-off, 3D coordination and 3D control and planning. The group felt that in taking this approach the interpretations 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 BIM Uses.

What LOD tables actually do is to define the level of development each element is to have as the 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 because you 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 remove references to BIM Use. It just confuses and complicates them.

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

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

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

Who decides BIM Uses?

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 participants want 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 of the information is not reliable don't rely on any of it". And that their intent in E203 is to change that to "because some of the information is not reliable you can only rely on the information that I explicitly say you can."

Now that seems a sensible approach. If an architect tells you the walls in their model are LOD 200 then ignore any materials in those walls.

The problem is when LOD 200 also means the architect is saying these walls are suitable for a particular BIM Use by some other discipline. Because then we have gone from the traditional "we provide our information to you at your own risk" to "we will provide you sufficient 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 no better than providing it at receiver's risk.

Or the author claims information is adequate for an Authorized Use but it is not (and they refuse 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 they provided was demonstrably not suitable for an Authorized Use they permitted (or were forced to permit under their contract).

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

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

Of course it is legitimate that the owner make decisions on their own BIM Uses - facilities management, building control etc., and BIM Uses that may effect their decision making and built 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 of BIM Uses are by the design and construction teams, to assist them perform their work, the work the owner has engaged them to be responsible for.

Normally you would expect the owner to select design and construction professionals that have the skills to do the things they would like done. I don't understand why when it comes to BIM the expectation is that by simply listing a BIM Use in a document is will magically be done 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 that doesn't by definition make them the best qualified to make decisions about all BIM Uses on a project. Expecting them to do so is delusional.

What about Standards

For something so fundamental there is a surprising dearth of standards that directly address BIM 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 all have 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 the required output it doesn't directly describe required model progression, and it takes no account of the LOD concept. For example it makes no distinction between data never applicable or just not available yet - any empty fields must contain "n/a" in a COBie deliverable.

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

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

(with apologies to BIM Forum)

As BIM Use is invariably performed by software you would think software vendors would have 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 for specific views of a model, which could them be used for a BIM Use. But IFC is really about software standards, not software use or BIM processes performed by humans.

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

Although standards can be part of the solution they can never be the only solution. The expectation that every BIM use for every discipline or team for every project will be covered by 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.

Current BIM Use process

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

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

But in the world of BIM planning the procedure is:

An authority figure decides what BIM Use everyone wants.
They guess what is required to achieve these BIM Uses
(or use a "BIM expert" to guess).
They impose these requirements on everyone.
BIM authors, not the owner, decide what specific information they will provide for a BIM Use.

When confronted with the obvious impracticality the usual snake oil response from BIM evangelists is that "the BIM Execution Plan is a living document that can be changed." That might be a method to fix impractical outcomes but it doesn't justify why there is an impractical process in the first place.

A better BIM Use ProcessThat said negotiation is still the best method. It not only ensures everyone is doing things they 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 occur before everyone is appointed (or that everyone be appointed at the very beginning of a project - as in IPD), or that parties will agree when there is no incentive to do so (when only authors 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:
The owner lists the BIM Uses they intend to do.
- e.g. FM, budget management, etc.
The owner lists possible BIM Uses that others may do, and are desirable for the project.
- BIM Uses that may or may not be used on the project that participants may be called upon to provide BIM models capable of being utilized for.
The owner acts as arbitrator in participant negotiations.
Then as each project participant is engaged they must have shown the ability to satisfy the relevant 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 for something 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 in a BIM Use identification and negotiation process:
BIM Use request.
- A participant nominates what they intend to use BIM models for (including uses that the owner may have engaged them specifically to do).
Define and communicate data required.
- For each of their BIM Uses clearly describe what data they require and at what stages.
Identify source/author of data.
- Based on data required, and through negotiation, identify who will be generating the data, or who is best placed to create the data.
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.
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 appropriate author 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 no measurable benefit.

There you have it.
There is obviously a lot of nuance around the detail but the above process is, to me, a more realistic 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 formalize this approach.

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

Author : Antony McPhee

How Usable are BIM Standards?

Wed, 24 Jul 2019 14:29:20 +0000

This month the UK Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB) published an article in their BIM+blog.

Titled LEVEL 2 STANDARDS: CREATING CONSISTENCY OR CAUSING COMPLEXITY?

it is a series of interviews with people involved in having to use BIM.

It is a timely and interesting article, and as regular readers of my blog will appreciate, close to my heart. A sample:

“People like me are invited on seminars and conferences and sent papers on BIM, but the information isn't easy to navigate,” he says. “It is made to sound more complicated than it really is and I'm having difficulty understanding what it is I have to do that I am not already doing."

Equally interesting are the comments on a LinkedIn group discussion about the article. Many thought those complaining about BIM standards simply didn't get BIM, and furthermore don't want to. Discussion on whether the contents of current BIM standards are good or bad seems to be not only avoided, but shut down.

Do I think BIM standards are unnecessarily complex? You bet. I also believe they are inadequate.

What makes a good Standard?It is not enough to just have a standard, to provide something for managers to tick off, they must also serve a purpose for those that use them.

At a basic level standards should:

create consistency.
reduce industry effort.

But these aims won't be met if no-one, or insufficient people, follow the standards. For standards to work they must:

be useful for the creators of information.
be useful for the users of information.

To work in the real world standards must be evolutionary, not revolutionary. Each consumer of a standard must find it useful to them. Just as each evolutionary change has to be useful for it to survive in a population and so be passed on.

At the moment in BIM standards only "create consistency" is being considered. A tick box for project initiators and managers. When it comes to individual standards there is little consideration of reducing effort, or assessing cost benefit. When the additional effort required to comply with a standard is questioned it is dismissed as immaterial when considered against the overall savings of using BIM.

The bottom line is that although you can try and force people to adopted standards, they will only actually be used if they are useful to those who have to follow them.

BIM Standard Inadequacies

Talk about BIM standards always revolves around the need to have them. Of course we need them. It is not worth discussing the point. What is more relevant is how adequate are they? Are up to doing what is expected of them?

I'm not an expert on standards, nor do I claim to have an intimate knowledge of all BIM standards. But when I do investigate particular BIM standards I always find inadequacies. I don't do enough of an in-depth investigation to find all deficiencies, but when you find one you start to wonder if there are more. Here are some examples.

PAS 1192-2

The underling principles of PAS1192-2 are probably OK, but it is hard to tell. It is so overly prescriptive with poor explanation of objectives.

The section at the beginning titled "Fundamental Principles" is completely opaque to anyone without pre-knowledge of BIM. The problem is it explains principles in terms of BIM processes, rather than construction and operation processes.

Although the section titled "Scope" is easier to follow, PAS1192-2 gives the impression it is about a totally new discipline rather than a more efficient way of doing things that are already being done.

I have other criticisms, see them in my post Procuring BIM - PAS 1192-2 and acif PTI

COBie

I have to say I don't understand COBie.

Why require an email address for a product rather than a URL?

Why insist "N/A" be against all fields where there is no data without distinguishing whether the data is not applicable, not available, or not known yet?

I could go on. Read more in my post to COBie or not to COBie

But I've kind of given up on COBie. I'm not a facilities manager, I don't know how they work or think. If they find COBie inadequate for their purposes they should speak up.

But there is another issue with the use COBie that impacts on standard compliance and implementation.

COBie is from the US. It was developed by Bill East for the US Military. It subsequently became a US standard (NBIMS). The UK government (under advice) decided to base FM data delivery on the COBie standard. The UK developed their own COBie template files and made them publicly available.

The problem is the UK Templates don't exactly follow the US COBie standard. There are some spelling differences (critically important if computers are going to be used for processing), and examples in the template that contradict the US COBie. I've seen questions like this a few times in LinkedIn discussions:

"Would someone be able to confirm whether the COBie UK 2012 standard follows the NBIMS V3 and exclude certain Ifc types, such as Walls and Slabs? BS1192;4 (Fulfilling employers information exchange requirements using COBie) refer to FM Handover MVD and NBIMS V3 so should exclude these items, however the UK COBie example includes them, are they wrong?"

The original US COBie specifically excludes a building's fabric like walls and floors because they are not a "managed asset". The (sensible) basis of this is that is facility management don't have a remit to alter walls and floors so why include them in their data? (surface treatments to walls, which may come under their remit, are treated differently in COBie).

Now it could be a mistake. An overzealous, inexperienced minion added walls to the example template. But whenever this issue comes up it is vigorously defended on the basis that a facility manager "might" want to include walls. Under that logic COBie could include absolutely everything in the construction model. Which kind defeats the purpose of having a standard.

For more on how the UK is misunderstanding COBie see my post COBie is not what you think it is

NBS National BIM Object Standard

Where do I start. Every time I re-read this "award winning" standard I am in awe of how unhelpful it is.

I make a lot of BIM components. My last job was creating components for a pre-fabrication system. Yet there is nothing in the NBS National BIM Object Standard that I find useful, that would help me standardize the components I make.

It contains methods that can not be done in the most popular BIM software.

The standard insists it own parameter names be used, so instead of Revit's built in parameter 'Fire Rating' the name 'FireRating' must be used. The standard suggests mapping 'Fire Rating' to a new custom parameter 'FireRating' .

But you can't.

Firstly you can't create formulas for wall parameters in Revit (because they are not a loadable component), secondly it is not possible to use text parameters in formulas. Now these may be deficiencies of Revit, but the fact remains anyone using Revit can not follow the NBS standard. Why produce a standard most people can not comply with? Is it arrogance or ignorance?

The NBS don't even follow the standard when naming components in their own BIM Object Library (see how in my post NBS BIM Object Standard - Where is the Impact Statement?).

Of course the reason they are not following their own standard's naming convention is because it hinders efficiency. But they refuse to change the standard because the naming convention comes from another standard - BS 8541:1 Clause 4.3.2.

To see how the NBS try and justify their approach have a look at this LinkedIn discussion.

Which is a fundamental problem with the current approach to standards. Rather than directly addressing the problem at hand (in this case one of naming) the "correct" approach is to always refer to another standard. It is one of the reasons standards are filled with references to other standards, making them incomprehensible to normal reading. Whilst there may be good reasons to refer to another standard rather then re-invent the wheel, it seems to be happening with no assessment of whether the referred standard is appropriate. Find a standard with a similar purpose (e.g. way of naming files) and then use it without question.

Classification

Before BIM there existed building classification systems. In the US Omniclass was created by combining a number of related classification systems (Uniform, MasterSpec etc). In the UK Uniclass was developed. These systems were mainly used by specification writers and estimators.

When BIM came along they seemed like a good way to classify objects in a BIM model. Autodesk added the ability to add classification numbers and descriptions to Revit objects. They also created data files of Omniclass values. But what they found is the existing classification system was not deep enough to be able to give every object that may be used in a Revit model a unique number. They had to add an extra 3 levels of numbers.

So what everyone in the industry assumed was a way of uniquely identifying every element in a building project actually couldn't.

This is an example of what I call the 'Delusion of Standards'. The delusion that a standard does what the authors and promoters think it can. And they maintain this delusion by not testing the standard in the real world, and shutting down any criticism. After all, it is less effort to convince people something is true than to produce evidence that it is true.

In the UK they realised the original Uniclass was inadequate for BIM use. Mainly because of the overall structure and lack of consistent structure between tables. To their credit they are revising it, creating a new Uniclass2 (now called Uniclass2015, I think, I haven't checked lately).

The emphasis is on 'revising' - it is not complete. This is another issue we in the industry have to cope with. Being told to comply with standards that are incomplete.

For more background on classification systems read my post Classification - not so Easy

IFC

IFC is at the core of BIM standards. Fundamentally it is a way of structuring digital data that describes buildings. Specifically data for computer programming. It was never intended for building professionals to use directly (if you think it is have a look at this example).

However the IFC structure (or 'schema' as it is called) can be used to structure data us mere mortals interact with. COBie is an attempt at this. The usual COBie deliverable is a spreadsheet file. The data is structured to follow the IFC schema and uses IFC names for things. It is touted as "human readable", but is only just. If directed and instructed adequately anyone can fill in the data, but it requires someone with deep knowledge of IFC to do the instructing.

So whereas IFC is fine for structuring computerized BIM processes it is not suitable for humans. Unless you are a computer programmer requests to "comply with IFC" are a nonsense. The most we can due is use software that claims to be IFC compliant.

Where most of us interact with IFC is with IFC files. That is BIM files in an IFC format (there is more than one). This is promoted as an "open format" that "any software can export and import".

Not because IFC can be exported and imported by all softwares successfully, but because that is the aim of IFC, or specifically buildingSMART, the not for profit and mostly volunteer organisation that promotes IFC.

It is a funny situation. A standard is created, and when particular softwares don't interact with that standard particularly well it is always the software's fault. On the one hand we have softwares actively being used by thousands (millions?) of people to do real world things, and on the other we have a standard artificially created to do theoretical things (there are no authoring softwares that natively use the IFC format). I don't understand why IFC is so sacrosanct.

For more on IFC refer to my post IFC, What is it good for?

But there is another issue with IFC that is not widely known. It is incomplete.

Last year I was upgrading my door library and I thought I would make them IFC friendly. That is, ensure they have enough parameters to support a compliant IFC export.

After some searching I found where buildingSMART keep their IFC specifications. First problem there are two versions, IFC 2x3 and IFC 4. The latter is the most current but not widely supported. Yet. Even though it has been out since March 2013. I decided to go with IFC 4.

I found some parameters (called "properties" in IFC) to do with doors. Mostly concerning geometry, which Revit already has native parameters for. But I couldn't find anything to do with door hardware (locks, latches, hinges etc.).

I though this can't be right. Nearly all buildings have doors, and all doors have hardware. So I asked the LinkedIn IFC group.

What surprised me was the attitude, the immediate assumption that IFC was faultless. Irrelevant other standards were suggested, and helpful suggestions that I develop my own IFC door hardware dataset. Someone offered the list of parameters NBS created for their BIM Object Library as a 'standard'.

But how can it be a standard if different groups create their "own IFC fields" as one commenter suggested?

So no, there are no IFC definitions for door hardware (or window hardware for that matter).

Which means it is not possible to use IFC to issue a standardized construction door schedule.

Do we bother with standards?

BIM standards do not make a pretty picture. Certainly not the utopia BIM Evangelists promote.

To be fair most are still being developed, and predominately by unpaid volunteers and inexperienced academics. The standards are young and untested.

The problem is they are being treated like some kind of dogma that can not be questioned. That the basis for assessment is wholly within the world of standard creation and other standards, not the real world of construction and facilities management where real things happen.

But standards are fundamentally a good idea. The computer industry heavily relies on standards, we wouldn't have all our e-devices without robust standards.

The solution is not in how we rid ourselves of these troublesome standards, but in how we make them useful.

For my two cents I see two fundamental problems.

Lack of Clear Objectives

High level standards like PAS 1192-2 seem to assume they must be as prescriptive as a standard for door hardware (for example, if such a thing existed). They don't, different processes can achieve the same results. For example you don't HAVE to use IPD contracts to get digital FM data.

High level standards should follow a similar format as the Building Code of Australia (and many other standards):

Objectives
Criteria to meet objectives
Requirements that are deemed to satisfy

This structure means that if the objectives are demonstratively achievable any process can be used, but still provides prescriptive processes for the unimaginative.

As long as Objectives are be based on real world outcomes, not objectives wholly internal or in reference to other standards, like this from PAS1192-2 Fundamental Principles:

"application of the processes and procedures
outlined in the documents and standards indicated
in Table 1; "

Lack of basic information standardization

The second is that there is not enough work being done on low level standardization. Like IFC properties for door hardware.

Manufacturers data needs to be consistent, so different manufacturers provide the same data for the same products. It would also be helpful if construction data like door schedules were standardized across all projects.

It seems perverse that we have highly prescriptive standards on processes that manage non-standardized data. An elaborate mechanism to ensure the delivery of door data where this is no standard to say how that door data is to be structured.

Admittedly there is work being done in this area, but not nearly enough, and not fast enough. The UK government would have got more bang for their buck (pop for their pound) if they focused on funding and enforcing standardizing manufacturer data rather than untested theoretical BIM processes.

In fact it appears governments have to get involved looking at the failure of standardizing manufacturer data in the US. Bill East made this comment in a LinkedIn discussion:

"The conclusion reached during the SPie project [in the US] are that "If you build it, they will NOT come" (see movie Field of Dreams for quote). The bottom line is that the integration of product and equipment manufacturer data into the construction supply chain is a very, very hard problem. Publishing a list of product templates does not mean that anyone will actually use them. It has been tried over 4 times now in the US with national projects. Two have been attempted with the authoritative product data publisher, once by NIBS, and once by NIBS (under the SPie project). Despite significant development work and and participation by companies such as General Electric, there has been zero effective use by the supply chain."

We should, we need, to bother with standards. But we need to get them right.

In the meantime how do those of us on the ground, those having BIM standards thrust at us, deal with this unsatisfactory situation?

Don't worry about Standards

I'm not saying ignore BIM standards, just don't take them too seriously. Because BIM standards are not the most important thing you need to understand when utilizing BIM.

The most important thing you need to understand is how your BIM software works.

For designers like engineers, architects, sub-contractors your BIM authoring software, for contractors your BIM federating, estimating and scheduling softwares, for facility managers your BIM capable facility management software.

BIM may be a process but it is a process of managing software. If that software is used inefficiently or inaccurately it doesn't matter how good the management process is, the result will still be a disaster. The problem is not that people don't understand the BIM standards, it is that they don't know how to use BIM software properly.

There is no point a prospective taxi driver learning the streets of the city if they don't know how to drive a car. For managers, knowing the best places to distribute your taxi drivers around the city won't bring work in if none of them know how to drive.

Learn the Software, not the StandardsUnlike standards BIM software is made in a competitive market where the customer matters.
Unlike standards if their product is not useful they will do something about it (if only to the degree that it out-competes the competition).

Good quality BIM software (not CAD with a BIM add on) is designed to do the things you do. Unlike CAD which is for generic drawing BIM softwares are designed for specific disciplines. You will be surprised at how many of your processes are already built into the software. For example Revit has methods for doing area plans, sun studies, energy analysis, managing revisions, managing cross referencing, and many others. ArchiCAD has similar functionality.

But you have to use BIM software the way it is designed to be used. You can not simply force it to mimic the way you have always done things.
A lot of smart people have put a lot of thought into BIM software work processes, a lot of other people are using them, and those processes are likely to be BIM standards compliant.

Use the introduction of BIM software to review existing practice, develop new processes and retrain staff. When I teach Revit I do more than just show how to use the software. I introduce new ways of doing things. More efficient, more accurate ways. Like changing door parameters (to keep the door analogy going) instead of working through a door schedule spreadsheet, colour coding different door types, like fire doors; escape doors; disable access doors, so it is easy to check the right doors are in the right places.

BIM is, and should be, useful to everyone. Work out how to make BIM useful to you. How you can use your BIM software to make your processes more efficient, your output higher quality, to reduce your uncertainty and risks.

If you do that you don't need to comply with BIM standards, because you will be doing BIM.

When it comes to standards compare the work processes you have developed for your purposes against BIM standards, and see how they can be interpreted to match your needs. As I've shown above they are so full of holes it shouldn't be that hard. And even if your interpretation is not strictly legit it is unlikely there is anyone who can follow those standards well enough to realise.

So don't worry if BIM standards appear too complex, don't seem that useful. Forget about them. Concentrate on getting the most - for you, out of your BIM software. Once you do that everything else will fall in to place.

Author : Antony McPhee

What makes a good Office BIM Manager?

Tue, 23 Jul 2019 14:12:17 +0000

Many professional design firms and construction sub-contractors are being forced to become BIM authors, with the expectation they can manage and provide BIM deliverables.

They have to use BIM software, which is only efficient if it is genuinely managed. If used properly many things can be done quicker and with less error, but if not project teams can find themselves trapped in a nightmare of tedious tasks, repeating work and redundant effort. Leading to missed deadlines, error filled documentation and very unhappy clients.

There is gradual appreciation of the need for the skills of an Office BIM Manager, but not much understanding of what the role entails.

The role of Office BIM Manager is different from an FM or construction BIM Manager, who manage BIM coordination rather than BIM creation. Of course they are vital for BIM success, but their role, tasks and responsibilities are different.

Unfortunately not all AEC firms appreciate the need for an Office BIM manager, nor understand the benefits a good Office BIM manager can bring.

Often a recent graduate who is "good with computers" is given the role, or a young drafter who has recently used BIM software in their course. These people may become good BIM managers, eventually, with experience. But for now they have no understanding of the profession they work within; what core services the office provides (unless it is a drafting company drawings are not a core service), what the purpose of deliverables are (what is being communicated), and that the number of people and the time a task takes is important (to profitability and therefore their firm's future).

As with any role there are those who are better at it than others. But what I see at the moment is a lack of understanding about what an Office BIM manager should be, and could be, doing.

BIM is not CADIt has been common practice to simply change the title of CAD Manager to BIM Manager, without changing the role or responsibilities.

But CAD has only ever been about drawing production. CAD can make drawing production more efficient but can do little to improve accuracy or consistency of information. Whether a drawing is hand drafted or computer generated, it is still a drawing.

Drawing and CAD - same information, just neater

But you can't issue a hand drawn BIM model (or a CAD file as a BIM model for that matter).

BIM contains more information than drawings

Nor is there enough data in CAD for automated QA processes. CAD doesn't manage cross referencing or revisioning. You can't query a CAD file to check if any doors are lower than the minimum allowed under regulations; nor colour code fire rated and acoustic walls, as well as the doors in those walls. And CAD does little for the efficiency and accuracy of schedules, including ensuring consistency between drawings and schedules.

BIM introduces new processes that CAD never had to deal with, and the traditional CAD manager was not involved in. For example QA. You can't give a BIM model directly to a senior designer for them to mark up with a red pen. QA has to be part of the BIM process itself.

CAD Managers have been around for 30 or so years now, so there is a lot of experience. But not all make the transition to BIM. They can in fact be an impediment to BIM as they bastardise BIM software to implement CAD workflows and practices. Introducing complicated workarounds that achieve pointless results, sometimes making BIM processes impossible to implement.

Initially this is seen as a positive. The office, particularly project leaders, designers (including engineers) and directors can all continue working as they have always done. They can can ignore BIM.

But soon it becomes apparent the expense BIM software and powerful new computers the office paid for are not producing the efficiencies they were promised by the BIM evangelists. It seems to take more time to do things, not less. And the documents produced are no more accurate than they were when CAD software was used.

Then the office gets hit with a BIM deliverable. The client wants Navisworks or IFC deliverables. They expect coordination to use clash detection. They expect the to be able to use the model for costing. The client has been told all this is possible if BIM is used.

The office is using BIM software so made claims in their (successful) submission that they use BIM. But the BIM (CAD) Manager is now telling them it will require additional resources to deliver BIM requirements.

Accusations starting flying. The client is unreasonable, the BIM software is useless, BIM is an unnecessary impediment forced onto the industry by inexperienced academics...

But just maybe, maybe, BIM is not being managed properly.

EASY BIM

BIM software was never intended to merely produce drawings or 3D models. It was intended to provide a single resource for documenting - explaining and communicating - a designed solution.

If you are only using it to produce drawings you are using a fraction of its capabilities.

Much is made of external BIM requirements; owners using BIM for facilities management, contractors using it for clash avoidance, estimators using it for costing. But there are a lot of BIM capabilities that can be utilised internally, within the office that authors it.

And here is the secret to BIM - if you use BIM yourself, for your own purposes, it will also satisfy external BIM requirements.

If your schedules come from the BIM model then there is sufficient information for owner's FM, if you model in 3D it is suitable for clash detection, if you include materials for tagging and scheduling it is suitable for costing.

That is not to say owners and contractors won't still make unreasonable demands.

Although the data for a COBie deliverable for FM may be within your model, creating the COBie output is not part of designer's core work so is extra. Modelling every bolt and nut, every penetration smaller than 25mm, or concrete construction pours is unreasonable. Including the Quantity Surveyor's cost codes in your model is you doing their work for them.

But if all your core deliverables are being produced using BIM processes these extras are easy to identify, and to justify as extra.

BIM AS OPPORTUNITY

Another thing about BIM software is that is was not designed to produce BIM outputs for others. They were designed to increase the efficiency and accuracy of the user.

BIM wasn't on anyone's radar when ArchiCAD was developed in the 1980's, even when Revit was developed in the late 1990's BIM wasn't talked about (Revit is an amalgam of "Revise it" - software to make revising a design easy). BIM became the rigeur de jour only after a critical mass of users existed and the collaborative possibilities began to be explored (and AutoDesk, then buildingSMART, started using it as a marketing tool).

So at its core the BIM software you have is designed to make your work more efficient and with less error (unlike BIM standards - but that's another story).

But software is just a tool (or in the case of BIM software a suite of tools). Tools used incorrectly or inappropriately will not perform as promised on the box, and can be downright dangerous.

And it is not just the tool that needs to be used properly, the environment it is used in must be appropriate. Using a chainsaw while on the top rung of a ladder sitting in a muddy puddle on the side of a hill can be catastrophically inefficient. Like using the wrong tool for the circumstances:

Just as it is for BIM software used within an environment designed for CAD.

An opportunity often overlooked is to take advantage of what BIM software can do. How the power of BIM software can be leveraged to make your office more efficient. To do more with less, to offer more services, to produce a better product.

A good Office BIM Manager doesn't just have technical knowledge of how the software works, they organise its use to improve office work practices and work flows. They mould the environment the software operates within.

This means a good Office BIM manager must be involved in more than just technical support. They must also be involved in advising management. And not just in things like the office "CAD Manual", training, hardware and software selection. They need to be included in resource allocation, task allocation, deliverables scope, deliverables timetable, consultant appointment, consultant coordination, and most importantly QA (Quality Assurance).

In short an Office BIM manager should be viewed as a CIO or CTO, not head of software support.

And an Office BIM manager's KPI should include measurable efficiency and quality gains within the office.

WHAT DOES A GOOD OFFICE BIM MANGER DO?

An Office BIM manager does the usual things, for example;

Supervise technical teams and provide project support as necessary.
Assist Project Directors on technical delivery.
Development/Management of the BIM standards, protocols and templates.
Liaison and consulting across IT teams, systems administrators, clients and contractors.
BIM training and compliance for junior members of the team.

but what a does a "good" Office BIM manager do?

A good BIM manager understands BIM.

Treats the model as a real world representation rather than a 2D representation.
Leverages BIM models as a communication tool both between those working in a model, and the recipients of the output of that model.
Recognises BIM models are created by a team of people working together, not individuals performing tasks.

A good BIM manager structures a team to leverage BIM.

Ensures no-one works in a silo.
Sets team roles based on responsibility, not tasks.
Forces people to take ownership; make them responsible for complete, not partial, work.
(e.g. the person responsible for modelling walls is also responsible for wall tagging, wall details and wall schedules).

A good BIM manager is realistic about the capabilities of their workforce.

Doesn't expect people employed for their expertise and skill in building to also be experts at using particular software.
(The reality is architects, engineers and construction professionals will never be fully proficient at the software they use).
Tailors work practices to the abilities of those who do the actual work.
(Don't put someone in charge of facades if they struggle with simple tasks like wall creation).
Doesn't try and get designers to use particular software if it makes their primary task - designing, less efficient.
(Getting designers to provide hand drawn sketches to those modelling is usually more efficient than getting designers to model properly).
Doesn't think "more training" is the only solution.

A good BIM manager recognises one size doesn't fit all.

Retains flexible workflows so unusual situations can be accommodated and innovative work practices are not stifled.
Doesn't enforce "universal standards".
(an approach that is fundamentally flawed; it is not possible to predict every possible permutation of what needs to be done on every project).
Supports different work practices for individual projects based on complexity of the project and ability of staff working on it.

A good BIM manager involves themselves in real projects.

Maintains skills and intimate knowledge of how the office operates by actively engaging in projects.
Is involved in setting up every project in the office.
Periodically audits all projects.
Steps in when required to assist, and uses it as an opportunity for training others.
But NEVER works full time on a single project.

A good BIM manager doesn't merely react to specific requests, they question those requests.

Assesses a request against the real world outcome it is trying to achieve.
Offers solutions that are workflow and work method based, not just technical solutions.
Gauges how long a request takes against the value of the result.
If appropriate suggests alternatives that achieve the same outcome.
Averts tasks that are done for no reason other than "that's the way it is always done".

A good BIM manager is proactive.

Uses the opportunity of introducing new software functionality to improve approaches to problem solving and service delivery.
Provides fearless advice, but accepts their view may not always be adopted.
Listens to others. (as they might just have better ideas).
Involves themselves in industry wide BIM issues.

IS A GOOD OFFICE BIM MANAGER ENOUGH?The position of Office BIM manager is a relatively recent phenomena. Despite what I said above the position does have similarities to the CAD manager role (and many CAD managers do move in to the role easily). Only now, with BIM, computer technology has much greater importance.

I.T. has become critical to the operation of AEC firms. Just as has happened with many other industries (a bank CEO famously once said he didn't run a bank, he ran an I.T. company).
As there is not a tradition of having a CIO or CTO equivalent in AEC firms (except for the very large) the role of Office BIM manager is well suited to filling this gap.

The Office BIM manager must be a part of all decision making processes. That is not to say they should be THE decision maker, just that their advice be sought and considered for all processes within the office, not just for the creating of drawings. They should be involved in practice management, project teams and job submissions. And be given responsibilities beyond just I.T., things like office QA.

However selecting the right person for the job is not enough.

Directors, designers and project leaders have to stop pretending they don't need to change the way they work, that it is only their underlings that need to learn new ways.
Those responsible for managing how the office, projects and output are done must also change the way they work for their office to benefit from BIM processes. Just checking drawings is no longer a viable QA approach.

After all even the most experienced and proficient Office BIM manager can only do so much if they have no influence over what half the office does.

BIM, and the benefits BIM can bring, don't happen by themselves. Like any process, if not properly managed it can be an impediment rather than an advantage. And a good Office BIM Manager is a vital part of getting BIM to work.

Author : Antony McPhee

Making BIM Work: Quality Models

Mon, 22 Jul 2019 14:08:00 +0000

BIM processes only work if there is something those processes can act upon.

No BIM models, no process.

And quality matters: without good quality models no matter how good BIM processes or standards are it will be extremely difficult for anyone to do anything useful.

Pretty basic stuff, but all too often ignored.

Ignored because to ensure these thing happen action has to occur at the very, very, beginning of a project. When each design consultant is signed up, because they are the BIM authors, the ones who will be creating the BIM models.

Ignored because owners assume BIM authors will produce adequate BIM models as part of their normal service, even when the contract deliverables are only drawings, schedules and specifications.

Now, one day this will hopefully change. Consultant agreements will by default contain common, widely understood BIM requirements. Consultants themselves will be familiar and comfortable with BIM software and what is necessary for quality BIM models.

But at present, pretty much everywhere, this is not the case. And it is not going to change if we don't start addressing this issue directly.

Why is there a Problem with Models?

The reason it is so difficult to get quality BIM models from design consultants is that they think their job is, for architects, to produce drawings, for engineers, to produce diagrams. So they use their software, whether BIM or not, to only produce drawings. Also they generally don't use their BIM software to produce schedules. As they see it their deliverable is a paper schedule, maybe an Excel spreadsheet. So why use your drawing software?

All this is because drawings have traditionally been their tangible deliverable, and is still the main contractual deliverable even in notionally "BIM" projects. Due in part because the reality is that drawings are still the legal documents that contractors use to construct from.

Mind you there are good reasons why drawings are used for legal evidence. All information on drawings is visible and unchangeable. Explanatory text can be included, status, revision sequence and issued date are all clearly displayed. It is very hard for someone to say "I didn't see it".

One day BIM models may be able to do these things, or things that achieve the same outcomes. There are examples around that do some of these things, or something similar, like Bentley's 'Hypermodel' functionality, or the open source BIM Collaboration Format (BCF).

But presently there are no common, robust, methods that match the certainty of drawings.

So are architects and engineers justified in using their BIM software to just produce drawings?

BIM Software is Designed to produce Drawings

The softwares we use today to do BIM were not originally designed to do BIM. They were designed to produce drawings.

When ArchiCAD came out in 1987 the way it worked was that the building was modelled in 3D up to a point. Once it was decided to move to drawings, plans, elevations and sections were created as separate files from the model and worked over to turn them into drawings.

This is a common approach. SketchUp does the same with its separate LayOut program.

Revit came out in 2000 with a similar functionality, except that plans, elevations and sections remained live. Everything was in the one file, so changes in the 3D model instantly appeared in all views created for drawings. But the purpose of Revit was still to create drawings.

Other software now used for BIM started life as CAD programs, with gradual 3D functionality added to assist drawing production (e.g. Bentley, and the now defunct AutoDesk Architecture).

BIM as we know it today came from the realisation that the integrated 3D model that these softwares produced could be used for other purposes. In practical terms BIM is what these softwares are capable of doing, despite the efforts to extend BIM into the realm of fantasy by the standards wonks and BIM evangelists (see my previous post on standards).

So if you use BIM software as it is intended to be used it will produce drawings for you. There is no need to "take shortcuts" to produce convincing looking drawings. And if you use the software properly it will be BIM ready, it will not "take more time" to do BIM.

The Benefits of BIM to Authors

Much is made of using BIM models for 4D (construction sequencing), 5D (quantity measuring), 6D (life-cycle management), and other 'D's. They can also be used for analysis and simulations, particularly in engineering - structural analysis, power circuits, mechanical systems etc.

What is often not appreciated is that a BIM model can also be used for quality assurance (QA) purposes. Checks can be utilised that minimise design errors, that ensure the model is in fact a quality BIM model and an accurate representation of what is to be built.

If all you produce are drawings and separate schedules, you can only check drawings and schedules.

If your BIM models are created properly you can use the model to do the checking.

If your walls contain their fire rating as data in a parameter you can colour code those walls, the same for fire rated doors, fire rated dampers etc. Which makes checking that the correct walls and doors are in the right place much quicker than trawling through multiple drawings and cross referencing schedules.

If your doors contain size data you can run a model check for doors with heights or widths below minimum required values. Check concrete walls required to be fire rated to ensure their thickness achieves their rating. You get the idea, the list is endless.

Revit Warnings

These checks can be manual (e.g. use Filters in Revit or the free add-in Color Splasher to color-code views by object parameter), or automated (e.g. Revit's inbuilt Warnings, Autodesk Model Checker for Revit, Solibri IFC model checker).

And because drawings and schedules come directly from the model they will be correct if the model is correct.

When I say correct, I mean correct information. Letting software create your drawings and schedules means forgoing some control over graphic representation. But then BIM authors are architects and engineers, not graphic artists. The question they need to ask is not does this drawing look "neat", but can it be misinterpreted? Will the contractor build the wall using the wrong material or in the wrong place because the lineweight is not exactly right, the hatch pattern doesn't align perfectly? Will they mistake a grid for something else because its head doesn't perfectly align with other grids?

The bottom line is that it is possible to be much more thorough when checking a model as compared to checking drawings and schedules. It can also be done much quicker, especially if standardised automated model checking processes are implemented alongside manual checking. All this leads to less errors in documents, meaning less time wasted dealing with mistakes, both internally and on site.

Looks OK in 2D plans and elevations, but an on-site mistake waiting to happen

There is no real excuse for design consultants to NOT produce good quality BIM models. They should be doing as part of their normal duty of care.

Why won't People Share?

Producing good quality BIM Models is one thing, but if these models are not shared BIM processes will fail.

The comments above about checking the model instead of drawings and schedules extends to other people's work. It is much easier and quicker to see if structure is aligning with architecture if both models are linked together and viewed in 3D. And there are softwares that can automate this checking. Revit has a built-in clash detection ability, Naviworks and Solibiri are specialised software for doing this type of checking.

Design consultants, particularly architects, generally don't like giving their native models to anyone (a topic I covered in my post

IP - it is not all yours, get used to it). They see them as their property.

The justification is that their contractual deliverables are completed drawings, schedules and specifications. BIM models are their "internal working documents".

Design professionals are also generally paranoid about having their ideas stolen, which they extend to the documents they produce.

And some have this view that as initial author of BIM models they have the right to total control of that model including getting paid whenever anyone makes use of it.

None of these justifications are valid. They just need to get over the fact that in the 21st Century drawings are no longer their only deliverable, and that current legal protections easily extend to cover other deliverables.

However there is a mistaken belief (and not just by design consultants) that handing over models means providing an untouched copy of the model, still containing all its housekeeping and drawing creation setup. None of this is required for BIM Uses. It should be removed - as a requirement. No-one wants to trawl through someone else's rubbish, and allowing people to recreate the drawings of others is a legal minefield.

What is a Quality Model?

In simple terms by quality model I mean a model that is:

Fully modelled in 3D.
Is modelled as it will be constructed.
Uses correct categories and types.
All objects contain data about themselves.
Data is consistent and coherent.

and taking into consideration the fact that drawings and schedules are contractual deliverables:

The model must match issued drawings.
Data in the model must match issued schedules.

It is not so much about WHAT information is in the model (which most standards seem to concentrate on, including LOD descriptions like the BIMforum LOD Specification), but that the information that is there is complete and can be relied upon.

This is where discussion of BIM becomes confused. Many believe BIM is about extra work and extra data. It is not. It is about data that is produced for normal purposes being in a consistent format.

The final format doesn't even matter. If data is consistent it can be converted from one format to another. If data required for COBie exists in a model it can be converted to COBie format on export. It doesn't have to exist in the model in COBie format.

If someone wants data that is not usually created as part of your normal service then it is an extra cost. An architect may put minimum warrantee requirements in their specification, but if the owner wants the manufacturer's actual warrantee information in the architect's model that is work they would not normally do and so is an extra.

In short a quality BIM Model is one that has been created by people doing what they normally do and using their BIM software the way it was designed to be used.

Not such a big ask.

How to Obtain Quality Models

As explained above it can't be left solely to design consultants to initiate quality models. To be fair that is not all design consultants, there are some who are very good. And not yet, one day it will become standard practice, but for now owners have to be proactive.

There are two places requirements can be spelt out: - consultant engagement agreements and a project's BIM Brief.

Consultant engagement agreements are better because they are contractually binding, whereas a BIM Brief may or may not be, depending on what is in consultant engagement agreements. Also the BIM Brief may not be completed before consultants are engaged (particularly if those consultants are expected to participate in creating the BIM Brief).

Generally best practice is to include generic BIM model requirements in consultant engagement agreements, with specific requirements, and perhaps specific examples of good modelling practice, in the BIM Brief.

It is also best practice to embed BIM requirements within consultant engagement agreements and not simply have a separate "BIM Addendum" or "Exhibit", which can lead to contradictions and perpetuates the belief that using BIM is a separate service.

A good approach is to include BIM requirements in a consultant's project scope. This has the advantage of being easier to understand as a lawyer is less likely to have authored it, and can be tailored to a specific project. Consultant scope is also more likely to be available to those actually working on the project, whereas consultant engagement agreements tend to be withheld as they contain sensitive commercial information.

Current BIM Engagement Documents

A number of organisations have produced contract addendums for BIM.

In the US there is the AIA Document E203-2013, BIM and Digital Data Exhibit by the American Institute of Architects, and in the UK the CIC/BIM Protocol by the Construction Industry Council.

There are also commercial documents available like the US Consensus Docs BIM Addendum.

None of these documents adequately address the issue of model quality. Some are better at addressing model sharing than others, but then introduce unnecessary complications. And some are simply impenetrable for normal humans, those who have to implement them.

The AIA E203-2013 is more like a BIM Brief, or BIM Execution Plan, it describes BIM processes rather than modelling requirements.

The CIC/BIM Protocol is mainly about sharing of models and delivery. That is if you can understand it. You would think by the 21st Century lawyers would have learnt to write understandable English. There is one sentence of 130 words with the only commas dividing up lists of items.

It also has other issues that conflict with standard head consultant engagement agreements; like diluting duty of care, and adding things that may not be in it; like assuming the owner has taken ownership of everyone's IP. Read more on the limitations of the CIC/BIM Protocol in the research paper by Kings college London, Enabling BIM through Procurement and Contracts.

I'm not saying these documents are useless or dangerous (although I'd be careful of using the CIC/BIM Protocol), but they are not enough to ensure quality BIM models.

What to put in Model Author Agreements

By Model Authors I mean anyone who is going to create BIM models. This may include design consultants, sub-contractors, construction consultants, and possibly FM consultants.

I've only discussed model sharing and model quality above, but there are other issues that should be covered within contractual agreements. The minimum that an agreement should cover includes:

participation in BIM planning
provision of adequate resources to achieve BIM
model sharing
model quality
model use

Some examples:

BIM Planning

The Project BIM Briefing Plan forms part of the building brief and must be complied with.
When requested the Consultant will participate in the process to develop and update all project BIM Management Plans and will comply with these plans.
When requested the Consultant will attend BIM Planning meetings, Coordination and Clash resolution meetings.

Resourcing

The consultant will provide, at their own cost, all software, hardware and training required to comply with their project BIM requirements and responsibilities.
A person experienced in use of the Consultant’s main documentation software will be appointed Discipline Model Manager and be available to attend BIM meetings and address BIM and software related issues raised by other project participants.

Model Sharing

All models the Consultant creates for the project, and all exports from those models, shall be made available without restriction to all other project participants.
The consultant may, and is expected to, remove all elements, options, views, imports etc. that do not contribute to issued drawings and schedules from models before issuing them. They may also remove all titleblocks, sheets and layouts used to create issued drawings.
It is acknowledged that the Consultant retains Copyright of their authored models.
The Consultant will respect the rights of authors of models issued to them and will not use those models, or parts of those models, for purposes not directly required by the project.
The Consultant will not provide to third parties models issued to them by others without the consent of the model author.
The Consultant will not print or export contract drawings or schedules from models provided to them by others. If drawings or schedules are required they must be requested from the original model author.

Model Quality

The Consultant will ensure the information in issued BIM Models exactly matches information issued as drawings, schedules and other related documents. This requirement only extends to information that has been modelled or placed as parameters in model objects. (i.e. excludes 2D details and data linked to the model then used in schedules).

Model Use

The Consultant accepts that models issued by them will be used by others as a source of information for work the Consultant is responsible for.
The Consultant will make reasonable endeavours to ensure their models are adequate for purposes others may want to use their model for. However the Consultant can reserve the right to seek compensation from others if it involves work additional to their normal service.

Example Model Quality Requirements

To be really clear specific modelling requirements can be spelt out. They don't necessarily have to be contractual requirements, they can be presented as expectations, or examples of acceptable modelling practice. After all, we are talking about good modelling practice, things that should be done by competent professionals anyway.

This list is generic enough to apply to all those who author models and the different BIM authoring software they use. It is by no means exhaustive, and can be augmented by specific requirements.

All project participants shall use compatible software to facilitate model exchanges. If a particular software is used by multiple participants all shall use the same version and all shall keep it updated.
A control model shall be created for levels, grids and shared coordinates. This shall be used by all model authors to establish common baseline information.
Grids shall be to nearest 5mm increment apart to 10 decimal places, and shall be absolutely orthogonal to 10 decimal places, or if not orthogonal at an angle with no more than 2 decimal places (exactly 2000, not 1999.099899, nor 2000.00006789, and 90° not 89.99967°, or 32.45° not 32.453678943°).
Correct categories shall be used, or layers / types etc. will be named to identify the type of object. For example, beams must be modelled as beams, or identified as beams, and not as floors.
All model elements in authoring models shall be in the authoring BIM software format. Imported geometry of a format different from authoring software shall not be used for parts of the building the consultant is responsible for.
Modelling shall, where possible, match construction methods. For example walls go between floor slabs, not through them.
All 3D models shall be consistent with issued 2D drawings.
All parameter data shall match issued schedules. This includes, but is not limited to, Area schedules, Revisions, FFE, Wall types, Equipment schedules.
All tags and identifying marks on drawings shall match parameter data within the objects being tagged or identified.
Text notes shall only be used for general noting or where applicable to multiple objects. Where notes refer to individual objects tags shall be used.
Deliver 3D models as separate files per discipline with the same base point.
All 2D/3D drawings/models used as references in issued drawings shall be provided with the host file. Pathing of linked files shall be relative and not absolute.
When requested provide any associated databases with the models that are linked to the unique component identifiers (i.e. such as external databases for door schedules or steel part / assembly numbers). Provide information on how to access these databases.
When requested editable 3D geometry and data shall be issued in native authoring formats (e.g. RVT, 12da, .DWG, .DGN, Moss Genio, ASCII etc) as well as published formats (ie. .PDF, .NWC, DWF etc).
Regular exports shall use pre-configured settings to ensure consistency of output. For example “Export for Coordination” view / settings to show only the elements that are to be shared for coordination purposes.
Ensure that the exported models retain unique element identifiers (i.e. that there is a globally unique identifier associated to each element that will not be duplicated by another element in the model).
Ensure that all elements are modelled as individual selectable elements rather than multiple elements modelled as one element (e.g. don't model a row of columns as a single column element). Nesting or grouping where individual elements are still selectable is acceptable.
Where appropriate typical groups of elements can be grouped and copied around the model. There should be no groups with only one occurrence.
Elements, including groups and nested components, are not to be mirrored where doing so creates a different product. (e.g. a dishwasher with an outlet on the left is a different product to a dishwasher with an outlet on the right). Mirrored versions are to be a completely separate element, group or nested component than the original.
Main construction elements (walls, columns, slab edges etc) and setouts are to be perfectly orthogonal or at angles no greater than 2 decimal points (e.g. 31.65°).
All dimension entities must be rounded to the nearest 1 millimetre, no higher (or rounding errors may occur in strings of dimensions). Dimension values shall not be overridden.

For those of you who know how to use your BIM software the things listed above will be seem pretty basic and obvious. Hopefully there is nothing that you are not already doing. But sometimes the simplest thing can prevent models from being used.

Summary
BIM requires quality BIM models.
BIM requires BIM models to be shared.
BIM software, if used as intended, will produce quality BIM models.

If you are a consultant or sub-contractor who authors BIM models review how you are using your BIM software. If those using it in your office are treating it as a drawing tool rather than a modelling tool then retrain them and introduce processes that ensure quality models are produced.
Accept others require access to your BIM models, and when providing those models make sure they only contain information you would normally be providing anyway.

If you are an owner, or contractor who engages design consultants and/or sub-contractors, review your engagement agreements and include minimum BIM and modelling requirement, and the obligation to share models. Don't rely on those you engage to do it for you unless you are certain that they will. And if they complain it will cost more find another consultant or sub-contractor that knows how to do their job properly.

Author : Antony McPhee