COBie – May 20, 2016
Efficient life-cycle management of facilities and other physical infrastructure is impossible until real property owners are better educated and truly capable in their role as stewards of the built environment.
LEAN best management practices and associated collaborative construction delivery methods (Integrated project delivery – IPD, Job Order Contracting – JOC, etc.) are REQUIRED in order to deliver quality renovation, repair, sustainability, and new construction projects on-time and on-budget.
Most Owners do not have the educational background or professional experience needed to consistently deploy LEAN construction delivery methods and/or life-cycle management.
One thing is clear, the construction sector (architecture, engineering, contractors, owners, operators, users, suppliers) has been lagging virtually all other business sectors for decades with respect to productivity improvement.
I believe that the cause is largely cultural, however, any major improvement must be driven by Owners,and/or mandated by governmental regulation.
My reasoning is simple, Owners pay the bills. Thus as long as Owners remain satisfied with the status quo and/or remain “uneducated” with respect to proven business “best practices” and lean management processes, as well as supporting technologies, economic and environmental waste will continue to be rampant.
Currently, my outlook is somewhat pessimistic. If one looks at capability and knowledge specific to life-cycle facility management from an industry perspective, most has originated with the government sector, followed by higher education, state government, healthcare, process-based industries, etc. etc. Basically, Owners whose mission is dependent upon their built environment tend to create and follow life-cycle management practices. These are Owners that can’t adopt a “churn and burn”, or “run to failure” approach to facility management. These sectors can’t easily pack up and move if their facilities and physical infrastructure fail.
That said, even government owners, for the most part, have failed in any sort of department or agency-wide adoption of standardized best practices. This is true even for “simple” areas such as facility repair, maintenance, and renovation. Only the Air Force appears to come close to having any true adoption of robust, proven, best-practices in this regard, as well as associated training, etc., most notably with their SABER construction delivery structure.
In order to effect measurable productivity improvement in the “construction” sector, , I have put together a core requirements “checklist”.
1. Robust Ontology – Cost effective information management and information reuse can only be accomplished with a detailed set of terms, definitions, metrics, etc. This aspect is also critical to improved strategic and tactical decision support mechanisms.
2. An understanding of life-cycle management of the built environment from a collaborative, best-practices, process perspective as well as associated supporting technologies. Forget the traditional strategy-design-construction-demolish approach.
3. Commitment to a total cost of ownership perspective including both economic and environmental costs vs. our classic “first-cost” mentality.
4. “Trust but measure” – Owners MUST conduct their own internal cost estimating and associated capital planning and compare these to contractor estimates, with each party using the same data architecture (examples: RSMeans, masterformat, uniformat, omniclass).
5. Adoption of collaborative construction delivery methods such as Integrated Project Delivery, IPD, and Job Order Contracting, JOC, in lieu of antagonistic and inefficient design-bid-built, or even design-build.
6. STOP reinventing the wheel. Nothing noted here is “rocket science”. Many, if not most, processes, procedures, and technologies are readily available for anyone who does a bit of basic research!!! Also, stop with the focus upon BIM from a 3D visualization perspective! 3D tools are great, and add value, however, INFORMATION and PROCESS drive success.
|2007||Finland||Requires IFC BIM in its projects and intends to have integrated model-based operation in future||Senate Properties|
|UK||Standard: Collaborative production of architectural, engineering and construction information. Code of Practice.||BS 1192:2007|
|2008||USA||Mandatory BIM for government projects||GSA; USACE|
|2010||Norway||Requires IFC BIM for new buildings||Statsbygg|
|3 BIM pilot projects running||Norwegian Defence Estates Agency|
|Singapore||Establish Centre for construction IT help key agencies and construction firms to kick start BIM||Singapore BIM Roadmap 2012|
|UK||Building Information Management – A Standard Framework and Guide to BS 1192||Joint publication of BS 1192:2007 and BSI/CPI|
|2011||Singapore||Work with key agencies on pilot projects||Singapore BIM Roadmap 2012|
|UK||Creation of the implementation plan and team to deliver||Government Construction Strategy (May)|
|Evaluate trial projects and recommend (ongoing)|
|Standard Due: Library Objects for Architecture, Engineering and Construction. Recommended 2D symbols of building elements for use in building information modelling.||BS 8541-2|
|Standard Due: Library Objects for Architecture, Engineering and Construction: Identification and grouping||BS 8541-1|
|Report/Strategy Paper for the Government Construction Client Group (March)||BIM Industry Working Group|
|2012||Korea||Public Procurement Service to fully adopt IFC-based open BIM|
|Singapore||BIM as part of public sector building project procurement||Singapore BIM Roadmap 2012|
|Work with key agencies to prepare consultants and contractors who undertake the public sector projects to be BIM ready|
|BIM Guide – published||Singapore BIM Guide|
|Finland||Common BIM Requirements – published||buildingSMART Finland|
|UK||Begin phased roll out ot all Government projects (Summer)||Government Construction Strategy|
|Define and mandate expected standard (information set) for Government projects (April)|
|Identify trial projects in multiple departments to achieve delivery via 3D fully collaborative BIM (July)|
|COBie-UK-2012||BIM Task Group|
|Standard due: Library Objects for Architecture, Engineering and Construction: Shape and measurements||BS 8541-3|
|Standard due: Library Objects for Architecture, Engineering and Construction: Attributes for specification and simulation||BS 8541-4|
|Building Information Management Management – Information requirements for the capital delivery phase of construction projects||PAS 1192-2:2012|
|Operational Asset Management – Processes and data for the commissioning, handover, operation and occupation stages||BS 1192-3 (not yet published)|
|2013||Australia||Develop and deliver a BIM awareness and promotion program for key government and broader industry participants (July 1)||Implementation Strategy – National BIM Initiative Report|
|Develop and start delivery of BIM training packages to industry practitioners (July 1)|
|Enable progressive access to an Australian library of generic BIM objects and information for manufactured products that comply with Australian BIM standards (July 1)|
|Singapore||Mandatory Architecture BIM e-Submissions for all new building projects . 20,000 m²||Singapore BIM Roadmap 2012|
|2014||Australia||Develop Australian BIM contracts (July 1)||Implementation Strategy – National BIM Initative Report|
|Encourage the inclusion of BIM as a collaborative technology for both professional education and vocational training in the tertiary sector (July 1)|
|Develop industry protocols for information exchange to underpin BIM and collaborative practice (July 1)|
|Coordinate activity between relevant sectors of the Australian economy to enable integrated access to land, geospatial and building information (July 1)|
|Singapore||Mandatory Engineering BIM e-Submissions for all new building projects . 20,000 m²||Singapore BIM Roadmap 2012|
|2015||Australia||Develop Australian technical codes and standards for BIM (July 1)||Implementation Strategy – National BIM Initative Report|
|Align Australian BIM codes and standards with international equivalents (july 1)|
|Develop a model-based building regulatory compliance process demonstrator (July 1)|
|Develop and implementation plan for the transition of Australian regulatory codes and compliance mechanisms to model-based performance based systems (july 1)|
|Require BIM for Australian Government procurement for built environment projects (July 1)|
|Encourage State and Territory Governments and the private sector to require BIM for procurement for built environment projects (July 1)|
|Singapore||Mandatory Architecture & Engineering BIM e-Submissions for all new building projects . 5,000 m²||Singapore BIM Roadmap 2012|
|Target = Singapore Construction Industry to use BIM widely|
|2016||UK||Deliver Level 2 BIM (Collaboration) – Introduce a progressive programme of mandated use of fully collaborative Building Information Modelling for Government projects. Level 2 = Managed 3D environment held in separate discipline “BIM(M)” tools with attached data; Commercial data managed by an ERP; Integration on the basis of proprietary interfaces or bespoke middleware could be regarded as “pBIM” (proprietary); the approach may utilise 4D programme data and 5D cost elements.||UK Government Construction Strategy & BIM BIM Strategy Paper (2011)|
|Source: Susan Keenliside, 2013-email, via http://www.4Clicks.com|
|2020||Singapore||Realise the vision of a highly integrated and technologically advanced construction sector that will be led by progressive firms and supported by a skilled and competent workforce.||Singapore BIM Roadmap 2012|
While at first perhaps a bit intimidating… illustrating the life-cycle management within a BIM context is relatively straightforward.
The purpose of this Framework is to provide a general guide that your team can quickly customize to your specific requirements. Like a restaurant menu or a travel guide, you can visualize the resources available and decide on an appropriate strategic configuration of options.
Just begin in the Center and work thru this Action Agenda using, when available and appropriate, tested processes and templates. Using these guidelines, set up a BIM Management structure with your stakeholders.
The Building Information Management Framework (BIMF) illustrates a how people, processes, and technology interact to support the built environment throughout its life-cycle. Based upon the associated level of detail, an operating model can be developed to more efficiently identify, prioritize, and meet the current and future needs of built environment stakeholders (Owners, AE’s, Contractors, Occupants, Oversight Groups…)
More specifically, modular, Model View Definitions (MVD), associated exchange specifications and common data architectures [for example: Industry Foundation Class (IFC), OMNICLASS] can help to integrate multi-discipline Architecture, Engineering, Construction (AEC) “activities”, “business processes”, “associated competencies” and “supporting technologies” to meet overall requirements with a goal of continuous improvement.
WORK GROUP FORMATION – Roles and Relationships;
PROCESS MAP – who does what, in which sequence, and why;
EXCHANGE REQUIREMENTS & BASIC BUSINESS RULES – Overall guidelines for information integration
EXCHANGE REQUIREMENT MODELS – Specific information “maps”
GENERIC MODEL VIEW DEFINTION (MVD) – Strategic approach incorporating guidelines for information format, content, and use;
MODEL VIEW DEFINTION & IMPLEMENTATION SPECIFICATIONS – Specific format, content, and use
PROJECT AGREEMENT REQUIREMENTS – LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT (LOD) – Defined “project” deliverables
(Adapted from: IMPROVING THE ROBUSTNESS OF MODEL EXCHANGES USING PRODUCT MODELING ‘CONCEPTS’ FOR IFC SCHEMA –Manu Venugopal, Charles Eastman, Rafael Sacks, and Jochen Teizer – with ongoing assistance/input from NBIMS3.0 Terminology Subcommittee)
Model View Definitions (MVD) and associated exchange specifications, provide the best benefit if they are modular and reusable and developed from Industry Foundation Class (IFC) Product Modeling Concepts. Model views and overall life-cycle management are similar in this regard.
Building Information Modeling (BIM) tools serving the Architecture, Engineering, Construction (AEC) span multiple “activities”, “business processes”, “associated competencies” and “supporting technologies”, and each may required different internal data model representation to suit each domain. Data exchange is therefore a critical aspect. Inter and intra domain standardized data architectures and associated adoption of matching robust processes are really the first step toward successfully managing the built environment.
The Emperor is still naked!
Is the trend analysis of the Business Value of BIM in North America from 2007 through 2012 reality, or are many of us walking around with rose colored glasses?
I ask you, do you really believe the following statement ” Now in 2012, 71% of architects, engineers, contractors, and owners report they have become engaged with BIM on their projects …”. If you define BIM as the life-cycle management of the built environment supported by digital technology, I can tell you that either the survey is flawed… a lot of people don’t know what BIM is… or we have a lot of folks inflating the truth. There is NO WAY 71% of ANY of the groups are “engaged with BIM on their projects”…period, end of story.
Playing with Statistics? The 71% average appears to have been calculated by taking a simple average of the “adoption rate” from architects, engineers, and contractors” from three size classes of firms “small, medium, and large”. If I am correct, this is just plan WRONG. Most firms in the U.S. are small business, thus a weighted average must be applied. The “adoption rate” for small firms 50%… a number I also believe to be inaccurate.
I just came back from the NIBS Conference. This is without question, the most valuable, authoritative meeting relative to BIM in the United States. How many people were there you might ask? A few hundred at most.
So, what does any of this matter? Simple really. Until our industry stops the hype and focus on important issues relative to BIM, we will continue to be mired in inaction. The AECOO is the most unproductive business sector and also has the lowest rate of technology adoption. These are facts…. if one wishes to be interested in facts that is.
Here some thoughts as to where emphasis must be placed:
The value of BIM lies in the support of efficient life-cycle facility management processes supported by common terms and digital technology. The 3D visualization aspect of BIM is little more than an unfortunate distraction.
When will BIM become mainstream? How do you truly prepare for BIM? How do we educate people for BIM? The most important requirement for BIM to succeed is fundamental change in how we view life-cycle facility management and also altered business practices within the Architecture, Engineering, Construction, and Operations sector.
The 3D visualization aspect of BIM, while a valuable component, is little more that a distraction. Worse yet
“Visual GIGO” (garbage in/garbage out), a term I picked up in a recent BIM conversation, is delaying our ability to better address sustainability and economic issues. BIM requires a change in the basic foundation of how Owners, AEs, Contractors, Subs, Oversight Groups, Building Product Manufactures, Community, etc. interact relative to construction project delivery. Integrated Project Delivery – IPD and Job Order Contracting – JOC are important to BIM as are other knowledge domains and/or practice areas.
The key to BIM is lies in process and people. Until the focus of BIM is upon integrating people upfront in all relevant aspects of building life-cycle management and clearly defining terms, roles, responsibilities, within a collaborative, transparent process… BIM will continue to fail. Cloud computing will play a central role in driving change, whether you are a participant or standing on the sidelines (see this link for how technology/media impacts culture )
RSMeans Strategic Business Partner – Exclusively enhanced 400,000 line item cost data base.