TFM Article – BIM, Cloud Computing, IPD and JOC

Construction Disruption           Peter Cholakis

As they pass the emergent stage, BIM and cloud computing will continue to impact project delivery.
Emergent disruptive technologies and construction delivery methods are altering both the culture and day-to-day practices of the construction, renovation, repair, and sustainability of the built environment.

Meanwhile, a shifting economic and environmental landscape dictates significantly improved efficiencies relative to these facility related activities.  This is especially important to any organization dependent upon its facilities and infrastructure to support and maintain its core mission.

The disruptive digital technologies of building information modeling (BIM) and cloud computing, combined with emergent collaborative construction delivery methods are poised to alter the status quo, ushering in increased levels of collaboration and transparency.  A disruptive technology is one that alters the very fabric of a business process or way of life, displacing whatever previously stood in its place.  BIM and cloud computing fit the profile of disruptive technologies, individually, and when combined these stand to create a tidal wave of change.

BIM is the life cycle management of the built environment, supported by digital technology.  While a great deal of emphasis has been placed upon 3D visualization, this is just a component of BIM.  The shift from a “first cost mentality” to a life cycle cost or total cost of ownership is a huge change for many.Improving decision making practices and applying standardized terms, metrics, and cost data can also prove challenging.An understanding and integration of the associated knowledge domains important to life cycle management is required, resulting in what is now being referred to as “big data.”

Cloud computing is also a disruptive technology, and it’s one that impacts several areas.  The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) definition of cloud computing is as follows, “Cloud computing is a model for enabling ubiquitous, convenient, on demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications, services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction.  The cloud model is composed of five essential characteristics, three service models, and four deployment models.”

It is perhaps helpful to define cloud computing in terms of its benefits.  Cloud computing enables far greater levels of collaboration, transparency, and information access previously unavailable by traditional client/server, database, or even prior generation web applications.  Multiple users can work on the same data set with anyone, anywhere, anytime, in multicurrency, multilanguage environments.  All changes can be tracked to “who did what” within seconds (potentially the best form of security available), and information is never deleted.

The disruptive technologies of BIM and cloud computing will accelerate the adoption of emergent construction delivery methods and foster new frameworks.  Design-bid-build, the traditional construction delivery method for decades, is inherently flawed.  As a lowest bid deployment it immediately sets up adversarial relationships for involved parties.  Owners prepare a solicitation for construction projects based on their understanding of them1, with or without third-party A/E assistance, and in most cases they go out in search of the lowest bidder.  Then without a thorough understanding of the owner’s facility, bidders base their responses on the owner’s solicitation, plans, and specifications.  Owners typically allow a period of time for bidders’ questions and clarifications; but the quality of this interchange is at best questionable if based solely on a written scope, plans and specifications, and/or a meeting with suppliers.

Design-build, arguably a step in right direction, falls short of bringing all stakeholders together.  More responsibility of design and construction is shifted to the contractor and/or A/E.  However, the dual level participation structure doesn’t assure the interests of all parties are equally addressed.  Furthermore, the design-build process is typically reserved for major new construction projects versus the numerous sustainability, repair, renovation projects, and minor new construction projects typically encountered by facility managers (FMers).

Because BIM brings together previously disparate information into a framework that enables decision support, using the technology requires a collaborative construction delivery method.  The integration of the domain knowledge and robust processes required to allow fms, A/Es, and other stakeholders to achieve heightened levels of information sharing and collaboration is enabled by methods that include Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) and Job Order Contracting (JOC).

Key characteristics of these emergent construction delivery methods include: choices based on best value; some form of pricing transparency; early and ongoing information sharing among project stakeholders; appropriate distribution of risk; and some form of financial incentive to drive performance.
Both IPD and JOC allow, if not require, owner cost estimators and project managers to “partner” with contractors, subcontractors, and A/Es to conceptualize, create, cost, prioritize, start, and report upon projects—in the very early phases of construction.

IPD, JOC, and Simplified Acquisition of Base Civil Engineering Requirements (SABER)—the U.S. Air Force term for applying JOC practices—are practiced simultaneously by a growing number of organizations and supported by digital technologies.  These construction delivery processes are embedded within software to allow for rapid, costeffective, and consistent deployment as well as the associated level of collaboration and transparency.

BIM and cloud computing are disruptive technologies that will accelerate the adoption of emergent construction delivery methods such as IPD and JOC.Construction delivery methods set the tone and level of interaction among project participants and can be viewed as the management process framework.When supported by BIM and cloud computing, the life cycle management of the built environment, and the associated management of big data, can be expected to become commonplace for many construction projects.

Cholakis is chief marketing officer for 4Clicks Solutions, LLC (www.4clicks.com), a Colorado Springs, CO provider of cost estimating and project management software.  With expertise in facilities life cycle costs and total cost of ownership in various market segments, he is involved in numerous industry associa- tions and committees including the American Society of Safety Engineers, Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering, Society of American Military Engi- neers, BIM Library Committee-National Institute for Building Sciences (NIBS), and National Building Information Model Standard Project Committee.

 

 

http://epubs.democratprinting.com/article/Professional_Development%3A_Construction_Disruption/1338940/149812/article.html

 

 

 

BIM Requires IPD.

BIM requires some form of Integrated Project Delivery… Period.   Why you say?

Simple.  BIM is the life-cycle management of the built environment supported by digital technology.  BIM therefore, requires the integration of multiple knowledge domains, stakeholders and supporting technologies… from strategic and capital planning, through design, construction, operations, utilization, repair, renovation, adaptation, maintenance, and deconstruction.

Efficient project delivery methods such as IPD and Job Order Contracting (JOC) are integral components of efficiently managing the built environment over time.  The help define the specialized framework needed to enable Owners, AEs, Contractors, Oversight Groups, and other Stakeholders share information and collaborate to enable the appropriate distribution of resources needed to optimize the physical and function conditions of the built environments.

BIG DATA = BIM

Via http://www.4Clicks.com – Premier cost estimating and efficient project delivery software supporting IPD, JOC, SABER, IDIQ, SATOC, MACC, POCA, BOA and featuring and exclusive 400,000 line item enhancement of RSMeans cost data with modifiers and full descriptions as well as integrated visual esimating/QTO, and contract, project, and document management…. all in one application.

BIM, Value Management, Life-cycle Cost Management

Source:  International Journal of Facility Management, Vol 4, No 1 (2013), via http://www.4Clickscom – Premier cost estimating and efficient project delivery software for JOC, SABER, IDIQ, SATOC, MATOC, MACC POCA, BOA, BOA… including exclusively enhanced 400,000+ RSMeans line item cost database, contract/project/document management, and visual estimating/QTO.

BIM is the life-cycle management of the built environment supported by digital technology.  Unfortunately, too much emphasis has been placed upon 3-D visualization and other technology components vs. the process of life-cycle management.

Facility / Infrastructure Life Cycle Cost:   Costs associated with designing, acquiring, constructing, adapting, maintaining, repairing, and operating a built structure.

While Value Management is used as term in this paper, it is arguably interchangeable with Capital Planning and Management (CPMS).  The latter is a process involving the construction and management of physical and functional conditions of a built structure over time.

 

A CRITICAL REVIEW OF VALUE MANAGEMENT AND WHOLE LIFE COSTING ON CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Abdul Lateef A, Olanrewaju
Department of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS,
Bandar Seri Iskandar 31750 Tronoh, Perak Darul Ridzuan

Correspondence: abdullateef.olanrewaju@ymail.com

ABSTRACT

It is the aim of this paper, to present the complexity of the body of knowledge capturing the range of conflicting assumptions and understanding on the theories and practices of value management (VM) and life cycle-cost (LCC). Life cycle cost in facility construction projects is a management tool that is used to analyze the cost of constructed facilities in terms of cost of acquiring the facility and as well as maintaining and operating the facility. It makes a lot of sense to consider the capital costs of projects with their associated operation and maintenance costs. This is so that the project that is procured would economically viable through its entire life span. The recent increase in demand for sustainable or green buildings is further making the consideration of life cycle cost an issue.

However, life cycle of the project alone is not sufficient as source of creating value to the clients and end users. Consequently, the need for value management emerges. Based on extensive literature review this paper has shown that the life cycle costing techniques is a tool in the value management methodology an basic finding from the connection is that both VM and LCC can be embedded into the wider context of FM.

Keywords: life cycle cost; value management; reflexivity in research, facility management, best value; construction projects

I. INTRODUCTION

In this paper, our aim is to represent the complexity of the body of literature capturing the range of conflicting assumptions and understandings about the theories and practice of VM and LCC. Before proceeding however, it is important to acknowledge what although we attempt to offer a balanced portrait of opposing views, our opinions and biases will come through whether we want them to or not. Although we are more comfortable with usual impersonal academic writing style, we believe it will help readers to differentiate what we believe from what other believe if we are honest and explicit about where we stand on some of these issues under investigations. We do this here and again wherever we view it is necessary. This kind of discussion of the preference and opinions of an author is reflexivity paradigm, and it is particularly important in value management issues, in which so many divergent assumptions are often left unsaid or asserted as truth. While some could argue that some issues are better left unsaid, it is not at any one interest to continue to pretend as everything is right and thus failed to present our side of the case. At least, this could serve as impetus to some writers and commentators.

Published literature revealed a wide range of opinion which tends to polarize either towards life cycle costing or value management. In other words, there are misconceptions and misunderstandings as to which of the two techniques is more involving, proactive and can ultimately create and sustain best value for construction projects. However, the purpose of life cycle costing is to maximize the total cost of ownership of the projects over the project’s life span (Morton and Jaggar, 1995 and Arditi and Messiha, 1996). It is also defined as the total cash flow of the project from the conceptual stage to the disposal stage (Bennett, 2003). Life cycle analysis takes into account the capital costs of the project as well as costs of operation and maintenance. The fundamental issue in the LCC is the determination of the operation and maintenance costs of all possible alternatives which are then discounted to present worth of money (Pasquire and Swaffield, 2006) for analysis.

However, while selecting alternative proposals or elements, the criteria of selections are more than just the issues of total costs. Many criteria, in addition to the cost criterion must be analyzed and adequately considered if maximum value is to be delivered to the client (Ahuja and Walsh, 1983). VM takes into accounts all the criteria that the client / user desire in their project. Value management involves the identification of the required functions and the selection of alternative that maximize the achievement of the functions and performance at the lowest possible total cost (Best and De-Valennce, 2003). The value management approach reduces the risk of project failure, lower cost, shorten projects schedules, improve quality, functions, performance and ensure high reliability and safety. While, life cycle costing is useful when a “project” has been “selected or defined”, value management is introduced much earlier. Value management is introduced when a decision has not been made yet either to build or not. At this stage, the “project” is still soft; the client’s solution to the client’s problem might not even be constructed facilities. For instance, if a client wants higher return for investment, value management is introduced to determine the kind of project that will provide to the client the expected return on investment (Kelly and Male, 2001). Perhaps the project in this case may be for the client to invest in agricultural activities. So from the beginning, the clients and other stakeholders are explicitly aware of the kind of project in which to invest.

This paper used literature review to achieve its aim. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. It commences in II “epistemology of reflexivity, in this section, overview of reflexivity are presented. This section is preceded with the section on the “introduction”. Section III; dwell on the “principle of life cycle costing”. The section III reviews literature on the technique of life cycle costing. The purposes and methodology of the technique were provided and discussed. In section IV, the principle and methodology of value management were discussed. In this section, explicit references on the two important phases in the value management methodology where life cycle analysis is mainly used were outlined. Analytical comparisons of the two techniques are then presented in section V as discussion. However, before detail information on comparing the two techniques is provided, linkages between facilities management, value management and life cycle cost are provided. A basic finding from the connection is that both VM and LCC can be embedded into the wider context of FM. The paper is concluded in section VI by bringing together major themes of the paper in: “conclusion and observations”.

II. EPISTEMOLOGY OF REFLEXIVITY IN RESEARCH

Research could involve quantitative or qualitative data or both. The degree of influence the researcher has on a research depends on the type of data being collected. For instance data collected through interviews are more prone to bias as compared to survey questionnaire instrumentation. Being reflexive involves being conscious on how the researcher’s personal values, opinions, views, actions will not creep into the data collection, analysis, results and interpretations. For instance, bias could also creep into research because of how the researchers analyze and interpret previous related works-i.e. through literature review. However, bias could creep into research knowingly or unknowingly. According to Dainty, there is a “traditional of reflexivity in qualitative enquiry where researcher openly questioned the effectiveness of their research methods on the robustness of their results and debate the influence and effect that their enquiry has had on the phenomena that they have sought to observe” (Dainty, 2008). Cohen, et al., (2006) also outlined that reflection occur at every stage of action research. In that regards, in actual practice, biasness is difficult to eliminate in all type of research. However, being aware of it and the ability to control or minimize it is the most important element in research. In order to minimize biases, researchers should apply to themselves the same decisive criteria they set for other people works to pass through (Cohen, et al., 2006). However, we are consciously aware of the effects of the reflexivity on this study. In other words, we recognized the influence our sentiment, perceptions, values, feelings, thoughts and understandings may have on this study. For these reasons, we have made all possible efforts to be on the fence- yet to be decisive and analytical. In other words, as far as this issue is concerned, we have not taken a neutral position but a middle course position.

III. LIFE CYCLE COST TECHNIQUE IN CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

While information on the exact time, on the origin of LCC and the time it was first applied to the construction projects is not available, but it can be safely concluded that it preceded the VM techniques. Life cycle costing is also being referred to as whole life cost or cost-in-use. However, life cycle cost is preferred here as it is the most familiar time term even among the practitioners. Regardless of the nomenclature, the main purpose is to consider future costs in the determination of true cost of projects. In other words, LCC is a technique that is used to relate the initial cost with future based costs like running, operation, maintenance, replacement, alteration costs (Ahuja and Walsh, 1983; Morton and Jaggar, 1995; Bennett, 2003 and Kiyoyuki, et al., 2005). Elsewhere, it is defined as the total cost of project measured over a period of financial interest of the clients (Flanagan and Jewell, 2005). LCC enables a practical economic comparison of the alternatives, in terms of both the present and future costs. This is to allow in the final evaluation, to find out how much additional capital expenditure is warranted today in order to achieve future benefit over the entire life of the project. It is therefore the relationship of initial cost and other future based cost. Certainly, there is a need to relate capital cost with operation and maintenance costs in order to procure buildings that present value for money invested to the clients. This requirement is becoming more of a necessity with the increase in drive and subsequent demand for sustainable or green buildings. Since the 1960s, studies have shown there are the needs to balance capital costs against the subsequent maintenance costs of the buildings (Seeley, 1996).

Decision regarding the life cost of a project has to be ascertained right from the project’s conceptual stage as to whether to reduce the initial cost at the detriment of the maintenance and running costs. This depends on the client’s value system on the projects; however, effective balance must be strike to ensure meaningful selection. In addition to the initial construction costs which are foreseeable cost, other unforeseeable cost that should be considered are the operation cost, cost of energy usage, maintenance cost, disposal cost / salvage cost. Today clients are wiser, as they seem to prefer investing little more today for tomorrow savings. Clients are becoming knowledgeable about construction projects, as to what the future might likely portray regarding collateral costs. Issues of LCC are more important to the owner-occupier than to the developer who only builds to let or sell the construction projects on completion or over a certain period of time. In this case, end-users are left to bear the maintenance costs. The modern procurement system (i.e. design, building and operate) is possibly a good channel to consider building life cycle. In fact, the LCC is a tool that is often used by the management team to procure value for money invested

IV. VALUE MANAGEMENT IN CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

Various terms – value engineering, value control, value analysis and value engineering- have been used to describe the principle of value engineering. However, in this paper all the terms are synonymous. The most common are value management and value engineering, though. The two terms are used interchangeably in this paper. VM was developed due to shortage of materials and components that faced the manufacturing industry in the North America during the WW11. VM is both problem solving and problem seeking processes. As a problem seeking system, it identified problems that might arise in future and develop or identified solution to the problem. Value management is a proactive, problems solving management system that maximizes the functional value of a project by managing its development from concept stage to operation stage of a projects through multidisciplinary value team (Kelly and Male, 2001). It make client value system explicitly clear at the project’s conceptual stage. It seeks to obtain the best functional balance between cost, quality, reliability, safety and aesthetic. The approach could be introduced at any stage in the projects’ life cycle, but it is more beneficial if it is introduced from the pre-construction phase of the projects; before any design is committed (Ahuja and Walsh, 1983).

The tools and techniques of VM push stakeholders to provide answers to questions that might not ordinarily be considered if other approaches were used (Olanrewaju and Khairuddin, 2006). Value engineering identifies items of unnecessary costs in a project and develops alternative ways of achieving the same functions at the lowest possible cost, without impairing on the quality, aesthetic, image, safety and functional performances of the building and at the same time improves the project schedules. VM programs commonly take the form of arranging a workshop in which the client, contractors, suppliers, manufacturers, specialists and other stakeholders involved take part and put forward suggestions for discussions and investigations (Harry, 2000). This will make the consultants and designers understand what a client will accept as the benchmark to measure the outcome of their investment (Leung, Chu and Lu, 2003).

Consequently, the client will be provided with projects they can occupy, operate, maintain, at their preferred location, on schedule without compromising the require quality, function, aesthetic and images with acceptable comfort. If the client value system is not made explicit, consultants and designers merely focus on requirements that were not intended by a client. Thus, opportunity for maximizing concept, design, construction and maintenance might not be possible. However, the VM workshop or session is different from the normal project meeting as the objectives of each are distinct.

Value management is defined as an organized set of procedures and processes that are introduced, purposely to enhance the function of a designs, services, facilities or systems at the lowest possible total cost of effective ownership, taken cognizance of the client’s value system for quality, reliability, durability, conformance, durability, aesthetic, time, and cost (Olanrewaju and Khairuddin, 2007). The methodology is about being creative, innovative, and susceptible to changes, consensus, enhancing the use of resources, analytical, togetherness and good communication (Stevens, 1997). Value engineering program is commonly carried out in the systematic stages of; feasibility, concept design, design development, construction and operations and occupancy phase of the projects (Table 1). The work activities are strategically carried out in the job plan. The job plan is the frame works that guide the systematic maneuvering of ideas to ensure that alternatives are not unnecessarily omitted (Ahuja and Walsh, 1983).

Table 1.Value Management’s Job Plan

The value management job plan is an organized framework that guides the processes of analyzing the project, products, services or components under study, to enable the development of numbers of viable economical and functional alternatives that meet clients’ requirements. The strict adherence to the framework ensures maximum benefits and offer greater chances for flexibility. It also ensures that no step or phase is over-sighted or omitted. The value management process can be broken down into various phases. Regardless of the number of phases in the process, the major activities still holds. In many cases, the phases are however broken down into five major phases. However, in this paper, it is broken onto nine major phases for easy understanding. Life cost of project of an item or element is mainly considered during two of the value management phases, namely, the evaluation phase and the development phase. Therefore, the next two sections will discuss in-depth the two main phase.

IV.1 The evaluation phase

This is the fifth phase in the value management methodologies. The evaluation phase is some time call the investigation phase. The evaluation phase is very important phase of the value management process. It is a strategic planning stage of the process (Stevens, 1997). The phase should be considered with the spirit of creative thinking that is associated with the analytical phase. The refined and modified results of the analytical phase are considered in detailed in evaluation phase, on one to one basis judging among themselves. Primarily, the basic activities of this phase is elimination, pruning, modifying and combining ideas in order to reduce the large quantity of ideas collected from the analytical stage to meaningful and workable ones. Generally, alternatives are evaluated in terms of its total cost, availability, technology, its merits, its constraints, ease of construction, effect on schedules of works, safety, ease of procurement, coordination (Bennett, 2003). The evaluation should not just be based on what similar design had cost before or currently cost, but the comparison should include physical appearance, similar properties, and methods of designs, technology and maintainability (Ahuj and Walsh, 1983).

In the course of pruning ideas, some ideas might appear to have potentials but perhaps due to the prevalent technological advancement, they might not be considered. Those ideas should be put aside for later discussions with interested manufacturers or vendors for productions or purchase (Dell’Isola, 1982) where possible. Overall, the project must be looked at from different dimensions. In order to avoid fall-out during the evaluating process, a benchmark should be set against which to establish and measure whether idea should be rejected, pruned, modified or combined. However, it is important to invite some if not all members of the designing team in order to listen to their opinion regarding the evaluated alternatives, particularly, those that were selected. This is important in case they might have considered inculcating some of the analyzed alternatives earlier on. And, if they had, a request should be made as to why they did not consider using these alternatives. Their ground of rejection might be important to the study team (Kelly and Male, 2001) in search for better alternatives.

IV.II: The development phase

Based on the outcome of the evaluation phase, some or the entire item will require further development so that best value proposal can be made more explicit. In other words, the purpose of this phase is to enable further development of the alternative proposals. The major activity that is performed in the development phase includes the preparation of alternative design and cost so that a justification can be made on the viability and feasibility of the new proposals (Dell’Isola, 1982; Ahuja & Walsh, 1983 and Ashworth, and Hogg, 2002). Further benchmarking is to be considered here aside the one in the preceding phase such as; if the idea will work and meet the client’s requirements considering the prevalent advancement of technology. In addition, the interests of the clients who will approve the recommendations require systematic consideration to avoid unnecessary objections. All the relevant information regarding the development of a project must be documented, as this will later be presented to the clients as evidence. The associated risk inherent in the alternative proposals are determined, documented and solutions proffer in advance (James, 1994).

V. DISCUSSION

This section discusses the crossing point between value management and life cycle cost. But before proceeding, a brief discussion on how the two strategies relate with facility management is provided. The question can be asked, whether LCC or VM fit with facility management? Facilities include all fixed properties of an organization such as buildings, plants and equipments. Assets entail both fixed and non-fixed properties of an organisation. Facilities contribute significantly to the enhancement in productivities, profit-abilities and service quality of an organization. Facility management (FM) involves the management of all the services that support core business of an organization (Amaratunga, et al., 2000). FM focuses on meeting organization’s performance in terms of relationship between operational facilities and business outcome. Although, both VM or/ LCC are applicable to all classes of facilities (management), the focus of the classes of the facilities that this paper is concerned with are the constructed facilities and the building projects in particular. Building in this context involve the building’s fabrics, structure and engineering services. The value of a building is determined in relation to its current ability to provide user functional requirements, the current market value and the building condition and performance rating in comparison to that of a new building (Kyle, 2001). The roles are consistent with functions of professional including value managers, asset managers, facility managers and the real estate managers.

One of the major functions of facility management is to ensure that building projects receive adequate maintenance in order to continue to function efficiently and effectively to support the organisation’s corporate objectives. Maintenance process is a fundamental stage in the building life cycle. Maintenance has to be initiated if the building is still functionally sound and cost-efficient to do so against procuring new building or embarking on activities including refurbishment, conversion and alteration. In order to ensure high building performance, maintenance must be considered from the initiation of the buildings. From the foregoing, the opening question is pertinent, because LCC is a technique that is used by the facility management organisation or team to procure value for money invested (Flanagan and Jewell, 2005). In other words, LCC enables facility managers to make informed decisions on how much to invest today for future economic benefits. While the needs for space requirements in an organisation can be triggered by organisation’s asset / facility management unit, the strategic nature of VM allows it to be explicitly clear whether the proposed facility is require and what nature and form it should takes. Generally, the primary functions of the facility managers concern the coordination of the needs of properties users, equipments and plants and operational activities taken place within the space (IREM, 2006). This role is different from that of the value managers. The feedback from the post occupancy evaluation, which forms part of the FM directive, can also serve as feedback to the VM workshop in order to provide best values to the stakeholders. In general, VM can be integrated into the largest context of FM (Green and Moss, 1998) as FM provides a wider platform for decision making throughout the building life cycle. Therefore, FM focuses on space planning. Thus, the combination of VM and FM would produce good outputs. Having provided connections between facility management, life cycle costing and value management, in the remaining paragraphs the discussion emphasises LCC and VM.

Issues relating to LCC of facility have received wider acceptance, because what appears to be cheaper might in actual fact be expensive taking into account future-based costs. Therefore, when selecting a design solution capable of achieving the client value system, alternative that has the lowest cost, will in most cases be the first to be selected, if other performance criteria are satisfied. However, criteria like aesthetic (inspiring and harmonious), images (reputable and progressive), fitness for purpose, sustainability, buildablity, maintainability, technology, quality, safety, convenience, comfort, reliability must be included if best value is to be achieved. Construction clients are becoming more demanding, complex, sophisticated and in fact wiser compare to how they use to be in the past. Today’s clients want to see and in fact have projects that will perform the required functions; that costs less, be sustainable, completed within shortest possible time and also meet other basic requirements (Fong, 1999). Whereas, life cycle costing concentrate on the cost criteria (capital, operation and maintenance cost though), value management takes account all of the criteria within the client value system. Indeed, today clients are taking into account various set of complex algorithm that defined value to them (Halil, and Celik, 1999). The benefits and satisfactions they are getting from other industries like the automobile, aircraft industries are all fascinating experience. These are also making them to be more aggressive with the construction industry. The LCC techniques might be capable of providing best price, but best price does not in any way connote best value.

LCC is introduced after it has been decided that the best alternative proposals that will meet the client’s corporate objective is construction project, whereas VM examine the client’s business case to establish what type of “projects” a client required. Project in this stage is not necessarily a construction projects, but any alternatives that would provide the best return for the client’s investment in terms of money, time and other criteria of their value system.

VM precedes other strategies in that it is introduced before the design even commences (Kelly and Male, 2001; (Qipping, and Liu, 2004 and Shen, 2004). It is also unique in that it makes explicitly the client value system and goes ahead to determine weather the projects is desirable, viable and feasible before any commitment is made to whether to build or not. In that regards, it entail getting it right from the concept. It is only when the correct problem is identified that the correct solution can be developed. Regardless of the sophistication of the instrument used, if the client’s needs and wants are not known, it is either the projects is abandoned, completed but unoccupied or very expensive to operate and maintain. While LCC is tactical; VM is both strategic and systemic. While the LCC could be described as a strategy that provides answer to the question “how do we do it efficiently”, VM ask and provide answer to the question “why do we do it-why do we need the projects”. This is achieved using the functional analytical procedure of the VM. VM is certainly not a replacement alternative to the previous cost saving approach but it is certainly a viable alternative for achieving client value system (Ahuja and Walsh, 1983).

In the value management of construction projects, techniques like the supply chain, risk management, procurement, system engineering, concurrent engineering, safety management and partnering are applied during the development stage of the VM workshop; when developing alternative proposals, elements, components, equipments, items, materials and construction methods that provide value for money to the client. Therefore, these techniques are tools in the kits of the value management process. Apart from the LCC technique, VM makes used of other tools and techniques including, functional analysis, decision matrix, criteria scoring, brainstorming and functional cost model, SWOT analysis, supply chain analysis, risk analysis and checklists. To underscore the holistic and uniqueness of value management, various writers including Male, et al., (1998) and Fong (2004) have found that value management is more involving and unique than many methods / systems including total quality management, supply chain management, risk management, time management, cost management and lean construction.

VI: CONCLUSION AND OBSERVATIONS

The study has been able to investigate the relationship between value management and life cycle costing through literature review. This is done by bringing the theory behind each of the concept into context through literature survey. The paper has revisited the debate on VM and LCC which began sometime ago perhaps unnoticed. While the exact time cannot be traced the debate probably began on the arrival of the VM into the construction scene around 1960. This paper should be regarded as reflective contributions of the authors to the debate about the two concepts and tools. Life cycle costing technique is specific to particular stages and it is useful when it has been established that a “project” will satisfied the client requirements. The techniques and tools used in VM are not new per se, however the methodologies, consistent, systematic and holistic ways they are applied in VM is prominent. While value management has reached certain level of popularity and maturity, the LCC is yet to gain similar recognition even in the construction.

In conclusion, hopefully, we have been able to provide intermediate interpretations of the two concepts because we do not intend to provide extreme viewpoints. This paper does not claim that total cost of building is not important, but what it claimed is that, the value of projects does not ends with the consideration of the cost alone. Many “soft or qualitative” issues in actual fact are more important to the “hard or engineering” issues in majority or all of the cases. Perhaps, we should also add that considerations of the quality and completion time of project are also engineering or hard issues. Our aim is to provide a broad overview over a significant, yet complex issue and the emphasis has been to demonstrate the connection between the two concepts. Since we are aware of the bias that might creep into research like, attempts were made consciously to bring them to the barest level even though it is very difficult to eliminate it altogether. The conclusions of this paper are based on literature review In future primary data through survey or case studies will be collected from those that are consider to have adequate knowledge on the two techniques to see how our opinions differ from that of others’. On a final note, VM is about getting the initial concept right from the word “go”!

REFERENCES

Ahuja H, N, and Walsh M, A. (1983), Construction Management and Engineering: Successful Methods in Cost Engineering. Canada: John Wiley & Son Inc.,

Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D. and Sarshar, M (2000). Assessment of facilities management performance – what next? Facilities, Vol. 18. Number 1 / 2 pp.66-75

Arditi, D. A and Messiha, H. M. (1996), Life Cycle Costing in Municipal Construction Projects. Journal of Infrastructure System, Vol. 2 No. 1, March 1996, pp.5-14 (doi 10.1061/ (ASCE) 1076 – 0342 (1996)2; 2:1(5)

Ashworth, A. and Hogg, K. (2002), Willis’s practice & procedure for the quantity surveyor. 11th Edition. Oxford: Blackwell Science

Benntte, F. C. (2003), The management of construction: a project life cycle approach, Butterworth – Heinemann, Oxford

Best, R., and de Valence, G., (eds) (2002), Design and Construction: Building in value, Butterworth – Heinemann, Woburn.

Booty, F. (Editor) (2006), Facilities management, 3rd Edition, Oxford: Butterworth- Heinemann

Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2006), Research methods in Education. 5th Edition. Oxon: RoutledgeFalmer

Dainty, A. (2008), Methodological pluralism in construction management research, In: Knight, A and Ruddock, L (editors) (2008) Advanced Research Methods the Built Environment. UK: Wiley-Blackwell

Pasquire, C. and Swaffield, L. (2004), Life-cycle / whole-life costing. In Kelly, J., Morledge R. and Wilkinson, S (editors) (2004) Best Value in construction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing

Dell’ Isola, A. (1982), Value Engineering in the Construction Industry. 3rd Edition, Van Nostsrand and Reinhold Company Inc., New York

Dell”Isola A. J. (1997), Value engineering: practical application for design, construction, maintenance and operation, R. S Means Company, In: Shen, Q and Liu, G (2004) Applications of value management in the construction industry in China, Journal of Engineering, Construction and Architecture Management, Vol. 11 No. 12004 pp9-19 ISSN 0969-9988

Duncan, C. (2002), New Aspect of Quantity Surveying Practice: A Text for All Construction Professionals, Elsevier Butterworth – Heinemann, UK

Flanagan, R. and Jewell, C. (2005), Whole life appraisal for construction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Limited

Fong, P. S. (1999). Organization knowledge and responses of public sector clients towards value management: responses of public clients. The International Journal Of Public Sector Management, Vol. No. 5 1999 pp445 – 454

Halil, S. N., & Celik, T. (1999), Value of a Product: A Definition, International Journal of Value – Based Management, 12; pp181 – 191

IREM (Institute of Real Estate Management, 2006), Principles of real estate management. 15th Edition. Chicago: Institute of Real Estate Management

James O. J. (1994), Preconstruction Estimating: Budget through Bid. USA: McGraw – Hill Inc.

Kelly, S. R. and Male, S. P. (2001), Value management in design and construction: the economic management of project. 1st Edition. E and FN Spon. London:

Khairuddin, A. (2002), Construction Procurement in Malaysia: Processes and Systems: Constraints and Strategies. Research Centre, International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur

Kiyoyuki, K., Sugisaki, K., and Kobayashi, K. (2005), Statistical deterioration prediction considering the non uniformity of the visual inspection interval, In Proceedings of the International seminal on asset management. Jointly organized by Kulliyyah of Architecture and Environmental Design and Kyoto University Japan. Held on 24th – 25th, 2005 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Kyle, B. R. (2001). Toward effective decision making for building management. In Proceedings of APWA International Public Works Congress, Philadelphia, Sep. 2001 NRCC/CPWA/ IPWEA Seminar Series “Innovation in Urban Infrastructure. Available at www.nrc.ca/irc/uir/apwa pp52- 69

Leung, M. Y., Chu, H. Y. and Lu, X. (2003), Participation in value management. Report for RICS Education Trust Founded Project

Male, S., Kelly, S., Fernie, S., Gronqvist, M., & Bowles, G. (1998), The Value Management Benchmarks: A Good Practice Framework for the Clients and Practitioners. London: Thomas Telford Publishing,

Morton, R. and Jaggar D. (1995), Design and the economics of building, London: E and FN Spon.

Qipping, S., and Liu, G., (2004), Application of Value Management in the Construction Industry in China. Journal Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. Vol. 11 No. 1 Pp9-99. ISSN 0969 – 9988

Olanrewaju, A. A., and Khairuddin, A. (2006), Value Management: New Direction for the Nigerian Quantity Surveyors. P102 – 109, Proceedings of Quantity Surveying National Convention, Organized in conjunction with the International Construction Week. 4 – 5 September 2006. ISBN: 983 – 41749 -2 -6, Held at University Science Malaysia (USM)

Olanrewaju, A. A., and Khairuddin, A. (2007), Determining whether Value Management is practiced in the Nigerian Construction Industry, In: Proceeding of Quantity Surveying International Convention (QSIC). Jointly organized by Visit Malaysia 2—7; International Islamic University Malaysia; Board of Quantity Surveyors Malaysia; Institution of Surveyors Malaysia; JKR and CIDB. Held on 4-5th September 2007, Kuala Lumpur.

Seeley, I. H. (1996), Building Economics: Appraisal and control of building design and efficiency. 4th Edition. New York: Palgrave

Shen, Q. (2004), Application of Value Management in the construction industry in China. Journal of Engineering Construction and Architectural Management 11(1): pp. 9-19

Stevens, D. (1997), Strategic thinking: success secrets of big business projects. Australia: McGraw-Hill Companies

Green, S. D. and G.W. Moss, (1998), Value management and post-occupancy evaluation: closing the loop, Facilities, Vol. 16 Iss: 1/2, pp.34 – 39

Zavadskas, E. K and Vilutiene, T. (2006), A multiple evaluation of multi-family apartment block’s maintenance contractors: I Model for maintenance contractor evaluation and the determination of its selection criteria. Building and Environment 41 (2006), p621 -632

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

BIM for FM – What is COBie – A Section of Roadmap for Life-cycle Management of the Built Environment

(Source:A report for the Government Construction Client Group Building Information Modelling (BIM) Working Party Strategy Paper March 2011)

via http://www.4Clicks.com – Premier technology solutions for cost estimating and efficient project delivery method implementation – JOC, SABER, IPD, IDIQ, SATOC, MATOC, MACC, POCA, BOA …

What is COBie?

COBie is a vehicle for sharing predominantly non-graphic data about a facility. The primary motivation for the use of COBie is to ensure that the Client as Owner, Operator and Occupier receives the information about the facility in as complete and as useful form as possible. Wherever possible, data should be recorded within COBie. The COBie dataset can additionally act as a guided index to the supplementary documentation, including 2D and 3D information.

 COBie2  was created to provide a means for the faculties industry to communicate information about facilities so that the client can immediately take full and responsible ownership.  It arose from the collaboration of the US Department of State, US Army Corps of Engineers, NASA, and the Veterans Association. In 2008 it was revised as COBie to ensure that it was relevant to facilities  worldwide  and  was  fully  compatible  with  international  standards  for  data  and classification. Adopters of the COBie approach also include public and private owners, University of Indiana, University Southern California, in the UK Vinci Construction Ltd, and in Germany, The State of Bavaria.

 COBie is a non-proprietary format based on a multiple page spread sheet. It is designed to be easily managed by organisations of any size and at any level of IT capability, allowing each of them to contribute efficiently to a single representation of the asset. It requires only information that is (or should be) available anyway, so it does not represent a change in the expected content, only in its usefulness and accessibility. The intent is to not create information that is not already available or produced as part of the existing processes. The aim is to structure and rationalise the information for re-purposing and use downstream.   COBie also acts as an index to other documents. Overall COBie provides traceability and visibility of design, construction and handover decisions to all supply and client side stakeholders.

 

COBie is used for communication, as a means of information exchange between parties, particularly to the customer.  Where automation is not in use, such as in the lower tiers of the supply chain, COBie information can be captured using direct entry into the spread sheet, often using cut-and-paste from existing schedules and documents. Parties including the client can use the COBie format as a primary document for managing the asset. Design development, construction management and asset management applications have had no difficulty in interfacing with the format.

 

COBie comprises sheets that document the facility, the levels (or sectors), spaces and zones that make up the function of the facility. These are then filled with the actual manageable systems and assets and details of their product types.  During construction and installation these are amplified with information about the spares, warranties, and maintenance requirements. Throughout the process additional attributes, issues and documents can be associated to all these items.

 

2 COBie (Construction Operations Building information exchange) was developed by a number of US public agencies to improve the handover process to building owner-operators.

 

 

 

COBie data is accumulated throughout the life cycle

COBie transfers the information needed by the owner/operator to manage their asset efficiently. The principal use-case is therefore the handover of a facility after commissioning of the owner/operator. Typical questions answered by COBie include:

• What is the design performance of my asset? Energy, rental, quality measures,

• What is the amount of floor space of estate? Classified by building type.

• What is the occupancy level of my estate/per building?

• What is the required plant and equipment maintenance scheduling – preventative and reactive?

• What is my operational cost expected to be?
• What is my as-designed energy use cost expected to be? What is my actual energy use? The  use of

COBie in practice has shown that it is not limited and has a more general role of communicating the key information in a structured format. COBie has been found to be useful and efficient in many scenarios, including documenting existing facilities.

1.  The handover of a facility to the owner/operator.

2.  The capture of commissioning and survey information.

3.  The reporting of the designed project ready for tendering.

4.  The coordination of maintenance records of existing infrastructure.

5.  The documentation of issues discovered throughout the life cycle.

6.  The delivery of product data.

7.  The reporting of design intent at the early design stage.

8.  The comparison of briefing requirements against the designed and as built

COBie documents the asset in 16 consistent and linked sheets

We anticipate that our application of COBie will develop as the various technologies in the market mature, broadly in line with our “maturity levels model” described in appendix 3. For the majority of the five years of the life of this strategy we anticipate that most of the market will be engaged in or around level 2.  For all deliveries at this level, COBie will be adequate as a transport mechanism but may well require additional development to cope with additional attached data, which some clients may start to wish for collection. There will also be a need to have a more robust system for processing the information as our understanding and needs grow.    For this reason we have identified a stage where we would hold all delivered data in a database to enable these processes. This will need additional guidance as there would be a need to synchronise data, COBie, calculations and proprietary information at the same point in time.

 Our final vision for the delivery of this information will be a fully web enabled transparent (to the user) scenario, based on the Building Smart IFC/IDM and IFD standards.

The model below illustrates this progression, with respect to maturity level.

BIM Evolution

In the long history of humankind, those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed.
– Charles Darwin

BIM, the life-cycle management of the built environment supported by digital technology, requires a fundamental change in how the construction (Architects, Contractors, Engineers) and facility management (Owners, Service Providers, Building Product Manufactures, Oversight Groups, Building Users) sectors operate on a day-to-day basis.  

BIM, combined and  Cloud Computing are game changers.  They are disruptive technologies with integral business processes/practices that demand collaboration, transparency, and accurate/current information displayed via common terminology.

The traditional ad-hoc and adversarial business practices commonly associated with Construction and Facility Management are changing as we speak.    Design-bid-build and even Design-Build will rapidly go by the wayside in favor of the far more efficient processes of Integrated Project Delivery – IPD, and Job Order Contracting – JOC, and similar collaborative programs.  (JOC is a form of integrated project delivery specifically targeting facility renovation, repair, sustainability, and minor new construction).

There is no escaping the change.   Standardized data architectures (Ominclass, COBie, Uniformat, Masterformat) and cost databases (i.e. RSMeans), accesses an localized via cloud computing are even now beginning to be available.   While historically, the construction and facility management sectors have lagged their counterparts (automotive, aerospace, medical, …)  relative to technology and LEAN business practices, environmental and economic market drivers and government mandates are closing the gap.

The construction and life-cycle management of the built environment requires the integration off several knowledge domains, business “best-practices”, and technologies as portrayed below.   The efficient use of this BIG DATA is enabled by the BIM, Cloud Computing, and Integrated Project Delivery methods.

The greatest challenges to these positive changes are  the CULTURE of the Construction and the Facility Management Sectors.  Also, an embedded first-cost vs. life-cycle or total cost of ownership perspective.  An the unfortunate marketing spotlight upon the technology of 3D visualization vs. BIM.   Emphasis MUST be place upon the methods of how we work on a daily basis…locally and globally  − strategic planning, capitial reinvestment planning, designing collaborating, procuring, constructing, managing and operating.  All of these business processes have different impacts upon the “facility” infrastructure and  construction supply chain, building Owners, Stakeholders, etc., yet communication terms, definitions, must be transparent and consistently applied in order to gain  greater efficiencies.

Some facility life-cycle management are already in place for the federal government facility portfolio and its only a matter of time before these are expanded and extended into all other sectors.

BIM, not 3D visualization, but true BIM or Big BIM,  and Cloud Computing will connect information from every discipline together.  It will not necessarily be a single combined model.  In fact the latter has significant drawbacks.    Each knowledge domain has independent areas of expertise and requisite process that would be diluted and marginalized if managed within one model.   That said, appropriate “roll-up” information will be available to a higher level model.   (The issue of capability and productivity marginalization can be proven by looking a ERP and IWMS systems.  Integration of best-in-class technology and business practices is always support to systems that attempt to do everything, yet do not single thing well.)

Fundamental Changes to Project Delivery for Repair, Renovation, Sustainability, and New Construction Projects MUST include:

• Qualifications Based or Best Value Selection
• Some form of pricing transparency and standardization
• Early and ongoing information-sharing among project stakeholders
• Appropriate distribution of risk
• Some form of financial incentive to drive performance / performance-based relationships

Critical Issues and BIM – NIBS buildingSMART alliance conference – January 7-11, 2013

The fundamental day-to-day business processes of the Engineering, Construction, Owner, and Operations sector are changing.   That said, major cultural change must occur in order to make significant progress.   The efficient life-cycle management of the built environment will not happen until change management is accelerated.   Efficient construction delivery methods (IPD – integrated project delivery, JOC – job order contracting), cloud computing, and BIM are all integral components.

Symposium Name:   The buildingSMART alliance^TM Conference

Symposium Title:     Integrating BIM: Moving the Industry Forward

Day(s)/Date(s):          January 7-11, 2013

Monday and Tuesday: Board, Council and Committee Meetings

Tuesday and Wednesday: Conference Educational Sessions

Thursday: Information Exchanges

Friday: BIM Academic Education Symposium

Building information modeling (BIM) is beginning to fundamentally change the building industry in a very positive way. Its impact is already being felt in countries around the globe. In an industry known for construction delays and cost overruns, high quality BIM projects are being built on-time (or even early) and significantly under budget.

Now is the time to expand your knowledge of all things BIM and find ways to implement it in your work. The buildingSMART alliance^TM Conference will help you understand how BIM can better integrate the design, construction, fabrication and operation processes, and provide you with the latest metrics available to assess industry progress.

With the theme, Integrating BIM: Moving the Industry Forward, the buildingSMART alliance Conference looks at the big picture of implementing BIM into daily practice. The week-long event includes committee meetings, such as the buildingSMART alliance Board of Direction, National BIM Standard-United States Planning and Project Committee meetings; two days of educational sessions; a full day of innovative technology demonstrations with the Information Exchange Working Group; and a BIM Academic Education Symposium focused on teaching the next generation.

The National BIM Standard-United States (NBIMS-US) Version 3 Planning and Project Committees will begin planning the new standard during these face-to-face meetings. The Planning Committee Meeting is members-only. However, the Project Committee is open to anyone interested in becoming involved. It is a good place to start if you are considering joining the NBIMS effort. The buildingSMART alliance Board of Direction Meeting is also open to the public.

The buildingSMART alliance Conference Educational Sessions are broken into two days. The first day will focus outwardly on three aspects of BIM implementation: design-construction integration, construction-fabrication integration and construction-operations integration, as well as developing the metrics that can be used to assess what progress the industry is making, on an annual basis, toward process improvement. The second day will be more of an inward look at the standards under development by the Alliance, as well as various standards efforts and strategies on the international front.

During its all-day meeting of innovative technology demonstrations, the Information Exchange (IE) Working Group will reveal the newest, most cutting-edge building information modeling (BIM) information exchange standards for inclusion in the National BIM Standard-United States™. The meeting, which is free and open to the public, is where the latest progress will be presented and the course of information exchange development will be set for the year.

The week will close with the BIM Academic Education Symposium. This workshop, jointly sponsored by the buildingSMART alliance and the BIM Forum,consists of a day-long series of presentations by leading BIM educators on topics related to implementing academic curricula at their educational institutions. The topics include the use of BIM in: student projects, interdisciplinary collaboration in studios, scheduling and estimating classes, IPD projects and facilities management. Researchers, academicians and practitioners in the AECOO industry are all strongly encouraged to attend and help shape the future of BIM integration in academic curricula.

buildingSMART alliance Conference

Committee Meetings

Monday, January 7, 2013

1:00 – 2:00 PM            NBIMS-US V3 Planning Committee (free/members only)

Chris Moor, Chair

 

Chris Moor

Director, Industry Initiatives

American Institute of Steel Construction

Chair, US National BIM Standard Project Committee

Chris is the director of industry initiatives for the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) and also chairs the National BIM Standard-United States (NBIMS-US) Project Committee.

He has worked with three-dimensional technology and BIM since 1994 and has led AISC’s efforts regarding technology integration and interoperability. He is a director on the buildingSMART alliance Board of Direction; a member of the Design-Build Institute of America BIM Committee; co-chair of the American Iron and Steel Institute BIM Committee; secretary of AISC Technology Integration Committee; member of the Level of Development Working Group (an Associated General Contractors of America/BIMForum/American Institute of Architects effort); and serves as the AISC lead for a Fiatech project addressing interoperability for steel within the process industry. He was previously the managing director of Tekla Corporation’s UK subsidiary.

In addition to this Chris was also the creator of, and innovator behind, the AISC’s annual showcase event, SteelDay (www.SteelDay.org). SteelDay is a phenomenal success and has become the industry’s largest networking and educational event with more than 10,000 people attending events in 2012.

Born in Manchester, UK (and supporting the Manchester City football club) Chris has spent most of his adult life in the U.S., working in various parts of the country since 1997. After several years in Atlanta, he currently resides in Tampa, Florida, with his wife and two sons.

2:00 – 3:00 PM            NBIMS-US V3 Project Committee (free/open)

Chris Moor, Chair

3:00 – 5:00 PM            buildingSMART alliance Board of Direction Meeting (free/open)

Tom Gay, Chair

 

Mr. Thomas A. Gay

Assistant Vice President – Manager, Engineering Plan Services

FM Global

270 Central Avenue

Johnston, RI 02919-4949 USA

thomas.gay@fmglobal.com

 

Tom Gay manages worldwide CAD and GIS services, site plan documentation and engineering document management services for The Factory Mutual Insurance Company (FM Global). He is also FM Global’s representative to the buildingSMART alliance (serving as chairman since 2008) and The Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC). He is currently serving on the Board of Advisors to The Centre for Spatial Law and Policy. In the past he has served as Chairman of the GDS North American User Group, as a Member of Convergent Group – International Conference Committee and as a Technology/Curriculum Advisory Board Member for ITT Technical Institute.

 

Over his more than 38years service to FM Global, Mr. Gay has performed many different job assignments:

 

• Worked at client sites as a Field Surveyor documenting as-built construction, occupancy, protection and exposure as it pertains to the real property insurance industry
• Led CAD selection and implementation projects transitioning FM Global from pencil/paper-pen/linen to electronic production. This has included “CAD” using PEAC, GDS, MicroGDS, AutoCAD, MicroStation, SketchUp, ArchiCAD and “Raster” using Cadcore/Hitachi PrEditor, ScanGraphics, Scan2CAD, etc.
• Led GIS selection and implementation projects transitioning FM Global from paper maps to GIS. This has included products from GDS, ESRI, MapInfo and Cadcorp.
• Led document management and retention projects which resulted in selection, implementation and ongoing support of Documentum as the corporate repository for and distribution of engineering reports and drawings.
• Currently manages FM Global’s Engineering Plan Services with responsibility for over 350,000 drawings documenting approximately 300,000 client sites around the world, CAD & Scanning production services for current locations, CAD support and tool development for corporate users worldwide, GIS support and tool development for both desktop users and corporate web users worldwide, Mapping support for natural hazards and catastrophe response and Documentum support as it pertains to Engineering Documents for Client sites.   

 

FM Global is one of the world’s largest commercial and industrial property insurance and risk management organizations specializing in property protection. In operation for more than 175years, many of the world’s top companies have relied on FM Global’s (www.fmglobal.com) unmatched engineering expertise and scientific research to better understand the nature and cause of fire, natural disasters and other perils to prevent damage to their property and maintain continuity in their business.

 

 

Educational Sessions

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

8:00 – 8:30 AM            Plenary Session

Steve Jones, McGraw-Hill Construction

 

Stephen A Jones

McGraw-Hill Construction is the world’s leading source of information

and analysis on the Architecture/Engineering/Construction industry.

Steve Jones studies the impact of economic, technological,

business and environmental changes on the future of the AEC

industry, and is highly regarded internationally as a researcher,

writer and speaker on these topics. Steve also leads McGraw-Hill

Construction’s initiatives in developing alliance relationships with

major companies and organizations for technology and content.

In addition to numerous articles in AEC publications, Steve has co-authored McGraw-Hill Construction’s SmartMarket Reports on Interoperability (2007), BIM (2008), The Business Value

of BIM (2009) and Green BIM (2010). These reports have been distributed to over 1million people worldwide and are widely cited as authoritative references on these topics.

 

8:30 – 9:30 AM            Design – Construction Integration

David Quigley, East Coast CAD/CAM

 

David E. Quigley, MBA Graduate of the Whitmore School of Business and Economic, brings years of HVAC and Mechanical experience working in his family’s Mechanical Contracting Business to his position as Chief Operating Officer at EastCoast CAD/CAM. Adding to his real-world, hands-on contractor experience and prior to EastCoast CAD/CAM, David, spent over 20 years developing a unique set of software engineering skills and product development knowledge by participating and developing operating systems, compilers and application software.  As a software engineer, product and project manager, working for companies such as Microsoft, Compuware, and Digital Equipment Corporation, David managed two of the companies industry standards efforts which included; the Ada Compiler (US Defense Sponsored) and Motif, the UNIX Standard User Interface Protocol (Sponsored by the Open Software Foundation, OSF) .  As Chief Operating Officer, David is responsible for developing EastCoast’s overall Product and Business Strategies.

10:00 – 11:30 AM        Construction – Fabrication Integration

The Future is Here: Benefits of Advanced Technology for Subcontractors

Steve Hunt, Dee Cramer

 

Steve Hunt is the BIM/CAD Manager of Dee Cramer Inc. a 75 year old Sheet Metal/HVAC Contractor in Holly Michigan.  Dee Cramer is an industry leader in 3D CAD and Building Information Modeling.

Steve has participated in and been the lead in numerous BIM products in the Midwest ranging from automotive factory and office buildings, healthcare facilities and casinos.  Steve received his Certificate of Management – Building Information Modeling from the AGC in 2011.  Steve has taught 3 of the 4 AGC BIM Education courses, he currently teaches the SMACNA BIM Education Chapter Education programs and has developed and taught Navisworks classes and webinars for Subcontractors across the country.

1:30 – 3:00 PM            Construction – Operations Integration

Deke Smith, buildingSMART alliance, Introduction

Phil Wirdzek, I²SL

Terence Alcorn, Stantec

Igor Starkov, Ecodomus

Leigh Lally, Virginia Tech

 

Philip J. Wirdzek

Phil Wirdzek is the founding president and executive director of the International Institute for Sustainable Laboratories (I2SL). I2SL is broadening the base of knowledge and expertise in sustainable labs and other high technology facilities. Phil was responsible for creating the Laboratories for the 21st Century (Labs21®) which was a U.S. public-private partnership program promoting sustainable laboratories and was the first recorded program to address the need for sustainable laboratories. During his career at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, he held various scientific positions including senior scientist and senior analyst for the agency’s sustainability programs.  He also served in the agency’s facility management offices as the national energy manager and as facility manager for the agency’s Washington DC headquarters.  Mr. Wirdzek is recipient of numerous awards among them the Agency’s Gold Medal for Labs21, presidential awards for federal energy management, and the Association of Energy Engineers’ Environmental Professional of the Year.

 

Terence Alcorn

Terence Alcorn is a registered architect with 25 years of experience of projects in higher education and laboratories design including the Thomas M. Siebel Center for Computer Science and the National Center for Supercomputing for the University of Illinois Urban/Champaign and two research laboratory buildings for The Scripps Research Institute for their new campus in Florida.  Mr. Alcorn has also been a Professor of Economics teaching both Micro and Macro Economics, and presented at the following conferences:

• Labs 21 National Conference 2011 – “BIM and Building Financial Analysis”
• IFMA National Conference 2012 – “BIM for High Tech Buildings”
• Labs 21 National Conference 2012 – “BIM for Laboratory and Related High-Technology Facility Operation and Management”
• Labs 21 National Conference 2012 – “High Performance Healthcare Environments: Metrics and Procedures”

 

 

Igor Starkov, Co-founder of EcoDomus, Inc., has 18 years of international business management experience, of which 10 years were dedicated to the construction software industry. Prior to co-founding EcoDomus, Inc. Igor founded Tokmo Solutions (merged with EcoDomus in 2010), the leading provider of Lean Construction and COBie-supporting software solutions. Also, Igor co-founded Latista Technologies, the leading provider of field management software for construction, in 2001. Igor holds a Masters in Applied Mathematics and Computer Science from Moscow University, Russia, and an Executive MBA from Georgetown University, Washington, DC.

How can bSa members contribute to Moving the Industry Forward?

Leigh Lally

 

3:30 – 5:00 PM            Measuring Success – Metrics

Deke Smith, National Institute of Building Sciences

Deke Smith is the Executive Director for the Building Seismic Safety Council and the buildingSMART alliance™ at the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS). Deke was instrumental in the beginnings of the NIBS Construction Criteria Base, now the Whole Building Design Guide (WBDG). He initiated both the National CAD Standard and the National BIM Standard.

He retired December 2006 after 30 years as a Designer and Director with the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Deputy CIO at the Army Research Laboratory, and Chief Architect for the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment in supporting DoD’s 540,000 facilities. After 22 years as a volunteer, he joined the staff of the Institute as an employee in early 2007. He was a winner of the 1996 Federal 100 award, 1997 NIBS Member Award the 2006 CAD Society Leadership award in 2010 he was selected as one of the InfoComm 100. Deke is a 1973 graduate of Virginia Tech and holds a BArch, he has done post graduate work at the National Defense University. He is a registered architect in the state of Virginia and a Fellow in the American Institute of Architects. He is co-author of “Building Information Modeling: A Strategic Implementation Guide” published in 2009 by Wiley.

Comparisson of Measurment Tools for BIM

Brittany Giel, University of Flordia

 

Brittany Giel is a Ph.D. candidate at the M.E. Rinker School of Building Construction at the University of Florida.  She holds a Master of Science in Building Construction, a Bachelor of Design in Interior Design and a minor in Information Systems and Operations Management.  She is currently a research assistant at UF’s Center for Advanced Construction Information Modeling (CACIM) and has contributed greatly to the development of a revised curriculum on Building Information Modeling and construction technologies at Rinker.  She has authored twelve publications in various journals and conference proceedings and is an active member of several professional organizations in the AEC industry.

The BIM Scorecard – Research & Development

Calvin Kam, Stanford University

 

Dr. Calvin Kam is the Director of Industry Programs at Stanford University’s Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (CIFE), where he partners with CIFE industry members and researchers on strategic innovation in areas such as Building Information Modeling (BIM), Virtual Design and Construction (VDC) and sustainable developments. Dr. Kam teaches graduate and undergraduate courses as a Consulting Assistant Professor with the School of Engineering at Stanford University. Appointed by the President of AIA (American Institute of Architects), Calvin is the 2011 Co-Chairman of the Center for Integrated Practice Leadership Group with AIA National, as well as the 2010 Co-Chairman and 2011 Chairman of the its TAP (Technology in Architectural Practice) National Knowledge Community, which is supported by over 10,000 AIA members. Calvin is a registered Architect in the State of California, a Professional Engineer in the District of Columbia, and a LEED Accredited Professional. A recipient of the AIA National, California Council, and local chapter scholarships, ASCE National scholarships, China Synergy Program for Outstanding Youths, and SOM Foundation Traveling Fellowship among other honors and awards, Calvin received his Master’s, Engineer Degree, and Ph.D. from Stanford University. At age 21, Calvin was the first and the youngest to receive dual bachelor degrees in Architecture and Civil Engineering from the University of Southern California (with the highest honor bestowed on a graduating senior for distinguished leadership and excellent scholarship).

 

Future of the BIM Capability Maturity Model

Tammy McCuen, Oklahoma University

Tammy McCuen is an Associate Professor of Construction Science at the University of Oklahoma, College of Architecture. Her research focuses on spatial reasoning and the use of Building Information Modeling (BIM) for solving complex ill-structured problems. Her current research focuses on the use of BIM to create comprehensive representations, inclusive of spatial and object data, as a tool for solving the types of problems common to the disciplines of the built environment. She is an active member of the buildingSMART alliance and advisor for continuing education in the building industry. Tammy is the author of numerous articles about BIM and was a co-author for the recently released National BIM Standard version 2.

 

Leon von Berlo

Léon is a carpenter by education but found ICT and the AEC industry equally interesting. Today he is working for the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research TNO. His main research topic is collaboration in the AEC industry. Léon is the founder of the open source BIMserver initiative, the BIM QuickScan® and the open source BIM collective. Recent works are on the fields of BIM services, GeoBIM, BIM benchmarking and cloudbim technology. Currently he has a leading role in the Dutch National information centre for BIM, working on National BIM guidelines. His work for NIBS concerns the creation of a standard for Building Information Modeling Services Interface Exchange (BIMSie).

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

8:00 – 9:30 AM            NBIMS Content – BIM Execution Planning for Organizations and Projects

John Messner, Pennsylvania State University

Dr. Messner is the Director of the Computer Integrated Construction (CIC) Research Program at Penn State and a Professor of Architectural Engineering.  He specializes in Building Information Modeling (BIM) and virtual prototyping research, along with globalization issues in construction.  The CIC Research Group is currently developing the Owner’s Guide to BIM as a buildingSMART alliance project, and they previously completed the BIM Project Execution Planning Guide.  Dr. Messner also leads a task group focused on design tools and methods for the Energy Efficient Building Hub, a Department of Energy Innovation Hub.  He has received National Science Foundation grants for investigating the application of advanced visualization in construction engineering education and the AEC Industry.    As a part of these grants, he led the development of two Immersive Construction (ICon) Labs which are large, 3 screen immersive display systems for visualizing design and construction information.  Dr. Messner was also a principle investigator on two Globalization projects for the Construction Industry Institute.  He previously worked as a project manager on various construction projects for a large general contractor and an infrastructure development company.  He has taught courses in virtual prototyping; BIM; strategic management in construction; international construction; and project management at Penn State.

NBIMS Content – OmniClass

Greg Ceton, Construction Specifications Institute

 

Greg Ceton has managed the development of Construction Specifications Institute’s (CSI) information standards and publications since November 2000.  He has been directly involved in the creation and maintenance of OmniClass™, MasterFormat®, UniFormat™, and the CSI Practice Guide series, among others, and is currently Director of Technical Services at CSI, where he supervises the development of CSI technical initiatives.

Ceton’s work has been recognized by awards from construction associations, among them a CSI President’s Award and honorary membership in Construction Specifications Canada.  He holds the Construction Documents Technologist (CDT) certificate and has a master’s degree in library science from the University of Maryland, a law degree from the University of Florida, and has been a member of the Florida Bar since 1991.

Ceton lives in the suburbs of Washington, DC.

 

NBIMS Content – Industry-wide MVDs for Precast Concrete

Chuck Eastman, Georgia Tech

Chuck Eastman is a pioneer of AEC CAD, developing research solid and parametric modeling systems for the building industry starting in the 1970s. Previously, he was a faculty member at Carnegie-Mellon University and UCLA. In his current position at Georgia Tech, he directs the Digital Building Laboratory  that is sponsored by twelve AEC companies, undertaking collaborative research. In addition, he currently has projects with the Precast Concrete Institute and the Charles Pankow Foundation, the American Institute of Steel Construction and the American Concrete Institute, defining BIM exchange standards for these industry areas.

 

10:00 – 11:30 AM       AIA TAP

Kimon Onuma, Onuma, Inc.

For nearly two decades Kimon Onuma, FAIA, has promoted integrated processes driven by architectural knowledge. Using cloud computing, he received two AIA 2007 TAP awards for US Coast Guard and Open GeoSpatial Consortium projects. He was recognized in 2007 by the AIA California Council on Integrated Project Delivery Task Group for his contribution on this committee that worked toward bringing higher levels of efficiency and quality to the building process. Kimon sees the architectural profession as being at the center of making a positive impact toward sustainability. BIMStorm LAX was a 24 hour charette demonstrating architects are ready for real-time BIM collaboration. The event became a 2008 “Woodstock” for the building industry, where 133 design professionals and industry specialists from 11 countries — proved that BIM can be generated from familiar Excel spreadsheets that architects are already using. This global charette developed plans for large sections of Los Angeles, creating designs for 420 buildings totaling over 55 million square feet. BIMStorm process connects GIS, buildings, smart grid and energy, and garnered his firm a 2008 AIA TAP Award. In addition to authoring the 2006 AIA’s Report on Integrated Practice | The Twenty-First Century Practioner, Kimon has written numerous articles on architectural practice, technology and worked with GSA to define their first GSA BIM Guide. Recently the California Community College System (CCC) serving 2.75 million students at 112 California locations, and the largest system of public higher education in the world, joined the CCC FUSION System (Facilities Utilization, Space Inventory Options Net) and the entire California inventory of 71 million square feet of buildings and spaces, with his middleware, the ONUMA System, to make the largest cloud computing BIM + GIS platform. Kimon serves on the Board of Direction for buildingSMART and serves on the AIA Technology in Architectural Practice Knowledge Community Advisory Board. A renowned speaker, Kimon has spoken at more than 300 local, state, national and international events.

AISC IFC

IFC: Interoperability For Construction? A Practical Take for the Steel Industry

Chris Moor, American Institute of Steel Construction

 

AutoCodes – FIATECH

Providing the ability to submit plans electronically to Code Officials for checking and approval.

Speaker to be determined

1:30 – 3:00 PM            Government BIM Initiatives

Steve Hagan, GSA Retired, Moderator

 

Stephen Hagan FAIA is recognized as an industry expert and technology evangelist, focusing on the real estate,  and the construction  market place.  In August 2012, Steve retired from the federal government after 35 years and is now consulting about BIM and online technologies.   Steve now is CEO of Hagan Technologies LLC,  focusing on Strategy and Consulting for e-Industry Infrastructure and  Online Technologies for the 21st Century.

Stephen has been program and project management lead for the PBS Project Information Portal (PIP) and a member of the GSA 3D / 4D Building Information Model (BIM) team. He was 2006 Chair of the AIA Technology In Architectural Practice (TAP) Knowledge Community and co-chair of the Emerging Technologies Committee of the Federal Facilities Council and on the Executive Committee of the National BIM Standard Committee.

The AIA BIM awards program, which Steve founded in 2003, is now in its 9th year and now includes partnerships with COAA, IFMA, and the AGC BIM Forum.

Private Sector Initiatives

Kurt Maldovan, Balfour-Beaty, Moderator

As Assistant Process Manager, Kurt is responsible for integrating and managing client standards and providing support for organizing project data, developing custom procedures, and applications to make the most efficient use of BIM and emerging technologies.  He is responsible for the oversight and mobilization of the design technology required for project execution, including developing the BIM Execution Plan.    Kurt leads assignment of BIM-related tasks and staff, to include support, design reviews, clash detection, quantification/cost estimation, schedule integration, design and construction submittals, and other items identified in the BIM Execution Plan.

Healthcare BIM Consortium

Russ Manning, Department of Defense Health Systems

Mr. Russell Manning is a Senior Health System Planner DoD’s Military Healthcare System (MHS).  He has worked on multiple healthcare and medical research laboratory projects in five countries and eight US states as a project and program manager.  In the Capital Planning Branch he supports the implementation and coordination facility life cycle management (FLCM) tools, research and policy.

3:30 – 4:15 PM            BSI – Product Room

Roger Grant, National Institute of Building Sciences

Roger Grant is a Program Director for the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) where he manages the Integrated Resilient Design Program (IRDP); related projects for the Department of Homeland Security; the High Performance Building Council (HPBC); and projects for the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC). He has focused on developing and delivering products and services to support design, construction and management of the built environment for more than 30 years. Prior to joining the Institute, Roger was Technical Director of the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) and V.P. and General Manager of R.S. Means, the leading publisher of construction cost information in North America. He has experience in cost planning, estimating and analysis; specifications practice; standards development; construction industry information technology; and project and business management.  As a member of A-E-C Industry associations, Roger has been extensively involved in technology and standards development and has served on the Board and Technical Committee of the buildingSMART Alliance and Planning and Technical Committees of the National Building Information Model Standard. He represents CSI on the buildingSMART International (bSI) Data Dictionary Management Group serving as its Secretary and as leader of the bSI Product Room. He holds a degree in construction management and an MBA both from Bradley University; and a certification in construction document management from CSI.

4:15 – 5:00 PM            BSI – Process Room

Deke Smith, National Institute of Building Sciences

 

 

Innovative Technology Demonstrations

(Information Exchange Working Group Meeting) [link to full description]

Thursday, January 10, 2013

8:30 – 11:45 AM          Morning Session – Multiple topics, including COBie Calculator, SPie Catalog, etc. (free/open)

Dr. Bill East, Chair

1:15 – 5:15 PM           Afternoon Session 1 – Planning and Design Software (free/open)

Dr. Bill East, Chair

Afternoon Session 2 – Software for Builders (free/open)

David Jordani, FAIA, Jordani Consulting Group

 

Academic Symposium

Friday, January 11, 2013

8:00 – 8:30 AM            Introductory Comments

Raymond Issa, University of Florida

 

Educational Cricculum Approaches

8:30 – 8:45 AM           BIMStorm: A Platform Facilitating Integrated Design and Construction Processes

Tamera McCuen, Oklahoma University

8:45 – 9:00 AM           Student collaboration as the foundation for learning BIM software

Christopher Monson, Mississippi State University

9:00 – 9:15 AM           Use of Building Information Modeling in Student Projects at WPI

Guillermo Salazar, Worchester Polytechnic Institute

 

9:15 – 9:30 AM           Stressing the Importance of Facility Owner Requirements in Construction Management BIM Curricula: A Case Study

Brittany Giel, University of Florida

 

9:30 – 9:45 AM           Understanding How Virtual Prototypes And WORKSPACES Support

Interdisciplinary Learning In Architectural, Engineering And Construction Education

Carrie Sturts Dossick, University of Washington  / Robert Leicht

The Pennsylvania State University

9:45 – 10:15 AM         Panel Discussion 1 (McCuen, Monson, Salazar, Giel, Leicht)

Guillermo Salazar, Worchester Polytechnic University

10:15 – 10:45 AM        Morning Networking Break

10:45 – 11:00  AM      Industry + Academia: the perfect partnership

Lisa Hogle, Arizona State University

11:30 – 11:45 AM       Design Engineer Construct Integrated Management Lab (DECIMaL)

Allan Chasey, Arizona State University

11:45 – 12:00 AM       BIM education for new career options: an initial investigation

Wei Wu, Georgia Southern University

12:00 – 12:15 AM       Interdisciplinary Collaborative BIM Studio

Robert Holland, The Pennsylvania State University

12:15 – 1:15 PM          Luncheon Speaker

Arto Kiviniemi, Salford University, UK

1:15 – 1:45 PM           Panel Discussion 2 (Hogle, Chasey, Wu, Holland)

Guillermo Salazar, Worchester Polytechnic Institute

 

1:45 - 2:15 PM            Afternoon Networking Break

Educational Content Issues

2:15 – 2:30 PM           BIM + FM

Allan Chasey, Arizona State University

 

2:30 – 2:45 PM           Design – BIM – Build

James Sullivan, University of Flordia

2:45 – 3:00 PM           Descriptive Construction Methods through BIM-based Collaboration

Marcel Maghiar, Georgia Southern University

3:00 – 3:15 PM           Culture, Technology/Social Media, & BIM

Peter Cholakis, 4Clicks

3:15 – 3:30 PM           Integration of Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Facility Management in Hong Kong Public Rental Housing Projects

Ya Liu, Hong Kong Polytechnic University

3:30 – 3:45 PM           Parametric Housing in Indigenous Outback Communities

Timothy Sullivan, Harvard University

3:45 – 4:00 PM           Object Interaction Query: a context awareness tool for evaluating BIM components’ interactions

Carolina Soto, Massachuects Institute of Technology

4:00 – 4:30 PM            Panel Discussion 3 (Chasey, Sullivan, Maghiar, Cholakis, Liu, Sullivan, Soto)

Guillermo Salazar, Worchester Polytechnic Institute

Session Leaders Biographies

R. Raymond Issa, Ph.D., J.D., P.E., F.ASCE, is currently the UF Research Foundation and Holland Professor in the University of Florida’s Rinker School of Building Construction and Director of the Center for Advanced Construction Information modeling and the Building Information Modeling (BIM) Visualization Laboratory. Raymond has conducted over $7 million in information technology related research and he has served as Chair on over 200 Masters Committees and 30 Ph.D. Committees, Raymond has also authored over 200 journal and conference proceeding articles and scientific reports. Raymond has received University, College and School level recognition for excellence in research (UF Research Foundation Professor), teaching, and academic advising (Academic Advisor of the Year; PHD Advisor/Mentor (2)).  Raymond also serves on the Board of Directors of various professional organizations, including the National Center for Construction Education and Research, the International Society for Computing in Civil and Building Engineering (ISCCBE) and the Pan American Union of Engineering Societies. He served as past chair of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Technical Council on Computing and Information Technology and on various other ASCE technical committees. Raymond was recently awarded the 2012 ASCE Computing in Civil Engineering and elected to the Pan American Engineering Academy.

Arto Kiviniemi, PhD (Professor of Digital Architectural Design, School of Built Environment, University of Salford, UK)

Design-Construction Integration Program Alumni (2005)

Arto Kiviniemi has developed Integrated Building Information Modeling (BIM) both in Finland and internationally since 1996. In 1996-2002 Arto worked at VTT (Technical Research Centre of Finland) as a Chief Research Scientist leading the VERA program which established BIM’s position in Finland. After his PhD in Stanford 2005, Arto was nominated as the Research Professor for ICT in Built Environment at VTT. In 2008 he returned into the industry as the Vice President of Innovation and Development at Olof Granlund, the leading Building Services Engineering company in Finland, where he was responsible of the R&D projects in the company. In 2010 he moved to his current position, Professor of Digital Architectural Design in the School of Built Environment at the University of Salford in UK.

Internationally Arto’s main activities have been related to the International Alliance for Interoperability, now known as buildingSMART International. Arto has acted as the Chairman of the International Council and Executive Committee 1998-2000, Deputy Chairman 2000-2002, Chairman of the International Technical Management Committee 2005-2007. Currently he is a member of the Technical Advisory Group and buildingSMART Korea Advisory Committee. He is also a member in FIATECH’s Academic and BIM Committees and ASHRAE’s BIM Committee, as well as the representative of CEBE (Centre for Education in the Built Environment) in the CIC (Construction Industry Council) BIM Forum. Arto has been the Chairman of Salford Centre for Research and Innovation 2002-2009, a member of Industry Advisory Board and Technical Advisory Committee of CIFE at Stanford University 1999-2005, a member of the Scientific Committee of the ‘BuildingEnvelopes.org’ project at Harvard University 2001-2004, and a member of scientific or organizing committees in over 20 international conferences since 2000. He has presented over 70 keynote and invited lectures and several other papers in international seminars and conferences around the world since 1996. In March 2009 Arto received FIATECH CETI Outstanding Researcher 2008 Award for his international merits in developing integrated BIM.

Guillermo Salazar, Worcester Polytechnic Institute

Education: Ph.D. in Civil Engineering, 1983, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,    M. Eng. in Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto 1977, BSCE, Civil Engineering, 1971, Universidad LaSalle,

Research and Academic Interests: development of formal methods of analysis, computer-based methodologies, cooperative agreements to evaluate the impact of process integration on the cost of civil engineering projects. Building Information Modeling (BIM), Multi-attribute Decision Analysis, Computer Simulation, Knowledge-Based Expert Systems, Neural Networks, CAD Systems, Probabilistic Analysis, Mathematical Programming, and Data Management Systems.

Over the last 10 years, this work has been focused primarily on the academic and professional aspects of Building Information Modeling (BIM). This work has produced several computer-based tools. It has also contributed to improve the understanding on how cooperative behaviors and the effective use of information technology and intelligent systems promote efficient project integration. This activity has also lead to the creation of graduate courses, innovative undergraduate curricula integration and to promote integration of design and construction emphasizing teamwork, life-cycle cost-benefit analysis and effective use of information technology within the curricula.

Professional and consulting activity:  spans for more than 25 years at national and international levels. It includes professional practice in building and steel construction, statistical and simulation studies in tunneling and regional planning, information systems design as well as development of computer models for diverse aspects of project management and Design-Construction Integration.

BIM Strategy, Change Management, and Education – Architects

Problem #1? – “While engineering and construction management might legitimately (but also might not, as will be discussed) have efficiency as their primary goal, architectural design does not; what distinguishes architecture from mere building and architects from developers and contractors is the concern for aesthetics and design quality

Problem #2? – “The BIM process offers the opportunity for cross-disciplinary contamination without sacrificing design emphasis. How to blend engineering student input with architecture student design input so each group learns equally from the other and high quality design outcomes ar……”

Problem#3 – “However the nature of architectural idea generation is a delicate process, which does not always benefit from early and quantitatively rigorous engineering analysis.”

Building Information Modeling (BIM) and the Impact on Design Quality
Madis Pihlak1*, Peggy Deamer2, Robert Holland3, Ute Poerschke3, John Messner4 and Kevin Parfitt5
1School of Visual Arts, Stuckeman School of Architecture and Landscape, Architecture College of Arts and Architecture, Penn State, USA
2School of Architecture, Yale University Principal, Deamer Architects, USA
3Department of Architecture, Stuckeman School of Architecture and Landscape, Architecture College of Arts and Architecture, Penn State, USA
4Department of Architectural Engineering, College of Engineering, Penn State, USA
5Executive director, Consortium for the Advancement of Building Sciences, Department of Architectural Engineering College of Engineering, Penn State, USA
*Corresponding author: Madis Pihlak School of Visual Arts Stuckeman School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture College of Arts and Architecture, Penn State, USA E-mail: mxp51@psu.edu
Received November 09, 2011; Accepted December 15, 2011; Published December 20, 2011
Citation: Pihlak M, Deamer P, Holland R, Poerschke U, Messner J, et al. (2011) Building Information Modeling (BIM) and the Impact on Design Quality. J Architec Engg Technol 1:101. doi:10.4172/jaet.1000101
Copyright: © 2011 Pihlak M, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Abstract
The integrated studios in which architecture students are paired with engineering and construction manager students works on the assumption that the common denominator-BIM-is a tool of equal meaning and value to all. This is not the case: each discipline has its own values, procedures, and protocols that bend BIM to its own needs. When these differences are not recognized, design, which has traditionally been the province of architecture, gets short shrift. The BIM process offers the opportunity for cross-disciplinary contamination without sacrificing design emphasis. How to blend engineering student input with architecture student design input so each group learns equally from the other and high quality design outcomes are empowered rather than diminished will be discussed.
Introduction
The integration of Building Information Modeling (BIM) procedures and the consequent earlier and more collaborative interdisciplinary design workflow is changing the nature of architectural design idea generation. The pre-BIM workflow usually consisted of a patient and sometimes solitary search for meaningful architectural form, to an interactive multi-disciplinary group activity where mechanical, structural, electrical, lighting and construction engineers and landscape architects are involved in evaluating and proposing changes to early architectural design ideas and concepts.
The ability to recognize the differences between AECO cultures – and hence, architecture with its design thrust – isn’t helped by the fact that efficiency and cost-effectiveness are the banner under which the different disciplines mutually latch onto BIM. While engineering and construction management might legitimately (but also might not, as will be discussed) have efficiency as their primary goal, architectural design does not; what distinguishes architecture from mere building and architects from developers and contractors is the concern for aesthetics and design quality. One could argue that efficiency (in particular in material and energy use as well as operations) should be a criterion of architectural design, but certainly not the only (or perhaps even the most important one). Without emotional and aesthetic impact a building is not architecture. Without consideration and achievement of a certain amount of efficiency or function, there is a real risk that a piece of architecture is a building with an unhappy client. Such unhappy clients may turn to design/build entities (usually lead by contractors or engineers) as a way to get what they perceive as better architectural results. It is our architectural position that the BIM workflow has the potential to positively impact the creation of meaningful architecture. However the nature of architectural idea generation is a delicate process, which does not always benefit from early and quantitatively rigorous engineering analysis. Of course early engineering input can greatly aid the creative development of the architectural design concept. Herein lays the core position of this paper. The BIM workflow shows great promise. Precisely when and how engineering analysis should be brought to bear on the architectural idea will be discussed.
Having said this, BIM challenges many of the tenants of traditional “good” design practice, and the manner in which BIM adjusts the process of design needs to be understood, agreed upon, and secured. The unchartered territory has to do with a number of things: BIM software’s general awkwardness with non-orthogonal designs; its potential for collaboration (in the case espoused here, between architecture students and engineering student designers); its ability to conceive/insistence on constructability; the immediacy with which it integrates design decisions with 2-D and 3-D representational output; its access to and limitation of its library of elements.
The things in this list that limit ones design repertoire will, for some, be the reason to shun BIM and/or wait for Revit and other BIM software to become more adroit. But this strategy puts design in a passive position, waiting for change/perfection instead of participating in its technically and culturally unfolding context.
It is for this reason that, if one is concerned about the quality of design while working in a BIM environment, each discipline might explore the potential for BIM individually. This is not to say that at a point in the future, or at a more advanced stage of a designer’s education, the inter-disciplinary collaborative potential of BIM should be denied; only that the delicacy of design, for now, needs attention as it moves into unchartered territory.
BIM Studio Examples
While this position of design delicacy affects design strategies in practice, it more directly implies pedagogical tactics in the academy. How does one introduce BIM in schools of architecture as well as schools/programs of building management, landscape architecture, engineering, and other AECO academies, in a manner that supports design? In this regard, it is fruitful to examine studios that variously explore the location of design as it adjusts to the protocols for BIM. Three such studios provide interesting and contrasting examples: the Penn Studio led by Robert Holland, with Ute Poerschke, Madis Pihlak, John Messner and Kevin Parfitt. Columbia University’s Building Intelligence Project (C-BIP) led by Scott Marble, David Benjamin, Laura Kurgan; and the University of Texas, Austin core studio led by Danelle Briscoe. These studios explore the location of design in differing ways, from the most inter-disciplinary example to the most architecture-centric, and offer interesting lessons regarding the status of design.
The penn state interdisciplinary collaborative BIM studio
In a prototype Interdisciplinary Collaborative BIM Studio at Penn State, some fifth year and graduate architecture and landscape architecture students worked in multi-disciplinary teams with fourth year architectural engineering students from four different engineering disciplines. (structural, mechanical systems, lighting electrical and construction engineering) This prototype BIM studio has occurred each spring term from 2009 through 2011 [1]. (This BIM studio is currently being integrated into the curricula of all six disciplines as a regularly scheduled alternative design studio). In this studio, three teams of students – each made up of an architect, a landscape architect, and the four types of engineers – were given the same real design project, the “reality” of the project (which is to say, one that was slated to be built) making apparent the multiplicity of players that have input into the making of a project[2]. Each BIM team developed their design project through group meetings outside of studio time and with desk critiques with each of the five faculties. Since for the first two years of the BIM studio only Robert Holland, the Professor in Charge, was given administrative/teaching credit for the class and the other four faculties taught pro bono, not all faculty attended each studio session for desk critiques. On a three week schedule there were formal design juries where all five faculty and invited administrators and real project design, engineering and client participants actively critiqued the student design and engineering proposals. Design quality and overall aesthetic impact, high functioning creative teams and software integration were major focus areas of the BIM studio. BIM workflows and the interoperability of the various software were of necessary concern. The architecture students used Revit, Sketchup, AutoCAD, Ecotect and 3D Studio, while the landscape architect student experimented with Vectorworks Designer, Revit and AutoCAD Land Desktop. The engineering students used Revit MEP, Navisworks(4D and Clash Detection), Timberline (cost estimating), GBS (energy modeling), RAM (structural), Project and Primavera. Learning workshops with Vasari (Beta software) were also conducted with Autodesk representatives throughout the term.
With such a complete engineering contingent and only one architect and one landscape architect on each BIM team there was a concern for productive and creative group dynamics. For each of the first two years Professor Sam Hunter of the Penn State Industrial/Organizational Psychology Department led a team of Grad students to study the functioning of the creative design teams. The most interesting finding was that the teams that were able to manage a certain degree of conflict lead to the most innovative architectural, landscape architectural and engineering solutions. The BIM teams that strived to minimize conflict produced the least innovative designs. Dr. Hunter’s team also found that stressing the equality of expertise of each of the student discipline areas lead to the development of the most creative learning environment. The importance of each of the student expertise areas to actively promote their area and then to be mature enough to compromise when necessary lead to the best solutions. Again, too much compromise lead to less than optimal design solutions. Finding the balance of just the right amount of conflict proved to be one of the determinants of a successful creative design solution.
In comparison to the traditional architectural studio, early engineering and landscape architecture advice to aid in the development of an architectural design concept sped the design process. Likewise, the collaboration between the designers – landscape and architecture – and the engineers was productive when two conditions were met: when the designers were strong and confident and when the engineers were flexible enough to fly with the non-linear creative process. But in the other cases, the designers floundered with the need to explain their sometimes poorly developed design concepts to four different types of engineers. Either the designers felt the need to absorb the logic of the engineers (which they cannot be blamed for doing poorly) or the engineers could use their quantitative abilities (so much more justifiable than the subject product in of design) to overwhelm the formation of a concept (Figure 1,2,3).
Figure 1: Robert Holland Associate Professor, Architecture and Architectural Engineering leading BIM studio students in a discussion in the Stuckeman Center, Stuckeman School, Penn State.
Figure 2: Students of six different disciplines present their project to invited guests form practice and academia.
Figure 3: Digital models used in a project by different disciplines (from top left to bottom right): coordinated model, construction scheduling, structural analysis, energy analysis, coordination of structure and mechanical systems, architectural models.
The Penn State Interdisciplinary Collaborative BIM Studio has won a NCARB Award (2011), an ACSA Award (2010) and a National AIA Award (2009).
Columbia university C-BIP
This fourth semester studio in a 3-year MArch program, as student’s transition from the core sequence into advanced studios, combines three traditional studios (hence the three instructors) and employs outside consultants from environmental studies and engineering. In addition, the studio builds on the ideas, expertise, and suggestions coming from the “Think Tank” symposiums that include all the players of the AECO industry as they gather around BIM capabilities. As the brief says, “The single critic/single student/single project model of architectural education can no longer address the design potential found in the complexity of projects or the increasing role that collaboration will play in future practice.” The students are given existing buildings to modify for environmental updating. In the first phase, students are asked to design components or “Elements”, designed in CATIA and documented with a design manual that can be attached to the building’s skin roof, or ground plane and will adjust the building’s environmental performance. These components form a library of elements available to all students in the studio in the second phase, in which the students form groups and establish their “Integrated Building Strategies,” consisting of combining and synthesizing elements from the first stage library into a parametric building solution. These strategies, like the Elements, are intended to be flexible and reusable. Because the Elements can be adjusted to the new groups’ concept/strategy only by the original author, who has to be responsive to the request for modification while adhering to the parameters that initiated its creation, collaboration happens in two ways: the original Element author adjusting his/her element according to new demands and each student participating in a team that forms its Strategy for building performance renovation. The final project is thus a collaboration of various authors who maintain an individual sense of authorship while taking advantage of the wisdom of many.
In comparison to the Penn State Architecture/Architectural Engineering Integrated Studio, the Columbia architecture students utilized the information of the non-architecture AECO industries via the consultants attending the Think Tanks and the studio, leaving intact the design-specific method of architects. However, much else challenged the nature of traditional design methodologies: the collaboration and sharing between architects; the inability at all stages of starting from scratch, since the program was on existing buildings, the Elements had to function according to environmental criterion, and the eventual Strategies were compilations of ideas/forms generated by the elements. The strongest projects at the Element level were those that did not forget all of the other things beyond function and adaptability that make good design: appropriate scale of solution to problem; scalability in general; elegance; context. Likewise, the input of environmental and structural engineering, made the performance –driven nature of this problem richer, but did not determine for better or worse the quality of design; it merely changed its content.
The austin/briscoe studio
This studio, taken concurrently with a Visual Communication course, was offered for 1st and 2nd year students who are taking the first of a seven-semester studio sequence and who have varying degrees of design and drawing experience, some with no design background at all. The students are given a typical design problem of designing a building that must be responsive to program and context, with two initial exercises: the first was the analogue design of a canopy design, its mechanism, and its relationship to a wall. The second digitized this and brought it into BIM. The rest of the semester was spent developing the wall system as it applied to the building in its urban site. After the initial analog design of the canopy, all else is designed in Revit, where the aim was to avoid separating parametric modeling from BIM and to take advantage of the “optimized geometry” when parameters were set up for the performance of the components, their relationship to each other, and their interaction with the building and site as a whole. The challenge was to see how students new to design would handle the potential overload of information as they established a concept and developed them into spatial ideas.
Danelle Briscoe indicated that the students were not inhibited by the amount information and took particular advantage of the representational ability of Revit, both in 2-D representations and in the physical models facilitated by the workflow between BIM and fabrication methodologies (laser-cutter; 3Dprinter, 3-D scanner); that they had more sophisticated designs as a result of the construction information required of their design decisions; and, as a result of these two conditions, they produced work more sophisticated than the norm for that level. At the same time, she indicated that the complexity of the software makes it desirable for a separate instruction prior to or parallel to the studio.
In this case, there was no desire to mine BIM neither for its interdisciplinary nature nor even for it collaborative, sharing capabilities. Rather, the imperative of constructability – that means that lines can’t be drawn innocently; the power of 2-D to 3-D to 2-D – that makes architectural representation not just sophisticated but information heavy; and the parametric possibilities of Revit without recourse to other parametric software – were tested. In this, the students were not given the same depth of “content” of the two other studios discussed, but the essential tools of design were transformed from something moving from general gesture to specific detail to something moving, like the Columbia studio, from buildable part to overall building/site design. In this, the natural limitations of such a process – the ability to think more abstractly – is understood by the teacher, but needs to be grasped and overcome as well by the students. The strongest designers, again, will be those that latch on to the power of the new, bulky information while also being able to step back and see the success of design solution as a whole concept – integrated, appropriate, elegant, coherent, and diagrammatically clear. Likewise, despite that fact that collaboration was not a primary agenda, the students grasped the advantage of sharing knowledge, sources and design, such that the success of one’s project was not predicated on originality, but rather on access to and judgment regarding choices.
Observations
As discussed, the Penn State, Columbia University, and UT Austin studios’ primary aims in using BIM to advance design competence were very different. The Penn State studio focused on robust engineering integration with landscape architecture involvement; the Columbia studio focused on design collaboration; and the Austin studio on the formal possibilities for an individual designer. The Columbia Studio concentrated on renovating existing buildings; the Austin studio on developing buildings from scratch and Penn State used real building projects, with design juries with the architect of record and their engineering consultants. The Columbia studio emphasized environmental parameters; the Austin studio, the geometry potential resulting from programmatic and site parameters and the Penn State studio emphasized detailed engineering integration. Thus, one cannot draw any singular conclusions about how “design” with BIM can/ should be taught in an architectural school.
However, certain observations can be made:
1. The three studios indicate that BIM can be incorporated successfully at either the upper or lower level of design education.
2. They show that the two main aspects of traditional design – singular authorship and a formal abstraction dependent on limited information – may rightfully be rethought as sine qua non of design education.
3. They indicate that design sensibility is not aided by or thwarted by BIM. Briscoe emphasizes that while BIM helped the students visualize their decisions, it neither made “design” automatic nor took the place of aesthetic judgment. Marble/Benjamin/Kurgan implicitly indicate this by not making the studio about design invention (supposedly happening elsewhere in their education) but rather affective performance. The Penn State studio had somewhat weaker design teams and somewhat stronger design teams.
4. Columbia and Austin concentrated on the creation of components as the starting point of BIM design. Penn State benefited from professional engineering students who created original engineered design solutions. This is both a comment on the limits of the existing BIM library and an indication that BIM’s greatest potential at this stage is in the small scale, where the specifics of performance is able to be intimately navigated and the limits of formal synthesis (the inability to easily blend wall, roof and floor, for example) less immediate.
5. The studios indicate that collaboration is facilitated by BIM. While this was clearly the goal and stated pleasure and success of the Columbia studio, Briscoe indicated that the “open source” attitude of the students and the facility to share with BIM meant that without specific direction, the students shared their knowledge and resources. The Penn State BIM Studio benefited greatly from busy professionals making time to attend multiple design juries.
Conclusion
The ability of design to not only NOT be sacrificed in teaching BIM, but to be explored in new ways, is an indication that BIM design is not an oxymoron. These examples indicate that there is much that needs to be and should be explored as BIM enters architectural design studios. That this exploration needs to happen with attention, vigilance and, to reiterate the thrust of this article, within the arena of the architectural design discipline is also clear. This is not to say that architecture must be the dominant player in collaborations or that collaboration should not happen. Rather, it merely but strongly suggests that design, always economically unquantifiable and unjustifiable, can easily get lost in an expanded playing field where numbers, time and money are so present. Collaboration is vitally important and central to a changed definition of architectural practice. The hope in this is not that each discipline bends BIM to its traditional aims but takes advantage of being moved out of its comfort zone and looking for innovative ways to consider “problem formation,” not only determine “solution-finding.” That this is an attitude shared not merely by architects, but by those other disciplines is indicated in the following observation made by Scott Marble in the description of one of the think Tanks that framed his C_BIP studio: “During one of the discussions, Hanif Kara of Adams Kara Taylor proposed design engineering—the integration of engineering ideas at the outset of concept design—as one step toward a more collaborative relationship between engineers and architects with principles that could expand to an entire design and construction team. He insisted, though, that this not be seen as a casual blurring of disciplinary boundaries, where architects become engineers and vice versa. On the contrary, he suggested that each discipline become more skilled at what they do and, most importantly, respect and value the contribution of each other as a first step towards new working processes [3].”
Additionally, the case can be made that engineering and building management will move towards an engagement with design. The point of saving design within architecture is not to keep either architecture or design in a privileged position, but to realize that all the AEC players contribute to (a larger definition of) design. If this occurs, design not only will NOT be sacrificed, but enhanced, and all players will be in a position to think about quality, not just quantity; to think about innovation and risk, not just cost-effectiveness. The reality is that these disciplines already play this role more than we have traditionally acknowledged, and as we understand instead of challenge each other’s contributions to design thinking, we displace prejudices that benefit no one, least of all the quality of our buildings.
Acknowledgements
‘The Penn State BIM Collaborative studio was generously supported by the Bowers Fund for Excellence in Design and Construction of the Built Environment; the Thornton Tomasetti Foundation and the Leonhard Center for Enhancement of Engineering Education. With the exception of the Professor in Charge, all other faculty donated their time.
References
	1. Deamer P, Bernstein PG, eds BIM in Academia. Yale School of Architecture, New Haven, CT, 96. 3. Eastman C, Teicholz P, Sacks R, Liston K (2008) BIM Handbook, A Guide to Building Information Modeling for owners, managers, Designers, Engineers and Contractors. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Web Sources
1. http://www.aia.org/contractdocs/AIAS077630
2. http://www.ipd-ca.net
3. http://www.hegra.org/EDS Independent voice Jan 2008.html
4. http://www.wbdg.org/bim/nbims.php
5. http: / /www.ar chi tecture.com/LibraryDrawingsAndPhotographs / PalladioAndTheVeneto/PalladioAndHisRegion/Villas/LaRotonda/Rotonda2.aspx
6. http://www.theaiatrust.com/newsletter/2009/07/bim-and-transition-to-ipd/
7. http://www.agc.org/galleries/contracts/CCR comparision of AIA IPD documents with the consensusdoc 300.pdf
8. http://www.aiacontractdocuments.org/ipd/agreements.cfm
9. http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic552698.files/WickershamBIM-IPD legal and business isssues.pdf
10. http://www.ipdconference.com/userfiles/WickershamBIM_IPD.pdf
11. http://www.nspe.org/resources/pdfs/Licensure/Resources/MFLResearchFellowshipIPDReport.pdf
12. http://www.aecbytes.com/viewpoint/2009/issue_48.html
13. http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/cic/BIMEx/index.aspx
14. http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/cic/bimex/bim_uses.aspx
Foot Note
2The first year involved an elementary school with a real site, which was never built due to concerns over the subsurface super fund site. The next year the new campus early childcare center was chosen as a design project. The third time another elementary school was chosen in the State College School District. The two later sites allowed extensive interaction with the consultant team of architects and engineers.

BIM Strategy and Change Management II

BIM (Building Information Modeling) is the life-cycle management of the built environment supported by digital technologies.  As such it is a process of collaboration, continuous improvement, transparency, and integration.   3D distractions aside,  achieving optimal return-on-investment (ROI) on BIM requires focus upon change management, first and foremost.  Ad-hoc business practices, traditional construction delivery methods, and legacy software must be cast aside.

BIM is managing information to improve understanding. BIM is not CAD. BIM is not 3D. BIM is not application oriented. BIM maximizes the creation of value. Up, down, and across the built environment value network. In the traditional process, you lose information as you move from phase to phase. You make decisions when information becomes available, not necessarily at the optimal time.  BIM is not a single building model or a single database. Vendors may tell you that everything has to be in a single model to be BIM. It is not true. They would be more accurate describing BIM as a series of interconnected models and databases. These models can take many forms while maintaining relationships and allowing information to be extracted and shared. The single model or single database description is one of the major confusions about BIM.(http://4sitesystems.com/iofthestorm/books/makers-of-the-environment/book-3/curriculum-built-world/categories/introductionbim-integration/)

The principles of BIM:

• Life-cycle management: Process-centric , longer term planning  and technologies that consider total cost of ownership, support decision making with current, accurate information,  and link disparate knowledge domains and technologies.
• Collaborative Delivery Processes:  Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) procurement and construction delivery processes that consider and combine the knowledge and capabilities of all stake holders – Owners, AEs, Contractors, Business Product Manufacturers, Oversight Groups, Service Providers, and the Community.  (i.e.  IPD, Job Order Contracting/JOC)
• Standards and Guidelines:  Common glossary of terms, metrics, and benchmarks that enable efficient, accurate communication on an “apples to applies” basis.
• Collaborative, Open Technologies and Tools:   Cloud-based systems architectures that enable rapid, scalable development, unlimited scalability on demand, security, real-time collaboration, and an full audit trail.

(Johnson et al. 2002) – There is an interrelationship between business goals, work processes, and the adoption of information technology. That is, changes in business goals generally require revising work processes which can be enhanced further by the introduction of information technology. But we also recognized that innovations in information technology creates possibilities for new work processes that can, in turn, alter business goals  In order to understand how information technology influences architectural practice it is important to understand all three of these interrelated elements.
Business Goals…   Work processes  ….   Information  technology
require/create               require/create                    require/create

(Via http://www.4Clicks.com – Premier cost estimating and efficient construction project delivery – JOC, SABER, IDIQ, SATOC, MATOC, MACC, BOCA, BOA.  Exclusively enhanced 400,000 RSMeans Cost Database with full descriptions and modifiers.)

Sustainability -  “to create and maintain conditions, under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations.”  – US Executive Order 13423

Ceasel – Patents Pending

BIM Framework

BIM and Change Management – Sustainability and Life-cycle Management of the Built Environment

BIM (Building Information Modeling) is the life-cycle management of the built environment supported by digital technology.    3D visualization vendors have marketed BIM poorly.  Their focus has generally been upon 3D modeling and associated visual objects vs.  the collection and use of valuable and enabling INFORMATION.  Sure 3D visualization is a great tool, and a useful component of BIM, however, it’s not even the most important aspect.

Many, if not most organizations will  require significant “change management” in order to successfully implement life-cycle management / BIM. Owners, AEs, Contractors, Oversight Groups, Business Product Manufacturers,  and Software Vendors  will need to adopt a better understanding of several, currently disparate knowledge domains / competencies and technologies and work towards efficient, transparent information sharing and collaboration among all area, professionals, and stakeholders.

Cloud computing / social media, BIM, and other ‘disruptive technologies’ combined with market demands driven but altered environmental and economic global landscapes will likely help to drive change, however, timing is uncertain.

There is a serious hole in the Architectural, Engineering, Construction and Owner Sectors’ level of understanding of building performance and legacy beliefs and process simply don’t work.   – adaptation of work by Melanie Thompson of Get Sust!

Roadmap

We must  initiate a wider discussion on what constitutes an appropriate, progressive life-cycle management of the built environment.

“We are moving from the era of ‘talking about deployment’ to the era of ‘deployment’ – over the next few decades there will be billions spent on energy-efficiency retrofit projects and it is crucial for policies to be underpinned by reliable technical data and strong evidence of the benefits that can be achieved.” – Bob Lowe, Deputy Director of University College London’s Energy Institute

The effectiveness and efficiency of this deployment will  be dependent upon people asking the right questions.    Efficient project delivery methods such as Job Order Contracting – JOC, a form of Integrated Project Development – IPD, that specifically targets renovation, repair, sustainability and minor new construction will be integral to successful BIM or life-cycle management based solutions.   Collaboration and longer term relationships are primary components of JOC and equally central to BIM processes.

IPD – Integrated Project Delivery and JOC – Job Order Contracting

“… We are in a war-like situation and therefore have to accept a two-stage process: do the best we can with what we’ve got, plus keep on researching.” – Jim Skea, Chair – Sustainable Energy, Imperial College of London

Behaviors across all AECO (Architecture, Engineering, Construction, Owner) professions, building users, and oversight groups must change.  Ad-hoc, inefficient, and adversarial construction delivery methods such as Design-Bid-Build represent a serious impediment to efficient use of resources.  Additionally,  life-cycle management must be addressed on portfolio and local levels within the context specific buildings (or structures), inclusive of type, activity, and utilization. For this we need a fundamental shift in approach, applying the proven as well as yet to be developed methodologies and tools developed.

The impacts of social media and social sciences will expand exponentially.    ” Conventional building researchers are ‘positivistic’ (measuring and monitoring objects and systems) while the social scientists, who inhabit a world of case studies and qualitative data, are ‘interpretivist’.  Interpretivist research include studies of:

• occupants and their engagement with technologies;
• technologies and policy mechanisms in-use (implementation); and
• changes in business models, supply chains, the distribution of risk and responsibility, professional identities, the division of labor and so on.

BIM Strategy FRAMEWORK

Job Order Contracting Process

September 2012 -  via http://www.4Clicks.com – Premier cost estimating and efficient project delivery software for JOC, Job Order Contracting, SABER, IDIQ, MATOC, SATOC, POCA, BOC, MACC ….  featuring exclusively enhanced 400,000 line item RSMeans Cost Data with modifiers and full descriptions.

Big Data – BIM

BIG Data – BIM

Why has the construction industry been virtually the only major business sector that to show a decades long trend of productivity decline?  The authors suggest that cultural, technological and supply chain barriers endemic to the AECOO (Architecture, Engineering, Construction, Owner, Operations) sector create inefficiency and waste. As a result facility managers continue to struggle with cost effective facility life-cycle management.   These barriers, however, are in the process of being broken down by 1.) worldwide changes in the economic and environmental landscapes, 2.) the advent of disruptive technologies – specifically BIM and Cloud Computing, and 3.) the associated application and integration of transparent and collaborative project delivery methods.

Learn more at IFMA World Workplace – IFMA’s World Workplace 2012 Conference