Tag Archives: Construction

Why BIM Level 2 actually necessitates aiming for Level 3

Posted on by
Reply

The UK has been challenged to implement BIM to level 2 by 2016 according to the UK Government Construction Clients Board’s Government Construction Strategy.

Disregarding the fact that the essence of BIM is the ability to exchange information and to store information in a common format (aka IFC); it is a fact that BIM Level 2 is in fact contradictory and if followed strictly, can only result in failure to meet the BIM adoption target.

Why?

Its really quite straightforward.. BIM Level 2 requires participants to deliver and process data compliant to the COBIE protocol which for the unititiated addresses the capture of “actual” products and their specifications especially as they relate to Facilities management, i.e. for a fan coil unit gathering the identity of the supplier, the unit model type, service tags etc etc.

Here’s the kicker.. COBIE is in essence an IDM (a predefined query on all the IFC data) that extracts the pertinent information and presents it so that the actual data can be appended (ultimately to then update that IFC data).

IFC is not however a requirement of BIM Level 2 and as such little emphasis will be placed on sorting out the quality of information produced by the likes of Revit and others.. Whilst investing in solutions like Revit is not a foolhardy decision it does beggar the question as to why invest in something that is no more BIM compliant than Trimble SketchUp? Of course there are products that have invested heavily in BIM compliance, perhaps seeing an opportunity to gain market share on the competition or perhaps simply recognising that they need to deliver products that ramp up the benefits to their users (see OpenBIM).

So maybe it’s time the Government Chief Construction Adviser stopped and read, understood and rationalised BIM to be a meaningful and positive movement that will shape the future of construction rather than the aimless and poorly communicated mess that it really is..

Read the Government construction strategy document click here

Has the UK Construction industry really understood BIM?

Posted on by
Reply

Has the UK Construction industry really understood BIM? (What’s BIM going on?)
It’s been 6+ months since the Government edict landed from on high on the workbenches and drawing boards of the construction industry.

So what’s been happening in the Construction industry in the intervening time? Something, nothing or is it simply too early in the 5 year adoption strategy to expect action or reaction?
Have Construction Clients started to mandate BIM on their projects? Have Designers and Engineers started to adopt BIM compliant software? Have Contractors started to reuse BIM information to drive estimation and planning?

Well it would appear that the torch has been picked up and is being taken forwards. Construction Clients and Contractors of all flavours have seemingly started to incorporate BIM as a requirement for their projects; tender contracts are starting to stipulate clauses such as:

“Subcontractor’s shall provide digital submissions of information describing its respective work in a form and manner that the Contractor may require and that can be loaded into a BIM assembled by the Contractor”.

“Subcontractor’s submissions shall be of sufficient detail to enable accurate and complete clash detection and shall be provided by Subcontractor at a point in time that is reasonably in advance of Subcontractor’s shop drawing submittals and the subsequent on site construction of the Subcontractor’s Work and such submissions shall contain such details and follow such procedures as the Contractor may require”.

But do such clauses when enacted actually change the game or result in a step change for the industry?

Sadly the answer is a resounding NO. BIM clauses are non-specific, they define only the need for information to be “digital” and for it to be able to be used for clash detection, so 3D.
These clauses completely miss the opportunity to define the quality of information that SHOULD be required; information quality must be driven by the downstream processes that utilise it. Without wishing to let the cat out of the bag; the most basic requirement should include meaningful naming conventions and perhaps the application of uniform classification notation; beyond these there are many more which this author will reserve for now.

BIM brings huge potential which will remain largely untapped until Construction Clients, Contractors, Architects and Engineers start to understand the bottlenecks in their processes and how to resolve these through the application of systems. It’s not about changing what stakeholders do; it’s about how it gets done.

An example of the opportunity IFC schema standardisation creates is its ability to drive concurrency in design.

Design concurrency is not achieved by exporting files to their native formats and storing them in a proprietary document management system neither is it saving them to the IFC data format and storing them in an IFC database. Performing clash detection on a daily basis, putting all the design disciplines in a single location or having a design manager reviewing daily inputs equally misses the mark.

Design concurrency can be achieved by systematising its validation; a function currently performed manually and unfortunately sporadically and inaccurately with the inevitable consequence that at the point of installation issues are discovered that require designers to go back to the drawing board delaying production and creating huge costs that should never have existed.

If you would like advice on what BIM can deliver and what steps you could take to leverage its benefits please contact me on (+44) 07747 012 001.

Derivation vs. Extrapolation

Posted on by
Reply

With such a rapid shift towards richer and more robust 3D information, questions need asking about how this data will be utilised efficiently now that it exists?

Many construction organisations have yet to rationalise the downstream use of this data or build up a set of requirements to define what they expect software to do for them in the future to meet these changes and challenges.

One additional challenge that is yet to even be a twinkle in most people’s eyes is the forthcoming realisation that perhaps the biggest problem organisations will face in the future is the ability to identify and trace the provenance and reliability of information; i make the distinction as being the difference between “derivation” and “extrapolation”

Derivation is the good stuff.. its the information that is calculated from a known base. Think slab being sequenced after supporting column; the derivation is based on the physical law of gravity.. not something that we argue with much these days (thanks to Isaac Newton).

Extrapolation is the potentially dodgy stuff.. like its counterpart (derivation) it is based on formulae and calculation however the information that results is an estimate rather than an absolute and therein lies the danger. The danger is multiplied when an extrapolation is then used as a basis for further extrapolation.

So what can be done? in my opinion the first step is to clearly distinguish between both types of information so that when they form the basis of reports such as budgets, schedules and plans the recipient of that information can judge the reliability of the information for themselves.

What would this mean today? if we looked at a tender bid submitted by 3 competing contractors we would be able to distinguish the probable accuracy of each bid; we be able to clearly recognise where one bidder had invested time and effort to establish facts and where others were perhaps at best gambling on the inability of a client to distinguish between value and price..

The result.. those who invest in processes and systems would get their just deserts!

The problem with being “Lean”

Posted on by
Reply

Whether you are a student of the “Toyota Production System”, “Six-Sigma”, “Last planner” or other “lean” doctrines you may have found that your effectiveness at delivering “lean” in the context of construction has had its limitations..

Often “lean” is aspired to as an afterthought, or its applied in isolation to one or more sub-contractor packages or your client believes that it applies to others and not themselves. Where these cases apply the effectiveness of those methodologies is more akin to sticking plasters on gapping wounds rather than preventing the wound in the first place.

The reality is that the construction process is itterative and completely interdependent, the way that information is created, managed, processed and delivered is fundamentally under par when measured against the standards achieved in most other industrial sectors.

An aquaintance recently spent time with an IBM “Tiger” (someone whose function is to look at interesting ideas without being required to worry about targets and sales numbers), the IBM view of the construction sector is that it offers few opportunities due to its inability to define and implement processes and standards. An endictment indeed..

So why do lean principles find themselves so difficult to be implemented when so many are aware of not only what lean is but also the potential value propositions it might create?

The nature of construction being both project centric and fragmented is often put forward as a reason, teams are assembled and then dispersed making it difficult to take forward best practice when those required to implement them have neither been exposed to them before, have budgeted for them, have the skills to assimilate them and most often simply just want to get on with the job in the way they have allways done it previously. Lastly there is probably a “what do we get out of it” perception which is poorly communicated and seemingly intangible.

Lean therefore in my opinion must consider the context in which it is being applied. The toyota production system may have started with optimisation on the assembly line but soon followed up with a realisaton of the need to get the supply right in order to maximise the production line optimisation opportunity.

It is on that basis that i point to the production of design as the root cause. There is a need to declare war on design quality; where systems exist that are able to test quality and through the immediacy of the results educate the originator to prevent continuation of poor quality design. The responsibility lies with all stakeholders, at a high level everyone needs to simply remember they have customers and that they need to properly service the needs of their customers and collaborators.