On 27 April 2010 CPIC chaired a workshop for an invited audience to discuss the current situation in the industry with regard to building information modelling.
The presentations can be accessed from the side panel of this page.
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)
Workshop Presentations
IBM: What Do You Think It Is?
iBIM
BIM Workshop: Keynote Presentation
cpic_bim_workshop_v3
BARTS & The London: BIM Case Study
100427_skanska_barts_london_case_study
Contract Issues
bim_discussion_group
Progressive Lifecycle Data: Facilities Management
cpic_steve_jolley
Discussion Notes
After lunch and much networking there was a Round table discussion and a questionnaire:
Discussion and questionnaire Dr Chris Harty – Reading University
Discussion notes
Each delegate related their particular experiences and demand to deliver BIM
1. Not finding benefits/ internal problems (not the way we work… new business processes… when and what to receive and falling back to ‘old’ ways of working). Further behind in Scotland… architecture further ahead than other disciplines
2. Patrick van den Bergh – Devereux: Pressurised by clients and contractors to start using BIM (and move to Revit), but without much specific direction or description of deliverables. Lots of talk but little substantive direction. Hard to find information about what they can get out of it… Is an enormous change (more than to CAD – thinking remains the same… progress checking (the reality of model / digital etc).
3. Robert Klaschka – Markland Klaschka (architects): Bentley user. £25mill contract value. Lonely BIM – trying to find other people willing to work ‘in the spirit’ of BIM. Process – technology – people order of problem – ‘progressive’ office with all staff bought in. Do ‘BIM’ anyway, regardless of project requirements. Mosque project – picked up 10 issues with the steel frame that otherwise would have been missed. Mainly designers are users – few technicians.
4. Steve Gillam, architect GDP: – multi disciplinary practice: City centre regeneration (Liverpool One Project). Inter-office ‘competition’ big driver. M&E behind structure and architecture. Inter-operability is an issue, as are work protocols. CIM – concept info modelling – upfront to stage D – development concentrated in this area. Achieves quality of design. Use BIM on projects ranging from 25m to 500m. Training issues for using BIM
5. Stephen Homes Foster and partners: 4 major railway stations in middle east – 60 architects working on it. Predominately only to stage D. Cost benefits aren’t there in pushing beyond this stage. Ave age in practice is 32 – lack practical project experience, which is then delivered by limited number of high level managers. . Younger generation happier with using 3D apps. Tech and design roles blurred. Improves coordination, and understanding of the design of the building (so a training mechanism also?). Over detailing an issue – because of what is possible with techs – tempering this and thinking about how these impacts further along the process. Issues around who measures the model? Who signs it off? Tangibility in terms of contractual sign-off.
6. Chris Seymour-Smith, BIM implementation manager – Nightingale: Code book user. Health care specialists. Where do you need the coordination (cost / benefit). Hospital design very different to ‘standard’ building / design practice.
7. Sean Farrell – 380 people, but very few (6!) which English is first language. Bulk recruit new graduates – with limited experience. Not much building (16 projects in 30 years)! Using ‘everything’. Brought in because actually building stuff (rather than just design) – so need more experience. Problems of co-location – especially when involving the client!
8. Paul Shillcock– TFL / LU – CAD and GIS: No BIM. Client role. 300 Bentley users, but most work contracted out. BIM concept not filtered through organisation yet. But pushing the idea of spatially coordinated data. Problem with recruiting (younger) engineers – tunnelling not attractive? Design elements only – where much of the firm’s capital is going. Implementing data management system currently. Understanding engineering requirements, and being able to articulate them in tenders – i.e. early. Culture of lowest price, which needs to change. Assurance important – doing assurance on the model, rather than ‘bits of paper’. Similar coordination problems with equipment in tunnels as BLT and medical equipment. Resistance from FM in taking data into operation area of business.
9. Kirsten – Crossrail: BS1192 implemented and working. Lack of understanding of what BIM is and what’s being asked for. Aspiration for asset management at end, but rather ambiguous at the moment.
10. Tim Bates – Newforma: SW developer project info management. Ex Excitech.
11. Ben Wallbank – Director of John Robertson Architechs : 50 people. Archicad users – little BIM – model all projects on own, trying to get into ‘big BIM’ projects – completing 105 unit residential scheme in East end which is big BIM. Delivery / executive end of architectural practice. Architectural profession poor at adopting new ways of working. Completely new way of working for the architects. If it aint broke… Worry is that profession will miss the boat, given push by contractors on benefits of BIM. Could get cut out of the process if contractors look elsewhere – become ‘cake decorators’. Remarkably slow uptake, beginning to change. LOR route (required platform) is wrong – inter-operability is the way forward. Knowledge about structuring model has to be done at the beginning. BIM is the biggest change to our way of working and practices and this needs to be understood.
12. Doug Bevan – Halcrow: Frustrated by loss of ability to effectively manage process and deliverables. 1968-90 was doing BIM without computers. How to integrate technologies into practices? People skills needed.
13. Bill Price – Costain: Heads UK Contractors group – to promote use of BIM to members (top 20 contractors in country). BIM is promoted through projects. Liaise with the vendors to focus on contractors needs. Past examples of ‘BIM’ route projects in the past. Dome a good example of co-location. But then revert to hard-nosed, cost driven approaches. Contractor wants BIM to make outcomes predictable – to guarantee small margins – improve coordination, sequence, ‘have as many D’s as you want’. Without basic tools, proliferation of things like BREEAM etc will be very hard to manage. Problem of showing benefits of tools, when the A team is on the project and would make it successful anyway. Try it with the D team? Employee skills are critical to success
14. Andrew Glide – Bentley: Construction business development. Frustration over ‘full circle’ and struggling today with processes that was not problematic 20 years ago.
15. Mike Harvey – IT director: Contractor pressure increasing in terms of using BIM (or Revit).
