BIM workshop

Meeting Minutes

The meeting was opened by Mervyn Richards  (Chair and CPIC Committee Member)

The Keynote presentation was given by Mark Bew (Director Scott Wilson and chair of buildingSmart)

Three further presentations were given by:

David Throssell – BIM implementation Manager Skanska

Phil Jackson – Chair ICE IM group and CPIC Committee Member

Steve Jolley -  BI FM – CPIC  Facilities Management Steering Group

After the presentation and the keynote speech that set the theme for the day a very active question and answer session was led by the chair.

The main question centred on a series of themes:

1.       What is the deliverable?

a.       There is a need or clear deliverables up front for each stage. (RIBA Plan of Works)

b.      With broader data collection / archiving in ‘background’

c.       Levels of detail a problem at each stage– especially across interfaces – how show / hide

d.      Design management and synchronisation of producing information at different stages and across discipline.

e.      Deliverable need to be linked to client costs across project duration. Staged payments or smoothing out of payment.

2.       Contractual Problems

a.       Deliverables are in contracts anyway? Re-education across industry on what is require

b.      Technology doesn’t help – detail over process

c.       Is IPD any different to more ‘traditional’ projects / deliverables etc?

d.      Process of getting to / producing those deliverables needs to change and this is outside of formal contractual obligations etc.

3.       Level of Detail (LOD)

a.       Design – lots of information – versus procurement – much less / more specific information: Is this a tension?

b.      Complex projects require ‘enhanced’ views (3D or whatever) anyway? So is problem driven (rather than efficiency / business case)?

c.       Why is level of detail difficult? Because people have forgotten what they should be delivering. Information delivery is inconsistent? Technology has enabled ‘planning’ and optioneering to proliferate (85% of data created from optioneering!) This is a significant data management problem and possible unnecessary work.

d.      Where is the checking happening in these processes? BIM case is grounded in greater accuracy after all. Checking not a part of normal process. Hence the need for BS1192.

e.      Overload / data intensity everywhere: so revisiting standard / min or max levels of detail or amounts of info a central problem to overcome?

4.       Vizualisations

a.       The client is visualizations oriented,  visualisations’ produced give the false impression that the rest of the design / construction is as fixed and detailed – leads to (false) expectations about model.

b.      Can we exclude visualization from BIM process? There is some support for this...

5.       Client  Brief and Fee

a.       The project execution plan should be produced to get clarity and setting out early the requirements – especially in relation to client.

b.      Fee structure and delivery of fee might have to change to enable this? More up front, perhaps, for the purposes of greater cost certainty etc

c.       Maybe the institutions which are best placed to influence this (as they influenced the existing mechanisms for fees etc).

                                                              i.      Structural steel example of coordinated design to fabrication without any drawings

                                                            ii.      Drawings / model – better info from fabricator than structural engineer

                                                          iii.      But contractual arrangement influences this – how long engaged, and to what stage / D&B projects

                                                           iv.      No FM engagement

6.       Roles and Responsibilities

a.        Responsibility matrix for appointments – added ‘level of BIM’ to it

7.       Other discussions

a.       These things are happening at organisational level but not industry – so divergent practices are produced because of perceived lack of standards. MY BIM is prevalent what we need is OUR BIM.

Outcome and further research

·          Define deliverable against the RIBA Plan of work, overlay the BSRIA stages and the ACE stages.

·          Define the Level of Detail (LOD) to be delivered at the stages defined for all disciplines.

·          Contracts cannot be produced unless the deliverables are defined. Requirement for the lawyers and the insurers

·          Fees / fee structure. The delivery of BIM will change the roles and responsibilities of all disciplines and the specialist sub contractors. Fees need to be redefine.

·          Libraries and ownership (rather than model)