The Focus of BIM Education: A Time for Change

BIM, Building Information Modeling, education is not being practiced effectively, if at all, in many/most educational institutions.   Core educational focus must be upon efficient construction delivery business processes (integrated project delivery, IPD, job order contracting, JOC, public private partnerships,PPP) and a robust ontology, vs. technology.   Using Revit, Archicad, or other 3d modeling software is NOT an introduction to BIM, but rather a component of BIM.

Certainly BIM involves technology, and the disruptive technology of cloud computing will prove a primary catalyst for BIM acceptance.  The reason, however, it that people and process are equally important to BIM, if not more so, than technology.

Owners, Contractors, Subcontractors, AEs, Building Product Manufactures, Oversight Groups and/or any stakeholder of the built environment will need to undergo fundamental process change in order to succeed at BIM.

sourced - google images

ImageImageImage

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 allianceTM 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 allianceTM 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.