3D, 4D, 5D BIM Growth — UK

BIM Life-cycle Managment of the Built Environment Supported by Digital Technology

A recent study by NBS provides a snapshot of  BIM (Building Information Modelling) implementation within the UK’s construction industry.

BIM_Report_Infographic_2013

Conducted between December 2012 and February 2013, a cross section of 1,350 professionals spanning a range of business sizes and disciplines from across the industry including architecture, engineering and surveying were included.

71%  of respondents to the NBS survey agreed that BIM represents the ‘future of project information’.

39% confirmed that they were now actually using BIM.

Fewer than half of respondents are aware of the different levels of BIM, despite Level 2 being    mandatory on all Government projects by the end of 2016.

74% agreeing that ‘the industry is ‘not clear enough on what BIM is yet’.

Only one-third of those questioned claim to be ‘very’ or ‘quite’ confident in their BIM knowledge and skills.

Despite the uncertainty around the subject, the survey once again supported the view that the greater use of BIM is unstoppable with 73% agreeing that clients will increasingly insist on its use, 66% saying the same about contractors and 51% confirming that the Government ‘is on the right track with BIM’.

Of those who have adopted BIM, more than half believe that the introduction of BIM has resulted in greater cost efficiencies whilst three-quarters report increased coordination of construction documents. Improved productivity due to easy retrieval of information and better quality visualisations were other gains.

NBS-NationlBIMReport2013-single

Via http://www.4Clicks.com – Premier software and service for  cost estimating and efficient construction project delivery – JOC – Job Order Contracting,  SABER, IPD, IDIQ, SATOC, MATOC, MACC, POCA, BOA, BOS.  Featuring exclusively enhanced 400,000 RSMeans Construction Cost Database.

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.

Image

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

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]