2014 – Owners Need to Step It Up and Get Serious about BIM / BLM – Life-cycle Management of the Built Environment

It’s time for Owners to stop the marketing… Stop hyping their LEED  Silver or “Whatever” Buildings… and actually participate in life-cycle management of the built environment supported by digital technology.   This is the real BIM / BLM  (built-environment life-cycle management) and it’s critical to the financial, economic and mission goals of many/most organizations.

Improved decision making with respect to construction, repair, renovation, operations, and sustainability of the built environment, as well as associated efficient construction project delivery has several basic requirements.

1.   Recognition and consistent implementation of built-environment life-cycle management (BLM) “best practices” relative to business processes, workflows, requisite competencies, technologies, information management requirements, and associated metrics.

2.  Standardized robust terms, definitions, and inter-relationships for all associated built environment practice areas and/or competencies.

3.  A focus upon life-cycle costs vs. first costs in terms finance and environmental impact.

4.  Collaborative project delivery methods and practices such as Integrated Project Delivery (IPD), Job Order Contracting, (JOC), and Public Private Partnerships (PPP) vs. traditional ad-hoc and antagonistic methods such as design-bid-build (DBB) or interim methods such as design build (DB).

5.  Continuous monitoring and improvement.

Owners pay the bills are ultimately responsible for managing the built environment efficiently.  It’s beyond time that many/most Owners get started!

Image

BIM – FACT or FICTION?

BIM is the life-cycle management of the built environment supported by digital technology.   Does it exist today?

 

BIM requires the integration of previously disparate competencies, processes, and technologies.  Facilities Operations Software (3d modeling (Revit, Bentley, Archicad…) CPMS, CMMS, IWMS, CAFM, EAMS, ERP, BAS/BMS GIS …), Collaborative Construction Delivery Methods (IPD – Integrated Project Delivery, JOC- Job Order Contracting, PPP – Public/Private Partnerships..), robust ontology, metrics, and benchmarks are arguably ALL requirements for initial and ongoing success.

While there are certainly active programs and projects to begin to DEVELOP standardized integration of BIM technology and processes for efficient life-cycle management of the built environment, they do NOT exist.   I see a critical need for the development of a robust BIM Ontology. Far too much time to date has been focused “in the weeds” on “technical issues”.  Technology is NOT the problem, but rather a robust definition of life-cycle management and associated competencies, metrics, benchmarks, and processes. 

The success/failure of ANY repair, renovation, sustainability, or new construction project is largely dependent upon the construction project delivery method and associated composition of a collaborative, experienced team.  

BIMF FRAMEWORKaacei 4

Job  Order Contracting
Job Order Contracting

 

 

 

via http://www.4Clicks.com – Premier cost estimating and efficient project delivery software solutions for JOC, SABER, IDIQ, MATOC, SATOC, MACC, POCA, BOA, BOS … featuring an exclusively enhanced 400,000 line item RSMeans Cost Database, visual estimating/automatic quantity take off ( QTO),  and collaborative contract/project/document management, all in one application.   Our technology is currently serving over 85% of United States Air Force bases and rapidly growing numbers of other DOD and non-DOD (United States Army Corps of Engineers,  Army, GSA, Homeland Security, VA..) federal departments/agencies, as well as state/county/local governments, colleges/universities, healthcare,  and airports/transportation.  RSMeans Strategic Partner

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

A Snapshot of International BIM Status and Goals

Year Country Action Reference
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

The Current Status of OMNICLASS – A Critical BIM Requirement

(source: OmniClass Development Committee Status Report – April 16, 2013)

To:        OmniClass Development Committee members
From:   Dianne Davis, OmniClass Development Committee Chair
Kelly Sawatzky, OmniClass Development Committee Vice Chair
Greg Ceton, OmniClass Secretariat

These OmniClass Status Reports will be issued every few months through this review cycle. They are
designed to keep you apprised of ongoing OmniClass development work and afford you the opportunity
to ask questions or get involved. The report is organized to give updates on the development work
being performed by the three Working Groups (WGs) that are each independently working on a
different area of OmniClass development.

We are just commencing the 2012-2014 review cycle. Generally speaking, WGs are just beginning to
identify review issues and set priorities for areas of work needed.

OmniClass Spaces WG (Lead: Alan Edgar)
(Table Responsibilities: 13 – Spaces by Function and 14 – Spaces by Form)
The Spaces WG is charged with reviewing Table 13 – Spaces by Function and Table 14 – Spaces by Form
to determine the nature of any development work needed to expand or modify Table 13 contents, to
provide a baseline review of Table 14, as it has not been reviewed in depth since its initial
publication in 2006, and to harmonize the work of other existing space classifications with the revised contents
of both Tables.  The Working Group has commenced review work on both Table 13 – Spaces by Function and Table 14 –
Spaces by Form.  Table 13 review has been focused on laboratory space organization to start. Additional review of
medical spaces is also anticipated.
Table 14 review has begun with comparison of form-based aspects of other classification systems,
including those used as references in the prior work on Table 14. Some simplification of the table
to address purely formal concerns may be needed.
If you would like to participate in review work on either of these tables or have any comments to
share, please send them to Spaces WG lead Alan Edgar at alan.edgar@rsparch.com and to Greg Ceton at
gceton@csinet.org

OmniClass Products WG (Lead: Robert Keady)
(Table Responsibilities: 23 – Products)
The Products WG is charged with examining the structure of Table 23 – Products and confirming that
the contents and organization support the needs of users.

Work has commenced with the examination of Table 23 – Products. The WG Lead, Robert Keady, has
started cross-referencing Table 23 with Tables 21 (Elements) and 22 (Work Results). Additionally,
there have been equipment additions (200 to date) proposed to Table 23. Currently there is an
effort being made to identify Work Group members who will focus on specialized areas for review
within Table 23. This review cycle, the Work Group will also be focusing on adding definitions for
Table 23 entries.
If you have any comments or resources to lend to this effort, please send them to Properties WG
Lead Robert Keady at robertkeady@hotmail.com and to Chris Gummo at cgummo@csinet.org
OmniClass Activities and Processes WG (Lead: Dianne Davis)

The Properties and Materials WG is charged with examining and revising content and organization of
Table 32 – Services, Table 35 – Tools, and Table 36 – Information in light of recent work on Table
31 – Phases, Table 33 – Disciplines, and Table 34 – Organizational Roles.

Work has commenced with the examination of Table 32 – Services. The WG has tapped Robert Keady,
CEM, CDSM, FMP for his specialized knowledge of tasks, and how they may be fit into the structure
of Table 32 while limiting the impact on the table as a whole. The group has agreed that any
changes to Tables 32 and 36 must be in response to intended or known table usage that currently not
being met. Adding content or improving the tables without reference to a real improved process will
not satisfactorily address the WG charge.
Definition creation and harmonization with existing OmniClass Tables and creation of transition
matrix for each reviewed table will be commenced further along in the review cycle.
Work on other tables will be initiated after the work on Table 32 – Services has progressed
further.
If you have any comments or resources to lend to this effort, please send them to Properties WG
Lead Dianne Davis at  d.davis@aecinfosystems.com and to Rob Holson at rholson@csinet.org

If the work of any of these Working Groups interests you, or you would like to participate
in their development work, please contact Greg Ceton at gceton@csinet.org

When is Job Order Contracting NOT Job Order Contracting?

When it’s an “Open JOC”!

 

The term “Open JOC” refers to a “so called” Job Order Contacting program that lacks a standardized unit price book (UPB).  It is a misnomer as “Open JOC” has little in common with its namesake.  For example, using “Open JOC” Owners typically don’t do independent internal estimates. Contractors simply submit estimates for various projects, not unlike traditional design-bid-build.

A true Job Order Contracting program requires the use of a standardized unit price book (UPB).  JOC relies on the UPB not only for procurement requirements but because the unit price proposal preparation process adds value to the project by requiring a clear understanding of the component parts by all parties involved.

While there may be a need to acknowledge the need for other small project delivery methods such as “Open JOC”,   we need to distinguish them from Job Order Contracting.  Failure to do so promotes misunderstanding and improper implementation of true Job Order Contracting.

JOC / Job Order Contracting is proven to be a highly efficient and effective construction project delivery method, however, implementation REQUIRES the following:

  1. Transparency – A standardized, well researched, and current unit price book (UPB).
  2. A collaborative, partnering relationship among Owners and Contractors/AEs.
  3. A proactive vs. reactive mindset
  4. A robust business process embedded within supporting technology to assure consistent deployment and monitoring.
  5. A long-term (3-5 years) umbrella contract
  6. Competitive pricing through the use of a  coefficient applied to a unit price book (UPB)
  7. Best Value selection to ensure contractor performance
  8. Individually-priced delivery orders
  9. Ability to perform unit line item cost estimating – Owners, Contractors/AEs
  10. Owner internal maintenance capability
JOC Process