Building Information Management Framework – BIMF – People, Process, Technology

While at first perhaps a bit intimidating…  illustrating the life-cycle management within a BIM context is relatively straightforward.

BIM – Life-cycle Management Perspective

 

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 Process Side of BIM = Collaboration: People, Process, & Technology

Why the majority of CMMS System Implemenations Fail

The majority (60-80%) of CMMS implementations fail for the same reason that the majority of ERP systems and IWMS systems fail…   the lack of  due consideration of robust, lead, processes and procedures.   Quite simply, technology is used to automate existing processes vs. implement more efficient, transparent, collaborative, and accurate policies and procedures.

For example, virtually none of the major (or even minor) CMMS or IWMS technology vendors incorporate a standardized cost database, such as RSMeans, from which users could compare their actual material, equipment, and labor costs against a localized reference standard.   “Just plain stupid”, right?

What good is a CMMS system into which an Owner inputs their own experiences without comparison to industry averages, best-practices, or any third party metrics?  What can these Owners possible be benchmarking against?  How can goals, objectives, targets be established?

1. How many Owners understand the difference between CMMS (Computerized Maintenance Management Systems) and CPMS (Capital Planning and Management Systems) and the absolute requirement for BOTH relative to efficiently managing larger facility portfolios?
2. How many Owners continue to be reactive in their capital allocation, even with a CMMS…aka spending 60%+ of their budgets on emergency or unplanned maintenance vs. planned, preventive and/or predictive maintenance?
3. How many Owners still wallow in design-bid-build and change-orders, legal disputes, and poor quality vs. collaborative efficient methods such as Job Order Contracting and Integrated Project Delivery?
4. …..
The sad part is, there is a lot of information out there on efficient life-cycle management of the built environment supported by digital technology.  Why are many facility management executives still supporting unsustainable business practices?   That’s the hard question.

Facility Life-cycle Management Framework

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

46453858-Asset-Lifecyle-Model[1]