The construction delivery method sets the tone, establishes the roles and responsibilities of all parties involved, and impacts ultimate success more so than any technology.
Thus IPD – Integrated Project Delivery for new construction and JOC – Job Order Contracting for renovation, repair, sustainability, and minor new construction, and similar collaborative construction delivery methods should be the primary focus. Technology is certainly a deployment enabler, and sometime also a disruptive catalyst.
Stakeholder collaboration (Owners, AEs, Contractors, Subs, Oversight Groups, Building Product Manufactures…) throughout the life-cycle of a build structure is the fundamental element that ultimately drives productivity and better outcomes. Collaboration is the path to the refinement of associated goals, needs, and activities…. and therefore creates requisite focus.
BIM is being held back by one item…. lack of collaboration, or even the willingness to collaborate.
BIM technology vendors and “standards” organizations are somewhat to “blame” , as they have placed emphasis upon 3D visualization vs. construction delivery methods, a robust ontology, and metrics.
It’s important to first recognize that it’s the business process, the construction delivery method, that sets the tone of any construction project and greatly determines its success or failure. Technology is simply an enabler.
Integrated project delivery (IPD) and it’s counterpart for renovation, repair, sustainability, and minor new construction projects, job order contracting (JOC)… alter how stakeholders interact. Until these and similar collaborative construction delivery methods are understood and leveraged, BIM will do nothing.
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?
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.